Hitler, Mao, and Stalin were atheists.
The argument is "atheists kill more people at the extremes." The argument is NOT "Liberals kill more people than conservatives."
And before someone says it, Hitler was at best a Deist when it came to religion. At worst, and this is most likely the case, he was an atheist who used religion against people to get what he wanted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#Hitler_and_atheism
Check out that section. It has a lot of good opinions about Hitler and religion. My conclusion was he was most likely atheist but may have had some thoughts about a deistic God being possible.
Originally posted by dadudemon
The argument is "atheists kill more people at the extremes." The argument is NOT "Liberals kill more people than conservatives."
That is an argument. We could just as easily say the argument that's being discussed is "do more people get killed in the name of atheism or religion?"
Really the main problem is that everyone understood something different from what was being said. TI started with something along the lines of "christian bashing is allowed and liberal bashing is prohibited" and Surtur then responded with "To be fair the amount of damage one of these groups has done to the world doesn't even compare to the amount of damage the other group has.".
So I suppose the actual question we were really discussing was "have Religious people or liberal (in the American sense) people done more damage to the world?"
I made the mistake of talking about religious people vs. atheists ... other people made the mistake of talking about liberals vs. conservatives...really this whole discussion was a huge mess.
Re: Study proves liberals have poor self control; weak minds
Lesse, just going directly off the first post....
Originally posted by Star428
http://www.americanpatriotdaily.com/latest/scientists-reveal-liberals-lack-self-control/Having aweaker mind and an inability to control ones self will explain why liberals believe you need government to achieve anything and government can and must control each and every decision we make.
Science may have finally explained why liberals view government as a god unto itself.
Now, let's see what the study actually says.
---
For example, conservatives were more likely to agree with the statements “Strength of mind can always overcome the body’s desires” and “People can overcome any obstacles if they truly want to.”
---
Note, this has nothing to do with strength of will, but rather if it's possible to overcome things just with will.
And studying of, say, quitting physically addictive drugs, show, no, you can't do everything by will. A strong will helps, but has limits, and often you need help.
Take a look at the total failure of gay conversion therapy. It's a wreck that leaves failed lives and repressed traumatized people who are still gay- are we to believe none of them truly desired or had a strong will? To someone who believes both those things, they may answer yes, even if the reality is, those who believe in such things are basically relying on fairy dust and traumatic methods to try something they can't actually do.
Similarly, 'people can overcome any obstacle if they truly want to' is something that is easily falsifiable. You want to get a job at a place by X time. They have no openings. You don't get job.
Your goal is to sell a million units of product. Less than half that number of people actually want it according to market research. You end up with a warehouse full of extras, because you decided your want beat out the actual demand.
Take a look at all the people who truly wanted to beat the US in a military conflict, but were outmatched. The Japanese in WW2 were one of the most fanatical modern fighting forces ever. They lost.
Really, this same article could be read as, "Conservatives more likely to believe in power of wishful thinking," that you can make something happen just by wanting it hard.
The final line in the article itself is an example of that: Conservatives want to believe liberals view the government as a god, when the actual reality is far from it, more along the lines of simply, the government can work.
If the reality and perception of something you aren't involved in don't match up, can you will it to be true?
No, of course not. But some people will try anyway.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Hitler, Mao, and Stalin were atheists.The argument is "atheists kill more people at the extremes." The argument is NOT "Liberals kill more people than conservatives."
And before someone says it, Hitler was at best a Deist when it came to religion. At worst, and this is most likely the case, he was an atheist who used religion against people to get what he wanted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#Hitler_and_atheism
Check out that section. It has a lot of good opinions about Hitler and religion. My conclusion was he was most likely atheist but may have had some thoughts about a deistic God being possible.
Originally posted by psmith81992
What about the millions of christians Stalin killed? Or the holocaust?
Stalin killed in the name of Communism, largely for the purpose of securing power and quashing any possible dissent.
The Holocaust was Nazism using Jewish, gay, Roma, disabled, etc. people as a scape-goat that they could pour all their hatred on and kill as a way of projecting power and terror and self-justifying their conquests and racist ideology.
Neither was exactly the Crusades. Stalin and Hitler were respectively Atheist and Christian, but they causes were not in the name of either.
Originally posted by Q99
Stalin killed in the name of Communism, largely for the purpose of securing power and quashing any possible dissent.The Holocaust was Nazism using Jewish, gay, Roma, disabled, etc. people as a scape-goat that they could pour all their hatred on and kill as a way of projecting power and terror and self-justifying their conquests and racist ideology.
Neither was exactly the Crusades. Stalin and Hitler were respectively Atheist and Christian, but they causes were not in the name of either.
You're right, it wasn't in the name of anything other than their own personal gain. It really depends on how one frames the question (IE what response one really wants).
Originally posted by psmith81992
What about the millions of christians Stalin killed? Or the holocaust?
As for Stalin, he ****ed over the Orthodox Church but only because it was a traditional center of Russian political power and he had to break it to secure his rule. I don't think he was particularly "zealous" about promoting atheism--he just didn't want any competition to his absolute authority.
Ambitious Red Army officers were a much greater concern for Stalin than Christians ever were.
Harry S Truman was Christian, but no one will ever suggest that his Christianity was the cause for him ordering the atomic bombings of Japan. It's similarly disingenuous to pin the crimes of Hitler and Stalin on atheism.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Hitler didn't hate the Jews because of his atheism. And in any event, he wasn't really an atheist--not a secular atheist anyway. His form of atheism was steeped in the occult and superstition.As for Stalin, he ****ed over the Orthodox Church but only because it was a traditional center of Russian political power and he had to break it to secure his rule. I don't think he was particularly "zealous" about promoting atheism--he just didn't want any competition to his absolute authority.
Ambitious Red Army officers were a much greater concern for Stalin than Christians ever were.
Harry S Truman was Christian, but no one will ever suggest that his Christianity was the cause for him ordering the atomic bombings of Japan. It's similarly disingenuous to pin the crimes of Hitler and Stalin on atheism.
I didn't.
Originally posted by Bardock42
That is an argument. We could just as easily say the argument that's being discussed is "do more people get killed in the name of atheism or religion?"Really the main problem is that everyone understood something different from what was being said. TI started with something along the lines of "christian bashing is allowed and liberal bashing is prohibited" and Surtur then responded with "To be fair the amount of damage one of these groups has done to the world doesn't even compare to the amount of damage the other group has.".
So I suppose the actual question we were really discussing was "have Religious people or liberal (in the American sense) people done more damage to the world?"
I made the mistake of talking about religious people vs. atheists ... other people made the mistake of talking about liberals vs. conservatives...really this whole discussion was a huge mess.
Indeed. I just saw one of the arguments being presented and it was being presented incorrectly. I could name names but it is obvious who made that argument. I just like the arguments to be presented accurately. I don't care who it is or what point is being made, just wanted to make it clear how things should have been presented. It the whole "atheists vs. religious deaths" argument is a red herring to the topic at hand, anyway. Pretty sure someone like Ushgarak already made that comment, too.
Okay, I think we've wasted enough time on this...
So I'll leave this topic with this:
Atheists are generally better people than theists. When you get to the extremes, the theistic people are not really theistic: they just come up with all sorts of lame and stupid reasons to justify their evil. That makes them worse, imo, than an atheist doing the same because at least they are not claiming to be acting in the name of a benevolent and merciful deity. Regardless, the extreme atheists seem to be better at killing f*** tons of people than the theists. 😐
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Atheism wasn't the reason they killed people though. It's not like the Crusades or Islamic Terrorism.
I could argue, with the same semantics, that they aren't really using religion to kill, either: just excuses to be evil.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Wasn't saying you did, and sorry if it seemed that way. I was still more responding to DDD's post which I think was in danger of suggesting that.
haha
lol
hell no.
I'd make the argument that water kills 100% of people since 100% of people who drink water also die.
That's my level of commitment to that particular argument. I was only correcting the incorrect presentation of the internet meme about atheist vs. theist deaths.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
That is because athiesm is a weak banner to rally behind and religion is a powerful tool to mislead other ppl with. Same can be said for nationalism. Let us be very clear, bad ppl do bad things not because of the presence or lack thereof of religion, but because they are bad ppl. Bad ppl that can use something that can stir passions onto the weak minded, uneducated or poorly misled..
Ultimately, atheism is a catch-all, rather than a belief. Someone who believes in alien worship and that they should prepare Earth for it's eventual enslavement, is an atheist. As is a secular humanist, as is countless other unrelated beliefs.
So atheism vs theism, is actually an odd comparison when you think of it like that.
Originally posted by Q99
Ultimately, atheism is a catch-all, rather than a belief. Someone who believes in alien worship and that they should prepare Earth for it's eventual enslavement, is an atheist. As is a secular humanist, as is countless other unrelated beliefs.So atheism vs theism, is actually an odd comparison when you think of it like that.
I thought alien worship was Scientology?
😛