60% of Germans - Islam Does Not Belong In Germany.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

DRC, Rwanda, West Afrika, etc. Don't you know Afrika's in poverty, war, strife, etc.?

Rwanda's doing very well right now, and West Africa is not a state.

For someone who apparently supports Africa, that's a very generalised view of the continent, and one which is not exactly accurate.

I know it's not a state, I was naming the region. But yeah, you're right. I shouldn't have said that. My apologies to the Afrikans and New Afrikans. The thing is I'm a New Afrikan, so I shouldn't have said that.

[Jumalariik]

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-25-m ... rth-2013-6
Lots of these are African countries.

Which are in the condition of absolute collapse that the Levant is entering now? Many are in stagnant decay, like the rest of North Africa and the Muslim world. But which are in total collapse like the countries in question in this thread?

When failed African countries are holding up better than you -or honestly even being compared to you, there's probably a problem, at least partially on your end, and you should probably seek to fix it.

Agreed.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-25-m ... e-south-21

Chad is really bad though, I think a lower life expectancy than Syria.

[Valaran]

I know it's not a state, I was naming the region. But yeah, you're right. I shouldn't have said that. My apologies to the Afrikans and New Afrikans.

I was merely being pedantic on this.

[Olerand]

Name some.

DRC, Rwanda, West Afrika, etc. Don't you know Afrika's in poverty, war, strife, etc.?

None of which are like the origin countries of the migrant who are the subjects of this thread. Stagnant decay is the status quo from Casblanca down to the heart of Africa and over to Islamabad. That we know, but what African countries are in Syria-Iraq-whomever is next level of collapse?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-25-m ... rth-2013-6
Lots of these are African countries.

Which are in the condition of absolute collapse that the Levant is entering now? Many are in stagnant decay, like the rest of North Africa and the Muslim world. But which are in total collapse like the countries in question in this thread?

When failed African countries are holding up better than you -or honestly even being compared to you, there's probably a problem, at least partially on your end, and you should probably seek to fix it.

Why would there be a problem if Afrikan countries are doing better than another country?

[Olerand]

Which are in the condition of absolute collapse that the Levant is entering now? Many are in stagnant decay, like the rest of North Africa and the Muslim world. But which are in total collapse like the countries in question in this thread?

When failed African countries are holding up better than you -or honestly even being compared to you, there's probably a problem, at least partially on your end, and you should probably seek to fix it.

Why would there be a problem if Afrikan countries are doing better than another country?

No, no, not any African country. Failed African countries. Senegal, South Africa -more or less- or Côte d'Ivoire are not the points of comparison here.

[Europe and Oceania]

Well, ok. Good, they are willing to actually look at the situation and not fear being called "bigots" or "racist". Good on those 60% of Germans.
And look, toleration and thinking Islam is a German thing is VERY different.
What would the media say if 60% of Iran says Christianity doesn't belong in Iran? Huh, nothing obviously, because in real life that number is probably higher :/

So, just because the Iranian government are bigots that makes it okay for us to be bigots and discriminate against their religion?

That's like if a radical Christian Terrorist movement would start, and another country would want to ban all Christians.

It would be a complete double standard with the conservatives because if such a movement were to ever happen with Christianity,
that won't change normal peaceful Christians beliefs and would now know how those refugees feel and actually empathize with them.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Why would there be a problem if Afrikan countries are doing better than another country?

No, no, not any African country. Failed African countries. Senegal, South Africa -more or less- or Côte d'Ivoire are not the points of comparison here.

I wasn't typing about them, I was generalizing the whole Continent, something I shouldn't have done to my homeland.

[Luminesa]

Which are in the condition of absolute collapse that the Levant is entering now? Many are in stagnant decay, like the rest of North Africa and the Muslim world. But which are in total collapse like the countries in question in this thread?

When failed African countries are holding up better than you -or honestly even being compared to you, there's probably a problem, at least partially on your end, and you should probably seek to fix it.

Why would there be a problem if Afrikan countries are doing better than another country?

