MURDER, GENOCIDE, and ATHEISTS.

[PoetPhilosopher]

MY beliefs get savaged every day on this forum, and I have been here for years, I don take it personally

You did, though. It was taken very personally.

 

[Augustus]

Interestingly i just provided citation showing my numbers for the 30 years war are within the estimate.

Quick heuristic: If your numbers are at the top of the estimated range for any pre-modern war, they are wrong.

You are a bit high on 30 Years War, but I get the feeling discussing nuances would be entirely pointless given you are defending fantastical impossibilities.

Reaching! How many generations in 400 years? 16 or so?
And yes, we can all copy and paste quotations from websites

There is a difference between 'copy and paste quotations' and providing evidence that your numbers are ludicrous.

Either the population of India was bigger than that of the entire world or the greatest genocide in history boosted the economy and resulted in far more Hindus at the end than the beginning.

**** the maths.

So you can rant as much as helps you justify religion to yourself.

I'm an atheist. I'm pointing out that historical numbers are generally too high because it's a fact that can easily be verified if people take a few seconds to think for themselves. Alas, people hate thinking for themselves...

You never answered: Do you actually believe the Persians took an army of 2 million to Greece? Do you actually believe 36 million died as a result of An Lushan?

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/

Is that a quote to show which very obviously false historical info you are uncritically repeating despite its implausibility?

Or are you saying that some guy in the 17th C who said the population of India was far higher than that of the entire world and that Muslims in India killed more than the equivalent of the entire population of the world in a few centuries is a credible source on this?

Wouldn't it be more rational to see this as evidence he didn't have the slightest clue about what he was discussing?

Muslim historians also said Muhammad split the moon and defeated 400,000 Romans with the help of angels. I assume your critical thinking skills don't remain in hibernation when considering these points?

Even though the numbers you claim are literally impossible, you still refuse to accept you probably just made a mistake.

Remember that next time you accuse others of being irrational, biased or unreasonable

 

[Road Warrior]

Chill out. The Bible myths have long been used to justify genocide and slavery. That's the problem if you take it literally.

True, but the problem isn't the Bible; it's people. Stalin and Mao were atheists and they killed more people in one century than in all time. Partly to, wait for it......stamp out religion.

 

[shmogie]

The only event you vaguely described are bogus. Some of the names you mentioned were deists and the cults they were in followed deistic writings and well as atheistic. Their goals had theistic thoughts and directives in mind and you forgot to mention The Cult of the Supreme Being. So, when you say, "atheist government leaders have committed the most massive genocides in history," it sound extremely ill-informed if the only examples you gave where horse ****. So, your rant is not only factually wrong but extremely opinionated based on wrong information. I don't mind if you say an atheist did this or that, but at least get your history straight.


It's extremely, and I emphasise extremely, easy to infer murders and genocides because of Christianity. Christianity is an ideology, whereas atheism is an idea. Christianity has a caboodle of nonsense packed in it and is used indirectly and directly for tons and tons of behaviour.


Nope.

Yep, the 300,000 thousand of the French revolution are chicken feed, as I have already said, count them out.
The hundreds of millions murdered by atheists still stand.

Atheism is an idea, Christianity is ideology.

Word parsing and hair splitting.

The lack of established moral standards in the IDEA of atheism gave these tyrants the ability to give themselves permission to slaughter.

Atheism is amoral. Morality is a nebulous concept that the individual must determine for himself. For Stalin, kill a few million people, that is his morality, for another, snuff films fit into his morality, for another, adultery, for another, shop lifting.

Of course, one atheist should not judge the morality of another atheist, because that is a personal thing, unique to himself.

You still don´t get it, do you ?

 

[charlie sc]

I'm an atheist. I'm pointing out that historical numbers are generally too high because it's a fact that can easily be verified if people take a few seconds to think for themselves. Alas, people hate thinking for themselves...

Yet, you don't seem to care about the OP's numbers.

 

[sooda]

True, but the problem isn't the Bible; it's people. Stalin and Mao were atheists and they killed more people in one century than in all time.

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

 

[sooda]

Yep, the 300,000 thousand of the French revolution are chicken feed, as I have already said, count them out.
The hundreds of millions murdered by atheists still stand.

Atheism is an idea, Christianity is ideology.

Word parsing and hair splitting.

The lack of established moral standards in the IDEA of atheism gave these tyrants the ability to give themselves permission to slaughter.

