Reza Aslan: Sam Harris and "New Atheists" aren't new, aren't even atheists

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“The great Enlightenment thinkers Voltaire, David Hume, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were severely critical of institutional religion, viewing it as a destructive force in society. But they did not explicitly reject God’s existence, nor were they opposed to the idea of religious belief. (There were, of course, numerous other Enlightenment figures who professed atheism, such as Jean Meslier and the French philosopher Baron d’Holbach.) On the contrary, they recognized the inherent value of religious belief in fostering social cohesion and maintaining order, and so sought a means of replacing religion as the basis for making moral judgments in European society. It was political transformation they wanted, not religious reform.

Yet in the century that followed the Enlightenment, a stridently militant form of atheism arose that merged the Enlightenment’s criticism of institutional religion with the strict empiricism of the scientific revolution to not only reject belief in God, but to actively oppose it. By the middle of the 19th century, this movement was given its own name – anti-theism – specifically to differentiate it from atheism.

It was around this time that anti-theism reached its peak in the writings of the German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marx famously viewed religion as the “opium of the people” and sought to eradicate it from society. “The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness,” Marx wrote in his celebrated critique of Hegel.

In truth, Marx’s views on religion and atheism were far more complex than these much-abused sound bites project. Nevertheless, Marx’s vision of a religion-less society was spectacularly realized with the establishment of the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China – two nations that actively promoted “state atheism” by violently suppressing religious expression and persecuting faith communities.“


State atheism seems like the opposite of state religion, but in a way, state atheism becomes a religion itself, without being a religion. The state becomes the religion and whomever is in charge at the head of government becomes the “god.” Those atheist regimes kill a lot of people, their own people.

This is all bullshit, and you know it, as there are no "atheist regimes" who commit atrocities in the name of atheism.

Atrocities done in the name of religion are extraordinarily plentiful, though, so unless you want to start listing them and get embarrassed, I suggest you drop that failed argument.

[Anonymous]

What is so strange and odd that in spite of atheism/anti-theism’s outward rejection of religion and all its superstitions, atheistic governments feel compelled to set up cults of personality and worship of the State and its leaders that is so totalitarian that the leaders are not satisfied with mere outward obedience; rather they insist on total mind control and control of thoughts, ideas and beliefs. They institute Gulags and “re-education” centers to indoctrinate anyone who even would dare question any action or declaration of the “Dear Leader.” Even the Spanish Inquisition cannot compare to the ruthlessness and methodical efficiency of these programs conducted on so massive a scale.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The great Enlightenment thinkers Voltaire, David Hume, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were severely critical of institutional religion, viewing it as a destructive force in society. But they did not explicitly reject God’s existence, nor were they opposed to the idea of religious belief. (There were, of course, numerous other Enlightenment figures who professed atheism, such as Jean Meslier and the French philosopher Baron d’Holbach.) On the contrary, they recognized the inherent value of religious belief in fostering social cohesion and maintaining order, and so sought a means of replacing religion as the basis for making moral judgments in European society. It was political transformation they wanted, not religious reform.

Yet in the century that followed the Enlightenment, a stridently militant form of atheism arose that merged the Enlightenment’s criticism of institutional religion with the strict empiricism of the scientific revolution to not only reject belief in God, but to actively oppose it. By the middle of the 19th century, this movement was given its own name – anti-theism – specifically to differentiate it from atheism.

It was around this time that anti-theism reached its peak in the writings of the German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marx famously viewed religion as the “opium of the people” and sought to eradicate it from society. “The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness,” Marx wrote in his celebrated critique of Hegel.

In truth, Marx’s views on religion and atheism were far more complex than these much-abused sound bites project. Nevertheless, Marx’s vision of a religion-less society was spectacularly realized with the establishment of the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China – two nations that actively promoted “state atheism” by violently suppressing religious expression and persecuting faith communities.“


State atheism seems like the opposite of state religion, but in a way, state atheism becomes a religion itself, without being a religion. The state becomes the religion and whomever is in charge at the head of government becomes the “god.” Those atheist regimes kill a lot of people, their own people.

