Atheism's Twentieth Century Death Toll

[McCulloch]

You really want to play that numbers game, with atheism's 100,000,000 death toll last century?

Are there 100,000,000 deaths in the twentieth century attributable to atheism? Please list.

[micatala]

Moderator Comment


The rhetoric between Sailing Cyclops and East of Eden is getting to be personal and somewhat inflammatory here. Please tone it down or we may have to consider closing the thread.



In particular, avoid accusatory comments directed directly at each other, like these:

It must really irk you that God wiped out the whole earth at the time of Noah due to wickedness.

*********

Always interesting when those who don't believe in a personal God hate Him in a personal way.

**********

I can see how if you ignore sin, you would think as you do.

You may certainly advocate for a religious viewpoint, but please avoid making personal remarks about others who do not share those views, especially ones that infer motivation or internal attitude.

I never said a nation does not have a right to defend itself. I also said the atrocities we committed were not necessary for our defense. You are intentionally lying when you say that, having read what I have written.

It is fine to correct another member if they misrepresent your position. However, the moderators generally frown on accusing another member of lying.








Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[SailingCyclops]

Nobody is saying Japan wouldn't have ultimately been defeated, just that many more would have died had we not nuked Japan.

You continue to change what you said, and misrepresent what I said. Your claim was that the nuking of Japan was the only option to an invasion, which would have caused insurmountable U.S. casualties. I pointed out that nuking was not the only option. There were more humane and less criminal options.

As the Bible says, the Gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing. If you can create life, you can take it.

I don't see any of this as "foolishness", I see it as criminal, as atrocity, as crimes against humanity, as totally immoral.

It must really irk you that God wiped out the whole earth at the time of Noah due to wickedness.

There is no evidence of a universal flood. That aside, you actually believe the indiscriminate murder of the entire population of the earth, including innocent men, women, and children, by a hideously vengeful god is a moral act? It doesn't "irk" me simply because it never happened. What irks me is your belief that such an act could be considered anything but mass genocide, far worse than anything the worst dictators and mass murderers have ever committed. What irks me, is you calling such an act moral. One has to wonder about your moral compass.

Where exactly does the Bible mandate rape, or did you just make that up? What the Bible describes it doesn't necessarily prescribe.

Are you seriously asking me this? Why do you wish to waste time re-hashing what you surely already know? Are you feigning ignorance of your own holy book? I think not. Here, for all to read and weep, is the moral teachings and commandments ordained by your god. Crimes and atrocities which you approve and applaud, and which I have condemned from the beginning, despite your claims that I have not.

So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.

The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."

Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.

Repeated kidnapping, rape, and murder of women and children is clearly commanded and executed. By your "morality" these atrocities were simply done in the defense of Israel?

They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

More god commanded and approved rape and murder of women and children. More atrocities committed in the defense of Israel?

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

More god commanded atrocities, murder, rape, and slavery as a defense of Israel?

When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion.

The morality of your god approves of rape. This too in the defense of Israel? How did I make up any of this?

Again, it is pretty hypocritical for you to complain about children killed in the OT when we killed many more at Dredsen and in Japan, not to mention the killing of 4,000 unborn children a day with abortion. I'm sure you think that is fine.

How is it hypocritical of me? I never said I approved of the atrocities we committed. I've said this over and over, you continue to misrepresent and ignore what I have said. Let me be clear. I do not approve of any atrocities, any rapes, any murder of women children, by ANYONE at ANYTIME. This includes the US, as well as OT Israel. What I find disturbing here is your approval of such unconscionable human behavior, and calling it all moral. Who is being hypocritical, intellectually dishonest, and disingenuous here? Furthermore, do not presume to know that I feel something "is fine" with me about anything! You don't know me. You have no idea how I feel. Are you also a mind reader?

Always interesting when those who don't believe in a personal God hate Him in a personal way.

It is not possible for me to hate something I do not believe in. This should be obvious even to you. What I hate is genocide, rape, murder, mass killings of women and children, torture, atrocities, crimes against all that we hold as moral. What I hate is your calling these acts moral and justifying them as righteous and good.

Right! An eternity of pain and suffering without the release of death. That's christian "justice". Even us heathens would not commit such atrocities, we would simply put the person to death. To torture a person without mercy and without release? Not even Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot did such things; their prisoners were at least killed and put out of their misery!

Defending your fellow atheists now, huh?

