Atheism vs. Christian

[ViaCrucis]

The Cadet,

If you want to make changes to the article or register a complaint on the articles talk page, it is easy to sign up as an editor at Conservapedia.

And get banned if one doesn't kowtow to Schlaflyism.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[PaulA135711]

An addition revision was made along with an internal link for the readers.

The article now reads:

"In the 1700s, there was an increase in the degree of ideological conflict between the atheism and Christianity in the Western World.

Baron d'Holbach (1723–1789) in his 1770 work, The System of Nature denied the existence of God and he was an early proponent of atheism in Europe (The book was published under a pseudonym). In addition, atheism gained further European prominence as a result of revolutionary France in the 1790s."

It links to this section of the Conservapedia History of Atheism article:

The University of Cambridge reports the following historical relationship between atheism and the French Revolution:
“ Between 1700 and 1750 thousands of atheistic clandestine manuscripts circulated across Europe (although still only read by a very small minority)...

The French Revolution (1789-94) would dramatically transform the power relationship between belief and unbelief in Europe: whereas before atheism had been 'high brow', discussed in the cafes and salons of Paris, henceforth it would set itself down among the people. A strident unbelief became a real political factor in public life, as the anticlerical 'dechristianisation' period following the revolution would demonstrate. The impact of the French Revolution in inspiring people to put the irreligious ideas of the Enlightenment into practice would extend beyond France to other European countries, and to the American colonies (although in the latter it would take a deistic rather than atheistic form).

The Reign of Terror of the French Revolution established established a state which was anti-Roman Catholicism/Christian in nature[6] (anti-clerical deism and anti-religious atheism and played a significant role in the French Revolution)[7][8], with the official ideology being the Cult of Reason; during this time thousands of believers were suppressed and executed by the guillotine.[9]

 

[ToddNotTodd]

And get banned if one doesn't kowtow to Schlaflyism.

-CryptoLutheran

Running around conservapedia performing editor duties in an attempt to correct all its uncountable mistakes is as futile as trying to keep the carpet clean in a house full of poo-flinging monkeys on meth...

It's better to just let them do their thing and hope they don't get outside into the real world.

 

[Gene2memE]

An addition revision was made along with an internal link for the readers.

The article now reads:

"In the 1700s, there was an increase in the degree of ideological conflict between the atheism and Christianity in the Western World.

Baron d'Holbach (1723–1789) in his 1770 work, The System of Nature denied the existence of God and he was an early proponent of atheism in Europe (The book was published under a pseudonym). In addition, atheism gained further European prominence as a result of revolutionary France in the 1790s."

It links to this section of the Conservapedia History of Atheism article:

The University of Cambridge reports the following historical relationship between atheism and the French Revolution:
“ Between 1700 and 1750 thousands of atheistic clandestine manuscripts circulated across Europe (although still only read by a very small minority)...

The French Revolution (1789-94) would dramatically transform the power relationship between belief and unbelief in Europe: whereas before atheism had been 'high brow', discussed in the cafes and salons of Paris, henceforth it would set itself down among the people. A strident unbelief became a real political factor in public life, as the anticlerical 'dechristianisation' period following the revolution would demonstrate. The impact of the French Revolution in inspiring people to put the irreligious ideas of the Enlightenment into practice would extend beyond France to other European countries, and to the American colonies (although in the latter it would take a deistic rather than atheistic form).

The Reign of Terror of the French Revolution established established a state which was anti-Roman Catholicism/Christian in nature[6] (anti-clerical deism and anti-religious atheism and played a significant role in the French Revolution)[7][8], with the official ideology being the Cult of Reason; during this time thousands of believers were suppressed and executed by the guillotine.[9]

Still completely ignores the (admittedly small) French, English and German atheist intellectual movements in the mid 1600s.

If you're going to write about a topic, it might behoove you to research a little prior to embarking.

 

[PaulA135711]

Gene2MemE,

The University of Cambridge material which I cited in previous post post indicates: "Between 1700 and 1750 thousands of atheistic clandestine manuscripts circulated across Europe (although still only read by a very small minority)..."

How small do i have to go? Very, very small? You might have a very high degree of interest in the subject of the history of atheism, but the typical reader does not.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

There is an article on Atheism vs. Christianity at: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_vs._Christianity

Once again, Jesus wins!

The article declares:

According to the University of Cambridge, historically, the "most notable spread of atheism was achieved through the success of the 1917 Russian Revolution, which brought the Marxist-Leninists to power."

Vitalij Lazarʹevič Ginzburg, a Soviet physicist, wrote that the "Bolshevik communists were not merely atheists but, according to Lenin's terminology, militant atheists."

Atheism is an idea which goes against common sense. Hence, its most notable spread was by militant atheists who used force/violence to spread it.

This has the tone of a kid sneering about how he is sure his school's football team will beat a rival rather than it being an invitation to adults for thoughtful dialogue.

 

[Gene2memE]

Gene2MemE,

The University of Cambridge material which I cited in previous post post indicates: "Between 1700 and 1750 thousands of atheistic clandestine manuscripts circulated across Europe (although still only read by a very small minority)..."

How small do i have to go? Very, very small? You might have a very high degree of interest in the subject of the history of atheism, but the typical reader does not.

You're attempting to write an introduction to the topic 'Atheism vs. Christianity'. I'd hope then that you'd have more than just a passing familiarity with half of the subject matter and would represent it accurately.

I guess this is what happens when you rely on "the best of the public" though.

Quoting Dr. Jonathan Israel, a historian who specalises in early modern European history and the history of the Enlightenment:

"The age of Bayle and of the Huguenot diaspora was also a time when atheistic and near-atheistic texts — rejecting religious authority and revelation — were circulating. Perhaps the most famous example of these clandestine texts, which was circulating from the 1670s, though the first printed version was in 1719, was The Treatise of the Three Impostors or Le Traite des Trois Imposteurs. But there were dozens of others, some of which were circulating on only a very small scale and others of which were actually quite widely diffused in various European countries, often in manuscript form. If they did appear in print those printed versions were suppressed rather harshly by the authorities, so in many cases only small quantities circulated and very small numbers survive today."

Atheism was not as pervasive as it is today (thank you public education and the internet), but it was certainly a topic of scholarly interest and debate among French, English, Swiss, Portuguese, Dutch and German thinkers in the mid 1600s. So much so that English philosopher H More was compelled to write and publish an anti-atheist treatise, in 1653.

I can suggest some reading material for you:

Atheism in France, 1650-172, Alan Charles Kor
At the Origins of Modern Atheism, Michael J. Buckley
Atheism from the Reformation to the Enlightenment, D. Wootton & M. Hunter

 

[PaulA135711]

Gene2MemE,

Thanks for the helpful information. Due to your input, the article has been updated again.

In addition, an additional article was created on French atheism which can be seen at: http://www.conservapedia.com/French_atheism

 

[keith99]

Put another way, some atheists want to use atheist to mean agnostic.

(and you have just explained in a separate post why they might want to do so, just as Liberals now want to be called Progressives. )

Uh, no. Some Christians want to redefine atheist so being atheist requires a god to oppose.

 

[keith99]

By the way, per capita, why do irreligious men beat their wives/girlfriends more? See: http://www.conservapedia.com/Irreligion_and_domestic_violence

Because when religious men beat their wives it is called domestic discipline? Well that and I'm betting irreligious gets defined pretty close to the no true Scotsman.

 

[Hoghead1]

You're attempting to write an introduction to the topic 'Atheism vs. Christianity'. I'd hope then that you'd have more than just a passing familiarity with half of the subject matter and would represent it accurately.

I guess this is what happens when you rely on "the best of the public" though.

Quoting Dr. Jonathan Israel, a historian who specalises in early modern European history and the history of the Enlightenment:

"The age of Bayle and of the Huguenot diaspora was also a time when atheistic and near-atheistic texts — rejecting religious authority and revelation — were circulating. Perhaps the most famous example of these clandestine texts, which was circulating from the 1670s, though the first printed version was in 1719, was The Treatise of the Three Impostors or Le Traite des Trois Imposteurs. But there were dozens of others, some of which were circulating on only a very small scale and others of which were actually quite widely diffused in various European countries, often in manuscript form. If they did appear in print those printed versions were suppressed rather harshly by the authorities, so in many cases only small quantities circulated and very small numbers survive today."

Atheism was not as pervasive as it is today (thank you public education and the internet), but it was certainly a topic of scholarly interest and debate among French, English, Swiss, Portuguese, Dutch and German thinkers in the mid 1600s. So much so that English philosopher H More was compelled to write and publish an anti-atheist treatise, in 1653.

I can suggest some reading material for you:

Atheism in France, 1650-172, Alan Charles Kor
At the Origins of Modern Atheism, Michael J. Buckley
Atheism from the Reformation to the Enlightenment, D. Wootton & M. Hunter

Yes, Dawkins certainly pulled a major faux pas here. However, many atheists were also turned off by his comment. However, when you say Dawkins should pay more attention to the Bible, you forget that the Bible definitely puts women in second place. Divinely inspired as it may be, the Bible was written by males living in a sexist culture. Also, all this stuff about atheists beating their wives more seem like so much more right-wing propaganda. If I were you, I wouldn't put much faith in this Conservativepedia or whatever. Also, people are forever giving statistics that wildly conflict. Some say atheism is on the rise, others that it is in demise. I think it is near impossible to tell. Some say that people are returning to the churches; other say that the "nones," individuals who are spiritual but will have nothing to do with organized religion, are really on the rise.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... Some say atheism is on the rise, others that it is in demise. I think it is near impossible to tell. Some say that people are returning to the churches; other say that the "nones," individuals who are spiritual but will have nothing to do with organized religion, are really on the rise.

It depends where you are in the world. Here in the UK (and Western Europe in general) atheism is on the rise (it's about half the population now) and C of E church attendances have been declining for years.

 

[PaulA135711]

Hoghead,

The material that Conservapedia cited about the irreligious beating their wives/girlfriends cited their source. It comes from a journal article at the journal Violence Against Women. See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17951587

Furthermore, Sweden is one of the most atheistic countries in the world. In Sweden, 81 percent of women said they had been harassed at some point after the age of 15 - compared to the EU average of 55 percent. See: http://www.thelocal.se/20140305/sweden-out-top-in-eu-domestic-violence-league

Cries of bias don't make up for lack of evidence and poor reasoning. Once again, employing the genetic fallacy is an illogical thing to do.

 

[PaulA135711]

Frumiousbandersnatch,

The Church of England is dying but evangelical Christianity/Pentecostalism is on the rise due to immigration and the higher birth rate of the devout.

If atheism is on the rise Britain, there is excellent evidence suggesting that countervailing desecularization forces will increase in Britain and any gains in atheism will be reversed.

Due to religious immigrants, many of whom are evangelical Christians, church attendance in Greater London grew by 16% between 2005 and 2012.[21] In 2013, it was reported that 52% of people who attended church in London attended evangelical churches.[22]

On December 14th, 2009, the British newspaper The Telegraph reported:
“ According to the Mail Evangelical Christianity is on the rise.

Some 4.5million of the UK's foreign-born population claim to have a religious affiliation. Of these, around a quarter are Muslim while more than half are Christian – with Polish Catholics and African Pentecostals among the fastest-growing groups.

While traditional churchgoing is on the decline in the UK over the past decade, the latest immigrants mean Christianity is becoming more charismatic and fundamentalist.

'Perhaps the most significant change has been the growth of Pentecostal and charismatic Christianity within migrant populations, particularly those from Africa and Latin America,' the report found.

'In Lewisham, there are 65 Pentecostal churches serving the Nigerian community, and others serving the Congolese, Ghanaian and Ivorian communities.'

Professor Mike Kenny of IPPR said: 'The research shows that recent waves of inward migration have given a boost to some of the UK's established faith communities at a time when Britain's society and culture are generally more secular, and smaller numbers of the indigenous population are regularly attending churches.

'Recent migration trends are altering the faith map of the UK. Their biggest impact is being felt in some of our largest cities: London above all, where a rich mosaic of different faith communities has come into being.'

Evangelical Christianity might be heavily African-influenced but it’s also spreading among the natives as well.[23] Source: http://www.conservapedia.com/Secular_Europe#Growth_of_British_evangelical_Christianity

Concerning the future of religion/secularism in Europe, political/religious demography scholar Eric Kaufmann wrote:
“ We have performed these unprecedented analyses on several cases. Austria offers us a window into what the future holds. Its census question on religious affiliation permits us to perform cohort component projections, which show the secular population plateauing by 2050, or as early as 2021 if secularism fails to attract lapsed Christians and new Muslim immigrants at the same rate as it has in the past. (Goujon, Skirbekk et al. 2006).

