Atheism's Twentieth Century Death Toll

[McCulloch]

You really want to play that numbers game, with atheism's 100,000,000 death toll last century?

Are there 100,000,000 deaths in the twentieth century attributable to atheism? Please list.

[McCulloch]

Brian Dunning put it well:

Christians charge that the most killing in history has come from modern atheist regimes. Adolf Hitler led Germany during World War II when he executed six million Jews in the Holocaust, three million Poles, three million Russian prisoners of war, and as many as eight million others throughout Europe. Joseph Stalin was the General Secretary of the Soviet Union following the Russian Revolution until his death after World War II. Between 10 and 20 million Soviets and German prisoners of war died under his regime, depending on how many famine victims you count, from Gulags, execution, and forced resettlement. Mao Zedong, who led China for more than a quarter of a century following World War II, created the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution programs which collectively killed unknown tens of millions of Chinese, most of them in public executions and violent clashes. Pol Pot led the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia during the 1970's, when as many as 2 million Cambodians, or as much as 20% of the population, died from execution, disease and starvation.

History is full of uncounted massacres by armies carrying a religious banner, though most such episodes were in ancient times with much less efficient killing technology and microscopically smaller populations. The number of religious exterminations of entire villages throughout history is innumerable, though most had body counts only in the hundreds or thousands. Alexander the Great is estimated to have executed a million. 11th century Crusades killed half a million Jews and Muslims. Genghis Khan's massacres of entire populations of cities probably totaled a million. The Aztecs once slaughtered 100,000 prisoners over four days. An unknown number, probably in the millions, died in the Devil's Wind action in Colonial India. Up to four million Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims died in post-Colonial India. The Ottoman Empire massacred two million Armenians over the years. Franco's Spanish Civil War killed a hundred thousand. A million have died in Rwanda, half a million in Darfur. And Christian vs. Muslim violence has obviously dominated our headlines for a decade, totaling somewhere in seven figures.

So who has been the worst throughout history: atheist regimes or religious regimes? Obviously the big numbers come from the 20th century superpowers (China, Russia, Germany) so the answer depends on how you classify those. And this is where the meat of these debates is usually found, splitting hairs on which regime is atheist, which is merely secular, which is non-Christian and thus fair game to be called atheist. Hitchens points out that Stalin's government had all the trappings of religion, including Orwell's totalitarian theocracy, and thus it's merely a play on words to say that it was not religious. Pol Pot was raised a Buddhist monk who grew up to execute Buddhist monks, along with anyone else he could lay his hands on. Whole books have been written on the occult underpinnings of Nazi Germany, the symbology of the Norse gods, to say nothing of the claims that Hitler was a Christian, Hitler was a Jew, and his own writings expressing the kinship he felt with the Muslims. A favorite counterpoint raised by Christian debaters is that these despots practiced Social Darwinism and were thus atheists by definition. In summary, the winner of these debates is the one who can convince the other that the big 20th century genocidal maniacs were motivated either by religion or by a desire to destroy religion. The entire debate is the logical fallacy of the excluded middle.

Emphasis mine.

[nursebenjamin]

[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]

[100%atheist]

In summary, the winner of these debates is the one who can convince the other that the big 20th century genocidal maniacs were motivated either by religion or by a desire to destroy religion. The entire debate is the logical fallacy of the excluded middle.

Emphasis mine.[/quote]

My take on this is - "who cares?"
Perhaps you agree that most killings in human history were done by men. Should we imprison men, or should I be now ashamed to be a man?

Also, many on this forum tend to simplify who Hitler, Stalin, et al. were. Some say they were atheists, others - crazy maniacs. People-people, they were way more complicated individuals, and much stronger leaders than we typically assume by putting standard labels on them.

[SailingCyclops]

The vast majority of conflicts and mass murders are political and resource based. They involve the acquisition of land and resources, as well as an attempt to establish one form of political/economic system over another. They for the most part are power struggles.

Few (but not all) have anything to do with religion. In the cases of Pol Pot, Stalin, and Hitler, the motivation was clearly geopolitical, with no religious motivation. Even the Crusades can be seen as an attempt to gain territory, and put that territory under European control (which just happened to be the church at that time). The use of Christianity as a motivator, and as an excuse, is obvious, but one can't say even the Crusades had their primary motivation in religion, again power and resources was the primary goal.

