Mao Tse-Tung and Pol Pot killed in the name of atheism

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I mean:

No person in human history has ever been influenced in any way by their lack of belief in god/s? True/false

For example, Richard Dawkins' atheism is completely irrelevant to his worldview. True/false

It's more that Dawkins has been influenced by (in his case pushed back against) the religious environment he finds himself surrounded by.

It's backward to talk about being influenced by what we lack or don't do. I mean, would you say that your physical well-being has been positively influenced by not juggling chainsaws? No - the lack of something is the baseline and departures from it are what influence us.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Uh, what? Are you talking about something that actually happened?

If you consider Mao and Maoists atheists, or the Soviet bloc officially atheist, these two regimes alone slaughtered tens of millions.

 

[Ponder This]

You got #1, wrong here. What you have instead is a Straw Man, a classic Logical Fallacy.

As you probably know, increasingly more atheists are self-defining themselves as people that lack a god belief. This includes both agnostic atheists and those that assert that "Gods do not exist" (gnostic atheists). A definition that includes only the latter is inadequate.

That's not my understanding. People who affirm that "Gods do not exist" are generally called strong (or gnostic) atheists, not antitheists. Antitheists, which is a poor term, are people that consider religion a net harm to the world and would like to see it diminish in its influence over humanity (I just left another RF thread started by a new member - a believer - who tells us that she is dying and is now dreading that she wont't be forgiven for her life and will be going to hell - not a nice way to spend your last few months).

Okay so atheists (or strong atheists), then (not antitheists). So the question is: Do people you assert the truth of the proposition that 'Gods do not exist' or people who are merely against religion in general justify the killings by Mao and Pol Pat? (And if so, how/why?)

And, of course, Mao and Pol Pot killed to acquire and consolidate power and to promote a political ideology, not for lack of a god belief. I hope the OP wasn't implying that having a god belief diminishes bloodlust and ruthlessness.

Interesting. But when you say 'political ideology', how was their lack of god belief not directly tied into that? Did I miss read the political ideology? Is god belief somehow not on the political agenda? Or do you mean that Mao and Pol Pat didn't care about the ideology and just wanted power? But in that case, in what way are you distinguishing between people who are advancing an ideology and people who merely purport to have a particular ideology?

 

[LuisDantas]

If you consider Mao and Maoists atheists, or the Soviet bloc officially atheist, these two regimes alone slaughtered tens of millions.

And that happened in the name of atheism... how or when?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you consider Mao and Maoists atheists, or the Soviet bloc officially atheist, these two regimes alone slaughtered tens of millions.

Why focus on their lack of belief in god as opposed to any of the other things they didn't do?

The Maoists and the Soviets also weren't fans of baseball and rarely if ever drank Mountain Dew. Why not pin their actions on those traits?

 

[LuisDantas]

Why focus on their lack of belief in god as opposed to any of the other things they didn't do?

The Maoists and the Soviets also weren't fans of baseball and rarely if ever drank Mountain Dew. Why not pin their actions on those traits?

Precisely. That tired claim is both misleading and irresponsible.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Precisely. That tired claim is both misleading and irresponsible.

I find it interesting how @Augustus and @BilliardsBall point to Soviet Russia as some sort of example of atheist evil, because when it comes right down to it, that's ultimately rooted in a religious cause, too.

The anti-clericalism in Soviet Russia was largely a response to the way the church supported the injustice and oppression of the Tsarist regime. They certainly went way too far, but it certainly wasn't unprovoked... kinda like a brutal revenge killing for the murder of a family member: horrific, but ultimately wouldn't have happened if not for the original murder.

 

[Ponder This]

In already answered that from my perspective in post #87.

Ah good. So then you would agree that there must be a flaw in the reasoning used (that the killings were a necessary consequence of either the proposition that 'Gods do not exist' or the proposition that 'Religion is made by man').

However as far as i am aware no religious person has yet responded to my counter question whether they justify the christian Hitler's mass murders

That's fair question, but I think their argument is that there were more killings committed in the name of atheism than there were killings committed in the name of Christianity. And therefore, the burden is on atheists to explain how their ideology is justified / more justified.​

 

[Augustus]

It's more that Dawkins has been influenced by (in his case pushed back against) the religious environment he finds himself surrounded by.

And his attitude to religion has, partly, been influenced by his philosophical perspective on the existence of gods.

It's backward to talk about being influenced by what we lack or don't do.

Happens all the time.

My lack of knowledge on quantum mechanics influences me when reading about related issues.

Many people have been influenced to work hard by growing up poor and lacking many things.

My lack of ability to speak French influences me to use subtitles when watching French films.

