Secular and or Atheist violence

[briareos]

Good. Atheism is cleared of the charges. [/thread]


eudaimonia,

Mark

It certainly is, none were made.

 

[Tiberius]

It simply does not matter that his plans involved nationalism... it is undeniable that he was promoting atheism and that is enough to substantiate my points and I will not defend arguments that I have not made such as a person did something because they were an atheist.

I will deny it, because he was acting to increase the state's power.

If he could gain that power through forcing atheism on people, then he would have done it. That does not mean that he was committing any actions in the name of atheism.

If he could increase the state's power by forcing everyone to wear red baseball caps, would you be claiming that he was murdering in the name of red baseball caps? Of course not.

 

[briareos]

Of course it does, your using a silly example does not make anything else silly. It is not deniable that he did those things, in order to establish atheism and that is not distinguishable from "for atheism" the "to" is not distinguishable from "for". He did those things in order to establish atheism.

Even if you never agree with my use of words... it still remains true that he did these things in order to establish atheism, that substantiates my point.

 

[briareos]

it is undeniable that he was promoting atheism

I will deny it

Your just wrong and that's clear enough.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Even if you never agree with my use of words... it still remains true that he did these things in order to establish atheism, that substantiates my point.

Your point was?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[acropolis]

Of course it does, your using a silly example does not make anything else silly. It is not deniable that he did those things, in order to establish atheism and that is not distinguishable from "for atheism" the "to" is not distinguishable from "for". He did those things in order to establish atheism.

Even if you never agree with my use of words... it still remains true that he did these things in order to establish atheism, that substantiates my point.

You've posted enough to demonstrate that non-religious governments have killed people, but you have yet to demonstrate that they killed people in the name of atheism, so don't be surprised when people point this out.

 

[Tiberius]

Of course it does, your using a silly example does not make anything else silly. It is not deniable that he did those things, in order to establish atheism and that is not distinguishable from "for atheism" the "to" is not distinguishable from "for". He did those things in order to establish atheism.

Even if you never agree with my use of words... it still remains true that he did these things in order to establish atheism, that substantiates my point.

My point is that he was using atheism as a tool to accomplish increased power to the state. If he could get the same power by instating some religion, then he would have. Stalin had little interest in atheism in terms of the benefits it would have for the people in the state. That is the point I am making. Making everyone an atheist was never the goal. Increasing power for the state was a goal.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Stalin did what he did in order to maintain his power as a communist dictator. No more and no less.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[briareos]

Stalin did what he did in order to maintain his power as a communist dictator. No more and no less.


eudaimonia,

Mark

My point was clearly displayed in the OP and throughout... and is that people have committed crimes in the name of Atheism and crimes have been committed by the nonreligious.


responding to your statement... but it absolutely involved, required, demonstrated and purposed the establishment of atheism. It isn't reasonable to assume that purpose did not exist also. They are not exclusive.

 

[briareos]

You've posted enough to demonstrate that non-religious governments have killed people, but you have yet to demonstrate that they killed people in the name of atheism, so don't be surprised when people point this out.

OH REALLY!! HAHA

I am not so surprised... simply continuing the conversation on the thread and topic I felt interested enough in to create.

I feel it has been demonstrated, I can see no reason in denying it. The information that he had other motives, even bigger motives does not deny that the crimes were committed for the purpose of establishing atheism, thus for atheism, it is a relevant and undeniably existent characteristic in his motive. The two purposes are not exclusive.

 

[briareos]

My point is that he was using atheism as a tool to accomplish increased power to the state. If he could get the same power by instating some religion, then he would have. Stalin had little interest in atheism in terms of the benefits it would have for the people in the state. That is the point I am making. Making everyone an atheist was never the goal. Increasing power for the state was a goal.

and my point is only that him making people atheist was demonstrated to be a purpose of his (I accept it was not his end purpose) and for that reason I say they were done in the name of atheism, for the purpose of atheism.