This is all bullshit, and you know it, as there are no "atheist regimes" who commit atrocities in the name of atheism.

Atrocities done in the name of religion are extraordinarily plentiful, though, so unless you want to start listing them and get embarrassed, I suggest you drop that failed argument.

It’s almost like you don’t have an honest bone in your body. Nothing in the quoted passage (which I didn’t post) said atrocities are committed “in the name of atheism” (your slippery phrasing). It said the atheist states committed atrocities. There’s a big difference, and you know it.

Do better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The great Enlightenment thinkers Voltaire, David Hume, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were severely critical of institutional religion, viewing it as a destructive force in society. But they did not explicitly reject God’s existence, nor were they opposed to the idea of religious belief. (There were, of course, numerous other Enlightenment figures who professed atheism, such as Jean Meslier and the French philosopher Baron d’Holbach.) On the contrary, they recognized the inherent value of religious belief in fostering social cohesion and maintaining order, and so sought a means of replacing religion as the basis for making moral judgments in European society. It was political transformation they wanted, not religious reform.

Yet in the century that followed the Enlightenment, a stridently militant form of atheism arose that merged the Enlightenment’s criticism of institutional religion with the strict empiricism of the scientific revolution to not only reject belief in God, but to actively oppose it. By the middle of the 19th century, this movement was given its own name – anti-theism – specifically to differentiate it from atheism.

It was around this time that anti-theism reached its peak in the writings of the German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marx famously viewed religion as the “opium of the people” and sought to eradicate it from society. “The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness,” Marx wrote in his celebrated critique of Hegel.

In truth, Marx’s views on religion and atheism were far more complex than these much-abused sound bites project. Nevertheless, Marx’s vision of a religion-less society was spectacularly realized with the establishment of the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China – two nations that actively promoted “state atheism” by violently suppressing religious expression and persecuting faith communities.“


State atheism seems like the opposite of state religion, but in a way, state atheism becomes a religion itself, without being a religion. The state becomes the religion and whomever is in charge at the head of government becomes the “god.” Those atheist regimes kill a lot of people, their own people.

This is all bullshit, and you know it, as there are no "atheist regimes" who commit atrocities in the name of atheism.

Atrocities done in the name of religion are extraordinarily plentiful, though, so unless you want to start listing them and get embarrassed, I suggest you drop that failed argument.

It’s almost like you don’t have an honest bone in your body. Nothing in the quoted passage (which I didn’t post) said atrocities are committed “in the name of atheism” (your slippery phrasing). It said the atheist states committed atrocities. There’s a big difference, and you know it.

Do better.

It was also dishonest of pp to ignore the great bulk of the quoted passage and focus on a (twisted) sentence or two. But I’ve seen her do that over and over again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The great Enlightenment thinkers Voltaire, David Hume, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were severely critical of institutional religion, viewing it as a destructive force in society. But they did not explicitly reject God’s existence, nor were they opposed to the idea of religious belief. (There were, of course, numerous other Enlightenment figures who professed atheism, such as Jean Meslier and the French philosopher Baron d’Holbach.) On the contrary, they recognized the inherent value of religious belief in fostering social cohesion and maintaining order, and so sought a means of replacing religion as the basis for making moral judgments in European society. It was political transformation they wanted, not religious reform.

Yet in the century that followed the Enlightenment, a stridently militant form of atheism arose that merged the Enlightenment’s criticism of institutional religion with the strict empiricism of the scientific revolution to not only reject belief in God, but to actively oppose it. By the middle of the 19th century, this movement was given its own name – anti-theism – specifically to differentiate it from atheism.

It was around this time that anti-theism reached its peak in the writings of the German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marx famously viewed religion as the “opium of the people” and sought to eradicate it from society. “The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness,” Marx wrote in his celebrated critique of Hegel.

