Do Atheists Like Science that Doesn't Suit their Agenda?

Let's look at the human rights record of atheists:

Communist atheists killed about94 million in only 80 years! An atheist, Stalin, along with his fellow Christian-hater Hitler started the worst war in human history. And don't forget all the deaths caused by right-wing atheists - a topic I discussed at the start of THIS THREAD.

I'll also mention those radical secularists, the Young Turks.

Frequently Asked Questions about the Armenian Genocide

Please also remember that the austere atheist philosophy has never attracted a large number of believers. Under 3% of the world population is atheist. So a small number of atheists are responsible for a tremendous amount of carnage. On a per capita basis atheists are by far the worst murderers in human history.

Why is atheism so useful to mass murderers? 1) Jesus’ teachings of charity, peace, and human dignity can be discarded. How convenient! 2) Atheists subject to the materialist superstition perceive man as merely a collection of chemicals. If so reduced why do we possess value or rights? 3) The rainbow of world cultures, the blooming profusion of world spirituality, is all arrogantly dismissed as mere barbarism. The great majority of the human race is dehumanized, labeled as grunting brutes, in preparation for their slaughter.

 

I'm an atheist so I can't subscribe to the faith called science. I grew up listening to "scientists" tell me that Chesterfield cigarettes were soothing to my throat and calming for my nerves. They were good for me. Then I went through a whole lifetime of bull(*)(*)(*)(*) from scientists who were obviously either bought and paid for or such true believers it would turn your stomach. I remember the inevitable nuclear winter if we didn't unilaterally disarm. I remember saving the birds by getting rid of DDT and killing 27 million babies. I remember the population bnomb that would result in world-wide famine and war by the 1980s and now it's the pathetic Al Gore waddling around screaming, "Run for your life."

So, I no longer believe scientists unless they follow the scientific method which most don't. Oh, and the scientists such as psychologists, psychiatrists, economists, sociologists, and my personal favorite, surf scientists should all bury their heads in shame.

 

Hitler was a Christian--not an atheist by any measure.

The Young Turks were Muslim--not atheists by any measure.

Let's take a look at some of the most notorious despots in history:

Atheists who have committed atrocities:

Josef Stalin
Pol Pot
Mao Tse Tung
Nicolae Ceaucescu
Kim Jong-Il
Benito Mussolini
Slobodan Milosevic

Theists who have committed atrocities:

P.W. Botha
Muamar Qadaffi
Saddam Hussein
Adolf Hitler
Ferdinande Marcos
Committee of Union and Progress / Young Turks
Idi Amin
Sayed Khomeini
Robert Mugabe
Augusto Pinochet

This is hardly an exhaustive list--on either side. Let's also not forget to include the treatment of Native Americans at the hands of the founders of this nation, nor the treatment of African slaves. Certainly neither the founders or American slaveholders were atheists.

And let's see, who was responsible for the Spanish Inquisition? I don't think it was atheists, what about you? What was it they did to heretics? Put them in a medium-security prison where they could watch cable and play racquetball? No, no, I must be mistaken, I believe the correct answer is "burning at the stake." If the convicted repented before his burning, he was shown "mercy" in the form of a garrote wire. Otherwise, he was burned alive.

And certainly The Crusades must have been carried out by Atheists! I mean how else would you get so many people to believe such nonsense except at the tip of a sword? Oh, wait, sorry, wrong again. The Crusades were not carried out by atheists, were they?

And was it a group of atheists who commandeered four jetliners filled with innocent people and steered them toward the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the US Capitol on September 11, 2001? I'm sorry, once again, we have theists--in this case, perpetrating the single largest act of mass murder on this nation's soil. And what about that atheist Tim McVeigh who killed innocent babies? Oh, wait, also not an atheist. It's wrong to murder them in the womb--but in a daycare? Open season baby!

Salem witch trials anyone? Can I get a Salem witch trials?

My point is this--any assertion that atheists are any more likely to commit atrocities than theists is pure folly. The common thread is either authoritarianism, megalomania, or sociopathy. Or maybe all of the above.

 

Hitler was a Catholic and used his religion to justify his actions. Fail.

 

Interesting post.

 

Hitler hated Christianity and persecuted the Churches.

You Mean Hitler Wasn’t A Priest?

quote: Hitler was blunter still on other occasions. "It is through the peasantry that we shall really be able to destroy Christianity," he said in 1933, "because there is in them a true religion rooted in nature and blood." His countrymen would have to choose: "One is either a Christian or a German. You can't be both."

quote: Polish Christians felt the full force of the persecution, as historian John Morley reminds us. "In Poland, both Jews and Christians were objects of Nazi oppression and manipulation." The clergy were a chief target: "In West Prussia, out of 690 parish priests, at least two-thirds were arrested, and the remainder escaped only by fleeing from their parishes. After a month's imprisonment, no less than 214 of these priests were executed... by the end of 1940 only twenty priests were left in their parishes — about three percent of the number of parish priests in the pre-war era." The toll of murdered Polish priests would rise into the thousands; their Protestant counterparts (though a much smaller group) fared no better, with many members of the clergy perishing in the camps.
The Rutgers site's presentation is entitled "The Nazi Master Plan: The Persecution of the Christian Churches," and it notes a deep hatred of Christianity throughout the higher echelons. "Important leaders of the National Socialist party would have liked to meet this situation [church influence] by complete extirpation of Christianity and the substitution of a purely racial religion." Their assault was massive: "Different steps in that persecution, such as the campaign for the suppression of denominational and youth organizations, the campaign against denominational schools, the defamation campaign against the clergy, started on the same day in the whole area of the Reich... and were supported by the entire regimented press, by Nazi Party meetings, by traveling party speakers."

