# The Lies of Sam Harris **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 28, 2009, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-sam-harris/487748 "2009-02-28T02:27:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-sam-harris/487748/81 "2009-03-04T03:45:15Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > I’d like to know if **ITR champion** is ever going to come back to his own debate. > > You started this thread, my friend, and i took the time to read your argument, address some of your claims, and make some arguments of my own. Other people have done the same. Were you ever planning on actually debating the issues you laid out in the OP, or was this really intended as an IMHO-style thread, where you would just dispense your opinion and move on? I think he realized early on that his argument was crap and decided avoiding it was better than trying to defend it. Not much better,…is it? ---
**Author:** ![Mapache](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/58956e/32.png) [@Mapache](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mapache)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-sam-harris/487748/82 "2009-03-04T03:49:36Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Bullshit. Just because Hitler was deceptive and hiding behind Christianity does not make Christians Nazis, nor any Nazis Christians. Nothing in Christian doctrine called for the Holocaust or Naziism in any way. Bullshit yourself. Xians are fond of a sort of reverse No True Scotsman fallacy, which goes something like this: No true Xian could possibly be a Nazi. There are a lot of photos ([Legalni bukmacherzy w Polsce 2026 – Ranking](http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm)) that seem to show Xian Nazis. They wear priest suits, have big crosses around their necks, and are described as being Archbishops, Cardinals, priests and so forth, so they must be real Xians. Therefore, just because they give Nazi salutes, march in Nazi parades, are photographed grinning at Uncle Adolph in what seems to be enthusiasm, celebrate Nazi weddings, give Nazi speeches, order every church in Germany to celebrate masses of thanksgiving for UA’s miraculous escape from asssasination, and so on, they aren’t really Nazis. We know this because no Xian could be a Nazi. And Xian doctrine, I think, is mostly based on the Bible, which describes acts very similar to the Holocaust, only directly ordered by YHWH and presented as the acts of an omnibenevolent, loving god. And Jesus claimed to have been around watching it all (“Before Abraham was, I am.”) (“I and the father are one”) so apparently he thought that all that “leave nothing alive that breathes” stuff was just fine. Just how is slaughtering some twenty one million (at least- the Exodus myth claims that 600,000 “men who carried the sword” left Egypt, which would imply at least three million Hebrews, and Deuteronomy 7:1 commands them to murder all of the men, women and children in “seven nations greater and mightier than thou”) to steal their land and posess their resources, any different than Hitler´s war for Lebensraum? ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-sam-harris/487748/83 "2009-03-04T03:56:50Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > As I said in my response to DT, let’s keep the comparisons reasonably fair. If someone who doesn’t even believe in God uses religious language to justify his deeds or to manipulate others, is religion to blame? If the person is the follower of a non-theistic religion, then yes. > [@](#): > > That’s akin to blaming the gun for the killing rather than the person who pulled the trigger. If there was a religion where killing innocents with guns was a main tenet, then we can easily agree that less people spreading that religion to their children is a good hing. Whether we can blame ideologies in the same way that we can blame people is irrelevant. > [@](#): > > I’d agree that a strict dogma whether religious or not can bring negative results. Whenever people start thinking and teaching, people who are good and right think this way and people who are evil and wrong think differently, and then use that difference to persecute others, we have a problem. That principle certainly applies to religion but it also applies to Communism or over zealous nationalism. IMHO that means it’s not religion or theism that’s the . Of course it is. If people are spreading a harmful religion to children as being good then that religion is a problem. > [@](#): > > ftr, Allah is the Arabic word for God I’m aware. > [@](#): > > and no, people using that to justify their hatred or for their political agenda don’t get to blame that on Islam. Again, it doesn’t matter if “blame” is the appropriate word. If hatred is being espoused by the Quran and Hadith, then yes, we can logically claim that Islam is not a good thing. > [@](#): > > Also, there is no dogma in the Bible. Huh? > [@](#): > > 1. a system of principles or tenets, as of a church. > 2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: _the dogma of the Assumption._ > 3. prescribed doctrine: _political dogma._ > 4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dogma](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dogma) You going by a definition of dogma I’m not familiar with? ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-sam-harris/487748/84 "2009-03-04T04:22:47Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I agree. I think belief systems should be examined and openly criticized when they impact the lives of others. I also expect that to require some effort on the part of those that want to criticize, to keep their criticism accurate and reasonable. Seem fair? Of course; I believe I’ve been fair. > [@](#): > > Since I strive for accuracy of language and detail I appreciate the correction. We are , however, talking about historical communism not the ideal. If communism works fine even with theism then we’re left with the problem of explaining the atheistic view and persecution of religion under historical communism. There is no atheistic view, especially regarding persecution. Remember what seemed fair to you above? Practice what you preach. > [@](#): > > Again we’re back to dogma. If a religion justifies persecuting those that believe differently with a “better world” mindset it doesn’t seem better of much different to me than those who would persecute religion because they think atheism makes a better world. Religion frequently persecutes those not because a reason has been concluded, but because “God says so.” Atheism spreads no tenets of persecution and atheism did not beget Communism. What’s your definition of dogma, anyway? > [@](#): > > Granted, and ? What didn’t you get? You said that atheism as an integral part of Communism and\* “If atheism is unfairly judged by looking at Communism then theism must be unfairly judged by looking at religion.”\* Communism requires zero atheism and there have been plenty of theistic Communists. Religion by definition does require theism so your “shooting for accurate language and means of comparision” missed the mark. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-sam-harris/487748/85 "2009-03-04T04:39:59Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I think he realized early on that his argument was crap and decided avoiding it was better than trying to defend it. Not much better,…is it? I’m sure you’re right. It this were MPSIMS, or IMHO, or even the Pit, i wouldn’t care very much. I don’t have a problem if people want to use those forums to just give an opinion and be done with it, or blow off a little stream. But i’ve always felt that Great Debates required a higher standard, and that if you’re invested enough in a topic to start a thread here, you have some responsibility to join in the ensuing debate, or at very least to offer some responses when people make direct rebuttals of your central argument. I’m not talking about making it a rule or anything; it just seems to me to be a matter of decent etiquette. ---
**Author:** ![jakesteele](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed8c4c/32.png) [@jakesteele](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jakesteele)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 9:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-sam-harris/487748/86 "2009-03-04T09:36:12Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > You seemed to be saying that atehsits claimed that most wars were religious conflicts. > > No, it’s not. There’s no such thing as “atheist conflict” because by definition there’s only one atheist position; that there are no gods. There’s no competing dogmas to have conflict over. Atheists can and do disagree of course, but that’s not “atheist conflict”, that’s just an argument between people who happen to be atheist, on subjects **other** than atheism. > > You simply can’t realistically treat religion and atheism as equivalent; they are very different. One is a belief system based on faith; the other is the lack of a single belief, no faith required. Trying to blame atheism for people’s bad behavior the way religion is responsible for it’s followers bad behavior is like talking about about legs on a snake. They have none, just as atheism has no dogma for people to be bad **about**. > > I’m saying that I don’t trust them; that textbooks that touch on political or religious subjects tend to be highly censored and distorted. And that even if ALL wars were caused by religion no American textbook would dare admit it. > > There’s no such thing as “neoatheism”. I don’t know any atheists who claim that most wars are caused by religion. And yes, religion hinders science, along with any number of other useful things > > Speaking as a plain old atheist, no “neo” involved, I consider religion to be baseless, extremely stupid, morally corrosive, and destructive on a wide variety of fronts. > > Probably. It would remove one cause of war, a major excuse for it, and produce fewer people willing to die. Worldwide atheism would in my opinion increase the general ethical tone of humanity; not because atheism is good, but because religion is evil and crazy. Neoatheist is the equivalent of Neoconservative or Neoliberal as opposed to paleoatheists, paleoconservatives, paleoliberals. It’s the same thing as a person that modifies a car. It’s still the same car, but with a different look. A classical example of neoatheism, which is strident, vocal and polemic towards religion is this, your statement: “Worldwide atheism would in my opinion increase the general ethical tone of humanity; not because atheism is good, but because religion is evil and crazy.” That is scary, irrational shit. Me thinks I’m getting a sulfurous whiff of fundamentalism. Look out! Helter Skelter!!! Just out of curiosity, if religion is so bad and atheism is so good, could you give me your vision of a world of nothing but atheism. Would crime rates plummet? Would war end? Would all the Wall Street bullshit that’s going on never happen? Would almost all people never lie, cheat or steal? Would nobody ever commit adultery again? Would all interpersonal conflicts be resolved by civil discourse and then go out for beers? Seriously, I want to know what’s inside the head of the average neoatheist. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 10:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-sam-harris/487748/87 "2009-03-04T10:27:45Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > I’m not suggesting atheism causes communism, but communism is atheistic and uses atheism to justify the oppression of people and their beliefs. No; the argument is that faith leads to religions, and that those haven’t always played nice with each other. If atheism doesn’t similarly lead to communism or whatever have you, the analogy simply fails. > [@](#): > > No, there are not an infinity of moments between now and later. It is finite, limited by the Planck time. Infinity is just a concept. Well, prove that and you’ve got a Nobel waiting for you. Right now, all our calculations (using differential equations) assume continually changing variables, which means non-quantized spacetime, which means the distance between two moments may be arbitrarily small, which means infinitely many of them in a given interval. > [@](#): > > You don’t accept that God is as valid a concept as infinity. I get that. Religious people who don’t do math would reverse your order, they find many useful things in their lives to do with religion, but none to do with infinity. Do you deny the validity of their enjoyment of their religion? I gather so. I’m not denying the validity of their enjoyment, I’m merely pointing out that just such enjoyment doesn’t imply anything about god. Similarly, a person on drugs may find great enjoyment in conversing with two metres tall pink bunny rabbits, but that doesn’t imply anything about the existence of two metres tall pink bunny rabbits (I don’t want to draw up a parallel between religion and drug usage, btw, my argument is simply about the subjectivity of the experience). Infinity is not similarly subjective as a concept, whether or not you do math; indeed, mathematical expressions involving infinity would be just as valid if noone ever wrote them down, but if nobody had ever written down the stories about Jesus, his works would be unrecoverably lost today. That’s the difference between infinity and god; it’s not merely one of opinion. Again, the comparison is not apt. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > If someone who doesn’t even believe in God uses religious language to justify his deeds or to manipulate others, is religion to blame? Well, could he appeal to god if there was no religion? That’s pretty much the problem I’ve pointed out earlier: if everyone involved in this religion thing is all about love, peace, and harmony, there’s no problem; but one rotten apple can spoil the whole crop, making use of the mechanisms religion imbues him with. Do you think Jim Jones could have gotten more than 900 people to kill themselves if he hadn’t bound them to himself using at least a pseudoreligious structure? You only need the public to believe in god, and somebody the public believes to relay to them god’s will, and that somebody has an incredibly powerful tool for mass control on his hands; who’s gonna stand up against the will of an all-powerful being, after all? Such a thing simply doesn’t follow from atheism. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-sam-harris/487748/88 "2009-03-04T12:02:08Z")
> [@jakesteele](#): > > Neoatheist is the equivalent of Neoconservative or Neoliberal as opposed to paleoatheists, paleoconservatives, paleoliberals. It’s the same thing as a person that modifies a car. It’s still the same car, but with a different look. > > A classical example of neoatheism, which is strident, vocal and polemic towards religion is this, your statement: > > “Worldwide atheism would in my opinion increase the general ethical tone of humanity; not because atheism is good, but because religion is evil and crazy.” So basically, your “neoatheism” is nothing more than a conversational tone. You are trying to make me, personally into some sort of movement. > [@jakesteele](#): > > That is scary, irrational shit. Me thinks I’m getting a sulfurous whiff of fundamentalism. > > Look out! Helter Skelter!!! Ah yes; first I get compared to mass murdering tyrants, and now a murderous cult. Perhaps you will accuse me of being a child molestor to round things out. > [@jakesteele](#): > > Just out of curiosity, if religion is so bad and atheism is so good, could you give me your vision of a world of nothing but atheism. Would crime rates plummet? Would war end? Would all the Wall Street bullshit that’s going on never happen? Would almost all people never lie, cheat or steal? Would nobody ever commit adultery again? Would all interpersonal conflicts be resolved by civil discourse and then go out for beers? > > Seriously, I want to know what’s inside the head of the average neoatheist. First, again, there’s no such thing as a “neoatheist”. Second, I’m not representing anyone but myself, much less the average of a nonexistent group. And third, I **specifically** said that atheism isn’t good, in the very passage you quoted. It’s not a matter of atheism making anything better; it’s a matter of removing something that is inflicting immense harm. Religion. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-sam-harris/487748/89 "2009-03-04T13:28:24Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > If the person is the follower of a non-theistic religion, then yes. Then we disagree on that. > [@](#): > > If there was a religion where killing innocents with guns was a main tenet, then we can easily agree that less people spreading that religion to their children is a good hing. Whether we can blame ideologies in the same way that we can blame people is irrelevant. Since it seems a ideology is being blamed I think it is relevant. People use many things to justify their actions Religion is one of several vehicles people use for both good and bad. > [@](#): > > Of course it is. If people are spreading a harmful religion to children as being good then that religion is a problem. Who gets to declare it harmful? Which version of the religion? Christianity is a religion but it comes in a lot of versions. Some are very dogmatic some are not. Some parents teach their kids to think for themselves while some lay down very rigid rules for right and wrong. > [@](#): > > Again, it doesn’t matter if “blame” is the appropriate word. If hatred is being espoused by the Quran and Hadith, then yes, we can logically claim that Islam is not a good thing. Any so called Holy book is subject to interpretation. To some Muslims jihad is the inner war of spiritual growth. To some it is the war against the great devil America and the Zionists. So no, you can’t logically claim Islam is not a good thing. > [@](#): > > Huh? > > [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dogma](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dogma) > You going by a definition of dogma I’m not familiar with? Nope same one. Since the Bible and other Holy books are subject to interpretations and those interpretations can vary widely, the dogma is not in them. It’s in those who do the interpreting. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-sam-harris/487748/90 "2009-03-04T14:00:54Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > Of course; I believe I’ve been fair. But as we tell our religious friends. Belief does not make it true 😉 > [@](#): > > There is no atheistic view, especially regarding persecution. Remember what seemed fair to you above? Practice what you preach. Stop shifting the goalposts. You posted a technical definition of Communism which may not apply to the actual historical event that was being discussed. Within that historical context there clearly was an atheistic view that led to persecution regardless of the technical definitions of atheism and communism. > [@](#): > > Religion frequently persecutes those not because a reason has been concluded, but because “God says so.” Atheism spreads no tenets of persecution and atheism did not beget Communism. What’s your definition of dogma, anyway? Again, comparing religion and atheism is an unfair comparison. My definition of dogma is just as you posted. I don’t think I’m the one who doesn’t understand it. I’m pointing out that the rigid dogmatic mind set that seems to be the problem can exist equally well with either theism or atheism as a tenet. > [@](#): > > What didn’t you get? You said that atheism as an integral part of Communism and\* “If atheism is unfairly judged by looking at Communism then theism must be unfairly judged by looking at religion.”\* > Communism requires zero atheism and there have been plenty of theistic Communists. Religion by definition does require theism so your “shooting for accurate language and means of comparision” missed the mark. Great, except we’re talking about a particular historical event rather than technical definitions so what I don’t get is how this is relevant to the discussion and what point you’re trying to make with this information. Okay, atheism isn’t an integral art of Communism in all scenario’s. That’s interesting. Thanks for pointing that out. Was it in the historical context that we are talking about? By the way, religion does not require theism. Just to be accurate. 😉 [Buddhism](http://website.lineone.net/~ashvajit/Buddhism%20a%20non-theistic%20religion.htm) ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-sam-harris/487748/91 "2009-03-04T14:09:28Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > Well, could he appeal to god if there was no religion? That’s pretty much the problem I’ve pointed out earlier: if everyone involved in this religion thing is all about love, peace, and harmony, there’s no problem; but one rotten apple can spoil the whole crop, making use of the mechanisms religion imbues him with. Do you think Jim Jones could have gotten more than 900 people to kill themselves if he hadn’t bound them to himself using at least a pseudoreligious structure? You only need the public to believe in god, and somebody the public believes to relay to them god’s will, and that somebody has an incredibly powerful tool for mass control on his hands; who’s gonna stand up against the will of an all-powerful being, after all? Such a thing simply doesn’t follow from atheism. So we couldn’t have a charismatic leader who believed atheism was good and religion was bad and persecuted religion and actually killed people and leveled churches? That kind of thing couldn’t happen. Right? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-sam-harris/487748/92 "2009-03-04T14:17:11Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > No; the argument is that faith leads to religions, and that those haven’t always played nice with each other. If atheism doesn’t similarly lead to communism or whatever have you, the analogy simply fails. Yes but faith clearly doesn’t have to lead to dogmatic religion and persecution of others. The analogy doesn’t have to match in every respect to be valid. The point is that theism or atheism by themselves do not lead to good or bad choices and actions. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-sam-harris/487748/93 "2009-03-04T14:21:39Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Great, except we’re talking about a particular historical event rather than technical definitions so what I don’t get is how this is relevant to the discussion and what point you’re trying to make with this information. > Okay, atheism isn’t an integral art of Communism in all scenario’s. That’s interesting. Thanks for pointing that out. Was it in the historical context that we are talking about? It seems harder to grok than I thought. I’ll try once more: theism, faith, what have you, leads to religion. It’s the cause of religion. Atheism, disbelief, however you want to call it, doesn’t lead to communism. It doesn’t cause communism. It doesn’t cause, in fact, anything. If you agree with this, how is it fair to label atrocities committed in the name of communism atheistic? Even though the two are correlated, there is no causative link. There is between atrocities done in the name of religion and faith, because without faith, religion wouldn’t exist, quite plainly. And if you disagree, then you’d have to show how you arrive at communism from disbelief in the existence of god. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-sam-harris/487748/94 "2009-03-04T14:23:00Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > So we couldn’t have a charismatic leader who believed atheism was good and religion was bad and persecuted religion and actually killed people and leveled churches? That kind of thing couldn’t happen. Right? I doubt you can point to any political leader of any significance whose followers were motivated by their atheism and were atheists who carried out such a thing. Ruling out Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao and Hitler. Although no doubt you think you have some sort of gotcha here to weigh against the two millenia of Christian and Islam crimes. Which include Hitler and his good Catholic and Protestant Germans bringing the Christian demonisation of Jews to a head. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-sam-harris/487748/95 "2009-03-04T14:28:22Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > So we couldn’t have a charismatic leader who believed atheism was good and religion was bad and persecuted religion and actually killed people and leveled churches? That kind of thing couldn’t happen. Right? Yes, of course! That person could then simply take the reigns of the established atheistic power structures… oh wait. Atheism doesn’t have people that proclaim themselves the infallible arbiters of atheistic truth! Funny that. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > Yes but faith clearly doesn’t have to lead to dogmatic religion and persecution of others. The analogy doesn’t have to match in every respect to be valid. It does, however, have to match in the one crucial point it is trying to establish: that there is a similar causative link between atheism and atrocities committed in the name of communism, and theism and atrocities committed in the name of religion. Which it doesn’t. Atheism is incidental to communism. Faith is required for religion. Faith leads to religion. Atheism leads to nothing. Faith is therefore responsible for actions committed in the name of religion, because without it, there would be no religion. Atheism isn’t the reason for communist atrocities because it isn’t the reason for communism. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-sam-harris/487748/96 "2009-03-04T14:39:58Z")
In fact, consider the following scenario: the population of Country A is devoutly religious, and their head of state is also their religious Head Honcho. What he says is not merely mortal, but _divine_ law. Transgressions against the Head Honcho’s words are transgressions against the almighty himself. Naturally, this can be used to keep the public in line and have them do as they’re told very easily, seeing how there’s an eternity of hellfire waiting for everybody showing the slightest signs of rebellion. If Head Honcho says somebody is the enemy, he is The Enemy because god said so! And if Head Honcho says the enemy should be killed, then by god, the enemy will be killed. Now, let’s have a look at Country B. They don’t do religion, simply, and their head of state is just that, a political leader. What atheistic measures does he have to keep the public in line? Do what you’re told or else, nothing’s gonna happen to you? Sure, he could resort to military or political means, and he probably has other oppressive means at his disposal, but those aren’t in any way atheistic in nature. His power doesn’t derive from atheism the way Country A’s Head Honcho’s power derives from religion. It can’t, in fact. That’s the difference. And it’s a big one. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-sam-harris/487748/97 "2009-03-04T14:55:59Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > It seems harder to grok than I thought. I’ll try once more: theism, faith, what have you, leads to religion. It’s the cause of religion. Atheism, disbelief, however you want to call it, doesn’t lead to communism. It doesn’t cause communism. It doesn’t cause, in fact, anything. If you agree with this, how is it fair to label atrocities committed in the name of communism atheistic? Even though the two are correlated, there is no causative link. There is between atrocities done in the name of religion and faith, because without faith, religion wouldn’t exist, quite plainly. > And if you disagree, then you’d have to show how you arrive at communism from disbelief in the existence of god. I grok fine. You’re missing \*my \*point. I am not labeling those atrocities atheistic. I’m pointing out that both atheists and theists are capable of such atrocities so it seems that belief of non belief is not the culprit for atrocities. Theism is not the cause of religion. Even if I thought it was I’d find your leap from theism to religious atrocities unreasonable. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-sam-harris/487748/98 "2009-03-04T15:10:56Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I grok fine. You’re missing \*my \*point. I am not labeling those atrocities atheistic. I’m pointing out that both atheists and theists are capable of such atrocities so it seems that belief of non belief is not the culprit for atrocities. That’s rather trivial, and I don’t think anybody would oppose that point. Of course, both atheists and theists can be dicks. It’s also not what’s being discussed here, or why I consider the communism comparison to be a bad one. The point as it was raised originally in this thread was: [QUOTE=Calculon] Atheism, like theism, is most properly understood as a class of many different belief systems (communism, nihilism, existentialism, ect) that are all held together the common thread that they all deny the existence of God. [/QUOTE] or perhaps there was an earlier variant of this. This is what I opposed, not that both atheists and theists are capable of fucking shit up; if the latter was your only point all along, I apologize for attacking you. > [@](#): > > Theism is not the cause of religion. Even if I thought it was I’d find your leap from theism to religious atrocities unreasonable. Faith, however, is the cause of religion; theism then is merely the cause of theistic religions, though how theistic and non-theistic religions actually differ, epistemologically, isn’t all that clear to me – you could well call a belief in and worship of fairies non-theistic, but you could also equate them with the gods of that particular religion; same for all similar metaphysical entities. But, leaving causes aside for a minute, once there is an established system of religious power, it is possible to abuse it, as I tried to show with my example above. Similar doesn’t work for atheism. That’s all I’ve been saying all along – that while religion isn’t necessarily ‘the root of all evil’, its structures form a ready (and often also willing, owing to human nature) conduit for it. It’s like your example with the gun: no, the gun isn’t responsible for killing a person; it’s the person pulling the trigger. Nevertheless, you can’t shoot people if there are no guns. Atheism has no comparable structures, and at least I can’t see how one would form them. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-sam-harris/487748/99 "2009-03-04T15:17:34Z")
Got locked out of the edit window: > [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > That’s all I’ve been saying all along – that while religion isn’t necessarily ‘the root of all evil’, its structures form a ready (and often also willing, owing to human nature) conduit for it. It’s like your example with the gun: no, the gun isn’t responsible for killing a person; it’s the person pulling the trigger. Nevertheless, you can’t shoot people if there are no guns. The analogy would be that just because you still can strangle persons if you don’t have a gun, non-existing guns are to blame for stranglings the same way guns are to blame for shootings. But there isn’t anything there that can share some of the blame besides the murderer himself; in the case of a shooting, it’s the gun that made it possible in the first place. Non-guns don’t make stranglings possible. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-sam-harris/487748/100 "2009-03-04T19:18:44Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Since it seems a ideology is being blamed I think it is relevant. People use many things to justify their actions Religion is one of several vehicles people use for both good and bad. Are you saying when people justify their evil actions on religion, it’s always just a scapegoat and they would have carried out their actions if they weren’t indoctrinated into their religion that preaches these actions as good things? > [@](#): > > Who gets to declare it harmful? I do. You do. We all do. Are we not to judge? > [@](#): > > Which version of the religion? The ones spreading hate and those that have a a holy book describing a hateful, vindictive, evil god. > [@](#): > > Christianity is a religion but it comes in a lot of versions. Some are very dogmatic some are not. I don’t know any that aren’t dogmatic. > [@](#): > > Some parents teach their kids to think for themselves while some lay down very rigid rules for right and wrong. What’s your point? > [@](#): > > Any so called Holy book is subject to interpretation. To some Muslims jihad is the inner war of spiritual growth. To some it is the war against the great devil America and the Zionists. So no, you can’t logically claim Islam is not a good thing. Yes, I can. It’s holy books are evil and a few interpretations softening a few of the messages don’t change all of the evil it contains. I’ve yet to find a Muslim that has interpreted any of the passages that unbelievers are fools and their reward will be in Hell any other way but the obvious. > [@](#): > > Nope same one. Since the Bible and other Holy books are subject to interpretations and those interpretations can vary widely, the dogma is not in them. It’s in those who do the interpreting. That’s some rationalization you’ve accomplished there. If a book can be interpreted differently by different people then it contains no dogma? By that rationale, there’s no such thing as dogma. > [@](#): > > But as we tell our religious friends. Belief does not make it true 😉 Then show me where my criticism haven’t been accurate and reasonable. > [@](#): > > Stop shifting the goalposts. You posted a technical definition of Communism which may not apply to the actual historical event that was being discussed. Within that historical context there clearly was an atheistic view that led to persecution regardless of the technical definitions of atheism and communism. Shifting the goalposts? I’m confused as to what goal you’re talking about. Atheism does not lead to Communism. Theism and irrational thought that goes with it almost always leads to evil religions. > [@](#): > > Again, comparing religion and atheism is an unfair comparison. That’s what I and others have been saying all along. Atheism is just being without belief in God/gods and it’s usually because of critical thinking and not accepting fantastic claims without evidence. > [@](#): > > My definition of dogma is just as you posted. I don’t think I’m the one who doesn’t understand it. I’m pointing out that the rigid dogmatic mind set that seems to be the problem can exist equally well with either theism or atheism as a tenet. No. Atheism has no tenets. Religions do, and many of them are evil and harmful to the rest of us. Whether or not an evil group can adopt atheism as a “tenet” is not relevant unless atheism is the cause of an evil ideology coming into existence. Communism did not come into existence because of atheism and atheism does not cause other evil ideologies to come into existence. Theism does as does the irrationality that goes along with it. > [@](#): > > Great, except we’re talking about a particular historical event rather than technical definitions so what I don’t get is how this is relevant to the discussion and what point you’re trying to make with this information. I told you already. My point was that you said that atheism as an integral part of Communism and _“If atheism is unfairly judged by looking at Communism then theism must be unfairly judged by looking at religion.”_ Communism requires zero atheism and there have been plenty of theistic Communists. Religion by definition does require theism so your “shooting for accurate language and means of comparision” missed the mark. > [@](#): > > Okay, atheism isn’t an integral art of Communism in all scenario’s. That’s interesting. Thanks for pointing that out. Was it in the historical context that we are talking about? No. The historical context that’s important is that Communism doesn’t naturally follow atheism and atheism does not and has not caused people to become Communists. > [@](#): > > By the way, religion does not require theism. Just to be accurate. 😉 > > [Buddhism](http://website.lineone.net/~ashvajit/Buddhism%20a%20non-theistic%20religion.htm) Semantics. Most of us define religion the way that the first hit on [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) does. It would make sense that some Buddhists would like to label it as a religion though because of the special protection and government perks (in most Western countries) that go with it. It would be nice if I could get the government to buy into my weekly poker game being sacred. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-sam-harris/487748.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-sam-harris/487748.md?page=6)