Cacotopia
Let's go full Trottle
I did.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Mao Tse-Tung and Pol Pot killed in the name of atheism
- Thread starter ronki23
- Start date
Spiderman
Veteran Member
I don't trust your statistics at all
The Crusades killed about 1.7 million people in 200 years
It is estimated that 1.7 million people died in total.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...ory.html?utm_term=.72255324cd0e&noredirect=on
Cacotopia
Let's go full Trottle
https://www.quora.com/Which-religio...of-deaths-of-infidels-over-its-entire-history
List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll - Wikipedia
if you want some numbers. here you go.
If you factor in the unknown section of death toll my figures though guestimates are within the realm of accuracy.
List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll - Wikipedia
if you want some numbers. here you go.
If you factor in the unknown section of death toll my figures though guestimates are within the realm of accuracy.
Spiderman
Veteran Member
Those were a whole bunch of different Wars and many generations of time...
Communist China, was a single regime, that killed up to 80 million people in half a century
Usually atheists claim that atheists have never committed horrific crimes against humanity like religious people have. And that life would be peaceful for everyone if only everyone converted to atheism.
I struggle with the sheer hubris and chauvinism that would lead a theist to think that every single person who doesn’t believe in a god all belong to one single belief system.
My belief system is defined by what it is, not what it isn’t. My belief system is made up of things like freethought, humanism, and skepticism. It’s diametrically opposed to the regimes of Mao and Pol Pot.
I’d bet that there’s more similarity between their beliefs and yours than theirs and mine, so why don’t YOU answer for their crimes first?
Which atheist said that? Please be specific. Provide a quote if you can.
Augustus
…
Those numbers are ridiculously inflated. Crusades was maybe 1-2 million, Islamic conquests were an order of magnitude lower.
Maybe 600 million people have died in all wars combined in recorded history, and around 7% of all wars have been considered 'religious' wars.
Several. I don't wish to scour through past posts.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Wow. This tired old lie, once again.
Mao was a Spiritualist, and not an actual atheist.
But never mind that--- Mao did not kill because he didn't believe in gods (atheism). He killed because he wanted POWER.
Same for Pol Pot --- he did NOT kill because of, or in the name of, NOT believing in gods.
Why do theists lie about this particular issue so much? I mean, it's not like the lie is believable.
It just destroys any slight credibility they might have had...
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
It wasn't in the name of atheism. Theists continuing to lie about this issue only makes them look even more foolish that we had previously thought...
Nope. Also don't justify the killings of atheists under Mao and Pol Pot, too.
Why would I?
It's hard to kill in the name of atheism. The first step has to be to make way more of atheism than it actually is, you see?
Augustus
…
While generic atheism on its own, like generic theism, doesn't really do much, these can play an important role in a broader worldview.
It is not wrong to say that there have been many killings motivated, in part, by atheism. Ideas are not monadic and inert, they are interconnected and have implications that may or may not influence thoughts/actions. In a world shaped by theistic religions, atheism is clearly something that may influence ones perceptions about the societies we live in.
This says very little about atheism in general, but it is patently false to claim there was no connection whatsoever between certain violent ideologies and philosophical atheism.
For Marx, atheism was an essential part of his philosophy, and the non-existence of a god had profound implications.
Excerpts from Karl Marx: A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right
"The criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism.
It is our duty to destroy every religious world-concept... If the destruction of ten million human beings, as happened in the last war, should be necessary for the triumph of one definite class, then that must be done and it will be done.
The criticism of religion leads to the doctrine according to which man is, for man, the supreme being; therefore it reaches the categorical imperative of overthrowing all relationships in which man is a degraded, enslaved, abandoned, contemptible being.
There therefore was no distinction between [Marxism's] philosophical views regarding atheism and it's political views.
The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness.
Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics."
There can be no doubt that the fact that the new state of the USSR led by the communist party, with a program permeated by the spirit of militant atheism, gives the reason why this state is successfully surmounting the great difficulties that stand in its way - that neither "heavenly powers" nor the exhortations of all the priests in all the world can prevent its attaining its aims it has set itself
Religion and communism are incompatible, both theoretically and practically.
