Is Athiesm responsible for the tryants of the 20th century?

[Roosveltrepub]

Isnt the present mid east conflict and the suffering there due to a religous belief by jews and the result of a millenium of presecution by christians? isnt the vicious Saudi legal system which carries out horrific punishments a religous creation or the taliban or the Iranian state? Aren't the secular states like the USA, Canada, France etc which have strong secular values places real liberty is enjoyed as well as real religous freedom as well as freedom from religon? Why no USA tyrants? We have no state religon and have had more than a few Presidents mor than a bit skeptical about organized religon.

[Herodotus]

The Japanese did it for religion also - their emperor was also their God.

Incorrect: BBC - Religion & Ethics - Divinity of the Emperor: Divinity of the Emperor Plus the kamikaze attacks gained their inspiration more from the Bushido code of the samurai then from religion. Religion has certainly declined in Japan, while certain tenets of Bushido are definitely alive.

The Tamils believed that by becoming a 'martyr' they would secure a special place in paradise.

Really? The Hindu, and even Christian, Tamils believed this? I think you need to source cite.

http://www.src.ox.ac.uk/Researcher%2...pubs/Tamil.pdf

Here is another reference on suicide terrorism; additionally I would recommend Robert Pape's book, The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism.

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terrorism/sup3.pdf

The Islamists in both Israel and New York believe that they get 72 virgins as a reward, and the women believe they get an exhaulted place in the afterlife.

I will rephrase what I said before: It was the perception of American imperialism in the Middle East that was/is the driving force for AQs attacks on America. This driving force is enough by itself to create the conditions necessary for suicide terrorism; religion has little, if anything, to do with it.


As for the Islamists in Israel while Hamas had perpetrated some suicide attacks in the past (ended though when it came to power) it certainly has nothing on the destruction caused by Nasserism, which was nationalistic and secular. The absence of Hamas's attacks after 2004 and its entry into Palestinian electoral politics also certainly suggest a political tinge to their motivation.

I find it difficult to believe that most individuals would see these actions through if it wasn't for this perceived incentive.

The first suicide attack on behalf of the Palestinian cause is generally believed to be the JRA attack on LOD Airport. The JRA was/is a (Japanese) Marxist-Leninist group and ostensibly atheist: http://www.npa.go.jp/keibi/kokutero1.../pdf/sec03.pdf

The LRAs main objective is to impose an old testament style theocracy upon central Africa. I don't think the animism, witchcraft stuff really matters that much. At core its a Christian movement, albeit with some excentricites.

Well I think you also neglect the diaspora issues involved. Nationalism is much more a driver than religion for the LRA: http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/files...%208%20LRA.pdf

[YellowFever]

Fine arguments, gentlemen, but maybe you guys are over-analyzing this?

Atheist tend to look at the wrongs committed by religious people and see that as a sign that religion is the cause of their wrong-doing and Religious people tend to look at the wrongs committed by atheists and think their wrong doing is committed because of a lack of god in their lives.

As an atheist, I've always felt that religion is nothing more than an amplifier of sort.

If you're a nice person, religion tends to make you nicer and if you're f*cked up, it tends to f*ck you up more.

Just my 2 cents....

[Bigfella]

Fine arguments, gentlemen, but maybe you guys are over-analyzing this?

Atheist tend to look at the wrongs committed by religious people and see that as a sign that religion is the cause of their wrong-doing and Religious people tend to look at the wrongs committed by atheists and think their wrong doing is committed because of a lack of god in their lives.

As an atheist, I've always felt that religion is nothing more than an amplifier of sort.

If you're a nice person, religion tends to make you nicer and if you're f*cked up, it tends to f*ck you up more.

Just my 2 cents....

YF,

As an agnostic (I don't believe in Gods, but can't say for sure they don't exist) I think you have some points, but I would differ here & there.

I think you are fairly close to the mark on how the less tolerant ends of the belief systems view each other. They dramatically under-analyze this stuff & end up simply reinforcing a conclusion they had already reached.

I also tend to think that left to their own devices good people will be good & bad people bad etc., but this is only part of it.

I also believe that all-encompassing belief systems or ideas that encourage or demand obedience can push good people to do bad things. Sadly the C20th alone is compelling evidence of this. Even moral & upstanding adults who have formed their worldview absent the ideology in question can be made to do evil. Children indoctrinated with those views may never get the chance to become 'good' or 'bad' in the ways that you & I understand it. Some of the worst excesses of Stalin, Pol Pot & late C20th Africa were carried out by people whose childhoods were stolen in such ways.

Siminlarly I believe that people disposed to do ill can be turned to another direction by belief in positive ideas. These may or may not be religious.

[zara]

I also believe that all-encompassing belief systems or ideas that encourage or demand obedience can push good people to do bad things. Sadly the C20th alone is compelling evidence of this. Even moral & upstanding adults who have formed their worldview absent the ideology in question can be made to do evil. .

Maybe its Dogma in general thats the problem.

Dawkins and his crowd seem more and more dogmatic about their particular brand of atheism. Ever hear him talk about Darwin? It sounds like hes talking about the prophet Mohammed or Jesus sometimes.

[Bigfella]

Maybe its Dogma in general thats the problem.

Dawkins and his crowd seem more and more dogmatic about their particular brand of atheism. Ever hear him talk about Darwin? It sounds like hes talking about the prophet Mohammed or Jesus sometimes.

Yes, I have heard him talk about Darwin and I don't see what you see. I think he has a great deal of respect for him because he understands the complexity of the subject & just how smart Darwin had to be to get it as right as he did. For the record, I think Dawkins is a pompous ass when he isn't talking about science.

