More People Have Been Killed in the Name of Atheism & Secularism than Religion?

[Jstwebbrowsing]

And the fact that these killers like Stalin and Pol-pot were not theists had nothing to do with the lack of religion,but the desire to rule under an Iron fist and keep control. The way you keep control is to kill dissenters,this has nothing to do with a lack of belief in any deity.

 People who had a beef with the Totalitarian,be it for religious reasons or for ANY other reason under the sun were killed so the power could stay in power. Christians killing Indians was also an issue,they use religious reasons for their acts. Dirty heathens,or wrong god or Scripture instructing them to kill was good enough. It really had nothing to do with power but to get rid of groups of people in the way of them getting RICH. The difference is plain.

Religion is specifically targeted.

"Religion is the opiate of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class.

In the Marxist–Leninist interpretation of Marxist theory, developed primarily by Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin, religion is seen as negative to human development, and communist states that follow a Marxist–Leninist variant are atheistic and explicitly antireligious"

Why are stat holidays also mainly Christian based in these secular Governments? If I want the summer or winter solstice off,I can take it but not be paid like I would for good Friday or Christmas.

So are you saying the USA is not an atheist government?  I agree with this.  Some of your friends don't.

Jst, are you familiar with anti-theism?

It seems to me that when you say atheism you are really referring to anti-theism.

Atheism is passive and means little.  Anti-theism is a political opinion and can drive one's actions.

Makes more sense, eh?

Yes I understand that.  Who practices anti-theism?  Atheists.  So it is not correct to say that noone has been killed in the name of atheism.

[12 Monkeys]

Atheism = non belief...... I have never attacked a theist or harmed on in any way. Anti theism an example would be a dictator who desires to hold power....doing so he kills theists who wish to disrupt his power,or any other person who desires his overthrow for any other reason. The dictator shows anti-free thought not bounded to just anti-theist ideas,but all who wish his death or demise. Killing theist (or others) to keep power comes with the desire to hold power,not because they despise just the religious.

 A dictatorship and a communist Government are two different things.

 How do you view Theist Governments who kill their own followers,mainly because they have vagina's and not a penis?  are they just sexist pigs holding on to power? They never seem to kill or imprison adulterous men,but have no problem killing or imprisoning women without trial.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

I have never attacked a theist or harmed on in any way.

Oh.  So Marxists are not True Atheists like you?  So that means noone's been killed in the name of atheism.  Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

How do you view Theist Governments who kill their own followers,mainly because they have vagina's and not a penis?  are they just sexist pigs holding on to power? They never seem to kill or imprison adulterous men,but have no problem killing or imprisoning women without trial.

How about over in China where they have forced abortions?  What, do you want to compare evil for evil to see who has done the least evil?

[12 Monkeys]

I have never attacked a theist or harmed on in any way.

Oh.  So Marxists are not True Atheists like you?  So that means noone's been killed in the name of atheism.  Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

How do you view Theist Governments who kill their own followers,mainly because they have vagina's and not a penis?  are they just sexist pigs holding on to power? They never seem to kill or imprison adulterous men,but have no problem killing or imprisoning women without trial.

How about over in China where they have forced abortions?  What, do you want to compare evil for evil to see who has done the least evil?

I asked about a zealot religious state that kills women because they have a vagina,could you please answer why that is ignored by you. As for China......Government policy is that you have one child,overpopulation the reason. "OBEY" or face the penalty. It is like a rapist not being ok with a judge handing him a life sentence as a penalty.

[bertatberts]

And the fact that these killers like Stalin and Pol-pot were not theists had nothing to do with the lack of religion,but the desire to rule under an Iron fist and keep control. The way you keep control is to kill dissenters,this has nothing to do with a lack of belief in any deity.

 People who had a beef with the Totalitarian,be it for religious reasons or for ANY other reason under the sun were killed so the power could stay in power. Christians killing Indians was also an issue,they use religious reasons for their acts. Dirty heathens,or wrong god or Scripture instructing them to kill was good enough. It really had nothing to do with power but to get rid of groups of people in the way of them getting RICH. The difference is plain.

Religion is specifically targeted.

"Religion is the opiate of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about religion.

And yet the statement has nothing to do with Marx or his religious version of Communism it was originally written by the revolutionary, Marquis De-Sade in his  L'Histoire de Juliette whilst in prison and the German romanticist Novalis.

The correct quote from Marx is "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people" It has been made to look as if it is against religion by the religious, whereas it is simply an opinion, made by several people.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

I have never attacked a theist or harmed on in any way.

