The Beauty of Atheism

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

Amen

I've brought this up in several posts too. I've mentioned the millions killed in communist purges, the millions killed in the name of eugenics & imperialism. Even the millions killed in the 1st & 2nd Indochina War. Then there's the millions killed in Napoleon's wars, the millions killed in both World Wars, the Opium Wars, etc. People kill in the name of capitalism & nationalism far more than in the name of religion, too.

The funny thing is I respect many parts of communism. But its biggest turn off for me by far is the habit for communist regimes to kill off the entire upper class when they gain power. I understand the concept, which is "these people benefited the most from pillaging the workers & our nation so they must be punished". Many people here would probably want the same punishments for Wall St bankers, politicians, powerbrokers in the MIC, etc. But I simply can't go along with that mindset.

Any ideology can be used to justify murder or genocide. But most of the atheists that like to blame religion for atrocities suddenly become silent about the crimes committed in the name of militant atheism. I understand that a lot of it comes from the fad of religion bashing. But if they don't like these atrocities being attributed to atheism, they shouldn't blame religions for the same things. Especially since most of the atrocities that are blamed on religion are actually caused by human greed & lust power. Religion is just an excuse.

Well, what makes someone a christian then? Can you tell a true christian from a fake one? Are true christians perfect? Are true christians without sin?
Real christians are admittedly sinners. Just because Hitler commited genocide doesn't exclude him from christianity. Nor all of the popes who ordered murders.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Howdy,

I agree with a lot of what you say. Certainly any ideology can be used to justify anything. However, could you please explain how atheism on its own is an ideology? That is, how can you say one position on a topic qualifies as a system of beliefs?

Kind regards,
Hydeman

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: Murgatroid
Hitler being Christian is just as accurate as the OP blaming atheism for the mass murderers of the 20th century. If he wants to throw mud against the wall, and see what sticks, we can play that game all day long. Whether he was or wasn't, he claims to have been from his own mouth. Atrocities committed in the name of god are a historical fact, and out number secular atrocities by such a wide margin, there's hardly a comparison to be made.

Can you please provide us with the numbers, along with the name of group they represented? I'd like to compare these numbers.

a reply to: Klassified

You seem to be missing the point of the OP.

Actually, nevermind. You ARE the point of the OP.

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

There exists a very tedious theist argument that keeps popping up, and no matter how many times you kill it, it keeps coming back, in fact its almost akin to a game of whack-a-mole at times. It goes like this …

Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were atheists, they all were responsible for terrible mass murder; therefore, atheism is responsible for terrible mass murder.

Do serious christians really take this line? You bet they do. To find an example, just click here to read the article in the Christan Science Monitor by the bestselling author, Dinesh D’Souza, that takes this precise line …


In the name of creating their version of a religion-free utopia, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong produced the kind of mass slaughter that no Inquisitor could possibly match. Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered more than 100 million people.

OK then, the way to really address this is to start by identifying the logical fallacy. Its called “Post hoc ergo propter hoc”, and that Latin phrase means “after this, therefore because of this,“. What does this really mean? Well its a way of pointing out that sometimes people make the mistake of thinking that something is responsible for causing something else, when in reality there is no connection at all. For example, if I step out into my yard and cut the grass and it then starts to rain, “Ah ha, evidence … quite clearly cutting grass causes rain”.It is easy for any of us to make such a leap, here is another example:

Fanatical believer shoots his wife – “Ah”, say the non-believers, “Proof that religious people do bad things”. But in reality it might not have been belief or non-belief, just a couple who got into a shouting match, then into the heat of the moment he looses his rag, pulls a gun, … bang. No connection to the fact that he is a believer. You can reverse the roles if you like, what if he was a non-believer? If he had been, then the you can bet you would have believers citing it as an example of the wickedness of non-belief.

The key is to ask yourself what the driving force was; belief, non-belief, or something else. Please make no mistake, there are cases where fanatical belief is indeed the root cause, you don’t need to think too hard to cobble up a couple of examples:

This article explains exactly why you are wrong. Here is the rest of it. www.skeptical-science.com...

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Howdy,

I agree with a lot of what you say. Certainly any ideology can be used to justify anything. However, could you please explain how atheism on its own is an ideology? That is, how can you say one position on a topic qualifies as a system of beliefs?

Kind regards,
Hydeman

Hello,

I don't think atheism is an ideology. From what I understand, there's no specific set of rules or principles to being "atheist".

