Lets just have its own thread regarding this topic. I felt bad that GOD's thread got hijacked. So let's look at the radical theists: Off the top of my head - Jim Jones, Radical Militant Muslim groups like the Al-Qaeda, The KKK, Catholic Church (900-1800 A.D.), Assortment of crazy Christians, Hindu radicals, and Mussolini. So let's look at the radical Atheists: Off the top of my head - Communism (Russia, Cuba, China, Laos, ALbania, Cambodia).
Suicide bomber says, "praise Allah" and then blows up his bomb. The holy land is overrun with infidels. We need crusades to get rid of them and take back the land. That's not even "radical" theists. Radical atheist says, "praise atheism" and then blows up his bomb? LOL. Not quite.
Don't know where you are getting at with this comment. Are you saying that there isn't radical atheists?
I can't think of any atheists who justify their behavior because of atheism. Repressive regimes (USSR, North Korea) may be atheistic, but it's kind of a side consequence. They want ALL the power, and aren't willing to cede any of it to priests or churches. So it makes perfect sense for them to have an official party line of atheism. I don't think Stalin ever said, "You will go to the gulag because of atheism!" He mostly said, "You will go to the gulag because fuck you I say so."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism_and_religion You sure about that? http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/anti.html http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/ae2bkhun.html
You should read the translated letter of the Soviet Union and religion. and The problem with Marxism, is the "state must be atheistic". So even though they may not claim it's in the name of Atheism; it truly is "In the name of atheism" because "Atheism is needed for a communistic society to function properly.
Though it is fair to say the atheistic regimes have been harsh toward religion and people of religion. http://archive.jta.org/article/1973/11/15/2966762/new-soviet-repression-of-jews (for example)
[video=youtube;TRhczvtmbWE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=TRhczvtmbWE[/video]
THis, by no means, is saying all atheists are these radical types. But this only supports that any belief will have the radicals; whom do atrocious things backed by their beliefs; including theists. There is no exception.
Hitchens is a brilliant man; but his interpretation of the communist regime was a dodge. During this time, the atheists were aggressively debating theists; using the atrocities of theists as a main reason why one should throw away the theistic views. The instant response was that of the Communist movement. The societies that must be backed by an atheistic view in order to stick. WHAT should have happened was these atheists used other means of debates at the early stages so they didn't have to dig out of the hole they put themselves into. There was plenty to argue about back then and now; without trying to say only theists are ones that force feed their views on society and murder in the name of their faith.
I posted this in the other thread before i saw this one, so it refers to quotes in Mags selected in the "Islam" thread. "Mags, my view may differ from other atheists here, but I do agree with you that Hitler and Stalin certainly used science not only to develop the methods of killing, but also as reasons for killing. It was bad science that would never have survived the peer review process, but they did use science, especially in eugenics. I am not as as convinced that their atheistic views were at fault for any of their terrible actions. They were control hungry and resented RELIGION and the power that religion held over the people. Even in one of the quotes that you put up it mentions that they were not at odds with a god but with organized religion. This does not speak to atheism, it speaks to power hungry people wanting to be the one true source of information. You can find countless examples of this in history from the point of view of specific religions also, but in their case they just say all other religions, instead of all religions. People have to take responsibility for themselves and cultivate their own, and their communities own sense of innate personal ethics. Religion has bastardized ethics and non-religious have bastardized ethics. That's why it's imperative to not base your morals or ethics on a group doctrine, but upon something more difficult to define, what's inherently good or bad. I choose not to steal not because I would end up in hell or because some organization says I should not steal, but because, through good parenting and ethical people around me, I have grown up empathetic to how it feels to have something stolen, and I would not want to cause that type of distress. The more we move away from religion the more people need to have their own sense of purpose and morals."
Sam Harris openly admits that the communist movement was atrocities spear headed by an atheist regime. What he is tackling is that "This is not the END ALL for atheism". I agree with that. He is just suggesting that atheism doesn't have to end like this and that this atrocity will be something all atheists will face as long as they are atheists. I 100% agree with it. I also agree that he urges atheists not to take the atrocities approach to argue against theism. Even if you believe in evolution, you should be open to this behavior. It is an inherited behavior to stick it to the non-believer. Wars have been made because of disagreements. This is human nature.
Exactly! Do you see the commonality of all the videos you posted? They all agree that all were atheists; but that it doesn't mean that an atheist all would act in this way. EDIT: I never brought up Hitler btw... I agree that he wasn't really an atheist. His ethnic cleansing was adopted by the evolution approach; but there are many theists that believe in evolution too.
Mags response in a different thread to my post #12 in this thread: Mags, if you believe in compassion and forgiveness as the main tenants as to why you chose Christianity, I would offer the notion that you would be welcomed to display those noble characteristics as an atheist, but you would not be supporting an organization that that also decrees that anyone who does not believe the same will burn in hell. just curious, what branch of Christianity are you? I have another question for you that you may not want to answer here and if so, I totally understand, I will drop this line of questioning. But if you are willing, What is your churches view of your daughter being gay? How does your daughter view religion/god?
From the Dawkins video posted: "Individual atheists may do evil things, but they don't do evil things in the name of atheism. Stalin and Hilter did extremely evil things, in the name of, respectively: dogmatic and doctrinaire Marxism, and an insane and unscientific eugenics theory tinged with sub-Wagnerian ravings. Religious wars really are fought in the name of religion and they've been horribly frequent in history. I cannot think of any war that has been fought in the name of atheism--why should it?" So the term "radical atheist" might as well be "radical suit-wearer" or "radical nose-haver". Which isn't to say the religious people are always motivated by their religion (frequently by greed and lust).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Russia AS much as the great Dawkins has a great point; the term "Mother Russia" is the collective bound by equality without God (separation). SO when the tank driver blows up a building and screams "For mother Russia!"; that is maintained for the belief in the soviet movement. The movement that no man or God is greater than the other. Also, why does it matter that atheism has evil people doing evil things? Theists have them as well. I think that so many people in the belief get sooooooo pissed and offended that their belief was shared by evil deeds. Every belief can be exploited by evil people. When a man "believes strongly" about a certain ideal; that can be exploited. Just as we are Blazer fans, we take offense when one talks shit about our players. Maybe they speak truth, but the offense is on the team as a whole. Instead we want no shit talk to our belief because that would devalue the belief.
