Anything good about religion at all?

The Bishop!

MagicMarker wrote: »

Can you highlight that hypocrisy for me again, as I think I missed it? All I saw was you misrepresenting Harris' position.

Harris is a master at misrepresenting the Islamic worlds position. He's forged a nice little career out of it.

Just sayin'.

MagicMarker

The Bishop! wrote: »

Harris is a master at misrepresenting the Islamic worlds position. He's forged a nice little career out of it.

Just sayin'.

Cool story bro.

The Bishop!

MagicMarker wrote: »

Cool story bro.

It's for another thread sometime i suppose.

nagirrac

MagicMarker wrote: »

Can you highlight that hypocrisy for me again, as I think I missed it? All I saw was you misrepresenting Harris' position.

Harris is a great defender of the Israeli state, a state organized and set up based on religion, essentially a theocracy. Even without getting into the state sponsored terrorism issue and the dreadful human rights record issue, if you can rationalize that with an atheist position then fair enough but I would call it hypocrisy.
You are very good at asking questions, how about answering one?
Do you believe that atheists are less likely to commit atrocities against fellow humans if they gain absolute political power? What evidence do you have to back this up?

Michael OBrien

nagirrac wrote: »

No (on all counts). All people except for the most extreme psychopaths are capable of good and bad, to think otherwise is naive. The most murderous baxtard you could imagine in a war is capable of laying down his life for a comrade and there are plenty examples. Likewise people who were "good" all their lives are capable of the most extreme crimes against their fellow man. Nazi Germany is a good example, did literally a whole country of Germans become "bad" in one generation and yet became "good" the next generation? No, good people became bad under the influence of evil doctrine and power.

What it takes to make good people do bad things is generally being influenced by a belief system that differentiates people by race, color, creed, etc. and having the power to exercise that discrimination. The latter is clearly not just due to religion although it frequently has been. Lots of bad happened during the French Revolution, most of the leaders were staunchly atheist. There was nothing particularly religious about the Nazis, they were racists first and foremost. Communism in Russia replaced religion by atheism, not a whole lot of good came from that. Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot were certainly not religious and essentially atheists, does that make atheism bad? No, but one can just as easily ask based on the bloody history of the 20th century "is there anything good about atheism?" It also makes a mockery of Dawkins (him again!) who constantly compares the worst of religion with the best of humanity, an absurd position.

The reality of humanity as Lord Acton correctly stated is "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". This is unfortunately true regardless of whether it is religious or atheists gaining absolute power.

"No, good people became bad under the influence of evil doctrine and power." Thanks for proving my point. Religion is all about those very things. Doctrines and power.
I never said good people CANNOT do bad things (as my text clearly shows in the last part), but they ONLY think to do BAD things, as if they were GOOD things, due to religion (or similar doctrines I will grant you that). Of all doctrines, religion is the worst, as it is immune to reason. Only by abandoning religious adherance are most theists 'moderates'. Those that keep to the original texts are fundamentalists, and therefore unreasonable.

"Lots of bad happened during the French Revolution, most of the leaders were staunchly atheist." Read Thomas paine, or Robert Ingersoll. Theism poluted the waters so much prior to the revolution that the 'atheists' were reactionary and most incapable of reason.

"There was nothing particularly religious about the Nazis, they were racists first and foremost." Please don't pretend the old Hitler was an atheist card is valid. The majority of the nazi party was christian, there were squads of muslims, they were friendly with the church, Hitler's speechs are full or religious retoric and the VAST majority of Germany that supported them were christian. Hitler murders millions of atheists, spoke out against atheism and hated us completely. He might have lost interest in christianity a bit near the end, but he was a die hard theist.

"Communism in Russia replaced religion by atheism, not a whole lot of good came from that." More fallacies. Stalinist Communism replaced the religion with a personality cult. Atheism has no tenants at all, its a null position on one topic. Theism was largely responsible for Stalin's reign as well, in regard to the ease he became a deity (for that was pretty much his status, as absolute authority with unlimited power). The church has set the population up to obey unquestioningly a religious system. All stalin did was swop out one authority and put himself in there instead.
He was scientifically illiterate, dogmatic and egotistical. Remind you of anything?