Oh.  So Marxists are not True Atheists like you?  So that means noone's been killed in the name of atheism.  Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

How do you view Theist Governments who kill their own followers,mainly because they have vagina's and not a penis?  are they just sexist pigs holding on to power? They never seem to kill or imprison adulterous men,but have no problem killing or imprisoning women without trial.

How about over in China where they have forced abortions?  What, do you want to compare evil for evil to see who has done the least evil?

I asked about a zealot religious state that kills women because they have a vagina,could you please answer why that is ignored by you. As for China......Government policy is that you have one child,overpopulation the reason. "OBEY" or face the penalty. It is like a rapist not being ok with a judge handing him a life sentence as a penalty.

I think they are evil people.  Do you think just because people disguise it behind religion I will fail to call evil evil?

[12 Monkeys]

 I think you and I know that people use their religion as an excuse to kill.....an accurate number of Aboriginal north Americans being killed in the name of religion is around 60 million. They used religion and its book as justification.....does not mean they are religious,just as a Dictator who kills the religious,is not an Atheist

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Yes I agree.  I think there are evil people that do evil things.  Some try, sometimes successfully and falsely, to hide it behind religion and some do not.  Then I think there are people that do good.  Some are religous and some are not.

Jehovah just thinks the good people need guidance in identifying what is good and what is evil because they cannot always do so on their own.

[jaimehlers]

Religion is specifically targeted.

"Religion is the opiate of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class.

In the Marxist–Leninist interpretation of Marxist theory, developed primarily by Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin, religion is seen as negative to human development, and communist states that follow a Marxist–Leninist variant are atheistic and explicitly antireligious"

Where is this quote from?

Also, you are trying to lay the blame for the actions undertaken by followers of a specific ideology - Marxist-Leninist communism - on atheism in general, and it doesn't work.  Atheism is a passive non-belief.  Trying to say that someone does something in the name of a non-belief makes no sense.  People act in the name of things they believe in, not things they don't believe in.

So are you saying the USA is not an atheist government?  I agree with this.  Some of your friends don't.

Nobody here has tried to claim the USA is an atheistic country.  In fact, it is a secular country, leaning towards religiousness, but not enforcing religiousness with laws and customs.  Japan is also a secular country, but it leans towards atheism, and doesn't enforce atheism with laws and customs.

Yes I understand that.  Who practices anti-theism?  Atheists.  So it is not correct to say that noone has been killed in the name of atheism.

You don't seem to, since you keep conflating the two concepts.

None of the people in those countries you mentioned were killed in the name of atheism, or even in the name of anti-theism.  They were killed in the name of totalitarian communism.  Their religiousness was the excuse used to justify the actions taken against them, but it was done to prevent them from interfering with the aims of the totalitarian communist state.  Other groups were also targeted because they were in the way of those aims; for example, people who owned property had it taken from them by the state.

Secondly, even if you're right that totalitarian communism got some of its ideas from atheism...so what?  Should we blame the Highlander movies because some people might come to believe that they're Immortals and that they need to chop off heads in order to win swordfights?  No, and neither should we try to pin the blame for the murderousness of totalitarian communists on atheism in general.  Or, are you willing to have religion in general blamed for everything that people did in the name of their specific religious beliefs?

[12 Monkeys]

^^^ so we agree that a dictator who kills the religious,as the religious who kill others  for their own selfish reasons that have nothing at all to do with religion.

 My original point you were arguing against.

[Azdgari]

Yes I understand that.  Who practices anti-theism?  Atheists.

You have it backward.  "Anti-theists are atheists" is accurate.[1]  "Atheists are anti-theistic" is not accurate, just like saying "mammals live in North America" is not accurate - what you mean is that a subset of atheists are anti-theistic.

Seriously, my point helps your case, if you acknowledge it.  If you went after anti-theism, your case would be a lot stronger and less ignorant than your case against atheism.

But that wouldn't serve your purposes, would it?  Objection to theism isn't what you hate.  Atheists are.  Those dirty, sub-human atheists.

So it is not correct to say that noone has been killed in the name of atheism.

You might want to start trying to give some support for your hatred and bigotry toward those who do not share your beliefs, if you're going to cling to those feelings so hard.  Because so far you've offered nothing of substance.

1.	I suppose it's possible in principle to be an anti-theistic theist, but I doubt such people actually exist.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

^^^ so we agree that a dictator who kills the religious,as the religious who kill others  for their own selfish reasons that have nothing at all to do with religion.

