"A classic example of your ignorance and bigotry. Ever hear of the French Revolution? How'd the atheistic Enlightenment ideals work out there? Pretty different from the American revolution where yes, there were some atrocities, but some of the worst were perpetrated by atheists against Christians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnadenhutten_massacre, please note that George Washington, who you rightly believe was not a Christian, did nothing to punish the perpetrators)."

You're trying to argue with a straight face against the idea that the societies that are the product of the Enlightenment are less violent than those that have not gone through that process? Your point about the French Revolution makes the common mistake that psychopaths and political ideologues who happen to be atheists kill people in the name of their lack of belief, which is almost never true. I read your Gnadenhutten example and it seems it occurred as part of the endemic and brutal frontier warfare that existed at that time and place. Nothing in that link indicates the Indians were murdered by atheists because of the atheist's lack of belief.

You're right that tallying up body counts is a fruitless exercise, but you give the impression there'd be some sort of parity. It's fruitless because count would be WILDLY in favour of religious or religiously inspired killings. I would also point out that anyone who has read the Bible has a different idea on what it means, unless enforced by an organised church (we'll leave that for the moment). You can't say someone else doesn't understand it just because their interpretation differs from yours. As I've already pointed out, the garbled, contradictory, repetitive, plagiarised and many translated texts relied upon make this inevitable. That isn't ignorance, it isn't bigotry. It's in the very nature of the books themselves.

Anti-Muslim riots in London, attacks on mosques...

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/470265/20130523/woolwich-beheading-murder-mosque-braintree-gillingham-arson.htm

hardly riots portrayed in that report...

Alright, well, THAT is uncalled for...

Again, people should take issue with the IDEAS, and not start attack people and places...

"but the amount of killing carried out *in the name of atheism* is a comparative drop in the ocean (if it has occurred at all which isn't by any means clear)."

Ho ho ho, did you forget about Uncle Joe?

@Synapse, you seem unable to read. Communism and killing in it's name, is not the same as killing in the name of atheism. Communism is the worship of communist ideals over any other ideas, atheism is the lack of worship of a god.

Communism replaces God-worship with something else to kill for.

Atheism does not replace God-worship with anything.

Never minding the counting, nobody has ever killed for atheism, because people kill FOR their beliefs, (whether they are nationalistic, religious, or whatever else)

People kill because they see Islam as a threat (or in this case vandalise Mosques) or because their Islam is threatend and attacked in wars, or because they see Atheism attacking their religious beliefs (though i appreciate your attack was verbal, and thus non-violent, and we approve of such expression - it just happens to be logically wrong)

Uncle Joe did not kill a single person *in the name of atheism*.

In the name of communism, yeah, that's right, and EXACTLY not what is said in your quote. Stop mis-reading to support your position.

Without picking a side in the atheism/religion debate - human behaviour is to kill FOR something, and atheism is not something, it is the absence of something - Anti-theism on the other hand is FOR the destruction of religion, maybe that is something people have killed for, but it is still not communism, or your failure to read english.

^...what orathic said, +1 lol

Also what orathaic said.

To say there were riots here is very misleading. There were 100 bigots from a well known anti-immigrant party who protested at the mosques. I would hardly call it a riot. There are riots in Sweden right now, not London

"You're trying to argue with a straight face against the idea that the societies that are the product of the Enlightenment are less violent than those that have not gone through that process?"

Yep. Because I'd argue that those less violent societies are the product of the reformation, not the enlightenment. But that's another long thread, eh?

"Your point about the French Revolution makes the common mistake that psychopaths and political ideologues who happen to be atheists kill people in the name of their lack of belief, which is almost never true."

This argument by atheists is very common, but I find it bizarre and manifestly dishonest to argue that a central philosophical tenet of a given worldview has no bearing on that person's behavior. Maybe "dishonest" is too strong - perhaps "deluded" is a bit more accurate. Sorry to say, but my consistent observation of my atheist friends is that in their rush to disavow theism they lose sight of their own religiosity. So when Orothaic argues that...

"Uncle Joe did not kill a single person *in the name of atheism*."

I think he's being obtuse. Atheism is a central pillar of the communist worldview, and as such communist governments have always persecuted theistic religions, usually with tremendous brutality. As in, "Off to Siberia with you".

A final note on the American frontier, since you wrote:
" I read your Gnadenhutten example and it seems it occurred as part of the endemic and brutal frontier warfare that existed at that time and place."

The frontier was often/usually pushed westward - perhaps especially in the early years when the British had strong treaties outlawing such expansion - by lawless, individualistic, renegade, unbelieving male chauvenists. They were functional atheists, much more the simple unbeliever than your more sophisticated Enlightenment types, but a rebellion against the religious establishment was often a hallmark of their reasons for pushing west. They were the types who initiated the endemic, brutal frontier warfare to which you refer.
Christian churches often lagged behind the frontier by about 20 years, and usually had a significant pacifying affect on the regions into which they moved. So that's where I'm coming from there. Find yourself a copy of Steven Keillor's interesting take on American history, "This Rebellious House", for a deeper explanation.

"Atheism is a central pillar of the communist worldview, and as such communist governments have always persecuted theistic religions, usually with tremendous brutality. As in, "Off to Siberia with you"."

That is bullshit, 'off to siberia with you' was for any political opponent, it didn't discriminate between the religious or the communist reformer, or anyone else.

And there is nothing inherently atheistic about an economic system which requires sharing, infact Christianity could be viewed from this point of view. And never mind the Kibbutz, ("Kibbutzim began as utopian communities, a combination of socialism and Zionism" - wikipedia) The fact is communist ideas are compatible with religion.

