Come On In and Have a Seat Over There

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
41

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

You miss the point. Here would be a concrete bit of text from the work I referenced.[/quote]

Read it, completely irrelevant.

Well, instead of telling me about something other than the topic, dispute my facts. I don’t give a damn about your irrelevant anti-colonialism tract - you said more blood has been spilled because of religion than secularism. I gave you specific examples telling a different story - which you were apparently completely unaware of - and you haven’t provided any refutation of those examples that contradict or otherwise provide a different context to your theory.

You just blather on about about how Westerners won’t pay attention to facts as cited by some cultural anthrologist. Well, let’s hear it - tell me which facts I have wrong about the body count brought to us by murderous secular ideologies. Looking forward to a coherent answer.[/quote]

That tract was an example of how history, the same facts, can be viewed differently by two different groups. It wasn’t even anti colonial other than stating that perhaps the prevailing view of who was the nomad was not correct.

There is likely no way to get an exact body count that can be attributed to either purely secular systems or ones coming from religion. However I would agree with the assertion in the book that the monotheistic religions fit perfectly with many if not all of the factor’s that drive genocide.(from Lemkin…another book so don’t bother :)) I also agree with the assertions that participants in genocide are willing and eager not simply following orders and that this type of feeling is driven by something whether it be racism or the idea that one is the chosen people and the other group is not.

I never claimed that ALL violence was driven by religion. I do claim that much if not most is and that history bears this out. If you view the underlying motivations of events like the holocaust differently than your opinion will likely be different.

You are asking me to disprove something that has nothing to do with my thesis. And you haven’t established that any of your events were purely driven by secular motives with any type of original source or historical interpretation.

42

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

You miss the point. Here would be a concrete bit of text from the work I referenced.[/quote]

Read it, completely irrelevant.

Well, instead of telling me about something other than the topic, dispute my facts. I don’t give a damn about your irrelevant anti-colonialism tract - you said more blood has been spilled because of religion than secularism. I gave you specific examples telling a different story - which you were apparently completely unaware of - and you haven’t provided any refutation of those examples that contradict or otherwise provide a different context to your theory.

You just blather on about about how Westerners won’t pay attention to facts as cited by some cultural anthrologist. Well, let’s hear it - tell me which facts I have wrong about the body count brought to us by murderous secular ideologies. Looking forward to a coherent answer.[/quote]

That tract was an example of how history, the same facts, can be viewed differently by two different groups. It wasn’t even anti colonial other than stating that perhaps the prevailing view of who was the nomad was not correct.

There is likely no way to get an exact body count that can be attributed to either purely secular systems or ones coming from religion. However I would agree with the assertion in the book that the monotheistic religions fit perfectly with many if not all of the factor’s that drive genocide.(from Lemkin…another book so don’t bother :)) I also agree with the assertions that participants in genocide are willing and eager not simply following orders and that this type of feeling is driven by something whether it be racism or the idea that one is the chosen people and the other group is not.

I never claimed that ALL violence was driven by religion. I do claim that much if not most is and that history bears this out. If you view the underlying motivations of events like the holocaust differently than your opinion will likely be different.

You are asking me to disprove something that has nothing to do with my thesis. And you haven’t established that any of your events were purely driven by secular motives with any type of original source or historical interpretation.

[/quote]

Wow, still no numbers. Interesting.

43

[quote]groo wrote:

Why is it though that 911 is seen by some to be representative of Islam but the pedophilia scandal isn’t seen as representative of the priesthood?

[/quote]

What a dummy.

44

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

You miss the point. Here would be a concrete bit of text from the work I referenced.[/quote]

Read it, completely irrelevant.

Well, instead of telling me about something other than the topic, dispute my facts. I don’t give a damn about your irrelevant anti-colonialism tract - you said more blood has been spilled because of religion than secularism. I gave you specific examples telling a different story - which you were apparently completely unaware of - and you haven’t provided any refutation of those examples that contradict or otherwise provide a different context to your theory.

You just blather on about about how Westerners won’t pay attention to facts as cited by some cultural anthrologist. Well, let’s hear it - tell me which facts I have wrong about the body count brought to us by murderous secular ideologies. Looking forward to a coherent answer.[/quote]

That tract was an example of how history, the same facts, can be viewed differently by two different groups. It wasn’t even anti colonial other than stating that perhaps the prevailing view of who was the nomad was not correct.

There is likely no way to get an exact body count that can be attributed to either purely secular systems or ones coming from religion. However I would agree with the assertion in the book that the monotheistic religions fit perfectly with many if not all of the factor’s that drive genocide.(from Lemkin…another book so don’t bother :)) I also agree with the assertions that participants in genocide are willing and eager not simply following orders and that this type of feeling is driven by something whether it be racism or the idea that one is the chosen people and the other group is not.

I never claimed that ALL violence was driven by religion. I do claim that much if not most is and that history bears this out. If you view the underlying motivations of events like the holocaust differently than your opinion will likely be different.

You are asking me to disprove something that has nothing to do with my thesis. And you haven’t established that any of your events were purely driven by secular motives with any type of original source or historical interpretation.

[/quote]

Wow, still no numbers. Interesting.[/quote]

Shrug ok total WW2 deaths estimated around 48 million I claim those for religious violence. Beat 48 million then I’ll add some more.

45

Resources. Anytime material resources were involved, you had a secular rationale for violence. Land, spices, gold, gems, water, forced labor.

46

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

Why is it though that 911 is seen by some to be representative of Islam but the pedophilia scandal isn’t seen as representative of the priesthood?

[/quote]

What a dummy.[/quote]

47

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

Why is it though that 911 is seen by some to be representative of Islam but the pedophilia scandal isn’t seen as representative of the priesthood?

[/quote]

What a dummy.[/quote]
[/quote]It’s a bit disturbing how you can be so sharp one minute and so utterly vacuous the next. Must be youth.

49

Pusharder you act like you know about WWII, yet you claim religion was not involved? Know your history or STFU. The whole war was based around the extermination of Jews, and the percieved perfection of the blue eyed blonde haired aryan race. Which was mixed self servingly with religion, and still is by skin head nazis today. Hence all the deaths in WWII can then be attributed to a religious war which is what it was. If you can not admit that then you are not dealing with reality and need to exit my thread.

50

[quote]WW3General wrote:
Pusharder you act like you know about WWII,
[/quote]

I bet you know more than anyone here about everything.

Presumably you mean the European War. What do you mean the war was “based around the extermination of Jews?” What exactly do you mean? And what does Nazi race ideology have to do with your assertion that WWII was a “religious war?”

The Aryan race was “mixed self servingly with religion?” What do you mean?

[quote] and still is by skin head nazis today.
[/quote]

Say what?

Sorry, how does that work?

What works have you read on WWII BTW?

51

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
.[/quote]

I forgot Pope John Paul II and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, were all like death to the Great Satan. Allahu Akbar![/quote]
All the picture evidence of Christian led genocide are not near so tame as the kinda blanket one I put up of imagine no religion kinda whimsically. If you like there is plenty of evidence from the holocaust say. Also there is no shortage of evidence from things like Jonestown of radical antireligious tragedy.

Why is it though that 911 is seen by some to be representative of Islam but the pedophilia scandal isn’t seen as representative of the priesthood?

I do think its a bit of a stretch to argue both positions though that the whole of a group is the same as a few bad apples. Though I think there are quite a few problems from organized religion you wouldn’t see in individual worship.

[/quote]

Because Jihad isn’t a tenet of Christianity, or Judaism. Neither is forced conversion. However, it is for Islam. [/quote]

Well, who am I to believe?

You or Urban II ?

52

Really though, let’s find all the pedophiles and put them on an island somewhere while we wait for them to finish cloning those dinosaurs. We could make a sport out of it.

53

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
.[/quote]

I forgot Pope John Paul II and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, were all like death to the Great Satan. Allahu Akbar![/quote]
All the picture evidence of Christian led genocide are not near so tame as the kinda blanket one I put up of imagine no religion kinda whimsically. If you like there is plenty of evidence from the holocaust say. Also there is no shortage of evidence from things like Jonestown of radical antireligious tragedy.

Why is it though that 911 is seen by some to be representative of Islam but the pedophilia scandal isn’t seen as representative of the priesthood?

I do think its a bit of a stretch to argue both positions though that the whole of a group is the same as a few bad apples. Though I think there are quite a few problems from organized religion you wouldn’t see in individual worship.

[/quote]

Because Jihad isn’t a tenet of Christianity, or Judaism. Neither is forced conversion. However, it is for Islam. [/quote]

Well, who am I to believe?

You or Urban II ?[/quote]

Both, the first Crusade was about self defense. However, Jihad is the sixth pillar of Islam.

54

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
.[/quote]

I forgot Pope John Paul II and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, were all like death to the Great Satan. Allahu Akbar![/quote]
All the picture evidence of Christian led genocide are not near so tame as the kinda blanket one I put up of imagine no religion kinda whimsically. If you like there is plenty of evidence from the holocaust say. Also there is no shortage of evidence from things like Jonestown of radical antireligious tragedy.

Why is it though that 911 is seen by some to be representative of Islam but the pedophilia scandal isn’t seen as representative of the priesthood?

I do think its a bit of a stretch to argue both positions though that the whole of a group is the same as a few bad apples. Though I think there are quite a few problems from organized religion you wouldn’t see in individual worship.

[/quote]

Because Jihad isn’t a tenet of Christianity, or Judaism. Neither is forced conversion. However, it is for Islam. [/quote]

Well, who am I to believe?

You or Urban II ?[/quote]

Both, the first Crusade was about self defense. However, Jihad is the sixth pillar of Islam. [/quote]

No it wasnt.

It was about finding some bullshit reason to get a large army of heavily armed and unruly men out of Europe and somewhere else.

It was spectaculary succesful too, over 60% of them died.

But even if you accept his reason which you can find here Internet History Sourcebooks Project it is basically the same idea you find in Islam.

If the Umma is threatened, every Muslim warrior is called to fight.