Don't think there would be. I mean, like, DR Congo, for example, has so many resources, can you imagine if they were actually a stable country with a working economy and a good government?

Good grief, they'd be a superpower. Which would honestly be amazing.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Why would there be a problem if Afrikan countries are doing better than another country?

Don't think there would be. I mean, like, DR Congo, for example, has so many resources, can you imagine if they were actually a stable country with a working economy and a good government?

Good grief, they'd be a superpower. Which would honestly be amazing.

If only they weren't exploited...

[Ganos Lao]

Don't think there would be. I mean, like, DR Congo, for example, has so many resources, can you imagine if they were actually a stable country with a working economy and a good government?

Good grief, they'd be a superpower. Which would honestly be amazing.

If only they weren't exploited...

Who are you referring to? The Rwandans? Amazing how such a small country can bully around its way larger neighbour....

[Olerand]

If only they weren't exploited...

Who are you referring to? The Rwandans? Amazing how such a small country can bully around its way larger neighbour....

Or perhaps Uganda's terrible influence and interference in northern Congo.

[Shyubi Koku Naishifun]

1: Look, if you can't see that an organisation that uses Christian scripture to justify atrocities is just as pious as one who uses Islamic scripture to justify the same, then It's simply a case of the bling refusing to see. Of course most Christians SAY the organisation is unchristian, that's would you'd hope, and expect, doesn't change the fact that they are a fanatical religious organisation.

I am not saying my own opinion. I am referencing the judgement of credible international organizations like the International Crisis Group, the United States Embassy and Robert Gersony and IRIN. I am also referencing the opinion of credible Muslim people like Ahmed el-Tayeb and secular international observers on the piety and religiosity of ISIS and the LRA. Kony and the LRA are 2 different things. In fact, credible Muslim critics even call ISIS "Khawarij" or radical seditionists but they don't doubt ISIS's piety. You do not hang out with ISIS and LRA nor in any way associated or an expert in the field, therefore you have no authority to judge whether they are pious or not. The religiosity of ISIS is simply acknowledged by virtually all, but several reliable experts doubt that LRA is a pious group.

2: It is a flat-out lie to say Karl Marx said religion is the opiate of the masses. It is a very widely misquoted line, what he actually said was, in his contribution to Hegel's theory and Philosphy of Right is this.
"Religion is the sign of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, the spirit of the spiritless situation. It is, in effect, an opiate for the sufferer. Criticism of religion has plucked the flower from the chain, not so that the chain may be worn without consolation, but so that we may break the chain, and cull the living flower."

In other words, he is saying that, whilst religion can be a comfort, it is an illusory comfort, and we should aim to outgrow our illusions. He certainly never claimed that religion should be subject to state-sponsored eradication. Marxism is a socio-economic belief yes, but Atheism is not, it is simply the disbelief in any deity, and by itself cannot justify any atrocities (or at least never has been used) Find me evidence of an atheist using their non-belief to justify atrocities and you will begin to have the ghost of a point, until then, you don't.

I may have misquoted the quote since it is common knowledge by misconception, but it does not change that Marxism is an atheistic secularist philosophy. Calling religion an illusory comfort and an illusion is irreligious and secular. Your point is not impressive here. The counterpart of atheism, is not religion since there are atheistic religions, but simply theism, and you also cannot use theism to justify atrocities due to a simple belief to a Supreme Being. If you argue that direct disbelief in any deity cannot be used to justify any atrocity, then the opposite holds correct that a direct belief in any deity cannot also be used to justify atrocities. People do not commit atrocities just because they believe in God, they do them because of religious doctrinal and theological reasons. In the same way that religious doctrine and theology can be used to justify atrocities such as Crusades and Jihad (Ignore the interpretations), secularist philosophy and ideology can be used to justify atrocities such as Juche, Marxism-Leninism and Maoism from Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution.

