Why political systems based on atheism kill several times more citizens

[UnrepentantSinner]

Again, I would suggest that those claims generally exist simply to disprove the "Nazism is based on atheism" lie. And, as you note, the "Christ Killer" libel WAS maintained by the Church, and it is dishonest to pretend otherwise.

Then let me clarify my point, they're problematic for two reasons - tu quoque is a logical fallacy and they only contain a shadow of truth. Hitlers anti-Semitism wasn't rooted in his Catholicism, it was only influenced by it and by the time he was Fuhrer, Nazi ideologically driven anti-Semitism had grown far more complex than simple Catholic policy or Lutheran writings.

I say it's better to cut the legs off the X state/system was atheist than to try and say "oh yeah, what about Y".

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

so you're saying social Darwinism played no part in Nazi ideology?

A twisted version of it, but you do realize that what we call Social Darwinism was practiced in militaristic societies two millenia before the 3rd Reich don't you?

Or are you not familiar with how the Spartans raised their boys?

 

[JoeEllison]

Then let me clarify my point, they're problematic for two reasons - tu quoque is a logical fallacy and they only contain a shadow of truth. Hitlers anti-Semitism wasn't rooted in his Catholicism, it was only influenced by it and by the time he was Fuhrer, Nazi ideologically driven anti-Semitism had grown far more complex than simple Catholic policy or Lutheran writings.

I say it's better to cut the legs off the X state/system was atheist than to try and say "oh yeah, what about Y".

I disagree. It forces the claimant to come up against the flaws in their claim when you show that the Nazis were mostly Christians. It not only disproves their claim that Nazism was based in atheism, but forces them to say that the Christianity was not directly involved in the Nazism. From there, it becomes even easier to point out the flaw of attacking other groups for religious belief or lack thereof.

 

[Damien Evans]

so, still noone contesting my central point then ,

looks like I gotcha on that one... ahh.. the sweet smell of victory

So in your world victory = pwned

 

[plumjam]

A twisted version of it, but you do realize that what we call Social Darwinism was practiced in militaristic societies two millenia before the 3rd Reich don't you?

Or are you not familiar with how the Spartans raised their boys?

oh, it's just you said I should STFU, and now you're agreeing with me

cheers

 

[JoeEllison]

A twisted version of it, but you do realize that what we call Social Darwinism was practiced in militaristic societies two millenia before the 3rd Reich don't you?

Or are you not familiar with how the Spartans raised their boys?

It is more interesting to note that the dishonest phrase "social Darwinism" has little link to Darwin, and zero link to atheism. And, as you say, these same practices predate darwin by centuries. Why would someone present their argument in such dishonest terms?

 

[Damien Evans]

oh, it's just you said I should STFU, and now you're agreeing with me

cheers

What stunning ignorance.

UnrepentantSinner is not agreeing with you, nor is anyone else except DOC, and he is a man you do not want to have on your side

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I disagree. It forces the claimant to come up against the flaws in their claim when you show that the Nazis were mostly Christians. It not only disproves their claim that Nazism was based in atheism, but forces them to say that the Christianity was not directly involved in the Nazism. From there, it becomes even easier to point out the flaw of attacking other groups for religious belief or lack thereof.

I think we agree on intent, just not on tactics, and I'm fine with that.

oh, it's just you said I should STFU, and now you're agreeing with me

No, try again. And please explain to me why I Nazi German and ancient Sparta. Then I can find out what you're misunderstanding about what I said.

It is more interesting to note that the dishonest phrase "social Darwinism" has little link to Darwin, and zero link to atheism. And, as you say, these same practices predate darwin by centuries. Why would someone present their argument in such dishonest terms?

Exactly. He could have used Eugenics and been more accurate (and I should have clarified above) since that's what was practiced by the Nazis while Social Darwinism (that link is for your benefit plum) was more of a pervasive societal effort rather than simple elimination of untermensch.

As to your last sentence... desperation.

 

[joobz]

Then let me clarify my point, they're problematic for two reasons - tu quoque is a logical fallacy and they only contain a shadow of truth. Hitlers anti-Semitism wasn't rooted in his Catholicism, it was only influenced by it and by the time he was Fuhrer, Nazi ideologically driven anti-Semitism had grown far more complex than simple Catholic policy or Lutheran writings.

I say it's better to cut the legs off the X state/system was atheist than to try and say "oh yeah, what about Y".

i agree, but christianity enabled the nazi regime. Doesn't matter if the ideology spawned from somewhere else. the nazi's were able to pull together enough moral justification from the bible to support thier claims.

that's the comparison that destroys Plumjam's whole argument.
he claims that atheism permits moral ambiguity and attrocity because of a lack of religous moral compass.

