Interesting I as well have started what you could call a religion but it more like a mythos. It accounts for scientific theories and I don't believe in it myself.

Denying God with the purpose of treating the Dictator like a God. Nothing in atheism involves worshipping a man like a God.
Also, I'm not changing the definition of religion. I'm just noting that the actions of communism tend to be very similliar to the way religion acts.

Precisely because those tendencies to heed unquestioningly to authority in the comission of atrocities are not unique to religion (which most believers do not heed unquestioningly, particularly in secular matters) and as proven by the recent historical record, are MORE common amongst the non-believers. The leadership of the most oppressive state on earth is Atheist. They are universal among men, so you don't accomplish anything by this, dare I say, crusade against it.

Crusade? Please, list one person I hurt let alone killed by making my points here.

Plus once again, you do not see China, North Korea or Russia or saying "Praise be unto there being no God! We do this in the name of no god!" but you see it all the time with religion with cases such as ISIS, Westboro Baptists etc.

And you're completely looking over the fact I already agreed all men can be guilty of such acts, but Religion acts an enhancer... which is essentially my entire argument.

Magic Magnum said
Crusade? Please, list one person I hurt let alone killed by making my points here. Plus once again, you do not see China, North Korea or Russia or saying "Praise be unto there being no God! We do this in the name of no god!" but you see it all the time with religion with cases such as ISIS, Westboro Baptists etc. And you're completely looking over the fact I already agreed all men can be guilty of such acts, but Religion acts an enhancer... which is essentially my entire argument.

You may flail and cling to this last plank of the sunken ship of your argument all you like, but you'll need something stronger.

1. Stated motivations differ from actual motivations. Removing the excuse does not stop the war.

2. Many religious in Cambodia, China, and the USSR were killed for their religion, so there's that.

3. If Communism had as its core "Jesus is the lord!" You would call it a religion. So drop the double standard.

1. Yes, but we ain't psychic. If someone comes up and says "I am doing this cause of God!" we can safely assume they are doing it because of God. In the same way that if someone went "I am doing this because there is no God!" we can assume that's their reason. Except no one had said this, you are suggesting hidden motivations. Which although very plausible (if not most likely, everyone will have some motivations they keep to themselves) you are at no position or ability to judge or determine them.

Is it theoretically possible for an atheist to start a violent purge of religious people because they are religious? Sure, humanity produces some very messed up people. But do we have any recorded cases (Not assumed from an absence of religion motivation) of that being the motivation? Nope.

2. More precisely, killed because they worshipped/believed something that wasn't there leader. They could have gone around worshipping their local baker and they'd still get killed. It was about praising something other than their leader, not about the fact they were religious.

3. Yea, I would. Because it proves itself to have religious motivations, but it doesn't so it's not a religion. In the same way that if I happened to believe in God that would make me religious. That's not a double standard, that's just fact. Belief/worship of a God is religion.

Magic Magnum said
1. Yes, but we ain't psychic. If someone comes up and says "I am doing this cause of God!" we can safely assume they are doing it because of God. In the same way that someone went "I am doing this because there is no God!" we can assume that's their reason. Except no one had said this, you are suggesting hidden motivations. Which although very plausible (if not most likely, everyone will have some motivations they keep to themselves) you are at no position or ability to judge or determine them. Is it theoretically possible for an atheist to start a violent purge of religious people because they are religious? Sure, humanity produces some very messed up people. But do we have any recorded cases (Not assumed from an absence of religion motivation) of that being the motivation? Nope.2. More precisely, killed because they worshipped/believed something that wasn't there leader. They could have gone around worshipping their local baker and they'd still get killed. It was about praising something other than their leader, not about the fact they were religious.3. Yea, I would. Because it proves itself to have religious motivations, but it doesn't so it's not a religion. In the same way that if I happened to believe in God that would make me religious. That's not a double standard, that's just fact. Belief/worship of a God is religion.

1. Let me posit an alternate explanation.

Raw, unadulterated military predation has been, up until recently, perfectly acceptable. The Romans killed you and took your stuff without any qualm nor issue. Barbarian tribes across Europe quibbled with and slaughtered each other. Genghis Khan. The Persians in Greece, Alexander in Persia and India. The Vikings raided with no aims to spread their faith.

