It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Don't know enough about the other examples to comment but mind explaining how the Holocaust is an example of an atrocity carried out in the name of Atheism?
Exactly what I was trying to say. Really don't think you can pin the Holocaust down on Hitler's atheism. I'm assuming @Risico007 you're on about the anti-semetic aspect but can we really put that down to Hitler being an atheist? Don't remember reading about how the Christian population were rounded up.
Like I said we can ignore the obvious but I am willing to admit Christians have done horrible things are you guys willing to do the same
Hitler did round up the many Christians who spoke out against his regime and its actions however. Many of them were executed, in fact.
I don't see what his atheism has to do with how he viewed the Jewish population though. He thought they were subhuman but wasn't that to do, like you said, with genetics rather than their religious beliefs?
I don't think anyone is claiming Atheists haven't done horrible things, but like @DarthDimi said, them using their beliefs to justify this is very rare. I don't think it's unfair to say that atheism as a concept/idea has caused less violence than organised religion.
As a historian this thread makes my head hurt ignoring obvious points and then asking the same question inspite of be evidence seriously it’s down right ridiculous
GOOOD DAY
Hitler was a Catholic. He never renounced his faith and princes of the Church were invited to his birthday party when he was Fuhrer. Of the fascist leaders in Europe only Mussolini was an atheist and he still made a deal with the Vatican. Franco was even a practicing Catholic! Nazi antisemitism was also nourished by centuries of Christian antisemitism. And it had both religious and ethnic roots: Freud was an atheist and so were many people of Jewish descent. They'd still be undesirable in Germany at the time.
So thank you for a good example of Godwin's Law. But seriously what kind of historian are you? That's not ancient history so you could get your fact straight for this at least. Same with your rambling about North Korea: when you have a deicised leader de facto you have a theocracy. Christopher Hitchens used NK as an example of what heaven looked like for crying out loud!
Anyone who tries to blame atheism for actions of mass murderers etc is just showing, yet again, that they fail to understand what atheism is. Or they dont want to understand it as they idea that people kill in the name of religion does not fit in with their agenda that religion is a wonderful thing so they want to "level the playing field" and hold up a lack of belief to the same moral scrutiny as a belief system.
It's a logical as trying to defend Nazi's by saying that people that were "anazi" (a lack of belief in the Nazi ideology) also did bad things.
@Ludovico I dont have a specific stance on the invisible dragon in your garage or on anything else that has no evidence to support it. The default is a lack of belief and everyone, including those of religion, uses this strategy. Thats what's so frustrating, Religious people know exactly what its like to be an atheist as they apply the same rules to all other things that have no evidence to back them up.
Does an adult christian believe in Father Christmas? No, as there is no evidence. Do they try to give Father Christmas believers a level playing field? (as you cant prove he does not exist), would they read books, would they enter into online debates etc. Would they demand respect and equal opportunities? Would they support Father Christmas supporters clubs not paying tax? No, because they know its a ridiculous, childish claim that can be disregarded within a fraction of a second.
But, with God, their rules are different.
He looks like a guy who can get things done.
Getting pretty desperate now. Trying to cut a plea bargain for your religion that it's not so bad because other people do bad shit too? So that vindicates Christianity and makes it something worthy of respect does it?
'Ian Brady what have you got to say in your defence?'
'Why are you getting at me? I only killed 5. Go after Fred West first he was in double figures.'
'You're quite right, I guess you're not so bad after all mate.'
Pathetic.
Was that because they were Christian or because they spoke out against his regime? Either way he wasn't killing them in the name of atheism. The point is that Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin etc were following Nazi, Khmer Rouge, Communist ideologies not an atheist one. Their atheism is as relevant to the debate as their hair colour.
Whereas the Crusades, the Inquisition, The Vatican's acquisition of huge wealth, Sunnis v Shiites, Wahhabists, ISIS are all done specifically in the name of their 'God'.
As @patb and @Ludovico have already said you can't do something in the name of atheism because atheism just stands for nothing, an absence. I am an atheist because the evidence of the existence for God is so bereft of merit as to make it laughable not because I worship and pray to a vacuum. We have no holy books or silly rituals and rules to adhere to. The only real tenet of atheism is question everything but that's not something that is exclusive to atheists; it should be something every intelligent human does.
And I'd add to that and remind those who like to be victim of Godwin's Law that Hitler was a Catholic, Himmler was a practicing Catholic, the Nazis had "God Mitt Us" on their buckle belt, etc. Thinking that Nazi Germany was atheistic is a malicious lie.
Atheism is a lack of faith or belief in anything supreme in the universe, so if an atheist committed a crime what would they be committing said crime in the name of as Christians have done for God and Muslims Allah? If you don't believe in God and commit a crime, it's a neutral crime from a theological standpoint as no text or god has motivated such a response in you. There's no Atheistic pamphlet calling groups monstrous or sinful like the bible, so no easy targets are being made for the atheists to murder indiscriminately. It's difficult to then tie intent in committing a crime to a belief in something driving that specific action when the person in question has none of the beliefs you're attempting to use to equate them to Christians during the Crusades and other parts of history.
The only argument that could even begin to be made against our side is that the atheist's lack of belief in a god empowered them to act in a murderous fashion, knowing that with no God there would be no final judgement or consequence for them. Except of course the law we have in place to punish any who commit crimes, especially violent acts motivated by cruel intent or belief. But it's not an argument you could hang your hat on, is it? I can't think of any atheist in history, or in general, that you would be able to charge with killing because of their atheism for the reasons I outlined above. With no supreme authority motivating a person to go on a rampage in sacrifice to said god, and no belief in their hearts of anything relating to the supernatural or god-like in general, only a weak and awkward case could be made at best.
Because any atheist committing a crime with no calling to a god is really no different than a bank robber, panty raider or common criminal on the street who strive to achieve quick success and financial surplus using any means possible. These parties could all act and commit crimes without holding the beliefs Christians do, yes, but those beliefs (or lack thereof) also have no distinct bearing on their actions in any way that could be adequately confirmed, especially in a court of law. Just imagine a judge asking questions of a defendant...
Judge: "Sir, have you been motivated by god or religious dogma to kill as you have?"
Defendant: "I don't recognize this 'God' you speak of, your honor."
Judge: "So a lack of God drove you to murder, then?"
Defendant: "No, I just did it. I can't be driven to do something due to a belief in nothing."
The only reason atheists tackle those of faith on the same issue is because Christians and Muslims in particular make it so obvious what their driving motivation is when they act against other groups. Muslims praise Allah as they explode markets and kill innocents on a trip to those 72 virgins, and no Christian protest against gays are complete without at least one sign saying "God hates faggots" with the corresponding bible verse cited underneath it. That's not to mention all the groups of the past who committed crimes in the deluded assurance that, whatever they did, their god stood with them. The case is heavier against those of faith committing violent actions or hate crimes because in the perpetration of the acts they make it clear through undisguised and clear language what is motivating them to do such a thing, tying the act directly to the text or dogma of their religion. With atheists, this critical texture of evidence is absent in every case I am familiar with and it's near impossible to make a solid case as noted above.
What the heck; death and fine, for the last?
Which legal system is this?
Not if I have anything to do with it. We don't want it in the UK.
I think if I got convicted under 295C I'd probably tell them to shove their fine up the prophet's arse
We'd be disappointed in you if you didn't.
Not that atheists are easily identified anyway, though. We don't get crosses to bear or t-shirts with our spiritual and supreme overlord on them. Which would be nice, but our freedom from dogma is a satisfactory enough prize. ;)
I wasn't advocating that in the first place. Especially not popery.