This task will arguably become far more difficult as the supply of nominal Christians dries up while more secularisation-resistant Muslims and committed [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] Christians comprise an increasing share of the population. Source: http://www.sneps.net/RD/uploads/1-Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth.pdf

 

[Davian]

To: Davian

The article at http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_vs._Christianity never uses ad populum fallacy. Nowhere in the article does it say that Christianity is more valid than atheism due to its greater numbers.

Then you will need to elucidate why you declare that "Jesus wins!" and cite an article that begins with a section labeled "Atheism vs. Christianity: Number of adherents" (missing sections notwithstanding).

The article focuses on the present and historical battle between those who advocate atheism and those who advocate Christianity. And various differences between these ideological camps.

Furthermore, the second paragraph states:

The available evidence and sound reasoning point to Christianity being true and atheism being false (see: Evidence for Christianity and Rebuttals to atheist arguments).

The writers of the article can state that they can fly if they flap their arms fast enough, but if they fail to deliver with a proper demonstration, I will remain sceptical.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Furthermore, Sweden is one of the most atheistic countries in the world. In Sweden, 81 percent of women said they had been harassed at some point after the age of 15 - compared to the EU average of 55 percent. See: http://www.thelocal.se/20140305/sweden-out-top-in-eu-domestic-violence-league

Cries of bias don't make up for lack of evidence and poor reasoning. Once again, employing the genetic fallacy is an illogical thing to do.

From your link:

The culture of addressing and speaking about assault, harassment and rape of women may vary extensively across the union countries, and as such skew survey results, the researchers warned. They referenced a Eurobarometer survey from 2010 that found that Bulgaria had much lower rates of physical and sexual violence against women than Sweden did.

"Either overall rates of domestic violence are much lower in Bulgaria than in Sweden; or the fact that people in Bulgaria hear considerably less than people in Sweden from family members and colleagues about domestic violence(...) is an indication that the matter is considered to be private," the report noted.

"In this regard, it could be suggested that in Bulgaria, for example, the subject of violence against women could be considered as something you do not talk about in certain settings and with certain people – including an interviewer who has just entered your home to conduct a survey."

Two factors that are critically important to understand when attempting to compare the rates of sexual harassment, assault, and rape between countries is how cultural attitudes significantly influence whether such incidences are reported, and the differences in how they are recorded if they are. In 2005 Sweden reformed their sex crime litigation, making the legal definition of rape far wider than it was previously, and more expansive than the current parameters in many other countries. Victims there are more likely to come forward and report crimes against them, and to publicly speak about harassment than some are in other countries. The way the crimes are recorded also can make it appear that the rate of frequency is higher in Sweden than it actually is. As an example, if a woman in Sweden accused her boyfriend of raping her nightly for 90 days, each incident could be recorded separately, whereas in many other countries it would be listed as one victim, one type of crime, and one record, and therefore wouldn't have the same impact on their statistics.

On a somewhat related note - I just heard a NPR report during my run about sexual assaults on the deeply conservative campuses of BYU and Bob Jones University, and how the schools' policies make victims very reluctant to come forward. At BYU victims who report being raped are investigated by the university's strict Honor Code office for other violations leading up to their assault, like drinking alcohol, and can be harshly penalized. This has understandably made victims substantially more reluctant to come forward than ones on other campuses where they can make reports with impunity. Scathing reports have shown that Bob Jones has a history of blaming the victims of sexual assaults rather than the perpetrators.
Bob Jones University Blamed Victims of Sexual Assaults, Not Abusers, Report Says

For decades, officials at Bob Jones University told sexual assault victims that they were to blame for their abuse, and to not report it to the police because doing so would damage their families, churches and the university, according to a long-awaited independent report released Thursday.

Bob Jones, an evangelical Christian institution in Greenville, S.C., displayed a “blaming and disparaging” attitude toward abuse victims, according to 56 percent of the 381 current and former students and employees who replied to a confidential survey and said they had knowledge of how the university handled abuse cases. About half the 166 people surveyed who identified themselves as abuse victims said the university actively discouraged them from going to the police.

Victims of sexual abuse who did seek help not only faced potential sanctions from the university, but faith-shattering, psychologically destructive censure.

“I was abused from the ages of 6 to 14 by my grandfather,” one respondent said. “When I went for counseling I was told: ‘Did you repent for your part of the abuse? Did your body respond favorably?’ ” The person reported being told by a university official that going to the police “tore your family apart, and that’s your fault,” and “you love yourself more than you love God.”

Another person said that at Bob Jones, “abuse victims are considered ‘second-rate Christians.’ ” And another said that university staff consistently told victims “that they bore the sin of bitterness and that they should not report abusers.”

Some people quoted in the report said Bob Jones University had shattered their faith, along with their psyches. The university made God out to be “someone who turns his back when children are harmed and then mocks and shames the child further,” one said, while another said, “by the time I left B.J.U., I didn’t think God loved me at all.”

If you look at the statistics regarding sexual violence and other misconduct on the campuses of BJU and BYU they might appear to be low in comparison to those at other universities, but I think the numbers are grossly misleading. I also strongly suspect that there are Christians of all ages - not just at these colleges - who are the victims of sexual abuse but are more reluctant to make official reports or obtain professional help than nonreligious victims.

 

[PaulA135711]

Standfordella,

Bulgaria is very Eastern Orthodox in its religious tradition. Orthodox Christianity is more authoritarian so perhaps there is a greater reluctance to talk about domestic violence.

Sweden has cultural heritage of Protestantism and cultural habits are slow to change. Protestantism has an excellent past when it comes to societal/economic progress. And oil has boosted Swden's economy also.

I cite:

Harvard University historian Niall Ferguson declared: "Through a mixture of hard work and thrift the Protestant societies of the North and West Atlantic achieved the most rapid economic growth in history."[20]

(Ferguson is an atheist.[21])
Protestant missionaries and economic development statistic

The article The Surprising Discovery About Those Colonialist, Proselytizing Missionaries published in Christianity Today notes:
“ In his fifth year of graduate school, Woodberry created a statistical model that could test the connection between missionary work and the health of nations. He and a few research assistants spent two years coding data and refining their methods. They hoped to compute the lasting effect of missionaries, on average, worldwide...

One morning, in a windowless, dusty computer lab lit by fluorescent bulbs, Woodberry ran the first big test. After he finished prepping the statistical program on his computer, he clicked "Enter" and then leaned forward to read the results.

"I was shocked," says Woodberry. "It was like an atomic bomb. The impact of missions on global democracy was huge. I kept adding variables to the model—factors that people had been studying and writing about for the past 40 years—and they all got wiped out. It was amazing. I knew, then, I was on to something really important."

Woodberry already had historical proof that missionaries had educated women and the poor, promoted widespread printing, led nationalist movements that empowered ordinary citizens, and fueled other key elements of democracy. Now the statistics were backing it up: Missionaries weren't just part of the picture. They were central to it...

Areas where Protestant missionaries had a significant presence in the past are on average more economically developed today, with comparatively better health, lower infant mortality, lower corruption, greater literacy, higher educational attainment (especially for women), and more robust membership in nongovernmental associations.

In short: Want a blossoming democracy today? The solution is simple—if you have a time machine: Send a 19th-century missionary."[22]
”
Protestant work ethic and China

According to Slate, "Protestant Christianity has been the fastest growing religion in China."[23] Evangelical Christianity is especially growing sharply in China.[24]

Hugh Whelchel's article The Protestant Work Ethic: Alive & Well…In China declares:
“ Christianity has exploded in China over the last twenty years. A 2011 report from the BBC conservatively estimated there were 60 million Christians in China. Small, primarily Protestant “house churches” are especially having a strong impact on the country.

This growth in religion has accompanied China’s rapid economic growth over the last twenty years. Now the world’s 2nd largest economy, China illustrates how even a limited amount of economic freedom has the power to lift millions of Chinese out of abject poverty and build one of the strongest economies in the world.

Ferguson suggests that China is starting to supplant the West, but is doing it by becoming more Western. China is booting up several of Ferguson’s “killer apps” – especially the Protestant Work Ethic.[25]

CRU (formerly called Campus Crusade for Christ International), reported concerning Christian missionary families:[19]
“ Harry Conn, in Four Trojan Horses (pp. 17-18), makes reference to a study of the people listed in Who's Who of America. According to Conn, Who's Who in Who's Who showed that "it took 25,000 laboring families to produce one child that would be listed in Who's Who." That number dropped to 10,000 families of skilled craftsmen to produce one Who's Who. Among Baptist ministers the ratio was 6,000 in 1; Presbyterian ministers, 5,000 to 1; lawyers, 5,000 to 1; dentists, 2,500 to 1. Episcopal priests had the best... 1,200 to 1.

Oh. Except there was one more category. "For every seven Christian missionary families that sailed from the shores of the United States .... one of their children would be listed in Who's Who!"

...You want successful children? Perhaps the best you can do for them is take them to the mission field!.

source: http://www.conservapedia.com/Christianity_statistics#Protestant_work_ethic_statistics


Yet, prosperity can breed complacency and that includes complacency in morality. In addition, history and social science show us that atheism has a corrosive effect on morality. See Moral failures of the atheist population:http://www.conservapedia.com/Moral_failures_of_the_atheist_population

In addition, secular leftism does have the bloodiest history of mankind. It is estimated that in the past 100 years, governments under the banner of atheistic communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40,472,000 to 259,432,000 human lives.[6] Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987. See: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder

 

[Gene2memE]

In addition, secular leftism does have the bloodiest history of mankind. It is estimated that in the past 100 years, governments under the banner of atheistic communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40,472,000 to 259,432,000 human lives.[6] Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987. See: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder

Show where atheism, secularism, or even leftism was a motivating factor.

 

[PaulA135711]

Gene2MemE,

4 points:

1. Has the secular left been guilty of more mass murder than the secular right? Is the secular right (secular libertarianism) known for its violence and tyranny? How many Ayn Rand fans have engaged in mass murder? How many secular leftists have engaged in mass murder?

2, Theodore Beale notes concerning atheism and mass murder:
“ Apparently it was just an amazing coincidence that every Communist of historical note publicly declared his atheism … .there have been twenty-eight countries in world history that can be confirmed to have been ruled by regimes with avowed atheists at the helm … These twenty-eight historical regimes have been ruled by eighty-nine atheists, of whom more than half have engaged in democidal acts of the sort committed by Stalin and Mao …

The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined.

The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition. It is not only Stalin and Mao who were so murderously inclined, they were merely the worst of the whole Hell-bound lot. For every Pol Pot whose infamous name is still spoken with horror today, there was a Mengistu, a Bierut, and a Choibalsan, godless men whose names are now forgotten everywhere but in the lands they once ruled with a red hand.

Is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad things? If that is not deemed to be conclusive, how about the fact that the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them. If one considers the statistically significant size of the historical atheist set and contrasts it with the fact that not one in a thousand religious leaders have committed similarly large-scale atrocities, it is impossible to conclude otherwise, even if we do not yet understand exactly why this should be the case. Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence, but fifty-two incidents in ninety years reeks of causation. Source: http://creation.com/atheism#atheism-communism

3. Theodore Beale wrote about the secular left and mass murder:
“ ...it does, however, cast serious doubt on the common atheist assertion that a godless society will be a peaceful one. The significant question has never been if atheism causes political leaders to kill in large quantities, it is why political leaders who happen to be atheist have been inordinately inclined to kill in large quantities.

As I wrote in TIA, the answer is probably to be found in the fact that atheists who have committed great historical crimes are almost exclusively left-wing atheists with utopian visions of restructuring human society; Ayn Rand atheists aren't exactly known for attempting to violently restructure societal order. This is why atheists like Bertrand Russell, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and especially Michel Onfray are far more dangerous than those more akin to Daniel Dennett and even Richard Dawkins. See: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/01/atheist-demotivator-4.html

4. Can you show me one example where a Bible believing evangelical Protestant country or group engaged in the mass murder of tens of millions of people or millions of people.

 

[Gene2memE]

Failure to show where atheism, secularism, or even leftism was a motivating noted.