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

[Kenny]

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...

I guess what I said was right. Pray tell... why do they kill people of faith?

 

[Kenny]

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.

Again... pray tell... why did they kill people of faith and drill into children "There is no God"? In the name of Atheism or in the name of Communism? Or do they go hand in hand?

 

[Sunstone]

I guess what I said was right. Pray tell... why do they kill people of faith?

Again... pray tell... why did they kill people of faith and drill into children "There is no God"? In the name of Atheism or in the name of Communism? Or do they go hand in hand?

I certainly hope no one reading your posts is irrational enough to assume there is anything about atheism that logically implies one ought to kill people for any reason whatsoever, Ken. Atheism is not, say, Christianity. Quite unlike Christianity, atheism has no sacred scriptures that can be used to logically justify killing in its name.

 

[Jumi]

Again... pray tell... why did they kill people of faith and drill into children "There is no God"?

Let's make it so simplistic that the question loses meaning and paint a picture of children being indoctrinated. Like every political system and religion doesn't indoctrinate it's children.

In today's not atheist Russia all is fine, no youth are indoctrinated...

In the name of Atheism or in the name of Communism? Or do they go hand in hand?

They don't go hand in hand of course. Of course if we don't care about the truth we can just raise our hands high and say that they're one and the same. Who cares if the atheists who are not communists will find themselves drifting farther away from us theists?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Several. I don't wish to scour through past posts.

I’ve seen very few atheists argue that being an atheist is enough to make someone a good person, or that atheists have never done anything bad.

What I HAVE seen, though, is atheists argue that religion is an obstacle to behaving morally. I’ve also personally made the argument before that nobody has ever been massacred by people following the principles of humanism, skepticism, and freethought, and that these principles together are incompatible with theism.

So I’m guessing that you’re either missing some important nuance or just reading what you want to read.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

I still find it strange how when we’re talking about baking cakes or employer-funded health insurance, every possible human profession is potentially an expression of religion, but when it comes to war, if any other factor is involved at all, the casualties aren’t related to religion at all.

 

[Augustus]

I still find it strange how when we’re talking about baking cakes or employer-funded health insurance, every possible human profession is potentially an expression of religion, but when it comes to war, if any other factor is involved at all, the casualties aren’t related to religion at all.

One relates to popular political discourse, the other academic scholarship.

I’ve also personally made the argument before that nobody has ever been massacred by people following the principles of humanism, skepticism, and freethought,

Many involved in the French Revolution would fall into this category.

Hitchens advocated for war in Iraq based on these principles, as part of the doctrine of liberal interventionism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

One relates to popular political discourse, the other academic scholarship.

What we’re doing in this thread isn’t academic scholarship.

Many involved in the French Revolution would fall into this category.

Early French Revolution, maybe. Not the later parts when Robespierre was trying to impose his theistic state religion using the guillotine. The Reign of Terror was diametrically opposed to humanism and freethought.

Hitchens advocated for war in Iraq based on these principles, as part of the doctrine of liberal interventionism.

“Advocated on the basis of those principles” does not necessarily mean “actually aligned with those principles.” Care to make a case for how the Iraq War was actually in line with humanism, freethought and skepticism?

 

[ronki23]

I see...this argument is a desperate attempt to demonize atheism, but we all know that Politics is a blind force that transcends beliefs and religions.

If atheism played some role...then we have to admit that the red dragon will own the world thanks to atheism?

Oh my, your beliefs are all but Flat Earth beliefs. You really need to learn how to make proper comparisons.

Did Hitler kill in the name of Christianity? He was a Christian after all.

Hitler was a vegetarian, thus we can conclude that vegetarians are antisemites, right?

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...

Again... pray tell... why did they kill people of faith and drill into children "There is no God"? In the name of Atheism or in the name of Communism? Or do they go hand in hand?

Firstly, if Mao was a 'spiritualist' then why did he destroy so many Buddhist and indigenous temple?

Secondly, atheists say Mao and Pol Pot didn't kill in the name of atheism. But many terrorist attacks are not in the name of religion either so it's double standards. I've not studied the Qu'ran nor am I Muslim but I'm sure it doesn't say to murder, rape and enslave. The same goes for Hinduism and Buddhism; Hindu scriptures don't say Sikhs are the enemy and should be murdered and raped and Buddhism never said to the Burmese to murder and rape Rohingyas

 

[Jumi]

I’ve also personally made the argument before that nobody has ever been massacred by people following the principles of humanism, skepticism, and freethought, and that these principles together are incompatible with theism.

They are not incompatible with theism.

 

[Jumi]

Secondly, atheists say Mao and Pol Pot didn't kill in the name of atheism. But many terrorist attacks are not in the name of religion either so it's double standards. I've not studied the Qu'ran nor am I Muslim but I'm sure it doesn't say to murder, rape and enslave. The same goes for Hinduism and Buddhism; Hindu scriptures don't say Sikhs are the enemy and should be murdered and raped and Buddhism never said to the Burmese to murder and rape Rohingyas

Which atheist scriptures tell them to murder, rape and enslave in name of atheism?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Firstly, if Mao was a 'spiritualist' then why did he destroy so many Buddhist and indigenous temple?

Secondly, atheists say Mao and Pol Pot didn't kill in the name of atheism. But many terrorist attacks are not in the name of religion either so it's double standards. I've not studied the Qu'ran nor am I Muslim but I'm sure it doesn't say to murder, rape and enslave. The same goes for Hinduism and Buddhism; Hindu scriptures don't say Sikhs are the enemy and should be murdered and raped and Buddhism never said to the Burmese to murder and rape Rohingyas

Neither Mao nor Pol Pot were trying to spread atheism with their killings. Their main concern was their political beliefs. That they may have been atheists is besides the point.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They are not incompatible with theism.

Skepticism certainly is. I suppose the other two are more generally incompatible with the theistic religions we see in the world than necessarily incompatible with all theistic beliefs.

 

[Augustus]

Early French Revolution, maybe. Not the later parts when Robespierre was trying to impose his theistic state religion using the guillotine.

Robespierre was executed 2 months after the Cult of the Supreme Being was debuted. It was of almost no consequence in the few weeks it lasted.

It was created as a rationalistic method of promoting civic virtue.

The Reign of Terror was diametrically opposed to humanism and freethought.

No True Humanist...

Many of them were certainly sceptics and freethinkers, and pre-revolution, probably as humanistic as you got in the 18th C.

The idea that they were operating for the good of Humanity allowed them to rationalise violence as a means to an end in creating a virtuous republic based on Enlightenment values.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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"

Sorry, but Marx has as much to do with my beliefs and world views as a Hindu would for a Muslim.

Just like 'theism', atheism is too broad to be meaningful. It's certainly not proof against extreme behaviour or fundamentalist thinking, though.

 

[Augustus]

“Advocated on the basis of those principles” does not necessarily mean “actually aligned with those principles.” Care to make a case for how the Iraq War was actually in line with humanism, freethought and skepticism?

Can let him speak for himself:

A War to Be Proud Of

 

[Augustus]

Sorry, but Marx has as much to do with my beliefs and world views as a Hindu would for a Muslim.

Just like 'theism', atheism is too broad to be meaningful. It's certainly not proof against extreme behaviour or fundamentalist thinking, though.

That's exactly what I said...

"While generic atheism on its own, like generic theism, doesn't really do much.. This says very little about atheism in general,"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's exactly what I said...

No, it isn’t:

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.

 

[Jumi]

Skepticism certainly is. I suppose the other two are more generally incompatible with the theistic religions we see in the world than necessarily incompatible with all theistic beliefs.

Why would you say skepticism is incompatible with theism as such? I don't see skeptical views as a barrier to theism, rather I see that as a misperception.

 

[Augustus]

No, it isn’t:

"While generic atheism on its own, like generic theism, doesn't really do much.."
"This says very little about atheism in general,"