This is a follow-up of sorts from my post Discussion with Atheist on evidences, presuppositions, experiments, worldviews, objectivism, etc. which, as noted therein was a discussion with an Atheist who goes by the pseudonym ƁᴇғᴏʀᴇƮʜᴇļɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ.
In that post, I noted:
Two things to note: 1) stick with this discussion till the very ends as it ends where all my discussions seem to end with Atheists which is with me prodding into core of their worldview, they seeming to recognize (without admitting it to me) that it is nothing but a bottomless pit of assertion and they deciding that it is a good time to run off and 2) I recommend that he leave this comment section be and head to “the other one” since we were having two discussions at once and they both ended up focusing on the same topic which essentially is why (on his worldview) would an accidentally and temporarily existing bio-organism attempt to get another accidentally and temporarily existing bio-organism to agree with them, to bypass their own bio-chemical neural reactions and adhere to those of the other?
Well, I recommend that he leave that comment section be and head to “the other one” which is this one. He chose to not do so and so here is the entirety of our exchange within the YouTube section to my video Religious wars vs. Atheist wars–see the accompanying article here.
Here is the discussion.
ƁᴇғᴏʀᴇƮʜᴇļɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ
Each and every one of the fascist dictatorships mentioned in this video where totalitarian states that forced their citizens to treat their government as a religion. Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot were all revered as “demigods” and are still worshiped to this very day.
Ken Ammi
You are just repeating the obviously false statements made by celeb Atheists. These leaders made statements regarding their worldviews and whey they did that which they did. No amounts of denying and attempting to re-write history will help the cause of you protecting Atheism. Why not just admit the facts of history and get on with it?
ƁᴇғᴏʀᴇƮʜᴇļɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ
My knowledge of political history has nothing to do with my Atheism, and you’re the one denying history if you refuse to believe Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot were worshiped. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin%27s_cult_of_personality en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge_rule_of_Cambodia Hero worship is at the heart of all religions and Atheist dictators are no different than the prophets in your holy book or in any communist manifesto. Here is some doctrinal teachings by chairmen Mao, which happens to be the second most printed book in history right behind the Christian bible.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotations_from_Chairman_Mao_Tse-tung
Ken Ammi
Friend, if you are going to blame, as it were, cult of personality hero worship to “religion” then I suppose we have “religion” to blame for the celebrity of Dawkins, et al. And yet, to blame “religion” on his statements and actions is clearly faulty.
ƁᴇғᴏʀᴇƮʜᴇļɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ
I gave you clear historical evidence for how Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot were worshiped. How does this not support my argument?
You call my argument faulty yet provide no reason as to why. Is it because i’m an Atheist? Where is your counter argument?
Ken Ammi
Friend, I can empathize with the difficulty you have with historical facts which is that Atheists have mass murdered more people in a mere few decades than any other groups or combination of groups in human history. Nietzsche predicted it and the Atheists told us that which motivated them. Just because you wish to categorize the actions of Atheists as “religious” does not diminish the known facts of history: if Atheists worshiped men then it was still Atheists worshipping men and Atheists mass murdering people by the hundreds of millions based on their Atheism—whatever form it took.
If I may seek to get to the very bottom line: it seems that your main point is that you consider your worldview to be the only true one and you are thus out to get others to change their minds so as to match your views. If this is the case—as it appears to be from the very fact that you wrote a comment that contradicts my view—the, upon what premise do you do so?
ƁᴇғᴏʀᴇƮʜᴇļɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ
Religion has and will always be people worshiping people and their dogmatic principles whether it be in the form of prophets in holy books, tyrant dictators of statist regimes or even the professed authority of common con artist whose work requires the ignorance of the faithful masses to be successful. You say that Atheism is to blame yet provide no reason why. Where is your argument?
Ken Ammi
People worshiping people and their dogmatic principles whether it be in the form of prophets in unholy books, tyrant dictators of statist regimes or even the professed authority of common con artist whose work requires the ignorance of the faithful masses to be successful—sounds like a precise definition of neo-pop-Atheism.
Now, let us not play the “no reason” and “Where is your argument” card. If you heard the video then you know the reasons and if you go to the article of which they video consists you will find citations, URLs, etc.
ƁᴇғᴏʀᴇƮʜᴇļɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ
You gave no casual connection between Atheism and atrocities of war nor did you show that Atheism was the primary cause of it, and the only citations you gave were to a Christian apologetics website, which i think you have some direct connections with.
Our world is more secular than it’s ever been and there are currently no wars being carried out in the name of Atheism. How can you explain that? Does that mean the new Atheists of today are somehow different than those living under an authoritarian regime? Could it be possible that there’s more to blame than Atheism for what happened under these dictatorships? I think you should at least give it some further consideration.
Ken Ammi
I am afraid that you are misunderstanding a key issue as I am not claiming that there, necessarily, is a casual connection between Atheism and atrocities of WAR. Rather there is a casual connection between Atheism and atrocities NOT committed during war but by Atheists regularly mass murdering hundreds of millions of their very own citizenry since they saw them as nothing but temporarily and accidentally existing bio-organisms.
Thus, the question about lacking Atheist wars today is moot. However, one reason is that the Atheist regimes were so thoroughly defeated. Indeed, while Atheism was the core cause, there is always more factors to consider. For example, note what Atheist Michael Shermer wrote:“I am not convinced by Dawkins’s argument that without religion there would be ‘no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition, no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as ‘Christ-killers,’ no Northern Ireland ‘troubles’_.’ In my opinion, many of these events-and others often attributed solely to religion by atheists-were less religiously motivated than politically driven, or at the very least involved religion in the service of political hegemony.”
ƁᴇғᴏʀᴇƮʜᴇļɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ
Name just one instance in history where an Atheist group not living under an authoritarian dictatorship committed the murder of their own citizens. Atheism is not a prerequisite for murderous acts nor is it casually connected to it. There is nothing in Atheism that would educate such behavior and you’re willfully ignoring that fact. How is that you don’t release that these atrocities only occurred because of Statist regimes that demanded obedience to the state? How can you completely overlook the governments role in all of this and blame Atheism for it? What about Atheism would cause someone to kill? Where is your casual connection?
I ask these questions because you fail to address them in your argument and continue to ignore my objections to it. You probably don’t even release that the last sentence of that quote by Micheal Schermer actually helps to further my own argument about government replacing “god” even in the instances of religious dictatorships. I’ve never made the argument that without religion there would be “no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition, no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as ‘Christ-killers,’ no Northern Ireland ‘troubles’_.”, so it doesn’t really pertain to the discussion we’re having.
Ken Ammi
You have argued against and are asking for evidence of things I never claimed and so there is no need for me to take these on. However, of course there is plenty in Atheism that would educate such behavior as Atheism is a blank canvas (only in a manner of speaking) which gives utterly free rein to anyone to do anything. Thus, if you are an Atheist and add Darwinism to that worldview then you can feel free to, for example, murder Australian Aborigines, stuff their bodies and display them in museums as merely animalistic missing links—oh, and publish pamphlets instructing others on how they can do it as well. The reason why I do not seem to realize that this was solely due to “Statist regimes that demanded obedience to the state” is that I have read the statements from the Atheists who perpetrated the acts. However, I am unsure why you claim that I “completely overlook the governments role” (the Atheist government’s role) when I not only essentially argued for a series of lesser causes but quoted Shermer to that effect which is how it pertains to the discussion we are having.
Thus, we could say that “these events…were less religiously motivated than politically driven…in the service of political hegemony” and yet, those politics were premised, primarily, upon Atheism (sometimes termed materialism).
ƁᴇғᴏʀᴇƮʜᴇļɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ
“However, of course there is plenty in Atheism that would educate such behavior as Atheism is a blank canvas (only in a manner of speaking) which gives utterly free rein to anyone to do anything.” How exactly would a “blank canvas” educate the subjugation and mass murder of millions? There would have to be much more educating such a behavior. “Thus, if you are an Atheist and add Darwinism to that worldview then you can feel free to, for example, murder Australian Aborigines, stuff their bodies and display them in museums as merely animalistic missing links—oh, and publish pamphlets instructing others on how they can do it as well.” Now you’re bringing racist British imperialism into an argument about Atheist dictatorships? What you seem to be completely overlooking is the fact that all of these regimes you mention killed and imprisoned everyone who opposed them politically, not just those who opposed them on their theological position of Atheism.
