this post was submitted on
455 points (69% like it)
818 up votes 363 down votes

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

all 143 comments

[–]I_read_a_lot 31 points32 points ago

"does not always correlate with" makes no sense. Either there's a correlation or there isn't.

[–]linearcore 16 points17 points ago

That is the smallest of all the problems with this retarded thing.

[–]Ragnalypse 1 point2 points ago

More and more problems come up with this infographic every time it's posted... this subreddit feels more like a church to atheism than anything else.

[–]I_read_a_lot 2 points3 points ago

I feel the need to debate the concept of "church". People aggregate around a common topic. it's human nature. It can be politics, gardening, or religion. We define church as an aggregation related to religion. Also, in general, a church follows an "I talk, you listen" concept.

So, saying that this subreddit is a church is not really a good description. This reddit is a human aggregate of people having a common passion or idea. Hardly this idea is religious in nature, nor debate is stifled. It is actually encouraged, provided it's logically sound.

[–]ENTP -2 points-1 points ago

The correlation coefficient would be low. Meaning they're not very correlated.

[–]liberaljesus 0 points1 point ago

That only works with quantitative data which this isn't.

[–]ENTP 0 points1 point ago

You could go by number of people killed, and plot that against a binary yes/no for religious affiliation.

Then, you could do a least squares analysis, yielding a correlation coefficient. Not that hard.

[–]liberaljesus 0 points1 point ago

Ethics isn't just about number of people killed.

[–]ENTP 1 point2 points ago

I would go so far as to say that killing someone is THE MOST unethical thing one can do, and a good indicator of lack of ethics would be # of people killed.

[–]liberaljesus 0 points1 point ago

You're right. I guess a linear regression could be applied to this situation.

[–][deleted] 45 points46 points ago

i wouldn't call malcolm x a good muslim. sure, he was toward the end of his life, but for most of his activist career, he was part of the nation of islam, a black supremacist group that sought to establish black people as the dominant race.

[–]hansn 5 points6 points ago

And not many Muslims count the Nation of Islam as really all that Muslim.

Why not Cat Stevens/Yusef Islam?

[–]Phunk131 7 points8 points ago

Why not Dave Chappelle?

[–]hansn 5 points6 points ago

[–]MagisterStardust 2 points3 points ago

Also Mos Def?

[–]Rainieri 0 points1 point ago

Mr. Stevens supported the fatwa against Salman Rushdie.

[–]Kogknight 3 points4 points ago*

Didn't his departure from the Nation of Islam lead to his assassination?

Edit I'f I'm wrong, don't just downvote me; Educate me, Damnit!

[–]i_have_a_name 1 point2 points ago

Yes, it did.

[–]SimilarImage 24 points25 points ago

Age User Title Reddit Cmnt Points
2 days cassus_fett Hey r/Atheism...(from a christian who has been browsing r/Atheism) here 16 3
2 months rush905 To end the religion/morality debate here 24 29
3 months Thear22 Evil or not evil? here 218 613

This is an automated response

FAQ | Send Feedback | Report Error

[–]theShiftlessest 4 points5 points ago

Thank you, Hal.

[–]twentyone_21 4 points5 points ago

holy crap, this has been reposted over 20 times?

[–]nizochan 6 points7 points ago

Everything on the internet is a repost of a repost.

[–]ableskittle 21 points22 points ago

Since when is Malcolm X a good muslim? We're talking about the black supremacist who incited racial violence.

[–]the_bearded_wonder 8 points9 points ago

Thank you for saying this! I think Muhammad Ali would have been a better choice.

[–]StackShitThatHigh 3 points4 points ago

He kinda cleared up towards the end, and spoke against racial violence. Then he was shot.

[–]AFF17 0 points1 point ago

He was rather nasty when he was in the Nation of Islam which is a very heterodox, and racist, organisation. He broke with them however and became a Sunni Muslim, adopting a largely, if not entirely, tolerant set of beliefs that were informed by the universal character of Islam.

[–]praisecarcinoma 2 points3 points ago

Sorry, I'm not going to upvote an image that depicts a guy who promoted violence against (well, anyone really) whites as an absolute necessary measure for his race in the name of Islam as a "Good" anything, especially not a Good Muslim.

