What are the negatives of Atheism?

Hepheastus420

Well-Known Member
where in the scientific method does it say its okay to do that? what people do with science is up to them. like heis said, science is a systematic way of carefully and thoroughly observing nature while using consistent logic to evaluate the results. there is nothing inherit in science that persuades people to commit evil things.
religion on the other hand uses the words of scripture itself to commit the evil acts. people read in their holy book that god says its okay to kill homosexuals, so they go out and do it.
Science says that it's ok to do fucked up experiments in the name of science. Check out these links
http://listverse.com/2008/03/14/top-10-evil-human-experiments/
http://www.cracked.com/article_18479_5-psych-experiments-that-sounded-fun-until-they-started.html
http://www.cracked.com/article_16583_the-5-scientific-experiments-most-likely-to-end-world.html
These people were just doing experiments to advance in science. There is no wrong in the scientific method, if you discovered something then it's right by science.
 

Hepheastus420

Well-Known Member
i thought they were a perfect example of the negativity of the human race hardly something you blame on atheism...

and your having to dig quite far back for any sort of result there 65+ years ago?

i wonder just how many i could pull up agaisnt religion for last 10 years ..?
Between 1939-1944 hitlers group kill around 5.1-6.0 million people. So yeah in the last 10 years have religious people killed 5.1-6.0 million people?
 

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
Science says that it's ok to do fucked up experiments in the name of science. Check out these links
http://listverse.com/2008/03/14/top-10-evil-human-experiments/
http://www.cracked.com/article_18479_5-psych-experiments-that-sounded-fun-until-they-started.html
http://www.cracked.com/article_16583_the-5-scientific-experiments-most-likely-to-end-world.html
These people were just doing experiments to advance in science. There is no wrong in the scientific method, if you discovered something then it's right by science.
There is no wrong in the scientific method. Correct. It is merely tool, a systematic methodology to accomplish a task. Like other tools, say a gun it has no conscience, no morality. Are guns bad? Many people say they are but I have yet to see a gun jump up and shoot someone. Like any tool, it is up to the humans that utilize it to determine what is good and proper. Stop blaming a tool for the misuse by people.

Religion is not a tool, it in stark contrast to the amoral science. Most religions claim to be a guide for life. Religion is supposed to teach, to differentiate between good and bad, instructions for morality. Yet when it fails, you seem to want to give it a pass and compare it to things that don't make the same claims. Sorry Hep, you may be reading what everyone else is saying but you aren't really giving it the contemplation it deserves.
 

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
Between 1939-1944 hitlers group kill around 5.1-6.0 million people. So yeah in the last 10 years have religious people killed 5.1-6.0 million people?
So are you sticking with the idea that if someone kills because of non-religious reasons it is a mark against atheism? You have yet to demonstrate how Nazism or Hitler's atrocities had anything to do with not believing in god or gods.
 

Hepheastus420

Well-Known Member
There is no wrong in the scientific method. Correct. It is merely tool, a systematic methodology to accomplish a task. Like other tools, say a gun it has no conscience, no morality. Are guns bad? Many people say they are but I have yet to see a gun jump up and shoot someone. Like any tool, it is up to the humans that utilize it to determine what is good and proper. Stop blaming a tool for the misuse by people.

Religion is not a tool, it in stark contrast to the amoral science. Most religions claim to be a guide for life. Religion is supposed to teach, to differentiate between good and bad, instructions for morality. Yet when it fails, you seem to want to give it a pass and compare it to things that don't make the same claims. Sorry Hep, you may be reading what everyone else is saying but you aren't really giving it the contemplation it deserves.
So you don't believe in religion so how do you not think of books like the Quran and the Bible as tools to control a large population of the world? I have never seen the Quran jump up and kill someone, like with any tool it is up to the humans to utilize it to determine what is good and proper.
 

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
Hitler was a christian (raised catholic), which was (in part) the genesis of his antisemitism. You say atheism-driven research, but there is no indication that atheism had anything to do with it. Even if they were atheist, they were not doing these evil deeds IN THE NAME OF ATHEISM (lack of belief), where as religious evil is often done IN THE NAME OF RELIGION. Not to mention that the Third Reich was very close to a religion in it's own right, but I won't digress...
yep, IOW, the problem was dogmatic adherence to Hitlers ideology, in which case, the Holocaust proves my point.
 

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
So you don't believe in religion so how do you not think of books like the Quran and the Bible as tools to control a large population of the world? I have never seen the Quran jump up and kill someone, like with any tool it is up to the humans to utilize it to determine what is good and proper.
Because now you are misrepresenting what the 'thing' is that we consider dangerous. The books themselves are not religion. The books are tools to convey the ideology of religion, so in that respect you are correct, the bible and the Qur'an are harmless in and of themselves. Religions though are not their holy books, they are ideas, world views and belief systems. Religions transcend the books that describe them. Religions can exist without the books. You are incorrect, it is not up to humans to determine what is good and proper, that's the job of the religion according to its followers.
 

Hepheastus420

Well-Known Member
Because now you are misrepresenting what the 'thing' is that we consider dangerous. The books themselves are not religion. The books are tools to convey the ideology of religion, so in that respect you are correct, the bible and the Qur'an are harmless in and of themselves. Religions though are not their holy books, they are ideas, world views and belief systems. Religions transcend the books that describe them. Religions can exist without the books. You are incorrect, it is not up to humans to determine what is good and proper, that's the job of the religion according to its followers.
Wrong it's up to the follower to choose if he/she wants to follow that religion and it's teachings.
 

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
Science says that it's ok to do fucked up experiments in the name of science. Check out these links
http://listverse.com/2008/03/14/top-10-evil-human-experiments/
http://www.cracked.com/article_18479_5-psych-experiments-that-sounded-fun-until-they-started.html
http://www.cracked.com/article_16583_the-5-scientific-experiments-most-likely-to-end-world.html
These people were just doing experiments to advance in science. There is no wrong in the scientific method, if you discovered something then it's right by science.
Hep, I have to agree with you here. Though I am not sure experimentation can be solely blamed on science itself, if this experimentation provides knowledge, if it provides results while observing and testing nature, the process was not misused. Much of amoral experimentation is exempt from this, as MP pointed out, in many cases, such as Nazi experiments, it is a misuse. But daily innocent animals are being experimented on in the name of medical advancement. The researchers do not see this as amoral, but as a necessary part of the process of learning. I have to say it sometimes seems especially cruel and therefore really close to evil.

I have seen cats who had parts of their brains removed so that they are no longer paralyzed during sleep. (your body is semi paralyzed to keep you from acting out your dreams) These cats now and forever will move around during their sleep, making it far less restful and making them likely to injure themselves. Other cats have had thier penis blocked to simulate Feline urinary syndrome. Some of these cats are then given a treatment which cures them, while others are a control group and so they are left untreated until their bladder fills up and bursts, which is a horrible and painful way to die. Because of these cats and this research, we know much more about FUS which helped my cat to survive it, but that does not justify the misery of the innocent cats. An argument could be made that this was the result of greedy pharmaceutical companies, but the scientists performing these acts committed torture and murder in the name of science and didn't feel it was amoral, as it provided valuable knowledge. In this way, science offered justification for evil.

I may not be thinking this through, I have a nagging feeling that I am missing something and maybe the other science guys can point it out, but it seems you have indeed identified a potential evil that is inherit to science. Again, it seems dogmatic adherence to any ideology leads to cruelty. It should be pointed out though, this has nothing to do with skepticism or atheism.
 

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
Wrong it's up to the follower to choose if he/she wants to follow that religion and it's teachings.
That makes no sense. If you are a follower of a particular religion, you do not (should not) get to cherry pick what teachings to follow. If that religion says that god commands you to kill all witches, then that's what you should do. If your god says it's an abomination to eat shellfish, then you don't eat shrimp or lobster. If you decide to not follow that religion because you don't like it's rules, then you really must not have believed those religious teachings came from your creator to begin with. If you don't believe that, than you are essentially an atheist toward that religion (either that or you're okay with eternal damnation) :)
 

sen.c

Active Member
Eugenics is not Darwinism. Darwin proposed a mechanism for how evolution occurred, the combination of variation and natural selection. Evolution has no goal, eugenics does. Evolution is not pretty, is not gentle, is not kind, is not compassionate, is not loving. Evolution is blind, and brutal, and callous. It is not an aspiration or a blueprint to live up to, it is simply what happens, the blind, inexorable forces of nature at work. Attempting to link Darwin and Hitler displays either your ignorance or guile.
I am very aware of the difference in Darwinism and Eugenics, if you really do some research you will find that Hitler and his plan was based in Darwinism in his thinking and then he started looking into Eugenic experiments and methods after seeing what Our country was doing and studying in the eugenics movement. There are also interviews from prevelent historians of the Reich that say without a doubt his ideas were based in Darwinism.

