History's Greatest Holocaust Via Atheistic Ideology

Well you can certainly focus on one conflict... the final one.According to you it will be the greatest of all holocausts, to make the one's of the atheists pale in comparison.Without question it will be conducted by the hands of the religious and not atheists. I would also add that it will be sought out by religious types, where atheism sees no end to the world and so does not seek out such holocausts as part of its "ideology".Does this not undercut your entire point?Also, do you not look forward to this great final holocaust, where all but Xians will suffer? If not, would you be relieved if it were to be averted by people seeking to counter religious dogma?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Well the study explicitly states : The success rate for the non-prayer group was only 26%. Below even the figure for the previous 11 months. Now there's really no reason to expect that result given the nature of the study - and I would hope that the control group performing below expectations would be taken as a big warning sign. It may not always mean that the data has been manipulated but it does suggest that something is wrong.And there are plenty more details that while not as clear as the low success rate for the control group or the distribution of women under 30, still look just that bit suspicious. For instance the duration of infertility is 5.3 years with a standard deviation of 4.0 for the non-prayer group - and 4.6 with a standard deviation of 2.8 for the group receiving prayer. Why is there so much more variation in the non-prayer group ? It really does suggest that women with a longer duration of infertility tended to end up in the non-prayer group - more so than would be suggested by just looking at the mean.Consider it a reminder that peer review is only the first filter and that it does not always work.

This oft-quoted passage (not, unfortunately, on the web, but it certainly appears in any competent Darwin biography) is famous for it's clarity, insight and sensitivity. Explaining it seems unnecessary, but in my redundant way I seem to have already begun an explanation in the very email to which you replied. Completing it now, Emma insightfully acknowledged the two different realms of science and religion, of evidence and faith. She asked Darwin to consider if applying the methods of science to issues of faith might isolate him from the broader spiritual issues of life itself.As I said, I think this echoes your own sentiments as expressed in Message 86 when you ask, "The forums of EvC are a lot about our evidence for the supernatural, but how do you expect any of us to explain it in scientific terms?"Rereading that message I find I'm unable this time to resist commenting on this: What odd force moves you to continually make false statements like this?--Percy

Let me get this straight - you're arguing that religion is a good thing because it is less murderous than "secularistic communist regimes"?There's really not much to talk about here. Governments, which are really just people, have proven as able to murder in the name of religion as anything else. A trend toward separation of church and state reached maximum effect in the 20th century, just as technology maximized it's ability to snuff out lives wholesale. The coinciding arrival of more secular governments with improved technology guarantees that the most murderous governments will be the more recent, which due to the aforementioined trend are likely to be secular.Still, it's an interesting argument: "Get religion - we murder less."--Ted

First you claimed this: 1) You could not provide proof that a secularist ideology necessarily incorporates atheism
2) You definitely could not provide proof that these holocausts could be attributed to atheism specifically.
3) After pointing out to you that there are religious-based governments that are killing in present day you don't answer or give me a reason how that does or does not mean your original post is wrong. Instead you dodge my points and say: Buzsaw, the focus of your thread was apparent in your first post. You were inadequately trying to draw a correlation between Stalin/Hitler and atheists/agnostics!! Since you could not do the 3 things I stated you are trying to make this a debate about communism??

Sarcasm I hope. Getting religion does not equate with murdering less:
1) Bosnia
2) Israel/Palestine
3) Iran/Iraq (different sects (?) of the same religion)
4) And the list goes on, I won't even go into history.

........Or get fundamentally Christian, i.e. get Jesus; follow his example and doctrine. Do good, even to them who persecute you and harm no one. One purpose for this thread is to remind the godless who continually harp about the historical atrocities brought about in the name of religion that the atrocities of the secular godless by far topped them all. Having said that, I repeat that imo, Islam may very well top them all in the end.

Tagless, the comparison is of specific holocausts, rather than a combination of all, though a combination of all on your list will likely be way less than the hundred million or so of the China and European communists last century. Those under the Russian block alone did in around 55 million.

What definition are you using for godless?Simple question should get a simple answer.

quote:

---

One purpose for this thread is to remind the godless who continually harp about the historical atrocities brought about in the name of religion that the atrocities of the secular godless by far topped them all. Having said that, I repeat that imo, Islam may very well top them all in the end.

---

So, if we were to accept that atheism is responsible for more death historically (which you have not provided evidence for) your sole cause for supporting "getting jesus" or religion is that though guilty of killing lots of people as well, it has killed less...but will ultimately in all liklihood top anything we have ever seen before? You are a very confused guy buzzsaw. I truly hope that when I am as old as you are that I am far more content, optimistic, less misanthropic and more self confident than you.