[–]Turkmenbashi519 1 point2 points ago*

OP has no fucking clue who Malcolm X is. He was a complex figure, lets put it at that. On a side note, can anyone think of a famous "good muslim"? Someone who is famous for devoting his/her life to something good and who also happens to be a muslim. I can't think of a single one. Edit: not saying muslims are necessarily worse than other religious groups, just think its weird that muslims are almost never portrayed in a positive light in the media like christians almost always are.

[–]SoFFacet 0 points1 point ago

After about 5 seconds of thought I came up with Cassius Clay (Muhammad Ali).

After about 10 more seconds of research, I found this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_Muslims

[–]Turkmenbashi519 0 points1 point ago

He was a boxer, and kind of an asshole. How is he a good person?

[–]HeroicDanger 0 points1 point ago

AHMED Zewali

[–]VicariousWolf 9 points10 points ago

This has been posted and reposted and re evaluated hundreds of times. -_-

Atheists do not kill because they are atheist, but some religious people kill due to them being religious.

[–]Jesus_marley 3 points4 points ago

I would argue that they do not kill because they are religious but rather they justify killing by using their religion. People generally kill because they are fucked up.

[–]kontankarite 4 points5 points ago

I had to give you an upvote because I find this picture to be a thought terminating cliche' and I appreciate that you could see where the problem with the picture lies.

[–]farangiyeparsi 3 points4 points ago

Except that Stalin (the example of an evil atheist) did order the killing of religious people - for the purpose of eliminating religion.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

For the purpose of promoting communism. Not for the purpose of promoting atheism.

[–]farangiyeparsi 1 point2 points ago

Atheism is an integral part of Marxism. You can have religious communism, but the Stalinist-Marxist strain of communism specifically states that religion is antithetical to the utopian socialist society.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points ago

Exactly my point. They killed millions in the name of Communism.

[–]farangiyeparsi 2 points3 points ago

Yes, but atheism was an integral part of their strain of communism. It's like saying that "Kony didn't kill for Christianity, he killed for the LRA's theology." Yes, but the LRA's theology is Christian in nature.

Better example would be the French Revolution. They killed hundreds for their religion, in the name of secular humanism.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points ago*

It's like saying that "Kony didn't kill for Christianity, he killed for the LRA's theology." Yes, but the LRA's theology is Christian in nature.

No, it isn't really. The LRA's "theology" is a mish-mash of religious ideals from various local pagan religions, Christianity and Islam (strange that no-one seems to mention that bit). It's just a way for the leaders to control these kids.

That's exactly the same as the Communists. They used atheism as a tool to quench any possible organised resistance from the churches.

Better example would be the French Revolution. They killed hundreds for their religion, in the name of secular humanism

The French Revolution was a revolt by the oppressed masses (the Third Estate) against their masters (the First Estate or clergy and the Second Estate or nobility) provoked by a period of hyperinflation and heavy taxation, alongside a culture of conspicuous consumption by the aristocracy (including the higher ranks of the church). The revolt itself came first, it's only ideology being to cast off the oppression, inspired by the ideals and success of the American Revolution. It was only afterwards, when the dust settled that people wondered "OK, so the nobility and the clergy were to blame for all this, how do we keep them from getting back into power." Thus, the ideal of a secular Republic, again a direct copy of the American model.

As for the "Reign of Terror", that was precipitated by political faction fighting between the Jacobins and the Girondins for control.

Do try to understand history a little better next time, before you make an even bigger ass of yourself.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]VicariousWolf 0 points1 point ago*

They wouldn't be doing it because of atheism then, but because they were whacko. And before you say that Christians can fit into the same category, I DO see religion as a neurological/pathological disorder.

[–]bayernownz1995 6 points7 points ago

Not necessarily, many people are driven by religion to do good and bad things, whereas atheism is more of a non-factor. I feel like religion can influence positively or negatively, but ahteism just doesnt influence.

[–]HermesTheMessenger 1 point2 points ago

The issue is what motivates them. Why do they say they did what they did. The image does not take that into account.

[–]Asylumgirl15 1 point2 points ago

why are stalin and king the only ones with eyebrows?

[–]Kogknight 0 points1 point ago

Because Stalin is remembered for his facial hair.

[–]GMLW 3 points4 points ago

Hitler just got burned.

[–]Kogknight 1 point2 points ago

I see what you did there.

[–]Asylumgirl15 0 points1 point ago

But what about King? He has eyebrows too! but they are the only ones.

[–]znk 1 point2 points ago

Yet I've always felt this quote rang true.

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. -Steven Weinberg

[–]caks 1 point2 points ago

Bill Gates is not the most ethical atheist out there. Poor choice of figure. Same goes to Malcolm X, but that's already stated in the thread.

[–]Atom_Smasher 1 point2 points ago

I wouldn't say Malcolm X was a particularly good person.

[–]RadChinaMan 0 points1 point ago

[–]strike089 0 points1 point ago

Stalin had his own religion where he was equal to an god

[–]farangiyeparsi 1 point2 points ago

Nope. Not even comparable.

He did try to wipe out religion solely from a ideological objection to religion - so yes, he did kill in the name of atheism.

[–]Mutemath 0 points1 point ago

Regardless of your argument, religion causes some shit people wouldn't do if they were without religion. The same cannot be said the other way around, whereas people without religion would do things people with religion would not do.

Example: Genital Mutilation

[–]Mutemath 0 points1 point ago

MLK would still fight for the rights if he was an atheist.

[–]ifrit1100 0 points1 point ago

That is true. But also some religions have things like obligatory charity (e.g. x% if you earn over y amount)- so their religion ensures that. On the other hand, whilst of course many atheists do give charity out of the good of their hearts, others don't as they don't "have to"

[–]iBro53 0 points1 point ago

Stalin looks Asian in that picture.

[–]iBro53 -1 points0 points ago

As it has been said before in this thread, barely any people kill in the name of Atheism, but millions and killed in the name of religion.

A quote from Steven Weinberg makes it clear to us what is going on here.

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

[–]Thor1212 0 points1 point ago

Basically what I learned from this is that bad people have weirder facial hair than good people.

[–]squigs 1 point2 points ago

Every fan of Original Star Trek already knew this.

[–]killinghurts 0 points1 point ago

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg

[–]palz2015 0 points1 point ago

Religion does not correlate with ethics.

FTFY

[–]ceejae47 0 points1 point ago

I thought Hitler was Christian the way a lot of politicians are Christian, yknow not really.

[–]farangiyeparsi 0 points1 point ago

Hitler wasn't a Christian. He was a Germanic neopagan.

A better example of an evil Christian would be Joseph Kony, and a better example of a good Muslim would be Cat Stevens or Muhammad Ali.

v khda mydny bhtryn

[–]Jackamatack 0 points1 point ago

Bill Gates wooot!

[–]TheNoize 0 points1 point ago

there is never a correlation with ethics. At most, it's ethically confusing

[–]JMQuill 0 points1 point ago

It's the facial hair!

[–]ProverbsC1V7 -1 points0 points ago

Hitler wasn't a Christian. A Christian is someone who lives by the word of GOD, Hitler clearly didn't. Anyone who lives by GOD's teachings cannot be evil.

[–]Meowcatsmeow -1 points0 points ago

Well... Stalin didn't kill a bunch of people in the name of atheism...

[–]caks 5 points6 points ago

He kind of did. He burned churches and temples specifically because they were religious in nature.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]caks 5 points6 points ago

Atheism isn't about science, it's about a disbelief in gods.

[–]Mutemath -1 points0 points ago

Why is this getting down voted. This is completely true.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points ago

And he tried to institute a state religion.

[–]Kogknight 0 points1 point ago

In all truth, Stalin wasn't that terrible of a person until he got into power. As a kid, he was actually not that bad.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points ago

And attractive as fuck.

[–]Kogknight 0 points1 point ago

Right? Glad I'm not the only one to think so. Dat 'stache!

Of course, he was brutally scarred and pockmarked, but had it edited out of all his photos.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

Imperfections are attractive to me, yaaaay?

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]Kogknight 1 point2 points ago

I blame the government he was trying to overthrow. They made him insane with espionage and betrayal all the way through the ranks of his group. That is what made him paranoid, and lead to the death of so many. Its something people always forget; the government he overthrow was worse than the government he created.

Of course, is still wish Trotsky won and didn't get run out.

[–]Chewy79 0 points1 point ago

Most religions set guidlines for their followers covering how they are supposed to act, and what they are to do their entire lives. That's why Joseph kony thinks he is doing gods work.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

Joseph Kony thinks he's doing Joseph Konys work. His "religion" is a mish-mash of whatever he thought was useful to him in controlling his "followers", including bits of christian religions. He's just another of those tinpot dictators that turn up wherever law breaks down.

[–]BruceWain 0 points1 point ago

Last time I checked; Bill Gates was a Methodist.

[–]Moaku 0 points1 point ago

Yes, but didn't Bin Laden and Hitler both do all their stuff in the name of a god? Stalin didn't do it in the name of atheism did he? I think he did it because he was just a jerk. (I'm not entirely sure though, correct me if I'm wrong.)

[–]caks 0 points1 point ago

Let's put that in perspective.

Hitler killed Jews obviously because he was a fucking asshole. However, the reasons he gave were religious. He considered himself a good Christian by wiping out Jews.

Stalin killed religious people obviously because he was a fucking asshole also. However, like Hitler, he claimed religions were poisonous and thus should be wiped out. That's pretty much killing in the name of atheism.

Weinberg's quote is cool and all but it's not completely accurate. Instead of jumping in the "atheists don't kill in the name of atheism" bandwagon, please be aware that people kill in the name of anything. Humans use whatever sick reasonings they can to try and justify the atrocities they want to commit in the first place.

[–]Moaku 0 points1 point ago

Very god point. Yeah sorry, I probably shouldn't have jumped in without doing my research.

[–]caks 0 points1 point ago

You did ask us to correct you! That's how knowledge is obtained. If you don't take my word on it (this appears to be a sore spot for some), do read more about Stalinism.

But that's just one example, I'm sure there are others. It's just hard to believe atheism is somehow special to the point that it won't be exploited by assholes.

[–]Moaku 0 points1 point ago

Yes I did, thank you! It's fine, I'll take your word for it.

Yeah, you're right, pretty much everything can be exploited by assholes :p

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago*

Stalin killed religious people obviously because he was a fucking asshole also. However, like Hitler, he claimed religions were poisonous and thus should be wiped out.

Wrong, he did it specifically because according to the doctrines of the Holy Books of Communism as written by the prophet Marx and brought to Russia by the Apostle Lenin, "religion is the opiate of the people". Want me to quote chapter and verse?

True, Lenin interpreted his Prophets words a little too literally, but then that's hardly new either, is it? This is what usually happens when you create a dogmatic, inflexible faith and teach people that by obeying it unquestioningly no matter what horrors it asks of you, you and your children will achieve a state of Heaven. In this case a heaven on Earth, a communist Utopia where all men are equal, a true Workers Paradise.

That's pretty much killing in the name of atheism.

Oh sure, blame atheism, not the crazy quasi-religious beliefs. Keep on perpetuating the ignorant lie invented by the churches, especially the Catholic church, during the Red scare in the 50's. This is when atheism began to be a dirty word in America. Get it straight: A Communist may be an atheist. This does not imply that an atheist is a Communist.

[–]caks 0 points1 point ago

No matter how hard you try to force the comparison between Communism and religions in general, Communism is hardly considered a religion. Yes, it is a political ideology, and those are usually related to religion, but to claim Communism was a religion with "prophets" and "holy books" is very misleading.

Now, on to the real content of your comment.

Oh sure, blame atheism

If you'd read my comment, you'd see that I wrote:

Humans use whatever sick reasonings they can to try and justify the atrocities they want to commit in the first place.

I am very clearly blaming the persons who commit the acts and not the idea.

You also say

Get it straight: A Communist may be an atheist. This does not imply that an atheist is a Communist.

