Atheist Killers - The Lie that Religion leads to Violence

[cloudazer]

A recent comprehensive compilation of the history of human warfare, Encyclopedia of Wars by Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod documents 1763 wars, of which 123 have been classified to involve a religious conflict (that's less than 7%). what do you think about this statistic? I honestly couldn't find any stat that contradicted it but I thought I should get more people to confirm this.

[UNFFwildcard]

MisterBusta, you completely forgot about Enver Hoxha's Albania - a place where atheism was legally ratified as the state religion, where all other religions were completely banned, and getting caught reading the bible to your children was punishable by death by firing squad.

Societies that adopt atheism as a state philosophy (not secularism, but atheism) have a 100% failure rate for protecting basic liberties and human life.

[MisterBusta]

Yes, there's several more I could've added. But thanks for that! You're 100% correct.

Many people claim this violence against religions is purely politically motivated and has nothing to do with atheism; but as the state was ATHEIST (not secular, as you pointed out) it makes them directly comparable to the religions of Religious Wars of the past.

[wowskater99]

god is not real and fightingathiest has proven it many times therefore people should be taught athiesm because people should be taught scientific answers

[UNFFwildcard]

I've seen his videos. I'm not impressed. He assumes a physicalist mindset and defines existence as the natural, and therefore the supernatural does not exist. It's a circular argument.

Science can make no comment on the supernatural or on ontological statements. This is the basis of the philosophy of science. Science cannot determine the existence of God.

/watch?v=6eCwTkJQ2DQ

[Blackmark52]

MistaBusta misunderstands the nontheist contention. Religion is often violent while claiming to be a force of peace and love. No amount of violence from a "control group" absolves or even diminishes that. (He doesn't understand the purpose of a control group.)

The other point that's missed here is that the communist regimes cited, attacked religion not to advance atheism but to wipe out a potential political threat and solidify power. In that regard, they too were behaving as a religion.

[MisterBusta]

Your comment about the atheist states attacking believers because of political motives can be used EXACTLY the same way for any Religious Wars. In fact, historians will agree that the Crusades were all about power, land and politics. Religious faith was a HUGE part of it too, of course; just as the atheism of the communist states cited were also a huge part of it.

[Blackmark52]

MB's response that the Crusades were political is weak.

Religions are political and they want land and power. That christian kings did the churches bidding doesn't mitigate religion's role. Neither does that argument address things like the Inquisition whose sole purpose was to wipe out people of opposing beliefs.

The holy books command their followers to do violence. Attempts to deny this does violence to reason and harbours the propensity to violence within the moderate majority.

[MisterBusta]

... "whose sole purpose was to wipe out people of opposing beliefs." That is EXACTLY what these atheists dictators were doing to anyone who was not an atheist. Thanks for pointing that out for me.

Your argument would only be valid if these atheist killers did not specifically target Believers. But since they did (and did so with a furious violence, I might add) your argument is weak AND could be used to defend religion in the same exact capacity.

[Blackmark52]

A thief that says he's less of a thief by pointing a finger at others is still a thief and now a liar.

Your examples are about communism, not atheism. The fact that communism adopted atheism is irrelevant. Don't blame christianity for the Nazis, don't blame Germans for Hitler. It's a matter of church policy and doctrine as laid out by scripture. There is no doctrine of atheism for you to point an honest finger at. The bible, however, has a plethora of evil advice and people follow the bible.

[ProudToBLoud]

whatever the case,atheist dictators have deliberately targeted and murdered religious people, they have made it clear that they are anti religion, so we can condemn them just as much as we could condemn anyone that abuses religion, remember when someone goes against god we recognise their evil and we condemn it as going against god because of an objective moral code, for the atheist if they do something wrong they are not going against atheism in any way,therefore atheism fails as a moral system

[IntractableMonkey]

Atheism does not fail as a moral system because it is not a system of morals. We are moral animals (and conversely, "immoral").

As MisterBusta should have shown you by now, religion and state atheism are both at fault for this. When you group people together with similar religious views, and they decide to form together and fight what they deem incorrect, you have a guarantee of dark morbidities, as Lovecraft aptly put it.

[IntractableMonkey]

For example, we may look at Hitler. Therefore, religion isn't necessarily a success at morals. State atheism is also a failure.

