Atheism - The clean hands belief?

[Ixor_Drakar]

Whatever believers think about us beyond the light poor souls, I pose a simple question. How many deaths has Atheism caused and by who. Before you jump the gun I also ask did they kill "in the name" of Atheism. I personally believe numbers are on our side but I would be interested in some exaples to prove me wrong.

[Cooraan]

This is a bit ridiculous to compare. Atheism isn't even a belief, its the denying of a belief in God. So really no one could ever kill in the name of atheism.

Im not saying that people haven't been killed in the name of a religion, but I'm willing to bet the majority of them had political or other reasons behind it.

[(s)AINT]

This is a bit ridiculous to compare. Atheism isn't even a belief, its the denying of a belief in God. So really no one could ever kill in the name of atheism.

Im not saying that people haven't been killed in the name of a religion, but I'm willing to bet the majority of them had political or other reasons behind it.

This. You could also make the case that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc Didn't believe in tooth fairies or unicorns - so that is why they committed mass murder - and if they DID believe in those things they WOULDN'T of committed those crimes.


Logic 101.

[Maximus Macro]

This. You could also make the case that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc Didn't believe in tooth fairies or unicorns - so that is why they committed mass murder - and if they DID believe in those things they WOULDN'T of committed those crimes.


Logic 101.

haha dude atheism is rejection of any form of deity.its not a pure persona/tought shaping atribute like believing in a religion.the crimes against humanity your using by hitler and such where not motivated or justified by atheism.so the fact that these individuals maybe not believed in a god and so technicly where atheist had totally no correlation between there horrible deads and the motivation for them.but how many horrible events where motivated or "justified" by religion....

[(s)AINT]

haha dude atheism is rejection of any form of deity.its not a pure persona/tought shaping atribute like believing in a religion.the crimes against humanity your using by hitler and such where not motivated or justified by atheism.so the fact that these individuals maybe not believed in a god and so technicly where atheist had totally no correlation between there horrible deads and the motivation for them.but how many horrible events where motivated or "justified" by religion....

I know - I was being sarcastic.

[Maximus Macro]

I know - I was being sarcastic.

yeah my mistake a sarcastic atheist can often sound like a theist.casue you where basicly acting there natural stupidity

[Ixor_Drakar]

This is a bit ridiculous to compare. Atheism isn't even a belief, its the denying of a belief in God. So really no one could ever kill in the name of atheism.

Im not saying that people haven't been killed in the name of a religion, but I'm willing to bet the majority of them had political or other reasons behind it.

Actually it is the "belief" that there is no god. By using the tern deny you say we are wrong. Back to point the question was not about politics. Many have died for politics, resources and the like but a group with a belief killing because they are right and you are wrong? That is the question.

[(s)AINT]

Actually it is the "belief" that there is no god. By using the tern deny you say we are wrong. Back to point the question was not about politics. Many have died for politics, resources and the like but a group with a belief killing because they are right and you are wrong? That is the question.

No it is the rejection of the belief in deities.

[Cooraan]

Actually it is the "belief" that there is no god. By using the tern deny you say we are wrong. Back to point the question was not about politics. Many have died for politics, resources and the like but a group with a belief killing because they are right and you are wrong? That is the question.

But Atheism isn't a belief, which I've seen many atheist espouse on this forum. Atheism has no cods, no rules, or any guide lines. So its a bit dumb to say that its the clean hands belief.

[Ixor_Drakar]

Atheism isn't an organization, hence it needs none of those things. That is why you don't see us gathering and singing songs about nothing. I'm sure I don't need to state the definition of the word belief here. I believe there is no god hence I am an atheist. How simple does this have to be to keep this on track. Or will it be a endless procession of thats dumb.

[Gaidin]

Atheism isn't an organization, hence it needs none of those things. That is why you don't see us gathering and singing songs about nothing. I'm sure I don't need to state the definition of the word belief here. I believe there is no god hence I am an atheist. How simple does this have to be to keep this on track. Or will it be a endless procession of thats dumb.

Someone's never heard of the concept of strong and weak atheists.

[Ixor_Drakar]

Atheists whether they agree there is no god or simply that there isn't enough evidence are still atheists. If the weak don't want to be roped in with the strong then they should find another name. Semantics really.

[SigniferOne]

How many deaths has Atheism caused and by who. Before you jump the gun I also ask did they kill "in the name" of Atheism.

The whole "in the name" thing is a complete red herring, more of an empty sophism than a actual, substantive point. What you're really trying to ask is whether something was done "because of", that's the real substantive question, isn't it? And if you ask, well how can we know whether somebody did something "because of" some influence, the answer can be quite easily found.

The atheist believes that there is no true right or wrong appropriate for everybody. The Christian believes that there is one single true right and wrong, but that can sometimes morph into fanaticism. So the real question you want to ask is how many people were killed because of this moral relativism, vs. the number of people killed because of fanaticism.

And on that issue there is no confusion here at all. The French Revolutionaries killed more people per week than the Spanish Inquisition did in the whole entire history of its existence.

What's the connection between the French Revolutionaries and atheism? It's very simple -- if you strongly believe something, and you can justify it in your head, why not do it? Really, who's to stop you? There's certainly no single right and wrong, definitely no superstitious and stupid Flying Spaghetti Monster to judge and condemn you, so you really, truly, can do anything you want, as long as you're convinced it is okay.

[(s)AINT]

The whole "in the name" thing is a complete red herring, more of an empty sophism than a actual, substantive point. What you're really trying to ask is whether something was done "because of", that's the real substantive question, isn't it? And if you ask, well how can we know whether somebody did something "because of" some influence, the answer can be quite easily found.

The atheist believes that there is no true right or wrong appropriate for everybody. The Christian believes that there is one single true right and wrong, but that can sometimes morph into fanaticism. So the real question you want to ask is how many people were killed because of this moral relativism, vs. the number of people killed because of fanaticism.

And on that issue there is no confusion here at all. The French Revolutionaries killed more people per week than the Spanish Inquisition did in the whole entire history of its existence.

What's the connection between the French Revolutionaries and atheism? It's very simple -- if you strongly believe something, and you can justify it in your head, why not do it? Really, who's to stop you? There's certainly no single right and wrong, definitely no superstitious and stupid Flying Spaghetti Monster to judge and condemn you, so you really, truly, can do anything you want, as long as you're convinced it is okay.

How is that a red herring? You completely changed to "in the name of" to "because of"..

As for the French Revolutionaries - their violence directed towards the Catholic Church since it was seen as an organ of the oppressors and the rich to exploit the working people.. It was going to receive the same amount of hostility as the king, rich, bourgeoisie etc.

[basics]

" As for the French Revolutionaries - their violence directed towards the Catholic Church since it was seen as an organ of the oppressors and the rich to exploit the working people.. It was going to receive the same amount of hostility as the king, rich, bourgeoisie etc. "

Yezhof,

The working people being oppressed and exploited? And here was me thinking that most if not all revolutions are about people not having work to make ends meet. Now whether you can blame a rich man for not creating jobs for them is a bit rich since is it not up to him how he uses his money?

The people who exploit the people have been those with an agenda usually because they want what others have and are quite prepared to use the people to accomplish these ends regardless of whose life is lost in the doing as long as it is not them. I ask, did they ever create one job in their miserable lives? No, but that doesn't stop them wanting what a business man has built by his own finance and labour.

If history had recorded each individual's thoughts then we might well have the answer to the question but as it stands history does not record these things, being mostly about powers and them holding it. In that respect it is quite obvious that the so-called church comes into play as an overwhelming destroyer of lives and still is by some of the stupid doctrines held as inviable, if that is the correct spelling.

On the other hand consider that all the nations that have risen up to some sort of historical noteriety throughout time is it really possible to calculate whether their leaders were religious or atheist? Does it matter if their belief is some piece of stone or none at all because I would contend that their ambition was more about power than anything else, the followers being sensitised to plunder and rapine as their reward. Six thousand years or so have passed us by and four of them were without a visible church system.

[Ixor_Drakar]

The whole "in the name" thing is a complete red herring, more of an empty sophism than a actual, substantive point. What you're really trying to ask is whether something was done "because of", that's the real substantive question, isn't it? And if you ask, well how can we know whether somebody did something "because of" some influence, the answer can be quite easily found.

The atheist believes that there is no true right or wrong appropriate for everybody. The Christian believes that there is one single true right and wrong, but that can sometimes morph into fanaticism. So the real question you want to ask is how many people were killed because of this moral relativism, vs. the number of people killed because of fanaticism.

And on that issue there is no confusion here at all. The French Revolutionaries killed more people per week than the Spanish Inquisition did in the whole entire history of its existence.

What's the connection between the French Revolutionaries and atheism? It's very simple -- if you strongly believe something, and you can justify it in your head, why not do it? Really, who's to stop you? There's certainly no single right and wrong, definitely no superstitious and stupid Flying Spaghetti Monster to judge and condemn you, so you really, truly, can do anything you want, as long as you're convinced it is okay.

You are comparing morals with Theological belief here from what I can see but there is a difference between knowing its bad to murder someone in cold blood and not doing it because as you put it The Flying Spaghetti Monster will be displeased. Also those two events are an odd comparison. One was to exterminate non-believers and one was to liberate a people from tyranny and as far as I know not an atheist plot.

