Uncomfortable arguments - Stalin/Pol Pot and Atheism

[DanielV]

Hi All,

From listening to/participating in/watching arguments between believers and non-believers, you may be familiar with the argument that atheism leads to Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.

I've always found that an uncomfortable suggestion.

On the one hand, if we are to dismiss the actions of Pol Pot, Stalin, etc as merely being the actions of "evil" people that "just happened to be non-believers" then that seems to undermine the suggestion by Dawkins et al that religion makes people do evil things.

Now, I happen to think that it IS the case that some of these despots were bad eggs and that their belief system was more about control of people than anything nihilist that lead them to evil acts.

I just wonder what everyone else' opinion is on these arguments.

Have at it.

[davo]

Primarily these peoples systems were one of control, I posted this previously to another thread, and the same basis holds true of Pol-pot. Religion was a tool these people used to maintain power in the states hands, indeed they learnt from it, and created structures that modelled it.

Stalin admired Hitler and his ability to lead and control masses, how people have FAITH in him, blindly BELIEVE him. Stalin resurrected and supported FAITH, BELIEF teaching institutions in the Soviet Union namely the Orthodox Christian Church of Russia and brought it under his control. Stalin had religious education and clearly understood power of religion and how to use the same methods to brainwash minds of people, to force them follow authority blindly. Soviet Union authority didn't need thinking, asking questions, sceptical people. Stalin made himself the new god, using the same principles as religion does.

He was after power, the fact he was atheist is beside the point, he didn't kill in the name of atheism. He used power the same way as religion, just as religion uses power. It's all power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

look at the reference :

Vladislav Zubok; Constantine Pleshakov. Inside the Kremlin's Cold War: From Stalin to Khrushchev. pp. 4. Zubok and Pleshakov further state, "Many would later note, however, that his works were influenced by a distinctly Biblical style" and "his atheism remained rooted in some vague idea of a God of nature."

He was a DEIST .. like yea, an atheist has a vauge idea of a god of nature .. NOT.

He destroyed religion as he wanted to create his own power structures, using the same iconography, and deifying himself. He used religion along the way, to achieve that

[tandytripper]

Hi All,

From listening to/participating in/watching arguments between believers and non-believers, you may be familiar with the argument that atheism leads to Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.

I've always found that an uncomfortable suggestion.

On the one hand, if we are to dismiss the actions of Pol Pot, Stalin, etc as merely being the actions of "evil" people that "just happened to be non-believers" then that seems to undermine the suggestion by Dawkins et al that religion makes people do evil things.

Now, I happen to think that it IS the case that some of these despots were bad eggs and that their belief system was more about control of people than anything nihilist that lead them to evil acts.

I just wonder what everyone else' opinion is on these arguments.

Have at it.

I have had debate over both the fellows mentioned and Hitler and as both Davo and Mr Black pointed out, all of them were god botherer's. Also interesting to note that all of them attended religious schools and if memory serves ALL wanted to have some affiliation within the church/religion of their choice...ie: Hitler and Stalin originally wanted to be Preists and Pol Pot was deep into as Davo stated Theravada Buddhism and at one point contemplated becoming a monk. (I read his bio...done by an Aussie... Miller or Milne...will check it out and cite it if you like).

It seems that they all tended to have more than one thing in common. Heightened religious background and buying into the concepts of communism. Communism does not automatically assume atheism and calling these men atheists as far as I am concerned is just the religious wanting to pass them off as something they actually were not. As far as my mindset goes, the ideals of totalitarianism and fascism these men displayed, are far removed from how I see atheism but are much more in line with religious teachings.

My 2 cents...;)

[Fearless]

One thing doesn't necessarily lead to another... I was watching Good News Week last night and there was a tongue in cheek joke about Catholic Priests being pedophiles in a generalistic sense, although there are some grounds for a taunt over the reality of this in recent media, it would be unfair to paint the whole group with the same brush and assume that all catholic priests are that way inclined.

The few tend to spoil it for the many.

No matter which group of people you look at there are no doubt going to be questionable people who will bring that group into disrepute in some way.

Religious, non religious, skin colour, nationality etc there is no escaping it. I dare say there are more dangerous religious people out there in powerful positions than there are likely to be Atheists.

[DanielV]

Excellent responses from all, thankyou.

[TimB]

Hello dverbern,

Just on your comment;

"On the one hand, if we are to dismiss the actions of Pol Pot, Stalin, etc as merely being the actions of "evil" people that "just happened to be non-believers" then that seems to undermine the suggestion by Dawkins et al that religion makes people do evil things."

I don't see that this does undermine anything. Dawkins et al say things along the lines that there will always be good people and there will always be evil people - the added bonus is that only religion can make otherwise good people do evil things.

my 3c.

[tandytripper]

One thing doesn't necessarily lead to another... I was watching Good News Week last night and there was a tongue in cheek joke about Catholic Priests being pedophiles in a generalistic sense, although there are some grounds for a taunt over the reality of this in recent media, it would be unfair to paint the whole group with the same brush and assume that all catholic priests are that way inclined.

The few tend to spoil it for the many.

No matter which group of people you look at there are no doubt going to be questionable people who will bring that group into disrepute in some way.

Religious, non religious, skin colour, nationality etc there is no escaping it. I dare say there are more dangerous religious people out there in powerful positions than there are likely to be Atheists.

I agree that tarring all with the same brush is not a logical course of action, but the examples; Stalin and Pol Pot given by dverbern are perfect examples of religious leanings having much to do with their genocidal tendencies.

Too I have never heard of any world leader, such as the ones mentioned above EVER committing these types of atrocities in the name of atheism, but how many world leaders commit such actions in the name of their "god" or their alleged "god given right" to do so?

[SchizoDeluxe]

Yes atheists can do evil things however rarely do they ever do those things BECAUSE they are an atheist. What they seem to miss is that believers who do evil things are usually doing it because of their belief. There is a big difference and they tend to ignore that point. They still have not come up with a legit answer to Hitchens challenge on this subject:

Name one moral action made or said by a believer that could not be done by a non-believer

[Cosmic Teapot]

As far as I'm aware, neither of these people said "I don't believe in god, therefore I will slaughter lots of innocent people".
The motivations for their atrocities were still based in a belief system, just not a religious one. Atheism is NOT a belief system, it's the lack of a religious belief system. People will kill for what they believe in but are generally less motivated by a lack of belief. History shows that, regardless of their atheism, neither of these men were you would call rational, a personality trait they share with religious fundamentalists.
If Xtians want to try to insinuate that atheism allows the moral flexibility to commit crimes against humanity, they still have to explain how "moral" Xtians throughout history have murdered millions in the name of their god.
It seems they're the ones laying claim to "moral flexibility".

[DanielV]

Thankyou everyone for your feedback and hope your week is going well.

[Seamus]

I've always found that an uncomfortable suggestion
It bothers me not a jot or a tittle..It's a non argument,revealing an ignorance of what atheism is and is not.

Atheism IS:A lack of belief in god(s) period.

Atheism is NOT;A religion, an ideology,a moral code or a political movement.

From what I can gather, one position some simplistic theists take is that there can be no morality without some concept of an absolute moral authority. That means people are free to do whatever they like.

Morality is based on pragmatism,that's why it varies so much.Many moral codes,including my own,Egoism,are not derived from any moral authority.


MY position:I find self interest by far the most honest, reliable and predictable of motives. I remain deeply sceptical of anyone taking the moral high ground to justify his/her actions. Eg the Iraq War, or just watch parliament on TV.

Finally, assume,for the sake of argument, that atheists ARE immoral. For any member of an Abrahamic faith to point the finger is blatant Tu quoque and may be dismised for that reason,imo.

[GodwinGrey]

This is just a fallacious argument. Stalin and Pol Pot were Atheists - Stalin and Pol Pot were mass murderers - Atheists are mass murderers.

Anarchists, (and I am one) are socialists too, arguably the first socialists, certainly people like Gerard Winstanley had more in common with Anarchism than Communism. Anarchists completely reject coercion as a means to an end. We'll fight to defend ourselves, our structures or other victims of oppression. But be perfectly clear about this, Anarchists are not revolutionaries in the meaning of an armed revolt to change a society over to our way of thinking. I think i can say without much fear of contradiction that the vast majority of Anarchists are Athiests too.

[youtube][http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCF9YWk5W-s/youtube]

[Cosmic Teapot]

This is just a fallacious argument. Stalin and Pol Pot were Atheists - Stalin and Pol Pot were mass murderers - Atheists are mass murderers.

True but that matters little to people who are happy to misrepresent evolution as being "random chance" for the purpose of beating the strawman to death. Remember, they make these kinds of arguments not to convince people like us but to hoodwink their own followers, most of which aren't known for their logical reasoning skills.

Another thing to note is that pointing out a fallacious argument can sometimes put a loaded gun into the hands of a child. I'll explain.
Atheists (among others) have often cited the many atrocities commited by "christians" in the name of their god as proof that theist are just as capable, if not more so, of doing very evil things against their fellow humans based on their beliefs. This issue often creeps up when christians start laying claim to "moral authority" via their god.
They're then happy enough to say that if their arguments about the connection between atheism and Stalin are fallacious because they're affirming the consequent, so must any argument we make about christians and the Spanish Inquisition. Trying to make them understand the two arguments aren't the same is nigh on impossible.

[GodwinGrey]

True but that matters little to people who are happy to misrepresent evolution


It is indeed difficult to have an intelligent discussion, with people who are terminally thick :)

The 'Holy Land' what a centre of peace and harmony that has always been.:D

[Cosmic Teapot]

The 'Holy Land' what a centre of peace and harmony that has always been.:D

Why, of course it is.
Conflict destroys peace. Thoughtful opinion causes conflict. Only people who think have thoughtful opinions. Therefore, thinking and peace are mutually exclusive. Ergo, no one can enter the Holy Land if they think. ;)

[GodwinGrey]

Thoughtful opinion causes conflict.


Now you can stop right there ;)

[Seamus]

It is indeed difficult to have an intelligent discussion, with people who are terminally thick :)

The 'Holy Land' what a centre of peace and harmony that has always been.:D

Well it was kind of OK during the Pax Romana,and for a bit while the Muslims had it.Then the Christians stuck their oar in ( First Crusade 1099) and there's been hell to pay ever since.-and the Jews trying to reclaim Canaan, which they pinched from someone else in the first place hasn't helped. THEN they began kicking out the descendants of the Philistines(that's Palestine) and the wheels really fell off..:p


PS I am anti Israeli and anti Zionism,not anti Jewish.

[GodwinGrey]

The tragedy of the Zionis project is that the return of the diaspora ought to have been a win win situation. But racists like Jabotinsky and Ben Gurion led the way. i'm no fan of Hamas and Hezboullah either. Once again ordinary people who just want to live their lives in peace and security and raise kids get let down by their rulers.

[_RAAF_Stupot]

Hi All,

From listening to/participating in/watching arguments between believers and non-believers, you may be familiar with the argument that atheism leads to Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.

I've always found that an uncomfortable suggestion.

On the one hand, if we are to dismiss the actions of Pol Pot, Stalin, etc as merely being the actions of "evil" people that "just happened to be non-believers" then that seems to undermine the suggestion by Dawkins et al that religion makes people do evil things.

Now, I happen to think that it IS the case that some of these despots were bad eggs and that their belief system was more about control of people than anything nihilist that lead them to evil acts.

I just wonder what everyone else' opinion is on these arguments.

Have at it.

Whether Pol Pot, Stalin et al are atheists is irrelevant to the truth or or otherwise of atheism. Even whether they did bad things because of their atheism is irrelevant.

It's a logical fallacy often presented by theists. This knife cuts both ways - atheists can't use the fact of bad things done by theists (such as the Crusades, 9/11 etc) as an argument to refute theism.

