Whenever I bring up all the atrocities done in the name of religion my friend says that even more were done in the name of atheism. When I try to tell him that he’s full of ***t he just laughs at me saying I don’t even know anything about atheism. I know that nothing was ever done in the name of atheism so is there anyway I can get him to take me more seriously when I say it?
Posted: April 10th 2010
Mike the Infidel www
The best idea is to remember that the truth is not determined by body counts. That’s basically just a pissing contest. Arguing that a religion is dangerous is not at all related to arguing that a religion is wrong.
Posted: April 12th 2010
Daniel Midgley www
Stalin and Pol Pot were atheists, but it’s wrong to say that they committed their atrocities in the name of atheism. They did these things to promote their own ideologies, (whether Communism or the Khmer Rouge), not to promote secular rationalism.
Sam Harris addressed these movements, saying, “It’s not that they were too critical of religions; it’s that they were too much like them.”
Let me address the other part of your question: How do we get our friends to take us more seriously?
If by 'taking us seriously’, we mean 'agreeing with us’, well, this may never happen. And that’s okay. After all, if people don’t agree with us, they’re not going to be tortured in hell for eternity. Let the Christians have all the well-meaning angst over disagreements. We have reason, logic, and facts. And with more and more people becoming atheists, societal patterns are on our side. We don’t have to worry if others disagree.
I have found that when I stick to facts, avoid insults, and listen — really listen — to my believing friends, it turns down the temperature of the discussion. Then they’re more likely to listen back, and take me seriously.
Posted: April 11th 2010
Dave Hitt www
There are a few atrocities that can be attributed to atheists. They were political, not religious, although in a very few cases they can be attributed to atheism.
But they pale in comparison to the atrocities that have been done in the name of religion, and most importantly, continue to be done in the name of religion.
Every once in a while, on my blog, I run a list of things religion is up to, from the silly to the horrific. Have your friend take a look, and challenge him to find any current atheist atrocities that compare.
Posted: April 11th 2010
George Locke
Atheism was part of the Khmer Rouge agenda (at least ostensibly), so it’s reasonable to say that their atrocities were committed “in the name of atheism”. Insofar as atheism is a negation of religion, an authoritarian program to annihilate indigenous culture may include atheism as a propaganda tool.
The point is that faith enables people to ignore their better judgment. Although faith is not essential to atheism, it is possible to be atheist and have faith, e.g. faith in the state. However, faith is essential to religion. Thus, religion is inherently dangerous whereas atheism is not.
Posted: April 11th 2010
SmartLX www
Ask him for an example. If he says something about Communists, who were/are officially atheists, counter with the Nazis who were officially Catholics to demonstrate that atrocities committed by official adherents to a faith or non-faith are not necessarily committed in the name of, or caused by, that faith/non-faith. Then perhaps you can have a real discussion.
Posted: April 10th 2010