I defend no acts of genocide, rape, or murder, nor those who commit them. I have stated this over and over but you continue your dishonesty and ignore what I say and twist it around. The fact is, it is you who repeatedly condone such acts, and those who commit them. It is you who defend this immorality in the name of your god.

[East of Eden]

Nobody is saying Japan wouldn't have ultimately been defeated, just that many more would have died had we not nuked Japan.

You continue to change what you said, and misrepresent what I said. Your claim was that the nuking of Japan was the only option to an invasion, which would have caused insurmountable U.S. casualties. I pointed out that nuking was not the only option. There were more humane and less criminal options.

Did Pres. Truman not know about these options? What were they? Humane and war usually don't go together.

I don't see any of this as "foolishness",

I'm referring to your inability to understand it and gross mischaracterizations. Its about like saying when we sentence someone to prison it is kidnapping.

There is no evidence of a universal flood.

Not true. http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung ... _flood.htm

That aside, you actually believe the indiscriminate murder of the entire population of the earth, including innocent men, women, and children, by a hideously vengeful god is a moral act? It doesn't "irk" me simply because it never happened. What irks me is your belief that such an act could be considered anything but mass genocide, far worse than anything the worst dictators and mass murderers have ever committed. What irks me, is you calling such an act moral. One has to wonder about your moral compass.

I'm curious where you even get a moral standard. If we are simply accidental grown-up germs, what difference what happens to people. As far as equating punishment of wicked nations with what Stalin and Hitler did to innocents, that is simply ludicrous.

Are you seriously asking me this? Why do you wish to waste time re-hashing what you surely already know? Are you feigning ignorance of your own holy book? I think not. Here, for all to read and weep, is the moral teachings and commandments ordained by your god. Crimes and atrocities which you approve and applaud, and which I have condemned from the beginning, despite your claims that I have not.

Judges 21:10-24 NLT

So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.

The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."

Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes."

Repeated kidnapping, rape, and murder of women and children is clearly commanded and executed. By your "morality" these atrocities were simply done in the defense of Israel?

Numbers 31:7-18 NLT

They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.More god commanded and approved rape and murder of women and children. More atrocities committed in the defense of Israel?

So marriage = rape to you? What options do you think these women would have had other than marrying Israelites, maybe be teachers or flight attendants?

Deuteronomy 20:10-14

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.'

]More god commanded atrocities, murder, rape, and slavery as a defense of Israel?

In this case when they rejected peace offers and insisted on fighting, yes, kind of like WWII Japan. I reject the notion that God punishing wicked nations is an atrocity.

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB

When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."

The morality of your god approves of rape. This too in the defense of Israel? How did I make up any of this?

No, you just grossly took it out of context. You seriously think that what God commanded towards wicked nations is normative for Christians today? They why aren't any doing it? Do you think when Jesus told Peter to walk on water that that applies to me also? It is about like saying that because we nuked Japan, we think we have the right to do it to anyone.

Again, marriage does not equal rape.

How is it hypocritical of me? I never said I approved of the atrocities we committed. I've said this over and over, you continue to misrepresent and ignore what I have said. Let me be clear. I do not approve of any atrocities, any rapes, any murder of women children, by ANYONE at ANYTIME. This includes the US, as well as OT Israel. What I find disturbing here is your approval of such unconscionable human behavior, and calling it all moral. Who is being hypocritical, intellectually dishonest, and disingenuous here?

Do you really want me to answer that?

Furthermore, do not presume to know that I feel something "is fine" with me about anything! You don't know me. You have no idea how I feel. Are you also a mind reader?

Do you approve of abortion?

It is strange when people who think 'a woman has a right to do with her own body as she wills' deny that same right to God regarding His creation.

It is not possible for me to hate something I do not believe in. This should be obvious even to you.

That's an interesting question, you're hardly dispassionate here.

What I hate is genocide, rape, murder, mass killings of women and children, torture, atrocities, crimes against all that we hold as moral. What I hate is your calling these acts moral and justifying them as righteous and good.

What is necessary in a fallen world is not always 'good'. Nuking Japan was necessary but I wouldn't call it good.

This article answers your objections very well:

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG ... anites.htm

[JoeyKnothead]

On the issue of nuking Japan, lo those many years ago...

I propose we can all be arm-chair Generals, but in the end, we must consider the circumstances. All data I'm aware of indicates an invasion of Japan would be one heckacious undertaking, and any other method than that'd be slower'n molasses, and nobody can do the math.

Our leaders made the best decision they could - for right or wrong - and we have little merit to sit in hind-sighted judgment about it.