 My original point you were arguing against.

No actually that's not necessarily so.  As I said many posts back, the religious are actually more blood guilty.  They either don't take the time to learn the teachings of Christ, ignore them, or twist them to cover up their own evil, thus giving Christ himself a bad name.  By that alone, many people reject Christ.

This is what the Bible says about such false religion, "And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all that have been slain upon the earth." [John 16:33]

But the fault lies not in the peaceful teachings of Jesus Christ.

[12 Monkeys]

 hardly peaceful....selective ,you are.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

hardly peaceful....selective ,you are.

LOL yes.  Like Ghandi, Jesus was an undercover murdering terrorist and taught others to do the same.

I'm checking out of this ridiculous conversation.

[Skinz]

Jstwebbrowsing, I live in Australia, a modern, developed non-secular nation. When we have committed atrocites, they have all been in the name of God, or "Racial Purity" which is, at root, a religious sentiment. Could you please debunk Australia?

EDIT: Non secular.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

What do you mean debunk them?  In what way?

[jaimehlers]

LOL yes.  Like Ghandi, Jesus was an undercover murdering terrorist and taught others to do the same.

I'm checking out of this ridiculous conversation.

What about things like, "I bring not peace but a sword" and the various other verses that can easily be used to justify the various atrocities Christians have committed?  That's what he meant.  Many Christians point to the obvious stuff and ignore (if they've ever read) the stuff that doesn't fit.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

LOL yes.  Like Ghandi, Jesus was an undercover murdering terrorist and taught others to do the same.

I'm checking out of this ridiculous conversation.

What about things like, "I bring not peace but a sword" and the various other verses that can easily be used to justify the various atrocities Christians have committed?  That's what he meant.  Many Christians point to the obvious stuff and ignore (if they've ever read) the stuff that doesn't fit.

Don't you think what he taught should be viewed in light of how he lived his life?  What kind of sword did he use?  In Revelation his sword is pictured as coming from his mouth.  What does that mean?

[jaimehlers]

Well, honestly, how do we know whether it's accurate or not?  It's been pretty well shown that the Gospels were altered and edited heavily in the centuries before the Council of Nicea, when the winners decided what the Bible should contain.  There were at least three or four separate versions of Jesus depending on which group of Christians was doing the writing.  There's even some pretty significant evidence that the name "Jesus" was an attempt by the Romans to incorporate the Jewish religion into their pantheon (YH-Zeus), the same as they did with other religions.

[Jstwebbrowsing]

Well, honestly, how do we know whether it's accurate or not?  It's been pretty well shown that the Gospels were altered and edited heavily in the centuries before the Council of Nicea, when the winners decided what the Bible should contain.  There were at least three or four separate versions of Jesus depending on which group of Christians was doing the writing.  There's even some pretty significant evidence that the name "Jesus" was an attempt by the Romans to incorporate the Jewish religion into their pantheon (YH-Zeus), the same as they did with other religions.

If it's not accurate then your argument about a sword has no foundation.  Why are you shifting goal posts?

[jaimehlers]

You brought up an allegorical reading of a verse in Revelation in response to my statement about the things attributed to Jesus in the Gospels.  So I went from there to point out that you can't count on anything in the Bible to be accurate ("divine accuracy" not withstanding).  I would have brought it up eventually, but you gave me the opportunity to do so earlier than I'd expected.  More to the point, what I said about the verses attributed to Jesus is related directly to the point I'm making now.  Basically, how do you explain the inconsistencies in the Bible, whether they're verses that don't fit your own interpretation or the fact that the Bible has been edited so heavily you can't tell what's original or not?

[Star Stuff]

This video belongs here:

[Hatter23]

Well, honestly, how do we know whether it's accurate or not?  It's been pretty well shown that the Gospels were altered and edited heavily in the centuries before the Council of Nicea, when the winners decided what the Bible should contain.  There were at least three or four separate versions of Jesus depending on which group of Christians was doing the writing.  There's even some pretty significant evidence that the name "Jesus" was an attempt by the Romans to incorporate the Jewish religion into their pantheon (YH-Zeus), the same as they did with other religions.

If it's not accurate then your argument about a sword has no foundation.  Why are you shifting goal posts?

If the sword quote doesn't have a foundation because the scriptures contain inacuracies, there is no method by which ANY portion can be considered accurate, upto an including the existence of Jeus himself.