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

[BilliardsBall]

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?

I believe you are familiar with Stalin's statement, for example, that atheism liberated him toward committing atrocities.

But the point remains--religious wars account for a fraction of the deaths that atheist beasts unleashed in this world.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

Thank you for opening my eyes! Only following your post do I understand:

The wicked pogroms and repressions of the religious Tsarists justifies, even is responsible for, atheists butchering tens of millions of atheist and religious Soviets and putting tens of millions more in frozen Gulags. THANK YOU FOR ENLIGHTENING ME.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Except they weren't....

OH! OH!!!!! THANK YOU FOR EXPLAINING HOW CHINA AND THE SOVIETS TOLERATED RELIGION AND ALLOWED FREE RELIGIOUS PRACTICE TO FLOURISH IN THEIR COMMUNIST TOTALITARIAN PARADISES.

Thanks again!

 

[LuisDantas]

The Maoists and the Soviet bloc were officially atheist, these two ATHEIST regimes alone slaughtered tens of millions because there was no religious restraint employed.

Are you purposefully avoiding an answer to my question?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I believe you are familiar with Stalin's statement, for example, that atheism liberated him toward committing atrocities.

But the point remains--religious wars account for a fraction of the deaths that atheist beasts unleashed in this world.

You might as well point out that they were right handed, and then lay all those deaths on being right handed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe you are familiar with Stalin's statement, for example, that atheism liberated him toward committing atrocities.

I'm not, actually.

But the point remains--religious wars account for a fraction of the deaths that atheist beasts unleashed in this world.

What are you counting as a religious war?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Thank you for opening my eyes! Only following your post do I understand:

The wicked pogroms and repressions of the religious Tsarists justifies, even is responsible for, atheists butchering tens of millions of atheist and religious Soviets and putting tens of millions more in frozen Gulags. THANK YOU FOR ENLIGHTENING ME.

It doesn't justify anything. It's a causal factor, not an excuse.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Argument from popularity fallacy?

I'm really not sure you understand how language works.




I'm an actual atheist. It's not a 'theistic' version. You still don't understand how language works.

You are confusing your personal preference with some kind of objective decree on acceptable usage that overwrites all other existing conventions.

Meaning of words derives from usage conventions and contexts, rather than whatever tickles Bob's fancy at a given point in time.

Nope. You are still quite wrong. And now? You have stooped into the Logical Fallacy of Ad Homenem: you are attempting to insult the messenger (me, in this case) because you lack any reasonable argument.

Heck-- you did not even fall back on the "Well, the Dictionary Seze I'm Right" fallacy.

And you continue with the "Is not, Is not" not-an-argument.

You've been schooled by me and several others on this very page-- and yet? You persist in your false claims....!

Sad.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

No idea about other people, but I was an atheist (in the disbelief sense) before I even knew what scepticism (or atheism) were. I was probably 5 or 6.

I also know how this disbelief influenced my thoughts and actions.

I doubt I'm particularly unique in this regard.

You were fortunate, in that you clearly did not experience the strong programming regimen that is all too common among forced church attendance.

Alas, I was dragged to church against my personal choice, from age zero to when I finally left home-- whereupon I summarily quit. (yes-yes-- I did not rebel until I was old enough to possess will. )

I was lured back, as an adult, because of a desire to Belong. By then, I was more or less a Deist with Charlie Brownish Overtones. <snerk>

But the mental programming I received while being forced to sit thorough service after service was quite insidious.

Lucky for me? I was also exposed to sound Science for all of that time, too-- dad subscribed to National Geographic, and by the time I was 7? I personally subscribed to both Popular Science and Popular Mechanics magazines-- I kept those going well into my 20's....

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

OH! OH!!!!! THANK YOU FOR EXPLAINING HOW CHINA AND THE SOVIETS TOLERATED RELIGION AND ALLOWED FREE RELIGIOUS PRACTICE TO FLOURISH IN THEIR COMMUNIST TOTALITARIAN PARADISES.

Thanks again!

That had zip-all to do with atheism. But I take your attempt to lie in the name of your beliefs once again, as a demonstration that cognitive dissonance is Alive And Well among the Faithful.

It kinda has to be-- what with the reliance on internally contradictory Holey Books you all seem to have...

But more to the point? THEY DID TOLERATE CERTAIN FLAVORS OF RELIGION. Eastern Orthodox, for example THRIVED under the USSR. How about that?

China's culture includes Ancestor Worship -- which also THRIVED, and still does to this day.

