My answer to this would be: "Look, you are still alive ... moran"

Hi mate - you'd assume these monkey children are alluding to hitler, stalin and pol pot. I don't think any of these guys were specifically targeting the church from the position of atheism. They were dictators and tried to undermine the seats of social power. This did see them kill and incarcerate brave and upright churchmen but they killed academics, military leaders, mayors of towns, musicians, scientists. Anyone of note was a target.

Hitler was a catholic. Stalin spent time in a seminary. Pol Pot really wanted to live inside an over turned water tank somewhere along Foxes Road at Minyon Falls and never shower again in his entire life. Pot attacked the colonial churches which were oppressing the buddhist temples but he openly espoused theravada buddhism. TB is considered by some to be an atheistic religion but it accepts spirits, demons, rebirth, nirvana and other supernatural stuff that can't be considered atheistic. 

It's a tu quoque argument but there's no doubt believers have killed more people in the past hundred years than atheists. Think of all those soldiers in WW1 praying to god to help them win by murdering their enemies. In any case, there's no direct proof lack of belief in god has any impact on morality, likelihood to murder, etc.

My responce at this moment would have to be: why are christians complaining about atheists killing people in the 20th century? And after dealing with Mr. Know it all Jean, no wonder. He's enough to make you want to punch every christian you cross in the face.....three times.

It isn't even that so much as a red herring...

Bertrand Russell showed there are clear parallels between the elements and thought patterns of Communism/Marxism and traditional Christian dogma.

It is dogmatic belief systems which are more likely to be lead to the negative outcomes, as any apparent failure of their idealism is blamed on the 'people' or some conspiracy to attack them rather than any inadequacies or problems with their doctrines. 

Atheism as such is irrelevant with non-religious based dogmas, but it would seem that it would be harder for an atheist to join a specifically theistically inspired organization.

Since many Atheists are such because of a more rationalist approach, it would be less likely although not impossible for them to be attracted to dogmatic authoritarian organizations, unless the aims of the 'movement' were close to their own hearts, such as could be the case with Peta and attacking GW Denialists.

From here: http://geopolicraticus.wordpress.com/2010/03/27/mythologies-of-industrialized-civilization/

A picture of text in Russell's 'History of Western Philosophy' where he made the comparison:

For Father, for Sun, and for Holy Spirit?

Bob,

This looks like a comparison of totalitarism and religion.  Of course some totalitarian regimes have used elements of Marx's philosophy.  But you only can equate Yahweh with dialectic materialism if you stop thinking about dialectic materialism as philosophy, but instead use it exclusively as a symbol.

This whole idea of comparing Marx theory with religion is no more than western propaganda.  How old is that document, 1945?

100%

Edit: I feel I may need to clarify what I mean by western propaganda here.  As far as I understand the idea of comparing Christianity with "Marxism", it is to demonstrate that the society without religion is impossible and all that "Communists" did in Russia was that they replaced one religion (Christianity, good religion) with another one ("Marxism", bad religion). 

Of course there is an element of tongue-in-cheek there, but note that he is comparing the emotional content of the concepts, and I still see some insight there.

He is NOT arguing analogies in the specific claims and arguments.

He is arguing that there is a common pattern in such systems which helps explain why they have the emotional appeal they have, which is why they draw in so many people.

I can see some commonality with Dawkin's idea of memes, they appeal because they resonate with some basic thought/emotion patterns in our minds.

And Cap'n, I am not arguing that atheists would be less likely to believe because it is like a religion, but that since many atheists arrive at that position because they apply a skeptical and rational view to things in general, that they are less likely to accept anything which is mainly justified by explicit appeal to emotion and dogma. But as Dawkins also said about the meme idea, since even Atheists share the basic brain mechanisms with everyone else, they are still susceptible to such things, especially if they don't have specific religious content, or even better, if they have specific anti-religious tenets. 

