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

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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?

You call that.... "polite"? Wow.

I'd seriously hate to see what you would consider... offensive....!

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

So you are unfamiliar with Stalin's statements regarding men not being spiritual, and therefore, he could slaughter them like cattle...

Again? Stalin only considered power--- what would make him powerful.

Everything else? He simply ignored or didn't care about. He had ONE ideology: Himself.

This is a common thread with demagogues.

(Interestingly enough this attitude is also common among god-beings, as promoted by theists.. The bible's god, for example, exhibits a very similar caviler attitude towards human life that Stalin did -- especially if the humans in question are not members of bible-god's special club....)

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Feel free to respond to what I actually wrote, where I demonstrated how Russia suppressed the church.

"the church"....? Which of the more than 40,000 **different** churches (JUST among Christianity alone) would that be?

Your "argument" suffered from No True Scotsman logical fallacy.

 

[Wotans Krieger]

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

Are you not familiar with The Thirty Years War?

 

[Augustus]

You call that.... "polite"? Wow.

I'd seriously hate to see what you would consider... offensive....!

If you read some form of imaginary rudeness in that then I cannot help you.

You appear to be both the most oversensitive and, given the content and tone of your posts to anyone who disagrees with you, also the least self aware person in the universe.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

If you read some form of imaginary rudeness in that then I cannot help you.

You appear to be both the most oversensitive and, given the content and tone of your posts to anyone who disagrees with you, also the least self aware person in the universe.

As I said.... what you consider "polite" would get you egged in actual polite company.

Your continued use of condescending language is literally in every single post you post-- and I'm not the only one who noticed...

But keep on polishing that ego.

 

[Cacotopia]

That's fair. there isn't one ideology that atheists indisputably favor. So therefore, a claim that the killings were done in the name of atheism cannot be truly said to be supported by all atheists everywhere, just like killings in the name of Christianity cannot be truly said to be supported by all Christians everywhere.

However, as far as I've determined, there are not any atheists on this thread who objected to the fundamental argument that justifies the murders. They appear to agree with the logic, but disagree with the actions. In other words, it seems as if atheists agree that millions of people will have to die... they just don't agree with murdering them. Is that a fair statement?

I don't support the current methods of loss of life, but I think loss of life is necessary for the continuation of our species. Or reproducing less. to have less. Would be the least violent method of life reduction, the economy will suffer greatly, but in the end it will be worth it. And it will balance itself out in the end.

 

[paarsurrey]

i understand, do extremist's? They are free to interpret as they want to, and they do, getting their justification from cherry picking the Qur'an.

My point was that you said "there is no teachings in Quran/Islam/Muhammad to kill innocent humans for nothing". The verse i quoted shows otherwise.

Yes i have read some of the Qur'an but never studied it

Please read/study Quran and understand its verses with reference to the context and one won't find any fault that is not resolved. No compulsion, however, please?
Regards

 

[ChristineM]

Please read/study Quran and understand its verses with reference to the context and one won't find any fault that is not resolved. No compulsion, however, please?
Regards

Why? I don't posses a time machine to look back and forth looking vor verses you interpret are in context.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Not has anyone said that any of the statement following do not follow:
Religion is false, offers false happiness, is a tool of oppression, enslavement, and manipulation.
Religion will have to be abolished before people can find 'real happiness'.
And millions of people will have to die for that to happen.

Really? Then please allow me. False happiness is not a problem, although wrong beliefs can be. Religion can be a tool for manipulation, especially the Abrahamic religions. People can be happy with or without religion. For religion to die out, billions of religious people will have to die, but none need to be killed. They can die peacefully of natural causes at an old age in the comfort of their own beds and surrounded by their atheistic loved ones.

It seems that they agree with Sam Harris that communism and fascism were correct in their criticisms of religion. And like Sam Harris they have an issue with making the leap from what logically follows to taking action based on the irrefutable argument (the criticism of religion) in the form of murder.

I doubt that Sam Harris would say that religious people need to be killed.

