What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

Why slavery is wrong is due to the disrespect for a person's basic humanity dignity where no human can own another person as in Chattel Slavery. Then one need to ask why, why, why till we arrive at some grounding which must be objective, i.e. not subjective opinions.

Again, you're proposing a subjective value-judgement - we should respect a person's basic human dignity - as a foundation for a moral code - and then saying we need to ask why we should - as though there must be some factual reason for doing so, or the judgement is 'groundless'. And that's the mistake of moral objectivism - the mistake made by Aristotle and Kant.

Such model do have foundation within the model, i.e. because a real God said so!
But from a meta-perspective this foundation is groundless since God is illusory.

I think Immanuel Can is right to criticise your claim that 'God is illusory'. The rational position is that the absence of evidence for an existence claim may not mean the claim is false - but it does mean that to believe the claim is true is irrational.

It is inherent within a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics that there must [imperative] be objective standards for it to work.
In this case we need to establish the most optimal objective moral laws for the system's processes to work on its input and output.

I think this is to make a category error. The rules or standards within a system or model have no truth-value - they're simply normative. To call them 'objective', which here means 'factual', is tautologous, and so vacuous.

[Immanuel Can]

Truth isn't moral. It could be described as thoroughly objective WITHOUT any moral implications.

Then it makes no sense for you to use moral language in connection with it.

But I haven't. Show me where I have!

Indeed, I have. You use words like "coward," and "hypocrite." Those are value-laden pejoratives. They are intended to be synonyms for "bad," or "don't be like that." (If they're not, then they mean nothing at all, obviously, because it wouldn't be bad to be one of them.)

You use value-laden pejoratives, and expect people to take them seriously. You expect me, for example, to feel rebuffed or ashamed to hear myself called those things. But why should you expect that, when they are not objectively true? And the reason they are not objectively true in not just because I don't feel they describe me accurately, but because even YOU say you don't believe in objectively-true moral claims. They are moral claims, claims against me, that you expect to be taken seriously.

...secular common law morality...

Is historically derived from Christianity. Unfortunately, once one removes it from its Christian suppositions, it becomes entirely without rational basis. Why, for example, should we think we owe people any kind of "equality" when they are said to be just blobs of protoplasm floating around a meaningless universe? We have no reason to do so. We have no reason not to treat them very unequally if it suits us and if no power is on hand to prevent us from doing so.

In case you're not familiar with it, it goes like this...

The A Priori Argument (also, Rationalization; Dogmatism, Proof Texting.): A corrupt argument from logos, starting with a given, pre-set belief, dogma, doctrine, scripture verse, "fact" or conclusion and then searching for any reasonable or reasonable-sounding argument to rationalize, defend or justify it. ...

An inaccurate definition. If you look it up, you'll find out that "a priori" is actually a neutral philosophical term, describing any premise which has to be taken as given in order to generate subsequent knowledge, but which cannot itself be justified from earlier "prior" premises. Here's a neutral, scholar-reviewed source: https://www.iep.utm.edu/apriori/

You've culled a slanted definition from a misinformed source: and then you've assumed that the description it offers can be justly predicated of Theism. But that clearly isn't good enough.

So there you are!

Heh. Not even close.

Another major error is thinking that Hume, who you mention many times, could conceivably condone any part of your spurious methodology, transparent even to those uninitiated in the alphabet soup of logical fallacies!

You'd best look up "Hume's Guillotine." (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-moral/#io) You will find he says exactly what I say he says, and that it's one of the most talked-about issues in modern ethics. It has even been called, by secular experts, "THE major problem in modern ethical theory."

[Immanuel Can]

The above is as simple as people who commit genocides are not thinking with the right-thinking in reference to the consensus of the majority.

Which "majority," and how do we know when the "majority" is actually right? In Non-Theist thought, we never do -- for no standard exists. We cannot establish when the "majority" is right and when it's wrong, or even IF majority opinion is related to rightness at all.

I was referring the majority in the world.

The majority in the world, and in human history, has thought women were second to men. The majority has been religious. Why would you think we should believe "majority" ought to determine truth in one area (morality) when you deny it has any justification in other, more verifiable matters?

There is no majority consensus that condone made 'genocide' legal in any country.

Sure there is. They don't always use the term "genocide," but look, for example at what the Arab leaders want to do to all Jews. I think "push them into the sea," or "your time is up, your world is through" are plenty genocidal statements, don't you?

At present there is no absolute definition for what is 'right'.
I agree what is 'right' must be grounded objectively and need to be argued for.

Go ahead. I'm interested in how you'd do that.

if genocide is universalized and thus cause the greatest evil act possible, i.e. exterminating the human species, then it is obvious the universalization of 'no genocides at all' would promote the greatest good.
Since morality is about the greatest good, we should adopt the maxim of 'no genocides at all' as a guide.
What is wrong with that logic?

Both "greatest" and "good" are undefined terms there. What makes something "good," and what makes it the "greatest" kind of good? You can't know.

You said that it was whatever the majority believes. The majority in Saudi is Islamic. You have already said, though, that you don't think this "majority" is right. Why not? Then what is "good" for them might be the subjugating of all women, or the killing of minority homosexuals. On what basis do you, as a Non-Theist, judge their actions?

You see the problem with any such answer, I'm sure.

I was not referring to local majority but universal majority of the people of the world.

Again, that doesn't work. The majority has believed lots of things you'd now deny. But even had that not been the case, you'd still need a proof that the majority has some kind of moral value in itself. And that, you can't show.

From the above you cannot accuse me of not having defined 'evil'.

No, I did not. I accused you of having given no "defensible" definition, nothing a person with rudimentary critical reflection should regard as tenable. See below:

I have defined 'evil' many times all over the place and if I am not mistaken even directly to you in response to your posts. [..I will have to search for that].

Please do. I have only seen you define it as something like the above (majoritarianism), which is clearly not a defensible answer. If you have a defensible definition of evil, it would help us a great deal.

Therein I qualified the bolded 'well-being' is too complex to discuss.

You can't expect to dodge the problem by simply saying, "It's too complex." Until you solve it, there's no reason for anybody to believe you. It's fundamental to your argument. So complex or not, you owe us a grounded account of evil -- a defensible one, not an empty, indefensible gesture, like "Follow whatever I tell you is the majority, even though it's not, and even though I give you no reason why the majority is a moral indicator."

But thinking wider, I am aware there are certain actions which are seemingly negative but they do have some positive effects.

Now you're starting to do some real work with the problem your view faces. Good.

For example certain drugs are associated with evil acts but one can argue in exceptional cases they have positive values, e.g. can cure certain diseases or even help the poor to earn a living, etc.
Thus it meant we need to consider the whole rather than one action only.

"Consider" as to our perception of the value of its consequences or outcomes? You mean straightforward Consequentialism? Or do you mean, "Consider as the the intrinsic moral properties of the action," as Kant would say? These conflict, of course.

Point is when I get into a specific discussion of 'what is evil', I will go into the details.

Great. Do it now, please. It's what we need in order for me to know whether you are right or wrong.

If you personally don't like the term 'evil'

I find it an acceptable descriptive term, if justified.

[Immanuel Can]

I have proven the idea of God is an impossibility, thus it is moot whether God exists or not.

I see you're a great one for claiming things you haven't done at all.

So your claim is that you, single-handedly, have managed to show the human race that it is an absolute impossibility that the Supreme Being exists? That the very idea itself is impossible? That's your claim?

This, I've got to see. Ravel that one our for us.

...it is so obvious the root causes is psychological and the existential crisis ...

What's obvious is that it is possible for anyone, Atheist or Theist, to believe things for bad reasons. It's also manifest that people can believe things for good reasons, or for middling ones. But it's not at all apparent which one is doing which, or even if either group in total is accurately describable in that way. I think it's a gross oversimplification, at most, and a mere canard at worst. It's certainly a fallacy; but I can see you're addicted to it.

Note my justification above which in principle is 50% plus and another 25% of evidences and personal experiences to support my hypothesis.

I have no idea how you get these "percentages." I would argue that the psychological argument isn't "50%" of anything -- it's just a raw guess, based on the "25%" personal experience...and I wonder what makes up the other, missing "25%" of whatever it is.

I don't foresee the majority of theists will understand their internal psychology related to theism and its illusory God due to the desperation and psychological hold on their emotions.

That's one attempted explanation. But unfortunately, it could be a description of ANY belief a person can hold. For example, you could believe the world is round because you scientifically demonstrated it to yourself, or you could believe it's round because if it was flat you'd be terrified of falling off the edge. Your motive in believing it will not tell us anything about the truth or falsehood of the belief that the earth is round.

Why I critique theism overall [especially Islam] is due to the very glaring evil acts and violence committed by SOME theists who are evil prone and inspired by their God.

I have no objection to that claim. I see the same, especially in Islam, but also in some other systems. But I also see that Atheists killed 148 million people in the last century alone -- far more than have ever been killed by all religions combined. We must not forget that, if we remember nothing else.

So perhaps it's only where you live that Islam is the biggest problem: on a world scale, Atheism is a far more fatal belief.

I have countered the above as relying on hasty generalization. [/quote]
"Hasty generalization"? You mean you don't think that 148 million people died at the hands of the Atheists in the last century?

Secular sources will confirm that that number is low, if anything. But even if it were only half, or a third of what it is, it would still be many times greater than all the alleged religious killings in history...even including Islam.

It is critical that one look at the positive ideology of non-theists that killed many, e.g. they could be communists or Nazis who killed.

That is true. However, nothing in Non-Theism implies that Nazis or Communists are not "good." They are one of many fully acceptable alternatives in a Non-Theistic world.

So the focus should be on Nazism, fascism or communism not on atheism.

Karl Marx would disagree. He said that everything he believed depended on the critique of religion, first of all. Nietzsche would disagree. He said that the death of God was the prerequisite to us getting "beyond good and evil." It's only when Atheism is granted that the ground is cleared for the toxic beliefs of Nazism or Communism to take root. Atheism creates a vacuum, into which secular ideologies rush. But Atheism also implies that there is no justification for moral restraint, so these regimes kill people pretty freely. And that's what history has revealed to us.

You cannot imply the following;

• Atheism kill 148 million
  Buddhism is atheism
  Therefore Buddhism killed 148 million.

Buddhism isn't Atheism. One variant of Buddhism is regarded as "philosophical," but another is profoundly religious. For example, go to South East Asia, and you'll see temples, sacrifices, spirits, icons and idols, incense and flowers, ritual prayers, ancestor worship, and a whole lot of things that are definitely not "Atheist."

Unless you want to claim that religious Buddhists are "not real Buddhists," your argument is a bad one. Moreover, look at Myanmar...it's clear that Buddhism has not prevented atrocities there. But I see you know about that, but just don't want to think about it.

Note the Bible exhorts Christians to spread their religion and in that course the missionaries has committed terrible evils [+ good] along they way [kill local cultures and traditions, etc.] to spread Christianity.

Not true. You need to read Lamin Saneh on what good the missionaries have done for natives in Africa, for example. For those tribes where missionaries arrived early, they survived secular colonialism; where that did not happen, the culture has been wiped out by modernity. The best hope of the natives was that a missionary would arrive, transcribe their language, help them find a sense of tribal identity, write down their literature, provide medicine and education, advocate for them against the intrusions of traders, soldiers and others, and help them transition to contact with the modern world. Everywhere that did not happen, disaster followed for the tribe.

