Anti-theistic strawmen?

quote:

---

I don't think anyone can sit there and say that either religion or irreligion is the cause of atrocity. Since both camps have their fair share, we need to look to other reasons.

---

Collectively, the Crusades and the Inquisition, though it is difficult to tally accurately, must have been in the hundreds of thousands, all in the name of (insert god here ______)Collectively, atheist despots have over 100 million slain. Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Mao Tse-Tung, just to name the most prolific. And this all within less than a 100 year period.I'd say that's a pretty significant tally, wouldn't you? Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

I dunno. Are you really trying to say that the side with the smaller pile of dead bodies must be the "good" guys? That seems like a strange kind of morality to me.

---

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

I don't get it, I guess.What does atheism have to do with any of those guys? Hitler was Lutheran and had the support of the Catholic Church in his mission against Jews; Stalin had a degree from a seminary and certainly enacted plenty of religious doctrine of his own. Pol Pot was the leader of a religious agrarian crusade, and Mao Tse-Tung led a communist revolution.None of those figures led an atheist crusade; they simply attacked the local religion out of competition for power. Hilter did nothing that could be described as "atheist", he regularly cited the approval of God for his attacks on Jews.Not believing things on the basis of no good evidence, which is what atheism is, has never killed anybody. The millions that you mention fell victim to the same kind of faith-based thinking that typifies religious thinking, even if specific supernaturalism wasn't always prominent in their religion. Certainly these despots were held in religious esteem by the followers.Re: Stalin, no society that considered marching in front of a painting of the leader just the same as if he had really been there is "atheist." They've just exchanged one religion for another.But Hitler? How does he even make it in your list? Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot I can see; at least those figures were personally atheists even if they were the leaders of religious movements. But Hitler? What on Earth would make you think Hitler was an atheist, except for anti-atheist bigotry on your part?

The truth concerning history appears to be something NJ has a psychological block against. I know, have tried and failed.I hope that this forum does not sacrifice truth for phony 'balance', like Fox News.If you dispute anything Crash said in the post I have referred to NJ, give it your best shot in whatever forum you feel is appropriate, I'll be there to nail you with the virtual entirety of evidence from history.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

The conquistadors, by some estimates, accounted for a quarter of the central and south American population of the time, including some complete genocides in the Caribbean. All those killed were, of course, heathens.Islam's eastward push into the Indian subcontinent could've accounted for tens of millions of deaths over the last thousand years. The initial burst of Islam westward through North Africa and into Spain was all by rapid conquest with many battles, as well.Then lets not forget the split in the church in northern Europe. The death toll in Catholic/Protestant conflict alone well exceeding your estimates for the crusades and the inquisition.Hitler, as Crashfrog points out, was one of yours, although Catholic in background, not Lutheran. And, after so many centuries, there would not have been such a thing as Jews and non-Jews in Europe without religion, as it was religion that kept them separate.Whatever the numbers, you realise that in comparing Christianity to the tyrants you list, you are agreeing with Dawkins.Those tyrants are not described as spiritual, Holy, or good, as religion so often is. The likes of Dawkins are trying to take the blinkers from people's eyes.Religious conflict has been a massive killer throughout history, and it's still killing today.People in the "old world" were perhaps more aware of this than Americans, because the U.S. had not seen religion in action until September 11th.Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.

I think it would certainly help, yes. However, this is not a strawman. Dawkins doesn't say 'eradicating religion will end world suffering'. He argues that religious dogma is a dogma which is given privileged status. It is encouraged to have faith in religious dogma without needing supporting evidence, whereas other forms of dogma this is less true.Either way, naive notion or not, it is not a strawman. His conclusions are fundamentally off topic though. The topic is about strawmen/straw-Gods.

Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were not leaders of 'religious movments.' They were Marxists. Marxism is a philosophy, not a religion.You are stretching the word 'religion' far beyond its dictionary definition. Defining religion as 'a bad way of thinking' forces the conclusion you are supposed to be demonstrating: that religion is. By asking your readers to assume with you that all bad things that happen are 'religious' (if not, in fact, religious) you guarantee a happy result for atheism. Atheism, by virtue of not being a religion, walks away clean.You're equivocating between two definitions of religion. One is belief in God and in worship of that God. This is the definition you use when you say atheism is not a religion. The other is 'a bad way of thinking' that can be anything whatever so long as it brings unsavory people to power like Stalin and Mao.Logically you'll have to pick a definition and stick with it, then apply it both to your own belief and to others. I recommend the dictionary. It's something you and NJ can agree on. And you're stretching guilt-by-associations to the breaking point when you use the other one (stretch marks shown in italics): It is true that the manifestations of political and personality cults often find quasi-religious expression--especially in environments like Stalin's Russian and Mao's China where other forms of religious expression have been outlawed. This happens in the case of any ideology--even atheistic ones like those of Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao, the three you mention. Human beings have their rituals. Theism or atheism does not change the fact that they do. They always will.Your definition of atheism is far less creative and broad. You define it very closely as a personal belief, unconnected with actions, and allow no one to stretch that definition anywhere. You then say personal beliefs of this sort 'never hurt anybody.'But all personal beliefs, so strictly defined, are just as harmless. Actions kill people. Not beliefs.You're tilting the scales. If you are going to be strict in your definition of your favourite idea, defining it as a personal belief removed from all concern with political affairs, it is only fair to be equally strict in your definition of other ideas.Personally, I think that when it comes to understanding sociopathic regimes and the megalomaniacs who run them, blaming religion or non-religion gets you nowhere. Genocide is a disease of power structures, not the inescapable result of making this or that speculation about epistomology and ontology. The emergence of dictators is a consequence of individuals and their actions.Any ideology serves a person like Stalin, including none. If Crash magically made everyone in the world an atheist, or NJ made everyone in the world a devout Bible thumper, neither would rid humanity of dictators who order executions by the truckload and love to see their faces covering every wall. These people would still happen. They are slimy, undead creatures from the bottom of the human gene pool that rise to the surface now and then when the water grows muddy. Religion or non-religion has nothing to do with it._____

quote:

---

People in the "old world" were perhaps more aware of this than Americans, because the U.S. had not seen religion in action until September 11th.