[NakedApe]

I think it's time for the West to stop apologising for the Crusades. The Crusades were, after all, a series of military operations to retake the Holy Land from the Muslims, who had invaded during the 7th century with terrible slaughter and persecution of the resident Christians - something which, you may have noticed, Muslims have never apologised for.
It's true that the Byzantine and Western European leaders didn't always behave in an exemplary manner, but the Crusades only happened in the first place because Christians were the victims of Muslim imperialist aggression. And for some reason, Westerners have been beating themselves up about it ever since. Even today, Islamists love to invoke the Crusades as a gross affront to Muslims that must be avenged - conveniently ignoring their own bloody past.
The West's continuing guilt trip over the Crusades is not only misplaced, it's dangerous because it provides jihadists with one more reason to hate us.

Sorry for getting off topic (again):o

[Cosmic Teapot]

It's a logical fallacy often presented by theists. This knife cuts both ways - atheists can't use the fact of bad things done by theists (such as the Crusades, 9/11 etc) as an argument to refute theism.

Very true but most atheists only list the evil done by theists (mostly in the name of their god) in response to the theist's claims that moral purity only comes from the bible, not to refute the existence of a god.

[_RAAF_Stupot]

Very true but most atheists only list the evil done by theists (mostly in the name of their god) in response to the theist's claims that moral purity only comes from the bible, not to refute the existence of a god.

If atheists do this they are doing themselves a disservice. (I know many do).

Play the ball, not the man.

I'm an atheist. That means I don't have a belief in god/s. If theists start a 'moral purity' argument, then the argument is already irrelevant to me. Moral purity (whatever that is) has nothing to do with the truth of existence of god/s.

I want theists to argue a case for the necessary existence of god/s. In less philosophical terms, I want them to explain why god/s can't not exist.

[Cosmic Teapot]

If atheists do this they are doing themselves a disservice. (I know many do).

Play the ball, not the man.

I'm an atheist. That means I don't have a belief in god/s. If theists start a 'moral purity' argument, then the argument is already irrelevant to me. Moral purity (whatever that is) has nothing to do with the truth of existence of god/s.

I want theists to argue a case for the necessary existence of god/s. In less philosophical terms, I want them to explain why god/s can't not exist.

Maybe I didn't make my point clear enough so I'll rephrase.
Most atheists don't use the evils done by theists to refute god's existence. If they do, they are in error. Evil acts done by theists, (especially in the name of their god) should only be used to refute the theist claim that only theists have morality because all morality comes from the bible/koran.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

What about Saladdin and Osama Bin Laden and George W Bush and Saddam Hussein and Stephen Conroy? They're all either Islamic or Christian and they have done way more damage than Hitler!

What about Jesus and God (well they're the same thing anyway - he's his own dad and son too) who killed over 1/3 of the world in a flash flood?

<object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/d0A4_bwCaX0&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x000000&color2=0x000000&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/d0A4_bwCaX0&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x000000&color2=0x000000&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object>

[Atrax Robustus]

From listening to/participating in/watching arguments between believers and non-believers, you may be familiar with the argument that atheism leads to Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.

I've always found that an uncomfortable suggestion.

I try to avoid this argument like the plague. It always has the potential of ending with am not! - are so! so there's little ground to be made by even going along these lines.

If it ever comes into the discussion, I will change direction onto morality. Once achieved, I've always been able to short-circuit the discussion by going directly on the offensive with the Hitchens Challenge:

"You are implying that as an atheist then, I am incapable of a moral or ethical act. Give me one single example of a moral action by a believer that cannot be done by an un-believer".

Things usually go quiet after that.

[rodhavji]

Here is my 2 cents.

If we take the most famous atheist genocidal dictators of the 20th century, i.e. Hitler and Stalin and you look at the way they controlled their population you can see that there really was no need for religion.

God was merely replaced with another (equally as stupid) deity. In the case of Stalin it was the establishment of the workers paradise and in the case of Hitler it was the propagation and dominance of the German Master Race in Europe both with themselves as demi-gods to lead the population to said goals. The gods, in my opinion were the dictators themselves.

They didnt need religion because they themselves were supreme beings. You could say the same about Mao, Pol-pot etc etc.

[Cosmic Teapot]

Here is my 2 cents.

If we take the most famous atheist genocidal dictators of the 20th century, i.e. Hitler and Stalin and you look at the way they controlled their population you can see that there really was no need for religion.

God was merely replaced with another (equally as stupid) deity. In the case of Stalin it was the establishment of the workers paradise and in the case of Hitler it was the propagation and dominance of the German Master Race in Europe both with themselves as demi-gods to lead the population to said goals. The gods, in my opinion were the dictators themselves.

They didnt need religion because they themselves were supreme beings. You could say the same about Mao, Pol-pot etc etc.

Two words:
Personality Cults.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Funny enough it looks like Godwin's Law works! Well I guess that's why it is a law.

But anyway - Hitler and stalin were nothing compared to God himself! Killing 1 000 000 000+ people by flash flood (drowning) is probably not as good as killing <6 000 000 people by shooting them in the head!

[gruber]

If some bible basher brings those people into the arugement you look them in the eye, take a deep breath and say "inquisition"

[Fearless]

Funny enough it looks like Godwin's Law works! Well I guess that's why it is a law.

But anyway - Hitler and stalin were nothing compared to God himself! Killing 1 000 000 000+ people by flash flood (drowning) is probably not as good as killing <6 000 000 people by shooting them in the head!

Isn't he planning a repeat performance some time? Time to invest in floaties just in case... or is he trying another magic spell?

[rodhavji]

lol if christians saw this forum i think theyd immediately have a hernia

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Isn't he planning a repeat performance some time? Time to invest in floaties just in case... or is he trying another magic spell?
He did that in April 1912 at a smaller scale. I wonder if Global Warming is his next planned flood?
Quick - somebody legally change their name to Noah and build a space ship and call it Noah's Modern Ark - and don't forget your pet rock times two.

[tandytripper]

Isn't he planning a repeat performance some time? Time to invest in floaties just in case... or is he trying another magic spell?

Don't know if floaties would help. Hey Zeuz himself is supposedly going to take the whole "grapes of wrath" thing literally and pulverise us all through a wine press because of our disobedience...blah blah.

Can't you just feel the "lurv".:confused:

[Cosmic Teapot]

lol if christians saw this forum i think theyd immediately have a hernia
By all means, post links in any christian forum you like. Tell them we're evil atheists and we plan to teabag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teabagging) Jesus when he comes back (the irony will elude them, they're used to things not making sense).
We haven't had a theist to play with for a while and they're fun x10 when they're angry.
Fantasy Island is going to get sold to resort developers if we don't start using it.

[Nick]

If some bible basher brings those people into the arugement you look them in the eye, take a deep breath and say "inquisition"

To give Christians their due, the death toll due to the Spanish Inquisition was 'only' about 100,000.

However, Mao Tse Tung, Stalin and Hitler perhaps had 100 million killed.

Don't forget that it is the perversion of religion - man's involvement - that would encourage people to kill in the name of God. Jesus taught us to be peaceful.

[AFA Admin]

Hi Nick

This is a message sent to all who find their way to these forums.

We like people, and we like facts too!

We're friendly but we're skeptical, and if somebody calls for proof, it's not an accusation. Only the strong ideas thrive here: we try to respect people. (We do not tolerate personal abuse.)

If you're an AFA member and need your membership status recognised in forum access, please send a Private Message to Admin (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/private.php?do=newpm&u=13), including the name on your AFA membership.

You may already have visited these other handy places:
* New Member Information (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=12)
* Welcome from AFA president (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=18)
* For those interested in learning, I recommend the Atheism Resource Thread (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=7608) maintained by Fearless.
* And a quick look at our reserved spot for belief-based discussion, Fantasy Island (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16), includes The Great Big List (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=4784), a sort-of "things we've seen before" for those of faith, and general rules of argument for the forum.

If you've got questions, please ask. Moderators have red name tags, but many of our friendly people may have the answers you need.

Enjoy the forums. We hope to see plenty from you in discussions.

Have fun.

[Centauri]

To give Christians their due, the death toll due to the Spanish Inquisition was 'only' about 100,000.

However, Mao Tse Tung, Stalin and Hitler perhaps had 100 million killed.

