There is no legitimate doubt that many intellectuals over the course of the past century have been either outright Communists or highly sympathetic to the Communist movement. No cite is needed for ths.
:rolleyes:
Meh. If it’s reasonable to blame the Inquistion and the Crusades on religion, then it’s reasonable to blame the atrocities of the Communists on atheism and secularism.
Just to invect some more facts into this debate instead of wild assertions, studies in the US show that religious people give a lot more of their time and money to charities, even secular ones. So for instance this study shows that religious people are just more generous, in terms of those that give, in terms of amounts given, in terms of time volunteered, in terms of that informally given, and most surprisingly, int terms of amounts given to secular charities. Sure atheists and the non-religious can give to charities as well, but on average they give at a rate that is disproportionally small for their size of the popuulation.
Calculon.
The bolding part is where you get confused.
No one was singled out because they were Christian.
A Christian might be singled out if he resisted orders or policy enforcement.
Again, not just because he was a Christian but because he was a threat to authority.
That may be, I made no judgement on that.
I merely point out that there is a healthy chunk of the charitable sector that does not stem from a religious background.
People do good things because they want to relieve the suffering of others, no threat of judgement or a fiery afterlife is needed.
Religion just gives a context to the philanthropic and empathetic nature of humans but it naturally occurs in most of us to one degree or another.
If religious people do give more money and time to charities then that is a good thing.
But if they are doing it because their religion or god tells them to, does that make them good people? Do they need their religion to be good? in which case I hope they never give it up and their god or clergy don’t decide to warp the message into something less wholesome.
A cynic might also say that religion is a source of bigotry and discrimination around the world and so those adhering to a particular religion should bear a greater burden of undoing that harm.
Catholics do a lot of work with AIDS charities in Africa?..so they bloody should!
Me? I probably don’t give as much as the average christian so I try to do my bit by spreading a message and climate of tolerance, understanding, rationalism, love, anti-bigotry, anti-homophobia, anti-sexism, anti-racism. And I don’t do it because the sky-daddy will burn me, I do it because I’m a social ape and the more of us that behave that way the less we need charities in the first place.
The pamphlet would read
“there is no evidence for a god or gods so there is no reason to believe in one”
Or something similarly short, no expansion needed on that. That really is all that atheism is. Not a philosophy is it? It isn’t a set of rules for interacting with the world. You need something like the Koran, Bible or Communist manifesto for that.
So how would anything in my description drive people to do good or bad? They would be left to make sense of the world using their innate social instincts. (the same ones that stop Christians from stoning people for minor crimes, even thought the bible tells them to)
The rest of your comment is telling. It presupposes that an ultimate authority and subsequent judgement day is the default. It isn’t, it takes the holy texts to introduce those concepts and that is where the fun would begin.
How would you go about summarizing the major religions for an exactly similar pamphlet? Would such a thing drive people to murder, or to do good or bad?
Since I see a religion as an institutionalized ideology, and based on the above, the following question needs an answer - can it be determined with a certain degree of validity one or the other: (1) each ideology, including its own over-time improved variations, contains in itself a set of unquestionable dogmas and principles that inevitably lead to inhumane behaviour because when there is no time to think over how to proceed in a given historical context, dogma or principle becomes the way or method of behaviour, or is it that (2) each ideology with its dogmas and principles is not only a work of a man but also its implementation is of a man and as such suffers from various factors in a historical context where ideology is used more as a tool of consolidation and common ground to obtain more power.
Or, is it both?
In other words, in a given historical context is it more important WHAT ideology people drive on or HOW does ideology drive people?
Personally, I lean towards the latter; an ideology promising peace, love and progress for all can, if history is any judge, be far worse in terms of atrocity if it has the true fervour of a “true belief” and is in the hands of ambitious men, than a fire-and-brimstone ideology that is, in effect, nothing more than an excuse for holding social rituals.
No…I’m not summarising Atheism, that is it in it’s entirety.
One sentence for Atheism, no rules or dogma.
For Christianity you give them the bible, Islam the Koran etc. etc.
The point being that atheism is not philosophy, the religions and communism are and so need to explain themselves and set up their rules and regulations. That is where the bad stuff happens.
No, you misunderstand what is being discussed here. The OP and several other of the more vehement atheists on this thread maintain that religion causes people to do evil things; that is, without religion, people would do far fewer evil things. However, in the twentieth century, people who had explicitly renounced religion murdered tens of millions of people. It therefore seems that people behave no better without religion than with religion, and the claim that religious belief is somehow more dangerous than disbelief is on very shaky historical ground.
Congratulations to all the religious apologists in this thread. Not only have you avoided answering the OP’s question, you’ve also hijacked the thread by banging on and on about alleged atheist atrocities. Why didn’t you start another thread if you wanted to talk about that? Or was it that your main aim was to muddy the waters in this one? If so, great job. :rolleyes:
I agree with the point that atheism is not a philosophy, or a set of rules and regulations. It is a lack of belief in god(s).
Taken by itself, I also agree that it cannot inspire anyone to do bad stuff.
It is only when one looks at the matter in historical context, and examine how “atheism” as a concept has actually been misused by politicians and ideologues eager to push for their own power, that the allegations that it causes harm become in any way relevant; and in any event, it is obviously not “atheism” that causes the harm, but the politicians and ideologues.