 

Some more Hitler quotes.

Goebbels' diary, 1939: "The Führer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay."

Speer quoting Hitler: “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"

Historian Alan Bullock quoting Hitler: "I'll make these d**ned parsons feel the power of the state in a way they would have never believed possible.... This filthy reptile raises its head whenever there is a sign of weakness in the State, and therefore it must be stamped on. We have no sort of use for a fairy story invented by the Jews." and "The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity.... The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity."

 

"Mat 7:15 ¶ Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Mat 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Mat 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. "

The moral of that story is "don't judge a book by its cover". In other words, just because someone says that they are Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Agnostic, Catholic, or whatever... does not necessarily impart the truth. You will only know the truth of who/what they represent by their actions. So, if their actions betray their profession, then you will know that they have told a lie with regard to who/what they represent.

 

Here's Hitler admiring history's most famous atheist:



quote: Hitler often visited the Nietzsche museum in Weimar and publicized his veneration for the philosopher by posing for photographs of himself staring in rapture at the bust of the great man.

quote: Finally there was Nietzsche's prophecy of the coming elite who would rule the world and from whom the superman would spring. In The Will to Power he exclaims: "A daring and ruler race is building itself up.... The aim should be to prepare a transvaluation of values for a particularly strong kind of man, most highly gifted in intellect and will. This man and the elite around him will become the 'lords of the earth'." Such rantings from one of Germany's most original minds must have struck a responsive chord in Hitler's littered mind. At any rate he appropriated them for his own--not only the thoughts but the philosopher's penchant for grotesque exaggeration, and often his very words. "Lords of the Earth" is a familiar expression in Mein Kampf.

LINK[/URL

 

Regardless of what the revisionists would have you believe, the evidence is clear: Hitler was a Christian. It's all right there in Mein Kampf. If you have not read it, I suggest you do.

 

That's a pretty convenient cop-out. Where I come from if it quacks like a duck... it's most likely a duck. And even if your assertion is correct, to claim that Pinochet, Marcos, Hussein, Khomeni, et al. are atheists is quite a leap of logic. You may accuse them of being "bad Christians" or "Bad Muslims" but the fact remains they are Christians and Muslims, and NOT atheists.

 

Do the fundie Christians on here realise that the No True Scotsman argument is a logical fallacy and not a great way to debate?

 

Did I say that any of those named persons were 'Atheists'? No? Then yours is quite a leap of logic.

No! The fact remains that they claim the title of this or that, but their actions show the truth of the story. What is that old adage ??? Oh yeah! "Actions speak louder than words". If the profession of all that is required in order for that matter to become a fact, then you should immediately start professing that you are the president of the United States, that way, when you usurp that office, you can change all the laws that you want changed,,,, by executive order.... Again; if profession is all that is required to cause a matter to become a fact, then guess what... God exists and has existed long before Atheism existed.

 

It is your position that "globally, you will find a disproportionately larger number of Atheist antagonists initiating, condoning and promoting human rights abuses" is it not? Therefore, unless you have changed your position, we may infer that any data you provide is in support of said position. Otherwise, what is the purpose of the post? You are trying to prove that "atheists" are responsible for atrocities around the globe to a greater extent than theists--as a refutation of my claim that it is neither theism nor atheism that is a reliable indicator of potential for atrocity, but rather authoritarianism.

Then you need to change your position. You can no longer claim that atheism is the cause of greater atrocity than theism. You'll need to change it to something like "globally, you will find a disproportionately larger number of bad Christian, Muslim, and Jewish antagonists initiating, condoning and promoting human rights abuses." Which, I'm sorry to say, kind of proves my point. So which is it? Is it the atheists? Or is the bad religionists? You can't have it both ways. I'm sorry, but the rules are the rules.

 

No it is not my position. I simply agree with that position based upon the information that has already been posted and based upon my life experience.

You can infer whatever you want, but that inference does not necessarily make a FACT. Again, it is not my position, but rather I simply agree with that position ... see above.

It seems that you are desperately attempting to undermine what I have stated. Keep trying,,, you have a long way to go. Your presumption of what you think I am trying to do, only shows that your favorite weapon of defense is 'presumption'. Not a good thing. Changing the subject to 'authoritarianism' is also not helping your position.

Why do I need to change my position. As I stated earlier, my position is one that is simply an agreement with the claims and information that has been provided. Are you sure that it is not you who needs a change of position?

Should I follow your suggestion, I would be abandoning my faith for the purpose of following some strange teachings of another god. That would not be a good thing for me to consider. Why don't you change your position instead?

What are 'religionists'? I have never seen that word before. So because you essentially ask the question "is it the atheists" or "is (it implied) the bad unknown entities" , I would have to say it is the atheists.

 

Not really.

quote: Another guiding principle for the Young Turks was the transformation of their society into one in which religion played no consequential role. In this ultra-secular and somewhat materialistic structure, science was to replace religion.

LINK

We can add some more names to this list. How about Mengistu? Or Kim Il-sung who started the bloody Korean War?

Not many Christians on that list. And remember the population of Christians is immense, the number of atheists is tiny.

Ferdinand Marcos? Whatever his failings, he wasn't a mass-murderer like Stalin. And where's your evidence that Augusto Pinochet was Christian?

Here's a quote from Pulitzer-Prize winner Jared Diamond: Infectious diseases introduced with Europeans, like smallpox and measles, spread from one Indian tribe to another, far in advance of Europeans themselves, and killed an estimated 95% of the New World's Indian population.

Many slave traders/owners were irreligious or Jewish. Remember black slavery in the New World coincided to a large extent with the "Enlightenment". Many slave owners/traders had read Shelley and Voltaire and Gibbon and despised religion. Also Christians were at the forefront of the abolitionist movement.

Many myths about the Spanish Inquisition - mostly just anti-Hispanic bigotry.

The Real Inquisition

Many of the Crusades were entirely defensive.

Crusade Myths

Check out the article: It's the Occupation, Stupid
Extensive research into the causes of suicide terrorism proves Islam isn't to blame -- the root of the problem is foreign military occupations.

Evidence McVeigh was a Christian?

So Robot you are relying on outworn myths perpetuated by the media bosses (Can't you think for yourself?) and you are ignoring the fact that a comparison between billions of Christians and a very small number of atheists is foolish.

 

Good point.

 

Come on dude. This is getting silly. It most certainly *IS* your position: you may be in agreement with another member of this forum, but that still makes it your position. You even put it in your own words.

Based on your statement "globally, you will find a disproportionately larger number of Atheist antagonists initiating, condoning and promoting human rights abuses" I think it is a reasonable inference. You are arguing that atheists are more responsible for atrocities than theists. Or if you are not willing to admit you are arguing that (who was it who told me to "be a man?") then you'll have to at least admit that you agree with the position you have paraphrased into your own words.

Not at all. I'm simply asking you to defend it.

My presumption is based on words that you typed on this forum and that I subsequently read on my computer screen--that you believe (or agree) that atheists have a greater propensity for atrocity. I believe the word you used was "disproportionate." Your words, sir!

I'm not changing the subject--THAT IS MY POSITION! It was in fact you who accused me of "attempting to rationalize your (my) position as an atheist or non-theist" after I suggested that it may be authoritarianism that is responsible for the atrocities, regardless of the state of faith of the perpetrator--for which you offered "Perhaps what has been reported is the absolute truth with regard to those circumstances." Meaning that you agreed that "atheists have the worst human rights record in history." But now you appear to be backpedaling, stating it's really bad actors, not atheists necessarily who are responsible for a disproportionate amount of atrocity around the globe. Well, which is it? Is it atheists as you originally stated? Or is it bad actors as you now claim?

Because you have changed your argument. First you tell me that it's "the atheists" and now you're telling me it's "bad actors." Your position should be consistent with your argument, don't you think?

No it is not. It was. But you changed it--you said the problem is really with bad actors. AS's position, which has thus far remained consistent, is that it is "the atheists."

My position, and its accordant arguments have remained consistent since I entered this discussion.

But you've already changed your position. You started with atheists, and now they're merely bad actors.

Well, you may need to reassess your arguments, then. Because at present they contradict your initial position on this topic.

Because as I stated above, mine has remained consistent throughout.

Literary license on my part.

Then what is the point of chastising the bad actors but to imply they are atheists--if that is indeed your position? Your argument needs to align with your position. Currently there is no correlation.

 

lol Such a weak response I'll take it as a concession.

 

LOL. Now you are changing your position too?

 

You are the one who is claiming it is atheism. I am suggesting that maybe there is something else at play--call it authoritarianism. Call it statism. Call it sociopathy. I don't really care, but the common thread here is a desire to control large groups of people with violence. I'd like to suggest that neither atheists nor theists own the monopoly on that one.

 

Wrong again... you just keep right on rolling around in the muddy field of delusions.

 

And you seem to be the only one discussing 'authoritarianism'. Are you customarily prone to talking to yourself on subjects that no-one else is talking about?

 

It's clear at this point that you are not actually interested in discussing this issue in any substantive way but would rather just continue making little snipes at me. I'll therefore recuse myself from any further discussion with you on this topic. Good day.