Thanks for you honesty. One last go. If I don't get it this time, I will just have to give up.
I remember there were at least two threads on RF that dealt with the subject of "atheist terrorism". Many people here felt that there was such a thing as atheist terrorism as an eqivilent to "religious terrorism". However, when ever this has come up the atheists here have used the "atheism is lack of belief" argument to say that athiests are not capable of terrorism or that atheism does not provide motivation for terrorism. This much is true.
The situation is different with Communism. When the subject of atheism and ethics comes up, religious people use communism to demonstrate that atheists are capable of violence with the implication that atheists have their own set of ethical problems. Atheists often say "religion is evil" because they hold it to be responsible for wars, perseuction,witch-hunts, suppression of scientific enquiry, etc. Communists perpetrated some of the worst acts of violence against human beings in the 20th century. However, the response is ussually "communists killed because they were communist not their atheism". This is at best a technicality and nothing more.
Religious people have tried to equate atheism and immorality for a long time, and often do so with the "atheist atrocity fallacy" in which Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol pot names are dropped as evidence of an association. Hitler is not an athiest and therefore does not count. But all the other three are atheists.
If you watch the three videos in the OP you will find that Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins effectively deny that communists were atheists to avoid the atheist atrocity fallacy.
"Communism was kind like another religion." (Sam Harris, 0:32)
"Atheism had nothing to do with Hitler or Stalin. Stalin was an atheist, Hitler was not, it doesn't matter what they were with respect to atheism. they did their horrible things for entirely different reasons." (Richard Dawkins, 1:16)
By saying that Communists behaved like religious people, or adhered to a dogma, or had previously adhered to religious beliefs (as Hitchens does with stalin), they entirely dodge the question as to atheists capacity for violence and the ethical implications that raises. this position has become common currency against atheists, so that they are free to say that religion caused wars, dictatorships, persecuted people, etc, whereas when religious people reply "what about communism?"; atheists say, "well communism was a religion" anf then proceed to compare communism to religion as a way of further pinning the responsibility of violence onto religious people.
The implication therefore is that it is not enough for Communists to profess atheism to be considered atheists and that other values play a role in defining atheism. What I would say, is that these additional values are politically liberal.
"you see, where I'm going with this. that's not secularism." (Hitchens, 0:58)
"In surrogate, it is at the very best and the very worst the examples I've been talking about are a surrogate for messianism, for the belief in ultimate history and the ends of days and conclusion of all things is, I've tried to argue, I hope with some success, the problem to begin with; the replacement of reason by faith." (Hitchens: 1:09).
"If Dr Mcgryath or anyone else can come up with an example of a society which had fallen into slavery and bankcruptcy and beggary and terror and misery because they had adopted the teachings of and precepts of Spinoza and Einstein and Pier Bile and Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, then I'd be impressed and that would be a fair test on a level playing field but you will find no such example.In fact the nearest such example we do have is these great United States; the first country in the world to have a constitution that forbids the mention of religion in the public square, except by way of limiting it and saying that the state can take in establishment of faith." (Hitchens, 1:43)
"This is not a circumstances where people have suffered because of too much reason or too much scepticism. There is no society that I know of that has suffered from being too reasonable." (Harris)
Communists do not qualify as "an example of a society which had fallen into slavery and bankcruptcy and beggary and terror and misery" because they are not Secular. because Communists are not secular- they therefore behave like religious people- and therefore do not qualify as atheists. In other words, the New Athiests have dodged the question by implying that communists aren't real atheists because they are not secular and do not adhere to liberal political values.
In other words, the largest political movement of atheists to establish an atheist state is excluded from the definition of atheism because it didn't produce a secular society based on liberal principles that the state should be neutral in matters of faith and allow the individual the liberty to chose their own beliefs (or lack of). This means that by politicising the definition of athiesm, atheists are free to attribute just about every evil under the sun to religion and the single biggest experiment in state atheism doesn't count.
"...and usrubius is worried that now I'm basically using religion to subsume everything that human beings do thats bad. No. The issue is dogmatism. The issue is strong conviction without evidence and conviction that is shared by the mob so that hatred of jews say, take the holocaust as an example. passionate belief. pasionate belief that moves millions to act or to demonise the other based on bad argument and bad evidence. A willing to accept these convictions without argument, without evidence; that's the intrinsic problem and thats the problem which is unussally present in the context of religion. but it's not only in a religious context. So dogmatism is the things I'm arguing against and there are political dogmas. which it's not by accident begin to take on some of the character of religions when you put them in place." (Harris)
"So, to say that these are the product of atheism; it's another reason why this word atheism is not especially useful because as a label it begins to confuse people. so, ok, they think that well stalin was an atheist, so now, now atheism is just as bad as religion. well, no. we're not. the criticism of religion is not the mere advocacy of atheism as an identity. the criticism against religion is because there is no evidence for these core beliefs." (Harris)
Communism is commonly considered a form of dogmatism because of philosophical materialism. This is because it assumes that there can only be natural explanations to pheneomena and therefore turns science into an inherently atheist ideology, rather than being a method of enquiry based on scepticism. So whilst atheism isn't necessarily naturalistic or materialist position because communism is considered a 'dogma' it is not considered "atheism" in the sense the "new athiests" describe. It is only the fact that people like Harris, Hitchens etc, has tried to re-define atheism to excluded communism that they don't have to deal with the ethical questions it raises as communism is not "atheism".
My point is that the ethical questions raised by atheist atrocities should be taken seriously and atheism should not be re-defined to fit liberal, secular standards but that communists can be recognised as atheists. Most importantly, religious people deserve an answer to the question as to atheism and ethics that includes communism. it would be the start of a really good dialogue between theists and atheists and one they need to have to recognise each others concerns.
Plus. it be nice if these liberals stop telling me how religious I am for not believing in god. it's really annoying.
