Question about Religion, and Pol Pot and Stalin and Hitler?

Question

Not that it matters, but Stalin and Hitler were Christians, and I don't know what religion pol pot was, but lets assume these three genocidal maniacs were atheists, just for the sake of arguement,
now, we see something like this in yahoo answers every day,
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ArF92SM633PTYtyCSfn81x_d7BR.?qid=20070310153505AAdBiM8

When the asker asks it, is it supposed to be guilt by association? Does this mean that all atheists are guilty because there was an atheist genocidal maniac?

This is of course absurd. This is like blameing Christians for the Crusades. The modern Christian had nothing ot do with the Crusades.

Why should Atheists apologize for something they didn't do, or Christians for that matter?

Could it be, people are just, atheist haters? Why

Answer 1

Non Causa Pro Causa (Literally, "Not the cause for a cause"): A general, catch-all category for mistaking a false cause of an event for the real cause.

An association fallacy is a type of logical fallacy which asserts that qualities of one are inherently qualities of another, merely by association. The two types are sometimes referred to as "guilt by association" and "honor by association." Association fallacies are a special case of red herring, and are often based in an appeal to emotion.

In notation of First-order logic, the this type of fallacy can be expressed as (∃x∈S:φ(x))→ (∀x∈S:φ(x)), meaning "if there exists any x in the set S so that a property φ is true for x, then for all x in S the property φ must be true."

They are trying to draw a parallel between lack of faith and the willingness to murder en masse, when in fact the parallel is between political ideology and the willingness to murder en masse. Did atheists drop bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? No. Saddam committed genocide, was he an atheist? No.

That parallel between atheism and genocide cannot be drawn. It is fair to bring up the crusades with Christians, because the belief system that motivated the crusades still motivates Christians today.

Answer 2

This whole thing is an appeal to adverse consequences--a logical fallacy. It has absolutely nothing to do whether or not atheism is true. It's also an absurd argument to bring to atheists. The argument presumes that the audience considers mass murder to be highly undesirable. How, then, is it supposed to work against people that the arguer presumes are potential mass murderers?

It is, of course, also guilt by association. To take this argument seriously, you'd have to believe that there are 30 million Stalins and Pol Pots infesting the USA. Why are there so few of us in jail, then?

It also ignores the fact that Stalin and Pol Pot (and Mao) were also communists. We see, therefore, a cυm hoc fallacy as well.

Stalin was raised Christian--Russian Orthodox, i think. He appears to have become an atheist during or shortly after his stint with a seminary, although i can't tell for sure. But just a cursory look at his childhood home life makes it clear how he became such a monster. He essentially treated his country the same way his father treated him.

Pol Pot was raised Roman Catholic, but i strongly doubt that he was still a believer when he lead his genocidal movement.

Hitler, of course, was a Roman Catholic all the way, no matter how much the apologists deny it. And those who are shallow enough to deny it must deny it, otherwise their sword of guilt by association falls back on them.

Answer 3

First, Stalin and Hitler were NOT Christians. Certainly not when they were in power. Religious exposure during childhood doesn't necessarily mean someone continues to practice that religion when they become an adult.

Stalin was an avowed athiest, and called religion (especially Christianity) the "opiate of the masses". He considered it nothing more than a drug administered to the peasants to keep them quiet.

While Hitler was raised Catholic, he rejected this teaching when he became an adult. The fact that he could still spout religious-sounding speaches as a politican does not indicate a living faith. It just indicates a diabolical, scheming manipulator has stepped up to the microphone. Satan itself can quote Scripture. Why would anybody be surprised, then, that Hitler could fake a religion?

Pol Pot was an athiest also. He was a communist.

Now, about the rest of your question...

Of course, the presence of a few maniacal genocidal athiest governments does NOT indict all athiests for mass murder. Your point about modern Christians being innocent of the crimes of the Crusades is valid. It works both ways.

These kinds of questions pop up (I think) because of the pounding Christians are taking for being involved in politics (by athiests). I have asked one myself (months ago). According to many athiests, all we have to do to improve life on the planet, is to eliminate all faith, and forcibly turn all people into athiests. The government should be athiestic, and enforce it legally. "Life would be so much better" is the theory.

People (like myself, and the questioner you mentioned) point out Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot, as well as Mao Tse Tung, etc. to illustrate that this experiment has already been tried, with tragic results.

When I asked a similiar question, I recieved a lot of denial for answers. "Athiesm wasn't the problem," was the reasoning, even though it was the excuse for the mass arrests, torture and murders, "the problem was, he was a bloodthirsty tyrant".

No, Atheists shouldn't apologize for something they didn't do, but they should at least be real about the actions of some atheists in the past. Just as Christians should deal with the abuse of "Christian" leadership in the past. Fair is fair.

Answer 4

Why?
Religous institutions for a start. The crusades may not be the Christian's fault, but it is the Churches. The church is a hateful institution used to brainwash and control people from birth. What else is new? Well, recently the church has stopped literally killing people, because they have lost the power to do so. Now, if they would just shut up, and stop nagging, and maybe even stop brainwashing people to believe in religion instead of morals, then maybe there would not ever be another apology. For religion at least.

Answer 5

You are right. Ultimately we are all responsible for our own actions. The difference with atheists is that it makes no difference whether you are a Hitler or a Mother Theresa.
Neither will be punished or rewarded. So if you are an atheist you can commit any number of atrocities and if you are smart enough to get away with it you can go scott free.

Answer 6

Many people do not understand atheist and then blame all bad things various people have done on their lack of religion which is absurd, of course. Hitler was a Christian and look what he did. It really has nothing to do with religion-what someone is capable of. Or it has everything, depending on the person. If for instance, a man thinks he hears God tell him to kill a bunch of people, the result is no different than someone who doesn't believe in a god but kills anyhow.

Answer 7

There isnt a modern person responsible for slavery either...but will still get blamed for it, dont we?? The inability to let go of the past, while simultaneously being unable to recall their History, is a hallmark of religious people...

Mamabear - when they found Hitler's possession after his death, among them was a Bible, right next to his bed. He wasnt Christian? YOURE WRONG. He was completely a Christian, and totally into Occultism, and was in fact looking for the Spear of Destiny - the spear rumored to have pierced the side of Christ himself....why would an Atheist look for a religious icon?

Answer 8

Now this, my friend, is a worthy, well worded question And I do believe it's becouse Christians are trying more and more to convert the more and more unwilling Atheists, so they feel the need to associate communists with Atheism; this would have worked in the 50's, but today, we scoff and laugh at their inaccuracy; Mao never killed anyone, Hitler was Christian (I didn't know about stallin, but aww well), and relaly it doesn't matter anyway. EVERY religion has its bad points, atheism included. Get over it, Christianity. =P

Once again, this is a Shinto man's aspect.

Answer 9

The people suggesting Hitler was Christian are uninformed. He hated the Poles. They were and still are a Catholic country. Stalin and the Soviet Union were extremely intolerant of Christianity. China is intolerant of Christianity. The State expects its people to honor the State only.
Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot were evil. Saddam was evil. Religion wasn't the reason for them being evil.
I don't know what made them evil.
This country thought it important to have it in the constitution to have freedom of religion. That also meant freedom from religion.

Answer 10

I'm getting tired of both sides leveling accusations at each other instead of asking actual questions or holding intelligent discussions. Very few people come here to find out information. . .they just want to use the forum as a soapbox to express their views and/or get in a few potshots at the other side.

As far as I'm concerned, when you resort to childish behavior and vicious remarks, you've just shot your own argument in the foot. That applies to atheists and Christians alike.

A little mutual respect and tolerance would be nice from both sides of the issue.