I am constantly astounded when I visit public forums dedicated to religion/atheist debate.
I find the godbot mentality that humans have to obey all kinds of behaviour conduct rules to get into heaven, but breaking the rules does not result in punishment if you repent – no matter how many times you break the rules and repent again.
I realize that once a person has committed themselves to believing in any religion’s creation myths and stories to be true against all evidence and nature, that it’s a lot easier to believe other untrue things – so long as the untrue thing supports what you already believe so it can then be deemed evidence – again, against all real evidence.
Which is a round about way of saying that no matter how much godbots would like Stalin, Mao, Hitler and other dictators who slaughtered millions of people because they belonged to particular minority groups to have been atheists or since they did not commit their atrocities specifically in the name of religion that the slaughter had atheist overtones….
this is just not true.
None of them were atheists in the sense that they held beliefs for which there is no evidence and to the atheist, thus no reason to believe.
The usual gang of dictators committed their genocides because of their political agenda and and their own desire for power. Religion and Political ideology are strong motivators to eliminate the groups of people who are deemed undesirable by whichever dogma the dictator is dedicated to; as well as any groups with enough support or influence who could topple the up and coming dictators.
So, that Stalin set about destroying the influence of the churches and basically making religion a crime – does not make Stalin an atheist – it just means he was obsessed with power and was willing to slaughter to gain and maintain it.
So, if atheists were the majority of the population – how likely is it that an atheist government and population would slaughter segments of the population?
Godbots would have you believe that an atheist society would be as violent – if not more – than humans have been in the past and how we are at present.
I disagree – and not because I am an atheist.
Oh – one last digression: Eugenics.
This is the idea that we should eliminate bad mutations to improve the human, well, breeding stock.
In and of itself, it’s not unreasonable.
However, how it has been defined and carried out in practice is horribly wrong.
The Eugenics programs carried out in Western Democratic countries like Canada and the US were not motivated, informed or driven by “science”.
Eugenics programs were driven by social attitudes of racism and discrimination against disabled – especially anyone deemed mentally disabled or as having a low IQ.
Aside to the digression: Back in the early half of the 1900’s, IQ tests were highly culturally biased so that the white northerners who designed the tests scored the highest, with northern Black and southern whites coming in around the same scores and leaving southern Blacks the lowest test scoring. See how that works?
Today, what we call Designer Babies is actually eugenics – only we’re working from the designing the next generation instead of preventing members of existing generations from breeding.
Okay – so what would an atheist society look like? Utopia? Not likely, we’re all still human with faults and who can make mistakes.
But, consider that atheists:
- are under represented in prisons and crime stats;
- tend to have higher levels of education and therefore more economic opportunity – so less motive to commit violent crimes would reduce them, but they will never be eliminated entirely and economic crimes would still occur likely to the same degree as present;
- do not accept claims that there’s an afterlife – atheists tend to view life as being very precious since it’s the only one we know that we and everyone else has;
- do not suicide bomb while screaming “for no particular reason”;
- do not shoot religious leaders because we object to what the religious people promote;
- do not vote against civil rights advancements;
- have never called for a round up and extermination of religious believers;
- haven’t demanded an end to the existence of religious schools – only an end to taxpayers funding them; and
- since we’re all rather individualists aren’t driven to violence because others make different choices for their lives than we have made.
So how exactly does an atheist – even one elected to office since an atheist society would never be a dictatorship – go from that to mass support for the extermination of entire groups of people?
Like other questions, godbots never have an answer to the questions that they pose.
When pushed to answer, the godbot disappears from the forum and return under a new sock puppet name but spouting the same nonsense as before – as if atheists aren’t able to see the same statements, grammar, spelling and attacks as the last 4 sock puppet incarnations.