3: If you read my evidence, it's pretty clear the Nazi regime was not atheist or secularist. No secularist has the words "God on our side" on their army belts, no secular regime would have the words "I swear by Almighty God, my undying loyalty to the furher" The church always claims its number of 6 million Catholics in Britain from baptismal figures, therefore, by there own account, Hitler must be accepted as a Catholic. If you don't regard him as a practicing catholic, then explain to me why there are pictures of him in Church? Explain also why Hitler claimed in a speech in 1933 that Germany had "eradicated the non-believers" (I can find the prescise quote of you wish) Again, the evidence is clear that, whatever belief Hitler may have held privately about the Church (indeed, you are correct that he wasn't a conventional Catholic as such) it is very clearly either colossal ignorance, or deliberate fabrication to suggest anything other then that his regime was Catholic and Lutheran in its make-up (remember, both these Churches were still officially sanctioning anti-semitism at this time, as far as I know the Lutheran Church still does, the Catholic Church renounced it in 1962)

I'm going to ask you flatly, what religion does Nazi Germany follow?

No, obviously not Christianity and Islam. The quasi-religious nature of Nazi Germany is not very different from like-minded totalitarian states like Imperial Japan and North Korea, who used quasi-religious ideals to justify their political goals and ambitions. Nazi Germany does not follow any religion as a totalitarian state and fabricated a quasi-religious totalitarian philosophy of its own. Or to put, Nazi Germany is not a religious state by conventional definition. Hence, why I discussed the definition of religion based on Ninian Smart, you are too broadening it.

The "religious" doctrine are also made up by the Nazi Party to further their political goals and motives. It certainly was not a genuine religion in a sense. They also used elements of Christianity, to justify their ideology, to win support of the German populace, or simply because they like it but overall they deviated much from Christian doctrine that Nazi philosophy is far removed from it.

No, Hitler was not accepted as a Catholic even if he did not left it. There are also pictures of Barack Obama and Pope Benedict XVI in mosques, are they practicing Muslims? Again, historians and scholars have reached a consensus (Which you secularists blatantly deny), that Hitler faked religious beliefs to win political support and is restrained by the political situation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler. Religious demographics is different from a regime's religion. There are many Eastern Orthodox in USSR, so USSR is Orthodox? Furthermore, you are overrating Lutheran anti-semitism, Luther's anti-Semitic views were largely ignored during teh 18th-19th century and only revived by the Nazis, the church had renounced such views. Catholic Antisemitism is nuanced, but is subject to the political and economic realities of the time, and even though there was much, many Church Fathers even praised Jews, and several Catholic clergy only criticized the Jews on the grounds of their wealth, not their ethnicity.

I'm not being satirical on North Korea, worshipping a divine figure, thanking him for every blessing, and using propaganda to portray the leader as being the only guardian against the counter-revolutionary devil. Having an inquisition, (secret police) heresy trials (show trials), this is not secularism. Yes, it could apply to Stalinist Russia and Mao's China as well, but just replaced the worship of an emperor with a new figure, Mao became a new God in a china that for centuries had believed than an Emperor was at least semi-divine, and Russia had only just emerged from centuries of Tsarism, with the Tsar being claimed to have a link to the mind of God. Stalin himself was an educated seminarian from the Russian Orthodox Church, and said Church openly supported his regime, not that it really matters. None of them were secular or atheistic, all believed in a higher power of some sort. The hysterical leader worship of NK is a form of religious theocracy (fascist is a good description too) It is not atheistic to use propaganda to elevate a living person to super-human characteristics. E term 'totalitarian atheistic fascism' is an ideological snarl word, I don't know a serious political scientist who uses it. Again, these regimes, but particularly NK, were basically theocracies, just using a different character in place of a conventional Abrahamic God. If you can't see the line of continuity between Stalinist and Tsarist Russia, or Imperial and Maoist China, at the very least you haven't been paying attention, or some can show wilful ignorance when confronted with these things.

A regime with a cult of personality elevates a person to the status of a God. Not atheistic in any way shape or form. And even if it were, let's just be generous and say I'm wrong for argument's sake, you still cannot show me evidence of disbelief in a deity being used as a justification for morally reprehensible acts, but I and you can see vast amounts of evidence of belief in a God of some kind or another, being a justification for same.

