Myth #4: Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history.
Any nonbeliever who's ever engaged a theist has heard this myth before. Most believers have used it, or at least have had it taught to them by their pastors, priests, rabbis, mullahs, or religious leaders. Let's take a look at how and why the idea is so prevalent in theistic cultures.
The accusation that atheists are responsible for the most evil atrocities in history is usually followed up by an example: Adolph Hitler. Many believers are surprised to learn that Hitler was a Roman Catholic, not an atheist. He wrote in Mein Kampf, "…I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work." Atheists don't say things like that.
So let's look at some actual atheists who have caused great inhumanities. Joseph Stalin: initiated the Great Purge in the 1930's -- a campaign of political repression, persecution and mass slaughter. Mao Zedong: instigated several major socio-political programs that were widely regarded as failures blamed with the deaths of between 20 and 67 million of his countrymen. Pol Pot: his government was the cause of up to three million Cambodian deaths in a process meant to purify the Cambodian people as a step toward a communist future.
Now that we know the perpetrators that Christian apologists like to tout (feel free to amend this list in the comments), we can get to the real reasons behind what they did. That's right, Jesus-freaks, it was not because of their atheism as the televangelists would have you think, but because of their dogmatic desires for fascism, totalitarianism, and social communism. They had other motives than "daddy's not watching so I'm gonna be mean". People can do very wicked things to each other; there's no God telling them to do it, and they mostly don't do it because they hear no God either. You can't get from "I don't believe in a deity" to "I hate people" or any other such claim. As Sam Harris said, "There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable."
So what if these people had no belief in a god or gods? All it takes to be an atheist is a lack of god-belief, just like all it takes to be bald is a lack of hair. It's like saying that baldness is responsible for the greatest crimes against humanity. But the reason many theists think that this analogy is invalid stems from their idea that morality comes from a god (their particular god/gods).
Tomorrow's myths will cover this idea in detail. For now, let me end with what I call "Hitch's Challenge". Christopher Hitchens charges anyone to "name an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer." So far no one can, yet anyone can easily name a wicked statement or action directly attributable to religion. Crusades, anyone? Or how about witch trials, or the Holy Inquisition?
-STA
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 7
It has been my experience, though, that people who are atheists are more educated and worldly. They are also well-read and have more open minds. Therefore, they are more likely to have a compassionate and empathetic nature and have better morals and ethics than people who are very religious. Just my experience. I think that is one reason why the term "elitist" has gone from something good to something bad in the minds of religious folk - they equate lots of education, an open mind and a worldly view with something bad since these influences usually raise a human being's ability to reason and be rational, and many times leads them to the conclusion that religion is a hoax and a crutch for most people.
Evil is in the eye of the beholder.
and attributed (if not written) by the victor.
in other words:
IF Hitler had managed to purge the world of Jews, expand the German empire, and usher in a period of Camelot-esque order & enlightenment...
...would we still be calling him "evil"?
it's all too easy to assume that we would-- he killed a lot of people (which we inherently empathize with, considering that we all fear bodily harm on some level or another: we'll all duck when something swoops at our skulls, in other words, and it's not far to stretch from there), and so we can lump him in with Murdering Cusses and call it a day.
or CAN we?
IS it that simple?
i offer this possibility: that Intention and Result are more than aught else-- that a president who joins a war already underway is a killer-- that a rubber-necker who doesn't stop to pull a thrashing human out of a burning SUV, too, is a murderer-- that "murder" is no better a gauge than any other.
that's why i don't impose my moral code(s) on the next guy.
things look different from where he's sitting.