General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Atheist Atrocities Fallacy – Hitler, Stalin & Pol Pot
Religious apologists, particularly those of the Christian variety, are big fans of what I have dubbed, the atheist atrocities fallacy. Christians commonly employ this fallacy to shield their egos from the harsh reality of the brutality of their own religion, by utilizing a most absurd form of the tu quoque (“you too”) fallacy, mingled with numerous other logical fallacies and historical inaccuracies. Despite the fact that the atheist atrocities fallacy has already been thoroughly exposed by Hitchens and other great thinkers, it continues to circulate amongst the desperate believers of a religion in its death throes. Should an atheist present a believer with the crimes committed by the Holy See of the Inquisition(s), the Crusaders and other faith-wielding misanthropes, they will often hear the reply; “Well, what about Stalin, Pol Pot and Hitler? They were atheists, and they killed millions!”
https://michaelsherlockauthor.wordpress.com/2014/10/21/the-atheist-atrocities-fallacy-hitler-stalin-pol-pot-in-memory-of-christopher-hitchens/
====================
For those that are interested
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
dawg
(10,777 posts)That Stalin and company were atheists? Or that they murdered millions?
SamKnause
(14,896 posts)I don't think the poster is trying to deny anything.
dawg
(10,777 posts)word-salad bullshit if you ask me. In my opinion, people kill because of selfish reasons. Religion is just one of many excuses they hide behind.
So I'll reiterate my question: are they saying Stalin and Pol Pot weren't atheists? Or are they denying that they ordered the killing of millions?
Which fallacy are they going for: No true Scotsman, or outright holocaust denial?
RadiationTherapy
(5,818 posts)A charismatic leader turned genocidal maniac may be an atheist and even command atheism in his subjects, but there is nothing about atheism itself which would compel such behavior.
dawg
(10,777 posts)Most atheists are not homicidal maniacs. Most Christians are not homicidal maniacs. Most Muslims are not homicidal maniacs.
The point isn't to slam atheism. The point is to note that religion itself is not the source of the killing and injustice that has been done in it's name.
Look at all the terrible things our country has done in the name of "Democracy" throughout the years. They are undeniable. But is that the fault of Democracy itself?
Same goes for Communism. Look at all that was done in the name of that doctrine. But the economic philosophy itself is not to blame. All it did was to offer the world an economic model centered around common ownership as opposed to individualism.
People, as individuals, are to blame for what they do.
RadiationTherapy
(5,818 posts)There are verses in all abrahamic religious texts that demand murder, slavery, and genocide if taken literally - thankfully most believers don't. However, if one believes they are reading the words of the inerrant, omniscient, omnipotent creator of the universe and source of morality, then how can one not adhere? There are no such compulsions for an atheist.
dawg
(10,777 posts)are the only people who take the scriptures that literally. Even the fundiest of fundies believe that at least some of the Bible is symbolic. That's how they manage to accuse every Democratic president of being the beast, instead of looking for a literal beast with seven heads to come rising up out of the water.
I have a delightfully ambiguous faith. I'm a believer who is agnostic about all of the meaningless details.
But is isn't just literalists who are being mocked and insulted on DU lately. It's all of us who believe in something spiritual and not limited by the material world.
Personally, I have a fairly thick skin. But this mockery is damaging to DU and to the liberal coalition.
RadiationTherapy
(5,818 posts)Beliefs are called beliefs because they are not evidential and are thus very easy to mock. Put those dynamics together and there is bound to be volatility. Furthermore, since the supernatural being mocked seems to never act on their own behalf, humans seem compelled to symbolically intervene themselves.
dawg
(10,777 posts)And of course, everyone has the right to mock.
But that doesn't make it a good idea. That doesn't make it helpful. And it doesn't stop if from being unkind.
RadiationTherapy
(5,818 posts)
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)One third of the US believes the Bible is literally true word for word. None of them, we can assume, are atheists.