[SigniferOne]

Also those two events are an odd comparison. One was to exterminate non-believers and one was to liberate a people from tyranny and as far as I know not an atheist plot.

Remember that something doesn't have to be "an atheist plot" to be driven principles which are ultimately atheist.

Yes, one was to exterminate the non-believers, while the other was to liberate a people from tyranny. But the hilarious thing is that the one to 'exterminate non-believers' ended up killing almost nobody, while the one to 'liberate a people from tyranny' ended up destroying countless people. The Spanish Inquisition was frightening only from the aura surrounding it; scholarship has revealed that in the actual matter of fact, it killed around 2,000 people during the 300 years of its existence. The French killed that many on a good week. Remember -- the road to hell is paved with good intentions, never forget that. Again, what's the atheist connection with the French revolutionaries? The following three questions:

-Who will know?
-Who can stop me?
-Who's to say it's wrong?

[The Dude]

The whole "in the name" thing is a complete red herring, more of an empty sophism than a actual, substantive point. What you're really trying to ask is whether something was done "because of", that's the real substantive question, isn't it? And if you ask, well how can we know whether somebody did something "because of" some influence, the answer can be quite easily found.

This is correct in the case of a philosophical positive claim. Not in the case of a negative claim, like atheism. So here we go... again.

Yes, Sig, I refuse to let you get away with this

The atheist believes that there is no true right or wrong appropriate for everybody.

Wrong. The atheist denies god. Absolute morality and god are two quite easily alienable concepts. They need have nothing to do with each other.

The Christian believes that there is one single true right and wrong, but that can sometimes morph into fanaticism.

The christian believes that there is one specific sort of absolute morality. In other words, there may be other forms of absolute morality that are not divine but those are not the ones a christian is interested in. He is interested in divine absolute morality. And even then, specifically the christian version of it. Just so that's clear.

So the real question you want to ask is how many people were killed because of this moral relativism, vs. the number of people killed because of fanaticism.

If you want to discuss how many people were killed because of moral relativism we can open a thread on moral relativism and proceed to discuss the subject without using the word atheism even once. I guarantee you this is possible. The two need have nothing to do with each other, and whenever they do it is because a person holds that there is no god aswell as that morality is relative. So at best there is, literally, an arbitrary link created by, indeed, the arbiter ie the person who judges both positions as worth holding.

And on that issue there is no confusion here at all. The French Revolutionaries killed more people per week than the Spanish Inquisition did in the whole entire history of its existence.

Irrelevant to atheism. Also interesting to see you equate the French revolution with moral relativism. Do we have any historians on board who can laugh at this gross oversimplification of history?

What's the connection between the French Revolutionaries and atheism? It's very simple -- if you strongly believe something, and you can justify it in your head, why not do it? Really, who's to stop you?

The same is true for religion, so I'm honestly failing to see the point you are making here. You could argue the 9/11 hijackers (leaving aside the point that I still believe 9/11 was an inside job, so let's work with the official version of history here) were guilty of exactly this reasoning.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

so you really, truly, can do anything you want, as long as you're convinced it is okay.

I don't see how this differs between atheists, religious, people who don't think about it etc either. They are all like this.

[justicar5]

The whole "in the name" thing is a complete red herring, more of an empty sophism than a actual, substantive point. What you're really trying to ask is whether something was done "because of", that's the real substantive question, isn't it? And if you ask, well how can we know whether somebody did something "because of" some influence, the answer can be quite easily found.

The atheist believes that there is no true right or wrong appropriate for everybody. The Christian believes that there is one single true right and wrong, but that can sometimes morph into fanaticism. So the real question you want to ask is how many people were killed because of this moral relativism, vs. the number of people killed because of fanaticism.

And on that issue there is no confusion here at all. The French Revolutionaries killed more people per week than the Spanish Inquisition did in the whole entire history of its existence.

What's the connection between the French Revolutionaries and atheism? It's very simple -- if you strongly believe something, and you can justify it in your head, why not do it? Really, who's to stop you? There's certainly no single right and wrong, definitely no superstitious and stupid Flying Spaghetti Monster to judge and condemn you, so you really, truly, can do anything you want, as long as you're convinced it is okay.

hmm where to begin: Crusades, 30 years war, Reconquista, the Annihilation of the south american natives, north american indians, the attempted annihilation of the australian aborginals , the entire slave trade, the colonial period in general, the inquisition, the Albingensian Crusade, ...all in the name of the Prince of Genocide) peace, all because God told people that anything they did absolutly anything was fine as long as they prayed for forgiveness, because the Bible rells us this life means nothing, less than nothing, it's only the afterlife that matters.