MURDER, GENOCIDE, and ATHEISTS.

[ChristineM]

Total war is total war. It isn´t good, are you insane ?

It was necessary. Do you propose that the US just starve them out ? How many do you think would die in that process ?

Or, should we have attacked and lost, 100,000 American soldiers, and kill 5 times that amount ?

Or maybe we should have just kept razing their cities with incendiary bombs, what is a few hundred thousand dead, as long it isn´t by a weapon designed to end the war.

Maybe we should just have ignored them, and tell the survivors of their genocide in China, the Philippines, Burma, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Gilbert Islands, etc. to keep an eye out, they might be back.

Yes, America would not surrender, we would have defended the borders of our nation fiercely. Unlike France in 1870, 1914, and 1940.

So killing around quarter of a million innocent, non combatants was necessary?

You have no idea what the outcome would have been without the nukes so dont guess

Interestingly, the usa has only won one war on its own in the last 80 or 90 years and that was against a bunch of caribbean hill farmers... See where this goes?

 

[shmogie]

So killing around quarter of a million innocent, non combatants was necessary?

You have no idea what the outcome would have been without the nukes so dont guess

Interestingly, the usa has only won one war on its own in the last 80 or 90 years and that was against a bunch of caribbean hill farmers... See where this goes?

I certainly do know what the outcome would be, I have seen and read the military study done for an invasion of Japan, estimated casualties for us, the Japanese, and civilians.

Yes, it was necessary. Killing 250,000 civilians because they would not surrender was better than the loss 100,000 Americans, and a mass of civilians.

in WW1 we were sucked into a European war because the allies could not dislodge Germany, which held almost half of France ( Just like Germany whipped their butts in 1870 ), So we broke the stalemate.

Once again, in WW2, France just folded, again, and we were sucked into another European war, in which we had to supply Russia, and Britain as well as make up the bulk of the allied army, and command it.

At the same time, with little help except for Australia and New Zealand, we had to defeat the Japanese empire. All of the soldiers killed in Mac Arthurs island hopping campaign were Americans.

The so called UN force in Korea was mostly American.

Ditto for the remaining wars.

During the cold war there was one thing and one thing only that kept the USSR from occupying western Europe, the USA.

Western Europe could not defend itself, it hasn´t been able to without us for over a century.

 

[ChristineM]

Your response is simply nonsense.

Stalin was born into an Orthodox family, he was an atheist, else why would he have developed an atheist 5 year plan, 1932-37. He declared himself an atheist many times. Ditto for Pol pot.

Castro began his revolution as a deist, possibly a Christian. No one knows for sure if he died that way or not. His revolution became more and more anti religion, and the upper level was composed of atheists. His statements are contradictory.

You are right about Milosovich, I confused him with Joseph Broz Tito, same area, just earlier.

And what verbal abuse have you received from me ?

Your list was proven to be bogus, an internet circulating bit of bad information.

Stalin was christian, nor withstanding his childhood he reinstated the church, he reopened the seminaries, he was known as the only christian in the kremlin, he was heard saying "jesus existed", he donated millions of rubles to the church and had not 1, not 2 but 3 archbishop's officiate at his funeral... The acts of an atheist??? I think not? He never once declared himself atheist, the atheism label was given after his death by a student 60 years after the claimed event? I suggest you should do some real research before attempting to besmirch a good christian just because you dont like nationalism... God save america

Castro
The religious views of Fidel Castro are a matter of public interest. According to the Washington Post, former President of Cuba Fidel Castro's letters from prison suggest that he "was a man of unusual spiritual depth – and a fervent believer in God."
Religious views of Fidel Castro - Wikipedia

Probably the verbal abuse that was reported (not by me but by a disgusted christian) and which, i am guessing, your post was moderated. So i am pretty sure you know precisely which abuse i mean because you will have received an advisory from staff.

Nope, one poster had objection to 2 entries, he dropped the first objection when i provide evidence of my claim. The second was more tricky, the objector could not seem to grasp the concept that the conflict took place over more than 400 years. So i ask that you provide post numbers in which you say my list was proven to be bogus. Bet ya cant, in fact i bet you totally ignore my request.

Edit: i just checked, yes your abusive post has been deleted, but it has been quoted.