Atheism is amoral. Morality is a nebulous concept that the individual must determine for himself. For Stalin, kill a few million people, that is his morality, for another, snuff films fit into his morality, for another, adultery, for another, shop lifting.

Of course, one atheist should not judge the morality of another atheist, because that is a personal thing, unique to himself.

You still don´t get it, do you ?

LOLOL.. What makes you think atheism is amoral?

 

[charlie sc]

Yep, the 300,000 thousand of the French revolution are chicken feed, as I have already said, count them out.
The hundreds of millions murdered by atheists still stand.

Reference.

Atheism is an idea, Christianity is ideology.

Word parsing and hair splitting.

It's not. One has one claim the other has, umm, a lot... lol

The lack of established moral standards in the IDEA of atheism gave these tyrants the ability to give themselves permission to slaughter.

Atheism is amoral.

Haha. That's because people are more than just atheists. hahahaha

Of course, one atheist should not judge the morality of another atheist, because that is a personal thing, unique to himself.

Lol, stuck in your own contradiction. So, which is it, is atheism amoral or moral?

You still don´t get it, do you ?

Uh huh.

 

[sooda]

Reference.


It's not. One has one claim the other has, umm, a lot... lol


Haha. That's because people are more than just atheists. hahahaha


Lol, stuck in your own contradiction. So, which is it, is atheism amoral or moral?


Uh huh.

The idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism. It comes up in many forms and all are based on the assumption that the only valid source of morality is a theistic religion, preferably the religion of the speaker which is usually Christianity. Thus without Christianity, people cannot live moral lives.

This is supposed to be a reason reject atheism and convert to Christianity but the argument fails because contrary to the beliefs of theists, their god and their religion are not needed for morality.

Do Atheists Have No Reason to Be Moral?

 

[Augustus]

The numbers in these histories are highly exaggerated.

I know. It's really obvious when one doesn't have a prior emotional attachment.

It's amazing how emotional attachment to an idea completely eliminates people's ability to think critically. Amazing in an "isn't the universe amazing" manner rather than "isn't that a shock" manner, I mean.

It is incredibly easy to convince a non-Muslim that 10,000 Muslims didn't defeat 400,000 Romans at Yarmuk with a few sentences explaining why these numbers are ridiculous. Yet might be almost impossible to convince the same person that Muslims didn't kill 80 million Hindus using basically the same argument.

It's fun to observe though

 

[Audie]

I still don't see any reason to give a benefit of a doubt given a certain "Pretend Man" comment awhile back. Anything short of an apology or an "I was wrong" from you, and I just consider your statements a strong argument for me to become an atheist (which I wasn't).

I think you should answer Audie's question. She seemed to ask in honesty.

You know he never will. He tried this, and he tried that,
as pseudo answers (god would not ask that, god
only did that in the old days) and now he has
gone dark,

Finally now, the excuse-to-self is "I asked
you questions that you did not answer, so
now I dont have to answer yours".

All that evasion, shifting burden, blah and etc,
and all he ever needed to do was say yes or
no.

I think is is afraid of what comes next, if he ever
did commit to one or the other; for Lo, the grim
and uncompromising Horns of a Dilemma!

Will he defy "God" or, have me dangling by my
neck choking to death?

 

[ChristineM]

Quick heuristic: If your numbers are at the top of the estimated range for any pre-modern war, they are wrong.

You are a bit high on 30 Years War, but I get the feeling discussing nuances would be entirely pointless given you are defending fantastical impossibilities.



There is a difference between 'copy and paste quotations' and providing evidence that your numbers are ludicrous.

Either the population of India was bigger than that of the entire world or the greatest genocide in history boosted the economy and resulted in far more Hindus at the end than the beginning.

**** the maths.



I'm an atheist. I'm pointing out that historical numbers are generally too high because it's a fact that can easily be verified if people take a few seconds to think for themselves. Alas, people hate thinking for themselves...

You never answered: Do you actually believe the Persians took an army of 2 million to Greece? Do you actually believe 36 million died as a result of An Lushan?



Is that a quote to show which very obviously false historical info you are uncritically repeating despite its implausibility?

Or are you saying that some guy in the 17th C who said the population of India was far higher than that of the entire world and that Muslims in India killed more than the equivalent of the entire population of the world in a few centuries is a credible source on this?

Wouldn't it be more rational to see this as evidence he didn't have the slightest clue about what he was discussing?

Muslim historians also said Muhammad split the moon and defeated 400,000 Romans with the help of angels. I assume your critical thinking skills don't remain in hibernation when considering these points?

Even though the numbers you claim are literally impossible, you still refuse to accept you probably just made a mistake.

Remember that next time you accuse others of being irrational, biased or unreasonable

My number for the muslim conquest of india us 80 million, far, far below the 400 million.

For the 30 years war, still below the estimated maximum.

As for the rest, straw men and there is a difference between providing citations and stomping your foot... If you dont agree with my numbers then provide evidence that cannot be refuted.

My numbers are not Impossible, simply repeating that statement does not make it true

Irrational and unreasonable? When have i said that. Biased the posts are self explanatory.

 

[Augustus]

Yet, you don't seem to care about the OP's numbers.

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?

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.

 

[Audie]

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?

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.

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

 

[ChristineM]

The numbers in these histories are highly exaggerated.

So you have no problem with your god creating the universe with magic but wouldnt trust a historical estimate??

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

And?

 

[sooda]

So you have no problem with your god creating the universe with magic but wouldnt trust a historical estimate??



And?

Honestly, I tried but I can't follow this conversation. I know the Bible numbers are hugely exaggerated. I know the population numbers in the Koran are hugely exaggerated.

I suspect the claim that Genghis Khan killed 40 million bogus.

I don't believe God created the universe with magic. I don't buy into creation science at all.

 

[sooda]

I know. It's really obvious when one doesn't have a prior emotional attachment.

It's amazing how emotional attachment to an idea completely eliminates people's ability to think critically. Amazing in an "isn't the universe amazing" manner rather than "isn't that a shock" manner, I mean.

It is incredibly easy to convince a non-Muslim that 10,000 Muslims didn't defeat 400,000 Romans at Yarmuk with a few sentences explaining why these numbers are ridiculous. Yet might be almost impossible to convince the same person that Muslims didn't kill 80 million Hindus using basically the same argument.

It's fun to observe though

And there's this.

Mughal India ~ The Biggest Holocaust in World History
www.sikhnet.com/news/islamic-india-biggest...
“There is no official estimate of the total death toll of Hindus at the hands of Islam. A first glance at important testimonies by Muslim chroniclers suggests that, over 13 centuries and a territory as vast as the Subcontinent, Muslim Holy Warriors easily killed more Hindus than the 6 million of the Holocaust.

 

[sooda]

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.

At that point, the world's largest Muslim population, which would be located in South Asia, was almost entirely under British rule. (In 1947, the population of the Indian subcontinent was under 350 million.)

We are being asked to believe that jihadis killed, by the year 1600, more people than lived in South Asia in the year 1600. Keep in mind that India is one of the most densely populated parts of the planet and has long been a centre of world culture and civilisation.

How did Muslims kill so many people?

India, or properly most of northern India, was under Muslim rule from 1200 to 1800. By the Islamophobe's logic, millions of these Indians should have been slaughtered. But by whom? Muslims were never more than a minority and Islam was never imposed by force.

The proof for this is in the geography - the capitals of Muslim India rotated between cities like Delhi and Agra, but conversion proceeded most widely on the fringes of these empires, in what is now Pakistan and Bangladesh.

This is like saying the Roman Empire imposed Christianity and Christian populations were found farthest from the centre of imperial power.

The myth of the murderous Muslim

Further, under Muslim rule, India became increasingly wealthy. (The same happened, by the way, in Muslim Spain, as Arab rule brought with it an agricultural revolution and an urbanising boom.)

How was India becoming increasingly wealthy while its Muslim rulers were slaughtering Indians left, right and centre? How were they able to cause so much damage, for so long, without being overthrown?

Muslims never enjoyed the kind of decisive advantage in military technology the West enjoyed after 1800. And the organisation of Muslim India gives the lie to the entire edifice of eternal jihadism.

 

[ChristineM]

Honestly, I tried but I can't follow this conversation. I know the Bible numbers are hugely exaggerated. I know the population numbers in the Koran are hugely exaggerated.

I suspect the claim that Genghis Khan killed 40 million bogus.

I don't believe God created the universe with magic. I don't buy into creation science at all.

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.

 

[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.

You may have missed this earlier.

The myth of the murderous Muslim