Atheistic Atrocities

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I left out a 'such'.

But yes, more or less, yes.

Is your statement a sweeping and possibly harmful generalization, or does it stand up to scrutiny? Shall we fabricate some generalizations and test their potential for harm?

Complete this sentence:
All women are ...

...not men.

At least for the moment.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
...not men.

At least for the moment.

Yes. Not only is this tautological statement harmless, but I doubt that it even qualifies as a generalisation. Synthetic generalisations rather than analytical are problematic.

Religious apologists love to mention Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. as atheistic atrocities, when in actual fact there has never been one atrocity committed in the name of atheism. Atheism is a non-belief, a term that has been coined quite simply to define the "other side" of the faith argument. It's a common truth that there are no unicorns, elves, dwarves, or necromancers. However, if some crackpot came along that worshiped pixies and it caught on in the same manner as the Abrahamic dogs, I mean gods, we would have to come up with a new term such as apixie. How can you seriously claim that a non-belief has been the cause of atrocities?

If you take Hitler, who was probably Catholic, or Stalin who may well have been an atheist, it matters not what their belief systems were. They both murdered due to certain ideologies, which are more religious in nature than not. You can't seriously believe that our evil ancestors of the past have killed millions because they did not believe in something. You'll find that it's only religion that causes behavior such as this.

Originally posted by Kasbarroffs Menter
Religious apologists love to mention Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. as atheistic atrocities, when in actual fact there has never been one atrocity committed in the name of atheism. Atheism is a non-belief, a term that has been coined quite simply to define the "other side" of the faith argument. It's a common truth that there are no unicorns, elves ...[text shortened]... lieve in something. You'll find that it's only religion that causes behavior such as this.

I repeat:

- Do you know that it was forbidden by law to criticize atheism under Stalin?
- Do you know what the penalty was?
- How can such a law penalizing criticism of atheism not be something done in its name?

Learn your history, then come back. Else, you're the one proclaiming the existence of elves and unicorns.

You'll have to provide me with a source for that one because I've never heard of such a penalty.

Stalin was educated at the Theological Seminary of Tbilisi where he was sent to become a priest. Stalin was a politician and above all a communist—something you seem to be forgetting. Atheism was NOT the main driving force behind Stalin's ambitions, and if you think this is true, you are extremely naive.

Stalin attended a Russian orthodox seminary (from 1894 to 1899) as a teenager in Tiflis. I could quite justifiably claim that the dogmatic black or white outlook of the world influenced his subsequent actions.

Communism resembles very closely the dogmatic faith of religious fundamentalist. It has, like other fundamentalist religions, a list of sacred writings known as the "communist classics." Infallible authority is ascribed to these writings. It pretends to represent the absolute truth by calling itself a "science". Yet it proceeds, as Bochenski wrote, "in the manner of a faith." Additionally, If Karl Marx, the intellectual founder of Marxism and communism, repudiated atheism as meaningless and no longer needed, how then could atheism be considered the cause of the atrocities committed under communism?

The atrocities committed by Stalin were the result of a combination of the communist dogmas and the paranoia of a wicked man intent on preserving his own rule against any opposition.

I think you should buy another history book; the one you are reading isn't working.

Originally posted by Kasbarroffs Menter
Stalin was educated at the Theological Seminary of Tbilisi where he was sent to become a priest. Stalin was a politician and above all a communist—something you seem to be forgetting. Atheism was NOT the main driving force behind Stalin's ambitions, and if you think this is true, you are extremely naive.

Stalin attended a Russian orthodox semin ...[text shortened]... .

I think you should buy another history book; the one you are reading isn't working.

You appear to be saying "well Stalin was not a TRUE atheist", or something to that effect. The problem is that theists can play the same game and claim that any atrocity committed was committed by a member of a different religion.
I think that Palynka is correct that Stalin and his regime committed atrocities in the name of atheism. Whether atheism contributed to his dislike / hatred of theism, or whether he was influenced by the ideals of communism, or whether his experience with the Church caused him to hate theists or whether it was all just a way of obtaining and holding onto power is more complex, but the same applies for almost all atrocities committed 'in the name of God'.

My point is this:

It's completely irrelevant as to what Stalin, Hitler, or any of the so called "atheist murderers" believed in. You can not believe in atheism just as you can not believe that you don't believe in unicorns — atheism is a non-belief. Stalin nor Hitler murdered a single being for believing in God. I'll say it again, if you think this is true, you are naive. On the other hand, however, I dare you to deny that religion has killed many men for not believing in the global fairytale. Some of our greatest minds and books were burned quite simply for daring to mutter the truth. If religion had its way, the world would still be flat. It's despicable, contemptible, and downright shameful.

I argue with many religious folk and they always use the same Hitlers, Stalins, Pol Pots etc. It's mainly, I think, down to the insecurities that people of faith have. They can't accept that God is so evil so they throw their accusatory finger towards the atheists as if to say, "see, it's not just us."

Do you think the word would be at war if every nation and government was atheistic, rational, and skeptical? Of course it wouldn't. Religion needs to be outgrown. We really are a pathetic, childish species and God and his sheep are a testament to that. Get up off your knees and stop bowing like a serf. You're a human, not some oppressed dog.

Originally posted by Kasbarroffs Menter

Do you think the word would be at war if every nation and government was atheistic, rational, and skeptical? Of course it wouldn't. Religion needs to be outgrown. We really are a pathetic, childish species and God and his sheep are a testament to that. Get up off your knees and stop bowing like a serf. You're a human, not some oppressed dog.

