As many of you should know, many Christian apologists respond to charges made by atheists accusing Christians of belonging to a violent religion by saying: "You atheists do it too and much more than we ever did!" Apologists cite people like Stalin and Hitler whom they say murdered millions and did so because atheism caused them to do so.
How do atheists respond to the charge that atheism leads to genocide and other horrors?
I can honestly say that although I'm an atheist, I have no desire at all to murder anyone. I don't see how it logically follows that since there are no gods, then I should hurt anybody. Any person who does desire to hurt people thinking that doing so results from her atheism is not only evil but very illogical.
But not everybody feels the way I do, of course. It's possible that some people do need the threat of divine retribution to keep them in line. Maybe that's what apologists are telling us: they need the threat of divine punishment to prevent them from hurting people. Simply treating people well to maintain social harmony is not enough for them, and they project this feeling onto other people.
In any case, I'm not an atheist because of the moral implications of not believing in any gods. I'm an atheist because I cannot buy the claim that gods exist. So even if it was true that atheism leads to various evils, I don't see how I can be convinced that any gods exist.
Atheism isn't an ideology, its an absence of an ideology. Hitler and Starlin had there own political ideology and world views that lead to the wars and deaths they created.
Hitler was a christian.
Quote from: Munch on May 19, 2019, 11:24:49 AM
Atheism isn't an ideology, its an absence of an ideology. Hitler and Starlin had there own political ideology and world views that lead to the wars and deaths they created.
That's the way I see this issue. Yes, Stalin was an atheist, but he had a mustache too. I can just as easily claim that his mustache caused him to kill as his atheism may have!
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on May 19, 2019, 12:16:09 PM
Hitler was a christian.
I suppose that depends on what you mean by "Christian." Hitler was a Roman Catholic and never renounced that faith. But we really don't know what he really believed. On the other hand, we do know he did make use of Christianity to rally hatred against his perceived enemies most notably the Jews.
As you may know, Christian apologists can always use the "no true Christian" argument to defend Christianity on this issue. That is, they can argue that Hitler could not have been a Christian because he was a mass murderer.
But--is any Christian immune to "sin"? Just how sinful need a person be to no longer qualify as a Christian?
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on May 19, 2019, 12:16:09 PM
Hitler was a christian.
He was raised Catholic, but after looking into it, it seems more likely that he was an atheist. He really did not like the church, although he attempted to manipulate the church to his advantage.
Quote from: Jagella on May 19, 2019, 09:57:26 AM
As many of you should know, many Christian apologists respond to charges made by atheists accusing Christians of belonging to a violent religion by saying: "You atheists do it too and much more than we ever did!" Apologists cite people like Stalin and Hitler whom they say murdered millions and did so because atheism caused them to do so.
How do atheists respond to the charge that atheism leads to genocide and other horrors?
I can honestly say that although I'm an atheist, I have no desire at all to murder anyone. I don't see how it logically follows that since there are no gods, then I should hurt anybody. Any person who does desire to hurt people thinking that doing so results from her atheism is not only evil but very illogical.
But not everybody feels the way I do, of course. It's possible that some people do need the threat of divine retribution to keep them in line. Maybe that's what apologists are telling us: they need the threat of divine punishment to prevent them from hurting people. Simply treating people well to maintain social harmony is not enough for them, and they project this feeling onto other people.
In any case, I'm not an atheist because of the moral implications of not believing in any gods. I'm an atheist because I cannot buy the claim that gods exist. So even if it was true that atheism leads to various evils, I don't see how I can be convinced that any gods exist.
Christians are responsible for most of the violence in the world. Historically, they couldn't even get along with each other. Catholics and Protestants killed and oppressed one another, depending on who was in power at the time. If the threat of Hell really did keep people from doing evil, why is it almost everyone in prison are Christian? It seems to me to have the opposite affect. Countries that are the most secular have the lowest violent crime rates. Today, Christians continue to oppress people. Unable to keep their religious beliefs restricted to their private lives, they insist on using the government to force their beliefs on everyone else.
Quote from: Munch on May 19, 2019, 11:24:49 AM
Atheism isn't an ideology, its an absence of an ideology. Hitler and Starlin had there own political ideology and world views that lead to the wars and deaths they created.
I don't know why so many people think Hitler was an atheist. Stalin was, but he was also a communist.
A stray thought. Since everyone knows that the US is a Christian nation (conservatives do insist!), and we all know that christianity is a peace loving religion, why is it that the US has been involved in close to 120 armed conflicts in it's roughly 240 years of existence? We have been at war (or armed conflict) for 222 of those years. Maybe christians did not invent Newspeak, but they have always been masters of it.