 

[ChristineM]

I certainly do know what the outcome would be, I have seen and read the military study done for an invasion of Japan, estimated casualties for us, the Japanese, and civilians.

Yes, it was necessary. Killing 250,000 civilians because they would not surrender was better than the loss 100,000 Americans, and a mass of civilians.

in WW1 we were sucked into a European war because the allies could not dislodge Germany, which held almost half of France ( Just like Germany whipped their butts in 1870 ), So we broke the stalemate.

Once again, in WW2, France just folded, again, and we were sucked into another European war, in which we had to supply Russia, and Britain as well as make up the bulk of the allied army, and command it.

At the same time, with little help except for Australia and New Zealand, we had to defeat the Japanese empire. All of the soldiers killed in Mac Arthurs island hopping campaign were Americans.

The so called UN force in Korea was mostly American.

Ditto for the remaining wars.

During the cold war there was one thing and one thing only that kept the USSR from occupying western Europe, the USA.

Western Europe could not defend itself, it hasn´t been able to without us for over a century.

Magic word, "estimated"

It had nothing to do with the innocent, non combatant, civilians

You helped

BTW, britain was also part of the war against Japan, again, more history study would help you here

 

[Riders]

One need not be in this forum very long to learn that the atheists here, for the most part, are in full attack mode when it comes to Christianity.

One of their favorite lines of attack is to cite the historical violence of some Christians as a brand on all Christians, with the inference that Christianity is itself a failed endeavor.

Actually, there is a bit of truth to this, when the Church and government became one with Constantine, the greed for money and power superseded the Christian sensibilities of many who claimed to be Christians, and in the name of Christianity, murder and genocide occurred. The hybrid monster of the church and state, or the state and church working together for the same goals corrupted the church.

However, for every brutal leader supported by the church, there were many Christians with no government association who lived the Christian lifestyle and followed in the footsteps of Christ.

What was done in the name of Christianity by a corrupt church and government must be recognized, and cannot be defended.

Since atheists like to put the burning tire of murder and genocide on the neck of most any Christian, I thought a look at the atheist track record in this regard would be worthwhile.

I have pages of specific citations, so, if in the following you feel you need a citation for a sentence or paragraph, I will happily supply it.

According to an article by Christian apologist Gregory Koukl, with citations; " The assertion is that religion has caused most of the bloodshed in the world. There are people who make accusations and assertions that are empirically false, this is one of them"According to Le Monde, atheist regimes killed 100 million people in the 20th century, via genocide.

The reign of terror in France, whose leaders were influenced by Diderot, Voltaire, Sade, and Rosseau, who worshiped the cult of reason, murdered 300,000 Frenchmen, most for not being good atheists.,The details of their torture and their slaughter are revolting.

Koukl summarizes by stating that " It is true that religion can possibly produce evil, and generally when we look closer at the detail, it produces evil because the individual people are living in rejection of Christianity and the God that they are supposed to be following.n so it can produce evil but the historical fact is that the outright rejection of God and institutionalizing atheism actually does produce evil at incredible levels"

No the Christian church is built upon the history of war,

 

[Audie]

Re "winning " a war.

Japan, sure. Unconditional surrender, occupation etc.

Such was not the intent in any armed conflict initiated by
the US since.

 

[Augustus]

Did you see my list...,EIGHT HUNDRED MILLION + deaths is not a little thing no matter how you try to whitewash it in the name of religion.

So i ask that you provide post numbers in which you say my list was proven to be bogus.

Steven Pinker who certainly can't be accused of being a religious apologist, in a Q & A about his (terrible) book The better angels of our nature:

according to the most recent compendium of history’s worst atrocities, Matthew White's Great Big Book of Horrible Things (Norton, 2011), religions have been responsible for 13 of the 100 worst mass killings in history, resulting in 47 million deaths. Communism has been responsible for 6 mass killings and 67 million deaths. If defenders of religion want to crow, “We were only responsible for 47 million murders—Communism was worse!”, they are welcome to do so, but it is not an impressive argument.

