"Atheism Produces Evil on Incredible Levels"

imo the propsition of this thread is muddled

is atheism itself proposed as a cause
and if so, what is the causative chain
i could for example say that most evil leaders had dark hair or were men
but that still leaves unclear the causitve connection

also there is unclarity about whether religion somehow immunizes leaders against evil policy
if so how
and will any religion have that impact... including islam

 

Against my better judgment, I’m going to address your sources in greater detail. The last time I did this, after reading a lengthy academic journal article, you abandoned the conversation completely without ever addressing it. I hope it doesn’t happen again.

Let’s look at all of the atheist leaders mentioned in your sources:
Mao – Communist
Lenin – Communist
Stalin – Communist
Pol Pott – Communist
Mengistu – Communist
Bierut – Communist
Choibalsan – Communist

Am I missing anyone?

All of the countries mentioned in your sources are Communist as well, with one possible exception mentioned entirely in passing – France during the Revolution. Yes, there were atheists involved there . . . as well as Christians and Deists.

So tell me again how you aren’t just focusing on Communism and using it to generalize about modern atheists.

 

And do you know what? Not everybody agrees with your website. There's far more to it than the insinuation noted in your quoted website. Read Steve Pinkers 'The better Angels of our nature: why violence has declined'. It's far too complicated to precis here. It has won widespread critical acclaim for its 'scope and originality', and the contentious debate it has aroused.

 

Why not...?
The Russian communism became like the old army game, ... let the other guy do the work, since we all get paid the same according to our needs.

Monasteries existed for a 1000 years under a socialism which had every Christians actually contributing, which compares against the secular system seen in Russia.

 

i have a slightly different take on all of this
in my view, ideologues are the main cause of the evil we are discussing
the ideology could i suppose be a atheism,
but most commonly atheism is just an ideological appendage

ideologues become obsessed with an idea
they try to fit the entire world within that framework
and are often ruthless in insuring conformity to the ideal

but atheism is not that sort of idea
it is not really about getting people to go along with a grand plan
it is more of a negative idea.... god does not exist
and there simply is not much to do to society based upon that non belief
you are not instituting a grand social order
no dictatorship of the proletariate
no übermensch, or master race
just turning your back on a previous organizing principle
atheism is kind of innocuous
really almost boring if you are not a theist whose world view is challenged
but speaking as an atheist
i can say that i regret my views seem distressing
but any threat they may feel is illusory
i do not hate theism, or theists
i do not want to attack them
i just choose not to participate in their religious convictions
and would appreciate if they would likewise respect my right to have my own opinion on these matters

 

Which of these worshiped God???
The list seems to point to leaders and societies which KILLED millions of people just to get control, and then they all failed right after wards, didn't they???

- - - Updated - - -

These communist regimes actually OUTLAWED religions, though.

 

None. Though using them to generalize about all people who do not worship God is intellectually and ethically irresponsible. There are of, of course, others who worshiped God and were guilty of bloodshed themselves. Leopold of Belgium comes to mind.

Yes. Although the numbers provided conflate those directly killed with those who died from starvation due to flawed economic ideas.

Yes, and I think we can all agree that was wrong, just as it would be wrong to outlaw irreligion.

 

yes but again, atheism was a mere appendage on the larger ideology

State atheism in the Soviet Union was known as gosateizm,[2] and was based on the ideology of Marxism–Leninism. As the founder of the Soviet state, V. I. Lenin, put it:

Religion is the opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class.[6]

it is like saying republicans are against medical care for the poor,
when really they are against big government including government medical care

communists had a broad ideological agenda
and religion did not fit in that agenda
they were atheists as a logical consequence of their ideology

 

Doesn't sound like a God of unconditional love. In fact, it sounds like quite the petty and needy deity. Not really sure that's a good God you are worshiping there. To me, it kinda sounds evil.

 

The fellow gets one thing right.

There is no greater evil in historical record than 1000 years of horror propagated by the Catholic Church.

Folks like Hitler and Pol Pot are minor in comparison as their reign lasted only a short period of time.

The numerical comparison used by this fellow is that of a statistical idiot.

Obviously the numbers of people killed over a population of 1 billion are going to be higher than when the same atrocities are committed over a population of 1 million.

If we were talking percentages that this argument would at least have some validity in relation to "evil".

There is also something to be said about the way people were killed. Gassing someone or shooting them in the head is orders of magnitude more humane that what the Church did.

Killing someone quickly was not good enough for these folks... no no no. The torture chambers were located in the basements of churches and the Church leaders devised the most horrific and painful way to torture someone for as long as possible prior to killing them.