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on May 19, 2019, 12:16:09 PM
Hitler was a christian.
Technically yes. Practically no ... he was a Wagnerian pagan. It is like saying, because his mother was of Jewish descent, that he was a Jew. And that the Holocaust was a Jewish false flag. Hitler, by John Toland, covers this in detail, what we can know what he as actually like, not as we "narrative" him. If he hadn't been criminally insane, he might have been the greatest German leader of all time. But he was the man for his time, to lead a Germany that had gone off its rocker. In the Garden of Beasts, by Erik Larson (who has written more than one book on psycho killers) covers the culture of early Third Reich. There are so many details that people ignore, namely that Hitler had two nephews, and one of them died as a German soldier on the Russian Front, and the other lived, as a pharmacist mate, in the US Navy, in WW II.
Quote from: Jagella on May 19, 2019, 09:57:26 AM
As many of you should know, many Christian apologists respond to charges made by atheists accusing Christians of belonging to a violent religion by saying: "You atheists do it too and much more than we ever did!" Apologists cite people like Stalin and Hitler whom they say murdered millions and did so because atheism caused them to do so.
How do atheists respond to the charge that atheism leads to genocide and other horrors?
I can honestly say that although I'm an atheist, I have no desire at all to murder anyone. I don't see how it logically follows that since there are no gods, then I should hurt anybody. Any person who does desire to hurt people thinking that doing so results from her atheism is not only evil but very illogical.
But not everybody feels the way I do, of course. It's possible that some people do need the threat of divine retribution to keep them in line. Maybe that's what apologists are telling us: they need the threat of divine punishment to prevent them from hurting people. Simply treating people well to maintain social harmony is not enough for them, and they project this feeling onto other people.
In any case, I'm not an atheist because of the moral implications of not believing in any gods. I'm an atheist because I cannot buy the claim that gods exist. So even if it was true that atheism leads to various evils, I don't see how I can be convinced that any gods exist.
Having an empirical or rational problem with the "deity" concept is reasonable. There is no divine retribution, and I say that as a theist. The idea that you can commit genocide now, and maybe (except for Jesus' covering sin) pay for it eventually, is a silly idea. If there were divine justice (as mocked even in pagan times) ... Zeus would fry your ass from out of the sky every time you farted the wrong way, and would be right to do so (since humans are the most annoying species ever). Further comments are applied further down, that apply to your other points.
Quote from: Munch on May 19, 2019, 11:24:49 AM
Atheism isn't an ideology, its an absence of an ideology. Hitler and Starlin had there own political ideology and world views that lead to the wars and deaths they created.
Correct. Stalin and Hitler represented different competing forms of socialism. Socialism in its extreme form, considers all individual to be expendable, and usually elevates the State to absolute power. This, like all extremes is self contradictory. A State that negates all individuals is a set without members. Inhumanism is an outgrowth of tribal criminality. Hitler and Stalin merely modernized and put on a different basis (Volk vs Class) the same inhumanity we see with Mongol conquest. Corrupt religion was promoted to Hitler (as a backstop, he actually wasn't ready to impose Wagnerian paganism). Stalin temporarily eliminated religion as a power base competitive with the State, and therefor intolerable. Even Stalin had to allow private Russian Orthodox worship (but a castrated Church organization, much like China is running now) so as the Russian people not entirely despair under the very effective genocide by the Germans.
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 19, 2019, 12:48:52 PM
He was raised Catholic, but after looking into it, it seems more likely that he was an atheist. He really did not like the church, although he attempted to manipulate the church to his advantage.
Hitler may have been an atheist, but if he was an atheist, for him it would be very uncomfortably close to communism, an ideology he hated. Hitler denounced Bolshevism as "godless," and he would not have wanted people to know that he shared the communist point of view!
Now I agree that Hitler was no fan of the Christian church, but many Christians criticize Christianity. So his dislike for Christianity does not make him an atheist.
And yes, he manipulated the church. It was not a major effort for him to do so considering that Christianity has been anti-Jewish since its inception.
Quote from: Jagella on May 19, 2019, 12:29:50 PM
That's the way I see this issue. Yes, Stalin was an atheist, but he had a mustache too. I can just as easily claim that his mustache caused him to kill as his atheism may have!
Beware of sentient mustaches ... it was an alien attached to his face, like in Alien ;-) I will never have a mustache as grand as his! But then I don't allow aliens to parasitize me.
Quote from: Jagella on May 19, 2019, 01:38:33 PM
Hitler may have been an atheist, but if he was an atheist, for him it would be very uncomfortably close to communism, an ideology he hated. Hitler denounced Bolshevism as "godless," and he would not have wanted people to know that he shared the communist point of view!
Now I agree that Hitler was no fan of the Christian church, but many Christians criticize Christianity. So his dislike for Christianity does not make him an atheist.
And yes, he manipulated the church. It was not a major effort for him to do so considering that Christianity has been anti-Jewish since its inception.
The book, Constantine's Sword, covers the general Christian and specifically German guilt regarding genocide in general, and against Jews in particular. These things in history, are the result of countless over preceding events. They can't be analyzed, no more than your genetics, as something that happened out of nowhere, in just one generation ;-)
The whole degeneracy of society over the last 500 years, and the miserable state of society in the prior 5000 years, are well covered in honest history. It was unexpected that a people as civilized as Italy, Japan and Germany could behave badly. It was expected that barbarians like Russia and China were not to be trusted. That is the problem with dominant narrative, and group think.
Humans today, the world over, continue to be just as blinkered regarding policy now as they were in the 30s. Just about the time a person becomes wise with experience, they die. And the whole mess starts over again with a clueless generation.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 19, 2019, 01:26:55 PM
A stray thought. Since everyone knows that the US is a Christian nation (conservatives do insist!), and we all know that christianity is a peace loving religion, why is it that the US has been involved in close to 120 armed conflicts in it's roughly 240 years of existence? We have been at war (or armed conflict) for 222 of those years. Maybe christians did not invent Newspeak, but they have always been masters of it.
Much of what you're asking here can be answered by studying Manifest Destiny (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny#Themes_and_influences). According to Wikipedia:
QuoteHistorian William E. Weeks has noted that three key themes were usually touched upon by advocates of manifest destiny:
- the virtue of the American people and their institutions;
- the mission to spread these institutions, thereby redeeming and remaking the world in the image of the United States;
- the destiny under God to do this work.
So we can see that the warlike nature of America has a basis in its theism.
Which American theism? What is the underlying emotion of Manifest Destiny? I am American. The story of colonial America, and the founding of the Republic is full of genuine conspiracy (before, during and after the Constitutional Convention). The English colonization was partly led by secular utopians like Francis Bacon. The English colonies here were to be the New Atlantis (a book by Francis Bacon). This was much discussed in private (so evidence shows) at the time of the founding of the Roanoke and Jamestown colonies. And then there was the Reformation and Civil War in Britain at that time, leading exiled religious extremists to found theocratic utopias in New England. So the underlying theology of the US civil society, is that all public religion (Jeffersonian) is to be Freemasonic (the New Atlantis) in dialectic with private religion (the New Israel). They share pseudo-jewish symbol systems. Jefferson was a revolutionary progressive (in spite of being a slave owner like Washington) who expected the New Israel to die out once the Church was disestablished (it was established in the individual colonies, Maryland for instance was for Catholics, Pennsylvania for Quakers). Part of the tension between him and John Adams. The whole point of church-state separation (which entirely comes from Jefferson in the founding of the University of Virginia, not the Constitution) was to create space in which the Church would be allowed wither. On that point and on others, Jefferson had feet of clay, as a prophet. Very great men, who were riding a wave of their own time, but could have no idea what 100 years in the future would look like. The current disagreement between American religious and secular, dates back to the 1600s.
QuoteChristians are responsible for most of the violence in the world.
I don't know about that one, chief.
A large part of it? Certainly. And is a large part of that in the name of Christianity? Yep. But that's like saying that men are responsible for most of the violence in the world... it's true, but it does leave out ALOT of important details and paints with way too broad of brush.
(And I would argue that "manhood" is just as much a ideology as a Christianity, with just as many (if not more) sects and different interpretations of what it means. )
Neither Stalin nor Hitler did the killing. The troops did, and I can assure you the vast majority of the troops were some type of Christian.
Hitler was a christian who dissed Jesus because Jesus was a Jew. So like in euthenics he want to cut out the Jewish part of Christianity that was the filth of the religion to him. So saying he was an atheist is bullshit because he did believe in a god but that god was not Jesus but the father of Jesus and Jesus and the iseralites were sin and filthy compared to the "Arayan race" (reason why he hated church which preached the Jewish part of Christianity). He was a fanatic but not an atheist.
Quote from: Baruch on May 19, 2019, 01:29:11 PMhe was a Wagnerian pagan.
Hitler was a lot of things and was influenced by a lot of different people. To call him a "pagan Christian influenced by Nietzsche" isn't too much of a stretch.
Quote from: Blackleaf on May 19, 2019, 12:54:26 PM
Christians are responsible for most of the violence in the world. Historically, they couldn't even get along with each other. Catholics and Protestants killed and oppressed one another, depending on who was in power at the time. If the threat of Hell really did keep people from doing evil, why is it almost everyone in prison are Christian? It seems to me to have the opposite affect. Countries that are the most secular have the lowest violent crime rates. Today, Christians continue to oppress people. Unable to keep their religious beliefs restricted to their private lives, they insist on using the government to force their beliefs on everyone else.
Unfortunately, we don't have any credible statistics regarding the impact Christianity may have had on mortality over its two-thousand year lifespan. All I can say is that I've seen it do a lot of harm and have seen it as the source of violence and irrational hatred. Atheism, by contrast, I've seen do almost no harm at all.
Quote from: _Xenu_ on May 19, 2019, 12:56:45 PM
I don't know why so many people think Hitler was an atheist.
That's a really interesting issue. I'm guessing that the clergy in America painted Hitler as an atheist fearing that people might see him as a Christian. Nowadays Christian apologists love to tell people that Hitler was an atheist. I suppose the message is that people better believe in God or turn into a Nazi!
QuoteStalin was, but he was also a communist.
I've read at least two books about Stalin and have watched several documentaries about him. He was driven primarily by the communist revolution. His atheism didn't figure much in what he did.
Quote from: Baruch on May 19, 2019, 01:38:58 PM
Beware of sentient mustaches ... it was an alien attached to his face, like in Alien ;-) I will never have a mustache as grand as his! But then I don't allow aliens to parasitize me.
Yeah, I think John Bolton has one of those alien parasites stuck on his face, making him play jingoist bells for war.
Anyway, welcome to the forum Jagella!
I do understand that christianity, by itself, while being violent from its inception, may not be responsible for all of the violence of the world--but substitute 'organized religion' for christianity and I maintain that that is the cause of most of the violence of the world. If organized religion could be eradicated from this world, it would become a more peaceful and thoughtful place to live.
Quote from: Jagella on May 19, 2019, 09:57:26 AM
How do atheists respond to the charge that atheism leads to genocide and other horrors?
It was totalitarian dictators responsible for genocidal regimes, not atheism.
Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc, were first and foremost, totalitarian dictators. It is in the "totalitarian dictators" handbook, to eliminate those groups and individuals likely to be a threat to your power. Religious groups, among other groups, likely to fit the bill.
It is bad dogma that leads to genocidal regimes. Stalin's, Pol Pot's, Mao's genocidal regimes had nothing to to do with their disbelief in gods. What they did was, succede in replacing the bad dogma of an infallible deity, with the bad dogma of an infallible State.
All one has to do it look at present day Sweden, Denmark,Norway, Finland, Iceland, Japan, the most atheistic countries (all over 60% atheist). Where are the genocidal If atheism leads to genocide, where are Swedish or Norwegian genocidal regimes?
Atheism is not a worldview, there is no dogma, no doctrine, no leaders, no holy book, etc. There is no direct line that can be drawn from "I disbelieve in the existence of gods" to, "therefore I will murder millions".
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 19, 2019, 06:24:22 PM
I do understand that christianity, by itself, while being violent from its inception, may not be responsible for all of the violence of the world--but substitute 'organized religion' for christianity and I maintain that that is the cause of most of the violence of the world. If organized religion could be eradicated from this world, it would become a more peaceful and thoughtful place to live.
I don't think it's that easy. I think that our innate nature
results into something that grows into organized religion, well any ideology actually. Particularly our tenacity for patternicity and from that ascribing agents where none exists. With education for all, much of this will fade away into obscurity, sure, but as long as our innate nature has these faults will mean they will persist ever so slightly.
Quote from: Sal1981 on May 19, 2019, 06:39:02 PM
I don't think it's that easy. I think that our innate nature results into something that grows into organized religion, well any ideology actually. Particularly our tenacity for patternicity and from that ascribing agents where none exists. With education for all, much of this will fade away into obscurity, sure, but as long as our innate nature has these faults will mean they will persist ever so slightly.
