Tuesday, November 13, 2012

"...there is is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules."

Vox Day on atheists and mass murder:

Apparently it was just an amazing coincidence that every Communist of historical note publicly declared his atheism … .there have been twenty-eight countries in world history that can be confirmed to have been ruled by regimes with avowed atheists at the helm … These twenty-eight historical regimes have been ruled by eighty-nine atheists, of whom more than half have engaged in democidal acts of the sort committed by Stalin and Mao …
The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined.
The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition. It is not only Stalin and Mao who were so murderously inclined, they were merely the worst of the whole Hell-bound lot. For every Pol Pot whose infamous name is still spoken with horror today, there was a Mengistu, a Bierut, and a Choibalsan, godless men whose names are now forgotten everywhere but in the lands they once ruled with a red hand.
Is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad things? If that is not deemed to be conclusive, how about the fact that the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them. If one considers the statistically significant size of the historical atheist set and contrasts it with the fact that not one in a thousand religious leaders have committed similarly large-scale atrocities, it is impossible to conclude otherwise, even if we do not yet understand exactly why this should be the case. Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence, but fifty-two incidents in ninety years reeks of causation![10]

Vox provides a fascinating perspective. Even if one sets aside the obvious cause-and-effect relationship between State Atheism as a ruling ideology and mass-murder,  a simple analysis of the atheist/theist beliefs of the leaders of nations is a shocking indictment of atheism.

In the 20th century, "there is is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules."

Atheism is the deadliest ideology in history, without rival. 


  1. Michael,

    No. Atheism isn't an ideology. It's a worldview.

    Communism is an ideology. Christianity is an ideology (it's also a worldview too). Islam is an ideology too.

    Actually, the leader (the Prime Minister) of Australia is an atheist. She hasn't killed a single citizen, and is very reluctant to do anything that might possibly cause upset to the religious.

    She has been forced, reluctantly, to call a Royal Commission to enquire into the coverup of child sexual abuse, mainly by the Catholic Church. She only agreed to it when the leader of the opposition, himself a practicing Catholic and once training to be a priest, before he decided to go into politics, agreed that a royal commission was necessary.

    1. Atheism is a religion, so it is an ideology. Even a null set is still a set.

      As for the Autralian Royal Commission on child abuse, it is welcomed by the Catholic Church:

      "Catholic Cardinal George Pell believes that the Royal Commission will clear the air and uncover the truth."

      The fact that you believe the Catholic Church to be the principal accused in this matter is due to "ongoing and at times one sided media coverage" and also to your atheistic religion.

    2. Anonymous, that is no way to treat the judges of a federal court of appeals!

    3. PePe, I assume you're referring to Kaufman v. Mccaughtry. That did not rule that atheism is a religion, but only that an inmate's atheism, in the case before it, should be treated the same as an inmate's religion.

      "The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a "religion" for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky"

      Corporations aren't really people, but there are circumstances where they are legally treated as if they are people. The same is true of atheism as a religion.

      And yes, Egnor is just vomiting up hate against atheists again. I assume he hates the way atheists remind him that his impending death will result in his ceasing to exist, something that really frightens an egoist like himself.

    4. Pépé, I'm not American so I'm not impressed by the judges of a federal court of appeals.

      You have to be incredibly stupid to say "atheism is not a religion". Atheism is not a set of beliefs, it has no divinity and no prophet (and don't say "Dawkins": most people in my country are not religious and I'm pretty sure 95% have never heard of Dawkins).

    5. Religious atheist lol ^^' XDNovember 13, 2012 at 9:48 AM

      Correction: You have to be incredibly stupid to say "atheism is a religion".
      >mfw I accidentally inverted the meaning of the sentence

    6. The BBC lists Atheism under Religions!

      As I have already said: a null set is still a set. Atheistic religions do exist.

    7. Atheistic religions probably exist, but that doesn't mean that atheism is a religion.

      And the BBC link proves nothing. They weren't going to put it in the travel category.

    8. Atheism is like Darwinism.

      No amount of evidence will prove to atheists that Atheism is a religion like no amount of evidence will prove to darwinists that Darwinism is junk science.


    9. Sorry, I forgot to illustrate my propos about atheists and darwinists who require images to understand.


    10. You're amazing, Pépé. I wonder how one can be so incredibly stupid while still being able to operate a keyboard.

    11. If you claim that atheism isn't a religion, define what you mean by "religion".

    12. 'Atheism is Religion Like Abstinence is a Sex Position'

      haha @ calling atheism a religion

    13. It takes a lot of faith to be an atheist. It is a religion.

  2. Edit: I didn't notice you actually link to Conservapedia and take it seriously. I facepalmed so hard I damaged my skull.

  3. There is a 100% chance that anything the clown Egnor says is utterly ridiculous.

    Loved his election predictions.

    1. Sadly, Egnor's observations about atheistic left-wing autocrats is not a prediction. It's empirical data.

      Of course, according to the materialists, all the murdered citizens were just meat machines. Like chickens, or cattle; just revolutionary baggage, useless lumpenproletariat, according to Marx.

  4. Absolute Power + X = Democide.
    X= State Atheism.

    1. Reality + X = crusadeREX's world.
      X= making shit up.

    2. Anything of substance to add, Anon?
      Care to provide a SINGLE example of an exception to that axiomatic equation?
      No. Of course not. Silly of me.
      Even Chris Hitchens and Richard Dawkins concede state atheism is a very nasty political idea.
      To simply snipe away under an alias and reduce the quality of the comments seems to be your MO.
      Grow up.

    3. I can't believe I have to explain this, but then again it's Egnor's blog: absolute power wedded to any creed will cause problems. Because the problem is the absolute power. Just ask the victims of the Inquisition, or Hitler, or Christians persecuted for not following Roman state religion (hint: which was not atheism), or "witches" killed in European Christian pogroms, or the religious wars following the Reformation, or the genocide of Native Americans, and on and on and on. You're focusing on the wrong part of the equation.


    4. To help crusadeREX get Boo's point:

      Absolute Power + X = Democide.
      X = moustache.


    5. Boo,

      There have been dictators, emperors, and theocratic leaders that have been quite magnanimous.
      There have been beneficent oligarchs.
      Kindly kings, dukes, sultans, and emirs.
      Many of the holy inquisitions had nothing to do with heresy or any such nastiness, but in fact where legal proceedings.
      So the axiom does not work.
      Not all absolutism leads to democide.
      That's the first flaw in your refutation.

      I will concede this much: Absolute power is a great temptation. Many ideologues given that kind of sway become evil, murdering bastards - no matter their creed. Cynical impulses and a desire to maintain control are too much for many leaders and officials in such a position.
      Some simply do not react that way.
      Some minds seem to be able to better deal with the position.
      Not all - but SOME can.
      Especially, it seems, when they are restrained by some objective rule, law, or power considered HIGHER than them. Not just BY them, but by their subjects.
      This is key, Boo. If people believe they have inherit rights (divine or natural law) they will eventually find justification to revolt and, at the very least, replace the leadership.
      Self proclaimed god kings and Emperors do not count (ie Caesar) for obvious reasons. But again, they are no match in sheer bloodiness to their modern atheist counterparts who force any such objective thinking underground, much as the pagan god kings did.

      The second flaw with your premise is that NO STATE ATHEIST POWER has EVER shown that kind of reservation.
      Add to that, again, the sheer horrific scale of the modern state atheist democides.
      This does not make the ancient barbarities any less evil or barbarous or lessen the sin of murder - but it does definitely factor into it.
      The third flaw is that you cannot ask the victims of any such democide, pogrom, or purge - they are dead.
      I understand that is rhetorical device, but consider the utter silliness of it.
      Ask them WHAT? If killing a 100,000,000 for 'progress' is better than what they went through?
      Murder is murder.

      Finally there is the TIME scale.
      The theocratic and imperial bloodshed you speak of was of different ages entirely and justified by rhetorical twisting of logic, reason, faith, and politic in order to do mass murder (again, on a exponentially smaller scale). The body count resulting from that madness took CENTURIES to reach and is a mere fraction of what state atheism has achieved in less than a single century and their reigns/rules were eventually ended by purists of the same ideologies.
      Even modern Islamic theocratic regimes pale in comparison.
      By contrast to the ancient evils, the state atheist democides have been the result of MODERN thinking in MODERN times and with the justification of (often pseudo) science.
      Let me be quite clear, I do not blame this on individual town square atheists nor on science (the method) itself.

      STATE Atheism.
      STATE is the operative word here.

      You would do well to have some (thoughts) of your own occasionally. You might, with practice and at some point, be able to comprehend what Boo and I are discussing.
      PS Mao was clean shaven.

    6. @Boo:

      Why do atheists rule so often with absolute power?

    7. "Why do atheists rule so often with absolute power?"

      Probably for the same reasons that divine-right Christian monarchs did. And that Catholic/neopagan Adolph Hitler did.

      Why do atheists participate in governments so often without trying to gain absolute power and kill people? Why has Europe's secularization coincided with their finally putting 1500 years of bloodshed behind them?

      Why do you pretend the Southern Strategy isn't real? Why do you actually aspire to egnorance? Why were you and your fellow Republicans so wrong about the election and so willing to ignore all the evidence that was staring you in the face? Some things are just mysteries.


    8. Michael,

      'Why do atheists rule so often with absolute power?'

      The more accurate question would be; 'Why do certain political systems throw up rulers with absolute power?'

      I'd noted in my first comment that Australia's national leader is an atheist, and she's extremely reluctant to do anything to upset the religious. I'd noted that she'd recently called a royal commission to enquire into the coverup of child abuse, mainly by the Catholic Church, as a result of a lot of community and media pressure (and also because the leader of the opposition, a practicing Catholc and once candidate for the priesthood, agreed it was necessary).

      Another case in point is that she's reluctant to remove funding for the provision of chaplains within public schools (instigated by the previous conservative government). This year, the High Court ruled that the funding was illegal (it was funded by regulation). So her government promptly legislated to have the program funded making it legal.

      CrusadeRex in part made the point that whenever a ruler isn't answerable to his or her subjects, then the ruler can do anything, good or bad.

    9. crusadeREX- what exactly do you mean by "state atheist"? One that commands atheism as a creed? They result in bloodshed for the same reason that Christian, Pagan, islamic, or whatever creed commanded by a state results in bloodshed for those who do not subscribe.

      Or would you consider the European Union "state atheist? The European Union has actually managed to stop the regular wars that broke out in Europe.

      Is a country with an atheist head of government considered "state atheist"? Then how come Australia shows no signs of exploding in an orgy of state-sponsored violence? Did you know that David Ben Gurion and many of the other founders of modern Israel were atheists? Are you afraid that if atheist Benjamin Netanyahu became prime minister again he'd start up the democide?

      "Many of the holy inquisitions had nothing to do with heresy or any such nastiness, but in fact where legal proceedings."

      Yes indeed. The fusion of church and state power certainly made the killings "legal." I'm sure that was a great comfort to the victims.


    10. Boo,
      By state Atheism, I mean State Atheism.
      Such regimes have no competition on the democide front.
      NOTHING compares to them. No theocracy, no monarchy, no secular republic in recorded history has come close to those regimes in terms of democide.
      The EU? No. Not state atheism. Dysfunctional and globalist. But so far - no state atheism.
      Australia. No. Not state atheism. Nowhere near it.

      Many politicians are atheists or into the occult/new age. I imagine such ideals appeal to elitists and give them a kind of warrant to do 'what thou wilt'.

      Re the inquisitions - they were not all about heresy. Several of them where to investigate the church itself, pseudo scientific nonsense, murders, organized crimes, etc

      They had nothing to do with the handful of bloody inquisitions you are referring to. My point was simple:
      Even within that single aspect of your argument there is a fatal flaw.

      Re: Bibi. No. I don't think so. Most Israelis I know don't like him - but I don't see him as some sort of dangerous maniac. So far as I know he is a proponent of the Jewish state and is well aware of the dangers of state-atheism.

    11. So you still won't say what exactly you mean by "state atheism"?

      And if your argument relies on trying to whitewash the Inquisition you might as well just pack it in now.


  5. “There is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules.”

    “He Rules” seems kind of sexist to me. What about lady atheist leaders? Don’t they get a chance to murder a noticeable percentage of the population? If Kyrsten Sinema, the only openly atheist representative in Congress, makes it to President, I would like to think she can murder her fellow citizens as well as any man. I’m sure she’s itching to start the killing.


  6. You are obviously suffering a traumatising mental defect of some kind. I recommend you see a doctor.

    Then come back and employ logic in your argumentation against a clear correlation between atheism and mass murder using statistics.

    Perhaps the lesson is not that atheism makes mass-murderers out of people, but rather that a lack of a good religion just removes one more moral impediment from them doing so. And it seems to make a big difference.

  7. Maybe atheism is not a religion, maybe, but is surely is a believe system. An atheist BELIEVES God does not exist.

    And like Dostoyevski wrote: "When God doesn't exists, everything is permitted."

    And therefore atheist turn quickly into babymurdering child grooming child castrating sodomistic lying cheating and murdering persons, as Vox Day explains above.