Pick up any history book.
The Ego of the Atheist
- Thread starter pharaohmoan
- Start date
Pick up any history book.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
It doesn't say anything about whether or not Hitler is atheistic.
Show me where you got it from.
I don't recall saying Hitler is an atheist, I specifically mentioned Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot who made atheism in society their official stance.
I believe he was though based on his speeches on utilising people by propaganda combined with his private revelations about Christianity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_religious_beliefs
Besides, he behaved exactly like all atheist leaders have, so far, when given power.
Christianty has no better a record of preventing genocide. The opression of the indians of the Americas was done in the name of Christianity. Therefore, there is nothing special about religion that makes people act morally. Citing examples of officially atheist regimes doesn't support the idea that religion is better than no religion. It only says that all things being equal, people act as they always have, with greed, ambition, sometimes good and sometimes evil. Atheism never claims to prevent evil, it is not an ideology or way of living.
Name one moral act a religious person could do that a non-religious person cannot.
Name one moral act a religious person could do that a non-religious person cannot.
Hans Koning wrote:
"From the beginning, the Spaniards saw the native Americans as natural slaves, beasts of burden, part of the loot. When working them to death was more economical than treating them somewhat humanely, they worked them to death. The English, on the other hand, had no use for the native peoples. They saw them as devil worshippers, savages who were beyond salvation by the church, and exterminating them increasingly became accepted policy."
The Americas were conquered way before the USA was established.
"From the beginning, the Spaniards saw the native Americans as natural slaves, beasts of burden, part of the loot. When working them to death was more economical than treating them somewhat humanely, they worked them to death. The English, on the other hand, had no use for the native peoples. They saw them as devil worshippers, savages who were beyond salvation by the church, and exterminating them increasingly became accepted policy."
The Americas were conquered way before the USA was established.
Which part of that is taught by Christianity?
And what did the secular USAmericans do different, considering they were not religious?
The issue that is being confused here is this: atrocities committed in the name of religion and the atrocities committed in the name of atheism. There is no contest in this matter. No state has ever justified their crimes in the name of science and/or atheism. Meanwhile, religious fundamentalism can be and has been the justification for countless atrocities and conflicts.
There is no arguing that there have been atheists who have done horrible things. You can't argue against that. There are bad people in all walks of life. However, only religion can make otherwise good people do bad things.
There is no arguing that there have been atheists who have done horrible things. You can't argue against that. There are bad people in all walks of life. However, only religion can make otherwise good people do bad things.
The part that says people that aren't Christians are evil.
Where does it say in Christianity that people who aren't Christians are evil?
And could you also show me the part in atheism where it says theists are delusional?
SAM:
There's no evidence that the religions came before the laws. It could well be that pre-existing laws were included in religious codes.
It is interesting that you pick gay marriage as an example here. Marriage, as you know, was originally a contract between families to cement inter-familial alliances, mostly by trading away a daughter. As a contract, the laws relating to marriage sprang from the same place as other laws relating to trade in goods. None of this has much to do with religious beliefs. Trade laws grew up to regulate commerce in society. They are practical - aimed at preventing or deterring bad business practices.
Now, gay marriage is of a different ilk. It's proscription follows from a general fear of difference, manifesting itself in homophobia. That homophobia of course has worked its way into the written texts of many religions, which attempt to "outlaw" all forms of homosexual behaviour.
So, you're half right. While laws spring from ideas of right and wrong, you have no evidence that those ideas started with religion. In fact, religion most likely adopted pre-existing ideas of right and wrong.
To answer what is a good law, you first need to ask "what is good?". Some religions preach that death to gay people is "good", because homosexuality is "evil". Humanist philosophy says that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality and is in and of itself harmless. The notion of "harm" is different in each case, as is the notion of "good". Religions tend to be simplistic: what is in the Qur'an is necessarily "good"; if the Qur'an says something is evil then it is evil. There's no need to think - just read the book and believe. Humanist philosophies, on the other hand, tend to reach moral conclusions based on more general principles, such as utilitarianism or the idea of personal autonomy.
