Summations Only

And, as I have pointed out, this statement is either pointless or dishonest. You must either compare atheist regimes to theist regimes, or religious atrocities to anti-religious atrocities. Should it?The Emperors Franz Joseph and Wilhelm II were avowed Christians. Does that mean that World War I should be laid at the feet of Christianity, or just at the feet of people who incidentally happened to be Christians? It can, so long as you're consistent about it. Either you can blame atheism for the Stalinist Terror and blame Christianity for WWI, or you can absolve atheism of the Stalinist Terror and absolve Christianity of WWI. What you cannot reasonably do is have it both ways.

I didn't say you had. Instead, I pointed out (twice now, and at length) wherein your inconsistency lies.Let's try it again, this time by analogy. Suppose someone in an attempt to disparage black people or to downplay the significance of lynching says: "Black people have murdered a hundred times more people than white people have lynched for racial reasons".This may actually be true, but it's irrelevant, because he's comparing total murders by black people with racially-motivated murders by white people, which is a mere subset of the number of people they've killed.To have a level playing field, one should compare like with like --- either compare total murders to total murders, or lynchings to lynchings.Now you are making an exactly analogous mistake. You are comparing total deaths caused by atheists with religiously-motivated deaths caused by theists. And now that I have exposed the bias implicit in this form of reckoning, I think you should stop.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You mean like Dennis Rader?

Capisce.

Just as Stalin couldn't have been motivated by Stalinism, and Hitler didn't believe in the Fuehrerprinzip. Why, the very idea is a contradiction in terms!