The Stalin/Pol Pot/Hitler Killed Because of Atheism Fallacy

Athiest self justifications?

Based on what Skinwalker has very aptly noted: if the actor self defines as an (a)thiest and bans religion, promotes athiesm and imprisons people and takes away their Bibles, its pretty much clear what the driving force is.
 
Yes, it is very clear. That person's driving force is to eliminate the competition of other ideologies to his own. The key concept here being ideological not atheist vs. theist.

Therefore, your dishonest and fallacious attempt to align atheism with stalin/pol pot/hitler is, yet again, a miserable failure of intellect and not consistent with reality.
 
If it is part of the communist ideology to ban religion and take away Bibles and promote atheism, it doesn't really differ much from the Crusades in that respect. Its always about competing ideologies.
 
Obviously the common denominator is, therefore, ideology and not atheism since there are millions of atheists and millions more in history and only a tiny, tiny few (two perhaps a couple more) grew up to be "evil", murderous dictators.

Therefore, the argument that atheism is immoral and that stalin/pol pot/hitler are products of atheism are invalid, unsound, and fallacious.
 
Communism is an economic system.

Tyler said:
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."
Click to expand...

Hitler wasn't an atheist.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
S.A.M. said:
20TH_C_MORTACRACIES.GIF
Click to expand...

these figures are lies.
 
Possibly. But I see no data which are supportive one way or the other. Interestingly enough, most of the figures in that table were from regimes that were heavily influenced by religious dogma and ideology, so I'm not sure what S.A.M. intended to demonstrate.
 
the logical counterpoint to theistic ideologies are materialistic ones rather than atheism.
for, after one professes a lack of belief in gods, an elaboration is usually forthcoming
 
SkinWalker,

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.
Click to expand...

How can you determine whether someone actually believes in God, in order to make such an assumption?
And why would someone do something in the name of God, because they believed in God? It makes no sense.

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."
Click to expand...

But as far as we know, it doesn't mean anything. It has as much value as someone helping others "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.
Click to expand...

Then one can say it without believing in God, as it has no value other than some kind of grand justification for ones action.

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.
Click to expand...

I believe that this is the type of person one would use "in the name of god" to justify their action, be it good or bad, one who has no reason to actually accept God.

I take it you believe the atheists mentioned in the OP, didn't act because they were atheist.
If you found yourself in the position of ruler, or president, would any of your actions you undertook be the result of your worldview?

jan.
 
(Q) said:
It's interesting that you continue with a line of questioning that you yourself have failed miserably to answer, or simply ignored.
Click to expand...

Ironic, that. :D
Of course, I may simply decide that the only way to change a society is to contribute to it.
I'm willing to pay the taxes and celebrate Christmas.

We need more Muslims in the US. Lots more Muslims. :eek:

btw, the religious are only persecuted by the religious.
Click to expand...
Not true. Th greatest massacres of this century were committed by self proclaimed atheist regimes.
 
Last edited:
S.A.M. said:
Not true. The greatest massacres of this century were committed by self proclaimed atheist regimes.
Click to expand...

They didn't do it in the name of atheism, or because of atheism. They had other reasons, and just happened to be atheists.
 
Norsefire said:
just happened to be atheists.
Click to expand...

Thats enough for me. I don't care what ideology they wanted in their "perfect society". Just imagine, handful of athiests with perverted ideologies are worse than the billions of religious people who follow their religion.

Why would anyone want more atheists?????
 
S.A.M. said:
Thats enough for me. I don't care what ideology they wanted in their "perfect society". Just imagine, handful of athiests with perverted ideologies are worse than the billions of religious people who follow their religion.

Why would anyone want more atheists?????
Click to expand...

In May, 1919, at Dusseldorf, Germany, allied forces captured a very significant document. It was called Communist Rules for Revolution. These were the processes by which the Communist objectives were to be achieved. As you read these, consider what is happening in the world today.
http://www.angelfire.com/ca2/SOS/rules.html
Click to expand...

I'm not sure whether you are aware of this list or not.

jan.
 
Seems to me a lot has been posted here without the subject being resolved.

I have a suggestion: Since mainstream religions tend to survive for thousands of years, I think it is reasonable to state that each comprises a system of belief that has some sort of common formula. Each religion has to give its believers some sort of explanation of everything. In the old religions, it is always some "god" or "spirits." In Asian Marxism, it is "atheism," but in each case, each is an ENDURING BELIEF SYSTEM.

So, it is not WHAT the religion says "to explain things" with but JUST THAT RELIGIONS ARE ENTITIES THAT COMPETE WITH EACH OTHER TO SURVIVE. The more powerful the religion, the more ruthless it can be in doing that.

This means that it is not "spirits" or "atheism" that causes ideological war but merely that mainstream religions by their very nature do.

Of course, there are NON-mainstream religions and they cannot be ruthless like the big ones because, in most cases, they are merely cults or splinter groups of the big,main religions.

Some might be tempted to say that Hinduism (or one cult of it, Buddhism) is not ruthless. Two factors need to be considered there. One is that Hinduism is now one of the very oldest surviving mainstream religions and is sadly showing its polytheistic age. This helps explain why it is not as aggressive and why India is governed mostly by Socialists, Secularists and Muslims in their coalition government. Also, like all religions in history, it also had a very aggressive, brutal stage.

charles
http://atheistic-science.com
 
S.A.M. said:
For example? Stalin? Mao? Pol Pot? Khmer Rouge? These are the mega killers of this century.
Click to expand...

None of these gentlemen lived in this century. Now do you have a point or is this thread going nowhere?
 
Conveniently, an atheist pilot can make an emergency landing while still finding the time to not pray.
 
Nasor said:
Conveniently, an atheist pilot can make an emergency landing while still finding the time to not pray.
Click to expand...

Apparently, disinformation is part and parcel of atheism. Or did you miss the discussion based on the court proceedings?
 
Woops, posted that to the wrong thread, sorry. I would delete it, but since someone already responded to it, getting rid of it now would probably just create more confusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top