Why "Christian VS Atheist" Is The Wrong Way To Frame The Moral Narrative

A Christian-religious fundamentalist has said to me:

 "believe what you want. You wouldn’t be the first atheist to connect all the evils of the world to religion via gratuitous extrapolation, whilst simultaneously absolving atheism of any connection with atrocities despite the atheistic fundamentals of the perpetrators."
---
My reply to this:

An estimated 100% of adults who have ever committed a violent crime
were a-Leprechaun-ists.

That doesn't mean that their lack of belief in the King of the Leprechauns had anything to do with their actions.

The term "progressive" has some meaning.

The term "humanist" is even more specific.

The term "atheist" is a false-flag for Christian fundamentalists to fire back at.

There are no "atheist fundamentalists" because
there are no fundamentals for atheism.

--

I don't know if Hitler was really a believer in the "Almighty God" or if he was just pretending to, as a way to manipulate millions of personal-God-Theists.

Either way, it proved how much of a societal liability such belief systems are. 

It was an authoritarian slave-yolk popular religions had already installed onto the minds of child-minded masses.
--

I also don't know how much of Stalin's claims of mystical/divine powers he really believed he had.

But I know where he learned how to manipulate the masses with ease.
- In a Seminary.

I also know what mentally primed so many citizens to immediately fall-in-line for a larger-than-life, narcissistic, authoritarian Father figure.

He took advantage of the same mental mechanisms Christian-themed churches had installed into the minds of those people; same as what Hitler did.

---
It's not really about the labels, like "Christian" or "atheist".

It's not the label which defines ideological baskets.
Those get defined by which ideological eggs they carry.

Christian-baskets are usually crammed full of dangerously stupid ideas. 

But sometimes they only have one or two. And then the rest of it's fine. 

---

Whereas,
atheism-baskets don't exist.
- Same as how non-Leprechaun-ism is ALSO not a worldview nor a values-system.

Exactly zero of history's monsters did monstrous things in the name of atheism.
It would be nonsensical.

In fact, 
those regimes were absolutely religious.

#NotAllReligions have a theistic premise.

The problems of human history were never about if someone either did or didn't believe in a creator-being.
The problems were caused by the idea that there was:
an unquestionable moral authority
making demands of humans either AS or THROUGH "special" humans.

As the late Hitchens pointed out, ...
"Religion is NOT the belief in a god.
Religion is the belief that a god tells you what to do".

Given how OFTEN Christians accuse "the world" of making a "God" out of money,

or how often they accuse people of being their own "God", ...

That shows me that you probably do understand how the current leader of China (for example) has made himself a God to the people, without ever needing to utter the word "God".

For thousands of years,
humans have functioned in that capacity.

The result?
 Widespread tragedies.

It's a serious problem for humanity, when a theist does it. 

It's just as serious when someone who isn't a theist does it.

It's extremely consequential when churches (of any religion) cultivate authoritarian and totalitarian hierarchical moral frameworks into their "sheep".

In fact, its' a big problem when any society is taught to think and respond as sheep.

The few non-theist dictator-monsters who get mentioned in these sorts of discussions ... each had a working relationship with Christianity.

"You set em up.
I'll knock em down".

Meanwhile, it's entirely hypocritical for Christians to even raise these issues;
- given how much human tragedy has happened directly because of their churches,
and often directly because of the "holy books" they were basing their behaviors on.

If a Christian can say "Well, those don't reflect at-all on "most Christians", or "real Christians", etc,
then anyone in any demographic can play that same card for their people.

"Oh, well those weren't real Muslims."

"Those weren't real Christians". 

"No True Scotsman would ever behave that way.".
---------
 Compare that to how:
 The progressive principals of secular humanism 
is a rejection of:

The Totalitarian Principal which all theist and non-theist dictators have ruled by;
and which fundamentalist and moderate Christians swear by.  

  As such, secular humanists don't have any examples in history 
where their moral foundations were used to enslave or otherwise injure their fellow humans.

  It's very much the same way that if a Janeist becomes more "extreme", they just become even more peaceful. 

It's also not a problem for
the most progressive ~metaphorical "Christians"~, because: Their moral framework IS:
Progressive Secular Humanism;
expressed through religious language. 


 The same can't be accurately said of fundamentalist or moderate Christians, because harmful ideals remain core to their ideology. 

--

Link:
Hitchens; on Stalin
[followed by:
responding to the accusation that:
secular humanists have a history of dictatorship.
Also responds to the comparative moral posturing of modern Christianity] 

 
--
Link:
Sam Harris vs Rabi David Wolpe.  "Tolerance And Religion: