ATHEISM IS A RELIGION aka A CULT - Page 4 - Religion, God, and Theology

Alter2Ego · 04-01-2012, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Position

I made that assumption because you didn't refer to any atheists by name, but rather to atheists in the abstract. Since I'm an atheist, that means you are referring to me as much as to any other atheist. Also, your preference for broad generalities about atheism has led you to have many false beliefs about what it means to be an atheist, so I thought it would be useful to deal with a more concrete case. And since I am most familiar with my own, that is the example I chose to use.

ALTER2EGO:

I have "MANY" false belief about what it means to be an atheist, you say? Now you're exaggerating. I said two things about atheists:

1. I said atheists point fingers at theists and accuse theists of being responsible for most of the human rights violations. This first point is elaborated on in the very first paragraph of my opening post, as follows:

PARARAPH 1 OF MY OPENING POST:
Atheists consistently attempt to take the higher ground by pointing fingers of accusation at theists and accusing theists of committing all sorts of human rights violations in the name of "cultish religions," as they are fond of putting it. According to atheists, it is the belief in God that has caused people to commit the various atrocities common to mankind. Remove religion, belief in God, and belief in the Bible—the atheists argue—and the result will be world peace. This latter conclusion is mortally flawed for the following reasons:

2. I said atheists are overwhelmingly humanists.

Now, explain to me how those two statements equate to my having "many false beliefs about what it means to be an atheist." This is the first time I've ever heard of the number 2 being defined as "many" of anything.

Alter2Ego · 04-01-2012, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Position

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alter2Ego

I don't know where you're getting your numbers from, but I've found numerous sources--including books, and they put Stalin's killings between 20 million and 40 million. The methods of death are as follows according to two of my sources: executions, 1.5 million; gulags, 5 million; deportations, 1.7 million out of 7.5 million deported; and POWs and German civilians, 1 million – a total of about 9 million victims of repression.

I provided a link to my source, an article in the NYRB by Timothy Snyder, who is a Yale Professor of History who recently wrote a book about the mass murders of Hitler and Stalin. You claimed Stalin killed 40 million. Now you are revising it downward to between 20 and 40 million. However, you also admit that your two most recent sources put it at only about 9 million (which is similar to where Snyder has it--between 6 and 9 million). However, you use Conquest's figure of 20 million, but that is too old to be reliable. The figures have been revised downward so much because of the greater information available after the archives of the USSR were opened after its fall.

ALTER2EGO:
I didn't say anything about sources being "most recent." I said "numerous sources," and you can see me saying that within your quotation above. Neither am I revising downwards the Joseph Stalin killings.

Some sources say 20 million and some say 40 million were killed by Joseph Stalin, the atheist. But what you need to understand is that those that say 20 million are only referring to Soviet civilian deaths and are not including foreigners that Stalin also killed. Below are four more sources--all of which put the number above 40 million dead.

SOURCE #1
"2nd Most prolific mass-murderer in world history, Stalin killed over 7 times as many people as Hitler."
http://anti-communism.tripod.com/stalin.html

Original Position, since you claim Hitler killed 11 million, multiply 11 X 7, and you end up with 66 million killed, according to Source #1.

SOURCE #2
"Purges and mass murders
Under the pretext of constructing `socialism in one country', Stalin terrorized large segments of the Soviet population, such as the Kulaks, a term for prosperous farmers who were disinherited when agriculture was collectivized. He also orchestrated a massive famine in the Ukraine in which an estimated 5 million people died. It is believed that with the purges, forced famines, state terrorism, labor camps, and forced migrations, Stalin was responsible for the death of as many as 40 million people within the borders of the Soviet Union. According to former National Security Advisor to US President Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Stalin murdered an estimated 20 million people."
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...hy/stalin.html

SOURCE #3
"2 JOSEPH STALIN
Soviet Union (1929-53) Regime Communist Victims 40 million
Lenin’s paranoid successor was the runner-up to Mao in the mass-murder stakes. Stalin imposed a deliberate famine on Ukraine, killed millions of the wealthier peasants – or ‘kulaks’ – as he forced them off their land, and purged his own party, shooting thousands and sending millions more to work as slaves and perish in the Gulag."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mosl...mes-world.html

SOURCE #4
"Dr. David Barrett, editor of the massive World Christian Encyclopaedia, and author of Cosmos, Chaos and Gospel, and Our Globe and How To Reach It, has documented that Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin was responsible for killing over 40 million people. Joseph Stalin closed down over 48 000 churches, and attempted the liquidation of the entire Christian Church."
http://www.christianaction.org.za/fi...testkiller.htm

Alter2Ego · 04-01-2012, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Position

First, you should pay attention when atheism say that atheism is not a religion. After all, atheists should be expected to know more about the nature of atheism than people who aren't atheists.

