Something about killing in the name of atheism

[Polaris]

Which atheist has ever killed in the name of atheism? That's only used by online atheists who want to pretend like atheists don't kill people so they can attempt to play the high horse card.

Now the accusations appear.

Not unexpected.

So are you one to use the logical fallacy "killing in the name of atheism" and also use the victim card?

[The Valkyrie]

I will state that "killing in the name of atheism" and a communist regime killing as a means of control are two entirely different things.

And, if I'm playing the victim, I've learned to do it from the best: Christians online.

Of course, the interesting thing about that "logical fallacy" is the fact that no theist has ever been able to answer it.

[Polaris]

I will state that "killing in the name of atheism" and a communist regime killing as a means of control are two entirely different things.

And, if I'm playing the victim, I've learned to do it from the best: Christians online.

Of course, the interesting thing about that "logical fallacy" is the fact that no theist has ever been able to answer it.

I can answer it as a secularist if you want....it's called equivocation and false attribution....you can even argue it is false dilemma as well. Hell, why not even call it inosnistent comparrion (not as obvious) where you are trying to infer that theists  kill fr whatever reason as counts as theists killing but an atheist must only kill in the name of a atheism to count as atheists killing.

But the real logical fallacy is ignoratio elecnhi...it's basically you just being deceptive to draw away from the issue that atheists killed.

[dyresand]

I will state that "killing in the name of atheism" and a communist regime killing as a means of control are two entirely different things.

And, if I'm playing the victim, I've learned to do it from the best: Christians online.

Of course, the interesting thing about that "logical fallacy" is the fact that no theist has ever been able to answer it.

I can answer it as a secularist if you want....it's called equivocation and false attribution....you can even argue it is false dilemma as well. Hell, why not even call it inosnistent comparrion (not as obvious) where you are trying to infer that theists  kill fr whatever reason as counts as theists killing but an atheist must only kill in the name of a atheism to count as atheists killing.

But the real logical fallacy is ignoratio elecnhi...it's basically you just being deceptive to draw away from the issue that atheists killed.

Do yourself a favor and read 
http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2014/...-atrocity/

[Rhondazvous]

I will state that "killing in the name of atheism" and a communist regime killing as a means of control are two entirely different things.

And, if I'm playing the victim, I've learned to do it from the best: Christians online.

Of course, the interesting thing about that "logical fallacy" is the fact that no theist has ever been able to answer it.

Not entirely different. If  communist  regimes believe the best way to control the masses is to promote atheism than the two are at least tangentially related.  By the same token, governments that believe the best way to control the masses is to promote Christianity (or Islam) have a vast historical record of killing in the name of their preferred god. Few kill in the name of theism itself since most theist tend to believe that only their god is the true god and so wouldn't want to promote other people's god.

[dyresand]

I will state that "killing in the name of atheism" and a communist regime killing as a means of control are two entirely different things.

And, if I'm playing the victim, I've learned to do it from the best: Christians online.

Of course, the interesting thing about that "logical fallacy" is the fact that no theist has ever been able to answer it.

Not entirely different. If  communist  regimes believe the best way to control the masses is to promote atheism than the two are at least tangentially related.  By the same token, governments that believe the best way to control the masses is to promote Christianity (or Islam) have a vast historical record of killing in the name of their preferred god. Few kill in the name of theism itself since most theist tend to believe that only their god is the true god and so wouldn't want to promote other people's god.

Entirely different 

Do yourself a favor and read http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2014/03/03/a-great-myth-about-atheism-hitlerstalinpol-pot-atheism-atrocity/

[robvalue]

I'd say there's a big difference between promoting and enforcing something.

[Rhondazvous]

I'd say there's a big difference between promoting and enforcing something.

I agrree. Enforcing is a more appropriate word than promoting where Stalin and the Spanish Inquisition are concerned. And I'd go so far as to say that the only reason such things are not happening (n the open) today is because the Church no longer has the power to act above the law. There are a lot of people who would love to see those days return.

[Simon Moon]

Which atheist has ever killed in the name of atheism? That's only used by online atheists who want to pretend like atheists don't kill people so they can attempt to play the high horse card.

You seem to be missing the point.

We can point directly to various passages in the Bible or Koran, when taken literally, would lead a devout believer to kill in the name of their religion. 

If you can name one thing in the in the position, "I don't believe your claim that a god exists. Please demonstrate your claim", that wold lead to kill, you'd be the first. Ever.

Do you really believe that online atheists are the only ones that point out that the Totalitarian Communist regimes replaced an infallible god with an infallible State lead by their infallible leaders? It is almost as easy connecting Communist dogma to killing in the name of said dogma, as it is connecting religious dogma with killing. 

It is not disbelief in gods that leads to mass killing, it is bad dogma. If it was atheism that leads to mass killing, where are the stories of State lead mass killings in Sweden?

"The sociocultural evolution of societies had to progress inevitably from slavery, through feudalism and capitalism to communism. Furthermore, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union became the protagonist of history, as a "vanguard of the working class", according to development of this theory by Lenin. Hence the unlimited powers of the Communist Party leaders were claimed to be as infallible and inevitable as the history itself. It also followed that a worldwide victory of communist countries is inevitable."

[TheoneandonlytrueGod]

A bad person (whatever definition of which you may use) is a bad person regardless of what creed/ideology they use on the surface.

No, there's no good or bad person to begin with. It's the environment shaping us into one or the other. Most simply stay average persons for their whole lives. But the Milgram expirement has shown that average persons can be turned into monsters, given the right environmental influence, which ideologies provide.

Actually there has been many studies of serial killers that strongly suggest there is a genetic component to their behavior. Of course no one wants to really get into that nest of snakes because the question then arises who is qualified to make decisions relating to the sutibility of a particular person to be incarcerated/eliminated based on genetic properties. Not you or me.

Robert