MURDER, GENOCIDE, and ATHEISTS.

[charlie sc]

I'm talking about the problems with pre-modern numbers. Things are very different with modern ones for numerous reasons which I'm sure you can work out for yourself.

Anyway, the numbers aren't too wrong. 100 million for China, USSR, Cambodia, etc. wouldn't be too far off. Agree?

Your usually on point so I won't disagree and who am I to generalise numbers as easily as you, but you seemed to have forgotten, "Diderot, Voltaire, Sade, and Rosseau, who worshiped the cult of reason, murdered 300,000 Frenchmen, most for not being good atheists."

The dispute is whether they should be placed on 'atheism' or not, and that's a pretty dull discussion.

My view on this is that godlessness was a significant part of Marxist ideology, but blaming it on atheism is like blaming generic theism for the Crusades.

It's simply one component of a broader worldview that is only consequential as part of the bigger picture. No point in trying to tar everyone with the same brush.

I agree and you sure managed to get this point across to everyone here.

 

[sooda]

Your usually on point so I won't disagree and who am I to generalise numbers as easily as you, but you seemed to have forgotten, "Diderot, Voltaire, Sade, and Rosseau, who worshiped the cult of reason, murdered 300,000 Frenchmen, most for not being good atheists."


I agree and you sure managed to get this point across to everyone here.

When Islam emerged in western Arabia, around 610 AD, the total population of the world was likely between 300 and 400 million.

Fast forward to right past our period.

The United Nations Census Report suggests that the world's total population in the year 1800 was 1 billion; since then, of course, it has shot up to some seven billion.

The myth of the murderous Muslim

 

[sooda]

Your usually on point so I won't disagree and who am I to generalise numbers as easily as you, but you seemed to have forgotten, "Diderot, Voltaire, Sade, and Rosseau, who worshiped the cult of reason, murdered 300,000 Frenchmen, most for not being good atheists."


I agree and you sure managed to get this point across to everyone here.

My God.. they must have killed off every Frenchman.

FRANCE : country population

 

[Road Warrior]

That's true. Did they also have religious texts to quote in their defense?

Genghis Khan is said to have killed 40 million. .. which I find very hard to believe.

But he allowed religious freedom.

Five facts about… Genghis Khan

Mao had The Little Red Book.

Agreed on Khan. That's be about a third of the population of China in the 12th Century.

 

[sooda]

Ahh, my bad, i misread and worded it for shmogie, had i realised i would have worded differently, i do have a pretty good idea of your beliefs from your posts, about as far from shmogies as is possible.

So lets start again. The numbers i quoted in post 18 are taken from historical findings. These findings generally are estimated and cover a range. I did some research and came up with what a consider a reasonable estimate based on several sets of data from different sources. How accurate they actually are is anybody's guess, all i can say is that they are in the ballpark

The gengis khan thing is his army. Not him personally, reading how the population of china plummeted according to census info.

List of countries by population in 1500 - Wikipedia

 

[Audie]

Mao had The Little Red Book.

Agreed on Khan. That's be about a third of the population of China in the 12th Century.

Always picking on my greatity great grandad.
Sob.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

LOL !!!!

You laugh, but here am I, an obviously failed atheist, in your estimation. I've never killed anybody. Stealing, molesting children, knocking over religious headstones and trashing churches, mosques, temples and synagogues are all things I consider to be wrong. I barely even swear, which a lot of people think is just a bit weird of me.

HOW COULD I BE SUCH A MISERABLE FAILURE? Oh, Shmogie, forgive me for not living down to your worst estimate of people who don't believe like you.

How I long to be as good as your Christian brethren like Greyson Fritts, a supposed Christian minister, positively screams for the execution of people like me.


See how easy it is? All you have to do is conflate "what a person claims to believe" (or not) with "what a person did" (or not), and then apply liberally to everybody else who claims the same beliefs (or not), and you've got yourself an ironclad prosecution!