So either one in three of our friends and neighbors, and by mathematical certainty then more than 1/3 of Christians, are gibbering madmen, or it's not the tiny portion who are literalists as DU believers often claim.
I'm going with the latter. People tend to make claims based on extrapolating the opinions of themselves and their peer group, but this is almost never true because nobody has a peer group representative of the entire nation. Large random samples that do represent the nation tell a far bleaker story than the mostly well-educated, almost entirely left of center and heavily trending to white middle class affluence group that posts here and seeks similar company. Nothing wrong with those groups; I'm in every one of them and my social group is heavily biased this way too, but I realize we are not America.
dawg
(10,777 posts)Lots of people answer the way they do because they don't want to sound disloyal to their faith. But even their pastors don't take everything literally.
I gave the example of the beast spoken of in Revelation. Pastors endlessly speculate as to whether this will be a U.S. President. Maybe it stands for the E.U.? Maybe it's the U.N.? Maybe it stands for a new Roman Empire?
Likewise, the parables of Jesus. Jesus often taught in parables. The stories were little morality tales. I don't know any Christians who think he was retelling events that actually happened, only that he was using a story to illustrate a point.
Many Biblical scholars think the entire book of Job was a morality play, and was never intended to represent something that actually happened to some poor guy named Job.
And the Book of Genesis is full of rich and beautiful symbolism.
But yes, if Gallup calls the average churchgoer with a landline and asks them if they believe the Bible is literally true, many of them will say yes.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)dawg
(10,777 posts)It's inspirational either way.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)And yet something that is as far-fetched as a talking snake, a worldwide flood, or a seven-day creation is believed literally by most Christians.
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)In the Jewish bible, texts demanding murder, slavery, etc. are read as literal to that time period. They are not calls to kill anyone today. Christianity includes the "old testament" but there is nothing in the new testament that asks it followers to kill. There are numerous verses in the koran, however, that can be interpreted by radical extremists that they should kill today, even if most believers don't follow that interpretation.
Regardless, whatever is in the "good books" is only an excuse, since we see numerous examples of despicable acts committed in the name of Christ without any provocation in the new testament to do so. 
DesertDiamond
(1,616 posts)with no moral of the story added - no "This is bad, don't do this" or consequences shown for the evildoer - those who believe in following the Bible word-for-word do think those things are commandments. Yes, it is true, they also follow what fits their low life condition. But the Bible does give those stories without adding the moral imperative NOT to do it, so it is part of the problem in that sense.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And reason can ruin a game or a fight.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)matter whatever you want to hang on it.
Wikipedia: Famous atheists
Russia/Soviet Union
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870—1924): Marxist revolutionary and leader of the Bolsheviks. Lenin considered atheist and anti-religious propaganda to be essential to promoting communism.
Nikita Khrushchev (1894–1971): Soviet General Secretary, 1953–1964.
Joseph Stalin (1878-1953): General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union's Central Committee from 1922 until his death in 1953.
Leon Trotsky (1879–1940): Marxist theorist.
Mikhail Gorbachev (1931–): Former Soviet president and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990.
Others in Asia
Pol Pot (1925–1998): Born Saloth Sar, dictator of Cambodia
Mao
Nicolae Ceaușescu (1918–1989): Romania's last Communist leader. The country's head of state from 1967 to 1989.
I doubt that the dead don't care what the hairsplitting motivation is. These men were atheists, dismantled and persecuted religious people specifically and are responsible in their actions for the deaths of tens of millions of people. I'm sure that the people of Nepal could care less what drives them onward to persecute their country.
Given that the Russians blew up every church they could and looted them in Russia, I think that's motivated by hatred of religion.
Understand me. I gave up on dogma a long time ago. My spirit and spirituality doesn't rely on the bible to make me who I am and give me a basis for my morality. I respect and hold high the words of Jesus because he laid out a good path but it was fucked up just like everything always is because people use it to advance power. He gets the black eye and the bastards get the money and power.
And given that the bible is based on the teachings of Paul, someone who persecuted the Jesus movement, someone who was at HUGE odds with James and the Messianic movement, I don't feel badly saying so.
A lot of those who profess Christianity are idiots who hide behind the cloak of it without caring about doing the work that it entails. Same with Atheists. My grandmother was a hypocrite all her life and she was an atheist until she died. It didn't elevate her one bit. It did give her a cloak to hide behind when she was bitchy and mean. And superior and wrong most of the time. But I digress. 
Don't forget that slag heap Ayn Rand. She loathed religion and it makes me laugh loudly when Paul Ryan et al worship her.
Atheism has a body count too. It was part of the thinking and motivation of these maniacs and cannot be separated from them because they did it boldly, arrogantly and were filled with self righteousness when they did it. It was part of who they were and what they did the same as any crusader or dip shit who takes Bibles and Korans to harm people. No difference to me.
Apparently giving up on religion isn't a pass to be a better person. These people combined killed hundreds of millions of people. One could say that being an atheist doesn't improve you anymore than being a christian compels you to be a good person. The dictators and killers on the partial list I gave you were atheists and they weren't elevated by it. Saying their beliefs didn't motivate them gives them a pass. Saying that having no religion is a better state of being is ridiculous. Everyone is responsible for their own actions no matter what tag they give themselves to hide behind. A killer is a killer is a killer, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindi, Atheist.
TM99
(8,352 posts)Try deleting it from GD and popping it into the A&A forum or the Religion forum.
Then we can have fun with this tired argument. 
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Alert, Trash, and Ignore.
Anything else is just whining.
dawg
(10,777 posts)But I do think it is necessary to push back against the false notion that it is religion itself that causes these things. Religion is a tool that some people use to express their brutality. In the absence of that tool, another is conveniently chosen.
Religion is also a tool that some people use to fight *against* the brutal and unkind parts of their human nature. In the absence of that tool, *these* people will find another tool to help them be better people.
Ultimately, it is not the religion or lack thereof. It is the individual men and women making their own choices about which path they want to follow: the path of kindness, or the path of ruthlessness.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)
Neon Gods
(222 posts)How often have people been slaughtered by religious leaders "in the name of God"? How many have been slaughtered by leaders who claim atheism demands it. I'm not denying that killing in the name of God is often a front for destroying enemies, but you have to admit that God (i.e., theistic religions) provides the kind of inspiring, unquestioning front for killing that atheism does not.
dawg
(10,777 posts)Unbelievers have killed believers because of their faith. If someone is callous enough to kill, they will do so. Atheism could be a motivation just like any other.
yortsed snacilbuper
(7,947 posts)Name an example?
dawg
(10,777 posts)yortsed snacilbuper
(7,947 posts)The Commies were just eliminating the competition!
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)It very clearly addresses those exact points. Atheism is not a motivation any more than not believing in unicorns is. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods; nothing more, nothing less. It cannot motivate because by definition, it is a lack of something. The only way to claim atheism motivates is to also claim that atheism is inherently morally flawed, and that belief in a god is required to have a set of morals, which, I would hope you realize, is quite a messed up thing to say.
SamKnause
(14,896 posts)Excellent informational link !!!!!!!!! 
Archae
(47,245 posts)Hitler?
He was a Christian, at least he thought so.
Many of his troops had belt buckles showing a Nazi eagle with the words, "Gott Mit Uns."
(God Is With Us)
Stalin and Mao outlawed religion, they wanted the masses to worship THEM.
