My point wasnt that religion has never caused violence, but that atheistic totalitarian regimes have killed even more people than all religious atrocities put together.
Understood.
It doesnt matter to atheists that Stalin was an avowed atheist and wanted to exterminate religion.
No it doesn't. It doesn't matter to me, mostly because the truth of an idea is not directly related to the morality of those who hold that idea. Stalin also believed that two plus two made four, but no matter how evil he was, that doesn't make it untrue. In a way this thread is a bit of a waste of time. You can point to as many evil atheists as you like, it won't have any bearing on whether gods exist or not.
However, the thrust of this thread has been to compare the respective death counts of religion and atheism. Stalin is only one man. You need to make more of an effort to count up some kind of total for the alleged atheist death-tally. Just naming one evil infidel isn't enough.
It doesnt matter that Lenin singularly selected Stalin because of his hatred of religion.
That's just straightforwardly wrong. Lenin tried to stop Stalin from becoming his successor. He failed of course, but he saw, just too late, how dangerous Stalin was. Weirdly enough, the other Soviet leaders chose Stalin because they thought he would be harmless and easy to manipulate. They viewed Stalin as a boring bureaucrat, too lacking in imagination to be any kind of threat. "Comrade Filing Card" they called him. Then he had half of them killed. They stopped calling him "Comrade Filing Card" then.
It doesnt matter that Hitler was influenced by social Darwinism and Friedrich Nietzsche.
Social Darwinism is mostly unscientific. It has litle resemblance to the actual ToE, being mostly based upon misunderstandings of the real theory. remember, the ToE is merely a description of a biological process, not a political philosophy. Anyone attempting to use it as such is doing it wrong.
Also, you will find that Hitler was more of a creationist than an evolutionist;
quote:
The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator. - Adolf Hitler
More here; rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hitler_and_evolution
Atheists can wipe their hands clean because fortunately, Stalin killed for other reasons not atheism. Even if Stalin thought that the elimination of religion was central and atheism essential to his revolution. Luckily, whenever he killed he removed his atheist ideology, then put it back on after. Stalin's atheism was front and center. It was not incidental but absolutely central to the whole scheme. Thankfully, Stalin was a murderer who just happened to be an atheist.
Actually, I would be willing to accept that some of Stalin's victims were persecuted for their religious beliefs. The problem is that not all of them were, with most, there were other reasons. This makes the idea of simply comparing totals too simplistic and naive a notion to be of any value.
Religion is evil, the Soviet Union is evil, therefore the Soviet Union is religious. Its a ridiculous extrapolation, if you have any critical mind whatsoever.
Which is why I didn't say any such thing.
There were religious elements to the Soviet Union, but it was secular religion. To create a sense of community, cohesion, and identity, the Soviet Union created Communist Saturday, May Day, Victory Day, Constitution Day and Revolution Day. These were often counterparts to Christian rituals and events. Sounds like fun doesnt it!
yes, they stole all of religion's best tricks. You don't find that at all disconcerting?
the point here is not that the Soviet Union was evil because it aped religion. The point is that both the Soviet Union and religion have both used unethical means to control people, and that this is evil, whoever does it.
So why cant the same "excuse" be used for Christianity? Is it possible that those that kill in the name of Jesus Christ are not actually living according to the teaching and spirit of Jesus?
Sure. But that is irrelevant to the truth claims made by Christians.
It is also a contradiction in your argument; either you want to look at the motivations or you don't. Please decide.
Let me guess what the answer is, "No, all these men and women were Christian." Tell me is there some confusion here?
the problem here is that you are using the term "Christianity" to describe the semi-mythical "True Christian". But how are we supposed to identify this paragon? If I ask you, you'll tell me that your version of Christianity is the truest. If I ask another Christian, they'll tell me that their version is the truest. And so on, for every iteration of Christianity on the market. All of these groups claim that the Bible can be best interpreted by their own sect. The plurality of opinion that this creates makes it very difficult to tell who might be right.
Ultimately, only God (if he exists) can determine who is a True Christian. Until he weighs in, we're left with an impossible number of competing claims, all unfalsifiable and all equally worthless. The only way to get around this problem it seems to me, is to regard all those who revere Christ as Christians.
If you want a fresh perspective on this, I have frequently heard Muslims claiming that the 9/11 attackers were not Muslims. they use exactly the same logic as you employ here. What do you say to that? Ready to let Islam off the hook on that one? Were the terrorists "not real Muslims"?
Tell me is there some confusion here? And as far as violence by the Catholic Church is concerned, the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon. In fact, in the Book of Revelation, God destroys the Catholic Church which is "drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus."
*snigger* You might want to lay off the crack pipe for a while there. Your paranoia is showing.
Mutate and Survive
™ Version 4.2