"but one can just as easily ask based on the bloody history of the 20th century "is there anything good about atheism?"" Incorrect. There is nothing good or bad in ANY regard to atheism, its a null position on one topic. You might say that about philosophies groups of atheists can hold, and some people disagree with secular humanism, or transhumanism, or atheistic buddhism and if there are issues with those ideologies they can be addressed as they are NOT dogmatic in comparison to religion. Certainly as a secular humanist I am open enough to question anything I believe in, and those I met are in similar mode. There can be dogmatic people (of any type), but atheism, as it stands, asks for nothing other than disbelief in a god or gods. Compare that to huge books filled with rules based on divine dictates. No contest.

How can you argue with the unknown? thats what religion bases its tenants on. Something unknown, unquestionable, untouchable and even unimaginable. Compare that to other non theistic ideologies, that can be dumped, replaced or modified far easier with far less resistance.

"This is unfortunately true regardless of whether it is religious or atheists gaining absolute power." Once again you miss the point. While indeed atheists can become corrupted by power, the corruption does not, and can not, stem from atheism itself as there is no rules, guidelines, dogmas, tracts, holy texts or even polite suggestions.
The criticisms towards atheists should instead focus on their ACTUAL belief systems, whic are derived elsewhere, whether that be the fringe Raelians or lavayan satanists, or a concept of abstract deism, or humanism or rationalism, pluralism, secularism, etc.

Michael OBrien

The Bishop! wrote: »

Is this a no true Scotsman fallacy in itself though?

While it may be true that atheists reject moral authority in general, it could also be said that atheism or atheist belief in the inherrant danger of religion has been used by the likes of Hitchens and Harris(the so-called authorities of atheist thought) to manufacture support for violent acts of war.
A form of radical secularism to justify aggressive foreign policy. It could be said they're religious fanatics; who believe in the state religion. Militant atheism.

Hitchens is against such a state, and stated publically. HE was a secularist.
"militant" atheism seems to be a lable applied to any atheist that opens his mouth publically to make any ripples what so ever. However when someone thinks militant islam, you see buildings falling, or murder, or militant christianity you see witch burnings and crusades.
Nor are there any authorities of atheists, Dawkins and Krauss have both denounced the very concept of being called authorities, even in their scientific fields. You are building strawmen, how about getting back to reality.

Michael OBrien

nagirrac wrote: »

I am not defending religion, I was responding to the (ridiculous) assertion that only religion turns good people into bad people. Personally I have no interest or time for organized religion and that dates back to growing up in rural Ireland in the 1970s when trust me such views were not very popular.

My point is the linkage between religion and violence and contrasting it with atheism and pacifism is a very poor one and tries to ignore all the violence perpetrated by dogmatic atheists. It basically makes the argument that religion is bad because it leads to violence but atheism is good and there are just a few bad individual atheists. The same argument can be made about religion, isn't that the argument that a few bad priests should not undermine the teachings of Jesus Christ? The point is its not religion that's the problem, its people. Humanity will use and has used any belief system (and atheism is a belief system) to claim they are superior to people who have other beliefs, and when people with strong beliefs get to power generally fanaticism and violence follows. When Marxists came to power in Russia they replaced teaching religion in schools by teaching atheism. Look at the enlightenment that followed!
In the words of Blaise Pascal: "Thinking too little about things or too much makes us obstinate and fanatical".

"I was responding to the (ridiculous) assertion that only religion turns good people into bad people." Pity you failed to actually understand my post then. I did not say it made good people bad people, I said it made good people DO bad things. They still thought they were being good or faithful, and their religion supported that delusion. Female genital mutilation is a perfect example of this. If it was not required due to religious culture, do you really think anyone would condone it?

The Bishop!

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Hitchens is against such a state, and stated publically. HE was a secularist.
"militant" atheism seems to be a lable applied to any atheist that opens his mouth publically to make any ripples what so ever. However when someone thinks militant islam, you see buildings falling, or murder, or militant christianity you see witch burnings and crusades.

