Not every atheist is Stalin.

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

I'd just like to point out that just because a certain group can be associated with a horrible event doesn't make everyone involved in said group responsible. For instance just because the Crusades were given legitimacy by the pope doesn't mean everyone in Christendom is responsible or that Christianity is in fact responsible.

Same thing with Stalin. Just because Stalin was an atheist doesn't mean that atheism is evil or encourages people to murder other people. Not all Muslims are terrorists, and not all Jews support Israel in everything It does. I don't think this should have to be said but due to recent conversations I've had it has lead me to believe it may as well be stated again.

I think most of us here are beyond this kind of thinking and would only apply it where necessary. The truth is though that certain Ideologies can lead to this sort of thinking. Anti theism might be a problem or Islam in it's fundamentalist form for example.

Just thought I would throw this out there.

Oh and the false emperor is space Stalin but we all already knew that.

 

[Equilibrium]

That's the thing, though - quite a few people tend to blame an entire belief system/philosophy/group/lack of beliefs for something one particular member has committed.

Sometimes it's pointless to attempt reasoning with such people.

 

[icehorse]

There are tipping-points however. American football IS more dangerous than baseball. Even though many football players never get injured. Very few Germans initially supported Nazis, but clearly Nazism was dangerous.

As far as the Stalin thing goes, Stalin was an atheist the way Hitler was a vegetarian. Most atheists are strongly against dogma, and Stalin pushed a very dogmatic set of ideas.

 

[Altfish]

Stalin and Hitler both had moustaches.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Totalitarian regimes rely on people who have authoritarian leanings - both those who have the drive to exercise authority, and those who have a need for a guiding authority.

Atheists are the least likely to fall into either of these categories. Or, at least, far less than your average member of any dogmatic religion.

Stalin-as-atheist arguments are probably among the most consistently specious I've observed over time. Anyone who puts forth such arguments either doesn't understand religion, doesn't understand politics, or is being intentionally dishonest - and possibly all three.

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

Stalin and Hitler both had moustaches.

HOLY **** BRAH MIND BLOWN!
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

 

[Altfish]

HOLY **** BRAH MIND BLOWN!
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

It doesn't take much to impress you.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

atheists are strongly against dogma

The vast majority of atheists are religious atheists, (Buddhist, Taoist, Chinese traditional folk religion, atheistic Hinduism and atheistic left hand path religions as examples) so I highly doubt that to be true. Also, the vast majority of irreligious atheists hail from China, though whether they agree with or chafe under the dogmatic rule systems of their atheistic government depends on who you talk to.

The idea that atheists are less vulnerable than religious people to holding and nurturing dogma is an anathema to me. History clearly shows otherwise. That doesn't invalidate atheism. But neither does it put atheism on a pedestal of high reasoning which is, in of itself, a pretty dogmatic thing to do.

 

[icehorse]

The vast majority of atheists are religious atheists, (Buddhist, Taoist, Chinese traditional folk religion, atheistic Hinduism and atheistic left hand path religions as examples) so I highly doubt that to be true. Also, the vast majority of irreligious atheists hail from China, though whether they agree with or chafe under the dogmatic rule systems of their atheistic government depends on who you talk to.

The idea that atheists are less vulnerable than religious people to holding and nurturing dogma is an anathema to me. History clearly shows otherwise. That doesn't invalidate atheism. But neither does it put atheism on a pedestal of high reasoning which is, in of itself, a pretty dogmatic thing to do.

This is an interesting idea, but I'm really baffled by your definitions here? Can you explain what you mean - for example - by a Buddhist atheist? Are you comparing theism and deism here?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

This is an interesting idea, but I'm really baffled by your definitions here? Can you explain what you mean - for example - by a Buddhist atheist? Are you comparing theism and deism here?

No, deism is the idea that there was a creator God who, for whatever reason, is not interfering with human lives. That isn't what atheist Buddhists argue.
A Basic Buddhism Guide: Buddhism and the God-idea

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Atheists are the least likely to fall into either of these categories. Or, at least, far less than your average member of any dogmatic religion.

Evidence?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Evidence?

I had an intense spiritual experience which revealed the truth of this to me.

It's the only evidence I need.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I had an intense spiritual experience which revealed the truth of this to me.

It's the only evidence I need.

 

[Revoltingest]

I had an intense spiritual experience which revealed the truth of this to me.

It's the only evidence I need.

I note also that your experience is uncorrupted by being put down
in writing, & enduring translation or changing interpretation of language.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

To be fair, there was at least one atheist who was Stalin.

Maybe more. Who knows!

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I note also that your experience is uncorrupted by being put down
in writing, & enduring translation or changing interpretation of language.

My divine revelation will not be diminished by the impurity and clumsiness of language and subjective interpretation. I expect other people may have inferior religious experiences.

 

[Stevicus]

I suppose there is some irony in that Stalin started out attending a seminary. He was going to become a priest.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I suppose there is some irony in that Stalin started out attending a seminary. He was going to become a priest.

I guess being an adherent wasn't enough - he wanted to be his own god. Of course, for this to happen, he needed to eradicate all the other gods.

 

[icehorse]

No, deism is the idea that there was a creator God who, for whatever reason, is not interfering with human lives. That isn't what atheist Buddhists argue.
A Basic Buddhism Guide: Buddhism and the God-idea

I understand the distinction between theism and deism - I'm trying to understand your post - help!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Atheists are the least likely to fall into either of these categories. Or, at least, far less than your average member of any dogmatic religion.

I believe this is a category error at best, even assuming a clear understanding of what constitutes a dogmatic religion.