WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING
Extreme view points are likely to be expressed in this discussion and a flame war will most likely break out. Please do not continue with your reading if you are any of the following: Easily offended, weak minded, pregnant, nursing, or may become pregnant (this debate will probably ruin the mood if you are trying to get pregnant)
The question: Atheism is a system of belief that purports to believe that there is no God/gods and no divine powers in our world. That said Atheism believes that the world is as we see it. With that in mind the obvious question that most theist would have is, what is the reason for doing good then? I will concede to the Atheists that doing good out of feeling guilty towards a higher power isn't really doing good, it is being scared. When Atheists do good then they are doing out of genuine compassion more often then not. If they are doing it for selfish reasons well then they are no better than the theists. Unfortunately however, there is a lot of blood on the hands of both the theists, and more recently, the atheists.
Here is what I am getting at. In the 20th century there where more people living on this planet than there had been at any other time in the past. The blood shed of the 20th century is also some of the greatest that humanity has ever seen. Communism played no small part in that blood shed. Communism is a political philosophy that believes at heart that there is no God/gods. Therefore, almost all communists were atheists (in theory). This included people like Stalin, Mao Zedong, and members of the Khmer Rouge. According to The Black book of Communism, in the 20th century there where between 85 and 100 million people where killed in various communist uprisings and takeovers. Compare that to the Holocaust, around 10 million people.
What I want is a reasonable answer from theists and atheists as to why so many enlightened people would do such a horrible thing over the course of the 20th century. Atheists have a right to criticize theists for their crimes against humanity. However, these crimes must be answered for too.
If atheism is so superior then why did all this death and destruction occur in communist societies?
*Note: In no way am I trying to say that Atheism is morally wrong! It is a philosophy that should be respected and appreciated. This is just a bit of history that has always bothered me. By the way the statistics given can be found on both Wikipedia and Amazon, just look on pg. 4, in The Black Book of Communism.
Wine Dyrac wrote: Literally none of the links you posted for these people say that the person was killed because they practiced science. Or in other words, they were not scientists. Most of these people were murdered because they disputed points of doctrine like whether or not infants should be baptized. Also half of these links go to empty pages.
You are so RIDICULOUS! Of course the Pope said they were burned for "heresy" not "burned because he/she was scientist"
Among murdered were Giordano Bruno, Jan Hus, Jane of Arc, there were writers, artists, thinkers, a lot of people who were intelligent but religion did not let them to have a life to continue their ideas.
If the catholic church had such a thumb down on free thinking, then how did the Italian renaissance ever even happen?
Renaissance was a movement that was born AFTER Middle Ages after Catholics finished the murdering of incipient scientists.
In order to survive as religion Catholics had to show some 'benevolence' vis-a-vis to science.
Still, religion is NOT a base of science.
You realize that the Italian renaissance was from the 13th century until the 1600s, and it is during that time that all the people you posted earlier were murdered? That is to say that the renaissance occurred during, and not after your supposed "dictatorship of the catholic church." I mean you realize that nearly all of the art being produced during the renaissance was of a religious nature, right? I mean if the church was so anti-science, then why didn't they kill Leonardo da Vinci? Maybe you should re-examine some history textbooks.
Roughly from the 14th to the 17th century...
And yes, some religious murdering did not completely stop even in Renaissance period.
That sustain the point that religion is not the base of science, even if some money stolen by Catholic leaders were given to some scientists.
BTW, I do stand by the words:"money stolen by Catholics"
There is no difference between a thief saying: "give me your money or I'll kill you" and
"give me your money or you'll go to hell"
true, so true.
No its not, it is completely false.
Historical facts are not a matter of opinion. I can't say "well, in my opinion, the Chinese caused the fall of the roman empire," and then expect people to respect that opinion.
I wasn't commenting on the very first comment in this link, I was commenting on the fact that "Gimmie yo money or this bullet goes through yo head!" and
"Give me your money or you'll go to hell." What's the difference? Hardly any. You might be Christian, and you may have your opinion on whether or not atheists are evil, but you also have to accept the atheist standpoint on the discussion, or there's really no point in replying to other people's comments. My opinion is that there is no God, if that's a problem, then you can just disassociate with me, I don't care. I personally think your viewpoint on this is valid as a person, and everyone is politically equal in America, but you don't go saying " No, it isn't" on something that has no real fact base to verify. Please stop with this argument, because if you're trying to convert me or something, it won't work.
Wow, its alright, just relax. I can see now that it is perfectly ok for you to unequivocally state that his opinion is true, but it is not ok for me to say it is false.