The Atheist Atrocities Fallacy
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
No one ever said that there are no atheist muderers. The point here is that no atheist ever murdered anyone and then hid behind the cloak of religion and God to justify it. Seems to me that there have been innocent people,slaughtered in the name of God and religions more than any other issue since the begining of time...and it contunues today...you cannot possibly deny that. If there was no religion, that would cut out about 90% of this worlds problems!!
you are simply making claims that you have no sound reason for.
"The point here is that no atheist ever murdered anyone and then hid behind the cloak of religion and God to justify it."
You don't know that, you simply claim it.
You seem impervious to reason and information.
Atheism does not imply that atheists are better than theists.
Atheism does not imply that atheists can not be bad people.
Atheists are humans that happen to lack belief in a god or gods.
Atheists also include some who believes, or even claims to know, that a god or all gods, do not exist. But they are a minority. Saying that all atheists claim this, is like saying that all cops are dirty.
Atheism in general is not a belief, it is a lack of belief. Do you see the difference?
"Interestingly, many of the internal Germans who tried to stop Hitler by assassination attempts, and by other means were theists. Where the heck were the Atheists? Populating the SS?"
You sir, seem to be trolling rather than discussing.
Now, before you continue your ignorant assault on atheism, did you read the links I provided?
It certainly doesn't seem so.
Please read them first, before you continue to embarrass yourself...
Thank you for acknowledging atheism does not imply they are better than theists. it isn't clear how that coheres, or doesn't cohere with the idea that religion is the root of all evil.
A lack of belief in theism presupposes something even if that presupposition is unstated by the atheist. It could be atheists are unaware of their presuppositions. You see when an atheist commences to explain why they lack belief in theism, their explanations are permeated with assumptions. I realize atheists are accustomed to deny their assumptions or beliefs in some vain attempt to make them appear to be founded in immutable fact. personally I see noting wrong with being an atheist. And nothing wrong with an atheist having some beliefs and assumptions. But to deny beliefs and assumptions simply lacks credibility.
Yes, I read the links you provided. Things claimed in those links are very much subject to interpretation. Too, the "nobeliefs" website is permeated with beliefs. You guys really have to reconsider your "nobeliefs" stance. There are atheists thinkers and scientists who are much better on this issue.
My opinion is what you need to do is,
1. abandon unreliable beliefs and keep reliable ones.
2. acknowledge your beliefs and assumptions.
You guys seem to assume that atheists *must* avoid beliefs, assumptions and the like. It isn't possible.
That's some passive aggressiveness! A lot of disdain and arrogance.
You keep confusing Atheism and Anti-Theism, and it looks to be willingly.
"1. abandon unreliable beliefs and keep reliable ones."
How does lack of belief in a god, somehow become unreliable? Please explain that.
"You keep confusing Atheism and Anti-Theism, and it looks to be willingly."
No he is not "confusing Atheism and Anti-Theism", he is committing a generalization fallacy on many levels.
He is assuming that:
- an atheist is JUST an atheist.(as if a theist can be only a theist)
- atheism is a belief even though we explained to him that it is just lack of belief.
- that there is some agreement between atheists and their other beliefs.
We only agree about the lack of belief and that is the only reason we are called atheists, how hard can it be to accept this basic fact.
There is no atheistic belief system,
QualiaSoup explains this concept perfectly:
Watch that and if you dare mention again that atheism is a belief I'll mark you as a troll.
I had forgotten about that video. It's a very good explanation.
I think it was you who presented it to me the first time and I pointed out at some minor flaws which should have been included.
like instead of using gods, he should have used Theistic gods or versions of Theistic gods etc,... to be more precise and assume nothing.
He still delivers a beautiful explanation with nice examples.
I didn't say lack of belief in a god was unreliable.
On the contrary, I have said that my perspective on knowledge, science and beliefs is mostly influenced by an atheist scientist. I Have posted that atheism is defensible. I didn't make the claims you assume I made.
Really? If I misunderstood I apologize.
What does this mean then?
"You guys really have to reconsider your "nobeliefs" stance. There are atheists thinkers and scientists who are much better on this issue.
My opinion is what you need to do is,
1. abandon unreliable beliefs and keep reliable ones.
2. acknowledge your beliefs and assumptions.
You guys seem to assume that atheists *must* avoid beliefs, assumptions and the like. It isn't possible."
- You say we have to reconsider our "nobeliefs" stance, why?
- You say that there are atheists thinkers and scientists who are much better on this issue, what on Earth does that even mean? What are you trying to say?
- You say we should abandon unreliable beliefs and keep reliable ones. What unreliable beliefs are you talking about? (This is by that way what most atheists keep telling theists, so it seems like a very ironic comment.)
