MURDER, GENOCIDE, and ATHEISTS.

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The genocide of native Americans had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with manifest destiny.

Sure it was religious. The indigenous people were viewed as subhuman heathens. The manifest destiny was a Christian one that didn't include the natives, who were cleared from the land like the bison..

It is revisionist propaganda, from a hostile, competing worldview, that promotes and indoctrinates these smears.

If your religion can't compete, it needs to move over.

None of these [wars] were driven by the teachings of Jesus.

Why does that matter? The were promoted by members of the Christian church in the name of their god.

We look to reality - history and current events in the news - to understand what Christianity is, not a book that seems to mean as little to Christians as it does to the rest of us..

 

[ChristineM]

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]

Reaching! How many generations in 400 years? 16 or so?

And yes, we can all copy and paste quotations from websites
"The Thirty Years’ War from 1618 to 1648 produced an amazing amount of casualties. It raged between small fiefdoms of Protestants and Catholics swirling around the Holy Roman Empire or Western Rome. Eventually major powers entered the war, Spain, Sweden, Dutch forces, Germany, Saxony, Bavaria, and France all poured resources and soldiers into this war, and it as fought by people who were grimly determined that they had a monopoly on the truth..."

"...It is one of the most complex wars ever fought and it resulted at the low estimate in 4 million deaths. At the high end, it killed 12 million people mostly through disease and famine. The Thirty Years War had lasting effects as it killed as many people, industry suffered and so did all the infrastructure, such as it was, in Western Europe."
The Thirty Years War Produced Astonishing Casualties. - Civilian Military Intelligence Group

 

[ChristineM]

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.

Interestingly i just provided citation showing my numbers for the 30 years war are within the estimate. So you can rant as much as helps you justify religion to yourself.


Muslim historian Firishta [full name Muhammad Qasim Hindu Shah, born in 1560 and died in 1620], the author of the Tarikh-i Firishta and the Gulshan-i Ibrahim,.
was the first to give an idea to the medieval bloodbath that was India during Muslim rule, when he declared that over 400 million Hindus got slaughtered during Muslim invasion and occupation of India. Survivors got enslaved and castrated. India’s population is said to have been around 600 million at the time of Muslim invasion. By the mid 1500’s the Hindu population was 200 million.
https://blog.sami-aldeeb.com/2018/03/18/islamic-invasion-of-india-the-greatest-genocide-in-history/

 

[Augustus]

I hope you realize how conveniently simplistic you are trying to make this here

What do you think is incorrect or should be different?

Because many that killed did so in the name of Justice, believing the riches of Persia were justly Greek riches. Many who fought for Alexander did so with the belief that he either was divine or had the favor of the gods and could not be defeated. Wars involve religion when the combatants believe in the righteousness of their acts. Without this righteousness we would see wars only carried out as practical endeavors. And while you have chosen a war, perhaps on purpose, that has a fair amount of practicality we also see religious fervor present.

You seem to see it the opposite way round from me.

Violence had a practical purpose in the uncertain pre-modern world, it stops you being an unwilling victim of violence. Peaceful cultures didn't last very long so successful cultures were necessarily violent. They didn't fight because they had violent cultures, they had violent cultures because they fought.

You consistently see nomads and people from the mountains as being fierce warriors due to how they had to adapt to their environment. Many such people simply took riches off others because they could and it helped them survive. The 'divine sanction', if one ever existed, was post facto.

Anyway, getting new wealth, slaves, territories, protecting your family and making yourself stronger and less vulnerable to getting a mollywopping from some other group was extremely practical

 

[Audie]

I never said atheism caused genocide the author I quoted said HE felt there was a connection and he explained why.

Yes, you are a whiney powderpuff that loses critical thinking skills when your smug and cherished belief in no belief is challenged .

Dude, you take it so personally, why ?

I didn´t set out to slay atheism, in a place called religious forums they are legion, an army I cannot slay.

I did set out to show the interesting possible corollary between atheism and mass murder and to nudge you a little for your collective hypocrisy in continually criticizing Christianity, implying your criticism applies to all.

Many of your fellow travelers, and you, seem to feel accusatory sanctimoniousness towards Christianity and Christians is great sport, yet you can´t handle history, and what, if anything, it might imply to you.

The hyperbole and hurt feelings spew forth, the retalitory attacks begin, the name calling, because you can´t handle the truth of what atheists have given themselves permission to do to hundreds of millions of people.

You trot out the ¨ it was politics that made them do it ¨. Well, was there ANYTHING in their atheism that would have given them pause to think about what they were doing ?

You tell me Mr. Proud atheist.

