"Atheists Killed >140 millions" is Fallacious

[Immanuel Can]

...yet u call them marxist societies.

It's what they called themselves. Are you going to argue that the millions of people in Russia, China, Cambodia, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Romania, Albania, Cuba...all idiots? That's your rejoinder? They thought they were Communists, but they weren't?

But Prom knows better? He's a real Commie, not those losers?

You really want us to believe that?

I don't know whether that's more racist or more hubristic. But it's plausibly both.

[henry quirk]

Anyone who sees it otherwise and attributes some special religious or spiritual woo that elevates man above the meat and beasts will of course simply declare that God, or Crom, or the spirits of his dead pets tell him all his own beliefs are justified, and he is more likely to kill becuz someone else doesn't agree with him about something.

Sure, he can do that. God believers can murder. Even the most devout or dutiful is a free will. He can reframe and interpret his faith as he chooses justifying all manner of atrocity. But see what this person has to do? He has to twist a life-honoring, person-recognizing ethic into a perversion to make it fit his desire. The person who sees man as just meat, no better than the bacon on his plate, has a far shorter road to travel to get to murder. He has nuthin' to twist, nuthin' to pervert. The believer has to walk to the precipice; the non-believer already has one foot dangling over the abyss.

Again, I'm talkin' likelihoods here, probabilities, not certainties.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Marx called the critique of religion "the first critique." Without Atheism, Marxism was an absolute no-go, and he knew it. Thus, the Reds in Russia, the Maoists, the Cubans, the Venezuelans, the Zimbabweans, the Congolese, the Khymer Rouge, the North Vietnamese and the North Koreans, the Romanians, Bulgarians, the Albanians, and all the other similar homicidal regimes throughout the last century that have been Communist were Atheistic, and could be nothing else.

140 million is thus a very charitable figure to cite. It was almost certainly more.

Sorry VA...whether you like the facts or not, that what your boys have done.

Your skull must be very thick in not understanding the 9 fallacies in the OP that explained your bad thinking.

Quoting definitions is not the same thing as proving the argument has them. In point of fact, the record of Atheist regimes is so deplorable, that I don't wonder that you'd rather not account for it.

Blind as usual.
The OP gave explanations for each fallacy why your claim is fallacious.

First you claim 'atheists' on a blanket basis.
Now you are specific to 'atheistic regimes'.

At present there are only 6 Theocratic-theistic Goverments;
1. Afghanistan
2. Iran
3. Mauritania
4. Saudi Arabia
5. Vatican City
6. Yemen
which meant all the other governments are non-theistic or 'atheistic'.

It is a very bad and immature argument to insist it is because governments are not theocratic, i.e. they do not believe a God exists - so are 'atheistic', that they kill humans.
On the other hand, theocracies [God-based] that are Islamic, defined in their god-based constitution, the sanction the killing of non-believers for the slightest threats to Islam.

As per the OP,
"In addition to these specific fallacies, it's worth noting that attributing deaths solely to atheism [with a broad stroke] is overly simplistic and ignores the multitude of other factors that contribute to violence and conflict throughout history."

[nemos]

My handbook on what the model of society should be is "The Andromeda Nebula", in which the author of the book, Ivan Yefremov, describes his utopia. The events have been moved to the third millennium, so probably the author did not particularly believe in its possibility, and yet, in my understanding, it is a beautiful goal to strive for. Society is based on scientific research and learning the universe, and religion is not considered there at all. To be honest, I can't even imagine how religious "horse blinders" could fit into such a society, because historically religion has always been antagonistic to the apple of wisdom or sin. After all, religion is based on the miracle of god, but science turns the miracle into an engineering achievement.
In this utopia, the community model is called communist, although there is no communist party there, and neither are communists. I don't remember that there was any political party there, the emphasis is not on politics (because the society has become quite monolithic), but on the economy. The governing body of the society is more like a scientific council.

[promethean75]

"Are you going to argue that the millions of people in Russia, China, Cambodia, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Romania, Albania, Cuba...all idiots? That's your rejoinder? They thought they were Communists, but they weren't?"

Are u going to argue that Wayne Bent, Graham Capill, Warren Jeffs, Ervil LeBaron, Jim Jones, Jeffrey Lundgren, Fred Phelps, Yahweh Ben Yahweh, and David Karesh are all idiots? That's your rejoinder? They thought they were Christians but they weren't?

Of course u are, becuz they didn't do what the bible has instructed.

....

"But Prom knows better? He's a real Commie, not those losers?"

I already told u, man. I'm an anarchist mercenary who only works for the marxists as a revolutionary strong-arm.

Even if the revolution happened tomorrow, I'd still be an anarchist. The only thing that could change this would be for the state to expunge my record of the 2010 convictions and reimburse me for six years of lost wages (while incarcerated). I'd have to figure out what they owe me tho. Haven't done the math yet.

Unless that's done, no deal. I stay on the fringes.

But fighting to end capitalism is a no-brainer.

[promethean75]

"But fighting to end capitalism is a no-brainer."

But what's so funny (even tho I'm the butt of the joke) is that arguing with a bunch of windbags at a philosophy forum is not 'fighting to end capitalism'. Rest assured i do know this, i do recognize the silliness of it all. The problem is, I'm a natural badass who's in the know, so i couldn't do otherwise even if i wanted, even if i tried. My brain won't allow me to not recognize and cease at attempting to solve real world problems. I'm simply unable to babble fruitlessly about nonproblems with philosophers.

So u see my dilemma. If i am an intellectual - and i am, unfortunately - i have to do this. I have no choice. Badassness is in my blood.

[Immanuel Can]

First you claim 'atheists' on a blanket basis.
Now you are specific to 'atheistic regimes'.

It amounts to exactly the same, in that in both cases, the incentive for the viciousness is an Atheistic dogma, usually Communism. The individuals are either committed to it personally, or compelled by it by force. That's on the Atheists, either way. It's certainly not on "the religious," who certainly have their failings, in many cases, but far fewer than those had by avowedly Atheistic regimes.

At present there are only 6 Theocratic-theistic Goverments; which meant all the other governments are non-theistic or 'atheistic'.

That's a false dichotomy, we have to say. A government isn't either "theocratic" or "Atheistic," or nothing. It can be, as in the case of the USA, or Canada, or Australia, or the UK, secular and pluralistic in its ideological orientation, rather than Atheistic. But most secular and pluralistic governments are also inclined to be that way by Protestant values, such as human rights and the dignity of the individual person, and especially by the principle of freedom of conscience, which is from John Locke, the Protestant.

So no, these governments are neither Atheistic nor "non-Theistic" either: they're post-Protestant. You forgot to account for all of them.

[Veritas Aequitas]

First you claim 'atheists' on a blanket basis.
Now you are specific to 'atheistic regimes'.

It amounts to exactly the same, in that in both cases, the incentive for the viciousness is an Atheistic dogma, usually Communism. The individuals are either committed to it personally, or compelled by it by force. That's on the Atheists, either way. It's certainly not on "the religious," who certainly have their failings, in many cases, but far fewer than those had by avowedly Atheistic regimes.

At present there are only 6 Theocratic-theistic Goverments; which meant all the other governments are non-theistic or 'atheistic'.

That's a false dichotomy, we have to say. A government isn't either "theocratic" or "Atheistic," or nothing. It can be, as in the case of the USA, or Canada, or Australia, or the UK, secular and pluralistic in its ideological orientation, rather than Atheistic. But most secular and pluralistic governments are also inclined to be that way by Protestant values, such as human rights and the dignity of the individual person, and especially by the principle of freedom of conscience, which is from John Locke, the Protestant.

So no, these governments are neither Atheistic nor "non-Theistic" either: they're post-Protestant. You forgot to account for all of them.

The definition of 'atheism' is literally [a]theism, i.e. the prefix 'a' denote absence of theism.
A theocratic government's constitution is locked onto God's laws from the holy texts that God delivered to theists.
An [a]theocratic government is literally an [a]theistic government.

There are no specific laws within the Constitution of such [a]theistic governments which stipulated that they ought to kill those humans on the basis that they are atheistic.
Therefore it is false [a fallacy - refer to OP] to associate atheism with their killing of humans which is usually for other reasons.

They [even communists governments] do have laws just like any other governments, that permit soldiers to kill enemies in the event of declared wars.
If any government or individuals commit the extreme, they are subjected to the Laws of the International Court of Justice where many dictators who committed genocide were held personally liable for their act, not for reason that they are atheists.
It genocide is due to atheism, the UN would have imposed the ban on atheism.
Your theory that 'atheism' by itself is evil is fallacious.

most secular and pluralistic governments are also inclined to be that way by Protestant values

This is not valid, because supposed good virtues are universal to human nature, not solely to some holy doctrines.
It is only valid if whatever the Bible [or Gospel] is incorporated as laws within the Constitution of the country.
This is what happened with Islamic Government where the effective Laws of the Land in from the Quran & Hadiths which is overriding plus others.

Thus your theory that 'atheism' by itself is evil is fallacious.

[nemos]

Neither theism, nor atheism, nor authoritarianism, nor democracy can be good or bad in themselves. It is made evil, or not, by the people who understand and implement it. Even a snake crept into the garden of paradise, what about us sinners to talk, so witch hunting and extermination (also burning books, destroying sphinxes, and also getting rid of other unwanted historical evidence) is even a very desirable thing to cleanse oneself from evil. Only how to make evil objective, if its understanding is through and through subjective?
Imagine an ideal feudalism, where the ideal feudal lord sacrifices for the vassals, and the ideal vassals spare no effort for the welfare of the community. Would there be any need for regime change in such a system? The only problem is that we are not perfect(oh, did I just say that God made poor quality product?). And what to do with that?

[Immanuel Can]

The definition of 'atheism' is literally [a]theism, i.e. the prefix 'a' denote absence of theism.

"A-" in Greek is the particle of negation. "Theos" means, "god." Thus, Atheism means "No + god."

An [a]theocratic government is literally an [a]theistic government.

No, it actually isn't. A "theocratic" government is one in which the authority of God Himself is alleged to be the ruling principle and structurer of the polity, as with Islam; not merely one in which there are people who happen to believe in God, like America.

If it were the latter, then every government in the history of the world, and all those today, would be "theocratic."

There are no specific laws within the Constitution of such [a]theistic governments which stipulated that they ought to kill those humans on the basis that they are atheistic.

Theocracies, like Islam, definitely do have such laws, and you can see that even today, they fly airplanes into towers, yelling "Allahu akbar," or line people up on beaches and slit their throats in the name of their god. As for Atheist regimes, every one of them has been horrifically homicidal -- even more so than Islamic ones, and vastly more. Was it 140 million? At least. Do you insist it was less? How much less? In order to become parallel with religious killings, it would have to be less than 8 percent of what it is. Even by the most generous estimates, you can't possibly make a case that it's anywhere close to that low. Atheism is the biggest killer ideology in history, without rival.

It genocide is due to atheism, the UN would have imposed the ban on atheism.

The UN, eh? Oh, dear...how sadly disappointed you're going to be if you look to the UN for moral leadership! And even if they were perfectly just and upright, they lack all means to enforce anything, and depend on their corrupt "security council," which includes Russia and China with vetos, to back up any moral stance they would take. Look at the resolutions they've made against more democratic and moderate governments, and the corrupt ones they've refused to censure, and you'll see just how hopeless the UN is. That sad little organization will help nobody.

most secular and pluralistic governments are also inclined to be that way by Protestant values

This is not valid, because supposed good virtues are universal to human nature,

Nobody thinks that. The contrary evidence is far too strong. If all human beings had good virtues, how would evil even exist?

[bahman]

... If all human beings had good virtues, how would evil even exist?

Ask God why evil humans must exist!

[Immanuel Can]

... If all human beings had good virtues, how would evil even exist?

Ask God why evil humans must exist!

Humans aren't totally evil either. If they were, there would be no good in the world.

So what you'd have to ask is, "Why did God make people to include both good and evil inclinations?" But then, that would assume they were made that way, not that they became that way by their own choice; which is quite different from what the Bible says is the case. So it's not really a question for a Christian.

It is, however, a great question for everybody else: how does evil exist, if human beings are intrinsically just plain good; or alternately, how can we talk about 'evil' existing if we don't believe in the objective truth of such assessments?

[Immanuel Can]

I already told u, man. I'm an anarchist mercenary who only works for the marxists as a revolutionary strong-arm.

Why would you present yourself as a pawn for the Marxists, since they're neither going to be prepared to let you be an anarchist (they'll insist you have to knuckle under to the Marxist state they create), nor are they going to let you be anything so entrepreneurial as a "mercenary," then?

But fighting to end capitalism is a no-brainer.

What's a "no-brainer" is imagining the Marxists will let you be an "anarchist mercenary."

"Mercenary" is about the most "capitalist" thing one can be, and an "anarchist" is something the planners of the Marxist state will definitely put up against a wall and shoot.

[bahman]

... If all human beings had good virtues, how would evil even exist?

Ask God why evil humans must exist!

Humans aren't totally evil either. If they were, there would be no good in the world.

I didn't say that they are all evil.

So what you'd have to ask is, "Why did God make people to include both good and evil inclinations?" But then, that would assume they were made that way, not that they became that way by their own choice; which is quite different from what the Bible says is the case. So it's not really a question for a Christian.

A psychopath does not decide to be a psychopath. She or he naturally is.

It is, however, a great question for everybody else: how does evil exist, if human beings are intrinsically just plain good; or alternately, how can we talk about 'evil' existing if we don't believe in the objective truth of such assessments?

The truth is objective. Good and evil exist though so the question is how a good God could create a universe that evil exists within.

[Immanuel Can]

A psychopath does not decide to be a psychopath. She or he naturally is.

Actually, that's not so. It depends on the coping mechanisms that person chooses. A person may not be able to select his inclinations, but he certainly can select his actions. So a person who has violent inclinations can channel them into the army, or law enforcement, or combat sports, or working at a farm or slaughterhouse, or any number of other aggressive occupations that are more pro-social. Or he can suppress his inclinations, if he is morally disciplined enough. It isn't at all necessary that he acts psychopathically.

It's like being an alcoholic: one can be susceptible to alcohol, but refuse to drink. That doesn't mean one will become internally different; it just means one will have found a means to redirect that vulnerability so as to compensate for it and remain socially functional.

It is, however, a great question for everybody else: how does evil exist, if human beings are intrinsically just plain good; or alternately, how can we talk about 'evil' existing if we don't believe in the objective truth of such assessments?

The truth is objective.

Sure, I agree. But subjectivists don't.

Good and evil exist...

Subjectivists say they don't, and most people here say they want to be moral subjectivists. So for them, good and evil are not real. They're only imagined.

But if that's what they say, then how can they ask the question, "Why does evil exist?" So they've lost the power not only to criticize God, but even to criticize the happenings of universe itself. Nothing's good or evil any longer. Their objection fails to correspond to any objective reality, or any truth.