Atheists killed 100 million?
Offline The claim made by an audience member sounds implausible. How did Atheists kill 100 million when Atheists have traditionally been a minority. Sure Christians have killed millions in the name of religion like the Taiping Rebellion (20 million), the Holocaust (6 million), witch burnings (1 million) and right now the Iraqi occupation (650,000).
As Kelly pointed out the questioner was probably referring to Stalin and Hitler. Stalin was Russian Orthodox, Hitler was Catholic but since they were "true Christians" they must have been Atheist. When Brian mentioned predominately Atheist nations like Norway and Sweden the questioner disagreed for some reason but I doubt the questioner was thinking of America, an officially secular nation (like the Soviet Union and China).
But this belies my point. Where is the evidence that 100 million were killed by Atheists? Stalin's death figures are made on an estimate blaming Stalin for millions of deaths by the hand of influenza which killed between 50 and 100 million worldwide. Mao had a civil war and millions died in a civil war that lasted for 10 years.
And finally, where's the evidence that all of these estimated deaths were done by Atheists in the name of Atheism? The questioner provided examples of governments killing people to preserve a governmental system. but is there any evidence of Atheists killing millions to promote Atheism?
- Login to post comments
The argument rests upon a causal fallacy known as "Accident" or false cause fallacy. While it is true that Stalinists and Maoists were atheists, atheism was not the cause of their evil actions. A dogmatic devotion to statist ideology was the cause. Stalinists killed to advance Stalinism, atheism was merely incidental.
Ironically, the root cause was dogmatism, a belief system that christianity adheres to as well.
By the way, I see this error so often that I made a "magic the gathering" card for it:
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Very well said. You might say that atheism was their last remaining morsel of Marxism.
It is simply the fact that there are some very evil people, probably always will be, whether they be atheist, polytheist, deist or theist. To say that atheists killed 100 million people is a) unfounded (I never heard any such statistic in my study of 20th century history) and b) ignorent of the much greater death toll committed not only by theists but very often in the name of theism.
Atheist Books
I always find it funny that they will claim America is 80% + Christian and then also so "those actions don't constitute being a Christian" so therefore they were not Christians. I wonder what the actual percent for Christianity is under this constraint. Remember killing is just one of the supposed things you are suppose to follow.
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
In addition to your post (not that it needs anything additional, but I feel like saying it anyway), it's like saying chocolate cake eaters are killing hundreds if not thousands in Iraq. $0.48/kilo*. Those thousands of killings were not due to the person being an atheist, the other person not being an atheist nor in the name of atheism, just as the killings in Iraq are not due to chocolate cake, the other person not liking chocolate cake, nor in the name of chocolate cake.
On the christian side though, we have the crusades, inquisitions etc etc. On the Muslim side we have Jihad's left right & center. Almost every battle even if it isn't being faught due to theism is done in the name of a theists god.
(* The price of fish in China).
Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/
It should be added that the claim has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of atheism, its merely an implied argument to adverse consequences.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
And not a very good implied argument either.
From here.
Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.
Lol! Catholics are Christian when they want to build up the numbers. The rest of the time they're dirty statue worshippers destined for hell!
I've been looking through them.
If there was ever a company making atheism-themed merchandise then you should definately send them off. (although you need to correct a spelling error on "Quote Mining" - 'descend' from the Huxley quote is missing its 's'
That millions, probably 100 Million, were killed by Communists in the past 100 years is well documented. (The Black Book of Communism, The Gulag Archipelago, etc.)
But in what sense is atheism responsible? Here's the problem; Communism does not have to be atheistic...the concept has been around for over two thousand years. Heck, the early Christians decribed in the Book of Acts practiced a from of communism.
But the form Communism took in the past 100 years was based on Dialectical Materialism...atheisim is integral to its theoretical and practical application.
Thus, if religion stands in the way of the state, it must be eliminated, by any means necessary. After all, as Solzehenitsyn asks in the Gulag Archipelago, why kill millions of believers who are without political and economic power? Eliminating the priests and other leadership is one thing, but why the peasants?
Because the atheists hated all expression of religion.
We see it today, God is a Delusion, teaching children religion is child abuse, belief is dangerous.
What do you do with delusional people? You put them on medications (the Commies were big on mental institutions) or you lock them up. (Re-education centers, anyone?)
What to do with child abusers? Lock them up.
What about dangerous beliefs, not ACTIONS, beliefs?
As Sam Harris says, in The End of Faith...recommended on this site..."Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them." (p52-53)
And if your beliefs are dangerous to the state....?
