Why aren't all atheists "EVIL" like Stalin or Mao?
It has been said, MANY times, and MANY different ways but the problem with this approach is that Atheism is only a SINGULAR position, on a SINGULAR claim. Atheism (for most) says "I reject your claims about the existence of the god you are claiming". Period -- that is it. It doesn't say how you SHOULD behave or what else you SHOULD believe. Most atheists do not claim to be able to PROVE, categorically that absolutely no god can even exist [which is NOT to say that Atheists do not have other positive beliefs in support of their position -- my point here is that ALL OF THOSE OTHER BELIEFS MATTER]
As any idiot should be able to trivially see, Atheism does NOT command genocide, the bible does so repeatedly and many totalitarians and fascists have done so and some of them have done so BECAUSE of the explicit commands to do so in the bible.
Atheism does NOT command the murder of ones own child EVER, but the bible says that god commands Abraham to do so - which means that it MUST be ok for your god to command people to murder their children and IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT HE DID NOT ALLOW ABRAHAM TO COMPLETE THE ACTION - the point is that god CLEARLY gave the command to do so. That is not just EVIL, it is FUCKING EVIL.
Are ALL Catholics responsible for ALL murders committed by the byzantine empire JUST BECAUSE they both had a religion? I do not claim so.
I don't lump ALL religions together so why do you feel justified in lumping ALL non-believers in religion together WHEN WE CLEARLY HAVE DIFFERENT VALUES, KNOWLEDGE, AND BELIEF SYSTEMS from other non-believers such as Stalin or Mao? You just look like a raging moron when you do this.
It is the utmost in ridiculous stupidity and ignorance to suggest that MY non-belief in YOUR god is, in any way, EQUIVALENT to the extreme forms of totalitarian regimes. I assume you are JUST FINE with me rejecting Zeus (this was a God who supposedly ATE his own children so he wouldn't have any competition) or Odin or any of 30,000 OTHER gods? So, why is your undemonstrated god so special? Is it his lack of evidence? Or maybe the fact that the stories were written 30 YEARS too late? Or maybe it's the evidence of pseudepigrapha which means people have LIED about who wrote the books? Or maybe it's the UTTER LACK of any historical documentation of events like the Saints rising from the dead? Or the hundreds of errors, redactions, insertations and missing originals? Or is it the FACT that the stewards of your 'religion' burned all evidence contrary to their claims, tortured and murdered people into converted, and ruled with an iron fist for 1700 years? Tell you what, contact the James Randi foundation, get yourself a Bull carcass and get on TV with Randi supervising and you LIGHT that sucker on fire with JUST prayer (as it says in 1 Kings 18 that your 'god' can do) and I will convert -- how does that sound?
It is irrelevant that a FEW regimes from the past promoted or promulgated atheism BECAUSE some of the most PEACEFUL people in the world have also PROMOTED atheism (namely the atheistic Jains and Buddhists), as well as many western atheists.
I am not ONLY against religion, I am against ANY form of dogmatic system INCLUDING atheistic ones! I don't judge people by "are they an atheist or not" I judge them by their words and actions. And I judge beliefs by the EVIDENCES of their relative harms.
A belief that one should murder your children if you believe god tells you to IS HARMFUL.
A belief that you should believe nonsense IN SPITE OF evidence to the contrary IS HARMFUL.
A belief that you should murder, harm, degrade, devalue, or deny rights to classes of people for attributes which DO NOT HARM others (race, sex, sexual preference, food preferences, etc) IS HARMFUL.
A belief that threatening CHILDREN with eternal damnation in order to instill an utmost fear in them and indoctrinate them with emotionally charged rhetoric IS HARMFUL.
There are many others, these are just a few examples.