Cos thats where the reservations, gulags, replacement of and forced displacement of native populations and hundreds of thousands in collateral damages are seen?
The Stalin/Pol Pot/Hitler Killed Because of Atheism Fallacy
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
Cos thats where the reservations, gulags, replacement of and forced displacement of native populations and hundreds of thousands in collateral damages are seen?
I was merely responding to idiotic comments.
Secular to me is religious tolerance. Atheists are generally not a part of that equation since they are without religion already.
Yeah, we've seen that in communist countries.
thats b/c God created them that way!!
What about tobacco companies, religions, govt agencies, war, chemical weapons, and so on? Capitalism had its share too. Communism failed because capitalistic nations wanted it to fail. New generations are socially conditioned to believe that communism was evil. That's the work of politicians and media.
One part of the world keep trying to save lives(breaking laws of nature because of self importance) and few others take it as their business to conduct genocides. Its part of the deal to attain equilibrium. Arguing for or against it is only waste of time.
The connection is being human and male.
Human males kill other human males. This behavior can and is studied in Chimps. Males are usually the Prophets, the Priests, the Generals, the Dictators... ...
Why do I come onto this forum and endure this stupidity? I really need to find better things to do with my evenings.
So you're saying their behaviour has nothing to do with their world view?
They are merely acting out of primal instinct?
jan.
Sudan? Yes.
One could quite reasonably argue that their killing had more to do with their view of Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, capitalism, social "harmony" (a Chinese favourite), progress, class systems, belief in the necessity of authoritarian control, or any number of a hundred other political, social, economic and personal issues.
Or some of them just may be straight-up murderers.
Simply because atheism was one of the things they were doesn't mean it was the sole source - or even necessarily a single source - of their motivation to kill. Though I'm about as big a critic of China as you'll find around here, you'd also have to be somewhat ignorant to suggest Mao had even the smallest idea how many people were dying. The people around him were sycophants and would have told him his robes were beautiful as he pranced naked. I'd love to be able to say Mao out-and-out slaughtered 40 million people, but it'd be grossly unscientific to do so.
I have less knowledge of Stalin, but I've heard he was also somewhat unaware of the grand totals.
Hitler's killing probably had a little more to do with economic reasons and "master race" beliefs than with enforcing atheism. I've read very few histories that started "And so for the benefit of atheism, Hitler slaughtered 6 million Jews."
Mind you, I think it's equally idiotic to blame religion for all the murders and murderous campaigns that have happened in religious nations. People seem to have an affinity for killing - well, men at least, as was said - and authoritarian dictators will often use whatever excuse happens to be most at their disposal.
Tyler,
The same could be said of anyone atheist or theist.
Read above.
But it could also mean that, by that logic.
Did he object?
Atheism means, one does not believe in God, or denies God or His existence.
Once this is accepted wholeheartedly, then everything they do is coloured by this world view.
Good for you.
jan.
The same could be said of anyone atheist or theist.
Read above.
But it could also mean that, by that logic.
Did he object?
Atheism means, one does not believe in God, or denies God or His existence.
Once this is accepted wholeheartedly, then everything they do is coloured by this world view.
Good for you.
jan.
I agree! That's why I added: Mind you, I think it's equally idiotic to blame religion for all the murders and murderous campaigns that have happened in religious nations..
As I said, he was surrounded by sycophants and was most likely unaware of how many people were dying from famine and violence during the Cultural Revolution. Frankly, Mao's original idea for the CR is somewhat commendable in ways. He wanted the people - poor, young, old, everyone - to become well-educated in national politics. The original plan called for complete and total opening of freedom of speech. Obviously, it didn't turn out that way. But Mao himself discouraged violence; it was to be a bloodless revolution. One could make a case that by focusing on political education and the building of the army and nuclear weapons, Mao was in fact guilty of criminal negligence. I think you could make a fairly strong case for that. But it's difficult to prove how many people Mao knew were dying. Not mention, by the time it got controllable, Mao might have already gone insane.
These things are all unprovable, and probably will stay that way for a while.
Yes, but I am suggesting that a strong case could be made that this specific colouring had a much, much, much smaller effect than many other factors. Moreover, I think the fact that the world shows a wide range of theists and atheists both engaging in massive murdering campaigns (Crusades, Natives, etc. / Stalin, Kim Jong-Il), I think this is the most obvious answer.
You could go back in time to Easter Island and find some male ruling a bunch of people trying to kill some other males (and taking their women and land and stuff) just like these guys, just like Romans, Muslims, Indian, Japanese, etc... etc... etc....
We evolved from group animals that have an alpha male top-down structure. This is the way we evolved to organize ourselves into groups. In a secular democracy it's much less likely to occur for various reasons.
What does "in the name of God" actually mean?
Is this not more synonymous with catholic institutions...in the name of the Father the son and the......?
What's the difference between the actions of a murderer who believes in God, and one that doesn't?
jan .
Is this not more synonymous with catholic institutions...in the name of the Father the son and the......?
What's the difference between the actions of a murderer who believes in God, and one that doesn't?
jan .
Usually it means doing something for God, because you're pretty sure that's what the God wants you to do.
Examples include:
- The Xian Crusades.
- The Arab Crusades.
- Julius Caesar sacrificing a Bull as Pontificate Maximums.
- Tithing
- Shinto tipping of the sake cup twice before pouring on the third.
etc...
