Hilter/Stalin/Mao/Marx & atheism?

[superdave]

Hi all;

I'm new to the forum so bear with me.  On another discussion forum the recent shootings came up and they were discussing the plans of the Westboro bunch who were evidently going to protest the funeral of the 9 year old.

My basic point to the group was a 'what if there was no religion' statement.  If there were no religion these WBC people wouldn't have the bible to preach from, without tax breaks for churches maybe the WBC wouldn't have the finances to do all the traveling protests etc etc.  One person started to debate the topic with me from the pro-religion stance and we went from there.  

The debate was a fairly predictable one as far as the arguments he provided however I didn't have a good response for his accusation regarding atrocities 'by atheists'.  He tossed out Hitler/Stalin/Mao/Marx/Pol Pot as if to show atheism caused their behavior.  How does one counter this argument?  I tried the logical atheism isn't a set of beliefs argument as well as showing evidence regarding hilter and christianity and that was also ignored.

I tried to tread very lightly into the topic as to not get the readers riled up.  Even though I started kindly and was very careful with my responses the debate regressed into name calling and accusations of twisting scripture and lying etc so I gave up before it got nasty.  What's the best way to introduce an atheistic argument into a public forum that will allow a topic to be discussed logically and yet avoid spurring emotional reactions?

Thoughts?

superdave

[Asmodean]

He tossed out Hitler

...Not an atheist. Napoleón, however, was.

/Stalin

...Was a strong leader when his country needed one, genocidal maniac or no.

/Mao/Marx

Know too little to make a proper comment.

/Pol Pot

...Never justified any of his doings with having no faith in gods to the best of my knowledge.

as if to show atheism caused their behavior.  How does one counter this argument?

Ask them to present some historical justification for their claim that atheism is the cause of any of those leaders' wrongdoings. A speech or a letter or... Something.

I tried the logical atheism isn't a set of beliefs argument as well as showing evidence regarding hilter and christianity and that was also ignored.

If they ignore good, verified evidence, show them the middle finger and walk away. They are not worth your time.

I tried to tread very lightly into the topic as to not get the readers riled up.  Even though I started kindly and was very careful with my responses the debate regressed into name calling and accusations of twisting scripture and lying etc so I gave up before it got nasty.  What's the best way to introduce an atheistic argument into a public forum that will allow a topic to be discussed logically and yet avoid spurring emotional reactions?

Don't. Stay away from it unless you are in a mood for bodily fluids on the walls. If you ARE in such a mood, then there is no problem, yes?

Thoughts?

Yup. The above.  

[elliebean]

What did Marx ever do to anyone?  

[Wilson]

Plenty of atrocities by atheists, plenty of atrocities by religious believers.  The crusades, the Inquisition, Salem witch trials, Islamic suicide bombers, 9/11 - all done in the name of religion.

[Asmodean]

all done in the name of religion.

...Or not. A lot of crap was done in the name of something else, but because religion is so convenient a way of hiding one's motives...

[Stevil]

The only difference between an atheist and a Christian (for example) would be the Christian belief, and teachings of the particular church a person belongs to. So really the burdon falls on the Christians to prove that Christian belief and teachings ensure that there aren't Christians that perform atrocities.
If a person is making a stance that Atheism causes the attrocities they would then need to prove that all other religions avoid creating these atrocoties and they would also need to point to the reasons as to why atheism leads to this atrocoty path.

If they start talking about 10 commandments and other things then just point out the objective morality that the Christians believe in. According to this belief of theirs, even atheists should be aware of, understand and agree to these moralities and hence would not need to be taught them in the guise of a faith.

[Whitney]

How about "Imagine if there were no Indoctrination"

It's indoctrination into religious and political beliefs which allow most of the preventable bad things in this world to happen.

[a-train]

One cannot demonstrate that it was atheism that drove these malefactors to their crimes against humanity.  Einstein was an atheist, was it atheism that drove him to his accomplishments in physics?  Hitler touted his Christianity, but was it Christianity that drove him to invade Poland and massacre Jews?  The argument you are facing is baseless.  One's profession of faith or lack thereof does not indicate whether or not they are capable of moral conduct.

-a-train

[iSok]

We will never know wether atheism was a cause or not.

This argument does however show that the world would not be some utopian place without religion.
I think that WITHOUT religion the world would be far worse than it is now.
Yes we have seen times where religion stopped the advancement of society, but at other times it contributed a lot.

As for the people mentioned, rotten apples are everywhere in human society, some follow religion others do not.

One cannot demonstrate that it was atheism that drove these malefactors to their crimes against humanity.  Einstein was an atheist, was it atheism that drove him to his accomplishments in physics?  Hitler touted his Christianity, but was it Christianity that drove him to invade Poland and massacre Jews?  The argument you are facing is baseless.  One's profession of faith or lack thereof does not indicate whether or not they are capable of moral conduct.

-a-train

Einstein wasn´t an atheist. However he didn´t believe in a personal God who would save you if you just believed in him.
He did believe that the universe could not be in such perfect harmony without a God.
He regarded himself as a mere child who can barely read in a library full of books, the limits of human intellect.

[hackenslash]

We will never know wether atheism was a cause or not.

