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

[ronki23]

Wrong... they killed in the name of communism, which insists that people worship the state. They simply didn't want to have to compete with religions. Claiming that they killed in the name of atheism is just sad and pathetic.

They killed in the name of anti-theism.

Also, even if they didn't kill in the name of atheism then it's also wrong to say all religious violence is in the name of religion. The 1984 Sikh genocide was politically motivated, the Burmese Buddhists are killing Rohingya Muslim not because Buddhism says so, the Israel-Palestine conflict is about land not religion (except when the other Muslim countries wage war then it is about religion but they're such hypocrites they won't take in Palestinian refugees).

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

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

Here's an easy way to determine how poor your equivocation in the OP is.

imagine Mao putting out the word that he was going to begin killing off massive number of theists in the name of atheism. Just imagine that. How many atheists do you think he would rally to his cause? Since atheists are (and have always been) of different walks of life, live in different cultures, believing vastly different things, most atheists would look at him like he was completely crazy - would have nothing inherently against the people Mao was trying to kill - and heck, many of the people who killed for Mao probably weren't even atheist - they just didn't speak up and followed his orders because they didn't want to be killed themselves. We're literally talking about one guy who came to power, and then abused it - with many simply towing the line because they didn't want to be the next target.

However, think now about a religious call-to-arms going out to bring about some prophesied event, like the retaking of a "promised land" perhaps? Maybe the quashing of infidels? Maybe God has been said to have been speaking to the leaders of the movement that it is time for a cleansing? Maybe one group feels that another group/sect within its own religion is "doing it wrong" or bringing about an apostasy? Haven't there been all sorts of reasons like these that religious people have come together and formed their own "authority?"

The point being that if all you know of a group of people is that they are "atheists" - it is highly unlikely that you would be able to find one single thing that will unite any great number of them. However, the same is not true for a group of people who are believers in a single religion. They are already united in certain ways, and there are (or at least have been historically), buttons that can be pressed.

 

[QuestioningMind]

They killed in the name of anti-theism.

Also, even if they didn't kill in the name of atheism then it's also wrong to say all religious violence is in the name of religion. The 1984 Sikh genocide was politically motivated, the Burmese Buddhists are killing Rohingya Muslim not because Buddhism says so, the Israel-Palestine conflict is about land not religion (except when the other Muslim countries wage war then it is about religion but they're such hypocrites they won't take in Palestinian refugees).

They killed in the name of consolidating power. And yes, most of the times that religion has been used to foster wars there has been underlying political motivations. EVEN when Muslim countries wage war on religious grounds there are underlying political motivations. That you insist that it's somehow different for Muslim nations is rather pathetic.

But the sad fact remains that it's far easier to get people to wage war if leaders can convince the people that GOD wants them to go to war.

 

[ronki23]

They killed in the name of consolidating power. And yes, most of the times that religion has been used to foster wars there has been underlying political motivations. EVEN when Muslim countries wage war on religious grounds there are underlying political motivations. That you insist that it's somehow different for Muslim nations is rather pathetic.

But the sad fact remains that it's far easier to get people to wage war if leaders can convince the people that GOD wants them to go to war.

It's pretty obvious the Arab countries attacked Israel in 1948 because Israel declared itself as a Jewish state surrounded by Muslim ones. In 1967 they threatened to "drive the Jews into the sea". If Palestinians were a Christian majority the surrounding countries would most likely wouldn't give a damn.

Even the Mizrahi Jews were driven out of Muslim countries when Israel established itself even though Mizrahis have nothing to do with Ashkenazi Jews.

But the 1984 riots were politically motivated, as is the killing of Rohingyas. I'm pretty sure the Bosnian Holocaust was politically motivated too. The 2002 Gujarat riots we're socially motivated, not religious.

 

[QuestioningMind]

It's pretty obvious the Arab countries attacked Israel in 1948 because Israel declared itself as a Jewish state surrounded by Muslim ones. In 1967 they threatened to "drive the Jews into the sea". If Palestinians were a Christian majority the surrounding countries would most likely wouldn't give a damn.

Even the Mizrahi Jews were driven out of Muslim countries when Israel established itself even though Mizrahis have nothing to do with Ashkenazi Jews.

But the 1984 riots were politically motivated, as is the killing of Rohingyas. I'm pretty sure the Bosnian Holocaust was politically motivated too. The 2002 Gujarat riots we're socially motivated, not religious.

I'm pretty sure that the reason Arab nations attacked Israel is because the rest of the world got together and decided to hand over land that Arabs had been living on for centuries to a bunch of people who were scattered all over the globe. I doubt that the religion of the people coming in to take over the Arab lands was much of a factor.

 

[Ponder This]

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

I think that the justification for these deaths was the belief that religion is the tool oppressors use to maintain inequality, exploit people, and enforce slavish obedience. Karl Marx described religion, in general, as 'das Opium des Volkes" ('the opiate of the masses'). According to Marx: Man makes religion; religion does not make man. It is from this basic foundational principle that he derives the abolishment of religion as essential to the 'real happiness' of the people.

So there is no question whatsoever that communism used atheism to justify killing people. It was 'essential' to the achievement of 'real happiness' for the people.

Now, I will grant that maybe communists weren't truly speaking on behalf of atheists everywhere when they made their claims. But then, religions say the same thing: religion was used to justify killing people, but those people weren't true spokesmen for our religions...