Thus, take athiesm for what it is, distilled down to its essence, not for how it has been employed, and it is - harmless.
Of course, this latter point is also generally true for religions.
Take the same thought experiment - summarize a religion down to its essence, and give that summary to a person on a desert island etc. - would it cause harm?
Take Judaism, possibly the worst offender in terms of having nasty scriptures (all that harsh stuff in Leviticus, for a start). We do not have to guess or invent a “summary” of Judaism, because that was done by the Rabbi Hillel two millenia ago, when famously challenged to explain the whole of the Torah while standing on one foot:
It seems to me that someone who had only this one-line explaination of Judaism would not thereby be inspired to harm others.
Do you deny the existence of both the doctrine, and Pentecostals 
Or the cites used in both Wiki articles ?
Who cares ? No seriously. I know the infallibility doctrine is not all encompassing as well as you do. My point was that, in at least a few matters, the Catholic Church and its popes have been conceited enough to declare “We cannot be wrong on this, period”. Which is enough to prove the point that their religion does claim to have a direct line to the supernatural that other mortals do not.
As for Der Trihs claim that religions claim to possess a moral authority all their own in general, I think that’s about as self evident as it gets.
Correlation does not imply causation. Meaning, even if the study is correct and has always been correct, that doesn’t prove religion makes people more charitable, simply that charitable people tend to flock towards religions.
But let’s assume for a moment that it does, and people do become more charitable when they get their god on. Is that a good thing ? From a moral point of view, I don’t think becoming less of a prick because you wish to get into the nice afterlife or score brownie points with the gods is very defensible. It’s just as self-serving as not giving anything in the first place. You may argue that it’s the end result that matters, but that would be Machiavellian. You go to Hell for that, son 
Me, I’d rather peeps gave money and volunteered their time in charities because they FINALLY collectively realized it’s intrinsically better for everyone in this life, and in the long term.
Hitler certainly did use religion to further his cause. He used everything he had available.
Otherwise, why did he single out the Jews? Because they were moneylenders? All of them?
And there were no Christian moneylenders? Why would he exterminate Jewish children?
But most of all, why did the population of Germany allow campaign to remove Jews from society?
How many average German citizens were atheist and simply trying to cleanse all religion
from Germany?
He claimed to be a Christian because he knew that by doing so ordinary people would find it easier to identify with him and give him their political support. He wasn’t using Christianity. He was just lying to the Christians.
Hitler’s attitude towards the Jews was a matter of race and ethnicity, not religion.
Probably because by the time it became apparent what Hitler was doing, it was safest for the average German simply to keep his head down and not attract attention by defying the regime.
I’m going to assume this is a rhetorical question, and you know there isn’t really any way to answer it.
No, I understand all that perfectly well.
I’m not arguing those points. I would say that without a dogmatic ideology people do less evil things. Without subservience to to supreme ruler (either real or make-believe) people do less evil.
The thing you really need to understand is that atheism is not a dogma, an ideology or a philosophy. Being without religious belief in and of itself means nothing and leads you neither to good nor evil.
You can’t “misuse” atheism. Just as you can’t “misuse” a legless man’s feet. The concept is meaningless. What you mean is they abused and misused their power.
OK, but atheism is not something you distill down. It is a simple as it can get.
But in order to do that you have to decide which bits to leave out, what do you tell people? do you mention a vengeful god? a watchful god? a forgiving god? no god? take out the nasty bits? the blood?the death? the plagues? the rapture? revelations? the miracles? the resurrection? So how do you decide that?
After your editing would there actually be any Christianity left?
True, and they also would have no concept of religion either. You’ve distilled it down until there’s nothing left but a simple concept that existed before the torah was written.
Something that man came up with himself to make his society a little better. So where is there room for god?
who would’ve guessed religion would raise such hackles eh? 
but it is only fair to try an answer the OP.
For me, I don’t hold the religion or its adherents responsible for past atrocities.
I do however hold those living responsible for their own actions here and now.
This is necessarily tempered with the fact that people tend to be products of their time and culture. I have no idea how one could devise a hard and and fast rule for that.
I’ll call 'em as I see 'em.
Or, as famously restated by The Smartest Human nearly 2000 year later: “Don’t be a jerk.” 
Seriously, as Novelty Bobble says, this simply isn’t a religious concept. And based on what I know of Hillel (not just the Golden Rule), I’m not all that sure he was really that invested in a Personal, Judgmental God…
Which sort of leads us back to:
Sure you can. “I am going to kill you, priest, to make the world safe for Atheism!”. How is that not a “misuse” of the concept of atheism?
Depends on how edited a version you want. It would be an interesting exercise, but I’m not an expert enough on Christianity to attempt it.
But it wasn’t me that did the distillation in this case, but Rabbi Hillel - who is certainly one of the creators of modern-day rabbinical Judaism. If that was what he thought Judaism boiled down to, I’m not gonna argue.
Where god comes into it, I agree - nowhere. Religion is a human creation. God is simply the mythology humans invented. It gives their statements authority - because, I assume, men like Rabbi Hillel would say, God was the entity who laid down the laws found in the Torah, summarized above. Naturally, you and I would not agree - but really, what difference does that make for the exercise? Believing that God commanded the Golden Rule isn’t really any worse or more harmful than believing that humans invented it.