Mankind, atheist and believer alike, has the ability to be corrupted by power and influence, and therefore, given power atheists could develop a movement similar to the one they detest in current religiosity.

Except that it doesn't happen, despite the supposed 'ability' you confer. It's an obvious red herring.

You can't show me an association of unbelievers who are out to get 'Christians', precisely because unbelievers rarely, if ever, do such things, individually or collectively. There are hundreds of millions of unbelievers, but no such hate groups of unbelievers. Are you aware of any such aberration?

On the other hand, I can list dozens of 'Christian' organizations who are out to get unbelievers, Muslims, Jews, blacks, immigrants, and so on. They have advocated mass murder. They said so. I have cited just a few. And they've been at it for centuries, because it's what they do.

Show otherwise. You can't. That's why you throw out red herrings.

Joseph Stalin

Stalin has already been dismissed as a madman and an aberration.

You cannot honestly ascribe his characteristics to other non-believers, but in true Christian fashion you can do it dishonestly.

On the other hand, we have evidence of thousands of such 'Christian' madmen, far too many to be dismissed as aberrations.

"I can't understand how all this can have happened, it's enough to make one lose one's faith in God!"

Eva Braun during the last days with Hitler

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Essays/Hitler.shtml

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."

Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter 2

http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

Okay theists, you win. I give up. I hereby acknowledge that there is a magical man in the sky that is responsible for everything.

Quite characteristically, the religious would have you lie, and say that you do believe, rather than speak the truth, and say that you do not.

Which clearly shows that religious is contrary to morals.

Is it not so?

you're suggesting that rather than being atheists that they are in fact god-believers? Is this what you are suggesting? Or am I missing your point?

You're missing my point, and rather dishonestly at that.

I asked you for evidence that these people were unbelievers. I don't think you can do it, because I don't believe it's true.

And now we see that you haven't, despite the invitation.

And you won't.

Because you can't.

Thanks for proving my point.

I'm a little shocked.

I'm not surprised at all.

I'll just have to hit the history books and get back to you.

Translation: "You caught me talking out of my ass."

'Nuff said.

I have never intended my statement about the potential of non-believers to use violence and intolerance as means of coercion to be an outright assertion of fact.

Not a problem.

I haven't taken any of your posts to be assertions of fact.

Next.

My conclusions about atheists are based not so much on Stalin as on people like you.

Translation: "I can't argue against your facts or your logic, but I'm a Christian and I can still smear you."

Man, don't those dumb-ass theists know you can't prove a negative?

I didn't ask for 'proof'. I asked for 'evidence'. They're not the same thing.

I've set the bar rather low, but it's still too much of a hurdle.

Religion necessarily relies on an aversion to facts and reason. This puts religionists at an extreme disadvantagel.

Lenin, writing on Socialism and Religion, agreed with Marx that "Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze, in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man."

No assertion of unbelief there. Just the observation that the oppressed resort to religion.

Which is little different from what Jesus said about the poor, or even modern Christian writers.

When I gave food to the poor, they called me a saint. When I asked Why the poor were hungry, they called me a communist.

- Dom Helder Camara, Archbishop of Recife, Brazil.

You seem to have a trick up your sleeve. Please reveal it.

No need to resort to tricks. And no need to appeal to blind faith. No need to appeal to emotion, and no need to lie or to distort.

Facts and logic are on my side, which puts my position at an extreme advantage.

It's not that there is anything about "believers" that makes them more likely than "non-believers" to persecute people.

Certainly there is. And they are far more likely. History is full of religious wars. And none at all between non-believers.

Religion has attacked and repressed science for centuries, precisely because simple fact and reason, much less science, is sufficient to show that many of the claims of religion are patently false.

Religion cannot counter science with facts and reason because religion, by its nature, rejects facts and reason in favor of belief, even despite facts and reason. That's why they call it 'faith'. As we have seen, religion very typically resorts to violence instead.

You seem to be denying that the communist holocaust of this century was at least partly inspired by atheist philosophies.

Communist totalitarians have tended to abuse religion because religion represents a competing power base. Does this mean that communist totalitarians are unbelievers themselves? Not necessarily, but quite beside the point. The history of atrocities committed by the religious is far more extensive than the modern history of a bare handful of leaders, at most, who may or may not have rejected religion themselves, personally.

It does mean they rejected exploiting religion as a means to power, which is the usual model in Western countries. As we have seen, unbelief doesn't lend itself to the big power grab nearly so well as religion does.