One of David Horsey's cartoons that's permanently relevant : "Man and religion, a synopsis."

[BreweryYardRat]

[peace13]

1. ?

I must be confused.

[Wilms]

2. The Christians have calmed down?

Could have fooled me.

[BreweryYardRat]

4. Relatively speaking.

Now the fundamentalists just wish for Inquisitions, instead of actually having them.

[peace13]

6. Aaaa you might want to check up on the US Air force.

You also might want to check out the Bible verses on gun sights for US military. After that, take the pulse of many of the Christian folk here in the USA. The brown folk are out to get us and they must be stopped which to me is the opposite of what this 'cartoon' is speaking to.

[Robb]

7. Fact check:

...There were no Bible verses on any gun sights for the US military. There were chapter and verse references being used as part numbers. :hi:

[peace13]

12. That is a technicality.

True Bible thumpers only need the number to have the phrase tumble through their heads. I think you know that.

[farmout rightarm]

3. All fundamentalist-type religions, regardless how they spell the name(s) of their

imaginary deities, are equally vile.

[ZombieHorde]

14. What are "fundamentalist-type religions"? nt

[invictus]

5. LOL! K&R

[TexasObserver]

8. Except for the fact that Christians still kill more "others" than anyone.

It's got a point, but it also misses a point.

Christians can look you in the eye and say dropping a bomb on a village is just war, but planting the same bomb with a car is terrorism.

A lot more Christians have killed Muslims than Muslims have killed Christians the past 40 years.

[humblebum]

13. And radical atheism is responsible for more killings in the 20th century

alone, than all religious wars in history combined. That fact seems to get lost in this discussion and great pains are usually taken to bury it or deny it.

[ZombieHorde]

15. What is "radical atheism"? nt

[humblebum]

16. It's the kind that did the deeds of which I am speaking. nt

[darkstar3]

17. Impressive circular logic,

though completely lacking in any kind of scientific, logistical, or intellectual rigor. We've had this argument too many times before for you to be repeating this shit again. Either you are willfully trying to start shit, or you are one of the most blindly hateful people I've seen on this board.

Howsabout you attempt to discuss something you actually understand for a change, instead of constantly and badly attacking a position you know nothing about?

[humblebum]

18. Have you noticed how this argument usually pops up when

the argument is focused on the subject of religion's role in past atrocities? In that light this argument is very relevant, and you are resorting to the same old name calling in response. You have been totally inept in debating any point related to the subject and you always rely heavily on diversion, rationalization, and mindless ad hom and ad hoc.

[trotsky]

21. What the bible says about capital punishment

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/capital.html

For Adultery

And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. -- Leviticus 20:10

For Animals

If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned. -- Exodus 21:28

For Beastiality

Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death. -- Exodus 22:19

And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. -- Leviticus 20:15

And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. -- Leviticus 20:16

For Blasphemy

He that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. -- Leviticus 24:16

For Breaking the Sabbath

Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death. -- Exodus 31:14

Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. -- Exodus 31:15

Six days shall work bedone, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. -- Exodus 35:2

.....

(And on and on and on)

Can you point to the relevant verses in the "book o' atheism" that provide justification for atheists to kill people?

[humblebum]

22. I didn't say there was any justification. I just stated facts. nt

[trotsky]

24. No, you said atheism was "responsible."

That isn't a "fact" unless you show where atheism calls for the murder of other people.

Go ahead. We're waiting.

[humblebum]

34. Well ... where to start?

'Storming the Heavens, The Soviet League of the Militant Godless' by Peris, 'Godless Communists, Atheism and Society in Soviet Russia...', by Husband, 'Black Book of Communism' by Courtois, The Guinness Book of Records, the works of RJ Rummell, correspondences between Lenin and Bertrand Russell,eg."Bolshevism deserves the gratitude and admiration of all the progressive part of mankind." on and on it goes. The establishment of the first atheist state in the Soviet Union was spearheaded by groups such as the League of the Militant Athiests. They circulated newspapers like "the Atheist" at all levels of society. And this little scenario played it self out in China, South Asia, and Eastern Europe. People were regularly forced to renounce religion and accept state atheism. Joining the communist party was not required. Accepting the imposition of atheism was.

[darkstar3]

36. So,

below, you admit that atheism and Communism are mutually exclusive, and yet here you attempt to claim that all of the actions you object to committed by the Communists were born of atheist roots. You have contradicted yourself.