To maintain that this has no implications for atheism is simple denial.
While I would not put the numbers so high, the Soviet Union did persecute people (such as Jews) and used anti-religious rhetoric while doing so. Cambodia, Albania and Romania also persecuted religious groups. Is your answer that they weren't really atheists? That's as much of a dodge as arguing that Hitler (Yemach Shmo V'Zichrono) was not a Catholic.
Twenty Questions for Jewish Atheists:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/6838
Blaming it on atheism is like saying moustaches are evil - Hitler, Stalin and Saddam all had them!
Stalin attacked Jews because he was opposed to Trotsky and his supporters. By putting Trotsky in the Jewish conspiracy cabal it furthered his political goals. Stalin was a Christian though, much like the Christian czar who created the infamous anti-Jew book, Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
It's not uncommon for dictatorships to persecute people. Stalin persecuted a lot of people who happened to be religious. That sort of thing happens in a country dominated by religious people.
My answer that Stalin and Hitler weren't Atheists because they were Christian. Another answer, as you have avoided, is there are no examples in history of leaders persecuting people in the name of Atheism. If you can provide one I'd love to hear it.
For the record, we don't use such arguments as religious groups do. "Oh terrorists aren't true Christians/ true Muslims" But what constitutes a true Christian/Muslim? One fairly peaceful interpretation of either religion.
Stalin was an atheist. But the definition of an atheist is someone who does not believe in a supernatural being. Stalin was an atheist but all of his evil acts came from his Paranoid Sociopathy/ Megalomania - a mental disorder. Stalin was mentally ill. He held up a twisted form of Marxism, but again there is no link between Marxism and his evil either. Marxism is a doctrine that promotes freedom, equality, fraternity and he believed in none of those things. One thing we can say though is that the crusaders in the Middle Ages who killed thousands of Muslims did so because of their Christianity. You may say they weren't real Christians. But what are real Christians? Peaceful, loving people? But there are so many passages in the bible which contradict that? There is nothing any less real about one interpretation of the bible from another, you look at that book long enough and you can find a justification for anything.
Atheist Books
Communism as a broad brush political ideology has undoubtedly been responsible for the death of over 100 million people. However, what some people seem not realise is that over half - perhaps more - of the deaths were due to incompetent government rather than deliberate persecution - the Ukrainian famine of 1931-33 and the Chinese famine of 1958-61 being classic examples.
Interestingly, these famines largely came about because the man Stalin put in charge (and whose ideas the Maoist government followed despite their obvious failure ) - Trofim Lysenko - rejected the principles of Darwinian evolutionary theory and chose to embrace Lamrkian theory instead. A mistake that cost over 50 million lives.
Now Capitalism on the other hand has probably been responsible for at least the same number of dead if not more. Check out the Black Book of Capitalism for details. Whilst I don't agree with all their conclusions, it is fair to say their assumptions, definitions and counts are no more tenuous than BBoCom's.
All this is an aside to one key point: As has been mentioned, these people were killed or died because of an earthly political ideology, not because a religious non-belief.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
The Jews who lived in the Soviet Union were forbidden to practice their religion, and many did so at risk of their lives. They did so not merely because of Trotsky, since Trotsky was an atheist, and most Jews did not follow Trotsky anyway. They did so because Marx called religion the Opiate of the Masses and they were Marxists. Every Jew in the Soviet Union had an identity card that listed their Jewish ethnicity, which enabled Soviet apparatchiks to deny them access to universities, to jobs, and passports. Jews coming into the Soviet Union were followed by the NKVD, and often harrassed. The Soviets "nationalized" thousands of Torah scrolls, which are still sitting in state archives in Ukraine, Lithuainia, and Russia. (Poland has mostly returned stolen religious relics to the Polish Jewish community, while Ukraine recently repossessed 10 Torahs that were being used by a Chabad school.) How is that based on the atheist character of the Soviet Union?
Secondly, what about Cambodia? Wasn't Pol Pot an atheist? Wasn't part of his program to forcibly reeducate the religious masses?
Twenty Questions for Jewish Atheists:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/6838
leor613, I don't know if you're being purposefully obtuse here but you're not graspinfg the philosophy behind communism, particularly Leninism.
I'll give you Wiki's definition because I can't be arsed typing out my own:
The Soviet Union didn't just crack down hard on religion, it cracked down hard on nationality and seperatism too. You seem to be focusing on just one aspect of Leninist ideology and illogically extending that aspect to show the Soviets persecuted theists because they (the Soviets) were atheists and that's simply not true.
