The Fallacy of the "20th Century Atheist Regimes"

by Guest Wed May 27, 2015 11:32 am

Straw Man: 20th Century Atheist regimes are responsible for the worst massacres in history.

This argument has become a thought-terminating cliché which serves both as a cautionary tale of what happens when we turn away from God, and also as an attempt to equal the ledger in discussions relating to religious violence.
Its key premise erroneously presupposes we accept that atheism was pivotal in causing violence in the fascist and communist regimes of the 20th century. Accordingly, "atheistic regimes" are supposedly an example of the dangers of "atheism" in practice. Where we might have previously said, Communist Regimes, or Totalitarian Regimes, for the purposes of argument we rebrand them Atheistic Regimes, employing a rather transparent form of Humpty-Dumptyism in order to pin the blame on atheism. The argument is used as a return argument, a tu quoque fallacy, to divert attention from religious violence.

Nazi Germany

First, as an absolute knockdown Nazi Germany was not even an atheist state. Germany was a 95% Christian country when it went to war in 1939. As Christopher Hitchens was fond of pointing out, the first Treaty signed by the Nazi regime was with the Catholic Church exchanging political influence for control of German education. Hitler ascribed his victories to divine Providence, and encouraged his own personal deification. Soldiers had "Gott min uns" ("God with us") inscribed on their belt buckles, and party members took the following oath under God: "I swear in the name of almighty God, my loyalty to the Fuhrer." Hitler was explicit: Nazi Germany was, and would always be, a Christian nation.

Key Points

The Fallacy of the "atheistic regimes" argument encounters the following decisive objections:

1.Nazism was not atheistic
2.It is a Fallacy of Division to equate atheism with larger political systems which might include it as a tenet
3.Atheism was not the prime motivator of the violence undertaken the fascist and communist totalitarian regimes of the 20th century
4.No evidence suggests decline in religious belief, or atheism, leads to an increase in violence, although plenty of evidence suggests the opposite
5.The 20th century was not the most violent in history
6.The cause of violence and the passage to nonviolence is better understood in terms of the rise and fall of Utopian totalitarian states
7.Atheists do not support or promote State Atheism
8.Historians do not support the "atheistic state" fallacy

http://infidels.org/kiosk/article/the-fallacy-of-the-20th-century-atheist-regimes-898.html

More to read on the link.

by Eilzel Wed May 27, 2015 11:46 am

Yeah there has been attempts to talk of the Soviet Union, PRC and Nazi Germany as 'atheist states' in the eay Iran is a Theocratic state- which is an obvious fallacy.

The problem with those other places was not atheism, it was was authoritarian communism and fascism.

by Guest Wed May 27, 2015 11:48 am

Eilzel wrote:Yeah there has been attempts to talk of the Soviet Union, PRC and Nazi Germany as 'atheist states' in the eay Iran is a Theocratic state- which is an obvious fallacy.

The problem with those other places was not atheism, it was was authoritarian communism and fascism.

Exactly Eilzel, which is the problem found where people who do not have a counter, invent things to try to deflect away from real problems and bad ideas found within some religions.
Great article.

by Eilzel Wed May 27, 2015 12:10 pm

Fascinating article. And an interesting point it raises is that of loss of life as a proportion of a population.

I have often speculated that while the US, for example, is often criticised for the A bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, imagine the same bombs had they been at the disposal of say Genghis Kahn...

The ratio of deaths in the Crusades presented by the article is staggering- and shows how over simplistic it is to simply judge Mao, Stalin and Hitler on numbers alone (frightening and horrible as they are, the figure if 40 million generally accepted as the number who died prematurely under Mao wasn't even more than 5% of the Chinese population).

by Guest Wed May 27, 2015 12:24 pm

Eilzel wrote:Fascinating article. And an interesting point it raises is that of loss of life as a proportion of a population.

I have often speculated that while the US, for example, is often criticised for the A bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, imagine the same bombs had they been at the disposal of say Genghis Kahn...

The ratio of deaths in the Crusades presented by the article is staggering- and shows how over simplistic it is to simply judge Mao, Stalin and Hitler on numbers alone (frightening and horrible as they are, the figure if 40 million generally accepted as the number who died prematurely under Mao wasn't even more than 5% of the Chinese population).

Indeed Eilzel which is one of my major points on intent and if and what people have the capability to use. There is no doubt in my mind that a religious extremist, whether Christian, Jewish, Muslims etc had such a weapon, they would not hesitate in using. Which is why many conflicts are not seen by intent and the capabilities of those fighting them. Just imagine if ISIS had access to such weapons? To me also the use though of the abomb's vastly saved more lives being used. This is no comfort to those who died, but the reality is it is estimated 1 million allied casulaties with an invasion of Japan and the Japanese estimated between 12-20 million casulatiues with the invasion of the home Islands.

Really interesting article, but there is no doubt in my mind, if Hitler had more time and the means he would have killed millions more. He certainly intended to kill millions more in Russia alone let alone who else given the time he could have killed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_Plan

by Guest Wed May 27, 2015 1:21 pm

yebbut

athiests dont care
atheists are responsible for climate change
atheists are repsonsible for fracking
atheists are responsible for the hadron collider which will swallow us whole into a black hole
atheists must be resisted at all costs

The Fallacy of the "20th Century Atheist Regimes" 3489511464

The Fallacy of the "20th Century Atheist Regimes" 3489511464

by Guest Wed May 27, 2015 1:35 pm

darknessss wrote:yebbut

athiests dont care
atheists are responsible for climate change
atheists are repsonsible for fracking
atheists are responsible for the hadron collider which will swallow us whole into a black hole
atheists must be resisted at all costs

Humbug.

The Fallacy of the "20th Century Atheist Regimes" 1716015268

by Guest Wed May 27, 2015 1:37 pm

gerrof back to work you.....

by Guest Wed May 27, 2015 1:37 pm

<<<< cracks whip

by Guest Wed May 27, 2015 1:39 pm

darknessss wrote:gerrof back to work you.....

The Fallacy of the "20th Century Atheist Regimes" 3201073460

by Eilzel Wed May 27, 2015 2:04 pm

Belatucadros wrote:
Eilzel wrote:Fascinating article. And an interesting point it raises is that of loss of life as a proportion of a population.

I have often speculated that while the US, for example, is often criticised for the A bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, imagine the same bombs had they been at the disposal of say Genghis Kahn...

The ratio of deaths in the Crusades presented by the article is staggering- and shows how over simplistic it is to simply judge Mao, Stalin and Hitler on numbers alone (frightening and horrible as they are, the figure if 40 million generally accepted as the number who died prematurely under Mao wasn't even more than 5% of the Chinese population).

Indeed Eilzel which is one of my major points on intent and if and what people have the capability to use. There is no doubt in my mind that a religious extremist, whether Christian, Jewish, Muslims etc had such a weapon, they would not hesitate in using. Which is why many conflicts are not seen by intent and the capabilities of those fighting them. Just imagine if ISIS had access to such weapons? To me also the use though of the abomb's vastly saved more lives being used. This is no comfort to those who died, but the reality is it is estimated 1 million allied casulaties with an invasion of Japan and the Japanese estimated between 12-20 million casulatiues with the invasion of the home Islands.

Really interesting article, but there is no doubt in my mind, if Hitler had more time and the means he would have killed millions more. He certainly intended to kill millions more in Russia alone let alone who else given the time he could have killed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_Plan

Exactly right on what would have happened without the A bombs. Tokyo would have been decimated along with every town or city between there and wherever the Americans landed.

And no doubt the Germans or Japanese at that time would have been FAR more aggressive with such power at their disposal.

by veya_victaous Thu May 28, 2015 1:30 am

one could say that it is also a fallacy that it is caused by religion, it is caused by Greed. often the greed of a few that are willing to cause great suffering to have a little bit more.

I think it is more accurate to say that Atheists are no better than the theists before them. either can be convinced they need to hate their fellow man by political powers whether that is via religious dogma, economic imperative or biased media makes little difference.

by Eilzel Thu May 28, 2015 2:02 am

You give three motivations for hating fellow men there veya, and atheists can never be guilty of one of them. So even by your own view atheists are less likely to commit violence against others since the reasons to do so are more limited.

And there is no fallacy of religious terrorism. The Crusafes were religious for most who took part, the Inquisition was religious. ISIS are mostly religious. Suicide bombing would not occur without some divine BS ideology encouraging the bombers to end their own lives.

by veya_victaous Thu May 28, 2015 2:54 am

Eilzel wrote:You give three motivations for hating fellow men there veya, and atheists can never be guilty of one of them. So even by your own view atheists are less likely to commit violence against others since the reasons to do so are more limited.

