Atheism and 20th century genocide

[stormcrow]

I have often heard theist using the argument that the escalation of genocide in the 20th century is a direct result of the overthrow of religious authorities (for example the Bolshevik revolution revolt of the czar's god-given right to govern Russia) and institution of atheist leaders (like Mao, Stalin and allegedly Hitler). Is there any validity to this claim? Obviously there were genocides before the 20th century but not on the scale of the Holocaust, Mao's Cultural Revolution, and Stalin's Great Purge. Is there a casual link between this type of genocide and the 20th centuries leaders rejection of religious authority? Or is it a result of the industrialization in the late 19th century resulting in the emergence of new technologies, that has perpetuated the genocides of the 20th century? I would be most interested in the reasons why theists believe this and why atheists (or anyone else) reject this argument.

[JussiKala]

Hitler is not a confirmed atheist He spoke about god He wrote about god He was officially christian. Why assume he was atheist?

[stormcrow]

Hitler is not a confirmed atheist He spoke about god He wrote about god He was officially christian. Why assume he was atheist? I have heard theists claim he was an atheist, which is why I wrote allegedly. He talks about god quite a bit in Mein Kampf apparently, not that I have read it.

[JussiKala]

I have heard theists claim he was an atheist, which is why I wrote allegedly. He talks about god quite a bit in Mein Kampf apparently, not that I have read it. Of course theists say he's atheist. Some theists believe that no atheist can be good because denying god = denying morals. And when this rumor gets passed around, everybody starts thinking that it's actually true because nobody knows where it came from. Just assumes that it's reputable.

[Maria92]

correlation =/= causation. You think these power-hungry dictators would be any more humane if they were religious? pro tip: anything can be justified by a mad man.

[stormcrow]

You think these power-hungry dictators would be any more humane if they were religious? pro tip: anything can be justified by a mad man. No like I said there were genocides committed by religious people as well. I guess since I started this thread I have to undergo the burden of people thinking that I hold this belief, when my real intentions were to spark a debate. Alas Derrida was right about us westerners and our logocentrism. "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."- Aristotle

[Photolysis]

I've never seen anything that convinces me such atrocities were caused by atheism. I do however consider them examples of what can happen when ideologies - including non-religious ones - are taken too far. There have also been plenty of genocides throughout history, several of which were caused by religion. So even if atheism was partially responsible, religion would be no different.

[Xei]

I think there's a simple explanation: revolutions for obvious reasons often involve bloodshed, and revolutions by their very definition involve the overthrow or at least abandon of the old institutions, often including religious institutions, and this will often be seen, or perhaps portrayed, as atheistic (regardless of whether it is or not, the Nazis being the canonical example of where there was actually no endorsement of atheism despite frequent popular implications of the contrary). "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."- Aristotle "Also, what if everything in the universe were actually made of fire and earth and air and water, and these take the form of tiny platonic solids..? That'd be awesome, let's go with that!" - Aristotle

[Descensus]

It's just a convenient way for theists to try to show that atheists are immoral heathens. Don't believe it.

[stormcrow]

Sorry I got uppity, I just feel that I have been construed as defending positions that I am in no way defending. To answer my own question, I think it is a ridiculous assertion with its only validity in hoping to strike an emotional chord within the atheist. None of these leaders were motivated to kill in the name of atheism and their victims were not exclusively religious persons but mainly political dissidents(in the case of Mao and Stalin). I have heard William Lane Craig and other random people make this argument and I have always found it to be absurd.

[Descensus]

Sorry I got uppity, I just feel that I have been construed as defending positions that I am in no way defending. To answer my own question, I think it is a ridiculous assertion with its only validity in hoping to strike an emotional chord within the atheist. None of these leaders were motivated to kill in the name of atheism and their victims were not exclusively religious persons but mainly political dissidents(in the case of Mao and Stalin). I have heard William Lane Craig and other random people make this argument and I have always found it to be absurd. It's all part of their morality spiel. Craig uses it in conjunction with his old, tired objective morality stuff. If it sounds absurd, it's probably because it is.

[Jesus of Suburbia]

Hitler was Catholic. Stalin was Jewish. Measured Against Reality: Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Were Not Atheists

[Taosaur]

The narrative described in the OP (I know it's not your position, stormcrow) is obviously nonsense. When atheists and monotheists duke it out, both inevitably try to claim Einstein and foist Hitler on the other side, unless they're also white supremacists in which case, vice versa There's no evidence Hitler was an atheist, but neither was there anything particularly religious about the Third Reich, and while Einstein disavowed simplistic "Sky Daddy" theism, he was a keen spiritual seeker with ideas of his own. Now, atheists like the one JoS linked also try to use the fact that the theists mentioned Hitler to take Mao and Stalin off the table--presto change-o look-o over there-o. Oh, they were building a cult of personality which is practically like a religion. Oh, they just wanted power. Oh, they weren't real atheists. Sorry guys, but they were also leading pro-rational, scientific positivist movements advancing under the narrative that religion was holding back progress. They certainly weren't secular humanists, but otherwise they professed many of the same values avowed by contemporary atheists, and are quite appropriate to bring up when atheists try to claim that fanaticism and its attendant atrocities are strictly religious phenomenon. Their massacres are not evidence that atheism is bad and wrong, but by extension neither are the Inquisition or the Crusades evidence that religion is bad and wrong. All of the above are examples of fanaticism and lust for power run amok.

[Jesus of Suburbia]

The narrative described in the OP (I know it's not your position, stormcrow) is obviously nonsense. When atheists and monotheists duke it out, both inevitably try to claim Einstein and foist Hitler on the other side, unless they're also white supremacists in which case, vice versa There's no evidence Hitler was an atheist, but neither was there anything particularly religious about the Third Reich, and while Einstein disavowed simplistic "Sky Daddy" theism, he was a keen spiritual seeker with ideas of his own. Now, atheists like the one JoS linked also try to use the fact that the theists mentioned Hitler to take Mao and Stalin off the table--presto change-o look-o over there-o. Oh, they were building a cult of personality which is practically like a religion. Oh, they just wanted power. Oh, they weren't real atheists. Sorry guys, but they were also leading pro-rational, scientific positivist movements advancing under the narrative that religion was holding back progress. They certainly weren't secular humanists, but otherwise they professed many of the same values avowed by contemporary atheists, and are quite appropriate to bring up when atheists try to claim that fanaticism and its attendant atrocities are strictly religious phenomenon. Their massacres are not evidence that atheism is bad and wrong, but by extension neither are the Inquisition or the Crusades evidence that religion is bad and wrong. All of the above are examples of fanaticism and lust for power run amok. Are you implying that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao actually were atheists? Because I've got a book by Hitler that proves otherwise and, well, to be honest, very little evidence for Stalin or Mao. Nobody here is saying that atrocities are strictly religious or nonreligious. You're arguing against people who aren't present.

[Taosaur]

Are you implying that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao actually were atheists? Because I've got a book by Hitler that proves otherwise and, well, to be honest, very little evidence for Stalin or Mao. Nobody here is saying that atrocities are strictly religious or nonreligious. You're arguing against people who aren't present. Since "There's no evidence Hitler was an atheist" is apparently too subtle, I will restate that for either side to bring either Hitler or Einstein into a mono-/a- theism debate is absurd and intellectually dishonest. The same does not apply to Stalin and Mao, who were in fact leading anti-religious, pro-rational, science positivist movements. Mao in particular stated his disdain and antipathy toward all religion often and in no uncertain terms. Stalin eventually made up with religious authorities, but nevertheless was a Marxist leader who initially sought to abolish religion. This thread being more a discussion about the "Hitler, Stalin, Mao" argument than an incidence of the "Hitler, Stalin, Mao" argument, it seems relevant to bring up contexts in which said argument occurs. I was examining the one context in which some form of the argument has relevance. While Hitler is irrelevant to any discussion of atheism and religion, if an atheist introduces religion's role in past atrocities as an argument that religion has a negative impact on society, bringing up Stalin and Mao is quite relevant. Often, atheists bend over backward to disown these two figures and their respective movements, but it's intellectually dishonest to do so. It's an examination of the topic, not a refutation of anything anyone in the thread has said.

[Xei]

1) Neither Islam nor religion is present in 100% of people who strap explosives to themselves. So the belief that they'll be headed straight to heaven is neither motivational, nor religious? If disowning Soviet Russia's atheism is intellectually dishonest (and no I don't deny it or feel any need to, the regime was patently anti-religious), how on Earth is disowning the religiosity of a terrorist's belief in a continuation of life in the promised land not intellectually dishonest? That's absurd and hypocritical. The same does not apply to Stalin and Mao, who were in fact leading anti-religious, pro-rational, science positivist movements. Mao in particular stated his disdain and antipathy toward all religion often and in no uncertain terms. Stalin eventually made up with religious authorities, but nevertheless was a Marxist leader who initially sought to abolish religion. I can't tell if you're actually endorsing the argument, 'Stalin was pro science, Stalin committed genocide, hence science encourages genocides', or not..?

[Taosaur]

I can't tell if you're actually endorsing the argument, 'Stalin was pro science, Stalin committed genocide, hence science encourages genocides', or not..? I've rejected that line of reasoning, whether applied to secular or religious aggression, several times in this thread. It's pretty much all I've been doing. I also think you both vastly overestimate the role of piety in suicide bombing. It has a lot more to do with the psychology of group belonging, having been marginalized in various ways, and being convinced there is no other option. Most Muslims recognize it as a gross distortion of their faith, no matter what Photolysis thinks they ought to believe. Has a movement that includes suicide bombing developed within Islam? Yes. Did movements that included massacring clergy and capital-owners develop within secular modernism? Yes. Does that mean that religion or secularity is the cause of individuals' actions within those movements? No. You're blaming Columbine on Grand Theft Auto here. The point of bringing up Stalin's and Mao's secularity is to point out the absurdity of trying to blame religion for human violence.

[Photolysis]

if an atheist introduces religion's role in past atrocities as an argument that religion has a negative impact on society, bringing up Stalin and Mao is quite relevant. There is however a crucial difference between religion and atheism here. Certain religious beliefs do lend themselves towards committing atrocities. For example, the idea that infidels are subhuman, criminals, evil, barbaric and so on. Look at the way homosexuals are treated in parts of the world, for example. That stems directly from people taking certain religious beliefs seriously, and it's why people can legitimately claim religion played a role in the process; it provides a means to justify such behaviour, and it can convince those who otherwise wouldn't have engaged in, or condoned such behaviour. What about Islamic martyrdom? That's a powerful motivational factor when it comes to performing certain acts such as suicide bombing. Sure, there are non-religious equivalents such as "Do this and you'll die a hero", but that isn't the 'atheist' version of martyrdom, that instead comes from other social factors. Atheism doesn't teach that such beliefs are good, because by itself it's not an ideology. I submit that if someone thinks to themselves "Hey, there's no god. I'm going to go out and kill people now" then they're so unstable that they would have likely done it anyway. Someone might invent or take up an extreme 'atheist' ideology in place of a religious one like Stalin, but that itself doesn't stem from atheism. That stems from looking at the issues caused by religion - of which there are many - and going about things in the wrong way, or possibly having a gap in their life filled by taking up such an ideology. I personally think religion is a generally bad thing. I didn't come to that conclusion because I'm an atheist, I came to that conclusion because I looked at the impact of religion. The belief was derived entirely separate of anything to do with my atheism, which is why I can say the two are not linked. The beliefs of Stalin, Mao, and so on did stem from something, but unless you have evidence that the simple idea that there is no god, or that they didn't believe in a god caused it, then you can't say it was due to atheism. You'll need to look elsewhere for the reason.

[Taosaur]

If you want to ascribe the capacity of a subset of a subset of a subset of Islam for martyrdom to the generality "religion" because it occurs within a religious movement, then you must also be willing to ascribe Mao's capacity to sacrifice ten-million-odd peasants to atheism, or secular modernism, if you prefer. Personally, I find both attributions unsupportable.

[Photolysis]

To deny that Islamic fanatics commit martyrdom because of their religion is nonsensical. Islam inspires such cases, and since Islam is a religion, it's therefore an example of religion causing atrocities. The fact that it is a small subset of Muslims is irrelevant because it is backed up and justified by Islam (not matter how contradictory). They perform such acts because of the tenants and doctrines of Islam, and you only need to read accounts of suicide bombers to discover this. You didn't listen to me when I said that atheism itself can't inspire such acts because it's a mere statement of belief pertaining to one thing. I see no reason why the mere belief in a god or lack thereof would inspire such acts, save for in psychotic individuals. That doesn't stop the creation of extreme atheist ideologies, just that atheism itself cannot be the root cause of such; there is nothing there to form the ideology upon. If you want to argue that secularism itself causes atrocities then again I see no evidence that that is the case. I can't deny that extreme secularism can lead to such events, but how does one reach extreme secularism in the first place? As I said, the root cause has to be somewhere else, such as someone having a violent reaction to observing the harm that religion does. This is an important point to grasp. Atheism and secularism cannot lead to atrocities without external influence because there are no beliefs that promote such things within them. This isn't the case with religion because some religions do contain such beliefs. A secularist cannot use secularism by itself to come to the conclusion that Muslims should be shot. A Muslim could use Islam to come to the conclusion that secularists should be shot because the idea that this kind of treatment of infidels and unbelievers is just is contained within Islam.

[Taosaur]

To claim that Islam is the cause of suicide bombing is irrational. 1) Neither Islam nor religion is present in 100% of people who strap explosives to themselves. 2) An estimated 0.0000000001% of people in whom Islam is present strap explosives to themselves. The suicide bombers claim they are motivated by religion just as the Maoists gunning down farmers claim they are motivated by human progress, but the facts do not bear either of them out. What the two share in common is belonging to a group with extremist ideology and having been in circumstances that left them vulnerable to recruitment by that group. I can start playing semantics with the word "religion" as you're doing with "atheism" if you like, whittling it down and divorcing it from context until the jihadist doesn't come within a mile of it. After all, the word really means "re-connection," and the religious person can't use just the wish to re-connect to come to the conclusion that they must slay anyone who's not connecting the same way they are. The fact is that within atheism there are groupings of like-minded people, some nebulous and some quite clearly defined, who hold many more beliefs and values in common than simply "There's no god." Maoist Communism is one such denomination. No, their secularism alone can not lead them to mass murder, but how can you say any different about the jihadist's religion? There are shit-tons of Muslims in Ohio, and not one of them has blown up a Wendy's to date.

[Photolysis]

To claim that Islam is the cause of suicide bombing is irrational. [Emphasis mine] A cause, not the sole cause. The prospect of martyrdom, the reward of doing so, and the commandments of Islam certainly is one cause of suicide bombing. A very large proportion of suicide bombers are actually Muslim. Disproportionately so. That's not to say there aren't other factors in play, because that's clearly not the case and there are other sociopolitical issues that influence this. Again, if you look at accounts of suicide bombers, you can see that there are those who do carry it out attacks simply because they want to be a martyr. One has to account for the fact that mild-mannered, well-educated, and apparently model citizens who have lived in western societies and not suffered from political oppression or hardship are persuaded to blow themselves up. Why is there so much reluctance to accept the fundamental teachings of Islam as a factor? 1) Neither Islam nor religion is present in 100% of people who strap explosives to themselves. There are shit-tons of Muslims in Ohio, and not one of them has blown up a Wendy's to date. You don't really need me to point out the fallacies here, do you? C'mon Taosaur, you're smarter than that. 2) An estimated 0.0000000001% of people in whom Islam is present strap explosives to themselves. The numbers are irrelevant. The framework of Islam provides justification for the act. It is a part of the ideology if Islam, which is why Islam - a religion - can lead to atrocities. This really isn't a hard point to grasp. Similarly Christianity promotes killing homosexuals. The fact that very few engage in such behaviour in modern society and actively ignore such commands is also irrelevant. It's part of Christianity. I can start playing semantics with the word "religion" as you're doing with "atheism" I'm not playing semantics at all. I'm simply making the valid point that atheism by itself deals with a very narrow topic and this is not sufficient to lead to criminal actions, a point you've agreed with. Religions on the other hand are broader than this, and some do contain teaching which can lead to murder and suchlike. Unless you're claiming that Islam isn't a religion now?

[Xei]

You try so hard to appear take the detached and rational stance but again you've just been hypocritical and betrayed your partiality. You say that you've clearly rejected that line of reasoning; okay, thanks for clarifying. But now you say I'm blaming "blaming Columbine on Grand Theft Auto"; when have I ever endorsed the line of reasoning that religion is the sole cause of all suicide bombing or violence in general? This thread is about how blaming atheism for genocides is nonsense; you yourself agreed with this, yet whenever an atheist agrees, you jump to the conclusion that they must believe the converse. Why?