- You say we should acknowledge your beliefs and assumptions. I do, but this depends on what your definition of belief is in this case. I mean belief based on proof.
- You say "you guys" seem to assume that atheists *must* avoid beliefs. There is no must. I happen to not believe in a god, that makes me an atheist.
- You say that it's not possible to avoid beliefs and assumptions. You're right, but again, what do you mean by belief?
I believe in many things based on proof, corroboration and likelihood. I lack faith in gods, angels, ghosts, omens, horoscopes and other superstitious nonsense.
HITLER: THE ATHEIST (Quiz Show):
Typical Nyarlathotep, confusing this perfectly semantically muddled argument with real facts. Tsk tsk tsk...
I just found this article.
"A Great Myth about Atheism: Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot = Atheism = Atrocity – REDUX"
How many people has God himself killed over thousands of years?? ( typhoons, tornado's, hurricanes, tsunami's, torrential floods, mudslides, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc...you get the idea.) I know. I know, God had NOTHING TO DO with those things... but, wait a minute...He DID create everything, didn't He??? Oh, I get it!!! NOT the bad things!!!
Hi reality, thanks for you input. natural disasters are certainly bad from the perspective of the victims especially. This is certainly a puzzle and I am not sure I can offer complete satisfaction on this issue. It seems linked to the idea that deaths by natural disaster is evil, and if god is good and all powerful, why would he allow such suffering and/or evil?
But lets suppose which, you already do, there is no creator God. And here we are in this universe all alone. If atheists had children - ie created life - who were then subjected to natural disasters, would the creators of that life be bad? You see, if it is bad for God to create life which is at risk of suffering, why isn't it bad for atheists to have children who would be at risk of suffering?
Similarly, many invention of mankind result in suffering and death such as the automobile. Lots of deaths in car accidents. Lots of suffering when autos are used to commit crimes. So is the inventors of such creations bad? Despite best efforts, the inventions of mankind do not prevent suffering, and it could be the same with God inventing the universe. Just as humans who create life at risk of suffering and death, are not bad, God isn't either.
Because we all have the same sort of challenges in life. Reproduction, family, and children mean the family continues, the next generation survives and continues. Life is precious, and that alone is worth the risk of suffering.
We need no childish, egocentric deity to 'run' things for us, we are a part of nature, which we must respect.
Why there are 'god apologists' such as yourself on an atheist forum is beyond me... This is a place for skeptical thought, not a speaking platform for people to explain non-existent deities for us.
I want to make sure I have your perspective correctly. If a atheists creates life that is subjected to the risk of natural disaster, that's OK. But if God did the same thing, that's bad. Is that your position?
This is a place for skeptical thought. I am skeptical of your thought. Look, whoever owns the forum allows me to be here. So If you don't like it, take it up with the owner.
But...GOD IS GOD!! WHY ARE YOU PUTTING HIM in the same category as lowly peons like us?? Goid is supposed to have created the life that created the life?? And wfat about God creating everybody...ever hear the phrase, "thats the way God made me?" So, theists, atheists, and whomever DO NOT create anything...GOD IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE CREATED IT!! And, we all know that ...HE CAN DO ANYTHING!! This is a website for atheists...why are you here in the first place??
"Natural disasters" ( act of GOD) are a "puzzle" because you have no logical explanation for my post...and there is no logical explanation for ANY of the theists beliefs. The answer is, " God works in mysterious ways," or, "God has a plan," or " everything happens for a REASON." ( THAT ONE DRIVES ME CRAZY!!) What possible reason could God have for children dying of disease and starvation...or being born with incurable cancers, and other diseases...WHAT POSSIBLE REASON??!! I understand people die in car accidents...but if those people escape harm, or avoid death, why is it said that God saved them?? If that is so, then He is a VERY PARTIAL GOD INDEED!!! He will save SOME people, but NOT others. NOT GOOD!! And besides, GOD CAN DO ANYTHING!!! So whats the problem with not "creating" earthquakes, tsunami's,typhoons, tornado's, mudslides, tropical storms, electrical storms? How about the diseases He created...how do children contract these diseases at birth, without having done anything,( not even sin!!) Theist believe that God created EVERYTHING...To me that includes EVERYTHING. But suddenly, when someone brings up these issues, that is no longer a point for a theist. Well yes, God created everything, but has nothing to do with anything else...that is, if it is an atrocity, or something bad...if the act is good, then, God did it...YOU CANNOT HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO!!!
Maybe God can't create a world that supports life and is free of natural disasters.
Let me see if I have your position correct:
If atheists create a life by having children who are exposed to risks of suffering that's OK. But if God does it, that is bad. Is that your position?
It looks like you have a double standard. You judge God, but not yourself.