Second, the court case that you cited did not in fact say atheism is a religion, but rather that atheism could be a religion for some people. This is not to say that atheism is itself inherently a religion. In fact, the Court was fairly clear to say that primarily what they mean is that it is a protected form of belief and practice under the First Amendment.

ALTER2EGO:
The Wisconsin federal court clearly stated that atheism is a religion. It did not say any of what you're saying here, that atheism "COULD BE a religion for some people." Below is a partial quote from the newspaper article.

"Court rules atheism a religion
Decides 1st Amendment protects prison inmate's right to start study group

Published: 08/20/2005 at 1:00 AM

A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate’s rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.

"Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being," the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.

The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion."
http://www.wnd.com/2005/08/31895/

http://patriot.net/~bmcgin/atheismisareligion.html

ShaneO19 · 04-01-2012, 08:18 PM

Here is a clip of Bill Maher discussing whether Atheism is a religion. I think it is pretty good. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A41WZBcmnfc

All-In Flynn · 04-01-2012, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alter2Ego

The Wisconsin federal court clearly stated that atheism is a religion.

Well, that's me convinced...

ganstaman · 04-01-2012, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alter2Ego

The Wisconsin federal court clearly stated that atheism is a religion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ganstaman

There is a difference between the legal definition of something and the common definition. Gambling is one example. Religion could be another if we are to take those court cases as meaningful.

This is much how theory means one thing when used commonly, and another when used by scientists. So I don't expect you to understand this point.

But anyway, since you actually know how to do a quote within a quote and you do it properly, you aren't as stupid as you act, so...

Alter2Ego · 04-01-2012, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CompleteDegen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alter2Ego

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

Atheists consistently attempt to take the higher ground by pointing fingers of accusation at theists and accusing theists of committing all sorts of human rights violations in the name of "cultish religions," as they are fond of putting it.

Your God has both committed and ordered genocide. Suggesting a belief in said God has lead to killing is supported by the very Bible that you read.

ALTER2EGO -to- COMPLETE DEGEN:

After what I did to you in my "Darwin's Macro-Evolution: Why Unscientific?" thread—to the point where you were running around in circles and contradicting yourself—I didn't expect you to come back asking for more. Here you are again.

My response to your above statement will be found on page 8 of my thread entitled: "The Bible: Gods Word or Mans?" You can get there quickly by means of the weblink below.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...l#post32371251

Quote:

Originally Posted by CompleteDegen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alter2Ego

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

According to atheists, it is the belief in God that has caused people to commit the various atrocities common to mankind. Remove religion, belief in God, and belief in the Bible—the atheists argue—and the result will be world peace. This latter conclusion is mortally flawed for the following reasons:

Additionally, only an idiot would suggest that eliminating religion would lead to world peace. If a fellow atheist suggested as much to me, I would dismiss their arguments out of hand as prima facie absurd. There are countless sources of conflict in the world, religion being one of them.

ALTER2EGO -to- COMPLETE DEGEN:

You'd be surprised how many atheists I've debated at other websites who all make the same claim: that it's because of "cultish religions" that people throughout history have committed atrocities. To hear them tell it, atheists are perfect saints.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CompleteDegen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alter2Ego

In other words, the problem is not the Bible or God. The problem is people, including those in false religions which have failed to teach the masses Biblical truths.

Typically, the problem is the people. However, your God has quite a violent history.

ALTER2EGO -to- COMPLETE DEGEN:

You said that before. I challenged you in my other thread: "The Bible: God's Word or Mans?" to present scriptures and to elaborate on what you're saying.