Enter Christianity to Europe, whose prime teacher is Jesus Christ and whose Council of Jerusalem nullifies the argument you are indubitably about to make with the OT. Christ preaches nonviolence, and loving thy neighbor. While predation does not end, it now has to resolve the cognitive dissonance certainly in the minds of rulers and soldiers, Christianity's adherents, on the contrast between this predation and their religion. Get the Pope to sanction it, (Crusades and Norman Invasion), claim the guys whose stuff you want is perverting the faith or you have rights to his land, whatever. You had to have SOME form of justification. Rather than SPARK conflict, religion helped neutralize it.

2. So religion is by and large a bulwark against totalitarianism? Glowing endorsemen by Mao and Stalin, that they felt thr religious a threat to their rule.

3. Just as saying "There is no God" is Atheistic. If "You die for Christianity!" Is killing for religion, "You die for Communism!" Is killing for Atheism.

But do we have any recorded cases (Not assumed from an absence of religion motivation) of that being the motivation?

Look up the Khmer Rouge.

So Boerd said
3. Just as saying "There is no God" is Atheistic. If "You die for Christianity!" Is killing for religion, "You die for Communism!" Is killing for Atheism.

Wouldn't that be killing for Communism then? I know it's a minor nitpick as Communism, at least the version you are referring to here is very atheistic. But this is like saying Christians during the crusades killed for Theism. Which would be incorrect as they were killing for their particular brand of Theism. The victims of communist dictators were killed because they believed in a god, yes, but it was the Communist ideology that led to them to be put to death not the concept of Atheism.

The point still stands that both religious and non-religious ideologies have committed horrible atrocities. Religion is not required to make people into monsters, but a religious belief in anything does tend to lead to these sorts of things as it gives people a means to justify their actions, and it gathers together large groups of people who are often times supposed to unquestioningly follow a certain leader, and for obvious reasons this is at least somewhat required for most large scale atrocities. I mean religious belief here as an unquestioning loyalty to something, not necessarily as a belief in a god by the way.

Just my two cents.

bosesbjorn said
Wouldn't that be killing for Communism then? I know it's a minor nitpick as Communism, at least the version you are referring to here is very atheistic. But this is like saying Christians during the crusades killed for Theism. Which would be incorrect as they were killing for their particular brand of Theism. The victims of communist dictators were killed because they believed in a god, yes, but it was the Communist ideology that led to them to be put to death not the concept of Atheism. The point still stands that both religious and non-religious ideologies have committed horrible atrocities. Religion is not required to make people into monsters, but a religious belief in anything does tend to lead to these sorts of things as it gives people a means to justify their actions, and it gathers together large groups of people who are often times supposed to unquestioningly follow a certain leader, and for obvious reasons this is at least somewhat required for most large scale atrocities. I mean religious belief here as an unquestioning loyalty to something, not necessarily as a belief in a god by the way. Just my two cents.

Except, I was refuting Magic's blanket all "Religion ebilz" conclusion.

So Boerd said
1. Let me posit an alternate explanation.Raw, unadulterated military predation has been, up until recently, perfectly acceptable. The Romans killed you and took your stuff without any qualm nor issue. Barbarian tribes across Europe quibbled with and slaughtered each other. Genghis Khan. The Persians in Greece, Alexander in Persia and India. The Vikings raided with no aims to spread their faith.Enter Christianity to Europe, whose prime teacher is Jesus Christ and whose Council of Jerusalem nullifies the argument you are indubitably about to make with the OT. Christ preaches nonviolence, and loving thy neighbor. While predation does not end, it now has to resolve the cognitive dissonance certainly in the minds of rulers and soldiers, Christianity's adherents, on the contrast between this predation and their religion. Get the Pope to sanction it, (Crusades and Norman Invasion), claim the guys whose stuff you want is perverting the faith or you have rights to his land, whatever. You had to have SOME form of justification. Rather than SPARK conflict, religion helped neutralize it. 2. So religion is by and large a bulwark against totalitarianism? Glowing endorsemen by Mao and Stalin, that they felt thr religious a threat to their rule.3. Just as saying "There is no God" is Atheistic. If "You die for Christianity!" Is killing for religion, "You die for Communism!" Is killing for Atheism.

