This page has moved to a new address.

Re: The Greatest Killer

Friday, June 3, 2011

Re: The Greatest Killer

This is a response to the author of The Greatest Killer which is located on Victims Against Crime which is located here. What is said is essentially that secular states have killed the most people. The way I will refute this is I will copy a quote from the article and put it like so: //Quote goes here// and I will proceed to refute it OR I will simply state what is being said.

After reading just a few paragraphs in the first insane claim rears it's ugly head. This claim is that "survival of the fittest has devalued human life". This is just not true. The claim, survival of the fittest, is just a way of explaining how, when shoved in primative situations, organisms would survive. It makes no claim regarding human life. The author then claims that if there is no God there is no objective morality. This is also not true, even if one believes in an objective moral standard evolution provides an extremely easy explanation which is as follows: In tribal settings where food is scarce and just getting food is extremely difficult, working with people increases your chances of survival whereas working alone or killing people lowers your chance. Thus one can see that the evolutionary standpoint provides a nice explanation for the objective morality that is "given by god".
Moving on:

Here the author is just quoting people who are "defining humans". I see no need to waste time adding anything on this except that claim that this is just stupid. People don't believe humans are "an accidental twig".
The author says the following: "When atheism takes hold of a society, moral relativism is inevitable." Moral relativism already exists! Just look at what is deemed acceptable regarding murder in American and in waring African nations. They are different. Would you like a more, close to home example? Take abortion. Some Christians accept abortion and other do not. There, moral relativism. Now, the author tries to argue that the rise of atheism has lead to the rise of many Communist dictators. He goes more in depth into this later and I will refute it then. 

Next the author tries to make the claim that wars were not the biggest threat to human life. What I have to say to this is, ORLY? If one JUST looks at WWI and WWII the combined casualties are over 80 million people. Even if we take all the assertions made in The Black Book of Communism which is referenced in the post, they are about equal. And I only mentioned two wars. So one cannot claim that wars have not been serious threats to life. But let's see what happens when we add the Korean and Vietnam Wars. There were roughly 4 million casualties in Korea and there were over 300,000 American casualties alone. Thus one can see that war is a huge threat to life. But let's continue:

Publish Post

Joesph Stalin
Of course. Here the author makes the claim that Joseph Stalin killed all the people he did because he lacked a religion. I'm sorry sir but this is just ignoring history. First off, Joseph Stalin started to kill people he deemed a threat to his regime. That is why the KGB was established, to hunt down and kill people doing anti-Communist things. It had nothing to do with religion or lack thereof. Later on Stalin killed people who did not work hard enough because he felt that if people didn't work hard they were damaging society. Again, this had nothing to do with his religion or lack thereof. So claiming his atheism was the cause of millions dying is ignoring what really happened.

In the next few paragraphs what is said it the following: "The communist takeover of Cambodia in 1975 resulted in the death of up to 3 million people - a full third of the total population.  When we add to these the death toll of communist regimes in Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Angola, Mozambique, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Cuba, and Zimbabwe, the body count is staggering." This is clearly stating that it is Communism that is killing people, NOT atheism. Atheism and Communism are NOT synonymous. It is true that some Communist states dislike religion but that is because it "distracts from the work". The previous quote alone should discredit his case since it is directly saying Communism is responsible. Again, and I cannot stress this enough, Communist is NOT atheism! 

Another interesting thing that must be mentioned is that secular humanist states, by definition cannot be devoid of morality as the author of The Greatest Killer would have you believe. The definition of secular humanism is as follows: "Humanism, with regard in particular to the belief that humanity is capable of morality and self-fulfillment without belief in God." Thus a secular humanist state will have morals. 

But let's continue, the rest of the post is basically saying Communism killed X amount of people ect... As I have shown before though, Communism is not atheism thus it was not atheism that killed those people. And I will say this again as well, the reason people were killed in Communist states is a) because of fear of anti-communist activities and b) because people would not work as hard ergo they must be killed. It has nothing to do with a lack of god.

But hey, if we're going to go blaming atheism for killing all these people solely because the leaders of the regimes were atheist let me take a stab at it. Hitler was a Catholic and even said, in reference to Germany, " It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life.” (For more info see Was Hitler an atheist? and In regards to Shawn's new video.)
So why is no one saying Hitler killed everyone because of Christianity? If no one is doing that then why make the same claim about atheism, especially when yours is false.


Labels: , , ,


At June 4, 2011 at 1:48 AM , Anonymous Django said...

"survival of the fittest, is just a way of explaining how, when shoved in primative [sic] situations, organisms would survive. It makes no claim regarding human life." Actually, it sort of does, "survival of the fittest" (natural selection) affects all living things, including humans, but it doesn't mean that the strongest or the smartest survive and reproduce. An organism is "fit" when it can survive (it doesn't even need to be well suited to its environment) and produce offspring. The phrase "survival of the fittest" was coined by Herbert Spencer, an economist, and is inaccurate and misleading, but does describe a real process (natural selection), just not very well. It is inaccurate and misleading, because it makes it seem like intraspecific competition is the driving force behind natural selection, when environmental factors generally play a much greater role. It is also a bit redundant, since an organism is fit simply by surviving and reproducing. Using this as an excuse to kill or sterilize people is horrible and incredibly stupid; if you kill or sterilize someone, they are no longer "fit" (unless they have already produced offspring), no matter if they would have been before, so, basically, you make people you dislike "unfit". This would be artificial selection, not natural selection (although you could make a case that it's a type of natural selection), which are similar, but not exactly the same.

Also, communism hasn't killed anybody, ever; it's an idea. Communist governments have though, but not all of them.

Other than that, I agree with you.

At June 4, 2011 at 4:38 PM , Blogger Peter said...

//affects all living things, including humans, but it doesn't mean that the strongest or the smartest survive and reproduce.//

That is what I meant. It doesn't make a claim regarding the VALUE of human life.

// Communist governments have though, but not all of them.//
This is also true. I support Communism in theory but when ever it is utilized corruption occurs. (At least on the large scale)


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home