Is it intellectually dishonest to point out that world records in massacres in this century are held by athiests? Especially when atheists are constantly sputtering about violent religion?
You've been told enough times by enough people what it is about you're being intellectually dishonest. Questioning it with the exact same intellectual dishonesty is as insulting as any other well placed ad hom. But, that's the result of religious indoctrination.
Thanks for the clarification, it was very...enlightening. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Pretty much, yeah. Seeing as how you have basically one record to point to - Stalins - and most of his killing was done by theists. As was most of the killing in Armenia, Indonesia, Rwanda, Germany, Congo, Sudan, various N&S American, and the like. The same records, such as they are (they seem to be muddled with regard to percentages, etc) are held by Catholic religious school alumnis. Between the madrassas and the parochials, we may have found a pattern. Throw in the military boarding schools of the US (heavy on Protestant religion), and the religious mothers, and it's food for thought anyway. It connects them with the genocides of the past. And by short men. And by industrially or demographically capable civilizations. The mass deaths in India under the theists were more or less parallel with the mass deaths in China under Mao, for example - according to that one Nobel winning Indian economist you referenced for Mao - and similarly based in agricultural mismanagement by the powerful. Mao may have had more excuse, in that personal gain was not the apparent motive. You've been corrected on this before. Mao was not a genocidal maniac. Mussolini was as far as we know a lifelong theist, and certainly an adult (before his taking power) baptized Catholic (but that's OK for your argument, because he wasn't a genocidal maniac either). The genocidal maniac Pol Pot inherited a genocidal massacre scene brought on by theist US bombs, and a theist schooling. He probably didn't match the bombing, in genocidal motive or effect - blaming him for the brutality and starvation of the city evacuations is wrong, for example. Stalin and Kim were short, brutal, paranoid, megalomaniacal commanders of obedient theists - in Kim's case, officially so. North Korea is officially and coercively theist. Only by mindreading do we ascertain his atheism. And so forth.
Those are details. Which one presumes are more opinions than facts. Mussolini declared himself an atheist. Mao was merely the tail end of the "cultural revolution" and the massacres of religious Chinese was just collateral damages. Pol Pot never really meant to kill anyone, he was just a misunderstood artist. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The Korean guy who worships himself and insists everyone else do so is a God fearing believer, etc. Would you like to address the assumed violence of theists in a similar manner? Or are you too of the opinion that theism = violence?
Are Hadiths a part (fundamental and/or important) of Islam? After all, do they not tell of the words, actions and customs of Mohammed himself? As for the killings themselves, records are rarely kept of them, instead the murders are committed in secret or the cover of darkness and the bodies later found dumped.
No, he declared himself a Roman Catholic. They are details, which are facts that contradict your assertions. The declared official Deity is a dead guy. That's not too unusual, among God-fearing believers. Pol Pot committed mass murder. So did Mao. Argue honestly, or don't bother. Not in that manner, no.
I said I'm christian, don't kill the apostates. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is the primary command outside of belief in christianity... and I just hate it when someone just wanders up and kills me for changing my mindPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It's a religious double think. Religious people order people to get killed for turning their back on religion, but it's nothing to do with religion, says Sam. WTF indeed. Meanwhile, same, oops, Sam, keeps mispelling 'Catholic' as 'atheist'!
It means that a jurist is a political entity, not a religious one. Sort of like a Christian jurist in the Supreme Court. Is that such a mystery?
