What a lot of questions mjbp.

>>The point relates to the reason provided by those involved for wars I believe.<<

Or indeed, the reasons attributed to them by historians.

>>You are saying that people say they are starting a war in the name of religion but never claim to start a war in the name of atheism.<<

Yep.

>>you consider Philo's post on non-war atrocities sidetracking<<

Yep. He changed the groundrules from "war" to "State murder".

>>are you also saying that head count and atrocities are not a legitimate measure of whether a belief system is better than another belief system<<

Nope. I'm not judging one belief system as being "better" than any other. I'm simply pointing out that while wars may be conducted by atheists, atheism isn't the reason, rationale or motivating factor for that war. I did leave a space for Boaz to identify one, but he didn't. Nor did Philo. Nor, now I think about it, did Dresdener, whose post generated my observation in the first place.

>>as Philo's comment responded to yours, you conclude that he can't prove you wrong<<

Nope. I concluded that he hadn't, not that he couldn't. "Couldn't" calls for speculation, as they say on all the American courtroom dramas.

>>explain what you mean by "Cult of the Great Leader"<<

Re: North Korea, this is shorthand for the veneration of both the late Kim Il Sung and his son, Kim Jong Il. Check out that web site, it makes interesting reading. Particularly the stuff about Juche.

And just to underline the point a little, my observation on Philo's comment "Atheism is the teaching today in North Korea and we can witness the mess that doctrine has made to the Nation" is primarily related to that hoary old logical fallacy, post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

As we know atheism is the negative of a belief in God and by atheists is not considered a religion. However a religion is a world view and I believe atheism equaly equates to a world view.

The Civil wars involving the eradication of dissidents to the Socialist agenda of Russia, China and North Korea were deliberately killed because tf their beliefs. This involved mostly Christians in those nations because of their belief in God. Atheism upheld a belief that Marx held that faith in God was the opiate of the people.

Atheism does not have to be identified as a negative belief system; its positive attitudes negate a belief in God. The systems they uphold had no place for God and anyone who believed in God must be indoctrinated or put to death. A time in their indoctrination camps would suffice to recognise they clearly ridiculed and taught a negative view of God. The murders of their Civil war were against people who would not denounce their belief in God and other belief systems other than was taught by the State.

Atheists as lone rangers denying the existence of God prefer to be ignorant of the facts of suffering caused in the last 100 years by anti-god systems, because they were not a part of the organised eradication of faith in God.

Philo, you owe it to yourself to brush up on your logic.

I trust you understood the "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" issue with atheism being to blame for North Korea's woes? You can add this one to the list:

>>atheism is the negative of a belief in God and by atheists is not considered a religion. However a religion is a world view and I believe atheism equaly equates to a world view.<<

Doesn't work like that.

You say "religion is a world view; atheism is a world view; therefore atheism is a religion." This is like saying "Tiddles is a cat; Snuggles is a cat; therefore Snuggles is Tiddles".

What your logic actually tells us is that religion and atheism are world views, but nothing at all about the relationship between them.

>>The Civil wars involving the eradication of dissidents to the Socialist agenda of Russia, China and North Korea were deliberately killed because tf their beliefs.<<

Civil Wars, Philo? Now you are simply inventing stuff. Show me where any of these actions of the State against their own people has been described as a Civil War?

Civil Wars have, of course, often been based in differences of religious belief - Cromwell's vs Charles', for example - but there have always been two sides pitted against each other, with the winner gaining the power. The actions of a State, using violence against its own people (and it wasn't ever merely believers that they went after - check it out if you don't believe me) are simply the means to exert political control.

>>Atheism does not have to be identified as a negative belief system; its positive attitudes negate a belief in God. The systems they uphold had no place for God and anyone who believed in God must be indoctrinated or put to death.<<

Now you are being ridiculous. Nobody is trying to indoctrinate you or to put you to death, least of all atheists. If there were a category that had these ambitions, don't you think that it is highly more likely to be another religion?

Pericles,
The revolution was civil war against unnarmed Christians both in China and Russia and against any who dissagred with the world views of the State. Children were removed from parents who taught faith in God. They were also slain in the presence of parents to have them denounce their faith. Atheism like Christiaqnity is a view about the reality of the universe, both from different points of view. I had personal contact with persons persecuted both in Russia and China. Their life was threatened for no other reason than they believed in God

Philo, I presume this is your way of saying "I guess you're right, Pericles".

>>The revolution was civil war against unnarmed Christians both in China and Russia and against any who dissagred with the world views of the State<<

Since the "any who disagreed with the State" category could have included, but certainly was not limited to, the first category, the statement is reasonable. And the latter were probably unarmed as well, wouldn't you think?

>>Children were removed from parents who taught faith in God<<

That rings a bell, doesn't it? Wasn't there another country, relatively recently, where children were removed from parents by people who taught faith in God? Thought so. What was your point again?

>>Atheism like Christiaqnity is a view about the reality of the universe, both from different points of view.<<

Not quite. The sole qualification for being an atheist is having a view that there isn't a God. That attribute does not in any way define any other aspect of their world view. I know that it is a favourite theory of Christians that all atheists share the same values, but frankly it isn't the case. So it cannot be said that atheism is "a" view.

My point still stands, Boaz' choking notwithstanding.

"No war at all has ever been waged in the name of atheism."

Pericles,

Thanks for answering.

David,

"In fact, the RC Church was heavily involved in helping Nazi war criminals escape to other countries such as South America. You may have heard of the ‘Rat Lines’. (Look it up)

I invite you reconsider the above quote.

I googled Rat Lines and it didn't substantiate your comment. From what I found a Bishop who ministered to German speaking prisoners of war and a separate small group of Croat priests were involved in the Rat Running.

This doesn't substantiate an allegation that the RC was heavily involved. Perhaps you don't realize that the Catholic Church is fairly large. I think it comprises about one and a half billion people with a fair few priests. You would need bigger numbers or official sanctioning to charge it with being heavily involved.

By comparison you may be aware that a former Queensland politician from the ALP got in strife for child molesting. I presume you would appreciate that an allegation that the ALP were heavily involved in child molesting would not be a reasonable conclusion. Likewise doing something similar with a much larger organisation is not reasonable.

It is also widely reported that a rat line investigator usurped his authority by searching church buildings and was subject to a complaint to his superiors from the Vatican's Secretariat of State. Apparently his response to getting in strife for doing the wrong thing was an unsubstantiated allegation about the complainant: "The aim of the complaint was to interfere with the investigation." Presumably as an investigator he would have provided a factual basis for his mind reading if he had any. I can only assume that there is none. Although that doesn't seem to add anything it is widely reported as if significant, and involves a Catholic, so I note it.

I appreciate that I have focussed on one sentence in your post. I wasn't attempting to be pedantic. Would you agree that in your position you should be careful about the accuracy of what you say when referring to an organisation with one and a half billion people?