Please tell me if my point is not clear, I know it's complex but I'm trying to explain as best I can:)

Again, totalitarian hogwash, not genuine religion religion. To confront you seriously, nobody believes that crap. The North Korean party elite with the fat pig Jong Un are happy with crap. Accounts from North Korean defectors all say the majority of North Koreans know they're being fed bullshit. - https://www.nknews.org/2014/04/do-north-koreans-still-believe-the-pyongyang-propaganda-not-really/. It is secular because the North Korean state is not at all religious, they even don't believe everything they say. Mao Zedong is not worshipped as a god. Again, Joseph Stalin like Hitler cooperated with the religious for his political goals and ambitions, and the guy became an atheist. [sigh] Atheists and secularists ignore the consensus of historians and scholars when it does not fit their agenda.

This is why, I've been discussing to you the definitions of religion from the very beginning, and you repeatedly ignore it. You are broadening the definition of religion too broadly and generally, but if we use your definitions we can brand atheism a religion too based on the Seven Dimensions of Ninian Smart. Totalitarian regimes are not religious since they are aware they are fabricating false doctrine to brainwash masses to further their political goals, no one can be religious if you do not believe in what are you preaching.

And there you go, you have been given four examples of secularist totalitarian regimes using their fabricated ideologies to justify their own atrocities, and let's cross Nazi Germany, you still got three who did not believe in God and caused millions of deaths.

A question to show how absurd your points are - Do you think that the Workers' Party of Korea and the Communist Party of China actually believed that Mao and Kim Il Sung are their gods?

[United Territories and States]

"According to Sunni scriptural Hadith sources, Aisha was six or seven years old when she was married to Muhammad with the marriage not being consummated until she had reached puberty at the age of nine or ten years old."

Hadith is your keyword here.

Are you saying that Hadith sources aren't reliable?

Yes.

[Shyubi Koku Naishifun]

Are you saying that Hadith sources aren't reliable?

Yes.

Well, considering that the majority consider Sahih Hadiths reliable, you probably are in the minority.

[United Territories and States]

Yes.

Well, considering that the majority consider Sahih Hadiths reliable, you probably are in the minority.

mfw people who actually follow the Qu'ran are a minority

[Kubra]

well ya know when the communist party just wants to do a bit of secularizing here and there and mean ol' reagan hands the Mujahideen stinger missiles there ends up not being many of those modern sorts everyone loves

Right. I didn't know that if you hand a Muslim a stinger to fight against bolshevists he suddenly confiscates everybody's tv and stops girls from going to school. Nice to know.

Well ya know the whole appeal was those particular ones wanted to confiscate tv's and stop girls going from school
I mean if you give a latino cash and gunz will he immediately put it into a swiss bank account and grow coke
I mean if you want I can make more sweeping generalizations of anglicans based on one king buuuuuuuuut how much of what I say would be true

[Cedoria]

Did Jesus say or did he not say 'I come bearing not peace but a sword'?

Jesus was part of the same virulent, and heretical schismatic faction of Judaism as John the Baptist, his lack of calling for violence was probably due to the fact that John had already tried that and been beheaded by the aroma authorities for his troubles.

I never claimed all religions were the same, and you are being more insulting then you intended by calling me a liberal, I'm a libertarian/democratic socialist, as well as a secular anti-theist, it is perfectly clear to me that not all religions are equally bad in the same way at the same time, they go through stages. Jesus advocated divine punishment for non-believers, and Christian beliefs are in fact one of the chief inspirations for Islamic ones, (in fact Mohammed himself plagiarises some of Christiaity's own saints and creation stories). Eternal punishment for earthly crimes is a repulsive and grotesque concept, even CS Lewis, the great Christian apologist of the last century, has proclaimed that Jesus either had to have been a maniac, or a very evil and wicked individual (his own words, not mine)

I have never not denounced the evils of theocratic jihadists, fascists and bullies, but one totalitarian Abrahamic force asserting that it is morally superior to another annoys me.