So far you’ve failed on numerous occasions to show any casual connection between Atheism and a need to subjugate or murder those of differing theological positions, why Atheism would educate such a behavior and how Atheism alone was somehow responsible for such atrocities found within statist regimes. Where is your evidence?
Ken Ammi
Indeed, there is much more educating a behavior such as mass murder of millions. So, for example, begin with a premise that God does not exist, insert social Darwinism and do what thou wilt to accidentally and temporarily existing bio-organisms called humans (or no longer call them humans but less evolved) if you discern that they are worthless eaters. How exactly would a “blank canvas” educate the subjugation and? There would have to be. This is not something I am bring this in (nor is it solely British imperialism). Rather, Atheist dictatorships brought it in but just read, for example, the statements of Soviet Atheist Communists (which you seem to have sidestepped).
Lastly, there is a reason that I have “failed to show any casual connection between Atheism and a NEED TO subjugate or murder those of differing theological positions” and that is because I never made that claim. Likewise, I have not been able to show “why Atheism would educate such a behavior and how Atheism ALONE was somehow responsible for such atrocities found within statist regimes” because I never claimed that either.
ƁᴇғᴏʀᴇƮʜᴇļɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ
In this video and in this very comment thread you’ve blamed Atheism for the subjugation and mass murder that occurred during the statist regimes of Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot, but you have failed on numerous occasions to provide any reason why Atheism would educate such a behavior or why the communist writing and teaching of these statist regimes lead by totalitarian dictators aren’t in fact responsible for it. Every single one of these dictators built a cult of personality around themselves, they rewrote history books to mythologize every aspect of their lives and they forced the creation of artwork,literature and music to honor them as heroes of the people. What does this have to do with Atheism? How can you ignore all the actual motivators behind these atrocities and instead blame Atheism as the root of the cause? Your argument doesn’t add up.
Ken Ammi
Friend, it seems more of a case of you asking for reasons, me providing them, and you deciding to dismiss them. You then ask me to back up claims I never made thus, when you ask how I can you ignore all the actual motivators behind these atrocities I simply reply that I do not and have stated as much.
Also, I agree that “Every single one of these dictators built a cult of personality around themselves” just as the celebrity Atheists are doing today. The bottom line is that whatever they did and however they did it, it was all premised upon an Atheist worldview.
ƁᴇғᴏʀᴇƮʜᴇļɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ
I think i’ve made my objections to your claims very clear. Atheism is just one theological position pertaining exclusively to the supposed existence of a “god”, not a worldview that educates oppression and mass murder. The correlation of Atheism does not imply the cause being Atheism and your outright denial of history does not get you any closer to understanding how this actually happened.
Ken Ammi
If I may, if and since “Atheism is just one theological position pertaining exclusively to the supposed existence of a ‘god’” then, for example, when you think about politics, ethics, biology, etc., etc., etc. you, as an Atheist, have no problem bringing God into how you view those issues—is that correct?
ƁᴇғᴏʀᴇƮʜᴇļɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ
From my perspective “god” is not a necessary component of any of the issues you just mentioned. Theists (like yourself) are the ones bringing “god” into the equation, not Atheists.
Ken Ammi
Most excellent as that is exactly my point: Atheism is your worldview because you purposefully do not bring God into well, anything thus, your view of the world is Atheistic.
ƁᴇғᴏʀᴇƮʜᴇļɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ
Are you really suggesting that everything that doesn’t include a “god” is automatically Atheistic? The ingredients of the sandwich i just ate didn’t include a “god”, which for some reason that makes it Atheistic according to you. LOL:)
Ken Ammi
Friend, you are committing category errors. The fact that you take your subjective, un-evidenced and unproven assertion regarding God and build upon that as the foundation of the manner whereby you think of any other issue has no relation to sandwich: gluten free or not.
ƁᴇғᴏʀᴇƮʜᴇļɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ
That which does not include “god” makes it Atheistic by your own logic, not mine. 🙂
Ken Ammi
I am afraid that my implication does not match your inference. My point has been that since your worldview is Atheistic then your views on what everything is force fitted, made to be, interpreted by, Atheism. When discussing worldviews, sandwich are in a wholly other category thus, a category error.
ƁᴇғᴏʀᴇƮʜᴇļɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ
Are you suggesting a persons understanding of food is somehow excluded from their “worldview”? As a Vegan i can assure you that you’re very wrong about that. LOL 🙂
Ken Ammi
Well, when I was a lacto ovo vegetarian for 7 years my vegetarianism certainly played a part in how I viewed various issues. Some vegetarians I knew would not wear leather and of course, that was not about food but about animals in general. Thus, it was those views about animals that resulted in their vegetarianism and of course, their views on animals were based on another view to which they held, etc. Thus, a core view lead to certain beliefs and actions. Same goes for Atheism.
It seems to me that if you affirm that a person’s understanding of food is not excluded from their “worldview” then by the very same logic you should affirm that that a person’s understanding of God (or lack of God, or misunderstanding of God) is not excluded from their “worldview” and may be their worldview’s core.
ƁᴇғᴏʀᴇƮʜᴇļɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ
Now you’re admitting that “food” can be a part of a persons worldview when only a few comments before you were saying that i was making a “category error”. How many times are you going to contradict yourself before you realize the flaws in your argument? LOL:)
Ken Ammi
The resolution is that I am thinking contextually: our discussion was about how Atheism is a worldview and so food was not exactly on the menu. So now you are, as you have been, laughing at me for not keeping you logic but upon what basis do you do so based on your worldview?
ƁᴇғᴏʀᴇƮʜᴇļɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ
I’m not sure what you’re attempting to ask me.
Ken Ammi
Well, as I have previously mentioned: you seem to have appointed yourself some sort of truth police and that has to be based on you thinking that your neural bio-chemical reactions more accurately discern reality than those of others. Of course, that assumes that we should take your neural bio-chemical reactions seriously (whilst knowing that they came about due to a very, very long series of unguided haphazard accidents of random evolution) and also that we should think that accurately reflecting reality is some sort of virtue if not an imperative.
And so, you are demanding, in a manner of speaking, that I adhere to your version of reality based on logic and yet what is your foundation for, as one example, even appealing to logic: whence comes logic on your view?
ƁᴇғᴏʀᴇƮʜᴇļɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ
I’ve not demanded anything of you. What are you talking about?
Ken Ammi
Yes you have.
ƁᴇғᴏʀᴇƮʜᴇļɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ
When?
Ken Ammi
Come on bubala, it’s me—you have been doing so all along and that is the very reason why you first posted a comment in the first place.
ƁᴇғᴏʀᴇƮʜᴇļɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ
I think that this is the point where we go our separate ways.
Ken Ammi
Ah and now we come to it: you see these last couple of backs and forths have proven that you are holding me to standards of truth, logic and ethics. When you perceived that I was LOGICALLY contradicting your (when you said no and I said yes) you demanded evidence for the TRUTH of the matter which is also an appeal to ETHICS.
Now, based on us being bio-sausages resulting from nothing causing nothing to explode, a very long series of happy accidents, etc., etc., etc. whence comes truth, logic and ethics and whence comes your subjective view that it is some sort of virtue or imperative to hold (ourselves and each other) to such standards?
ƁᴇғᴏʀᴇƮʜᴇļɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ
There is a difference between asking and demanding. You’ve already attempted to answer my questions to the best of your abilities and i’m satisfied with the outcome, which leaves me with no reason to continue this discussion.
Ken Ammi
Believe me I more than understand because I have been down this road with many, many times with many, many Atheists and it always ends up the same: when I ask them for answers to the most basic questions about why play truth police, upon what premise they do so, how their worldview accounts for them doing so, etc. they suddenly realize that they must run off—and they run off only to do it all again with someone else.
You see Atheism has left you without even the ability to justify you asking, as you want to term it, people to change their mind to agree with you because you believe that you have the one truth. Yet, you ultimately run after truth because you were created in God’s image and thus, contains various communicable attributes such as ethos, logic, etc. This is why you do that for which Atheism cannot account.
Well, it must be a coincidence that both of our discussions came to the same point and ƁᴇғᴏʀᴇƮʜᴇļɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ decided to stop replying when I asked for a premise. I actually have had this same experience time and time and time again with Atheist after Atheist after Atheist: they jump to emotive conclusions, they demand that you agree with them but when asked for a premise they simply go away.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.