In truth, Marx’s views on religion and atheism were far more complex than these much-abused sound bites project. Nevertheless, Marx’s vision of a religion-less society was spectacularly realized with the establishment of the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China – two nations that actively promoted “state atheism” by violently suppressing religious expression and persecuting faith communities.“


State atheism seems like the opposite of state religion, but in a way, state atheism becomes a religion itself, without being a religion. The state becomes the religion and whomever is in charge at the head of government becomes the “god.” Those atheist regimes kill a lot of people, their own people.

This is all bullshit, and you know it, as there are no "atheist regimes" who commit atrocities in the name of atheism.

Atrocities done in the name of religion are extraordinarily plentiful, though, so unless you want to start listing them and get embarrassed, I suggest you drop that failed argument.

It’s almost like you don’t have an honest bone in your body. Nothing in the quoted passage (which I didn’t post) said atrocities are committed “in the name of atheism” (your slippery phrasing). It said the atheist states committed atrocities. There’s a big difference, and you know it.

Do better.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The great Enlightenment thinkers Voltaire, David Hume, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were severely critical of institutional religion, viewing it as a destructive force in society. But they did not explicitly reject God’s existence, nor were they opposed to the idea of religious belief. (There were, of course, numerous other Enlightenment figures who professed atheism, such as Jean Meslier and the French philosopher Baron d’Holbach.) On the contrary, they recognized the inherent value of religious belief in fostering social cohesion and maintaining order, and so sought a means of replacing religion as the basis for making moral judgments in European society. It was political transformation they wanted, not religious reform.

Yet in the century that followed the Enlightenment, a stridently militant form of atheism arose that merged the Enlightenment’s criticism of institutional religion with the strict empiricism of the scientific revolution to not only reject belief in God, but to actively oppose it. By the middle of the 19th century, this movement was given its own name – anti-theism – specifically to differentiate it from atheism.

It was around this time that anti-theism reached its peak in the writings of the German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marx famously viewed religion as the “opium of the people” and sought to eradicate it from society. “The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness,” Marx wrote in his celebrated critique of Hegel.

In truth, Marx’s views on religion and atheism were far more complex than these much-abused sound bites project. Nevertheless, Marx’s vision of a religion-less society was spectacularly realized with the establishment of the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China – two nations that actively promoted “state atheism” by violently suppressing religious expression and persecuting faith communities.“


State atheism seems like the opposite of state religion, but in a way, state atheism becomes a religion itself, without being a religion. The state becomes the religion and whomever is in charge at the head of government becomes the “god.” Those atheist regimes kill a lot of people, their own people.

This is all bullshit, and you know it, as there are no "atheist regimes" who commit atrocities in the name of atheism.

Atrocities done in the name of religion are extraordinarily plentiful, though, so unless you want to start listing them and get embarrassed, I suggest you drop that failed argument.

It’s almost like you don’t have an honest bone in your body. Nothing in the quoted passage (which I didn’t post) said atrocities are committed “in the name of atheism” (your slippery phrasing). It said the atheist states committed atrocities. There’s a big difference, and you know it.

Do better.

Your accusation is a confession. If you are not implying atheism was the reason why call them "atheist states"? You might as well attribute atrocities to Hitler and Stalin both having moustaches, then.

My statement "there are no "atheist regimes" who commit atrocities in the name of atheism. " was MINE, and it is also 100% true, like it or not.

You are the dishonest one sir.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The great Enlightenment thinkers Voltaire, David Hume, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were severely critical of institutional religion, viewing it as a destructive force in society. But they did not explicitly reject God’s existence, nor were they opposed to the idea of religious belief. (There were, of course, numerous other Enlightenment figures who professed atheism, such as Jean Meslier and the French philosopher Baron d’Holbach.) On the contrary, they recognized the inherent value of religious belief in fostering social cohesion and maintaining order, and so sought a means of replacing religion as the basis for making moral judgments in European society. It was political transformation they wanted, not religious reform.

