Atheist Terrorism

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I did a thread on it, http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...sts-and-its-wider-social-implications.178499/
But the post you're probably most intrested in is on page 2, number #26 on there, where I deal with them specifically based on quotes.

I watched the videos of Harris and Hitchens that you linked to there. Neither of them say what you're claiming. Neither of them contain anything that even insinuates that Harris or Hitchens consider Stalin or Marxists "not true atheists".

And your post did not contain any direct quotes from either person.

What they actually contained was an explanation from both Harris and Hitchens that the thing they opposed wasn't theism per se, but dogmatism (to use Harris' term) or faith without evidence (to use Hitchens' term). If you had listened to what they actually said, you would have heard them say that they don't advocate atheism for its own sake, but advocate for evidence-based belief that's incompatible with both theism and atheistic communism as advocated by Marx and Stalin.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Definitely.

Yup, an absolute "maybe".

It actually obfuscates it.

Which by extension does not negate it.

The 2nd sentence utterly defeats the 1st.
Jerk!

I hate it when you're always right.

 

[Laika]

What they actually contained was an explanation from both Harris and Hitchens that the thing they opposed wasn't theism per se, but dogmatism (to use Harris' term) or faith without evidence (to use Hitchens' term). If you had listened to what they actually said, you would have heard them say that they don't advocate atheism for its own sake, but advocate for evidence-based belief that's incompatible with both theism and atheistic communism as advocated by Marx and Stalin.

.....which disqualifies them from recognising communism as atheism because they've added additional elements to it other than "lack of belief in god" or "rejection of god's existence". That doesn't stop the USSR from ACTUALLY being Atheist just because someone cliams its not "evidence based" (which is a bizzare cliam given that the Soviets described their view as "scientific atheism" and it wasn't far off from many of the more radical 19th century ideas either.) And even conceding that they were dogmatic, a dogmatic athiest is STILL an atheist and trying to "rigg" the definition to exclude it wreaks of religious dogmatism and accusations of heresy. it's a betrayal of the willingness to accept uncomfortable truths because they are true and instead bury our heads in the sand. it's totally irrational.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

.....which disqualifies them from recognising communism as atheism because they've added additional elements to it other than "lack of belief in god" or "rejection of god's existence".

No. Stop. That's not what they said. Please stop misrepresenting their views.

 

[ArtieE]

.....which disqualifies them from recognising communism as atheism

Is it required for a communist to be an atheist or can a communist be a theist?

 

[Laika]

No. Stop. That's not what they said. Please stop misrepresenting their views.

Why should I show any mercy to their intellectual dishonesty?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why should I show any mercy to their intellectual dishonesty?

So you acknowledge that you're putting words in their mouths, but think you're justified somehow?

 

[Revoltingest]

Is it required for a communist to be an atheist or can a communist be a theist?

No & yes.

 

[ArtieE]

No & yes.

Then how can you recognize communism as atheism?

 

[Revoltingest]

Then how can you recognize communism as atheism?

Communism isn't atheism, & vice versa.
(I might've made a confusing post by answering the 2 questions so simply & serially.)

 

[ArtieE]

Communism isn't atheism, & vice versa.
(I might've made a confusing post by answering the 2 questions so simply & serially.)

When I said "Then how can you recognize communism as atheism?" I really meant "Then how can Laika say "recognising communism as atheism"?

 

[Laika]

So you acknowledge that you're putting words in their mouths, but think you're justified somehow?

No. You're just grasping at straws.

Dawkins and Harris are flat out wrong on this issue and have literally "invented" a way to dodge uncomfortable truths and exploiting people's ignorance on this subject so they can get away with it. I find that contemptable.

Then how can Laika say "recognising communism as atheism"?

Because Communists (the Marxist-Leninist and Maoist variety) were Atheists and Communism was a "worldview". They didn't believe there was a seperation between politics and religion. So defining atheism as "lack of belief", devoid of all moral and political consequences excludes them from being recognised as atheist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Dawkins and Harris are flat out wrong on this issue and have literally "invented" a way to dodge uncomfortable truths and exploiting people's ignorance on this subject so they can get away with it. I find that contemptable.

I suspect that you really do believe this is happening, but your opinion isn't reflected in what they've written or said.

 

[ArtieE]

Because Communists (the Marxist-Leninist and Maoist variety) were Atheists and Communism was a "worldview". They didn't believe there was a seperation between politics and religion. So defining atheism as "lack of belief", devoid of all moral and political consequences excludes them from being recognised as atheist.

