90-200 million dead.

[JimC]

rasetsu wrote:
If atheism is a rational doctrine or idea, it doesn't depend on the saintlihood of past atheists for its force and authority. It is its own authority, independent of what any specific atheists may have done in the past.

A fair point indeed, but it is not the whole story. Typically, religious ranters go down this path by ascribing some evil of the past to atheists, but not just because of their human failings, but because their atheism was the driving force behind those evil deeds.

We already have many examples of evil deeds perpetrated in the name of religion; they would like to even the score...

A more subtle argument would be that atheists do evil deeds, not directly because of their atheism, but because they don't have a faith or a moral framework to assist them in defeating their own inherent evil...

Not that it's particularly supportable either...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The whole point of the OP was simply to point out again that the old dog of "atheists are the greatest mass murders in history" simply isn't true.

[rasetsu]

rasetsu wrote:
If atheism is a rational doctrine or idea, it doesn't depend on the saintlihood of past atheists for its force and authority. It is its own authority, independent of what any specific atheists may have done in the past.

A fair point indeed, but it is not the whole story. Typically, religious ranters go down this path by ascribing some evil of the past to atheists, but not just because of their human failings, but because their atheism was the driving force behind those evil deeds.

We already have many examples of evil deeds perpetrated in the name of religion; they would like to even the score...

Oh indeed. But I would suggest that it is a mistake to turn aside of any truth, solely for a tactical advantage, or to cover one's flank. I don't know what to name a person who does this, but they have sown the seeds of their own defeat.

I was surprised at the response to my argument. I was expecting to be disappointed.

To be blunt, the completion of the entire argument lies in some matters of ethics I haven't completely tied together. I think I have all the pieces I need now (strangely enough, thanks to William Lane Craig, of all people), but I am no ethicist, and my life is driven by other priorities than the thinking these days. And much like here, if I were to attempt to lead, too many would turn aside before reaching the destination. C'est la vie. I will die, and another will rediscover this path. Or perhaps, it will simply be discarded because of obstacles that I cannot see. That's the genius of our species. As Armstrong said, "One small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind" — the small steps, the steps taken by individuals, tend to cancel out; it's the giant leaps of groups of like kind that propels the engine of progress.

[Tyrannical]

I thought the smallpox blankets thing was a myth?

Not quite a myth. It's true that Lord Jeffery Amherst, commander of British forces in the Colonies during the French and Indian Wars of 1754-1763, did discuss the possibility of infecting Indians with smallpox using blankets in some letters, but there is no actual evidence that this actually occurred. Most reliable authorities agree that smallpox circulated among the Indians through contact with settlers who were infected but had immunities that the Indians did not. The United States worked very hard once a smallpox vaccine was developed to vaccinate as many members of the Indian tribes as it could in order to stop the spread of the disease.

And I'd like to make note of the fact that it was a BRITISH OFFICER who thought up the idea, not an American...since the United States did not exist at the time, and those sort of terror tactics perpetrated by the British were a large part of the reason that the Colonies rebelled and kicked the British out in the first place.

Fucking British imperialist barbarians!

It should be obvious by the vast differences in native ancestry percentage of countries south of the US compared to the US that something was up.

[Seth]

The whole point of the OP was simply to point out again that the old dog of "atheists are the greatest mass murders in history" simply isn't true.

Which of course isn't true. They are.

[Seth]

As a species we have shown we are capable of really nasty disgusting and cruel things. I'm not sure it is worthwhile, helpful or even relevant what someone believed in or didn't as they massacred their fellow human beings. We seem supremely capable of finding ways to justify it, whatever we believe.

But just as guns make it easier to kill, do religions and other dogma make it easier to justify mass killing? If a society doesn't Truly Believe in anything, are they less likely to go on a murderous rampage?

Perhaps more pertinent is the question "If the members of a society have no religious beliefs, are they MORE likely to go on a murderous spree?" The historical evidence provides a resounding "yes" answer to that question.

[Seth]

Why respond to his bullshit?

Why respond to yours? Because it's fun!

[Ian]

The whole point of the OP was simply to point out again that the old dog of "atheists are the greatest mass murders in history" simply isn't true.

Which of course isn't true. They are.

Seth, sometimes you post opinions with details, context and at least some sort of logic which make people assume that, while astonishingly biased, you're at least intelligent. But when yhen you post things like this, you undermine that assumption. And anyone who might read this sort of babble is going to be less inclined to think your opinions on any other matters are intelligent.

Trying to do you a favor here...

[Tyrannical]

The whole point of the OP was simply to point out again that the old dog of "atheists are the greatest mass murders in history" simply isn't true.

Which of course isn't true. They are.

State sponsored Atheism is the new kid on the block too being under a century old, but in it's short time the body count has been quite impressive.

[Seth]

The whole point of the OP was simply to point out again that the old dog of "atheists are the greatest mass murders in history" simply isn't true.

Which of course isn't true. They are.

Seth, sometimes you post opinions with details, context and at least some sort of logic which make people think that, while astonishingly biased, you're at least intelligent. But when yhen you post things like this, you undermine that assumption. And anyone who might read this babble are going to be less inclined to think your opinions on any other matters are intelligent.