Pol Pot used Marxist-leninist philosophies as a set of techniques to bring about his aims. Again, these aims were motivated by political ideology, not lack of religious belief.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
The Soviet famine of 1921 which killed over 5 million people was because of a drought. Deaths were stemmed due to support from overseas that provided disaster relief. The famine between 1932-33 was complicated due to Stalin's politics. Farmers were hoarding and/or destroying grain to protest Stalin's anti-poverty program of holding down food costs. As a result he broke up some of the farms. Seven million died during that famine.
The largest death toll from an Athiest leader was the famine that resulted from the Great Leap Forward which killed between 20 and 30 million people. Again, contrary to the religious crowd, this wasn't done in the name of Atheism. Actually, it was a result of exporting grain to advertise to the capitalisitic nations that a Communist regime was highly productive.
Another large amount of deaths from the Chinese and Soviets happened during the second world war. 85% of the casualties of the war were on the Allied side and the majority of those were Chinese and Soviet people. Perhaps the anti-Atheist crowd is lumping in those deaths (although China wasn't a Communist country yet). 23.5 million Soviets died in the war which would be a big boost the 100 million figure.
It would appear that in order to come up with a 100 million death toll figure that some Busheconomics would have to come into play.
Explain to me how it was a threat to the Soviet system whether Moshe Zuchmer goes to shul everyday or not? Or whether he doesn't eat pork? Or puts a mezuzah on his door? It doesn't. They didn't just crack down on Zionist Jews, they cracked down on all Jews, because of Marxist philosophy, including the atheist component. To deny that is to be obtuse.
Twenty Questions for Jewish Atheists:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/6838
leor613 - They cracked down on all religions. By 1918 all property of the Russian Orthodox church had been confiscated, 28 bishops and over 1,200 priests executed and the publication of religious material prohibited.
They relaxed this a bit during the war years but Khrushchev instigated a brutal campaign against the church during his reign. This was carried on by Brezhnev although not quite as enthusiastically.
Once again I advise you to read up on Marxist-Leninist ideology before making incorrect assumptions.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
The Jews had been persecuted well before the Communists took control. The Christian Czars weren't terribly friendly in the 18th century when they started pogroms intending to wipe the Jewish presence out of lands like Ukraine. The Jews were blamed for anti-Tsarist uprisings so the Tsars started public information programs encouraging anti-Semitism which would have created a fertile ground for anti-semitic beliefs after the October revolution.
Many Jews made up the membership of the Bolshivik and Menschevik parties. As a result the Tsar used this as political propaganda declaring Communism as a Jewish conspiracy. The Jews tended to prefer Communism's secularism since it would mean an end to state sponsored religious oppression.
After Lenin took control he said this about the purpose of the Pogroms, it's an "attempt to divert the hatred of the workers and peasants from the exploiters toward the Jews." So the official party line was the oppression Jews based was wrong. Lenin, unlike Stalin, was an Atheist.
Stalin began the Jewish purge because he didn't want an autonomous Jewish state in the Soviet Union to threaten his control. Stalin simply used the anti-semitism placed in the country by the Christian Czars to advance his agenda and the largely Christian country was more than happy to go along especially since the secular government had previously banned such discrimination. Stalin continued to keep loyal Jewish party members in his cabinet further indicating any Jewish purge was strictly for political reasons, not Atheist ones.
I think the most often overlooked piece of history is christianity's impact on north and south america.
There are population estimates from between 2 million to 18 million native americans north of Mexico when Columbus landed in 1492. In 1900 (400 yrs later), the indigenous population stood at about 400,000 according to an official census. The death rate in Mexico and southward was much greater.
Columbus (a devout christian) and his men went on to murder over 100,000 native americans on Haiti alone. Eventually 3-4 million died there due to murder,enslavement and disease. Estimates for deaths by the same cause in Central and South America are in the tens of millions.
The Americas were settled overwhelmingly by christians and they frequently used their dogma as justification for murder and thievery. The Spanish declared a "Requiremento" where ever they went, which basically said, "Convert to christianity or die".
The indigenous were often seen as "heathens" and therefore as having no worth. The theologians of the day were only too happy to provide biblical justification for their murder, cotton mather, etc.
The leader of the Sand Creek Massacre where men, women and children alike were murdered in cold blood was led by Colonel John Chivington (also a methodist minister). Over 110 of the murdered were women & children and this band of merry christian men displayed their trophies of scalps, genitalia and other body parts in saloons all over Denver..... etc. etc. etc.
