'Splain this one Atheists...

[JimC]

If you compare all the deaths that were the direct result of religious wars with all the deaths that were the result of atheistic wars

No one has ever died in an atheistic war because there has never been such a thing in the entire history of human civilisation
And so contrary to what you may think non religious wars are not wars fought by atheists trying to impose it upon others who
are not. But history is littered with examples of theists trying to impose their particular belief upon others. This includes not
only atheists but other theists also even ones of the same religion. It is happening to day with absolutely no end in sight to it

The fact that Stalin killed a few Russian priests (mainly because they were a potential rival power block) is very small beer compared to the vast numbers of others he purged and killed to cement his own power without regard to their faith or lack of it. There has simply been no war whose fundamental premise involves atheists deliberately taking on a religion. Even in the case of religious people being killed because of their religion in a non-war context, the vast majority would be killed by people of a rival religion (or sect within their own religion) rather than atheists. In fact, many more atheists will have been killed for being non-believers by religious people than the reverse, and it's still happening in Bangladesh to this day

Having said that, it is probable that the deaths involved in wars that involve power struggles by nations over territory or ideology (the majority in recent times) have outweighed the deaths in wars that were exclusively religious in nature. Of course, many wars have blended the two.

[Seth]

Despite some blips, people get along better with religion in the mix. That much is a historical fact.

I don't think the crusades, the thirty year war, the inquisition, the partition of India and ISIS, to mention a few historical facts, are mere blips. As for the numbers killed, just you wait for the time Islamic terrorists get their hands on nuclear, biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction, and the means to deliver them.

If you compare all the deaths that were the direct result of religious wars with all the deaths that were the result of atheistic wars you'll find that atheistic wars have taken many times the number of lives that religious wars have.

Read up. The reason there were fewer people killed during religious conflicts is that the protagonists did not have the equipment to effect slaughter of humans on the massive scale that we have now.

Conjecture and non sequitur.

[Seth]

No one has ever died in an atheistic war because there has never been such a thing in the entire history of human civilisation

Except of course that you are quite simply ignorantly and completely wrong, as my earlier citations prove.

[Seth]

If you compare all the deaths that were the direct result of religious wars with all the deaths that were the result of atheistic wars

No one has ever died in an atheistic war because there has never been such a thing in the entire history of human civilisation
And so contrary to what you may think non religious wars are not wars fought by atheists trying to impose it upon others who
are not. But history is littered with examples of theists trying to impose their particular belief upon others. This includes not
only atheists but other theists also even ones of the same religion. It is happening to day with absolutely no end in sight to it

The fact that Stalin killed a few Russian priests (mainly because they were a potential rival power block) is very small beer compared to the vast numbers of others he purged and killed to cement his own power without regard to their faith or lack of it.

Thanks for admitting to the facts and demonstrating that I'm absolutely correct. Your idle opinion on the value of human lives is just that and is small comfort to those who died during Stalin's atheist purge of religion.

There has simply been no war whose fundamental premise involves atheists deliberately taking on a religion.

Complete pettifoggery and fundamental untruth, as Stalin's (not to mention Mao and Pol Pot's) purges prove.

[JimC]

Their purges were not wars, and the number of people they killed because of their faith was tiny compared to the number they killed for a wide variety of other reasons. Those totalitarian regimes were in the business of retaining power by any means, Religion was a relatively minor threat to those aims; differing or competing ideologies were vastly more important in creating targets.

[Seth]

Their purges were not wars,

I doubt the victims cared much for the pettifogging distinction you are trying to make to save your false argument.

and the number of people they killed because of their faith was tiny compared to the number they killed for a wide variety of other reasons. Those totalitarian regimes were in the business of retaining power by any means, Religion was a relatively minor threat to those aims; differing or competing ideologies were vastly more important in creating targets.

Minimizing the deaths of 100 million people just so you can try and deny that atheism can, and does, lead to far worse social consequences than religion does.

Nice going.

The problem with your argument is that there are no, and never have been any atheistic societies where the atheists are in the majority and in control and do not or have not deliberately and intentionally purged and/or oppressed the religious members of the society as a threat to the atheist power structure.

[Hermit]

Despite some blips, people get along better with religion in the mix. That much is a historical fact.

I don't think the crusades, the thirty year war, the inquisition, the partition of India and ISIS, to mention a few historical facts, are mere blips. As for the numbers killed, just you wait for the time Islamic terrorists get their hands on nuclear, biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction, and the means to deliver them.

If you compare all the deaths that were the direct result of religious wars with all the deaths that were the result of atheistic wars you'll find that atheistic wars have taken many times the number of lives that religious wars have.

Read up. The reason there were fewer people killed during religious conflicts is that the protagonists did not have the equipment to effect slaughter of humans on the massive scale that we have now.

Conjecture and non sequitur.

There is nothing conjectural about massacres having occurred by religiously motivated warriors, nor the fact that more deaths having been effected had they had to deal with greater populations and had they had machine guns, cannons with explosive power of modern times and other weapons of mass destruction at their disposal. And 'non sequitur' is of course a lovely word to bandy about, but it does not apply here either.

[Seth]

There is nothing conjectural about massacres having occurred by religiously motivated warriors, nor the fact that more deaths having been effected had they had to deal with greater populations and had they had machine guns, cannons with explosive power of modern times and other weapons of mass destruction at their disposal. And 'non sequitur' is of course a lovely word to bandy about, but it does not apply here either.

Your claim that fewer people were killed because of a lack of technology is conjecture and it's non sequitur because it does not follow that if religious warriors had access to better technologies they would inevitably have killed more people. You have no direct evidence that this was or would be the case, so you're just speculating.

It's also utterly irrelevant because what you think might happen, or might have happened, is not what happened, and the fact remains that atheistic warfare has killed tens of millions more people throughout history than religious warfare has. You can claim that it's not "atheistic" warfare because nobody was waving the big A atheist banner as the waves of Atheist Crusaders overwhelmed the Vatican, but it is simply a fact that neither WWI, WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnam war or indeed any other war in modern history, or the purges of human beings by atheistic Marxists were "religious wars" fought under the name of this or that religion, and those wars and purges are responsible for the enormous majority of human beings killed in all of human history.

Your speculations and conjectures about what might have happened had there been more people and better killing technology available during, for example, the Crusades, or the Muslim invasions and massacres and enslavement of non-Muslims intent on creating a world Caliphate that preceded and triggered the Crusades is idle speculation and you know it.

The fact remains that atheistic massacres, oppression, purges and war have killed more people than all the religions in the history of the world have.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

Minimizing the deaths of 100 million people just so you can try and deny that atheism can, and does, lead to far worse social consequences than religion does.

What crap. I'm not "minimizing" their deaths. They were killed because of (real) marxist totalitarianism. rather than because of their religious beliefs. I would have thought you would have taken the opportunity to excoriate Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot for the evil inherent in their version of marxism, rather than the rather incidental atheism, which was not their prime motivation for slaughter.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

Minimizing the deaths of 100 million people just so you can try and deny that atheism can, and does, lead to far worse social consequences than religion does.

What crap. I'm not "minimizing" their deaths. They were killed because of (real) marxist totalitarianism. rather than because of their religious beliefs.

You are wrong. Many of them were killed because of their religious beliefs and the rest were killed BY the religious beliefs of Marxists, which are atheistic in nature. Therefore atheism is directly responsible for the deaths of a hundred million people or more in the last century.

I would have thought you would have taken the opportunity to excoriate Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot for the evil inherent in their version of marxism, rather than the rather incidental atheism, which was not their prime motivation for slaughter.

Hah! "Incidental atheism" my ass. Atheism was and is a central component of Marxism. Now, one could say that Marxism is itself a religious belief that Marxists practice as " a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith", which would mean that "religion" is the most prolific killer of humans ever, but that would require us to identify the specific religions involved and their body counts, and if we do that, the atheist religion of Marxism still wins hands-down.

[Ian]

Scumbag.

[Seth]

Scumbag.

Well, if you insist on deprecating yourself, I suppose it's nobody's business but your own. Perhaps some Zoloft or Prozac might help.

[Ian]

Seth, you're a scumbag.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Seth, you're a scumbag.

Lovely as it is to see you again, Ian, if all you are going to do is hurl personal attack, you might as well leave again. Next time is a suspension.

[Ian]

Duly noted.