1. So... Religion organized killings and slaughter? That's the argument? :/
Well yes this may have served for the killing to be less random/undiscriminating, it does organize it.
Which means better management, resources, larger forces, more concentrated killing grounds.
Sure it may have prevented a few towns by being seized as a result, but at the cost of making killings and murders as a whole far more numerous and brutal.

And once again, I am not arguing that only religion causes violence. I am arguing that religion acts as an enhancer to violence.

2. They felt anything that doesn't go along with what they say as a threat to their rule.

3. Dying for Christianity is dying for Christianity. Dying for Communism is dying for Communism. Dying for atheism is dying for atheism.
Communism is a political system, Atheism is the lack of a religion. These are two different things.

Oh this again.

Look, people were scoring points before there was a 'Slam Dunk.' People would still score points if there wasn't a 'Slam Dunk.' Lebron James would still be the king of basketball if there wasn't a 'Slam Dunk.' Western civilization and middle-east civilization would still have fought, lots of times, if there wasn't religion involved. Tools are tools. We rally around flags just as easily as we rally around crosses. Men have killed each other since before we discovered fire. Religion is a scapegoat that people use to forgive the blemishes of human nature. Evolution, god, the devil, take your pick on why -- we are brutal, ruthless creatures when we want to be.

Here's the thing. Atheism is not (or at least not always) an active denial of the existence of god(s); rather, it's a lack of belief that god(s) do exist. Atheism has no holy book, no doctrines, no dogmas or anything like that. There is literally no way in which atheism as a whole can cause or justify anything, just like not believing in santa can cause anything. Of course, this doesn't mean that an atheist is magically incapable of violence or otherwise discriminating against others, but that's not because of atheism but rather because of either simple human nature or because of something that goes beyond basic atheism.

As for communism: Communism =/= Atheism. Communism is a political/economical/social system with the intent of creating a classless, stateless community. Everyone would be equal regardless of their job or skin colour, there would be no elite class. There would be no poverty by virtue of everyone getting what they need as long as they give what they can give.
Honestly, on paper (Note that I said on paper, I know that in practice it doesn't work) it's pretty much the best system there is, IMO. However, the problem lies with human nature not being happy with being equal to everyone else. We always strive to be better than the rest, earn more than the rest and whatnot. This generally results in the leaders being corrupt jerks who have all the resources and everyone else being left in the cold, and woe to anyone who tries to protest to the system -- something which we can see in just about every single other system ever, by the way.

Charlie said
Basically my religion is based upon the practices Jesus Christ, and a forgiving God.

God was vengeful, but now, he doesn't appear to be doing anything lately. I think its because he just done with us, he looks at us the same as a parent looks at a child, he used to help us, but now we're grown up and able to stand on our own. God forgives us for all that we did and will do.

Jesus was an amazing person who wouldn't want to be like him, in all of what we do. Now we can't be exactly like him that's impossible, humans aren't wired like that, but we can try.

Thanks for reading. AMA

Well, it's not so much a new Religion as it is an interpretation of a current one. I'm sure this has been mentioned before, I haven't bothered to scroll down.

Fine then. If you are allowed to "No True Scotsman" an atheistic ideology, I get to disqualify every other religion, and not only that, I am allowed to disqualify how every other person but me practices my faith, and as I have not killed nor in fact used violence on everyone, religion=Gr8!

Here's the thing. Atheism is not (or at least not always) an active denial of the existence of god(s); rather, it's a lack of belief that god(s) do exist. Atheism has no holy book, no doctrines, no dogmas or anything like that. There is literally no way in which atheism as a whole can cause or justify anything.

Also @Magnum. Then your defense of atheism is based on unadulterated semantics. If Atheists murdered people explicitly for believing God, what caused them to do it?

Let me dodge these semantics by instead proposing that lack of religion makes you more violent. Now, there is no way around Communism's crimes. Let's do an approximate deaths per capita since the Enlightenment, when there began to be more than a few atheists, and you will find those without religion are responsible for more deaths in absolute terms, to say nothing of proportional.

Magic Magnum said
1. That is true, but it does make it far easier to do so. And acts as a way to get loyalty from people you would otherwise not have the loyalty of.