---

Actually, many Americans have been well-aware of this, given our history of Christian-justified slavery, the KKK and other Christian white supremicist groups, the Christian-led terror campaigns against women's health clinics, and the Christian nationist bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building. Oh, and there was also a previous bombing of the WTC by Islamic extremists.

Ignorance helps them (the slimy undead) on their way, and religions thrive on ignorance, and perpetuate it, as you can see every day in these threads.Weapons against the undead are free speech, free thought, political pluralism, and public access to information (universal literacy, for example).A society cannot be made non-religious, it can only become so voluntarily. Western countries are in the process of doing this, and those furthest along the road, like the Scandinavian Countries, are highly successful societies. The slimy, undead creatures could have been successful there in the first half of the 20th century, but it's very unlikely now.The U.S. is the most religious of the western countries, and probably the most prone to being taken over by the undead. If they do take over, and some might suggest they're half-way there, the platform will certainly be religion.I don't think we'll see an end-timer president sitting on top of the world's largest collection of weapons of mass destruction, but it's not impossible.Religion can be dangerous.Further up the thread, I emphasised that it is the Abrahamic religions that Dawkins really goes on about. From where you're sitting, religion looks a lot less bigoted and dangerous, because it is. I've travelled quite extensively in the east, and the liberal promiscuous way that religions and philosophies intertwine is refreshing.I've also been to the "Holy Land". No promiscuity there.I can't speak for Crash, but I agree with you that it's best to restrict the use of the word religion to its commonest meaning in this thread for practical purposes. He could have used "religion substitutes" with justification, though. It's important, as the west loses its traditional religions, that these don't take over, but they show no signs of doing so in Western Europe.And here's the interesting thing. When Nazi-ism and Stalinism took over, it was when and where the masses were still very much followers of their traditional religions. Non-belief was confined to a minority, and general ignorance was pretty widespread.Edited by bluegenes, : bloody apostrophes

All true. I should've said "conservative Christian Americans", who would only really have noticed the early WTC attack, not the Christian stuff. I was replying to nemesis, remember, who doesn't notice much of anything.

Gotcha.

Sorry, but anybody who is ascribed supernatural powers by his followers - like the ability to see out through paintings of himself, or to "reverse" radios and TV's into surveillance devices - is the figurehead of a religious movement, by definition. Except for all the religions that believe in many Gods, or don't nominally believe in a God at all (like some varieties of Buddhism.)It's belief in the supernatural, characterized by faith-based thinking, that represents religion. And that belief certainly typified the movements of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. It's just faith-based thinking. The same thought that typifies adherents of religion typifies the adherents of the movements of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.If you have another word in mind for "a movement characterized by faith-based thinking and investment of supernatural power in an infallible leader" besides "religion", I'm all ears and I'll begin using it, I assure you. Well, actually the point of atheism is that you stop using faith-based thinking. So clearly the movements NJ describes have nothing to do with atheism, even if their leaders were privately atheists and their followers rejected native religions. I define it as a changing of mental habits. When you make an effort to oppose faith-based thinking, you're an atheist. Was that the point of the movements of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot?No, of course not. They were the leaders of cults, of religions. Their followers invested them with supernatural powers on the basis of no good evidence, on faith. What on Earth does any of that have to do with atheism? NJ probably won't even attempt to explain. Can you?

I'm all in favor of a better word for "movement based on supernatural or counterfactual belief held as a result of non-evidentiary, faith-based thinking." To me that screams "religion", but if we're going to ignore all the non-church, non-God religions and demand that "religion" only refer to going to church and believing in God, then I'm open to whatever word people think is better. Agreed. When communism fell in Russia, the Orthodox church was back in full force almost immediately - proof that Russian communism was not an "atheistic movement", but rather the exchange of one religion for another. And when it was over they obviously simply changed back.

First of all, it is very relevant to point out that Crashfrog is a rabid Atheist.Next, his commentary presupposes that Hitler, that is Adolf Hitler was telling the truth when he claimed to be a Christian. Why would anyone believe Hitler? Why would anyone want to believe someone who murdered tens of millions of persons? Hitler's actions say he was an Atheist. Again, when we remember that Crashfrog is an Atheist attempting to slander his ancient enemy (= Christianity) then it is understood as to why he "believes Hitler."Intelligent and honest persons know that Hitler was an Atheist, as were the communists who murdered over 100 million persons in the 20th century. How ironic that the moment Atheist-Darwinists-Marxists came to power they selected their opponents for extinction. Atheist-communist-evolutionists have murdered more persons in the 20th century than were murdered previously in history.How could an "intelligent and honest Atheist" like Crashfrog believe that these communists were not Atheists?Since there are persons who deny the Holocaust we should not be surprised.Ray

So that pretty much means we can trust what he says, n'est pas?You, on the other hand, are a Christian. Logically, that means everything you say and everything that you believe is the product of a delusion. A delusion so strong that you cannot even recognize that you are deluded. You think that you understand the facts, but actually your delusion is clouding your judgment. You think that you are reasoning logically, but your delusion is warping your ability to reason logically. You believe that you are being led by the Holy Spirit, but in reality it is your delusion that is leading you.

---

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)