Why focus on their lack of belief in god as opposed to any of the other things they didn't do?

They actively believed there were no gods. This was a key part of their philosophy as repeatedly an unequivocally stated by Marx, Lenin, et al.

To the best of my knowledge, no text by Marx or Lenin bases essential aspects of their philosophy on beliefs on not drinking Mountain Dew.

It's not strange or disingenuous to use standard English in its standard meaning in its standard context. It is a bit disingenuous to pretend that people are committing some sort of fallacy for doing so though.

The anti-clericalism in Soviet Russia was largely a response to the way the church supported the injustice and oppression of the Tsarist regime.

That's a bit like saying their response to the landed aristocracy was largely a response to the way they supported the injustice and oppression of the Tsarist regime.

It was primarily because theistic religion it was anathema to the ideology of a totalitarian state, just like a landed gentry was.

 

[ChristineM]

Ah good. So then you would agree that there must be a flaw in the reasoning used (that the killings were a necessary consequence of either the proposition that 'Gods do not exist' or the proposition that 'Religion is made by man').



That's fair question, but I think their argument is that there were more killings committed in the name of atheism than there were killings committed in the name of Christianity. And therefore, the burden is on atheists to explain how their ideology is justified / more justified.​

Perhaps you have problems reading

As far as i am aware no killings have been made in the name of atheism but far too many in the name of nationalism

Please provide evidence of killing directly in the name of atheism and i will provide a list of wars throughout history in which more than 800 million people have been killed in the name of religion... If you want to go there.

 

[Augustus]

i will provide a list of wars throughout history in which more than 800 million people have been killed in the name of religion... If you want to go there.

Not a factually correct list though.

That's likely significantly more than have died in all wars combined in recorded history.

Have a pop, might be fun...

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Your reply was improperly formatted, so I couoldn't quote your words using the quote feature, and didn't want to do it the hard way. So I'll just say this: Atheism is not a belief, and nothing is justified by it. Not one belief I hold emanates from my atheism. Not one. It derives from two belief: skepticism, or the belief that one ought to have sufficient justification to believe anything, and that there isn't sufficient evidence to believe that gods exist.

It's the same two beliefs that account for my avampirism and aleprechaunism, and I'll bet you share those same two positions for the same two reasons - you're need a reason to believe in vampires and leprechauns, and don't have one. Atheism is identical.

How much of your world view derives from you aleprechaunism and a vampirism? What possible belief could you have because you haven't accepted the reality of leprechauns and vampires? Some belief about UFOs or birthdays or mountain chains or fast food drive-thrus?

I'm betting that Mao and Pol Pot were also avampirists and aleprechaunists. How many deaths can we blame on that? None, just as with atheism, and for the same reason.

This is the quality of this argument. Nobody does anything for any of these reasons.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I am an atheist. I don't recall electing you to speak on my behalf either.



Ironic when people falsely claim strawman while in the process of actually strawmannirg.

I said it was a belief, not a 'faith'.



See above and previous post.

Belief or faith is still incorrect. Sorry about that Chief.

Both belief and faith are positive actions-- you have faith (or you don't), you have belief (or you don't)

Atheism is the "don't" part of either of those things.

Thus, you were wrong before, and you are still wrong now.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Noted. Essentially what you are saying is that the term 'atheist' refers to 'agnostic atheists'. I think that's fair. And, in that case, the OP should've referred to Mao and Pol Pat more accurately as being antitheists (people who affirm the proposition 'Gods do not exist' is true). So I accept that your answer to the question is: you do not justify the actions of Mao and Pol Pat because you are an agnostic atheist and therefore are not yourself convinced of the truth of the statement 'Gods do not exist'. You think that maybe they do exist or maybe they don't exist. Moreover, you don't agree with the truth of the statement 'Religions are made by man', in other words, religions are 'make-believe'. Otherwise, you could just pick the argument up from line 2 and draw the same conclusion that 'millions must die'.

To be clear, this is an Equivocation Fallacy, a question of equivocating weak and strong atheists and not a Straw Man Fallacy in which I'm somehow presenting the wrong argument... I gave the basic Marxist argument that justifies the actions of communists such as Mao and Pol Pat against religions, did I not? Please do correct me if I'm wrong and there actually is some other argument we should be looking at instead of this one. If there is some other argument that is the correct one, then please do present it for me. I am not intending to present the wrong argument.

For starters, you are incorrectly typifying both Mao and Pol as atheists, when they each worshipped their ancestors, and believed in other supernatural woo.

Not atheists.

And once again? They did not kill people because they were theists-- they killed anyone they saw as a threat to their power-base.

They correctly saw organized religion as a threat to their iron-handed rule of the people.

