zen Posted May 26, 2021 Posted May 26, 2021 (edited) Examples include Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, North Korea, ... Ek se badhkar ek. Kill count in millions Edited May 26, 2021 by zen
BacktoCricaddict Posted May 26, 2021 Posted May 26, 2021 9 minutes ago, zen said: Examples include Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, North Korea, ... Ek se badhkar ek. Kill count in millions They were not atheists. They thought there was a God and it was themself. Vickydev, I6MTW and Austin 3:!6 1 1 1
Alam_dar Posted May 27, 2021 Posted May 27, 2021 (edited) 15 hours ago, zen said: Examples include Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, North Korea, ... Ek se badhkar ek. Kill count in millions Good question and atheists have to answer it. As far as my knowledge and my thinking is concerned, then: (1) Hitler was not an atheist, but a Christian. His army wore a belt, and it was written upon it "Gott mit Uns" (i.e. God is with us) (link). Nevertheless, he didn't fight the wars for the sake of Christianity, but mainly due to race issues. (2) Genghiz Khan and Mangols had a religion, but they were also equally cruel like Hitler and Stalin. (3) Stalin and Mao and Castro etc ... NONE of them did the killings in the name of Atheism. No, but they did all these killings in name of an "economic system" (i.e. Communist Economic System). There were a lot of Christians too who were supporting Stalin for the sake of this communist economic system. The driving force behind that bloodshed was communism and it was a fight against the so called capitalist system. (4) And many who were opposing Hitler and Stalin, were also Atheists. The founder of Israeli Jews David Ben-Gurion was himself an atheist. Churchill was an Agnostic. (5) And especially, I feel that modern atheists are at the top when it comes to the Secularism, democracy, Human Rights and rights for the women, and rights for the black people and rights for gays/lesbians, and they are anti-war etc. No other religious group could surpass them in these things today. And western atheists are very much against North Korean style of dictatorship today. while they firmly believe in Secularism. Edited May 27, 2021 by Alam_dar
Sandeep99 Posted May 27, 2021 Posted May 27, 2021 They fear no consequences. Simple as that. Religion bounds you to consequences. speedheat 1
Khota Posted May 27, 2021 Posted May 27, 2021 Aurangzeb was very religious. My forefathers had to pay Jazia. Your theory has no basis OP as religious people can be equally cruel. I6MTW and nevada 2
rkt.india Posted May 27, 2021 Posted May 27, 2021 1 hour ago, Khota said: Aurangzeb was very religious. My forefathers had to pay Jazia. Your theory has no basis OP as religious people can be equally cruel. He was only following his religion by killing and converting kaafirs.
Mariyam Posted May 27, 2021 Posted May 27, 2021 In today's social milieu being religious has become synonymous with being narrow-minded. That's not necessarily true.
Khota Posted May 27, 2021 Posted May 27, 2021 27 minutes ago, Mariyam said: In today's social milieu being religious has become synonymous with being narrow-minded. That's not necessarily true. It depends. If you use religion to help people and spread goodwill than you are correct. If you think that any particular religion is a correct path to hell/heaven/reincarnation than you are wrong. Mariyam 1
Mariyam Posted May 27, 2021 Posted May 27, 2021 27 minutes ago, rkt.india said: He was only following his religion by killing and converting kaafirs. Don't you think it is unfair if for the 'other set of beliefs' the worst exponents are considered to be the norm. And when it comes to beliefs that one holds dear, the worst namoonas are discarded as outliers. Lord, BacktoCricaddict and Khota 1 2
Mariyam Posted May 27, 2021 Posted May 27, 2021 3 minutes ago, Khota said: It depends. If you use religion to help people and spread goodwill than you are correct. If you think that any particular religion is a correct path to hell/heaven/reincarnation than you are wrong. Agree totally with your first para. Wrt the second para, it is okay if someone's belief is wrong. And it's also okay if someone wants to believe in whatever. Its also okay if one is convinced that his path is right and every one else is going to burn in hell fire. The problem is when belief systems result in different civic rules for different people.