Who do ya save? Millions of 'enemy' civilians, or just the one patriot?

We can make moral judgements about this issue 'til babirusa become respectful members of society. The bottom line is, those bombs dropped, and someone's grampaw came home to do him the stuff that made him a grampaw.

War IS hell. What kind of war do we wanna wage, were we fret the toll on the enemy? To heck with that. You stop your enemy from doing what it is your enemy is trying to stop you from doing.


Solution?

Don't drop bombs on me, and ya know what, I'll not ever find me an excuse to drop 'em on you!



We are rightly asked not to declare a "victor" in these debates. Nothing about that ruling says I can't declare East of Eden is at least a good bit right about all this, and me him have sparred so much, I chewed off my keyboard's "go to heck" button.


You wanna be an enemy?

Then by all that's holy, or a-holy, we need to be set to put it to ya!

Here, now, looking back through the prism of time, we can all declare that war is wrong. Nuking Japan was wrong. We can, and we should mourn the loss of our Japanese brethren. We should weep for them. We should feel some sense of shame that it came to it.

But by all that is right, we ought'n ever fault those leaders for winning a war that may well have cost us every bit as much.

I happen to be a huge fan of some of the Japanese culture. I happen to find virtue in what I understand to be the 'Japanese way'. But the bottom line is, I can't be so proud to sit here and say my 'preciation of it ain't 'cause I just find it 'preciable, or that if they'da won, I'd be compelled into it.

War IS hell. And the victor is compelled to be just that.

[dianaiad]

You really want to play that numbers game, with atheism's 100,000,000 death toll last century?

Are there 100,000,000 deaths in the twentieth century attributable to atheism? Please list.

OK, let us for a moment consider a few things:

First, anybody who is out to eliminate theism is anti-theist. It doesn't matter much what is being proposed as a substitution for theism, the point is, if one is out to eliminate theism, then one is out to eliminate theism--and someone out to eliminate ALL theism can only be atheist. Any theist out to eliminate all theism would have to start by shooting himself, after all.

Second, we can trust, I think, that those who claim to be atheists are atheists, and that (see the reasoning above) those who are out to eliminate all theism are also atheists.

Third, if, as atheists universally claim when they are challenged for some viewpoint they hold, atheism is simply 'a lack of belief in a deity or deities," then one can assume that atheism has NO characteristics other than that, either negative OR positive. In other words, "atheism" doesn't stop anybody from doing anything, good or bad.

Fourth, the world of atheism comprises and and all ethical systems that include 'there is no god' in it.

Therefore, we can safely say that the actions of any leader who targets all theists is attributable, in some part, to his atheism. After all, if he were THEIST, then the theism he subscribes to would either have to be followed, twisted or blatantly ignored. There is nothing in atheism that would require manipulation in order to excuse any act.

OK, given the above, the requirements for a body count attributable to 'atheism' would have to include a: an atheist leader or agenda, and b; that at least some of the bodies counted would have to be theist, killed BECAUSE they were theists, and that there is no theistic belief system held indemnified against the killing. That is, all theists are targets. They don't have to be the only targets, but they do have to be targets--and even if the leader later changes his mind about allowing a religion to exist, if at the time of the murders he did NOT, it 'counts."

OK....that leaves Hitler OUT of consideration.
....................but then I've never included him IN it.

But Stalin counts, at a generally accepted 20,000,000 deaths.
Mao counts, at an estimated total of 60,000,000.
Pol Pot counts, with his comparatively measly 3 million deaths (well, it did account for nearly a third of his population).
You MIGHT want to look up what Albania did during the twentieth century...That nation, and others like it, have been responsible for between 5 to 20 million deaths, collectively.

There you go. Over 100,000,000 deaths, not including Hitler.

[Wyvern]

You really want to play that numbers game, with atheism's 100,000,000 death toll last century?

Are there 100,000,000 deaths in the twentieth century attributable to atheism? Please list.

OK, let us for a moment consider a few things:

First, anybody who is out to eliminate theism is anti-theist. It doesn't matter much what is being proposed as a substitution for theism, the point is, if one is out to eliminate theism, then one is out to eliminate theism--and someone out to eliminate ALL theism can only be atheist. Any theist out to eliminate all theism would have to start by shooting himself, after all.

Second, we can trust, I think, that those who claim to be atheists are atheists, and that (see the reasoning above) those who are out to eliminate all theism are also atheists.