The fact that this moral compass from any religion is easily corruptable (if not already corrupt) demonstrates that it is of no use in preventing/limiting state sactioned evil (e.g., killing, oppressing, enslavery...)

 

[Cleon]

so, still noone contesting my central point then ,

looks like I gotcha on that one... ahh.. the sweet smell of victory

I think DOC might have a contender for the Cognitive Dissonance Grand Master.

My hat is off to you, sir, that is practically a work of art.

 

[JoeEllison]

I think DOC might have a contender for the Cognitive Dissonance Grand Master.

My hat is off to you, sir, that is practically a work of art.

I suspect that they are, in fact, the same person.

 

[Elentar]

most people seem to be conveniently ignoring the main point of the OP.. i.e. that political movements based on atheism end up having to accommodate their version of heaven/paradise/salvation within space and time. To this end this gives them the sense that they have a kind of carte blanche to eliminate any obstacles lying in the path to this heaven on earth (the ends justify any means). if you're creating a kind of heaven then it's fine, and even a moral imperative, to crack a few eggs on the way, is the reasoning.

this helps to explain the extraordinary ruthlessness of such political systems in comparision to systems which place heaven/paradise/salvation outside of space and time (theism-based)

the fact that the 20th Century had better technology for killing people seems irrelevant to me. the vast majority of those killed by their own governments were killed with pretty old technology (hanging/shooting/famine-by-intentional-negligence/torture/gulags etc) Non-communist countries had the very same technology, but never indulged in the same level of criminality against their own citizens.

the population objection doesn't work either. in the communist era the total population of communist nations was always in a minority compared to total world population. yet they accounted for the vast majority of repression and murder of one's own citizens.

One last try, and then I write you off.

Scandinavian countries are overwhelmingly atheist, yet have the lowest level of violence and military aggression in the world. Why don't you mention them as an example of atheism? And since most of Europe was became quite atheist after the second world war, why don't you cite that as an example?

So, let's try this one more time, shall we? Communism is a dogma, a non-traditional religion. Communists believe in the God of History, Hegelian Historical Inevitability. Just because the God of another fanatic is not your God does not mean that he is not a religious fanatic. Just because the messianic figure that they hail is not your messiah does not mean that they do not share similar delusions. You are not comparing apples to oranges. You are comparing an orange to an orange and calling it an apple.

Communist countries were the minority? China has a billion people!

The Holocaust was low tech? They used IBM computers to tabulate and track the inmates!

And finally, for Huxley's argument: naturalistic dictators may want to build their heaven on earth, but as I have already said (and you have pointedly ignored) so do Christian Domininists, Islamicists, and so did the every Christian sect four hundred years ago--each determined to convert the world to their faith. The one distinction is that for a secularist, there is no other world to escape to. Joseph Stalin understood that nukes could never be used. Osama bin Laden would use them in a heartbeat.

Consider a bus driver. If the bus driver is evil, he may drive like a lunatic, but he won't drive the bus off the cliff, because that would kill him too. But a religious fanatic has no such qualms. Heaven lies over that cliff. He will do it gladly. There is a bevy of lovely virgins waiting for him on the other side of that flaming wreck.

Kill them all! God will know his own!

They really do mean it.

And given the chance, they will do it.

 

[joobz]

I suspect that they are, in fact, the same person.

I don't. Plumjam seems capable of quoting text and knows the difference between a forum and a thread. Also, the text of his posts are quite a different style. If they are the same person, it's a well done sock puppet.

 

[Cleon]

I suspect that they are, in fact, the same person.

I can assure you that this is very unlikely.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

i agree, but christianity enabled the nazi regime. Doesn't matter if the ideology spawned from somewhere else. the nazi's were able to pull together enough moral justification from the bible to support thier claims.

that's the comparison that destroys Plumjam's whole argument.
he claims that atheism permits moral ambiguity and attrocity because of a lack of religous moral compass.

The fact that this moral compass from any religion is easily corruptable (if not already corrupt) demonstrates that it is of no use in preventing/limiting state sactioned evil (e.g., killing, oppressing, enslavery...)

No, it did not. As I noted above, there were a variety of influences and most of them were misguided ("Aryan" anthropology) misued (Nietzsche/Gott mit Uns) or were rooted in Realpolitik (anti-Communism {another source of anti-Semitism often overlooked}, hurt national pride {post WWI}) and uniquely Germanic ideas like Der Volk. There was plenty of moral justification for National-Socialism without needing to quote a single verse of the Bible or the musings of a single theologian.