Religion is in direct competition with government, in demanding control of people's lives.

It was not a lack of belief in gods that drove Mao and Pot --- it was Jealousy of Power and Control.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

If you consider Mao and Maoists atheists, or the Soviet bloc officially atheist, these two regimes alone slaughtered tens of millions.

Except they weren't....

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

That's fair question, but I think their argument is that there were more killings committed in the name of atheism than there were killings committed in the name of Christianity. And therefore, the burden is on atheists to explain how their ideology is justified / more justified.​

And their argument is 100% bogus, void, does not compute. Nobody kills for something they do NOT believe in...

Nobody kills because not enough people believe in leprechauns.

Nobody stars wars, because they don't believe in vampires-- and they don't want anyone else to either.

Nobody calls out the armies against their neighbor, because there isn't enough chainsaw juggling...

Its' absolutely bogus to claim anything or anyone killed or did violence, for something they do not personally believe in....

... as the case: atheists do not personally believe in gods or other supernatural woo.

Thus their bogus and frankly stupid argument is dismissed.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

(see previous post in this thread for the quote-- the auto-quote didn't work, besides it's right up there)

I think both Mao and Pot were very jealous of Power. Specifically, political power-- they would brook absolutely no competition of any stripe.

And I think they correctly saw any organized religion as a direct competitor to their power over the people-- and they could not stand even the semblance of such things-- so those were Right Out.

I expect that they would have eliminated any and all religious institutions even if they were a member, simply because of their seeming paranoia of any group or organization that represented a power base.

And indeed, that paranoia was not entirely unfounded-- there were groups bent on removing these people during their rein of terror.

I suspect atheist or no, was simply incidental to their respective Power Grabs.

I expect that you can say the same for Stalin, Hitler and many other Dictatorial Leaders. Look at that dirtbag down in Venezuela....

 

[Augustus]

Belief or faith is still incorrect. Sorry about that Chief.

Both belief and faith are positive actions-- you have faith (or you don't), you have belief (or you don't)

Not 'belief' as in faith, but a belief.

My point was that any self-identified atheist has taken a philosophical stance regarding the existence of gods be that 'no gods exist', 'there is no evidence that gods do exist', etc.

Thus, you were wrong before, and you are still wrong now.

Can you explain the mechanism by which someone using a normal word, with a normal meaning, in a normal context can be considered objectively 'wrong'?

The definition you use has only been around for about 40 years, so before that everyone must have been wrong

Words may have more than one meaning, and, unfortunately, you are neither 'king of atheism' nor 'king of The One True Proper English usage'.

 

[Augustus]

How much of your world view derives from you aleprechaunism and a vampirism?

I see this issue a bit differently.

My friend is really scared of ghosts. If she is alone, she will sleep with the lights on with TV blasting (actually lots of people over here have this issue because it is very common to believe in ghosts).

I like making her watch supernatural horror movies because it is funny to see how scared she gets. While I like horror as a genre, it doesn't scare me because I don't believe in ghosts.

My 'aghostism' certainly influences my response to horror movies, the same as her 'ghostism' does.

If aghostism can influence me, then atheism certainly must be able to due to the important role of gods in human culture and history. In a world profoundly shaped by theistic beliefs over the millennia, the philosophical stance taken towards the existence of gods potentially has many influences.

Ever since I was at infant school, not believing in gods has certainly influenced both my thoughts and actions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My point was that any self-identified atheist has taken a philosophical stance regarding the existence of gods be that 'no gods exist', 'there is no evidence that gods do exist', etc.

Irrelevant. As long as none of those stances are “I believe a god exists,” the person lacks belief in a god.

NOBODY is saying that atheists necessarily have no beliefs ABOUT gods. The point is that the defining characteristic of an atheist is that whatever beliefs they hold about gods or anything else, none of those beliefs are beliefs in any gods.

It’s very possible that an atheist could, say, reject the existence of Thor or Jehovah, just as they could also, say, believe that the Earth is round and the Red Sox are the best baseball team in the world... but none of this is relevant. This is that part you seem to have a mental block about.

It may very well be that we can’t hear about a baseball team without mentally ranking them relative to all the other teams we know; it may be cognitively impossible for an atheist - or anyone else - not to have a favourite baseball team. Still, it would be ridiculous to demand that an atheist defend why his favourite team is “the best,” because it has nothing to do with whether a person is an atheist.

Same with opinions ABOUT gods. The question of how a person regards a god he doesn’t believe in has nothing to do with the only characteristic that matters when deciding whether a person is an atheist: how many gods do they accept as existing? If the answer is one or more, they’re some sort of theist; otherwise, they’re an atheist. That’s it.