use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g.reddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
reddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
see the search faq for details.
advanced search: by author, community...
Help victims of the Aurora shootings
Help victims of the Sikh shootings
Welcome to r/atheism, the web's largest atheist forum. All topics related to atheism, agnosticism and secular living are welcome here. Please read our FAQ.
Recommended reading and viewing
Thank you notes
Related Subreddits <--the big list
Chat: #reddit-atheism on irc.freenode.net
Watch: #/r/atheism on reddit.tv
Read The FAQ
Submit Rage Comic
Submit Facebook Chat
Submit Meme
Submit Something Else
reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›
Atheism has led to the greatest forms of cruelty! [Pic] (i.imgur.com)
submitted 2 years ago by Ash09
[–]zzybert 15 points16 points17 points 2 years ago*
So here's what the Pope said:
The atheism of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is—in its origins and aims—a type of moralism: a protest against the injustices of the world and of world history. A world marked by so much injustice, innocent suffering, and cynicism of power cannot be the work of a good God. A God with responsibility for such a world would not be a just God, much less a good God. It is for the sake of morality that this God has to be contested. Since there is no God to create justice, it seems man himself is now called to establish justice. If in the face of this world's suffering, protest against God is understandable, the claim that humanity can and must do what no God actually does or is able to do is both presumptuous and intrinsically false. It is no accident that this idea has led to the greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice; rather, it is grounded in the intrinsic falsity of the claim. A world which has to create its own justice is a world without hope. (Second Encyclical, 2007)
Contrary to the Pope's last sentence here, I believe we must not give up on the project of creating justice in a world without God.
But (the Pope's intentions notwithstanding) I do think there's a valid warning in what the Pope says: when people arrogate to themselves godlike powers, cruelty and injustice will follow. Much of the trouble in the world has come from the arrogance of simplistic good intentions ("I know how to fix this"). There is an important lesson about humility here that anyone can recognize, religious or not.
What is unbalanced in the Pope's message is his non-recognition that religion has provided just as good a pretext for human arrogance, if not a better one. While atheism may prompt the dangerous thought, "There is no God so I'd better step in," religion prompts the equally dangerous thought, "I know what God wants, and no-one's doing it, so I'd better step in." The problem in both cases is the sense that you have the power and the duty to fix the world.
On the other hand we cannot let humility descend into apathy or resignation either. There's a middle way and it's not easy.
[–]AthierThanThou 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago
The atheism of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is—in its origins and aims—a type of moralism: a protest against the injustices of the world and of world history. A world marked by so much injustice, innocent suffering, and cynicism of power cannot be the work of a good God. A God with responsibility for such a world would not be a just God, much less a good God. It is for the sake of morality that this God has to be contested. Since there is no God to create justice, it seems man himself is now called to establish justice. If in the face of this world's suffering, protest against God is understandable, [....]
Thus far I agree, and railing against God goes back at least as far as Plato.
Philosophers from Gautama, Socrates, Kant, Sartre, and beyond have struggled with the concept of rational humanist ethics. None of them (with the possible exception, by proxy, of Gautama) have deemed themselves a replacement for God. But all of them have come to the same basic conclusion: Assume that you-yourself are no more nor no less important than anyone else.
[–]sciencebepraised 15 points16 points17 points 2 years ago
Someone needs to send this to that governor from Indiana. Just saying.
[–]nonsensepoem 14 points15 points16 points 2 years ago
We need to stop assuming that theists aren't aware that what they are saying is false. Enough ink and electrons have been spilled; if a literate (able to read, if not well-read) theist spouts off in this age of supreme information availability, I think we can quite rationally conclude that they are FUCKING LIARS and/or INTENTIONAL SOPHISTS. Ray Comfort, for example, has been corrected on numerous occasions in various media-- even in person-- and yet still trots out the same well-defeated arguments. At this point there's no excuse for this kind of bullshit apart from inveterate dishonesty or debilitating stupidity.
[–]azreal156 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
Are you saying that Ray Comfort is actually a smart man who feigns stupidity(at least from our point of view) to make a shit ton of money?
[–]nonsensepoem 9 points10 points11 points 2 years ago
No, I'm saying Ray Comfort is a stupid man who lies to people who are even stupider than he is-- the debilitated stupid.
[–]merchantofsoul 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
What about him? I think I missed something here.
[–]sciencebepraised 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/aioql/indiana_governor_all_the_horrific_crimes_of_the/
[–]youenjoymyself 54 points55 points56 points 2 years ago
Hey, now that's what I call irony!
[–]scottklarr 14 points15 points16 points 2 years ago
Projection is quite expected from religious people; therefore, in my eyes, it's not irony so much as just plain old hypocrisy.
[–]Wyldstein 37 points38 points39 points 2 years ago
From wikipedia ..
Irony (from the Ancient Greek εἰρωνεία eirōneía, meaning hypocrisy, deception, or feigned ignorance) is a ....
Sorry if I come across as an arse, but at least this way, you're both right :)
[–]bullhead2007 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago
Well I'm not going to say wikipedia is wrong like the other guy, but searching those greek words brought up this interesting site (that only appears to be working in google cache atm) from the Cambridge Encyclopedia:
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:288Xm7hq4D0J:encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com/pages/10743/irony.html+%CE%B5%E1%BC%B0%CF%81%CF%89%CE%BD%CE%B5%CE%AF%CE%B1+eir%C5%8Dne%C3%ADa&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
It would appear that the Wikipedia is specifically talking about Socratic irony.
[–]scottklarr 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago
I think one of the main requisites for irony is that the action or result be unexpected. If someone is consistently hypocritical I think the element of surprise is lost. I could be wrong, though.
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 2 years ago
Like the Spanish Inquisition panel in this comic -- no one expects the Spanish inquisition!
