I mean … I guess you could consider the planned extermination of Nepalese culture and faith or the concentration camps full of Uyghurs for “re-education” an attempt at genocide if you wanted to use the term very liberally?
You’re being dishonest. The definition of the words rules out the undesirable conclusion. People can’t do anything in the name of atheism.
If “Religion poisons everything” then removing the poison should rehabilitate the patient, no? So please demonstrate that secular societies are more benevolent than religious ones. Show me that those who invented industrial murder are morally superior to ad-hoc killers.
Did you know that the word genocide was coined to describe the actions of a government who was actively trying to secularize?
Goodness, you are right: I entirely forgot to name the Holocaust (which probably isn’t what you were going for). That could certainly be considered genocide against a religion.
How do you do something “in the name of Atheism”? You are being pedantic. These were/are crusades against the culture and faith of a different people.
One could argue that they are not “genocides” and it needn’t even be in bad faith. Your “assuming 100% accuracy”-statement on the other hand disgusts me, no offense intended. People are suffering, at least aknowledge the fact.
This is a semantic game. The honest question is that does becoming more secular make one more moral? I’ve never seen anybody make the case for that (though plenty love to imply it w/o evidence).
Can we agree that Israel is more secular than her neighbors? Is Israel’s government or people more benevolent? It’s a trope that Muslims are violent, but compared to just half a century of secular Europe’s World Wars, Islam is a blameless kitten.
Quick name one mass murder or genocide in the name of atheism.
Here’s one:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1928%E2%80%931941)
I mean … I guess you could consider the planned extermination of Nepalese culture and faith or the concentration camps full of Uyghurs for “re-education” an attempt at genocide if you wanted to use the term very liberally?
Assuming 100% accuracy of the allegations, are these done in the name of atheism?
Well you could argue they aren’t just like you can argue that religious genocides aren’t about religion but really about money and power.
You’re being dishonest. The definition of the words rules out the undesirable conclusion. People can’t do anything in the name of atheism.
If “Religion poisons everything” then removing the poison should rehabilitate the patient, no? So please demonstrate that secular societies are more benevolent than religious ones. Show me that those who invented industrial murder are morally superior to ad-hoc killers.
Did you know that the word genocide was coined to describe the actions of a government who was actively trying to secularize?
Goodness, you are right: I entirely forgot to name the Holocaust (which probably isn’t what you were going for). That could certainly be considered genocide against a religion.
How do you do something “in the name of Atheism”? You are being pedantic. These were/are crusades against the culture and faith of a different people. One could argue that they are not “genocides” and it needn’t even be in bad faith. Your “assuming 100% accuracy”-statement on the other hand disgusts me, no offense intended. People are suffering, at least aknowledge the fact.
This is a semantic game. The honest question is that does becoming more secular make one more moral? I’ve never seen anybody make the case for that (though plenty love to imply it w/o evidence).
Can we agree that Israel is more secular than her neighbors? Is Israel’s government or people more benevolent? It’s a trope that Muslims are violent, but compared to just half a century of secular Europe’s World Wars, Islam is a blameless kitten.