Don't forget that it is the perversion of religion - man's involvement - that would encourage people to kill in the name of God. Jesus taught us to be peaceful.
I don't know if Jesus existed - nobody does. But what does Jesus threaten to do to his enemies if they don't believe him? That's right - he tortures them forever in hellfire. You are lying to yourself if you think Jesus was peaceful.

And Jesus can stick his fictitious hell straight up his arsehole.

[wolty]

To give Christians their due, the death toll due to the Spanish Inquisition was 'only' about 100,000.

However, Mao Tse Tung, Stalin and Hitler perhaps had 100 million killed.

Don't forget that it is the perversion of religion - man's involvement - that would encourage people to kill in the name of God. Jesus taught us to be peaceful.

And your point is?

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

To give Christians their due, the death toll due to the Spanish Inquisition was 'only' about 100,000. Figures? Where did you get that from?

However, Mao Tse Tung, Stalin and Hitler perhaps had 100 million killed.Hitler killed ~6 million. Stalin killed ~17 million. Mao killed ~38 million. That adds up to ~61 million. If you can pluck figures from nowhere so can I.

Your god has killed more than that many people, not only according to the bible, but according to modern-day christians such as the Phelps family (eg. "God sent AIDS to punish Homosexuals") so no he is not peaceful.

At least 25m people as an estimate according to the bible. (http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible.html)

And in real life, given people still die from illnesses, and given the number of times I have been told it is because of sin and shit, billions.

It is his fault, because he didn't get rid of sin. On his part it constitutes a tort of negligence.

Don't forget that it is the perversion of religion - man's involvement - that would encourage people to kill in the name of God. Jesus taught us to be peaceful.LOL WUT?

If your god asked you to kill somebody then would you do it? (YES/NO)

[Loki]

Hi Nick

I'd need to see a reference for that Inquisition claim.

Does this figure correspond purely to "official" victims of trials, or does it include all deaths attributed to a climate of persecution and fear lasting for several hundred years.

Does this figure correspond to the period of the "Spanish Inquisition" or include all Inquisitions held by the catholic church through it's history? Does it include all deaths in the crusades, a bloody side-effect of the inquisition, or are they not "official"?

Here's a quote (http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/cot/t2w20inquisition.htm) which directly contradicts your figure, how does this relate to the figure you have given, or is the event referenced not "officially" part of the body count?

In France, 70,000-100,000 Huguenots were slaughtered in one event known as St. Bartholomew's massacre, beginning the night of August 24, 1572, and lasting about a week. The Pope (Gregory XIII) had a medal struck of an angel exterminating the Huguenots with a sword and commissioned the Italian artist Vasari to paint a mural in commemoration, a painting that still exists in the Vatican. Another 200,000 or more Huguenots were killed in other massacres, and from 500,000-1,000,000 fled France.I've seen a lot of estimates of the death toll from the Inquisition, from 3,000 upwards. Seems a lot of people want to downplay the barbarity of that period of history, I wonder why?


Edit: Have you perchance read Mein Kampf? Hitler was proudly catholic. Godwin will get you nowhere here.

[Aldaron]

Hitler killed ~6 million.

Just to be nit-picky, 6 million is the figure usually given for the number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust. It doesn't count the Romani, Russian POWs, other religious groups, the disabled, homosexuals and the like that were also slaughtered by the Nazis. If you factor them in, the number goes up to somewhere between 10 - 20 million (I doubt anyone really knows for sure).

I know, I know...that wasn't your point (which I agree with, by the way), but I just wanted to make the point that a lot more than six million Jews were killed by Hitler and his cronies.

[Aldaron]

I also think people such as Nick ignore a historical reality: the regimes he refers to (Nazi Germany, Stalin's USSR, etc) "benefited" from the instruments and implements of modern technology.

Even leaving aside the arguments over whether Hitler, for example, was atheistic or theistic or anywhere on the spectrum, he had far more efficient means to mass-murder at his disposal than did the Catholic church in the 16th century.

Unfortunately, we have become more and more efficient at killing people as time has gone on. The First World War killed something like 10 million, the Second World War killed something like 70 million. A Third World War will likely kill in the order of ten times that number or more.

Arguing that "atheism" has caused more death and destruction than religion is absurd; the so-called "atheistic" powers you mentioned were incidentally atheistic. Atheism was an offshoot of Stalinist Russia, for example, not its raison d'etre. Religion, on the other hand, was front and centre of the entire existence of the Inquisition.

Arguing that millions died in Stalin's USSR as a result of atheism is like arguing that "x" died under the Inquisition as a result of the Inquisitors wearing cassocks.

[Worldslaziestbusker]

Hi Nick
How many religiously inspired deaths are you comfortable with. My tolerance is set at zero. Saying only 100,000, even with scare quotes, makes you sound a tad callous.
Matt

[Centauri]

Just to be nit-picky, 6 million is the figure usually given for the number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust. It doesn't count the Romani, Russian POWs, other religious groups, the disabled, homosexuals and the like that were also slaughtered by the Nazis. If you factor them in, the number goes up to somewhere between 10 - 20 million (I doubt anyone really knows for sure).

And let's not forget these facts:

0wRgFJFfXoA

Are you listening, Nick? Or are you going to put your fingers in your ears and sing "la la la la!"?

[Xeno]

Nick has cleverly worked out that machine guns, gas chambers and general starvation used in a much larger population kill more people than burning at the stake or attacking with swords a much smaller population.

Therefore, christianity is right and proper and therefore god.

Time to answer Croc's question (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showpost.php?p=207394&postcount=41), Nick.

[RealityRules]

To give Christians their due, the death toll due to the Spanish Inquisition was 'only' about 100,000.

However, Mao Tse Tung, Stalin and Hitler perhaps had 100 million killed.

Don't forget that it is the perversion of religion - man's involvement - that would encourage people to kill in the name of God. Jesus taught us to be peaceful.

What the F*&k does "To give Christians their due" mean, especially in the context of your post ????

Those leaders did not directly "have" anywhere near that number killed.

The conflicts that lead to, or arose from, WW2 or communism were due to doctrinal belief systems that can be seen as intermediate phases of governmental and other administrative evolution. The world has moved on. Just as the peoples of North Africa and the Middle East are trying to move their administrations on from the constructs of the present and recent past.

Jesus is a character in some stories. He & his so-called teachings are likely to be as fictional as any Shakespearean character or Harry Potter.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Just to be nit-picky, 6 million is the figure usually given for the number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust. It doesn't count the Romani, Russian POWs, other religious groups, the disabled, homosexuals and the like that were also slaughtered by the Nazis. If you factor them in, the number goes up to somewhere between 10 - 20 million (I doubt anyone really knows for sure).

I know, I know...that wasn't your point (which I agree with, by the way), but I just wanted to make the point that a lot more than six million Jews were killed by Hitler and his cronies.I did not know that; I thought ~6m was how many he killed in total.

In any case, the head of this operation (Hitler) (and probably many of those involved too) believed in Jesus Christ and all. Like peace out man, can you feel the lurve? :)

And what about now, where the priests are raping children and women?

[RealityRules]

.
To give Hitler his dues
.
http://nobeliefs.com/mementoes/HitlerMaryWithJesus.jpg

Mother Mary with the Holy Child Jesus Christ,

Oil/canvas, 1913, by Adolf Hitler

.... from ... Nazi Mementoes (http://nobeliefs.com/mementoes.htm)
.

[Logic please]

To give Christians their due, the death toll due to the Spanish Inquisition was 'only' about 100,000.
How convenient. The apparent comfort level with the alleged total killed by "your side", as long as it's less than "the other guys", speaks volumes about religious morals and ethics... and not in a good way.

So, as Loki also asked, Spanish Inquisition deaths are the only religiously-inspired / based killings thoughout human history, are they??? :rolleyes:

Don't forget that it is the perversion of religion - man's involvement - that would encourage people to kill in the name of God. Jesus taught us to be peaceful.
Wow - the first time I've ever seen the "No True Scotsman Theist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)" fallacy extended to every human adherent of religion, ever. :eek: A somewhat self-refuting argument, no?