BTW: Since the same God who created me also created you, I don't know what you hope to accomplish by say "your God has quite a violent history." Next you will be arguing that you created yourself or that you evolved out of some slime from the sea that made it to land and sprouted feet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CompleteDegen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alter2Ego

An appreciation for Biblical truths and Jehovah's righteous standards of what's right and what's wrong is the only detriment against people committing human rights violations. Blaming God for the crimes of false Christians is an attempt at passing the buck.

Be careful making the No True Scotsman argument, but in general, the religiously justified killing is probably usually a misinterpretation. However, as a source of violent conflict, religion's role cannot be overlooked.

ALTER2EGO -to- COMPLETE DEGEN:

Which type of religions are you referring to? That's the issue. True religion or false religion? And who instructed them to do the killings? Was it God? The only killings done by instruction of Jehovah are those you referenced from the Bible--however, when one reads the context within which the Biblical killings occurred, one is able to understand why such was done.

Alter2Ego · 04-01-2012, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CompleteDegen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alter2Ego

1. Atheists have committed human rights violations en masse throughout history. For instance, Joseph Stalin—the atheist—ordered the deaths of at least 40 million people (20 million of which were everyday Soviet civilians), compared to the 6 million killed by Adolph Hitler the Roman Catholic "Christian."

This is a false equivalence. Atheism itself is the stance that no god exists. That's it. When someone has taken said stance, it is incumbent upon them to derive their worldview and philosophy of life elsewhere. One cannot derive murder form atheism; one has to look elsewhere.

It's a false equivalence because the religious killers can derive their justification from their religion. Granted, it often requires a misinterpretation/bastardization/perversion of the religion, but the causal link exists. No such justification can be derived from atheism as it has no philosophical teachings.

If an evolutionist went out and killed 6 million people because they didn't believe in evolution, blaming evolutionary theory for the massacre would obviously be ridiculous as there is no belief system in evolutionary theory that could be construed to justify killing.

ALTER2EGO -to- COMPLETE DEGEN:

Is that a fact? So according to you, when people posing as Christians (or claim they believe in some god or the other) commit human rights violations, they are more reprehensible than atheists/evolutionists who never claimed they were getting guidance from a god? Is that your position? If it is, it spanks of double-standards aka hypocrisy.

How can you expect false religion to do the right thing when they aren't following Bible instructions, period? If they were, they would have behaved like upright people. But you can make allowances for atheist who can use the excuse: "Well, I didn't know any better because I don't have the Bible." The false religionists have the Bible and aren't doing what it says. So whose fault is that? God's?

In other words, what you've got in false religionists who commit human rights violations and atheists who commit the same wrong doings is six of one and half-dozen of the other. False religion doesn't represent the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible, and their behavior is proof positive of that. Jesus Christ warned that false prophets aka false religionists would do awful things. To identify them, he said one should look at their fruit (their behavior).

"{15} Be on the watch for the false prophets that come to you in sheep's covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves. {16} BY THEIR FRUITS [meaning their actions] YOU WILL RECOGNIZE THEM. Never do people gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles, do they? {17} Likewise every good tree produces fine fruit, but every rotten tree produces worthless fruit. {20} Really, then, by their fruits you will recognize those men." (Matthew 7: 15-17, 20)

Alter2Ego · 04-01-2012, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CompleteDegen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alter2Ego

2. Atheism is itself a religion aka a cult. While atheist will argue that they don't believe in any god, the issue is not merely non-belief in God or gods but in having ANY sort of belief system. The belief system of atheism is centered around the philosophy of "secular-humanism."

Atheism is not a belief system. Secular humanism essentially is.

ALTER2EGO -to- COMPLETE DEGEN:

I've already been through that argument with Original Position who, like you, would love to separate the two. But since the judges in two different courts--decades apart--realized that because the backbone of atheism is secular-humanism, they both came to the unanimous conclusion that atheism is a religion. If you disagree with the ruling of the 1961 and the 2005 courts, go file an appeal with them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CompleteDegen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alter2Ego

3. Atheism is a religion according to a 2005 Wisconsin federal court ruling. Since, by definition, all religions are classified as cults, atheism is therefore a cult.

It doesn't really matter what the court said. Atheism cannot be a religion unless you can identify its belief system, which you can't.

ALTER2EGO -to- COMPLETE DEGEN:

Atheism's belief system is secular humanism and the belief that there is no God or gods. Those are unifying beliefs found among the average atheist.

DEFINITION OF "HUMANISM":
1. the quality of being human; human nature

2. any system of thought or action based on the nature, interests, and ideals of humanity; specif., a modern, nontheistic, rationalist movement that holds that humanity is capable of self-fulfillment, ethical conduct, etc. without recourse to supernaturalism
http://www.yourdictionary.com/humanism

As I explained to Original Position, a person who does not believe in God or gods is generally a humanist, because it means he/she feels that he/she does not need a supernatural god to instruct him/her about how best to live. This philosophical idea is the backbone of atheism.

Secular Humanists aka atheists have used their "religion" status to get tax exemptions that are given to orthodox religions when it suits them to refer to themselves as a religion. Then when it suits their purposes, they claim they are not a religion so they can teach evolution in schools. This point is brought out by the following source quoted below. everything below in dark red is quoted verbatim.

Is "Secular Humanism" a "Religion"?

Even the Supreme Court of the United States spoke in 1961 of Secular Humanism as a religion. It was a struggle to get atheism accepted as a religion, but it happened. From 1962-1980 this was not a controversial issue.

In 1961, the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that Secular Humanism was a religion. Nevertheless, many Humanists deny the significance of the Court's assertion. In order to buttress the claim that the identification of Secular Humanism as a religion in a footnote in the Torcaso case is more than mere "dicta," here is a memorandum prepared "[a]t the request of the staff of the Committee on Education and Labor” by Congressman John B. Conlan....

Secular Humanism is a religion
"for Free Exercise Clause purposes."
The Court has undeniably defined Secular Humanism as a religion "for free exercise purposes." When Secular Humanists want the benefits of a religion, they get them.

Tax Exemption. Secular Humanism has been granted tax-exempt status as a religion. The Torcaso quote cited the cases.

Conscientious Objection. Even though Congress originally granted conscientious objector status only to those who objected to war for religious reasons (i.e., because of a belief in God), the Supreme Court turned around and said that Humanists who don't believe in God are "religious" for C.O. purposes. U.S. v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 183, 85 S.Ct. 850, 13 L.Ed.2d 733, 746 (Holding that belief in a "Supreme Being" is not a necessary component of "religion," quoting a Secular Humanist source, "Thus the 'God' that we love . . . is . . . humanity.")

So Secular Humanism is emphatically and undeniably a religion -- "for free exercise purposes."

Any claim that "the clear weight of the caselaw" is against the proposition that Secular Humanism is a religion is a misleading claim. Secular Humanism is a religion ("for free exercise clause purposes").

Secular Humanism is Not a religion
"for Establishment Clause purposes."

But when Christians attempt to get the religion of Secular Humanism out of the government schools, based on the same emotional frame of mind which atheists had when they went to court against God in schools, then pro-secularist courts speak out of the other side of their faces and say that Secular Humanism is NOT a religion "for establishment clause purposes." This is slimy deceitful legalism at its worst.

But it explains why so many are confused about whether Secular Humanism is a religion.

Here is the rule: When Secular Humanists want the benefits of religion, Secular Humanism is a religion. When Secular Humanists are challenged for propagating their religion in public schools, it is not a religion. If that sounds insane, it is; but all insane people are still rational. This insanity is cloaked in the rational-sounding rhetoric of constitutional law. Remember:

Secular Humanism is a religion "for free exercise clause purposes," and it is not a religion "for establishment clause purposes."

Thus a teacher who wants to tell his students about his religious beliefs is free to do so if his religion is the religion of Secular Humanism, but may not tell his students about his religious beliefs if his religion is Christianity. Christians are not even allowed to discuss Christianity with students during lunch break, while Secular Humanists are allowed to teach the tenets of the religion of Secular Humanism from the blackboard during class.
http://vftonline.org/Patriarchy/defi...m_religion.htm

NOW, IS THIS HYPOCRISY OR WHAT?

VeeDDzz` · 04-02-2012, 12:03 AM

So judges determine what a belief system is and isn't. I've completed 6 tertiary subjects of law, and that's still news to me. Amazing.

14cobster · 04-02-2012, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alter2Ego

What's that got to do with the fact that two different courts in the USA made a ruling that atheism is a religion? Intelligent design is an entirely different topic.

How A2E was not at least to be commended for this post is beyond me.

Rok2p2 · 04-02-2012, 12:45 AM

Atheists have killed people too.
Not all atheists are Humanists.
It's not centered around Humanism, it's not about Humanism at all.

Atheism is not a religion.

Link to appeal
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/GW1FCY9O.pdf

Quote:

The problem here was that the prison
officials did not treat atheism as a “religion,” perhaps in
keeping with Kaufman’s own insistence that it is the
antithesis of religion. But whether atheism is a “religion”
for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a
supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or
have a sacred Scripture. The Supreme Court has said that a
religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct
from a “way of life,” even if that way of life is inspired by
philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns.

http://atheism.about.com/b/2005/08/2...-in-prison.htm

Since OP doesn't do links:

Quote:

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that inmates' religious liberties include allowing atheists to conduct study groups. So long as the atheists consider it a matter of religion and religious liberty, prison officials must respect their wishes as much as the wishes of Christians. The Christian Right is already spinning this and distorting it.
According to Kaufman v. McCaughtry (PDF document), this is the situation:

Kaufman’s argument that the prison officials violated his constitutional rights when they refused to give him permission to start a study group for atheist inmates at the prison. ... Kaufman submitted an official form titled “Request for New Religious Practice,” in which he asked to form an inmate group interested in humanism, atheism, and free speaking. The group would work “[t]o stimulate and promote Freedom of Thought and inquiry concerning religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals and practices[, and to] educate and provide information concerning religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals, and practices.”
The Christian Right has been saying that the court declared atheism to be a religion. Did they? Well, Kaufman, the defendant, argued very specifically that it wasn’t:

The problem here was that the prison officials did not treat atheism as a “religion,” perhaps in keeping with Kaufman’s own insistence that it is the antithesis of religion. But whether atheism is a “religion” for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture. The Supreme Court has said that a religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct from a “way of life,” even if that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns. A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being (or beings, for polytheistic faiths).

Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of “ultimate concern” that for her occupy a “place parallel to that filled by . . . God in traditionally religious persons,” those beliefs represent her religion. ... We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion. ... Kaufman claims that his atheist beliefs play a central role in his life, and the defendants do not dispute that his beliefs are deeply and sincerely held. The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions.
Notice the scare quotes around the word religion. The court isn’t treating atheism like a real religion. Two things matter for the court: first, the seriousness with which Kaufman holds his beliefs (differentiating his proposed study group from a chess club) and, second, the fact that the government is prohibited from favoring religion over beliefs held with such seriousness.

The Court did not rule that atheism is a religion. Instead, the court ruled that, for First Amendment purposes, atheism is a religion for Kaufman. Those are two very significant qualifiers. It means that atheism isn’t inherently a religion. It means that atheism isn’t inherently a religion for Kaufman — it’s only a religion for Kaufman in this narrow context. It means that atheism isn’t a religion for First Amendment purposes for everyone — just for Kaufman (and presumably some other inmates) in the context of this case.

Why did the judges reach this decision? Although it seems strange, it’s the best option given what they had to work with. If you accept that religion shouldn’t be favored over non-religion, then in situations like this there are only two choices: remove the privileges being given to religion or ensure that the same privileges are available to non-religion. Should the court have prevented the prison from letting religious groups meet? Even if that were possible, it wouldn’t have been fair. If someone disagrees that religion shouldn’t be favored over non-religion, though, then that would undermine court decisions allowing non-religious pacifists to apply for “religious exemptions” to military duty, for example. It would even allow the government to give tax exemptions to religious groups, but not to non-religious groups.

The Christian Right, though, acts like the court said that atheism is a religion, full stop. Much of the confusion stems from a World Nut Daily article which radically distorts the facts and very pointedly doesn’t link to the original decision were people can read it for themselves. What’s interesting is that even WND quotes a Christian Right lawyer who thinks it wrong to declare atheism a religion:

Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, called the court’s ruling “a sort of Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence.”

“Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion,” said Fahling.
It’s unfortunate that even Fahling, a lawyer, either can’t understand or can’t be fair about what the ruling actually says. It’s instructive, though, that he thinks it bad for atheism to be considered a religion. Many on the Christian Right seem to consider a good thing, tactically speaking, to act like atheism is a religion. There are obviously some fundamental disagreements here

**Original Position** · 04-02-2012, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alter2Ego

ALTER2EGO:
The Wisconsin federal court clearly stated that atheism is a religion. It did not say any of what you're saying here, that atheism "COULD BE a religion for some people." Below is a partial quote from the newspaper article.

[COLOR="DarkRed"]"Court rules atheism a religion
Decides 1st Amendment protects prison inmate's right to start study group

Published: 08/20/2005 at 1:00 AM

A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate’s rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.

"Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being," the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.

Actually, it was pretty short, so I read the court's decision, and it doesn't say what you have claimed. Your biased "newspaper" article was wrong. For instance, notice that the quoted sentence says exactly what I've been claiming, that atheism was the inmate's religion, not that atheism is a religion.

Quote:

The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion."
http://www.wnd.com/2005/08/31895/

http://patriot.net/~bmcgin/atheismisareligion.html

So? You keep claiming, falsely, that atheism and secular humanism is the same thing. Since you are wrong about this, whatever the Court might have said in 1961 about secular humanism is irrelevant to whether atheism is a religion.

**Original Position** · 04-02-2012, 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alter2Ego

ALTER2EGO:
[COLOR="Navy"]I didn't say anything about sources being "most recent." I said "numerous sources," and you can see me saying that within your quotation above. Neither am I revising downwards the Joseph Stalin killings.

Some sources say 20 million and some say 40 million were killed by Joseph Stalin, the atheist. But what you need to understand is that those that say 20 million are only referring to Soviet civilian deaths and are not including foreigners that Stalin also killed. Below are four more sources--all of which put the number above 40 million dead.
<snip irrelevant quotations>

My source is correct and your sources are incorrect. Why? Because my source had access to information that wasn't available to the people you are quoting. Also, the people you are quoting are relying on other scholars for their figures--they have not studied this issue themselves, whereas Snyder has studied and published on this topic himself.

**Original Position** · 04-02-2012, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alter2Ego

ALTER2EGO:

[COLOR="Navy"]I have "MANY" false belief about what it means to be an atheist, you say? Now you're exaggerating. I said two things about atheists:

Yes, you have many false beliefs about atheists. For instance, you conflate atheism with secular humanism, which is incorrect. You also think that atheists typically blame all the evils of the world on theism, which is false. You also have claimed that atheism is a belief system, which is false. You have also claimed that atheists are hypocrites because they are responsible for Stalin's murders, which is false. I could go on.

Quote:

1. I said atheists point fingers at theists and accuse theists of being responsible for most of the human rights violations. This first point is elaborated on in the very first paragraph of my opening post, as follows:

PARARAPH 1 OF MY OPENING POST:
Atheists consistently attempt to take the higher ground by pointing fingers of accusation at theists and accusing theists of committing all sorts of human rights violations in the name of "cultish religions," as they are fond of putting it. According to atheists, it is the belief in God that has caused people to commit the various atrocities common to mankind. Remove religion, belief in God, and belief in the Bible—the atheists argue—and the result will be world peace. This latter conclusion is mortally flawed for the following reasons:

Yes, this is also false. I'm sure some atheists have said this, but it is a pretty rare belief among the atheists that I know, and I am pretty sure that I know a lot more atheists than you do.

Quote:

2. I said atheists are overwhelmingly humanists.

Now, explain to me how those two statements equate to my having "many false beliefs about what it means to be an atheist." This is the first time I've ever heard of the number 2 being defined as "many" of anything.

Why don't you quote yourself here like you did above? It is because you are lying--you didn't qualify your statement with "overwhelmingly." Even after it was pointed out to you that lots of atheists are not secular humanists, you have continued to write as if you could prove that atheism is a religion by proving that secular humanism is a religion