Yet in the century that followed the Enlightenment, a stridently militant form of atheism arose that merged the Enlightenment’s criticism of institutional religion with the strict empiricism of the scientific revolution to not only reject belief in God, but to actively oppose it. By the middle of the 19th century, this movement was given its own name – anti-theism – specifically to differentiate it from atheism.

It was around this time that anti-theism reached its peak in the writings of the German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marx famously viewed religion as the “opium of the people” and sought to eradicate it from society. “The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness,” Marx wrote in his celebrated critique of Hegel.

In truth, Marx’s views on religion and atheism were far more complex than these much-abused sound bites project. Nevertheless, Marx’s vision of a religion-less society was spectacularly realized with the establishment of the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China – two nations that actively promoted “state atheism” by violently suppressing religious expression and persecuting faith communities.“


State atheism seems like the opposite of state religion, but in a way, state atheism becomes a religion itself, without being a religion. The state becomes the religion and whomever is in charge at the head of government becomes the “god.” Those atheist regimes kill a lot of people, their own people.

This is all bullshit, and you know it, as there are no "atheist regimes" who commit atrocities in the name of atheism.

Atrocities done in the name of religion are extraordinarily plentiful, though, so unless you want to start listing them and get embarrassed, I suggest you drop that failed argument.

It’s almost like you don’t have an honest bone in your body. Nothing in the quoted passage (which I didn’t post) said atrocities are committed “in the name of atheism” (your slippery phrasing). It said the atheist states committed atrocities. There’s a big difference, and you know it.

Do better.

It was also dishonest of pp to ignore the great bulk of the quoted passage and focus on a (twisted) sentence or two. But I’ve seen her do that over and over again.

Yes, PP objected to the part of the post he found objectionable. How ridiculous!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is so strange and odd that in spite of atheism/anti-theism’s outward rejection of religion and all its superstitions, atheistic governments feel compelled to set up cults of personality and worship of the State and its leaders that is so totalitarian that the leaders are not satisfied with mere outward obedience; rather they insist on total mind control and control of thoughts, ideas and beliefs. They institute Gulags and “re-education” centers to indoctrinate anyone who even would dare question any action or declaration of the “Dear Leader.” Even the Spanish Inquisition cannot compare to the ruthlessness and methodical efficiency of these programs conducted on so massive a scale.

Well there was the systematic murder of indigenous populations in the americas under the pretext of a divine mandate, and that killed far more people than the 6-9 million Stalin killed.

I think that has more to do with the type or government rather than what the official state line on religion. I mean, people in power are just evil sometimes and use any excuse to commit atrocities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The great Enlightenment thinkers Voltaire, David Hume, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were severely critical of institutional religion, viewing it as a destructive force in society. But they did not explicitly reject God’s existence, nor were they opposed to the idea of religious belief. (There were, of course, numerous other Enlightenment figures who professed atheism, such as Jean Meslier and the French philosopher Baron d’Holbach.) On the contrary, they recognized the inherent value of religious belief in fostering social cohesion and maintaining order, and so sought a means of replacing religion as the basis for making moral judgments in European society. It was political transformation they wanted, not religious reform.

Yet in the century that followed the Enlightenment, a stridently militant form of atheism arose that merged the Enlightenment’s criticism of institutional religion with the strict empiricism of the scientific revolution to not only reject belief in God, but to actively oppose it. By the middle of the 19th century, this movement was given its own name – anti-theism – specifically to differentiate it from atheism.

It was around this time that anti-theism reached its peak in the writings of the German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marx famously viewed religion as the “opium of the people” and sought to eradicate it from society. “The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness,” Marx wrote in his celebrated critique of Hegel.

In truth, Marx’s views on religion and atheism were far more complex than these much-abused sound bites project. Nevertheless, Marx’s vision of a religion-less society was spectacularly realized with the establishment of the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China – two nations that actively promoted “state atheism” by violently suppressing religious expression and persecuting faith communities.“


State atheism seems like the opposite of state religion, but in a way, state atheism becomes a religion itself, without being a religion. The state becomes the religion and whomever is in charge at the head of government becomes the “god.” Those atheist regimes kill a lot of people, their own people.