You may be right. But I have not studied what our (human) innate natures really are. I may be splitting hairs, but I don't condemn 'spirituality' (however one may define it), but do condemn 'organized' religion. It is the organized hierarchy that turns spirituality into a deadly belief system. The more highly structured the religion is the more deadly it becomes.
Quote from: Jagella on May 19, 2019, 04:33:09 PM
Hitler was a lot of things and was influenced by a lot of different people. To call him a "pagan Christian influenced by Nietzsche" isn't too much of a stretch.
Not just influenced by Nietzsche, but by the sister of Nietzsche. Nietzsche (Dionysius vs Apollo) was a neo-pagan, same as Hitler (Germanic gods). Both are ex-Christian, though Nietzsche more notably. Hitler's family was cultural Christian, not religious at all. The baleful influence was the fact that Nietzsche's sister lived off her brother's fame, and she is the one who equated Aryan with Superman and Slave with Jew. The other baleful influence was that Hitler loved his mother and hated his father (who ridiculed and beat him). But it was Voltaire who invented modern anti-Semitism, as part of his general war against Abrahamic religions (France was Catholic in his day). It was a coincidence ... that a son of the richest Jew in the Austro-Hungarian Empire went to the same grammar school as Hitler (the boy who became Wittgenstein the philosopher). But it makes a great conspiracy theory ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jew_of_Linz
Best of Nietzsche ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkhbSLExYbc
On Wagner vs Hitler ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L6MVyeFOTo
Quote from: Jagella on May 19, 2019, 04:45:18 PM
That's a really interesting issue. I'm guessing that the clergy in America painted Hitler as an atheist fearing that people might see him as a Christian. Nowadays Christian apologists love to tell people that Hitler was an atheist. I suppose the message is that people better believe in God or turn into a Nazi!
I've read at least two books about Stalin and have watched several documentaries about him. He was driven primarily by the communist revolution. His atheism didn't figure much in what he did.
Germans at the time, compared Hitler to Jesus vis-a-vis the Oberammergau Passion Play. Romans at the time of Constantine, compared him to Jesus' second coming. There is parallel megalomania.
In the Anglosphere, Catholics aren't considered Christians. So in my geography, Hitler would not be considered a Christian. Stalin had been a seminary student of the Georgian Church, but would not be considered a Christian for the same reason. For Anglophones of earlier times, non-English speakers (say Irish) were considered uncivilized.
Most former Christians posting here, are ex-Protestant fundies.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 19, 2019, 06:24:22 PM
I do understand that christianity, by itself, while being violent from its inception, may not be responsible for all of the violence of the world--but substitute 'organized religion' for christianity and I maintain that that is the cause of most of the violence of the world. If organized religion could be eradicated from this world, it would become a more peaceful and thoughtful place to live.
You must also eliminate all governments. They are violence based too. That is what ties together all the various sociopathic or protest activity of the 60s. That and drugs. For almost all history, organized religion is a servant of the State. There are very few theocracies, mostly because the strong-men beat up the 4-eyed priests.
Quote from: Baruch on May 19, 2019, 08:48:10 PM
You must also eliminate all governments. They are violence based too. That is what ties together all the various sociopathic or protest activity of the 60s. That and drugs. For almost all history, organized religion is a servant of the State. There are very few theocracies, mostly because the strong-men beat up the 4-eyed priests.
I have an unproven hypothesis (too lazy to prove or disprove it) of humans when they first began grouping together. Clearly (at least to me), the strongest (usually male) person would become the leader. Later on I envision a smart but relative puny guy growing tired to being pushed around and dictated to by the big guy. He realized he understood some things better than the brute and he saw that a god or gods must be responsible for all that was and he was glib. So, 'god did it' was born and it gave our nerd a different power base. Sometimes the nerd was in power, sometimes the brute and at times, both. Government and religion was born.
or where the concept of "do unto others" first flirted the mind. One guy being bullied looked at the other two being bullied as well and the three of them locked eyes and the realization was born. So self preservation by cooperation, turns quickly into "do unto others". Bully gets head bashed into mush and the three of them finally get laid as well. Win win.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 23, 2019, 02:04:02 PM
I have an unproven hypothesis (too lazy to prove or disprove it) of humans when they first began grouping together. Clearly (at least to me), the strongest (usually male) person would become the leader. Later on I envision a smart but relative puny guy growing tired to being pushed around and dictated to by the big guy. He realized he understood some things better than the brute and he saw that a god or gods must be responsible for all that was and he was glib. So, 'god did it' was born and it gave our nerd a different power base. Sometimes the nerd was in power, sometimes the brute and at times, both. Government and religion was born.
The nerd was a medicine man. Not the same as a chief (see Native American analogy). Sitting Bull vs Crazy Horse. That was hunter-gatherer. A shaman is a special person who has an alternative personality ... high functional autist/survivor of mental health problem. The chief is head of hunting and war parties. Who was in charge at Little Big Horn isn't clear. Sitting Bull has the visions, Crazy Horse has to do the deed.
With agriculture, things change. In Sumeria, you start with a priest-king (en), but when inter-city warfare develops, the war-king (lugal) takes over. Initially temporarily, eventually permanently. At that point the high-priest (ensi) is always subordinate. The priest develops from the taboo men's club, the priestess develops from the taboo women's club. But with agriculture, the sexes aren't equal, patriarchy happens ... because now they know how an impregnation works. Women are no longer magical. Women's clubs are still taboo to men, down into Classical times. "Man" no longer just means "male" but also "people in general". Women have coed activities, in addition to taboo female activities. War in particular, remains a taboo male activity.
In hunger-gatherer times, you have nebulous mythology, with a high male god (Deus in PIE is high god/generic). With civilization the myths become elaborate (Zeus/Jupiter (alternative name Deus)), and subordinate gods are like craft specialists in cities (hunter-gatherers were jack of all trades). Notice by then Zeus is chief philanderer, the man has become the source of life, because no microscopes). Zeus is even able to give birth artificially (Athena/Bacchus).
Quote from: aitm on May 23, 2019, 02:43:08 PM
or where the concept of "do unto others" first flirted the mind. One guy being bullied looked at the other two being bullied as well and the three of them locked eyes and the realization was born. So self preservation by cooperation, turns quickly into "do unto others". Bully gets head bashed into mush and the three of them finally get laid as well. Win win.
Chimps are more patriarchal/harem. We are more like Bonobos ... a matriarchy like lions. The male lion isn't the boss, he is the tolerated sperm donor.
On the other hand, chimps, they have a very dominant male, but if he goes nuts, the other males finish him. Otherwise he gets all the girls. There is no permanent overthrow, just a replacement (a lot like humans). Like a stallion. Horses being herbivores, don't need a chief hunter, the sexes are more equal).
Quote from: Baruch on May 23, 2019, 03:08:58 PM
Chimps are more patriarchal/harem. We are more like Bonobos ... a matriarchy like lions. The male lion isn't the boss, he is the tolerated sperm donor.
On the other hand, chimps, they have a very dominant male, but if he goes nuts, the other males finish him. Otherwise he gets all the girls. There is no permanent overthrow, just a replacement (a lot like humans). Like a stallion. Horses being herbivores, don't need a chief hunter, the sexes are more equal).
Thats nice....er....I prefer my version.....,makes a little more sense.
Quote from: aitm on May 23, 2019, 09:35:19 PM
Thats nice....er....I prefer my version.....,makes a little more sense.
So you prefer the mating rituals of aardvarks? (sarc) This bird, gets the bird ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U89tw093s_Y
Well I suppose communism is atheistic in the sense that Karl Marx did call for the abolition of organized religion. On the other hand, some religions are atheistic and some theists are non-religious, so it depends on if you think Marx was against theism as well. If you want to argue that things like Stalin's purges happened because of atheism, I suppose you aren't technically wrong.
Hitler was many things, but I'm reasonably certain that "atheist" was not one of them. Officially he was a Roman Catholic, unofficially he was into some weird occult shit, and either way he definitely believed in at least one god.
Quote from: Jagella on May 19, 2019, 09:57:26 AM
How do atheists respond to the charge that atheism leads to genocide and other horrors?
(http://rationalia.com/forum/images/smilies/bwaha.gif)
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on May 24, 2019, 01:06:49 PM
Well I suppose communism is atheistic in the sense that Karl Marx did call for the abolition of organized religion. On the other hand, some religions are atheistic and some theists are non-religious, so it depends on if you think Marx was against theism as well. If you want to argue that things like Stalin's purges happened because of atheism, I suppose you aren't technically wrong.
Hitler was many things, but I'm reasonably certain that "atheist" was not one of them. Officially he was a Roman Catholic, unofficially he was into some weird occult shit, and either way he definitely believed in at least one god.
There is overlap between materialism, atheism and communism. They aren't equal, but they do correlate ... as a modern rejection of humanism, spiritualism and democracy ... which came together in Germany and Russia. Here, many are ex-Christians. Their POV is based on where they came from. But that doesn't make them equal on anything else.