Does Atheism Cause Atrocities?

Morbert

I'm moving this from the Atheism/Existence of God thread. It is regarding the entirely unfounded claim that Atheism causes atrocities.

ISAW wrote: »

they were atheistic and did have a philosophy of spreading atheism. Part of this led to them killing priest and religious believers.

"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

"We must combat religion"
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

�Down with religion and long live atheism;
the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!�
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

And this in no way, in any shape or form, supports your claim that atheism causes atrocities. Instead, the violent enforcement of religious oppression causes atrocities. Such oppression is something most atheists in the west (and, I would wager, elsewhere) have no interest in.

atheistic socisl expiriments. ther is ,no god was central to their philosophy.
sometimes christian regimes oppressed human rights in the name of spreading christianity. atheistic regimes always did. and atheists today support the promotion or spreading of atheism ads a mission.

No. Social experiments full stop, whether they were atheistic or non-atheistic.

they slaughtered priests and believers and didnt slaughter atheists and you think that had nothing to do with their atheistic regime? But if the Inquisition killed Jews it was all to do with the christian church?

Not in the name of Christianity or for Christianity! Ill accept they weren't atheist either.

Not to promote a christian god.

Others such as atheist Revolutionaries in the congo -not Leopold - spreading atheism as a central tenet of their revolution when spreading Christianity was NOT Leopolds aim?

Again, you say this as if it has any relevance to the claim that atheism causes atrocities. The fact that the common trend across all atrocities is not atheism, but rather oppressive and violent philosophies against people, should have put an end to your silly accusation weeks ago.

Atheism is not a violent philosophy. It is a metaphysical statement about God, and the "New" atheist movement is perfectly happy to engage theism through discourse and debate.

Festus

A hypothesis

Ideologies based on atheism and atheistic principles cause people to believe that they as humans were not created special and are nothing more than a highly developed life form that resulted from a random cosmic accident and that no higher authority exists.
This leads to an expectiation that human behaviour shoud follow rules that have been defined and described from evolutionary theory. One of these is survivial of the fittest.
Believing that survival of the fittest should govern human behaviour and that our existence on this planet and indeed this planet itself and our lives are nothing more than accidents leads to the belief that there is nothing sacred or special about human life. This allied with the belief that with no higher authority there are no consequences to immorality ultimately leads to attrocities happening.

Any examination of history will provide evidence to support this hypothesis.

Constructive comments welcome.

Turtwig

Festus wrote: »

A hypothesis

Ideologies based on atheism and atheistic principles cause people to believe that they as humans were not created special and are nothing more than a highly developed life form that resulted from a random cosmic accident and that no higher authority exists.
This leads to an expectiation that human behaviour shoud follow rules that have been defined and described from evolutionary theory. One of these is survivial of the fittest.
Believing that survival of the fittest should govern human behaviour and that our existence on this planet and indeed this planet itself and our lives are nothing more than accidents leads to the belief that there is nothing sacred or special about human life. This allied with the belief that with no higher authority there are no consequences to immorality ultimately leads to attrocities happening.

Any examination of history will provide evidence to support this hypothesis.

How on Earth does "We are the result of a random cosmic accident." lead to "We should use a non specified theory derived from evolution to govern our lives and society."? That's kind of like trying to use germ theory to explain gravity. Totally, totally stupid.

Manach

Any mode of belief that is taken up by extremist elements can cause loss of life. This has happened in regimes that have had their ideological underpinnings in theist and atheist -such as some of the Crusades and the Bolshevik's revolutions.

Penn

Atheist = No religion
Anti-theist = Opposes religion.

There is a difference. Generally, all anti-theists are atheists. Not all atheists are anti-theists.

Atheism doesn't cause atrocities in the same way religion doesn't cause atrocities. It's people who use these things to cause the atrocities. And people who cause atrocities would do so regardless of whether they were atheist or religious. They do so, because they are bad people who manipulate people's feelings whether it's using their religion or turning them against religion.

It is in essence a case of "Guns don't kill people. People kill people"

28064212

List of guidelines for Atheism

1. Lack belief in a deity
2. ...
3. That's it
4. No seriously, that's it

List of guidelines for Christianity (repeat for Judaism, Islam etc etc):

1. A couple of thousand pages of writings in a dead language, interpretable in a vast, vast array of ways

Atheist extremist:
"I'm killing this person in the name of Atheism!"
"In what way does a lack of belief in a deity mean you should kill that person?"
"....Capitalist Pig Dog! Shoot this enemy of the state"

Christian extremist:
"I'm killing this person in the name of Christianity!"
"How does Christianity give you the right to kill this person?"
"Well, if you read this particular passage of the divine text, and interpret this particular passage this way, then clearly it's God's work"
"But that's the wrong interpretation"
"Heretic! Shoot this unbeliever"

