Orpheous99

Originally posted by David Payne:

Who has committed the most evil, theists, or atheist/agnostics?

Without question theists have done the most evil in the world and throughout history on a per capita basis as well.

David M. Payne

I don’t see this as a problem, just a statement of fact. I don’t argue against the numbers, they are irrelevant as far as behavior is concerned. Numbers don’t make you behave one way or another, it dogma, belief, rational etc that do that. It’s the evil behavior of some theists that constitute the basic problem, the numbers just magnify the problem as the sects, cults, etc grow. The historical records show that atheism hasn’t any real track record of committing evil that I’ve heard about. Perhaps you can enlighten me on this aspect? (Yes, I read what follows and it didn’t convince me of your point of view here.)

No, I don’t think I need to distinguish between the two at all. The danger of religion as far as the survival of humanity is concerned, is its capacity to be misused for evil purposes. So, directly or indirectly, it’s the threat of evil coming from an authoritarian, destructive cult, sect, denomination, theistic state etc that is the problem inherent in the structure of most religion. Whether it is misused by theistic entities directly, or political entities manipulating religious entities, or a mixture of the two, is irrelevant, in my opinion. The danger is still the same for humanity.

No, I think it points out one of the strengths of the atheist/agnostic position. Our motivation to do something isn’t dependant upon the fear/reward syndrome inherent in religion, but on a rational (most of the time) analysis of what is, and what isn’t, and what to do about it.

[b] Last question here first. Communism in general is driven to action by Marxist/communist ideology/theology. (Yes, I did say “Marxist theology”, I see all authoritarian systems as structurally the same.) The atheist component is more related to scientific dis-belief in a god as well as the recognition that religion is a competitor for power, and that is something no Marxist/communist state will tolerate, any rivals for power. Nice try here Tercel, but a non-belief, such as atheism, is different from a belief, such as the belief in Marxism, Fascism, and other violent political/economic isms. To put it bluntly, when you compare religious authoritarianism to political/economic authoritarianism, you have two heads of the hydra, the hydra being authoritarian religious/social/political/ structure. When Stalin and his ilk on the right or left kill, it’s for the party, the state, in the name of racial purity, etc, not in the name of atheism/agnosticism.
As for the kids who killed in the name of atheism, as I said before, I’m sure it’s happened before, and will happen again. But it will always be isolated instances, atheists have a phobia about getting together in any structure devoted to our/their non belief.


Sorry T, but the relevance or irrelevance of my arguments here don’t depend on you analysis. Nor do I think I should look at what you think I should be looking at. I’m doing just fine here, but you can start a new thread on your take on all this, if you want to. As for your last sentence above, it is the point of what I have been saying in this thread. It is exactly what has been/is being done, in the name of God and religion that need to be scrutinized by everyone. (OK, we’ll never get everyone to do this, but the more we make aware of these problems, the better. That’s one of the things we do here on the Sec-Web.) If you end the domination of religion on the psyche of the people, you end the ability to manipulate and/or destroy our reality by dangerous religious zealots. As for your last sentence, that is one of the biggest problems of religion, what exactly does it promote? I think the answer is, anything its leaders can get the faithful to swallow. That’s why we see so much chaos in religion, and this chaos opens the door to the religious wackos out there. And round and round the religious madness goes, with no end in sight.

As for the rest of the posts above, I think this post is relevant to the points you brought up as well. I say what I say, you say what you say, others get their say in, and the readership decides whose arguments go up in a puff of smoke. (Metaphorically speaking.) I can live with that.