This is all bullshit, and you know it, as there are no "atheist regimes" who commit atrocities in the name of atheism.

Atrocities done in the name of religion are extraordinarily plentiful, though, so unless you want to start listing them and get embarrassed, I suggest you drop that failed argument.

It’s almost like you don’t have an honest bone in your body. Nothing in the quoted passage (which I didn’t post) said atrocities are committed “in the name of atheism” (your slippery phrasing). It said the atheist states committed atrocities. There’s a big difference, and you know it.

Do better.

Your accusation is a confession. If you are not implying atheism was the reason why call them "atheist states"? You might as well attribute atrocities to Hitler and Stalin both having moustaches, then.

My statement "there are no "atheist regimes" who commit atrocities in the name of atheism. " was MINE, and it is also 100% true, like it or not.

You are the dishonest one sir.

I don’t like it when people bring up reading comprehension, but in your case it’s so necessary. Read the article and pp’s last paragraph again, this time without trying to distort it to make your own unwarranted arguments.

You trying to make this about killing being “in the name of atheism” is sleazy word play. It distorts both the passage and pp’s final para. You’re ignoring half the post, about the search for moral values and where atheism doesn’t fit in. Worse, You’re also trying to wriggle out of the association between atheist states and mass murder by creating a completely spurious semantic difference between “in the name of atheism” and behavior of states with enforced atheism.

Dishonest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is so strange and odd that in spite of atheism/anti-theism’s outward rejection of religion and all its superstitions, atheistic governments feel compelled to set up cults of personality and worship of the State and its leaders that is so totalitarian that the leaders are not satisfied with mere outward obedience; rather they insist on total mind control and control of thoughts, ideas and beliefs. They institute Gulags and “re-education” centers to indoctrinate anyone who even would dare question any action or declaration of the “Dear Leader.” Even the Spanish Inquisition cannot compare to the ruthlessness and methodical efficiency of these programs conducted on so massive a scale.

Well there was the systematic murder of indigenous populations in the americas under the pretext of a divine mandate, and that killed far more people than the 6-9 million Stalin killed.

I think that has more to do with the type or government rather than what the official state line on religion. I mean, people in power are just evil sometimes and use any excuse to commit atrocities.

Governments and regimes that espouse atheism or anti- theism have killed tens of millions, hundreds of millions.

Maoist and Stalinist regimes, it now seems the high end of estimates of 250 million dead (between 1900-1987) are closer to the mark. The Stalinist Purges produced 61 million dead and Mao’s Cultural Revolution produced 70 million casualties. These murders are all upon their own people! This number does not include the countless dead in their wars of outward aggression waged in the name of the purity of atheism’s world view. China invades its peaceful, but religious neighbor, Tibet; supports N. Korea in its war against its southern neighbor and in its merciless oppression of its own people; and Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge kill up to 6 million with Chinese support. All of these actions done “in the name of the people” to create a better world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is so strange and odd that in spite of atheism/anti-theism’s outward rejection of religion and all its superstitions, atheistic governments feel compelled to set up cults of personality and worship of the State and its leaders that is so totalitarian that the leaders are not satisfied with mere outward obedience; rather they insist on total mind control and control of thoughts, ideas and beliefs. They institute Gulags and “re-education” centers to indoctrinate anyone who even would dare question any action or declaration of the “Dear Leader.” Even the Spanish Inquisition cannot compare to the ruthlessness and methodical efficiency of these programs conducted on so massive a scale.

Well there was the systematic murder of indigenous populations in the americas under the pretext of a divine mandate, and that killed far more people than the 6-9 million Stalin killed.