The facts, unfortunately, are usually very, very different, and support almost literally none of the usual arguments. Humans act for human reasons, and while beliefs play a role, human beliefs are extremely liable to corruption by all sorts of corollary factors...like hunger, the lust for power, fear and hatred, misogyny, an excess of literalism, an inability to reason)n, an inability to empathize with others, and on and on and on...

What was the reason that Torquemada burned heretics? By is own claim, and by the claim of the Inquisition itself (still a major entity in the Catholic Church, only now called "Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith" for entirely religious reasons -- holding beliefs that were deemed heterodox. What was the reason that Mary Tudor burned Protestants? It wasn't for territory, or glory, it was specifically for to make her faith, the Catholic faith, the only one that could be legitimately held in her kingdom.

What was the reason for Stalin's purges? Did he ever, even once, make the claim that he was stamping out religion? How about Hitler, did he ever, even once, make a case for an atheist world view as his raison d'etre for the Holocaust, or for starting a world war? Nor, by the way, did he ever claim to be an atheist.

What was the reason for the French revolution? Was it because atheists (you mentioned Diderot and Voltaire and others) wanted to take control of the country and turn everybody into an atheist, or was it because the French were finally so utterly downtrodden and persecuted by their own rulers and the nobility that there was no way to stop it once it got going? Compare the French revolution with the nearly contemporaneous American one, which for some reason or other didn't seem to need a guillotine and lots and lots of blood. What was the difference? The difference was that Americans were already in a very real sense immensely more "free," had for more personal liberty, than the French could even begin to dream of.

This could easily become a Gibbon-length essay, but thankfully for all of us, forum rules don't permit that. But please, I urge you, when you try to make these kinds of arguments, try at least to make sure you are talking about what you really think you're talking about. If you think, for example, that Kim Jong Un, when he has someone executed, is doing it "because he is an atheist," then consider what the very devoutly Christian King Henry V was doing it for when he had someone executed. Perhaps, you see, it might be that the reasons turn out to be very similar, and religious beliefs might very well have had diddly to do with it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

An atheist is an atheist.,

The convenience of lumping people together into categories, doesn't it make it so much easier to malign multitudes than having to do it one at a time? I think there's a word for that, lemme see now...help, anybody?

Are you really a Christian, exemplifying the "love of Christ?" Because I must say quite honestly your hatreds seem to run quite deep.

 

[Audie]

You laugh, but here am I, an obviously failed atheist, in your estimation. I've never killed anybody. Stealing, molesting children, knocking over religious headstones and trashing churches, mosques, temples and synagogues are all things I consider to be wrong. I barely even swear, which a lot of people think is just a bit weird of me.

HOW COULD I BE SUCH A MISERABLE FAILURE? Oh, Shmogie, forgive me for not living down to your worst estimate of people who don't believe like you.

How I long to be as good as your Christian brethren like Greyson Fritts, a supposed Christian minister, positively screams for the execution of people like me.


See how easy it is? All you have to do is conflate "what a person claims to believe" (or not) with "what a person did" (or not), and then apply liberally to everybody else who claims the same beliefs (or not), and you've got yourself an ironclad prosecution!

The facts, unfortunately, are usually very, very different, and support almost literally none of the usual arguments. Humans act for human reasons, and while beliefs play a role, human beliefs are extremely liable to corruption by all sorts of corollary factors...like hunger, the lust for power, fear and hatred, misogyny, an excess of literalism, an inability to reason)n, an inability to empathize with others, and on and on and on...

What was the reason that Torquemada burned heretics? By is own claim, and by the claim of the Inquisition itself (still a major entity in the Catholic Church, only now called "Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith" for entirely religious reasons -- holding beliefs that were deemed heterodox. What was the reason that Mary Tudor burned Protestants? It wasn't for territory, or glory, it was specifically for to make her faith, the Catholic faith, the only one that could be legitimately held in her kingdom.

