SultanOfSurreal

[SultanOfSurreal]

Blue says: if millions of people think something, and have thought it for thousands of years, then (although it is not necessarily true) it cannot be so downright transparently stupid as to be rejected out of hand.

That's pretty much what I was trying to say.

then you are irredeemably stupid

[xelabale]

Blue says: if millions of people think something, and have thought it for thousands of years, then (although it is not necessarily true) it cannot be so downright transparently stupid as to be rejected out of hand.

That's pretty much what I was trying to say.

then you are irredeemably stupid

Anyone who rejects something out of hand (as you just have) is irredeemably stupid.

[Snorri1234]

That's pretty much what I was trying to say.

Then you should've said that and then we would've said "we don't reject it out of hand".

[Neoteny]

It's a weak version of argumentum ad populum?

[MaleAlphaThree]

You'd think that after a while, people who had never heard of religion would begin to wonder about their origins, or absolute truth, or the origin of everything. Those questions aren't going away. I think they start agnostic, then hypothesize that there is someone else responsible (God), then some criticize this notion and say that it's stupid, and the perceptive ones realize that the question is still unanswered, so we can't draw any conclusions yet.

Well, ancient people's did create the idea of deities pretty early (much earlier than bible times), what with worshiping the sun, land, and sea etc., but I wouldn't connect any other kind of worship practices with the monotheistic traditions since it was only with the monotheistic religions did the mental virus application come to bear, and that was coincidentally when genocidal actions became popular. It's not so much that Christianity (and others) are stupid, it's that they're dangerous and absolutely one of the worst things ever to happen to humanity. It hinders progress, creates violent grouping, and wastes time/energy on "supernatural things" when there is a whole universe of secular issues that require attention (and most are tax deductible). Humanity has outgrown religion, it's just that a lot of Americans haven't gotten the memo.

People really don't need to know why the universe exists, how it came to be, or in what way we are living in it. Outside of our Needs, we don't require anything complex. And nowadays, we know so much more about our world and the universe that we can make a more informed decision on what we "believe", even if we don't know everything that's out there, we have a pretty good basic idea. Kids these days are more concerned with what's on their iPod than what afterlife they're going to, so I'm not too worried about society as whole (American society, since it seems that all of the other advanced nations have pretty much dropped religion like a bad habit).

Also, I posted the wrong video. Go to "Penn Says!" Playlist, then go over 7 pages. It's Agnostic vs. Atheist. Wikipedia Link! (Epistemology)

You seem more agnostic than atheist, or at least a really weak atheist. That is a compliment coming from me.

Actually, I might be the strongest atheist in the GH. I'm just practicing restraint for the sake of the atheist image. I think I'm doing pretty well so far. After all, calling people stupid idiotic moronic simpleton, brainwashed retards only gets so much done.

[Neoteny]

(and most are tax deductible)

Voluntarily.

[john9blue]

Blue says: if millions of people think something, and have thought it for thousands of years, then (although it is not necessarily true) it cannot be so downright transparently stupid as to be rejected out of hand.

Then you should've said that and then we would've said "we don't reject it out of hand".

It's idiotic to dismiss a certain viewpoint as ridiculous and start making fun of it when millions of people genuinely believe it.

Well, ancient people's did create the idea of deities pretty early (much earlier than bible times), what with worshiping the sun, land, and sea etc., but I wouldn't connect any other kind of worship practices with the monotheistic traditions since it was only with the monotheistic religions did the mental virus application come to bear, and that was coincidentally when genocidal actions became popular. It's not so much that Christianity (and others) are stupid, it's that they're dangerous and absolutely one of the worst things ever to happen to humanity. It hinders progress, creates violent grouping, and wastes time/energy on "supernatural things" when there is a whole universe of secular issues that require attention (and most are tax deductible). Humanity has outgrown religion, it's just that a lot of Americans haven't gotten the memo.

You say it's a "mental virus". Could it be that monotheism spread so quickly because it makes more sense?

If people are becoming fanatical about religion, it's not the fault of the religion. Was Jesus "dangerous" and did he create "violent grouping"?

People really don't need to know why the universe exists, how it came to be, or in what way we are living in it. Outside of our Needs, we don't require anything complex. And nowadays, we know so much more about our world and the universe that we can make a more informed decision on what we "believe", even if we don't know everything that's out there, we have a pretty good basic idea. Kids these days are more concerned with what's on their iPod than what afterlife they're going to, so I'm not too worried about society as whole (American society, since it seems that all of the other advanced nations have pretty much dropped religion like a bad habit).

