thehomer:

You have mentioned totalitarian regimes which of course encourages killings and in wars even civil wars/revolutions, people do die. What secular beliefs were being pursued because you seem to imply this as being the cause of the deaths.
One thing to be noted is that those deaths did not occur because their governments were trying to spread atheism.

This is an incredibly ignorant question to ask. Seriously, what secular beliefs was Stalin pushing?

tpia.:

your claims about darwin, marx, etc being discussed freely here.
use the search function to see your fellow atheists in action.

I meant in the society at large not just Nairaland. Even then, are there no caricatures of the above named people, are their ideas not being debated? No one characterizes such as blasphemy or goes as far as trying to kill people for a difference of opinion.

4 Play:

This is an incredibly ignorant question to ask. Seriously, what secular beliefs was Stalin pushing?

You call the question ignorant. Is there such a thing? There may be non-questions or questions based on faulty assumptions but ignorant? Generally when someone asks a question, it may simply be because the person does not know. You could answer the questions or at least help the person as to where the information can be obtained.

These are the two meanings that more closely show what I meant.
# Not specifically religious.
# Temporal; something that is worldly or otherwise not based on something timeless.

Pretty much all countries without state religions can be said to push secular beliefs so what is special about Stalin's case?

thehomer:

You call the question ignorant. Is there such a thing? There may be non-questions or questions based on faulty assumptions but ignorant? Generally when someone asks a question, it may simply be because the person does not know. You could answer the questions or at least help the person as to where the information can be obtained.

These are the two meanings that more closely show what I meant.
# Not specifically religious.
# Temporal; something that is worldly or otherwise not based on something timeless.

Pretty much all countries without state religions can be said to push secular beliefs so what is special about Stalin's case?

The questions you pose are obscenely ignorant. It's tantamount to asking whether Hitler was racist. There is a world of difference between a state without state religion and a state that is virulently anti-religion.

Stalin was viciously anti-religion,so much so, that he sought to abolish organised religion by waging a campaign of terror against it and religious adherents. Same applies to Mao. Their very own philosophy promoted non-belief and sought to impose this by force leading to the deaths of millions

Surely, freedom should have flourished in such a situation where religion was in shackles, which is the premise promoted by this thread. Clearly it didn't.

4 Play:

The questions you pose are obscenely ignorant.

Ignorance is not a crime. The problem arises when one is actually ignorant but claims not to be ignorant and goes ahead to demonstrate ignorance.

4 Play:

It's tantamount to asking whether Hitler was racist.

No it isn't. You have successfully committed the straw man fallacy. So there is no point refuting this.

4 Play:

There is a world of difference between a state without state religion and a state that is virulently anti-religion.

Stalin was viciously anti-religion,so much so, that he sought to abolish organised religion by waging a campaign of terror against it and religious adherents. Same applies to Mao. Their very own philosophy promoted non-belief and sought to impose this by force leading to the deaths of millions

I agree that both examples you gave oppressed religious freedom but both men also had Cults of personality. It can be argued that they did not want competition from any other form of religion.
The cause of deaths of millions was not due to the pursuit of extinction of religion but due to their authoritarian methods, the wars they fought, political oppression and terrible agricultural policies. You would do well to distinguish these from religious persecution. In Stalin's case, not to diminish the importance of a human life, but a total of less than 150,000 people were killed due to religious reasons through out his reign.

4 Play:

Surely, freedom should have flourished in such a situation where religion was in shackles, which is the premise promoted by this thread. Clearly it didn't.

This thread topic is clear. Besides your statement does not really follow because freedom of any sort is not influenced only by religion. So your conclusion is based on a faulty premise. Here let me clarify.
Right now we are criticizing Stalin and Mao who to some people are heroes in their own ways but it is generally accepted to criticize these people, their policies etc. But if one were to criticize religious concepts of crime and punishment, origin of humans on earth, miracles/weird occurrences, some people get offended enough to plan and carry out bodily harm, others feel it should be beyond criticism. This thread asks if Nairaland accepts that it is beyond criticism.