This is a level of evil that at the highest level. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vatican/esp_vatican29.htm

 

Nah. I'm pretty sure there's no god, and if there is, he's probably a lunatic anyway.

 

Considering the factual numbers state that this is not true, I assume you're speaking through emotions.

 

A few people complained about my source. I figured this was common knowledge, but apparently it's not. So, here's some better sources:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/nov/4/20061104-103213-3757r/?page=all
http://glipho.com/nick-thorne/was-the-20th-century-really-the-most-violent-in-human-history
http://www.who.int/violence_injury_..._report/factsheets/en/collectiveviolfacts.pdf

 

What is not true ?

 

Here ya go:
http://www.who.int/violence_injury_..._report/factsheets/en/collectiveviolfacts.pdf
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/nov/4/20061104-103213-3757r/?page=all


- - - Updated - - -

Because the source I quoted came from researchers who said, "Hey! Here's my hypothesis and look at the data I've collected to formulate my conclusion.", and you say, "Nuh uh!". So, how about you find sources that are contrary to mine, hmm?

 

No. He's attacking me as if I said those things directly. He's not attacking the source, otherwise he'd have his own sources that are contrary to mine. Since he does not have that, it's safe to say he's just simply arguing against my source.

 

Yes. Please correct my false view. Offer me a source. Something you are refusing to do.


- - - Updated - - -

Here ya go:
http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/factsheets/en/collectiveviolfacts.pdf
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/nov/4/20061104-103213-3757r/?page=all

 

Because you didn't read the source. You also haven't realized that you were arguing points created by researchers with empirical data that you have nothing to combat against. Responding to your points would be pointless.

Well, I am blaming the rulers. Those rulers were all atheists, and they've killed millions upon millions of people.

 

lol

God already knows who is going to reject god before they were born, or even before the existence of the earth, what fun is damning people to hell for a victimless thought crime for all eternity if their fate is already predetermined? LOL

I mean, Hitler is chilling in heaven drinking beer with Jesus, and your typically atheist goes to hell for all eternity for thinking a thought? I mean seriously, how (*)(*)(*)(*)ing stupid is that?

- - - Updated - - -

What atheist doctrine demands that atheists kill religious people?

Be specific.

Hitler acted out the Will of God by punishing those who killed His Son, why are you ignoring that?

 

You didn't offer a source for your original claim, so you complain that I didn't offer one in my rebuttal? Your claim was that, in the 20th Century, most secular governments were Communist. Can you back that up?

 

1) Hitler was an apostate. He didn't act on the "Will of God".

2) Atheists do not hold humans to any intrinsic value. Most atheists believe that human beings are no more than biomechanical robots that operate due to electrical charges in the brain. They also believe that human existence only came about through a random process called natural selection, and that humans have no true purpose on this planet outside of what each human individually makes of themselves.

Most atheists believe morality is subjective, and that right, wrong, good and evil are simply opinions based on social constructs and parental upbringing. There's nothing that's absolutely evil and there's nothing that's absolutely good. So, many atheists claim there no true right or wrong since it's all relative.

Atheists also tend to be more angry, more depressed and way more suicidal than any group in the world.
Source: https://winteryknight.wordpress.com...at-god-is-associated-with-poor-mental-health/
Source 2: http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/01/anger-at-god-common-even-among-atheists/

So, when it comes to atheists killing other people, if they know they can get away with it with no consequences, what could possibly stop them? Certainly not their morality.

 

He linked you to a source that DID combat your source, and then you brushed it off as a blog. Remember that? Even though YOUR sources were blogs? Why don't you admit that your hypocrisy and that blogs are acceptable sources?

 

Yes. Their morality. Basic human compassion. And, you know . . . like most sane people, the fact that they probably don't have much desire to kill other people to begin with.

 

The blog had no citation. No sources. No links. Nothing.

Also, you complained about my source, so I provided more. I held my end of the bargain.

 

Yes, we did, we're tearing it a part right now.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Wow. Hah. So, like I have constantly pointed out, you think that simply linking to a source makes your case impregnable. Why can't we "combat" against the methodology of the data collection or, I don't know, the fallacious conclusions reached by blog sources or others (you) that use his methodology to reach those conclusions? Oh, I know why, because your argument is fallacious and pure crap. You're out of your element.

Yeah, so you say EVERY time your arguments are trounced. Why don't you go back to trying to read citations off of a Wikipedia page?

And you still have yet to prove the causation between their atheism and their actions, which is what we are pointing that out to you.