(September 5, 2010 at 11:16 am)dave4shmups Wrote: A lot of Christians say that atheism, particularly Stalinism, has killed more people then religious conflicts. I wouldn't yet say that I am a full-fledged atheist, but is this true? PLEASE note that this question is not meant to offend anyone on these forums; I'm just looking for the truth on this issue.

Firstly: Just because all communists are atheists, it does not follow that all atheists are communists.

Secondly: The mass killings that took place were not done "in the name of atheism." They were done in the name of a particular political ideology.

Atheism itself has nothing POSITIVE to say-- taken by itself, atheism isn't even an ideology-- it merely states a [edit!] lack of belief in any gods. One has to go BEYOND mere atheism to start making positive belief statements about the world, metaphysically, morally, scientifically, politically, and so on. And those beliefs can vary widely: Secular humanism, nihilism, existentialism, objectivism, anarchism, naturalism, and a bunch of other -isms. Atheism simply makes these other beliefs POSSIBLE for the individual. That is all.

(September 5, 2010 at 5:44 pm)Entropist Wrote: (Atheism...) merely states a is lack of belief in any gods.

er... that sentence needs a little work.

Actually I don't think that either religion or atheism are responsible for killing people. When a person kills someone, responsibility lies with the person doing the killing. Once we start creating a chain of responsibility for the responsibility, we let the killer off the hook, and enter a world of confusion. The abortionist killers bear responsibility for their act, not their church.

If we want to muse on the historical reasons for different wars, it's productive to look at the different political and economic influences, that's fine, but conflicts at that level are invariably about battles for resources. Religion may bolster people's will temporarily, but otherwise it's way down the list of causes, and the killing itself is the responsibility of the killer.

When some fanatic kills in the name of their god (or whatever ideology), I take him at his word. Such people have chosen such a belief and acted upon it, all the way to the conclusion of murdering someone. They chose an ideology that trumps human life. That is different from a mere crime of passion.

When a racist firebombs a known black church, killing four black children, it isn't a mere coincidence that he also is a member of the KKK. That fact doesn't get him off the hook, but rather reveals just how ideologically committed he was to his crime. He was simply being consistent. Could we expect anything less?

(September 5, 2010 at 6:03 pm)Existentialist Wrote:

(September 5, 2010 at 5:44 pm)Entropist Wrote: (Atheism...) merely states a is lack of belief in any gods.

er... that sentence needs a little work.

Actually I don't think that either religion or atheism are responsible for killing people. When a person kills someone, responsibility lies with the person doing the killing. Once we start creating a chain of responsibility for the responsibility, we let the killer off the hook, and enter a world of confusion. The abortionist killers bear responsibility for their act, not their church.

If we want to muse on the historical reasons for different wars, it's productive to look at the different political and economic influences, that's fine, but conflicts at that level are invariably about battles for resources. Religion may bolster people's will temporarily, but otherwise it's way down the list of causes, and the killing itself is the responsibility of the killer.

The problem is that it promotes violence and says the god or the church said to do it, one example is
islamic governments putting death penalty because their religion says so

(September 5, 2010 at 6:29 pm)Ashendant Wrote: The problem is that it promotes violence and says the god or the church said to do it, one example is
islamic governments putting death penalty because their religion says so

Completely disagree. All governments, including islamic ones, are coalitions representing different interests. In Iran or Saudi Arabia, the government is answerable to a complicated alliance of ruling interests, many of them commercial and definitely not primarily interested in religious observance, though they may use religion as an excuse to intimidate their opponents and weaker class interests. The point is, getting rid of religion won't get rid of the underlying class antagonisms. Being atheists doesn't absolve us of the need to understand the economic forces at work or the political reasons for the existence of oppressive governments.

(September 5, 2010 at 6:46 pm)Existentialist Wrote:

(September 5, 2010 at 6:29 pm)Ashendant Wrote: The problem is that it promotes violence and says the god or the church said to do it, one example is
islamic governments putting death penalty because their religion says so

Completely disagree. All governments, including islamic ones, are coalitions representing different interests. In Iran or Saudi Arabia, the government is answerable to a complicated alliance of ruling interests, many of them commercial and definitely not primarily interested in religious observance, though they may use religion as an excuse to intimidate their opponents and weaker class interests. The point is, getting rid of religion won't get rid of the underlying class antagonisms. Being atheists doesn't absolve us of the need to understand the economic forces at work or the political reasons for the existence of oppressive governments.

Eh, I think that increasing secularization would be the best thing to happen to Saudi Arabia. I'm all for freedom of religion, but they persecute more Christians then North Korea, and that's a fact. You can't even be a Muslim and worship the way you want, you're beliefs have to line up with those of the Government. Without this Islamic Extremism, the country and it's leaders wouldn't be perfect, but the situation would be a whole lot better then it is now. It's a total mockery to our supposed commitment to freedom of religion that we continue to buy oil, and sell supplies to, Saudi Arabia. I don't think we should bomb them, like that idiot Tom Tancredo, but neither do I think they should get one more penny of our money.

P.S. Stalin was religious. He studied to be a priest before he took over the Soviet Union.

What a priest he would have made, too!

(September 5, 2010 at 11:16 am)dave4shmups Wrote: A lot of Christians say that atheism, particularly Stalinism, has killed more people then religious conflicts. I wouldn't yet say that I am a full-fledged atheist, but is this true? PLEASE note that this question is not meant to offend anyone on these forums; I'm just looking for the truth on this issue.

That claim is common,ignorant and untrue.

A lot of people say a lot of things.

Quote: A lot of people are fucking stoopid (George Carlin)

It's estimated that Stalin for example is responsible for the deaths of around 20 million of his own people. Stalin was a paranoid psychopath who was also an atheist.

There has never been a war in recorded history fought in the name of atheism,which is not an ideology or belief system.


One the other hand,without exception,every war I can think of throughout history,from say the Jews massacre of the Canaanites,to the Egyptians at the battle of Kadesh,to the US invasion of Iraq, has been fought on the basis of some belief, most commonly religion. (GWB declared openly he was on a mission from God)

The majority of apologists we get here have little understanding of the actual meaning of the word 'atheist' IE a person who does not believe in gods.Nothing else is implied or may be inferred.

Even the leaders like Stalin who were atheist did not kill people who were not, they didn't kill people because of atheism. The Crusades, Inquisition, etc, were religious in nature. No one has ever said, "There is no god, let's kill everyone who believes in them."

You will find that everyone listed just so happened to be atheist, but their beliefs had nothing to do with what they did.