No we don't. We also don't require cars, electricity, schooling, weapons, cities, clothes, or any science at all for that matter. I don't see why people reject God when there is no other theory to replace it.

That last part might not be quite true.

Actually, I might be the strongest atheist in the GH. I'm just practicing restraint for the sake of the atheist image. I think I'm doing pretty well so far. After all, calling people stupid idiotic moronic simpleton, brainwashed retards only gets so much done.

Okay then. Sultan could learn a few lessons from you (if he wasn't trolling).

[Snorri1234]

Blue says: if millions of people think something, and have thought it for thousands of years, then (although it is not necessarily true) it cannot be so downright transparently stupid as to be rejected out of hand.

Then you should've said that and then we would've said "we don't reject it out of hand".

It's idiotic to dismiss a certain viewpoint as ridiculous and start making fun of it when millions of people genuinely believe it.

You don't seem to understand. Your sentence there is not the same as what Jones said. I (and others) read your statement as claiming that your belief is not ridiculous because millions of people believe it. Not that we should first consider it before saying it's ridiculous.

[john9blue]

You don't seem to understand. Your sentence there is not the same as what Jones said. I (and others) read your statement as claiming that your belief is not ridiculous because millions of people believe it. Not that we should first consider it before saying it's ridiculous.

What I thought Jones was saying (and what I meant) was that, although you can reject a belief, you shouldn't call it ridiculous if millions believe it, because clearly it's not. I see a difference between calling something false and calling something ridiculous.

[SultanOfSurreal]

Blue says: if millions of people think something, and have thought it for thousands of years, then (although it is not necessarily true) it cannot be so downright transparently stupid as to be rejected out of hand.

That's pretty much what I was trying to say.

then you are irredeemably stupid

Anyone who rejects something out of hand (as you just have) is irredeemably stupid.

xelabale is a child molesting mass murderer who listens to nickelback

now remember, this warrants careful consideration on your part before you decide if it's true, xelabale. of course, since it very much is true, hopefully you won't have to consider it for very long

[Snorri1234]

You don't seem to understand. Your sentence there is not the same as what Jones said. I (and others) read your statement as claiming that your belief is not ridiculous because millions of people believe it. Not that we should first consider it before saying it's ridiculous.

What I thought Jones was saying (and what I meant) was that, although you can reject a belief, you shouldn't call it ridiculous if millions believe it, because clearly it's not. I see a difference between calling something false and calling something ridiculous.

Then you are in fact still clinging to a Argumentum ad Populum. Just because millions (bilions) of people believe it doesn't mean it is not ridiculous.

[SultanOfSurreal]

targetman question time

please tell me how you feel about illegal immigration. and remember too that swine flu comes from mexico

[MaleAlphaThree]

If people are becoming fanatical about religion, it's not the fault of the religion. Was Jesus "dangerous" and did he create "violent grouping"?

I wouldn't give the character of Jesus so much credit. If someone is going to die for humanity's sin, he's going to have to do better than get his ass kicked on purpose to impress me. I have greater heroes in the Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and Star Wars. I would definitely blame religion for whatever it involves. Star Wars is popular because it's a good all around story with some interesting characters etc. etc. Religion WAS, and is, popular because it offers to answer questions that no regular joe can even fathom answers to because no answer is readily available to anyone. As it turns out, regular joes aren't too bright, either. Just because there isn't an available answer, doesn't mean you have to create one.

[muy_thaiguy]

It's not so much that Christianity (and others) are stupid, it's that they're dangerous and absolutely one of the worst things ever to happen to humanity.

So, someone who goes to church on weekly basis is dangerous and one of the worst things that could happen to humanity? Do you also feel the same about Pope John Paul II? Yes, people did some awful things in the past in the name of religion, but it was hardly new thing. If people don't fight for religion, they fight for gold. If not gold, then land, if not land, then power. If it is not one thing, it is always another.

It hinders progress, creates violent grouping, and wastes time/energy on "supernatural things" when there is a whole universe of secular issues that require attention (and most are tax deductible). Humanity has outgrown religion, it's just that a lot of Americans haven't gotten the memo.

Yes, there was a lax in progress during the Dark Ages, but that is because it was still turbulent times during the years after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. The Eastern Roman Empire was actually doing quite well and it would become, especially Constantinople, a center of the arts, learning, and creativity that would then shift to Italy during the Renaissance.