[–]AthierThanThou -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago
Their main weapon is surprise. And fear.
[–]pipocaQuemada 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
Two. Our two main weapons are fear and surprise, and ruthless efficiency.
[–][deleted] 2 years ago
[deleted]
[–]Buckwheat469 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago
Given that most of the documents are cited with peer reviewed sources or factual sources, Wikipedia is a valid source for everyday conversation and discussion. In colleges and high schools it's obviously best to follow the citations to the original source, just as it would be for any citation taken out of context from a book or online scholastic article.
anyone can fix mistakes
FTFY
[–]AthierThanThou 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago
|anyone can FTFY FTFY
[–]Ulimarmel 9 points10 points11 points 2 years ago
I see nothing wrong with this cartoon, a priest always cuddles afterward.
[–]ents 8 points9 points10 points 2 years ago
That was so soft it made me feel blind while reading it so I sharpened the image. Here you go: http://imgur.com/0UouZ.jpg
[–]OverlordXenu 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
Or you could just link to the source. http://www.mattbors.com/archives/321.html
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
shopped
[–]ltjpunk387 19 points20 points21 points 2 years ago
surprised hitler isn't on there. he claimed he was doing god's work as well
[–]flacomattman 6 points7 points8 points 2 years ago
But, by the end of Hitler's reign, it is unsure whether or not he was still a Christian.
[–]Burkey 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago
The fact is that he used Christianity and its followers to do his bidding. This part is not disputable and is what matters.
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 2 years ago*
Well, I'd bet a $1 HE thought he was Christian, is what matters IMO.
But, in a sense, maybe you are right...It is possible that XPNS have a unique, truer perception of god than hitler did.
I am an atheist, so you anyone perhaps guess where I sit on that argument, though.
EDIT: Follow up thought/comment: you said
by the end of Hitler's reign, it is unsure whether or not he was still a Christian.
Are you implying that Hitler deconverted or something? :-)
[–]str1442 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago*
Meh, who knows for sure what Hitler thought, anyway? As far as I know, the whole "Positive Christianity" stuff was only advocated in speeches and, as the article states, in agitprop nazi newspapers. I also know about this: Hitler's table talk, see the link at the bottom. I mean, he's always depicted as if it's so clear what all his shit was about, but if you dig deeper, you begin to realize that nobody will know for sure what really drove him to his actions and that most stuff he said was said for propaganda purposes. Albert Speer said that Hitler was "above all an actor", I think that's pretty much true for just about anything he said.
[–]Warlyik 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
http://ffrf.org/fttoday/2002/nov02/carrier.php
Read that. It goes into detail on why many of the translations are in fact wrong.
[–]str1442 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
Thanks for this
[–]roblodocus 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
What's the difference between thinking you're a Christian and being a Christian?
[–]GhostFish 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
They don't think, therefore they are.
Well if you believe in thor other Christians may not think you are really "Christian"
[–]StumblerUponer 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
http://lesswrong.com/lw/i4/belief_in_belief/
[–]sotonohito 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
Even if that's the case, and really who can say for sure, Joe Nazi was Christian. Hitler may or may not have been, but the soldiers fighting in France, and Russia were. The people working at the death camps were. The bureaucrats working hard to keep the whole thing functioning were. Virtually every German who heard Hitler's speeches and decided it was a great day to sign up for the army, or turn in a few Jews, or whatever, were Christian.
[–]hsfrey 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
Unsure to whom?
According to what evidence?
[–]AthierThanThou 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
Maybe; maybe not. But John Hagee thought Hitler was doing God's work.
[–]gavlees 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago
Yay, Matt Bors!
Awesome conversation between him and Ted Rall here.
[–]rugbysuperstar 15 points16 points17 points 2 years ago
Religious people will immediately dismiss this and say "well, atheists have done bad things too, just look at Mao, Stalin and Hitler!". The difference is that such things mentioned in the comic were done in the name of their ideologies (excepting perhaps the American Civil war which was primarily fought because of states rights, and it's pure ignorance when people dismiss it as a crusade for jesus and slavery.)
[–]IConrad 20 points21 points22 points 2 years ago
Also, while Mao from what I can tell was an atheist, he certainly wasn't averse to using religious ideas to push his agenda (the Mandate of Heaven) -- and as to Stalin and Hitler... well, Hitler's Nazi state burned Darwinian evolution-support books, burned books critical of the Catholic church, and part of the standard military uniform included belt buckles which read, "God is With Us" (in German, of course); Stalin himself was a seminary school student and his own daughter's biography of him has him saying to her, "Oh, no; Jesus certainly existed."
No -- they were certainly no champions of atheism nor were their regimes atheist in the specific sense that they treated their Nations as their Gods.
[–]DougyM 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago
Hitler was a self confessed Catholic.
And Stalins Atheism had about as much to do with his acts of genocide as his Moustache did.
[–]rugbysuperstar 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago*
People do tend to debate this, and I've seen proof both ways. I do tend to sympathize with the view that hitler was catholic, however religious people tend to view him as atheistic.
Exactly my point.
[–]DougyM 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago*
With regards to Stalin i wasnt questioning you, it was meant to just be a throwaway statement.
No probs.
[–]ShrimpCrackers 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago*
People that say despite all the evidence that Hitler was an Atheist are using the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy.
"So what if Hitler went to church and outlawed Atheism, no true Catholic would ever condone the murder all those Jews"...
Except when they did, such as from 1466 with Pope Paul II to the late 1890's with Pope Gregory XIV condoned the harassment, maiming, raping, and sometimes murder of Jews by Christians celebrating Christmas Saturnalia.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
People will argue and argue about Hitler's religion, but I think we can all agree on one indisputable fact: Hitler did not adhere to Judaism.
[–]squigs 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
There was a certain amount of religious persecution under Stalin.
And in the early part of the 20th century, Mexico was pretty repressive in the name of atheism.
So, there was no atheist inquisition, but atheists aren't quite as squeeky clean as some people like to think.
[–]coppersink 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
atheists aren't quite as squeeky clean as some people like to think.
But when we all got together and agreed on the rules of Atheism, being squeeky clean was rule #4! Rule #1 was of course, 'You do not talk about Atheist club'.
EDIT: Just a sec... there's a knock on the door. I think the secret Atheist police are here.
[–]bobappleyard 13 points14 points15 points 2 years ago
excepting perhaps the American Civil war which was primarily fought because of states rights, and it's pure ignorance when people dismiss it as a crusade for jesus and slavery.
Read the declarations of war. Go on. I'll just sit here and wait.
[–]scientologist2 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago*
A more sophisticated take is in the book On the Altar of the Nation, which is a moral history of the Civil War.
The attitudes of both side were under constant flux throughout the course of the war, and the enormous carnage eventually was seen as the judgment of the divine on both sides for the national sin of slavery.
The Civil War transformed religion in the USA, and lay the foundation for American Fundamentalist Christianity as we know it today.
edit:
Snippet from the review:
From the outset religious leaders in the North and South helped shape the conduct of the war by imbuing their respective causes with spiritual significance. Northern churches fused bitter denunciations of slavery with a sense of the mission of the United States, while Southern clergymen defended slavery and enthusiastically supported the new Confederate nation, which pledged itself to God in its constitution.
In this environment the conflict escalated through 1861. By September 1862 the Battle of Antietam provided the bloodiest day in American history, rewriting “the rules for acceptable losses in war” with its 24,000 casualties, yet religious leaders only became more committed to their crusades and more strident in their denunciations of the enemy (153). Each side romanticized the sacrifice of its martyrs and demanded revenge.
[–]bobappleyard 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
I'll give it a look, thanks.
[–]rugbysuperstar -2 points-1 points0 points 2 years ago
Study the events and history leading to the war. Go on. I'll just sit here and wait.
[–]rotarycontrolswitch 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
If I do that, do you think I'll end up with the consensus view of historians that the causes of the American Civil War centered on slavery and closely related issues?
[–]IConrad 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
It remains fairly difficult to say the war was fought over slavery when several of the states that fought for the North were, in fact, slave-holding states. And that the "Emancipation Proclamation" did not extend to the slave-holding states of the North.
Closely related issues I'll accept -- but slavery just can't be one of them.
[–]OverlordXenu 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago
They were slave holding states, yes, but their economies didn't rely completely on slavery, they saw that slavery was ending soon anyway, and they didn't want to be destroyed like the South ended up being. There was no way to remain neutral, and they wanted to pick the winning side.
You're right, actually, slavery wasn't the cause. It was the fear that slavery would end. You see, Lincoln talked of stopping the spread of slavery, which he hoped would eventually lead to the death of slavery. Like republicans today that call Obama a Nazi socialist commie and want to secede (eg. Chuck Norris), a few Southern states saw Lincoln's coming to office as the abrupt end of slavery. Ironically, if they hadn't left the Union, slavery would have lasted for a much, much longer time. Then as a few states left the union, more joined them, and then those on the fence essentially had no choice.
To say that issues over slavery were not the main cause of the civil war is to subscribe the the lies of the Neo-confederates, and ignore actual history. Give Lies Your Teacher Told You a read, it is well worth it.
[–]IConrad -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago
but their economies didn't rely completely on slavery,
That's just plain and simply not true either.
Ironically, if they hadn't left the Union, slavery would have lasted for a much, much longer time.
Well, that's semi-debateable. Every other nation in the world managed to abolish slavery without fighting a war over it. Then again; only the US had made so much of an institution out of slavery.
To say that issues over slavery were not the main cause of the civil war is to subscribe the the lies of the Neo-confederates, and ignore actual history.
|Sigh| No, it's not even remotely possible that it was more complicated than this; nor that my comment wasn't a simple clear-cut dry statement.
I never said it was fought over ending slavery. The original wave of secession was over fugitive slaves and slavery in new territories and paranoia over potential 'Black Republican' policies on slavery, etc.
[–]Daemonax 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
I would just correct you where you say they did it in the name of, rather they did it directly because of their ideologies. Had they not had these ideologies, I think we can fairly safely assume that they would not have done what they did.
What connects religion, and these dangerous ideologies is a hostility towards doubt. Science I think is a force for good because it embraces doubt rather than having hostility towards it.
[–]zzybert -4 points-3 points-2 points 2 years ago
Didn't Mao, Stalin and Hitler act in the name of their ideologies too?
[–]norsurfit 16 points17 points18 points 2 years ago
They didn't act in the name of atheism...
That's the relevant ideology here in terms of his point.
[–]ShrimpCrackers 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago*
These are fun examples because Hitler was Catholic and anti-Darwin. Mao used his cult of personality and mandate of heaven, he was worshiped like a living god. They threw him virgins and freshly married wives and when he fucked them the husbands and parents would virtually worship his conquests. Stalin by most accounts was Christian.
[–]hsfrey -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago
The only reason they wanted "states rights" was so their states could have the right to enforce slavery, and they used the Bible to justify that slavery.
It is disingenuous to suggest that southern men went to their death over as abstruse a concept as 'states rights' divorced from any real world content.
[–]vat0r 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago
Belief systems are the simplest and most effective mechanisms of control. It is easy to see why demented individuals with illusions of grandeur would use religion as a means of accomplishing objectives and justifying atrocities.
