The danger of religion. .

[Polaris]

Actually, strictly speaking without adding any meaning to the word beyond what it actually means, atheists have killed and continue to kill the most people depending on the year (sometimes religious conflict* is responsible for more deaths in a certain year, sometimes secular strife in another year).

*The US and foreign intervention is responsible for the majority of the high-casualty religious wars though. Sure the Middle East was already a powder-keg full with pent-up tension and frustration, but the US is partially responsible (the USSR was the other instigator) for igniting the fuse.

Let's make a careful distinction here. Religion is an ideology. People get killed (and kill) in the name of such ideologies.

Atheism is not an ideology; it's a stance on the existence of God or gods. One cannot kill in the name of atheism. If by some fucking happenstance the case is such that the most killers in the world have been atheists, that detail is irrelevant to and beside the point. People are motivated to kill by ideologies. If there are atheists who were motivated to kill by other ideologies, that has no connection to atheism. Atheism is simply a stance on the existence of gods, nothing more.

In short, religion has the capacity to motivate; atheism has no such capacity.

An atheist merely does not believe in God or gods. The whole killing in the name of atheism is a tired logical fallacy.

@Annik. The figures were posted yesterday about how many died in the 20th century (110 million which is a understatement because I don't include several Post-war secular wars in that figure...not counting Nazism since that had religious undertones) due to conflict on issues relating to secular desires.

[Annik]

Let's make a careful distinction here. Religion is an ideology. People get killed (and kill) in the name of such ideologies.

Atheism is not an ideology; it's a stance on the existence of God or gods. One cannot kill in the name of atheism. If by some fucking happenstance the case is such that the most killers in the world have been atheists, that detail is irrelevant to and beside the point. People are motivated to kill by ideologies. If there are atheists who were motivated to kill by other ideologies, that has no connection to atheism. Atheism is simply a stance on the existence of gods, nothing more.

In short, religion has the capacity to motivate; atheism has no such capacity.

An atheist merely does not believe in God or gods. The whole killing in the name of religion is a tired logical fallacy.

@Annik. The figures were posted yesterday about how many died in the 20th century (110 million which is a understatement because I don't include several Post-war secular wars in that figure...not counting Nazism since that had religious undertones) due to conflict on issues relating to secular desires.

Secularism doesn't automatically mean atheist.

[Hovik]

An atheist merely does not believe in God or gods. The whole killing in the name of religion is a tired logical fallacy.

Do explain how killing in the name of religion is a logical fallacy.

Oh, and those 20th century wars? Motivated by ideologies other than secularism or atheism.

[Aegrus]

To support this, you should give examples. But I'll save you the time.

???

Pick nearly any example off of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

If I had to pick one, I think Albania, the "first atheist nation in the world" is interesting.

Your links on Pol Pot are grasping at straws and weird "no true atheist" fallacies. The Khmer Rogue persecuted Buddhists (really anyone expressing religious sentiments).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_in..._Rouge_Era
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge...ommunities

Jsyk....Orthodox Christianity and Catholic Christianity are two different things. There are Russian Orthodox, and Russian Greek Catholics. Stalin was raised the former. But he was very openly atheist and persecuted the Orthodox Christians (who certainly didn't "flourish" though oppression sometimes wavered--between 1927 and 1940, the number of Orthodox Churches in the Russian Republic fell from 29,584 to fewer than 500; though he allowed free practice during WWII as a way of intensifying patriotism).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Ort...Stalin_era
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-r...%931928%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-r...%931941%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_M...t_Atheists

Hitler's religion is under some dispute, as I understand it, though I don't think he was atheist.

Stunning and rare, a religious person who actually supplies proof. The pages you linked have caused me to take a more moderate stance on this issue. It's easy to forget that every side is often equally capable of evil.

I don't know Hitler's specific denomination, but Mein Kampf makes it very clear that he wasn't an atheist.

The Khmer Rouge persecuting buddhists is true, but if I'm not mistaken, there are several branches of buddhists. Pol Pot persecuted those not loyal to him, much as Hitler did to Christians and Catholics in WWII era Germany.

As for your wikipedia sources- some of them link back to Conservapedia. That's an immediate red flag. Other references seem trustworthy. I'll need to further investigate Stalin's religion or lack thereof, though it seems evident now that several of his subordinates at least were atheists who persecuted/killed many religious people. I'll sort through it all later. . it's 3:00 A.M here.

---

An atheist merely does not believe in God or gods. The whole killing in the name of religion is a tired logical fallacy.

Do explain how killing in the name of religion is a logical fallacy.

Oh, and those 20th century wars? Motivated by ideologies other than secularism or atheism.

Sources? I know what we're talking about here, but we can't expect the religious to just take your word for it any more than they can expect us to take their word for information.

[Aiza]

Stunning and rare, a religious person who actually supplies proof. The pages you linked have caused me to take a more moderate stance on this issue. It's easy to forget that every side is often equally capable of evil.

Stunning and rare, an irreligious person who actually changes his stance on issues when proof is presented to him. Boy oh boy, backhanded compliments!

And 'equally capable' nothing, you need to go back hundreds of years before you see state Christianity doing half of that damage, in spite of Christians being much larger in numbers. What is more, I think you will find it very difficult to give a single example of an atheist (as we know the term today) being killed by religious simply for being atheist throughout all of known history, and I think it might just be impossible to name 5. It's not an 'equal' thing.

Re: Pol Pot. There are indeed, several branches of Buddhists. Your own unsourced "freethoughtpedia" link said that Pol Pot was a Theravada Buddhist though (as are some 95% of Cambodians), but he very much did target Theravada Buddhists, as was discussed in that link. He also admired jungle societies which were "free of Buddhism" and then there's the fact that he was also a follower of Marx, so I am not even sure why we are pretending like its a believable thing that Pol Pot was a Buddhist.

I agree that conservapedia is not a good source, but I could not find any links back to conservapedia in the wikipedia sources I gave you, so can you be more specific? Maybe I'm just tired and I am missing them somehow. Though I think its funny that you were linking to "freethoughtpedia" and "nobeliefs.com" just a second ago.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Really, what does it really matter? He was a red communist, was he not? Where, I wonder, have these communists not spilled blood?

[Polaris]

An atheist merely does not believe in God or gods. The whole killing in the name of religion is a tired logical fallacy.

Do explain how killing in the name of religion is a logical fallacy.

Oh, and those 20th century wars? Motivated by ideologies other than secularism or atheism.

Oops. I must have been tired. I meant killing in the name of atheism when someone just mentions atheist because being atheist does not mean anything except for a lack of belief in God or gods (you can still be religious and atheist even). I apologize for my mistake.

Killing in the name of religion has been an excuse leaders have used to obtain power and wealth. That same mentality has continued into the present...instead of religion, we are tricked into believing we are encouraging peace and spreading democracy.

[satan helper]

OK, So. . . I have been thinking about some serious consequences of religion, and more so, specific churches. I have a couple of examples in mind. This thread is open to all.

Some people would sooner neglect or let a family member die than agree to a medication or blood transfusion. Do these people actually believe it is for the best? If they do, even so, how could one live knowing that a child or such died because of their actions, or lack of?


I have been thinking and two events came to mind:

A few months back, I was visiting a city and went out with my second cousins' wife and granddaughter for the day. We bought the girl some chocolate from the store, and she looked as if she'd never seen chocolate before. I asked if she did not like chocolate, and she said, "I do. I am just never given chocolate or candy at home; we also are not allowed to watch TV or go play with regular kids." At this point my eyebrow almost flew off into orbit. I asked her why not, and she replied that a couple of years ago her mother decided that her family would go to a Jehovah's witness church. I asked her what she thought of that, and she didn't say much for a moment, but a few minutes later, she said sometimes she worried. She said she learned in church that if she were in a car accident and lost blood, she would die and it scared her. She said she heard in church that blood transfusions were not allowed, and her mother told her it's because giving away blood is like accepting/giving part of a soul. She's a 10-year-old child and should not have to worry about things like that.

Then, in school several years ago, I knew a girl that was always sick. I told her she should go to the doctor, and she said her family did not allow that; they didn't believe in doctors, surgery, or medication because of their religious rules. I believe they were Christian Scientists, if I remember correctly.

So, these are my examples.

You always hear about these things to some extent, but speaking to people that it applies to - especially children - it really brings it to life and makes you think.

What is everyone's take on this? It is something I can't fathom, personally.

Some of the ambiguity and controversy involved in defining atheism arises from difficulty in reaching a consensus for the definitions of words like deity and god. The plurality of wildly different conceptions of god and deities leads to differing ideas regarding atheism's applicability. The ancient Romans accused Christians of being atheists for not worshiping the pagan deities. Gradually, this view fell into disfavor as theism came to be understood as encompassing belief in any divinity.[25]

With respect to the range of phenomena being rejected, atheism may counter anything from the existence of a deity, to the existence of any spiritual, supernatural, or transcendental concepts, such as those of Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism and Taoism.

[Hovik]

Do explain how killing in the name of religion is a logical fallacy.

Oh, and those 20th century wars? Motivated by ideologies other than secularism or atheism.

Oops. I must have been tired. I meant killing in the name of atheism when someone just mentions atheist because being atheist does not mean anything except for a lack of belief in God or gods (you can still be religious and atheist even). I apologize for my mistake.

Killing in the name of religion has been an excuse leaders have used to obtain power and wealth. That same mentality has continued into the present...instead of religion, we are tricked into believing we are encouraging peace and spreading democracy.

No True Scotsman then, is it?

[Zen Badger]

Oops. I must have been tired. I meant killing in the name of atheism when someone just mentions atheist because being atheist does not mean anything except for a lack of belief in God or gods (you can still be religious and atheist even). I apologize for my mistake.

Killing in the name of religion has been an excuse leaders have used to obtain power and wealth. That same mentality has continued into the present...instead of religion, we are tricked into believing we are encouraging peace and spreading democracy.

No True Scotsman then, is it?

Isn't that always the case?

Theist," Atheism(or atheists) are evil because Pol Pot/ Stalin/Hitler were atheists."

Atheist,"But what about all of the christians that killed in the name of god?"

Theist,"Oh, but they weren't True Christians"

It's like saying that because Jeffery Dahlmer collected stamps all stamp collectors are serial killers.

BTW it has yet to demonstrated that Hitler etc EVER killed in the name of Atheism.