3 ms·

I'm a left wing atheist. While people like Dawkins and Hitchens may declare religion the root of all evil, I try to have some self awareness on the subject. I l

I'm a left wing atheist. While people like Dawkins and Hitchens may declare religion the root of all evil, I try to have some self awareness on the subject. I look at the 20th century and need only pick two names, Stalin and Mao, to find left wing atheism being drenched in blood. Killing for a dogma is the issue. And those who claim that religion is responsible for all misery are precious few philosophical steps away from doing exactly that. edit - for some perspective, here's Tony Benn on the many links between socialist ideologies and christianity. - https://jacobinmag.com/2018/12/tony-benn-christianity-socialism-neighborly-love https://jacobinmag.com/2018/12/tony-benn-christianity-social... edit2 - For another perspective, while the crackdown on christianity is harsh, the crackdown on muslims is next level. Which is odd on the face of it as muslims tend to be more left wing in practice than christians.

rohit2412 8y ago
I dont think new atheism proponents like Dawkins and hitchens propose religious persecution like communists. Looking for social change towards atheism, like a third-wave atheism is very different from imposing atheism on people.
- starbeast 8y ago
  They don't propose it explicitly, they just lead people to it. Once you have started believing that religion is the root of all evil, you do not have to travel very far at all to find yourself persecuting the religious. The position they espouse isn't just a serious logical mistake, it is a terrible moral one.
  - rohit2412 8y ago
    Then you also lead people to theocracy. There are positions one can take between "all religions are peaceful, good, and true", and "kill the religious"
    - starbeast 8y ago
      You don't lead people to theocracy by warning against killing for dogma. On the other hand, creating dogmas about religion being the source of all evil can have pretty awful consequences. There isn't a simple road between the two positions you gave, there is an entire territory.
      - rohit2412 8y ago
        Hitchens and Dawkins never advocated killing for dogma. Unless you mean killing jihadists, then well yeah, they probably advocated killing people who want to kill for dogma. > There isn't a simple road between the two positions you gave, there is an entire territory. When you recognize this, then why do you take their opinion as "kill all religious people". And it is absurdly stupid to say that religion is source of all evil, clearly Stalin and Mao's atrocities weren't based on religion.
        starbeast 8y ago
        >why do you take their opinion as "kill all religious people" I don't, I haven't said that anywhere. >it is absurdly stupid to say that religion is source of all evil Yes it is absurdly stupid. This is the point I have been making. Repeatedly. It is a very stupid position to take.
        rohit2412 8y ago
        That's what you said > "Once you have started believing that religion is the root of all evil, you do not have to travel very far at all to find yourself persecuting the religious. "

rohit2412 8y ago

I dont think new atheism proponents like Dawkins and hitchens propose religious persecution like communists. Looking for social change towards atheism, like a third-wave atheism is very different from imposing atheism on people.

starbeast 8y ago
They don't propose it explicitly, they just lead people to it. Once you have started believing that religion is the root of all evil, you do not have to travel very far at all to find yourself persecuting the religious. The position they espouse isn't just a serious logical mistake, it is a terrible moral one.
- rohit2412 8y ago
  Then you also lead people to theocracy. There are positions one can take between "all religions are peaceful, good, and true", and "kill the religious"
  - starbeast 8y ago
    You don't lead people to theocracy by warning against killing for dogma. On the other hand, creating dogmas about religion being the source of all evil can have pretty awful consequences. There isn't a simple road between the two positions you gave, there is an entire territory.
    - rohit2412 8y ago
      Hitchens and Dawkins never advocated killing for dogma. Unless you mean killing jihadists, then well yeah, they probably advocated killing people who want to kill for dogma. > There isn't a simple road between the two positions you gave, there is an entire territory. When you recognize this, then why do you take their opinion as "kill all religious people". And it is absurdly stupid to say that religion is source of all evil, clearly Stalin and Mao's atrocities weren't based on religion.
      - starbeast 8y ago
        >why do you take their opinion as "kill all religious people" I don't, I haven't said that anywhere. >it is absurdly stupid to say that religion is source of all evil Yes it is absurdly stupid. This is the point I have been making. Repeatedly. It is a very stupid position to take.
        rohit2412 8y ago
        That's what you said > "Once you have started believing that religion is the root of all evil, you do not have to travel very far at all to find yourself persecuting the religious. "