You refuse to acknowledge the FACT that religion was feared by the Communist Party as one of the major threats to its greedy and over-reaching power over the people. The motivation for the quashing of religious thought and adherence, the motivation for murder, came from Communism, plain and simple.

Atheism didn't kill a single Russian, but Communism most certainly did.

[humblebum]

38. Not at all . In fact, many of the atheists were not Communists and there were

many more atheists in groups like the Godless or the League of Militant Atheists, than there were Communists. So no there is no contradiction. Several prominent atheists of the times, who were not communists, gave their vocal support to the imposition of state atheism. You are trying to conflate state atheism and Communism. And yes, atheism did kill many Russians and other nationalities. The League of Militant Communists did not exist; the League of Militant Atheists did exist and its members were very much responsible in persecuting, imprisoning, and executing religious adherents - not because they weren't communists but for not becoming atheists. Big difference.

[darkstar3]

40. There is more delusion here than I care to fight.

I suspect it is rooted in a strong desire to willfully mislead those who do not fact check, or perhaps in a less malicious need to simply hate those who disagree with you. Either way, I will leave you to your abject stupidity, and thereby preserve my own sanity for another day.

[humblebum]

41. It is you who refuse to check facts and so I would say

that you are content to remain in a state of delusion. BTW, you're resorting to the name calling again, right before you leave. Typical and predictable.

[darkstar3]

46. Allright, since you believe so strongly that you HAVE facts,

when in truth you have nothing, I give you this chance to surprise me.

Show me in any way, with facts, with proof, with documents, with ANY source aside from your own ad hominem ramblings, how atheism is a motivator.

Show me how anyone gets from atheism to murder. Show me how anyone gets from atheism to any action whatsoever.

[humblebum]

49. The story has already been told. I gave you the facts and the sources.

The rest is up to you. If you wish to remain ignorant, that's your choice.

[darkstar3]

52. All of your sources are irrelevant to atheism.

They deal with Communism. Now try again. Show me how ATHEISM (again, NOT Communism, ATHEISM) is a motivator.

And stop repeating yourself, Polly...the screeching gets on everyone's nerves.

[humblebum]

53. Actually they are very specific to atheism.

When they tell the story of the League of Militant Atheists, and of atheist propaganda - posters, newspapers, radio broadcasts, and the influence of other prominent atheists ie, Russell, Nietzsche, etc. and of organizations like the Paris Commune and the Vienna Circle - I think it can rightly be said that they are quite relevant.

[darkstar3]

55. The League and the propaganda

were tied directly to the Communist Party. Both were organized, sanctioned, and perpetuated by the Communists.

Again, Communism was the motivator. You have not shown at all how atheism has been or can be the motivation for anything.

[trotsky]

42. How about you start with the book that is to atheism what the bible is to your religion.

None of those meet that standard. Keep trying.

[humblebum]

43. The justification they used for their actions against religions and

the religious was the same as the justification used today to slam religion and the religious. However, I have to admit that much of it is warranted. Religion should never be immune to criticism, but I would treat atheism or any ism no differently. ExtremISM seems a likely candidate for a mountain of criticism.

[trotsky]

44. You have completely dodged the question.

Because you know very well that there is no dictum in atheism that states atheists must kill anyone. Rather than admit you were wrong, and give up your deeply held prejudice, you dance around and try to justify it some other way. But you can't.

[humblebum]

45. I dodged nothing. I never said there was any single book like the bible for atheism.

However, atheists were given specific instructions to persecute any religious adherents encountered and to turn them over to authotities if they continued in religious observances and beliefs. Do I even need to mention the outcome? There is your "dictum".

[trotsky]

47. Dodging again!

Where does it say that atheists must do that? Where does it say that atheism means religious people should be persecuted and/or prosecuted? Where are these rules for atheism published? By whose authority are they submitted? Who enforces them, and why?

Face it. You've lost this discussion badly. You can bow out or keep embarrassing yourself some more - your call.

[humblebum]

48. I haven't said one thing that I can't back up.

You are arguing with yourself.

[darkstar3]

51. Then back it up. Where are the sources?

You've already been told that the ones you've posted have nothing to do with atheism, and everything to do with Communism. So where are the sources that back your claims about ATHEISM?

[humblebum]

54. I rest my case.

[darkstar3]

56. Normally people say that when they've actually MADE a case.

You have not. And what's worse is that you know it, too.