Trying to do you a favor here...

Thanks Ian, but I'm just illuminating the typical Atheist anti-theist argument by turning the tables. The dogmatic denials of the social utility of religion and the mindless, factless attacks on people of religion by Atheists (who themselves are religious zealots) accept no middle ground and tolerate no dissent from Atheist orthodoxy, so I see no reason not to turn the same spotlight on Atheists.

The fact is that atheists, in the persona of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and other radical communist atheistic regimes are responsible for some 100 million deliberate, intentional, calculated and brutally performed deaths, many of them of religious believers, all at the behest of Karl Marx, one of the most evil fucks in the history of the world. The violent, murderous suppression of religion by communist regimes is legendary and indisputable. And interestingly one of the first things to reemerge after the fall of the Soviet Union were the churches, which had been burned down or turned into storage buildings while the people were forbidden to worship.

Religion is an enduring social behavior because it has evolutionary survival benefits, and it always reemerges after being suppressed, and I suspect it always will. But no card-carrying Atheist will ever admit this. Nor will they bother to examine whether or not amoral behavior is linked to atheism in some causal fashion. They like to insist that they, and only they are "rational" in their thinking, but they're almost always wrong.

[Robert_S]

As a species we have shown we are capable of really nasty disgusting and cruel things. I'm not sure it is worthwhile, helpful or even relevant what someone believed in or didn't as they massacred their fellow human beings. We seem supremely capable of finding ways to justify it, whatever we believe.

But just as guns make it easier to kill, do religions and other dogma make it easier to justify mass killing? If a society doesn't Truly Believe in anything, are they less likely to go on a murderous rampage?

Perhaps more pertinent is the question "If the members of a society have no religious beliefs, are they MORE likely to go on a murderous spree?" The historical evidence provides a resounding "yes" answer to that question.

Oh, there was no religious (not necessarily explicitly supernatural) belief in Stalin, Marx, The Motherland, The Fatherland, the Dear Leader? You think there's nothing religious about Atheism rather than atheism?

Also, we have technology that wasn't available in the past. We are capable of so much more violence so much more systematically.

[Audley Strange]

It occurred to me that atheists in their apologetic dance are doing the same thing in reverse.

Show me where, in the doctrines of the Abrahamic religions (and many others), the followers of said god(s) are instructed by their deity (or its spokesperson) to go out and slay the unbelievers, or slay the believers of other gods, or slay the occupants of a particular stretch of land. It's not hard to do. Now show me where, in the doctrines of atheism, non-believers are instructed to go out and slay the believers, or slay people of other races due to their genetic differences.

When you can do that, you can argue that the "atheists ... are doing the same thing in reverse" and bring a parity to the ideas of "no true Atheist" versus "no true Christian".

Well the overthrowing and removal of the aristocracy and redistribution of wealth or "revolution" is a central tenet of Marxist thought. That tends to be a tad violent and Mein Kampf is pretty fundamental in it's "vernichtung" cheerleading.

However there is no doctrine for atheists(though obviously some atheists are fucking desperate to replace that hole left by god and church), only ideologues have doctrines atheists can be ideologues or not. Religious folk simply are, they define themselves by it.

[Seth]

As a species we have shown we are capable of really nasty disgusting and cruel things. I'm not sure it is worthwhile, helpful or even relevant what someone believed in or didn't as they massacred their fellow human beings. We seem supremely capable of finding ways to justify it, whatever we believe.

But just as guns make it easier to kill, do religions and other dogma make it easier to justify mass killing? If a society doesn't Truly Believe in anything, are they less likely to go on a murderous rampage?

Perhaps more pertinent is the question "If the members of a society have no religious beliefs, are they MORE likely to go on a murderous spree?" The historical evidence provides a resounding "yes" answer to that question.

Oh, there was no religious (not necessarily explicitly supernatural) belief in Stalin, Marx, The Motherland, The Fatherland, the Dear Leader? You think there's nothing religious about Atheism rather than atheism?

You're correct. This statement highlights the difficulty in distinguishing political activism from religion. In many cases, according to the loosest definition of "religion" ("something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.") it's pretty clear that people are acting in a religious fashion. Barack Obama's supporters are classic examples of religious adherents to the Cult of Personality. Obama vaguely promised "Hope" and "Change" in his first campaign, and the credulous, religiously racist and socialist masses voted for for him without ever once questioning him on the meaning of the word "Change" and what he had in mind.

Also, we have technology that wasn't available in the past. We are capable of so much more violence so much more systematically.

True enough.

[Audley Strange]

To be fair Seth when most of your history is your species choosing the toughest handsomest Alpha male, Personality Cults are going to arise around nutjobs whether they're spouting divine or mundane crap. There's no "side" that are more or less guilty of that.

[Seth]

To be fair Seth when most of your history is your species choosing the toughest handsomest Alpha male, Personality Cults are going to arise around nutjobs whether they're spouting divine or mundane crap. There's no "side" that are more or less guilty of that.

True.