₦airaland Forum

vaxx:
yes incest, if it means direct ''blood relationship'' it is both morally and medically wrong. and i have not seen any single culture on planet earth or religion that support it. when it comes to Islam on this topic you have to elaborate it. so some Muslim will not consider you speaking from ignorance. Islam stipulate whom you can or not as a Muslim to marry in the quran in which she actually allowed Cousin-marriages. but if cousins marriages can be consider incest grammatically too. that will be a good debate for English student not me, but Islam completely rule out direct blood relationship and as far as i know, No religion prohibits cousin marriage, Islam allows it. even western nation such as Germany had no issues with it. so how common it is, depends on the culture of the region - i also knows It is common for South Indians and some Middle Eastern countries, for example, but not common in most of the Muslim world. The medical consensus is that cousin marriages are not significantly more dangerous than other marriages. you can dig up article online about it.

I think you're wasting your time with Dalaman or hopefulLandlord, you have no idea how bigoted and close-minded they are.

Y'all will get your responses in full when I get your time.

.

hopefulLandlord:
good thing I never asked for it
You tell me

You need help, else your anger and sleepless nights will cause the end of you.

HappyPagan:
I find it weird too. I was young when I first saw two ladies kiss each other. It was hot, really hot... but I felt this fear in me, like I was looking at something really wrong.

But I liked it. I really did. Then I got a bootleg horror movie collection once, and that's when life changed. One of the movies had a sex scene. I had heard of gay porn before, but seeing one man's dick slide up another man's asshole was terrifying. I was shook for days.

Why would a guy like another's butthole? My God, what has this world become? I failed to see the hypocrisy in my standard - - girl on girl is okay, man on man not cool.

Overtime, I've learnt to be more accepting of it. I've had homosexual friends as colleagues at work. I see it this way - If you grew up in a monogamous home, polygamous families would feel very unnatural to you. Education, and an open mind, is key to progress and growth.

Using your love for God to mask your hatred for his creation (if you believe this flesh and bone we bear was created) is plain cowardice. The thought of homosexuality so irks you, you do not need the Bible's backing to reject it. There's also that handy 'not African' y'all love to parrot. Why don't you just be yourself? State your convictions in truth and sincerity, not verses.



The classic Nigerian style of moral policing. Everyone who isn't like you must prove why you should like them. How about you interacting with the 'weirdos' that you despise so much. Maybe make a friend or two from the LGBT community. I wouldn't be surprised if you wouldn't - you probably think homosexuality is a contagious disease. Heterosexuality isn't, I presume.



Y'all use unnatural like it's something negative.

Walk around with your natural smell, and people will complain of your body odor. Ever heard the phrase 'one man' s poison is another's....

Still limiting your opinions to homosexuality. And why do you think I've not interacted with people from the LGBT community? I think a few atheists like you and the other 2 idiots who jumped on this thread spewing rubbish are just full of yourelves, when we go into details, you have absolutely nothing to offer.

HappyPagan:
So you think dicks and dicks, is the same with dicks and animals, dicks and kids, dicks and corpses.. You're a mad fellow.

Your Fada!!!

Who is to say a corpse does not have a butthole or a**hole, I gave example of dicks and kids in the op, as well as dicks and animals. Who is to say they are wrong? Your grandma?

HappyPagan:
The world has more evidence for itself than God.. On it you live, dwell and will die... You will depend on the earth everyday for the rest of your life, for you are a man, a living being like everyone else.

God is a delusion used to pass time.

OK, I've heard it a million times, I know better now and I don't think reality is everything.

I've bought, used and sold cars, I don't need anyone to tell me that cars (much less complex than humans) can arise by chance or blind processes sprinkled with time.

Shouldn't you consider using your Sunday for something more produtive?

hopefulLandlord:
That you've lived your entire life in Nigeria (nothing wrong in that) doesn't mean everyone else here does and why is the time a post is made something to use in taking potshots? is there a posting time on Nairaland? is it like offices you can only visit between some hours of the day?

Psychoanalyse more bro

I can't help you.

And you're sure I lived my entire life in Nigeria

HappyPagan:
And to the attached quote, I see nothing wrong with worshipping the world. Some Gods do suffer from lack of attention.

I see nothing wrong in worshipping God.

hopefulLandlord:
How will I ever survive your not taking me seriously

I can't help you, you jumped on this thread at 5:23am on a Sunday morning

HappyPagan:
This part got me.

You seem to suggest that two men playing with their dicks causes you psychological harm? Am I getting this right?

A man and an animal, an adult and a minor, a man and the dead etc seems to me to cause psychological harm. Don't limit your discussion to homosexuality, I noticed a similar trend in other replies. And don't think one is more weird than the other, except you have valid arguments other than your thoughts.

hopefulLandlord:
what's the sense in quoting posts by different people in one post?

Intelligent counter to my post have you?

Another intelligent counter. Keep psychoanalysing bro

Go look for christian threads to masturbate on, you've outlived your relevance on this section . I don't take you seriously and I don't think any other reasonable person should.

budaatum:
No one says it is "automatically morally acceptable". What a verily heavily weigh down phrase that is by the way.

First, there was nothing 'automatic' about the acceptable of homosexuality in societies where it has been accepted as you very well know. In countries where it is accepted, its acceptability came after very many years of the homosexual crime of sodomy for which many were jailed, regardless of whether sodomy actually occurred or not, mind. I recently posted numerous apologies proffered by numerous countries for such prosecutions, and there was quite a lot of protest against, and advocacy for, before it was deemed acceptable. They actually went through the same discourse we are going through in Nigeria, and even moreso, considering homosexuality has been going on more openly in those countries than it has amongst us.

Then there is the issue of its 'morality'. Those countries that have deemed homosexuality as acceptable have decided it is not wrong for two adults to engage in same gender sex provided they both consent. The Church of Englandheld out against it for years after the Equality Act was passed, having been giving a waiver for decades, but even they had to succumb to the immense will of their members who were finding it difficult to condemn homosexual members of their very own families. Goes to show that their view of morality does not seem to be some absolute decree that they have no choice but to obey. Or are humans made for the law, these days? That of course does not mean it is legal for anyone to jump a same gender, or different gender person, for that matter, on the street. Consent is still required or it is rape. But can you imagine how much it takes for a parent to stop loving their child John, when he brings home his boyfriend, Peter? Or dad even, when he divorces his wife of twenty something years and shacks up with his boyfriend, Bob?

Which leads to the issue of 'acceptability', and I ask, 'by whom'? Indeed you can ask two grown up adults to not have sex with one another, but if they refuse to obey you, what exactly do you do? Throw them in jail? This has been done already, and for centuries, but go read those apologies again to see where we are now! Also consider how you would police what two consenting adults do it in the privacy of their bedrooms. And then consider how such a case is dealt with in court where even the judge is a homosexual. Can you perceive any difficulty here? Add to that one's child, John, or husband and father of twenty something years. Do they stop being ones loved one because they are homosexuals? And no, one does not have to accept them, but it would not be the first time members of families have gone their own separate ways never to relate with one another again now would it.

Now I note that you claim homosexuality is similar to beastaphilia, paedophilia, and necrophilia (for which you give spurious evidence claiming some countries do not deem it legal when in fact the article you posted does not claim it is not illegal, and in fact, it is a crime to defile the dead!). All the same, the people have decided that they do not find these acts to be acceptable at all, which just goes to show the non-absolutism of laws, at least by those who have pens with which to rewrite them. Of course you may think they arbitrarily decide which is acceptable and which is not, but the objective evidence for the debates for and against is available for those concerned enough to want to consider it.

And finally, though you never mentioned it, how does all this affect the individual? I guess if I don't want to be poked by a same gender person, I can say "no thank you" , or "fuq off" even, if the poker is insistent. But what exactly is one supposed to do if two grown up people decide to be the poker and the pokee, do I, and can I, insist they mustn't? Well, that would depend where I live I suppose. I guess in Nigeria, I can call the police and have the individuals arrested, but I would be hard pressed for evidence unless I had access to where they were committing their crime in order to gather said evidence, like video recording it (though I do expect any sensible person to wonder why I'd go to such lengths! In UK however, I should not be surprised if the police arrest me for the crime of homophobia, for it is a crime to discriminate against same gender pokees in UK. In fact, if I were to refuse to employ a homosexual person and it is found that my refusal to employ them was because of what they poke, I should expect to go to prison for my bigotry just as I would if I discriminated against others because I don't like their colour or gender or race! Just goes to show how different societies make laws for themselves, don't you think? Doesn't stop me slamming my door in their face though if they ask to come in my house and sit at my table in my dinning room. And I bloody can't be arrested for any bigotry thoughts I may hold in my bigoted head, or can I?

Nice submission but you misunderstand the whole point. I've find LGBT and other sexual orientations weird even before I became a christian, and I still do.

I'm not outrightly outlawing homosexuality, I'm simply opining that a case can also be made for almost every "sexual orientation".

I simply gave 2 objections which are my opinion and which is what the thread is about.

1. Mere orientation is not enough as far as I'm concerned, many people who are weird could also claim to have such orientations and I gave examples.

2. What about other sexual acts, and yes I am of the opinion that homosexuality is as unnatural as the other sexual acts I mentioned. You've given no basis for their difference. If we have a dialogue, and the arguments for bestiality, paedophilia, necrophilia etc exceeds the argument against them, does that make them natural, right, acceptable or just legal?. You seem not to think everything can be argued for.

dalaman:
Is incest wrong?
Some religions like Islam allow it. What about having sex with children? Islam and Judaism allow it also. Some traditional religious traditions involve bestiality.

How does objective morality come into play here? Is incest objectively right? According to Muslims, Allah who is the giver of objective morals permits them to engage in it and also permits them to marry children.

Okay.

I think you're just angry and scared at anything remotely christian. All this bullsh*t you've written are not what the op is about. The op is about objective morality not what people think is right or wrong.

hopefulLandlord:
The BuyBull never condemned pedophilia either, check out this thread https://www.nairaland.com/3249529/christians-paedophilia-underage-marriage-right

The morals Christians preach today have been greatly influenced by science, enlightenment and common sense. That's why you'll notice there are things Christians consider normal today that were considered abnormal and heretic/blasphemous before

once in a while you will find a theist who says "Here, these are the morals that my flavour of god has made. And they are all correct, because their foundation is my god who is the very definition of Good." Then my question is simply, can such a person give any of that "godly" morals that he/she personally disagree with? After all, there are myriads of moral questions that sensible people disagree on. And you (the theist) have found the answers, the foundation/bedrock of which is your god who none of us should question. Wouldn't it be an amazing coincidence if this your god agreed with you on every single moral dilemma/quandary? Apparently, none of us are that lucky. So tell me a moral that you deviate from your god on or make me understand how it is that Almighty god has somehow aligned His moral views absolutely and thoroughly not with billions of other people but with you, modest and humble theist Nairalander that you are.

Dude, this is not a Christian thread, why not go look for any christian thread on FP and masturbate on it like you usually do. You'll be able to convert one or two christians to your brand of foolishness that way.

dalaman:
He has no answers to any of the queries you've asked.

He should come and tell us how objective marrying children is since we are told that Allah the giver of objective morals allows people to marry children. Or is morality only objective when it comes from Yahweh?

I should come and tell you? you really think highly of yourself if you think I give a hoot what you believe.

hopefulLandlord:
of course its only objective (to him) when its coming from Yahweh which of course makes it subjective. NOBODY has ever been able to demonstrate objective morality exists without committing fallacies upon fallacies or making illogical jumps along the way

But you've been able to demonstrate the origin of morality right?

I think you guys are really angry, learn from Budaatum, how to keep your calm even when you're angry or pained. More importantly, learn how to read, not every thread opened by a non-atheist is about atheism vs theism.

budaatum:
It is about religion winner. Just go back and count how many times op mentioned a religion, a religious position, doctrine and ideology, and a supposedly god given morality!

I mentioned the point of view of religious people and of critics?

Why did you not say its about critics?

The op is about the validity of objective morality.

gabe:
Smh this religious obsession with sex. If you ask religious people why they are against LGBT people, first thing that pops out is it's unnatural. Well, all species that have sex have homosexual individuals. ALL of them. What's unnatural is humans using religion to straitjacket everyone into a heterosexual category.

This is not about religion, don't get worked up.

This is about why any sexual orientation is more weird than another. This is about the problems of subjective morality.

More often than not, many Christians object to certain "sexual orientations" which I also consider weird: most especially the LGBT community.

Several years ago, when I first heard that a man can be attracted to a man, or a woman to a woman, my brain struggled to process it. Despite the fact that i was irreligious, i still couldn't understand why people would be this way.

Fast forward many years later, I began to see more fierce advocacy for tolerating the LGBT community and even legalizing such sexual orientations.


Many Christians often, reject outrightly the immorality of the LGBT community, giving the biblical backing: “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." - Romans 1:26-27.


Well, this may explain why several LGBT I've seen, heard or read, claim to be irreligious.

Christians claim that their moral yardstick is the Life of Christ, the Bible, the holy spirit, amongst others.
Critics claim that morality supersedes religion or morality is subjective or morality evolves, and other related claims.

The claim from critics has made a valid case for the LGBT community in different western countries and most countries seem to have legalized some of these "sexual orientations".

Moving close to the people in question or reading their opinions online, you would notice their reasons for being the way they are.

" I was born this way"
"LGBT are sexual orientations, just like heterosexuals"
"LGBT is natural"
"There is scientific evidence observing homosexuality amongst animals"

These are usually the lines used by the LGBT community or those who sympathetic towards the community.

Critics also think that:
"Another mans sexual preference is not my busines or yours"
"Sex between two consenting adults is none of my business, nor should it be yours"
"So long they are not harming anyone, its not my business nor should it be yours" (Well they seem to think physical harm is superior to psychological harm).


I have always had 2 issues with the LGBT community and those who support their actions.


1. Mere orientation is not enough

Whether or not someone is naturally oriented to be romantically and sexually attracted to people of the same gender does not mean that it is automatically morally acceptable.

If a person's natural predisposition toward same-sex attraction means that it is normal "for them" and thereby acceptable, then we run into problems. What do we do with people who are naturally oriented towards being attracted to children, i.e., pedophilia? Is it morally wrong? If so, why? You see, if we say that a "natural" orientation in sexuality should automatically be accepted because it is what is "natural" to a person, then the same logic could be used to support the idea that pedophilia--which people also claim is natural for them--is also acceptable.

"Using the same tactics used by 'gay' rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals." - Matthewvines

So, is one's sexual orientation a sufficient argument to justify homosexuality? No, it is not. One's orientation doesn't mean it is okay. If you say it does make it okay, then you must accept pedophilia since that is a person's "sexual orientation." If you say one's orientation doesn't make something okay, then you can logically reject pedophilia. But, this would mean that homosexual's arguments based on sexual orientation are void--and rightfully so.

What about those who have an orientation that is heavily in favor of lying? Does one's "truth orientation" make it okay to lie since that is how he was born? Or what if someone is oriented towards adultery or murder or violence or hatred, pornography, various fetishes, etc. Does one's orientation--that natural predisposition toward a certain behavior and attraction--automatically make it okay just because he was born that way? Of course not, yet that is the argument used by the homosexuals.


2. And I've always asked, what about Necrophilia, bestiality, incest and other weird "sexual orientations"

Who is to determine if other sexual orientations are weird?

- Canada has legalized bestiality
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bestiality-legal-canada-supreme-court-a7073196.html


- Necrophilia is legal in certain states in America
http://metro.co.uk/2015/09/14/having-sex-with-corpses-is-still-legal-in-several-american-states-5391008/


- According to a youth group in sweden, Incest and necrophilia 'should be legal'.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/incest-and-necrophilia-should-be-legal-youth-swedish-liberal-peoples-party-a6891476.html?amp


- Interestingly, we still seem to think paedophilia is wrong.

Maybe its none of my business, maybe its none of the business of anyone who thinks these acts are wrong, you certainly cannot argue that legalizing these weird sexual activities do not have any psychological effect on other people and society.


This might be none of my business too, but I cringed when I heard this of a Finnish court.
https://voiceofeurope.com/2018/05/sex-between-a-23-year-old-migrant-and-a-10-year-old-girl-is-not-rape-says-court-in-finland/

So if we think 10 year olds or other minors can give sexual consent, then who is to say they are inherently wrong? Plus, this makes a valid case for paedophilia. It indicates that children can now give consent. Rapists can also argue that rape is their preferred sexual orientation, as far as i know, some people consider rape their own fetish.

Personally, I think we are nearing a breaking point. If we think we can be good without objective moral values, then everything must be permitted, because just anything can be argued. We must however be ready for the consequences.

In the absence of objective moral values, It is left to the government to then decide for us what is considered legal or moral, and what is not. But we must not forget that decisions made by the government are reflections of individual moral values of involved government officials.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/4144875_106869128496171684156601834722284908860474n_png_jpegecce68dda2b559c8931f3535e448ec03


"We are always near the breaking-point, when we care only for what is legal and nothing for what is lawful" - G.K Chesterton.

1. Religiously unaffiliated does not equal atheism.

2. Christianity is not in a competition with any other faith.

Many ladies are worse than this girl, it's just that cameras are not on them 24/7.

Since she left the Big brother house, she's been classy and intelligent in her actions.
Its good the whole world is not constantly upclose in her personal life now.

dalaman:
Why is life only meaningful with Yahweh? The Muslims say that life is only meaningful with Allah and by subscribing to the sharia law. Are they telling the truth?

Life is meaningful with God.

Emmanystone:
But what will the unbeliever preach?

Unbelief.

Martinez19:
Didn't you show, players partaking in "religious activities"? Messi's picture was one of them. I focused on that. Don't disgrace yourself on top your thread. E lago niyi

Are you a Yoruba man?

Butterflyleo:
You mean the same Darwin that said and I quote

" The whole idea of something so flawless could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

Even he had no clue.

True.

superhumanist:
Really? Really Nigga?

You really want to act the fool right now?

lol

superhumanist:
Your sentence in bold is meaningless. Everyone has helped humanity in the area of knowledge both religious and non-religious.

And please, stop saying that atheism is hopeless and empty. One can easily point to your christianity and say that it is hopeless as any single person has 90% chance of ending up in hell according to your doctrine.

Lol. So now its everyone? But when its violence, its only religious people?

Lol.

budaatum:
Credit is due to you for your attempt at objectivity. I was about to accuse you of lying about am M.Sc as some of your previous showed no knowledge of anything of the sort. I will apologise for my wrong thoughts when I have sufficient evidence that I am wrong.

Lol, God blessed me with 2 M.Sc degrees and j see no reason why should I lie on something of the sort? Its not as if I'm looking for a job here neither does anyone here know who I am in real life, well except for a few. Its not also as if the more my M.Sc's, the more money to my account. Certainly, its not as if, the more M.Sc's I have, the more smarter I am.

budaatum:
The truth is that religions are ideologies that are boostered by the divine. If my god is the great big god (and it must be or I'll get a better one!), there is no way you must live without acknowledging that fact and if you don't, you will not only surely die, I will kill you myself!

lol, whatever this means

budaatum:
Smart people, those who study Sociology like, and more especially those who do so up to M level should know this (if they truly studied, that is), and should not be the sort who encourage discord. If they do encourage such discord, they can not be working on the behalf of the god called Yahweh or his son Christ the Messiah, and they are definitely not the angels that they ought to be. And in fact may be working for the evildoer who also claims to believe in God too.

Do you think this thread promotes discord in any way?

budaatum:
Can you see how, if the above can be true, I would rather be an atheist (which originally simply meant "a lack of belief in the established gods" ).

Originally? Can you give me proof?

budaatum:
I'd like to say that "Christianity is taught, but for most of us Nigerians at least, atheism is learnt", as in no one teaches it to us (though now with NL am I not teaching? Or would you say I indoctrinate instead?)

True, but most times when I speak on atheism, I speak more on foreign atheism. There are also, a decent number of irreligious people in Nigeria who were born into irreligious families.

budaatum:
Do note that atheism is not specifically taught anywhere (least not as far as I am aware). What is taught is a scientific way of looking at things i.e. the scientific method. If atheism is specifically taught, it can only be by indoctrination.

Bro, everything is taught. Directly or indirectly. Teaching a child to be rational and objective for instance is equal to teaching a child how to think. Its a level of indoctrination. Science is also taught, and reinforced over the years. I first heard about the theory of evolution in Jss1, the theory was reinforced in my mind till higher educational levels and then I began to look at the available evidence objectively.

budaatum:
Historically, yes. And the further back in time one goes, the more ridiculous one finds things that have been deified, worshipped and sacrificed to. Imagine, gods of iron, or of thunder and lightning! Though, that still was an advancement from the tree in the backyard being the god.

True, early humans were simply trying to make sense of their world, if anything, this further proves the human disposition to believe in the supernatural.

budaatum:
One shouldn't expect any better from primitive humans who were scared of their own shadows and believed Aphrodite farted the universe into existence. If humans were still as primitive as they used to be, transportation and voice throwing devices (cars and mobile phones), would be gods too.

As ridiculous as those claims are, we still hold some equally ridiculous beliefs today despite our advancement and education. Some people still theorize that humans eventually came by through the blind processes of slime, water, time and chance.

budaatum:
However, we advance today, and have much better information about, and understanding of, things we used to deify so that need is diminishing in countries where education is more advanced.

True, but this still does not discredit certain esoteric knowledge, nor does it disprove certain religious claims. The validity of religious claims must be argued on other grounds, some of which are historical evidence, existential relevance, archeological findings etc.

budaatum:
You can easily identify which nations still base their education on the existence of deities by checking which ones do not manufacture phones and cars, for instance, or which don't have nuclear technology, for example, nor light and running water! The deity educated tend to still be waiting for their gods to say “Let there be light", while the non-deity ones have understood what is meant when it is written "know ye not....", and they make light and running water, and cars and phones etc, and it is seeming to be good, and the end of old eras!

You seem to opine that religious beliefs suppress development?

If I'm not mistaken, I'll like to remind you that U.S.A, Russia, Germany amongst others have a religious majority. The U.K prospered when it was deeply religious. China has an ever increasing number of Christians, which has caught the attention of its government, yet its economy is not regressing. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I'd like to know the point youbwere trying to make there.

budaatum:
On reflection, religion itself, is a process of educating. If a person adopts a religion, they will go through a process of being taught and self learning. This is why Christianity and Islam for instance, provide libraries of books to self learn from, and insists one goes to 'school' every Friday or Sunday to learn how to. It was how one kept the Sabbath Holy in Judaism and Christianity.

Almost every form of knowledge in this world takes its students through the process of teaching and self learning. Books are written on both theism, atheism, politics, science etc to reinforce the beliefs of students.

My point is, learning is important and this is why many forms of important knowledge are preserved and taught to younger generations. It is left to us to argue logically on which knowledge/worldview isbinvakid and out of touch with reality.

budaatum:
Religion can also only be by "indoctrination" if it is the type that tells one to "believe", while disallowing questioning, skepticism or doubt of what one has learnt.

