MURDER, GENOCIDE, and ATHEISTS.

[Revoltingest]

But, let's assume for the moment, that this is a godless universe. Any moralizing in a godless universe is just arbitrary or contrived, to manipulate people. One man's morals are as good (or bad) as the next, in an amoral, random, naturalistic universe.

I notice that religion is just as "arbitrary or contrived, to manipulate people"
Consider.....
Christianity has evolved over the millennia. They no longer justify slavery,
hold the auto da fe, or go on crusades to convert the infidel.
Moreover, the sundry religions from which people choose have different moralities.
One's inherent personal orientation will lead them to what appeals.
And even if one doesn't choose, but instead keeps the religion which one's parents
gave one, this points to random chance of birth circumstances determining one's beliefs.

An interesting podcast about the rise & evolution of religions...
Creating God

The fact that many atheists indignantly insist on their own virtuosity....

I have never claimed to be a virtuoso.
Perhaps you meant something else?

 

[charlie sc]

There is no atheist moral code. Then how do atheists define morality ?

With great care and consideration.

 

[ChristineM]

Because the atheists are on the warpath, they got stung and want revenge, and I am having a blast responding to their nonsense, too much fun, to type out a list for you.

If you cant figure it out with a map of Europe and China and South America, too bad, you will have to wait in line.

Bull. The only reason you see atheist as aggressive is becaus of the hatred heaped against them by threads like this.

When was the last time your children were threatened with an eternity of torture in hell by an atheist?
When was the last time an atheist tried to kill your children?
When was the last time an atheist terrorist blew of your aunts arm with a bomb?
When was the last time an atheist abused you on this thread?

What you seem to mean is you are button pusher with little substance, you may think abuse is fun, others have other ideas and believe me you are not doing yourself any favours.

And of course, still no names, its almost like you are embarrassed about not having an answer that would stand scrutiny.

Edit : looking back through this thread i see 5 searching posts of mine on this thread that you have conveniently ignored. Having a blast responding??? I think not

 

[Revoltingest]

Because the atheists are on the warpath, they got stung and want revenge, and I am having a blast responding to their nonsense, too much fun, to type out a list for you.

If you cant figure it out with a map of Europe and China and South America, too bad, you will have to wait in line.

Parenthetical aside.....
I'm not at all offended by your characterizations of atheists.
All people believe things I disagree with. It doesn't bother me.
I just see that your perspective could be moderated.
Life would then be less stressful.

 

[charlie sc]

I'm pretty sure this thread classifies as hate speech.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm pretty sure this thread classifies as hate speech.

Don't tell the mods this.
They like to shut down threads & rap knuckles.

 

[Audie]

I'm pretty sure this thread classifies as hate speech.

Did I miss where any Christian found fault with it?

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Why is this so difficult, and why the slurs ?

After what you did, you dare to ask this question?

 

[Augustus]

Did you actually read my post. It seems not, or you are working on confirmation bias.

It is not "confirmation bias" to consistently note that pre-modern numbers are not accurate, are often an order of magnitude to high and thus shouldn't be uncritically taken as 'fact' simply because someone in the past said it. They are not based on any rigorous methodology, just propaganda, hagiography and random guesses repeated over time.

It's the equivalent of someone in 2500 reading a Trump quote and accepting as fact that he had the largest ever inauguration crowd simply because he said it.

Pre-modern literary history wasn't written to be objective 'academic' history in the manner we think of today.

History provides evidence for those figures i have cited.

History 'provides evidence' for countess things that are completely fictitious, the purpose of critical history is to try to identify the true from the false.

"History" provides "evidence" that the Persians invaded Greece with 2 million troops. Do you believe that?

"History "provides lots of "evidence" that the Muslims defeated a force of 400,000 Romans at Yarmuk (it even provides "evidence" that the Muslims were helped by a load of angels). Do you believe that?

"History" provides "evidence" that 36 million people died as a result of the An Lushan Rebellion? Do you believe that?

Why makes you think your numbers are more accurate than these?

However , If you can provide credible evidence that my figures are so dramatically wrong please feel free to do so...

Before the muslim conquests the population of india is estimated at 600 million, after 200 million, a million deaths a year, feasible? Of course.

Estimated by people who are completely wrong

As I've been saying, the problem is you are basically an order of magnitude too high with everything.

The population of The World wasn't even 600 million then, let alone India. If you don't believe me: World population estimates - Wikipedia

Unfortunately the numbers you are relying on have no connection to reality.

What??? Sheesh. Zero???? Confirmation bias big time, and how is todays population of india relevant to that at the time if the muslim conquests?

It was a link to the historical population of India showing it was 10 times smaller than you assumed.

So if you had said the population of India was zero, you would have been less wrong than if you had said it was 600 million. Just the same as you'd be less wrong if you said zero deaths rather than 80 million.

Do you now see why it is completely implausible that 80 million people were killed, let alone 400 million (which was significantly more than the population of the entire World in 1100)?

 

[Audie]

Bull. The only reason you see atheist as aggressive is becaus of the hatred heaped against them by threads like this.

When was the last time your children were threatened with an eternity of torture in hell by an atheist?
When was the last time an atheist tried to kill your children?
When was the last time an atheist terrorist blew of your aunts arm with a bomb?
When was the last time an atheist abused you on this thread?

What you seem to mean is you are button pusher with little substance, you may think abuse is fun, others have other ideas and believe me you are not doing yourself any favours.

And of course, still no names, its almost like you are embarrassed about not having an answer that would stand scrutiny.

Edit : looking back through this thread i see 5 searching posts of mine on this thread that you have conveniently ignored. Having a blast responding??? I think not

He may have fled the interview. Conveniently
ignoring his paradox with Absolute Morality
and his prob. with hanging me if god told him to.

 

[charlie sc]

Did I miss where any Christian found fault with it?

Nope.

 

[Audie]

Nope.

Why do you suppose that is?

 

[ChristineM]

It is not "confirmation bias" to consistently note that pre-modern numbers are not accurate, are often an order of magnitude to high and thus shouldn't be uncritically taken as 'fact' simply because someone in the past said it. They are not based on any rigorous methodology, just propaganda, hagiography and random guesses repeated over time.

It's the equivalent of someone in 2500 reading a Trump quote and accepting as fact that he had the largest ever inauguration crowd simply because he said it.

Pre-modern literary history wasn't written to be objective 'academic' history in the manner we think of today.



History 'provides evidence' for countess things that are completely fictitious, the purpose of critical history is to try to identify the true from the false.

"History" provides "evidence" that the Persians invaded Greece with 2 million troops. Do you believe that?

"History "provides lots of "evidence" that the Muslims defeated a force of 400,000 Romans at Yarmuk (it even provides "evidence" that the Muslims were helped by a load of angels). Do you believe that?

"History" provides "evidence" that 36 million people died as a result of the An Lushan Rebellion? Do you believe that?

Why makes you think your numbers are more accurate than these?



Estimated by people who are completely wrong

As I've been saying, the problem is you are basically an order of magnitude too high with everything.

The population of The World wasn't even 600 million then, let alone India. If you don't believe me: World population estimates - Wikipedia

Unfortunately the numbers you are relying on have no connection to reality.



It was a link to the historical population of India showing it was 10 times smaller than you assumed.

So if you had said the population of India was zero, you would have been less wrong than if you had said it was 600 million. Just the same as you'd be less wrong if you said zero deaths rather than 80 million.

Do you now see why it is completely implausible that 80 million people were killed, let alone 400 million (which was significantly more than the population of the entire World in 1100)?

It is confirmation bias when you come up with zero because you dont llke the implications of the alternative.

And i see a lot of strawmen but nothing of substance.

Try the population over 400 years

 

[Augustus]

Greatest killers, the abrahamic god, killed every living thing on this planet except one close buddy, his immediate family and about 17 million animals.

The second biggest genocide, the biggest real one was the muslim massacre of hindus, lasting 400 years, religious... Have you forgotten that one?

2nd is no more real than the first one on your list

If you calculated an 'average' global expected violent death rate from 1100-1500, I doubt "the greatest genocide in history" would be significantly higher than this average. During this period the Hindu population grew and the country became significantly richer after all (not to mention the Muslims could only rule effectively via a series of local alliances with Hindu elites).