Finally, I'd like to make clear that it isn't just atheism or anti-theism (or some religion) that is in the wrong here, it's the oppression of the right of the individual to seek truth. Here on RF, we can argue about who's right or who's wrong, but more fundamental than the particular positions that we hold dear (and who really is right or really is wrong) is the principle that we have freedom of belief (no one can actually force anyone else to accept a belief, a 'truth', an ideology, or a 'religion', or 'anti-religion'). (as if rational argument were sufficient to 'convince' anyone anyways )

 

[ChristineM]

If Mao and Pol Pot were raised in Buddhist upbringing but later rejected those teachings, do atheists justify them killing Buddhists because "atheism is better" and "religion is cancer"?

I, as an atheist do not justify any killing, i could not speak for anyone else. But i notice you didn't answer my question...

As far as i know poll pot did not reject his religion, but considered nationalism more important than religious faith.

 

[ChristineM]

I think that the justification for these deaths was the belief that religion is the tool oppressors use to maintain inequality, exploit people, and enforce slavish obedience. Karl Marx described religion, in general, as 'das Opium des Volkes" ('the opiate of the masses'). According to Marx: Man makes religion; religion does not make man. It is from this basic foundational principle that he derives the abolishment of religion as essential to the 'real happiness' of the people.

So there is no question whatsoever that communism used atheism to justify killing people. It was 'essential' to the achievement of 'real happiness' for the people.

Now, I will grant that maybe communists weren't truly speaking on behalf of atheists everywhere when they made their claims. But then, religions say the same thing: religion was used to justify killing people, but those people weren't true spokesmen for our religions...

Finally, I'd like to make clear that it isn't just atheism or anti-theism (or some religion) that is in the wrong here, it's the oppression of the right of the individual to seek truth. Here on RF, we can argue about who's right or who's wrong, but more fundamental than the particular positions that we hold dear (and who really is right or really is wrong) is the principle that we have freedom of belief (no one can actually force anyone else to accept a belief, a 'truth', an ideology, or a 'religion', or 'anti-religion'). (as if rational argument were sufficient to 'convince' anyone anyways )

Atheism has nothing to do with anti religion.

Atheism is the disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods, nothing more, nothing less. Anything else is just made up, usually by religious people to discredit atheism

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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

I still think you're giving atheism more gravitas than it should have. As indeed I think Marx did.
But, ok. I think I understand your point.

 

[Kenny]

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.

I hope no one reading your posts is irrational enough to assume there is anything about Christianity that logically implies one ought to kill people for any reason.

Since you are irrational enough to say Christianity does, please name me one scripture in the New Testament that Jesus left us that says otherwise?

Atheism has its own drum beat. They don't have to be written to understood as their religion. It is just transmitted verbally

 

[Kenny]

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

I was thinking more along the lines of Cuba. After they hung bags of candy they would have all the children pray to God and say "Please give us candy". Then they would say "Now pray to Castro for candy" and as they prayed they would pull the string on the bag to let the candy out.

After they would drill, "There is no God, there is only Communism who cares for the people" etc.

So, there was an anti-faith in atheism in Cuba.

 

[Kenny]

Because they wanted people to worship the state, not some deity. Just look at N Korea. They turned their supreme leader of the state into a god. An example where communism and atheism do NOT go hand in hand.

So, are you saying that the ultimate end of these atheistic and communistic countries is another religion? Never thought of it that way, but a good observation.

 

[Milton Platt]

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

You have made the claim....now provide the evidence that atheism was the driving force behind Pol Pot. I'm an atheist and have been all of my life, and I'm open to the possibility. Lay out your evidence......

 

[Milton Platt]

Up until now, atheists just deny that it was in the name of atheism. They blame "politics" even though they were stamping out religiions.

Flat earth syndrome in my opinion.

I would be interested in the evidence for this to have happened "in the name of atheism"......

 

[Sunstone]

Since you are irrational enough to say Christianity does, please name me one scripture in the New Testament that Jesus left us that says otherwise?

Really Ken! You don't think Christianity includes in its holy scriptures the Old Testament to? Or that passages from that Testament haven't been used by Christians to justify killing people?

Well, I'm a bit embarrassed for you, Ken. I would have thought you knew your own religion better than that.

 

[Kenny]

I would be interested in the evidence for this to have happened "in the name of atheism"......

Talk to the Cuban pastors--first witnesses. Of course, you would have to talk to them personally as I have.

 

[Milton Platt]

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

I suspected that all along.....thanks for the confirmation.... LOL

 

[Milton Platt]

Talk to the Cuban pastors--first witnesses. Of course, you would have to talk to them personally as I have.

We were talking about Pol Pot and Mao....I don't remember them ever being in Cuba......
So you have no evidence to share, then, except to tell me look up people I don't know and ask them questions about unrelated events in another country?

 

[Kenny]

Really Ken! You don't think Christianity includes in its holy scriptures the Old Testament to? Or that passages from that Testament haven't been used by Christians to justify killing people?

Well, I'm a bit embarrassed for you, Ken. I would have thought you knew your own religion better than that.

I don't know why you are embarassed. Let's look at some logic so that I can help you through your embarrassment for me.

1) The was an Old last will and Testament replaced by an New last will and Testament. When you replace your Last Will and Testament, what happens to the Old?

2) Interestingly enough, you didn't quote one scripture in the NT or by Jesus that would support killing.

Apparently you don't know Christianity and I do know my faith better. (If this is the evidence you are giving)

Edit:

Not to mention that the OT was for the Jews and the NT is for the world. Happy to answer any of your questions.

 

[Kenny]

We were talking about Pol Pot and Mao....I don't remember them ever being in Cuba......
So you have no evidence to share, then, except to tell me look up people I don't know in another country?

I was talking about Communism and atheism regardless of location. If you don't know what happened in Cuba, study?