Anyone that shields his/her worldview from skepticism or questioning is most likely shielding a lie. But then, we cannot wish away people who with lower mental characteristics, who would prefer to believe without questioning or engaging in debates. This however, has nothing to do with the validity of their beliefs. Their beliefs must be argued on separate grounds.

budaatum:
An example of indoctrinators would be those who cling to the letter but ignore the spirit, while a teacher will send the Holy Spirit to further minister to one.

Lol, whatever this means

etrange:
Atheism is not ritualistic, dear friend. You cannot know better on both sides. You are only an authority in your Christendom. Referencing scientific findings of science does not make science ritualistic. There is more to being ritualistic than that. You, a religious person, should know this. Atheists think independently. It is only natural that they agree within each much more than religious people do since there is less contradictions in their circle. This does not mean they agree on all grounds.

I was only giving my observations backed by some honest atheists. I can give more examples of such quotes conceeding that atheists are getting more and more ritualistic.
And when you say atheists think Independently, you should be careful of the overgeneralization. I know a few atheists in my family tree as well as outside my family tree, I can tell you that their thoughts are dependent on books they have read, books written by other men.

etrange:
You are saying what Christians should be like. A touch of reality will do. How many of you are Christ-like? NONE

I agree the standard is too high, maybe you also agree with me. The point of Christianity, of going to churches, of engaging in religious practices is simply to be more and more like Christ. I think this is a good thing.

etrange:
These are effects of communism, bro. Communism is not atheism. Atheism is a religious concept. Communism is an economic and political system. Communism is based on materialism. It is a materialistic philosophy. It is amazing that when asked the killings of atheist, you bring out the death toll caused by the socioeconomic concept of communism. Communism is not an atheistic concept, there were Christian communists too. It just baffles me that each time a theist is asked to show the violence of atheism, he moves to communism but I am not surprised cause there is nothing they can hold onto. Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were all atheists, true. These atheists doubled as communists but atheists are not communists. The death toll mentioned was as a result of their faulty governance and incompetent planning and not their religious background. Both theists and theists died as a result of that. The only thing that remotely connects atheism and Communism is the Soviet anti-religious campaign which began in 1929. 'According to Wikipedia, 85.000 Orthodox priests were shot in 1937. The anti-religious enthusiasm dropped as a result of Operation Barbarossa (the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941). It is estimated that between 1917 and 1964, 50.000 monks have been executed. As you can see, we have numbers in the ten thousands here; a small number compared to the sum of all casualties (100 million) of the Soviet era caused by communism. Seeking out political dissenters and suspected spies was simply more important than persecuting believers'. It was clearly a war against anything anti-communism and believers were caught up in the middle as Christians communists had a slightly different view.

That a group of atheists who trusted so much in the communism concept completely lost it and ended up creating more mess does not in any way suggest atheism is the root cause. Hitler was initially a Catholic but no sane mind would attribute his atrocities to Catholicism. Most people, atheists and theists alike, condemn the activities of communists of the 20th century.

I want to agree with you, I honestly do. I just find it difficult to understand the quotes below:



"The criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. ... The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses ..."- Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, 1844


"As socialism grows, religion will disappear. Its disappearance must be done by social development, in which education must play a part."- Karl Marx, Interview with Karl Marx, Chicago Tribune, January 5 1879


"We want to sweep away everything that claims to be supernatural and superhuman, and thereby get rid of untruthfulness, for the root of all untruth and Lying is the pretension of the human and the natural to be superhuman and supernatural. For that reason we have once and for all declared war on religion and religious ideas ..."- Friedrich Engels (co- founder of Marxist theory), Review of Thomas Carlyle's Past
and Present, 1844


"The Communist Party of the Soviet Union is guided by the conviction that only conscious and deliberate planning of all the social and economic activities of the masses will cause religious prejudices to die out. The Party strives for the complete dissolution of the ties between the exploiting classes and the organizations of religious propaganda, facilitates the real emancipation of the working masses from religious prejudices and organizes the widest possible scientific educational and anti-religious propaganda."- Political Program of the CPSU (Communist Party of the Soviet Union), adopted March 22, 1919 at the Eighth Congress of the Russian Communist Party, section 13


"We must deepen a revolutionary world-outlook, we must fight the religious prejudices in the youth and approach the youth, including those having religious prejudices, with the maximum pedagogical attentiveness of the more educated towards the less educated. We must go to them with the propaganda of atheism, for only this propaganda defines the place of man in the universe and draws out for him a circle of conscious activity here on earth."- Leon Trotsky, The Position of the Republic and the Tasks of Young Workers, 1922


“Scientific communism, in its judgements concerning natural phenomena, is guided by the data of the natural sciences, which are in irreconcilable conflict with all religious imaginings. … In practice, no less than in theory, communism is incompatible with religious faith. … THE TRANSITION FROM SOCIALISM TO COMMUNISM … WILL BRING ABOUT THE NATURAL DEATH OF ALL RELIGION AND ALL SUPERSTITION.”- N.I. Bukharin and E. Preobrazhensky: The ABC of Communism, Chapter 11: Communism and Religion, 1922


“Communist society will bury forever all mysticism, religion, prejudice and superstition and will give a powerful impetus to the development of all-conquering, scientific knowledge. ... One of the most important tasks of the cultural revolution affecting the wide masses, is the task of systematically and unswervingly combating religion-the opium of the people. ... the proletarian State ... carries on anti-religious propaganda with all the means at its command and reconstructs the whole of its educational work, on the basis of scientific materialism.” - The Programme of the Communist International. Comintern Sixth Congress 1929


“It is furthermore imperative to put the propaganda of atheism on solid ground. … It is necessary to produce a book on the church's struggle against science.” - Maxim Gorky (Soviet writer, a founder of the socialist realism literary method and a political activist), Letter from Gorky to Stalin, November 29, 1929, on the organization of antireligious propaganda


"We carry on and will continue to carry on propaganda against religious prejudices. ... The Party cannot be neutral towards religion and does conduct anti-religious propaganda against all and every religious prejudice because it stands for science, while religious prejudices run counter to science, because all religion is something opposite to science. ... The Party cannot be neutral towards the bearers of religious prejudices, towards the reactionary clergy who poison the minds of the toiling masses. Have we suppressed the reactionary clergy? Yes, we have. The unfortunate thing is that it has not been completely liquidated. Anti-religious propaganda is a means by which the complete liquidation of the reactionary clergy must be brought about."- Joseph Stalin (the leader of the Soviet Union from the mid-1920s until his death in 1953), Questions & Answers to American Trade Unionists: Stalin's Interview With the First American Trade Union Delegation to Soviet Russia,1927



“Our program of antireligious propaganda consists of the masses not only breaking ties with churches but also overcoming elements of religious consciousness. We should help them free themselves of all traces of religious consciousness, help them cultivate a scientific, materialistic
understanding of the world to free them of all elements of religiosity-this is the goal of our program. To separate not only church from state, but also the individual from the church. This program is being fulfilled by propaganda, by organizing our Union of Militant Godless. It is carried out in literature, in public rallies, in our newspapers, magazines, books, brochures, theatres, movies, radio. … Our party program regarding religion
shows that freeing the masses from religion is related to how successfully we will implement planning of all facets of economic life in our country. This means, when we are able to organize our economy so that every worker, every peasant will know that the result of his work depends only on his collective or individual efforts and does not depend on any other powers, only then will the masses be free from religion."- Yemelyan
Yaroslavsky, Conversation between IAroslavskii and an American delegation headed by Sherwood Eddy, August 2, 1932, concerning antireligious propaganda



