History's Greatest Holocaust Via Atheistic Ideology

How many times have my counterparts chorused the atrocities of the witch trials, the Roman Catholic inquisitions, and the religious wars in Ireland in their falacious notion that Christianity is a bloody religion.Fact 1. Nothing in the entire Bible justifies or teaches that Biblicalist fundamentalistic Christians are allowed to persecute, attack or shed the blood of their enemies. Those who have are neither Biblicalist or Biblical fundamentalist in these practices.Fact 2. On the other hand, the secularistic ideology of athiesm has
produced the world's greatest holocaust ever with the murder of around 40 million citizens of China by their own godless government and about 55 million Russian citizens of the USSR during athiestic communistic government tyranny in that nation. This is not to mention secularist athiestic based nations like North Korea, Viet Nam, Cambodia, Cuba and others. These all would add up to more than a hundred million people in less than a century. The majority of these victims were defensless, Christian oriented citizens executed by their own governments who outlawed the evangelical gospel and the teaching of the Bible, especially to the youth either in the home or in the public arena, especially in Europe and the USSR. Many were political enemies, but again, the majority of these were either Christian or sympethetic to Christianity.Question: With the above in mind, do we really want to go down this NEW ROAD Which prohibits the free exercise of religion within government by irradicating all vestiges of anything which smacks of religion within government buildings and institutions, including those pertaining to education?

Documentation for this claim, please?And what, precisely, does the fact that the governments you're speaking were atheist or secular have to do with their political agendas?Oh, and what does "athiestic" mean?[This message has been edited by Coragyps, 01-17-2004]

quote:

---

Nothing in the entire Bible justifies or teaches that Biblicalist fundamentalistic Christians are allowed to persecute, attack or shed the blood of their enemies....On the other hand, the secularistic ideology of athiesm has produced the world's greatest holocaust ever with the murder of around 40 million citizens of China by their own godless government and about 55 million Russian citizens of the USSR during athiestic communistic government tyranny in that nation.

---

Why is is that Christians can make these two statements together without laughing?

Umm it sounds like you are saying that anything not Christian is Atheist. If you are saying that then you are incorrect.However, it is more important that you show some evidence that suggests that the governments of North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Cuba strictly don't believe in a god(s) and performed these massacres simply because they wanted to kill religious believers.

I would also like to see a statement on what, exactly, the atheist ideology is.

I've done my homework. I'm not doing yours. My statements are factual. You're challenging them. It's up to you to refute with your own documentation that my claims are not factual. This is what has always been required of me when I enter a debate with you people. Turnabout's fair play. Their political agendas are reflective of their secularism, athieism and intolerance of religion, especially Christianity/Biblicalists, including Judiasm. You tell me. What does your dictionary say?NOTE: Will participants in this thread please do your own homework? I barely have enough time to do my own. Thanks!

1. Get a dictionary.
2. Look up athiest
3. Look up ideology
4. Go figure.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, it's up to you the challenger to prove evidence to the contrary of what I am claiming. Now before we proceed, you need to document that this is what I said so as to prove you're not spinning my statements to say something I'm not saying. Please copy and paste the statement of mine which makes this claim.

Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America's most-trusted online dictionaryatheist: "one who denies the existence of God"ideology: "1 : visionary theorizing
2 a : a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture b : a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture c : the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program"I repeat my question:What "visionary theorizing" do you attribute to "one who denies the existence of God"? Or, more to the point, what "systematic body of concepts" or "manner of thinking" or "integrated assetions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program" are you attributing to all those who "deny the existence of God"?Remember, you spoke of the atheist ideology. You are somehow relating the Soviet and Maoist dictatorships with atheism, in particular you are accusing me, a self-described atheist, as a supporter of Soviet and Maoist ideologies. I'm very interested in hearing you describe, exactly, what my ideology is?Perhaps I am not really an atheist? Or maybe you used a bad choice of words?

How can atheism be blamed for atrocity when there's so many nice atheists?Of course, I don't think Christianity is to be blamed for a couple crazy Christians, nor Islam for a few wackos. There is no cause so noble you can't find a psychopath following it.The majority of atheists don't oppress believers. The majority of Christians don't shoot abortion doctors. The majority of Muslims don't strap on dynamite vests. What exactly are you trying to prove, here, Buz? That your religion is better than mine?

It's not in Webster's Unabridged. Do you perhaps mean "atheist?"

Buz-First: I hope you will not ask me to do my own homework because what I am asking here is for you to clarify your position.You state:

quote:

---

Nothing in the entire Bible justifies or teaches that Biblicalist fundamentalistic Christians are allowed to persecute, attack or shed the blood of their enemies.

---

Ok. I trust you on this as you are more an expert on the Bible than I.You go on to say:

quote:

---

On the other hand, the secularistic ideology of athiesm has
produced the world's greatest holocaust ever with the murder of around 40 million citizens of China by their own godless government and about 55 million Russian citizens of the USSR during athiestic communistic government tyranny in that nation. This is not to mention secularist athiestic based nations like North Korea, Viet Nam, Cambodia, Cuba and others.

---

Ok. But I am wondering exactly what it is in the secular, atheistic ideology that permits such killings. I would like to say that there is nothing in atheistic ideology that justifies or teaches that people are allowed to persecute, attack or shed the blood of their enemies.I think perhaps this is a failed analogy because if you want to claim that the Roman Catholic inquisitions and etc. are not demonstrative of the true meaning of your religion, I'd like to point out that the examples you've cited are not indicative of what it means to be atheist.

I would even clarify that "atheism" is not even an ideology. Atheism is just that one does not believe in the existence of a deity. Period. There is no systematic sociopolitical beliefs associated with it at all.Of course, atheism can be part of an ideology, but the ideologies are all quite varied, and I'm not sure that atheism is even an important part of any of them. I have even conversed with some Christians who claimed to be Marxist.

Well, I don't know about that. Denial of the existence of God begs certain social questions, like "where do morals come from?" and "how are we to live?" It would be a bankrupt position indeed if it couldn't answer those basic questions. It generally seems to be the case that atheists come to more or less the same conclusion: society picks the morals that best suit its survival.The fact that less than 1% of the prison population is atheist could be taken as evidence than not only is there a sociopolitical aspect to atheism, but that it's a fairly successful one.

I see what you're saying, Crashfrog, but I disagree on two points.When I think of an ideology, I am also thinking of a specific set of ethics/morality that comes with it - or at least the suggestion that accepted ethics are narrowly constrained.Also, I agree that atheism begs the question of where morals come from. That is my point. Morals must come from someplace. One possibility, as you mention, is that it is a social construct. Another possibility is that it is totally innate. Of course, I think we both agree that the evidence rules out one of these possibilities, but the statement "I don't believe that a deity exists" alone tells us which, if either, possibility the person believes. (Another possible source of morality is it may just be a karmic/taoist law of nature - although maybe you wouldn't call that "atheistic").My point is that the statement "I do not believe in a deity" describes the belief in only one aspect of reality. I completely agree with you that there are great consequences to such a belief; but what, exactly, those consequences are depends on the individual. Which is why I wouldn't say atheism has any specific ideological connotation.Incidently, my father was a much more ardent atheist than I; he had great contempt for Christians and other people of faith. He was also a right wing Republican.