Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Craigart14 on April 19, 2011 at 10:40am

Stalin was using Communism--or at least his version of it.  Many leaders have indeed used religion to cover the real reasons for their aggression, but when you send armies out to reclaim land that you consider "holy," you are starting a war for the sake of religion.  When you kill hundreds of thousands of people for believing something slightly different from what you think they should believe, you are starting a war in the name of religion.  European warriors and kings were known for centuries as the "defenders of the faith."  Somebody thought they were fighting for religion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Grace Fitzpatrick on April 19, 2011 at 1:09pm

Perhaps it is best to look at Stalin's followers to see the difference between him and religious crazies who kill:

 

Stalin's followers did as he said because they were scared of him.  And there were several attempts on his life.

 

Religious crazies do as their leaders say, because they agree with it.

 

There's a huge difference between being scared and doing something bad and doing something bad because the person believes it is the right thing to do.  

 

If look at today's suicide bombers and those who kill in the name of religion, these people believe wholeheartedly this is the right thing to do. I don't know of any atheist snipers or suicide bombers.  If there was one, it would be a huge media sensation, that would eclipse all other lone killers in the rush to prove atheism is the most terrible thing ever. 

 

Currently, Islamic are probably doing the most bad things in the name of their religion.  Not that the others haven't done their share, but right now Islam is front and center of the world's attention for doing bad staff.  Your sister may feel the pressure not only in atheists' disapproval of her religion, but all the other religions as well.  But really we are soft and loving compared to how many Christians feel about Muslims.  At least we feel their religion is equally invalid as all the others - not conceived and executed by Satan like most Christians. 

 

I'm just suggesting she may be feeling threatened not only by your lack of belief, but because the pretty much the whole non Muslim world doesn't like them much now.  However, she can look on the bright side, since Islam is one of the largest religions in the world (and growing, I understand), she has a billion or two people she can friend on Facebook. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kenneth Montville D.D. on April 20, 2011 at 8:46am

Stalin didn't kill people in the name of atheism any more than Hitler killed because he might have hated artichokes. He killed because of power and hated anything that took power away from him. Sweden is incredibly non-theistic, as is Denmark, Iceland, and Norway and none of those nations commit atrocities comparable to those of Stalin, but you will never hear a theist bring that up.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tonya Wynn on May 9, 2011 at 11:09am

I, too, am not very knowledgable about history, but I do know that St. Petersburg in Russia has the most churches of any city in the world and that many Russians are and were Orthodox Christians.  Also, I think the harm was done in the name of communism/equality and had much more to do with resentment over the richer/smarter/prettier/classier people and much less to do with religion.  But it is often true that to get people (or animals) to think or behave differently, that you must put great fear of punishment into them. So, harm IS done.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Smokey Dave-Bean on June 2, 2011 at 4:33pm

Good people can do bad things and bad people can do good things; but for people to commit atrocities, it takes religion.

 

Misquoting Stephen Weinberg.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Secular Forces 2013 on June 4, 2011 at 9:37am

apples to oranges man
gods' ak47's damage compared to a 3d landscaping high-tech scientifically tested app that betters the world

hello. throw in the difference between a water or farming engineer compared to a braindamaged and misguided throwback to nazi germany's culture of dominance instead common sense... ironically the only country to state they'll be phasing out nuclear energy replaced with green tech/grid solutions

 

combat that.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Smith on June 28, 2011 at 5:51pm

I regard the argument to be basically useless. I would only ever bring it up in response to any point made in the opposite direction. Millions may be good without god, but millions are good with one as well (my mother), and millions more are good having a god only in certain times in their life or on certain days in the week (my girlfriend). I don't believe in god because I find it to be a largely less than useless hypothesis for explaining anything, not because believing in one makes you bad. Honestly how do you quantify such a thing? The null hypothesis is that religion has neither a positive or negative effect on our way of life, and most of the evidence supporting both propositions is mixed and anecdotal. There is of course the negative correlation between developed countries and religion, but I find such evidence to be cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dr kellie on June 28, 2011 at 6:13pm

Religion has had a negative effect on my way of life. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stephen Nuzzo on June 30, 2011 at 1:45pm

Tell her Stalin was an orthodox Georgian, hitler was roman catholic and Mao practiced Buddhism for a year an roman Catholicism for 6

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt VDB on July 24, 2011 at 3:42pm

Stalin was an atheist though, and Hitler not Roman Catholic, so perhaps telling her that wouldn't be such an intellectually honest move ;)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Smokey Dave-Bean on July 26, 2011 at 4:02am

To say that Mao practised Buddhism for a year is like saying I once took a ballet lesson.  It doesn't make me Rudolph Nureyev and it does no favour to the world of dance.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chris Day on July 7, 2011 at 9:10am

I gave this response to an article I read the other day that equated "Atheist State" with any society not run by a combination of Theocrats/Plutocrats or Theocrats/Aristocrats:

Yet another piece that promotes the myth that the monstrous communist dictatorships of the 20th Century were a result of Atheism while discounting the actual ideological basis for those regimes. Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, and Pol Pot's Cambodia were all ruled by Dictators and had effectively established personality cults around their rulers. Just because communism rejected traditional religious beliefs that competed and threatened communists and their philosophies doesn't make those sorts of societies the end result of Atheism as an ideological stance. The communist regimes in USSR, China and Cambodia were built on communist ideas and the crimes of those regimes were due to communist extremism. "Atheist extremism" doesn't make any sense without some sort of ideology to become extreme in favour of. Suggesting that Atheists (who do not subscribe to some political extremist view, I've never met one of those myself) would create anything even remotely like those despotic communist regimes is an insult to the many progressive, rational, democratic, secular, humanist, science-based non-religious people that have lived and worked to make the world better ever since the European Enlightenment. Atheists (at least the hundreds I've met) don't want a tyrannical non-religious regime any more than we want a tyrannical religious one. Both are equally unpleasant.So please stop promoting the nonsensical myth that the progressive, democratic, rational, ethical, scientifically minded, humanistic non-believers of faith-based religious beliefs (like myself) should take any responsibility for despotic regimes that were based on values completely different to ours - just because Atheists and communists reject organized religion.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• …
• 13
• Next ›
• Page