And there is no fallacy of religious terrorism. The Crusafes were religious for most who took part, the Inquisition was religious. ISIS are mostly religious. Suicide bombing would not occur without some divine BS ideology encouraging the bombers to end their own lives.

they are not motivations to start a war, they are tools for getting the masses to support your war that will win you more stuff Twisted Evil

they are just as likely, because while they don't fall for 'god said to' they are far more likely to fall for economic imperative. And doesn't the Atheist fall for the "save them from religious fundamentalists" routine fairly regularly anyway Rolling Eyes

so even religion still works just have to play it slightly different.

and suicide bombing... does not require religion, the culture can suffice ..... kamikaze The Fallacy of the "20th Century Atheist Regimes" Smile_kamikaze

The Fallacy of the "20th Century Atheist Regimes" Smile_kamikaze

Crusades are the Wests response to losing major trade route (Bosporus River) into the black sea and central Asia.... Central cause is Greed...
why does a wolf pack attack another?
to take the territorial possessions of the other... man's societies are just big wolf packs at heart, wolves in suits but wolves none the less.

by Guest Thu May 28, 2015 5:56 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Eilzel wrote:You give three motivations for hating fellow men there veya, and atheists can never be guilty of one of them. So even by your own view atheists are less likely to commit violence against others since the reasons to do so are more limited.

And there is no fallacy of religious terrorism. The Crusafes were religious for most who took part, the Inquisition was religious. ISIS are mostly religious. Suicide bombing would not occur without some divine BS ideology encouraging the bombers to end their own lives.

they are not motivations to start a war, they are tools for getting the masses to support your war that will win you more stuff

they are just as likely, because while they don't fall for 'god said to' they are far more likely to fall for economic imperative. And doesn't the Atheist fall for the "save them from religious fundamentalists" routine fairly regularly anyway so even religion still works just have to play it slightly different.

and suicide bombing... does not require religion, the culture can suffice ..... kamikaze

Crusades are the Wests response to losing major trade route (Bosporus River) into the black sea and central Asia.... Central cause is Greed...
why does a wolf pack attack another?
to take the territorial possessions of the other... man's societies are just big wolf packs at heart, wolves in suits but wolves none the less.

That is complete nonsense about the Crusades, which were a bunch of Frankish lesser nobles and other various western Christian ethnic groups carving out kingdoms for themselves under the guise of retaking lands their kingdoms never owned. In fact many of these same lesser nobles who became rulers in their own rights made many treaties and fought together against other Muslim nations at this time. In fact there was much infighting between the Muslim nations and groups at this time, which the Crusaders capitalized on. A holy war was definitely called upon by the pope ad it was also very much part of bringing the Holy lands under Christian control, but the call for help that came from the Byzantine Empire, did nothing to bring back lands lost to them, in fact as seen the Crusaders carved out kingdoms for themselves. You ignored all the evidence that atheism had nothing to do with the violence or the wars that occurred, as seen for example that Germany was very much a Christian nation and it was of Lutheranism beliefs of antisemitism that the Nazis played on.

by veya_victaous Thu May 28, 2015 6:12 am

Umm didge you just proved my Point
Why did they go?
to appease god?
Or Carve out kingdoms and get riches for themselves?

why did they not hand over the land to Byzantine? Because Byzantine couldn't make them and could no longer afford to PAY them since it lost it's central Asian trade route.

I gave the reason as Greed, not atheism or religion which are merely tools to to manipulate masses to satisfy ones greed tongue

by Guest Thu May 28, 2015 6:24 am

veya_victaous wrote:Umm didge you just proved my Point
Why did they go?
to appease god?
Or Carve out kingdoms and get riches for themselves?

why did they not hand over the land to Byzantine? Because Byzantine couldn't make them and could no longer afford to PAY them since it lost it's central Asian trade route.

I gave the reason as Greed, not atheism or religion which are merely tools to to manipulate masses to satisfy ones greed

Proved what point? You said it was to do with trade and it had nothing to do with trade, which was the point I was going off your inaccuracies on history. Byzantine had become weak from constant wars with Sassanid empire, which led to both Empires losing to the Arab conquests. It was lost territories not only to the Arab confederations but also to Bulgars in places like Thrace, Southern Italy to the Normans, where they lost revenue. In fact the Byzantine Empire could still very well afford to hire Vikings and Germanic people which made up the elite of the Byzantine army, the Varangian Guard..Yes greed played a massive part in all of this, so did religion play a huge part in all of this based on controlling lands to Christian beliefs. The Byzantine Empire also made treaties with Arab nations against the ever growing incursion by the Seljuq Turk confederations that where originally Arabs had taken places like Jerusalem without a drop of blood spilt, when the Turks did take Cities they butchered many people. This is where Islam takes a nasty step in the pages of history through the Seljuq Turkish confederations. So religion and greed played a massive part here with lesser Nobles elevating themselves to become Kings and kings of a "Kingdom of God" through a military religious concept called "Just war".

by Sponsored content

The Fallacy of the "20th Century Atheist Regimes"