And FYI, the last 100 years have not exactly proven kind to purely secular governments in terms of being safe and good. Examples would include the USSR (gulags, 5 year plans, secret police, need I go on?), North Korea (apparently, it is a crime punishable by death to be a Christian there), Cuba (free health care, woo! Now, why the hell are so many trying to get to the US?) Nazi Germany (Hitler set himself up as a divine being, and if anything, took after the Norse mythology), Vietnam (giving little kids grenades and sending them into US camps, well, as long as it is for the greater secular good!), China (Tibet ring a bell?), etc.

[Iliad]

It's not so much that Christianity (and others) are stupid, it's that they're dangerous and absolutely one of the worst things ever to happen to humanity.

So, someone who goes to church on weekly basis is dangerous and one of the worst things that could happen to humanity? Do you also feel the same about Pope John Paul II? Yes, people did some awful things in the past in the name of religion, but it was hardly new thing. If people don't fight for religion, they fight for gold. If not gold, then land, if not land, then power. If it is not one thing, it is always another.

It hinders progress, creates violent grouping, and wastes time/energy on "supernatural things" when there is a whole universe of secular issues that require attention (and most are tax deductible). Humanity has outgrown religion, it's just that a lot of Americans haven't gotten the memo.

Yes, there was a lax in progress during the Dark Ages, but that is because it was still turbulent times during the years after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. The Eastern Roman Empire was actually doing quite well and it would become, especially Constantinople, a center of the arts, learning, and creativity that would then shift to Italy during the Renaissance.

And FYI, the last 100 years have not exactly proven kind to purely secular governments in terms of being safe and good. Examples would include the USSR (gulags, 5 year plans, secret police, need I go on?), North Korea (apparently, it is a crime punishable by death to be a Christian there), Cuba (free health care, woo! Now, why the hell are so many trying to get to the US?) Nazi Germany (Hitler set himself up as a divine being, and if anything, took after the Norse mythology), Vietnam (giving little kids grenades and sending them into US camps, well, as long as it is for the greater secular good!), China (Tibet ring a bell?), etc.

Your shocking knowledge of history astounds me.
North Korea-It's also a crime to be any other religion other than the one instated by the state, which obviously reveres the state.
Nazi Germany as a secular country? Not to mention the obvious Godwin references, no Hitler was NOT an atheist. This has been refuted many times already.
Vietnam-what did that have to do with secularism? Vietnam was quickly becoming a fiercely nationalist country, tired of being oppressed yearning for independence.
China-Yeah Tibet rings a bell. So does Buddhism and repression thereof, another conflict starting emanating from religious differences.

But the most important thing it doesn't matter. Atheist is not a belief and does not tie people together. If a religious person commits a crime, it is not the fault of religion. If however a religious person is deluded by religion to committing crimes, at least partly religion is a factor. That's the difference. There are no states shouting. Atheism or Agnosticism is not a factor in the causes of crimes or disasters, religion has been many times.

[Frigidus]

It's not so much that Christianity (and others) are stupid, it's that they're dangerous and absolutely one of the worst things ever to happen to humanity.

So, someone who goes to church on weekly basis is dangerous and one of the worst things that could happen to humanity? Do you also feel the same about Pope John Paul II? Yes, people did some awful things in the past in the name of religion, but it was hardly new thing. If people don't fight for religion, they fight for gold. If not gold, then land, if not land, then power. If it is not one thing, it is always another.

It hinders progress, creates violent grouping, and wastes time/energy on "supernatural things" when there is a whole universe of secular issues that require attention (and most are tax deductible). Humanity has outgrown religion, it's just that a lot of Americans haven't gotten the memo.

Yes, there was a lax in progress during the Dark Ages, but that is because it was still turbulent times during the years after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. The Eastern Roman Empire was actually doing quite well and it would become, especially Constantinople, a center of the arts, learning, and creativity that would then shift to Italy during the Renaissance.

And FYI, the last 100 years have not exactly proven kind to purely secular governments in terms of being safe and good. Examples would include the USSR (gulags, 5 year plans, secret police, need I go on?), North Korea (apparently, it is a crime punishable by death to be a Christian there), Cuba (free health care, woo! Now, why the hell are so many trying to get to the US?) Nazi Germany (Hitler set himself up as a divine being, and if anything, took after the Norse mythology), Vietnam (giving little kids grenades and sending them into US camps, well, as long as it is for the greater secular good!), China (Tibet ring a bell?), etc.