 

[briareos]

You've posted enough to demonstrate that non-religious governments have killed people, but you have yet to demonstrate that they killed people in the name of atheism, so don't be surprised when people point this out.

I harbor no hostility toward anyone here... this is just a discussion and with several people hear I greatly respect. I do though think I am right and I will try to establish that until I am shown different... I am not a sock puppet. I can see when I am wrong and if so I will accept it.

 

[acropolis]

If you'd like to think of it that way I suppose you can. The real motivations had much more to do with nationalism and securing power than they did for advancing atheism, just like the genocides in the New World had more to do with securing wealth and power than they did with spreading religion. It doesn't do any good to pretend that whatever theory you don't like is the actual culprit when evidence points to something else being the real cause, but if it makes you feel better to have atheism be the bad guy than go for it, I guess. You could very well chalk up the trail of dead left of the US in the 21st century as being because of atheism since the US is a secular nation, though again there isn't much use in thinking of it that way.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

These statistics aren't mean to be fair, they're meant to produce a scapegoat. They're meant to point the finger at atheists and say "they're evil." They're meant to remind Christians why atheists are their hated enemies. Making the statistics comparable would seriously undermine that. No Christian would ever verify the claims to make sure they're reasonable, as they already produce the desired result: Atheists are just evil.

A nice way of saying that you find it immpossible that people could commit violence in the name of atheism. Religion? Yes - not not atheism.

Sure, atheists can do bad things. But they don't do it because they are atheists. How can you say that everything a person does is motivated by their religious beliefs or non-beliefs? If that is true, shouldn't the fact that the majority of prison are believers inmates tell us that religion also motivates people to be bad? Of course not. Just because a thief is a Christian doesn't mean that he is a thief BECAUSE he is Christian. Likewise, just because a thief is an atheist shouldn't mean that he is a thief BECAUSE he is an atheist.

Don't confuse correlation with causality.

This has been addressed already. I added an example here showing the difference between a killer who happens to be an atheist, and people actually killing in the name of atheism.

Besides, no-one here claimed that all atheists are evil.

Why then do you do it? Jesus wasn't born in December. The early Christian co-opted the pagan holidays that happened around this time. Pine trees have nothing at all to do with Jesus. Doesn't the Bible prohibit putting up trees? The mid-winter holiday, whatever you call it, was a festival to welcome back the sun. I've always liked summer better than winter so... Yay sun! And Yay Santa! Yay presents and yay fireplaces and yay being close to people I love. Jesus? eh... not so much. At least, not the Jesus the Republican right wing would have you believe lived. The one that hates gays and had blonde hair and white skin... you know, the marketing Jesus. Don't talk to me about atheists not being true to reality.

And? Most Christians know full well our Christimas traditions are either modern or have pagan roots. This doesn't change the fact atheists have no more reason to celebrate Saturnalia than they have to celebrate Christmas.

------------------------------

You've posted enough to demonstrate that non-religious governments have killed people, but you have yet to demonstrate that they killed people in the name of atheism, so don't be surprised when people point this out.

Making everyone an atheist was never the goal. Increasing power for the state was a goal.

Good. Atheism is cleared of the charges. [/thread]

Trying to get an atheist to admit atheism is not infallible is like trying to get a Creationist to accept evolution ...

There is plenty of evidence to suggest people have been killed in the name of atheism (for example, Lenin saying that people who don't come to work so they can celebrate Christmas should be shot). People ignore it because it goes against their personal opinions.

And they call it "Free-thinking".

 

[acropolis]

Trying to get an atheist to admit atheism is not infallible is like trying to get a Creationist to accept evolution ...

There is plenty of evidence to suggest people have been killed in the name of atheism (for example, Lenin saying that people who don't come to work so they can celebrate Christmas should be shot). People ignore it because it goes against their personal opinions.

And they call it "Free-thinking".

Atheism isn't a political ideology, it has no manifesto, it makes no value judgments whatsoever. It's just a lack of belief in god. There are particular belief systems which are atheist, like Leninism, but makes about as much sense to chalk up the murders under Lenin to atheism as it does to attribute the Crusades to theism. They weren't trying to reclaim the Holy Land for the belief that a god exists, but for their specific ideology. You can say 'atheists kill' and 'theists kill' but to say that people kill in the name of those things takes a bit more proof, and in some sense isn't very meaningful to say.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

and my point is only that him making people atheist was demonstrated to be a purpose of his (I accept it was not his end purpose) and for that reason I say they were done in the name of atheism, for the purpose of atheism.

I was wondering.
When you say "In the name of" what do you mean?
I tried the dictionary but I suppose asking you directly is more effective. (i'm still looking for a definition though, just yours.)

 

[Eudaimonist]

Trying to get an atheist to admit atheism is not infallible is like trying to get a Creationist to accept evolution ...

No one is saying that atheism is infallible. I don't even understand what that claim could possibly mean. We certainly don't believe that atheists are infallible.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest people have been killed in the name of atheism (for example, Lenin saying that people who don't come to work so they can celebrate Christmas should be shot). People ignore it because it goes against their personal opinions.

That is extremely poor evidence. Christmas is a cultural tradition. It transcends religion, and the crime simply seems to be disobedience to the State.

And they call it "Free-thinking".

Free-thinking includes the possibility of disagreeing with you.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

My point was clearly displayed in the OP and throughout... and is that people have committed crimes in the name of Atheism

I don't deny his ultimate cause may not have been the promotion of atheism

You have not shown that any crimes were committed "in the name of Atheism" or for the purpose of atheism.

As far as I know, the name and purpose were always the State.

and crimes have been committed by the nonreligious.

No one disputes this.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Instead of repeating the same refuted arguments for another twenty pages, it might be worth addressing them directly:

-------------------------------


"Don't confuse causation with correlations. People like Lenin, Stalin and Mao were people who happened to be atheists - it doesn't mean they killed in the name of atheism."

• An example of a killer who happened to be an atheist would be Anders Behring Breivik. He was a right-wing fanatic who hated Islam and wanted to preserve Norway's Christian heritage, even though he had no relationship with God. He did not kill in the name of atheism.
• Stalin, Mao and Lenin killed in the name of atheism by detroying all religious beliefs (mainly Christian but Muslims too) and replacing it with the belief that there is no God. They attacked both religious organisations and individual theists.

"They wanted to promote Nationalism, not atheism."

• Nationalism can be promoted without atheism - an example of this would be Zionism, a nationalist movement based on the idea that Israel is the Jewish promised land and only Jews have the right to rule it.
• Atheist nationalism is inspired by the idea that if there is no God, the only source of truth is the government.
• Gangs such as the "League of Militant Atheists", as the name suggests, attacked people because of their belief in God, not because they lacked loyalty to the state.

It's possible to kill because of belief, but it's not possible to kill because of a lack of belief. Has anyone ever commited murder because they didn't believe in fairies?

• Anders Breivik killed because of a lack of beliefs. We know this because a) his beliefs were secular, not religious and b) he despised Islam but had no problem with other religions such as Hinduism and Judasim. He killed not because of his beliefs in atheism or Christianity, but his lack of belief in Islam.
• Not all atheists are anti-theists (which is defined as both "A disbeliever in God" and "a conscious and deliberate opposition to theism") but in order to be an anti-theist, one must first be an atheist.

And no - nobody is claiming that all atheists are bad people. Those who think they are seem to think that anyone who criticises atheism is obviously a religion fanatic. Surely no sensible person would claim that people have done bad things in the name of atheism ...

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

No one is saying that atheism is infallible.

Yet when crimes commited in the name of atheism are pointed out, people always blame something else.

Free-thinking includes the possibility of disagreeing with you.

A concept the atheists here seem to have trouble grasping.