1. Comment #81255 by moai on October 24, 2007 at 1:56 pm

First of all, Hitler wasn't an atheist.

Second, while Stalin and Mao were athiests, they did not perpetrate their atrocities because of their atheism. There is nothing about atheism that necessarily leads to mass murder or genocide.

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in god.

Contrast this with the Inquisition. The atrocities perpetrated were because of a doctrine held by the church, and the thoughts/actions of those deemed to be heretical. Christianity can be blamed in this instance, while in the examples above atheism cannot.

Other Comments by moai

2. Comment #81261 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 24, 2007 at 2:05 pm

The actions of totalitarians have far more in common with religious, rather than secular values.

Do not question the leader, submit unthinkingly, ethics are what the authority says they are, or else. There is no external moral benchmark.

These are the catchphrases of totalitarians through the ages. In the religious context the leader is God, the authority is the Bible and the "or else" the Inquisition. In a secular context the leader may be Hitler, the authority "Main Kampf" and the "or else" the Gestapo.

The root problem, is that Dogma and Ideology which must be obeyed without question, lead inevitably to horrors. The precedents, both religious and secular are legion. Religion is merely a subset of the primary concept. The antidote, is genuine free thought, skepticism and critical thinking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmsis-motuY



Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

3. Comment #81270 by Kazim on October 24, 2007 at 2:18 pm

Here, this might help.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=20th_century_atrocities

Nothing much else to add.

Other Comments by Kazim

4. Comment #81271 by Pete_C on October 24, 2007 at 2:19 pm

Sam Harris's response to this is one of the best ones, in my opinion... that the Killing Fields, the Gulag and the Holocaust were not the result of societies that became too attached to critical thinking, or too demanding of evidence.

The problem is how to take out the rhetorical sting itself. If it turns into the two sides shoving Hitler back and forth, the audience stops caring and probably just goes home unthinkingly with "Hitler was an atheist" since that's the thing they've heard most often.

Perhaps the atheist side should start being the first to bring up Hitler and Co. (since you can count on the theist bringing them up at some point). It is in fact a good point against dogmatism, so why not seize on it?

Other Comments by Pete_C

5. Comment #81274 by Vinelectric on October 24, 2007 at 2:21 pm

Atheism is too narrow a context to include Totalitarians-psychopaths and humanists in the same bowl.

Atheists have nothing to answer for.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

6. Comment #81294 by Goldy on October 24, 2007 at 2:43 pm

They could not do what they are accused of without the people to perform the actions credited to them.

Other Comments by Goldy

7. Comment #81297 by AdrianB on October 24, 2007 at 2:47 pm

The other day a theist mentioned Hitler/Stalin/Mao in a discussion with me about atheism.

I was ready to pile in with the usual replies when I paused for a moment and then said the following:

ME: Look, can we can both agree that every day thousands of people are committing horrendous crimes?

THEIST: Err, yes.

ME: And some of those people will be Christians, some will be Muslims, some will be atheists?

THEIST: Err, yes.

ME: So why don't you blame atheism for all today's crimes that are committed by atheists, or Christianity for all today's crimes that are committed by Christians?

THEISTS: Err, because it's not relevant.

ME: Surely they are more relevant, these crimes are happening today. Some of them are horrible, murder, rape etc?

THEIST: Err, well their atheism or faith has nothing to do with their crimes.

ME: Exactly. Most peoples beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with whether they are a good person or not. The same goes for Hitler, whether he was an atheist or a Christian is not relevant. Can we agree on that?

THEIST: Err, I guess so.

ME: There is one type of crime however that can only be committed by the believer. And that is the crime that is committed with god's authority. The Muslim suicide bomber, or the murder of the abortion doctor for example. The vast majority of crimes are committed by bad people, but some are committed by the deluded.

Other Comments by AdrianB

8. Comment #81326 by Atticus_of_Amber on October 24, 2007 at 3:37 pm

Re-posted from the first Htichens/D'Souza thread.

A modest proposal of how to nip this Stalin/Mao canard in the bud. This is how I would introduce my opening statement in any debate on this subject:

"It may surprise you to hear that my primary target isn't religion, or even theism as such. Indeed, as I'll explain later, there are some forms of religion (and even some rare forms of theism, specifically deism) with which I have very little problem at all.

"So, what *is* my problem? My problem is with dogma. With the belief that it is acceptable, even admirable, to believe propositions without good evidence or without good reasons for believing those propositions to be true.

The forms those dogmatically believed propositions can take are potentially infinite. One might dogmatically believe in the historical inevitability of a communist utopia, under which the State will wither away, after a brief but necessary period of a dictatorship of the proletariat. One might dogmatically believe in the existence of something called the Aryan race, in its inherent superiority to all other races, and in the inherent inferiority and perfidy of the Jewish race. One might dogmatically believe that the Creator of the universe called one's religion to convert the world or take it by force through holy war, that death in the defence of (or attempt to reconquer) lands so acquired is the greatest of all actions, and that such martyrs will go to paradise after they die to be attended by 72 virgin brides and joined in due course be all their family and loved-ones. Or one might dogmatically believe that the creator of the universe condemns contraception as a mortal sin.

