three4jump

Most on this board would agree that history is full of examples of violence in the name of religion. The Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition for example. Maybe these wars and murders and exploitation were really committed because people truly believed, or maybe religion was just a convenient excuse to kill people and take their possessions.

The U.S.S.R. and China were officially atheist, and they killed millions of people for simply voicing dissent against the state philosophy. This included the invasion of Tibet, for example, where monasteries were destroyed and the practice of religion was banned or sharply curtailed.

Although it hasn't happened to the same extent as violence in the name of religion, would you agree that there has been a significant amount of violence in the name of atheism in world history?

Piking Viking

You'd have to first prove that they did that violence because of their atheism and not just because they were brutal dictators. But last time I checked the reason for the violence was the latter not the former.

three4jump

How would I prove this one way or the other? How could I prove it in regards to the Crusades? Religion was the stated reason for the crusades, but it seems to me that it was really about racism, greed, bloodlust, and war profiteering. Whether any of the crusaders actually believed in his heart that he was an instrument of god is unknowable to me. I think that's why we call it violence in the name of religion, because we have no way of knowing their actual motivations.

In this same sense, when Chinese communists destroy Tibetan temples, their stated reason for doing it is because "Religion is poison," according to Mao. They are really doing it to steal the gold from the idols, most likely, but their stated reason is in the name of atheism. Perhaps they don't say it quite like that--"I destroy this temple in the name of Atheism"--but they destroy the temples specifically because they are religious institutions.

Tuvar Ane Ingolenen

The U.S.S.R. and China were officially Communist, ( they were also Aleprechaunist, A-last-thursday-ist and AFSMist ). Maybe these things were done in name of Communism (or Aleprechaunism, A-last-thursday-ism and AFSMism)?

There is nothing in Atheist doctrine that mandates or condones harsh treatment of enemies of the state, subversives or captitalists (nor in Aleprechaunist, A-last-thursday-ist and AFSMist doctrine).
So, I'm guessing it was probably in name of Communism and not Atheism.

angela2

Atheism usually defines itself as a negative, the absence of a belief in God. It's pretty tough for the absence of something to be treated as a cause. Can I say the absence of hot water this morning caused me to take a cold shower? No. I had other options. I could have simply not showered or showered at a neighbor's for example.

Alethias

The U.S.S.R and China were also officially Communist. Wasn't their violence enacted in the name of communism? In your own words the reason for the killing was that the people were "voicing dissent against the state philosophy". The state philosophy we are talking about here is not atheism, it is Communism. They would have killed an objectivist or a secular humanist with similar fervor, and both of those would be atheists by definition.

Alethias

Tuvar Ane Ingolenen

Religion is simply the wrong ideology, just like Capitalism, National Socialism or Monarchism (which are compatible with atheism, just like Communism). They did not hesitate to try to destroy things dear to (people who subscribe to) these ideologies.

three4jump

So if it was in the name of Communism, why destroy churches and temples? Was it because Communisn was the new religion? Communism which was integrally atheist?

Huon

Or maybe for both reasons, which are not incompatible. In france, it was clearly both reasons.

three4jump

Why would Russian or Chinese communists have killed a secular humanist?