Well, Stalin was atheist, Pol Pot as well, .... although good cases can be made for that not being a factor (neither ever justified their actions in the name of atheism, ...)

I think the better question is "Has there ever been a war fought in the name of atheism?"

Kieran, I asked you if religion has anything to offer exclusively. Sorry, but I subscribe to science to describe reality, as it has a better track record of doing so than religion. That stuff aside, what does religion have to offer? If I don't need it for a description of the universe, then what do I need it for?

I'm surprised this is apparently so difficult to answer.

Religion offers the promise of rewards beyond the physical world if you do good things. The alternative is the "life's a b**** and then you die" theory, so I can see why many opt for the former.

An even better question is "Would they have simply found another excuse to murder each other?"

Not entirely true.. science has much more limited goals than religion. Karl Fezer describes it best in Scholarly World, Private Worlds: "Scholarship in general, and especially science and its various component disciplines, are systems of thought with goals and standards that have facilitated great strides in our understanding of the world. But these same goals and standards also limit the kinds of answers that science can provide. Everyone's worldview deals with some questions that science inherently cannot answer and for which only inherently controversial answers are available... Since science, and scholarly inquiry in general, has universal intent, it cannot build on concepts that are unavoidably controversial."

Incidentally, I highly suggest you guys read Fezer's book (you may have to *gasp* buy it)... it is extremely informative and well-written, and he encourages you to think critically about what other people say while at the same time making you do the same thing to your own beliefs.

Also, for a very good read on intelligent design, reading David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.

Yeah, Hitler started one. He wanted to create a genetically superior master race. (Which makes sense from a purely pragmatic POV)

Er. What? World War 2 was not fought in the name of athiesm. a) Hitler was a catholic. b) He hated anyone who wasn't christian.

But the focus of his Holocaust was racial purity, not religious purity. My point is that, without religion, groups of people would find other reasons to fight and hate each other. Religion can not and should not be held responsible for every single situation where it is used as a justification for killing. You don't try the gun because the man shot his wife.

I don't know what Hitler was but I doubt by the end of his life he was a Christian. Keep in mind Darwin was also baptized (i think) a Christian and later was even a priest. Hitler has even stated "But Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery." And he's also stated "I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors * but to devote myself deliberately to error, that is something I cannot do. I shall nevercome personally to terms with the Christian lie." Sure people have caused problems in the name of religion, but even atheists such as Pol Pot, and Mao massacred people in the name of their ideals for social progress. Whatever the belief, it won't stop the human element from taking advantage of it to pursue other goals that would even run counter to what the belief is.

I invoke Godwin's law! End of thread!

You should smack the person who told you that. He is really, really misinformed.

Say what now? http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/hitler.htm He put anyone he diddn't like into a concentration camp. That included anyone who diddn't agree with any of him. Especially his religious beliefs.

Look up a couple posts.

Read the link I posted.

Also found this linked from wikipedia: http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

Right, but still merely stating God doesn't make you any less antagonistic toward Christianity.

It doesn't matter. The point is that he didn't start a war in the name of atheism.

But Mao and Pot did for subsets of it. Besides I wasn't arguing that Hitler was fighting for atheism.

His plans were for a master race. Whatever he said about Christianity was obviously propaganda. Many Christians were put into concentration camps for helping jews. The reason Hitler chose to beat up on Jews is because everyone already disliked them, and it helped the nation to unify under him. The guy was smart.

Also, an actual document by Hitler . Notice how he says nothing about Religion. It's entirely pragmatic. I'm sorry but you'll have to do better than a few documents from Teh Int3rweb that speculate about Hitler being in cahoots with Christians. You could just as easily find documents speculating that he was an alien.


EDIT: Oh noes! We've fallen into the Hitler red herring!

Many Soviet satellite states violently surpressed religion. The French revolution quickly turned against religion too. On a side note though I think they need to teach science in science class.

Excuse me? It was definitly both racial and religious purity Hitler was after, and I think you know thatm but your point does still stand. However, I think without religion there would be a lot LESS chaos (not none of course)

And as for the "no war fought in the name of atheism"...well I think that's because up until fairly recently, atheists werent very common. I think if the theory had been predominant in ancient history there could very well have been wars fought between atheists and religious people...Although I guess religious people who probably be the ones to start the conflict since they see atheists as basically scum and atheists just see them as blind/stupid or what have you.

[QUOTE=Raoul Duke]Excuse me? It was definitly both racial and religious purity Hitler was after...[/quote]

He sought to purify Aryans from the Jews. The Aryans were considered to be a racial group, not a religious group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryans



I shoot you. Why? You believe a different religion. Take away religion. Okay, you believe in different politics. Take away politics. Okay, you're from a different country. Take away the country. Okay, you have a woman I want. Take away the woman. Okay, you have resources I want. Take away the resources. Okay, you have social status that I want.

See my point? People are going to hurt people because they want something. While many may be duped by "the heathens wish doom upon us," you can simply change that to "the foreigners wish doom upon us," and get a very similar, if not the same, effect.

Religion is to murder like a gun. You take away the gun, the murderer uses a knife. Take away the knife, he uses a bat. Take the bat, he uses a chair. Take the chair, he finds other means to his ends[/b].