55

[quote]WW3General wrote:

I love how thunderbolt has to disqualify genocide since it does not fit his world view. He states," Genocide is a certain kind of narrow violence - narrow in its sense of mission. We’re not defining “violence” so narrowly, so it’s irrelevant." Yes, so narrow and small in fact that it killed millions of Jews and continues to be committed in Africa. This is a perfect example of dodging and disqualifying everything that your religions have done, you are truly living in your own world.
[/quote]

I didn’t disqualify it, Einstein - I said you can’t simply look at genocide to the exclusion of other mass violence, i.e., genocide is one subset of a larger set of mass violence, and we are looking at the whole larger set, not a convenient subset.

If we’re going to look at mass violence and its causes, we look at all of it, not cherry-picked forms of it to support arguments.

Get smarter or stop wasting my time, dipshit.

56

[quote]groo wrote:

That tract was an example of how history, the same facts, can be viewed differently by two different groups. It wasn’t even anti colonial other than stating that perhaps the prevailing view of who was the nomad was not correct.[/quote]

Fantastic, and still irrelevant to your point and mine.

Awesome - so you just conceded you don’t have a basis for your claim. Well done.

You claim it, but history doesn’t bear it out. I’ve already cited two examples off the top of my head, and you simply ignore the history because it’s inconvenient to your argument.

Two things: (1) what I raised has everything to do with “your thesis” because it directly refutes “your thesis” - and you’ve provided nothing to counter it.

(2) For that matter, you haven’t established that any of your events weren’t driven by mixed motives…i.e., “religious” wars of the past were infused with political and territorial motives, but you account for none of that.

Guess you need to go back to posting snarky posters with cutsey one-liners - that seems to be more your speed.

57

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

That tract was an example of how history, the same facts, can be viewed differently by two different groups. It wasn’t even anti colonial other than stating that perhaps the prevailing view of who was the nomad was not correct.[/quote]

Fantastic, and still irrelevant to your point and mine.

Awesome - so you just conceded you don’t have a basis for your claim. Well done.

You claim it, but history doesn’t bear it out. I’ve already cited two examples off the top of my head, and you simply ignore the history because it’s inconvenient to your argument.

Two things: (1) what I raised has everything to do with “your thesis” because it directly refutes “your thesis” - and you’ve provided nothing to counter it.

(2) For that matter, you haven’t established that any of your events weren’t driven by mixed motives…i.e., “religious” wars of the past were infused with political and territorial motives, but you account for none of that.

Guess you need to go back to posting snarky posters with cutsey one-liners - that seems to be more your speed.[/quote]
I gave you an entire work about the genesis of mass violence that supports my position. If you choose not to read it thats fine. I also mentioned Lemkin’s unfinished yet available work. As he uses genocide its comparable to homicide so its exactly what we are discussing. I post snarky one liners because its pointless arguing with the dogmatic that won’t even read any works on a subject or count anything as evidence yet consider case closed. Polpot, Stalin herp derp secular violence refute that seems to be the crux of your position.

Your point 2 is equally as valid toward any of the historical cases you stated, which also dovetails nicely into my position that much of what is history is fiction.

Also considering the fact that the human brain takes an emotional response to everything prior to any logical one it becomes pointless to really post things.

Position A Most violence in history is related to religion vis a vis “chosen people” as per Lemkin.

Position B Polpot Stalin…disprove them.

Position A eh? Certainly there are secular examples too but there are more religious deaths in my opinion than non in history.

Position B Bah numbers or get out Fuck your books reading is hard not interested.

Position A WW2 48million deaths

Position WTF those deaths are not religion related

Position B Get the fuck out Polpot Stalin you suck are snarky can’t handle the big boy evidence I brought of Stalin meh meh meh. I will never read any of those pesky books by the Jews about the holocaust or any work by someone saying the monotheistic religions have the same base tenets that lead to genocidal conflict.

Seriously if you think a few roughly 300 page works are too much time commitment to devote to a subject yet feel free to question others historical knowledge and wonder why someone would move from logos to pathos or ethos I despair a bit for you.

58

[quote]groo wrote:
Certainly there are secular examples too but there are more religious deaths in my opinion than non in history.[/quote]

Could it be that you hold this opinion because that’s what you want to believe? It’s certainly not rooted in fact.

If you add up all the deaths supposedly caused by Christians I don’t think they’d equal even one example of non Christian murder.

Mao killed about 45 million people!

http://dailycapitalist.com/2011/08/11/how-mao-killed-45-million-people/

Now let’s see your proof, or just drop from the thread.

59

So is this really a war on Catholicism?

60

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
Certainly there are secular examples too but there are more religious deaths in my opinion than non in history.[/quote]

Could it be that you hold this opinion because that’s what you want to believe? It’s certainly not rooted in fact.

If you add up all the deaths supposedly caused by Christians I don’t think they’d equal even one example of non Christian murder.

Mao killed about 45 million people!

http://dailycapitalist.com/2011/08/11/how-mao-killed-45-million-people/

Now let’s see your proof, or just drop from the thread.[/quote]

Still 3 million light.