 

[joobz]

No, it did not. As I noted above, there were a variety of influences and most of them were misguided ("Aryan" anthropology) misued (Nietzsche/Gott mit Uns) or were rooted in Realpolitik (anti-Communism {another source of anti-Semitism often overlooked}, hurt national pride {post WWI}) and uniquely Germanic ideas like Der Volk. There was plenty of moral justification for National-Socialism without needing to quote a single verse of the Bible or the musings of a single theologian.

It's not a question of needing to. they did. Or is "Gott mit Uns" talking about some other god.

ETA: i've never claimed it was the sole source, but religion did not stop if from occuring. It was preverted to support their needs.

 

[JoeEllison]

I can assure you that this is very unlikely.

Fair enough...

 

[plumjam]

One last try, and then I write you off.

Scandinavian countries are overwhelmingly atheist, yet have the lowest level of violence and military aggression in the world. Why don't you mention them as an example of atheism? And since most of Europe was became quite atheist after the second world war, why don't you cite that as an example?

So, let's try this one more time, shall we? Communism is a dogma, a non-traditional religion. Communists believe in the God of History, Hegelian Historical Inevitability. Just because the God of another fanatic is not your God does not mean that he is not a religious fanatic. Just because the messianic figure that they hail is not your messiah does not mean that they do not share similar delusions. You are not comparing apples to oranges. You are comparing an orange to an orange and calling it an apple.

Communist countries were the minority? China has a billion people!

The Holocaust was low tech? They used IBM computers to tabulate and track the inmates!

And finally, for Huxley's argument: naturalistic dictators may want to build their heaven on earth, but as I have already said (and you have pointedly ignored) so do Christian Domininists, Islamicists, and so did the every Christian sect four hundred years ago--each determined to convert the world to their faith. The one distinction is that for a secularist, there is no other world to escape to. Joseph Stalin understood that nukes could never be used. Osama bin Laden would use them in a heartbeat.

Consider a bus driver. If the bus driver is evil, he may drive like a lunatic, but he won't drive the bus off the cliff, because that would kill him too. But a religious fanatic has no such qualms. Heaven lies over that cliff. He will do it gladly. There is a bevy of lovely virgins waiting for him on the other side of that flaming wreck.

Kill them all! God will know his own!

They really do mean it.

And given the chance, they will do it.

As you well know, your last post to me ended with "so screw you"
And then you make out like I'm so dense you're going to 'write me off'... lol

I've already answered about the Scandinavian countries.. they happen to be capitalist liberal democracies allowing freedom of religion, they are NOT systems which actively persecute religious belief, as did communist systems. They are not compulsarily atheist societies.
So the example is meaningless in the current argument.

Yes, the population of communist countries never represented the majority of world population.

I never said the holocaust was low tech, in that post i was talking about communism. In any case the point still stands, as the USSR and China killed several times more people than did the holocaust, using low tech old fashioned methods.

So if religious sects have tried to create their own heaven on earth, and my original point is incorrect, why did these sects not create anything like the same levels of abuse, repression and mass murder as did communism?

As for your bus driver analogy.. think about it a bit more deeply. Religious lunatics, by your reasoning, don't mind popping off. But secular lunatics have to stick around as long as they can - thus creating more destruction, and thus supporting my argument.

 

[Tricky]

So then, every horrible thing that any Christian has ever done is because of their religion, don't you agree?

irrelevant point.

How can you possibly call it "irrelevant"? You are claiming that the bad things that communists have done is because of their lack of religion. You cannot then turn around and claim that the bad things Christians have done are unrelated to religion. Can you see how hypocritical that would be?

 

[Damien Evans]

As you well know, your last post to me ended with "so screw you"
And then you make out like I'm so dense you're going to 'write me off'... lol

I've already answered about the Scandinavian countries.. they happen to be capitalist liberal democracies allowing freedom of religion, they are NOT systems which actively persecute religious belief, as did communist systems. They are not compulsarily atheist societies.
So the example is meaningless in the current argument.

Yes, the population of communist countries never represented the majority of world population.

I never said the holocaust was low tech, in that post i was talking about communism. In any case the point still stands, as the USSR and China killed several times more people than did the holocaust, using low tech old fashioned methods.

So if religious sects have tried to create their own heaven on earth, and my original point is incorrect, why did these sects not create anything like the same levels of abuse, repression and mass murder as did communism?

As for your bus driver analogy.. think about it a bit more deeply. Religious lunatics, by your reasoning, don't mind popping off. But secular lunatics have to stick around as long as they can - thus creating more destruction, and thus supporting my argument.

Have you never heard of Jihad, the Crusades, the Inquisition or Malleus Maleficarum?