The example of a russian system which was essentially russian in character (authoritarian, centralised, vicious, just like all russian systems of governance before or since, for at least 300 years) the Soviet Union was more Russian than it was anything else, and Russians had been religious and not, while still killing people.

*cough* bullshit *cough*

Once more, people can kill for Communism, for Islam, for Christianty, for revenge based on clan, territory, or nationality - but atheists are a non-identity, some atheists form their own group, the philosophical humanists. And I doubt they have committed many murderous outrages, but since they are a group i'm sure people could kill to protect their humanism.

Still, not FOR atheism...

"And there is nothing inherently atheistic about an economic system which requires sharing, infact Christianity could be viewed from this point of view."

commonly made error, but no, Christianity encourages sharing but does not force it upon its follower as communism does.

"Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism" - Lenin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatar_Union_of_the_Godless

http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-12521.html

Seriously, rethink that argument ora. You are a mod and will therefore win this argument by looking more credible (and the thread is also being lurked by a lot of people who just enjoy disagreeing with me), so I urge you to rethink your opinion and apologies.

Atheism may be a foundation upon with Marxism is built, but Marxism is not atheism. That is simply a false argument.

A cake contains egg...but cakes aren't eggs.

I doubt you can raise an argument that the League of Militant Atheists were not acting in the name of atheism, krellin... or maybe you are the only one capable of arguing such a thing.

"Marxism is materialism. As such, it is as relentlessly hostile to religion as was the materialism of the eighteenth-century Encyclopaedists or the materialism of Feuerbach. This is beyond doubt. But the dialectical materialism of Marx and Engels goes further than the Encyclopaedists and Feuerbach, for it applies the materialist philosophy to the domain of history, to the domain of the social sciences. We must combat religion—that is the ABC of all materialism, and consequently of Marxism. But Marxism is not a materialism which has stopped at the ABC. Marxism goes further. It says: We must know how to combat religion, and in order to do so we must explain the source of faith and religion among the masses in a materialist way. The combating of religion cannot be confined to abstract ideological preaching, and it must not be reduced to such preaching. It must be linked up with the concrete practice of the class movement, which aims at eliminating the social roots of religion."

SYn - I am not arguing anything, other than that atheism is a building block of Marxism...but it is not Marxism. Marxism may be inseparable from atheism, but to suggest that every aetheist is a Marxist would be simple absurd.

"but to suggest that every aetheist is a Marxist would be simple absurd."

Yes, I agree. Happy?

You are not listening to what I am saying. Try reading what I've claimed.

Also, you're now talking about Marxism not Communism. And Yes, the Soviet Communism, or Stalinism was anti-religion, and YES i said some people kill for anti-theistic reasons. Because destroying other people's power to ensure your own is one reason people kill.

But that is not Atheistic, it is Anti-theistic. Please go back and read what i said.

I'm not happy or unhappy. I was simply making a statement to correct what I perceived as an incorrect assertion above.

"But that is not Atheistic, it is Anti-theistic."

I'd really, really like you to justify that sentence.

The original argument was that no or little death has been caused in the name of atheism, which is an absurd statement, seen as the majority of murderers who are not haunted by a conscience or by punishments of God are to be considered atheist in their approach to morality, with the exception of Satanists.

Religion is a powerful force - people behave based upon religious beliefs - even to the point of self-sacrifice/martyrdom.

Eliminating someone because their religious beliefs - and the espousal of those beliefs - is done because you are trying to eliminate an opposing power...just as you would eliminate someone coming in a preaching Capitalism.

So it is anti-theist...but not because you want people to not believe in God, but simply because you see belief in God as a threat to your power base.

It is a totally different motivation.

If i'm not mistaken the cause of most murder is not belief but emotion. Most people know their killers, and actions are done in anger - this is not due to atheism.

Anti-theism, acting to destroy religion, is totally difference from atheism, the lack of any belief in god. There is no unifying belief system to group atheists together, whereas many times people have united to defend against an outside foes.

Anti-theism can very well be a thing which people follow and kill for. But i believe i made that statement ages back before we got into this.

Do you think the majority of murderers genuinely believe they are going to Hell for their crimes?

Let's rely purely on conjecture for a moment here.

SYn - you can ask a lot of religious people and they dont' truly believe people will go to hell...so what is your point?

And regardless of a murderers belief or lack thereof in hell, what does that have to do with atheism?

Aetheism is an active belief that there is no god.

I suspect the majority of murderers are not actively thinking about God or the lack of God when they kill...they are just acting.

But...if you want to get right down to it...look at the Bible. The first recorded murder was by a man that actively believed in God. You don't have to be an atheist to murder.

No, i don't think they are worrying about Hell when they murder. (if i'm not mistaken on the numbers) The majority are emotional, and there is no rational decision making, no thought for god or the lack of god.

It is stupid to talk about in terms of religious belief because the belief or lack there of doesn't come into it in the heat of the moment.

Yet you seem to want to say that at that moment they were being atheistic... Am i mis representing your position?

"The first recorded murder was by a man that actively believed in God"

If you want to be pedantic, I believe the first recorded murder is in the Epic of Gilgamesh, by decidedly non-theist peoples.

And note, i'm not talking about pre-meditated things here, soldiers who believe they have god on their side, or their moral system means following orders is more important human life.

Either way, both are willing to kill, having thought about it, and whether religious or not, people are willing to kill FOR some belief, not the lack of one.