However, there is something separate that I do consider an ideology, and that is "militant atheism". I'm not sure if there's an official definition for this, so I apologize in advance if there is. But based on my own observations, there is a faction of self proclaimed atheists who are violently anti-religious. Note, being atheist doesn't mean a person has to dislike religion, hence why I separate them from "atheism" as a whole.

Militant communism is one example. Communism is atheist by design. It's founding fathers believed religion to be "the opiate of the masses". Note, this was after the Opium Wars, when the West (mainly the UK) forced opium products onto China. This forced wave of opiate addictions, along with the "Unequal Treaties", absolutely crushed Chinese civilization at the time.

Anyway, many communist regimes are groups I consider "militant atheists", because they made a habit of slaughtering the upper classes & clergy of the regions they took over. And others waged campaigns of persecution against their religious minorities, like China currently does with the Falun Gong. The entire "Age of Enlightenment" can also be seen as an age of "militant atheism", seeing as the rebellious groups were literally fighting to keep religion out of politics and society.

I hope this clarifies my comments from my earlier post.

Sincerely,
Mr. Enlightened Servant

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker
Adolf Hitler (Germany 1939-1945) 12,000,000 people murdered

I can't say for sure if Hitler was a Christian or not, his actions didn't show it. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that he was. But even without Hitler that still puts the number well over 200 million deaths committed by atheist, all committed in the last 100 years, that's just insane.

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

I think the problems with atheism arise from the blind hypocrisy and elitism that comes with the title. I hear people proudly claim they're Christian or Muslim whatever but the claims of im an Atheist is becoming more and more and more known. I'm so sick of people saying "I'm Atheist so.... blah blah blah"

just as bad as the people many of them claim to be so above. I kinda see it as a badge of honor these days or a big part a superiority complex that people are so enlightened past the "ignorance and assumed lies" of religion its became a buzz word like feminism, all rational titles with reasonable and respected agendas but tarnished deeply by the people who claim the label.

That's why when people ask me what I believe I just tell them I don't know but I would love to know more and broaden my perspective spiritual, science, philosophy whatever because I wanna respect others and learn and grow atheist, agnostics, creationists, humanists, I think i have something to learn from all of them

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: RealTruthSeeker
Adolf Hitler (Germany 1939-1945) 12,000,000 people murdered

I can't say for sure if Hitler was a Christian or not, his actions didn't show it. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that he was. But even without Hitler that still puts the number well over 200 million deaths committed by atheist, all committed in the last 100 years, that's just insane.

Hitler most certainly claimed to be a catholic. Catholics have the nicean creed which they recite at every mass. It goes like this.

Nicene Creed

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

basically believing that christ was the savior def makes you a christian.

Hitler – the atheist tyrant, as D’Souza called him, intent upon creating a religion-free utopia. Really!! … that claim has a couple of flaws. The most notable is that Hitler was not an Atheist, he was Catholic. Hitler frequently spoke positively about the Christian German culture, and his belief in the “Aryan” Christ. He also remained a formal member of the Catholic Church until his death. In Mein Kampf Hitler speaks of the “creator of the universe” and “eternal Providence.” And as for his supposed plans to create a religion-free utopia, utter bollocks – Hitler often associated atheism with Germany’s communist enemy, and not as a goal. In a speech delivered in Berlin, October 24, 1933, Hitler stated: “We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out“. During negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordat of April 26, 1933 Hitler argued that “Secular schools can never be tolerated”.

Atheist Tyrant? … er no, not one jot of evidence exists for that claim.

Stalin – Most definitely a tyrant, no doubt of that, and also one that openly opposed religion. Now this is where we come to our “Post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy … “Stalin was not a believer, Stalin killed millions, therefore atheism caused the death of millions”. The fundamental flaw here is that Stalin was in fact a believer, a fanatical Marxist believer – he personally led the Russian revolution in 1917 alongside Lenin and so he created his own myth. The cause of all that happened and all that followed was not non-belief, but rather was rooted within the combination of his fanatical Marxist idology, his unstable personality, and also his ambition and lust for total power. In fact by 1922 Lenin came to realise that Stalin was too unstable and wanted him removed, but due to his stroke was unable to do this. So what was the root cause, what really made him tick inside …non-belief? No quite clearly not, Stalin was in fact a psychopath, with a lust for power who rose high enough to be able to leverage total control and then proceeded to eliminate any and all opposition.