[Taosaur]

I was taking your agreement with Photolysis's clearly stated position from this statement: how on Earth is disowning the religiosity of a terrorist's belief in a continuation of life in the promised land not intellectually dishonest? That's absurd and hypocritical though I suppose it need not be interpreted that strongly. I'm not saying there's no religious component to the actions of a Jihadist or a Crusader, just that it's hypocritical to emphasize the religiosity of their actions while diminishing the secularity and anti-religious bent of 20th century mass murderers, when both arise primarily from the social, economic and geopolitical circumstances of their respective times. So, I suppose the fact that you were questioning me on two positions I wasn't actually putting forward is partly what confused me as to where you were coming from. Again, I'm primarily examining the relevance of bringing these figures up in the first place. Photolysis did in fact attempt to make the case that religious violence is more inherently religious than anti-religious violence is atheist or secular. The point of bringing up mass murderers who claim to be motivated by some of his values and beliefs (materialism, science-positivism, a belief that religion holds back society) is not to make the case that his beliefs are bad and wrong, but to point out the absurdity of his position. My first post was addressing the matter only in general terms, pointing out that while the strong form of "Hitler, Stalin, Mao" is rubbish (and I've never actually seen anyone bring it up in debate, but I'll take stormcrow's word that it happens), atheists cannot disown Stalin and Mao simply because they were used poorly in an argument. Far from evidence that atheism leads to genocide, however, the movements these men represent are evidence that violence can come forth from any ideology, a point standing in opposition to the rather common claim that religion is responsible for every act of violence or oppression that occurs in a religious context. Photolysis then opted to provide an object lesson. I didn't draft him, he volunteered.

[Photolysis]

Most Muslims recognize it as a gross distortion of their faith, no matter what Photolysis thinks they ought to believe. Yes, I'm well aware of the PR line. In actuality, it's just the no true scotsman fallacy; both sides say the exact same thing about the other whilst using different parts of the scripture to justify it. The cherry-picking of parts of religions is one reason why I don't subscribe to any. As Sam Harris once sagely noted, the problem with fundamentalist Islam are the fundamentals of Islam. A fundamental Jainist is not going to go out and blow you up. It doesn't advocate that EVER within the religion, so if a Jainist were to blow themselves up, not only would they have had to have done that from some cause outside their religion, but Jainists could legitimately state that the person was not acting as a Jainist. They would be right to do so. Islam tries to play that same card, but it fails because the offending text is right there, along with other contradictory values as is the case with many religions. Fundamentalist Christianity is no better either, it's just that being a more mature religion and having been exposed to Western society for considerable time, almost no-one takes commandments as "kill any man who lies with another man" seriously. I'm not saying there's no religious component to the actions of a Jihadist or a Crusader, just that it's hypocritical to emphasize the religiosity of their actions while diminishing the secularity and anti-religious bent of 20th century mass murderers, when both arise primarily from the social, economic and geopolitical circumstances of their respective times. There is no hypocrisy, as much as you'd like to think otherwise. I tire of having to repeat myself but there is nothing within atheism/secularism that leads to violence. Why? Because they contain no violent teachings. nor does any aspect of these promote violence. That's blatantly obvious. So it's also blatantly obvious that any violence done in the name of these ideologies has to stem from elsewhere. Again, this shouldn't be a matter for debate. Religions cannot claim this because some religions DO encourage violence under certain circumstances. Again, this is blatantly obvious, or are we not accepting that "kill the infidels" when obeyed leads to violence? In the case of Islam, we see this is the case, and that a disproportionate number of Muslims commit suicide attacks in a way that cannot be solely explained by other sociopolitical factors. A fact explained rather neatly by fundamentalist Islam and the framework this provides, as I have already stated. Far from evidence that atheism leads to genocide, however, the movements these men represent are evidence that violence can come forth from any ideology Not every ideology can lead to violence by itself. Many can be twisted or changed or used at the heart of a new ideology to be sure, but not all, and some ideas do inherently lead to violence. Show me an extreme pacifist who goes around attacking people. Photolysis then opted to provide an object lesson Despite what you would like to believe, you haven't refuted my argument.