Atheism has no doctrines

In Armin Navabi's book, Why There is No God: Simple Responses to 20 Common Arguments for the Existence of God, he has a chapter called "Atheism has killed more people than religion, so it must be wrong."

Navabi's main argument against this is in a section called Atheism Has No Doctrines. He makes some great points, so I'm sharing that section here.

Atheism Has No Doctrines

The violence within Christianity or Islam can often be traced back to the teachings of those religions because it is embedded in the ideology of the religions themselves. 

Even though war and violence in the name of God are often motivated by non-religious ambitions, such as political and territorial gain, religions in such cases are often used as an excuse for justifying such acts, disguising their intentions as holy and recruiting armies of people who would not have been willing to risk their lives for purely secular causes.

People throughout history have been martyred and sacrificed in the name of religion, and holy wars have been fought over the tenets of those religions.

The same cannot be said of atheism for the simple fact that atheism is not a religion. Atheism is a lack of belief in deities. It has no governing dogmatic principles, no rule book and no core ideology. Comparing atheism to religion is like comparing apples and oranges.

It's more helpful to compare atheism to theism, which is simply belief in a deity. While some theists also hold fundamentalist beliefs, just believing that some god exists is not enough to cause wars and violence based on the belief alone. 

How many wars have been caused by deism? You'd need some additional dogmatic beliefs in order for that to happen.

No one commits mass murder in the name of theism or atheism alone. Additional dogmatic principles are needed to justify such grisly outcomes. In the case of theism, religions like Christianity and Islam provide such dogma, creating convenient excuses.

Secular totalitarian regimes and religion share this dogmatic element: a belief that a set of ideas are true because an authority figure says so and that questioning those ideas can lead to serious or even deadly consequences.

Therefore, it's not reasonable to say that atheism condones or promotes violence or that tyrants have killed in the name of atheism. Such actions or any other action, both good and bad, do not and cannot speak for atheism in general, as no two atheists necessarily hold any of the same beliefs or convictions about the world.

The only thing held in common between all atheists is a lack of belief in deities.

This means that some atheists are undoubtedly unkind, aggressive and violent. It also means that some atheists are kind, friendly and peaceful. Any type of person can be an atheist, just as any type of person can be not interested in golf. Just because some non-golfers are jerks doesn't make not golfing bad any more than atheism can be blamed for the behavior of a handful of atheists. 

If you're trying to make a decision about whether you believe in God based on how a certain non-believer you know acts, you're using flawed reasoning. 

For the same reason, not all religious people are bad or cruel individuals, yet the practice of violence and war is deeply embedded in many religious ideologies. It is, therefore, best to examine your views about God or other religious beliefs by evaluating the evidence provided for such claims, not based on the behavior of people who do or do not accept it as truth.

Comments

[Vinny]

Christian fool is theist in the morning, atheist in the evening and victim of British Mafia in Osho exposition.

[Spence Tepper]

It is very easy to believe in a God that created all things as one who doesn't want us to kill.

Ahimsa is a long standing Eastern principle of Harmlessness, that comes, directly, from a spiritual philosophy.

The Quakers believe it is wrong to kill other human beings and refuse to be involved in war of any kind.

Religion and non-violence are deeply tied to one another, as Dr. King made evident, along with his role model, Mahatma Gandhi, and Gandhi's role model, Jesus Christ.

So, while there are traditions of violence that have become part of religious organizational structure, there are traditions of non-violence there as well.

The two subjects are actually distinct.

The choice of violence and non-violence, and the ownership of that choice as either internal locus of control or external locus of control.

The choice of following blind authorities, in religion or totalitarian states, or bad families, is a choice largely based on internal locus of control or external locus of control.

In a series of research studies by Darley and Latane, Milgram, Zimbardo and others have demonstrated the effect of society on individuals, and more importantly, much of this research has demonstrated how to alter that, through education. Education can change the way we make decisions.

Those who resist authority demands for unethical behavior almost invariably rate highly on internal locus of control. Whether that includes a deep belief in a personal God, or a belief in personal responsibility precisely because there is no God to blame our actions on.

Internal Locus of Control.

[TENDZIN]

It makes no sense to make a wholesale condemnation of religion and categorize all religions as harmful. And yet this is precisely what most atheists do, and do in the name of "logic."

I've searched the news and can find no reports of Anglicans, Amish, Catholics, Buddhists, or Radha Sooamis attacking other people in the name of religion.

However, I can find dozens of stories - - PER WEEK -- of Muslims committing atrocities.
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Truly horrible things are happening every day to innocent men, women, and children in the name of Islam. Yet total silence on this from the atheists. Actually, that's not so; many atheists preach that any criticism of Islam is an act of racism. This despite the fact that one of the few pluses of Islam is it has nothing to do with race.

If you want me to believe you really believe religion is harmful, then how about even 1 piece on one of the hundreds of atrocities committed by Muslims this year.

[Appreciative Reader]

"I've searched the news and can find no reports of Anglicans, Amish, Catholics, Buddhists, or Radha Sooamis attacking other people in the name of religion."

..........You've never heard of Catholics killing in the name of religion? Really?

"If you want me to believe you really believe religion is harmful, then how about even 1 piece on one of the hundreds of atrocities committed by Muslims this year."

..........Not this year, but Brian's written unequivocally critical pieces about Muslim religious nonsense in the past. For instance, I remember, back during the Charlie Hebdo thing, he'd not only written extensively, but also clearly published the cartoons at a time when many others skittishly kept away from doing that.

Sure, he's written less about Mo-cultists than about Jesus-cultists and Gurinder-cultists. But that's only because he used to sup with the latter, and he's geographically situated in the midst of the former. I mean, stands to reason.

I mean, it's funny you should complain about Mo-cultists not being criticized, while commenting on an article that's actually about a weird Mo-cult. (At least, I haven't actually checked what that crazy kitten-petting weirdo preaches, but I assume it is some variety of Mo-cult, even if not quite orthodox; just like the crazy televangelists that infest the US of A are some variety of Jesus-cults, even if not quite orthodox.)

[Appreciative Reader]

Correction: The Bond villain with the well-fed belly-dancing kittens was in the previous article, not this one.

[Appreciative Reader]

Scratch that part about the "well-fed" dancers. While they aren't anorexic, but they're quite attractive actually. And in any case those poor girls are probably literally singing (and dancing) for their supper, doing what they can to get by. No sense in callously body-shaming them or insensitively criticizing them.

[TENDZIN]

"The violence within Christianity or Islam can often be traced back to the teachings of those religions because it is embedded in the ideology of the religions themselves."

Someone tell me where calls for violence are "embedded" in any part of the New Testament.
Just name one if you would.

Don't bother to do the same for the Quran or the Hadiths.

(A) Quran 2:191 “Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them.”

(B) Quran 3:28 “Muslims must not take infidels as friends”

(C) Quran 3:85 “Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable”

(D) Quran 5:33 “Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam”

(E) Quran 8:12 “Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than Quran”

(F) Quran 8:60 “Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels”

(G) Quran 8:65 “The unbelievers are stupid; urge the Muslims to fight them”

(H) Quran 9:5 “Whenever opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them”

(I) Quran 9:123 “Make war on infidels living in your neighborhood”

(J) Quran 47:4 “Do not hanker for peace with infidels; behead them when you catch them”

As for atheism, the doctrines of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot don't count?

[um]

@ Tendzin

You cannot find it but how did they justify their actions against the Kathares, the existence of the inquisition etc?, the burning of infidels, witches etc.

[um]

@ Tenzin

How Came a whole continent to speak english, spanish, portoguese and believe in the christian God.

England, Spain, Portugal and holland are very small countries yet the managed to colonize the whole world, made the indegenous speak their language, and believe their gods.

The answer Tendzin .. is terror, unimaginable brutality

Ask the indians. that were told about a loving god

[TENDZIN]

When the Sikh leader Guru Tegh Bahadur was executed by Muslim Emperor Aurangzeb in Delhi, his son Gobind founded a warrior group known as the Khalsa, before insisting that all Sikhs wear turbans to cover their uncut hair.

And so the Sikh turban has been a symbol of resistance to Muslim tyranny and terrorism ever since. Even the highly non-sectarian Sikh RS gurus refuse to abandon the turban. The turban is not a symbol of racism, but of historical remembrance of the terrible centuries after the Muslim invasion of the Indian continent.

It's not a pretty history, and not a history most Westerners are aware of. Learn about it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRRHx8ZOopk

Kind of makes the RS issues seem rather mild, but hey, that's just me.

[um]

@ Tendzin

Yes Yes, butr what about the english rule in India?
How could a small country get hold of an whole sub Continent while at the same time they had to suppress the indigenous people in New Zealand, Australia etc etc etc.

That is only possible by terror .... the only thing they were not able to is to make the Indians christians

[Dungeness]

@ tendzin: [ Quran 2:191 “Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them." ]

Does anyone seriously believe Mohammad sanctioned murdering
others... it's preposterous. Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance.
The unbelievers/infidels are within us -our own thoughts and actions-
and that's where they must be slain, not outside. Misinterpreting
religious teaching has been the folly of rabid followers and crazed
jihadists the world over.

As for Christianity, how many wars are waged by followers. The
twentieth century has seen a couple of the worst. Germany is
and has been a majority Christian nation during that entire
century yet bears major responsibility for the Holocaust.

[TENDZIN]

@ Dungeness

When I began reading your post I thought you were being satirical. Yes Dungeness, everyone who has read the history of Islam, or the Quran, knows that Islam sanctions murdering others. The history of Islam in India is but one example. Many Muslim apologists are liars, hence the popularization of the "lesser Jihad" concept which is total nonsense. As I pointed out with those few quotes I posted from the Quran (there are many more), Islam promotes violence. The New Testament of Christianity does not.

Islam also sanctions the murder of anyone who converts to Islam and apostatizes.

As for Germany, you're quite right that it's population 1930s was largely Christian. However, the government was avowedly anti-Christian, atheist, and their actions within and without Germany had no connection to conquering non-believers or spreading the Christian gospel. Moreover, many Protestant and Catholic clerics were killed or sent to concentration camps by the Nazi government, In other words, the Nazi government was in control of events, not the Catholic church or any other Christian organization.

As for the ultimate responsibility for the holocaust, one could I suppose make an argument that antisemitic attitudes have been a part of Christian culture in Europe. Nevertheless, if Christianity was pro-antisemitism in the 1930s, one would suppose that the Catholic church would be on board with it. As I previously pointed out that was not the case, in fact just the opposite.

Speaking of holocausts, we're currently beholding an atheist-sponsored holocaust in China. Tibet, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the whole of the Chinese nation is officially atheist.

To say that violence comes from religion and peace comes from atheism is absurd, but not as absurd as to claim that Islam is a religion of peace.

[Appreciative Reader]

"Someone tell me where calls for violence are "embedded" in any part of the New Testament.
Just name one if you would."

Easily done, Tendzin.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matthew 5:17)

----------

"As for atheism, the doctrines of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot don't count?"

The crusades are an example of religion resulting in the killing of people. The burning of witches is an example of religion resulting in the killing of people. The ISIS terrorism is also an example of religion resulting in the killing of people.

However, a Christian who starts brawling with a neighbor, and ends up shooting him dead, would not be an example of religion resulting in the killing of people, at least not unless the cause of the brawl was some religious difference.

Likewise, and rolling with the Godwin you've introduced: The massive killings that the Nazis unleashed, and the evil that they represent, are neither an example of deaths caused by religion (given that Germany was and is a Christian country, and most of the Nazis serving with that regime were likely Christians); and nor is it a case of, and like you imply, atheism resulting in killings (given Hitler, as seems to be your implicit argument).

Yes, atheism --- or at least, anti-theism, if not quite atheism --- is indeed something that sometimes results in killings. The Chinese genocide of the Uighurs is an example of such.

However, I'm afraid that if you tot the numbers up, then killings and suffering attributable to religion would far far far far far outstrip killings and suffering attributable to atheism or anti-theism.

[Appreciative Reader]

"Speaking of holocausts, we're currently beholding an atheist-sponsored holocaust in China. Tibet, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the whole of the Chinese nation is officially atheist."

Not every act, good or bad, that is committed by a theist person (or people) is attributable to his theism. Likewise, not every act, good or bad, that is committed by an atheist (or antitheist) is attributable to his atheism or antitheism.

It doesn't matter that China is atheist. That doesn't mean that everything it does, for good or bad, is attributable to atheism or antitheism. Only such of its actions that directly result from antitheism qualify. I'm no expert on China, and they may have been up to stuff I'm not aware of; but I can think of no other, at the present time, other than the Uighur business --- which latter, I agree, is reprehensible, and should be condemned in the strongest possible terms.

What China is doing in Hong Kong is very ugly, but no, it isn't anything to do with antitheism. Nor Taiwan.

Tibet, though? I have mixed views on that. On one hand it is a case simply of one nation invading another, land grab plain and simple. On the other hand, would I guess the Chinese project of settling Tibet with mainland Chinese is an attempt to root out Tibetan identity; and that is to do with their being apprehensive of future backlash, given Tibet's culture; and that culture has a lot to do with their religion; so, I don't know, you might argue that China's antitheism has at least some role in some of what they've done to Tibet.

But, and like I said, tot up the numbers of deaths caused by religion on one hand, and deaths caused by antitheism on the other, and you'll be holding on with one hand to an immensely heavy deadweight that not ten strong men can lift, while in your other hand you'll be holding a feather.

(Which is not to excuse the Uighur business, for example, not at all. But taken in totality, the two simply aren't even in the same league. Your argument and your attempt to draw an equivalence between the two simply don't add up.)

----------

"To say that violence comes from religion and peace comes from atheism is absurd, but not as absurd as to claim that Islam is a religion of peace."

No one in their right mind would say that peace comes from atheism. And nor has anyone actually said here, that I've seen. That's just a strawman you're attempting to knock to the floor.

Yes, violence does comes from religion. No, violence never comes from atheism, nothing comes from atheism, neither good nor bad (unless you see the extinction of bad as something good). But yes, violence might, and sometimes does, come from antitheism --- regardless of whether the antitheism is justified, as it sometimes may be. However, and once again, the numbers attributable to the two simply aren't comparable, so great is the difference between them.

[Appreciative Reader]

Actually we keep using the word "antitheism" --- or at least I have --- but here's the thing:

China is an atheist country, and it is genociding the Uighurs away, because they see the Muslim Uighur's cultural identity as a threat to their own homogenized conception of their nation. So it amounts to antitheism. At least that is what I've been saying.

But what if China had been Christian, and did the exact same thing, what then? It's been done lots of times, Protestants genociding Catholics, Catholics genociding Protestants, Christians killing Muslims, Christians killing heathens. So, I was saying, had a Christian China seen the Uighur Muslims' cultural identity as a thread and went ahead and genocided them exactly like they're doing now --- which is a plausible enough scenario, had China been Christian --- then would we still say that Christian China is antitheist?

That is, what I'm wondering is this: Is antitheism necessarily an attribute of atheists, or might theists also be antitheistic?

(We've settled this discussion in etymological terms in these pages in the past. In theory at least antitheism is very different than, and is not necessarily tied to, atheism. But in practice? I'd have said that that's a hypothetical that's not reflected IRL. But if we take one religious country attacking another religious country in order to snuff out their religious identity as antitheism, then this is a very commonplace thing, and in that case far more of the religious are antitheists than are atheists, as history bears clears evidence.)

-------

I'm not actually arguing for any particular position, in this last comment of mine. Merely wondering aloud, about this antitheism business. Anyone want to weigh in, please go ahead.

[Dungeness]

@ tendzin : [ everyone who has read the history of Islam, or the Quran, knows that Islam sanctions murdering others.... As I pointed out with those few quotes I posted from the Quran (there are many more), Islam promotes violence. Islam also sanctions the murder of anyone who converts to Islam and apostatizes. ]

Scholars disagree with you:
https://www.learnreligions.com/are-there-quranic-verses-endorsing-violence-against-infidels-2004642
and here:
https://abcnews.go.com/2020/violence-islam-diane-sawyer-asks-scholars-passages-koran/story?id=11760637

Their conclusion:
Any verse that is quoted out of context misses the whole point of the message of the Qur'an. Nowhere in the Qur'an can there be found support for indiscriminate slaughter, the killing of non-combatants or murder of innocent persons in 'payback' for another people's alleged crimes.

@ tendzin: [ To say that violence comes from religion and peace comes from atheism is absurd, but not as absurd as to claim that Islam is a religion of peace. ]

Then you are failing to see the danger of quoting out-of-context and aligning
yourself with those who do.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
Most major religions have factions that are antagonistic to other religions, just like the more extremist factions among Atheists.

But they are not necessarily the majority and tend to represent the extremes in all systems of belief, including Atheism.

[Spence Tepper]

Tendzin, Rumi and his teacher, Shams i Tabriz,were two famous Muslim mystics who advocated non - violence.

[Appreciative Reader]

Hi, Spence.

I’m afraid I don’t quite see how your comment addressed to me ties in with anything I’ve said here. But taken in isolation, absolutely, I agree with what you’re saying. Generally speaking, any action, whether good or bad or ugly, that any group takes, often gets seen as something the group as a whole is doing; while the fact is that it may well be a subset of the group that’s actually responsible, not the entire group; and what’s more that subset may well be a small part of the whole, and not even representative of the whole. Sure, can happen, and does happen too, often enough, agreed.

[Spence Tepper]

"O soul, if thou, too, wouldst be free,
Then love the Love that shuts thee in.
‘Tis Love that twisteth every snare;
‘Tis Love that snaps the bond of sin;
Love sounds the Music of the Spheres;
Love echoes through Earth’s harshest din."

-From " Love Sounds the Music of the Spheres" by Rumi