Mao Zedong -Yes, another fanatical Marxist and also a non-believer whose Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, are blamed for millions of deaths. He demonstrated an astonishing disregard for individual human lives and repeatedly affirmed his willingness to sacrifice up to a third of the Chinese population in a nuclear war, an utter fanatic devoted to grasping, then consolidating total power and imposing his ideology upon all, driven not by non-belief, but by a belief in himself and his personality cult.

So where does all this lead us? its simple really, Atheism doesn’t kill people, Fanaticism kills people, be that religious or political.

So what really is the root cause behind all that Hitler, Stalin, Mao and other similar tyrants did? All of them have one common cause, in each instance they were psychopaths. Note that I’m not using that as a form of insult, I’m giving you a diagnosis. A psychopath is somebody who manifests superficial charm, Grandiose sense of self-worth, is cunning and manipulative, lacks remorse or guilt, is callous, has a lack of empathy, and fails to accept responsibility for their own actions.

Religion does indeed stand guilty of some truly hideous crimes and a direct root cause within a delusional belief can indeed be established (think 9/11 as an example), but the attempt to put a lack of belief in the dock on the basis that some fanatical psychopaths committed truly hideous crimes on an industrial scale is simply an instance of the “Post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy, the root cause was their Psychopathy.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Well, what makes someone a christian then?

There are two kinds of people in the world – sayers and doers.

God told Howard Pittman during his NDE that not all the sayers would be in heaven, but all the doers would be.

What makes a person a Christian, is the Lord Jesus Christ's blood which is applied when they are born again.

Without it, no one will make it to Heaven.

Nicodemus asked the question as well:

Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”

“How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

“How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.

“You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”

John 3:1-15

"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins." -Colossians 1:14

Hebrews 9:22, "...without shedding of blood is no remission. (forgivness )"

“Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! John 1:29

"Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot."
-1st Peter 1:18,19

...and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin" (1st John 1:7).

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Howdy,

I agree with a lot of what you say. Certainly any ideology can be used to justify anything. However, could you please explain how atheism on its own is an ideology? That is, how can you say one position on a topic qualifies as a system of beliefs?

Kind regards,
Hydeman

Hello,

I don't think atheism is an ideology. From what I understand, there's no specific set of rules or principles to being "atheist".

However, there is something separate that I do consider an ideology, and that is "militant atheism". I'm not sure if there's an official definition for this, so I apologize in advance if there is. But based on my own observations, there is a faction of self proclaimed atheists who are violently anti-religious. Note, being atheist doesn't mean a person has to dislike religion, hence why I separate them from "atheism" as a whole.

Militant communism is one example. Communism is atheist by design. It's founding fathers believed religion to be "the opiate of the masses". Note, this was after the Opium Wars, when the West (mainly the UK) forced opium products onto China. This forced wave of opiate addictions, along with the "Unequal Treaties", absolutely crushed Chinese civilization at the time.

Anyway, many communist regimes are groups I consider "militant atheists", because they made a habit of slaughtering the upper classes & clergy of the regions they took over. And others waged campaigns of persecution against their religious minorities, like China currently does with the Falun Gong. The entire "Age of Enlightenment" can also be seen as an age of "militant atheism", seeing as the rebellious groups were literally fighting to keep religion out of politics and society.

I hope this clarifies my comments from my earlier post.

Sincerely,
Mr. Enlightened Servant

the problem with the term militant atheist is that it is thrown at people like hitchens and dawkins. Neither one of these guys was militant in any way. Outspoken and firm in their beliefs, but not militant. They never demanded anyone change their beliefs and certainly not at gunpoint like the term militant implies.

Actual militants of any system should not be tolerated. And george bush claiming that god told him to go to war should have landed him in the looney bin.

a reply to: Murgatroid

What makes a person a Christian, is the Lord Jesus Christ's blood which is applied when they are born again. 

Hitler was baptised as an infant and confirmed in his teens. So he was a christian.

George bush and friends orchestrated a bombing campaign that killed millions. Is he a christian?

a reply to: Murgatroid

God told Howard Pittman during his NDE that not all the sayers would be in heaven, but all the doers would be.

Santa claus told me that Howard Pittman was a liar.

a reply to: Woodcarver

I'm not trying to debate who believed what, only pointing out that atheist have just as much blood on their hands as anyone else. Are you saying that's not true?

originally posted by: RealTruthSeeker
a reply to: Woodcarver

I'm not trying to debate who believed what, only pointing out that atheist have just as much blood on their hands as anyone else. Are you saying that's not true?

It is def not true. Stalin and mao did not kill people because they were atheists. They killed people over political and economic reasons. Plus You are arbitrarily setting a cut-off point of 100 years ago. If we extend your time frame back to the beginning of recorded history, what does your ratio look like then?

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Howdy,

Ah, I know precisely what you mean. I believe the term for such people is "anti-theist," although I do think that it is again a militant subset of anti-theists, rather than all anti-theists. After all, anti-theism is itself only one position on one topic. As you say, not all atheists dislike religion, and I would argue that not all anti-theists are violent. Such is the glory of freedom and liberty in the Western world; we can hold positions and values that conflict with one another so long as we do not harm one another or society.

Now, I also agree that secularism in general (secularism indeed seems to be what you are describing in the Age of Enlightenment, and might perhaps qualify as an ideology, in the broadest sense...) was one of the driving ideologies of communist movements. In my opinion, China's persecution of minorities is probably more based on prejudice than religious tendencies. But that's a bigger can of worms than I feel like I could aptly discuss. It is after all undeniable that superstition is something to be stamped out in China (if you listen to the talking heads and leading officials), and yet so much of Chinese superstition is still promoted and propagated.

Either way, I now see what you meant. I apologize for my misunderstanding, I can be rather oblivious sometimes. Thank you for clarifying.

Sincerest regards,
Hydeman

a reply to: RealTruthSeeker

How many christian murderers are in US prisons compared to Atheist murderers?

It is a stupid question because they weren't murdering people because of their beliefs/non beliefs. They murdered people because they were pissed off at them.

When a christian murders someone, we do not blame it on his christianity, unless it was specifically his christian beliefs that led him to murder. Same with stalin, mao, and pot. They did not kill because they were atheists, they killed because they were psychopaths who wanted to stay in power.

Again, i'll state that George Bush and friends orchestrated bombing campaigns that killed millions and claimed that he was inspired by his christian beliefs that god told him to do it. Does this somehow exclude him from christianity? I wouldn't think so. If anything, he turned it into a religious war by making that statement.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: Murgatroid

What makes a person a Christian, is the Lord Jesus Christ's blood which is applied when they are born again. 

Hitler was baptised as an infant and confirmed in his teens. So he was a christian.

George bush and friends orchestrated a bombing campaign that killed millions. Is he a christian?

I guess the real question is "At what point do we blame a religion or ideology for a person's crimes instead of blaming the individual?" If a Christian commits a crime, is it because of Christianity? Or is because the person wasn't following their religion? If an atheist commits theft, should we blame their lack of religion for their crime? After all, if they actually follow the Bible or Qur'an, they would know that theft is wrong.

As for the overall examples of religious or atheist war atrocities, how does that actually work? Are we supposed to blame the atrocities committed during the period of Colonialism & the Scramble for Africa on Christianity? Or should we correctly blame them on the European empires' desires to increase their holdings?

The same goes for the Cold War. It was mainly the capitalist former empires of Western Europe, Japan, and their successor the United States fighting against the communist revolutionary movements of the black, brown, and yellow natives of their former colonies. Communism & capitalism are both Godless and ignore religion, as does nationalism. So do they count as atheist ideologies too, since they don't acknowledge a God or religion? Communism explicitly rejects organized religion, so I'd say yes to them. But what do you consider the other 2?

This is why this stuff is kind of lame to me. We should just blame the individuals and their policies. Otherwise I could declare myself a "Chocolatist", conquer the world, and shift all of the blame on the yummy deliciousness that is chocolate. "The chocolate made me do it!" (hehe, just added that to see if anyone actually read this far)

a reply to: enlightenedservant

I agree with you. I would prefer to blame the individuals for their deeds. But when that individual is following his religious teachings or claiming religious reasons, then it is hard not to be critical of the religion as well. I am critical of the abrahamic religions because people still use the texts to justify mass murder. (George Bush is not the only example)
Atheism is one thing. The disbelief in god/s. Def the disbelief that the abrahamic books are the inspired words of god. Atheism does not teach anything. No atheist writings promote murder. Some religious texts do.