I think that has more to do with the type or government rather than what the official state line on religion. I mean, people in power are just evil sometimes and use any excuse to commit atrocities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The great Enlightenment thinkers Voltaire, David Hume, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were severely critical of institutional religion, viewing it as a destructive force in society. But they did not explicitly reject God’s existence, nor were they opposed to the idea of religious belief. (There were, of course, numerous other Enlightenment figures who professed atheism, such as Jean Meslier and the French philosopher Baron d’Holbach.) On the contrary, they recognized the inherent value of religious belief in fostering social cohesion and maintaining order, and so sought a means of replacing religion as the basis for making moral judgments in European society. It was political transformation they wanted, not religious reform.

Yet in the century that followed the Enlightenment, a stridently militant form of atheism arose that merged the Enlightenment’s criticism of institutional religion with the strict empiricism of the scientific revolution to not only reject belief in God, but to actively oppose it. By the middle of the 19th century, this movement was given its own name – anti-theism – specifically to differentiate it from atheism.

It was around this time that anti-theism reached its peak in the writings of the German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marx famously viewed religion as the “opium of the people” and sought to eradicate it from society. “The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness,” Marx wrote in his celebrated critique of Hegel.

In truth, Marx’s views on religion and atheism were far more complex than these much-abused sound bites project. Nevertheless, Marx’s vision of a religion-less society was spectacularly realized with the establishment of the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China – two nations that actively promoted “state atheism” by violently suppressing religious expression and persecuting faith communities.“


State atheism seems like the opposite of state religion, but in a way, state atheism becomes a religion itself, without being a religion. The state becomes the religion and whomever is in charge at the head of government becomes the “god.” Those atheist regimes kill a lot of people, their own people.

This is all bullshit, and you know it, as there are no "atheist regimes" who commit atrocities in the name of atheism.

Atrocities done in the name of religion are extraordinarily plentiful, though, so unless you want to start listing them and get embarrassed, I suggest you drop that failed argument.

It’s almost like you don’t have an honest bone in your body. Nothing in the quoted passage (which I didn’t post) said atrocities are committed “in the name of atheism” (your slippery phrasing). It said the atheist states committed atrocities. There’s a big difference, and you know it.

Do better.

Your accusation is a confession. If you are not implying atheism was the reason why call them "atheist states"? You might as well attribute atrocities to Hitler and Stalin both having moustaches, then.

My statement "there are no "atheist regimes" who commit atrocities in the name of atheism. " was MINE, and it is also 100% true, like it or not.

You are the dishonest one sir.

I don’t like it when people bring up reading comprehension, but in your case it’s so necessary. Read the article and pp’s last paragraph again, this time without trying to distort it to make your own unwarranted arguments.

You trying to make this about killing being “in the name of atheism” is sleazy word play. It distorts both the passage and pp’s final para. You’re ignoring half the post, about the search for moral values and where atheism doesn’t fit in. Worse, You’re also trying to wriggle out of the association between atheist states and mass murder by creating a completely spurious semantic difference between “in the name of atheism” and behavior of states with enforced atheism.

Dishonest.

No. You are the LIAR who continues to attempt to connect atheism to atrocities committed by Mao and Stalin, while conveniently ignoring the undeniable fact that 99.9999% of the atrocities ever committed on earth were done by religious states and leaders.

Were those all done in the name of religion? No. But many were.

How many were done in the name of Atheism?

Zero.

These facts cannot be denied.

[Anonymous]

Okay there is some disagreement about the numbers but my point wasn’t to say that religious states are more violent. Just that people do horrible, horrible things, religious or no. I don’t think religion has anything to do with it except as a pretext.

(But I can’t resist the temptation to talk numbers; estimates of deaths of indigenous people on the American contingent are difficult but there is a general consensus that 90% of the population was wiped out and deaths numbered in the tens of millions. I’m no expert on this but the majority of estimates of deaths caused by Stalin are under 20 million and most are under 9 million.)


(Goodness this is all so sickening)

[Anonymous]

Communism was the leading ideological cause of death between 1900 and 2000. The 94 million that perished in China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Afghanistan, and Eastern Europe easily (and tragically) trump the 28 million that died under fascist regimes during the same period.

