Stalin and Mao? Please don't pull out that old chestnut. Claiming to be an atheist does not make you one. Stalin and Mao were the godheads of their own cults of personality with followers(read worshipers ) no different than the fanatical followers of many religions. Are they really so different from Jim Jones or David Koresh?

Not to mention that Stalin and Mao generally weren't killing people -because- of their atheism...those murders were politically motivated, and the leaders just happened to be atheists. The actions in this video were mostly due to religious motivations.

(edited to add "mostly")

How about what atheism brought to the world?

Stalin, Mao, and others. Talking millions, now.

I don't think it is kudos. However, just don't ever mention Hitler, Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot in any sentence that isn't about universal condemnation.

This guy seriously lacks tact.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by lurgee.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Then, in that same vein - could you make the case that religion is not necessarily the cause of atrocities either. Correlation is not causation. Or in other words - Nutty sociopaths may be religious - but it's not why they commit atrocities - just a side effect.

>> ^Fletch:

^ Not completely true, and I would argue that the cult of personality surrounding Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Mussolini, et al, is at the very root of religion. They may or may not have been atheists, but they were definitely using religion of a sort to gain and keep power. Dogma is dogma, and blind faith in dogma or a leader IS religion, whether that faith is whipped up through nationalist rhetoric or pious devotion to a deity. "Christian" is just a different flavor on the same banana split.
Hirohito was viewed as a living god. Hitler killed Jews because he felt it was god's will. This whole "atheism was responsible for the Holocaust" bullshit is just that... tired bullshit. It's the reactionary mantra and selective parsing of history by blissfully-ignorant religious zealots who can't compute, or, just refuse to accept the utter devastation religion has wreaked on the human species IN THE NAME OF GOD.
Lack of belief is not a belief, and connecting atheism to 20th century atrocities is several logical fallacies all rolled into one dumb assertion. Believing it and saying it over and over doesn't make it true, and just because some murderous bastard was an atheist doesn't mean some nutter's concept of atheism was the cause.
>> ^dag:
^Shiny makes a good point - Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot - the biggest baddies of the 20th, we're all atheists. Might it be that extremist ideologies of any kind are the problem?

^ Not completely true, and I would argue that the cult of personality surrounding Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Mussolini, et al, is at the very root of religion. They may or may not have been atheists, but they were definitely using religion of a sort to gain and keep power. Dogma is dogma, and blind faith in dogma or a leader IS religion, whether that faith is whipped up through nationalist rhetoric or pious devotion to a deity. "Christian" is just a different flavor on the same banana split.

Hirohito was viewed as a living god. Hitler killed Jews because he felt it was god's will. This whole "atheism was responsible for the Holocaust" bullshit is just that... tired bullshit. It's the reactionary mantra and selective parsing of history by blissfully-ignorant religious zealots who can't compute, or, just refuse to accept the utter devastation religion has wreaked on the human species IN THE NAME OF GOD.

Lack of belief is not a belief, and connecting atheism to 20th century atrocities is several logical fallacies all rolled into one dumb assertion. Believing it and saying it over and over doesn't make it true, and just because some murderous bastard was an atheist doesn't mean some nutter's concept of atheism was the cause.

>> ^dag:

^Shiny makes a good point - Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot - the biggest baddies of the 20th, we're all atheists. Might it be that extremist ideologies of any kind are the problem?

But, but, PZ also messes up Interweb pols! He's jsut like those other famous athiests, Hitler Mao and Stalin! You have no morals! Your going to burn in hell! Jesus loves you!

I actually have The Quantum Thief on my kindle, and started one or two chapters, but put it down for some reason. I'll have to start it again, then.

I've been reading a couple of biographies: Mao: A Life, and Chris Matthew's new book on JFK, Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero.

>> ^cosmovitelli:

I read your stuff Yogi!
FWIW Involving the US in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan is all about money and power. Oil, minerals, rate earth shit etc etc.
In Iran they got rid of a benevolent democratically elected progressive who tried to return the oil wealth of the country to its people and replaced him with a foreign sponsored greedy foolish puppet.
When it swung back the other way the clerics took over. Doh!
They used Afghanistan as a proxy war with the soviets, training the mujahideen / aka Taliban fighters in improvised explosives, insurgency warfare and basically how to fuck up a mechanised invading army. Then they invaded. Doh!
In Iraq they supported Saddam despite his demented paranoid savagery until the Iraqi oilfields became too tasty to ignore.
Duck Cheney said it couldn't be done:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I&sns=em
But they upped his end via massive Haliburton projects and installed a puppet moron to keep blaming Iraq for the Saudi attacks on 9/11.
Then they invaded, killing thousands of civilians, and dismantled the police and social services while fucking up the food and water supply. Just for good measure they disbanded the army and sent 375,000 heavily armed young men off to find food for their own families. Doh!
Never mind about panama, chile, Vietnam, Cuba, Russia, Pakistan etc etc.


I'd pretty much agree with your facts. I'm a little less sure on your point.

America helped train and support the Islamic fighter in Afghanistan to chase out the Soviets. America supported Saddam while he was using chemical weapons against Iran and even Iraqi Kurds. America propped up a strong man of their choosing in Iran which backfired and led to the current theocracy.

You needn't look far or very hard to find examples where almost any and every nation has selfishly done very bad things, or things with terrible consequences. America, Russia and China being such large nations, the examples for them are much bigger and numerous. It makes for great propaganda, and all 3 continually make heavy use of it to tarnish each other. America is characterized by the genocide of native americans and Vietnam, Russia by Stalin and China by Mao. It's great propaganda, but it's not insightful or helpful analysis.

Pretend you get be President when Bush Jr. was president. America's narrow self interests are being threatened by terrorism. Bin Laden has extremely close ties with Islamists not only in Afghanistan, but throughout nuclear armed Pakistan. AQ Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear program, is going around selling nuclear secrets and equipment to the highest bidder. That's an uncomfortably short path from Pakistan's nuclear arsenal to the hands of a very credible terrorist network. Do you demand Pakistan break it's ties with the Taliban, or just let it slide? Do you demand the Afghan Taliban break ties with Al Qaeda, or just let it slide? I think selfish American interest DID dictate making those two demands, and being willing to launch a war if they were refused.

I think that is a strong argument that the Afghan war was indeed a good thing from the perspective of America's narrow self-interest.

What about the Afghan people though? Their self interest depends on what the end game is, and nobody can predict that. What we DO know is that the formerly ruling Taliban hated women's rights, and we fought against them. What we DO know is that the formerly ruling Taliban burnt off more of Afghanistan's vineyards than even the Russians had, because making wine was anathema to their cult. What we DO know is that the Taliban was one of the most brutal, backwards and hateful organizations around.

I can not say that the Afghan war ensured a better future for Afghanistan's people. What I CAN say is that leaving the Taliban in power in Afghanistan ensured a dark, bleak and miserable future for Afghanistan's people. I would modestly propose that a chance at something better was a good thing.

Old guy at 1:45: "Pfft...When Chairman Mao was in charge we didn't even start scoring the game until we'd played a 16 switch rally."

Could you kindly describe the specific way in which a Neo-Nazi's $500 donation would exert an influence over a candidate like Ron Paul? It seems like an absurd generalization to me. (Besides, Don Black—the Neo-Nazi in question—has said publicly that his support of Ron Paul has nothing to do with endorsing white supremacy: "Black said he supports Paul's stance on ending the war in Iraq, securing U.S. borders and his opposition to amnesty for illegal immigrants. 'We know that he's not a white nationalist. He says he isn't and we believe him, but on the issues, there's only one choice,' Black said.")

On a tangential note, you seem to be taking an odd stance with your comment about "murders" and "child rapists." Are you suggesting that certain criminals ought not be allowed to make contributions to political campaigns? If so, where would you draw the line?>> ^longde:

The fact remains that when people give you money, they exert influence over you.
Even if you're just taking advantage of some suckers, the appearance of impropriety should be avoided. A reasonable person would wonder why doesn't he give back the money. Is he: a) too needy to return the donation, in which case the nazi's would have some influence; or b) too unprincipled to give back the money from violent hatemongers. It also begs the question: just who won't such a man take money from? Murderers? Child rapists? Would Paul's below explanation be acceptable in those cases?
>> ^aurens:
Well, you linked to an article from 2007, so it would be more accurate to say "Neo-Nazis helped bankroll Ron Paul's last campaign."
In any event, I remember when this came up. Certain people were insisting that Ron Paul return the campaign contributions, which he refused to do (as far as I can remember). I thought his rationale was remarkably astute: If racist, bigoted people want to undermine their own efforts by giving money to a campaign based on liberty, mistakenly thinking that they'll be influencing the message of the campaign, then let them do so. In the end, we'll end up with (1) more liberty and (2) less money in the hands of the bigots.
More generally, though, this issue reminds me of a certain argument flung by religious folk, namely the condemnation of atheism based on the fact that "atheists" like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot (forget the fact that Hitler wasn't an atheist) perpetrated some of the last century's worst atrocities. (Richard Dawkins, in an interview with Bill O'Reilly, illustrated the fallacy quite simply: "Stalin did not do bad things because he was an atheist. I mean Hitler and Stalin both had mustaches, but we don't say it was their mustaches that made them evil.")
The generalized point is that the value of an idea is not determined by the value of the person advocating for that idea. A fool may very well endorse an intelligent belief; it doesn't make the belief any less intelligent.>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Nazis are literally bankrolling Ron Paul's campaign: http://digitaljournal.com/article/246244

The fact remains that when people give you money, they exert influence over you.

Even if you're just taking advantage of some suckers, the appearance of impropriety should be avoided. A reasonable person would wonder why doesn't he give back the money. Is he: a) too needy to return the donation, in which case the nazi's would have some influence; or b) too unprincipled to give back the money from violent hatemongers. It also begs the question: just who won't such a man take money from? Murderers? Child rapists? Would Paul's below explanation be acceptable in those cases?

>> ^aurens:

Well, you linked to an article from 2007, so it would be more accurate to say "Neo-Nazis helped bankroll Ron Paul's last campaign."
In any event, I remember when this came up. Certain people were insisting that Ron Paul return the campaign contributions, which he refused to do (as far as I can remember). I thought his rationale was remarkably astute: If racist, bigoted people want to undermine their own efforts by giving money to a campaign based on liberty, mistakenly thinking that they'll be influencing the message of the campaign, then let them do so. In the end, we'll end up with (1) more liberty and (2) less money in the hands of the bigots.
More generally, though, this issue reminds me of a certain argument flung by religious folk, namely the condemnation of atheism based on the fact that "atheists" like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot (forget the fact that Hitler wasn't an atheist) perpetrated some of the last century's worst atrocities. (Richard Dawkins, in an interview with Bill O'Reilly, illustrated the fallacy quite simply: "Stalin did not do bad things because he was an atheist. I mean Hitler and Stalin both had mustaches, but we don't say it was their mustaches that made them evil.")
The generalized point is that the value of an idea is not determined by the value of the person advocating for that idea. A fool may very well endorse an intelligent belief; it doesn't make the belief any less intelligent.>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Nazis are literally bankrolling Ron Paul's campaign: http://digitaljournal.com/article/246244

Hitchslapped!
>> ^aurens:

Well, you linked to an article from 2007, so it would be more accurate to say "Neo-Nazis helped bankroll Ron Paul's last campaign."
In any event, I remember when this came up. Certain people were insisting that Ron Paul return the campaign contributions, which he refused to do (as far as I can remember). I thought his rationale was remarkably astute: If racist, bigoted people want to undermine their own efforts by giving money to a campaign based on liberty, mistakenly thinking that they'll be influencing the message of the campaign, then let them do so. In the end, we'll end up with (1) more liberty and (2) less money in the hands of the bigots.
More generally, though, this issue reminds me of a certain argument flung by religious folk, namely the condemnation of atheism based on the fact that "atheists" like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot (forget the fact that Hitler wasn't an atheist) perpetrated some of the last century's worst atrocities. (Richard Dawkins, in an interview with Bill O'Reilly, illustrated the fallacy quite simply: "Stalin did not do bad things because he was an atheist. I mean Hitler and Stalin both had mustaches, but we don't say it was their mustaches that made them evil.")
The generalized point is that the value of an idea is not determined by the value of the person advocating for that idea. A fool may very well endorse an intelligent belief; it doesn't make the belief any less intelligent.>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Nazis are literally bankrolling Ron Paul's campaign: http://digitaljournal.com/article/246244

Well, you linked to an article from 2007, so it would be more accurate to say "Neo-Nazis helped bankroll Ron Paul's last campaign."

In any event, I remember when this came up. Certain people were insisting that Ron Paul return the campaign contributions, which he refused to do (as far as I can remember). I thought his rationale was remarkably astute: If racist, bigoted people want to undermine their own efforts by giving money to a campaign based on liberty, mistakenly thinking that they'll be influencing the message of the campaign, then let them do so. In the end, we'll end up with (1) more liberty and (2) less money in the hands of the bigots.

More generally, though, this issue reminds me of a certain argument flung by religious folk, namely the condemnation of atheism based on the fact that "atheists" like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot (forget the fact that Hitler wasn't an atheist) perpetrated some of the last century's worst atrocities. (Richard Dawkins, in an interview with Bill O'Reilly, illustrated the fallacy quite simply: "Stalin did not do bad things because he was an atheist. I mean Hitler and Stalin both had mustaches, but we don't say it was their mustaches that made them evil.")

The generalized point is that the value of an idea is not determined by the value of the person advocating for that idea. A fool may very well endorse an intelligent belief; it doesn't make the belief any less intelligent.>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Nazis are literally bankrolling Ron Paul's campaign: http://digitaljournal.com/article/246244