BTW "American Holocaust" by David Stannard is a good book on this subject.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell
At least part of this was the result of the germs that the Europeans brought with them to the Americas. See the book "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond, which points out that the Conquistadores did not bring enough manpower to win their wars of conquest. The diseases did the Conquistadoes' work for them. The natives had no resistance to these diseases, and millions were wiped out. Had it not been for that factor, Spain could not have conquered the territory it did in such a short amount of time, with the meager resources it spent.
Twenty Questions for Jewish Atheists:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/6838
Agreed, and I'm guessing most of the people on this site, including myself, have read Jared's books.
Did the fact that the indigenous were seen and labelled as "heathen", hasten their demise through forced marches, starvation, etc. and their lack of worth in the eyes of the christian, play a factor. That's the question.
When you forcefully remove someone from their food source and stick them in a place where they starve or they become less resistant to sickness, you commit atrocity just as if you had shot them with a gun.
Also,this does not address the millions of natives who were enslaved, tortured or outright killed.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell
And that would also be true in the Gulags, where Stalin and gang sent millions because of their atheistic hatred of religion. Atheism is integral to the theory and practical application of Dialectical Materialism, which is what the political communism of the past 100 years was based on. It is, for example, why Red China used the method of enforcing atheism on the Tibetans as a means of destroying their cultural identiy.
Atheism is integral to the scientific process, Atheism is integral to filling a car tire with air, Atheism is integral to shaving a beard. So what's your point? Yes, this thread is about the meaningless claims of theists so if you actually have a case where someone was killed in the name of Atheism then please present it rather than repeating some rhetoric without actually backing up a claim.
Atheism is not integral to the scientific process: science proceeds by Methodological Naturalism...not atheism. You can certainly be a scientist without presuming atheism.
Atheism has nothing to do with shaving a beard.
Atheism has nothing to do with filling a tire with air.
But you cannot be a Dialectical Materialist without being an atheist; so your false analogies fail; to the Dialectical Materialists, religion stood in the way of the theoretical and practical application of their program.
In the words of Leon Trotksy: "I shall die a proletarian revolutionist, a Marxist, a dialectical materialist, and, consequently, an irreconcilable atheist," (Testament of Leon Trotsky, www.trotsky.net)
Solzhenitsyn's descriptions in the Gulag Archipelago series of the Communists atheistic hatred (and you will remember that Communism did NOT have to be atheistic...dialectical materialism did) of religion are graphic.
And as Sam Harris says, in a book recommended on this site, "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them." (The End of Faith, p 52-53)
With atheists telling me that I am delusional for believing in God (Dawkins), that teaching religion is child abuse (Dennet) and that my beliefs are dangerous (Harris), I am very skeptical of the claims that atheists in power would not take action against me.
I guess its not that I am saying they would, its just that I "lack belief" in their claims that they would not.
And as Sam Harris says, in a book recommended on this site, "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them." (The End of Faith, p 52-53)
By the way; this current atheist celebrity also makes an argument justifying pre-emptive war, the use of nuclear weapons, and torture for causes he favors.(p.129)
He even says that pacifisim is "flagrantly immoral." (p.199)
Still want to claim that no one has been killed BECAUSE of atheism?
(And here is a question: Dawkins tells us most scientists are atheists. If thats true, why do these atheistic scientists...who are oh such good people...keep providing nuclear weapons to every government that has the means to pay?
Just wondering. You would think they would know better since they are so much better than the rest of us.)
I do not think we can blame any of the deaths on Marx himself. Marx is never specific about an ideology, he makes a few vague statements about what might follow capitalism - his views on religion were barely different to the views of a lot of people here. I can't recall anywhere him saying anything about forcibly taking people's religion away from them. Reading that in Marx would be like reading that in Dennet, Sapient, Dawkins none of whom say that it should be forcibly removed from people but that education should rationalise people. I
If we look at Marx' writings there is nothing in there that looks anything like Soviet Russia, Communist China, Cuba, North Korea, or any other supposedly 'communist' country that ever existed in the 20th century. What Marx gives us is a philosophy that clearly shows us the economic problems at the root of capitalism, and how this affects the superstructure of society, culture etc. He never gives an alternate ideology except perhaps a few speculative ideas, nowhere does it talk about the persecution of opposition, the elitis totalitarian governments, the overpowering state (in fact Marx thought that a state would not be necessary), the extreme paranoia, the burning of books, or any such extremities of life seen under such regimes. Lenin and Stalin's ideologies were twisted versions of what Marx envisaged, if Marx visited the Soviet Union, or China he would've been outraged.
