Subject: Christianity and Violence
I wonder why you never brought up "Judiasm and Violence"? or "Secularism and Violence"?... Hitler and the Nazis were certainly more like Pagans than Catholics or Protestants... and certainly Communism (an officially Atheist philosophy ) has killed far more than even facism ever did.... Many intellectual Jews supported Stalinism, and many were making apologies for the Soviet Union years after the bloody purges of the 1930s or the starvings of the peasant farmers.... Seems like another example of hitting the "politcally incorrect" rather than being intellectually honest.. Jews (can't touch them), Christians (let's bash 'em)...
I don't know why, but every so often I get email from someone who is obviously antisemitic and really doesn't like the fact that I criticize Christianity. I can tell that they aren't secular antisemites but actually Christian antisemites - otherwise, they wouldn't care what other religions I critiqued. Robert here doesn't approve of the fact that I have outlined some of Christianity's violent history and wishes that I would spend more time on the violent history of Jews or of atheism.
There are just two problems with that. First, any critiques I make of the Bible are, implicitly, also critiques of Judaism - at least historically, if not necessarily and always in a contemporary sense. Second, atheism itself isn't a philosophy that can drive ideologies; hence, it can't be held responsible for any of the violence Robert cites. The fact that violent people were atheists is as incidental to their actions as their disbelief in elves or fairies. No such disbeliefs can provide a motivation for anything - good or evil.
None of this, of course, really matters to Christian antisemites like Robert. They are so wrapped up in their own fears and hatreds that little things like facts and logic become irrelevant. Any little idea that might seem to serve their prejudices is latched on to and held tight for dear life; any idea which might undermine their prejudices is explained away or simply ignored. You can't really reason with haters and bigots like Robert.
More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...
Sir, assuming that this response to a rather reasonable point is not satire, you are completely out of line. You do not know that this man is an anti-semite, nor would anything in his response lead to that conclusion. He is simply calling you out for the tendency (common among athiests) to attack Christianity and give other religions a free pass. Additionally, your claim that atheism is somehow philosphically incapable of being responsible for violence is specious at best and disingenuous at worst. Please, do not lob bombs like “antisemetic”, “racist”, or “homophobe” around, as so many are wont to do, in an attempt to win an argument outright, unless you have real reason to think these labels are appropriate.
I’m not Jewish by the way, but an ex-Christian. Emphasis on “ex”, as well as an atheist. One thing in favor of Jews, is that they don’t go around shoving their religion down other people’s throats. Whenever I’ve respectfully discussed religious beliefs with Jewish people, I’ve always received intelligent response/discourse as opposed to the glassy-eyed, lobotomized, parroted: “you’re goin’ to hell” bully routine that I’ve experienced so many times with Christian types. Jews never announce that they’ll “pray” for you (to see things the “correct” way) as well.
And you won’t find pick-up trucks careening around on Saturday nights filled with drunken Jewish guys looking for “fags” to beat the crap out of either. (Gays being the latest of many Christian target groups). I’d rather encounter a Jew, as opposed to a member of the religious right in a dark alley, any ol’ night of the week. From what I understand, Jews do not insist that their beliefs are the one and only path to god, and there are no threats of violence if there is disagreement.
And, no Jewish “tele-tubby’s”(televangelists) exist who sport bad hair on TV, while endlessly trolling for money as they get caught with their pants down in the company of prostitutes, both male and female,(emphasis on male) during their off hours.
The Religious Right with their intolerance and hypocrisy give themselves the bad name they so high and mightily deserve.
The ad hominem response to Robert’s criticism isn’t really appropriate, and I think belies a weak logical argument. Certainly, Christian antisemitism is a form of stupidity and (sometimes merely) latent violence that ought to be called out and confronted when encountered; but the argument that “atheism itself isn’t a philosophy that can drive ideologies” is both empirically wrong and misses the point. Empirically, it is probably true (although I’m open to statistics that prove me wrong) that bloodthirsty people with bloodthirsty religious beliefs have murdered more people than bloodthirsty atheists; but it is also empirically true that bloodthirsty atheists have murdered in the name of atheism, regardless of the soundness of their arguments. In fact, I would wager that “disbelief in elves or fairies” has, in the past, served as a central reason why a population should be killed.
I think it’s important to be able to make the distinction between what people are willing to use as reasons for violence and logically sound arguments. While belief in a particular god may be the most common incitement to genocide, it cannot be argued that theists have a monopoly on using bad justifications for horrendous actions.
If you can point to something specific I wrote that is “not appropriate” and could explain why, I’m sure you would have. Vague references are always easier than specific arguments.
If that were the case, then you’d have been able to point out weaknesses in my position. You didn’t, so you can’t.