[humblebum]

57. Now you are doing nothing more than blathering. If you consider

books about atheism, atheists, and atheist organizations to have nothing to do with atheism, then I would say you are living in your own little sheltered world.

[darkstar3]

58. Read #55. You're diverting.

You like to claim that these books you've posted deal with atheism, but they don't. Communism was the root cause of the actions taken in Russia. Communism was the motivator, and obviously you cannot show otherwise.

That makes perfect sense, because atheism can't be the motivation for anything, positive or negative.

[humblebum]

59. Like I said, only in your own little world. nt

[darkstar3]

60. You disagree?

Show me, in ANY way, how atheism can be the motivation for something.

Let's step away from Communist regimes for a moment, and just speak in general. In GENERAL, show me how atheism motivates anyone to do anything.

[humblebum]

61. You clearly have your own specific ideas about atheism.

But atheism ceases to be merely the lack of belief in diety when it organizes. And atheists certainly do not always agree on what constitutes atheism. And yes the proliferation of atheism is a motivator for many - eg. The Rise of Atheism 2010 <www.atheistconvention.org.au>.

[darkstar3]

62. My OWN ideas?

I'm afraid the dictionary and etymology agree with me.

[humblebum]

63. But history books and the news media do not. nt

[darkstar3]

64. Those books you cited do not qualify as history texts.

They qualify as simple non-fiction including and encompassing opinion, supposition, and hypothesis. I'm not saying they can't make good points, or that they should be dismissed out of hand, but they are NOT history texts.

[humblebum]

65. They most certainly are history books by some very notable historians and scholars.

They encompass a broad range of information and there are several others I did not even mention. References they use include first hand accounts and recordings. We're not talking the Middle ages here, but of events that happened over a period of about 70 years in the 20th century. There is just too much video and eyewitness documentation and physical evidence to deny what actually happened.

[darkstar3]

66. "By my heel, I care not."

After all, it doesn't matter. We could argue until we both turn blue about whether these books truly qualify as historical texts, but the bottom line is that, as I said above, they don't deal with atheism. They deal with Communism, and its motivation to crush religion.

You have come full circle, as you so often do. Have you anything new to say? Have you anything true to say?

[humblebum]

67. I hope you and your heel are very happy. nt

[darkstar3]

68. Now who's running?

Tire of repeating yourself, didya?

[humblebum]

69. Running from what? I've already stated my case. You are the one

who won't accept the evidence you so desparately demanded. Whether you accept it or not is totally up to you. I've really got nothing more to say.

[darkstar3]

70. That's because the evidence you have provided

fails to support your case. Your case is against atheism, while your "evidence" deals with Communism. What confuses is me that while you admit that both atheism and Communism are mutually exclusive, when pressed to provide sources on atheism you instead provide sources on Communism.

If you have other supporting documentation for your case, I suggest you present it. The "evidence" you have is irrelevant to the case.

[humblebum]

71. I strongly doubt whether you have examined any of my "evidence".

If you had, I doubt you would be so confident of your assertions. What part did Bertrand Russell play? Sartre? The Paris Commune? The Vienna Circle?

[darkstar3]

72. The answer to all:

Comparatively small to nonexistant, especially when it comes to The Paris Commune. These people and entities laid down epistemological positions in an attempt to more clearly define atheism to a world of moronic philosophers who thought them simply arrogant and ignorant children lost on the road to enlightenment.

Stalin co-opted their epistemological positions because they made a convenient framework for him to cement his hold over the Party and the country.

Stalin killed a whole lot of religious people. Why? Because they refused to renounce all other leaders, figureheads, and even gods except him. He didn't do it because he himself was an atheist. He didn't want to spread atheism simply for the sake of atheistic thought and progress. He did what he did because he desired absolute power over not just the actions, but the thoughts of "his" people.

His personal motivation was power. The motivation of his followers was the prosperity of the Party, the Leader, and themselves. One thing that did NOT specifically motivate them to their actions was atheism. Atheism was simply a tool they used to further their own ends.

Which fits exactly with what I've been saying all along, and what others have tried to tell you in other threads: Atheism motivates people to do precisely nothing. That's part of its simple beauty. With no rules, no laws, no holy writ or doctrine, no leaders, no charter, no centralized set of ideas, atheism can only lead logically to one thing: healthy skepticism about the existence of anything supernatural. There is no motivation to be found there.