Pinning the deaths on Marxism is just as silly as pinning the deaths on atheism.
Atheist Books
Because they do what they're told so they can keep their jobs and their money to feed their families and selves?
Let's get something through to you.
Atheism means that a person has no belief in god. That's ALL it means, that's ALL of the implication behind it.
Being an atheist does not mean that I hold the same ideals and values as Harris or Dawkins or Sapient or any other poster on this board.
I am an atheist and a humanist, and a bit of a feminist, and a vegetarian and I LOVE chocolate.
The next guy could be an atheist, a neo-nazi, a mysogynist a red-meat eater and think chocolate is disgusting.
THE ONLY THING ATHEISTS HAVE IN COMMON IS A LACK OF BELIEF.
Are you REALLY saying that simply because someone doesn't believe in god that they are apt to rape, kill, cannabalize, whatever else?
That's just silly.
http://atheismisrational.blogspot.com/
I see. So Lenin and Stalin were not "real" Marxists.
And as for Dawkins and Dennet, you have Dawkins telling us that God is a Delusion and teaching religion is child abuse. Dennet also calls that child abuse. (Darwin's Dangerous Idea)
What do you do with delusional people? You put them on meds (like the Commies used on people) or you lock them up ("re-education camps).
And what do you do with child abusers? Lock em up and hold em till they are "cured", perhaps?
So you may of course claim that Dawkins and Dennet would not take actions against believers...if they could...but I guess I simply "lack belief" in your claim.
Yet you would pin the deaths caused by religious fanatics on the foudners of the religion. Why isn't Marx as guilty of murder as Jesus is for the Inquisition and the Holocaust?
Twenty Questions for Jewish Atheists:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/6838
Stauffenberg,
You don't want a debate or a dialogue, you want to straw man a posistion because it makes you uncomfortable.
http://atheismisrational.blogspot.com/
Wrong.
Hitler may have been Christian, but he was also psychotic.
Yeah, he used Christianity to further his agenda and justify his hatred and genocide; However, HE WAS CRAZY. If it wasn't Christianity, it would have been something else.
That's the thing about the mentally unstable, reason doesn't seem to work with them.
'Jesus' isn't responsible for the deaths in his name. The people who killed using god as an excuse are those who should be held accountable.
http://atheismisrational.blogspot.com/
I didn't say that Hitler (Yemch Shmo V'Zichrono) should not be held accountable, just that Jesus (assuming he was a human who existed) should also be held accountable for giving the Nazis the ideas that led to the Holocaust. Anyone else who contributed ideas should also be held liable. You think this is insane? Go study Tort theory, especially Respondeat Superior, where people can be held liable for the negligence of their agents. Hitler held himself as an agent of Jesus, just as Stalin held himslef as an agent of Marx.
Twenty Questions for Jewish Atheists:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/6838
What I'm saying is that Hitler and Stalin were fanatics.
They may have held personal beliefs and they may have used said beliefs to do terrible things. But it was the MEN that were terrible, not the beliefs themselves.
Neither belief in Jesus or a lack of belief in a deity will make you slaughter people.
Psychosis makes you slaughter people.
The point is that they would have found a way to slaughter people without Jesus or atheism.
http://atheismisrational.blogspot.com/
No, they were - at least in their interpretation of Marxism anyway. Leninism is a slightly different concept from Marxism though but that's not really relevant just now.
I acually think it's fair to aportion some of the blame for Stalin's actions to Marxist ideology. Had it not existed he would not have had the ideological framework in which to operate. However, I don't balme Marx because it was never his intention to kill millions. For similar reasons I don't blame Jesus for the deaths of millions either - the fault lies at the feet of the likes of Louis IX of France, Innocent III, de Montfort and others.
As such I think it's utterly ridiculous to ascribe the crimes of certain individuals who have taken an ideology - whether political or religious - to followers of that ideology as a whole.
I'm not a fan of Dawkins. He seems to have become what he professes to hate - an evangelical fundamentalist. I do, however, see the point he makes in The God Delusion - children should be allowed to make their own choices. Of course, if they choose religion then that choice shoud be respected.
Not in a Western Democracy you don't.
Teaching the bible to a child isn't a crime. It's immoral if you don't give them the options but it's not a crime.