When one contrasts atrocities as being religious based as opposed to atheist based, one must find atrocities which were primarily motivated by religious belief or by a lack of religious belief (atheism). The inquisition for instance was mass murder directly related to and based on religion. So were the witch hunts and burnings. The Roman persecution of the Christians is another example, although it may have had a political component as well. Islamic Jihads would be another example of religious-based massacres. The massacres of Mormons in the US West by protestants would be another example.

While one can cite many cases of atrocities which were politically motivated, and many others which were perpetrated by one religion against another, as well as atrocities perpetrated by the religious against the non-religious; one will be hard pressed to find any which were perpetrated by atheists based on their atheism.

[East of Eden]

The vast majority of conflicts and mass murders are political and resource based. They involve the acquisition of land and resources, as well as an attempt to establish one form of political/economic system over another. They for the most part are power struggles.

Few (but not all) have anything to do with religion. In the cases of Pol Pot, Stalin, and Hitler, the motivation was clearly geopolitical, with no religious motivation. Even the Crusades can be seen as an attempt to gain territory, and put that territory under European control (which just happened to be the church at that time). The use of Christianity as a motivator, and as an excuse, is obvious, but one can't say even the Crusades had their primary motivation in religion, again power and resources was the primary goal.

When one contrasts atrocities as being religious based as opposed to atheist based, one must find atrocities which were primarily motivated by religious belief or by a lack of religious belief (atheism). The inquisition for instance was mass murder directly related to and based on religion. So were the witch hunts and burnings. The Roman persecution of the Christians is another example, although it may have had a political component as well. Islamic Jihads would be another example of religious-based massacres. The massacres of Mormons in the US West by protestants would be another example.

While one can cite many cases of atrocities which were politically motivated, and many others which were perpetrated by one religion against another, as well as atrocities perpetrated by the religious against the non-religious; one will be hard pressed to find any which were perpetrated by atheists based on their atheism.

You would be hard pressed to find any of the above offenses done because of Jesus' word and deed, unlike the prophet of Islam. IMHO, atheism creates a climate where these atrocities can happen by the belief that there is no God, no objective moral standards, no eternal rewards and punishment, that man is the highest power and that we are cosmic accidents with no more intrinsic worth than a dog. If a man is really similar to an animal why then it isn't really murder is it? Contrast this with the beliefs of Christianity (however imperfectly followed) such as the Golden Rule, turn the other cheek, love your enemies, all men are equally loved by God and created in His image, and moral standards that we will one day be accountable for.

I dislike these conversations because invariably an atheist takes it as a personal insult, which it is not meant to be. I only bring them up generally when the comparatively few pasts misdeeds done by 'Christians' are brought up. The truth is statistically speaking, you are in more danger from a secular government than a Christian one.

You can read about the body count of Communism here:



And I reject the nonsense that Communists aren't really atheist. Atheism is intrinsic to Communism. Does anyone know of one Communist nation that had/has freedom of religion as we know it in the Christian West?

[East of Eden]

In summary, the winner of these debates is the one who can convince the other that the big 20th century genocidal maniacs were motivated either by religion or by a desire to destroy religion. The entire debate is the logical fallacy of the excluded middle.

My take on this is - "who cares?"
Perhaps you agree that most killings in human history were done by men. Should we imprison men, or should I be now ashamed to be a man?

Also, many on this forum tend to simplify who Hitler, Stalin, et al. were. Some say they were atheists, others - crazy maniacs. People-people, they were way more complicated individuals, and much stronger leaders than we typically assume by putting standard labels on them.

I would say they were crazy maniacs unrestrained by God. As Doestoyevsky said, if there is no God all is permisable. Torquemada was restrained by God, maybe the only difference between him and the above crazies. Stalin at one point killed twice as many per week as died in several centuries of the Inquisition.

[SailingCyclops]

You would be hard pressed to find any of the above offenses done because of Jesus' word and deed, unlike the prophet of Islam.

I was not contrasting atheism with christianity. I was contrasting atheism with religion. The belief in a god as opposed to the non belief in a god. Jesus' word or deed is irrelevant to the discussion. The bible is replete with admonitions to commit mass murder, genocide, rape, and murder of women and children. Whether or not you personally believe in such is not the issue here. Those acts are specifically ordained by many religions, and have been carried out by those who take those admonitions literally. It's a religious thing. Not all of it, as I pointed out in my last post, but certainly some of it.