This attitude still continues in North Korea.
dawg
(10,777 posts)For that matter, I don't think it's right to hang Stalin on the atheists. Or to hang Osama Bin Laden on the Muslims. Or to hang the KKK on me.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)However, if a murderous, despotic leader employs religion as a tool to accomplish those goals, then it is fair to hang those actions on religion itself.
dawg
(10,777 posts)That's like blaming Communism for all the people Stalin killed. Religion is just one of many different skirts that killers choose to hide behind. Take away the skirt, and you still have a killer.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)Promising someone a conveniently unverifiable reward in the afterlife if someone does your murderous bidding is one example of how religion can be used as a tool for nefarious purposes. As such, religion itself deserves part of the blame.
dawg
(10,777 posts)you must also give it the credit for all those who *didn't* do terrible things only because they feared they would burn forever in Hell.
But the truth is right there in your own words: "religion can be used as a tool".
Yes it can. Just like a screwdriver can be used to kill someone.
It isn't the screwdriver's fault.
It's the killer's.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)I'm just not convinced there's very many people who can legitimately credit religion with keeping them from doing evil things and such a thing would be impossible to verify. How many people would say they'd really like to bash their neighbor's head in with a hammer, but they are afraid of rotting in hell if they did? Furthermore I don't know of any religion that doesn't include some sort of path to redemption regardless of what evil they do. There's no shortage of believers on death row.
As far as what can be measured, countless studies have shown atheists are no less ethical than believers and some even suggest the inverse relationship. Certainly there's no shortage of people who credit religion for keeping them on the straight and narrow, but I'm not sure how many of those claims are legitimate. People tend to do whatever they feel strongly enough to do regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof, and religion can not only be easily used to justify harm, it can also be used to convince others there was no actual harm to begin with. Look at how long the Catholic church covered up priest pedophilia. The followers of David Koresh actually offered up their children to him.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)Their are other ideologies, which when followed with appropriate zealotry, can inspire people to murder. Atheism doesn't do that.
--imm
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)Oh yeah, religious privilege. I remember now.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)I didn't realize the Church of Hitchens was represented here. But really, lumping him in with "other great thinkers"? Comedy gold.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)And religious people on this board claim that only the atheists mock them, not the other way around.
As for Hitchens, he may be an ass, but he was (and still is) a huge part of modern atheism. In that area, yes, he made many contributions, and I think that much of what he said was "great" thought. I know I've been helped by his words in both my understanding of my own atheism and in my acceptance of it.
Clearly, though, you don't like the man (though neither do I, in many respects) and are here just to piss off non-believers. Goodbye.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)If your hero can't take a little criticism (and George Galloway described him to a "T"
, then perhaps it says more about you than about your attitude toward that gin-soaked popinjay.
Dr. Strange
(26,058 posts)
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)there are over 41,000 different Christian Sects and you lump them all together...LMAO
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)Pol Pot was just an aberration. A barely C student, narcissistic, and sociopath thrust by luck into power. And then responsible for the deaths of millions.
(Kinda like someone else we know.)
Stalin was raised Orthodox, but did become an Atheist.
And yes he did kill millions of people.
But he was also stark, raving mad.
Russia has historically been significantly, majority Christian.
Therefore, most of the people doing the slaughtering were likely Christians slaughtering other Christians.
There is just a fondness within the easily led of going with the flow and doing what they are told.
thucythucy
(9,103 posts)He may have uttered an occasional expression of faith to placate the masses, but in his private conversations he declared Christianity to be a "Jewish conspiracy" meant to undermine Aryan ruthlessness with all this pathetic blather about "blessed are the peacemakers." "A religion of weaklings" I believe is what he called it. I think you'll find evidence of that in "Hitler's Table Talk"--the transcriptions of the monologues to which he subjected his dinner guests.
Though he sometimes expressed an admiration for the Catholic Church--its top-down organization and the way it controlled its followers, I think the best evidence is that Hitler wanted to supplant Christianity, for Germans at least, with a Nazi-tinged throwback to Germanic tribal ritual--but felt he had to bide his time until after he'd won the world war.
Martin Borman publicly announced in 1941 that "National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable." "The National Church (that is, the new Nazi 'religion') is determined to exterminate irrevocably the strange and foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the ill-omened year of 800." (Germany was converted to Christianity, supposedly, in 800 AD).
