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

[Ponder This]

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

So... your answer to the question:​

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

is no, atheists do not justify the killings of theists under Mao and Pol Pat?

Well, it seems that Mao and Pol Pat felt justified, so if you want to rebut that, then you are going to have to actually say why their actions are not the logical corollary to atheism that they thought that it was. Right?

I mean, if, as you say, 'religious' people are making things up to discredit atheism, then you ought to be able to point to what they've manufactured instead of making a vague statement to discredit 'religious people' as liars...

Sam Harris says, "People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable."

Is that a fair assessment? The way atheists see it, Mao and Pol Pat were not 'too critical' of religion? So what exactly did Mao and Pol Pat get wrong? Why wasn't the sacrifice of human life a necessary evil along the path to 'real happiness' as a logical corollary from atheism?

1. Gods do not exist.
2. Therefore, religions are made by man.
3. Because religion is false, the happiness it provides is false.
Moreover, religion is a tool by which the people are oppressed, enslaved, and manipulated.
4. Therefore, religion must be eliminated before the people can find 'real' happiness.
5. In order for religion to be eliminated, millions of people are going to have to die.

So did they get everything right except the part where millions of people have to die? What gives?

 

[ChristineM]

So... your answer to the question:

Which question?

 

[Augustus]

But it's the end beliefs that inform action. Not something as meaningless as theism/atheism.

I don't really see them as meaningless as I don't see the value in abstracting and isolating them from a broader context.

2 of the possible arguments that can be made that make sense from differing perspectives:

Dictionary definition argument: Atheism is lack of belief in god, people don't kill purely due to lack of belief in god ergo killings should not be linked to atheism

Real world argument: Awareness of not believing in god often leads one to question the role of gods in society. When this is judged to be negative, it is logical to seek to remove such effect. Violence has been one of the options taken to achieve this and, in such circumstances, it is a consequence of the subject's atheism.

I see little value in the first argument, but it's not 'wrong'.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I don't really see them as meaningless as I don't see the value in abstracting and isolating them from a broader context.

2 of the possible arguments that can be made that make sense from differing perspectives:

Dictionary definition argument: Atheism is lack of belief in god, people don't kill purely due to lack of belief in god ergo killings should not be linked to atheism

Real world argument: Awareness of not believing in god often leads one to question the role of gods in society. When this is judged to be negative, it is logical to seek to remove such effect. Violence has been one of the options taken to achieve this and, in such circumstances, it is a consequence of the subject's atheism.

I see little value in the first argument, but it's not 'wrong'.

You can dress one up as a 'dictionary' argument and one as 'real world' all you like, that is purely opinionative. I am not, I think, someone tied to semantic argument.

Theism and atheism are meaningless in terms of being direct drivers for anything, was my point. It's always interesting to me to flip these arguments on their heads.

For example, Richard Dawkins, among others, helped to promote the term 'Brights' with relation to secularism and more specifically atheism. I find that vomit-worthy, essentially. Yet your argument appears somewhat akin to theirs, if less charitable to atheism.

 

[Augustus]

Theism and atheism are meaningless in terms of being direct drivers for anything, was my point.

That's what I said in my first post, so I agree that in isolation they don't cause anything. My addition was that beliefs don't exist in isolation in the minds of humans. Theism/atheism as beliefs are rarely inconsequential, although there are a multitude of ways in which consequences can manifest themselves, none of which are necessitated.

It's always interesting to me to flip these arguments on their heads.

In Islam, Christianity etc, the belief that God does exist is important for many people.

The violence of ISIS is, in part, driven by 'theism' in the sense of a belief God exists. The belief God wants you to kill infidels requires you to believe god exists. The strength of your belief regarding this may also be important.

As such, the belief God exists is not meaningless as a driver of actions despite requiring the necessary presence of multiple additional beliefs in order to have such an effect. It also doesn't mean the Archbishop of Canterbury needs to answer for ISIS because they are both 'theists'.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The problem seems to be that you have a rather limited and limiting view of theism and have made it a core belief.

What sorts of gods do you think I'm not taking into account that I should be?

Really? How do you apply them to your own anecdotal evidence of finding some beliefs in theists that run counter to skepticism? Or do you perhaps claim to have proof?

Not some; every theist I've ever discussed their justification with. In every case, the theist has failed to give a reasonable justification for their belief in their god(s). On top of this, god-concepts are often unfalsifiable and therefore unjustifiable (e.g. deistic gods) or imply predictions that fail (e.g. "miracles" by interventionist gods).

But I do admit that my reasoning on this is inductive, so it can't give perfect certainty. Still, I think what I've seen warrants practical certainty for most purposes... similar to the level of certainty I use when I say that the passenger pigeon or dodo are extinct (another position that relies on inductive reasoning). Just as I can't completely exclude the possibility that someone has been breeding passenger pigeons in a secret lair somewhere for the last century, I can't exclude the possibility that some wizened sage on a mountaintop figured out how to reasonably justify their belief in their gods and isn't telling anyone.

But please: tell me why your belief in your gods is reasonable and justified unlike all the others around us.

 

[leibowde84]

So you're implying they're not proper atheists and if they were proper atheists they wouldn't have killes millions of people?