And I've seen it first hand.

Note my point is a belief in God is driven by fear.

Again, this may be your experience, or it may be what you see around you, as you look at Muslims. I do not doubt your word, in their case.

It is obvious in the OT and NT, fear is the dominant emotion within the relation of a Christian and his God.

No, it's not. It's obvious that love is the central theme, and that relationship with God is based on it. I could give you a stack of references to show that. It may well be that you are transferring your experience with Islam again. But you clearly haven't read the text, or payed much attention if you read any of it at all.

I can honestly say that of the thousands of Christians I have ever met, none has ever said to me that their essential reason for being a Christian was fear. Not one, not ever. And for me, fear played no role in why I became a Christian either. So I really can't imagine who you're referring to.

[Immanuel Can]

Such model do have foundation within the model, i.e. because a real God said so!
But from a meta-perspective this foundation is groundless since God is illusory.

I think Immanuel Can is right to criticise your claim that 'God is illusory'. The rational position is that the absence of evidence for an existence claim may not mean the claim is false - but it does mean that to believe the claim is true is irrational.

Ah. We agree. Good.

But we're still unsure of what you meant by "absence of evidence." Do you mean, "Peter Holmes presently has no evidence," or "Nobody can possibly have evidence"?

The irrationality or rationality of the claim will be profoundly affected by your answer, of course.

[TimeSeeker]

There is already an objective moral framework. No harm. The Precautionary principle deals with this aspect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

The goal is to minimize the risk (and if possible - avoid) human extinction on long-enough timeline while taking ergodic theory into account.

At least - I think this is a framework majority of humans might consent to. And that's as "objective" as you will get out of English without defining "harm".

[Immanuel Can]

There is already an objective moral framework. No harm.

No "harm"? No good. Sorry.

It's not just that you haven't defined what constitutes "harm," although that's a pretty serious fault: but even worse, we don't know what principle tells us that causing "harm" (whatever that may be interpreted as being) is morally wrong at all.

Why shouldn't the lion kill the gazelle? It might be "harm," but that's what lions do. Likewise, why should the strong take advantage of the weak? The weak might call it "harm" but the strong could regard it as simply a great opportunity. That's what the strong do. We don't morally fault the lion for the kill; why would we fault the strong human for his "kill"?

Without a prior principle that it is, for some reason, "wrong" to harm the weak, you've not got something defensible there. It sounds good, at first hearing, but it's really vacuous and can be subverted at the first question.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why slavery is wrong is due to the disrespect for a person's basic humanity dignity where no human can own another person as in Chattel Slavery. Then one need to ask why, why, why till we arrive at some grounding which must be objective, i.e. not subjective opinions.

Again, you're proposing a subjective value-judgement - we should respect a person's basic human dignity - as a foundation for a moral code - and then saying we need to ask why we should - as though there must be some factual reason for doing so, or the judgement is 'groundless'. And that's the mistake of moral objectivism - the mistake made by Aristotle and Kant.

One basic thing about knowledge is it must be viewed from a range of perspectives and down to its ultimate [nearest to] perspective.

Note there is no absolute objectivity.
Every judgment [cognition, realization] is ultimately 'subjective'.
Even scientific theories which are basically objective are ultimately subjective, i.e. inter-subjective. As Popper had asserted, ALL scientific theories are at best Polished Conjectures, i.e. fundamentally they are conjectures even if labelled as facts as imperatively conditioned [no other ways] by the specific Scientific Framework and System.

In term of the basic dignity of the individual humans, it must be grounded based on empirical evidences just like how scientists inferred the theory and principles of gravity, energy, etc. As I had stated I have not gone into details with this.

Such model do have foundation within the model, i.e. because a real God said so!
But from a meta-perspective this foundation is groundless since God is illusory.

I think Immanuel Can is right to criticise your claim that 'God is illusory'. The rational position is that the absence of evidence for an existence claim may not mean the claim is false - but it does mean that to believe the claim is true is irrational.

