Blaming Atheism for Modern Genocide

[Jagella]

As you should know, many apologists will tell you that not only is atheism wrong factually, it is wrong morally. For example, Conservopedia includes an article entitled Atheism and Mass Murder that purports to link atheism with modern genocides including the Reign of Terror and the mass murders of Stalin. That article includes a list of factors linking atheism to mass murder:

• 1. Lack of recognition of an ultimate judge of moral actions and a judge who sets injustice aright in a last judgement, and thus do not recognize the immorality of murder.
  2. Lack of seeing the importance of human beings as images of God and so easily discarding them as merely material things, products of mere chance.
  3. Lack of acknowledging an external standard of moral perfection, thus ending up with self-created standards which can include killing for political survival.
  4. Absence of guidance by divine revelation of the moral law, such as "Thou shalt not kill".
  5. Following an ethic of atheistic evolutionism that is based on the survival and victory of the fittest, which is ultimately a bloodthirsty ethic—an ethic that is eager to kill and to maim. This ethic is about conquering others rather than self-conquest.
  6. The intolerance of many atheists

Question for Debate: Are the items on this list causes of violence on the part of atheists?

[Zzyzx]

.

Question for Debate: Are the items on this list causes of violence on the part of atheists?

The list appears to be straight from the overworked imagination of an overeager Apologist attempting to project negatives onto their feared opposition. It is a losing strategy.

1. Lack of recognition of an ultimate judge of moral actions and a judge who sets injustice aright in a last judgement,

Proposing or imagining or declaring an ‘ultimate judge’ and a ‘last judgment’ may be needed to serve to guide (somewhat) the actions of believers.

However, it does not appear as though religionists ACT any more ‘moral’ than others. Their incarceration rates and divorce statistics in the US are as high or higher than non-religous. And Christian women have half a million abortions per year in the US (in spite of Christian moralistic teachings in opposition). Walk the talk seems to be missing.

and thus do not recognize the immorality of murder.

The immorality of murder is recognized in many cultures that are not ‘god driven’ -- while many highly religious cultures have very high homicide rates.

2. Lack of seeing the importance of human beings as images of God

There is no assurance that humans are ‘images of god’ – but ample indication that ‘god’ is anthropomorphize (to attribute human form or personality to things not human)

and so easily discarding them as merely material things, products of mere chance.

Discarding? Who has proposed ‘discarding humans’?

3. Lack of acknowledging an external standard of moral perfection,

Lack of EVIDENCE of any ‘external standard of moral perfection’ (beyond the imagination of god worshipers / believers)

thus ending up with self-created standards which can include killing for political survival.

Killing ‘for political survival’ is not unique to any theistic position

4. Absence of guidance by divine revelation of the moral law, such as "Thou shalt not kill".

Absent verifiable evidence of ‘divine revelation of moral law’. Saying “Thou shalt not kill� sounds moral – however, killing is performed by god believers and worshipers; failing to ‘walk the talk’

5. Following an ethic of atheistic evolutionism

Evolution is NOT a feature of Atheism. One can recognize that ‘genetic change through generations’ (geneticists definition of Evolution) regardless of theistic position.

that is based on the survival and victory of the fittest,

WHAT reasoning would propose that the LEAST able to survive and reproduce in a given environment be the ones to survive?

which is ultimately a bloodthirsty ethic—an ethic that is eager to kill and to maim.

If an organism is not well adapted to its environment it is likely to become extinct – without any emotionalism about ‘bloodthirsty’, ‘eager to kill or maim’.

When environments change plants and animals can adapt or die out. For instance, droughts place stress on many plants and animals (including H. sapiens and their near relatives). Some can tolerate the changes, others cannot. No gods or moralizing or homicide required.

This ethic is about conquering others rather than self-conquest.

Evolution is not based on ‘conquering others’

AND, religion is not based on ‘self-conquest’ (but typically upon believing what one is told about supernatural entities)

6. The intolerance of many atheists

Compared to what? Would anyone care to defend religions as being tolerant (in actions – not mere words)?

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 2 by Zzyzx]

Great responses, Zz!