Third, if, as atheists universally claim when they are challenged for some viewpoint they hold, atheism is simply 'a lack of belief in a deity or deities," then one can assume that atheism has NO characteristics other than that, either negative OR positive. In other words, "atheism" doesn't stop anybody from doing anything, good or bad.

Fourth, the world of atheism comprises and and all ethical systems that include 'there is no god' in it.

Therefore, we can safely say that the actions of any leader who targets all theists is attributable, in some part, to his atheism. After all, if he were THEIST, then the theism he subscribes to would either have to be followed, twisted or blatantly ignored. There is nothing in atheism that would require manipulation in order to excuse any act.

OK, given the above, the requirements for a body count attributable to 'atheism' would have to include a: an atheist leader or agenda, and b; that at least some of the bodies counted would have to be theist, killed BECAUSE they were theists, and that there is no theistic belief system held indemnified against the killing. That is, all theists are targets. They don't have to be the only targets, but they do have to be targets--and even if the leader later changes his mind about allowing a religion to exist, if at the time of the murders he did NOT, it 'counts."

OK....that leaves Hitler OUT of consideration.
....................but then I've never included him IN it.

But Stalin counts, at a generally accepted 20,000,000 deaths.
Mao counts, at an estimated total of 60,000,000.
Pol Pot counts, with his comparatively measly 3 million deaths (well, it did account for nearly a third of his population).
You MIGHT want to look up what Albania did during the twentieth century...That nation, and others like it, have been responsible for between 5 to 20 million deaths, collectively.

There you go. Over 100,000,000 deaths, not including Hitler.

Let me see if I understand what you are saying. Basically it seems you are saying if even only one death by these people can be attributable to religious concerns then ALL the deaths attributed to them are to be considered religiously motivated?

[dianaiad]

You really want to play that numbers game, with atheism's 100,000,000 death toll last century?

Are there 100,000,000 deaths in the twentieth century attributable to atheism? Please list.

OK, let us for a moment consider a few things:

First, anybody who is out to eliminate theism is anti-theist. It doesn't matter much what is being proposed as a substitution for theism, the point is, if one is out to eliminate theism, then one is out to eliminate theism--and someone out to eliminate ALL theism can only be atheist. Any theist out to eliminate all theism would have to start by shooting himself, after all.

Second, we can trust, I think, that those who claim to be atheists are atheists, and that (see the reasoning above) those who are out to eliminate all theism are also atheists.

Third, if, as atheists universally claim when they are challenged for some viewpoint they hold, atheism is simply 'a lack of belief in a deity or deities," then one can assume that atheism has NO characteristics other than that, either negative OR positive. In other words, "atheism" doesn't stop anybody from doing anything, good or bad.

Fourth, the world of atheism comprises and and all ethical systems that include 'there is no god' in it.

Therefore, we can safely say that the actions of any leader who targets all theists is attributable, in some part, to his atheism. After all, if he were THEIST, then the theism he subscribes to would either have to be followed, twisted or blatantly ignored. There is nothing in atheism that would require manipulation in order to excuse any act.

OK, given the above, the requirements for a body count attributable to 'atheism' would have to include a: an atheist leader or agenda, and b; that at least some of the bodies counted would have to be theist, killed BECAUSE they were theists, and that there is no theistic belief system held indemnified against the killing. That is, all theists are targets. They don't have to be the only targets, but they do have to be targets--and even if the leader later changes his mind about allowing a religion to exist, if at the time of the murders he did NOT, it 'counts."

OK....that leaves Hitler OUT of consideration.
....................but then I've never included him IN it.

But Stalin counts, at a generally accepted 20,000,000 deaths.
Mao counts, at an estimated total of 60,000,000.
Pol Pot counts, with his comparatively measly 3 million deaths (well, it did account for nearly a third of his population).
You MIGHT want to look up what Albania did during the twentieth century...That nation, and others like it, have been responsible for between 5 to 20 million deaths, collectively.

There you go. Over 100,000,000 deaths, not including Hitler.

Let me see if I understand what you are saying. Basically it seems you are saying if even only one death by these people can be attributable to religious concerns then ALL the deaths attributed to them are to be considered religiously motivated?

Why not? Atheists consider that any killings attributed to theistic leaders are religiously motivated, and thus 'the fault of' religion. This is why they fight so hard to keep Hitler OUT of the 'atheistic death toll' list. They claim that Hitler was theist, and thus religion is to blame for HIS killing.

However, I'll admit that the above paragraph, though having a great deal of truth in it, doesn't really address the point.

The thing is, if the system that allows and prompts mass murder is an atheist system, then atheism can be said to support it. It certainly can't be said to mitigate AGAINST it. As I mentioned, religions have to be manipulated, twisted or blatantly ignored in order to support murder; atheism does not. There are no theist systems that I know about (absent ancient Mayan and Incan culture, perhaps) that blatantly say that it's ok to go out and kill people by the million job lots. That is obviously NOT true of those atheistic systems that folks like Stalin and Mao espoused.

I am of course not suggesting that all, or even most, atheistic ethical systems promote this; they do not. Most are every inch as opposed to such actions as any religion. I AM saying, however, that a few do. And did....and that the actions of these atheist leaders, allowed BY their atheism, out did religious mayhem by, well, millions. And they managed to out do thousands of years of religious mayhem in less than a century. Even with modern technology, that's quite an accomplishment.

The only point I make here is a sort of rebuttal; I'm not saying that atheism is evil; it's not. It's 'a-' That is, without. It is neither evil nor good. It simply is the classification used to categorize a state of non-belief, and those groups who include that state of non-belief in deity in their ethical systems.

What I AM saying is that those atheists who claim that religion is at the heart of all the misery in the world, and that religion is responsible for all the deaths, heart ache and every other thing evil, and that the world would be much better off with out religions so that only atheists and atheistic systems remain, should wake up and smell the corpses.

....and use a little bit of bloody LOGIC. If there is no God, then all religions are man -made; systems that MEN use to do things that MEN do all on their own. Thus getting rid of religion only gets rid of an ethical system; it doesn't get rid of the humans, or human motives, or evil human actions, which would remain the same even if they cannot attribute their actions to 'god told me to."

You are stuck with human beings.

As we can see from the experiments of those who TRIED to eliminate theism, doing so doesn't cure the murderous nature of mankind. Quite the opposite.

[McCulloch]

Atheists consider that any killings attributed to theistic leaders are religiously motivated, and thus 'the fault of' religion. This is why they fight so hard to keep Hitler OUT of the 'atheistic death toll' list. They claim that Hitler was theist, and thus religion is to blame for HIS killing.

Some atheists perhaps. But this atheist does not blame his religion for Hitler's killing spree, even though it is hard to imagine such a hatred for Jews without a religious element. The point about establishing that Hitler was not an atheist is so that the Christian apologists cannot blame his killings to his atheism.

The thing is, if the system that allows and prompts mass murder is an atheist system, then atheism can be said to support it. It certainly can't be said to mitigate AGAINST it. As I mentioned, religions have to be manipulated, twisted or blatantly ignored in order to support murder; atheism does not.

I disagree. Do you think that the ancient Jews manipulated, twisted or ignored their religion in order to dispossess the Canaanites and commit genocide?

There are no theist systems that I know about (absent ancient Mayan and Incan culture, perhaps) that blatantly say that it's ok to go out and kill people by the million job lots. That is obviously NOT true of those atheistic systems that folks like Stalin and Mao espoused.

The Crusades, the take-over of the Americas by the Europeans, the Inquisition, the Witch burnings were only limited by the available technology and smaller populations.

I am of course not suggesting that all, or even most, atheistic ethical systems promote this; they do not. Most are every inch as opposed to such actions as any religion. I AM saying, however, that a few do. And did....and that the actions of these atheist leaders, allowed BY their atheism, out did religious mayhem by, well, millions. And they managed to out do thousands of years of religious mayhem in less than a century. Even with modern technology, that's quite an accomplishment.

Here I agree. The similarities between the atheist versions of totalitarian rule and the theist versions of totalitarian rule are frightening. State enforced atheism is as much a violation of human rights as state enforced religion. Secularism, the idea that the state stay out of the business of religion, seems to have found a better solution.

As we can see from the experiments of those who TRIED to eliminate theism, doing so doesn't cure the murderous nature of mankind. Quite the opposite.

I am not against getting rid of theism, but I am against various ways that have been tried or suggested to achieve that end. Religion will disappear, in my view, when people are no longer interested in it except for historical research. The only ethical and effective way to get rid of religion is through education, debate and reason.

[dianaiad]

Atheists consider that any killings attributed to theistic leaders are religiously motivated, and thus 'the fault of' religion. This is why they fight so hard to keep Hitler OUT of the 'atheistic death toll' list. They claim that Hitler was theist, and thus religion is to blame for HIS killing.

Some atheists perhaps. But this atheist does not blame his religion for Hitler's killing spree, even though it is hard to imagine such a hatred for Jews without a religious element. The point about establishing that Hitler was not an atheist is so that the Christian apologists cannot blame his killings to his atheism.

The thing is, if the system that allows and prompts mass murder is an atheist system, then atheism can be said to support it. It certainly can't be said to mitigate AGAINST it. As I mentioned, religions have to be manipulated, twisted or blatantly ignored in order to support murder; atheism does not.

I disagree. Do you think that the ancient Jews manipulated, twisted or ignored their religion in order to dispossess the Canaanites and commit genocide?

Yep...and it didn't take 'em long to do it, either. If the time line is at all correct, some of those who dispossessed the Canannites may have actually SEEN Moses come down from the mountain with 'thou shalt not murder' written in stone. Certainly their parents and grandparents did.

Winners do get to write the history, after all.

There are no theist systems that I know about (absent ancient Mayan and Incan culture, perhaps) that blatantly say that it's ok to go out and kill people by the million job lots. That is obviously NOT true of those atheistic systems that folks like Stalin and Mao espoused.

The Crusades, the take-over of the Americas by the Europeans, the Inquisition, the Witch burnings were only limited by the available technology and smaller populations.

And every one of them were engaged in by folks who had to 'get political' with theri belief systems in order to use 'em as an excuse. That is, they had to add something, or twist something, or outright ignore stuff to do what they did.

Even the witch burnings were done in direct violation of Christian doctrine. True, there is that 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live' bit, but the methods by which witches were discovered were considerably more politically than religiously minded. Not a reason, therefore, but an excuse.

With atheism you need neither reason nor excuse, because atheism says nothing at all about the matter either way.

I am of course not suggesting that all, or even most, atheistic ethical systems promote this; they do not. Most are every inch as opposed to such actions as any religion. I AM saying, however, that a few do. And did....and that the actions of these atheist leaders, allowed BY their atheism, out did religious mayhem by, well, millions. And they managed to out do thousands of years of religious mayhem in less than a century. Even with modern technology, that's quite an accomplishment.

Here I agree. The similarities between the atheist versions of totalitarian rule and the theist versions of totalitarian rule are frightening. State enforced atheism is as much a violation of human rights as state enforced religion. Secularism, the idea that the state stay out of the business of religion, seems to have found a better solution.

I agree with this. The point is, and it's really difficult for atheists to argue against sheer bloody facts, is that atheistic versions of totalitarian rules have out murdered theistic versions of totalitarian rules by exponential numbers. It really DID take only a century for atheistic totalitarianism to out murder a couple of thousand murders by religious leaders.

In other words, atheism is not the cure. Getting rid of theism won't get rid of the violence; if history is to be trusted, it will only exacerbate it. Absolute freedom of religion...to believe or not as one chooses...is the only answer here.

As we can see from the experiments of those who TRIED to eliminate theism, doing so doesn't cure the murderous nature of mankind. Quite the opposite.

I am not against getting rid of theism, but I am against various ways that have been tried or suggested to achieve that end. Religion will disappear, in my view, when people are no longer interested in it except for historical research. The only ethical and effective way to get rid of religion is through education, debate and reason.

If religion is a problem, you are quite right; this IS the only way it will disappear, and I have absolutely no problem with any and all attempts to do it that way.

..........well, 'education' is a problem. I don't want atheistic propaganda in the classroom any more than I would appreciate a Baptist teaching my kids about the Trinity in the classroom. However, anywhere else, where the kid has to go look rather than be held prisoner in a seat while 'stuff' is pumped into him? Go for it.

[Cephus]

Why not? Atheists consider that any killings attributed to theistic leaders are religiously motivated, and thus 'the fault of' religion. This is why they fight so hard to keep Hitler OUT of the 'atheistic death toll' list. They claim that Hitler was theist, and thus religion is to blame for HIS killing.

No, we only attribute killings made by individuals who specifically say they are acting in the name of religion to religion. We don't have to fight to keep Hitler off of the atheist side, Hitler said specifically, on multiple occasions, that he was a Christian, specifically a Catholic, and when talking about his murder of the Jews, he specifically said that he was doing it in the name of his beliefs.

We don't claim that Hitler was theist, Hitler did and he's the only one in a position to know such things. We don't claim that Hitler killed Jews for religious reasons, Hitler did.

If theists could come back with mass murderers who can be said to have specifically claimed their atheism caused or was in any way responsible for their crimes, we'd be happy to own up to it. The problem is, with very few exceptions, they just can't!