Note the rational position is the absence of evidence for the claim a square-circle [a rational certainty], is an impossibility to be real.
Point is a square-circle is merely a thought and it is a contradiction. The ultimate God as I had argued must be an idea is similar to that of a claim for a square-circle.
Therefore to claim the ultimate God exists in the absence of evidence is irrationality and a non-starter.

I agree if God is claimed to be empirically based [bearded man in the sky, a human-liked alien and the likes], then we cannot be 100% certain God in this case does not exist. So the question is, bring the evidence to prove the empirical God.
But God ultimately cannot stand by itself as an empirical being due to the question of being inferior to another. This is why the idea of the ontological God emerged.
Note it is very common for theists to admit their belief in God is based on faith, not by proof via empirical evidence nor any justified reason.

The claim for the existence of a 'real' God despite no evidence and being irrational is due to a desperate psychological drive to cling to the idea of a God to relieve the existential pains from an existential crisis.

It is inherent within a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics that there must [imperative] be objective standards for it to work.
In this case we need to establish the most optimal objective moral laws for the system's processes to work on its input and output.

I think this is to make a category error. The rules or standards within a system or model have no truth-value - they're simply normative. To call them 'objective', which here means 'factual', is tautologous, and so vacuous.

You got the wrong idea that 'objective' must be factual.
That the model 1 + 1 = 2 is objective by reason, not by normally proven facts [normal empirical based]. It is the same for other mathematical axioms.
But nonetheless, note whatever is objective [empirical or by reason] is ultimately subjective fundamentally, i.e. inter-subjective.
So, we can derived objective moral laws based on reason [not directly a posteriori] which ultimately must be traced to the empirical [a priori].

There is nothing that is absolutely objective, i.e. exists independently of human [who are subjects] conditions.

[uwot]

I think Immanuel Can is right to criticise your claim that 'God is illusory'. The rational position is that the absence of evidence for an existence claim may not mean the claim is false - but it does mean that to believe the claim is true is irrational.

Ah. We agree. Good.
But we're still unsure of what you meant by "absence of evidence." Do you mean, "Peter Holmes presently has no evidence," or "Nobody can possibly have evidence"?
The irrationality or rationality of the claim will be profoundly affected by your answer, of course.

If the hypothesis is that 'god created everything', then everything is evidence for that claim. In the same way, if your hypothesis is that Santa leaves presents under the tree, presents under the tree is evidence that Santa leaves them there. With Santa, we know what the alternative explanations look like. With 'everything', we don't, so some people choose the Santa option.

[uwot]

There is already an objective moral framework. No harm.

No "harm"? No good. Sorry.

Mr Can believes in theological voluntarism; basically, whatever god does is good. So wiping out nearly the entire population during the flood is good. So is testing people in such a way that almost everyone will fail and burn in hell forever. Harm of the most appalling type is actually 'good', according to Mr Can.

[uwot]

Even scientific theories which are basically objective are ultimately subjective, i.e. inter-subjective.

Just wondering if you read what I wrote yesterday:

I defined objectivity as 'relying on facts rather than judgements, beliefs or opinions' right at the start of my OPs,

In that case, not even science is "objective," since it relies on judgments...and also on guesses, hypotheses, interpretations of data, and the personal integrity of those performing, analyzing and publishing scientific papers. So there would be no such thing as an "objective" fact in the empirical world, if we take your definition.

All of the above are things that have to be considered, but where you are mistaken is in asserting that science is not objective "since it relies on judgements". 'Nullius in verba'-Take no one's word for it' is the motto the Royal Society of London adopted in the 17th century, because for 2000 years, people had been taking Aristotle's word for it. He was wrong and science learnt its lesson and has not relied on judgements ever since. Scientists are not a special breed and can be as vain, roguish and batshit bonkers as the rest of us and will have a range of guesses, hypotheses and interpretations that reflect that; but it is the data that is the source of that speculation which science relies on, and that data is objective. Anybody is free to interpret the data as they wish. Some people will analyse the data in such a way that they will find patterns of behaviour that, when others look, they will see the same pattern. Everyone knows that if you drop something, it falls; if you're Galileo, you measure lots of falls and discover that on Earth falling things accelerate at 9.8mss. If you're Newton, you generalise that for any bodies and discover a law of nature.

However, it depends what you take for "facts," too.

Indeed. It is a fact that falling things accelerate at 9.8mss.

I have argued consistently that ontology precedes ethics -- meaning that until we settle what are the basic "facts" in play, and in particular the existence or non-existence of the Creator and Judge of morality...

The existence or otherwise of a creator is not a fact in the scientific sense: you can't drop god and see how fast it accelerates. There is no objective data that favours any particular guess, hypothesis, interpretation or god over any other...

...we won't have a suitable picture of what an "objective" morality would look like.

...that being so, any morality is a reflection of the attitude of the person espousing it. So for instance, someone who thinks they are right and should be listened to will typically espouse a god who is right and should be listened to.

[Greta]

I think Immanuel Can is right to criticise your claim that 'God is illusory'. The rational position is that the absence of evidence for an existence claim may not mean the claim is false - but it does mean that to believe the claim is true is irrational.

This one particular supernatural conception (the creator God) is treated as if lack of proof is meaningless while other myths are seemingly held to some standards of scientific proof. Why the imbalance?

For instance, what about the "spirits of the elders"? Many societies believed that their dead lived on in some other realm, but without an overarching deity as such. Others believed in the "spirit of the Earth" (long before the Gaia hypothesis) or that various lands and bodies of water have, or are inherently, spirits.

Logically, there is no reason why "the spirits of the elders" or "the spirit/s of the Earth" (or of others species) should be treated as any less realistic than what is effectively posited by monotheists as "the spirit of the universe".

[Veritas Aequitas]

Even scientific theories which are basically objective are ultimately subjective, i.e. inter-subjective.

Just wondering if you read what I wrote yesterday:

All of the above are things that have to be considered, but where you are mistaken is in asserting that science is not objective "since it relies on judgements".
'Nullius in verba'-Take no one's word for it' is the motto the Royal Society of London adopted in the 17th century, because for 2000 years, people had been taking Aristotle's word for it. He was wrong and science learnt its lesson and has not relied on judgements ever since. Scientists are not a special breed and can be as vain, roguish and batshit bonkers as the rest of us and will have a range of guesses, hypotheses and interpretations that reflect that; but it is the data that is the source of that speculation which science relies on, and that data is objective. Anybody is free to interpret the data as they wish. Some people will analyse the data in such a way that they will find patterns of behaviour that, when others look, they will see the same pattern. Everyone knows that if you drop something, it falls; if you're Galileo, you measure lots of falls and discover that on Earth falling things accelerate at 9.8mss. If you're Newton, you generalise that for any bodies and discover a law of nature.

However, it depends what you take for "facts," too.

Indeed. It is a fact that falling things accelerate at 9.8mss.

I have argued consistently that ontology precedes ethics -- meaning that until we settle what are the basic "facts" in play, and in particular the existence or non-existence of the Creator and Judge of morality...

The existence or otherwise of a creator is not a fact in the scientific sense: you can't drop god and see how fast it accelerates. There is no objective data that favours any particular guess, hypothesis, interpretation or god over any other...

...we won't have a suitable picture of what an "objective" morality would look like.

...that being so, any morality is a reflection of the attitude of the person espousing it. So for instance, someone who thinks they are right and should be listened to will typically espouse a god who is right and should be listened to.

I noted.
Where we agree that is fine.
In any case, I had expressed it from my own perspective.

As I had mentioned, the most objective of all human knowledge is at best merely 'polished conjectures' [Popper] thus fundamentally subjective, i.e. inter-subjectively.

There are no platonic free floating independent reality for humans to catch with sensual and intellectual nets.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have proven the idea of God is an impossibility, thus it is moot whether God exists or not.

I see you're a great one for claiming things you haven't done at all.

So your claim is that you, single-handedly, have managed to show the human race that it is an absolute impossibility that the Supreme Being exists? That the very idea itself is impossible? That's your claim?

This, I've got to see. Ravel that one our for us.

Obviously that is based on my conviction and grounded on the proofs I have provided.
Note you have not countered my proof convincingly.

God is an Impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

...it is so obvious the root causes is psychological and the existential crisis ...

What's obvious is that it is possible for anyone, Atheist or Theist, to believe things for bad reasons. It's also manifest that people can believe things for good reasons, or for middling ones. But it's not at all apparent which one is doing which, or even if either group in total is accurately describable in that way. I think it's a gross oversimplification, at most, and a mere canard at worst. It's certainly a fallacy; but I can see you're addicted to it.

Note the central theme of all religions, theistic or non-theistic is centered on and reducible to the psychological, i.e. the subconscious fear of inevitable mortality. The concept of fear is definitely psychological, what else.

Philippians 2:12, "...continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling."

That is realized in the extreme of Abraham's psychological impulse in his willingness to sacrifice his own son for his God. Such a test by God itself is immoral and this is actualized in the immoral acts by parents sacrificing their sons/daughters to be suicide bombers.

I don't foresee the majority of theists will understand their internal psychology related to theism and its illusory God due to the desperation and psychological hold on their emotions.

That's one attempted explanation. But unfortunately, it could be a description of ANY belief a person can hold. For example, you could believe the world is round because you scientifically demonstrated it to yourself, or you could believe it's round because if it was flat you'd be terrified of falling off the edge. Your motive in believing it will not tell us anything about the truth or falsehood of the belief that the earth is round.

Are you saying 'the scientific empirical proof the Earth is round/spherical' is not true within the scientific Framework and System?
I have given justified evidences and arguments why the impulse to believe in an illusory God is due to psychological reasons, re the existential crisis, fear, etc.

"Hasty generalization"? You mean you don't think that 148 million people died at the hands of the Atheists in the last century?
Secular sources will confirm that that number is low, if anything. But even if it were only half, or a third of what it is, it would still be many times greater than all the alleged religious killings in history...even including Islam.

Note my explanation re your bad logic below.

It is critical that one look at the positive ideology of non-theists that killed many, e.g. they could be communists or Nazis who killed.

That is true. However, nothing in Non-Theism implies that Nazis or Communists are not "good." They are one of many fully acceptable alternatives in a Non-Theistic world.

?? not sure of your point.

So the focus should be on Nazism, fascism or communism not on atheism.

Karl Marx would disagree. He said that everything he believed depended on the critique of religion, first of all. Nietzsche would disagree. He said that the death of God was the prerequisite to us getting "beyond good and evil." It's only when Atheism is granted that the ground is cleared for the toxic beliefs of Nazism or Communism to take root. Atheism creates a vacuum, into which secular ideologies rush. But Atheism also implies that there is no justification for moral restraint, so these regimes kill people pretty freely. And that's what history has revealed to us.

The above is bad logic re atheism.
Karl Marx did critique religion but he did not advocate the killings of religious people [e.g. including Buddhists, Hindus, etc]. Communists killed based on a politics not religion.

You cannot imply the following;

• Atheism kill 148 million
  Buddhism is atheism
  Therefore Buddhism killed 148 million.

Buddhism isn't Atheism. One variant of Buddhism is regarded as "philosophical," but another is profoundly religious. For example, go to South East Asia, and you'll see temples, sacrifices, spirits, icons and idols, incense and flowers, ritual prayers, ancestor worship, and a whole lot of things that are definitely not "Atheist."