Both may end up with a dead person, but there is a fundamental difference

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

A hypothesis

Ideologies based on atheism and atheistic principles cause people to believe that they as humans were not created special and are nothing more than a highly developed life form that resulted from a random cosmic accident and that no higher authority exists.
This leads to an expectiation that human behaviour shoud follow rules that have been defined and described from evolutionary theory. One of these is survivial of the fittest.
Believing that survival of the fittest should govern human behaviour and that our existence on this planet and indeed this planet itself and our lives are nothing more than accidents leads to the belief that there is nothing sacred or special about human life. This allied with the belief that with no higher authority there are no consequences to immorality ultimately leads to attrocities happening.

Any examination of history will provide evidence to support this hypothesis.

Constructive comments welcome.

Richard Dawkins has explicitly stated that he is vehemently anti-Darwinist when it comes to morality and ethics. His view is shared by most. The notion that survival of the fittest should be enshrined as a moral law is social Darwinism, and is rejected as abhorrent by the majority of atheists.

Furthermore, subscription to social Darwinism is by no means contingent on atheism, as eugenics programs carried out by multiple nations demonstrates.

Tigger

Morbert wrote: »

The notion that survival of the fittest should be enshrined as a moral law is social Darwinism, and is rejected as abhorrent by the majority of atheists.

can you back this up or is it opinion or belief?

Morbert

Tigger wrote: »

can you back this up or is it opinion or belief?

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/2488
"all modern evolutionists, almost literally without exception, have been vocal in their condemnation of Social Darwinism. This of course includes Michael Shermer and me and PZ Myers and all the other evolutionary scientists whom Ben Stein and his team tricked into taking part in his film by lying to us about their true intentions."

Manach

However historically Social Darwinist was a key compenant in the Nazi and to a lesser extent Soviet Scientific doctrines. That Prof. Dawkins disavows it is to be welcomed but the mis-use for immoral purposes of a scientific theory like evolution outside its area of core competency cannot be prevent.

Festus

Morbert wrote: »

Richard Dawkins has explicitly stated that he is vehemently anti-Darwinist when it comes to morality and ethics. His view is shared by most. The notion that survival of the fittest should be enshrined as a moral law is social Darwinism, and is rejected as abhorrent by the majority of atheists.

Furthermore, subscription to social Darwinism is by no means contingent on atheism, as eugenics programs carried out by multiple nations demonstrates.

-1

(8/10 for constuction, -9/10 for ignoring the historic fact that R. Dawkins had no influence on the major historic attrocities that resulted from atheism or that very few current atheistic war mongers and evil murdering gits don't read R. Dawkins)

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

-1

(8/10 for constuction, -9/10 for ignoring the historic fact that R. Dawkins had no influence on the major historic attrocities that resulted from atheism or that very few current atheistic war mongers and evil murdering gits don't read R. Dawkins)

Festus wrote:

Ideologies based on atheism and atheistic principles cause people to believe that they as humans were not created special and are nothing more than a highly developed life form that resulted from a random cosmic accident and that no higher authority exists.
This leads to an expectiation that human behaviour shoud follow rules that have been defined and described from evolutionary theory. One of these is survivial of the fittest.

You were making a specific claim about atheism itself, not the particular motives of historical figures who happened to be atheist. Richard Dawkins is a typical example of how atheism does not lead to Social Darwinism. That historic war mongers have not read Dawkins is entirely irrelevant. It is a clear refutation of your hypothesis. And, as I said in my previous post:

"Furthermore, subscription to social Darwinism is by no means contingent on atheism, as eugenics programs carried out by multiple nations demonstrates."

Social Darwinism might cause atrocities, but Social Darwinism does not depend on atheism.

Also, -1000 for using silly gimmicks in your post.

darjeeling

Mao and Stalin weren't monsters because they were atheists, but because they tried to force everyone else to be so.

Atheist states have treated their people awfully. But democratic, secular states in which atheism is accepted alongside religions, and which have oftentimes been led by atheists, have not. Toleration is the key, as was learned from the bitter lessons of the 16th and 17th century wars of religion in Europe.

Tigger

Tigger wrote: »

can you back this up or is it opinion or belief?

Morbert wrote: »

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/2488
"all modern evolutionists, almost literally without exception, have been vocal in their condemnation of Social Darwinism. This of course includes Michael Shermer and me and PZ Myers and all the other evolutionary scientists whom Ben Stein and his team tricked into taking part in his film by lying to us about their true intentions."

thats a statement on evolutionists not on athiests
its also a stsatement not a fact

i could state that God exists but it hardly makes it true now does it?

Morbert

Tigger wrote: »

thats a statement on evolutionists not on athiests
its also a stsatement not a fact

It is sufficient evidence. It is a "fact", insofar as it is a reputable statement about the rejection of Social Darwinism by atheists like Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers etc. It was precisely these kinds of statements that you asked for. It is also evidenced by communities like Atheist Ireland and richarddawkins.net; communities against Social Darwinism. Here is another entirely typical example

http://atheism.about.com/od/liberationatheology/ig/Unapologetics-Posters/Unapologetics--Darwinism.htm

and here

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/58022-ayn-rand-social-darwinism

and here

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/nsv3j/theorising_social_darwinism/
http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/noqn2/saying_evolution_means_we_should_adopt_social/

Reddit is probably one of the largest online atheist communities, and they clearly reject Social Dawinism.

Even on a purely analytical level, it is immediately clear that Social Darwinism does not follow from atheism. It is a great big non-sequitur.

Honestly, this is an entirely uncontroversial point.

i could state that God exists but it hardly makes it true now does it?

But it would be true that you believe God exists. Similarly, statements made by atheists rejecting Social Darwinism is evidence that atheists reject Social Darwinism.

Cossax

Tigger wrote: »

thats a statement on evolutionists not on athiests
its also a stsatement not a fact

i could state that God exists but it hardly makes it true now does it?

Can you prove the majority of atheists believe in social Darwinism? No? Thought not.

lmaopml

Cossax wrote: »

Can you prove the majority of atheists believe in social Darwinism? No? Thought not.

I have no problem believing that the majority of Atheists don't support socially what may be inferred by evolution - mainly because I know lots of them, and they are perfectly normal people with enquiring minds and a sense of social justice, many are my friends too. They're human afterall. Actually, very many probably never even thought too much about making evolution something that people should 'live by' as opposed to 'understand' as a theory that is pretty much as sound as the theory of gravity is...

I do find it mildly amusing however that Dawkins, having said so much about the evils of religion and how it causes atrocities blah blah blah, and about how people are committing child abuse by being a 'Christian' or any other religious family who bring up their children with that set of values and that lens on the world - feels the need to seperate himself so much so from what is implied by the theory that he holds up (mistakenly) as 'Evolution' V 'Faith' never the twain should meet - and the 'reality' that exists. He's a reactionary - I think he reacted to 9/11 in a very human way, if a little misguided.

I think when he entered the evangelistic world and started proselytising Science as a 'worldview' it must have been a terrible embarrassment to very many in the scientific community. Science is only a tool, it's for everybody, and everybody can reap the benefits of new understanding and knowledge - it's not a worldview though, or a religion.

Tigger

Morbert wrote: »

But it would be true that you believe God exists. Similarly, statements made by atheists rejecting Social Darwinism is evidence that atheists reject Social Darwinism.

what statements

i see one statement saying evolutionists don't support social darwinisim

Tigger

Cossax wrote: »

Can you prove the majority of atheists believe in social Darwinism? No? Thought not.

i never said i could
however i reject the unsupported statement that they don't

ISAW

Before you go any further Morbert. What do you call someone who says "there is no god"?

Morbert wrote: »

the violent enforcement of religious oppression causes atrocities. Such oppression is something most atheists in the west (and, I would wager, elsewhere) have no interest in.

Atheists in the west are a tiny percentage of any country so no hope of them getting democratic takeover. Nice try at redefining atrocity as religion.
the thing is Christianity has run governments and been pushed as a state religion for about 2000 years. Few of those governments committed atrocities; added together they account millions of deaths over 2000 years. And that is low single digit millions.

Atheistic regimes spreading atheism (ther is no God) as a central philosophy:

again ad Fasgnadh has stated:
Note, none of my arguments are ABOUT GOD, I'm an agnostic,
they are all about Atheism, and in particular, why has every
atheist state in history been a totalitarian tyranny!?

...but they can't answer, and have RUN AWAY, thereby
admitting that the fault is THEIR INABILITY TO REFUTE
THE HISTORICAL TRUTH, not any lack of said historical truth...

..and then YOU bumble along, and demonstrate that atheists
can't even GRASP THE CHALLENGE, let alone meet it!

No. Social experiments full stop, whether they were atheistic or non-atheistic.

again fasgnadh:
> But it was not just the Atheism of the leadership, but of the entire
# > State apparatus;
#

# > The Atheist leadership's policies were implemented under
# > the red Terror, via gulags and executions,
# > the use of every arm of the state for anti-religious
# > propaganda and the forced indoctrination of CHILDREN!
# >
# > "the state established atheism as the only scientific truth."
# > - Daniel Peris,
# > "Storming the Heavens:
# > The Soviet League of the Militant Godless"
# > Cornell University Press 1998 ISBN 9780801434853
# >
# > "Criticism of atheism was strictly forbidden"

# > "Between 1917 and 1940, 130,000 Orthodox priests were arrested.
# > In 1918, the Cheka under Felix Dzerzhinsky executed over
# > 3000 Orthodox clergymen of all ranks.
# > Some were drowned in ice-holes or poured over with cold water
# > in winter until they turned to ice-pillars.
#
# Getting rid of the competition. Cleaning house.

Just like the Nazi's did! B^[

The Cambodian Genocide:

http://www.lietuvos.net/istorija/communism/communism_photos2/392millones.jpg

"The country's 40,000 to 60,000 Buddhist monks,
regarded by the regime as social parasites,
were defrocked and forced into labor brigades.
Many monks were executed; temples and pagodas were
destroyed or turned into storehouses or jails.
Images of the Buddha were defaced and dumped into
rivers and lakes. People who were discovered praying
or expressing religious sentiments in other ways
were often killed.

The Christian and Muslim communities were among the most
persecuted, as well. The Roman Catholic cathedral of
Phnom Penh was completely razed.

The Khmer Rouge forced Muslims to eat pork, which they
regard as an abomination. Many of those who refused were killed.
Christian clergy and Muslim imams were executed."
- http://countrystudies.us/cambodia/29.htm

"Forty-eight percent of Cambodia's Christians were killed
because of their religion."


http://www.lietuvos.net/istorija/communism/communism_photos2/44camboyano.jpg

Again, you say this as if it has any relevance to the claim that atheism causes atrocities. The fact that the common trend across all atrocities is not atheism, but rather oppressive and violent philosophies against people, should have put an end to your silly accusation weeks ago.

why then are christian atrocities rare and Atheist ones all genocidal? If they are only because of oppression why did atheistic regimes happen to kill hundreds of millions hundreds of times more than Christianity?
how come christian regimes are not of the same order of magnitude. Dont forget Christians make up majorities in countries but atheism is still a tiny minority.

Atheism is not a violent philosophy. It is a metaphysical statement about God, and the "New" atheist movement is perfectly happy to engage theism through discourse and debate.

Well you are running from this debate and new atheist are dismissive of Christianity

Mohandas

Does Atheism cause atrocities ?
No. And neither does religion.
Hate and haters cause atrocities.
So rather than get hung up on opposite beliefs - stop hating one another. Move on. Grow.

philologos

Why did you move this? Its logical place is in the Atheist / Christian debate thread.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

Why did you move this? Its logical place is in the Atheist / Christian debate thread.

I'd imagine it's because there are multiple on-thread warnings to stop discussing this topic in that thread.

philologos

Fair enough, another suggestion would be the A&A forum. Talking about this subject, is pretty much zero related to Christianity. Much in the same way that discussing so called religious atrocities of the past doesn't bring us any closer to discussing about Christianity or Jesus.

DistantShore

I have logged in here specifically to address the claim that "christian atrocities are rare and Atheist ones all genocidal".

The Crusades and the Inquisition quickly come to mind as two of several other examples of large-scale atrocities committed in the name of religion. However, I have another good example to mention: the colonisation of South America.

Tens of millions of indigenous people were murdered. Whole civilisations were wiped out. And, no, I am not exaggerating: all of this is well-documented in history. At the time, there was a debate over whether the indigenous people had souls or not; when the Catholic Church eventually decreed that they did and, therefore, could not be enslaved, African slaves were imported instead. The link below provides much more information on this subject:
http://freetruth.50webs.org/A4a.htm
In case someone considers the link biased, I can provide more sources, of which there is no shortage.

However, I would like to add that I fully agree with the comment that it is not religion or atheism that causes atrocities - the atrocities are caused by people, under different pretexts. Religion, atheism, eugenics, or any given ideology can be used for validation, to gain support, etc., but it is never really about religion or the lack thereof (or maybe should I say, it is never *only* about religion or the lack thereof). There seem to be huge interests (such as economic and political power) behind major historical events that have resulted in large-scale atrocities.

In terms of religion, it seems that this discussion is focusing on Christianity, but if we are to include other religions that have been used as a pretext for atrocities, we will end up with a considerably longer list. And for the sake of argument, it might be useful to have a definition of what one considers an "atrocity". If we are talking specifically about large-scale genocide, I believe I have already mentioned a few good examples on this post. If we are to include atrocities on the personal level, the list is also going to get much longer indeed.

PDN

If any poster has a compelling reason why this thread should be in the Christianity Forum rather than A&A then please PM me and I will reopen it.