1. Have you ever read a basic analysis of the Bible?
2. Liberal is what liberal does.
3. Right. That's from Mere Christianity, which you clearly never read.
4. So the guy who killed a bunch of dogs and had sex with a 6 year old is not morally inferior to a martyr? Nice logic bruh.

1: Yes.
2: Depends on what you consider 'Liberal'. if you think I am you're way off base.
3: Don't tell me what I haven't read.
4: I didn't say it. C.S Lewis did. I quoted him.

This is not a difficult concept to grasp.

[Cedoria]

But the Roman Empire after Contantine used their fulfilment of God's divine mission as part of their rationale for empire. As did the Spanish, the British, the French and all the other European powers, why are all the former Spanish and Portugese colonies in Latin America predominately Catholic? It's not because they all got together and sang komboya peacefully in a circle around a campfire I can assure you.

Nice logic.
Christians used violent expansion 1000 years after Christ died.
Muslims used violence to expand the day Muhammad converted.

Islam and Christianity are both inherently violent religions though.

I agree, so why are we having this argument? I never claimed that they were not both based on violence and expansion and coercion.

And Constantine's Roman Empire was far less then 1000 years after the death of Jesus of Nazareth.

[Cedoria]

1. Have you ever read a basic analysis of the Bible?
2. Liberal is what liberal does.
3. Right. That's from Mere Christianity, which you clearly never read.
4. So the guy who killed a bunch of dogs and had sex with a 6 year old is not morally inferior to a martyr? Nice logic bruh.

Who killed dogs and had sex with a 6 year-old?

Irrelevant. I don't care what Mohammed did (I presume that is whom he refers to), because he was no more a Prophet then Jesus or Moses before him. How all there followers conduct themselves in public is something that concerns me. Which fictional revelation is more less moral is of zero interest to me.

[Shyubi Koku Naishifun]

2: Depends on what you consider 'Liberal'. if you think I am you're way off base.

Well, there are many Liberal. There is American Liberal, European Liberal, and the political spectrum varies in both worlds.

because he was no more a Prophet then Jesus or Moses before him

Well, Mohammed and Jesus are given the most importance, Jesus Christ being considered God, and Mohammed being considered the prophet who heralded the revelation and great truth, and uh, PBUH SAW peace be upon Him. Whereas Moses simply delivered the 613 mitzvot to the Jews.

[Cedoria]

1: Look, if you can't see that an organisation that uses Christian scripture to justify atrocities is just as pious as one who uses Islamic scripture to justify the same, then It's simply a case of the bling refusing to see. Of course most Christians SAY the organisation is unchristian, that's would you'd hope, and expect, doesn't change the fact that they are a fanatical religious organisation.

I am not saying my own opinion. I am referencing the judgement of credible international organizations like the International Crisis Group, the United States Embassy and Robert Gersony and IRIN. I am also referencing the opinion of credible Muslim people like Ahmed el-Tayeb and secular international observers on the piety and religiosity of ISIS and the LRA. Kony and the LRA are 2 different things. In fact, credible Muslim critics even call ISIS "Khawarij" or radical seditionists but they don't doubt ISIS's piety. You do not hang out with ISIS and LRA nor in any way associated or an expert in the field, therefore you have no authority to judge whether they are pious or not. The religiosity of ISIS is simply acknowledged by virtually all, but several reliable experts doubt that LRA is a pious group.

2: It is a flat-out lie to say Karl Marx said religion is the opiate of the masses. It is a very widely misquoted line, what he actually said was, in his contribution to Hegel's theory and Philosphy of Right is this.
"Religion is the sign of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, the spirit of the spiritless situation. It is, in effect, an opiate for the sufferer. Criticism of religion has plucked the flower from the chain, not so that the chain may be worn without consolation, but so that we may break the chain, and cull the living flower."

In other words, he is saying that, whilst religion can be a comfort, it is an illusory comfort, and we should aim to outgrow our illusions. He certainly never claimed that religion should be subject to state-sponsored eradication. Marxism is a socio-economic belief yes, but Atheism is not, it is simply the disbelief in any deity, and by itself cannot justify any atrocities (or at least never has been used) Find me evidence of an atheist using their non-belief to justify atrocities and you will begin to have the ghost of a point, until then, you don't.

I may have misquoted the quote since it is common knowledge by misconception, but it does not change that Marxism is an atheistic secularist philosophy. Calling religion an illusory comfort and an illusion is irreligious and secular. Your point is not impressive here. The counterpart of atheism, is not religion since there are atheistic religions, but simply theism, and you also cannot use theism to justify atrocities due to a simple belief to a Supreme Being. If you argue that direct disbelief in any deity cannot be used to justify any atrocity, then the opposite holds correct that a direct belief in any deity cannot also be used to justify atrocities. People do not commit atrocities just because they believe in God, they do them because of religious doctrinal and theological reasons. In the same way that religious doctrine and theology can be used to justify atrocities such as Crusades and Jihad (Ignore the interpretations), secularist philosophy and ideology can be used to justify atrocities such as Juche, Marxism-Leninism and Maoism from Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution.

3: If you read my evidence, it's pretty clear the Nazi regime was not atheist or secularist. No secularist has the words "God on our side" on their army belts, no secular regime would have the words "I swear by Almighty God, my undying loyalty to the furher" The church always claims its number of 6 million Catholics in Britain from baptismal figures, therefore, by there own account, Hitler must be accepted as a Catholic. If you don't regard him as a practicing catholic, then explain to me why there are pictures of him in Church? Explain also why Hitler claimed in a speech in 1933 that Germany had "eradicated the non-believers" (I can find the prescise quote of you wish) Again, the evidence is clear that, whatever belief Hitler may have held privately about the Church (indeed, you are correct that he wasn't a conventional Catholic as such) it is very clearly either colossal ignorance, or deliberate fabrication to suggest anything other then that his regime was Catholic and Lutheran in its make-up (remember, both these Churches were still officially sanctioning anti-semitism at this time, as far as I know the Lutheran Church still does, the Catholic Church renounced it in 1962)

I'm going to ask you flatly, what religion does Nazi Germany follow?

No, obviously not Christianity and Islam. The quasi-religious nature of Nazi Germany is not very different from like-minded totalitarian states like Imperial Japan and North Korea, who used quasi-religious ideals to justify their political goals and ambitions. Nazi Germany does not follow any religion as a totalitarian state and fabricated a quasi-religious totalitarian philosophy of its own. Or to put, Nazi Germany is not a religious state by conventional definition. Hence, why I discussed the definition of religion based on Ninian Smart, you are too broadening it.

The "religious" doctrine are also made up by the Nazi Party to further their political goals and motives. It certainly was not a genuine religion in a sense. They also used elements of Christianity, to justify their ideology, to win support of the German populace, or simply because they like it but overall they deviated much from Christian doctrine that Nazi philosophy is far removed from it.

No, Hitler was not accepted as a Catholic even if he did not left it. There are also pictures of Barack Obama and Pope Benedict XVI in mosques, are they practicing Muslims? Again, historians and scholars have reached a consensus (Which you secularists blatantly deny), that Hitler faked religious beliefs to win political support and is restrained by the political situation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler. Religious demographics is different from a regime's religion. There are many Eastern Orthodox in USSR, so USSR is Orthodox? Furthermore, you are overrating Lutheran anti-semitism, Luther's anti-Semitic views were largely ignored during teh 18th-19th century and only revived by the Nazis, the church had renounced such views. Catholic Antisemitism is nuanced, but is subject to the political and economic realities of the time, and even though there was much, many Church Fathers even praised Jews, and several Catholic clergy only criticized the Jews on the grounds of their wealth, not their ethnicity.