Buddhism is non-theistic and in the way you presented your views, you implied Buddhism is atheism in one sense.
Buddhism is a main stream religion but it is based on psychology [existential], thus non-theistic.

My point is you cannot generalize 'atheism' then load it with all sorts of negatives.
If you want to condemn any non-theists you have be specific to their essential beliefs, e.g. communism, Nazism [?], fascism, satanism, and other non-theistic ideologies.

Unless you want to claim that religious Buddhists are "not real Buddhists," your argument is a bad one. Moreover, look at Myanmar...it's clear that Buddhism has not prevented atrocities there. But I see you know about that, but just don't want to think about it.

Note my thread on 'Do not blame Muslims' and my refined approach is always to separate the ideology from the believer as a human being with basic human dignity.

It is a fact [Normal Distribution Features] a certain percentile of ALL humans will have an active evil tendency.
Therefore when the majority of a country is labelled Buddhists by birth and become monks by tradition/cultural, it is inevitable a certain % of these pseudo-Buddhist will be evil prone and thus commit evil based on their own human nature and not being compelled by the doctrines of Buddhism proper.

Note the Bible exhorts Christians to spread their religion and in that course the missionaries has committed terrible evils [+ good] along they way [kill local cultures and traditions, etc.] to spread Christianity.

Not true. You need to read Lamin Saneh on what good the missionaries have done for natives in Africa, for example. For those tribes where missionaries arrived early, they survived secular colonialism; where that did not happen, the culture has been wiped out by modernity. The best hope of the natives was that a missionary would arrive, transcribe their language, help them find a sense of tribal identity, write down their literature, provide medicine and education, advocate for them against the intrusions of traders, soldiers and others, and help them transition to contact with the modern world. Everywhere that did not happen, disaster followed for the tribe.

And I've seen it first hand.

Note I stated "+good" but you cannot deny the evil acts committed by SOME Christians that are traceable to the Bible.

Again, this may be your experience, or it may be what you see around you, as you look at Muslims. I do not doubt your word, in their case.

It is obvious in the OT and NT, fear is the dominant emotion within the relation of a Christian and his God.

No, it's not. It's obvious that love is the central theme, and that relationship with God is based on it. I could give you a stack of references to show that. It may well be that you are transferring your experience with Islam again. But you clearly haven't read the text, or payed much attention if you read any of it at all.

I can honestly say that of the thousands of Christians I have ever met, none has ever said to me that their essential reason for being a Christian was fear. Not one, not ever. And for me, fear played no role in why I became a Christian either. So I really can't imagine who you're referring to.

Thousands of Christians only?? i.e. among all 2+ billion around the world?

I agree the central theme within the NT is love [even to one's enemies] but the underlying emotion is fear of the wrath of God.

Note this;

Fifty-seven percent of Americans say they fear the wrath of God the most, followed by their spouse 15 percent, their parents 11 percent and their boss seven percent.

No one wants to feel the wrath of their spouse, parents or boss, but America has always been known as a God-fearing nation and this confirms that it still is.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes ... poll-fear/

It would be the same around the world [maybe more].

And fear is psychological.

[uwot]

I noted.
Where we agree that is fine.
In any case, I had expressed it from my own perspective.

Fair enough. I think it is sometimes helpful to remind ourselves which bit of a scientific 'theory' is actually a theory. In general there is the observation, the analysis and the theory itself. The observation/data is objective. It is often true that data is collected and analysed in the context of a theory, but as far as we know, our theories do not change the actual behaviour of the world. So for instance, when creationists dismiss evolution as 'just a theory', they are ignoring the fact that the data overwhelming supports the 'theory' that living organisms evolve. It isn't evolution that is a theory, it's the 'by natural selection' bit that is theoretical and whether we think some god is responsible or not, makes no difference to the fact that there used to be dinosaurs, and now there aren't.