Did you see my list...,EIGHT HUNDRED MILLION + deaths

“War is defined as an active conflict that has claimed more than 1,000 lives... At least 108 million people were killed in wars in the twentieth century. Estimates for the total number killed in wars throughout all of human history range from 150 million to 1 billion.”
Hedges, Chris. “What Every Person Should Know About War”.

New Atheist thinkers claim that religion is chiefly responsible for war and much human misery, which its demise would greatly reduce (15). In fact, explicit religious issues have motivated only a small minority of recorded wars...

Religious and Sacred Imperatives in Human Conflict
Scott Atran and Jeremy Ginges,
Science 336, 855 (2012);
DOI: 10.1126/science.1216902

 

[ChristineM]

Steven Pinker who certainly can't be accused of being a religious apologist, in a Q & A about his (terrible) book The better angels of our nature:

according to the most recent compendium of history’s worst atrocities, Matthew White's Great Big Book of Horrible Things (Norton, 2011), religions have been responsible for 13 of the 100 worst mass killings in history, resulting in 47 million deaths. Communism has been responsible for 6 mass killings and 67 million deaths. If defenders of religion want to crow, “We were only responsible for 47 million murders—Communism was worse!”, they are welcome to do so, but it is not an impressive argument.



“War is defined as an active conflict that has claimed more than 1,000 lives... At least 108 million people were killed in wars in the twentieth century. Estimates for the total number killed in wars throughout all of human history range from 150 million to 1 billion.”
Hedges, Chris. “What Every Person Should Know About War”.

New Atheist thinkers claim that religion is chiefly responsible for war and much human misery, which its demise would greatly reduce (15). In fact, explicit religious issues have motivated only a small minority of recorded wars...

Religious and Sacred Imperatives in Human Conflict
Scott Atran and Jeremy Ginges,
Science 336, 855 (2012);
DOI: 10.1126/science.1216902

Communism is not atheism.

And atheism has been responsible for none (zero) of the mass killings

If thats what makes you happy, my research shows othrrwise

 

[Augustus]

Communism is not atheism.

And atheism has been responsible for none (zero) of the mass killings

If thats what makes you happy, my research shows othrrwise

You seem to have missed the point, that was nothing to do with communism or atheism Pinker just happened to mention them after noting a figure for religious deaths 753 million less than yours. Zero deaths for atheism is fine, can't say the same about your 800 million 'research' though.

The important stuff was in bold as it shows your claim of 800 million + to be ridiculous:

• religions have been responsible for 13 of the 100 worst mass killings in history, resulting in 47 million deaths
• estimates for the total number killed in wars throughout all of human history range from 150 million to 1 billion.
• religious issues have motivated only a small minority of recorded wars

Do you still think it is a plausible number?

 

[ChristineM]

You seem to have missed the point, that was nothing to do with communism or atheism Pinker just happened to mention them after noting a figure for religious deaths 753 million less than yours. Zero deaths for atheism is fine, can't say the same about your 800 million 'research' though.

The important stuff was in bold as it shows your claim of 800 million + to be ridiculous:

• religions have been responsible for 13 of the 100 worst mass killings in history, resulting in 47 million deaths
• estimates for the total number killed in wars throughout all of human history range from 150 million to 1 billion.
• religious issues have motivated only a small minority of recorded wars

Do you still think it is a plausible number?

Please review the title of this thread

* Bullpoop
* Up to a billion
* Bullpoop

 

[Augustus]

* Bullpoop

After researching a massive book on the decline of violence, the atheist and anti-theist Steven Pinker, noted 47 million deaths in religious conflicts (from 100 major wars).

ChristineM, based on some imaginary research, none of which can be provided, explained or discussed, noted 800 million + religious deaths.

* Up to a billion

Which would still require 80% of all conflict deaths have been religious? hmmmm

Assuming the highest estimate means we are taking the naively high overstatements for each war like you do though, as it's the only way to get remotely close to such an exaggerated figure:

WW1 (65m including Spanish Flu), WW2 (85m), Mongols (70m), 3 Kingdoms (40m) An Lushan (36m)

So, still no way 800m is remotely possible even if all but 5 conflicts in world history were religious and we use an irrationally high number for the the total death toll to start with.

* Bullpoop

The sectarian religious site sikh.net = "Credible"
Source that overstates the population of India by 800% = "Credible"
One of the most prestigious peer-reviewed journals: Science - "bullpoop"'

Who could fail to be persuaded by such a display of objective, scholarly rigour

 

[ChristineM]

After researching a massive book on the decline of violence, the atheist and anti-theist Steven Pinker, noted 47 million deaths in religious conflicts (from 100 major wars).

ChristineM, based on some imaginary research, none of which can be provided, explained or discussed, noted 800 million + religious deaths.



Which would still require 80% of all conflict deaths have been religious? hmmmm

Assuming the highest estimate means we are taking the naively high overstatements for each war like you do though, as it's the only way to get remotely close to such an exaggerated figure:

WW1 (65m including Spanish Flu), WW2 (85m), Mongols (70m), 3 Kingdoms (40m) An Lushan (36m)

So, still no way 800m is remotely possible even if all but 5 conflicts in world history were religious and we use an irrationally high number for the the total death toll to start with.



The sectarian religious site sikh.net = "Credible"
Source that overstates the population of India by 800% = "Credible"
One of the most prestigious peer-reviewed journals: Science - "bullpoop"'

Who could fail to be persuaded by such a display of objective, scholarly rigour

Pinker is wrong
And imaginary? Prove your insult is valid.
Of the two conflicts you query you have given up on one and the other you do not seem to grasp the idea of time... What was the aggregate population of india over 425 years, not a single snapshot in time that you are hung up on.

My "estimate", given the "55" religious conflicts i mentioned is a reasonable estimate compared to some guy who even miscounted the number of religious wars.

And as i have already shown, i have not chosen the highest estimate but an average based on my research so please stop with the hyperbole.

Your little list of only 5 conflicts totals around 300 million, by your figures. Almost there.

And again with the hyperbole, keep it up and i can see an ignore coming your way.

 

[Augustus]

My "estimate", given the "55" religious conflicts i mentioned is a reasonable estimate compared to some guy who even miscounted the number of religious wars.

And as i have already shown, i have not chosen the highest estimate but an average based on my research so please stop with the hyperbole.

Averages end up much lower (check for yourself as you won't believe me):

Someone who used your purported methodology of simply averaging reported figures for major conflicts (sorry for the caps, they appear in the original):

“TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATHS ONE HUNDRED DEADLIEST MULTICIDES: 455 million killed overall...

WARS: 315 million, including 49 million soldiers and 266 million civilians. On average, 85 percent of the people killed in wars have been civilians."

Atrocitology: The 100 deadliest conflicts in human history, M .White

Your little list of only 5 conflicts totals around 300 million, by your figures. Almost there.

That's the point, a little list of only 5 conflicts is all that is needed

estimates for the total number killed in wars throughout all of human history range from 150 million to 1 billion

1 billion - 300 million = 700 million left if every single war in history except these 5 were religious. You claim of 800+ million religious deaths again fails to meet even the most overly generous of boundaries.

Probabilistically, a reasonable estimate would be <100 million for all religious war deaths/killings, and likely a fair bit lower than 100 million.

Forget the numbers though, we'll never even remotely agree on those.

How do you believe the medieval chroniclers came up with these numbers in the first place? Do you believe they had either the desire or ability to generate even extremely roughly accurate estimates?

 

[ChristineM]

Averages end up much lower (check for yourself as you won't believe me):

Someone who used your purported methodology of simply averaging reported figures for major conflicts (sorry for the caps, they appear in the original):

“TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATHS ONE HUNDRED DEADLIEST MULTICIDES: 455 million killed overall...

WARS: 315 million, including 49 million soldiers and 266 million civilians. On average, 85 percent of the people killed in wars have been civilians."

Atrocitology: The 100 deadliest conflicts in human history, M .White



That's the point, a little list of only 5 conflicts is all that is needed

estimates for the total number killed in wars throughout all of human history range from 150 million to 1 billion

1 billion - 300 million = 700 million left if every single war in history except these 5 were religious. You claim of 800+ million religious deaths again fails to meet even the most overly generous of boundaries.

Probabilistically, a reasonable estimate would be <100 million for all religious war deaths/killings, and likely a fair bit lower than 100 million.

Forget the numbers though, we'll never even remotely agree on those.