A simple yes or no will do, but, of course, you will most likely dodge the issue with some more personal slurs, slurs being the tactic of the more cretinous atheists and Christians. I didn¨t think you were a cretin, but I will have to re evaluate my position on that. ( I never start the name calling, but when the you statements come out, and a slur comes forth, I respond, live with it)

Actually, we call them "running dogs".

I wonder what to call a person who runs from a question.
A whiney (sic) powderpuff that (sic) loses critical thinking skills when your smug and cherished belief is challenged?

Let us try again-

Whereas "god" is your standard for absolute morality
and
Whereas "god" has directed people to go forth and kill
other people

We wish to know if you would honour a call
from "god" to get a rope, and hang me,
or, if you would go with your own personal choice
of morality.

A simple yes or no will do, but, of course, you will most likely dodge the issue (again)

 

[shmogie]

Sure it was religious. The indigenous people were viewed as subhuman heathens. The manifest destiny was a Christian one that didn't include the natives, who were cleared from the land like the bison..



If your religion can't compete, it needs to move over.



Why does that matter? The were promoted by members of the Christian church in the name of their god.

We look to reality - history and current events in the news - to understand what Christianity is, not a book that seems to mean as little to Christians as it does to the rest of us..

Hmmmmmm, Then why has history gotten you so upset ?

THe N/Aś were crushed for reasons other than religion, your diatribe on how they were viewed racially is no more Christian than saying vast organizations for disaster relief in the name of atheists or by atheists exist in any significant way.

The land, the resources, the gold, the silver , the copper, the lumber was wanted and was taken, period. Religion had little to do with it,

 

[Audie]

Hmmmmmm, Then why has history gotten you so upset ?

THe N/Aś were crushed for reasons other than religion, your diatribe on how they were viewed racially is no more Christian than saying vast organizations for disaster relief in the name of atheists or by atheists exist in any significant way.

The land, the resources, the gold, the silver , the copper, the lumber was wanted and was taken, period. Religion had little to do with it,

shmogie said: ↑
The genocide of native Americans had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with manifest destiny.


Manifest Destiny, yes..


Google it... Here is the very first
entry.

It had a future that was destined by God to expand its borders, with no limit to area or country. All the traveling and expansion were part of the spirit of Manifest Destiny, a belief that it was God's will that Americans spread over the entire continent, and to control and populate the country as they see fit.

Number 2-

The Religious Origins of Manifest Destiny

Donald M. Scott
Professor of History
Queens College and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York
©National Humanities Center


In 1845, an unsigned article in a popular American journal, a long standing Jacksonian publication, the Democratic Review, issued an unmistakable call for American expansionism. Focusing mainly on bringing the Republic of Texas into the union, it declared that expansion represented “the fulfillment of our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions.” ....................

 

[sooda]

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)?

The numbers in these histories are highly exaggerated.

In 1950 the population of Saudi Arabia was only 3 million people.

 

[sooda]

shmogie said: ↑
The genocide of native Americans had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with manifest destiny.


Manifest Destiny, yes..


Google it... Here is the very first
entry.

It had a future that was destined by God to expand its borders, with no limit to area or country. All the traveling and expansion were part of the spirit of Manifest Destiny, a belief that it was God's will that Americans spread over the entire continent, and to control and populate the country as they see fit.

Number 2-

The Religious Origins of Manifest Destiny

Donald M. Scott
Professor of History
Queens College and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York
©National Humanities Center


In 1845, an unsigned article in a popular American journal, a long standing Jacksonian publication, the Democratic Review, issued an unmistakable call for American expansionism. Focusing mainly on bringing the Republic of Texas into the union, it declared that expansion represented “the fulfillment of our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions.” ....................

Smogie doesn't know what "manifest destiny" means.

 

[shmogie]

Actually, we call them "running dogs".

I wonder what to call a person who runs from a
question.

a whiney powderpuff that loses critical thinking skills when your smug and cherished belief in no belief is challenged?


whereas "god" is your standard for absolute morality
and
whereas "god" has directed people to go forth and kill
other people

We wish to know if you would honour a call
from "god" to get a rope, and hang me,
or, if you would go with your own personal choice
or morality.

A simple yes or no will do, but, of course, you will most likely dodge the issue

Would I hang you ? nope. And God would never ¨ tell me¨ to do so. God spoke o prophets and thge age of prophets is long gone.

Yep, 4,000 years ago God directed the killing of others.

2,000 years ago God directed that no one should murder, murder by the existing civil law, and His law.

What others have done in violation of his law or the civil law has nothing to do with the standard and everything to do with them violating the law.

I haven´t nor will I violate the standard, though I came close when I had in custody a guy who had just killed two police officers and a kid.