"Maybe God can't create a world that supports life and is free of natural disasters."
Okay, so your saying your god is not omnipotent? *Check*
Since you won't tell us your own beliefs, I'll have to collect little clues like this.
When you speak to a theist, many of them really believe that if people "get away from God," that they suddenly will be capable of doing horrendous things, and is the reason for atrocities. Haven't you heard of the ridiculous excuse for God allowing atrocities... " there is not enough God...too many people are getting away from God. We need to bring God back into everyones life." Hasn't anyone heard THAT one?? Not enough God... thats all I hear about is God!! In fact, it is just about IMPOSSIBLE NOT to hear about it. People just automatically bring it into any conversation. People getting away from it...I can't get away from it...it NEVER LEAVES!!!
Live a good life, and ignore them. Your good life will show they are mistaken.
Hitler never claimed to be an atheist, he just hated Jews. I always thought it was fascinating that Copernicus wanted to be a Catholic priest. He didn't want to prove anything, he modeled the heliocentric system because it fit the calendar best and all he wanted was a better clock. It wasn't his fault the science defied the bible. Galileo suffered for his views even when he was right. Witches suffered in bad weather whether they were witches or not.
The entire argument is being missed in this thread.
It's not a question of who killed more people, or even for what reasons they were motivated to kill.
The problem is that people connect atheism with atrocities, hence the name of the fallacy. The best rebuttal is to point out the other groups that Hitler fit into. He had a mustache, he was white, he was German... etc. We must then assume, following the logic of the fallacy, that all people who are white, German, or mustached must also be as evil as Hitler. This is why the fallacy falls short, not because the reasons that are being discussed here already.
Agreed. Add to it that many folks think one is automatically morally righteous if they are religious.
The same fallacy applies to theists. Some atheists believe all the worlds problems are caused by theism. But that's a fallacy too.
It is true, based on my experience, that many theists imply that atheists are bad people automatically just because of their atheist world view. I don't buy that particular theist perspective my self. Its bigotry towards atheists. However, it appears that atheists want to deal with that by making the same unfounded claim about theists. It is counter productive to deal with that bigotry towards you, by being bigots yourselves.
"Some atheists believe all the worlds problems are caused by theism. "
That is an other fallacy called a Straw Man
No atheist I know ever claimed that "ALL the worlds problems are caused by theism. "
So you are exaggerating on purpose to provoke and try to support your baseless claim.
However theism does poison everything.
It creates division and promotes the idea that death is a blessing, apart from the brainwashing of innocent children with a theology not even the brainwashes understand to this day.
Not counting the countless times religion was used as a political tool to manipulate and control the people.
Not counting the innocent people that were murdered legally because they just happen to lack belief in a claim.
Not counting the egoism and arrogance masked as false humility religion instill in people to demand that public schools preach just 1 particular religion.
List goes on....
Trust me I was very kind in my reply, there are far worse atrocities then that that religion brings with it and would not happen without it.
Unlike theist we do not consider theists "bad people", just people that need mental help.
We consider them as victims of a very well funded con game that they cannot really understand.
Yet the character of the Judo-Christian god in the bible is the most evil biography ever recorded. Murder, genocide, rape, child abuse, human sacrifice ;you name it. In fact, the whole Christian religion is based on a human sacrifice, that of Jesus because god is pissed off about adam and eve who he deceived into eating a fruit by allowing a snake in the garden in his omnipotence........ sigh. Point is the most evil being in print is the god they believe in. If any theist Christian is not convince, let him or her ask himself or herself this question, what does god have to do to sin?
I don't see the Bible as a biography ie history of a person. There is very little history in it. It is mostly literature. I don't believe in original sin myself, at least not the way some portray it. However, rebellion to authority can have negative consequences for subsequent generations. I think the story of original sin is just a metaphor for rebellion and the consequences of rebellion. Paul's idea that Jesus had to die for the sins of others never made sense to me. But just because the idea of original sin, and Paul's theology is convoluted, doesn't prove God is evil. All it shows is Paul is mixed up.
The idea of a fallen man, is not a bad one. Even atheists use that one.
And the idea of a redeemed man isn't either.
The way I think of it is:
Sin is falling short of perfection.
Nobody is perfect.
So all, to some degree are fallen.
If we are all fallen, how do we obtain redemption?
In Old testament times it was repentance. That kind of made sense. sometimes repentance can evoke forgiveness.
In the New Testament times Jesus advised forgiveness for the lack of perfection in others. That makes sense too. But things got complicated and strange, in my opinion, with Paul's "Jesus died for our lack of perfection." Hmmmm. I don't get it.
So I have some sympathy for your view, but your view does not prove God is evil.