Yap, yap, yap. Spread the message, Fido.

Originally posted by Palynka
I repeat:

- Do you know that it was forbidden by law to criticize atheism under Stalin?
- Do you know what the penalty was?
- How can such a law penalizing criticism of atheism not be something done in its name?

Learn your history, then come back. Else, you're the one proclaiming the existence of elves and unicorns.

I get the sense that you may believe that if some evil people perform some atrocities in the name of their beliefs then it logically follows that those beliefs must also be evil.
Is this what you believe? Now I am not saying that is what you believe because I am not certain what you believe and I may have got totally the wrong impression (in which case I would apologise) but, if that is what you believe then I would point out that one doesn’t logically follow from the other!

I have no doubt that there is bound to be some historical examples somewhere in history where:

1, An atheist /some atheists commits atrocities in the name of atheism.

And;

2, A theist /some theists commits atrocities in the name of theism.

So what conclusion would you draw from such a pair of examples? Would you conclude that both theists and atheists have “evil” beliefs?

The nazis where evil people that committed atrocities in the name of their beliefs. One of their beliefs was we should genetically engineer humans to create a “super race” and they committed atrocities in the name of that belief. The term “super race” has absolutely no scientific meaning and is also totally meaningless in my book so lets just stick simply to the proposition:

“The nazis believed we should genetically engineer humans and they committed atrocities in the name of that belief”

So would you conclude from the above proposition that it logically follows that:

“ the belief that we should genetically engineer humans is an evil belief” ?

I have heard a person hysterically shouted out words vaguely along the lines “genetically engineer humans is a slippery step to nazism and the murder of Jews in gas chambers”

I would have liked to ask him:
“what about genetically engineer humans to be kind? -how would that be a slippery step to nazism and the murder of Jews in gas chambers? How could that be when kindness opposes hate and Nazism is base on hate?

Suppose I was generally an evil person who often committed terrible atrocities, but then lets suppose, ironically, I committed some terrible atrocities in the name of kindness! -perhaps through some warped and twisted thinking, I somehow convince myself that killing people who are currently suffering is an act of “kindness” even when, if only I just let them be, they would have eventually stopped suffering and had a happy life and then I actually killed some people that belong to that category. Would you conclude that the belief that we should be kind is an evil belief?

Originally posted by Kasbarroffs Menter
It's completely irrelevant as to what Stalin, Hitler, or any of the so called "atheist murderers" believed in. You can not believe in atheism just as you can not believe that you don't believe in unicorns — atheism is a non-belief.

But one can believe in the concept that atheism is the ideal (as I do - and so do many other atheists). Whether or not you choose to kill anyone not living up to that standard is another issue. I see no reason why it would be incorrect for someone to say that he is killing 'in the name of atheism'.
What is even more interesting is that everyone is an atheist - for every God except the ones they believe in. So if a Christian kills a Jew for believing in the God of the Jews and not for not believing in the God of the Christians then that Christian has killed in the name of a-(Jewish-God)-ism

Stalin nor Hitler murdered a single being for believing in God. I'll say it again, if you think this is true, you are naive.
I am quite sure that Hitler though not killing in the name of atheism, did kill people for being Jewish a culture which included believing in God. Though I suspect that he focused more on race than belief.
I think it is quite possible that Stalin killed people for believing in God and don't see how that makes me naive. It might mean that I just don't know much about the history of Stalin (which I fully admit).

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I get the sense that you may believe that if some evil people perform some atrocities in the name of their beliefs then it logically follows that those beliefs must also be evil.
Is this what you believe? Now I am not saying that is what you believe because I am not certain what you believe and I may have got totally the wrong impression (in which ...[text shortened]... g to that category. Would you conclude that the belief that we should be kind is an evil belief?

But that was also my point, that we cannot conclude from such atrocities anything that can be applied to atheism or theism in general.

I'm just saying that it's nevertheless false to claim there are no atheistic atrocities.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You appear to be saying "well Stalin was not a TRUE atheist", or something to that effect. The problem is that theists can play the same game and claim that any atrocity committed was committed by a member of a different religion.
I think that Palynka is correct that Stalin and his regime committed atrocities in the name of atheism. Whether atheism contr ...[text shortened]... more complex, but the same applies for almost all atrocities committed 'in the name of God'.

Well said, twhitehead.

Originally posted by Kasbarroffs Menter
My point is this:

It's completely irrelevant as to what Stalin, Hitler, or any of the so called "atheist murderers" believed in. You can not believe in atheism just as you can not believe that you don't believe in unicorns — atheism is a non-belief. Stalin nor Hitler murdered a single being for believing in God. I'll say it again, if you think off your knees and stop bowing like a serf. You're a human, not some oppressed dog.

You're not addressing my argument.

I'm fully aware that "many religious folk" commit the mistake of affirming that atrocities commited by atheists are atheistic atrocities. I'm not arguing that, I'm providing a direct example where the reason invoked was atheism.

Do you think the word would be at war if every nation and government was atheistic, rational, and skeptical? Of course it wouldn't.
You're the mirror image of what you attack. I'm sure many fundamentalist theists would say a similar thing. If everybody was like me, there would be no arguments in internet forums...

If anything, the desire for uniformity is the main motivational force that makes men fight wars under someone's bidding.

We really are a pathetic, childish species
Evidently.