Hitler himself probably wasn't an atheist, though. He did evidently believe in some kind of God, which he often referred to as "Destiny" or "Fate"--with him as its prophet and Chosen One. I think it was Alan Bullock who said that in the end Hitler's real god was his own ego.
William Shirer wrote about the Nazi "Kirchekampf"--the war on the churches--in "Berlin Diary." He also touches on it in "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich."
And, of course, among the most ardent anti-Nazis--that is to say, those willing to risk their lives to stop Hitler--were Christian activists such as Dietrich Bonheoffer and the members of the White Rose. Sophie Scholl, for instance, was a Christian mystic--at least that's how I read her letters and diary. She and her brother and others in the group paid for their faith with their heads--they were all sent to the guillotine.
Not that the majority of German Christians didn't collaborate or at least acquiesce to the tyranny. But isn't that the way it is with most tyrannies? The vast majority of people acquiesce, hoping to survive. A significant portion become part of the tyrannical machine, benefitting from the persecution of others.
And a very very few actually put their lives at risk to stop it. In the case of Nazi Germany, these often were people of faith or ideology--Bishop Galen risking his life to stop the murder of disabled children, the members of "the Red Orchestra" who smuggled military intelligence to the Soviets. I think you have to believe in something beyond yourself, in order to oppose evil when you know for a fact such opposition will most likely cause your death.
After all, look at Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., whose memory we celebrate today. When he said, in his last speech, "I have been to the mountaintop and I have seen the promised land... I may not get there with you..." that's an expression of faith and self-sacrifice that still brings tears to my eyes.
I wish I could say I had that kind of faith, that kind of courage.
Best wishes.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)but the absence of religion did not relieve the impulses unfairly assigned to religion.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)The point of the article is that lack of religion is not a motivating force for tyranny.
It is not that religion always motivates tyranny, or that only religion motivates tyranny, or that tyranny would be absent were it not for religion. Disputing any of these is picking an easy, but false target and pretending you have addressed the argument.
The folks at ISIS or whatever they are called this week are indisputably exercising tyranny motivated by religion. They may want secular power and wealth too, but they want those things in the context of a fundamentalist Islamic caliphate. Not only do they say so, where Stalin et al never claimed to be acting for atheism for obvious reasons, but they also act as if that were a true motivation, by imposing the strictest interpretations of Islamic law in their hegemony.
The abortion clinic bombers, gay nightclub bombers and doctor shooters are also indisputably committing terrorism and slaughter motivated by religion. They also both say so and act accordingly. Their conveniently remote-diagnosed "mental health issues" even if by coincidence genuine somehow never direct them to shoot pederastic priests or hetero adulterers, only targets whose "sin" they believe to be against fundamentalist Christianity.
Atheism lacks a similar group. There are legions of genuinely atheist and genuinely evil people (incidentally a tautology very few DU Christians indeed will echo, even though their legions are far far larger) byt there are two very important distinctions:
1)These legions neither claim nor act as if atheism were a motivating force for their evil, despite false RW media attempts to pretend so in cases like the wholly made up Columbine questionings. Stalin for example never went after folks who prayed privately, only the power structure of the church. It was potential rivals with premade power-bases not different theistic positions he wanted to get rid of. Religious evil people very often do claim and act in a way consistent with religion as a motivator.
2)There is nothing in atheism that claims to be a moralizing or behavior modification influence for good. Atheism has no normative rules or code which members even supposedly must follow. The morality of folks who have atheism as an attribute says nothing at all about whether atheism is achieving any of its supposed influence, since it claims none. The Abrahamic faiths and most other religions I'm aware of do claim to enjoin a moral code on their followers. Many, Christianity front and center, claim an improvement effect. You can claim your church/sect may not but parole hearings, the mainstream media and the very language itself say that this supposed positive correlation between belief and morally virtuous behavior is ingrained in our majority-Christian culture. The words "Thanks, that's mighty atheist of you" have never been said except in irony or satire. Thus when this supposed influence and motivation for better behavior has the opposite effect, it DOES say something about religion achieving its often-claimed ability to improve morality.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)dawg
(10,777 posts)perhaps because you are not one of us.