IMHO, atheism creates a climate where these atrocities can happen by the belief that there is no God ....

On the contrary. Religion creates both the climate and the justification for these atrocities to occur. We have history to prove that including recent history on 911. We have no history to prove that it was atheism, and not geopolitics where religion was not involved in atrocities.

..... no objective moral standards ... that we are cosmic accidents with no more intrinsic worth than a dog. If a man is really similar to an animal why then it isn't really murder is it

You are making the false claim that atheists have no moral standards, that they are immoral. I find this offensive. It is also untrue. Human morality preceded Judeochristianity.

The truth is statistically speaking, you are in more danger from a secular government than a Christian one.

Once again, we are not contrasting atheist with christian. The contrast is between atheist and religious. On that score I would like you to contrast some of the current theocracies in the Middle East with our own secular government. What you will find is that you are much safer and freer under this secular government than you would be in say Iran, or in any other theocracy you care to name. Your christian beliefs would get you beheaded or stoned there but not here.

And I reject the nonsense that Communists aren't really atheist.

You are making a false equivalence and a generalization. Atheists are not communists, and not all communists are atheists. What one believes politically and economically has nothing to do with what one believes with respect to the existence of a god.

Atheism is intrinsic to Communism.

No! Atheism is intrinsic to humanism, to skepticism, to secularism, not to any political or economic bent.

Does anyone know of one Communist nation that had/has freedom of religion as we know it in the Christian West?

Does anyone know of a contemporary theocratic nation where freedom of religion is allowed? NO! Only in a secular nation is this possible. A nation where no particular religion is mandated. Like here in the U.S. of A. can any religion practice freely without fear of oppression. We atheists are also free here, free from religion being imposed upon us. This is a freedom which you will only find in a secular state.

[East of Eden]

You would be hard pressed to find any of the above offenses done because of Jesus' word and deed, unlike the prophet of Islam.

I was not contrasting atheism with christianity. I was contrasting atheism with religion.

I am only defending Christianity.

The belief in a god as opposed to the non belief in a god. Jesus' word or deed is irrelevant to the discussion. The bible is replete with admonitions to commit mass murder, genocide, rape, and murder of women and children.

They have nothing to do with Christianity, and I will say ancient Israel had the same right to defend herself as we did in WWII in bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Want to know how many innocent men, women and children we killed there?

Whether or not you personally believe in such is not the issue here. Those acts are specifically ordained by many religions, and have been carried out by those who take those admonitions literally. It's a religious thing. Not all of it, as I pointed out in my last post, but certainly some of it.

OK, and killings in the short sick history of atheistic communism vastly outnuber these religous killings you speak of. If I am responsible for religious killings, you are responsible for Stalin.

On the contrary. Religion creates both the climate and the justification for these atrocities to occur. We have history to prove that including recent history on 911.

If you want to switch to Islam my opinion of it is the same as Winston Churchill's:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its
votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in
a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic
apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident
habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of
commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the
followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and
refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that
in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his
absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine,
must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of
Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the
influence of the religion paralyses the social development of
those who follow it.

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from
being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing
faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa,
raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that
Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the
science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization
of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient
Rome."

We have no history to prove that it was atheism, and not geopolitics where religion was not involved in atrocities.

OK, and I'll say the relgious offenses you mention were about power and politics and not religion. You might have a point if you can point to Jesus' teachings justifying such things. You don't judge a philosophy by its misuse.

You are making the false claim that atheists have no moral standards, that they are immoral.

Cite or retract. This article sums up my position well:

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcrai ... a-eth.html

"Now it is important that we remain clear in understanding the issue before us. The question is not: Must we believe in God in order to live moral lives? There is no reason to think that atheists and theists alike may not live what we normally characterize as good and decent lives. Similarly, the question is not: Can we formulate a system of ethics without reference to God? If the non-theist grants that human beings do have objective value, then there is no reason to think that he cannot work out a system of ethics with which the theist would also largely agree. Or again, the question is not: Can we recognize the existence of objective moral values without reference to God? The theist will typically maintain that a person need not believe in God in order to recognize, say, that we should love our children. Rather, as humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz puts it, "The central question about moral and ethical principles concerns this ontological foundation. If they are neither derived from God nor anchored in some transcendent ground, are they purely ephemeral?"