Wolfy, you say that as if religion is an excuse for people to kill. Like they want to kill, and religion is only one reason. Without religion, people would resort to some other excuse for killing? I was under the impression that a lot of religious conflicts are caused by differences in religious beliefs and what their said religions tell them to do with non-believers (or their terribly skewed interpretation of what they think their religion tells them to do). It's not like, "Hey, I want to kill Aziz!! Why? ...uh...uh...Because uh, his god is different from mine!"

Read All Quiet on the Western Front? Wars don't happen because people in two different countries just want to kill each other. They happen because the leader of one country sees something he wants in another country, and decides to convince his people to kill the other country's people so he can get it. Leaders like that have used religious differences to convince their people to support wars, but if you took away religion there's no doubt they'd come up with another excuse.

The majority of the German population was religious at the time.
There was a more than ambiguous view from the Vatican towards the holocaust.
A major escape route for senior SS officers to South-America was through... you guessed it... the Vatican.

....

Hitler was catholic. Cue the 'no true scotsman fallacy'

Raoul, the non-religious are currently in the running for second place behind Christianity along with Islam. I have a hard time believing this is some kind of recent occurance.

It doesn't really.. If you wanted to eliminate just one gene from the human genome, you'd have to kill a significant proportion of everyone, globally, that had that gene, and it would take several centuries before you'd have any noticable effect. and that's just one gene.

It completely ignores what cultural advances could be made in the same time. To make the entire human population genetically resistant to smallpox, you'd have to have a constant culling of smallpox sufferers for about a thousand years.
But after 50 years of vaccinations we've eradicated smallpox*. There's no way you could see any genetic progression in that time.

Trying to form a master race by gene selection is simply a waste of time.



* Interesting and somewhat relevant sidenote: One of the biggest problems in the global vaccination effort was in trying to vaccinate Hindus who refused to alert authorities if they become infected with smallpox because they thought vaccinations would offend Shiva, the goddess that controls disease.

[QUOTE=Michael MacFarlane]Leaders like that have used religious differences to convince their people to support wars, but if you took away religion there's no doubt they'd come up with another excuse.[/QUOTE]
That's fine, just that what Wolfy said made me think he was saying people had some underlying urge to WRAAAA KILL KILL ANGST KILL and just used religion as an excuse for that.

But I didn't say that.

Yeah you did...

If they'll use any old reason to kill each other as you claim, then that is the only possible stance that makes any sense.

I've already answered it twice, the second time in big bright crayon. I did a direct compare and contrast. I even said "The thing religion provides that science doesn't....." I get the feeling all you are willing to hear is "religion is stupid."

But you were wrong. Religion provides definite answers? Scientific answers are far more definitive than religious 'answers'. You must not have read my post because I asked what religion provides other than a description of the universe, as I subscribe to science for that.

remember: other than a description of the universe. You can do it, Kieran. It shouldn't be this difficult.

... and then God created Charles Darwin...



I don't know if anyone said that yet, but I like it. :p

This thread's title doesn't match with it's content.

OH SNAP

This is one of the most annoying things ever. I said that what you said made me think, that is how I interpreted what you said. Point being that you worded things poorly. People always go "ugh!! I never said that!!" and god dammit, I never said you did.

*buzz* Wrong. Science does not provide definite answers. Nothing in science is 100% verifiable because it is impossible to know whither we have tested every possible variable of a law. Tacked onto every scientific law is an implied "....that we know off." Religion how ever says "This is how it's always going to be, end of story." Both science and religion have the same purpose: to answer questions we have about a multitude of things from weather, to death, to sickness, etc etc. The difference is religion gives us answers(instant gratification) whereas with science we have to seek them out and find them ourselves.

[QUOTE=Kieran Horn]*buzz* Wrong. Science does not provide definite answers. Nothing in science is 100% verifiable because it is impossible to know whither we have tested every possible variable of a law. Tacked onto every scientific law is an implied "....that we know off." Religion how ever says "This is how it's always going to be, end of story." Both science and religion have the same purpose: to answer questions we have about a multitude of things from weather, to death, to sickness, etc etc. The difference is religion gives us answers(instant gratification) whereas with science we have to seek them out and find them ourselves.[/QUOTE]

I said *more* definitive, and here's why:
How many religions exist? About 20 main flavors, with thousands of variations each. Suppose person X decides on religion 3,689 of 22,405. Assuming one religion's doctrine is the true model of the universe, his beliefs hold a 0.004% chance of being correct.

Not very definitive.

The number of religions means nothing in how definitive one religion's answers are. Something being a definitive answer does not equal being truly correct. In religion, the answers are always "correct and unarguable". In science, the answers are correct only once they have been verified to be correct by the methods and means we possess at the time, yet are always open to be disproved or editted. That is why religious answers are more definitive than scientific answers. Definitive does not mean truly correct though. All definitive means is it is certain. Having certainty(even if it's false certainity) satisfies most people more than having true accuracy(or however close science can get to true accuracy), which sometimes isn't even available so all you have to fall back on are (false) certainties(ie Greek Mythology).