You think that it is indisputable that ISIS is doing what they are doing because of their religion. As a person of faith myself, and one who is highly sympathetic with Islam, I don't think that is their motivation at all.
That's a weak response. Do you have anything to support your assertion? Because the writer is "not one of us". You Don't "think" religion is their motivation? Even if it isn't why then do they claim it is?
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)...but religion had nothing to do with it.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)But if it's something good, then religion had everything to do with it.
Just look at MLK and Gandhi!
Ignore the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust, etc.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Why would he want people having loyalty to something else? Atheism has been enforced by tyrants.
Atheists could easily band together, become a majority, and persecute religious people (not happening in the US as some insane fundies claim but possible)
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)Stalin didn't enforce atheism. Every constitution under Stalin guaranteed freedom of religious worship. He attacked organized religion that he deemed a threat to his regime, just like he attacked everything else he deemed a threat to his regime.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 17, 2015, 01:21 PM - Edit history (1)
Isn't there a forum for this sort of thing?
This appears to be bait.
DesertDiamond
(1,616 posts)For me, the fact that belief in a supreme being did not stop people from committing atrocities, and often was, as someone says above, the excuse, is the main issue in discussing theism versus atheism.
That said, whenever someone discusses something a "Buddhist" does, and it is an action antithetical to the teachings of Shakyamuni (AKA "the Buddha" I really feel I need to say something. Buddhism claimed as a title does not make one a Buddhist. One's belief in respect for all life and one's desire and actions for the happiness of all beings is what makes one a Buddhist. Hence we may call someone a Buddhist even if they themselves call themselves Christian, Muslim, Jewish... or whatever. And by the same token, we do not call people who harm others Buddhists. Hence, if Pol Pot ever respected all life and desired the happiness of all beings, in that moment he was a Buddhist. At the times when he was committing atrocities, he was not a Buddhist.
There are other inaccuracies in this essay with regard to Buddhist sects, but they're not really relevant here. Respect for all life and the desire for the happiness of all people is the core of Buddhism. Anything that goes against that is not Buddhism.
dawg
(10,777 posts)They remind me to live in the moment, and not to focus on hurtful things from the past or fears of things to come. My Christian faith benefits my well-being in countless ways as well.
All of these teachings lead me to be kinder and more inclusive than I otherwise would be.
DesertDiamond
(1,616 posts)ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)were often affiliated with the state, both as warriors and quasi-police for political interests.
I really hate when people make blanket statements that presume they know everything about religion.
"Anything that goes against that is not Buddhism."
Special pleading. So say the adherents of any religion, the adherents of democracy, communism, whatever.
People are full of shit. the fault, horatio, is in ourselves, that we are underlings.
DesertDiamond
(1,616 posts)Last edited Mon Jan 19, 2015, 05:27 AM - Edit history (1)
was atrocities. Being a samurai, a member of law enforcement or a member of the military does not automatically equate to lack of respect for life and the commission of atrocities. SGI members I know who are in the military or in law enforcement chant to never have to take a life, and then they are in fact able to avoid having to kill anyone. A member at our monthly world peace prayer meeting two months ago told his amazing experience about going to Viet Nam chanting for exactly that, and every time there was a situation where he might have to shoot someone, something happened and he didn't have to, and everyone involved was protected.
Again, sorry if you assume that I presume to know everything - I think your assertion is presumptuous because you cannot read my mind. You also cannot alter the fact that, however small my understanding may be, I can say with certainty that respect for all life - our own and others - is in fact the very core of Buddhism.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence
yortsed snacilbuper
(7,947 posts)herding Cats!
