The Stalin/Pol Pot/Hitler Killed Because of Atheism Fallacy

I rather like SkinWalkers point that ideologies drive people to mega-murder. Those ideology may be religious, secular, or atheistic (i.e. anti-religious).

It seems to me a futile argument whether it is religion or atheism that motivates mass murder, when both can (and have been) twisted to that end. It is the act of twisting them into a fanatical ideology that makes them dangerous, not a/theism itself. You can misuse anything with enough determination.

Is science evil or good? You can use it to make WMDs or medicines.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

what medicine can religion make?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

...or indeed atheism? I was using science as a metaphore.

However, the etymology of the word 'salvation' means healing. Holiness, (wholeness) - even forgiveness is about feeling better about yourself and the world.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

After all this time, how could I not have realized how murderous my beliefs were? From now on I shall worship the Shark, that will save me from immoral deeds except when Shark himself commands it.

 

I stand corrected FR...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Furthermore the freedictionary.com definition of salvation: "the act of preserving someone or something from harm" is more like vaccination than medicine!

 

You're making an enormous mistake and you have been throughout this whole thread.

I'll keep it simple and quick and if you'd like, we can go from there; though there'll be really nothing more to say.

1: Even if they were atheists, killing in the name of atheism is no different than killing in the name of being tall/tallness. Why? Because despite sounding silly the key point here is that there is no motivator other than difference.

An tall killing the short (Or extremely tall) has no motivating factor other than because the target is different.

This is why religions actually can be held much more responsible for when an atrocious act is committed in it's name, because they do supply very strong motivators. An obvious example is looking at the Islamic suicide bombers.

Atheists killing someone else will have a reason, not motivated by atheism. An example of this would be Stalin himself who largely did so for political reasons such as ridding his system of competition for his own ego.

2: Now in your statistics you're also forgetting the fact that these dictators lived in a technological era were mass killings could quickly be done. Considering the large numbers religions have managed to murder during their own times there would undoubtedly be a much larger percentage of killing done in the name of religion.

There's also the fact that a large number of deaths religion is responsible for isn't even considered as it's not an active persecution. One such example is the still continuing HIV crises in Africa due to the Catholic church's fantastic resistance to permitting the avocation of condoms leading to the death of countless people. All because they think putting a piece of plastic on their genitals will offend a zombie-wizard in the sky.

3: Last is the fact that outside of these specific figures, what atheists in everyday life- say in the US - are like these terrible people? The last time I checked it was an abortion clinic that was bombed, not a church. Although, there was an attempted bombing of a synagogue that was apparently prevented recently, but these individuals happened to be religious as well so that really doesn't help your case.

4: You're making a fallacy - sweeping generalization. Again, you're taking a few examples and then using it to brand all others. It's disgusting and highly offensive as well as extremely ignorant.

 

maybe it's what they weren't told my theism NOT to do..

after all, you live only once..

no god..no sin..

well you're right..

one nation's slavement is another nation's expansion..but that is what war is about.. it goes both ways..what you said indicates nothing, although true..

 

as far as my information goes..the islamic religion is about submitting all states to the islamic law..that is the goal, not killing people with other beliefs..

so when a country is invaded and conquered..all people with different beliefs are allowed to keep them...it is not even allowed to destroy any existing churches or any other worshiping structures ...but usually people then get into islam after seeing it from a closer distance (or being brainwashed, for all that matters)..

not to mention that a state before being invaded is always given the choice of submitting to the Islamic rule..if it refuses then it is given the choice of keeping it's rule but pay annually to the Islamic state (i think like china did- i won't bring any evidence of this, feel free to bring any of your own to contradic me)..and if it yet declines then it is invaded..and then what we mentioned earlier takes place..

 

Islamic law sucks.

Mohammad (piss on his name) is the last person I'd turn to for legal advise.

 

every human intention is meant to be broken, from the roots of its imperfection.

 

scifes,

This is likely to be considered by Muslims as very offensive, as has been pointed out to me already. But it is not ad hominen towards any member, and showing respect for a religion is not a forum rule.

 

I'm in agreement with my fellow moderator. While it might be viewed as offensive by some, there is no a priori acceptance that Muhammad was any more significant than any other person nor that he had access to the divine word of allah, god, yahweh or any other superstitious manifestation of man.

There is, however, a recourse for any member offended by suggestions, including the urination on Muhammed or even allah: simply put the "offender" on ignore. Or don't read the thread.

 

Stalin's atheism is doubtful; he waffled back and forth depending on what time it was in his life. But most of the murders done under his reign were either the result of famine caused by economic up-fuckery, or political repression. Yes, he repressed churches during a part of his regime, but that was for political, rather than ideological, reasons.

Mao? Again, political; his atheism was not a motive for the death and repression under his rule. He, like Stalin, saw any source of alternative loyalty as a threat to his own power. That, and economic screwups with the Great Leap Forward that cause widespread famine and disease.

Hitler? The man was simply batfuck insane; he wasn't an atheist, anyway. So using him as an example of "killing because of atheism" is a ridiculously asinine assertion.

Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot? Once again, political repression and massive economic fuckup that led to massive famines.

 

There are those who aren't interested in submitting to the Islamic cult, hence there will be no choice but to kill those who don't submit.

Sorry, but the history of Islam is steeped in invasion, conquering and the accepting of Islam or die, your version of "getting into Islam after seeing it from a closer distance" like the edge of sword.

And who the fuck do Muslims think they are by demanding monies from those with different beliefs? Can you say, "Extortion?"

 

The impact of islamic "law" on those forced to endure it is truly obsene. Hand chopping, stoning, the oppresion, murder and mutilation of women, censorship, in short it is as offensive to the notion of actual law and justice as it is possible to be.

If we must blame islame on Mohammad then piss on his name.

You know this gives me an idea for a performance art piece.

 

Well, yes, mainstream Islamic jurisprudence is quite backwards.
Mostly because the Middle East and North Africa are culturally jammed in the Middle Ages.

 

Christianity was likewise. Why has (most?) Christianity changed from that yet Islam hasn't?

 

Islam is 600 years younger. Give it time.

 

-yaaaaaaawn-