You started this clusterfuck of a subthread with a logical fallacy called ad hom tu quoque. Since then you have employed several different fallacies in your own defense, as well as some red herrings and some flat-out denial. I feel it only appropriate, then, to post this before heading off to bed and bidding you a very heartfelt "fuck off."

[humblebum]

73. Leaving in your usual flurry of BS, I see.

Nothing ever changes.

[darkstar3]

75. I still see no support of your arguments.

I see you trying to dismiss mine as "BS" without actually answering them, but I DON'T see any support for your hateful screeds against atheism. As usual...

[humblebum]

76. I'm not sure what you are expecting me to answer or even what you consider to be

"hateful screeds". My point is quite simple - it is very difficult to say that atheism cannot be a motivatior for anything when the very title and mission statements of groups of atheists contain the name atheist and spell out the proliferation of atheism as a goal. Must be some kind of secret code.

[darkstar3]

77. Is atheism their motivator?

Or is the human need for the companionship of like-minded people? Do you even have the requisite knowledge to answer that question?

[humblebum]

78. Well, given the surrounding circumstances the answer would

have to be both. Now I'm sure that doesn't meet your exacting standards, but life is just funny that way sometimes.

[darkstar3]

79. Ah, the "I don't care what you think" defense. Old hat...n/t

[humblebum]

81. You know that one very well. nt

[trotsky]

74. But the problem is, what you've said doesn't address the issue.

Bummer, that.

[humblebum]

80. As far as I'm concerned it does. nt

[trotsky]

82. Yes, we know you've justified your anti-atheist prejudice to yourself.

You just couldn't convince anyone else.

[humblebum]

83. Well, since my debate has been to answer #8, I would question

who is prejudiced here?

[darkstar3]

84. And as I have told you many times here and elsewhere,

ad hom tu quoque does not make an argument. Your response to #8 is nothing but a hateful falsehood, and even if it WERE true, it still wouldn't change, answer, or debate the truth posted above.

[humblebum]

86. As usual, I will stand by my facts. They are verifiable and there are many.

There's really nothing more to say

[darkstar3]

88. He is the closed circle...n/t

[charlie]

85. I dunno

But, it looks like your yammering about atheism was keyed off a hasty, incorrect assumption.

"I'm not an atheist."

[humblebum]

87. What assumption?

[trotsky]

89. You never answered that either.

You just presented your own prejudices.

[darkstar3]

26. What facts? All you have are unprovable assertions! n/t

[humblebum]

27. I have provided you with reference upon reference and your

response is generally along the lines of "it's a lie" or some such statement. You are still trying the old diversion thing to redirect the argument. Call it strawman or whatever, you are still resorting to it.

[darkstar3]

29. Where?

Show me one place where you have provided references that prove your assertions. Everything you've attempted to provide has nothing to do with atheism and everything to do with Communism. The two are and were mutually exclusive.

[humblebum]

30. I agree. The 2 are mutually exclusive. And your point? nt

[darkstar3]

33. My point

is that you should find a source that backs your claim about atheism, and stop using Communism as a red herring.

[humblebum]

35. Communism was merely the vehicle by which much or most the of

atheist was spread. All competition had been eliminated. Atheism existed long before communism and after.

[darkstar3]

37. See #36. n/t

[ZombieHorde]

19. I hope you were laughing when you typed that. nt

[humblebum]

20. I was. nt

[rd_kent]

23. There you go again.....man, you are classic with this BS.

[humblebum]

25. No diff between this BS and the BS it's directed at. nt

[darkstar3]

28. Except

that the so-called BS you're directing it at has proof and fact behind it. You have been asked repeatedly to find proof and fact for your assertions in this matter, and you have failed.

[humblebum]

31. I'm getting this from the person who can never finish an argument

without a flurry of expletives - then GONE.

[darkstar3]

32. How do you finish an argument with a punch-me clown

who ignores everything you say only to repeat their own stupidity?

I notice that you still have not posted any sources that back up your assertions. Not here, not elsewhere, not ever. Back up your bullshit or go away.

[humblebum]

39. You are still up to the same old tricks aren't you?

Rationalizing, ad homs, and ad hocs.

[darkstar3]

50. You need a lesson in language.

Ad hominem is not simply a personal attack. In fact, in order for a personal attack to qualify as ad hominem, said attack must be used to avoid discussing the point at hand. I am not avoiding anything. I am expressing my extreme frustration with your consistent refusal to put up or shut up. Every source you supposedly have has been knocked down. Every argument you've attempted to make in this vein has been destroyed, not only by me, but by many others on this board.

You must understand two things:
1. Ad hom tu quoque is not an argument, but a fallacy. Saying "atheists did it too!!" does not constitute an argument, nor does it absolve the believers of their crimes.
2. Your bigotry toward atheists shows more and more with each post. With your sources shot down as red herrings, and your arguments shown as fallacious, you claim that those shredding your arguments are attacking you personally, then run away to another thread to repeat the same fallacies. If you had done this only a few times I would simply suspect that you just can't let things go, but the vast majority of your posts on this board have been specifically targeted to attack atheism in general and to rile the atheist posters here.

You are a flame-whore, inviting the fire thrown at you so that you can attempt to play the victim and make those who so strongly disagree with you look evil.

Oh, and for the record, yes, I've called you many names:
Poe
Shit-starter extraordinaire
punch-me clown
flame-whore

I stand by every one of them, and remind you again that namecalling =/= ad hominem by itself.

[humblebum]

90. I have to laugh. I missed this one. And really have to say that

you are one of biggest bags of wind I've ever encountered. Your most obvious fallacy is your vacuous reasoning and your pure ad hocing an argument when you are incapable of answering an actual assertion. Whenever you are faced with a challenge, you call it a lie or or simply call it wrong. You very rarely are able to back up your claims with any reliable reference but only to say that mine are wrong and that's just the way it is. I never once said that all atheists are like the ones in Soviet history. So then when a religious person criticizes atheism it's bigotry, but when christianity or any religion is criticized it's never bigotry? Funny how that works.

[darkstar3]

91. Judges?

BUZZ! wrong...

A) You're projecting.
B) You're equivocating.
C) You still don't understand the fallacies that you've employed.
D) You attack me for lack of references, and yet the only references you've deigned to give the rest of us have been worthless, off-topic red herrings.
E) You're putting words in my mouth.
F) I don't think you actually understand many of the words and phrases you use in an attempt to attack others. ad hocing? Really?

You could not be a more effective parody of the position that you espouse.

[humblebum]

92. Since I accomplished exactly what I set out to do, I'm satisfied.

As for you, you continue your usual blizzard of BS without contributing anything meaningful to the conversation. And yes I am attacking your lack of references. If you want to discredit scholars who are renowned in their fields simply because you don't want to hear what they have to say, then so be it, but that is your loss. There are many more to choose from. And yes, I think my backround is solid when it comes to debate. When your opponent rambles incoherently, it's best not to follow protocol because it's usually a wasted effort.

[darkstar3]

93. You're still not paying attention to the main issue everyone here takes with your sources:

It doesn't matter how renowned in their fields the authors are. It doesn't matter how many books they've written. The sources you have provided, regardless of their authors, deal with Communism, and not atheism. Since you have flatly admitted that Communism and atheism are mutually exclusive, you cannot use sources regarding Communism to make your case against atheism. I know this, other posters know this, and even you know this, which is why ever since we questioned those sources you've posted nothing but ad hom in an attempt to smokescreen the real issue: You have no case. When you have a source that deals with atheism, that will be admissible in these conversations.

As for me not providing sources, I'm not the one making the claim. This entire mess, as ridiculous as it has gotten, has circled around your very first assertion that atheism is responsible for the deaths under Stalin and other Communist regimes. All we here in this thread (and others) have done is ask you to provide valid sources to support your assertion, and mock you when you are unable to do so.

My posts have ranged from very short to surprisingly long. I will admit that some have most certainly contained outright insults and derision, while others have probably been longer than you cared to read. One thing you cannot possibly say about them, however, is that they were incoherent, or that they did not answer your arguments. If you wish to continue down that line of ad hom, feel free, but know that anyone who actually bothers to READ all the way through the thread will see that for what it is.

Normally, I'd put someone like you on ignore in a heartbeat, but in this case I'm going to make an exception. No one should be allowed to lie continuously, especially in public, with impunity. From now on, every time you post on your favorite subject, this is all you'll get from me:
"Your arguments have been repeatedly shown as fallacious and your sources are irrelevant. Find a new topic."

That is, of course, unless you ACTUALLY manage to find a source that is relevant to your case.

[humblebum]

94. These works and others most definitely concern the role of atheism in the USSR

and beyond. They also detail influences of European atheist movements on Lenin and Trotsky and the common philosophical orientations shared with much of the new atheist movement today. Now, I know that may be a bit hard to swallow, but Russell, Sartre, Nietzsche, etc. heavily influenced Lenin's decision to "Storm the heavens".

[darkstar3]

95. Your arguments have been repeatedly shown as fallacious and your sources as irrelevant.

Find a new topic.

(I will add in this case that I have already answered your claims here in the mess above.)

[humblebum]

102. So you prefer to pretend these things never existed and that

ignoring them might make them go away? Now there's a winning method of engagement.

[darkstar3]

103. Not at all.

I simply state the truth. Your arguments have been shown as fallacious and your sources as irrelevant. Find a new topic.

(Oh look, now I'm repeating myself. Must be contagious...)

[humblebum]

104. I think you're proving my point. nt

[darkstar3]

105. .

:spray:
Now THAT'S comedy.

[humblebum]

100. The atheist movements in 20th century communist countries

were extremist and fanatical, and atheist organizations had a synergetic relationship with the Communist party. Not all atheists were communists. Does this mean that all atheists are fanatics, or even anything resembling soviet atheists? Of course not. What it does mean is that extremism and fanaticism can develop out of any grouping of human being given the proper impetus and circumstance.

[darkstar3]

101. Your arguments have been repeatedly shown as fallacious and your sources as irrelevant.

Find a new topic.

(BTW: You still haven't defined "radical atheism" without using circular logic.)

[rd_kent]

106. They were not atheist movements, they were COMMUNIST movements. Why is that so hard to grasp?

[humblebum]

108. Actually they were atheist movements, which is clearly evident

when you examine the activities of groups with names like 'The League of Militant Atheists' and 'Society of the Godless', who published newspapers and periodicals with names 'the Atheist'. Notice that it is not the L. of Militant Communists, nor did their publications contain the word 'Communist'.

[rd_kent]

109. Your arguments have been repeatedly shown as fallacious and your sources as irrelevant.

Find a new topic.

[darkstar3]

111. ^^^What he said^^^

And BTW, you are AGAIN repeating yourself. I've answered you already in #55.

[humblebum]

112. Actually that connection to the Communist Party enabled them

to prosper unopposed because organized religion was banned, but not all members were communists and all were required to renounce religion and to accept the atheist agenda in the workplace and schools. Atheist movements in Russia however existed long before Communism and still exist today in former communist countries. Like I said, there was a synergistic relationship between them, but atheism did not equal communism. Now you can make that being irrelevant statement again. Ready, set, go.

[rd_kent]

114. ok, I will. Your arguments have been repeatedly shown as fallacious and your sources as irrelevant.

Find a new topic.

[darkstar3]

117. And now you've contradicted yourself.

1. Atheism existed in Communist countries before Communism, and wasn't responsible for mass murder <- your admission here.
2. Atheism exists currently in formerly Communist countries and is not currently responsible for mass murder in those countries. <- Your admission here.
3. Atheism =/= Communism. <- Your admission here, and elsewhere.
4. Mass murder occurred under the rule of the Communists. <- Simple fact, as well as your continued assertion.

Now, when you combine 1-4, they contradict your statement from the beginning of this hornet's nest:
radical atheism is responsible for more killings in the 20th century

1-4 show pretty clearly that Communism was a motive, not atheism.

[rd_kent]

113. It was just so perfect, I had to use it.

Hope you don't mind.

[humblebum]

115. You are getting good at it , I must say.

[rd_kent]

116. Just learning from you, the master.

[darkstar3]

118. I don't mind at all. :) n/t

[Amaya]

107. is that you Sal?

:hide:

[darkstar3]

110. Makes you wonder sometimes, doesn't he? n/t

[rd_kent]

99. What exactly did you set out to do? Make yourself look bad?

Mission Accomplished.

[rd_kent]

98. I find it appalling that you accuse others of doing EXACTLY what YOU do YOURSELF!

[rd_kent]

97. Hypocrisy is not your strong suit.

Up to the same old tricks, indeed you are.

[rd_kent]

96. Hahahaha! The punch-me down clown reference again. How perfect!

[gratuitous]

9. Gullible

So, any huckster who hides behind a cross or a crescent or a star automatically becomes an exemplar of every person of that faith?

Yeah, I know, I know. Sorry to interrupt the bigotfest. Carry on.

[madrchsod]

10. seems that way does`t it........

[Goblinmonger]

11. Are you trying to imply

that the inquisitions, witch burnings, and crusades are somehow NOT representative of Christianity when they happened?