zen Posted May 27, 2021 Author Posted May 27, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, Khota said: Your theory has no basis OP as religious people can be equally cruel. I have not said that religious ppl cannot be cruel but as a % atheist leaders/societies have a higher ratio of turning cruel and kill count esp. in the last 100 years or so ... Mao has killed up to 80M ppl, Hitler, Stalin, .... Edited May 27, 2021 by zen
Vilander Posted May 27, 2021 Posted May 27, 2021 1 hour ago, Mariyam said: Don't you think it is unfair if for the 'other set of beliefs' the worst exponents are considered to be the norm. And when it comes to beliefs that one holds dear, the worst namoonas are discarded as outliers. incorrect. Statistically one should look at terrorist attacks based on religious fundamentalism, force conversions, origin of these tendencies based on interpretation of religious text, lack of reform of the said arguable texts. Any religion found especially worse in these attributes should be reformed , basically any assumption of truth without base of facts, promise of reward for devotion that can turn criminal minds to criminal devotion, segregations based on belief - this is rampant in all religions especially countries that have state religion( all Islamic countries for instance or even little sweet SL for instance they have a burqa ban ), constant threat of theocracy one sees in religious societies, any possible rationalizing of criminal behavior as based on what is allowed or mandated in a religion etc all these need reform. There is no unfairness here.
I6MTW Posted May 27, 2021 Posted May 27, 2021 I really don't think any of them were actually atheist or proven to be so. There will obviously be many different views on them . But we can all agree and see that the one thing/ideology in common among all of them except Hitler, is Communism. So in a way you can say most communist leaders are cruel and tyrannical. In a way it is believed communism is supposed to follow atheism but I don't think any of the leaders were actually believing in the absence of god, just the ideology that said to disregard god and religion.
Real McCoy Posted May 27, 2021 Posted May 27, 2021 Wrong assumption that only atheists are cruel. Lord Kitchener who commanded the British forces in South Africa was a self confessed christian but is one of the perpetrators of scorched earth policy and concentration camps for the afrikaaners who were also christian and protestant too. A darker side of the British empire is not shown because they were the victors of the great war but they were condemned by Hitler for their hypocrisy of claiming to be christians and champions of the development of natives who didn't receive the good word of God while pillaging and raping entire continents. His speeches make fun of Britain's voracious appetite for mining diamonds, gold while making an appearance of being christian. Hitler was a catholic and his actions were exaggerated by hollywood which is run by jews because he lost the war. He put the jews in work camps not concentration camps. The work camps were marked with the much vilified "Arbeit macht frei" which only means work brings freedom. You should know the Germans were a hard working people and the jews were considered lazy. The germans after the war were the real victims of concentration camps. Hitler was a vegetarian too and introduced the first animal cruelty laws that you find throughout Europe and North America. Hitler basically banned the kosher slaughter houses as he considered them to be cruel to animals.
zen Posted May 27, 2021 Author Posted May 27, 2021 (edited) 6 hours ago, Sandeep99 said: They fear no consequences. Simple as that. Religion bounds you to consequences. That could be one of the reasons. If you are cruel, among the first things you would want to do is disassociate yourself with religion, which talks about "consequences". Also if you want to make yourself or your state primary, you would need to take religion out, which many consider above most things. Take Hitler for e.g., his mother was a devoted catholic but he began to consider Christianity as a religion of slaves. Only thing that he probably liked about Christianity is the architecture of Christian churches. In 1942, he is said to have vowed to root out the influence of Christian churches, describing them as the evil that is gnawing our vitals. Edited May 27, 2021 by zen Sandeep99 1
coffee_rules Posted May 27, 2021 Posted May 27, 2021 Churchill is no less tyrant than Hitler. He was responsible for millions of deaths in Bengal famine when he said he didn't care for Indians dying. He thinks Indians were of a beastly religion. He was agnostic. Quote In one 1898 letter to her, he referred to his religious beliefs, saying: "I do not accept the Christian or any other form of religious belief". Churchill had been christened in the Church of England but, as he related later, he underwent a virulently anti-Christian phase in his youth, and as an adult was an agnostic. BacktoCricaddict 1
Khota Posted May 27, 2021 Posted May 27, 2021 5 hours ago, Mariyam said: Don't you think it is unfair if for the 'other set of beliefs' the worst exponents are considered to be the norm. And when it comes to beliefs that one holds dear, the worst namoonas are discarded as outliers. Your post is real good. Aurangzeb was an outlier. Not all Mughal kings were like that.
Khota Posted May 27, 2021 Posted May 27, 2021 4 hours ago, zen said: I have not said that religious ppl cannot be cruel but as a % atheist leaders/societies have a higher ratio of turning cruel and kill count esp. in the last 100 years or so ... Mao has killed up to 80M ppl, Hitler, Stalin, .... Let us get to a good christain General Dyer. My relatives barely escaped Jallianwala Bagh.
Recommended Posts