I think that in summary you appear to argue as I do that the items on that list could as easily apply to theists as well as atheists. Many people believe in gods but not believe in an "ultimate judge" or see people as "images of God" or have any moral standards. Some theists like many atheists also accept evolutionary theory.

To posit that atheism causes mass murder is a really stupid theory. Does the writer of that article think that if people don't believe in an invisible man in the sky, then they'll become mass murderers? Maybe the writer would! LOL

[Zzyzx]

.

Does the writer of that article think that if people don't believe in an invisible man in the sky, then they'll become mass murderers?

Some appear to think exactly that

Maybe the writer would!

There have been Fanatical Christians state in debates here that without their religion they would be free (and possibly inclined?) to rape, steal and murder.

Perhaps such people should have religion (or a padded cell, or both).

[Tcg]

I can only address these for myself, I am after all simply one atheist, not atheism itself.

1. Lack of recognition of an ultimate judge of moral actions and a judge who sets injustice aright in a last judgement, and thus do not recognize the immorality of murder.

I recognize that murder is immoral because I don't believe in a last judgement or a judge to set injustice aright. This life is all we have. To steal that life from another is perhaps the greatest injustice possible.

2. Lack of seeing the importance of human beings as images of God and so easily discarding them as merely material things, products of mere chance.

From what I can tell, God was created in our image. If there is any importance in his image, it is because we humans are important and I agree that we are.

3. Lack of acknowledging an external standard of moral perfection, thus ending up with self-created standards which can include killing for political survival.

I've never seen any evidence of an external standard of moral perfection and many of those that do seem quite ready to commit murder for any number of reasons.

4. Absence of guidance by divine revelation of the moral law, such as "Thou shalt not kill".

I've got my own reasons to not kill, I don't need anyone else's.

5. Following an ethic of atheistic evolutionism that is based on the survival and victory of the fittest, which is ultimately a bloodthirsty ethic—an ethic that is eager to kill and to maim. This ethic is about conquering others rather than self-conquest.

To my knowledge, there is nothing in the theory of evolution that recommends we help it along by killing and maiming others. If there were, I'd reject that component of evolution. That of course is due to my own ethics. Neither atheism nor evolution are systems of ethics.

6. The intolerance of many atheists

I've realized lately that I have an intolerance for poorly played blues licks repeated over and over not with the goal of adding to a song, but simply to direct attention to the player's dexterity. This intolerance has never caused me to commit any violence. It has lead me to cue up some good Buddy Guy tunes to remind myself of how it should be done.





Tcg

[Jagella]

There have been Fanatical Christians state in debates here that without their religion they would be free (and possibly inclined?) to rape, steal and murder.

Perhaps such people should have religion (or a padded cell, or both).

It's very possible that some people do need a "big-brother god" eyeing them every minute of the day to keep them in line. If the author(s) feel that way, then they may assume that everybody needs constant surveillance to be good. ("He knows when you've been good; he knows when you've been bad; so be good for goodness' sake!")

One conclusion many apologists come to when they are confronted with evils done by Christians is to insist that the evildoers are not true Christians and that they are practicing a "perverted" Christianity. We atheists could play the same game explaining away evil done by atheists as a perverted form of atheism and that people like Stalin are not true atheists.

[Jagella]

I can only address these for myself, I am after all simply one atheist, not atheism itself.

Did you notice that these anti-atheism arguments equivocate by switching "atheists" for atheism? Such arguments start out criticizing atheism only to cite the acts of some individual atheists. It would be like arguing that the invasion of Iraq is a result of Christianity because George W. Bush is a Christian! Yes, Stalin was an atheist, but he also had a mustache. Should we blame his genocides on his mustache?

This life is all we have. To steal that life from another is perhaps the greatest injustice possible.

Atheism can be said to make life precious because like a diamond life is very limited in availability. Christianity cheapens life by positing an eternal life which it claims is granted to martyrs.

From what I can tell, God was created in our image. If there is any importance in his image, it is because we humans are important and I agree that we are.

There are many reasons for seeing people as important that the author(s) fail to mention. They seem to be unable to think beyond their narrow, dogmatic view of people.

I've never seen any evidence of an external standard of moral perfection and many of those that do seem quite ready to commit murder for any number of reasons.