In my personal opinion, a good law is one that achieves or promotes a worthy social aim, to benefit society in general or to protect the individual from harm. Good laws ought to respect the [enc]intrinsic value[/enc] of all human beings, and allow them freedom of action except where this might unduly infringe on the freedoms of others.
How are you privy to Hitler's private conversations?
There's no evidence that the religions came before the laws. It could well be that pre-existing laws were included in religious codes.
It is interesting that you pick gay marriage as an example here. Marriage, as you know, was originally a contract between families to cement inter-familial alliances, mostly by trading away a daughter. As a contract, the laws relating to marriage sprang from the same place as other laws relating to trade in goods. None of this has much to do with religious beliefs. Trade laws grew up to regulate commerce in society. They are practical - aimed at preventing or deterring bad business practices.
Now, gay marriage is of a different ilk. It's proscription follows from a general fear of difference, manifesting itself in homophobia. That homophobia of course has worked its way into the written texts of many religions, which attempt to "outlaw" all forms of homosexual behaviour.
So, you're half right. While laws spring from ideas of right and wrong, you have no evidence that those ideas started with religion. In fact, religion most likely adopted pre-existing ideas of right and wrong.
To answer what is a good law, you first need to ask "what is good?". Some religions preach that death to gay people is "good", because homosexuality is "evil". Humanist philosophy says that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality and is in and of itself harmless. The notion of "harm" is different in each case, as is the notion of "good". Religions tend to be simplistic: what is in the Qur'an is necessarily "good"; if the Qur'an says something is evil then it is evil. There's no need to think - just read the book and believe. Humanist philosophies, on the other hand, tend to reach moral conclusions based on more general principles, such as utilitarianism or the idea of personal autonomy.
In my personal opinion, a good law is one that achieves or promotes a worthy social aim, to benefit society in general or to protect the individual from harm. Good laws ought to respect the [enc]intrinsic value[/enc] of all human beings, and allow them freedom of action except where this might unduly infringe on the freedoms of others.
How are you privy to Hitler's private conversations?
HHmm I don't think you read this link properly as it portrays hitler as a deeply (twisted) religious man..
He quite simply was not an atheist..
And stalin was religious up to and in a way after a point..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin
So it was not Atheism which caused these deaths at all.....:bugeye:
There is nothing comparable in being Atheist to the loss of life through religions blunders/ignorance, as which you claimed.......
It simply not true..
Ah, SAM banging on that atheists have killed people. Not in the name of atheism in any case, and both Stalin and Hitler had religious backgrounds.
SAM really does have to lie, and twist, and keep digging up old falsehoods to try and make her point. Hitler/Stalin have been been done to death, but she keeps trotting it out like it's relevant.
SAM really does have to lie, and twist, and keep digging up old falsehoods to try and make her point. Hitler/Stalin have been been done to death, but she keeps trotting it out like it's relevant.
You're showing me HItlers publicly professed statements as evidence that he was not an atheist? The same man who wrote on the value of using people's beliefs to use them as compared to his privately expressed sentiments to his close friends?
As I said the ultimate desire of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot was to have a religion free society that worshipped only their ideologies. As atheists, they merely adopted some other ideology that they wanted instead of religion. Dawkins has adopted science, does that make him less atheist? One cannot fight anything in the name of atheism, since atheism stands for nothing. You cannot build a society on a negative. Even atheists recognise that. Which is why, unlike religions which promote their own qualities, all atheists do is oppose religion. They have no qualities to promote. But it did not stop them from killing millions of people who did not share their ideas.
You are confusing atheism for anti-religion.
Indeed, atheism does not preclude one having a strategy for organizing society.
I haven't met any theistic atheists. Or any that are pro-theism. I'd be lucky to meet one who does not think atheists should have a disproportionate influence in all societies. Have you?
Religion is not only Theism, you know.
How many theists did they kill for being theists?