It's just that these RELIGIONS are ... obviously.... not ones YOU, PERSONALLY approved of.

How HORRIBLE of them to fail to recognize YOUR authority like that! Forsooth!

Perhaps you can CURSE them like a fig tree?

 

[Ponder This]

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.

I'm sorry if it seems that way, but perhaps I wasn't clear. You can claim that Mao and Pol Pat didn't act on behalf of atheism according to your definition and even say that we shouldn't label them or their action as such, but that doesn't mean that Mao and Pol Pat weren't carrying out a perceived atheist agenda - an agenda whose basis was the propositions that 'Gods do not exist', 'Religions are make-believe', and the seemingly logical corollaries to that. Is that not what is meant when people say they 'killed in the name of atheism'?

Since you do not believe that Mao and Pol Pat were justified, then on which point do they fail?
Do they fail because:

A. The proposition that 'Gods do not exist' is false.
B. It does not follow that 'Religions are made by man, provide false happiness, and / or are tools to oppress, enslave, and manipulate'.
C. It does not further follow that religion must be abolished for people to find 'real' happiness'.
D. It does not further follow that millions of people must die before that can happen.

I'm not trying to be dense here. I believe this is the basic argument for the justification of their actions. If their argument for justifying their actions is not correct, then there must be some point on which you disagree specifically. Or that there was a different justification used for their actions?

 

[Shad]

The Maoists and the Soviet bloc were officially atheist, these two ATHEIST regimes alone slaughtered tens of millions because there was no religious restraint employed.

You do not understand Marx. Religion is seen as a false perception of reality, this is an absolute. Such religious restraint is not entertained as it is false to it's core as religion is false This is true even if one sees the result as positive like say charity. Religion divides people thus is a threat to the proper perception to reality and the society created from it. People that do not abandon their religion are a threat to the new social order by holding to false idea which created the world Marx wanted to destroy and replace.

 

[Ponder This]

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.

You would be correct if the justification for their actions was not based upon the proposition
'Vampires do not exist',
'Leprechauns do not exist',
or similar such proposition.

However, in their case I believe the justification for their actions is based upon the proposition
'Gods do not exist'

Therefore, your objection that atheism is not a belief and, therefore, nothing is justified by it, is not relevant.

'atheism' is 'disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods'
'disbelief in the existence of God or gods' is belief in the statement 'Gods do not exist'.

 

[Ponder This]

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.

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.

(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....

Okay. So what you are saying is that Mao and Pol Pat didn't actually care about atheism. So their motivations were not rooted in the belief 'Gods do not exist'. Given that we can probably argue about their motivations forever, I'll concede that as a fair point.

But regardless of their motivation, what was the justification for their actions? What reason did they give to justify the deaths? Did they say, 'Our reason for killing these people is that we want power and control'? Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there was another reason they used to justify their actions. If someone can just say what that was, I'll consider the question answered.

I mean I can probably say anybody who ever did any of these mass killings we are talking about did so for 'power and control'. I could say that's why Hitler killed the Jews, who's to say I got his motivation wrong? But Hitler justified his actions by saying that Jews were an inferior race and they had to be removed for the sake of genetic purity (some people like to claim he was using a Christian religious agenda and by so saying they think they have resolved the problem of the atheist agenda of Mao and Pol Pat... well, they haven't resolved it, they are using a distraction to avoid answering the question).

Am I missing the point here? Is everyone just saying that it doesn't matter what their reasons were... all that matters is that they wanted power and I shouldn't be concerned about their reasoning? Maybe you're right, maybe logic ultimately fails as a guiding principle where the motivations of people are concerned.

 

[Ponder This]

OK.

None of these unbeliefs - unbelief in gods, ghost, vampires, or leprechauns - informs any other belief except in a trivial way, as in the case that I believe that it would be a waste of time to look for a leprechaun's pot of gold. None of them leads to me act in any way, except one again, in trivial ways, such as being able to turn the lights off at night and sleep fearlessly.

Recall that @Ponder This wrote, "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."

The point is that there is no atheist ideology, and that there is not even a single (nontrivial) idea that derives from atheism just as there is no avampirist ideology or even a single idea that derives from that position.

Like all others, I have thousands if not millions of beliefs, but they all have origins elsewhere. Atheism cannot answer any questions or reveal any insights.

I think that an ideology based upon the proposition 'Gods do not exist' is an atheist ideology. If it is not an atheist ideology, then what sort of ideology is it? What do you call it?

 

[Al Ibn Al Amra]

What's Pol Pot and Mao Tse Tung , is that the creatures of Aallah SWT ? .

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

However, in their case I believe the justification for their actions is based upon the proposition 'Gods do not exist'

an ideology based upon the proposition 'Gods do not exist' is an atheist ideology

You seem stuck on this idea that an atheist is somebody who asserts that gods do not exist. I have already explained that this opinion is not necessary to be an atheist. Nor would it be sufficient to constitute an ideology even in those that hold it..

My ideology is called secular humanism, not atheism. Yes, I'm an atheist, but I'm also an avampirist, and I rate those two as equivalent.

How would you receive the claim that your avampirism is an ideology, or that it directs your walk through life? Your answer is probably pretty similar to mine when others tell me that atheism is my ideology.

 

[Milton Platt]

That the government before was corrupt... I agree. That pastors lost their lives killed by Castro? yes. That churches were bulldozed down and other pastors thrown into jail just because they were Christians? Absolutely. Not by my word but by the word of honest pastors that lived and continue to live in that regime.

I remember when our associate pastor went to Cuba. He took notes of what little food was received by the people of Cuba as well as other situations.. When he got back to the States, those pages had been ripped out of his note pad, courtesy of the government.

Your post does not provide evidence that Castro killed or imprisoned religious figures because they were religious, which is the evidence I asked of you.

I am no fan of the Castro government, but I am also no fan of unsubstantiated claims. I asked you to demonstrate that those who were imprisoned were done so because they were religious. Can you do that?
I am open to that being the case, but so far, you seem unwilling or unable to provide such evidence.

Your pastor was allowed to travel to Cuba and was not imprisoned or killed. That tends to refute your claim. As to the notebook pages, I have no idea what was written on them, and neither do you. Neither do you know who tore the pages out. In any case, tearing pages from a notebook does not equate to imprisonment and is irrelevant.

 

[Augustus]

Nope. You are still quite wrong. And now? You have stooped into the Logical Fallacy of Ad Homenem: you are attempting to insult the messenger (me, in this case) because you lack any reasonable argument.

Heck-- you did not even fall back on the "Well, the Dictionary Seze I'm Right" fallacy.

And you continue with the "Is not, Is not" not-an-argument.

The latest example of the Iron Law of RF : The frequency by which a poster mentions logical fallacies will be inversely proportional to their ability to apply them correctly.

Superficial knowledge of the names of a few fallacies is often an impediment to thought, not an aid.

You are currently batting 0.000.

There is no ad hom, as 'you don't understand how language works' is linked to an explanation of why you clearly don't understand how language works.

You've been schooled by me and several others on this very page-- and yet? You persist in your false claims....!

Can't beat getting 'schooled' on a question of subjective preference...

AFAIK, your entire argument has been: my definition of atheism is the only valid one because me and some other atheists prefer it and those that disagree are objectively wrong for some reason I can't/won't explain.

Have I missed anything out?

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

Otherwise it's just you repeating "I'm right. I'm right" rather than having an actual reasoned discussion, which is a waste of time.

 

[Augustus]

You were fortunate, in that you clearly did not experience the strong programming regimen that is all too common among forced church attendance.

Alas, I was dragged to church against my personal choice, from age zero to when I finally left home-- whereupon I summarily quit. (yes-yes-- I did not rebel until I was old enough to possess will. )

I was lured back, as an adult, because of a desire to Belong. By then, I was more or less a Deist with Charlie Brownish Overtones. <snerk>

But the mental programming I received while being forced to sit thorough service after service was quite insidious.

Lucky for me? I was also exposed to sound Science for all of that time, too-- dad subscribed to National Geographic, and by the time I was 7? I personally subscribed to both Popular Science and Popular Mechanics magazines-- I kept those going well into my 20's....

I went to a Christian school for the first 3 years of my education, although that basically meant some dude from the Church popping in a few times a week with a frog puppet and telling us about how kind Jesus was and that we should be kind too. Good Samaritan, love thy neighbour, be thankful for all of the good things in your life, etc. Then we'd sing some hymns about Jesus being kind and how we should be kind too. Sometimes we'd go to the church which was built in the 12th C so I quite liked that because it was pretty.

Other than the context was 'religious', I can't remember anything that the average Humanist could find fault with regarding the teachings.

My family wasn't religious, I just went to that school because it was close and the secular school on the council estate wasn't very good.

One day I when was probably 5 or 6, I asked my Mum about Jesus/God and she said something to the effect of 'some people believe in God and others don't and some people just think Jesus was a kind man'. So I chose not to believe in God, and that was that.