What was the reason for Stalin's purges? Did he ever, even once, make the claim that he was stamping out religion? How about Hitler, did he ever, even once, make a case for an atheist world view as his raison d'etre for the Holocaust, or for starting a world war? Nor, by the way, did he ever claim to be an atheist.

What was the reason for the French revolution? Was it because atheists (you mentioned Diderot and Voltaire and others) wanted to take control of the country and turn everybody into an atheist, or was it because the French were finally so utterly downtrodden and persecuted by their own rulers and the nobility that there was no way to stop it once it got going? Compare the French revolution with the nearly contemporaneous American one, which for some reason or other didn't seem to need a guillotine and lots and lots of blood. What was the difference? The difference was that Americans were already in a very real sense immensely more "free," had for more personal liberty, than the French could even begin to dream of.

This could easily become a Gibbon-length essay, but thankfully for all of us, forum rules don't permit that. But please, I urge you, when you try to make these kinds of arguments, try at least to make sure you are talking about what you really think you're talking about. If you think, for example, that Kim Jong Un, when he has someone executed, is doing it "because he is an atheist," then consider what the very devoutly Christian King Henry V was doing it for when he had someone executed. Perhaps, you see, it might be that the reasons turn out to be very similar, and religious beliefs might very well have had diddly to do with it.

Maybe he would kill you if god directed him to.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Maybe he would kill you if god directed him to.

I've got nobody to direct me in that way, so I guess he can consider himself safe...at least from me.

 

[Augustus]

but you seemed to have forgotten, "Diderot, Voltaire, Sade, and Rosseau, who worshiped the cult of reason, murdered 300,000 Frenchmen, most for not being good atheists."

I previously mentioned this was likely a reference to the War in the Vendee. Upper end estimates tend towards 800,000 for this alone (albeit implausible).

300k for this and all the sundries of the rest of the revolution are happily within the "not ludicrous" boundaries.

Again you can question the purported motive, and numbers are always open to debate, but what with these numbers do you find outrageous?

 

[charlie sc]

I previously mentioned this was likely a reference to the War in the Vendee. Upper end estimates tend towards 800,000 for this alone (albeit implausible).

So, tell this to the OP, not me.

300k for this and all the sundries of the rest of the revolution are happily within the "not ludicrous" boundaries.

Yes and where are the specific numbers for not being good atheists. Does that imply they are atheists already, just not good enough, or what exactly. Again, question the OP, not me. Now you're not specific, great.

Again you can question the purported motive, and numbers are always open to debate, but what with these numbers do you find outrageous?

It's not necessarily the numbers but the specificity of the numbers and how and where and why.

You don't seem to want to critique the OP, at all, and display a rather obtuse attitude, but are finicky over the minutia of facts from conflicting views. Again, since you seem to be on track of things, tell me in what part of France, during the French revolution, were 300 000 French men killed for not being good atheists. If you cannot tell me, then it's obviously wrong, because you're fairly good at spotting inaccuracies. You are oddly quiet when you don't know something, and oddly quiet to the OP. Objectivity is somewhat lacking for you.
So, can you stop being such an ***? and stop being so intellectually dishonest with me. Thanks

 

[Augustus]

The civil war in China a hundred years earlier killed what,
50 million? No marxism needed

Not something I've ever really looked at, but 50m seems very high. The War with Japan wasn't long after that and was probably even worse.

Then Mao.

That's a horrible run of luck for any nation.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

"Diderot, Voltaire, Sade, and Rosseau, who worshiped the cult of reason, murdered 300,000 Frenchmen, most for not being good atheists."

Actually, could you please provide any evidence whatever that any of those you list, Diderot, Voltaire, Sade and Rousseau, every murdered anybody, a single person, let alone 300,000? For whatever reason?

(I ask this only to encourage you to actually refer, once in a while, to an actual history book, or at least a fact or two.)