I, at no point, claim such thing. Why you'd say that is beyond me. Let me also point out that not all Communists are totalitarian mass murderers.

This whole "killing in the name of" is quite simple, really. Hitler, for reasons beyond me, wanted to wipe out "non-aryans." He built his Nazi ideology around that. Christianity was a big part of it, as he considered the "correct" religion. So Hitler killed because he wanted to, and said he was doing it in the name of Nazism, Christianity, among others. Stalin was similar, in the sense that he wanted to establish his version of "communism" and would do it by any means. He wiped out intellectuals, purged the armed forces of those not aligned with him, and also persecuted religious people. He did all that to consolidate his power. However, he claimed he was doing it in the name of Communism, and also, indirectly, in the name of atheism.

I don't understand how hard it is to accept that people will misuse ideas for their own gain, be it Christianity, atheism, communism, or pretty much anything. The difference is, some of these ideas are ripe for manipulation, but that's another discussion entirely.

And now the obligatory whining: the downvote button doesn't mean "I disagree with you, shut up" it is there to discourage comments that don't contribute seriously to discussion.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

I am very clearly blaming the persons who commit the acts and not the idea.

Really?:

he claimed religions were poisonous and thus should be wiped out. That's pretty much killing in the name of atheism.

Your previous post.

However, he claimed he was doing it in the name of Communism, and also, indirectly, in the name of atheism.

Citation needed.

I don't understand how hard it is to accept that people will misuse ideas for their own gain, be it Christianity, atheism, communism, or pretty much anything.

I have absolutely no problem accepting it. What I don't accept, and what you seem to be deliberately avoiding, is that atheism was the idea that was misused here. It wasn't. Communism was. I thought that was bloody obvious by now.

the downvote button doesn't mean "I disagree with you, shut up"

No, sometimes it means "You've got your facts wrong, Stalin didn't kill in the name of atheism, he killed in the name of Communism." There's a big difference between the two concepts.

What I'm downvoting here is your statement " That's pretty much killing in the name of atheism." Like I said before, that was a lie invented by the churches to smear all atheists with the taint of communism. It's called "guilt by association", and has been a very effective tool of the religious right for years. You've certainly fallen for it.

[–]caks 0 points1 point ago

Here is one source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union

Communism, as an ideology developed by Marx never endorsed the murder of religious people. So no, it wasn't in the name of Communism, it was in the name of his Communism, which was devoutly atheist. I doubt he ever said: "I'm killing in the name of atheism." and that's why I said indirectly. However, atheism was so entrenched in his political ideology it's hard to separate the two. It's like saying Hitler never killed in the name of Christianity because he never uttered those words. That misses the point entirely, Hitler's Christianity was a big part of his Nazi ideology.

Again, I'm not saying atheism by itself supports that kind of mentality, the same way Marxist communism doesn't and Christianity doesn't condone the murder of Jews (sure, they will "burn in Hell" but that's another story).

Like I said before, that was a lie invented by the churches to smear all atheists with the taint of communism.

I'm sure that propaganda was used extensively in order to discredit atheism, but again, that's like using Nazism to discredit Christianity — you'd have to be an idiot to fall for it.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago*

Communism, as an ideology developed by Marx never endorsed the murder of religious people.

  • The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo. - Karl Marx.

  • It is clear that the arm of criticism cannot replace the criticism of arms. Material force can only be overthrown by material force, but theory itself becomes a material force when it has seized the masses. - Karl Marx.

  • What proves beyond doubt the radicalism of German theory, and thus its practical energy, is that it begins from the resolute positive abolition of religion. The criticism of religion ends with the doctrine that man is the supreme being for man. It ends, therefore, with the categorical imperative to overthrow all those conditions in which man is an abased, enslaved, abandoned, contemptible being - Karl Marx.

  • Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence. - Karl Marx.

  • Communism differs from all previous movements in that it overturns the basis of all earlier relations of production and intercourse, and for the first time consciously treats all natural premises as the creatures of hitherto existing men, strips them of their natural character and subjugates them to the power of the united individuals. - Karl Marx.

  • The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE! - Karl Marx.

