Stalin was an atheist and a bad man so atheism is bad?

[Sparky]

This also applies to Pol Pot and Mao Zedong (and arguably Hitler).

I know that this is a terrible argument against atheism and I know intuitively that it is wrong but I can't see exactly why. Most theists using this argument will say he had no reason to have morals and so atheism is bad whereas religion lays them out and so he would not have done this.

This could be straying into the area of atheism is correct (ie there is no god) but it is wrong to have an atheistic system because it means that bad people have no fear of something more powerful than them who will judge them on their actions during life.

Can someone put together a decent argument to show me what is wrong with this other than "Well, religion is just as bad with all of the crusades, inquistions, etc"?

 

[DarwinsOtherTheory]

Well you could start by letting them know that atheistic societies, or at least societies with a high percentage of atheists/agnostics work, think of northern europe.

Second, let's see stalin's reasons, he didn't kill people because he was an atheist, he killed for power and he killed people who opposed him, he killed leon trotsky, does that make him not a communist?

I've heard this argument many times, the old stalin was an atheist therefore atheism = bad, ask him if he could elaborate on how stalin's atheism was fundamental to the things he did, and most importantly remember that atheism is not a philosophy or worldview, saying staling and hitler we're awful because they were atheists is like saying they killed millions because they were not astronomers.

 

[Sparky]

[...]and most importantly remember that atheism is not a philosophy or worldview, saying staling and hitler we're awful because they were atheists is like saying they killed millions because they were not astronomers.

That is a good point. It is more or less the same as Dawkins' argument. But does atheism contribute to world view? I think it does to some point (lack of fear of judgment?) so can it still partly be to blame? Please understand that I am not skeptical atheism, just how much of a contribution it made to these leaders' ideologies.

I guess what I am getting at is not whether atheism itself is bad but whether it can lead to an "evil" worldview or philosophy.

In saying that, yes it can but can religion? I guess it can. So can one say that since it isn't religion or lack thereof that causes these people to do these things but their worldviews and that people of both religious and non-religious backgrounds have had "evil" worldviews so neither religion or atheism is at fault in particular? (Sorry - long sentence )

Is this a fair rebuttal to the argument? I guess this is more or less what you were getting at wasn't it?

 

[gwr3440]

Theists who say this are just being stupid. Because atheist is a simple demographic label for what we aren't, not what we are.

It's pretty much all we have in common.

And it's a non-event.

It's like saying blondes are stupid.

But it is an example of the real problem - that stupid theists who imagine their God is real, supremely important and central to everybody's lives are incapable of grasping just how insignificant it actually is to everybody else. So they imagine we are evil people who deny the obvious for all sorts of nefarious reasons.

 

[Homunclus]

Then again was Stalin an atheist? I mean can someone who thinks he is god be an atheist? :mrgreen:

Since so many people in russia treat Stalin as a deity could it not be arguable that their idiology was more religious than secular?

And is it not true that evil religious people manipulate religion to serve their needs? Is it not true that religion can be used to justify just about anything?

So what is the problem here? Fundamentalism. People who say: "This is the truth, and every other truth is wrong, and all who belive otherwise must either be converted or destroyed".

Once you become a fundamentalist it doesn't really matter if your "truth" is the bible or the communist manifesto - because you are sure to distort it

 

[ImprobableJoe]

The Nazis were Christians, therefore Christianity is bad.

 

[JBeukema]

the jews committed genocide- there holy books say so.... jews = nazis

christians burned women alive, committed mass slaughter of unbelievers, crushed men with rocks, and sought to purge the world of other peoples... xtians equal nazis


Which is a stronger comparison: mutual non-subscription to a given ideology (neither of us are communist...you area capitalist... john wayne gacey was a capitalist...) or mutual subscription to an ideology that teaches racism and genocide (leviticus, judges, jushua...)?

When moronic xtians start talking like you decribe in the OP, just kill them and make the world a little bit safer- after all, if hitler stood before you and proceeded to claim the moral highground because you're a non-nazi and the police who beat Ghandi were also non-nazis.... woould you take him seriously?

 

[GoodKat]

First and foremost, as you pointed out this cannot be used as an argument against the validity of atheism, so on its own the best it can do is suggest that you should intentionally delude yourself into belief in God for moral purposes.

Second, Hitler was definitely not an atheist:

""Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
-Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

Third, unless a clear connection between Stalin's behavior and atheism can be drawn, it is no more important than the fact that Stalin had a mustache.

Fourth, atheism is simply the absence of a belief, so it clearly cannot define a person. I am a skeptic and a freethinker first and foremost, my atheism is merely a side-effect.

 

[MachineSp1rit]

this argument is terribly stupid and relatively severe at the same time, it has two sides.

first-if u start counting religious people who did bad things, u may never stop, or the deeds that christianism has done, i mean the crusades, also in bible it says that god "told" some people to burn some city and kill all the women and children in there, because they were unclean, reminds me of my "warhammer" game. lots of stupid zealots were holding the science back for centuries, were and are getting people mislead, etc. etc.

now for the other side-IF Stalin, and many others, including christians themselves, followed the basic rules, given by christianity, of what u should, and should not do, that is, if they were TRUE CHRISTIANS, many bad things could have been avoided, including all the evil Stalin has done.

but there are and always were very few "true christians" in the world, these are ignorant as well, but at least they live without harming anybody.

 

[Cryogeneric]

Richard Dawkins brought this point up several times.

His response was that the actions Stalin took were motivated by his lust for power and vision of a communist utopia. He was not motivated by his atheism. He took steps to try and stamp out religion yes, but moreso because he saw religious leaders as a threat to state authority.

This stands in contrast to say, the crusades or inquisition which were motivated specifically by religion.

So the religious can't cite Stalin and claim all atheists are immoral in the same way I can't cite George Bush and claim all Christians are idiots.

 

[RestrictedAccess]

Can someone put together a decent argument to show me what is wrong with this other than "Well, religion is just as bad with all of the crusades, inquistions, etc"?

How about 'actions of the minority does not make the majority guilty'. If you were to point to the Puritans persecution of innocent men and women in the name of stamping out witchcraft, many Christians would be inclined to pull a 'no true scotsman' fallacy. The same treatment is given to many violent acts perpetrated in the name of a religion. It takes people with a tendency for violence to scapegoat a philosophy or religion as the reason for their bad actions. That does not mean the scapegoated religion or philosophy is inherently bad, or that the majority of practitioners share this mindset.

 

[Aught3]

I rather like Hitchens' answer (paraphrasing),
Totalitarian regimes are, in effect, theocracies and the long association of religion with corrupt power has meant that most countries have had to undergo at least one antilclerical phase. Stalin was seen as doing the will of God on earth and the clerics which supported the party declared Christ to be a Soviet man. Stalin was seen as slightly more than a man and he claimed that authority for himself.

The other part would be to observe that being an atheist only tells the other person that you don't believe in a god. You can be an atheist and be a;
psychopath
Stalinist
Fascist - actually that last one is quite uncommon most fascists were catholic.

/Hitchens

 

[Sparky]

But does atheism contribute to world view? I think it does to some point (lack of fear of judgment?) so can it still partly be to blame?

I see now after reading these that I went wrong here. Atheism doesn't give one their worldview, it is one's worldview that causes them to be atheist

 

[Weirdtopia]

Stalin and Pol Pot did bad things because of there political ideals not there atheist ideals
Hitler wasn't an atheist, why would an atheist have a personal pope? and give power to churches and kick out Humanist and Freethinking groups out of German?

 

[Otokogoroshi]

Any way of thinking can be brought to a terrible and genocidal conclusion (though it isn't inevitable).

If someone believes and promotes their way of thinking hard enough and gains enough power then it can be used to kill.

Really all it would take to get say... Republicans or Democrats to start killing each other is a very charismatic leader, enough hard times or control to lead their ideas to the forefront enough that they start going at each other worse than they do today!

Claiming that atheism and non belief in gods leads to moral less actions is stupid. It shows someone has a weak understanding of what morals are, where they come from and that frankly they have so little ammo that they pull out this tired little bit.

 

[enterman]

Any way of thinking can be brought to a terrible and genocidal conclusion (though it isn't inevitable).

If someone believes and promotes their way of thinking hard enough and gains enough power then it can be used to kill.

Really all it would take to get say... Republicans or Democrats to start killing each other is a very charismatic leader, enough hard times or control to lead their ideas to the forefront enough that they start going at each other worse than they do today!

Claiming that atheism and non belief in gods leads to moral less actions is stupid. It shows someone has a weak understanding of what morals are, where they come from and that frankly they have so little ammo that they pull out this tired little bit.

this guy is the perfect example of this: I mean, you just have to say "seriously?" at him lol. The video got removed but for more like that one see his channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/thealphacrow

 

[SatanicBunny]

I see now after reading these that I went wrong here. Atheism doesn't give one their worldview, it is one's worldview that causes them to be atheist

Exactly. Like a few others have pointed out there is no proof or evidence to support claims of Stalin or any else dictator doing the atrocities they did because of atheism. Stalin's agendas were clearly political and power-centered. Hitler wasn't an atheist.

Atheism is not a religion nor is it an ideology. It is simply a word to describe those who don't believe in god(s). One can be an atheist due to many reasons and at the same time one can be a murderer or otherwise cruel or violent person, but that is not because of atheism. Like you said, atheism does not define one's world view in the same way as many religions do and hence it is not possible to blame atheism for these atrocities any more than it is to blame violent videogames for school shootings or a blond's hair colour for her stupidity,

On the other hand, we have multiple example of wars and violent acts directly inspired by religions and their differences. It can be interesting to use this when debating with a religious person in which case their only defense is to pull the "No TRUE scotsman" -logical fallacy.

 

[Mapp]

Solzhenitsyn explained it thusly: The problem isn't religion or lack of religion, it's ideology. Ideology is when an ideal is forcibly applied to the world in an attempt to make it a reality. What makes ideologues dangerous is that they can use the ideal to justify any act of barbarity. The utopian means always justifies the ends. Fundamentalist and Millenial Christianity is an ideology in that it is an attempt to prepare the world for the coming of Christ through purification. Nazism is an ideology based around racial purification. Marxist-Leninism is an ideology based around the creation of a classless society.

Just because Stalin's ideology was atheistic does not make it any more or less dangerous. To me, the question of whether Stalin and Hitler were religious is irrelevant. Communism was, in essence, his religion.

 

[JBeukema]

I just quote biblical scriptures ordering genocide and walk away after proving the Jews are worse than Hitler

 

[Mafiaaffe]