 

[Augustus]

You don't seem to want to critique the OP, at all,

Because, as previously noted, I find it an awfully dull subject. It appears here constantly in one form or another.

Do you always reply to OPs that don't interest you? On the other hand, might you reply to a later post that does interest you?

Bingo!

and display a rather obtuse attitude, but are finicky over the minutia of facts from conflicting views. Again, since you seem to be on track of things, tell me in what part of France, during the French revolution, were 300 000 French men killed for not being good atheists. If you cannot tell me, then it's obviously wrong, because you're fairly good at spotting inaccuracies. You are oddly quiet when you don't know something, and oddly quiet to the OP. Objectivity is somewhat lacking for you.
So, can you stop being such an ***? and stop being so intellectually dishonest with me. Thanks

Do you not understand the concept of an internet forum? You seem to be operating under the impression that I spend time here for your benefit rather than for my own enjoyment.

What you find interesting is not the same as what I find interesting, hence we focus on different things. It's pretty simple...

Anyway, I've already told you. I don't agree with that statement and assume it relates to the War in the Vendee (which was linked to the public's hostility towards dechristianisation and their pro-monarchy sentiment).

 

[Audie]

Not something I've ever really looked at, but 50m seems very high. The War with Japan wasn't long after that and was probably even worse.

Then Mao.

That's a horrible run of luck for any nation.

Look it up, Taiping rebellion. I was putting it low.

 

[Augustus]

Look it up, Taiping rebellion. I was putting it low.

Ah, my mistake. Thought you were talking about the KMT civil war a century ago (from now).

You folks do like a scrap

 

[charlie sc]

Because, as previously noted, I find it an awfully dull subject. It appears here constantly in one form or another.

Do you always reply to OPs that don't interest you? On the other hand, might you reply to a later post that does interest you?

Bingo!

What I don't do is presume what other people are talking about and then defend their position with a presumption. Again, if you cared about the question I asked to the OP, you'd ask the OP yourself. What you're really interested in is annoying opposing views in this thread and obfuscating if it's beyond your reach. Fine, we all have our interests, but don't lie to me or try weasel your way out of this.

Do you not understand the concept of an internet forum? You seem to be operating under the impression that I spend time here for your benefit rather than for my own enjoyment.

As I said above, do what you want, but this topic is borderline hate speech or actual hate speech if you consider the responses from the OP in this thread. Hate speech I take more seriously and the foundations of hate speech rest on false assumptions, false facts and fallacious reasoning. In this post you are inadvertently supporting hate speech by purposely confuscating in this thread. What's sad about this is that you're supporting hate speech against you.

What you find interesting is not the same as what I find interesting, hence we focus on different things. It's pretty simple...

Yes, we do.

 

[shunyadragon]

However you label it, atheists committed massive genocide.

You have failed to demonstrate that atheist commited massive genocide in the name of atheism.

You whine about Christianity and Christians because alleged Christians because of nationalism and greed for power murdered. You use this to indict Christianity.

Christians, and other believers of most religions including atheists have committed genocide and other atrocities, because of nationalism, greed and power.

 

[Augustus]

ine, we all have our interests, but don't lie to me or try weasel your way out of this.

I've genuinely no idea what you are on about any more

What do you think I am "weaselling out of"? Ask me whatever question you like and I'll give you a lovely answer tomorrow

As I said above, do what you want, but this topic is borderline hate speech or actual hate speech if you consider the responses from the OP in this thread. Hate speech I take more seriously and the foundations of hate speech rest on false assumptions, false facts and fallacious reasoning. In this post you are inadvertently supporting hate speech by purposely confuscating in this thread. What's sad about this is that you're supporting hate speech against you.

Don't be so precious. If you don't like what someone is saying on the internet, just ignore him and do something that causes you less anguish.

And if you don't like false facts and fallacious reasoning that smears a group, then you should be happy when I point these out regardless of the group they are applied to, lest you be seen as a hypocrite