You both have confirmation biases against religion:

Hindu scriptures don't say to murder and rape Muslims (Gujarat 2002) or Sikhs (Delhi 1984)

Buddhist scriptures don't say to murder and rape Hindus (Sri Lanka) or Muslims (Burma)

Mao and Pol Pot told their men to destroy religious art and architecture (Cultural Revolution) and to kill Buddhists and Muslims (Cambodia). That's anti-theism

Even today China is oppressing Tibetan Buddhists and Uighur Muslims

I'm saying that murder has nothing to do with atheism. They aren't related, and you are being very dishonest with your claim here. You haven't provided any evidence that their atheism was the cause of the murders. Basic logic ... correlation is not causation.

 

[David T]

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

Stop it atheists have never claimed moral purity religion does that. So I might say worry about your own house its a mess.

I can and at times blast atheism only because I actually respect them and expect more from them. They are generally thoughtful decent folks sometimes morally appalled by church!

 

[Jumi]

What sorts of gods do you think I'm not taking into account that I should be?

Where have I said that I think you should be taking gods into account?

Not some; every theist I've ever discussed their justification with. In every case, the theist has failed to give a reasonable justification for their belief in their god(s).

Anecdotal evidence often also tells a lot about people and their approaches. I'm sure you'll frown if someone brings up the Soviet Union and their only experiences with atheists are from there and they bring up the topic up straight. It tells you or at least me, that we're not going to have a rational discussion because of this person's bias.

On top of this, god-concepts are often unfalsifiable and therefore unjustifiable (e.g. deistic gods) or imply predictions that fail (e.g. "miracles" by interventionist gods).

Let's see how far you think this goes... Do you think a Democrat or Republican could be a True Skeptic?

But I do admit that my reasoning on this is inductive, so it can't give perfect certainty. Still, I think what I've seen warrants practical certainty for most purposes... similar to the level of certainty I use when I say that the passenger pigeon or dodo are extinct (another position that relies on inductive reasoning). Just as I can't completely exclude the possibility that someone has been breeding passenger pigeons in a secret lair somewhere for the last century, I can't exclude the possibility that some wizened sage on a mountaintop figured out how to reasonably justify their belief in their gods and isn't telling anyone.

Good for you, but completely irrelevant to our discussion.

But please: tell me why your belief in your gods is reasonable and justified unlike all the others around us.

You want to talk about my person and my beliefs, what have they got to do with who you think is allowed to call themselves Skeptics or not?

 

[LuisDantas]

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

That is exactly right, although I will note that some of us define "religions" in broader strokes than others.

Flat earth syndrome in my opinion.

Really? That is surprising. I have no idea of how or why one could think that.

 

[LuisDantas]

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?

No.

Simple as that, really.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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

Atheists and antitheists frequently claim that religion is the great murderer--yet religious wars have been traced to killing 5 million through the millennia... atheists did in 20 times as many people in the 20th century.

 

[Jumi]

Atheists and antitheists frequently claim that religion is the great murderer--yet religious wars have been traced to killing 5 million through the millennia... atheists did in 20 times as many people in the 20th century.

If we say it was done for atheism's sake because they were atheists, we might as well say they are catching up, because the rest of the wars are almost all theists against theists.

 

[LuisDantas]

Atheists and antitheists frequently claim that religion is the great murderer--yet religious wars have been traced to killing 5 million through the millennia... atheists did in 20 times as many people in the 20th century.

Uh, what? Are you talking about something that actually happened?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

No, I was noting that atheism represents belief.

And you'd be incorrect. As are many who do not understand atheism is the absence of belief-- a belief-vacuum.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

1. Gods do not exist.​

2. Therefore, religions are made by man.
3. Because religion is false, the happiness it provides is false.
Moreover, religion is a tool by which the people are oppressed, enslaved, and manipulated.
4. Therefore, religion must be eliminated before the people can find 'real' happiness.
5. In order for religion to be eliminated, millions of people are going to have to die.

So did they get everything right except the part where millions of people have to die? What gives?

You got #1, wrong here. What you have instead is a Straw Man, a classic Logical Fallacy.

Atheism simply states: We do not believe gods exist.

Subtle, but important distinction: BELIEF that gods do not exist is something else.

Since your #1 is wrong, and all the rest depend on it? We may simply dismiss them as irrelevant.

 

[paarsurrey]

Read about Ghengis Kahn before you throw a statement like that. He killed 5% of the world's population in the name of conquest.

Christian crusades: 400-500 million lives.

Islamic conquest 600-1 billion lives

Mao Tse Dong 60-80 million

Stalin: 26 million

American conquest across the frontier : 26 million

Hitler 9 million

But hitler is somehow the worst of them all.

Sorry.
Muhammad did not kill a single person for difference of religion and gave no teaching to kill anybody to convert to Islam. It is a wrong notion, please.
Regards

 

[Cacotopia]

Sorry.
Muhammad did not kill a single person for difference of religion and gave no teaching to kill anybody to convert to Islam. It is a wrong notion, please.
Regards

Are you saying not a single person has been killed in the name of Islam? I can't even fathom the level of delusion you are experiencing.

 

[Augustus]

And you'd be incorrect. As are many who do not understand atheism is the absence of belief-- a belief-vacuum.

Ignoring the fact that this is a cognitive impossibility by anyone who can roughly comprehend the term god, there is no legitimate way to claim it is 'incorrect'.

When someone uses an accepted definition of a common word you don't get to decide it is wrong just because it isn't your preferred definition.

 

[Augustus]

Are you saying not a single person has been killed in the name of Islam? I can't even fathom the level of delusion you are experiencing.

To be fair, 0 is actually closer to the true number than the 600million to 1 billion you claimed