You say that atheism is a problem because leaders can manipulate it to acquire power, and that they have nothing to fear so they kill many people. Likewise, religion is a tool that can be used for the same purposes.

As for me, I CAN'T believe in God because I can't. I can't force myself to believe in something that I don't. That's why atheism is a suitable title.

[IntractableMonkey]

You can call it a belief system if you want to. You have every right to. But I'm going to go to my congregation of myself, and preach to myself my own "belief system."

Atheism should be promoted, but not enforced. People shouldn't die to further atheism, if you are having trouble understanding why I think how I think. That is why state atheism fails.

You seem to have a hard time comprehending differences between groups and individuals.

[ProudToBLoud]

intractable you misunderstand me dude, i am saying that many bad things are done by atheists aswell as religious people, and what you say is true and what i am meaning to say, you cannot blame religion just like i would not blame atheism as a whole, everyone are individuals.

[IntractableMonkey]

Finally, we agree.

[ProudToBLoud]

many good values people abuse and do wrong things, that does not mean the original values were bad just because they were violated, money is not bad just because people do evil things in the name of making money, many bad things have been done or created in the name of science that does not make science bad

as for atheism if you think that you can do what you want without any consequences for your actions then of course we can say atheism influenced atheist dictators actions, cont

[DragonMage]

I get what your saying, but religion was still a factor in even this. Everything you posted still had something to do with religion. So I feel you just gave greater proof that religion does have to do with a lot of wars and a lot of deaths.

[ProudToBLoud]

The problem with alot of dawkins fans is that when you point out the murderous atheist dictators is that they either make excues like the fallacious claim atheism had nothing to do with it, or they bury their heads in denial, it is completly wrong but also immoral to make excuses for murderers just because they hold the same atheistic views and it shows how shallow their condemnation of religion is.

[MisterBusta]

I agree that said atheists are ignoring the facts.

But I feel I need to defend them in that they are not "making excuses" for the murderers; they all think Stalin et. al. are bad people and their actions were horrible, they just don't think their atheism had anything to do with it (which of course I think they're wrong, but that doesn't mean they think the killing of millions was OK).

[IntractableMonkey]

Well, damn, you seem so defensive. You're always putting atheists directly in your sights, and not equally targeting religion as you say you're doing.

If you want to say that atheism is a belief system... Then yes, go ahead. "I believe" means I hold something to be true. Just don't make the mistake to think that it is a belief system.

[ProudToBLoud]

atheism is a belief system intractable because once you have been exposed to an idea and arguments for that idea you cannot just return to a state of disbelief, sure you can disbelieve god still but it is now founded on the belief that there is no god, you have to have alternative beliefs about the evidence in order to reject the arguments for god, people do bad things in the name of religion, it does not make religion bad, people kill in the name of love, that does not make love a bad value

[IntractableMonkey]

I don't have a set of beliefs to abide by on the subject of religion. That's what I'm saying. It doesn't matter what you call it, there is no one belief system for a "follower" of atheism, there is one disbelief of anything supernatural (and in some cases, not even that).

In the sense that you seem to perceive atheism as a religious belief, I have to disagree with. State atheism does seem to be "religious" in its group advocacy of atheism.

[IntractableMonkey]

I think group followings of any sort of belief system is where the problems arise, and that is why I am an atheist. I don't think atheists need to band together to neutralize religion, because then we would only be doing what I (and many, for that matter) perceive as the problem.

I don't know why you claim that atheism makes everyone think they can do whatever they want. This is true in some cases, but as with atheists, it's not true all the time because atheism is fairly diverse.

[ProudToBLoud]

*consequence for their actions

[ProudToBLoud]

it is ridiculous to make lists of religious killers and then atheist killers and forget the main reason and thats human nature, if evil people want to do bad things they will find or use any justification and it is simplistic and dishonest to say that religion leads to the violence, when history tells us that is not the case, by the way i condemn all forms of violence and hate and that is whether by religion or by atheists, humans do bad things, eliminating religion hasnt changed that

[MisterBusta]

I totally agree with everything you said. It's why I tried to make it clear in my vid that I am NOT claiming atheism is more dangerous. What I'm really saying is: People will kill other people who think differently.