Michael,
Doesn't mean it's done it the name of God.
How can you do something in the name of God?
How can you be sure it's actually done in the name of God, outside
of the actors statement?
Is saying it enough of a clue for you, or is there more to it.
jan.
Doesn't mean it's done it the name of God.
How can you do something in the name of God?
How can you be sure it's actually done in the name of God, outside
of the actors statement?
Is saying it enough of a clue for you, or is there more to it.
jan.
Its enough that the actor says he's acting in the name of his god. That a god exists isn't being assumed, nor should it. That the actor believes a god (or gods) exist(s) is assumed.
The Christian and Arab crusades, regardless of their underlying purposes in conquest, domination, etc., were justified by their perpetrators as being "in the name of god."
In order to be done "in the name of god," one need only state this to be their justification/motivation or believe this to be their justification/motivation. Since there is no reason to accept a god exists, whether or not a god sanctions the actions is irrelevant and not a useful point of discussion.
The Christian and Arab crusades, regardless of their underlying purposes in conquest, domination, etc., were justified by their perpetrators as being "in the name of god."
In order to be done "in the name of god," one need only state this to be their justification/motivation or believe this to be their justification/motivation. Since there is no reason to accept a god exists, whether or not a god sanctions the actions is irrelevant and not a useful point of discussion.
This I believe has been posted up before for you sam.
"People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.
this is a common mistake made by theists, typically those of the fundy type, they believe atheism is essentially socialist or communist in nature. Thus, atheism should be rejected since socialism and communism are evil. How stupid!
the first thing we should note is there is an automatic and almost unconscious assumption made by these theists that their religion is somehow equivalent with captialism.
Communism is not, however, inherently atheistic. It is possible to have communistic or socialistic views while being a theist and it isn't at all wrong to be an atheist while staunchly defending capitalism, which is a combination often found among objectivists and libertarians.
their existence alone demonstrates, that atheism and communism are not the same thing.
is christianity opposed to communism? No, the opposite, actually. There is nothing in the gospels which even so much as suggests a divine preference for captialism, now is there.
quite a bit of what Jesus said supports many of the of socialism and even communism. http://latter-rain.com/general/commu.htm
He specifically said that that people should give all they could to the poor and that "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.
basic communism states to hold all property in common rather than privately, is practiced by numerous Christian communities now and throughout history. references to it can be found in Acts:
Acts 4:33-35 "With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. "
The similarity to Marx's principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" should be obvious.
and here again in Acts:
Acts 5:1-11 "But a man named Ananias, with the consent of his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property; with his wife’s knowledge, he kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. "Ananias," Peter asked, "why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, were not the proceeds at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You did not lie to us but to God!" Now when Ananias heard these words, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard of it.
The young men came and wrapped up his body, then carried him out and buried him. After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. Peter said to her, "Tell me whether you and your husband sold the land for such and such a price." And she said, "Yes, that was the price." Then Peter said to her, "How is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out." Immediately she fell down at his feet and died. When the young men came in they found her dead, so they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. And great fear seized the whole church and all who heard of these things."
their deaths served as an example to all the others of what would happen if they, too, held back profits for themselves instead of giving everything to the community.
so we can see that this was the first christian commune(ist) society.
so please lets get away from this silly reference to atheism and communism being the same, the bible is basically a communist manifesto."
ANON
"People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.
this is a common mistake made by theists, typically those of the fundy type, they believe atheism is essentially socialist or communist in nature. Thus, atheism should be rejected since socialism and communism are evil. How stupid!
the first thing we should note is there is an automatic and almost unconscious assumption made by these theists that their religion is somehow equivalent with captialism.
Communism is not, however, inherently atheistic. It is possible to have communistic or socialistic views while being a theist and it isn't at all wrong to be an atheist while staunchly defending capitalism, which is a combination often found among objectivists and libertarians.
their existence alone demonstrates, that atheism and communism are not the same thing.
is christianity opposed to communism? No, the opposite, actually. There is nothing in the gospels which even so much as suggests a divine preference for captialism, now is there.
quite a bit of what Jesus said supports many of the of socialism and even communism. http://latter-rain.com/general/commu.htm
He specifically said that that people should give all they could to the poor and that "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.
basic communism states to hold all property in common rather than privately, is practiced by numerous Christian communities now and throughout history. references to it can be found in Acts:
Acts 4:33-35 "With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. "
The similarity to Marx's principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" should be obvious.
and here again in Acts:
Acts 5:1-11 "But a man named Ananias, with the consent of his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property; with his wife’s knowledge, he kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. "Ananias," Peter asked, "why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, were not the proceeds at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You did not lie to us but to God!" Now when Ananias heard these words, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard of it.
The young men came and wrapped up his body, then carried him out and buried him. After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. Peter said to her, "Tell me whether you and your husband sold the land for such and such a price." And she said, "Yes, that was the price." Then Peter said to her, "How is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out." Immediately she fell down at his feet and died. When the young men came in they found her dead, so they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. And great fear seized the whole church and all who heard of these things."
their deaths served as an example to all the others of what would happen if they, too, held back profits for themselves instead of giving everything to the community.
so we can see that this was the first christian commune(ist) society.
so please lets get away from this silly reference to atheism and communism being the same, the bible is basically a communist manifesto."
ANON