[ March 17, 2002: Message edited by: David Payne ]

[ March 17, 2002: Message edited by: David Payne ]</p>

Samhain

I think the issue here is not whether or not atheists have done evil to the world. Of course, some have. The point is that theism gives one such individual a powerful excuse to persuade others into believing that the evil acts they did were in the interests of good. As atheism is the absence of theism, this would in turn mean an absence of this powerful and persuading excuse. People will still do wrong yes, but they would not have the excuse of doing it in the name of God to persuade others into believing what was done was the right thing. Which is exactly what theism does. As David Payne said previously, I doubt anyone could recall an extreme act of murder, terrorism, war, etc. done specifically in the name of atheism, but it has happened with theism.

ju'iblex

i must admit, i thought the church was a more "involved" in the Holocaust, Nazi Germany etc. i stand corrected and apologise.

and when i said preaching to te converted i was directly referring to myself, i should have made that clearer.

MadMordigan

Who cares? Athiests, diests, polythiests, monothiests, whatever. It doesn't change the immutable fact of human sociality. People are scumbags, and the more they protest they aren't, the worst they really are.

Jayhawker Soule

In my opinion, the topic deserved its 'demotion'.

'I do not believe in God. Therefore, my evaluation and actions are rational.' -- talk about a self-refuting position!

Orpheous99

Wrong, it is more like I don't so easily fall for everything which someone may tell me just because it may make me feel better. I have no need for an invisible friend as many insecure children do.

IvanK

Actually it makes the OP's point. People don't do evil things because they are atheist; some people who do evil things happen to be atheists. However, religion can be a contributing cause for otherwise good people to do evil things. Someone wiser than I said it: "for good people to do bad things, that takes religion."

Atheist, undoubtably. But did he order people killed because he was atheist or because he was a dogmatic megalomaniac? In the latter case, how did his atheism contribute to his capacity to perform evil deeds, and how would that have changed had he been a theistic dogmatic megalomaniac?

Please let's not dredge up that old canard again. First: the Columbine killers did not ask whether anyone was a Christian or not before shooting them. Second: the most likely conclusion is that they wouldn't care about the answer. Example: if a Glasgow tough pulls a knife on you and asks if your mother knows how to sew, there's no good answer; answer "yes" and the tough will cut you and reply "let her sew that up then;" answer "no" and the tought will cut you and reply "well she'd better learn how then." Third: whatever they might have asked that one poor girl, the reliable evidence points to the conclusion that she never had a chance to answer.

Even if such a thing were true, as opposed to the Columbine killers one could list hundreds of thousands killed by members of one religion simply because they happened to belong to a different religion or no religion. It's a wash for you at best. Best drop it.

Completely from atheist philosophers like Martin Luther, who advocated burning the Jews of his day out of their homes, confiscating their goods and expelling them from Germany? Try again.

[ March 18, 2002: Message edited by: IvanK ]</p>

HelenM

Suppose you could establish through study/research that the answer is: theists.

Then you still have the question of why that is.

Maybe the people who are more evil are more drawn to theism than less evil people. Maybe they know they are evil and are looking for a solution. Or maybe it's the belief system that makes people more evil once they are in it. But maybe it simply gives them more justification
for what they do. Now they have an excuse to do what they wanted to do anyway.

So...is it the belief system - what it does to people? Is it the people it attracts? Is it both?

Also, I think the answer could be: theists simply because there have been more theists than agnostics/atheists in history.

If we see more atheists in future, proportionately, then I suspect we'll be seeing more atheist fanatics. I don't think that being an atheist/agnostic guarantees that a person is peace-loving and not prone to some sort of fanaticism that might lead them into atrocious behavior.

love
Helen

hinduwoman

I agree completely. It doesnot matter how noble the aims of original religion was, etc. etc. the very fact is belief in God would make men justify anything and they will persuade other people to accept it.
Just take castesystem. The Vedic hindus wouldnot have known what is it if it bit them. The epic ages knew of it but untouchability was unknown. Yet a rigid castehierarchy and untouchability was created slowly and maintained by the belief that gods will it. A lot of hindus who were uneasy about it accepted that since the gods had decreed it (no proof except a bunch of other men has said so)it must be right, and have a deeper significance and justice than is immediately apparent to the human eye.
All the reforms inititated against this were by people who thought outside the box.