Bzzzzzzz. Thank you for playing.

Atheism was not a cause, nor could it be, because there is no logical path of motivation between the absence of a single class of belief and such atrocities. It takes blind adherence to doctrinal imperatives for such a logical route to be engendered, and since atheism has NO doctrine, such a logical route is impossible.

This argument does however show that the world would not be some utopian place without religion.

Nor does anybody suggest that. What we do suggest, though, is that without religion there will be a whole set of reasons less for people to be horrible to each other.

I think that WITHOUT religion the world would be far worse than it is now.

Yes, because the world is much better while we have rape victims stoned to death as adulteresses, or where we have public floggings for having bread delivered by a male who is not a member of your family. What you think is utterly irrelevant in this regard. Only what you can demonstrate has any weight here.

Yes we have seen times where religion stopped the advancement of society, but at other times it contributed a lot.

Post hoc fallacy. At best, it could be said that society has advanced through people who were religious, though I put it to you that this occurred in spite of religion, not because of it.

As for the people mentioned, rotten apples are everywhere in human society, some follow religion others do not.

Which makes a mockery of your above statement, and lends weight to my rebuttal of it.

[iSok]

Bzzzzzzz. Thank you for playing.

funny

Atheism was not a cause, nor could it be, because there is no logical path of motivation between the absence of a single class of belief and such atrocities. It takes blind adherence to doctrinal imperatives for such a logical route to be engendered, and since atheism has NO doctrine, such a logical route is impossible.

The human psychology is not that simple to describe in two sentences. Not everyone thinks the same way you do or rationalize the same way you do.

Some atheist emphasize that God absolutely cannot exist.
- If God does not exist, that means you cannot be 'punished' for what you do.
That means that you can do whatever you want, since you regard other human beings as your rivals in this life. what the heck, you only life once.

Do you really think that no person in the world would think that way?
The answer is no.
Conclusion: therefore 'atheism'  could have been an indirect cause. Don't feel offended.
I have not said that atheism is 'bad', the person itself is 'evil'.

Nor does anybody suggest that. What we do suggest, though, is that without religion there will be a whole set of reasons less for people to be horrible to each other.

A lot of people suggest that, really a lot of people.
I think without religion people would be even more horrible to eachother.

You regard religion as an human ideology.
How many people have not been killed by human ideology's like Capatalism and Communism?

Yes, because the world is much better while we have rape victims stoned to death as adulteresses, or where we have public floggings for having bread delivered by a male who is not a member of your family. What you think is utterly irrelevant in this regard. Only what you can demonstrate has any weight here.

Don't jump to stuff like that. Yes I know it's bad. But you only bring situations forward where religion has to do with it.
You connect bad things to religion and good things tot atheism.

Post hoc fallacy. At best, it could be said that society has advanced through people who were religious, though I put it to you that this occurred in spite of religion, not because of it.

Actually the west here seem only to remember the dark ages.
We (muslims) never found religion depressing or against science.

'The ink of a scholar is more holy than the blood of a martyr'
'To listen to the words of the learned, and to instill into others the lessons of science, is better than religious exercises'
'The acquisition of knowledge is a duty incumbent one every Muslim, male and female'
'He who leaves home in search of knowledge, walks in the path of God'
'Go in quest of knowledge, even unto China'
a few of the many sayings of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) about the search of knowledge.
These are only the sayings of a man, the Qur'an actually commands man to seek for knowledge.

At the time of the revelation of the Qur'an, most Arabs were lucrative
in slave trade, women trade and engaged in constant tribal wars.
After the relevation, within 300 years, the muslims came up with universities.
Christian monarchs in the 10th century were sending their offspring to Cordoba in Spain, to study at Islamic universities.

[EssejSllim]

I think you can blatantly ignore this argument on two points. One, Hitler himself justified his work in the name of the "Almighty Creator". And two, Marx never committed anything close to an atrocity. It's people who claimed to be designing states based upon his philosophy while simultaneously mutilating his stances and arguments that may have committed atrocities. Soviet Russia and Pol Pot's Cambodia have no similarity to Marxism.

[a-train]

We will never know wether atheism was a cause or not.

Precisely.  I rest my case.

[Whitney]

To say that atheism can cause someone to behave in a certain manner is just a silly as claiming theism can cause someone to act in a certain manner.  In order for a person's view to cause them to act that view must be attached to a philosophical position or set of dogmas that goes beyond their belief/non-belief.

Politics and religion are the main culprits behind the wrongs in this world...it's frankly stupid to blame it solely on whether someone believes in god or not.

[LegendarySandwich]

To say that atheism can cause someone to behave in a certain manner is just a silly as claiming theism can cause someone to act in a certain manner.  In order for a person's view to cause them to act that view must be attached to a philosophical position or set of dogmas that goes beyond their belief/non-belief.

Politics and religion are the main culprits behind the wrongs in this world...it's frankly stupid to blame it solely on whether someone believes in god or not.

Certainly. It's ideologies that cause people to do things, not just mere statements of belief.

"I believe God exists" will not cause you to act in any way.
"I do not believe God exists" will not cause you to act in any way.
However, "I believe in Christianity/Islam" can cause you to act in a certain way.