Atheism is the most violent religion on earth

Well, taking my poll into consideration, and the general consensus that these kinds of 'hard hitting' threads are necessary and not trolling in the slightest, I have decided to make this case.

Up to 60 million people were killed by Stalin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

Up to 78 million killed by Mao:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/many-people-were-t114249/index.html?

10 million more killed by Tojo (since atheists like to remind us how Buddhism is actually atheism):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/many-people-were-t114249/index.html?

Now contrast this sharply with the events that atheists whine about?

The Old Testament? Thousands of deaths? Maybe? An assessment that completely ignores the marauding Empires that killed thousands upon thousands more during the period - but heh, atheists are concerned about that one?

The Crusades: Estimated at about 3 million total over several centuries.

http://necrometrics.com/pre1700a.htm#European

The Inquisition: About 30,000

http://necrometrics.com/pre1700a.htm#European

No, it has become clear to me that atheism and political power are by far the most combustable and violent coupling the world has ever seen. Its equally clear that anyone joining this Crusade, who presents such lopsides comparisons as if it condemns anything but atheism is dangerously out of whack with reality and simply looking to excuse mass murder. Shame on atheists!

Remember atheists, you are voting to support just these kinds of things. Feel free to argue the numbers.

 

Atheism isn't a religion. You might as well have started a thread stating "Pickles are the sharpest cake on earth." It's a nonsense statement.

 

Did Stalin and Mao kill those people exclusively because they were religious and these rulers are allegedly atheist? Or, was it done to subdue their populations and maintain control, like many many many other despotic and wicked rulers have done over the course of history, independent of whatever religions they claim to be and the dominant religions in the places they were?

You're drawing parallels here but not explaining why they ARE a parallel.

The major difference between Stalin and Mao is that the wars fought because of religion were fought BECAUSE of religion. Stalin and Mao did not kill those people because of religious reasons. If you want to indict them, you're going to have to actually show that atheism was the direct cause, like religion was was in the crusades and the inquisition.

 

All sin and fall short of the glory of God.

Pointing out the sins of another person does not absolve you of your own.

 

Its not actually the point burz. The point is that I am having trouble getting atheists to acknowledge that these kinds of leaps in logic to equate a historical situation with a general ideology are silly.

Now, that is not ALL atheists, including you, but there is a clear majority of this community, that finds this behavior to be productive and the efforts to end it ... cowardace (cause us Rangers are definitely cowards?)

So, two options, you are an intelligent enough fellow, you can either help me build consensus to eliminate this silliness for both atheists and ... everyone else. Or you can pretend that I actually believe the BS I wrote?

However, the same logic applied to my faith is being deemed utterly supportable and definitively necesary.

Just making a point. For those atheists not defending this tactic - I apologize. for those of you now screaming? Hypocrites.

 

Why did Jews kill people in the OT? The reason are irrelevant. WE did it. YOU killed MILLION more though.

Again, your peers are telling me, quite clearly, that these kinds of analysis are ... necessary. Not offensive or illogical in the slightest. I am simply responding to their wishes.

 

Nope, it certainly does not.

 

Religion was viewed as a threat. This is because God is above them. The answer was then to do away with God so that they have complete control. In a way, they became their god.

 

Yeah, I actually agree with the broad point you're making. Your title is the only thing I could find to quickly disagree with.

 

I don't know why they did. But if they killed people for reasons that have nothing to do with religion, you can't really blame those deaths on religion can you? Or, are you willing to concede all the deaths in the bible were for religion simply because you think the number is higher for atheists and you win by having the smaller number of deaths?

What you posted is not offensive. Illogical, maybe, because you did not post anything about why you believe Mao and Stalin committed the acts they did specifically and directly because of atheism. You simply took these people's names, took the death toll numbers, and put them in the same sentence. So, maybe not even illogical, just incomplete.

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/refuting-the-myth-that-hitler-stalin-and-pol-pot-were-atheists-1

This does appear to be a bit of an opinion piece, so I would recommend verifying anything you question. But, it does gather a lot of the arguments into one place and refutes them.

 

Again, its not really the point I am making here Junkie.

The point I am making is that, just yesterday, I had an atheist go through the OT and pointedly make a leap in logic, no discussion of reason or contect whatsoever, and demand that we Christians acknowledge our support for mass murder. When taking the question of these antics to the wider community, what I am being told is that these antics are fully legit and necessary.

Despite warning, your peers seem to thing this knd of logic is necessary. I don't. But a quick look at the numbers indicates excusing mass murder, using said necesssary logic, is a problem for atheism is it not?

Why should we tak context into account with your situations but not ours?

Again, to be clearm, I think the leaps in logic in my own OP are not defensible in the slightest. I have repeatdly stated that ANY ideology can be subjected to charismatic leaders usurping it to ill intent, and that viligance, regardless of faith choice, is required.

Nevertheless, I am being told that this is stupid. Even cowardly to make such an assumption.

As simply as I can state this, either contyext matters in situations or it doesn't. It cannot count for atheists, and then be ignored in every other religious community out there. THat is absurd.

But it is what I am being told by a majority of your peers is acceoptable. I humbly accept their view. I am simply applying their logic to their situations and pointingout the numbers gap.

 

Remember, the problem people have with a Christian (or God) killing someone specifically, if it was so, then Stalin would be a reasonable counterargument for that. The problem people have with God killing people is that a Christian is supposed to think that it's a good thing.

Many think that if you kill someone, it's immoral (special circumstances may apply). If you think that that person should be killed, that's immoral too. According to some Christians (please tell us to what extent this applies to you), everything God does is correct. If you think that everything God does is right, and God killed people, then you think those people deserved to die. If those people then were innocent, which can be argued at least for children and the like, then that person thinks that an innocent person deserved to die (the innocence is mainly there to avoid the "special circumstances above"), which by our initial stance is immoral. Now this argument is recanted in extreme terms, there are nuances and exceptions to this and that, but in general, that is the argument.

Let's see if you're correct in thinking that the same argument applies to Stalin and atheism.

"Many think that if you kill someone, it's immoral (special circumstances may apply)."
So far so good.

"If you think that that person should be killed, that's immoral too."
This also makes sense.

"According to some atheists (please tell us to what extent this applies to you), everything Stalin does is correct."
What? No, that makes no sense. That does not apply to me, nor to any atheist I know

The argument against Christianity hinges on that concept, and since it does not apply to anyone who doesn't think Stalin is omniscient and benevolent, the argument is moot.

Nobody would have a problem on this point at all with someone who believes that God exists but is evil and/or does despicable things, just as there should be no problem with an atheist who thinks that Stalin did evil/despicable things.

 

Fair enough then. In that context I can see exactly why you would make the points that you did.

 

Yep, now I just need your help to make the point to the powers that be so we can 'nuetralize' the mutual silliness.

 

It does seem as if the mods are cracking down on the religion forum a lot more. In fact, I just typed out a lengthy response in the other thread you made only to find when I went to submit it that the thread had been closed. Maybe if the mods are giving more attention to this forum, the obvious flamebait threads will slowly trickle down.

 

Can you tell me how atheists are a religion. What have in common different atheists? The only thing is that ahteists are the people don't believe in God and any other ghost fantasies, nothing else.

And leave to relate the dictators that killed because they were atheists, they killed because they were dictators and not based in their religion ideas, that was the smallest part of their ideology.

And more, Stalin didn't kill 60 million of people, that would mean that a third part of the URSS population was killed and that is false.

 

Great job of hypocrisy.

Starting a thread complaining about how 'atheists' post.....and then doing exactly what you complained that atheists were doing.

Three hypocrisy stars.

 

Where is this atheist doctrine I continue to ask for?

 

Only now you are against your own standard.

Four hypocrisy stars.

Exactly as predicted. You were all for it when it was aimed at us, now, YOUR STANDARD AIMED AT YOU, and your are offended ... but not a hypocrite. Atheism.

 

Why are you asking me a question like I care?

 

So it sounds like the only thing that we can all agree on is that Hitler, AND Stalin, AND Mao, AND the Christian God are ALL evil, right? After all, "killed millions", and "all-loving" don't belong in the same sentence, right?

 

Nope, the proper conclusion is that peole employing hyperbolye to deliberately get a rise out of people are not attempting to have an honest discussion, neither are theyy searching for the truth. They are just immature, and seeking to get a rise out of people.

Because clearly, when discussing war, what is helpful is vaccuious analogies to Hlter rather than hard analysis and pointed question. I mean you should seethe manuals that we print in the Army - fiolled with nothing but references to how anyone outside the military is like Hilter. That is why we are so devestating in combat.

 

While I disagree with the view that Buddhism is not a religion, that is an argument for another day. The truth is that Tojo was not just Buddhist, he followed Shinto too, which is definitely a religion. This is very common is Japan to be both Buddhist and Shinto.

 

Is that a no?

That's cute.