 

[LuisDantas]

Thank you for a well written coherent response.
I think it's fair to say that atheists can have a variety of ideologies.

And I think we've hit upon something significant: that while many people believe that the religious and god believing people will have to die for the masses to achieve 'real happiness', for the most part they balk at doing the deed themselves. There is a moral hang-up about the part where you hasten 'utopia' through murder.

The need for responsible demographics is undeniable, and historically murder (a.k.a. war) is a main way of attaining immediate sustainability in that respect. But belief criteria are not meant to be used for that purpose. Nor are deaths desirable. Instead, we should learn to take demographic planning seriously.

So far, I haven't had any atheists post on this forum that the fundamental communist argument was in any way incorrect, even those that seem to very adamantly declare that atheism is 'lack of belief' have not posted saying that the flaw in the argument is the proposition 'Gods do not exist'.

Which is that fundamental argument again? Many or most atheists are actually opposed to communism.

Not has anyone said that any of the statement following do not follow:

Religion is false, offers false happiness, is a tool of oppression, enslavement, and manipulation.

Depends on what you consider to be a religion.

Religion will have to be abolished before people can find 'real happiness'.

Same as above.

And millions of people will have to die for that to happen.

Uh, what? No, that is not true at all.

 

[Nakosis]

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

Atheist can be just as screwed up as anyone else. Believing or not believing in a god is no indication of whether one is a good or bad person. Choosing to determine the morality of a person base on their religious belief or lack there of is not advisable.

The real problem I see is folks who try to justify their actions based on a belief in a god or lack thereof.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well the purges were primarily focused on the Soviet Communist Party whose members were all supposed to be atheists.

It would therefore seem that if we are to consider atheism as a factor there it would be as a characterization of the victims, doesn't it?

Although in fairness, that too is ridiculous.

The real problem I see is folks who try to justify their actions based on a belief in a god or lack thereof.

And that is why it is ridiculous to blame atheism for the purges of Mao or Stalin.

It is inherently a direct logical contradiction.

Please read/study Quran and understand its verses with reference to the context and one won't find any fault that is not resolved. No compulsion, however, please?
Regards

It seems to me that it falls to those who propose the validity of the Qur'an to show something to support that claim. It is not reasonable to take that validity as a given or default and then expect those who disagree to feel a duty to support their lack of confidence in the Qur'an.

 

[paarsurrey]

It seems to me that it falls to those who propose the validity of the Qur'an to show something to support that claim. It is not reasonable to take that validity as a given or default and then expect those who disagree to feel a duty to support their lack of confidence in the Qur'an.

Then they should admit that they know nothing solid about Islam/Quran/Muhammad, please.
Regards

 

[Augustus]

It would therefore seem that if we are to consider atheism as a factor there it would be as a characterization of the victims, doesn't it?

What's undeniable is that atheism, in the disbelief sense, was a fundamental component of Marxist/Leninist philosophy and was something promoted, at times violently, by The Party.

If someone wants to argue that atheism wasn't in the slightest bit a factor in atheism being a fundamental component fo Marxist/Leninist philosophy, I'm not inclined to agree with them. Each to their own though, minds tend to be made up on this already as they relate to the subjective preference of whether atheism is a philosophical stance or a state.

Re victims: the purges focused on the Communist party, but the vast number of deaths were from among the general population and weren't specifically part of the purges.

In total numbers far more Christians died, although this is unsurprising as they formed the vast majority of the population. Being an orthodox cleric would probably have been one of the most dangerous jobs in the country though, at least until the reversal of dechristianisation policies when it was quite obvious they had been a colossal failure and Stalin needed to shore up support for WW2.

 

[LuisDantas]

What's undeniable is that atheism, in the disbelief sense, was a fundamental component of Marxist/Leninist philosophy and was something promoted, at times violently, by The Party.

And guess what? That is entirely unrepresentative of atheism itself.

In stark contrast to what can be said of proselitist monotheism, it must be said.

