Religious wars vs. Atheist wars

[Methmatician]

Talking to you on this is like talking to a door. I've just posted a handful of more than 20 scholarly references to the definition of atheism as the belief that there is no God/gods, they are not "some people", if that hasn't moved your opinion a bit then nothing can. I'll consider this subject ended.

'Denial' and 'rejection' is not 'belief'. Read those definitions again.

Considering the proportion of atheist people and atheist regimes, yes, atheism has a more violent record than religion on average, they are very overrepresent in atrocities. The fact that communist leaders are not average atheists, which I promptly agree with, should not stop us from counting them for the purpose of comparation anymore than it should stop us from counting islamic terrorists despite the fact they don't represent the average muslim. When we invoque the notion of a group average we are counting everyone not just the ones we want to.

There have been 7 Atheist states in history and 3 survive today. A conservative figure of atheists in the world is 140,000,000. That is definitely not proportionate.

Besides the article says that there is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules. Which is obviously much higher than what we would expect for a non-atheist leader.

Where does that number come from? According to the article it comes from here, but it has nothing to do with atheists. It deals with murders committed by regimes and they're categorised as democratic, authoritarian and totalitarian.

I never said that correlation implies causation nor did I implicitly used this, nowhere it was argued that when an atheist does harm he necessarily does it because he is an atheist, nor that when a religious person does it he necessarily does it because he is religious. I explicitly said that I am not arguing on this topic on the reasons atheist regimes were much more violent, but simply that they were. I am arguing for correlation, not for causality in this thread.

The article claims that because they are atheist it is the reason for their murders. The article claims that atheists view other humans as a means to an end but this is not atheism. I keep telling you that atheism is just the disbelief/rejection of the existence of god(s). It does not tell people to live a certain way or do certain things or to hold certain views on certain topics.

And secular states are not the same as atheist states, a secular state would be neutral on matters of religion and is as far from a religious state than it is from an atheist state.

Yet you bolded this part of the article "Moreover, it was the bloodiest because it was the most secular." So I can assume you agree with this statement. The article tries to make secular states synonymous with atheist.

I brought up the fact that religion is not a primary cause of war not because someone said it was here, but because this is one of the main points made in the article. As I said before "Atheist wars" is just part of the title of the article which I kept, maybe unwisely, in the thread title, the very article explicitly says he is not literaly talking about atheist wars but of atrocities commited in atheist regimes by atheist leaders, many of whom were anti-religious in nature.

And that's a problem. It is comparing conflict caused by religion with people who are atheist and used power to commit murders but not in the name of atheism. Like the old saying goes; apples and oranges. That's what you're comparing.

[Also]

'Denial' and 'rejection' is not 'belief'. Read those definitions again.

To deny x is to hold x is false. To deny God exist is to belief He doesn't. Only two references say 'rejection' but they also clearly state that atheism is the position there is no God.

Atheism, commonly speaking, is the denial of God. Theism (from the Greek theos, God) is belief in or conceptualization of God, atheism is the rejection of such belief or conceptualization.In the ancient world atheism was rarely a clearly formulated position (Encyclopedia Americana-1990).

According to the most usual definition, an atheist is a person who maintains that there is no god…(rejects eccentric definitions of the word) (The Encyclopedia of Philosophy-1967).

So all the 24, I believe, references I gave agree on definition.

There have been 7 Atheist states in history and 3 survive today. A conservative figure of atheists in the world is 140,000,000. That is definitely not proportionate.

I don't see your point. Atheists are a minority and few atheist regimes existed, but yet they caused a tremendous bloodshed. That supports my view.

Where does that number come from? According to the article it comes from here, but it has nothing to do with atheists. It deals with murders committed by regimes and they're categorised as democratic, authoritarian and totalitarian.

In the first column you can find the communist regimes listed.

The article claims that because they are atheist it is the reason for their murders. The article claims that atheists view other humans as a means to an end but this is not atheism. I keep telling you that atheism is just the disbelief/rejection of the existence of god(s). It does not tell people to live a certain way or do certain things or to hold certain views on certain topics.

If by disbelief you mean

Full Definition of DISBELIEF

: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

then this is what me and the references I posted say, that atheists hold that it is false that God exist, that is, that God does not exist. The article does not say that atheist view other people as means to an end, but that secular worldview(s) (and here I agree it should say atheist worldviews) caused people to be seen as nothing but expendable bio-organisms on those regimes. Now you may say, atheism doesn't tell how people should see each other or how to act, and I agree, but it is not saying that it does tell people to act in a certain way, it is saying that it caused people to. The fact that you are a self-identified atheist probably causes you to be more prone to post on this topic, but atheism itself doesn't tell you to.

I understand why it may sound contradictory that I am saying this now but I am also saying I am not arguing for causality but only for correlation. Consider this situation, 'John was angry' then 'John punched Mark'. Now, there is a correlation between being angry and being aggresive, and on that particular situation I may argue that John being angry caused him to punch Mark. But when I say I am arguing for correlation between 'being angry' and 'being aggresive' and not causality is to say that although I believe 'being angry' was what caused John to punch Mark on that instance, maybe with other things, it is not necessary that whenever John is angry he will punch someone. Just like I do not think that atheists are necessarily going to be mass murderers or violent if they have the chance, but I believe there is a correlation.

Yet you bolded this part of the article "Moreover, it was the bloodiest because it was the most secular." So I can assume you agree with this statement. The article tries to make secular states synonymous with atheist.

It should say 'atheist' rather than secular, yes, but I ignored that distinction when posting it because I didn't want to alter the article.

And that's a problem. It is comparing conflict caused by religion with people who are atheist and used power to commit murders but not in the name of atheism. Like the old saying goes; apples and oranges. That's what you're comparing.

They abolished religion and persecuted and killed religious people by the millions. The spread of atheism was part of their goal. Just like some groups may incorporate religion as part of a violent ideology what happened there was people incorporating atheism as part of their violent ideology. So no, I am not comparing apples and oranges.