2. That's also true, but it doesn't mean religion doesn't function as a way to worsen/amplify humanity's more violent and barbaric behaviours and tendencies.

1. It depends on the religion. Atheism doesn't state there is a god, but it does mean there's no competition, either. However, in a monotheistic religion, there's a finite number of spots open. Christianity itself actually tends to invert the cult of personality, as they tend to be paranoid about the whole Antichrist thing.

2. You still have to address what people follow INSTEAD of religion, and if following that would be truly better. In the example of Communism, the answer is decidedly not. Sure, religious people have done awful things, too. However, using Bin Laden to make judgements about religion in general is basically the same as using Stalin to make judgements about Atheism. The problem isn't religion itself, it's that there's multiple competing worldviews that can't stand each other. Sure, everyone being Atheists would end most problems associated with religion, but so would everyone being Catholic.

And one more thing: Atheists often claim moral superiority to Theists on the grounds that they don't commit the same crimes they do. Even if we were to assume this is true, that might not be enough. While people do bad things in the name of their religions, they also do lots of good. There's a reason why lots of hospitals are named after saints. Has anyone ever done anything good in the name of there not being a God?

So Boerd said
Fine then. If you are allowed to "No True Scotsman" an atheistic ideology, I get to disqualify every other religion, and not only that, I am allowed to disqualify how every other person but me practices my faith, and as I have not killed nor in fact used violence on everyone, religion=Gr8!

You technically are allowed to do this to some extent when talking about religion, as religion does in fact require people to adopt a certain set of morals.

@So Boerd

Could you please explain to me how what I said is a 'No true Scotsman' fallacy? I didn't say that communist countries cannot also be atheistic. All I said was that communism and atheism aren't interexchangable by virtue of being about two completely different things. By the definition I have given before, how exactly could one not be both religious and communist (in the sense that everyone should be equal and deserve equal property, chances and whatnot, and that one man should not have more might than any given other) at the same time?

Also, for future refernce, please either quote the entire post, or add something like <Snip> to state that you have removed something that wasn't important to your point. Right now the part you have copy-pasted makes it look like I said that atheists would never harm anyone, which is obviously not true. Once again, I am well aware that both communist and atheists have done horrible things. All I am saying is that
A: You cannot lump the two groups together.
and B: Atheism doesn't have any codes/creeds to follow, meaning that any code that is followed by any given atheist must stem from another source. This might be a personal hate towards religion/religious people, it might be indoctrination/peer pressure by a group; really it could be anything, there's just nothing innate in atheism that dictates that non-nonbelievers should be killed or whatever other horrible thing you can think of.

there's just nothing innate in atheism that dictates that non-nonbelievers should be killed or whatever other horrible thing you can think of.

As there is nothing innate in the simple belief in God that says kill the unbelievers. I take it this means you agred with me and repudiate Magic's blanket condemnation of religion?

So Boerd said Fine then. If you are allowed to "No True Scotsman" an atheistic ideology,

No one is pulling a "No True Scotsman" of anything. The issue is you're making the assumption that atheism and communism is the same thing, which it isn't.
You're taking the actions of a government system and then claiming that applies to anyone without a religion, two unrelated thing.

So Boerd said If Atheists murdered people explicitly for believing God, what caused them to do it?

I've already told you, the Communist Heads killed people for holding loyalty to something other than them.
That's what caused the killings, not some sort of "Abolish Religion in the name of there not being a god!".

So Boerd said Let me dodge these semantics by instead proposing that lack of religion makes you more violent. Now, there is no way around Communism's crimes. Let's do an approximate deaths per capita since the Enlightenment, when there began to be more than a few atheists, and you will find those without religion are responsible for more deaths in absolute terms, to say nothing of proportional.

Once against Communism =/= Atheism.
So approximate death per capita between Atheism and Religion is rather one sided.

However, if we were to use your reasoning then Fascism sounds as Christian/Religious.
If you're allowed to claim Communism is Atheist because Stalin and Mao were atheists (Even though Communism could easily have a Christian head since nothing in it requires a lack of a religion) then I in turn should (wrongfully) be allowed to claim that Facism is Christian because Hitler was a Christian.