My point is that if Atheism were the most practiced belief system on the planet then most of the insane dictators and sociopaths would be in that camp by default. Simply because it would be the easiest and most effective way of accomplishing their ultimate goals.
Humans are humans.
[–]IConrad 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago
Atheism itself is non-group forming by default. That's actually one of it's biggest weaknesses. The practices of the communists and national-socialists were in a very real sense just another form of religion which atheism itself is not (that sense being the replacement of the supernatural deity with the social deity; worship/praise of the State, rather than the Divine.)
[–]OverlordXenu 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago
Real source: http://www.mattbors.com/archives/321.html
Seriously, who the fuck would take this, and then convert it to jpg? I don't get it.
[–]JediToad 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago
Cool story, Bors.
[–]angryfads 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago
"Praise Richard Dawkins!" lol
Let's be fair; religious progressives killed slavery in both the United Kingdom and the United States.
[–]BuckeyeBentley 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
They would have done it with or without religion. Religion doesn't inherently prevent all good people from doing good works, and it is a framework within which they can do good. Without the Bible's explicit support of slavery though, I'd bet it would have been done away with much earlier.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago*
I would really like to point out only because we have the whole "Hitler / Stalin was an atheist" lie thrown in our face a lot, that there are a few of those situations where religion was used as a way to unify the troops. The reason for the events were political.
Looking back at the events separately so I can perhaps elaborate on my point, the crusades were a thinly veiled excuse for European Hierarchy and nobles to send troops to their death to try and claim land and the mountains of wealth that had accumulated throughout the Persian and what remained of the Byzantine empires. Religion was the reason given to the troops, but it was not the reason for the war [the first Crusade having been the result of an invasion of the Byzantine Empire's capital].
The Inquisition and the likes again used religion as a shell rather than a motivator. Opponents to the general consensus politically were eliminated, religion was used as a rationalization or a reason for the crime.
The Civil war was not a religious matter remotely, in fact the real reason wasn't even over slavery, though it could be said that the possibility of an abolitionist president caused tension. The war between the north and the south had been coming for a great deal of time just given the different lifestyles that existed between the two.
September 11th was a political move by Al-Qaeda because of the actions we took in the 90's to assist Kuwait internationally [among continued actions within the middle east, dating back well into the early 20th century]. Religion fueled the troops, but it was not the cause of the event.
And on the last panel, Priest aren't the only ones abusing children, you don't need to be on the internet for more than an hour to figure that out.
It's not that comic's not funny, but some days even I grow weary of our little circle jerk and think we should take a moment to perhaps use the same critical thinking skills we will happily apply to their sky wizard to some of our own humor.
That is not to say religion doesn't have a hand in politics...
Just saying
[–]Palchez 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
Factually correct though slightly incomplete. Religion was the tool used in all of these cases. Religion is rarely the key instigator, but is the necessary mobilization instrument.
Even the simplest example of not having to examine one's actions by explaining it away as god's will/whatever is quite significant.
[–]l00pee 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
Exactly, and I think thats what fullphaser is under appreciating. If we were all atheists, troops and the public would not be motivated to commit atrocities in the name of some God. They would be required to give logical justification and there rarely is for many of these acts.
As far as the priest/pedophile thing, yes others besides priests molest children. However, a priests position as a man of God gives him a level of trust not afforded to other pedophiles. The level of deception and hypocrisy is compounded due to this violation of trust.
[–]rspeer 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
What was the point of that? All this comic, and the hundreds like it, do is take the same lame argument the Pope used and turn it around. Just because now it's supporting atheism and mocking religion doesn't make it a good argument.
Pope: "hurr, atheists do bad things" /r/atheism: "hurr, Christians do bad things"
At least some of the choir here appreciated the sermon, I guess.
[–]I_divided_by_0- 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
That was quick.
[–]eyepennies 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
snap.
[–]ltjboy03 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
there's only one word for that: BOOM!
[–]twarmus 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
I can't see that panel enough. So happy.
[–]dmtherob 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
I tried to be as ironic as this cartoon - but I failed...
WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW?
[–]Kommunism 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
Pies are athiests. Win
[–]subheight640 -15 points-14 points-13 points 2 years ago
I don't get why atheists can dismiss the actions of Mao and Stalin and say, "Oh because they were Marxist atheists instead of humanist atheists they don't count!" Atheists can be just as violent and sadistic as religious people.
BTW I'm an atheist.
[–]OlympicPirate 25 points26 points27 points 2 years ago
The simplest way of putting it is that they didn't kill becasue they were atheist.
I know it might seem a bit self-centred, but these guys only wanted to kill the religious because they thought of them as the evil, bad guys. Stalin went to a seminary school where he was tormented by religious people. He turned atheist, and got really vengeful, and started hating on the religious with a mad fervour that mirrored the fanaticism of the religious themselves.
They never thought, "Oh, since there is no God I may as well commit genocide", they thought "Oh, since there is no karma or divine justice in this world, I better kill the bad guys myself, and since the guys who raped me in my youth were priests, they must be the bad guys."
[–]TheMarshma 11 points12 points13 points 2 years ago
If I remember correctly, Mao wanted to abolish religion in every way. However, Mao thought of himself as an infallible being and wanted to be thought of that way, and created a religion in a way. The ideas that this atheists had, was a distorted idea of atheism. You do raise a good point though, and it should be thought of as, a human of any faith is capable of great evils.
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 2 years ago
Agree, here is a paraphrase of something I wrote a few days ago.
People don't need religion or philosophy to be awful to one another, but they make great scapegoats for our horrible actions later.
[–][deleted] 2 years ago*
[–]squigs 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
But there are some explicitly atheist doctrines. In much the same way that theism itself isn't an ideology, there are ideological theist doctrines.
[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 2 years ago
Yes, of course some atheist can be sadistic and violent. In fact, all of them probably can, but when they do get violent and sadistic, they aren't doing it under the cover of their atheism, and that is an important difference.
There is a difference between trying to rob land, and trying to rob land while saying that God gave you that land. There is a difference between killing and killing in the name of God.
We aren't dismissing that they were violent atheists, we are dismissing that they used atheism as a rationalization for their violence.
[–]KosmoTheSynner 5 points6 points7 points 2 years ago
I don't get why atheists can dismiss the actions of Mao and Stalin and say, "Oh because they were Marxist atheists instead of humanist atheists they don't count!" Atheists can be just as violent and sadistic as religious people. BTW I'm an atheist.
Strange, as Stalin was Christian... And as a side rationale: if there was at what time an evil atheist ruler of a country, how does that negate the thousands of years of damage committed by religious leaders and organizations?
[–]squigs -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago
Being brought up as a Christian doesn't make you a Christian. I went to a religious school myself.
But really this is more about crimes being committed in the name of atheism. And the USSR has a decent enough selection to pick from. Was it really because of atheism? Not really. It was an excuse. Religions had influence and the soviet authorities wanted to be rid of them.
And the same goes for most crimes committed in the name of religion. Most religious people don't actually care that others are worshipping the wrong god, but it's a handy excuse to start a war.
[–]KosmoTheSynner 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
Uhh, Stalin was a Christian? Please, cite your sources claiming everything evil done in the USSR was done "in the name of atheism." Otherwise, you sound like you're parroting exactly what American propaganda were saying during the cold war: "Damn Godless Commies!"
Well, finding sources stating that would be as hard since it's obviously not the case.
Evil has been done, and atheism has been used as an excuse. That's about the limit of my claims. People will find an excuse to subdue those who threaten their authority. If they are a religious authority they will use religion as the excuse. If the threat is religious and the authority is ostensibly atheist, they'll use their atheism as an excuse.
People can be evil. Religion or lack thereof has little to do with it.
Then perhaps you'll admit that Stalin was a Christian and not an atheist then?
Evil has been done, and atheism has been used as an excuse.
(citation requested)
hat's about the limit of my claims. People will find an excuse to subdue those who threaten their authority. If they are a religious authority they will use religion as the excuse. If the threat is religious and the authority is ostensibly atheist, they'll use their atheism as an excuse.
The problem being is that there have been very few, if any, "atheist authorities" in terms of global power. Many atheists are also secular humanists, from my own personal experience, and I doubt we'd lead to a world of domination and abuse to the extent religion has. I have yet to see someone use atheism as an excuse for committing wrong-doing, and on top of that, if there were a handful of such incidences, how does that somehow negate every evil done in the name of religion? Should we turn a blind eye to the centuries of suffering due to the extent of religion and its control just because "there were a few atheists that did it too?"
I have yet to see a person of power plunge the world into war that wasn't religious. Please consider that. You're assuming atheism can lead to the same atrocities are religion commits, but you really need to stop and think, "when was the last ethnic cleansing done in the name of atheism?"
Your views are skewed, sorry...
That would require some sort of evidence that he actually believed in God. I have no idea whether he was an atheist or not. However, his stated belief was atheism. As it was for any devout Marxist. Even if he was a closet Christian, he didn't commit the atrocities he did because of this. And of course, even a totalitarian dictator needs the support of the party. Most of them were atheists.
Well, I would point at various books about religious oppression in Mexico, but for the time being how about Wikipedia on soviet oppression?
The problem being is that there have been very few, if any, "atheist authorities" in terms of global power.
Indeed. But those that there have been seem to have been about as likely as the religious to commit atrocities. I don't know what conclusion you draw from that but to me it suggests that theism or lack thereof actually isn't a factor so much as a human desire for power.
Many atheists are also secular humanists, from my own personal experience, and I doubt we'd lead to a world of domination and abuse to the extent religion has.
True, but I reckon the world would be pretty pleasant if run by Quakers as well. Hinduism would probably work pretty well too.
I have yet to see someone use atheism as an excuse for committing wrong-doing,
I'm not quite sure how Soviet persecution of Christians is fundamentally different from the crusades.
The explicitly atheist Plutarco Elías Calles denied priests the right to trial by jury which would appear to be a policy based purely on atheism.
how does that somehow negate every evil done in the name of religion?
Of course it doesn't. We should simply stop blaming religion for people being evil genocidal fanatics when the cause of them being so is that they're evil genocidal fanatics. If you're going to tar all religions with the same brush because some people have used religion as an excuse then you need to apply the same criteria to atheists.
Now, I don't. I don't think religion is to blame for most of these atrocities, and obviously don't think that atheism is either. However, I know of three ostensibly atheist governments (China, Soviet Union and Mexico) and two of them have violated human rights using atheism as an excuse. If you are going to criticise religion for the crimes committed in its name then should you not apply the same standards to atheism?
I have yet to see a person of power plunge the world into war that wasn't religious.
The first world war wasn't religious. Neither was the cold war.
Please consider that. You're assuming atheism can lead to the same atrocities are religion commits,
Only in the sense that I'm assuming the majority of atrocities are not committed by religion or atheism but by a human lust for power.
"when was the last ethnic cleansing done in the name of atheism?"
Never. But it wasn't done in the name of religion either. The Croatian ethnic cleansing programme was against Bosniaks. Granted they were typically Muslims but that was an aspect of their ethnicity. Similarly with Jews under Nazi Germany. Jews are an ethnic group who happen to have a common religion. A devout Christian who happened to have a Jewish grandfather wouldn't have been saved from the concentration camps.
So stop blaming religion. Without religion everyone would just find a new excuse.