What's great about being an atheist is that you can think of your own morality rather than mindlessly agree with some despot who claims some god gave him the rules on a mountaintop. What keeps that standard from harming human life?

I've got my own reasons to not kill, I don't need anyone else's.

That's great, but some people evidently need to be told that killing innocent people is a no-no.

To my knowledge, there is nothing in the theory of evolution that recommends we help it along by killing and maiming others.

If the author(s) represented the Theory of Evolution for what it really states, then they'd tell us that species need nurturing to survive. Reproduction won't work if the individuals in any species kill each other off.

This intolerance has never caused me to commit any violence.

What the author(s) fail to mention is that many atheists show intolerance for the evil deeds perpetrated by people inspired by Christianity. To criticize atheists for being intolerant is a lie of omission.

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]

Question for Debate: Are the items on this list causes of violence on the part of atheists?

Whether ones definition of atheist is someone who lacks belief in GODs or is someone who believes that GODs don't exist, violence cannot be said to be caused by 'being atheist' any more than it can be said to 'being theist' where the generic definition is "Someone who believes GODs exist."
The exception to that has to be in the examining of theists beliefs regarding their definition of GODs.

Historically both Theists and non-Theists have shown propensity toward violence as an answer to a perceived problem.

1. Lack of recognition of an ultimate judge of moral actions and a judge who sets injustice aright in a last judgement, and thus do not recognize the immorality of murder.

The truth appears to be (based on my above observations being correct) that having an idea of a GOD who observes all ones activity and makes a call on it, does not in itself indicate that having such belief or not having such belief make any particular difference to whether any individual Theist or non Theist will commit murder.

Doing so "because GOD said" would seem a mad declaration to be making...the situation we find ourselves experiencing collectively is a stage set to explore the notion and effect of violence. Violence is natural enough whereas murder is not.

At some stage through a number of related medium, Human Beings have decided that murder is unnatural and therefore unacceptable, but the lines are still quite relatively blurred - perhaps we are still figuring out the details?

2. Lack of seeing the importance of human beings as images of God and so easily discarding them as merely material things, products of mere chance.

I would say that this would be the interpretation of some folk calling themselves atheists, which would account for why atheists sometimes commit mass murders.
But Theist and atheist are labels and simply are applied as a means of extra identity. Humans have the potential to be murderous just as they have the potential to be kind and giving.

It is probable that those who claim atheism creates a platform for such atrocity to play off from, are perhaps thinking that IF they were an atheist, THEN they would likely behave in such a manner in the name of atheism - as it were...

So in that, perhaps one could be grateful that these ones are Theists, who think that their particular Theist beliefs somehow reign them in from committing murder.

In other words perhaps one can count their lucky stars that Theism contains an otherwise potential problem.

[Jagella]

Historically both Theists and non-Theists have shown propensity toward violence as an answer to a perceived problem.

That's quite true. Violence can affect anybody who strives to attain or retain a scarce resource. The problem with religion is that it can create a scarce resource like "salvation" that people may fight over. So at least atheists need not fight over who gets to heaven or whose god really exists.

At some stage through a number of related medium, Human Beings have decided that murder is unnatural and therefore unacceptable, but the lines are still quite relatively blurred - perhaps we are still figuring out the details?

Morality evolves along with us. What was right or wrong in the past may be wrong or right today. I just hope that whatever morality we adopt, it will help us to survive and strive for a better existence.

I would say that this would be the interpretation of some folk calling themselves atheists, which would account for why atheists sometimes commit mass murders.

I've read that some people blame Stalin's deeds on his stint in a Christian seminary when he was a boy. It would be supremely ironic if Stalin's deadly ways resulted not from atheism but from Christianity!

I should point out that I started this thread not so much to defend atheism but to examine why people can turn violent. I see no logical link between atheism and violence, but if there is one, I hope it doesn't manifest itself as actual violence. But even if atheism is a cause of violence, it doesn't follow that any gods exist. It would be strange to believe in a god hoping to avoid hurting others!

[historia]

Are the items on this list causes of violence on the part of atheists?

The article itself prefaces this list by saying that these characteristics of atheism "can lend itself to mass murder," rather than being the "causes of violence," as you've posed the question here. It would seem, then, we're not considering the intended point that section of the article is making.