Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #41)
Mon Sep 17, 2012, 02:43 AM
Major Nikon (25,031 posts)
42. Ah yes, the old tired well debunked argument that atheism fueled Hitler and Stalin's genocides
The problem is it just doesn't pass even a cursory bullshit test and is childishly simple to debunk. It relies on the false equivalency of atheism and religion. The problem with this failed premise is that nobody goes to war for atheism. There are no sacred books of atheism to reference as a source of wisdom, no dogma to follow, nothing to die for, no prophets to follow blindly, and no false promises of virgins or paradise in the afterlife for soldiers (which conveniently can never be verified). The basic problem with using atheism as a tool for genocide or war is it's pretty fucking hard to motivate someone to kill with it. How do you think that works exactly or have you actually bothered to think it through? You also either ignore or are unaware of Hitler's support by the Christian establishment and his frequent references to his own Christianity (whether he believed it or not) in his speeches. Hitler was never an atheist and publicly self identified as a Christian throughout his entire life without exception. Hitler very masterfully used Christianity to motivate and ultimately kill people the same way it's been done since recorded history. So did other Nazis. He well understood the power such a tool allows and he used it to great effect. So which do you think is more responsible for the Nazis? Atheism or Christianity? I'm pretty sure I know what the answer to that is, but I'd love to hear your argument and we can expand on Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot or anyone else you want too.
No, I don't discriminate against particular organized religions. They are all nutty as far as I'm concerned. It's just a matter of degree. I just use Christianity as an example most often because it's what most people in the US can most easily identify with.
Yes, I do have a problem with the 10 commandments. The problem with all ideas borne from religion is they exchange revelation for reason and inevitably revelation always trumps reason or simply does away with it entirely (as is the case with the 10 commandments). There is absolutely nothing about the 10 commandments which are based in reason. It's all revelation. So maybe it works somewhat if you happen to be a practicing Jew and you are predisposed to believe in the more hocus pocus aspects of religion and you don't happen to mind extreme misogyny. Even then I'm not really sure what value it adds to anything. Have you every actually read them and seriously gave them any thought? The first four essentially command you to close your mind and pledge your allegiance to a made up entity. The next one requires you to pledge your support to your parents, evidently regardless of whether they rape you or sell you into slavery. The next one says not to kill, unless you catch someone worshiping another god in the next town (kill the entire village and burn the livestock), you find out your wife isn't a virgin, you catch your daughter fornicating, you catch someone working on Friday or Sunday(depending on which prophet you believe more), etc. The next one says don't commit adultery, but again you get numerous exceptions like prostitutes, children, polygamy, and rape which evidently get you a free pass. The next one says not to steal, which is probably the best one of the bunch, but the bible also commands you to steal in certain instances. The next one sort of says don't lie, but even biblical scholars can't agree on what it really means so you can really make up your own definition if you want and you'll be as close as anyone. The last one says don't steal from your neighbor, which was already covered in #8 and seems a bit redundant. I guess if you steal your neighbor's slave maybe you get stoned to death twice or something. I could come up with a better list of 10 on a cocktail napkin with "don't masturbate on the bus", "don't stick your dick in a vacuum cleaner", and "don't piss in the wind" as three of the directives and I wouldn't need a talking donkey, a talking snake, or a talking bush to do it. You don't need religion to come up with nonsense.
Religious ethics don't add to reason, as you claim. It always detracts from reason. It's also inherently subject to corruption and frequently used in such a manner today just like it has been for thousands of years.
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
|Richard D||Sep 2012||OP|
|me b zola||Sep 2012||#2|
|Schema Thing||Sep 2012||#25|
|Lint Head||Sep 2012||#5|
|Major Nikon||Sep 2012||#9|
|Major Nikon||Sep 2012||#24|
|Schema Thing||Sep 2012||#27|
|Spitfire of ATJ||Sep 2012||#17|
|Richard D||Sep 2012||#28|
|Gabby Hayes||Sep 2012||#46|
|Major Nikon||Sep 2012||#30|
|Major Nikon||Sep 2012||#33|
Ah yes, the old tired well debunked argument that atheism fueled Hitler and Stalin's genocides
|Major Nikon||Sep 2012||#42|
|Major Nikon||Sep 2012||#44|
|Major Nikon||Sep 2012||#47|
|Major Nikon||Sep 2012||#49|
|Bette Noir||Sep 2012||#56|
|Douglas Carpenter||Sep 2012||#67|
Please login to view edit histories.