AzDar
(14,023 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)But there are atheists arguing as if they think the elimination of religion will eliminate wars, etc.
There are religious people who would be peaceniks and so forth, so it's not accurate to claim they are all warmongers either.
yortsed snacilbuper
(7,947 posts)
backscatter712
(26,357 posts)though I too would be committing the tu quoque fallacy if I suggested that Catholics were horrible because of Hitler.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I know it's not your title; just wanted to point out the fact that Hitler called himself a christian throughout his life.
Other than that, excellent op.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)He had a religious-like hatred of Muslims.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/10/14/ffrf-recap/
It was simplistic us-vs.-them thinking at its worst, and the only solution he had to offer was death and destruction of the enemy.
This was made even more clear in the Q&A. He was asked to consider the possibility that bombing and killing was only going to accomplish an increase in the number of people opposing us. Hitchens accused the questioner of being incredibly stupid (the question was not well-phrased, I’ll agree, but it was clear what he meant), and said that it was obvious that every Moslem you kill means there is one less Moslem to fight you … which is only true if you assume that every Moslem already wants to kill Americans and is armed and willing to do so. I think that what is obvious is that most Moslems are primarily interested in living a life of contentment with their families and their work, and that an America committed to slaughter is a tactic that will only convince more of them to join in opposition to us.
Basically, what Hitchens was proposing is genocide. Or, at least, wholesale execution of the population of the Moslem world until they are sufficiently cowed and frightened and depleted that they are unable to resist us in any way, ever again.
I think religion objectively sucks, but the religious support bad behavior for basically the same reasons every body else does: greed, selfishness, and bigotry. Even though religion seems to be a net negative in this world, most deaths from war and violence are not due to religion.
Many religions do give great excuses to do evil deeds, and the religious writings essentially make many religions hate groups (we're special because god likes us the most, or, think like us or you deserve to be infinitely tortured for eternity.) But believers generally remain mostly in the real world and don't act on the worst flaws of their religions – it's weird how that works.
When it comes right down to it, everybody is responsible for their own behavior and are not responsible for the behavior of those they have no control over: there is no collective guilt, regardless of any logical fallacy concerning Scotsmen. What a belief system may mean to one person may mean something completely different to someone else, so it's not fair to blame one person for the behavior of another.
It certainly isn't correct to blame one atheist for the behavior of another atheist, but the same can be said about religious individuals. It's best to direct criticism mostly against actual flaws in whatever belief system some people might have or against individuals that actually do bad deeds – like support war.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)millions? Or are you saying their movements that they led where not actually atheist?
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)I understand the common communist line of Religion is the opiate of the people, but from what I can tell he used religious principles to hold power. After his crackdown on religious institutions he built up the Orthodox church in Russia. His religious crackdown was one of eliminating one religious power that was considered tyrannical and replacing it with one that was more friendly to his rule. Didn't he also have a strong religious upbringing and obsession with the supernatural?
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)I think he also had strong religious upbringing and was Buddhist. Though I guess his status as an atheist depends on how you are defining atheism. If atheism is anyone who simply does not believe in a specific God, then he's an atheist along with many other people in other religions/ spiritual beliefs. He was very religious/spiritual though in a very negative "I am destined to rule by the heavens" kind of way.
yortsed snacilbuper
(7,947 posts)so there is no way an Atheist could kill millions of people, being an Atheist would end your political career.
Hitler actually was voted into office, if he would have claimed to be an Atheist in the beginning of his career the German people would not have voted for him.
In the United States Atheists are barred from taking the oath of office.
Hitler, Stalin & Pol Pot didn't want any competition from the churches period, I doubt they were true Atheists.
Has an Atheist ever said something wrong, no doubt.
The Catholic church needs a boogie man, and Atheists fill the bill!
I bet George Bush is responsible for killing more people than any Atheist and he is very religious, so that is okay?