I can have discussions with some people but you are an exception. It's like talking to a brick wall. Stalin's motives were political. When it was suggested that you read up on Stalin, you replied that it did not matter what you had read. Well, that's your problem. You are arguing from a position of ignorance and seem determined to keep it that way.
Myles, If not accepting misquotations, and meanings of points I make, whether purposeful or not, makes me like a brick wall in discussion, then so be it. Of course Stalin motives were political, he was the government. Tonly Blair and George Bush's motives could only be classed as political, but due to the severity of their decisions, I think its okay to speculate on why they acted in that way, as there were some dubious moments. This also is political, imo. What makes you think I need to read up on Starlin, especially as we have not actually disagreed on anything? So are you, in the sense that you do not know whether his atheism was the root cause of his actions. You only assume this. Why? Because of your atheism, maybe. jan.
The two issues are separate. He killed millions to oppress minority cultures in the USSR. But he also killed any number of athiests in opposition to him. If you can demonstrate the link between closing places of worship and the Five Year Plans, I would entertain it's investigation.
phlogistician, Most of the atheists here say flat out that religion is the cause of wars, religion is evil, God is evil, blah, blah, blah.... She is saying, hey, the people who actually do the most killing have been people who are atheist, people who are not conventionally religious. So if religious rule is the cause of evil due to such actions, what of atheist rule who are responsible for the most killings. I believe she is using your own logic, but you cannot see this. As such, if such killing is due to being religious, then by the same token, it is due, to being non-religious. I believe she is saying, you can't have your cake, and eat it. I think this is the thought process of the modern atheist. For example, the Palestinian suicide bomber makes a political statement by targeting Israel, and atheists jump straight on the bandwagon of blaming religion for his/her action. The trouble is, you want your cake, and eat it, and have become blinded to point where you cannot see this blatent contradiction. Either that, or you couldn't give a toss. If it applies to one, then it applies to the other. Most probably because I have some understanding of what she is saying, and where she is coming from. What I have noticed with you, and others, is that you don't really try and understand what we are saying. You have a preset idea, and as far there is concern, you've no need to take anything we say seriously. When something is presented which falls outside of the presets, and there is no set argument to deal with that issue, you (plural) go to plan 'b', which entails mockery, then the discussion falls by the wayside. jan.
Obviously I don't fit in with most, I just think Religion is Horse dung. I'm not going to bother explaining why, it's a waste of time. By all means fertilize the garden. As for the topic of the thread, (un?)fortunately in a "Civilized society" there is no place for any death penalties, only re-education.
************* M*W: Myles, don't feel alone. I came to sciforums still believing in a god and that JC existed. Even then I could not communicate with Jan Ardena. He is truly indoctrinated, so any discussion with him is futile. Save your thought-provoking communications for those who at least have half a brain.
I'm not so sure he holds the record. I have read records that Ghengis Khan's record would make make Stalin blush. "I am the Flail of God. If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon You." - Genghis Khan
Published world record. Did Genghis Khan murder more than 20 million people? I'd have thought there wouldn't even be 20 million people in the region at the time. Yup, you got it all right. Thats usually what I do, apply their own logic to their arguments. They don't see it at all. Which makes me wonder about their supposed rationality. My favourite is atheists redefining atheism while mocking theists for redefining religious attitudes. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You mean as a percentage of total population? Hmm, the world population at the time of Changez was 310,000,000 closest known figures to his life term, assuming he died around 1227, as reported. The population was 2,518,629,000 in 1950, closest to Stalin, who died in 1953. I don't know the death toll for Changez, do you?
I have read that Chinese population before Khan was a little over 110 million. After his invasion it was about 57 Million. (that's doesn't include his capaigns against the rest of the world once he conquered China). Source: The Story of the Mongols Whom We Call the Tartars= Historia Mongalorum Quo s Nos Tartaros Appellamus: Friar Giovanni Di Plano Carpini's Account of His Embassy to the Court of the Mongol Khan -- written in the 13th century. ISBN 0828320179
Is there a census source? hmm apparently his record is 1,748,000 an hour. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Apparently, yes. The Chinese took very detailed census back then... Tax collectors needed it. He didn't do them all personally. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! That's an urban legend based on the population of a city he laid seige to.
It likely took his troops about 10 days to kill those 1.75 million in Nishapur. http://history.howstuffworks.com/asian-history/genghis-khan-murder1.htm
Ah yes, I'm reading stuff about him on google, apparently there is nothing he did not do. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! One source said that he apparently decimated a tenth of the existing world population at the time. I'm wondering is that is even possible. What was the period of his attack on China do you know? I'd like to calculate the kill ratio per hour to see if it even makes sense.
Maraunding mobs killed in the neighborhood of 800,000 people over three months in Rwanda. It doesn't seem much of a stretch at all for one of thoe most elite, fearsome fighting forces in the history of man, made up of warriors who trained rigorously since childhood, who conquered essentially all of the known world at the time, to have killed over 60 million (by some estimates over 100 million) over a period of 8 years.
The 'logic' fails, when you introduce the 'a' from atheist, which means 'NOT'. Maybe if you'd studied more electronics or computing, or maths or set theory you'd understand what 'NOT' means. How can logic from one area apply to another which is NOT the same? You are being ridiculous Sam. Dogmatic, and ridiculous. You also keep ignoring the fact that Stalin was brought up a Catholic. Maybe it was religion that warped him? YOU are guilty of that, Sam. You don't get the simplicity of the term, and keep trying to attach baggage to it, because you can't debate honestly. Really, your arguments are underhand.