[ProudToBLoud]

him when i was young and wet behind the ears like alot of these dawkins devotees then i also was ignorant and believed the lies of the secular mainstream media about relgion and its consequences but when the unbiased objective facts are put under the microscope it shows that atheism has lead to the biggest death toll in the past and from atheist regimes today that deliberately murder and target people of faith, but i condemn all crimes whether from religious people or atheists.

[MisterBusta]

Well said.

"deliberately murder and target people of faith" -- this is the key to seeing why their atheism was a motivating factor and not just consequential.

[ProudToBLoud]

so as it is impossible to go back to a state of disbelief and the atheist has beliefs that support their disbelief then obviously they have their own belief system and worldview, also even if it were simply just a lack of belief which i reject, they still would have a different frame of reference to act from than a believer in god,

[MilitantTVNetwork]

Hitler was Christian/Catholic, many say as though trying to prove something.

First, it proves nothing.

Second, he was not Christian nor Catholic, even if he delcared himself so.

And third, Stalin was atheist! :)

Pax Christi and nice video.

[MilitantTVNetwork]

I didn't get a chance on approving to have your video as a video response to mine. Though it may be better to post "responses" to the atheists videos.

Pax Christi

[freaknasty25823]

behead those who believe islam is violent

[DarkMatter2525]

One type of violence doesn't justify another type of violence. If people die in the name of religion, it's a problem, period. You can't solve the problem with misdirection. You can't commit murder, and then go to court and say: "But a lot of people commit murder!" You'll still go to jail, won't you? Btw, I worked in a jail where 99% of the inmates carried bibles around with them. Most of those who were released came right back.

[DudorSP]

Atheists does not share "beliefs" with one another in the same sense that theists does. When atheism gets to the point of killing theists, it's no longer atheism, but some kind of anti-theism. That doesn't mean they aren't still atheists though.

Saying you kill someone in the name of religion implies that you killed for what your dogma or whatever says. Killing in the name of atheism is not possible, because there is no such thing.

Killing because you're anti-religion is a whole other thing.

[MisterBusta]

All of the examples I gave here specifically targetted all forms of theism.

"When atheism gets to the point of killing theists, it's no longer atheism, but some kind of anti-theism." This would logically lead to the conclusion that: "Once Theism leads to killing non-believers, it is no longer Theism."

You cannot ignore the persistent and wholesale persecution of all theist beliefs by these atheists... in the SAME WAY theists have targetted non-believers.

[DudorSP]

The difference though is that *some* theistic dogma says you should kill those who does not share your beliefs.

Some religions preach anti-atheism or anti other religions. My point is that atheism doesn't, because atheism doesn't preach anything. It's just a word for not beliveing in a divine power. Therefore, you can not kill *in the name* of atheism, but you can kill in the name of a religion.

That being said, anti-religion has probably killed as many people as religion has.

[DudorSP]

Lets say a chessclub suddenly decides to start killing people who prefers bridge. Did the chess people kille them because they play chess? No. They kill them because they for some reason didn't particulary like hate bridge players

I know it's a bad analogy, but lets compare religion to a mafia with god being the godfather. The godfather tells a member to kill someone... you see where i'm going?

I have a really hard time puttign words on my thoughts. I hope you understand what i'm trying to say

[DudorSP]

Err, tons of typos and stuff in there, I wish I could edit it :P

By the way, english is not my native tounge, just so you know :)

[MisterBusta]

I think what I'm trying to point out is: People will kill other people for believing differently.

Whether its beliefs on God, or playing bridge. True, atheism doesn't have a dogma telling people to kill, but these atheist regimes specifically targeted believers. Plus, the core tenants of most religions (like Christianity) preach PEACE and TOLERANCE... so was it religion telling them to kill, or their religious leaders DEFYING their religious dogma? -c-

[MisterBusta]

(part 2 of reply) So the religious lackeys were killing because their leader told them to; following someone they viewed as near-divine (much like atheist leaders are viewed).

And please don't throw random Bible scripture at me telling us to kill. I'm not a Christian apologist.  And it's quite obvious the core of Christianity is PEACE, turning the other cheek, yadda yadda. It'd be like telling me I cooked a 'salt meal' when I really cooked meat loaf sprinkled with a little salt.