Sounds like he fostered a type of national religion. No, it wasn't Christianity but being a religion, it certainly wasn't atheistic either.
Agreed
 

Luger187

Well-Known Member
science does not give 'moral rules' to go by. its just a way of discovery. it is up to the culture to determine whether or not the experiments are moral. or sometimes they are done in secret. in heis' case with the feline urinary sydrome, i think its up to the people to decide whether it is moral or not(although i do feel bad for the cats :cry:). if they see a good enough outcome, they may justify doing some evil acts, if the outcome is needed enough. they realized they may discover something new by doing the experiment, and the payoff was (probably) going to be a new treatment that could save the lives of many more cats. maybe they saw it as sacrificing a few to save the many. idk, theres tons of different ways humans can justify things. i guess it is sort of a moral grey area.

but religions claim to have the best morals around while also claiming to be the almighty and wonderful god. it is because of these two things that people are justified in their actions, be they good or bad. a person can commit terribly evil acts while claiming to be doing it for god, and they feel it is totally moral to do so. they think god is with them, and anyone who is against them is a sinner/infidel. this causes conflict among people because they think they are 100% correct and nobody can talk them out of it, because god will be mad.
 

Hepheastus420

Well-Known Member
That makes no sense. If you are a follower of a particular religion, you do not (should not) get to cherry pick what teachings to follow. If that religion says that god commands you to kill all witches, then that's what you should do. If your god says it's an abomination to eat shellfish, then you don't eat shrimp or lobster. If you decide to not follow that religion because you don't like it's rules, then you really must not have believed those religious teachings came from your creator to begin with. If you don't believe that, than you are essentially an atheist toward that religion (either that or you're okay with eternal damnation) :)
Yes, I made a mistake. Let me restate that. It is up to a human to choose to pick up a religion and follow it through.
 

Hepheastus420

Well-Known Member
Hep, I have to agree with you here. Though I am not sure experimentation can be solely blamed on science itself, if this experimentation provides knowledge, if it provides results while observing and testing nature, the process was not misused. Much of amoral experimentation is exempt from this, as MP pointed out, in many cases, such as Nazi experiments, it is a misuse. But daily innocent animals are being experimented on in the name of medical advancement. The researchers do not see this as amoral, but as a necessary part of the process of learning. I have to say it sometimes seems especially cruel and therefore really close to evil.

I have seen cats who had parts of their brains removed so that they are no longer paralyzed during sleep. (your body is semi paralyzed to keep you from acting out your dreams) These cats now and forever will move around during their sleep, making it far less restful and making them likely to injure themselves. Other cats have had thier penis blocked to simulate Feline urinary syndrome. Some of these cats are then given a treatment which cures them, while others are a control group and so they are left untreated until their bladder fills up and bursts, which is a horrible and painful way to die. Because of these cats and this research, we know much more about FUS which helped my cat to survive it, but that does not justify the misery of the innocent cats. An argument could be made that this was the result of greedy pharmaceutical companies, but the scientists performing these acts committed torture and murder in the name of science and didn't feel it was amoral, as it provided valuable knowledge. In this way, science offered justification for evil.

I may not be thinking this through, I have a nagging feeling that I am missing something and maybe the other science guys can point it out, but it seems you have indeed identified a potential evil that is inherit to science. Again, it seems dogmatic adherence to any ideology leads to cruelty. It should be pointed out though, this has nothing to do with skepticism or atheism.
Agreed, and I must admit I cannot find direct negatives to atheism. Maybe there's some I just can't find any. How about you heis can you think of a problem that directly arises from atheism? (poor cats).
 

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
Agreed, and I must admit I cannot find direct negatives to atheism. Maybe there's some I just can't find any. How about you heis can you think of a problem that directly arises from atheism? (poor cats).
No because atheism is just the position created when someone else believes in god. It's a non-position that doesn't require you to make any assertions. It is not an ideology itself, but it an extension of skepticism. The difference between skepticism and other belief systems is that it begs to be criticized and makes every attempt to self correct. I believe this helps it avoid the pitfalls we have identified here.
 

Hepheastus420

Well-Known Member
No because atheism is just the position created when someone else believes in god. It's a non-position that doesn't require you to make any assertions. It is not an ideology itself, but it an extension of skepticism. The difference between skepticism and other belief systems is that it begs to be criticized and makes every attempt to self correct. I believe this helps it avoid the pitfalls we have identified here.
Agreed, so there is no problem with atheism. But there are problems in science which what I believed atheists revolved around. So I'm sure you can understand why I made that statement of how there are many problems with atheism. What I really meant to say is there is many problems with science, which many times combats religion.
 

tyler.durden

Well-Known Member
Hep, I have to agree with you here. Though I am not sure experimentation can be solely blamed on science itself, if this experimentation provides knowledge, if it provides results while observing and testing nature, the process was not misused. Much of amoral experimentation is exempt from this, as MP pointed out, in many cases, such as Nazi experiments, it is a misuse. But daily innocent animals are being experimented on in the name of medical advancement. The researchers do not see this as amoral, but as a necessary part of the process of learning. I have to say it sometimes seems especially cruel and therefore really close to evil.

I have seen cats who had parts of their brains removed so that they are no longer paralyzed during sleep. (your body is semi paralyzed to keep you from acting out your dreams) These cats now and forever will move around during their sleep, making it far less restful and making them likely to injure themselves. Other cats have had thier penis blocked to simulate Feline urinary syndrome. Some of these cats are then given a treatment which cures them, while others are a control group and so they are left untreated until their bladder fills up and bursts, which is a horrible and painful way to die. Because of these cats and this research, we know much more about FUS which helped my cat to survive it, but that does not justify the misery of the innocent cats. An argument could be made that this was the result of greedy pharmaceutical companies, but the scientists performing these acts committed torture and murder in the name of science and didn't feel it was amoral, as it provided valuable knowledge. In this way, science offered justification for evil.

I may not be thinking this through, I have a nagging feeling that I am missing something and maybe the other science guys can point it out, but it seems you have indeed identified a potential evil that is inherit to science. Again, it seems dogmatic adherence to any ideology leads to cruelty. It should be pointed out though, this has nothing to do with skepticism or atheism.
Hey, Heis. I am aware that this post will make me seem like a dick, but I am being honest. I know that you empathize with/love animals (esp. cats) and I know others here probably feel the same way. I myself am not an animal lover (except when they are cooked correctly). I know many folks that profess the love of animals, and still eat them every day. I'm not saying that the two things are incompatible, but I'd have a problem with that dilemma. I think that animal research is forgivable: I used to work for a CEAR (center for experimental animal research), and we received regular shipments of monkey, rabbits, pigs, etc.. for research. They were all very cute. We received death threats regularly, and I could never understand why it would be okay to kill us, when no one is down at KFC or slaughter houses threatening their workers. Our researchers did harm these animals with a detached demeanor, but I don't believe any were enjoying it or rubbing their hands together in malevolent glee in anticipation of torturing these animals. They simply hurt theses animals in hopes that their research would make it possible that humans wouldn't be. While most life has value, I feel that human lives are by far the most valuable, for if nothing more than their potential: potentially, any single human could come up with a cure for cancer, come up with an accurate TOE, invent something spectacular that could advance all of humanity. I also think it is natural for each species to have it's own best interest at heart before the welfare of other species, and while animals lives have value, they are not going to advance the quality of our lives (save for the comfort and companionship we get from them) or their own. Evil seems only really apply to humanity, it is strictly a human concept. Nothing in the animal world is good or evil. When people abuse animals (dog fighting, kicking their pet,etc.) I'd call that mean-spirited, demented, perverse. When people abuse other people, I call that evil...
 

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
Hey, Heis. I am aware that this post will make me seem like a dick, but I am being honest. I know that you empathize with/love animals (esp. cats) and I know others here probably feel the same way. I myself am not an animal lover (except when they are cooked correctly). I know many folks that profess the love of animals, and still eat them every day. I'm not saying that the two things are incompatible, but I'd have a problem with that dilemma. I think that animal research is forgivable: I used to work for a CEAR (center for experimental animal research), and we received regular shipments of monkey, rabbits, pigs, etc.. for research. They were all very cute. We received death threats regularly, and I could never understand why it would be okay to kill us, when no one is down at KFC or slaughter houses threatening their workers. Our researchers did harm these animals with a detached demeanor, but I don't believe any were enjoying it or rubbing their hands together in malevolent glee in anticipation of torturing these animals. They simply hurt theses animals in hopes that their research would make it possible that humans wouldn't be. While most life has value, I feel that human lives are by far the most valuable, for if nothing more than their potential: potentially, any single human could come up with a cure for cancer, come up with an accurate TOE, invent something spectacular that could advance all of humanity. I also think it is natural for each species to have it's own best interest at heart before the welfare of other species, and while animals lives have value, they are not going to advance the quality of our lives (save for the comfort and companionship we get from them) or their own. Evil seems only really apply to humanity, it is strictly a human concept. Nothing in the animal world is good or evil. When people abuse animals (dog fighting, kicking their pet,etc.) I'd call that mean-spirited, demented, perverse. When people abuse other people, I call that evil...

The fact that they don't see it as malevolent, but as necessary and justified, is exactly the issue. Religious people who deny their children medical treatments for the sake of prayer also don't feel they are being malevolent. In both cases the ideology offers justification. An animal is given a chance at life just as humans, the only difference being that it isn't as intelligent or capable as humans. For a human to take that life and confine it to nothing but misery and torture, to deprave it of any quality which resembles comfort and well being, and only do so for their own gain, is evil. The only problem I have is, can we blame this evil on the scientific process and say it is an inherit potential evil? (obviously for the sake of this discussion and for simplicity, evil is loosely defined to include cruelty)

Hunting and killing to sustain life is natures way, and although it often entails pain and misery, it is not prolonged misery, and is not done because of any ideology. (btw I don't include what KFC or industrialized corporate agriculture does as an act of hunting/killing to sustain life, it is to sustain profits)

My own mothers life has been extended as a result of animal research, and for that I am grateful. If you put a cat in front of me and tell me to choose between it and my mother's death, i'll pick the cat (to die). Now if you tell me this cat will not be killed right away, but will be tortured and tormented first, forced to endure incredible pain and indefinite suffering before it's death, I may make a different decision. But that is a moral quandary that serves to distract from the topic.
 

tyler.durden

Well-Known Member
The fact that they don't see it as malevolent, but as necessary and justified, is exactly the issue. Religious people who deny their children medical treatments for the sake of prayer also don't feel they are being malevolent. In both cases the ideology offers justification. An animal is given a chance at life just as humans, the only difference being that it isn't as intelligent or capable as humans. For a human to take that life and confine it to nothing but misery and torture, to deprave it of any quality which resembles comfort and well being, and only do so for their own gain, is evil. The only problem I have is, can we blame this evil on the scientific process and say it is an inherit potential evil? (obviously for the sake of this discussion and for simplicity, evil is loosely defined to include cruelty)

Hunting and killing to sustain life is natures way, and although it often entails pain and misery, it is not prolonged misery, and is not done because of any ideology. (btw I don't include what KFC or industrialized corporate agriculture does as an act of hunting/killing to sustain life, it is to sustain profits)

My own mothers life has been extended as a result of animal research, and for that I am grateful. If you put a cat in front of me and tell me to choose between it and my mother's death, i'll pick the cat (to die). Now if you tell me this cat will not be killed right away, but will be tortured and tormented first, forced to endure incredible pain and indefinite suffering before it's death, I may make a different decision. But that is a moral quandary that serves to distract from the topic.
[FONT=&quot]My moral code doesn’t see all life as equal, and I don’t know if that is a shortcoming on my part or not. Those religious people you mentioned who deny the best treatment to their children are not being malevolent, but that doesn’t mean their actions don’t lead to evil. Malevolence being the intent or wish to do harm. I think one can do evil without being malevolent: if one likes to murder people with their car and kills a family purposefully, he is malevolent. If one is texting and kills said family unintentionally, they are not malevolent. But in both cases their actions led to that family’s death, which is evil. The law recognizes intent, the only difference between first degree murder and manslaughter (which often carries a lesser sentence) is intent. People hire exterminators to rid animal life from their homes (and not only because that life carries disease, but mainly because no one wants creepy crawlies in their home), some of these treatments prolong suffering in pests. Is this really evil? If all life is of equal value, then you are correct that animal experimentation is evil. I’m just not convinced that this is the case.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Any corporation is in existence for profit, but they need a product or service to offer in order to realize that profit. Supermarkets make great profits in exchange for selling us food, which sustains life. This is also the case for industrialized agriculture and even KFC (to a lesser extent, fast food not being very nutritious), their products sustain life while turning a profit. Medical product suppliers also sustain life, while turning a very tidy profit, etc.. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Thank you for sharing the situation with your mom. I’m surprised at your conviction to your moral code that would make you hesitate to save an animal from torture over your own mother’s life. I would be fine with the suffering of truck loads of animals to save the life of any of my loved ones. Maybe you are just more evolved than I am, and I mean that sincerely…[/FONT]
 

olylifter420

Well-Known Member
Alfred Kinsey


Alfred Kinsey was an infamous American biologist and professor of entomology and zoology, who made groundbreaking research on human sexuality. Undoubtedly, he helped to progress social values – but, nevertheless, he took sadistic pleasure out of his research, and did some very weird stuff, including exploiting children for sex. Moreover, much of his research was fraud.


9
Napoleon Bonaparte


Many people agree that Napoleon Bonaparte, heavily involved in the anti-clerical French Revolution, was atheist – he claimed that “all religions have been made by men”. He was one of the best ever military commanders, and conquered much of Europe. He staged a coup and declared himself Emperor. While he ended anarchy in post-Revolution France, many considered him a tyrant and usurper. He ignored treaties and conventions, seeking undisputed rule throughout Europe. He plundered conquered territories. His 17 years of rule resulted in the bankruptcy of France, loss of many of her territories, six million dead Europeans and economic setback in just one generation.


8
Than Shwe


Than Shwe is the 77 year old dictator of Myanmar/Burma, the head of the ruling military junta. He has overseen the formation of one of the most closed societies in the world. There is no notion of free press, and journalists who opposed his regime are detained. Aung Suu Kyi, the leader of the main opposition party, is kept in house detention by him. Civil servants are forbidden from resigning. Burma has the highest rate of child soldiers in the world, and uses forced labor on construction projects. As far as dictators go, Than Shwe keeps a relatively low, and even sullen, profile. Nevertheless, he reportedly leads an extravagant lifestyle, while his people continue to suffer a life of extreme poverty and natural disasters. In the aftermath of Cyclone Nargis, he refused entry into the country for many foreign aid organizations.


7
Kim Jong Il


Kim Jong-Il is the de facto leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and responsible for the deaths of four million of his fellow Koreans. He is also at the heart of a bizarre personality cult; apocryphal stories such as how “at the time of his birth there were flashes of lightening and thunder, the iceberg in the pond on Mt. Paektu emitted a mysterious sound as it broke, and bright double rainbows rose up” are abundant. Those caught stealing food in the famine-struck nation, or attempting to cross the borders, are subject to public execution. Kim is continuing his lavish lifestyle and military obsession in spite of the crumbling economy. In North Korea he and his father are deified, considered saviors of the whole universe. 250,000 dissidents are confined to “re-education camps”. He has waged a war on South Korea that involved assassinating South Korean leaders and blowing up South Korean planes. He presents a great threat to the world in terms of nuclear warfare, having persuaded the Soviet Union to award him a nuclear reactor in 1984.


6
Jeffrey Dahmer


Jeffrey Dahmer, an infamous serial killer and atheist sentenced to 900 years in prison, said “if a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?”. He brutally killed seventeen men and boys, dismembering them, storing their parts and indulging in cannibalism and necrophilia. In 1991, he was caught by the police after one of his would-be victims escaped. Despite pleading not guilty on the basis on insanity, the court found him sane and fully accountable. He later expressed remorse.







5
Jim Jones


Jim Jones drew people into atheism through the People’s Temple, largely based in California. He said that he “took the church and used the church to bring people to atheism”. In 1978, 909 people at the restricted communist “sanctuary” he presided over in Jonestown, Guyana, committed “revolutionary suicide” at his command. This occurred after the arrival of an American delegation, which he claimed was conspiring against the People’s Temple. Men, women and children took a vial of cyanide and died within five minutes. Only a few people escaped. This event was the largest single loss of American civilian life, in a non-natural disaster, up until 9/11. This entry has the unique status of being on both the atheism and Christianity list. The reason is that the majority of people considered Jones to be the leader of a type of Christian cult, but, as the quote above illustrates, it was really a ruse to attract people who would otherwise have steered well clear of him.


4
Benito Mussolini


Mussolini is notorious for his war crimes as a Fascist dictator during World War II. As a young man he openly declared his atheism, and in his early career as a politician was openly anti-clerical. He was the Italian leader of the National Fascist Party, became Prime Minister in 1922 and was eventually a dictator who severely restricted freedom of speech. Mussolini supported Hitler’s conquest of Austria. In 1935, he invaded Ethiopia, using poison gas, bombing Red Cross hospitals and concentration camps to kill civilians and destroy “inferior” cultures. He ordered the execution of prisoners without trial and the shooting of “witch-doctors”. Italian troops used public executions, hostage taking and burning of villages to crush the Slavic population of Yugoslavia. These acts are now widely considered an attempt at genocide. However, later he tried to associate Fascism with Catholicism in order to garner dwindling support (however his widow made it clear that he was still staunchly atheist). Mussolini was also deeply anti-Semitic.


3
Mao Zedong


Mao Zedong led the Communist Party of China to victory in the Chinese Civil War, helping to establish the People’s Republic of China. He had ambitions for a strong China, but his programs largely failed altogether. He has been blamed for the death of between 20 and 67 million of his “comrades”. Under his insane rule there was a culture akin to anarchy, that killed the economy and industrial production. His “Great Leap Forward” triggered a catastrophic and massive famine. However, he is most notorious for the precepts of the “Cultural Revolution”, which led to perhaps the greatest era of cultural vandalism the world has ever known. Antiques, historical sites, artifacts, ancient documents, feng shui traditions, Chinese traditional dresses and monasteries were destroyed for being associated with the “old ways of thinking”. Many copies of the Qu’ran were burnt. Red Guard groups around the country destroyed political and educational stability, criticizing anyone who considered himself superior, destroying reputations and lives. Mao, privately, led a life of great deviancy and excess. He also exacted revenge on all those, mainly intellectuals and professionals, who had disgraced Mao in his earlier career. He also targeted anyone with links to the Chinese Nationalist Party as well as anyone who posed a threat to him. Five million were executed in death camps. 36 million were persecuted and tortured. There were even instances of cannibalism.


2
Pol Pot


Pol Pot was the leader of the Khmer Rouge and Prime Minister of Cambodia from 1976 to 1979, having been de facto leader since mid-1975. During his time in power Pol Pot imposed an extreme version of agrarian communism, where all city dwellers were relocated to the countryside to work in collective farms and forced labour projects. The combined effect of slave labour, malnutrition, poor medical care and executions is estimated to have killed around 2 million Cambodians (approximately one third of the population). His regime achieved special notoriety by singling out all intellectuals, and other “bourgeois enemies”, for murder. The Khmer Rouge committed mass executions in sites known as the Killing Fields, and the executed were buried in mass graves. In order to save ammunition, executions were often carried out using hammers, axe handles, spades or sharpened bamboo sticks. His attempts to “cleanse” the country resulted in the deaths of 1.7 to 2.5 million people. He also had an intense dislike of anyone with the semblance of being intelligent, such as those who wore glasses or who spoke another language.


1
Joseph Stalin


Stalin was General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union’s Central Committee, from 1922 until his death in 1953. Under Stalin’s leadership, the Ukraine suffered a famine (Holodomor) so great it is considered by many to be an act of genocide on the part of Stalin’s government. Estimates of the number of deaths range from 2.5 million to 10 million. The famine was caused by direct political and administrative decisions. In addition to the famine, Stalin ordered purges within the Soviet Union of any person deemed to be an enemy of the state (i.e. capitalists, theists). In total, estimates of the total number murdered under Stalin’s reign, range from 10 million to 60 million. His government promoted atheism with mass propaganda in school, and held a terror campaign against the religious. He crushed the Russian Orthodox Church, leveling thousands of churches and shooting more than 100,000 priests, monks and nuns between 1937 and 1938.

N.B. Adolf Hitler is left off this list because it is widely acknowledged that, while he abhorred organized religion, there is much evidence that he engaged in “nazi mysticism” or occultism.



Agreed, and I must admit I cannot find direct negatives to atheism. Maybe there's some I just can't find any. How about you heis can you think of a problem that directly arises from atheism? (poor cats).
 
Top