If you want people who talk about Darwin as a prophet, you need to look at the people in this world most obsessed with Darwin - creationists. They talk about him a lot more than anyone else & they treat him like a prophet. They act as if his theories are some form of revelation, not science. Thus the effort put into discrediting him & his theory - take down the prophet, kill the belief (the anti-Islam crowd try the same thing on muhammed). What they don't get, of course, is that evolutionary biology stopped being about Darwin's ideas a LONG time ago. He will always be treated with a degree of reverence by some scientists - as Newton, Einstein & others are, but in the end they aren't the ones confusing him with a prophet.

[zraver]

Yeah, just count the bodies, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of population.

Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot are in a league of their own. Hitler comes in a close 2nd.

Stalin is number 2 without a doubt.

mao's numbers might be overblown by a huge amount.

To get to Stalin's level Pol Pot would ahve had to depopulate the entire SE Asian area not just cambodia.

Hilter is just via the concentration camps is responsible for between 7 and 11 million deaths. This doe snot include all the other misery he unleashed.

So who is number 1? Hirohito- what Japan did to China surpasses even Stalin.

[Bigfella]

Stalin is number 2 without a doubt.

mao's numbers might be overblown by a huge amount.

To get to Stalin's level Pol Pot would ahve had to depopulate the entire SE Asian area not just cambodia.

Hilter is just via the concentration camps is responsible for between 7 and 11 million deaths. This doe snot include all the other misery he unleashed.

So who is number 1? Hirohito- what Japan did to China surpasses even Stalin.

These esorts of arguments are always impossible & can get a bit silly.

Mao certainly had more potential victims than anyone else, but he killed a smaller percentage. Likewise Imperial Japan. Pol Pot only had a few potential victims, but he killed something like 1 in 3. Soeharto's percentages aren't as bad as some, but in Timor Leste he killed almost as high a percentage as Pol Pot. Yayha Khan killed more than either of these two, but from a much larger pool. Hitler killed most of his victimes in a small space of years, but everyone takes a back seat to the Rwandan genocide.

For a combination of numbers & percentage then the winner is probably someone rarely included in these lists - King Leopold 2 of Belgium. Under his rule from 1885-1908 the population of the Congo Free state probably dropped by half or more. Estimates are difficult, but range from 5 million deaths to almost 20. A figure around the 8-10 million mark is common.

I'm not really sure what any of this says about rankings. Certainly some are worse than others, but do we use intent (such as it can be determined), flat out numbers, percentages or some other way to determine this? No easy answers I'm afraid.

[zara]

Yes, I have heard him talk about Darwin and I don't see what you see. I think he has a great deal of respect for him because he understands the complexity of the subject & just how smart Darwin had to be to get it as right as he did. For the record, I think Dawkins is a pompous ass when he isn't talking about science.

Have you read his new book, 'the greatest show on earth'?

Its constant fawning over Darwin, not just his theories, but his everything about him.. Goes far further than just Scientific admiration I think.

I actually agree with nearly everything Dawkins says... just find him insufferable personally. Far prefer the like of Sam Harris.

[eshcol]

Ive been watching quite a few religious/atheist debates, with the likes of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Hitchens etc..


One charge that the religious always bring up that while Religious dogma may have caused the crusades, inquisition, 9/11 etc. Atheism is responsible for the far greater crimes of Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot.


Is this a fair criticism do you think?

Unfair on both sides. Athiesm wasn't responsible for Stalin/ hitler etc. Stalin & Hitler were responsible for Stalin and hitler. It is more than religion or lack of religion that makes up a crazed lunatik.

It is impossible to lump all religions together and say "religion is responsible for..." Much like saying "People are responsible for Murder, therefore we need to get rid of people" Contrary to what some people affirm, all religions are different and are incompatible. Much like fruit- you can pick out some similarities but you'd never see an orange growing on a grape vine.

[Gun Grape]

Much like fruit- you can pick out some similarities but you'd never see an orange growing on a grape vine.

Maybe not. But I have grapefruits growing on my orange tree.

[advancedatheist]

One charge that the religious always bring up that while Religious dogma may have caused the crusades, inquisition, 9/11 etc. Atheism is responsible for the far greater crimes of Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot.

Christians want it both ways, and they need to get their story straight. Either atheism makes countries violent and abusive, like the communist states; or else it makes countries pacifist and weak, like the irrationally despised France.

Do the communist dictators' victims imply which religion they should have embraced? Mao and Pol Pot slaughtered millions of Buddhists, so a Buddhist could argue that they did so because they rejected the Buddha's message of enlightenment and compassion.

But I doubt American christians would want to make that inference.

[eshcol]

Christians want it both ways, and they need to get their story straight. Either atheism makes countries violent and abusive, like the communist states; or else it makes countries pacifist and weak, like the irrationally despised France.

athiesm is just an absence of religion. A person/nation becomes what it is depending on what he/it has in place of religion.

[advancedatheist]

athiesm is just an absence of religion. A person/nation becomes what it is depending on what he/it has in place of religion.

Atheism means more than "an absence of religion." Compare atheism with veganism. Vegans don't just believe in not doing something (eating meat or otherwise exploiting animals). The militants promote an agenda about the benefits, if not the superiority, of a vegan diet and how carnivory poisons everything.

[eshcol]

I can agree with that. it wasn't really the point i was making though.

My point was more along the lines that several other factors, for example- politics, have more to do with your examples of Soviet Russia and France being militant or weak. The Soviet union became militant not because it abandoned religion but because it embrassed a militant philosophy (marxism) as its form of government. France, being democratic is to some extent forced (as all Democratic nations) to appease as many different groups within it's electorate to win more votes naturally become pacifist.

Islamic nations bring forth some militant governments and some weak also. Same religion just a multitude of other different factors