[MisterBusta]

(part 3) Ok, now it's my turn for a bad example. Haha! But like I said, I'm not a Christian apologist. I'm not preaching Christianity. I DO NOT believe the Bible is the word of God. Anywho, I am SO going to get flamed for this. LOL. No matter how many Mother Teresa's roam the earth, someone can always find some horrible slave-loving, woman-hating bible verse and chastise all Christians for it. But anyway, like I said, I'm not a Christian apologist. So fire away!!! *hides*

[ProudToBLoud]

sorry dudor, atheists believe there is no god, they share that belief,when you believe there is no god then there is no reason to feel any guilt or consequence for your actions when killing people of religion. atheistic killers and the regimes, such as laos, burma, north korea, china and vietnam, murder and tortue people because they believe they can do what ever they want,with no god to answer to, if you feel that there are no consequences then of course atheism affects their actions

[DudorSP]

"when you believe there is no god then there is no reason to feel any guilt or consequence for your actions when killing people of religion"

-----

Other than maybe the guild of killing other people?

Are you one of these guys that think i can not have any moral because i am an atheis?

If that's the case, i'm done here. I do not want to talk to you anymore, because you're retarded and the discussion won't lead anywhere.

If not, i'm sorry and i'd gladly discuss this matter with you

[DudorSP]

Err, "guilt", not "guild"...

Bah, i should go to bed, i'm too tired to type :/

[ProudToBLoud]

dudor these atheist killers do not feel guilt, i didnt say that as an atheist you do not have morality, so do not be so sensitive but the only thing that could have stopped these killers is if they thought they would be held accountable for their actions, they thought they could do what they could do because they could get away with it with no consequence for their actions, therefore their atheism influenced their behaviour.

[DudorSP]

Yah, sorry about that.

You have a pretty valid point there.

What about the people like me though? I had no concept of a heaven/hell before i started debating it on youtube. Sure, i knew what it was supposed to be, but i have never thought of it as real.

The people justifying murder on any other such deed by saying there is no god are psycopaths. Not more psycopaths than the ones justifying it by saying it's their gods will though.

[DudorSP]

I have a very hard time understanding you guys, as i'm sure you have a hard time understanding me.

I dont care if there is a heaven/hell. Those are not the reason i do good and avoid bad things.

I think we all agree on what morality is and i'm pretty sure that we have the same standards.

The only thing we seem to disagree on is where we got our morality from. I don't really think it matters if you're a theist/atheist, both have an equally big chance to be "evil".

[DudorSP]

I still dont think you can kill in the name of atheism though. You can be an atheist killer, but as atheism has no "text" or "dogma" or whatever, you can not kill in the name of it.

There are atheist killers though, as the video clearly shows.

[ProudToBLoud]

yes you cant kill in the name of atheism, but an atheist can kill if they have no conscience and feel there is no conscience for their actions, i think it is impossible to say that a persons worldview or beliefs, and i reject the claim that atheists have no beliefs, they have been exposed to the idea and arguments for god, then the disbelief is based on a belief that there is no god, for an atheist to reject the arguments for god, they have to believe the materialistic explanations, cont:

[cloudazer]

i guess you missed the part about religion being band under these leaders' rule.

[MisterBusta]

The problem with saying that someone like Stalin "just happened to be an atheist" is that these people specifically targeted Believers of all religious faith.

As it so happens, Stalin "happens to have a mustache". But since he didn't specifically target people without mustaches, it's fair to assume his mustache had nothing to do with his actions, and he "just happened to have a mustache". But his actions against Believers speaks otherwise for his atheism.

[DudorSP]

Well yes, as i said... People do not kill just because they are theists/atheists, but because of other ideas (like racism etc).

About the "happened to be" part:

A white male racist kills a mexican. Did the white guy kill because he was white? No. He killed because he had been fed with bad "ideas" and thought he was the superior race or w/e.

Did him being white lead to this situation? Indirectly, yes. He wouldn't get the idea that whites are the supperior race if he was black for example. (c)

[DudorSP]

(continue)

What i'm saying is that him being white really had nothing to do with the murder other than that he got fooled into thinking bad things about other races.

Now compare this to stalin. He was an atheist and killed theists because they were just that.

His atheism was one factor out of many that lead him to the point that he did what he did, but atheism is no more related to violence than being white is to racism (which you kind of already said)

I feel i'm starting to repeat myself :P

[DudorSP]

Anyways, i feel we're reaching an understanding here. :)

I have to thank you for making me think.