So, I can say emphatically that there is a moral standard for Christians, and it applies to everyone who calls themselves Christians. Those who break it are hypocrites and have placed themselves out of communion with God.

Now, tell me about the atheist moral standard.

 

[shmogie]

Smogie doesn't know what "manifest destiny" means.

lady, I have a minor in American history, your accusation is from sheer ignorance.

 

[shunyadragon]

Do you believe the people wanted a self-appointed elite to rule them with an iron fist?

Of course not, but the Revolution was to rid France of the monarchy, and for many getting rid of the Roman Church.

So to protect the peasants from the church and the monarchy, they killed the peasants for supporting the church and the monarchy?

Too simplistic, unrealistic, and cannot respond. There were many factions involved in the Revolution killing each other. The dominant goal of the Revolution was to rid France of the Monarchy and for many the church.

It was a war against the people of the Vendee because they preferred the old elite to the new elite (the people's motto was: god, king)

I do not consider the War of Vendee representative of the Revolution. The war was chaos with many sides committing genocide. Preference for the old elite eventually lost out.

 

[shunyadragon]

lady, I have a minor in American history, your accusation is from sheer ignorance.

A minor in anything is not much of a qualification for anything.

It did not help your ignorance and inaccuracies in history to justify your agenda.

 

[sooda]

Would I hang you ? nope. And God would never ¨ tell me¨ to do so. God spoke o prophets and thge age of prophets is long gone.

Yep, 4,000 years ago God directed the killing of others.

2,000 years ago God directed that no one should murder, murder by the existing civil law, and His law.

What others have done in violation of his law or the civil law has nothing to do with the standard and everything to do with them violating the law.

I haven´t nor will I violate the standard, though I came close when I had in custody a guy who had just killed two police officers and a kid.

So, I can say emphatically that there is a moral standard for Christians, and it applies to everyone who calls themselves Christians. Those who break it are hypocrites and have placed themselves out of communion with God.

Now, tell me about the atheist moral standard.

Deut 20:17

But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:

You know the big problem that evangelicals and fundamentlists have with everyone is their insistence that nobody has any ethics or morals but them and that myths are real history.

You can't demand that intelligent, educated people believe in a global flood, or an Exodus or Joshua's wars and have any credibility as an adult.

 

[shmogie]

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?

So, in a debate forum, being a Christian and loving your neighbor, means you cannot debate using the same tactics others use ? Your concept of the doormat Christian applies even here ? We are called for a foul if we rigorously defend our faith on a computer screen, yet the atheists can mock, jeer, be crude and thatś just the way they are, don´t use a keyboard to say anything in response.

How completely asinine

 

[sooda]

lady, I have a minor in American history, your accusation is from sheer ignorance.

Manifest Destiny held that the United States was destined—by God, its advocates believed—to expand its dominion and spread democracy and capitalism across the entire North American continent.

https://www.history.com/topics/westward-expansion/manifest-destiny

 

[charlie sc]

yet you can´t handle history, and what, if anything

I'm pretty sure atheists, or anyone, can handle actual history. What anyone cannot handle is made up history. Where did you get that 300 000 death number, again? And show it was because they weren't good atheists.

 

[shmogie]

A minor in anything is not much of a qualification for anything.

It did not help your ignorance and inaccuracies in history to justify your agenda.

Bud, my agenda is to defend Christians from scurilous attacks and to show the hypocrisy of the attackers.

You fly around like a fly and snipe.

You have a problem with me, spill it.

Lets talk about your pseudo intellectualism and your religion.

Are you up for it ? If not, shut up.

 

[charlie sc]

So, in a debate forum, being a Christian and loving your neighbor, means you cannot debate using the same tactics others use ?

You aren't using the same tactics because you aren't being factual and inferring things without a good basis.

Your concept of the doormat Christian applies even here ?

No. My concept of a ranting hateful Christian or troll applies here.

We are called for a foul if we rigorously defend our faith on a computer screen, yet the atheists can mock, jeer, be crude and thatś just the way they are, don´t use a keyboard to say anything in response.

You aren't defending, you're attacking.

 

[Audie]

Would I hang you ? nope. And God would never ¨ tell me¨ to do so. God spoke o prophets and thge age of prophets is long gone.
.

Let us grant for now that you have
Perfect Knowledge of what "God" would or
could do.

And that all (including the manifest destiny folks)
who believe they are following god's command
are liars fools or lunatics.

IF we were back in biblical times
AND, "god" told you to string me up,
then you would do it? You could watch
my kick and choke, and there'd be one
less atheist to cause trouble for the good
folks.

Just for a refreshing change, free of temporizing,
a yes or no would do