How do you believe the medieval chroniclers came up with these numbers in the first place? Do you believe they had either the desire or ability to generate even extremely roughly accurate estimates?

Who cares what medieval chroniclers came up with, when there is no other source it's what you must go with or you guess based on personal bias.

 

[SkepticThinker]

God doesn´t change, no one died.

Your argument is totally bogus. This was a test of faith for a man who came from a culture where there were human sacrifices to their god/gods. God tested him within the framework he knew.

This is typical of atheists who ignore context, have no knowledge of such things as covenants and laws, they simply hang onto a text totally out of context, then numbly keep pounding on it like a carpenter on a cocaine jag.

Childish.

Of course, your atheist defense of my post and questions are to try and turn it back on my faith, thinking you can rescue some form of moral equality. It doesn´t exist.

Back to the OP;

1) Why have atheists been the most evil mass murderers the world has ever seen ?

2) What is atheist morality ? As far as I can tell, and when I was an atheist, there was no atheist morality standard. One decided as an individual as to what was moral, right, wrong.

One atheist could be a moral light of the community, the other could be a blatant liar and manipulator. atheism says both are right.

So, please tell me what the atheist standard of morality is ?

Sounds like a lot of mental gymnastics in order to justify something that is clearly immoral. We're talking about a God that is described several times in the Bible as enjoying the "pleasing aroma" of the burnt offerings of rams and birds and whatever else humans sacrificed to "him." Said God clearly didn't have a problem with animal/human sacrifices, give that "he" enjoyed the aroma and then went on to supposedly sacrifice his son. So we're not merely talking about God testing people "within the framework he knew." We're actually talking about God's actual framework.

There is not "atheist morality" and that's not a phrase that really makes sense given that all atheism is, is a lack of belief in god(s). It's not an ideology or moral system. It's the rejection of a single claim.

Yes, one atheist could be a moral light of the community, while another may be a blatant liar. The exact same applies to Christians. And to Muslims. And to Buddhists. And to Hindus. Etc., etc., etc. I'm not sure why you'd think it doesn't, or that morality doesn't differ depending on which Christian you are talking to.

 

[Augustus]

Who cares what medieval chroniclers came up with, when there is no other source it's what you must go with or you guess based on personal bias.

Not at all, if we did that we'd have to believe in the Biblical exodus as described as 'there is no other source'.

There are plenty of methods that mean we don't have to uncritically take literary sources at face value, especially those which are basically propaganda, hagiography or political/religious advocacy.

Forensic archaeology, for example, tends to show battle sizes to be greatly exaggerated and populations to be overstated when compared to literary sources.
Population genetics shows that populations were not exterminated on the scale reported in literary sources.
Knowledge of military logistics enables people to understand feasible limits for army sizes, population transfers, etc. when compared to literary sources
and so forth.

Why should we uncritically accept Caesar's claim to have killed 430,000 Usipetes and Tencteri with the loss of precisely 0 Romans just because he was the only person there who wrote about it? (he thought he had lost 2, but happily they had just got lost and turned up later).

 

[ChristineM]

Not at all, if we did that we'd have to believe in the Biblical exodus as described as 'there is no other source'.

There are plenty of methods that mean we don't have to uncritically take literary sources at face value, especially those which are basically propaganda, hagiography or political/religious advocacy.

Forensic archaeology, for example, tends to show battle sizes to be greatly exaggerated and populations to be overstated when compared to literary sources.
Population genetics shows that populations were not exterminated on the scale reported in literary sources.
Knowledge of military logistics enables people to understand feasible limits for army sizes, population transfers, etc. when compared to literary sources
and so forth.

Why should we uncritically accept Caesar's claim to have killed 430,000 Usipetes and Tencteri with the loss of precisely 0 Romans just because he was the only person there who wrote about it? (he thought he had lost 2, but happily they had just got lost and turned up later).

There are several other sources to say exodus didnt happen

 

[Augustus]

There are several other sources to say exodus didnt happen

Yes, ones written long after the 'fact', and based on the kinds of methodologies we should apply to all areas of literary history.

Archeology, logistics, etc. demonstrate the literary history of Exodus almost certainly didn't happen.
Archeology, logistics, genetics etc. demonstrate literary history to significantly overstate conflict, population exterminations and deaths.
etc.

For example:

Genetics - Anglo-Saxons didn't kill off the Britons: Iron Age and Anglo-Saxon genomes from East England reveal British migration history
Archaeology - Caesar and the Germans: Julius Caesar battlefield unearthed in southern Netherlands

 

[ChristineM]

Yes, ones written long after the 'fact', and based on the kinds of methodologies we should apply to all areas of literary history.

Archeology, logistics, etc. demonstrate the literary history of Exodus almost certainly didn't happen.
Archeology, logistics, genetics etc. demonstrate literary history to significantly overstate conflict, population exterminations and deaths.
etc.

For example:

Genetics - Anglo-Saxons didn't kill off the Britons: Iron Age and Anglo-Saxon genomes from East England reveal British migration history
Archaeology - Caesar and the Germans: Julius Caesar battlefield unearthed in southern Netherlands

You are not listening to what i said. When there is no other evidence then one must examine the contemporary data

 

[Nimos]

The historical record and statistics of atheist leaders and mass murder. Theodore Beal

Let me guess you got your information from here: Atheism - Conservapedia

An alternative Wikipedia to bash atheism, that is simply amazing and shocking. I encourage people go have a look at it, its a Wikipedia clone dedicated to promoting creationism and to bash atheism and most likely every other religion that disagree with them.

And you dare to write:
One need not be in this forum very long to learn that the atheists here, for the most part, are in full attack mode when it comes to Christianity.

When you have a whole website dedicated to spread lies about atheism!!

But lets look at some of the unbiased topics on the content list.

--------------------------------------
Atheism and rape (Yes that is in fact the topic name)
Atheism offers no condemnation of rape and it provides no moral basis for a society to attempt to prevent and deter rape. Western atheists often assert there are no absolutes in morality and argue for moral relativism (see: Atheism and morality).

Dan Barker
The Christian apologist Ken Ammi wrote:

“ When considering any and every atheist condemnation of any action whatsoever it is of primary importance to keep in mind that they are expressing personal opinions about the act(s) they are condemning. They are merely telling you their personal preferences in the form of morality borrowed from the Judeo-Christian worldview. They are piling unfounded assertion, upon unfounded assertion, upon unfounded assertion, and building a tel of arguments from outrage, arguments from personal incredulity, arguments for embarrassment, etc.[1] ”

Christian apologist Kyle Butt wrote: "In fact, in my debate with Dan Barker, Barker admitted that fact, and stated that under certain circumstances, rape would be a moral obligation (Butt and Barker, 2009)"[2] (see: Atheist Dan Barker Says Child Rape Could Be Moral).

Then it quote two Christian apologists, are you kidding me?

And then it goes on bashing atheist.
Atheism and rape - Conservapedia
-------------------------------------------

Another amazing topic is....DADADADA...DA... Atheists and physical attractiveness this is so exciting, can hardly wait to see the nonsense.. I mean evidence

-------------------------------------------
Atheists and physical attractiveness
The English anthropologist Edward Dutton indicates that using right-wing politics as a proxy for religiosity, there is evidence that atheists are less attractive and he pointed out that right-wing politicians are more likely to have symmetrical faces according to a study.[2]

The American contrarian blog Half Sigma declared about atheism and social outcasts:

“ ...atheists are most likely to live alone.
This is not surprising. Atheists are less desirable...partners. I observed this once when I was living in Washington, DC, and I wandered by an atheist convention happening on the mall. The atheist were predominately male, and significantly uglier than average.

This is because ugly people become social outcasts, and social outcasts are more likely to be attracted to outcast movements like atheism, libertarianism, communism, etc.

-------------------------------------------

That must be the best scientific study ever conducted in the history of science: I observed this once when I was living in Washington, DC, and I wandered by an atheist convention happening on the mall. The atheist were predominately male, and significantly uglier than average.

I actually intended to comment on your post, but checking your sources and how biased you are, it wouldn't make any sense. This way of approaching a topic, is simply not serious. And only underline why creationist and intelligent design people can't get their nonsense passed a scientific peer review. There are no conspiracy to keep them out, its because the stuff they come up with is absolutely bull****!!