[DudorSP]

"No matter how many Mother Teresa's roam the earth..."

Agreed. Just like people will allways be racists for no particular reason.

[MisterBusta]

"His atheism was one factor out of many that lead him to the point that he did what he did." I completely agree with this statement 100%.

I think it can also be applied to all Religious Wars as well.  Anyone who thinks the Crusades (or the more recent Islam vs. Israel) is all about religion and has nothing to do with land, race and power, they're deluding themselves.

[ProudToBLoud]

hi mister, the middle east war happening between palestine and israel is as you say to do with land and is political not a islam v jewish war, but  is another excuse to demonise muslims by atheists and it is also another opportunity to dishonestly associate christianity with the troubles in the middle east, the tamil tigers are the pioneers of suicide bombing and turned it into an artform, they are also atheist/lenninist, now their terrorism is political,we could blame their atheism eh

[DudorSP]

Being religious has nothing to do with being violent. Following bad religion or misinterpret the message of one however, can lead to that.

Extremists are a good example of both.

Atheism has nothing to misinterpret, as it only claims there is no god. Surrounding ideas can lead to anti-religion though.

Atheism is not anti-religion.

These murderers were atheists, but they followed the beliefs of other ideologys.

[DudorSP]

Person1 - "Hey, i'm christian"

Person2 - "Me too!"

Person1 - "lets go kill everyone who isn't!"

Person2 - "Lets!"

Has that "ideology" got anything to do with being christion? Nope.

See my point?

[DudorSP]

Person1 - "Hey, i'm xxxx"

Person2 - "Me too!"

Person1 - "Our divine master says we should kill everyone who isn't"

Person2 - "Ok, lets do that!"

THAT on the other hand, has to do with whatever ideology/religion you follow.

[ProudToBLoud]

dudor, so you know i think we agree on that,people will do bad things whether theist/atheist, i am against tarring people with the same brush, my objection is against those atheists that just attack religion without looking at the full objective facts, and just base their claims on subjective emotional bias.

[DudorSP]

Atheists only says there is no god. Theists belives there is a god(s) and often "follow" that god(s).

There's nothing wrong with religion per say though. What makes religious people kill are bad dogmas. This can be compared to atheist killers who kill for other "ideas".

Is there really such a big difference between dogma and idea in this case? I dont think so.

[DudorSP]

People kill because they are mad. Belief in a god has nothing to do with it.

You can't kill in the name of religion, but you can kill in the name of *A* religion (or "idea")

PS. I Couldn't come up with a better word for "idea" :P

[IntractableMonkey]

Ah, it's you again.

Well don't you do the same thing?

[MisterBusta]

Such an argument implies you know "what they were really thinking" even though they were very open and clear about their atheism, and very clearly targeted non-atheists; but you just somehow know they were just pretending? If you can do this, than I can do the same thing for any religious war, and say they were just sociopaths who were "murdering people for having a commitment to a deity that demanded an opposing ideology". Actually, this is EXACTLY what religious wars are about! Ironic.

[MisterBusta]

All well thought out points. But: You ask "how can anyone kill in the name of a lack of belief?" and this video cites clear examples of it. There's plenty of things people believed that these men didn't - such as ghosts or whatnot - but they didn't execute anyone because they told ghost stories, did they? No. Mass graves were filled with people killed -specifically- because they believed in a God.

[SiAnSh]

you are right about your claim that dawkins is wrong; people have killed in the name of atheism.

but: the 20 million people stalin killed were not killed in the name of atheism, in fact, orthodow christianity was still allowed

plus: just because people murdered for atheism, that doesn't mean that atheism is wrong! (just the murdering)

[MisterBusta]

@SiAnSh - all very good points. In all the communists states I cited, state atheism was enacted at some point or another, and mass persecution of religion was exercised. The fact that religion was later allowed only shows that freedom of religion is important for a culture to survive, and communism's core tenants crumble.

And I do not think atheism is "wrong" in a moral sense. Nothing wrong with atheists! I'm just debunking the myth that atheists societies and leaders are safer.

[proudinfidel111]

"orthodow christianity was still allowed" in the same way DDR was a "democratic republic". On paper yes, in reality no.

[MisterBusta]

That's dead-on right. Bravo.