Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Atheist Demotivator #4

While atheists are quite understandably reluctant to embrace "their" responsibility for the mass murders committed by their godless brethren, what they consistently fail to understand is that pinning the responsibility on the godless murderer is not about implying that the average atheist today is inclined to commit mass murder, but rather demonstrating the complete absurdity of the oft-made case that historical crimes committed by those of vaguely similar belief somehow justify advocating legal or social restrictions on individuals who have not committed any such crimes.

Atheists aren't the only ones guilty of such cross-temporal guilt assignations. Medieval Christians certainly did so, and some of the more foolish Jews do the same thing today, forgetting that if it is right to judge today's Christians for the historical crimes of medieval Christians who persecuted Jews, then those medieval Christians were entirely justified in persecuting medieval Jews for the crimes of ancient Jews who persecuted Christians. Responsibility must either be assigned individually or collectively. If the former, then no Christian today can be held responsible for the First Crusade, no atheist today can be held responsible for the Holodomor, and no Jew today can be held responsible for killing Jesus Christ or any of his followers. If the latter, then Christians, atheists, and Jews are all justified in engaging a war of all against all, in which case one would probably be wise to bet on the Muslims.

But with regards to the mass slaughters of the previous century, there is simply no way to escape the established fact that individual atheists have been among mankind's very worst killers. This doesn't mean that the average atheist is any more likely to be homicidally inclined than anyone else, it does, however, cast serious doubt on the common atheist assertion that a godless society will be a peaceful one. The significant question has never been if atheism causes political leaders to kill in large quantities, it is why political leaders who happen to be atheist have been inordinately inclined to kill in large quantities.

As I wrote in TIA, the answer is probably to be found in the fact that atheists who have committed great historical crimes are almost exclusively left-wing atheists with utopian visions of restructuring human society; Ayn Rand atheists aren't exactly known for attempting to violently restructure societal order. This is why atheists like Bertrand Russell, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and especially Michel Onfray are far more dangerous than those more akin to Daniel Dennett and even Richard Dawkins.

4 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous April 05, 2012 12:26 PM  

What an incredible load of twisted facts and unsupported assertions...

Anonymous Anonymous October 12, 2012 5:22 PM  

"I was a Catholic and will always remain so."

-Adolf Hitler

Oh wait a minute I forgot he said that privately thus it doesnt count.

Anonymous Anonymous March 22, 2013 1:10 PM  

Re: "are far more dangerous than those more akin to Daniel Dennett and even Richard Dawkins."

Consider the petition Dawkins signed to outlaw parents teaching their oun children what Dawkins doesn't want them to be taught.

Anon:
"I was a Catholic and will always remain so."
-Adolf Hitler

Note to iggy & Adolph: Jesus is a Jew.

Anonymous Anonymous March 27, 2013 12:22 PM  

There is no atheist code of practice, no set of moral guidelines laid out to a person when they assume an atheistic position on the existence of deities - atheists follow no predetermined moral framework. So it's not atheism from which they draw their morals. Neither is it their religious scriptures that the vast majority of religious people draw their morals; else all Christians would have the same opinion on moral issues, which they do not.

So, as should be obvious to anyone at this point, Humans draw their morals from elsewhere. So to blame mass genocide committed by an atheist, on the fact that that person is an atheist, is a cowardly pursuit; because their moral structure, in which mass genocide was an acceptable course of action, must come from another source. Unless, of course, the genocide is committed on the grounds that all religious people must be killed, or wiped out; as this would be specifically citing the advancement of atheism as a concept (therefore you could link this specific genocide to atheism).

In the same sense, a christian who commits genocide obviously hasn't drawn the moral framework that allowed them to think genocide was acceptable from the fact that they are christian; otherwise all christians would be committing genocide, which they are not. Unless, of course, the genocide is committed based on teachings specific to a person's religion.

The problem, for your argument, is that there are no genocides committed "in the name of atheism", even if there have been genocides committed by people who were atheists. The fact that they're atheist has nothing to do with where their moral framework comes from. If you wish to claim it was because they were an atheist, you can, with the same amount of relevance, claim that it was because they had a mustache, or because their favourite colour was red. HOWEVER: the vast majority of genocides of history were carried out "in the name of *a given religion*", citing specific beliefs derived from scripture.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts