Genocide in and under forms of Marxism, an economic and socio-political worldview or belief if you want, is not genocide based specifically on anti-religion or religion, and therefore does not contain the avowed insuperable belief of a higher moral authority or justification other than itself or it's leader which of course religion always does. Actions including genocide based particularly on Christianity and religion in general do , as in the case of Hitler. For that reason I suggest your point doesnât stand.
It's interesting to consider the possibility, that adherence to atheism does not require the adherent to act in any particular moral direction, but that adherence to, for example, Christianity does require adherence to a particular moral direction. In other words, a true atheist can act any way he likes, but a true Christian cannot.
I suppose that is true to a minor extent. There are atheists who are dogmatic. Seen a lot of them here at ET. There have been leaders of movements who were atheistic who were mass murderers, and lead their followers to kill millions. Most people want to categorize religions as either peaceful/non peaceful, etc. It is silly actually, (and the gun nuts should recognize the logic of this) that religions don't kill people, people kill people. Atheism in its pure form is not an ideology right? It is a void of an ideology that come from a particular belief in God... However, atheism can become a movement to "convert" or kill the religious. Bottom line is a simple way to analyze any movement: 1. Do they preach and practice tolerance? 2. Do they preach and practice the golden rule? If they don't...then sure they are dangerous, or potentially dangersou to people who are not members of their group.
Say it were so that atheism does not require the adherent to act in any particular moral direction, which of course is a false association of ideas, the atheist would have no such moral authority to rely on to justify acts of genocide, whereas the theist does, as Hitler obviously discovered.
What's the false association? Then tell me what moral code, or even principle, the true atheist must follow? Does true Christianity justify Hitler's actions? No. Does true atheism justify them? No, but neither does it prohibit them, as Christianity does, unless the atheist picks a moral code which happens to, or at least defaults to some form of stay-out-of-jail expediency.
I suppose that is true to a minor extent. There are atheists who are dogmatic. Seen a lot of them here at ET. There have been leaders of movements who were atheistic who were mass murderers, and lead their followers to kill millions. Most people want to categorize religions as either peaceful/non peaceful, etc. It is silly actually, (and the gun nuts should recognize the logic of this) that religions don't kill people, people kill people. Atheism in its pure form is not an ideology right? It is a void of an ideology that come from a particular belief in God... However, atheism can become a movement to "convert" or kill the religious. Bottom line is a simple way to analyze any movement: 1. Do they preach and practice tolerance? 2. Do they preach and practice the golden rule? If they don't...then sure they are dangerous, or potentially dangerous to people who are not members of their group.
I really think that your meds have failed you or your getting confused with another post as I have no idea what Sarah Palin has to do with your declaration of another Crusade. See following post by you: Did you yourself Trader666 actually go to school if you did you must know that the Crusade was pretty much a campaign against non-Christians with 12,000 Jews killed on the Crusader march through Europe alone. So you advocate killing Jews, Muslims and those who by your measure are not Christian?
Nonsense. I didn't mean it literally as I clarified two posts before your asinine accusation. So either quit lying or pull your head out of your ass and read before you spout off like an idiot. And go back to school yourself. There were at least 20 crusades.