Atheist Death counts

posted on January 14th, 2008, 3:56 pm

I was watching atheists speaking the other day, and their arguments were rather shocking. It seems they base their justification on absurd accusations extrapolated from out-of-context quotes clubbed together with incoherent ideas on morality.

One of the more ridiculous ideas espoused, seems to be a count of the apparent "murders" in religion. Of course I know the world would certainly be a better place if the Divine would have let a group of people continue sodomizing all of the world's youths and fornicate with all the world's whores before we had proper AIDS tests, wage wars on mankind to build imperial archetypes of Nazi Germany, and of course partake in all the bounties of the Earth while telling the provider of such bounties to go f@#$ himself.

Certainly everyone is entitled to their own views, regardless of how puerile another may find them. But if we actually analyze the subject matter being peddled by atheists, we see that they seem to find fault with everything, yet have a solution for nothing.

If we look at the death counts throughout history we see atheists as wolves in sheep's clothing. they claim to criticise religion for its gore, yet when in power they have shown exactly what atheists are capable of:

Hitler - 6 million plus soldiers and non-jews
Stalin - degermanization pogroms and his own people
Pol Pot - hundreds of thousands.
Attila - thousands still
US and other groups on worldly affairs - hiroshima and nagasaki, as well as the 151,000 killed in a war of so called liberation in Iraq.

Pagans counts
Caesar's wars
Pharaoh's slaves and campaigns into Asia Minor
Persia's Xerxes and Darius
Greece's wars and the execution of Socrates
Roman gladiator sports and the genocide at Carthage by Scipio Africanus
The destruction of the first and second temples in Jerusalem
the forcing of Jews to eat pork under Antiochus, resistance to which would result in the tongues being cut out
Placing rocks and stones on the chests of early Muslims, gouging their eyes out, and placing hot coal on their flesh, till they renounced faith or died.
Feeding Christians to lions

Need we go on.
If we were to tally all these counts we see that the only one who has no blood on his hands is Satan. But even in that aspect we see that his altruism is a garb for his intention of keeping people alive so that they corrupt themselves enough to suffer eternally - neither alive nor dead.

In the end, regardless of how we splice it, atheism in criticising religion ultimately does so with the sole intent of allowing the atheist to live a guilt-free indulgence. Nothing deeper than that.
F^&* when you want to, booze to your heart's content, and of course live as you want caring for another person's rights (financial or otherwise) at your convenience and when you find it suitable to your logic.

No surprise that people who commit ID theft logically feel absolutely justified in doing so. Of course, when there is no guilt or responsibility one can certainly indulge one's self. Even if it is thievery, as a logical atheist, it is quite simple.
Shall we have a tally of thefts and swindlers who are atheists and hypocrites as opposed to people who believe?

Such a simple reduction, as can be seen, is capable by both sides. Fact is, if you find the content of this  post to be ridiculously reductionist, imagine how ridiculous it is when atheists actually reduce the development of civilization to "Zeitgeist" without even knowing their own history, and their critique of religion to a tally of civilizations sunk.
Perhaps, since it was ultimately natural calamity, we should all avenge ourselves on Earth itself, and "not believe" that we are inhabitants of Earth. After all, how could the planet from which we are to "gain sustenance" actually turn against us?! Hence, it is a "false planet", and we are actually from a Galaxy far far away   
no wonder global warming is cyclical! ridiculous.  --

[Dr. Lazarus]

posted on January 14th, 2008, 6:43 pm

Last edited by Dr. Lazarus on January 14th, 2008, 6:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Serpicus, I'm sure you've come across the rebuttals to the "atheist atrocity" arguments, but incase you haven't I suggest you do some research, I did so a long time ago and found it to be very useful.

