Communism wasn't the result of Atheism.
I never said it was.
If you want to say that the atrocities committed by Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others was not religiously motivated then that's fine. I don't personally mind if you say "secular violence" to make that point but it wasn't atheism that caused the violence.
I used the term "secular violence" for a very specific reason, just as I noted afterwards that it included that done by atheists. I know that you are having fun with TGF over it, but don't conflict my arguments with his. I see a lot of separation between the types, and while atheistic violence is of a secular nature, not all secular violence is atheistic. Neither communism nor Nazism violence was atheistic in nature, but both were secular.
As for the rest I find your analysis shallow and presumptive. I would agree that religion is declining as a motivating factor but beyond that I'm afraid the dynamics behind wars and atrocity are far more complex than you suggest.
I find it somewhat funny that you are trying to claim my analysis is "shallow and presumptive" for pointing out that there are very few wars that are purely about religion, that wars are fought over a lot more than that and most of the reasons are political, then you say "the dynamics behind wars and atrocity are far more complex than you suggest." You basically tell me how I'm totally wrong, and then argue my own point as if to be against me.
Now I might have misjudged you here, and you might have mistaken what I gave as "motivations" that politicians use to get people to fight for them as instead motivations for war itself. If so, I suggest you reread what I actually said and not what you would like to think I said.
I cannot begin to defend the Communists but you have simply not made your case here.
From the link you posted (one I already knew and had looked up and noted previously that I had done so.)
"When a pure or hybrid religious group and/or its interests are threatened, or merely blocked from achieving its interests by another group, conflict and violence may ensue. In such cases, although religion is part of the issue and religious groups form the competitors, or combatants, it would be simplistic or wrong to assume the religion is the "cause" of the trouble or that the parties are "fighting about religion". Religion in the circumstances may be more a marker of the groups than an actual point of contention between them." Jack David Elder.
This would be my first point. Just because two groups are fighting and of different religions, don't assume that the religions are the reason for the fighting. My second point would be, which Theocracies have been involved in expansive wars? You claim I didn't make my case, and then point to the so-called religious wars of Europe, but how many of those "religious" wars were done by Theistic Governments?
The simply fact based on history is that very few (a total of one that I could find) theocracies have engaged in war to attack another power, and the one that did was in the form of a rebellion. Stable theocracies have by and large been on the receiving end of the violence, even those, and possibly especially those that have allowed religious freedom inside of them. Counter to this is those governments which have been areligious (note here I'm not saying secular or even atheist, but rather specifically areligious) which have time and time again targeted and destroyed religion in areas of their control by any means possible, including the wholesale slaughter of those believers they could find.
The dynamics that led the founders of this nation to call for religious freedom was in large part influenced by hundreds of years of
sectarian violence and religous wars.
Except that the idea that those "hundreds of years" (which weren't hundreds of years) were purely about religion is itself farcical. If we take a look at the French Wars of Religion for example, we quickly see that there is a pattern developing. We have two competing noble houses, one with ties to strongly Protestant countries such as England, Germany, The Netherlands, and Poland, while the other has strong ties to the strongly Catholic countries, mostly Spain and Italy. It is these two competing houses and their attempts to influence and control the throne of France that created the wars. By their managing to influence the kings they either gained more power for themselves, or placed restrictions of power on their enemies in an attempt to try and align France with the other European powers they supported and had the support of. Essentially religion was used as a battering ram in an attempt to remain in a position where they could control the king and his alliances. So yes, Religion was used to stir up the masses, but those controlling it all were in it for the power and politics.
This idea of comparing and contrasting religious and secular atrocity to find out which was better strikes me as absurd.
Me too, and yet this is what this thread is all about as if religion is the cause of all wars. (From your own link -
In their Encyclopaedia of Wars, authors Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod attempt a comprehensive listing of wars in history. They document 1763 wars overall, of which 123 (7%) have been classified to involve a religious conflict.) It clearly isn't the cause of all wars, in fact by that statistic, it is quite rare being less than 1 in 10 wars, most of which happened centuries ago.
Another quote from your own link...
Violence committed by secular governments and people, including the anti-religious, have been documented including some instances of violence or persecutions focused on religious believers and those who believe in the supernatural. World War I, World War II, many civil wars (American, El Salvador, Russia, Sri Lanka, China etc.), revolutionary wars (American, French, Russian, etc.), and common conflicts such as gang and drug wars (e.g. Mexican Drug War) or even the War on Terrorism, have all been secular. In addition, the USSR anti-religious campaign, Albanian anti-religious campaign, among others have been conducted under atheist states.
Again, note the difference between conducted by atheist states, and because of atheist reasons.
Religious violence isn't kinder and gentler violence. It isn't more tolerant of difference. Again, you are taking complex and chaotic events and reducing them 2 dimensional.
Again no one is saying that the violence is different, violence is violence, and dead is still dead. I think that once more you are missing what I was saying. A poster stated that Theocracies are always looking for reasons to go to war with other religions, my post wasn't about that complexities of war, merely pointing out that historically, Theocracies tend to have not attacked others, where as those areligious governments that have come into being have done exactly that, all of them.
I had already noted that war has a lot of reasons behind it, in fact that was my point from my first posting here, asking for a list of purely religious wars. That entire point was the fact that there really isn't a list as what we term as "religious" wars are generally still political wars, just that the politics gets split along sectarian lines and then religion gets used as a battering ram against the enemy. Once more you seem to be trying to tell me I am wrong, all while actually arguing my own points back at me.