[deesl4e]

Even leaving aside the arguments over whether Hitler, for example, was atheistic or theistic or anywhere on the spectrum, he had far more efficient means to mass-murder at his disposal than did the Catholic church in the 16th century.





Spot on. Also there were more people around to kill in 20th century Europe than 16th century Spain.

[Voltairine]

"Nick" has seems to have disappeared. And it's YOUR fault, frightening him off with facts and stuff. :rolleyes:

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Wow - the first time I've ever seen the "No True Scotsman Theist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)" fallacy extended to every human adherent of religion, ever. :eek: A somewhat self-refuting argument, no?Nope. It's the "No Authentic Welshwoman" fallacy. :p

Hey, they got problems with which version of the bible is correct too so there's the "No True Bagpipes" fallacy. :D

[Nick]

Nick, it is common when entering a new place , to introduce yourself not just blert out a bunch of unfounded assertion!



Where did these figures come from?


Where did these figures come from?

So a non-perverted religion would have no human involvement.. umm.. Last I looked the bible (god's word remember) tells people to kill.. Have you read it?


Who?


Hi everyone. Sorry for blurting out and not introducing myself. I'm agnostic, so I'm very willing to hear what everyone has to say.

For more information of where I got some of my figures from, here is a website:

http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/inquisition.htm#How%20many%20people%20were%20kille d%20in%20the%20Inquisition

'Using numbers that are known, scholars have been able to surmise that approximately 2,000 people died in the Medieval Inquisition. (1231-1400 AD)'

'According to public news reports the book's editor, Prof. Agostino Borromeo, stated that about 125,000 persons were investigated by the Spanish Inquisition, of which 1.8% were executed (2,250 people).'

And yes, I believe the Bible has many inconsistencies, but is an interesting book.

[Worldslaziestbusker]

'According to public news reports the book's editor, Prof. Agostino Borromeo, stated that about 125,000 persons were investigated by the Spanish Inquisition, of which 1.8% were executed (2,250 people).'


And again, I'd say that not one of those deaths could be justified. Are you okay with 2,250 people dead for an unsupported idea? People being taken from their family, unable to face their accusers, their family humiliated with them at an auto de fe, then led to a pyre and burnt to death while their community were forced to watch. Still, give those christians their due, eh?

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Let us not forget about the Ku Klux Klan while we are out there tallying the abuse committed by Christians all over the planet.

Also in the Phillipines where they are crucifying 16-year old boys to the cross to commemorate the death of Jesus as a celebration.

[Loki]

Waiting for Nick to answer my question. Were the 100 000 Huguenots murdered in one incident amongst many during the Inquisition years official or unofficial victims?

[Xeno]

Nick, what point do you imagine you are arguing here?

[wearestardust]

This

Nick, what point do you imagine you are arguing here?

I haven't contributed this thread so far as I have been lost as to what the point is.

[Praxis]

I wonder who told all the many civilisations prior to that Jesus bloke how to be peaceful? Could it be...that they worked it out for themselves? :rolleyes:

You don't say hello to us, I don't say hello to you. Not until you introduce yourself properly, as you would when you enter any new place.

Not very good manners. We have a clearly marked New Members forum.

[bhv]

[ Jesus taught us to be peaceful.[/quote] Why didn't he teach his dad?...uh...himself... or maybe that spirit thingy?
p.s. nobody expected the...

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

The "honor thy mother and father" thing was half done by jesus. He managed to have a bit of disregard for his mother (ie. he just forced her to give birth to himself and made her his mother without consent, for example) although he did honor his father.

He honored his father (ie. himself) so much that he became a narcissistic prick. :p

[Lilith]

Can we tally in the millions that are still suffering and dying today with what may well be conditions with treatments that have been postponed for decades because of the fucking absurd notion that a 150 cell blastocyst has a soul?

The gazillion (yes, that's the actual count - coz I went to look up numbers too) folk who are dying in African countries because of the mis-information the Catholic church is still spreading about the use of condoms?

The thousands of women who die in dangerous childbirths every year in predominantly catholic communities who are denied control over their reproductive health for the same stupid superstitions? .. oh yeah, and their babies too.