This would be like a conflict more intense than the 30 Years War lasting 400 years and Germany emerging from this with a bigger and more prosperous population.

During the "greatest genocide in history": The Indian population had largely been stagnant at 75 million during the Middle Kingdoms era from 1 AD to 1000 AD. During the Medieval Delhi Sultanate era from 1000 to 1500, India experienced lasting population growth for the first time in a thousand years, with its population increasing nearly 50% to 110 million by 1500 AD.[99][100]

During the 30 Years War: The Thirty Years' War was a war fought primarily in Central Europe between 1618 and 1648. One of the most destructive conflicts in human history,[14] it resulted in eight million fatalities not only from military engagements but also from violence, famine, and plague. Casualties were overwhelmingly and disproportionately inhabitants of the Holy Roman Empire, most of the rest being battle deaths from various foreign armies.[10] In terms of proportional German casualties and destruction, it was surpassed only by the period January to May 1945; one of its enduring results was 19th-century Pan-Germanism, when it served as an example of the dangers of a divided Germany and became a key justification for the 1871 creation of the German Empire.[15]

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The historical facts are simple, atheists conducted the most massive slaughters of people the world has ever known. So, all I ask is that you tell me why this is so. You haven´t.

You made no case for atheism leading to genocide, so your unsupported malicious allegations can be dismissed without rebuttal.. Atheism permits genocide as it permits just about everything else, but you didn't make a case for atheism causing genocide. Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao had other things in common. They were all men, which is probably more relevant given the effects of testosterone.

Find an argument against atheism that is relevant to all atheists including the ones you are writing to - not to atheistic totalitarian dictators. You can't. Secular humanists, who are also atheists, reject atheistic dictatorships as vehemently as they reject religious theocracies, and for the same reason :

• "The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion. The problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship." - Sam Harris

And yes, you are an atheophobic bigot. It's why you came here to play atheist slayer. How many people need to tell you that before you consider whether their arguments have merit?

The church has scarcely been left bleeding in the snow.

I liked the imagery and thought the analogy apt. The church has been mortally wounded in the sense that it is losing its grip on culture while hemorrhaging numbers and clout. More and more people find it irrelevant, hypocritical, and prefer to live outside of it.

 

[charlie sc]

Why do you suppose that is?

I don't see why some Christians would defend a group that's, apparently, sinful just for not believing in their god. Obviously, the thought of loving their neighbour is harder to put into practice for them, especially if they believe all the other stigmatising and dehumanising concepts in the ideology.

Why do you think that is?

 

[Revoltingest]

He may have fled the interview. Conveniently
ignoring his paradox with Absolute Morality
and his prob. with hanging me if god told him to.

Oddly, absolutely true moralities are numerous & dynamic.
Their gods must be continually updating reality.

 

[Audie]

I don't see why some Christians would defend a group that's, apparently, sinful just for not believing in their god. Obviously, the thought of loving their neighbour is harder to put into practice for them, especially if they believe all the other stigmatising and dehumanising concepts in the ideology.

Why do you think that is?

I hope it is because they did not notice
but I expect it is because any who did see
it agree with it.

 

[charlie sc]

I hope it is because they did not notice
but I expect it is because any who did see
it agree with it.

Yup, Christianity and Islam are particularity good at stigmatising others.

 

[Augustus]

It is confirmation bias when you come up with zero because you dont llke the implications of the alternative.

And i see a lot of strawmen but nothing of substance.

Try the population over 400 years

Talking of strawmen, I didn't say there were zero, I said zero was less wrong than your fantasy numbers. You do understand the difference I assume?

Could you explain why it is a strawman to point out, with evidence, that you claimed the population of India was higher than that of the entire world?

You said: "Before the muslim conquests the population of india is estimated at 600 million, after 200 million, a million deaths a year, feasible? Of course."

This is the degree of 'research' you have done into this issue. You seem to have read some polemical site, uncritically accepted it and now refuse to even acknowledge overwhelming evidence that shows you to be wrong.

Calling out others for historical ignorance while doing this is somewhat hypocritical.