As I have mentioned, I am concerned at Dawkins' fanaticism. I would argue he represents Atheism as a whole though.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
I wouldn't blame the founders of a religion blindly. I'm sure Jesus (if he existed which I doubt sincerely) was a lovely bloke, wouldn't hurt a fly, he would probably have been a little bit bonkers but nice enough guy. The problem is that there are many parts of the bible which can be interpreted and used to justify things, in fact people's faith in the bible or qu'ran or torah can actually lead them to do such things if they see passages which justify genocide or bombing abortion clinics. I'm sure if there was nothing suspect in the bible at all, I wouldn't blame the bible specifically but I would blame the faith aspect. Marx on the other hand does not have anything that might be judged to justify genocide, torture, Russian secret police, or the elitest heirachy in the USSR. Also Marx' work is a rational philosophy, faith is not needed to believe it to have benefits, good points, in fact there are very few Marxists who will accept it on faith but will question various points in an analytical, thoughtful, rational way. All that is needed is a rational acceptance of some of the premises of his arguments on the nature of capitalism and you reach the conclusion that it doesn't work and will inevitably self-destruct eventually, either by worker's revolution, gradual change or environmental catastrophe. Marx justifies popular revolution, not elite coups de tats. The justifications of Lenin's policies and worse, Stalin's policies came from themselves not from Marx. It is true they used Marx' work as a pseudo-religion but as with the bible being taught to Christians they gave a warped version, in fact it's hard to believe they actually used Marx' texts in their propaganda.
Yes, I am a Marxist, but rational objective reasoning has lead me to see what Marx meant, desired and what problems with capitalism need to be fixed in a new system. Again, I do not feel the need to stick to Marx' work vigorously, I have my own ideas, (none of which rely on faith, or on false belief) but I think if you were to follow Marx' works you wouldn't come to the conclusions the Soviets did. In fact if you were to follow Marx' work you probably wouldn't know what to do next.
Atheist Books
If you can show me where divine intervention is needed in shaving a beard or filling up a tire with air then I'll concede your point. Our current system of government has it's basis in Atheism because it's rule by the people. Again, you really don't have a point, and yes, if you believe a man came back from the dead and fly into the sky and you believe it's real and not David Copperfield doing a trick, then you are delusional.
IF you were to actually READ my post, and not QUOTE MINE it, you would see that either an atheist or a theist can fill a tire with air.
But to be a dialectical materialist...which is what the post was about...atheism in integral.
And the atheism hatred of ALL religion led to the extermination of millions who had no political or economic clout.
So, if I am delusional, what next?
I have no doubt you would try to lock me up if you had any power.
That is what always happens when atheists get political control.
You losers will never get elected to anything, because you obviously do not understand our political process...although it is officially secular, it is NOT atheistic. The two are not the same thing.
We have SEPARATION of church and State, not ELIMINATION of the church from the state...as you have inadvertently ADMITTED that you advocate.
So, you will never get elected to anything.
But I will.
Yes... and the point is?
You're confusing political ideology with non-belief again.
That would depend if you were a danger to yourself or society. Since having moderate theistic beliefs harms no-one I can't see why you would be locked up.
And Christians/Muslims/etc for that matter.
If it's secular then it's not theistic. That's a fact.
Is it legal in the US to run on a purely religious ticket? I don't honestly know so can you advise?
That remains to be seen.
That also remains to be seen.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
Duh, anyone can fill a tire with air but there all of it is done without a god or faith, hence Atheism as is everything else mundane in this world.
As usual there is nothing presented by the theists actually supporting the claim that Atheists have killed 100 million people. Why is it that theists can't actually support their absurd claims?
Because all their claims are based on faith.
Atheist Books
Yes it is. You just don't get too many votes. Check out the Constitution Party (a mis-nomer if I ever heard one). There are a few other radical right/moral mafia type parties on the ballots, but I cannot think of more off the top of my head.
If you can run for office from jail, you surely can run for office from behind the pulpit...
"When you hit your thumb with a hammer it's nice to be able to blaspheme. It takes a special kind of atheist to jump up and down shout, 'Oh, random fluctuations-in-the-space-time-continuum!'"-Terry Pratchett
Maybe it's time for a "Communism/Stalinism does not equal Atheism" sticky.
Stalinism, as a political ideology, was hostile toward religious belief.
Why ? Because they are competing ideologies, whether christian, muslim or other. If your goal is to control the people then you must remove all other institutions of control and/or influence. (See also: Historical references for Theocracy in practice).
Stalinism forced every human within its reach to serve the state. Those who did not serve or objected in some way were often killed. I missed the part where the atheist got the free pass to do what he/she wanted or was allowed to escape death under this system.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell