Except ... you miss one important point: there is no atheist ideology. There's this: there exists insufficient evidence for a belief in god things. As my recent post immediately prior to this one indicates, there's very little that follows from the atheist position. If true, then what you are attributing to atheism is coming from something else. I showed you 4 examples where you yourself had correctly attributed the (non atheist) beliefs to the actions in question. Contrary to a religion, contrary to a political system, contrary to even a belief system, atheism is not an ideology. In its most general, it's a presumed criteria for belief formation (evidence).
It relates to the heart of this topic. I'm inviting you to show what else follows logically from the atheist position. My argument is that if it does not follow from the atheist position, then it is not of the atheist position and thus its cause must belong elsewhere. And thus, we can't say (with straight face) "atheism caused the death of x-million x-es."
Then that's where you would want to look for causal explanations. However, even then you're likely to end up having to go deeper. Eventually you'll get at the importance of having an adequate theory of human nature -- what man really is. So far we appear to be in the late groping stages, but it's coming along faster now that we have neural cognition theory, conceptual metaphor, embodied philosophy...to replace a priori philosophy and faith systems.
As I mentioned, totalitarian states mixed with atheist belief is where I see causal explanations. It's a very deadly combination. But again, we're talking about a very small subset of all atheists though they're able to commit mass murder on a huge scale.
And yet nothing you present addresses my point. My point is atheism doesn't work in your or Mag's equation. So what if a government is hostile towards religion? That means they are hostile towards religion, nothing more. Why, remains unanswered. Why are they hostile? "Because they are atheists" doesn't work. Hostility toward the religious doesn't follow necessarily from atheism. Was it a perceived lack of control the Government felt which led them to be aggressive toward it? What? All I am saying is "there is insufficient evidence to believe in god things" hasn't been shown to be the logical or even the practical causal force behind the events described. Sheesh, already.
And I say it's a result of the glasses you're wearing because there's nothing that follows from atheism except a presumption of what constitutes reasonable belief formation. It's not good enough to say "mixed" that's just rhetorical question begging.
Why are they hostile? "Because they are atheists" doesn't work. It does work. Why are they hostile, indeed? If they weren't atheist, they still might go after some religion, but not all.
But that's not my point at all! LOL, this is too rich. My point is that those who are "about doing away with religion" can not do so by virtue of their atheism. Why? Because all it is is the recognition that there is insufficient evidence to believe in god things. To achieve an additional position, i.e., there is no god, world is better without religion, religion should be destroyed, etc., are PERSONAL positions and do not follow from the atheist position. What you are calling the atheist position when examined is an aberration attributable to other things -- ego, control, desire for single world view (one's own), etc.
What part of "Every atheist isn't about doing away with religion and religious institutions." didn't you parse?
So you say. But logically there's simply nothing there. Atheism is just the recognition that there is insufficient evidence for believing god things. Not much else follows from this -- it is also a position open to further evidence; your "atheist" crusades are not.
Logically there is plenty there. Some subset of atheists mass murdered tens of millions of people because of those peoples' religion. Those people were targeted specifically because they weren't atheists. Their belongings taken. The churches raised to the ground or repurposed. The people exiled or killed.
Didn't miss a bit of it. What part of begging the question don't you grasp? Saying that all atheists are not bad does not prove that any truly are. The last bit is what you would need to show. I agree many folks are bad, but we gain nothing attributing their badness to our unestablished beliefs about their beliefs. The belief that god doesn't exist is not an atheist belief. An atheist may also have that believe, just as he may also believe that frosted corn flakes are good for you, but his belief in corn flakes is not an aspect of his atheism anymore than his belief in the non-existence of god is. 'God does not exist' does not follow from 'there exists insufficient evidence to form a belief in gods.' Thus, anyone claiming god doesn't exists is doing so merely as a believer in that belief, and not because he is an atheist -- one who believes there is sufficient evidence for believing in god things.
"There is not sufficient evidence" is agnosticism. There is some reason for these atheists (who don't care about sufficient evidence, there is no "god" period!) killing people of religion and ransacking their holy places and relics. The common theme is atheists (who happen to be "communist") targeting religion. I could consider some other motive, like nationalism (as with the Nazis who weren't hostile to all religion), but I don't see anything like that in the Chinese or Russians or Pol Pot or Castro. Religion is the common theme.
Yeah, I'm not disputing that folks were bad, people died, etc., etc., I'm just pointing out that they behaved badly because of other reasons. Because killing and all that bad stuff doesn't follow logically from the atheist position, namely that there is insufficient evidence for believing in god things. If you can show how "that" actually leads to killing then you will have satisfied your contention. You're simply mislabeling psychopathic activities and beliefs for atheism, that's what it appears like, anyway.
You haven't suggested a single and plausible alternate reason the Commies purged religious institutions.
Nope, sorry. I've got my card right here, and it reads: "Bearer of this card finds there to be insufficient evidence for forming a belief in god things. Please ignore any additional claims card bearer makes regarding what this card or card label entails. This card only entitles bearer to wear the label "atheist" in compliance with this definition and any logical entailments of this definition, and as such, can not, and will not be held liable for those who use this card unlawfully or untruthfully or illogically."
But I'm a philosopher, not a historian. Even so, you're simply wrong on this in the main. I pointed out that each of mag's 4 quotes themselves contained far more plausibly-attributable beliefs for the actions mentioned than does "there is insufficient evidence for forming a belief in god things."
This isn't the "atheism isn't a sound belief" thread. Search for it and you can muster all those "where are the God things" all you want. We are talking societies; heavily isolated on a belief that do bad things. Possibly referencing the Catholic Church during the dark ages or communism using atheism to spearhead their witch hunt against theists.
Denial may be a river in Egypt, but it's not making your case or refuting mine. I have no beef with atheism or agnosticism or religion. So it's not like I have some agenda here. I'm calling it like it is.