Your shocking knowledge of history astounds me.
North Korea-It's also a crime to be any other religion other than the one instated by the state, which obviously reveres the state.
Nazi Germany as a secular country? Not to mention the obvious Godwin references, no Hitler was NOT an atheist. This has been refuted many times already.
Vietnam-what did that have to do with secularism? Vietnam was quickly becoming a fiercely nationalist country, tired of being oppressed yearning for independence.
China-Yeah Tibet rings a bell. So does Buddhism and repression thereof, another conflict starting emanating from religious differences.

But the most important thing it doesn't matter. Atheist is not a belief and does not tie people together. If a religious person commits a crime, it is not the fault of religion. If however a religious person is deluded by religion to committing crimes, at least partly religion is a factor. That's the difference. There are no states shouting. Atheism or Agnosticism is not a factor in the causes of crimes or disasters, religion has been many times.

I'd go so far as to say that a government that declares itself "athiest" is just as bad as one that follows a particular religion. Governments should not be athiest instead of religious, they should be entirely neutral on the subject. It should remain well out of the public sphere. On a private level people can be as religious as they want, but imposing religious customs, norms, and laws of any sort (including a banning of them all together) is Not Good.

[xelabale]

Blue says: if millions of people think something, and have thought it for thousands of years, then (although it is not necessarily true) it cannot be so downright transparently stupid as to be rejected out of hand.

That's pretty much what I was trying to say.

then you are irredeemably stupid

Anyone who rejects something out of hand (as you just have) is irredeemably stupid.

xelabale is a child molesting mass murderer who listens to nickelback

now remember, this warrants careful consideration on your part before you decide if it's true, xelabale. of course, since it very much is true, hopefully you won't have to consider it for very long

No smoke without fire - I don't know where I find the time sometimes...

[john9blue]

But the most important thing it doesn't matter. Atheist is not a belief and does not tie people together. If a religious person commits a crime, it is not the fault of religion. If however a religious person is deluded by religion to committing crimes, at least partly religion is a factor. That's the difference. There are no states shouting. Atheism or Agnosticism is not a factor in the causes of crimes or disasters, religion has been many times.

Atheism certainly does tie people together... there are plenty of atheist organizations out there. Not to the extent of religion, but I've already shown why I think atheism is a belief just like religion and belongs in that category, and why agnosticism and atheism are very, very different.

A question though... suppose an atheist committed a crime that they would not have committed as a Christian. Murder, for instance... there was no belief in eternal damnation to keep him from doing it. Suppose that, like many atheists, he was raised as a Christian and rejected it. Would you say atheism was a factor in causing that crime? Because I would.

[Iliad]

But the most important thing it doesn't matter. Atheist is not a belief and does not tie people together. If a religious person commits a crime, it is not the fault of religion. If however a religious person is deluded by religion to committing crimes, at least partly religion is a factor. That's the difference. There are no states shouting. Atheism or Agnosticism is not a factor in the causes of crimes or disasters, religion has been many times.

Atheism certainly does tie people together... there are plenty of atheist organizations out there. Not to the extent of religion, but I've already shown why I think atheism is a belief just like religion and belongs in that category, and why agnosticism and atheism are very, very different.

A question though... suppose an atheist committed a crime that they would not have committed as a Christian. Murder, for instance... there was no belief in eternal damnation to keep him from doing it. Suppose that, like many atheists, he was raised as a Christian and rejected it. Would you say atheism was a factor in causing that crime? Because I would.

If your belief in eternal damnation is what is keeping you from committing murder then I well...

If that person was a Christian not an atheist, it would've changed nothing. No matter whether it was a spur of the moment thing, or premeditated, atheism would not been a factor. People do not commit murder because the Bible says so, people don't commit murder because that is evil. Not because God looks down on it, but because humanity does.

[Neoteny]

But the most important thing it doesn't matter. Atheist is not a belief and does not tie people together. If a religious person commits a crime, it is not the fault of religion. If however a religious person is deluded by religion to committing crimes, at least partly religion is a factor. That's the difference. There are no states shouting. Atheism or Agnosticism is not a factor in the causes of crimes or disasters, religion has been many times.

Atheism certainly does tie people together... there are plenty of atheist organizations out there. Not to the extent of religion, but I've already shown why I think atheism is a belief just like religion and belongs in that category, and why agnosticism and atheism are very, very different.

A question though... suppose an atheist committed a crime that they would not have committed as a Christian. Murder, for instance... there was no belief in eternal damnation to keep him from doing it. Suppose that, like many atheists, he was raised as a Christian and rejected it. Would you say atheism was a factor in causing that crime? Because I would.

Well, it may have been a bit silly for Iliad to say atheism doesn't tie people together while he was sporting a GH sig, but I do take issue with two statements in that bit.

First, I doubt you'll find many people contending the idea that atheism fills the role of religion from a worldview perspective, but I'm sure you know that I think seeing the "belief" in god and the "disbelief" in god as equivalent is flawed. And I'd say the difference between an atheist and an agnostic is minimal when compared to the difference between an agnostic and a theist. Pardon the rhetoric, but Aveling responded to Darwin, "after all, 'Agnostic' was but 'Atheist' writ respectable, and 'Atheist' was only 'Agnostic' writ aggressive." I'm sure you've heard the bit about being agnostic about unicorns and fairies and all that. Atheism just recognizes that agnosticism does not mean that there are equal possibilities of the positive or negative, while one who claims to be agnostic does the same, except for religion for some reason, perhaps so as to not hurt others' feelings, or out of deference to authorities on the subject, or just not giving a shit. I really can't presume to know for sure, since I haven't considered myself to be in that category for some time. My own personal experience in the "agnostic" worldview was both that of ignorance and apathy.

Secondly, the atheist murderer raises an interesting point. Religion may have deterrent effects on crime, but if that's the best argument for it, I think I'll pass. The atheism was not a motivation for the murder, it was just not a hindrance. While this might be a valid complaint, it's not on the same level as killing someone "in the name of god." However, I can't fault you for thinking that a worldview that doesn't offer ethical guidelines is a bad one. However, most atheists' worldviews do contain all the normal societal guidelines, they are just not based on divine revelation, but rather the philosophical study of ethics, which meshes with the rest of the worldview.

[b.k. barunt]

But the most important thing it doesn't matter. Atheist is not a belief and does not tie people together. If a religious person commits a crime, it is not the fault of religion. If however a religious person is deluded by religion to committing crimes, at least partly religion is a factor. That's the difference. There are no states shouting. Atheism or Agnosticism is not a factor in the causes of crimes or disasters, religion has been many times.

Atheism is not a belief? Whatthefuck is it? Any time you state an opinion that is a belief. Are you going to redefine basic communication according to your own definitons? If you believe in the existence of a God you are a Deist or Theist, and if you believe there is no God you are an Atheist. Either way it is a belief, and any belief ties people together - unless of course you are creating your own reality here.

"There are no states shouting." Whattheflyingfuck is that? Shouting what, Atheism? Have you conveniently forgotten the USSR, China or North Korea? What about all the people who were killed in those places because of their belief in God? Do you have any fooking idea what you are talking about?



Honibaz

[muy_thaiguy]

It's not so much that Christianity (and others) are stupid, it's that they're dangerous and absolutely one of the worst things ever to happen to humanity.

So, someone who goes to church on weekly basis is dangerous and one of the worst things that could happen to humanity? Do you also feel the same about Pope John Paul II? Yes, people did some awful things in the past in the name of religion, but it was hardly new thing. If people don't fight for religion, they fight for gold. If not gold, then land, if not land, then power. If it is not one thing, it is always another.

It hinders progress, creates violent grouping, and wastes time/energy on "supernatural things" when there is a whole universe of secular issues that require attention (and most are tax deductible). Humanity has outgrown religion, it's just that a lot of Americans haven't gotten the memo.

Yes, there was a lax in progress during the Dark Ages, but that is because it was still turbulent times during the years after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. The Eastern Roman Empire was actually doing quite well and it would become, especially Constantinople, a center of the arts, learning, and creativity that would then shift to Italy during the Renaissance.

And FYI, the last 100 years have not exactly proven kind to purely secular governments in terms of being safe and good. Examples would include the USSR (gulags, 5 year plans, secret police, need I go on?), North Korea (apparently, it is a crime punishable by death to be a Christian there), Cuba (free health care, woo! Now, why the hell are so many trying to get to the US?) Nazi Germany (Hitler set himself up as a divine being, and if anything, took after the Norse mythology), Vietnam (giving little kids grenades and sending them into US camps, well, as long as it is for the greater secular good!), China (Tibet ring a bell?), etc.

Your shocking knowledge of history astounds me.
North Korea-It's also a crime to be any other religion other than the one instated by the state, which obviously reveres the state.
Nazi Germany as a secular country? Not to mention the obvious Godwin references, no Hitler was NOT an atheist. This has been refuted many times already.
Vietnam-what did that have to do with secularism? Vietnam was quickly becoming a fiercely nationalist country, tired of being oppressed yearning for independence.
China-Yeah Tibet rings a bell. So does Buddhism and repression thereof, another conflict starting emanating from religious differences.

But the most important thing it doesn't matter. Atheist is not a belief and does not tie people together. If a religious person commits a crime, it is not the fault of religion. If however a religious person is deluded by religion to committing crimes, at least partly religion is a factor. That's the difference. There are no states shouting. Atheism or Agnosticism is not a factor in the causes of crimes or disasters, religion has been many times.

You do realize that I was using only a couple examples for each of those, correct?
North Korea: I used Christianity as an example, not as the only belief made illegal there.
Nazi Germany: Yes, it was atheist, with some leaningings towards the ever popular Norse mythology. It has been refuted many times that it was something else by historians and people who lived at the time.
Vietnam: After US troops had left (plus one example of how they would "fight" the US), the Viet Kong and North Vietnamese slaughtered 1 million innocent civilians that had merely wanted to live in a non-Communistic state.
China: So, Athiesm and Buddhism have been warring? What?

And what the hell is Atheism, if not a belief? It is as much a belief as Christianity, Paganism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism. What differentiates one Athiest from another, as well as one Christian from another is the difference in ideology. A Christian and a Muslim are both Monotheists, but their ideologies are different, as are Athiests in North Korea and Atheists in other parts of the world.

[Neoteny]

"Belief" is suffering from multiple definition disease. When an atheist discusses "belief," they are often intending to discuss "religious belief," and they are referring to belief that requires faith, with no empirical foundation. I believe you are referring to beliefs in general as perspectives, which are often based on observation and such, which can be both religious or not.

Ok, now go.

[Snorri1234]

But the most important thing it doesn't matter. Atheist is not a belief and does not tie people together. If a religious person commits a crime, it is not the fault of religion. If however a religious person is deluded by religion to committing crimes, at least partly religion is a factor. That's the difference. There are no states shouting. Atheism or Agnosticism is not a factor in the causes of crimes or disasters, religion has been many times.

Atheism is not a belief? Whatthefuck is it? Any time you state an opinion that is a belief. Are you going to redefine basic communication according to your own definitons? If you believe in the existence of a God you are a Deist or Theist, and if you believe there is no God you are an Atheist. Either way it is a belief, and any belief ties people together - unless of course you are creating your own reality here.

Interesting point. Is a nonbelief the same as a belief in God/unicorns/Santa? Would you label "i believe something about something, though I am not sure" as A belief? Is it really fair to label beliefs which are small and not really important in ones life as equilavent to a belief like Christianity which shapes one's actions and thought in quite a large way? Do all beliefs really tie people together?

Shouldn't a belief be in something, as opposed to nothing?

[Snorri1234]

You do realize that I was using only a couple examples for each of those, correct?
North Korea: I used Christianity as an example, not as the only belief made illegal there.
Nazi Germany: Yes, it was atheist, with some leaningings towards the ever popular Norse mythology. It has been refuted many times that it was something else by historians and people who lived at the time.
Vietnam: After US troops had left (plus one example of how they would "fight" the US), the Viet Kong and North Vietnamese slaughtered 1 million innocent civilians that had merely wanted to live in a non-Communistic state.
China: So, Athiesm and Buddhism have been warring? What?

Nazi Germany was not atheist. In fact, plenty of leaders were christian or at the very least believers in a high power. Now ofcourse it wasn't very christianlike since efforts were made to warp christianity to be more in accord with nazism and some leaders did their best to outlaw christianity, but it's really quite absurd to call Nazi Germany "atheist".

Basically, the role of religion in Germany was so contradictory and ridiculous that you can quite easily argue three different sides and still not come to a conclusion.


As for teh commies, it's quite hard to call them atheist states too. At least in a way that you can blame atheism. While Mao and Stalin were certainly atheists, they didn't do their actions in name of Atheism. You could say they did it in the name of Communism as a totalitarian ideology. Because it is not about the question of whether God exists or not, but about whether religion is good for society or not. Marx claimed it wasn't because religion meant people didn't see that the real cause of their misery was a non-communist economy.

I mean, I've seen atheists and christians arguing for radical capitalism, so why would communism be any different?