I'm not being satirical on North Korea, worshipping a divine figure, thanking him for every blessing, and using propaganda to portray the leader as being the only guardian against the counter-revolutionary devil. Having an inquisition, (secret police) heresy trials (show trials), this is not secularism. Yes, it could apply to Stalinist Russia and Mao's China as well, but just replaced the worship of an emperor with a new figure, Mao became a new God in a china that for centuries had believed than an Emperor was at least semi-divine, and Russia had only just emerged from centuries of Tsarism, with the Tsar being claimed to have a link to the mind of God. Stalin himself was an educated seminarian from the Russian Orthodox Church, and said Church openly supported his regime, not that it really matters. None of them were secular or atheistic, all believed in a higher power of some sort. The hysterical leader worship of NK is a form of religious theocracy (fascist is a good description too) It is not atheistic to use propaganda to elevate a living person to super-human characteristics. E term 'totalitarian atheistic fascism' is an ideological snarl word, I don't know a serious political scientist who uses it. Again, these regimes, but particularly NK, were basically theocracies, just using a different character in place of a conventional Abrahamic God. If you can't see the line of continuity between Stalinist and Tsarist Russia, or Imperial and Maoist China, at the very least you haven't been paying attention, or some can show wilful ignorance when confronted with these things.

A regime with a cult of personality elevates a person to the status of a God. Not atheistic in any way shape or form. And even if it were, let's just be generous and say I'm wrong for argument's sake, you still cannot show me evidence of disbelief in a deity being used as a justification for morally reprehensible acts, but I and you can see vast amounts of evidence of belief in a God of some kind or another, being a justification for same.

Please tell me if my point is not clear, I know it's complex but I'm trying to explain as best I can:)

Again, totalitarian hogwash, not genuine religion religion. To confront you seriously, nobody believes that crap. The North Korean party elite with the fat pig Jong Un are happy with crap. Accounts from North Korean defectors all say the majority of North Koreans know they're being fed bullshit. - https://www.nknews.org/2014/04/do-north-koreans-still-believe-the-pyongyang-propaganda-not-really/. It is secular because the North Korean state is not at all religious, they even don't believe everything they say. Mao Zedong is not worshipped as a god. Again, Joseph Stalin like Hitler cooperated with the religious for his political goals and ambitions, and the guy became an atheist. [sigh] Atheists and secularists ignore the consensus of historians and scholars when it does not fit their agenda.

This is why, I've been discussing to you the definitions of religion from the very beginning, and you repeatedly ignore it. You are broadening the definition of religion too broadly and generally, but if we use your definitions we can brand atheism a religion too based on the Seven Dimensions of Ninian Smart. Totalitarian regimes are not religious since they are aware they are fabricating false doctrine to brainwash masses to further their political goals, no one can be religious if you do not believe in what are you preaching.

And there you go, you have been given four examples of secularist totalitarian regimes using their fabricated ideologies to justify their own atrocities, and let's cross Nazi Germany, you still got three who did not believe in God and caused millions of deaths.

A question to show how absurd your points are - Do you think that the Workers' Party of Korea and the Communist Party of China actually believed that Mao and Kim Il Sung are their gods?

1: There is no such thing as an 'atheistic religion', it is a contradiction in terms, the definition of Atheism is a disbelief in a paranormal or supernatural controlling power or entity. YOU are the one twisting definitions to suit your purposes. Yes, Theism is used to justify atrocities, otherwise, why to people call out "God is Great" when flying Aeroplanes into skyscrapers? Remember the time Atheists killed religious people shouting out "Unbelief is great" and "Death to the believers!"? Right, that never happened.

2: Hitler quotes directly from Martin Luther's own anti-semitic statements in Mein Kampf. I am not sure whether the Lutheran Church today has renounced anti-semitism (I am willing to be corrected if they have), but I certainly know that both the Lutheran and Catholic churches (ergo, the Churches attended by every member of the Nazi regime) were officially anti-semitic AT THE TIME. Given the influence of the Catholic control over education at the time, you seriously don't regard the Church as being partially responsible here? Of course, some individual catholics, such as the late Pope John Paul II, did admirably moral things when confronted with rgw evil, far too many sat back and ignored it, including the Church, which elected a Pro-Nazi Pope in 19400, and never, NEVER condemned Hitler openly whilst his regime existed, not once. They were in an open alliance with Hitler, Mussolini and Franco. This is an undeniable historical fact. Point me to which scholars have consensus that this is not the case, I call BS on this.

As for only criticising Jews 'only on the basis of wealth' A: That is not true and B: It's like a pot and a kettle arguing about the various shades of black given the obscene wealth of the Vatican. The wealth of Jews was often used as an excuse for antisemitism. Doesn't really refute the point that the Nazis were not secularist or Atheists.

3: Religion IS totalitarian hogwash. Promising people eternal life if they believe something completely uncritically, whilst using the threat of not only death but eternal torture as punishment for disobedience. Can't you see that this is the same idea as totalitarianism? same principle, same practice, no freedom to live your life the way you wish (see Catholic teachings on sex positions, masturbation etc) , eternal thanksgiving and praise for living as a slave (prayer), and surrendering your critical and intellectual faculties to people who tell you they are not needed ("Have no thought for the morrow," as Jesus put it).

AGAIN, NONE of those regimes JUSTIFIED the atrocities in the name of SECULARISM or ATHEISM. Being an Atheist does not make you a Marxist, they are separate ideas and belief systems, and neither one is a pre-requisite for the other, (see Christian Communism and Liberation Theology as examples of non-Atheistic socialism or Marcism). They didn't quote verses shouting that there disbelief in a God allowed them to murder indiscriminately. Mao WAS worshiped as a God during the Cultural Revolution period, I never said he still is, as was Stalin during the 30's, in virtually the same way as the Tsar and Emperors before them had been, there is a real thread of continuity. If historians claim this is not the case, well, where's the evidence? . The theocracy was not removed, it just was replaced with a different facade. No, I don't believe the CCP or WPK actually think there leaders are gods, but the way thei4 propaganda promotes them and the way the population at large is instructed to treat them in a similar way to the way believers are instructed to react to God. It's pulling exactly the same heartstrings and false hopes as religion, and is equally false and irrational, a regime that claims to be ruled by a superhuman individual or group CANNOT be described as atheistic because again, the only real 'doctrine' of Atheism is a disbelief in such claims, presented without evidence. Anyone says there is a definition of Religion that could make Atheism a religion is really not worthy of responding too, hence why I didn't directly attack the source you made, Religion is belief in a higher power, it cannot therefore be considered that Atheism is a religion, DEAL WITH IT. If you say there is a definition that does, well, the definition is wrong.

But again, let's be generous and say I'm wrong about North Korea, Mao, Stalin and all the others , you STILL haven't proved the fact that these regimes are atheistic made them the way they are, you've done nothing except regurgitate the same points over and over, you haven't even attempted to rebut my arguments as why the two are fundamentally not different in character from theocracy. I understand in THEORY Marxism is supposedly secular, but in PRACTICE such regimes replace the traditional conception of God with a form of hysterial Leader Worship. Not Atheism, not by any even loosely held definition.

[Cedoria]

2: Depends on what you consider 'Liberal'. if you think I am you're way off base.

Well, there are many Liberal. There is American Liberal, European Liberal, and the political spectrum varies in both worlds.

because he was no more a Prophet then Jesus or Moses before him

Well, Mohammed and Jesus are given the most importance, Jesus Christ being considered God, and Mohammed being considered the prophet who heralded the revelation and great truth, and uh, PBUH SAW peace be upon Him. Whereas Moses simply delivered the 613 mitzvot to the Jews.

1: And I am none of them. So what?

2: Who cares? Again, completely irrelevant to the argument I make.

[Alsheb]

Well, considering that the majority consider Sahih Hadiths reliable, you probably are in the minority.

mfw people who actually follow the Qu'ran are a minority

We are indeed, I'm afraid.

[Baltenstein]

Of course, some individual catholics, such as the late Pope John Paul II, did admirably moral things when confronted with rgw evil, far too many sat back and ignored it, including the Church, which elected a Pro-Nazi Pope in 19400, and never, NEVER condemned Hitler openly whilst his regime existed, not once.

Not completely true:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mit_brennender_Sorge