"A person cannot act correctly, cannot act in an organized manner as a Communist, as a Leninist, if his brain is poisoned by religion. In order to overcome the tremendous difficulties which confront us; in order to remold the world as the working class and the peasantry want it to be; in order to subjugate all the forces of nature and compel them to work for the welfare of mankind; in order to change social relationships from top to bottom; in order to eradicate war between nations, to exterminate poverty from the face of the earth—it is necessary that every person, that every peasant and worker sees things as they are, without the intervention of gods, saints, angels, fiends, goblins, were-wolves, and other spirits, good or evil." – Yemelyan Yaroslavsky (the head of the League of Militant Godless), Religion in the U.S.S.R., 1934



"The overthrow of religious authority and the eradication of superstition are going on everywhere."- Mao Zedong (the founding father of the People's Republic of China, which he governed as Chairman of the Communist Party of China), REPORT ON AN INVESTIGATION OF THE PEASANT MOVEMENT IN HUNAN, 1927



"The world is nothing else but the material world in a process of unlimited development… Dialectical materialism's theory of movement is in opposition first of all with philosophical idealism and with the theological concepts of religion. The fundamental nature of all philosophical idealism and religious theology derives from their denial of the unity and material nature of the world; and in imagining that the movement and
development of the world takes place apart from matter, or took place at least in the beginning apart from matter, and is the result of the action of spirit, God, or divine forces ... All of these doctrines which think about movement apart from matter are fundamentally incompatible with dialectical materialism..."- Mao Zedong, DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM, 1938



"We will substitute materialism for [philosophical] idealism and atheism for theism."- Mao Zedong, Examples Of Dialectics, 1959


"Party organisations must direct their most serious attention to the improvement of atheist propaganda. Anti-religious propaganda must be more offensive, combatant, more direct. . ."- Mzhavanadze (at the 20th Congress of the Georgian Communist Party), Zarya vostoka, 26 January 1960.



An editorial in Nauka i religiya ("Science and Religion", a monthly Soviet atheist journal) during 1963 spoke of the current programme of communist construction as including: "the complete and final overcoming of religious survivals and the liberation of people's consciousness from prejudices and superstition. Communism will be an atheist society, where the religious mist is finally dispelled, where people are delivered for
ever from fantastic religious representations."- Nauka i religiya 6, 1963, p. 2.


"In 1964, in accordance with the directive of the TSK KPSS [CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE USSR] "Concerning Efforts to Improve the Atheist Education of the Population," a required or elective course entitled "The Fundamentals of Scientific Atheism" was introduced at institutions of higher learning. Specialized departments of scientific atheism were organized at 20 institutions of higher learning. In 1973 a new textbook entitled Scientific Atheism was published. … Different kinds of extracurricular activities such as the involvement of students in research on atheism, atheist discussion clubs and seminars, sociological surveys, atheistic propaganda for the general public, and so forth could play a major role in the atheistic education of students. Atheist clubs, which have been organized at several institutions of higher
learning (the Leningrad and Daugavpils Teachers' Institutes, the Tallin Poly technical Institute, and so forth), schools for organizers of alternative rituals, schools for young atheist lecturers, and so forth have become an effective tool for atheist education in a number of cities."- Report by Institute for Scientific Atheism, May 21, 1974, to the Central Committee on increasing effectiveness of atheistic education among youth



"The task devolves on us to carry the revolution continuously ahead, to create and strengthen the new world-outlook in the minds and consciousness of people, who should live and think like revolutionaries, who should explain the phenomena of life, develop and settle relations among themselves, between themselves and society, no longer in the old way, no longer according to the idealist, religious, bourgeois outlook, but according to the materialist, atheist, socialist world-outlook."- Enver Hoxha (the Communist leader of Albania from 1944 to 1985, which was the first ever officially declared atheist nation in the world), ON SOME ASPECTS OF THE PROBLEM OF THE ALBANIAN WOMAN, June 15, 1967



"The religious ideology clouds the human mind and paralyses their will for the transformation of nature and society. ... The class struggle for the construction of socialism cannot be separated from the struggle against religion."- Enver Hoxha, Yugoslav "Self-Administration" - Capitalist Theory and Practice, 1978



“All worship of supernatural forces can be called superstition. Religions are superstition … Marxism says, "religion is the opiate that lulls the spirits of people, and is the tool by which the exploiting class controls the people". Marxists all oppose religion in any form. … Among the masses, there are still some ancient practices stemming from superstitions … Solving them only needs patient persuasion and a long period of cultural, scientific, and atheistic education.”- The People's Daily (an official newspaper of the Chinese Communist Party), “Religion and Feudal Superstitions”, (15 March 1979).


But hey. Politicians lie all the time right? I'm not ruling out possibilities, I'm just showing evidences.

etrange:
Unfortunately, I might not have the time to visit your past threads. But I have made my own point above

I get your point. Those threads too contain some evidence for my points.

etrange:
Once again, I am to busy to go reading past threads. Atheists are not hate filled. They preach secularism. They want a society where religion is not a driving factor in general law making. They do not want you to burn churches just because your are a Muslim. They do not want you to refuse them marrying your daughter because they not share your believe. They not want you to say blood transfusion is illegal just cause one religion is against it. They do not want you to burn gay men because your religion is against homosexuality. They are saying, if you must ban any of these, present a logical reason aside religion. Nevertheless, If a violent atheist decides to run for presidency today, most atheists will still not vote for him because that will contradict the whole idea of disregarding religious background. Atheists are saying the leaders should not be chosen based on religious affiliations. Unfortunately, the religious folks do so.

Atheists are not hate filled and I never said so. I only think many atheists are hate filled and condescending.

Religion will always be a driving factor in the personal affairs of majority of humans because that's what it is, Personal.
I do not support state religion but freedom of religion. I also don't want gayism to be banned simply because I'm a Christian, I simply want governments to give superior arguments as to why paedophilia, bestiality and necrophillia are outlawed if they are sexual orientations.

I'll rather support my sister marring a bible believing Christian simply despite the fact that many good people I know are atheists, this is because if a problem arises, I know where to base my discussions on. I've been irreligious myself at a time and so I know what I mean.

Leaders should also not be chosen on religious grounds, but if you've been following Nigerian politics, you can easily tell that politics is the deciding factor for choosing leaders, leaders who neither revere God nor human life, despite their religious claims.

etrange:
Christians of today are not really very violent people. I have friends from many religious backgrounds and Christians seem to be the most adorable. Maybe cause of my own background too. Christians tend to be docile now. I may not agree with their belief system but I wouldn't go out of my way to talk-trash them. I can mention the contributions of Christianity to the word even more than yourself. I am only saying non religious people are far more tolerant and accommodating than religious people which include Christians. I have not seen an atheists who decides to stop being friends with someone because he/she is religious. I have seen many Christians who would start avoiding you once they know your religious stance. They will always quote a part of the bible that advises us not to move with non believers. Lol.

I'll like to know those bible verses especially considering the fact that Jesus rolled with unbelievers and came for unbelievers

etrange:
You have said it many times. I have been on NL for 7yrs. I was talking of the whole of NL and not just this section. This place if full of theists vs atheist threads so you will more theists here. On NL as a whole, Christians ridicule Muslims more that they ridicule Buhari. LMAO

I said it twice

I've not observed many other sections. I will. I will also ask you, when/if you were (ever) a Christian, do you think Jesus would have condoned ridicule?

etrange:
But you can see more examples of their hatred/atrocities despite their few population. Isn't that a science of selectivity?

I don't get you my friend, are you saying given that the population of worlds atheists is less than 5%, we can conduct no research to determine attributes peculiar to atheists and atheism?

etrange:
Lol... I read the first set of crimes here and I can see you spooled out a list of past crimes where the culprits happened to be atheists. Really, that is your point? You think the whole of NL will be enough to write down past crimes where the culprits were found to be Christians? All the crimes we on NL front-page alone will be enough. Brotherly, when people kill in the name of their gods, we attribute it to the religion not when someone commits a crime and we eventually release he is from a part uvular religion, we start saying the religion is the cause. That is, in fact, one of the issues with theists.

And I gave you sufficient examples of those who killed because they do not believe in God. Please get my point, anything can be used as justification for killing. Provided that we have more religious people in Nigeria that irreligious people, we will surely have more crimes from people who claim to be religious and of course they will be moved to front page, magnified, especially considering the fact that Oga nairaland is a staunch atheist. You seem to think Nigeria won't be as bad, if atheists were more than theists

Let's do something, try to pretend like a Christian, and go ahead to preach God or Jesus to some random motor park touts, prostitutes, cultists and their likes, you may be shocked that we have more number of irreligious Nigerians than recorded.

etrange:
You want me to believe the deeds of these people have nothing to do with their stance as Christians but as a result of their African spiritual system? You may be right. But it bothers me that you do not want to believe that the deeds of Malo and other communists have noithing to do with their religion or lack of it but as a result of the political/economic school of thought.

Do you want me to give you evidences of barbarism in the African traditional spiritual system?

I'm open to believe the deeds of Mao and others were purely political, I'll only need contrasting evidence.

I was born a skeptic, I'll accept things for which I find valid the evidence.

etrange:
Who would have known we'd ever agree on something? Pheww....

Lol

etrange:
I did my M.Sc. in Mathematical Sciences, bro. I was only saying if 5% is enough, it is enough. If it is not, it is not. If it is not enough to measure violence, it is also not enough to measure good deeds.

I really don't get this. If 5% of the worlds population is 200,000,000 by my estimates, are you saying we can't get a reasonable sample size effectively representing that population, for the purpose of research?

budaatum:
I was expecting nothing better than what you posted. The fallacy however is in thinking all those detailed as killed were killed by atheists. I guess if fits in with your idea of what atheists are, we go about killing people because, after all, there is no hell to go to.

No, atheists don't go about killing people. Bad people do. Don't misunderstand me, humanity have murderous tendencies that must be kept in check by law and order.

budaatum:
If you read my first post in this same thread you would have understood that all atrocities are done by people and that even those in the link I posted were not done because they were Christians, but because of their own prejudices which they justified by their own warped notion of Christianity.

I couldn't agree with you less.

budaatum:
Well, enjoy. I know to say "peace" and shake your dust off me as I depart. But before I go, could you provide a list of mass murderers who were Christians too please

I don't know, I'll have to do a research on that. However I do know that Adolf Hitler is always regarded as a Christian even though his worldview later in life seemed anti Christian, which probably influenced his actions.

In June 1941, Hitler ordered an invasion of the Soviet Union. And on 12th July, 1941, he gave the following quote

"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together....
"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity....
"Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." (p 6 & 7)

On 10th October, 1941, he said:

"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." (p 43)

on 14th October, 1941, he said

"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity....
"Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse....
"...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little....
"Christianity is the liar....
"We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State." (p 49-52) Hitlers' Table Talks.


On October 19th, 1941
"The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges, the pox and christianity"- Table talks"

December 13th of the same year, he said "When all is said and done, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunized against the disease."

Hitler had a terrible mentality and ideology later on in his life, and this led to the murder of about 12,000,000 people.

I'll try to do a compilation of other mass murderers who claimed to be christian, but for now, I'm not aware of any brutal misdeed of " Christianity", surpassing the Spanish inquisition and the crusades

etrange:
You can't. Meanwhile, you're saying atheists are just 5% and that's not sufficient to compare the overall violence commited by the two parties but you tend to lose sight of the fact that that little percentage is what makes it so easy for you to generalize about them. If 5% is to small for such comparison, then everything you've been typing about atheists being more hate filled is based on what? 5% is not too small to know who's more angry and hate-filled but too small to know who's more violent?

I can, and I will, right after my short reply. What I meant by atheists are just 5% is that, we would naturally see fewer examples of militant atheists than militant religious individuals given their smaller percentage.

Feel free to look up the few examples I can get my hands on;


Ted Kaczynski
American atheist and anarchist who killed 3 people and injured 23 others with a series of homemade bombs. His parents raised him as an "intellectual atheist," and he maintained, "I believe in nothing."


Gary Heidnick
Criminal from Pennsylvania who kidnapped, tortured, and raped 6 women, eventually murdering 2 of them, turning one into food and feeding her to the others. Though he founded a mock "church" on the side to receive tax exemptions, he said he had always been an atheist.


Brian Dugan
Serial killer who murdered 3 people and sexually assaulted several women in Chicago. He described himself as atheist to reporters and said he did not believe in heaven or hell, good or evil, calling them all "mad-made constructions."


Craig Stephen Hicks
Atheist mass murderer who killed 3 Muslim students in the 2015 Chapel Hill shooting. He regularly made online posts condeming all religions, described himself as an "anti-theist," was a supporter of “Atheists for Equality,” and was an outspoken fan of Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion.


Richard Kuklinski
American contract killer who murdered up to 250 people for the mob. He admitted to being an atheist, saying the Church was a sham and that if God really existed, there would be no violence in the world.


Jack Kevorkian
American pathologist and promoter of euthanasia who performed over 130 physician-assisted suicides and was eventually arrested for it. When asked if he believed in a god, he quipped, "Bach. At least I didn't make mine up."


Eric Harris
One of the two high school students who committed the "Columbine High School Massacre" in which they shot and killed 13 people and injured 24 others (before killing themselves). He had written in his journal that he did not want to do what "parents, cops, God, or teachers" tell him to do, making him, at the very least, a practical atheist (and notably, he never indicated he believed in God at all). As recorded on a video tape, Harris is seen saying, "Go Romans! Thank God they crucified that asshole." He was enamored with Charles Darwin's concept of "Natural Selection," writing, "Natural SELECTION!!!!!!!!!!! God damn it's the best thing that ever happened to the Earth. Getting rid of all the stupid and weak organisms. I wish the government would just take off every warning label. So then all the dumbasses would either severely hurt themselves or DIE!" On the day of the shooting, he wore a t-shirt with the label "Natural Selection" written across it.


Dylan Klebold
The other one of the two high school students who committed the "Columbine High School Massacre" in which (once again) they shot and killed 13 people and injured 24 others (before killing themselves). Recorded on video tape, he is seen cheering with Harris for the Romans because they crucified Christ ("that asshole" as Harris put it). Also on video tape, Klebold said he disliked one of his classmates, Rachel Scott, calling her a "Christian, Godly little LovePeddler," suggesting than he was not only an atheist but an anti-theist as well. Klebold and Harris made her the first victim of the Columbine shooting. After shooting her once, he asked, "Do you still believe in God?" to which she said, "You know I do." He then mocked, "Go be with with him," shooting her in the head.


Kimveer Gill
Canadian mass shooter and self-described atheist who perpetrated the "Dawson College shooting," in which he shot and killed 1 and injured 19 others, before shooting himself in the head. In addition to being a fan of the Columbine High School Massacre, he had written on his website, "I hate this world, I hate the people in it, I hate the way people live, I hate God, I hate the deceivers, I hate betrayers, I hate religious zealots, I hate everything ... I hate so much ..."


Kip Kinkel
Atheist High Schooler who shot and killed both his parents. The next day he went to school and shot and killed 2 students as well as wounded 35 others in the "Thurston High School shooting." He said, "If there was a God, he wouldn't let me feel the way I do. There is no God, only hate."


Michael Adam Carneal
A self-professed atheist who went to a religious youth group in Kentucky and began shooting them after the opening prayer, murdering three girls and wounding five others.


Seung-Hui Cho
South Korean mass shooter who killed 32 students (before killing himself) in the "Virginia Tech Shooting." He apparently had become an atheist, having dropped out of his church, and, according to his roommate, had "railed against his parents' strong Christian faith."


Matti Juhani Saari
Finnish atheist who shot and killed 10 people in the "Kauhajoki school shooting," before committing suicide.


James Holmes
American mass murderer who was convicted on 24 counts of murder and 140 counts of attempted murder, having shot up a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, which was playing the film "The Dark Knight Rises" while he was dressed as the Joker. He had labelled himself an agnostic on an online dating service website (which, according to some atheists, would make him qualify as an atheist).


Jeffrey James Weise
Ojibwe student who killed 9 and injured 7 people at Red Lake Senior High School, after which he then shot himself. His behavior during the shooting spree indicated militant atheism as a motive. He shot a female teacher in response to her saying, "God be with us," and then turned and asked a student, "Do you believe in God?" to which the student answered, "No," and consequently spared the student and proceeded to find alternate targets.


Elliot Rodger
Atheist mass murderer who killed 6 people and injured 14 others at the University of California, Santa Barbara, using multiple guns and knives, and then committed suicide. He had written in his journal: "I am the closest thing there is to a living god. Humanity is a disgusting, depraved, and evil species. It is my purpose to punish them all."


Christopher Sean Harper-Mercer
Mass murderer from California who killed 9 people at Umpqua Community College in Oregon, the deadliest shooting in the state's history. He described himself as an atheist on his MySpace page and asked multiple people if they were Christians and then shot them after they answered yes.


Pekka-Eric Auvinen
Finnish student and Nazi enthusiast who shot and killed 8 people before killing himself in the "Jokela school shooting." He described himself as a "godlike atheist," having said, "I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit."


Jared Lee Loughner
Atheist mass shooter in the 2011 Tucson shooting, killing 6 people (including a U.S. District Court Judge) and injuring 13 others (including a U.S. Representative). He was an outspoken critic of US currency having the phrase "In God We Trust," repeatedly mocked all religion (especially Christianity), and said Karl Marx's "The Communist Manifesto" was one of his favorite books.


John Hughes
Atheist serial killer from the Isle of Man who confessed to killing 15 or more people. He compared himself to the Anti-Christ and told reporters he did not believe in God.


Israel Keyes
Atheist serial killer from Utah who murdered 8 or more people before killing himself.


Seth Privacky
American mass murderer who killed 5 people, including his parents, brother, and grandfather, telling people that he had been raised with "an atheistic, or agnostic, view to life."


Jeffrey Dahmer
Atheist serial killer who murdered 17 people. He tortured, raped, dismembered, and cannibalized several of his victims. He credited his atheism for being the reason why he killed people, saying, "If it all happens naturalistically, what's the need for a god? Can't I set my own rules? Who owns me? I own myself."


David Berkowitz
Atheist serial killer who murdered 6 people and wounded 7 others. He claimed he was involved with a Satanic cult but also said he did not believe in God.


Leonard Lake
Californian serial-killer and atheist who, along with his co-conspirator Charles Ng, murdered 11 to 25 people.


Dennis Nilsen
British serial killer, homosexual necrophiliac, and atheist who strangled 12 men to death.


Ted Bundy
Atheist serial killer who murdered 30 to over 100 people.


James Oliver Huberty
American mass shooter and atheist who shot and killed 21 people, injuring 19 others, in the "San Ysidro McDonald's massacre."


Andrei Chikatilo
Soviet serial killer who killed and cannibalized 53 people. He confessed that Communism had a negative effect on him and that his atheism inspired him with anxiety which caused his mind to "split."


Jim Jones
American Marxist who transformed a group of church members into a Communist cult, wherein his fanatical followers would commit suicide on his command, resulting in a mass suicide of over 900 people (some of whom were forcibly killed, including children). He said that he "took the church and used the church to bring people to atheism."


Alvin Lee King III
A former teacher at a Texas high school, where he was known to be an outspoken atheist, who burst into a church with a rifle and a pistol, murdering 5 Christians and wounding at least 10 others (later hanging himself in his jail cell).


Bhagat Singh
Indian Marxist who opposed Gandhi's philosophy of non-violence and murdered a police officer and threw bombs into a crowd, causing injuries but fortunately no deaths. He wrote a work called "Why I am an Atheist," saying, "Where is God? What is He doing? Is He getting a diseased pleasure out of it? A Nero! A Genghis Khan! Down with Him!"


Paul Jaworski
Polish Atheist and gangster in Cleveland, Ohio, who killed up to 26 people. Before his execution, he was offered to see a chaplain but responded, "I preached atheism since the day I quit singing the choir. A man is yellow if he spends his life believing in nothing and then comes crawling to the church because he is afraid his death is near."


Carl Panzram
American criminal and atheist who murdered 21 people, raped over 1,000 people, and committed multiple burglaries, robberies, larcenies, and arsons. He said, "I don't believe in man, God nor Devil. I hate the whole damned human race, including myself... I preyed upon the weak, the harmless and the unsuspecting. This lesson I was taught by others: Might makes right."


Marc Lépine
Canadian Atheist who shot and murdered 14 women and wounded 14 others and then shot himself in the [i]"Montreal Massacre." His mother reported that he was "a confirmed atheist all his life."


Timothy McVeigh
American terrorist who was convicted of the Oklahoma City Bombing, which killed 168 people and injured over 600 others (the deadliest terrorist attack prior to September 11, 2001). He informed the press that he did not believe in God.


David Roland Waters
An atheist and office manager of the organization called "American Atheists" who murdered 4 people.

etrange:
This does not seem to tally but then, maybe I'm the one not getting it. I'll just flow with you. As regards the point raised, I do not believe you. I'm surprised you even slightly suggested atheists have inflicted more terror than Muslims.

According to history bro, atheists has inflicted more terror than Muslims. See earlier evidence.

etrange:
Their religions are Christianity, Islam, etc. That's not to undermine the contributions of our dear Mary Slessor.

Do you agree that we have not fully let go of our African spiritual system? This was my point in that reply.

etrange:
You're quick to push the shortcomings of theism to other factors but strive to convince me the acts of your atheists friends are as a result of atheism. That's the difference between you and those authors above. Lol.

Don't misunderstand me bro. The human nature is capable of hate and crimes, in the absence of theism, atheism, politics etc, humans will find something else to base their evils on. This thread was simply intended to give scientific proof, backing the possible effects of words on personal health and society. You can disregard the scientific research given if you will, I'm simply driving at a point.

etrange:
True but don't forget theists constitute 95% so we can't compare such things

I did an M.Sc in social sciences, apart from sciences. And one of the things I learnt during my research is that: regardless of the percentage of your population, a reasonable sample size, randomly selected, representing the population, can provide a valid instrument for your research.

budaatum:
I bet you can't!

Meanwhile, for popular consumption. Listed here is some violence committed by some. Note the witch killing too, and the policing of the thoughts in peoples' minds.

I bet you'd be told they are not doing it for Christ, but you try using that to excuse those they claim is done by atheists and you see how wriggly some get.

Lol don't bet, stay with me, ill give you proof as far as I can get, on atheists that killed because they didn't believe in God.

I was expecting something more concrete evidence on Christianity and violence. But thanks, Instead, I learnt much more about Christianity's opposition to violence on the same wikipedia site you posted.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/7061902_img20180503192117_jpega1c3e26fd4811db41ceb1ae98103e23c

I'm simply telling you, humanity has an affinity for violence, and just any structure can be used to justify violence. However if we are to compare recorded casualties from theists and atheists, theistic casualties pale in comparison to atheistic casualties. I can give proof for this if you request pleasantly.


This picture below however shows that, minus religion, humans will find other reasons to go to war with each other.
www.nairaland.com/attachments/3861249_img20160608072600edit_png0d6c36e885a2749ff7ee439996b28aaf

budaatum:
And yours is what, exactly? The word of god?!

My opinion with verifiable evidence, your opinion just mere words.

Plus, I am a god, when we go into details. Psalm 82:6

budaatum:
I would have expected you to claim "If there were no God, there'd be nothing".

Just goes to show the breadth of you I suppose.

I reiterate, no God means no atheists.

etrange:
People ridicule people especially those who don't share their views. I'm not saying otherwise. I'm only saying it's not a function of atheism. The way Christians on NL mock and trash-talk Islam is enough to drive home this point.

Your first statement is true for half-educated individuals. I won't ridicule someone merely because he has a ridiculous opinion. My grandmother, a christian, for instance believe in many traditional superstitions, I try as much as possible to educate her in pleasant ways.

I've been on this section since 2015, throughout my stay here, I can guarantee that I've seen atheists ridicule Christians on a much larger scale than Christians ridicule Muslims. This made me focus on Christian apologetics, because I noticed this section subtly promotes atheism.

Also, if theists ridicule each other, on a religion section, I wonder why an atheist will want to get on a religion section to share his belief disbelief.

etrange:
I said it before and I'm saying it again, picking a theists choice of words from a church group is the most ridiculous research ever. A research we know the outcome before embarking on. Your school WhatsApp group would have been a better sample. No one, myself inclusive, would go to church group and not try conform. On the other hand, the atheists wouldn't use such words in an office, for example. What I'm saying here is that the word stuff doesn't prove a thing. It's all messed up by environmental factors.

I'm happy the research was not conducted by members of a Christian institute. The words you post online are nothing but products of your mind, which impacts your health, and society like other research suggests.

I simply gave you scientific evidence, to back up my propositions, you can either call it good science or bad science

etrange:
Dearest, there's something you're not getting. Atheism is not ritualistic. There's no layed down rule. There's no master file or holy book or leader or anything of such. So quoting these supposedly atheistic authors who have lent voices to their opinionated conclusions may not really carry much weight. I love their intelligence. I have quoted some of them before but you will see other atheists who do not agree with these authors. Think of it, a man who probably grew up a Christian and later decided the bible is written by man and not worth it; is it the works of these authors he'd follow religiously? An atheist is a free minded individual. That is why it is hard for theists to comprehensively decipher a way to address theism.

But all the same, I appreciate these works of research. You probably read these stuffs more than myself . I personally believe the idea of drawing a line between old and new atheists is just a matter of convenience. But then, most such divisions are. The fact is, humans are evolving generally. While the so-called old atheists could have been more aggressive in conversations and less tolerant, Christians were already killing non Christians in other countries. Inter-religious wars were at their peaks. Christans had something to kill for. Muslims had something to kill for. This wasn't the case for the so-called old atheists. There was simply no reason to kill. Fast forward to years later, they are the ones tagged angry and hate-filled.

On the contrary, atheism is getting ritualistic, its getting cult-like. I wouldn’t agree with some religious people that I’ve seen call atheism a religion, but I have noted that many atheists are quite religiously orientated themselves. Sam Harris notes a sort of “piety” in the atheist camp after some criticism was made of his work:

“…there is something cult-like about the culture of atheism. In fact, much of the criticism I have received of my speech is so utterly lacking in content that I can only interpret it as a product of offended atheist piety”.

I write once again that atheists regurgitate and repeat the same arguments and most especially "lines" of prominent atheists, this is cult-like. I follow foreign atheism a lot an this is why I know, I follow foreign atheism so that I can describe it to their Nigerian colleagues. Most of the examples I've given on atheist on this section are foreign.

If the atheist is free-minded, why can't many of them think independently. I think one of the mistakes of this generation is to think free thinking is exclusive to atheism.

While I don't like to speak on Christians killing non Christians, I'd like to point out that Christ-ians are people who wish to be like Christ. If you're honest enough, you can judge the life of a Christian using the life of Christ.
I have no explanations for the misdeeds of Islam but to think atheists were not killing non-atheists is quite bias.

It is estimated that in the past 100 years, atheistic communism have caused the death of somewhere between 158,368,610 to 259,432,000 human lives. Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that atheistic communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.

Theodore Beale notes concerning atheism and mass murder:
"Apparently it was just an amazing coincidence that every Communist of historical note publicly declared his atheism … .there have been twenty-eight countries in world history that can be confirmed to have been ruled by regimes with avowed atheists at the helm … These twenty-eight historical regimes have been ruled by eighty-nine atheists, of whom more than half have engaged in democidal acts of the sort committed by Stalin and Mao …"

The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is not least than 158 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined.

The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition. It is not only Stalin and Mao who were so murderously inclined, they were merely the worst of the whole Hell-bound lot. For every Pol Pot whose infamous name is still spoken with horror today, there was a Mengistu, a Bierut, and a Choibalsan, godless men whose names are now forgotten everywhere but in the lands they once ruled with a red hand.

Is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad things? If that is not deemed to be conclusive, how about the fact that the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them. If one considers the statistically significant size of the historical atheist set and contrasts it with the fact that not one in a thousand religious leaders have committed similarly large-scale atrocities, it is impossible to conclude otherwise, even if we do not yet understand exactly why this should be the case. Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence, but fifty-two incidents in ninety years reeks of causation!


You're free to disagree with me, but here is verifiable evidence showing the bloodiness of atheists who have found their way to power.

As other atheists would say, communism has nothing to do with atheism, but with overflowing verifiable evidence, I'll step back and let the atheist communists do the talking.

Do you still not think I can recognize hate when I see one?
Let's leave all the atheistic communism story and jump to atheists today, one would expect them to have learnt or evolved past the condescending stage right?

I'll go on to prove, undeniable, and with a pool of evidence, that majority of atheists today are still as hate-filled and angry as their predecessors.

etrange:
If there's anything to pick from these guys' books, it's the notion that they were sincere enough to admit that things weren't/aren't so smooth on their own end. They dared to point out errors of past members of their team and criticised it. That's what atheism is all about, freedom of expression of one's mind without striving to defend another person's actions or opinion if found wanting. But you'd rather use it against them. Imagine if Christians were judged with the act of their past members, we'd just kill all of you. Lol.

Lol, if Christians were as violent and conservative as you think they are, it will cost just a few lives to hold all of you to ransom, just like Islamic countries . May I remind you that Christianity constitute 1/3 of the total worlds population. We could simply have your voices, but no, resistance will be met by other Christians who are in fact Christ-like (like it happened during the transatlantic slave-trade era)

etrange:
I think I've addressed these word thing enough. I'd rather keep my kid with someone that shouts "Bleep" every morning than with a pastor that will pull her pant in front of the congregation in the name of deliverance.

In my initial reply, I did note that "regardless of their hidden behaviour". I'll go with a more pleasant person than with an angry person.

If you're honest enough, you can judge a pervert using the life of Christ. Except you think Christ was also a perv.

etrange:
I'm here with you cause you brought up a topic I find worthwhile, bro. Not to convert you. Your religion is is not my problem provided you don't hurt others though I'll still engage logically if you find it worthwhile to challenge my views. I'll only rise against you when I see stuffs like pastors shaving armpits, boko haram killing peeps, etc. No one promised me heaven when I convert others nah. Tell me, which will you see more on NL, atheists ridiculing theists or Christians mocking Islam? A sincere response is enough.

Speak for yourself bro, there are more crusading atheists than you think.

I gave a sincere answer earlier, remember I've been on this section since 2015.

psychonaut13:
If I may, true atheism is the awareness & humility to say I don't know.

This is your opinion and nothing more. Majority of online atheists exhibit infinite knowledge, part of the bigotry I explained earlier.

psychonaut13:
but I need more proof than a book thats been rewritten, edited, books left out & more.

Is this what you were told, read, or are you infinitely sure of this?

psychonaut13:
Religion separates people. Love brings then together! Whatever myth you choose to believe, they are allegories for how to treat each other & live well.

Atheism has nothing to do with love. You certainly cannot provide any scientific research that shows the correlation between atheism and love.

psychonaut13:
Christianity is not original

Is this what you know or learnt?