Atheism

Many people here are quite secular in their thinking and many think that religion is the worst bane of mankind and has resulted in many atrocities over the years. I would like to ask them that when they list the biggest atrocities done in modern times they are all done by philosophies rooting from athiesism, Hitler and Nazies atrocities were commited in the name of race theories, stalin's and Mao's atrocities were commited in the name of athiest marxism Pol Pot's crimes were again commited in the name of athiestic philosophies. The real problem with modern athieism is that it suffers badly from the influence of Darwanist thinking by which they feel that they under the pretext of the philosophy of survival of the fitest they can do just about anything and end up being completly anti moral while atleast the a religous person tries to be moral and live a clean life. 

I dont know how religions cause wars anymore than secular reasons.

 

Edited by red clay - 16-Sep-2007 at 00:26

Originally posted by bilal_ali_2000 atleast the a religous person tries to be moral and live a clean life.

Edited by ulrich von hutten - 16-Sep-2007 at 01:21

People do not use atheism to go to war, while people have been killing each other in the name of Christianity and Islam for centuries...Tyrants dont kill in the name of "Atheism" (at least I dont know of any who did)

ConstantineXI, Muhammad did not call for war against Byzantium and Persia that would be his successors.

Sparten, I was under the impression that the first Islamic incursions into the Byzantine Empire did occur during Muhammad's time, such that Abu Bakr was left with the legacy of continuing these as the first one had been defeated.

wikipedia says this on the situation when Abu Bakr came to power:

Abu Bakr's immediate task was to avenge a recent defeat by Byzantine (or Eastern Roman Empire) forces, although he first had to put down a rebellion by Arab tribes in an episode known as the Ridda wars, or "Wars of Apostasy"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam#Rise_of_empire_.28632.E2.80.93750.29

Originally posted by Omar You had me in full agreement until the second paragraph. Stalin committed atrocities, including against non-atheist religions, for personal power. This is no different to the Pope calling a crusade, usually (but not always) against other religions, to increase his personal power. Basically, "just because someone has a certain belief and then does certain things, that doesn't prove that the belief causes the action" applies in exactly the same way to atheism, as it does to religion. The rhetoric doesn't define the action. If GW calls for a war to bring freedom, it doesn't actually mean freedom is responsible for the war. If he says that Democratic governments can't tolerate countrty x's existence, it doesn't mean democracy is violent. Niether is banning religion in russia a crime of atheism, or launching a crusade of jihad a crime of christianity or islam

Regarding the Pope, do you honestly believe that a Crusade would have taken place had the irresistable promise of remission of sins not been offered? To a medieval man, it was the ultimate prize, and only an ideology like religion could offer that. Also look at the nature of the Crusades: intolerant, fanatical and pitiless. Conventions of military honour and decency were considered irrelevant because the fight was against the "unbeliever". The Crusades would never have occurred, or occurred with the degree of brutality they did, had it not been for religious influence.

Did Stalin attack the religious authorities in Russia because secularism calls for it, or because they were a vestige of the previous power structure which would be automatically opposed to his interests? Stalin supported partisan bodies in WWII which were formed with Orthodox Christianity as a common practice within them, simply because such partisans were useful to his interests. With Stalin, it really did come down to what kept him in control. Just as religion has existed for thousands of years as a controlling institution aligned with state power brokers, in the Soviet era it was an old vestige that no longer served state purposes.

With your example of GWB, there is a point to be made about claiming something as your ideology and then doing what is contrary to that ideology. But GWB will direct wars on the basis of state or clique interests anyway, what he claims it in the name of doesn't necessarily cause it. On the other hand, as I have stated earlier in this thread, there are instances when religion acts as the primary cause behind violence and war - something I have yet to see atheism or secularism cause.

Communism, fascism, etc. are not religions. If you do not understand why check a dictionary. Or better, scholarship. Also religion and ideology are not mutually inter-changeable. Same advice as the previous applies.

Edited by Chilbudios - 16-Sep-2007 at 09:41

Originally posted by Constantine XI Originally posted by Mughaal Originally posted by Constantine XI The thing you forget is that secularism (keeping religion out of government) and atheism (the belief that there is no divine power), do not actually cause deaths.   Religion doesnt cause deaths either. Only when interests collide do deaths occur.   Today Allan Greenspan announced the Iraq War 2 was a war for oil. We estimated 1,000,000 Iraqis dead.   Go figure. If we have enough of these then well bounce of the nationalist platform too.   Why do you bring up Iraq? It has no relevance to this thread.   And perhaps you hadn't read history, but religious movements do result in deaths. Muhammad's call to campaign against Persia and Byzantium in the name of religion? The Crusaders setting out to the shout of "Deus lo volt" - "God Wills It!". The mass suicides at Wako? Are these things all lost on you? So yes, religion does sometimes result in death which otherwise would not have occurred.