During the century measured, more people died as a result of communism than from homicide (58 million) and genocide (30 million) put together. The combined death tolls of WWI (37 million) and WWII (66 million) exceed communism's total by only 9 million.

It gets worse when you look at the lower right of the chart—The Natural World—which includes animals (7 million), natural disasters (24 million), and famine (101 million). Curiously, all of the world's worst famines during the 20th century were in communist countries: China (twice!), the Soviet Union, and North Korea.









Communism and by ( which features state mandated atheism) killed more people than anything else in the 20th century.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“The great Enlightenment thinkers Voltaire, David Hume, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were severely critical of institutional religion, viewing it as a destructive force in society. But they did not explicitly reject God’s existence, nor were they opposed to the idea of religious belief. (There were, of course, numerous other Enlightenment figures who professed atheism, such as Jean Meslier and the French philosopher Baron d’Holbach.) On the contrary, they recognized the inherent value of religious belief in fostering social cohesion and maintaining order, and so sought a means of replacing religion as the basis for making moral judgments in European society. It was political transformation they wanted, not religious reform.

Yet in the century that followed the Enlightenment, a stridently militant form of atheism arose that merged the Enlightenment’s criticism of institutional religion with the strict empiricism of the scientific revolution to not only reject belief in God, but to actively oppose it. By the middle of the 19th century, this movement was given its own name – anti-theism – specifically to differentiate it from atheism.

It was around this time that anti-theism reached its peak in the writings of the German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marx famously viewed religion as the “opium of the people” and sought to eradicate it from society. “The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness,” Marx wrote in his celebrated critique of Hegel.

In truth, Marx’s views on religion and atheism were far more complex than these much-abused sound bites project. Nevertheless, Marx’s vision of a religion-less society was spectacularly realized with the establishment of the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China – two nations that actively promoted “state atheism” by violently suppressing religious expression and persecuting faith communities.“


State atheism seems like the opposite of state religion, but in a way, state atheism becomes a religion itself, without being a religion. The state becomes the religion and whomever is in charge at the head of government becomes the “god.” Those atheist regimes kill a lot of people, their own people.

This is all bullshit, and you know it, as there are no "atheist regimes" who commit atrocities in the name of atheism.

Atrocities done in the name of religion are extraordinarily plentiful, though, so unless you want to start listing them and get embarrassed, I suggest you drop that failed argument.

It’s almost like you don’t have an honest bone in your body. Nothing in the quoted passage (which I didn’t post) said atrocities are committed “in the name of atheism” (your slippery phrasing). It said the atheist states committed atrocities. There’s a big difference, and you know it.

Do better.

Your accusation is a confession. If you are not implying atheism was the reason why call them "atheist states"? You might as well attribute atrocities to Hitler and Stalin both having moustaches, then.

My statement "there are no "atheist regimes" who commit atrocities in the name of atheism. " was MINE, and it is also 100% true, like it or not.

You are the dishonest one sir.

I don’t like it when people bring up reading comprehension, but in your case it’s so necessary. Read the article and pp’s last paragraph again, this time without trying to distort it to make your own unwarranted arguments.

You trying to make this about killing being “in the name of atheism” is sleazy word play. It distorts both the passage and pp’s final para. You’re ignoring half the post, about the search for moral values and where atheism doesn’t fit in. Worse, You’re also trying to wriggle out of the association between atheist states and mass murder by creating a completely spurious semantic difference between “in the name of atheism” and behavior of states with enforced atheism.

Dishonest.

No. You are the LIAR who continues to attempt to connect atheism to atrocities committed by Mao and Stalin, while conveniently ignoring the undeniable fact that 99.9999% of the atrocities ever committed on earth were done by religious states and leaders.

Were those all done in the name of religion? No. But many were.

How many were done in the name of Atheism?

Zero.

These facts cannot be denied.

Do you have a link that gives the details to prove “99.9999% of the atrocities ever committed on earth were done by religious states?”