How do Atheists respond to the twentieth century atrocities in Russia?

TheDoctor394: Atheists love to bring up terrible things that have been done in the name of religion, which, of course, includes Christianity. Such things as the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition come up, and any honest Christian should certainly not ignore these things. They are blights on our history, and events of which to be ashamed.

But I'd just like to ask any atheist for their view on the atrocities which happened in the USSR through the twentieth century, when there was a huge purge against religion, which resulted in countless deaths. I offer this link, which is about the campaign from 1928-41 - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1928–1941)

How do atheists respond to this?

Crash: It wasn't against religion completely ...it was mainly against the Russian orthodox church...in about 1927 was when it was at it's peak.

However I'm not sure what your point is doc.....of COURSE there have been regimes that are against religion. It would be absurd to think otherwise. However, I'm wondering how long you googled for this specific thing....and why you seem.....SEEM (don't get excited) to be trying to draw attention away from all the MORE AND MANY atrocities committed in the name of religion.

And ONLY BECAUSE of religion.

Crash: And also....at that time in Russia...there were 7 pogroms...that were going on commited by the cossaks...to kick out the jews....so...on that ...you have my fulls support and I have no answer for that...other than ....persecution.

HydroMan: well doc, I was going to post some info on how more people have died at the hands of atheists in human history than any religion, and that there are in fact atheists regimes that have killed people for believing in God. But I see now it would be a complete waste of time an effort because of Crash.

Crash: LOL Hydro....or maybe you are scared to post ..because you know I would destroy your nonsense postings completely and with little effort. Oh ...and on you posting about "how many more people have died at the hands of atheists than any religion." I WOULD LOVE to see that evidence. Please post it.

deuce916: Well Doc, if god can do it then why not anyone else?

deuce916: Considering that god has killed probably more humans than atheist attributed atrocities put together.

HydroMan: see what I mean doc, complete waste of time

deuce916: Well maybe Doc & you should answer the real question we want an answer to - How do theists respond to god's murders in the bible - AND - Is god still murdering humans?

deuce916: see what I mean Crash, these guys have no answers.

Crash: Seems to me that hydro is scared to present any argument for fear of me debunking it. As i have done with him many times. He makes statements....yet then provides no evidence to back up said statements. Lol.....same nonsense over and over.. Sad really. Tries to give himself an "out" by saying he's not gonna bother posting because of me. A transparent and cowardly excuse . Aw well.....it is what it is.

I'm off to bed...long day .....nigh nigh

ghostgeek: The Crusades were defensive and totally justified.

Crash: Ummmmm ....no....i'll have to disagree with you on that geek.

ghostgeek: Well, ask yourself how they started. The Byzantine emperor is facing a Moslem onslaught, so he asks the Pope in Rome for help. Next thing you know the Crusades are in full swing.

ghostgeek: For centuries Christianity was on the defensive. Never forget the year 1453.

Crash: They may have STARTED defensively ...indirectly ....however...what they turned into was absolutely not defense. They turned in to a massive campaign ...CRUSADE ...to simply indoctrinate everyone to christianity under punishment of torture and death. I fail to see how that is justified.

However it's worth noting ....which crusade are you referring to actually ?

Crash: I mean if you are talking about the 1st crusade ONLY ....they I could agree with you to a point. However Like I said....it changed from "defense" and military aid ...to something entirely unrecognizable.

The initial success of the Crusade established the first four Crusader states in the Eastern Mediterranean: the County of Edessa, the Principality of Antioch, the Kingdom of Jerusalem and the County of Tripoli.

These were HARD won....and not just hard won through military defense or strategy.

This devolved in to torture and abuse ....simply for the sake of a god belief.

Which is why it was a religious war in the first place....nothing good comes from that in the short run.

ghostgeek: Nearly eight centuries of Muslim rule in Spain. Attempted Islamic invasion of France in 732 A.D. Vienna besieged twice by Muslim armies. The Balkans overrun. Malta. For over 1,300 years Islam has been trying to capture Europe.

ghostgeek: As far as I'm concerned, better the devil you know.

ghostgeek: And never forget the fall of Constantinople in 1453.

Crash: I mean...sure....and yes...agreed that the war...was POSSIBLY justified. But absolutely not all the unecessary atrocities that came with it.

ghostgeek: Agreed, even Europeans were shocked by the brutality on display, so Christianity has nothing to crow about.

Crash: yuppers..... smh. Sad but true.

shadowline: The Crusades can surely be seen as a defensive reaction to the Muslim conquest and theft of the Holy Land in the early sixth century. As that they were a rather belated reaction, but, things moved slowly in the Middle Ages.

Unlike the Muslim Crusades which took the Holy Land, the Christian Crusades did not aim at anything beyond that small region, and they were not about spreading Christianity. Their aim was strictly limited. Also unlike the Muslim Crusades, the Christian ones were a small, faltering, failure. The Muslim Crusades were a huge, centuries long, resounding, success.

Historians will also point out that the Crusades were not unprovoked in their time. Both Christians living in the Holy Land and pilgrims from Europe had recently come under new threat and new attack in the eleventh century. The reaction was understandable.

Nor was there anything exceptionally cruel about the Crusades - leaving aside myths about wading in blood up to the ankles on the Temple Mount (wading in a liquid on a hill?) and burning down the only synagogue in Jerusalem with all the Jews of the city cowering inside. Things of that nature (which Medieval chroniclers, to their eternal shame, seem to have thought successes) are largely dismissed as unsubstantiated by modern historians. The Crusades weren't nice. No Medieval warfare was nice. (No modern warfare is nice.)

Crash: So wait....shadow...are you saying there was no torture or needless killing in any of the Seven major crusades by christianity ?