All labels are offensive to someone. Yeah the militant atheist one comes up a lot with Hitchens and Harris. Dawkins also qualifies imv, along with a few others.

Saying something like "well, at least we're not as bad as such-and-such" doesn't really apply to the term or its legitimacy for me. But each to his own definition.

You are building strawmen

Post 9/11, that's when the American imperialism industry and the militant atheist industry sort of got into bed with each other for mutual gain.
That's when the militant atheist meme really took off. And they're still riding the bandwagon.

Saying Hitchens was a secularist may be accurate. The uncomfortable question remains for his fans at least to ask is how he interpreted this secularism.
His long time friend Alexander Cockburn wrote a very frank obituary on his later views.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/12/16/farewell-to-c-h/

nagirrac

Michael OBrien wrote: »

"I was responding to the (ridiculous) assertion that only religion turns good people into bad people." Pity you failed to actually understand my post then. I did not say it made good people bad people, I said it made good people DO bad things. They still thought they were being good or faithful, and their religion supported that delusion. Female genital mutilation is a perfect example of this. If it was not required due to religious culture, do you really think anyone would condone it?

Apologies for misquoting you in the above response. I stand by my original response to your post however. It is too convenient for atheists to assert that atrocities committed by dogmatic atheists were due to something else in their belief systems. Atheism is a belief system and all belief systems seem vulnerable to evil under the right or rather wrong circumstances.
FGM has been around for a long time (early Eqyptians?) so not sure about linking it to at least modern religions, its no different to other barbaric practices from the distant past that should be outlawed in any civilized society.
I respect your position, it is reasonable and well thought out, but your original assertion that "good people do good things, bad people do bad things, but religion is the only thing that makes good people do bad things" is I think open to debate. Do you honestly believe that all racism is due to religion for example? Some of the most racist people I have met demonstrate no interest in religion.

robindch

The Bishop! wrote: »

Is this a no true Scotsman fallacy in itself though?

Uh, yes.

The Bishop! wrote: »

While it may be true that atheists reject moral authority in general, it could also be said that atheism or atheist belief in the inherrant danger of religion has been used by the likes of Hitchens and Harris(the so-called authorities of atheist thought) to manufacture support for violent acts of war. A form of radical secularism to justify aggressive foreign policy. It could be said they're religious fanatics; who believe in the state religion. Militant atheism.

But many religious who believe in state religion, or at least the supremacy of a personal religion also use the same radical belief to justify their own aggressive policies, whether they're foreign or not. And that can happen whether or not they agree or disagree with the moral authority which they have chosen to elevate to a position of supremacy within their own moral universe above the more secular, non-moral authorities which populate the imaginations of individuals who don't assert the same kind of militant beliefs. But having said that, it could could go either way and a lot of the final decision, or the meat thereof, is simply down to personal preference, perhaps viewed through the prism of a stern normative moral authority, or a credible personal facsimile thereof. I hope you get my drift.

nagirrac wrote: »

Authoritarian personality is independent of left or right, religious or atheist.

In quoting Altemeyer or Haidt, all I'm doing is pointing out the results of current social and psychological research. You are free to accept, or not, their tentative conclusions, though...

nagirrac wrote: »

Even though I am a liberal I regard Altemeyer as completely off base for reasons I don't have time to go into now but hopefully will get back to later.

...it would certainly add a lot to your argument if you would explain why they're wrong, rather than just saying they are. And having read your posts here over the last few weeks, I don't think that we agree on the meaning of the word "liberal" either.

nagirrac

robindch wrote: »

And having read your posts here over the last few weeks, I don't think that we agree on the meaning of the word "liberal" either.

Well, have at it then, where do we fail to agree on the meaning of the word "liberal"? Let's debate that, examples please.

robindch

nagirrac wrote: »

where do we fail to agree on the meaning of the word "liberal"? Let's debate that, examples please.