Okay, here's me staying "focused". I'd recommend that you do the same. 1) All of us have access to the OT, so you are wrong that the Bible does not give permission in certain situations to spill blood.
2) Where do you find in "ideology of atheism" anything about killing people for any reason? 1) Once again, define "godless".
2) First of all, these incidents were not an attempt to prohibit religion in government. These individuals were killed, as you even say, because they were political enemies of the regime in place, and some of the victims happened to be Christian.
3) Once again, I will point out that you are attempting to associate power and greed with a secular vs. non-secular.
4) Typically, religious beliefs fall secondary in a secular regime and are merely used as a vehicle to discriminate.
5) That being said, religious beliefs, and the percieved threat against it, are the primary reason for extermination in non-secular regimes
-Israel
-Palestine
-Enlgand and France in the past (church and state were co-
dependent on each other....imo state more dependent on the
church) actaully I think this example spans bothSo, imo, you have not carefully considered the cultural/social/political implications of what you percieve is a linear and simple cause and effect.I think this thread among others you have started is nothing more than preaching about how bad Islam, communists, and atheists are. Personally, I don't think you have followed forum rules!! You have yet to provide support for your claims when challenged. Having said that, why don't you actually answer my post #57.

quote:

---

One purpose for this thread is to remind the godless who continually harp about the historical atrocities brought about in the name of religion that the atrocities of the secular godless by far topped them all.

---

If you want to say that atheists are just as capable of commiting atrocities as religious people, I think there will be no argument. You may even find agreement that a couple of the leaders you mentioned were atheist and managed to commit some of the world's worst atrocities.But this is not all you said. You imply, if not directly state, that atheism was the motivation for their activity, as well as the means of securing control over the people they dominated. These last two points are the only thing I have a problem with as they are clearly wrong. I have presented my counterevidence and you have to answer them.Evidence shows that only positive religious belief can deliver imperatives to kill others, and dupe populations into self-destructive behavior while following their religious leader. Lack of belief can lend support to none of this.This is why the leaders you mentioned, even if atheist themselves, used positive economic theoretical beliefs, worship of the state, religion (in the case of Stalin), and cult of personality to create murderous imperative and dominate wills.I am uncertain whether atheist or theist leaders have killed more in total numbers. But I would remind you that mass killing has become much easier in recent times and the leaders you have quoted used modern killing methods out of reach of those in ancient times. Can you say whether the genocidal campaign leaders of the OT would not have used such methods and so killed that much more if they were available?In percentage of world population, and effectiveness of commiting genocide, no one has compared to theistic leaders working under theistic ideals.

quote:

---

Having said that, I repeat that imo, Islam may very well top them all in the end.

---

That is until, God comes and helps Xians wipe everyone else out including all jews who do not choose to convert, right?Either way, if this is the conclusion, why should atheists be concerned that certain tyrants who happened to be atheist (though not working on atheist mandates) killed millions of people? It does nothing to detract from the criticism that theism does lead to more killing and horror against other humans.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Buz statement: Tagless:Where did I say the Bible does not give permission in certain situations to spill blood??? Better reread my statements. Poor spin job, indeed. Where have I ever said athiesm advocates killing? I'm simply bringing attention to the cause and efect of godless ideology, as being even more bloody so far in history than those atrocious unwarranted religious persecutions of the past which we hear so much about from folks like you in these forums. Both are bad, very bad, but it's time we talk about the atrocities of the godless as well as those of the false and brutal religious people. You people seem to be able to give it out but when your ox is gored you don't like it either. No, all athiests aren't brutal, as I've reitterated over adnausium, but whenever religious brutality is cited all segments of Christianity are lumped in one barrel by so many of our counterparts, when it just isn't so. I'm not doing that to you folks here. I've specified specific atiestic minded regimes as the bloody ones, haven't I?

Buzzsaw,
I will ask you again could you please tell us what definition you are using for godless.
Many of the regimes you mentioned did not have an "Atheistic ideology". Instead of having their people worship god they have their people worship their leaders. I don't see how this is Atheistic. Your first statement contradicts the second. You state that Atheism doesn't support killing then you say that the killings were a result of the regimes being Atheistic.Also you've practically ignored the posts referring to the End Times.

quote:

---

Where have I ever said athiesm advocates killing? I'm simply bringing attention to the cause and efect of godless ideology

---

This is all I'm criticizing. Whether you call it advocating or not, you are saying that atheism tends toward violent behavior more often than religion. You have also said atheism allows more control over a population, which is not true.

quote:

---

You people seem to be able to give it out but when your ox is gored you don't like it either.

---

Notice in my last post I said I have no problem admitting atheists can commit atrocities.The problem is your ascribing their actions to their atheism. It is easy to ascribe such cause and effect relationships to religious leaders, when they themselves cite god as the reason they are doing what they are doing (and why everyone else should).I challenge you to find a statement by any of the leaders you mentioned where they say they must kill others because of the mandate of their nonbelief in God.They may have put down religion, and closed churches, but that was part of their political agenda, which atheism does not naturally draw one toward. And these people would just as easily kill atheists, who did not bow down to the leaders' political will.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)