"What all four of these beliefs have in common is that there is very little or no evidence for them and that there is much good evidence against them. Yet all four beliefs have at times been passionately, ardently believed and acted upon by otherwise rational, sane and educated people - often resulting in those same people performing some of the most irrational, insane and barbaric acts imaginable.

"Thankfully, fascist, Nazi and Communist dogmas have been so discredited that almost no-one believes them any more. That is a development to be celebrated. But as the events of New York and Washington DC and Bali and Madrid and London demonstrate; as demonstrated by the genocidally stupid anti-contraceptive policies of the Catholic church in Africa and the homicidally stupid stem-cell policies of Christian churches in the US ; religious dogmas are alive and kicking and at work in the world.

"Reason and evidence and empiricism and science and liberal democracy - in short, the forces of the Enlightenment - have destroyed Communist and Fascist dogmas. Now it is time to do the same to the dogmas of religious faith."

- guess which of the 'Four Horseman' I count myself as having been most influenced by?

Other Comments by Atticus_of_Amber

9. Comment #81345 by John P on October 24, 2007 at 3:51 pm

I blogged on the topic a few months back. It's a small attempt to explain it.

http://spaninquis.wordpress.com/2007/08/24/atheism-and-stalin/

I like your approach very much, though, Atticus.

Other Comments by John P

10. Comment #81365 by stereoroid on October 24, 2007 at 4:16 pm

There is strong evidence of Stalin's deluded state of mind, in the "Secret Speech"* given by Nikita Khrushchev after Stalin's death. Atheist, maybe: rationalist or humanist, no.

After Stalin's death, the Central Committee began to implement a policy of explaining concisely and consistently that it is impermissible and foreign to the spirit of Marxism-Leninism to elevate one person, to transform him into a superman possessing supernatural characteristics, akin to those of a god. Such a man supposedly knows everything, sees everything, thinks for everyone, can do anything, is infallible in his behavior. Such a belief about a man, and specifically about Stalin, was cultivated among us for many years.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Personality_Cult_and_its_Consequences

Other Comments by stereoroid

11. Comment #81390 by MrsCogan on October 24, 2007 at 4:43 pm

This is how I usually answer it:

While it is true that a few secular governments (Hitler was NOT an atheist) have been totalitarian, ALL theistic governments have been bloody nightmares. ALL free, open societies have been secular. Every one. There are no exceptions that I know of. The more religious a society is, the more tyrannical it is without exception. There are no modern bloody dictatorships that are as oppressive as any European government in the 11th century when religion and the government were one thing.

Stalin would have wept into his pillow with envy of the kind of social control wielded by the governments of Iran or Saudi Arabia. Imagine if Torquemada or John Calvin had had Hitler's modern technology. No more Mr. Nice Guy!

Considering the track record of religious governments I'll take my chances with an "atheistic" government any day.

Other Comments by MrsCogan

12. Comment #81397 by maton100 on October 24, 2007 at 4:57 pm

The problem is with the human capacity for worship. No one should be worshipped...including the Pope, Bush, Jay Z or Kim Jong-il.

Other Comments by maton100

13. Comment #81398 by LordSummerisle on October 24, 2007 at 4:57 pm

It would be useful to cut to the chase, so to speak, and begin the rebuttal by saying "I hope no one here walks out thinking that Nazis were atheists, or that communists favored critical thinking and rationality" or something to that effect. It's a rethorical trick, similar to the question itself, but I feel it's important to bring up the main point as quickly as possible.


After all, there's nothing particularly atheistic, not to mention rational, in thinking that one goes to Valhalla after death. Catholic church's support for fascist causes is an important factor, of course. The whole Nazi/atheism myth is a rather soft target when one addresses it. Atheism's connection to communist crimes is by no means as easy to refute, and as many theists (mostly American religious fundamentalists who love to bring this point up) have, at best, a hazy understanding of communism, except the idea that it is somehow inherently evil and corrupt, it takes some time and effort to address the irrationality and the personality cults that come with it. The idea of workers' paradise as an irrational illusion is a good place to start, I suppose.

I'm not too keen on Hitchens' way of constantly bringing up Stalin's brief stint at the seminary whenever he debates this point. Undoubtedly the religious way of spreading "faith" in communism was to a great extent a concious choice on his part, but Stalin was by no means alone in laying the foundations of communist dogmatism. Fanatical adherence to the teachings of Karl Marx and the deluded idea that the revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat demanded blood to be spilled, so that the masses could live in peace and harmony existed before Stalin had even met Lenin. Communism didn't need religion to poison it, it was irrational and corrupt already. Is it perhaps Hitchens' past as a trotskyite that makes him cling to this point which, while not entirely unvalid, has perhaps too much emphasis placed upon it?

Atticus's great post is an excellent take on the subject of Communism, btw. Bravo.

Other Comments by LordSummerisle

14. Comment #81406 by ? on October 24, 2007 at 5:06 pm

Please name some "evil, mass-murdering atheists" who were not ALSO part of a totalitarian regime or movement! Why is it the same three or four guys and their lackeys every time? Western Europe has huge numbers of atheists and we really aren't all that rare in the U.S. or the Third World. Where are the British, Swedes, French, Amercians, etc. on the list?

Outside of the ideological cult of Leninism and its imitators, atheists are (on average, of course!) remarkably less violent and authoritarian than is normal in their respective cultures.

Other Comments by ?

15. Comment #81444 by menoone on October 24, 2007 at 6:19 pm

Not a single person in the whole of human history has ever been killed because of theism or atheism.

Theism is a single proposition on the existence of a divine being, and a-theism is the non-acceptence of that proposition. Nothing more. Neither one are are even capable of being the basis of murder or torture or tyranny or repression. For that, you need religion or some other ideology.

Relgion is a great deal more than theism. The latter is a single proposition shared by Wahabbi muslims, Episcopalians and the Amish. But what separates them is the former, as it includes an entire system of beliefs, rituals and practices.
It is one thing to believe that there is a god, but it is quite another to say that you know the mind of this being; that you know what it wants and expects, and, what awaits those who fail live up to its wants and expectations.

Nothing about being a Theist necessarily involves any one particular set of religous beliefs or practices. That Amish dress as they do, does not follow necessarily from being theists. No one could be persuaded by the notion that "since I believe that there is a god, I must therefore wear only the style of clothes worn by 17th Century Europeans". Yes, they are theists, but a very good deal more than theism is required for one to assume that God prefers his followers in straw hats and bonnets.

With a-theism or non-theism one has even less to work from. Being only a negation, it gives even less of a lead to its proponents. There is no such thing as an "atheist ideology" or an "atheist regime". Atheism does not even necessarily imply anti-theism, anti-religion or being anti-clerical. It is a personal statement about ones own npon-acceptence of theism.

Any regime that is anti-clerical or anti-religous is not so simply because its leaders are atheist. It does not follow that "Because I do not believe in God, I must therefore suppress and crush all relgious denominations". A very great deal more than simple non-theism is required for this strange and brutal notion to seem desirable.

Maoism and Stalinism (and it is these names that ought to be forever branded with the gigantic crimes committed, and not "atheism")were not ideologies of mere non-theism. Even if they were, no one would have died for that reason.

Other Comments by menoone

16. Comment #81460 by kraut on October 24, 2007 at 7:04 pm

The supression of religion by atheist rulers was the only deed that can be attributed to their "non belief" in a supreme being.

That equals nicely the supression of any other belief than the one holding sway in most societies where religion was part of the state ideology.

Everything else that was done by rulers that did not adhere to any religion was informed not by their being atheists, but by them following or developing a certain ideology that was principly concerned with the overthrow of existing societal and economic structures.

The "class" struggle was the driving force in so called communist societies, and the elimination and supression of anybody that was of the former economic leading class had very little to do with atheism.

As to hitler - 'nough said, he was not an atheist, he was a member of the catholic church and was not even excommunicated after his suicide, not to mention by reason of all the atrocities he instigated.

What about the other side: the atrocities committed in south america by dictators that - at least on the surface - adhered to catholizism, the death squad leader that went to church on any given sunday, the msulim warriors of all stripes blowing themselves up and others, the roman generals who prayed on altars of many gods - remember ceasar, who in gaul slaughtered about a million of its inhabitants, the deeds of alexander the not so great, the atrocities committed through the policies of george w. bush...all of them believe/d in their gods and sacrificed to them.

And the thirty year war in europe? Surely not only a war for and about religion - but definetly based on differences to which religious authority to refer to - the pope or the independent "fuerst" of the small states.

Overall - to attribute misdeeds by any ruler to his perceived or existing "a" or "theism" is leading nowhere and totally beside the point. Both theist and atheist leaders wallowed in the expression of their powers through military might.

The point that is hidden by those accusations is the old: only religious persons can base their behaviour in ethics and morality, as those can ONLY spring from a creator god implanted in us. Even if that were true - which god did it spring from - take your pick.


Other Comments by kraut

17. Comment #81466 by Tommykey on October 24, 2007 at 7:15 pm

One point I like to bring up, and Hitchens touched on it in his debate with McGrath is that the regimes like Stalin and Mao occurred in societies that were ruled by oppressive and authoritarian monarchies for centuries, or in China's case, for millennia. Stalin's idol, Ivan the Terrible, considered himself to be a pious Christian in spite of the terrible atrocities he committed.

There was no tradition of a check on the absolutism of the central government. There was no concept of individual rights.

As for Nazi Germany, regardless of whether Hitler considered himself to be a Catholic, an atheist, or a neo-teutonic pagan, the German people who supported him considered themselves to be Christians who felt that Hitler was doing god's work in fighting Bolshevism and the Christ killing Jews. Christians in Germany, by and large, did not try to stop him.

Other Comments by Tommykey

18. Comment #81475 by Paine on October 24, 2007 at 7:42 pm

Here are some replies that can be used.

1. Hitler never said he was an atheist. he did say he was a Christian. YOU justify Hitler, and then I will justify Stalin.

2. None of Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Napoleon, Cortes etc. believed in Pixies. That shows the moral deficiency of non-Pixie religions like Christianity.

3. Absence of belief is not moral philosophy. You have more in common with Genghis Khan than I do with Stalin.

4. Im not sure about this one, but I cant think of a single person killed by any of the above(or anyone else) because they were not atheists. Yet I can think of thousands killed because they were not Christians/Muslims/etc.

Other Comments by Paine

19. Comment #81476 by mrmatt on October 24, 2007 at 7:43 pm

This statement presupposes (quite rightly) that a lot of evil was done in the name of religion. It amounts to saying: "well, religion has done bad things, but look at atheism."

The theist therefore admits that bad things have been done in the name of religion.

But it is not a question of religion vs atheism, and which one has the bigger body count. For starters, atheism CAN'T have a body count like religion can...atheism is not, and has never been, institutional. Religions are.

These institutions that committed the atrocities were not atheist institutions, they were Stalinist/Fascist ones. This is why there have been documented cases of people within these institutions who believed in god. Yes even in Russia! But a belief in god is not the same as a religion. Religion is a rival institution, and was often suppressed or eliminated by the state.

Communism, for example, repudiated religion because it exploited the proletariat, like most things, and Nazism had a uneasy relationship with it because it ran the risk of competing with the Fuhrer as a moral, cultural leader as well as notions of salvation etc.

Therefore, Stalin, Hitler (though his atheism is debateable) and Mao were not so much atheists as anti-religion. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Other Comments by mrmatt

20. Comment #81541 by prettygoodformonkeys on October 24, 2007 at 10:19 pm

Hitler was a Christian; they will say, not my kind of Christianity.

Nevertheless, he was an avowed Christian, talked about Jesus in his speeches, letters, and interviews, appealed to Christians regularly regarding the Jews, had the continuous blessing of the R.C. Church (Mein Kampf has never been, and is not now, on the Vatican list of banned books - unlike Galileo, Copernicus, Pascal, Voltaire, etc, etc), and had large crucifixes everywhere, even in his unpublicized mountain retreat. As an art student in 1914, he painted the baby Jesus as a blonde, blue-eyed aryan child, held by Mary, with the future shining Jerusalem shimmering in the distance http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes.htm. He also painted Christ appearing to him on the battlefield http://www.adolfhitlerresearchsociety.org/index8_files/Page487.html.

He inherited and exploited the weaknesses of a people made gullible by religion, and his success (and Stalin's, and Mao's) was more due to the power of the new mass media and his use of the Strong Father archetype than it was to a coherent ideology.

But it is wrong to call him an atheist; more correct to call him a Christian.

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

21. Comment #81543 by Diacanu on October 24, 2007 at 10:24 pm

Even if Hitler were an atheist, it would have as much to do with his Nazi bullcrap as the fact he was a nonsmoker and a vegetarian.
Where's D'Souza with his "where are the nonsmoking vegetarians during tragedies?", article?
He wouldn't have the balls to pull that shit.



Other Comments by Diacanu

22. Comment #81550 by mejdrich on October 24, 2007 at 10:39 pm

I have a heart-felt criticism of y'all. All of your answers are FAR to long-winded and "rational" for such an emotionally-charged accusation. To be persuasive, we need sound-bite rebuttals. This is what I use:

Hitler: born, raised, lived, and died Catholic. He was at least as religious as Mother Teresa.

Stalin/Mao: started their own religions, cults of personality, using all of the dirty tricks of a Vatican-style theocracy.

(both of these have obvious follow-up challenges: go Hitchens on Teresa, or any old swing at the atrocities of the Vatican)

Other Comments by mejdrich

23. Comment #81554 by lukerazor on October 24, 2007 at 10:42 pm

Paine

"4. Im not sure about this one, but I cant think of a single person killed by any of the above(or anyone else) because they were not atheists. Yet I can think of thousands killed because they were not Christians/Muslims/etc."

I beleive that Stalin and China have both persecuted theists in their time. Of course this was probably because they stood as alternatives to their authoririy rather than thesis vs atheist

Other Comments by lukerazor

24. Comment #81559 by merkin on October 24, 2007 at 10:49 pm

Whether or not Hitler was an atheist is an irrelevant distraction. Let's pretend that he was and move on. Now what's immediately obvious is that this argument fails the first basic test of logic:

Premise 1: Communists are atheists.
Premise 2: Communism is bad.
Conclusion: Atheism is bad.

Can you spot the fallacy?

What's being said is that atheism can be, and has been, used as a foundation (!) for dangerous political ideology. Not a particularly damning observation. It seems to me that a limitless variety of structures can be built on such an accommodating foundation. This is tractable land. What political precepts are required by atheism? Well, let's see. Firstly, supernatural explanations don't hold water…and that about sums it up. Right! Where to go from here? How do the atrocities committed by Hitler, Stalin et al, necessarily follow from this single, rather unimposing precept? I would think you'd need a little more than this to rally a nation for genocide.

One more thing to note: This argument implies that atheists want to live under an explicitly atheistic government, rather than merely a secular one. Not so.


Other Comments by merkin

25. Comment #81560 by Diacanu on October 24, 2007 at 10:50 pm

mejdrich-

Okay, how about this.

Them- Stalin was an atheist!!

Me- Show me how totalitarian fascism necessarily follows from atheism, and then you'll have something. (it's their point, let them do the work)



Other Comments by Diacanu

26. Comment #81562 by delusionalProphet on October 24, 2007 at 10:55 pm

"Of course this was probably because they stood as alternatives to their authoririy rather than thesis vs atheist."

To my mind, that's the source of their atheism. Marx may have been sincere in his belief that it was the opiate of the masses, but men like Mao and Stalin (and Lenin) would have seen it as a threat to their absolute power. They were atheists for the same reason Henry VIII was an Anglican, because he didn't want to share power.

Insistence on dogma, persecution of "heretics" to their belief system, subversion of science and reason to the cause, perversion of truth for a greater ideal... Does this sound like religion or reason?

That's why its a bullshit argument.

Other Comments by delusionalProphet

27. Comment #81567 by Elentar on October 24, 2007 at 11:00 pm

Atticus nailed it. Naziism, Communism, Maoism, Stalinism, etc. were all dogmas. We are opposed to dogmas, because they are assaults on truth. If communism were still around, we would be focussing our attention on that, but it isn't, so we aren't. Conspiracy theories, pseudo-science, psychic charlatans, and superstition are all on our hit list. Religion is the largest wholesale distributor of dogma, pseudo-science, and superstition, so it's at the top of our list.

Other Comments by Elentar

28. Comment #81577 by Sigmund on October 24, 2007 at 11:19 pm

Whatever about Hitler, it is disingenuous to claim that Stalin or Pol Pot were not atheists. I think the evidence clearly suggests that they were. Sam Harris has a valid point when he suggests that the term 'atheism' is problematic since it throws such a broad tent that WILL include non rationalists such as the aforementioned murderous dictators.
The best argument I have heard to counter the Stalin, Pol Pot question is to point out that the problem is FAITH - the application of a belief of dogma in the absence of evidence or even despite the existence of evidence to the contrary.
Stalin and Pol Pot were clearly men of faith - faith in the truth of their extreme communistic agenda that was not wavered by any amount of evidence to the contrary.
To advocate pure atheism - non-belief in a deity - is not exactly how most 'new atheists' actually view their philosophical outlook on the world. What they actually mean by 'atheism' is 'rationalism' or 'naturalism' or 'secular humanism '- all philosophies capable of adapting to new evidence as it emerges. Contrast this approach to the idea of faith, either in a religious or a political dogma and you will see how Stalin, while clearly being an atheist, could never be seen as a 'new atheist' (while I dislike the term I do think it at least points out that there is a difference in approach). On the other hand, Stalin was obviously a man of faith.

Other Comments by Sigmund

29. Comment #81579 by Shuggy on October 24, 2007 at 11:22 pm

Nothing morally follows from atheism as such (and before you hold that against it, we get our morality elsewhere, from people and the environment). How could it?

But moral behaviour is SUPPOSED to flow (is defined as flowing?) from religious belief. When it doesn't - and when it glaringly doesn't, as in the Crusades and the Inquisition - that is religion's FAULT.

Other Comments by Shuggy

30. Comment #81590 by Shuggy on October 25, 2007 at 12:00 am

How about -

"But Hitler and Stalin weren't REAL atheists...."




Other Comments by Shuggy

31. Comment #81597 by deepanjan_nag on October 25, 2007 at 12:27 am

Osama Bin Laden is a theist.
And Allah must be happy with his exploits!!!

Other Comments by deepanjan_nag

32. Comment #81618 by zoltix on October 25, 2007 at 1:19 am

Totalitarianism is the real problem.

Atheism is not a belief system - it is a rejection of the supernatural.

Totalitarian leaders are against organised religion rather than some principled atheist stand against supernatural forces. This is because organised religion can offer alternative leadership. If organised religion can be accomodated they will do so, otherwise it will be suppressed (along with free trade unions, another potential opposition).

If it can be demonstrated that faith can lead to a propensity to totalitarianism so much the better. This is easy with islam but less so with christianity.
The difficulty with islam is that many muslims (even so called moderates) believe islamic totalitarian dogma is a good thing.

It's actually quite easy to get the attack on totalitarian dogma in early. After starting with the supernatural, reason and faith, you can raise the question 'What can the reliance on faith lead to?'. Your list of horrors then includes Hitler etc. before anyone else mentions them.

Other Comments by zoltix

33. Comment #81667 by wim_vandenberghe on October 25, 2007 at 2:35 am

As Atticus_of_Amber rightly points out, I think an antidogmatism approach is probably the best course to take in these cases. Here's my attempt:
"When opposing your religious views/truth claims, I choose to label myself an atheist, but this term doesn't say anything about who I am, it only defines me (in a negative sense) in relation to your beliefs. I am first and foremost a freethinker/critical thinker, a doubter, a humanist and a rationalist, things you can hardly accuse Stalin, Hitler, etc. of having been. These men set the same trap for themselves as religion, and that's dogmatic thinking, the non-tolerance of doubt. In religion doubt is seen as a weakness that has to be overcome, in totalitarian regimes doubt is usually a fatal weakness, but in my view doubt is a key strength that empowers human beings by disarming all dogma, be it religious or otherwise. Doubt is what science formalized in the concept of falsifiabiliy, doubt is what breaks religious dogma, doubt is what totalitarians fear the most, doubt is what pushes civilization forward."

Other Comments by wim_vandenberghe

34. Comment #81669 by Moridin on October 25, 2007 at 2:41 am

The thing that was wrong with the communist and fascist totalitarian regimes lead by Hitler and Stalin etc. was not that it was so irreligious, but because it was so much like a religion.

Neither Russia nor Germany experienced the Renaissance or the Enlightenment. Germany was busy with religious wars and Russia was basically stuck in the dark ages until the industrialization. So they never had these rationalistic movements that sought to apply reason, science and to base their knowledge on evidence in order to question dogma and religion. It is not surprising to see that it was the most religious countries that fell to facsism and communism.

None of the countries that had enlightened rational philosophy was subverted by fascism or communism.

So what was characteristic of the fascist and communistic totalitarian regimes? Certainly not a rational evidence-based application of reason and science.

Since they never experienced the Renaissance or the Enlightenment the people where very prone to the irrational worship of abstracts (state, nation, class, race etc.) and the unquestioning support of dogmatic leaders. Stalin was a demigod to the people of Russia. They had their own form of superiority claims. Nazi Germany had the delusion that their 'race' where the best and Soviet Russia claimed that their Homo sovieticus (New Soviet Man) was superior. Both nations had their very own form of anti-scientific tendencies; eugenics in Germany and Lysenkoism in Russia, which was also full of superstitious thinking.

* Irrational Worship of Abstracts
* Unquestioning Support of Dogmatic Leaders
* Superiority Claims
* Knowledge based on superstition, not evidence and reason.

These are the very hallmark of religion. The reason that Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia was so bad was not because their leaders where irreligious, it was because they following irrational doctrines of communism and fascism that told them to kill everyone that disagreed.

Other Comments by Moridin

35. Comment #81673 by Bertybob on October 25, 2007 at 2:51 am

Even if we concede that Hitler, Stalin and Mao were Atheists, they did not kill in the name of Atheism. They were brutal dictators, who killed to get political power. To be a dictator you cannot have a rival controlling "power" to direct your people against your bidding. That rival power for the minds of your people would be the Church, hence you must officially disband and remove the Church from your State all together.

"Religion is the opium of the masses".

Another good retort:-

"Those deaths are in the past and we must learn never to let such a thing happen again. They were not committed in the name of Atheism or because of any Atheist dogma.

Whilst we are sitting here debating this point, at this very moment millions of people are still dying in Africa and South America as a result of the religious dogma of the Roman Catholic Church through AIDS that using a condom is a SIN for which you will spend an eternity in Hell."

Other Comments by Bertybob

36. Comment #81710 by Auld on October 25, 2007 at 4:27 am

So what if those atheists were terrible? It still doesn't mean that God exists!

So atheists are naturally vermin? So try and exterminate us! Hah!

Other Comments by Auld

37. Comment #81718 by steve99 on October 25, 2007 at 5:01 am

A possibly useful counter is to point out that many of those who helped counter evil dictatorships in the 20th century were hardly enthusiastically religious. Churchill almost certainly agnostic. Having doubts about religion does not seem to prevent people achieving great good.

Other Comments by steve99

38. Comment #81725 by uzi on October 25, 2007 at 5:21 am

It's often overlooked that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao each ate carrots during their lifetimes. Perhaps this crispy biennial root vegitable is really the common link of evil between them.

Other Comments by uzi

39. Comment #81748 by keith on October 25, 2007 at 6:01 am

Rather than making a point I have a question. Sorry it's not concise.
Okay, someone steals your wallet and he later - because the police always get their man - turns out to be a Christian. Did his Christianity cause him to rob you? Of course not. His religious beliefs were totally irrelevant.
Okay. Next week an atheist robs you. Was it his atheism that made him rob you? No. Of course not.
Okay. Next week a Muslim suicide bomber blows up a shopping centre. Was it his religion that caused him to do it? Some say yes, while some (Chris Hedges, Scott Atran et al) say it was for political and social reasons. Even though in a video the bomber himself attributed his actions to a belief in god, unless we can prove this to be the case, we might have to let this one go. Or is it enough that he claimed this in the video? After all, it was what he believed he believed that made him do it. Why isn't this enough evidence to damn his faith? But, Scott Atran would annoyingly interject, maybe he was confused about his real motives. When there are so many contributary factors involved it's hard to disentangle the mess and quantify precisely what role the bomber's religion had in his actions. Even if we ourselves are satisfied that his religious beliefs contributed to his decision to bomb the shopping centre - here we could point to the fact that only Muslims in Britain perform such acts - unless the evidence satisfies the religious themselves, our conviction does us no good, at least in an argument.
Okay, so female genital mutilation then. Some may say it's cultural but if we pressed the point I think we could chalk this one up as being caused purely by religion. Okay, so we have a religious crime. Good.
Now, if the Chinese government crack down on Tibetan monks or when Stalin tried to crush religious belief in the Soviet Union (I apologise for using him and have no idea if this really was the case), could this be called an atheistic crime? If not, why not? And if so, does this mean that atheism isn't just a harmless lack of belief in something but a belief itself that can lead to suppression or worse? If I got so sick of the stupidity spewed forth in Songs of Praise that I went out to the nearest church and punched the first person I saw emerging from its hallowed entrance really really really hard in the face, would the police ever catch me?...No, sorry, I got lost there. That wasn't my intended question. I meant, in what way would this not be a crime caused by my atheist views? We could, of course, do tit-for-tat and play the social/political card; after all, we atheists are also affected by these factors. However, I like to think we're a bit more honest than that.
This is just a question. It was taxing me as I walked home this evening, having one of those internal conversations that Sam Harris suggests I should keep within reasonable limits.

Other Comments by keith

40. Comment #81751 by JerryD385 on October 25, 2007 at 6:05 am

One line rebuttle:

"They were all men of faith."

Of course, we then have to get into the whole 'oh so atheism is a faith hohoho' crap, so make sure you get them to admit faith is belief in without or in spite of evidence or reason

Other Comments by JerryD385

41. Comment #81763 by Shrunk on October 25, 2007 at 6:29 am

1) In all fairness, I think we can be as guilty as the theists of confusing correlation with causation. If we're not careful, the Pol Pot/Stalin argument can get thrown in our face. For instance, I believe it is valid to draw a direct link between Muslim suicide bombers and their faith, as their actions are a direct manifestation of the latter. On the other hand, we would be wrong to blame Catholicism for the sexual abuse of children by priests, as that is not condoned anywhere in the faith. If we make this argument, I think "So what about Stalin?" is a valid response. (At the same time, I think the the behaviour of priests and televangelists IS relevent if the argument is over whether religion/God is the source of morality.)

2) The most free, stable and just societies are based on secular principles. Has there ever been a theocracy that was not also a brutal dictatorship?

3) The argument over body counts is pointless. That Osama Bin Laden or Torquemada have killed fewer people than Stalin or Pol Pot doesn't make them nicer people. It just means they weren't as "successful" in carrying out their plans. Bin Laden would kill every Jew walking the earth if he could. He just hasn't figured out how.

Other Comments by Shrunk

42. Comment #81769 by MarquisDeSade on October 25, 2007 at 6:45 am

I don't know if this has been mentioned....

With regard to atheistic totalitarianism and religious totalitarianism -- there is nothing inherent in the lack of a belief in God that rubs shoulders with totalitarianism, yet the same cannot be said about believing in God specifically in the religious sense. Monotheistic religions require the master-slave totalitarian relationship -- it is inherent.

So while a lack of a belief in God can manifest itself in the mind of a despot in such a way that he wishes to eliminate religion, or murder his people (as is the case with Stalin), there is nothing inherent in atheism (is that some form of a double-negative?) that warms the heart to totalitarianism, or even wholly requires it, as is the case with religion.

On that point alone we can dismiss the rebuttal of "well these crimes were committed by atheists, so atheism is just as bad, if not worse."

And if that doesn't work, and you sink low enough to play their game, ask them how many people Christ has burning in hell, eternally, as a punishment for the harmless crime of non-belief. If that is not proof enough of the totalitarian nature of their core belief, then nothing ever will be.

In many cases, their god is, in the eternal afterlife, burning the people who Hitler burned in this life.

Other Comments by MarquisDeSade

43. Comment #81771 by LookToWindward on October 25, 2007 at 6:50 am

I agree largely with Richard's main line: that there is no rational path from atheism to atrocity, but there is from religion (or, at least, most of them).

In general I would start by agreeing that the debate is a little too focussed on atheism vs theism, rather than on whether reason is desirable, and whether religion represents unreason.

Secondly, I would point out what an admission it is for the theist to use this argument: essentially they're admitting that the value of Christianity is as nothing more than a dam against human nature. Not only is it a very negative stance on religion, it is a very negative stance on human nature.

Other Comments by LookToWindward

44. Comment #81785 by infidel_michael on October 25, 2007 at 7:18 am

Response:

How ironic! Our arguments against religion apply also to Hitler/Stalin/Mao regimes - they were dogmatic, authoritarian and cult-like. We are against them from the same reasons as we are against religion. Their followers certainly weren't skeptics/freethinkers nor humanists, they were people of faith. So your attempts to link our philosophy to Hitler/Stalin/Mao is ridiculous and deliberately misleading.

Other Comments by infidel_michael

45. Comment #81808 by Alison on October 25, 2007 at 8:18 am

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The problems of Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, The Inquisition, Nero and other monarchs or emperors all stem from unchecked and unconstrained power. These examples point to how wrong it is for, say, the United States to give more power to the executive branch, regardless of whether that branch is held by Family Bush or Family Clinton.

Religion is more of a problem in creating institutions of unchecked power precisely because of the emphasis on submission and obeisance to "a higher power", both in belief and ritual practice. Once that framework is in place it becomes much easier to sanctify authoritarian power structures which reflect the supposed "order" of "God's world."

Enlightenment and Renaissance values largely run against the establishment of institutions wielding unchecked power by emphasizing individual liberty and critical rational thinking, Hobbes notwithstanding. Morality comes from respecting the (socially constructed) human rights of other people, not by blind obedience to suspect dogmas which worship power and foster an in-group mentality intolerant to others.



Other Comments by Alison

46. Comment #81818 by Shrunk on October 25, 2007 at 8:33 am

The other point to be made is that no one claims that atheism automatically makes someone a more moral person. It's quite possible for someone to be an atheist and still be evil. However, many theists argue that it is only through religion and/or God that morality exists. Therefore, while the existence of some evil atheists does not in any way argue against atheism itself, the existence of even one good atheist or a single evil theist disproves the pro-religion argument.

Other Comments by Shrunk

47. Comment #81839 by mjohnson500 on October 25, 2007 at 9:09 am

People don't generally like to work too hard which is why sound bites and emotional appeal work so well – you must keep the argument simple, black and white if at all possible. Change the debate from one of labels to one of values. Like it or not the atheist label is associated with communists and all its resultant horrors. The point to make is that communism was (and is) bad because it is totalitarian and dogmatic, just like religion. Get people to realize that you are for free thinking, not that you are against religion. Atheism may inevitably follow from free thinking but the goal is to advance our values while diminishing theirs.

There are good and bad Christians, there are good and bad Muslims, there are good and bad atheists … .you can't determine if a person is good or bad by a label. You know what a person values by how they act. Consider the following values:

Free Thinkers value:
Reason
Skepticism
Individual Freedom from authority
No Dogma – rules must be continually reevaluated and justified
Value Evidence and fact based truth – adjust your agenda to the facts
Think for yourself

Totalitarians value:
Unquestioning obedience
Centralized authority
Violent punishment for disobedience
Thought Control
Evidence suppression and propaganda – fit the facts to your agenda, control information, stifle debate
Emotional appeal
We'll think for you -

Which set of values more closely matches the activities of the church? If you can get a theist to defend these totalitarian values they will lose supporters.

Other Comments by mjohnson500

48. Comment #81854 by sidfaiwu on October 25, 2007 at 9:55 am

" Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!"

Answer what? That wasn't a question. Oh rebut the implication that atheism causes evil. No, people cause evil. This is really the "You can't be moral without God!" argument in disguise.

Now suppose this is an adequate reason for not being an atheists. From this instance, we can formulate a general rule: Hold none of the beliefs that are held by murderous tyrants. Now have their ever been murderous tyrants who where also Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc? There were? Then one should not be religious either. Oh, they weren't true Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.? Then Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin etc. were not true atheists either.

Other Comments by sidfaiwu

49. Comment #81863 by marshall1 on October 25, 2007 at 10:07 am

Atheists :

I know this is your "activity" going on here and that Christian perspectives are probably not welcome. But I'm going to comment anyway.

The truth is that Atheism is as much the cause of atrocities as Religion is. Which is to say, not at all. But you insist on blaming the power hungry's use of Religion to fuel their drive as some sort of indictment on religious people. Pointing out the Stalin's and Hitler's is just a way of turning a flawed argument back on you.

You guys seem to think of yourselves as a bit more intelligent than us simple religious-folk. So I'm surprised you can't see that the key here is power and the love of it more than anything. I doubt that Bin-Laden spends even 1 minute per year in his cave praying to any God's. But when that camera gets on him and he sees an opportunity to prey on people's beliefs.. There you go.

(Atheism <> Atrocities) & (Religion <> Atrocities)

Other Comments by marshall1

50. Comment #81864 by thirdchimpanzee on October 25, 2007 at 10:09 am

Totalitarian governments needed to create a thought prison as well as a physical confinement of society, from which there could be no escape. It's the same trick being used in Guantanamo. Since religion is the ultimate escapism it was necessary for Mao and Stalin to persecute religion (Hitler didn't need to because he was religious and popular with most Germans). The correct term to use for Mao and Stalin therefore is anti-Theist, and you can leave atheists out of the picture!

An atheist doesn't necessarily care if you believe in God or Santa or whatever. An anti-theist does care - and Mao and Stalin certainly did care what you believed.

BTW - as an anti-Theist I realise this paints me into a corner, but I'm also a libertarian, and I'm not currently running a large Asian country.

Other Comments by thirdchimpanzee