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

[Subduction Zone]

I am an Ahmadiyya peaceful Muslim. If somebody from our community does any fanatic event of harming and killing other persons, just for adhering to some other religion or no-religion, I believe, our Caliph will condemn him and expel him from our community .

Regards

Yet Muslims in general have the most violence of any religious beliefs right now. If your local Caliph condemned such an action they need not go far to find one that condones it. Perhaps you should concentrate on cleaning up those that share your religious beliefs before you attack those that do not and are far less violent.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes, there is nothing as such in the definition of the word Atheism, but the humans when join an ideology, their own evil in the self could display and there is no check to restrain it with the Atheism or with the Atheism people having no system with them. Please
Regards

Are you really that ignorant about atheism. No wonder people are leaving religion like rats leaving a sinking ship.

You seem to forget that atheists dont need a god to tell them what is right and wrong. Human morality takes the place of the monkey on the shoulder you call god.

So now thats out in the open perhaps you will stop insulting what you dont understand

Fyi, i have been hurt by evil people 4 times in my life, all were religious people.

 

[ChristineM]

I am an Ahmadiyya peaceful Muslim. If somebody from our community does any fanatic event of harming and killing other persons, just for adhering to some other religion or no-religion, I believe, our Caliph will condemn him and expel him from our community .

Regards

Didn't work so well for isis

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes,It is. But, what is the remedy of Atheism people if a large group adhering to this ideology decide to let their emotions display their evil designs against other human beings who do not subscribe to this ideology? Please
Regards

There is no remedy to evil designs that is not available to atheists at least as easily as it is to theists.

And really.. I don't think Muslims have any high ground to speak of on such a matter. Quite on the contrary.

 

[Augustus]

Most atheists well understand the word "atheist" has zip-all to do with BELIEF or FAITH--- apart from not having any, that is.

Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

She said exactly what I said. Disbelief (i.e. the belief that something is not true) or lack of belief. These are the most common definitions of atheism, neither of which is 'wrong'.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

That was my point.

When a word has multiple meanings none of them are 'wrong' (even if you find one more convenient for ideological reasons).

No--- ALL are wrong, except for the one(s) that accurately portray the situation being described by said word.

YOU continue to use the false THEIST version of "atheism". Why?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No--- ALL are wrong, except for the one(s) that accurately portray the situation being described by said word.

YOU continue to use the false THEIST version of "atheism". Why?

Because it is always possible to defeat a strawman.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

She said exactly what I said. Disbelief (i.e. the belief that something is not true) or lack of belief. These are the most common definitions of atheism, neither of which is 'wrong'.

Really? Did Christine also use very patronizing and insulting language, denigrating the poster, personally?

Because I did not see that in Christine's post....

 

[Shad]

Yes, there is nothing as such in the definition of the word Atheism, but the humans when join an ideology, their own evil in the self could display and there is no check to restrain it with the Atheism or with the Atheism people having no system with them. Please
Regards

Atheism has zero control nor ability to control people joining other ideologies. You are expecting a level of power and structure as if it was a religion like your own. It isn't. There is no Pope, Caliph, organization, hierarchy or even book club.

 

[Cacotopia]

How do you kill in the name of a personal label, when it isn't an ideology at all. I guess you could stretch it really far and say the only kills made in the name of atheism were people killed for absolutely no reason. And I imagine there are very few people murdered for absolutely no reason than those who were killed with an agenda in mind like hate, power struggle, ideological differences, commandments by god, no witnesses, they know too much, orders from a superior, they were trying to kill me, yada yada yada. The moment there is a reason, then it's not in the name of atheism, atheism is a position of lack of belief. And an exponential number more atheists have been murdered for being atheists than those killing for atheism. Which doesn't work as explained above.

 

[Ponder This]

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.

'atheist ideology' is a phrase in which the word 'atheist' is used as an adjective to modify the word 'ideology' which is a noun. Since your ideology is 'secular humanism', then may I presume that you would regard 'secular humanism' as an 'atheist ideology'?

 

[Ponder This]

Nope, according the the standard definition of atheism.

You are deluding yourself, surly you are using the Christian agenda to label nationalism with the much misunderstood (in christian quarters) atheist.

Their agenda was nationalism with violent opposition to any who disagreed, that included athiests

Who says killed in the name of atheism? Oh you do, this mistake has been explained to you several times on this thread alone, i wonder how many more times you have ignored reality bscause it does not fit well with your accusations?

As to your selective and very limited multiple choice, i chose E, none of the above. And it seems that as far as atheism is concerned you dont need to try.

The reason i believe they were not justified in there actions is that any murder,no matters what the claimed justification can not be justified i the name of humanity. Despite the divisions you and others impose, we are all human.

The justification given was nationalism, (god bless America). More to the, the mass murders were carried out out of fear of opposition.

You also need to consider that America drove a pacifist nation into a genocidal regime.

Thank you for your answer. However, if I understand you correctly the main point of your reply is that people were so caught up in loyalty to and pride in their own nation... that they killed millions of people that were part of their nation. Well, I must say that I find that answer too confusing to consider it worth much credence.

 

[Ponder This]

Well, like any sociopath or psychopath? They simply didn't bother.

Look at the sociopath-in-chief currently residing in the White House: Does he ever justify what he says or does?

No. He does not even try.

He preaches empty platitudes, such as "make American great" and the like.

So, too, Mao and Pot (Stalin, Hitler and the rest) do not bother to justify what they do-- in fact, I seriously doubt it even enters any of their minds, that justification is necessary!

You and I (and most people) are Empathetic, and therefore, not sociopaths. Thus, anytime we do something Extreme? We feel it needful to justify doing such a thing.

And even then we all too often suffer Post Traumatic Stress, for the aftermath!

These horrific people that we are speaking of? Crave Power. It feeds into their massively overblown Egos.

They do whatever they want, Because They Can, and Because They Think They Deserve To.

When they gain Ultimate Power, as a Head Of State? They become monsters....

If it were not for the very Clever and Fore-thinking people who wrote the US Constitution? Imagine how much of a rampage trumpEgo would be doing Right Now!

Under Mao and Pot? There were no such limitations-- they has as close to absolute power as it was possible to have, and not be swallowed up by it.

As happened so often in History: Look at the principles in the French Revolution--- they were each, eventually removed from power by the very Engines they created.

I expect that is what happens most of the time-- History was simply re-written to seem less brutal, by the successors...

Ah, if I understand correctly, then you are saying that that had no real justification for their actions at all.
They acted in whatever way they wants because they could and offered no explanation to their followers.

I'm not convinced that that is the case. It really seems to me that there was a communist justification for the deaths of millions and I think there are still people who do believe that for the world to be a better place millions of people with their religious beliefs are going to have to die. They may not want to kill those people themselves, but they really do believe that until those people cease to function on the material place of existence, real happiness will elude the masses.

So I think we will simply have to disagree on the question of whether or not they had a handy dandy justification for the deaths.

 

[Cacotopia]

'atheist ideology' is a phrase in which the word 'atheist' is used as an adjective to modify the word 'ideology' which is a noun. Since your ideology is 'secular humanism', then may I presume that you would regard 'secular humanism' as an 'atheist ideology'?

Personal labels don't have ideologies, atheist is just a position on belief. While there are many secular humanists out there that are also atheists, atheism still is just the position of the lack of belief or the reservation of it.

Is someone who is a christian adhere strictly to Christisan doctrine? of course not.

There is no established creed that all atheists follow.

 

[Augustus]

Really? Did Christine also use very patronizing and insulting language, denigrating the poster, personally?

Because I did not see that in Christine's post....

Which is completely irrelevant to whether something is correct or 'wrong'. She is just as right or wrong as I am on this point. Which is it?

Come on though, get over yourself at least and have a modicum of self-awreness, look at your interactions with all types on this thread and it is exactly what you are whining about in others. You also seem to have forgotten that you initiated the conversation and its tone (and also repeatedly misrepresented what I was saying and imagining ad homs). Half of your emotional outbursts have been directed against things you are imagining.

People generally respond to how other's interact with them. When you initiate conversations in a self-righteous and patronising manner, it is likely I will respond in turn. So don't be so precious and whine about someone treating you as you treat them or you may be seen as hypocritical.

Go back and check if you think this is 'cognitive dissonance' or whatever.

Can you quote the personal insults btw, just to objectively prove they are not in your imagination, as I don't remember any. (and no, saying 'you don't understand how language work' in a post which explains the difference between how language works and your argument is not an ad hom).

 

[Augustus]

No--- ALL are wrong, except for the one(s) that accurately portray the situation being described by said word.

YOU continue to use the false THEIST version of "atheism". Why?

We can try this bit in a polite manner if you would like.

Some people prefer to see atheism as representing a philosophical/epistemic position on the existence of gods (disbelief), others prefer to see it as being a state (lack of belief). Neither of these positions is necessarily 'theist' or 'atheist', "true' or 'false'.

For example:

There is no clear, academic consensus as to how exactly the term should be used. For example, consider the following definitions of ‘atheism’ or ‘atheist’, all taken from serious scholarly writings published in the last ten years

1. ‘Atheism […] is the belief that there is no God or gods’ (Baggini 2003: 3)
2. ‘At its core, atheism […] designates a position (not a “belief”) that includes or asserts no god(s)’ (Eller 2010: 1)
3. ‘[A]n atheist is someone without a belief in God; he or she need not be someone who believes that God does not exist’ (Martin 2007: 1)
4. ‘[A]n atheist does not believe in the god that theism favours’ (Cliteur 2009: 1)
5. ‘By “atheist,” I mean precisely what the word has always been understood to mean—a principled and informed decision to reject belief in God’ (McGrath 2004: 175)

The Oxford Handbook of Atheism


There are valid arguments in favour of both positions, but ultimately, it resorts to a subjective preference regarding whether or not one views atheism as a philosophical position (on a single issue) or a state.

I'm still unsure as to your reasoning why describing it as a philosophical/epistemic position should be considered objectively incorrect, rather than it simply being a common usage of a word with more than 1 meaning. Moreover, many atheists do indeed view atheism their as a philosophical/epistemic position (see numerous threads on this site for evidence), which means it's not simply one 'side' deliberately misrepresenting the other.

Also, if one believes that atheism is a vacuum that has no influence on anything else in the world then why should it influence how you seek to define any particular concept, including atheism?

 

[The Noble Kafir]

If religion is so bad, then no religion is worse as Mao killed to purge China of religion and we saw 20-70 million die under Mao's regime, the most people who died under one person's rule. Granted most deaths were starvation but 14.5 to 18.7 deaths were landowners plus up to 2 million counterrevolutionaries. The majority of Chinese art and architecture was destroyed during the Cultural Revolution. I hate Mao

Pol Pot was even worse; he killed people just because they were Buddhist or Muslim but he also killed professionals (including people who worse glasses), Viets and Chinese. A quarter of Cambodia's population was killed off.

Do atheists and antitheists justify the killings of theists under Mao and Pol Pot?

@Aupmanyav @viole

 

[The Noble Kafir]

Atheists and anti theists do not justify killings period, religious people do.

 

[Woberts]

No. China and the Soviets officially and unofficially repressed and persecuted religionists. These totalitarian regimes slaughtered more persons in the last century than all religious wars in history combined, times a factor of 20 or more. Unfortunately, brutal repression is one output of atheist dictators.

Correlation does not equal causation.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Disbelief (i.e. the belief that something is not true) or lack of belief. These are the most common definitions of atheism, neither of which is 'wrong'.

The problem there is that one of those definitions is a subset of the other. What all atheists have in common is the lack of belief in gods. A subset of them also assert as fact that gods don't exist, the remainder being agnostic on the subject. What use is a definition of atheist that leaves out many atheists? Wouldn't that be analogous to defining bird as a flying animal that perches in trees and sings? Such a definition excludes ostriches and penguins for example.