[–]KosmoTheSynner 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago*
I'm not trying to bash you, but you first claim that you'd require evidence, then go right into, "well that's just the way it was." If the USSR was atheist, I'm sure it'd be well documented, correct? Seeing as how various religions, including Jehovah's Witnesses, were allowed to preach across the USSR following WWII, I would have to say that I doubt the nation was purely based on atheism... If you have time to type your opinion so thoroughly, perhaps you have the time to research the subject?
Religious oppression in Mexico? The country is predominantly Catholic... And as for your article from wikipedia, please note: "A decline in enthusiasm in the campaign occurred in the late 30s [55]. The tone of the anti-religious campaign changed and became more moderate. It ended at the outbreak of World War II. Official Soviet figures reported that up to one third of urban and two thirds of rural population still held religious beliefs by 1937."
You're summarizing, and I'm sorry but you need to be corrected: atheism is not mutual with being anti-theistic or anti-religious. Where is the direct evidence stating that the anti-religious sentiments of the USSR in that time period were solely for the "purpose of atheism?" And second, the state was turning itself into the "mainstream faith" of the time...
"Appear" = speculation. My good man/lady, I understand you have a point to make that humanity can justify wrongdoing with any "reasoning"... however, citing the facts and information serves a better purpose than mere speculation. I can speculate all religious leaders are aliens from Neptune, but without facts, I have no grounds to suggest such a thing. Please take that to heart... reddit, Stephen Colbert, and John Stewart have repeatedly slammed Fox News and CNN for stating speculation versus stating fact.
Of course it doesn't. We should simply stop blaming religion for people being evil genocidal fanatics when the cause of them being so is that they're evil genocidal fanatics. If you're going to tar all religions with the same brush because some people have used religion as an excuse then you need to apply the same criteria to atheists. Now, I don't. I don't think religion is to blame for most of these atrocities, and obviously don't think that atheism is either. However, I know of three ostensibly atheist governments (China, Soviet Union and Mexico) and two of them have violated human rights using atheism as an excuse. If you are going to criticise religion for the crimes committed in its name then should you not apply the same standards to atheism?
Oh boy... Please don't take this offensively, I'm trying to show you were you are erring in thought... Religion is not to blame for these atrocities? Hitler was a Christian, so much so that the belt buckles the Nazis wore had a reference to God and being the superior race... Religion is used as an excuse via ignorance to commit heinous atrocities over and over. The priests and nuns who've molested children for several centuries? Perhaps the majority of them would've lead normal, non-molesting lives had they not been brainwashed by religion that sex was wrong, thus warping their minds to the extent that they felt raping a kid in the ass was justifiable? You keep trying to through clean sheets over religion, when the bed religion has seeded onto the world is so filthy that only pure waste resides on it. Religious corruption? Money fraud? Taxless corporations? Ethnic cleansing? Child molestation? Rape? Misogyny? Slavery?
Think about that...
Lust for power fueled by the angry and hateful thoughts brought on from religion. If religion wasn't in the background fueling hate, misogyny, slavery, etc., more than likely we'd have an extreme decrease in numbers of those problems, as well as how frequently they occur.
That's assuming people can't learn, grow, and better themselves...
EDIT: Watch this video and let me know if you still think atheists could remotely do something as sick as these religious people...
I'm not trying to bash you, but you first claim that you'd require evidence, then go right into, "well that's just the way it was."
I don't recall claiming that I require evidence. Just that it seemed pretty likely that Stalin was a stated atheist based on the fact that he was a member of the communist party.
Now, the nation did have nominal religious tolerance. However, The Soviet Union was based on Marxist principles. Part of the communist manifesto states that communism abolishes religion.
By the 1940's the attitude had mellowed out but in the 1920 and 30's there was considerable oppression from the Soviet government for reasons that can quite clearly be considered anti-religious.
Religious oppression in Mexico? The country is predominantly Catholic...
Indeed it is. Yet through most of the 20th century, Catholic Priests were a lower class and persecuted by the government for being catholic priests.
You're summarizing, and I'm sorry but you need to be corrected: atheism is not mutual with being anti-theistic or anti-religious.
Indeed it isn't. However, to be anti-theistic or anti-religious, you surely need to be atheist.
Where is the direct evidence stating that the anti-religious sentiments of the USSR in that time period were solely for the "purpose of atheism?"
Well, I'm sure there is evidence but I actually don't think it was the case. Religion had power. That threatened the communist party.
And second, the state was turning itself into the "mainstream faith" of the time...
But not a religion. Ideology is to blame. If you want to blame all of the worlds atrocities on ideology then I'll not argue with you. I'll even concede that most ideologies are religious in nature. Bjut not all, and it's not because of the religion but the ideology, using a greater power as an excuse.
When I say "appear" I'm simply pointing out that it is a logical inference that a politician who comes to power on a platform of atheism and starts to penalise the religious for displaying religious symbols it seems to be reasonable speculation. Maybe he was a vampire and wanted to avoid crosses.
Oh boy... Please don't take this offensively, I'm trying to show you were you are erring in thought... Religion is not to blame for these atrocities? Hitler was a Christian, so much so that the belt buckles the Nazis wore had a reference to God and being the superior race...
"God With Us". But that dates back to the 19th century. The SS wore the motto Meine Ehre heißt Treue ('My honour is loyalty'). Hitler being a Christian is no more to blame for the atrocities than his fanaticism for healthy eating.
The priests and nuns who've molested children for several centuries? Perhaps the majority of them would've lead normal, non-molesting lives had they not been brainwashed by religion that sex was wrong, thus warping their minds to the extent that they felt raping a kid in the ass was justifiable?
Perhaps. Or perhaps not.
Religious corruption?
Corruption exists everywhere.
Money fraud?
Pretty common amongst the non religious.
Taxless corporations?
57% of us companies don't pay taxes
Ethnic cleansing?
Based on ethnicity
Child molestation? Rape? Misogyny? Slavery?
What about them? I fail to see how religion is to blame for any of these, except possibly Misogeny.
Now who's speculating?
Watch this video and let me know if you still think atheists could remotely do something as sick as these religious people...
Of course they could. They'd just need to find a new way to justify it to themselves.
You really don't get it, do you? If you're going to claim something, you need to cite something proving it. I already gave you a link showing how Stalin was a Christian, and not an atheist... You're using the biased viewpoint promoted by US Propaganda that "Commie = Atheist", which the two are not mutually exclusive, period.
Because the State was turning itself into the focal religious point...
Could you please link me some examples of this? I've yet to hear of this and am rather curious. You also seem to be taking two minor incidences in history, if they are true at all, and stating, "Look, see, atheism can be just as evil as religion!" when in fact, neither of those incidences were done solely in the name of atheism. Those claims you are making were anti0religious, and always I already brought out: atheism =/= anti-religious, they are not mutual. Someone can be an atheist and note hate religion. Get your definitions right, please?
This just proved you're not an atheist and more than likely a theist. And what a skewed and utterly wrong view you have, and I'll happily explain why: look at the tension in the Middle East. Jews and Palestinians hate each other, and hate each the others' religion. In effect, each group is anti-religious of the religions that are not their own. In another example, Muslims are taught to hate all infidels/nonreligious people, and they classify anyone not part of their religion as an infidel and that they are to be hated. So, that clearly means Muslims are anti-religious of other religions. When I was a Jehovah's Witness, we were taught to utterly despise and hate other religions.
Still waiting for those links... all you're doing is stating opinions with very little fact or logic behind them... It's a fallible argument method to assume something is right because you perceive it to be so.
When I say "appear" I'm simply pointing out that it is a logical inference that a politician who comes to power on a platform of atheism
I'm stopping you right there: you're repeating yourself and continue to do so: where is the evidence those events were strictly done for atheism? I want direct links, because of my time reading up on atheism and various theisms, I've yet to find what you're talking about. Just because the Soviet Union was anti-religious does not mean those actions were done out of atheism.
Here's the last point I'm going to even bother going over with you on... Muslims are allowed to do the practice of "thighing" on children, Mormons used to (it's not as frequent anymore beyond the smaller sects) be able to force children to marry under their teenage years... the Bible promoted raping women and ransacking villages... you fail to see how any of these things are being promoted by the religions when the holy books themselves are the ones promoting rape, misogyny, child molestation, and murder?
Please tell me you didn't realize it. I mean, if you truly believe that religions are blameless entities, I will happily spend time talking to you here on Reddit and providing you links filled with information on what it is exactly religion stands for.
It sucks your getting downvoted (I think this has to do with the first part of your argument, as I don't know many atheists that defend Mao and Stalin), but I can understand where you are coming from. I think if anyone you know does say something along those lines, it's probably because they haven't thought it over enough to have a good comeback when someone uses that kind of strawman argument.
The point is anyone can be a horrible human being, it doesn't matter whether you believe in god or not. The problem is a lot of people use religion to justify otherwise reprehensible actions, so from those of us that are atheists, well, we kind of just sit here going WTF when we see people killing each other over their imaginary best friends. And this leads some less introspective people to side with anything atheist (even horrible dictators) when faced with that kind of confrontation.
[–]nick295 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
I have never heard the phrase Marxist atheist and also Stalin wasn't, even by self admission, a Marxist.
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 2 years ago
Atheists can be just as violent and sadistic as religious people.
Something the religious might want to remember, if they're thinking of starting shit with us.
[–]diadem -7 points-6 points-5 points 2 years ago*
Both cruelty and virtue have been done in the name of both sides. Good as been in the name of religion - soup kitchens and charity. Horrible things have been done in the name of athiesim - Stalin following Marx's "religion is the opiate of the people" is a good examples of this.
Morality and religion are not mutually exclusive either for or against. It bugs me when people think I have no morals simply because I'm an atheist. I know plenty of people who are good and religious as well.
Atheism isn't a question of right and wrong. It's a question of what is and what isn't.
[–]mangodrunk 11 points12 points13 points 2 years ago
Horrible things have been done in the name of athiesim - Stalin following Marx's "religion is the opiate of the people" is a good examples of this.
Stalin didn't do anything because of atheism. Or do you think he wanted to spread rational inquiry through the Gulag? Why would you repeat something so obviously wrong?
[–]IConrad 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago
To reiterate what mangodrunk had to say:
Stalin was by no means an atheist, nor were the actions of his regime done "in the name of atheism". To support the first claim; Stalin himself was a seminary school student before becoming a dictator, and his own daughter's biography of his life has him saying -- to her -- "Oh, no; Jesus most certainly existed." To support the latter claim; Communism under Stalin was just another form of religion, one which like any other state-sanctioned absolutist religion could brook no competition. (Secular religion; worship of an absolute ideal -- the State -- in lieu of the Divine).
[–]subheight640 -3 points-2 points-1 points 2 years ago
Ha! You think just because you're an American atheist you don't worship something? You worship the internet, you worship reddit or you worship the TV. I as an atheist sometimes come to the internet to reaffirm my beliefs - talking to other atheists and reading atheist literature. Perhaps you do too. We worship the idea of atheism.
There is nothing sacred; there are no absolutes -- even this one. All situae and ideas are to be judged in accordance to the relevant criteria of the situation, the time, and my personal preferences.
My atheism is no exception to this. The internet and technologies in general are simply useful tools; I hold them in no special reverence. My agreement or disagreement with a particular author of atheist ideas is based entirely on the situation and their statements. I accept nothing on "blind faith" -- even the idea of not accepting things on blind faith.
We worship the idea of atheism.
You might. I do not live in so certain a world as to think that the process of evaluation is ever anything other than a continuously ongoing one. When it comes to the processes of selection, there's no such thing as "chosen" except in the historical context -- as in, what was chosen in the past.
[–]enjia2000 -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago
If i Post this every other week will i get up voted too?
[–]pentabarf -3 points-2 points-1 points 2 years ago
Incredilame.
[–][deleted] -8 points-7 points-6 points 2 years ago
All that shit happened to other people. Atheists ruining reddit is happening to me, right now.
You can swear on the internet you know
[–]I_divided_by_0- -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago
* u * * you!
[–][deleted] -9 points-8 points-7 points 2 years ago
Stalin, Mao, Pol pot, Hilter? All atheists, all the worst murderers in human history.
[–]ocinsucksdick 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago
Still with this tired argument, Ocin? You've been explained numerous times that, first, Hitler was a christian, and second, communism is in itself a secular religion. Just as disgusting as the backward one you goat fuckers practice.
Go bow to your pedophile prophet, asshole.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Ocin/comments/9mv79/introducing_ocin_and_why_it_is_pointless_to_argue/
Still with this tired argument, Ocin?
Still sucking cocks for a living , you dim-witted, cowardly homo?
You've been explained numerous times that, first, Hitler was a christian,
By name only. In reality he was much closer to an atheist than a Christian. You're still just as misinformed. You possess the intellectual acumen of a sponge!
communism is in itself a secular religion
Secular Religion? You like your oxymorons, moron?
Just as disgusting as the backward one you goat fuckers practice.
I'm sorry to tell you this but the truth is atheism is an extremely depraved and dangerous worldview. No amount of delusion or denial on your part changes this simple fact.
Go purchase a brain and some history books. In fact just go back to school, fuckface.
[–]ocinsucksdick 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago
Still unable to argue, I see. You can keep hiding behind your sockpuppets, but I still own you, little bitch.
[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 2 years ago
Keep dreaming, you delusional cock-gobbler.
[–]ocinsucksdick 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago
Oh, and just one more thing...
Of course I do, asswipe. Go check your beloved wiki, since you're seemingly unable to grasp literary figures of speech. Here, I'll even make it easier for you, since you mental incapacity seems to be at a peak today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxymoron#Oxymorons_as_paradoxes
I'll try to keep it simple from now on, since you're too stupid to understand slightly more complex stuff.
Once again, you get owned, chubby charlie brown.
[–]Psy-Kosh 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago
Afaik, Stalin's atheism is... questionable. Hitler, well at least by his own words plenty of "in the name of god", so I don't think he'd count. (Further, IIRC they were explicitly officially going after atheists as one of the "undesirable groups", although obviously that isn't the big one) And certainly the Nazis had this "Gut Min Us" ("god is with us") thing going, so...
As far as the other two, I don't know enough of the history to say one way or the other.
[–][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 2 years ago
Tell that to the atheist communists who committed the worst atrocities in human history.
all it takes is a username and password
create account
is it really that easy? only one way to find out...
already have an account and just want to login?
login
[–]zzybert 15 points16 points17 points ago*
[–]AthierThanThou 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]sciencebepraised 15 points16 points17 points ago
[–]nonsensepoem 14 points15 points16 points ago
[–]azreal156 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]nonsensepoem 9 points10 points11 points ago
[–]merchantofsoul 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]sciencebepraised 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]youenjoymyself 54 points55 points56 points ago
[–]scottklarr 14 points15 points16 points ago
[–]Wyldstein 37 points38 points39 points ago
[–]bullhead2007 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]scottklarr 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points ago
[–]AthierThanThou -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]pipocaQuemada 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] ago
[–]Buckwheat469 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–][deleted] ago
[–]Buckwheat469 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]AthierThanThou 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]Ulimarmel 9 points10 points11 points ago
[–]ents 8 points9 points10 points ago
[–]OverlordXenu 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]ltjpunk387 19 points20 points21 points ago
[–]flacomattman 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]Burkey 7 points8 points9 points ago
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points ago*
[–]str1442 3 points4 points5 points ago*
[–]Warlyik 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]str1442 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]roblodocus 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]GhostFish 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]StumblerUponer 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]sotonohito 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]hsfrey 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]AthierThanThou 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]gavlees 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]rugbysuperstar 15 points16 points17 points ago
[–]IConrad 20 points21 points22 points ago
[–]DougyM 7 points8 points9 points ago
[–]rugbysuperstar 2 points3 points4 points ago*
[–]DougyM 2 points3 points4 points ago*
[–]ShrimpCrackers 2 points3 points4 points ago*
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]squigs 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]coppersink 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]bobappleyard 13 points14 points15 points ago
[–]scientologist2 1 point2 points3 points ago*
[–]bobappleyard 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]rugbysuperstar -2 points-1 points0 points ago
[–]rotarycontrolswitch 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]IConrad 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]OverlordXenu 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]IConrad -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]rotarycontrolswitch 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Daemonax 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]zzybert -4 points-3 points-2 points ago
[–]norsurfit 16 points17 points18 points ago
[–]ShrimpCrackers 0 points1 point2 points ago*
[–]hsfrey -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]vat0r 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]IConrad 7 points8 points9 points ago
[–]OverlordXenu 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]JediToad 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]angryfads 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]BuckeyeBentley 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points ago*
[–]Palchez 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]l00pee 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]rspeer 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]I_divided_by_0- 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]eyepennies 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]ltjboy03 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]twarmus 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]dmtherob 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Kommunism 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]enjia2000 -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]pentabarf -3 points-2 points-1 points ago
[–][deleted] ago
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points ago
[–]I_divided_by_0- -1 points0 points1 point ago