You self-describe as "liberal", but most of your posts suggest you have a well-developed authoritarian mindset - particularly your strange view that atheism is somehow associated with totalitarianism.

The Bishop!

robindch wrote: »

But many religious who believe in state religion, or at least the supremacy of a personal religion also use the same radical belief to justify their own aggressive policies, whether they're foreign or not. And that can happen whether or not they agree or disagree with the moral authority which they have chosen to elevate to a position of supremacy within their own moral universe above the more secular, non-moral authorities which populate the imaginations of individuals who don't assert the same kind of militant beliefs. But having said that, it could could go either way and a lot of the final decision, or the meat thereof, is simply down to personal preference, perhaps viewed through the prism of a stern normative moral authority, or a credible personal facsimile thereof. I hope you get my drift.

Just about. After the third reading. True enough maybe. I think.

I need to go walk the earth and think about that for a while.:o

nagirrac

robindch wrote: »

You self-describe as "liberal", but most of your posts suggest you have a well-developed authoritarian mindset - particularly your strange view that atheism is somehow associated with totalitarianism.

I am as anti-authoritarian as anyone you could meet
Atheism is associated with totalitarianism, whether you like it or not is another issue. I don't understand fully why atheists kill innocent people en masse, the fact however is they do it with alarming regularity whenever they get the chance to (assume absolute power). Since 1917 there have been 28 countries with avowed atheists at the helm and the body count is staggering. For all the fingers that can be pointed at religioius atrocities in history, there are no examples up to the French Revolution and the 20th century of governments slaughtering their own citizens en masse.
Any unbiased study of history would conclude that religion is not the problem that caused mass atrocities and untold human suffering, it is government, and government in the 20th century was particularly bloodthirsty.
I am not having a bash at atheists in terms of their beliefs, I am genuinely curious as to why atheists when they get into positions of power appear to want to "remake man" which generally results in slaughter.

Hotblack Desiato

Hmm no time for organsed religion but maintains atheism=slaughter.

Next!

nagirrac

In case my previous post sounded like a wum, a few facts and figues to back it up. I am neither a religious proponent nor an atheist so I have no skin in the game (and to the previous poster, ninja, yes its reasonable to be against both the extremes of religious fanaticism and atheist fanaticism).
The suggestion by Harris (in particular), Dawkins, Hitchens and other militant atheists is that most war has its roots in religion. The 3 volume "Encyclopedia of Wars" published by Phillips and Axelrod in 2005 lists 1,763 wars in recorded human history, 123 or 7% of which were religious wars. Almost 50% of the religious wars have been waged by Islamists so the argument can be made that they are the most violent religion (and the most recent of the major religions).
The linkage between war and religion just does not add up.
So moving on to modern times and the "no true scotsman" argument, this is where the atheist argument falls apart.
Atheist: Atheists don't kill people because they have no reason to do so
Response: Stalin and Mao were atheists
Atheist: Then Stalin and Mao were no true atheists
Communism is not a religion, it is a political ideology with its beliefs firmly rooted in atheism, and while the Communism of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Meng-istu and Kim Il-Sung may differ the one thing they all had in common was militant atheism. There have been 28 countries since the Russian Revolution that were or are ruled by avowed atheists. The total body count of domestic citizens murdered by these regimes in that time is estimated (midpoint in the attached data) at over 100 Million. www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB16A.1.GIF
The number of domestic murders by democratic regimes (which far outnumber communist regimes run by atheists) is less than 200,000 over the same period. Is it just coincidence that atheist leaders kill such high percentages of their own people? I don't have the answer but its pretty damning evidence.

pauldla

nagirrac wrote: »

I am not defending religion, I was responding to the (ridiculous) assertion that only religion turns good people into bad people. Personally I have no interest or time for organized religion and that dates back to growing up in rural Ireland in the 1970s when trust me such views were not very popular.

My point is the linkage between religion and violence and contrasting it with atheism and pacifism is a very poor one and tries to ignore all the violence perpetrated by dogmatic atheists. It basically makes the argument that religion is bad because it leads to violence but atheism is good and there are just a few bad individual atheists. The same argument can be made about religion, isn't that the argument that a few bad priests should not undermine the teachings of Jesus Christ? The point is its not religion that's the problem, its people. Humanity will use and has used any belief system (and atheism is a belief system) to claim they are superior to people who have other beliefs, and when people with strong beliefs get to power generally fanaticism and violence follows. When Marxists came to power in Russia they replaced teaching religion in schools by teaching atheism. Look at the enlightenment that followed!
In the words of Blaise Pascal: "Thinking too little about things or too much makes us obstinate and fanatical".

I'm not aware that anybody is saying that only religion turns good people into bad people. That would be a foolish thing to say, and you rightly take issue with it. But I'm not saying that, and I don't think anybody else is, either.

The point I'm making is that dictators such as Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot etc take the structures, methods and aims of religion, but replace the focus with something else. Instead of using a godhead, they use themselves, their own cult of personality, the glorious Workers Paradise to come, their state/nation/race, etc, and in so doing, they apply the apparatus of organised religion to the state.

You mention above that atheism is associated with totalitarianism. This is true, in that many totalitarian states do profess to be atheist, but I can think of no reason why a totalitarian state could not also take a god as its focus. Totalitarian states by definition will brook no competition, and so will not allow themselves to be challenged by organised religions, unless they operate under the aegis of the state (see modern China, for example). But there is no reason why a totalitarian state could not be focused on the Glorious Leader any more than on Jesus or Allah. In any case, are you suggesting that Mao, Stalin etc were motivated by their atheism? That they did what they did because they were atheist?

One further point: from reading some of your other posts, I can't help but wonder if you are confusing religion with theism?

nagirrac

pauldla wrote: »

You mention above that atheism is associated with totalitarianism. This is true, in that many totalitarian states do profess to be atheist, but I can think of no reason why a totalitarian state could not also take a god as its focus. Totalitarian states by definition will brook no competition, and so will not allow themselves to be challenged by organised religions, unless they operate under the aegis of the state (see modern China, for example). But there is no reason why a totalitarian state could not be focused on the Glorious Leader any more than on Jesus or Allah. In any case, are you suggesting that Mao, Stalin etc were motivated by their atheism? That they did what they did because they were atheist?

I honestly don't have the answer and to be quite frank it is a question that greatly bothers me. If you break down the data I attached to my last post by regime and years in power there were 52 leaders who were avowed atheists and presided over the killing of at least 20,000 of their own people during their time in power. Obviously Stalin and Mao are the biggest offenders but taking country by country population into account the % killed is significant in each of the 28 countries. There is no such murderous behavior in countries that were ruled by religious, theist, deist authoritarian leaders or democratic leaders.
Although I am talking about the leaders here and not the general population, obviously quite a few of the general population went along with the carnage for it to happen on such a large scale. The Nazis are interesting in that they were nominally Christian, at least until they came to power. However, there is a lot of evidence from the Nurenburg trials that the leaders despised Christianity (because it did not fit with their ideals?) and were planning a new state religion. I agree with you that what was implemented in most of these regimes was a kind of state religion without any God concept but no other religion in history has anything remotely like that level of slaughter of its own citizens.

pauldla

nagirrac wrote: »

I honestly don't have the answer and to be quite frank it is a question that greatly bothers me. If you break down the data I attached to my last post by regime and years in power there were 52 leaders who were avowed atheists and presided over the killing of at least 20,000 of their own people during their time in power. Obviously Stalin and Mao are the biggest offenders but taking country by country population into account the % killed is significant in each of the 28 countries. There is no such murderous behavior in countries that were ruled by religious, theist, deist authoritarian leaders or democratic leaders.
Although I am talking about the leaders here and not the general population, obviously quite a few of the general population went along with the carnage for it to happen on such a large scale. The Nazis are interesting in that they were nominally Christian, at least until they came to power. However, there is a lot of evidence from the Nurenburg trials that the leaders despised Christianity (because it did not fit with their ideals?) and were planning a new state religion. I agree with you that what was implemented in most of these regimes was a kind of state religion without any God concept but no other religion in history has anything remotely like that level of slaughter of its own citizens.

Well, if we take Mao as an example, the greatest loss of life under his stewardship occured during the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. The GLF was a combination of disastrous government policies coupled with natural disaster (or policies blindly - dare I say religiously? - followed in the face of natural disaster). Millions died, but was it because the CCP was atheist? Did Mao being (probably) atheist lead him to implement these policies? The CR is a whole other kettle of fish. His cult of personality went into overdrive and it was basically a decade-long pogrom. Again, I'd find it hard to accept that it happened because of state or the leaders' atheism.

On the figures issue, it's one to approach carerfully, I think. It could be argued that the 20th Century dictators had 20th Century resources at their disposal, and hence the bodycounts are mind-numbingly high. If we're going to include deaths from famine, disease etc in our numbers, we're going to have to give the Conquistadors a mention in our reckoning of high bodycounts; and they most certainly did kill in the name of religion, and in the name of god.

MagicMarker

nagirrac wrote: »

You are very good at asking questions, how about answering one?
Do you believe that atheists are less likely to commit atrocities against fellow humans if they gain absolute political power? What evidence do you have to back this up?

No I don't believe it, and I don't think anyone is making the claim that an atheist with absolute power would commit less atrocities than a theist under the same circumstances.

The question is not who commits the least number of atrocities, but what are the motivations behind the atrocities committed. I think you'll find most people here would be of the opinion that such atrocities are not motivated by atheism.

nagirrac

MagicMarker wrote: »

No I don't believe it, and I don't think anyone is making the claim that an atheist with absolute power would commit less atrocities than a theist under the same circumstances.

The question is not who commits the least number of atrocities, but what are the motivations behind the atrocities committed. I think you'll find most people here would be of the opinion that such atrocities are not motivated by atheism.

If you read my last few posts I am making the point, backed up by factual evidence, that avowed atheists in positions of absolute power have committed mindnumbing numbers of murders on their own populations since 1917. Not just in the USSR and China but in 28 different countries.
You see no such atrocities committed by theists although theist regimes, both authoritarian and democratic, greatly outnumber atheist regimes.
What do you think the motivations are that lead people to be such bloodthirsty murdering savages?
I don't have an answer by the way, hoping that somebody on here might have an idea.

pauldla

nagirrac wrote: »

If you read my last few posts I am making the point, backed up by factual evidence, that avowed atheists in positions of absolute power have committed mindnumbing numbers of murders on their own populations since 1917. Not just in the USSR and China but in 28 different countries.
You see no such atrocities committed by theists although theist regimes, both authoritarian and democratic, greatly outnumber atheist regimes.
What do you think the motivations are that lead people to be such bloodthirsty murdering savages?
I don't have an answer by the way, hoping that somebody on here might have an idea.

This is starting to get a little bit silly. You'll have to prove that they did these things because they were atheists, and that they did them in the name of atheism.

Obliq

pauldla wrote: »

This is starting to get a little bit silly. You'll have to prove that they did these things because they were atheists, and that they did them in the name of atheism.

I don't know if you'd have to prove that they did them in the name of atheism. Is it possible that the cognitive dissonance necessary to believe oneself "right" to obliterate the citizens you have power over is less kept in check (less dissonant) for an atheist totalitarian leader than by those that have belief in a "divine" right, and therefore belief in scriptures that firmly say killing is completely wrong? It doesn't seem to follow really, looking at Nazism for example, but could it? On a personal level I mean - in terms of how certain totalitarian leaders who profess atheism have acted.

Not playing devil's advocate here - just on reading all these views, this question comes up for me.

Hotblack Desiato

Obliq wrote: »

Is it possible that the cognitive dissonance necessary to believe oneself "right" to obliterate the citizens you have power over is less kept in check (less dissonant) for an atheist totalitarian leader than by those that have belief in a "divine" right, and therefore belief in scriptures that firmly say killing is completely wrong?

Plenty of theist leaders and killers who had firm belief that god was on their side, or indeed told them to do it. I could equally argue that when someone believes it is their divine duty to do X then they will be more determined to carry it out.

Obliq

ninja900 wrote: »

Plenty of theist leaders and killers who had firm belief that god was on their side, or indeed told them to do it. I could equally argue that when someone believes it is their divine duty to do X then they will be more determined to carry it out.

Yes, I completely agree that one could equally argue that. I'm thinking that a psychopathic nature is a necessity, plus a narcissistic world view, in order to believe (as someone who has risen to leader of a nation) that you have a right, divine or otherwise, to slaughter citizens or people you see as "less than people". I don't know if anything holds such people back from wholesale slaughter, and I can certainly see how such egos can compel a nation to follow them down this road, whether theist or atheist.

My original question still stands though (and I'm hoping that it wouldn't hold water actually!) and I don't know if any studies have been done into the mindset of individuals who order killing/do it themselves as to whether it makes any difference to how far they will go if they do this "in the name of" or "in their own name".

I rather think that someone who is that megalomaniac in nature always acts entirely in their own name (according themselves god-like status) and merely absolves themselves with their belief system (persuading their followers of it as they do so).

pauldla

Obliq wrote: »

Yes, I completely agree that one could equally argue that. I'm thinking that a psychopathic nature is a necessity, plus a narcissistic world view, in order to believe (as someone who has risen to leader of a nation) that you have a right, divine or otherwise, to slaughter citizens or people you see as "less than people". I don't know if anything holds such people back from wholesale slaughter, and I can certainly see how such egos can compel a nation to follow them down this road, whether theist or atheist.

My original question still stands though (and I'm hoping that it wouldn't hold water actually!) and I don't know if any studies have been done into the mindset of individuals who order killing/do it themselves as to whether it makes any difference to how far they will go if they do this "in the name of" or "in their own name".

I rather think that someone who is that megalomaniac in nature always acts entirely in their own name (according themselves god-like status) and merely absolves themselves with their belief system (persuading their followers of it as they do so).

Not sure, but it seems to me that when life is taken that way, it's usually done in the name of a cause or higher power. People can be quite callous once it's been okay'ed from above. Does that help answer the question...?

Obliq

pauldla wrote: »

Not sure, but it seems to me that when life is taken that way, it's usually done in the name of a cause or higher power. People can be quite callous once it's been okay'ed from above. Does that help answer the question...?

True for you. That's everyone under the head honcho, eh? It's the number one position I'm interested in here.....the theist leader accords themselves the luxury of having been okayed from above. Where does the atheist stand?
Your answer really only helped clarify my question, sorry! Gotta go out now, damn. Over and out.

pauldla

Obliq wrote: »

True for you. That's everyone under the head honcho, eh? It's the number one position I'm interested in here.....the theist leader accords themselves the luxury of having been okayed from above. Where does the atheist stand?
Your answer really only helped clarify my question, sorry! Gotta go out now, damn. Over and out.

Not that Mao, Stalin, Hitler or any of that ilk ever got much blood on their hands themselves, of course. Far too canny for that: no point keeping a dog and barking yourself.

Where does the atheist stand? Anywhere, I suppose.

robindch

nagirrac wrote: »

Authoritarian personality is independent of left or right, religious or atheist.

nagirrac wrote: »

Atheism is associated with totalitarianism [...]

You should decide on a position and then stick to it

The point here is really quite simple:

The vast majority, and perhaps all, of the violence you've referred to above has been committed by people in the name of a range of ideologies and nominally in support of the same ideologies. The ideologies concerned have been very similar -- they tend to be intensely authoritarian, supremacist, universalist, containing lots of hero-worship; the states have been effectively single-party states; all effectively totalitarian, and where atheism existed, it was forced atheism, just as much a religion was forced in the earlier theocracies.

What you haven't done is shown that the murders that these people committed (directly or otherwise) has any connection at all with atheism.

starch4ser

Some great fairy tales to tell your kids before bedtime