One thing I will say briefly, and in support of some of your points, is that a person can commit atrocities and it not be a result of his atheism, just as a person can commit atrocities and it not be a result of his religion. I'm an atheist, but I could commit crimes for unrelated reasons, e.g I could be peeved if I don't have a job for example. A catholic can kill a protestant because he's a protestant, or because he wants his wallet (i.e. it was a coincidence). A muslim can murder someone because he hates him, or because the Koran ordered him to do it. And let us not forget that Hitler was a christian (shocked? I was). And finally, religious people hardly occupy the moral highground and should not try to take such a stand. The list of "religious" (careful) atrocites is equally impressive in size.

Let's not create simplistic arguments, as you say. It will create rifts between us that shouldn't have existed in the first place; we are all human beings at the end of the day.

[Anonymous]

posted on January 14th, 2008, 7:07 pm

Last edited by Anonymous on January 14th, 2008, 7:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"One thing I will say briefly is that a person can commit atrocities and it not be a result of his atheism, just as a person can commit atrocities and it not be a result of his religion. I'm an atheist, but I could commit crimes for unrelated reasons, e.g I could be peeved if I don't have a job for example. A catholic can kill a protestant because he's a protestant, or because he wants his wallet (i.e. it was a coincidence). A muslim can murder someone because he hates him, or because the Koran ordered him to do it. And let us not forget that Hitler was a christian (shocked? I was). And finally, religious people hardly occupy the moral highground and should not try to take such a stand. The list of "religious" (careful) atrocites is equally impressive in size."

Summary, at the end of it, neither atheist nor theist has the higher ground.
well said Laz 
PS: after that we may see you with a new bar graph  [br]Posted on: January 14, 2008, 07:53:44 pm

---

just FYI - No arguments just information

Hitler was Gnostic Occultist. Born a Christian like most Germans, but not practicing. It may also be of interest to note that he had Jewish heritage on his mother's side - distant relative.
He viewed Christianity as a relic of the "ape" invasion and sought to return to a paganized Europe that would be able to reclaim its lost Atlantean roots.

posted on January 14th, 2008, 7:19 pm

Thanks for the info, there's always room for more info, and it is similar to what I've read in the past. I was really referring to various quotes attributed to Hitler about doing the "will of the Lord" in opposing the Jews, but I think it's important to question Hitler's honesty anyway, as well as his sanity for that matter.

[Anonymous]

posted on January 14th, 2008, 8:38 pm

Last edited by Anonymous on January 14th, 2008, 8:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

it's not so much sanity or honesty. It's more a skewed outlook on things that gets people like this to do the things they do.
If you take Osama for example, he is actually quite sane and actually thinks of himself as being true. If he were caught I'm sure none of us would buy an "insanity plea". It's the reality he subscribes to that is suspect.
In his reality his people are under attack, with the modern system of democracy as the tool through which Western civilians elect the officials who wage this war. Hence he deems such civilian populaces to be fair game, and casts himself as the modern Joan of Arc. The rest is merely subjective interpretation that he picks and chooses at will.
Same with Hitler. He viewed the Jews as a lesser evolved race. Clinging onto the 19th century fad started with Theosophy and the concept of root race.

These people are quite sane, and if you look at it, arrive at, from their point of view, very logical conclusions. The only problem is that it is the set of facts and of course point of view upon which they base their logic, that ultimately morphs it into illogic.
After all, the math is only as good as the numbers you have.

In the end it is that set of facts to which a person subscribes, and the resulting actions he convinces himself to carry out, which separates a madman from a normal individual.
Not counting One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest - of course 

posted on January 14th, 2008, 9:16 pm

In the case where the person does not act through insanity, we could put it down to our inherent fear and tribalism, so even if the ideology seems logical from that person's viewpoint, the danger is that he acts through fear to try to protect it, something we've all done no doubt. I submit that the survival of our society depends on rising above our inbuilt tendency towards this, and this is where in the 21st century our quickly advancing technology will either create a utopia or utterly destroy us. There doesn't seem to be such a thing as a grey area because the 'inbetween' case is still very dangerous.

posted on January 15th, 2008, 1:36 am

True. But what exactly can people do, as long as there are groups who try to adjudicate over everyone else, citing superior ideology, there are going to be those who react. That's basic human nature, regardless.