So add up the deaths by Hitler with every Crusade, Inquisition, Raid/Murder/Slavery justified with religion, all the Religious terrorist groups etc?
The numbers are still not in your favor, so even with your flawed reasoning the numbers are against you.

Protagonist said 1. It depends on the religion. Atheism doesn't state there is a god, but it does mean there's no competition, either. However, in a monotheistic religion, there's a finite number of spots open. Christianity itself actually tends to invert the cult of personality, as they tend to be paranoid about the whole Antichrist thing.

2. You still have to address what people follow INSTEAD of religion, and if following that would be truly better. In the example of Communism, the answer is decidedly not. Sure, religious people have done awful things, too. However, using Bin Laden to make judgements about religion in general is basically the same as using Stalin to make judgements about Atheism. The problem isn't religion itself, it's that there's multiple competing worldviews that can't stand each other. Sure, everyone being Atheists would end most problems associated with religion, but so would everyone being Catholic.And one more thing: Atheists often claim moral superiority to Theists on the grounds that they don't commit the same crimes they do. Even if we were to assume this is true, that might not be enough. While people do bad things in the name of their religions, they also do lots of good. There's a reason why lots of hospitals are named after saints. Has anyone ever done anything good in the name of there not being a God?

1. Oh yea, Atheism is facing division (Oddly enough, considering atheism simply means without religion. So it should be impossible to divide a non-existent) as a result of Atheism+.
Apparently feminism has learned the secret's of dividing 0. :/

2. Though once again, one can be Christian and still a communist. Which granted is suicidal if Stalin or Mao is in charge, could be completely different if a Christian were to made head. The difference between Stalin and Osama is that Stalin did it in the name of Communism/Personal power and authority, political motivation. Osama did it in the same of his religion and anger at America for getting involved in their business. A combination of political and religious motivation. Now, Stalin being an atheist and being responsible for so many deaths does beyond a doubt prove that atheists are capable of great violent crimes (which I was never arguing against btw). But it does not prove that him being an atheist was the reasoning or cause for it, especially considering many atheists were also killed by him.

Though everyone being Catholic would not quite solve most problems with religion. Cause people will get personal interpretations of it all the time, which would eventually evolve into a religion of it's own against and then we'd be back where we started.

Also I will admit that there are many atheists who claim moral superiority simply on the fact they are atheist, but I am not one of those atheist. I might agree that on average atheists may be more moral simply because their values come from themselves, and not out of a fear in God. But there is nothing that automatically makes one more immoral for being religious, you can be religious and still be one of the most kind, caring and wonderful people in the world. It's like saying "Atheists on average have a higher IQ. Therefore I, an atheists are automatically smarter than you a Christian". An average is strictly that, an average. Not an absolute guarantee/law that holds true 100% of the time.

And to answer "Why do people do good things in the name of Religion but not in the name of atheism?". That's because atheism is the lack of a religion, there is nothing to praise, nothing to do anything in the name of. For example, let's take a church and a group of people who all happen to be atheist. But groups see a high amount of homeless people in the area, both groups want to help. The atheist group then goes ahead, makes a charity and works to help feed and shelter the poor. The Church, also being good peoples does the same. But the Church believes in good, part of their religion is spreading Gods word through good deeds, so while they are helping the poor they make sure to advertise their God and Religion. Something the atheists are not doing, because they have no God or Religion to be advertising. It's not a matter of there are no atheist charities because atheists don't volunteer. It's a matter of atheists have no need to spread the word of "I lack a religion" around, so they simply go out and help without bringing religion into it.

So Boerd said As there is nothing innate in the simple belief in God that says kill the unbelievers. I take it this means you agred with me and repudiate Magic's blanket condemnation of religion?

Dude, you ignored practically everything she said there.
You're not going to win many debates by ignoring the majority of a person's point, only to pull out a single sentence and try to twist it to turn people against one another.

You're not going to win many debates by ignoring the majority of a person's point, only to pull out a single sentence and try to twist it to turn people against one another.

Boerd doesn't 'win' any debates. His tried-and-true tactic of bringing up irelevant points and his persistent use of backwards logic only helps to reinforce his established title as an excellent arguer. A debater he is not.