If someone wants to argue that atheism wasn't in the slightest bit a factor in atheism being a fundamental component fo Marxist/Leninist philosophy, I'm not inclined to agree with them.

By this exact wording, sure... but that is not a very meaningful statement.

However, if you meant instead to use some word such as "aggression" instead of the second occurrence of "atheism" above, though, then I will definitely say that it wasn't and could not be a factor. Not even hypothetically.

Each to their own though, minds tend to be made up on this already as they relate to the subjective preference of whether atheism is a philosophical stance or a state.

However, that is really no excuse to fail to see what is blatant. Which is why I am irked by those tired, baseless claims.

Re victims: the purges focused on the Communist party, but the vast number of deaths were from among the general population and weren't specifically part of the purges.

In total numbers far more Christians died, although this is unsurprising as they formed the vast majority of the population. Being an orthodox cleric would probably have been one of the most dangerous jobs in the country though, at least until the reversal of dechristianisation policies when it was quite obvious they had been a colossal failure and Stalin needed to shore up support for WW2.

I don't know about you, since you so consistently take the most generous conceivable attitudes towards Abrahamic Faiths... but to me it is a direct consequence of the obvious, well-documented confusion and unease of post-Tzarist Russia.

And although that is certainly no excuse and less justification, in no small measure that confusion is itself a direct consequence of reliance on rigid, unsustainable roles of authority for the Tzar and his support on the Orthodox Church. It is no accident that they were targeted so emphatically.

 

[LuisDantas]

Then they should admit that they know nothing solid about Islam/Quran/Muhammad, please.
Regards

Except that sometimes we do, @paarsurrey . Often enough that is why we criticize them so fiercely.

 

[Cacotopia]

"the church"....? Which of the more than 40,000 **different** churches (JUST among Christianity alone) would that be?

Your "argument" suffered from No True Scotsman logical fallacy.

more like 70,000

 

[Ponder This]

Really? Then please allow me. False happiness is not a problem, although wrong beliefs can be. Religion can be a tool for manipulation, especially the Abrahamic religions. People can be happy with or without religion. For religion to die out, billions of religious people will have to die, but none need to be killed. They can die peacefully of natural causes at an old age in the comfort of their own beds and surrounded by their atheistic loved ones.



I doubt that Sam Harris would say that religious people need to be killed.

Indeed, Sam Harris says that they were not too critical of religion. So he agrees that the logical argument is sound. He simply disagrees to the implementation.

Thank you for your answer. What do you mean 'False happiness is not a problem' but 'Wrong beliefs can be.' Do you mean that the goal of helping the masses attain 'real happiness' is not a worthy goal? Or do you mean that 'Gods exist' is not a wrong belief?

Also, it seems that you do affirm the conclusion, 'for religions to die out billions of people will have to die'. So you do agree with the conclusion of the argument, just not the means. Is it fair to say that you believe religion will eventually die out anyways? Because if you don't believe that, then it seems religion will always exist and therefore 'real happiness' will never be achieved... like... ever.

 

[Ponder This]

The need for responsible demographics is undeniable, and historically murder (a.k.a. war) is a main way of attaining immediate sustainability in that respect. But belief criteria are not meant to be used for that purpose. Nor are deaths desirable. Instead, we should learn to take demographic planning seriously.

I confess. I am intrigued by your suggestion of 'demographic planning' and would like to hear more. What sort of things do we need to do to in demographic planning to prevent needless deaths?

Depends on what you consider to be a religion.

Interesting. Do you mean that some religions are not inherently false or that what qualifies as a religion (in this thread) has not been properly defined? In particular, the religious people killed under Mao and Pol Pat... appear to be the subject of this thread. Do you have an objection to them being considered to be part of a religion or religions?

Uh, what? No, that is not true at all.

So, assuming the question of the proper definition of and falsity of religion has been settled, you further object to the conclusion that millions will have to die for 'real happiness' to be achieved by the masses? But if these religious people do not die, then will they not continue to oppress, manipulate, and enslave the masses and thus prevent them from attaining 'real happiness'? How is the problem to be solved?