It’s empirically true because atheism is merely the absence of belief in gods; as such it is simply an element in philosophies or ideologies rather than an entire philosophy or ideology itself. Anyone ignorant of that necessarily cannot have an informed opinion about atheism or atheists.
If that were the case, you’d have been able to cite some examples. You didn’t because you can’t; but that doesn’t stop you from making vague, unsupported accusations does it?
And no one has made such an argument. Implying that they have would probably qualify as a “straw man,” a logical fallacy. You fail when it comes to both facts and logic, which means that your entire argument and your entire objection here also fail.
You made a typo saying “mattes” instead of “matters”.
Thanks for catching that…
This whole website is more anti-Christian than Atheist. It strikes me as little more than a bunch of pseudo-intellectual lunkheads sitting around nodding at each other.
Usually I see that sort of complaint from people who imagine that there are no critiques of any religion other than Christianity – an impression easily dispelled if one does any sort of search for any other religion. In other words, then, it’s a perspective unique to those who haven’t invested any time or effort into looking around.
Then there is the fact that you capitalize “atheist” even though it’s not a proper noun, something typically done by people who have no idea what atheism is.
Finally, I notice that you complain about others being “pseudo-intellectual” even though your own comment contains absolutely nothing of substance and no specific critiques but instead amounts to nothing more than personal attacks.
Given all this, is there any reason why anyone should take your anonymous comment seriously? You don’t even seem to respect your own ideas enough to put your name to them, which suggests that you are well aware of the above problems but chose to post anyway.
Response to the anti-atheist: first of 3 parts:
If you hold atheists responsible for all the deaths they caused you also have to do the same for religionists. Virtually all of the wars, genocides, ethnic cleansings etc that have occurred since 3000 BC have been started and carried out by people who believed in god. The body count has been estimated at some 969 million deaths (see Everyone Ever in the World, Peter Crnokrak, Science 331:851, 2011). So if you want to blame atheists for millions of deaths they caused you must also blame the god-believes for the hundreds of millions they caused. We are not claiming that secularism is totally good but you are claiming that for religion. If, in fact, religion is primarily a good thing why does it have any body count at all associated with it let alone hundreds of millions of deaths? This seems to be something that you are either deliberately denying or deluding yourself, something you are quick to blame other people for. The obvious reason is that not only is religion wrong but it is also fundamentally immoral and unethical.
Response to anti-atheist: Part II
With regard to Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, first, Hitler was a Roman Catholic in good standing with his church and saw himself carrying out god’s mission. He was also fully supported by his church, which hates secularism more than any other movement on earth. Most tellingly as part of his anti-Slav, anti-Communist and anti-atheist bigotry, Hitler proceeded to murder some 30 million Soviet nonbelievers between 1940-4, which totally discounts his supposed secularity.
As for Stalin and Mao, it doesn’t exonerate them, but I’m sure that they would have told you that they were engaged in life and death struggles with murderous fascists who were trying to destroy them. As noted above, Hitler did invade Russia to kill 30 million while Imperial Japan invaded China in the 1930s and murdered and raped hundreds of thousands of Chinese. Stalin and Mao were far from rational thinkers, which, for me, is an essential component of atheism. But how many of us would have remained rational under those circumstances? Look at what happened to the Jews, long held to be ethical, under the same conditions. As a result of the Holocaust they acquired nuclear weapons and are reported ready to launch a preemptive nuclear strike against Iran, if that country acquires nuclear bombs, which would kill millions of innocents and lead to a nuclear winter for us all. So even these moral people might become agents of mass death if the conditions arise.
Response to the anti-atheist. Part III
Finally, I should point out that Mao’s socialist revolution of 1949-76 also resulted in a vast improvement in life for the Chinese people. Between 1949 and 1975, life expectancy in socialist China more than doubled, from about 32 to 65 years. By the early 1970s, infant mortality rates in Shanghai were lower than in New York City. All this reveals a profound reduction in the violence of everyday life. The extent of literacy swelled in the span of one generation–from about 15 percent in 1949 to some 80 to 90 percent in the mid-1970s. Pope Pius, Pope Paul, Pope Benedict and Mother Theresa did not reduce poverty, extend lifespan, reduce infant mortality, increase literacy and improve health care for their catholic masses. They increased overpopulation, reduced women’s rights, blocked family planning, blocked stem cell research and are now blocking efforts to reduce global warming.
Eric Stone,
You’d be wrong, Eric. Atheism is merely the absence of belief that anything divine exists. It is not a worldview of any sort. As such, while I don’t disagree that atheists should be rational thinkers (everyone should, for that matter, be they theist or atheist), there is nothing about atheism per se that necessitates greater rationality. It is possible to be an atheist and be the most thoroughly irrational thinker imaginable and such a person is no less an atheist than the rational thinker who is also an atheist.