Struggle against religion is a struggle for socialism"
It is not wrong to say that there have been many killings motivated, in part, by atheism. Ideas are not monadic and inert, they are interconnected and have implications that may or may not influence thoughts/actions. In a world shaped by theistic religions, atheism is clearly something that may influence ones perceptions about the societies we live in.
This says very little about atheism in general, but it is patently false to claim there was no connection whatsoever between certain violent ideologies and philosophical atheism.
For Marx, atheism was an essential part of his philosophy, and the non-existence of a god had profound implications.
Excerpts from Karl Marx: A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right
"The criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism.
It is our duty to destroy every religious world-concept... If the destruction of ten million human beings, as happened in the last war, should be necessary for the triumph of one definite class, then that must be done and it will be done.
The criticism of religion leads to the doctrine according to which man is, for man, the supreme being; therefore it reaches the categorical imperative of overthrowing all relationships in which man is a degraded, enslaved, abandoned, contemptible being.
There therefore was no distinction between [Marxism's] philosophical views regarding atheism and it's political views.
The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness.
Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics."
There can be no doubt that the fact that the new state of the USSR led by the communist party, with a program permeated by the spirit of militant atheism, gives the reason why this state is successfully surmounting the great difficulties that stand in its way - that neither "heavenly powers" nor the exhortations of all the priests in all the world can prevent its attaining its aims it has set itself
Religion and communism are incompatible, both theoretically and practically.
Struggle against religion is a struggle for socialism"
To me, the essential question isn't whether people have killed in the name of atheism. It's whether there is anything about atheism that logically implies one ought to kill in its name.
In just the same manner, the essential question about murder in regards to any religion isn't whether people have killed in the name of that religion. It's whether there is anything about that religion that logically implies one ought to kill in its name.
People will kill for nearly any excuse whatsoever. That is in part because we evolved as a predator with the instincts of a predator, including an instinct to kill and a natural pleasure in doing so. (If you can kill and not take pleasure in it, you've been conditioned, taught not to take pleasure in it -- perhaps taught so thoroughly to reject the pleasure of killing that you are now out of touch with your own human nature and you might even naively think most people also would not take pleasure in killing.) Sometimes people feel they need a rational reason for killing, and so they rationalize one. Atheism has served some folks as a reason, or a partial reason, to kill.
So has Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Shinto, among all number of other religions.
So the real question here is not whether atheism has served anyone as a reason to kill, but whether there is something about atheism that logically implies one ought to kill. And there is not. On that subject, atheism is logically "neutral", logically irrelevant, for you cannot logically claim that atheism implies one ought to kill simply on the grounds that it does not prohibit killing, nor provide any reason not to kill. That would be illogical.
In just the same manner, the essential question about murder in regards to any religion isn't whether people have killed in the name of that religion. It's whether there is anything about that religion that logically implies one ought to kill in its name.
People will kill for nearly any excuse whatsoever. That is in part because we evolved as a predator with the instincts of a predator, including an instinct to kill and a natural pleasure in doing so. (If you can kill and not take pleasure in it, you've been conditioned, taught not to take pleasure in it -- perhaps taught so thoroughly to reject the pleasure of killing that you are now out of touch with your own human nature and you might even naively think most people also would not take pleasure in killing.) Sometimes people feel they need a rational reason for killing, and so they rationalize one. Atheism has served some folks as a reason, or a partial reason, to kill.
So has Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Shinto, among all number of other religions.
So the real question here is not whether atheism has served anyone as a reason to kill, but whether there is something about atheism that logically implies one ought to kill. And there is not. On that subject, atheism is logically "neutral", logically irrelevant, for you cannot logically claim that atheism implies one ought to kill simply on the grounds that it does not prohibit killing, nor provide any reason not to kill. That would be illogical.
Jumi
Well-Known Member
Of course. Communism would have been just great if not for that they were atheists. Nothing they did was fault of communism, it was all because they were atheists.