So it is the systems which lack explicitly religious claims which Atheists are likely to still fall for. You completely missed the point there, Cap'n. The similarity to a religion is not in the actual content of the claims, it is in the underlying patterns or structure of the systems.

The same applies to the more general idea, as Dawkins also said, that because memes 'work' by hooking into more basic brain mechanisms, even 'smart' people are susceptible, because they work at a subconscious level, not so much at the explicitly rational level. This doesn't mean they don't have some 'rational' arguments, but the underlying emotional appeal makes it easier to ignore any weaknesses in the arguments. Just as even powerful computers running complex programs are still susceptible to computer viruses, which is what inspired Dawkins to come up with the meme idea, as 'viruses of the mind'.

I think you are still misunderstanding what Russell had in mind, it is at a much more abstract level of structure than you are assuming, and certainly is in no way restricted to a government system.

I suspect you are reading 'system' in a narrower sense than intended. I worried that this would happen, but I couldn't immediately come up with a better term.

I meant it somewhere between the most abstract sense, as in the 'systems' of Logic, Math, which are typically classified as 'formal systems', etc, and the more specific, such as a system of government, or economics, and so on.

Apologies if I did not make it sufficiently clear.

EDIT: I think you should read the article accompanying that picture:

http://geopolicraticus.wordpress.com/2010/03/27/mythologies-of-industrialized-civilization/

I noticed the blogger mentioned Joseph Campbell as one of his sources for insight, so I understand his reference to a permeating mythological structure that is basic to our minds. However, it didn't seem to me that either you or he was employing it that way, but rather as to say that Marxism is exclusively like Christian eschatology and hence inherently delusional nastiness. I do not believe that sort of thinking was ever espoused by Joseph Campbell.

As I understand Joseph Campbell he proposed that the eschatological formula is perceptible in all mankind's value systems, because it resonates with something basic about our capacity to understand our condition. Each aspect, you might say, of our personal and collective experience takes on the form, to us, of that set exemplified by the Christian Eschatology, by all hero mythologies really; and the persistence of the hero myth as a 'meme' is the product of that. 

So, that all said, I'm not sure if we're arguing here or not. You, and to some extent the blogger, seem to be saying that the 'destiny story' is particular to bad philosophy. If you're not saying that then I apologise and have no argument with you, otherwise, I would beg to differ.

hiya, el!

i knew there was somebody i missed reading around here

  Atheists have killed more people in the twentieth century   ....than anyone else ?      In contrast to who ?    theistic mass murderers ?

 Does this mean that whoever has the lowest body count  has their religious viewpoint automatically validated ? Who cares.   Perhaps if the Christian inquisitors, conquering Crusaders, and all the other zealots who were known to mix blood with religion had had access to modern day weapons then they could certainly lay claim to most lethal.  History shows that what God's Armies lacked in technology was certainly compensated for by a true religious zeal for exterminating their opposition.  They weren't shy about killing for their God and even became quite creative in the use of coercive techniques.

  I'm not aware of any full scale military assaults or prolonged wars that were waged with the primary goal of furthering the cause of atheism.

well, thanks.  i wouldn't go so far as to call it b.s., though.  as you said, dialectical materialism is the direct result of interpreting marx's writings, and even the idea of what marxism itself is can be subjective at times.  marx didn't create a "closed system," as he was constantly changing and updating his theories in the face of new economic data and historical developments (that's the main reason why capital was never finished.  publishers practically had to pry manuscripts out of his hands.  the soviets usually based what constituted "orthodox" marxism on stalin's (ghostwritten) short course. 

when i refer to "marxism," i usually go by volume one of capital, the eighteenth brumaire, the civil war in france, critique of the gotha program, engels's socialism: utopian and scientific, and of course the manifesto.

i have to admit my knowledge of marx's and engel's correspondence is hardly adequate.  i think i've only read one letter from engels to kautsky, and i don't remember the content.  i'll check the marxist internet archives later this evening and see if i can find the one you're referring to.