The Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot argument
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-08-2014, 01:02 PM
RE: The Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot argument
(05-08-2014 03:53 AM)Wetagogo Wrote:  Has anybody ever actually asserted that "since Dolfy "was" an atheist, all other atheists are just as bad as Hitler"?
Have I ever heard someone say exactly that or words to that effect? No. But it has clearly been what was implied at times. They were not responding to a claim that religion drives genocide. They were attempting to shoot me down for being an atheist and threw out the "you know who else was an atheist?" card followed by "Hitler". Those were clearly attempted cases of "guilt by association".

Fox News: Praying Preying on ignorance since 1996.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2014, 12:00 AM
RE: The Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot argument
(11-04-2013 04:47 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(11-04-2013 04:37 AM)amyb Wrote:  Anti-theists (as the term is commonly used) are not "mass murderers." I am going by the way Hitchens defined it, as someone who thinks religion is an actively harmful force in the world (as opposed to the view of it being harmless nonsense). Antitheists do not, by definition anyway, have anything in common with mass murderers.

Again, antitheists do not necessary want to deconvert anyone by force, they only seek to point out the problems in religion. Being opposed to religion is not the same thing as wishing to murder or force people to believe/disbelieve in anything.

I'd agree with Mark Fulton on the point that dictators are concerned with power, not religion. If they oppose religion or certain kinds of religious practice, it's because it's a threat to their power (in contrast: most antitheists are opposed to religion because they think it's harmful to society or intellectually dishonest). They want to be recognized as the people's god; they don't want competition. So, to me, it still seems like many dictatorships are just a different kind of religion and don't like competition, just like early christianity didn't like competition. I still don't think anyone was really ever killed because of atheism; they were killed because people in power want to keep power and don't want any threats to their power.

Fulton's defense of anti-theism can apply to religion as well. Any atrocities committed in the name of religion were really about grabbing power, or maintaining power, or grabbing wealth, etc. I just find anti-theist who claim reliogion causes people to do evil to be hypocites because a lot of people have been murdered and tortured in the name of anti-theism.

Google religious persecution in Russia or china and educated yourself.

When those religions opposed those in power, or backed the wrong political power (like the Russian Orthodox Church backing the Czars), then they got persecuted for political reasons. Once the churches were willing to bow their heads and play ball, Stalin allowed the re-opening of the Moscow Seminary and the building of tens of thousands of new churches.

The church wasn't persecuted because it was a religion, it was persecuted because it was a political opponent. If the Russian Orthodox Church had never bothered to play politics, Stalin probably wouldn't have bothered with them at all; he would have had no reason to if they hadn't opposed him and the Communist Party.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2014, 03:44 AM
RE: The Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot argument
Hitler was a Christian.

Crusades, Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials, 9/11, Slavery, Palestine vs Israel.

Do I need to go on? Or has this argument been defeated? When the wars and crimes committed from the direct cause of atheism itself ( which is none ) totals or exceeds that of the Abrahamic religions. We can talk about this then. Until then, the pol pot / Stalin argument is pathetic.

My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: