If Christianity is to be held responsible for the acts of Christians than Atheism must be held responsible for the acts of Atheists.

Christianity can only be held responsible if the acts are done in the name of Christianity. Similarly for atheism. In the case of the USSR or the PRC, people weren't killed in the name of atheism - they were killed in the name of communism or nationalism or the cult of Mao.

Similarly, Christianity isn't responsible for any atrocities committed by the regime of Francisco Franco.

However, "millions of people" were not killed because they were not atheist.

millions of people were killed because they were religious, get over it, many studies and researches have been already done about it, I suggest you to start reading them.

The cult of Reason was a cult that existed for what? 2 years? As far as i know there was no death.

Oh, yeah two years, ever heard of the "reign of terror" (la terreur in French)? it lasted less than a year and it was marked by mass executions, until Robespierre was himself sentenced to death, it was during that period that executions were perpetrated against the clergy and christians.
I will give you some figures, a big christian and royalist rebellion happened in Vendée as you may know, it has been estimated that between 100,000 to 500,000 Vendeans were killed. Some historians call these mass killings the first modern genocide, specifically because intent to exterminate the Catholic Vendeans was clearly stated. This was only in Vendée, many other places in France experienced mass massacres.

a lot of the religious people that were killed not because they were religious, but simply because they opposed the communist regime. The ideology of communist regimes were responsible for those death, not atheism.

Under the Khmer rouge regime led by Pol Pot, 25,000 monks were massacred, believing buddhism was a decadent affectation, and promoting again atheism.
In the Soviet Union, the total number of Christian victims of Soviet state atheist policies, has been estimated to range between 12-20 million (only counting Christians not Muslims and other religious victims).

It's good to debate but stop neglecting the truth. Forced Atheism is as bad as forced religious movements.

Edited 8/12/2015 00:24:56

Ideology: a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

Based on this, Atheism is an ideology. Atheism has its own set of ideas, the biggest one as God not existing, but it is causing people to become anti-religion, thus influencing political theory.

Doctrine: a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.

The doctrine that was put forward by the Spanish during the inquisition, and also the colonisation of Africa and America, was actually that the people they were conquering were not as good as themselves, even sub-human. This is not taught anywhere in the Bible, which means that this belief or idea came only through the corruption of man-kind, and not from what they should do. Thus, the Spanish were wrong to do what they did.

Were there religious people killed because of their beliefs? yes, probably, and forcing people to become atheist is just as bad as forcing people to become religious. But a lot of the religious people that were killed not because they were religious, but simply because they opposed the communist regime. The ideology of communist regimes were responsible for those death, not atheism.

Rather than "yes, probably", you could change that to "yes, definitely". In communist regime is not the only place where religions were persecuted. Take the example of Hitler. He wasn't communist; he was anti-communist. However, he did do many things against religions, such as both Jews and Christians.

Oh, yeah two years, ever heard of the "reign of terror" (la terreur in French)? it lasted less than a year and it was marked by mass executions, until Robespierre was himself sentenced to death, it was during that period that executions were perpetrated against the clergy and christians.
I will give you some figures, a big christian and royalist rebellion happened in Vendée as you may know, it has been estimated that between 100,000 to 500,000 Vendeans were killed. Some historians call these mass killings the first modern genocide, specifically because intent to exterminate the Catholic Vendeans was clearly stated. This was only in Vendée, many other places in France experienced mass massacres.

Well you probably know more on that than me, but from what you've just say, seems like the thousands of people were dead because they were Catholic, not because they were believing in God. The whole thing was a rebellion against the catholic church.
But anyway, i agree with you, of course, that forced atheism is as bad as fundamentalist religious movement (as i said before)
All i am saying is that atheism is just the lack of belief in any deity, and there is no doctrine attached to it. Just like Theism is the belief in at least one deity, without necessarily any doctrine attached to it. So Atheism could not have been the cause for these killing. It is as simple as that. A certain form of atheistic communism is what is responsible for the massacres. And a certain form of religious theism is what is responsible for other massacres.
I'm not neglecting "the truth", i'm just saying that there is more to it than just "they killed because they were atheist". If a racist white guy kills a black guy, the cause is not that he is white, the cause is that he follows a white supremacist doctrine.

Ideology: a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

Based on this, Atheism is an ideology. Atheism has its own set of ideas, the biggest one as God not existing, but it is causing people to become anti-religion, thus influencing political theory.

Atheism can mean from "i know there is no gods", to "i don't believe there is any god", if you want to call that a "set of ideas" thats fine as long as we know the meaning of the word. Anti-theism would better fit in the definition of ideology though.

The doctrine that was put forward by the Spanish during the inquisition, and also the colonisation of Africa and America, was actually that the people they were conquering were not as good as themselves, even sub-human. This is not taught anywhere in the Bible, which means that this belief or idea came only through the corruption of man-kind, and not from what they should do. Thus, the Spanish were wrong to do what they did.

what are you talking about?
"The Inquisition is a group of institutions within the judicial system of the Roman Catholic Church whose aim was to combat heresy. It started in 12th-century France to combat religious sectarianism, in particular the Cathars and the Waldensians. Other groups which were investigated later include the Spiritual Franciscans, the Hussites (followers of Jan Hus) and Beguines. Beginning in the 1250s, inquisitors were generally chosen from members of the Dominican Order, to replace the earlier practice of using local clergy as judges. Wikipedia

In communist regime is not the only place where religions were persecuted. Take the example of Hitler. He wasn't communist; he was anti-communist. However, he did do many things against religions, such as both Jews and Christians.

Oh boy. Hitler was a Roman Catholic. He persecuted the jews, true enough, but he was not atheist at all. All the nazi had "God with us" on the buckle of their belts for one. And here is a few quote from Hitler:

The anti-Semitism of the new movement (Christian Social movement)
was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge.
[Adolf Hitler, “Mein Kampf”, Vol. 1, Chapter 3]

I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty
Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.
[Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]

video footage of Hitler invoking God:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StaPF5qqFDk

There is a long list of Hitler quote here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/08/23/list-of-hitler-quotes-he-was-q/

I haven't verified all the quote in their context so there might be a bit of quotemining, i don't know, but i think the picture here is quite clear. Hitler was not an atheist.

Edited 8/12/2015 02:47:59

There is evidence that Hitler was not really Christian and just used Christianity as a convenient rallying point for his cause. Nazism, which is a religion in itself, that Hitler created.

Anywho 125ch, you are really doing no benefit to your cause. Your arguments are scrambled and interweave and contradict.

Your arguments are scrambled and interweave and contradict.

Just like the bible.

http://bibviz.com/#colorize:Crimson,source:sab

There is evidence that Hitler was not really Christian and just used Christianity as a convenient rallying point for his cause. Nazism, which is a religion in itself, that Hitler created.

Haha i just fucking link a ton of quotes and a video, and you are telling me "the evidence shows that he just "used" christianity. That's it? Where is the evidence? I'm not saying you are wrong, but please if you are gonna make a claim like that, at least give me some evidences...

Anywho 125ch, you are really doing no benefit to your cause. Your arguments are scrambled and interweave and contradict.

care to elaborate? Seems to me you are really good at saying random things, not so much as supporting them with argument and evidences though

Edited 8/12/2015 02:53:07

I say random things and don't support them with "argument and evidences" because I don't need to argue with people like you.

Edit : typo

Edited 8/12/2015 03:03:47

Christianity can only be held responsible if the acts are done in the name of Christianity. Similarly for atheism. In the case of the USSR or the PRC, people weren't killed in the name of atheism - they were killed in the name of communism or nationalism or the cult of Mao.

Similarly, Christianity isn't responsible for any atrocities committed by the regime of Francisco Franco.

THIS

I say random things and don't support them with "argument and evidences" because I don't need to argue with people like you.

OK

Edited 8/12/2015 03:06:41

Benjamin, what do you want me to do about that link? If you give us an example, then we can talk over it.

125ch209, no one is ever going to look at these quotes. If you want someone to know what they say, actually say it rather than resorting to giving us links to look through.

And if you agree, like him, that ISIS is better that the US and France, its fine with me, i think it is sad but i won't bother arguing against it on the internet, that would just be a waste of time.

To be perfectly blunt, ISIS is better than either the US or France if you apply morality to nations. The French invasion of Africa and subjugation of it's natives was downright barbaric and if you believe in something akin to evil then yes it was evil. ISIS is not particularly brutal compared to what France did and not brutal compared to what the US did. But what ISIS is doing is unacceptable, just as what the US is also doing now and what France has done.

This is why you should not apply what someone does in the name of a ideology or idea to others in the same ideological group/nation/entity. You would have to do it to yourself eventually and you would not like it.

I do not agree with the premise that what a person does when in group makes the entire group guilty of what that person did , just showing you a mirror to yourself.

Edited 8/12/2015 06:15:27

Hey everybody I have a legitimate question :

Is John Smith relevant? I don't see him post a lot, but when he does it's usually in argument/flame war threads like this. he used to post all the time, but now he doesn't post as much. I'm not sure what vibe anybody gets from him.

Christianity can only be held responsible if the acts are done in the name of Christianity. Similarly for atheism. In the case of the USSR or the PRC, people weren't killed in the name of atheism - they were killed in the name of communism or nationalism or the cult of Mao.

Similarly, Christianity isn't responsible for any atrocities committed by the regime of Francisco Franco.


THIS

Now you're backpedaling. Originally you said Christianity was responsible for much of the evil in the world and had to be held accountable for crimes done for it's sake in the past.

For the record, It was never my point to paint Atheism as evil for the crimes of the Soviet Union and such. I'm simply trying to show you that if you judge Christianity based on actions of it's followers than you must also judge Atheism based on the actions of it's followers. Otherwise we have ourselves a double standard.

Judge both the same, or don't judge either at all.

Edited 8/12/2015 14:03:04

@Eklipse, I think you're missing a subtle distinction. Christianity (or Islam or atheism or communism) is responsible for what people do using it as justification. It is not responsible for what Christians do if it is unrelated to Christianity. So Christianity has to to answer for the Crusades or the Inquisition and Islam has to answer for the suicide bombers. Christianity does not have to answer for Franco.

People don't use atheism as a justification to do anything except argue with religious people online. Atheist dictators like Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot have killed many religious people, but they didn't single them out specifically. The defining feature of the people they persecuted was that they had allegiances to things other than said dictator. They also purged intellectuals and people with contacts to the west.

@Beren:
Does this mean i can go out and kill religious nuts and blame it on other atheïsts ? :D

Here is my original statement:

Religion has been used for bad things because on so many levels it teaches bad things, and these teachings have lead otherwise good people do bad things. Not everything is to blame on religion, but religion do have a big responsability in those crime, and should be held accountable.

Here is your version of my statement

Originally you said Christianity was responsible for much of the evil in the world and had to be held accountable for crimes done for it's sake in the past.

Do you see how you keep misrepresenting what i say?

It is hard to argue when everytime you answer me, you use straw man arguments.
And actually even if that was what i said, that does not contratict Beren's arguments.
I don't see the backpedaling.
All i ever said is that if there is a connection to be made between a crime and religious beliefs, that connection should be made, and religion should be held accountable for it, to the extent of its reponsability.

@powerpos, to the extent that you go and kill people due to atheism atheism would bear some of the responsibility. That responsibility does not, however, get transferred to other atheists themselves, just as peaceful Muslims are not responsible for the actions of suicide bombers and Eklipse is not responsible for the Inquisition.

only got one thing to say...

" We live life as we do because we believe in living life. But to live without faith is a worse than death itself. I would accept God with open arms long before I ever denied him" ~Saint Jeanne D'Arc

Here is my original statement:

Religion has been used for bad things because on so many levels it teaches bad things, and these teachings have lead otherwise good people do bad things. Not everything is to blame on religion, but religion do have a big responsability in those crime, and should be held accountable.


Here is your version of my statement

Originally you said Christianity was responsible for much of the evil in the world and had to be held accountable for crimes done for it's sake in the past.


Do you see how you keep misrepresenting what i say?

It is hard to argue when everytime you answer me, you use straw man arguments.

You're not even reading your own statement. You're saying that religion has responsibility in crimes and should be held accountable. "Religion do have a big responsibility in those crime, and should be held accountable." Word for word quote.

Now, if that is the case, then Atheism must also be held accountable in the same manner.

Now stop crying "straw-man", seriously.

All i ever said is that if there is a connection to be made between a crime and religious beliefs, that connection should be made, and religion should be held accountable for it, to the extent of its reponsability.

Then if there is a connection between a crime and anti-religious beliefs, the connection should be made and Atheism should be held accountable for it, to the extent of its responsibility.