"Karl Marx and many other communist thinkers have advocated antitheism based on the belief that religion and theism have always been instruments to keep the proletariat class suppressed."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Antitheism

Please note the difference between atheism and anti-theism and stop confusing them. An atheist isn't necessarily an anti-theist.

 

[Laika]

I suspect that you really do believe this is happening, but your opinion isn't reflected in what they've written or said.

Christopher Hitchens started as a Trotskyist/Marxist. He should have been the one who wrote the definitive answer to the "atheist atrocity fallacy". But (to the best of my knowledge) he didn't. Nor have I seen any account from any of the others to that effect. When the issue has come up, it has only been in passing. but the absence of a response is very conspicious.

It would seem rational to argue thatTheists have used the "Atheist Atrocity Fallacy" too many times for them simply to have "ignored" it. I mean, yes, you can say "Hitler wasn't an atheist" and your on safe ground. More generally, the Anti-religious nature of Nazism was highly selective to when religions insisted on egalitarian beliefs that contradicted Nazi racial theory. But Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot? Stalin was educated at a christian seminary, there are some rumours that Mao believed in an afterlife and Pol Pot maybe had some buddhist sympathies. But there were- without question- atheists whilst they were doing all the "bad" stuff we remember them for. Nor can Communism be dismissed with any credability as an huge mis-understanding.

So why isn't there a definitive response to this argument? why no book on the subject to conclusively refute it? its screaming out for a clear consise response. But all of them so far haven't actually gone to the primary sources, read what these people believed and asked if their atheism had a role. Put Marxism under the same scrutiny that is given to christianity or Islam? I would be much more forgiving if they made a genuine sincere effort to deal with it (it's hard I admitt) but they haven't.

Please note the difference between atheism and anti-theism and stop confusing them. An atheist isn't necessarily an anti-theist.

I am trying to prove there is no such distinction. Not all atheists are anti-thesit, but some most defintely were. trying to define atheism as "lack of belief" doesn't explain why that is the case and is therefore a flawed argument.

 

[ArtieE]

I am trying to prove there is no such distinction. Not all atheists are anti-thesit, but some most defintely were. trying to define atheism as "lack of belief" doesn't explain why that is the case and is therefore a flawed argument.

Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of gods. Anti-theism is active opposition to theism. Please learn the difference and stop claiming that they're the same. They even have different names so we can tell them apart.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Christopher Hitchens started as a Trotskyist/Marxist. He should have been the one who wrote the definitive answer to the "atheist atrocity fallacy". But (to the best of my knowledge) he didn't. Nor have I seen any account from any of the others to that effect. When the issue has come up, it has only been in passing. but the absence of a response is very conspicious.

"The absence of a response" is very different from what you've represented them as saying.

It would seem rational to argue that Theists have used the "Atheist Atrocity Fallacy" too many times for them simply to have "ignored" it. I mean, yes, you can say "Hitler wasn't an atheist" and your on safe ground. More generally, the Anti-religious nature of Nazism was highly selective to when religions insisted on egalitarian beliefs that contradicted Nazi racial theory.

Naziism was not anti-religious in general. It opposed certain religions (e.g. Judaism) while promoting others (e.g. Christianity, particularly Protestant Christianity). Hitler frequently cited the religious writings of Martin Luther when he laid out his positions in Mein Kampf.

But Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot? Stalin was educated at a christian seminary, there are some rumours that Mao believed in an afterlife and Pol Pot maybe had some buddhist sympathies. But there were- without question- atheists whilst they were doing all the "bad" stuff we remember them for.

In big text so you don't miss it this time:

None of the prominent atheists (Harris, Hitchens, etc.) you've mentioned dispute this fact.

Nor can Communism be dismissed with any credability as an huge mis-understanding.

So why isn't there a definitive response to this argument? why no book on the subject to conclusively refute it? its screaming out for a clear consise response. But all of them so far haven't actually gone to the primary sources, read what these people believed and asked if their atheism had a role. Put Marxism under the same scrutiny that is given to christianity or Islam? I would be much more forgiving if they made a genuine sincere effort to deal with it (it's hard I admitt) but they haven't.

I don't understand what you're actually asking for.

I am trying to prove there is no such distinction. Not all atheists are anti-thesit, but some most defintely were. trying to define atheism as "lack of belief" doesn't explain why that is the case and is therefore a flawed argument.

Analogy time:
New Yorkers are Americans, but you don't have to be a New Yorker to be an American.
Anti-theists are atheists, but you don't have to be an anti-theist to be an atheist.

Individuals have ideologies. Some of these ideologies include a god or gods, some of them are incompatible with belief in gods.

There is a vast range of ideologies that are incompatible with belief in gods. The fact that two people both do not accept any theistic ideologies does not mean that their individual ideologies are the same.

 

[Laika]

I don't understand what you're actually asking for.

I'd like Atheists to;

i) stop white washing their own history and read about the stuff that makes them uncomfortable so they have a better understanding of the truth.
ii) start saying "atheists were violent, so atheism is not intrinsically superior to religion" and reject the double standard that implies
iii) come up with their own moral responses to these questions rather than simply "inherit" christian morality that "thou shall not kill".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'd like Atheists to;

i) stop white washing their own history and read about the stuff that makes them uncomfortable so they have a better understanding of the truth.

Communism isn't "my own history" any more than the Crusades are the history of North American shamanism.

I'm a freethinker, skeptic, and humanist. The Soviet regime stood in direct opposition to the ideology that I actually believe. The Soviet regime is no more a part of my legacy than this guy is part of the legacy of any random smoker.

ii) start saying "atheists were violent, so atheism is not intrinsically superior to religion" and reject the double standard that implies

They already say that. You're just not listening.

Atheism is not intrinsically superior to religion. Rooting our beliefs in reason is intrinsically superior, and that's what people like Sam Harris are actually advocating.

iii) come up with their own moral responses to these questions rather than simply "inherit" christian morality that "thou shall not kill".

Again - they already have. Sam Harris (you remember - the guy you make up quotes for?) wrote a whole book on it: the Moral Landscape.

Here's another example:

 

[Laika]

Communism isn't "my own history" any more than the Crusades are the history of North American shamanism.

I'm a freethinker, skeptic, and humanist. The Soviet regime stood in direct opposition to the ideology that I actually believe. The Soviet regime is no more a part of my legacy than this guy is part of the legacy of any random smoker.

The United States engaged in an ideological struggle with the Soviet Union over the course of 40 years, and one of the major reasons people in the US don't like atheism- besides religion- is it's assocation with the "godless commies". Accusations that Atheism is equated with Nihilism and Communism have deeper historical roots, but don't actually tell the whole story. maybe its time we stopped telling believers their idiots and answer their questions when they have evidence to support their arguments if we actually are serious about convincing them religion is a waste of time rather than simpy ridiculing and abusing them.

They already say that. You're just not listening.

Atheism is not intrinsically superior to religion. Rooting our beliefs in reason is intrinsically superior, and that's what people like Sam Harris are actually advocating.

Communism was based on science and, as many people would argue, it was "wrong". But the only reason it does not qualify as "science" is because of Karl Popper simply redefing "science" in the mid-twentieth century. Communism was taken seriously as a scientific theory in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. So "science" can be wrong and isn't superior to religion. The characterisation that religion is based exclusively on revelation and on a literalist readings of religious scriptures is distorted at best. Religion was also rational, scientific in its day, and was based on philosophical enquiry such as Natural Theology. Nor does asserting that anything based on revelation or mysticism is false actually explain why it is near universally prevelent in human history. Historically, rational people believed in god and/or had religious beliefs, so it is perverse to say that atheists have a monopoly on reason.

Again - they already have. Sam Harris (you remember - the guy you make up quotes for?) wrote a whole book on it: the Moral Landscape.

Here's another example:

The Marquis De Sade and Fredrich Nietzsche contributed more to our understanding of morality through their maddness, than Sam Harris has been from being Sane. The Moral Landscape is a "lukewarm" introduction to scientific morality, when attempts to develop a science of morality in the 19th century were part of the intellectual origins for Nazism and Communism. Regardless as to whether we actually accept it was scientific, you have to admit that as social experiments they clearly departed the safety of religious conviction for genuine enquiry on to the moral nature and value of human beings. To often atheism is simply "cultural christianity" and we swallow religious traditions unthinkingly as part of our social make-up. As Christopher Hitchens put it (and I admire him for it), celebrating Christmas is as close as the Free World gets to a one-party state. we don't have to like their answers or agree with them to ask the same questions.