An interesting relevant bonus item from the link:

"The state torturers in Soviet prisons understood this all too well. Richard Wurmbrand reports,

The cruelty of atheism is hard to believe when man has no faith in the reward of good or the punishment of evil. There is no reason to be human. There is no restraint from the depths of evil which is in man. The Communist torturers often said, 'There is no God, no hereafter, no punishment for evil. We can do what we wish.' I have heard one torturer even say, 'I thank God, in whom I don't believe, that I have lived to this hour when I can express all the evil in my heart.' He expressed it in unbelievable brutality and torture inflected on prisoners."

I find this offensive.

And? Being offended is part of the territory here.

It is also untrue. Human morality preceded Judeochristianity.

Never said it didn't. Even pagans are made in God's image and have His law written on their hearts, so that they are without excuse.

Once again, we are not contrasting atheist with christian. The contrast is between atheist and religious. On that score I would like you to contrast some of the current theocracies in the Middle East with our own secular government. What you will find is that you are much safer and freer under this secular government than you would be in say Iran, or in any other theocracy you care to name. Your christian beliefs would get you beheaded or stoned there but not here.

As would your atheist beliefs. I think we agree on Islam, but to lump me in with them is as dumb as saying because the Communist were a political party then the Democratic Party is also bad for being one.

You are making a false equivalence and a generalization. Atheists are not communists, and not all communists are atheists.

OK, and the 'Christians' who did bad things weren't really Christians.

What one believes politically and economically has nothing to do with what one believes with respect to the existence of a god.

In the case of Communism it does. Want to answer my question of what Communist nation had freedom like we do in the West on religion?

No! Atheism is intrinsic to humanism, to skepticism, to secularism, not to any political or economic bent.

I will let Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher H.) answer that:

"I am baffled and frustrated by the strange insistence of my anti-theist brother that the cruelty of Communist anti-theist regimes does not reflect badly on his case and on his cause. It unquestionable does. Soviet Communism is organically linked to atheism, materialist rationalism, and most of the other causes the New Atheists support. It used the same language, treasured the same hopes, and appealed to the same consituency as atheism does today. When its crimes were still unknown, or concealed, it attracted the support of the liberal intelligentsia who were then, and are even more now, opposed to religion.

My brother and his allies, who can now confidently classify the Soviet regime as "Stalinist" and so evade any responsibility for it, must ask themselves with ruthless honesty what they would have thought and said about it at the time, before such escape routes were open. They must ask themselves which questionable causes and regimes they have made excused for in this age, and consider the possibility that uptopianism is dangerous precisely because its supporters are so convinced that they are themselves good.

Even after its evils became widely known, the same liberal intelligentsia continued in many cases to sympathize with the USSR and defend it against conservative and Christian critics. Soviet power was - as it was intended to be - the opposite of faith in God. It was faith in the greatness of humanity and in the perfectibility of human society. The atheists cannot honestly disown it, and it is because they know this in their hearts that they panic and babble when confronted with the problem. Nothing else can explain the absurd denials they issue."

Does anyone know of a contemporary theocratic nation where freedom of religion is allowed? NO! Only in a secular nation is this possible. A nation where no particular religion is mandated. Like here in the U.S. of A. can any religion practice freely without fear of oppression. We atheists are also free here, free from religion being imposed upon us. This is a freedom which you will only find in a secular state.

Like the United Kingdom? Your red herring aside, the question was what communist nation had freedom of religion as we do.

[SailingCyclops]

They have nothing to do with Christianity, and I will say ancient Israel had the same right to defend herself as we did in WWII in bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Want to know how many innocent men, women and children we killed there?

I intentionally did not mention the fire bombing of Dresden, the fire bombing of scores of Japanese cities, nor the nuclear attacks against 2 Japanese cities, because I did not want to start a political flame war with you. All of which were war crimes, acts of terror against civilians and yes, massacres and atrocities, which we had NO RIGHT under any circumstance to perpetrate. In the same way ancient Israel had no moral right to commit their crimes against humanity. But what does that say about the alleged god which commanded them to do those things? The god which you swear allegiance to? The god which is the source of your morality?

That you would justify those acts as "defensive" is appalling to me. It would appear this godless atheist holds to a higher moral standard than you the christian. After this exchange, there is no need for me to retract anything, and there is no doubt about who's morality is closer to that of Jesus'. I must say, you have amazed and shocked me. I suppose I shouldn't be, given the bloody carnage advocated for in your holy book.