  • We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror. - Karl Marx.

The abolition of religion is a central tenet of Communism, as expressed here several times by Marx himself. If he didn't outright say that the solution was to kill believers, then his language was at the very least intemperate enough for Lenin, among others, to draw that conclusion. Especially the last one. No compassion, no excuses for the terror? You can't put it much more plainly than that, can you?

.

I'm sure that propaganda was used extensively in order to discredit atheism, but again, that's like using Nazism to discredit Christianity — you'd have to be an idiot to fall for it.

And as we've seen again and again here on /r/atheism, the world is full of idiots who have done exactly that. The type of people who say that Stalin killed in the name of atheism.

[–]caks 0 points1 point ago

The abolition of religion is a central tenet of Communism, as expressed here several times by Marx himself. If he didn't outright say that the solution was to kill believers

Exactly my point. He called for a "forcible overthrow", which does not imply murdering. There are various examples in history of bloodless coups that are, by definition forcible overthrows.

And as we've seen again and again here on /r/atheism, the world is full of idiots who have done exactly that. The type of people who say that Stalin killed in the name of atheism.

The fact that Hitler killed in the name of Christianity is a fact. Same for Stalin with atheism. My point is, what those deranged individuals did cannot and should not be used to discredit the underlying ideas. I thought I'd made that clear.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago*

Exactly my point. He called for a "forcible overthrow", which does not imply murdering.

Well what do you know? Somebody (Lenin) misinterpreted the Holy Book. Took it a little too literally. Does that sound familiar to you at all?

The fact that Hitler killed in the name of Christianity is a fact.

Eh, no it's not. Hitler killed in the name of Germany and the superiority of the Aryan race.

Same for Stalin with atheism.

Wrong again. Stalin killed in the name of Communism. Are you blind? Communist principles. Communist ideals. Communist beliefs. All those things call for the forcible abolition of religion. Atheism does not. Militant anti-theism, maybe, but not atheism. Do you understand that distinction?

My point is, what those deranged individuals did cannot and should not be used to discredit the underlying ideas.

Both Fascism and Communism are ideas which have largely been discredited in the Western world precisely because of the actions of these two individuals and their followers. With good reason. Both can only work by imposing a system of blind unquestioning obedience to the state and the ruthless subjugation of all opposition. Which was exactly the problem with religion in Europe for centuries, and is still a problem in some Communist and Islamic countries today.

ANY form of belief, religious, political, racial or intellectual, which promotes belief in superiority over others and demands unquestioning obedience, is dangerous.

And as you've probably noticed by now, many atheists have a tendency to question everything. That's why so many people in authority don't like them. We're the best defence you've got against totalitarianism. Of any kind.

[–]caks -1 points0 points ago

Ok. I feel all opinions and reasoning have been exposed. I have nothing more to add to this. Have a good day.

[–]Spudface -1 points0 points ago

Cue the "Hitler was an atheist" comments.

[–]farangiyeparsi 1 point2 points ago

Hitler was not an atheist or a Christian.

He was a Germanic neopagan.

[–]twentyone_21 0 points1 point ago

6 hours later and I still see none.

[–]HellboundAlleee -2 points-1 points ago

Religion does not correlate with ethics?

I'd like to bloody well find out what does, then.

[–]TobiasOuzo -1 points0 points ago

I think it'd make more sense if you were talking about morals rather than ethics, but yes I agree people need to stop assuming non-religious people have no ethics and morals. It's a prejudiced and judgmental attitude - quite non-Christian you might say.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points ago

CHRITLER WASNT HRISTIAN

[–]bewjujular 0 points1 point ago

I beg your pardon?

[–]yep45 -2 points-1 points ago

Good message, except Malcolm X was a radical and borderline racist, and Hitler in all likelihood wasn't a Christian, even if he was born one.

[–]michaelanjoelo -4 points-3 points ago

wasn't MLK an Anti-semite?

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points ago

Except for the fact that Stalin tried to institute a state religion. Stupid poster is stupid.

[–]squigs 0 points1 point ago

Interesting. Never heard about this.

Do you have a source? Would be interested in hearing more.