[QUOTE="Drakorain"]

[QUOTE="ithilgore2006"]The fact that they were atheist had little to do with their genocides, they never killed any one "in the name of not believing in a god". BlackAlpha666

Stalin: Killed hundreds of thousands of baptists, monks, Jews, priests, and buddhists in the name of "establishing a godless utopia."

Pol Pot: Specifically preached atheism, burning churches and killing theists and agnostics alike.

Total combined death tolls: In the hundreds of millions.

It's not like Stalin was the first one to do such a thing. I'm guessing that he had to kill so many people because the atheist/theist ratio was much higher in favour of the theist during that time. Also, technology allowed him to kill much easier and faster then the guys from, example, the middle ages. I'm sure there are quite a few more conditions you must think about.

The whole "atheists are more dangerous leaders" argument is as stupid as saying that religious leaders are more dangerous.

The "atheists are more dangerous" argument is based on simple history. Atheistic leaders are 25 times more likely than theists to commit some genocidal act within their own country.

Now, I wouldn't even have to bring any of this up if certain people didn't play the "religion is evil" card.

[QUOTE="Drakorain"]

[QUOTE="ithilgore2006"]The fact that they were atheist had little to do with their genocides, they never killed any one "in the name of not believing in a god". -Austin-

Stalin: Killed hundreds of thousands of baptists, monks, Jews, priests, and buddhists in the name of "establishing a godless utopia."

Pol Pot: Specifically preached atheism, burning churches and killing theists and agnostics alike.

Total combined death tolls: In the hundreds of millions.

Stalin and Pol Pot clearly represent the entire population of athiests.....:roll:

I never said they did. Please read in context.

However, if atheists are going to argue that religion is violent and dangerous due to the actions of theists in the past, then I'm going to argue that atheism is in the top five worst human inventions in history.

[QUOTE="Drakorain"]

[QUOTE="ithilgore2006"]The fact that they were atheist had little to do with their genocides, they never killed any one "in the name of not believing in a god". Funky_Llama

Stalin: Killed hundreds of thousands of baptists, monks, Jews, priests, and buddhists in the name of "establishing a godless utopia."

Pol Pot: Specifically preached atheism, burning churches and killing theists and agnostics alike.

Total combined death tolls: In the hundreds of millions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin

Scroll down to 'religious beliefs'. It's not as black and white as you might think.

From the article:

"Stalin's role in the fortunes of the Russian Orthodox Church is complex. Continuous persecution in the 1930s resulted in its near-extinction: by 1939, active parishes numbered in the low hundreds (down from 54,000 in 1917), many churches had been leveled, and tens of thousands of priests, monks and nuns were persecuted and killed. Over 100,000 were shot during the purges of 1937–1938.[35][36] During World War II, the Church was allowed a revival as a patriotic organization, after the NKVD had recruited the new metropolitan, the first after the revolution, as a secret agent. Thousands of parishes were reactivated until a further round of suppression in Khrushchev's time.

The Russian Orthodox Church Synod's recognition of the Soviet government and of Stalin personally led to a schism with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. An Act of Canonical Communion was signed on May 17, 2007, followed immediately by a full restoration of communion with the Moscow Patriarchate; there remain some issues not fully healed to the present day.

Just days before Stalin's death, certain religious sects were outlawed and persecuted.

Many religions popular in the ethnic regions of the Soviet Union including the Roman Catholic Church, Uniats, Baptists, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. underwent ordeals similar to the Orthodox churches in other parts: thousands of monks were persecuted, and hundreds of churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, sacred monuments, monasteries and other religious buildings were razed."

It's basically what I said.

The fact that they were atheist had little to do with their genocides, they never killed any one "in the name of not believing in a god". ithilgore2006

Stalin: Killed hundreds of thousands of baptists, monks, Jews, priests, and buddhists in the name of "establishing a godless utopia."

Pol Pot: Specifically preached atheism, burning churches and killing theists and agnostics alike.

Total combined death tolls: In the hundreds of millions.

[QUOTE="ItalyCanadian9"]

[QUOTE="-_Yun_-"]Religion, although deemed foolish and senseless by many people, is still a very integral of our society and should be discussed in an open forum with people of all ages.Funky_Llama

You are a joking right?

What? It is deemed foolish and senseless by many people. Whether you agree with it or not - and judging by your profile I'm guessing not - it's still a fact.

It is deemed foolish and senseless by about eight percent of the planet's population.:roll:

Then you are irrational. A quick assessment of the likelihood of such a statement would lead any right-thinking person to disbelieve that there is a teacup orbiting the earth unless proven otherwise.

Funky_Llama

No, I'm keeping the possibility open, since there is no reason to believe that a pink teacup cannot orbit the Earth, therefore it might be true. An irrational person will do two things:

Assume one way or another that it is/isn't true, or call anyone who thinks differently a "not right-thinking person."

Please, learn what rationality is before you put a trademark on thinking. It's pathetic.

[QUOTE="kingdre"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="kingdre"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]On what grounds would you base that? Seems they'd both be out of luck.Funky_Llama

Faith alone is not a guarantee to enter Heaven. Sending a moral unbeliever to Hell would go against God's all-just and all-merciful nature, don't you think?

If atheists don't believe in God, why should they believe in being saved?

They don't. He was talking hypothetically - 'If God does exist...'

Fixed.

[QUOTE="Drakorain"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="mamkem6"]

THERE IS NO GOD!

Funky_Llama

Burden of proof is on you. If you believe in God, prove it. Otherwise, it is assumed that he does not exist.

Actually, if you want to be rational, it is assumed He might exist. Assuming one way or another is irrational.;)

I'm afraid not. If I tell you there's a pink teacup orbiting the earth, you won't believe me by default, will you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

No. I'll believe there might be a pink teacup orbiting the Earth.

http://www.eas.slu.edu/People/RBHerrmann/Courses/EASA193F07/Images/overview_scientific_method2.gif

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="mamkem6"]

THERE IS NO GOD!

Funky_Llama

Burden of proof is on you. If you believe in God, prove it. Otherwise, it is assumed that he does not exist.

Actually, if you want to be rational, it is assumed He might exist. Assuming one way or another is irrational.;)