Posted on 03/07/2002 6:07:31 AM PST by iav2
Joe Isuzu translation...
I'm getting my butt kicked, so I'm taking my ball and going home.
I believe in this respect it is you who is following revisionist history.
Yeah, whatever. You continue to be a jackass as much as you want. You have yet to actually add anything of value to the argument, so you make do by attacking the posters. You are impossible to converse with because you do not consider, nor respond to anything which actually has anything to do with the conversation. You do not listen to anything which doesn't line up with your "creative" reading of history. I'm tired of wasting my time trying to argue with someone who, for all rationale, could just as well be a wall. Or my television set.
I've got better things to do with my time than argue with someone who will not rationally argue back, bud. Take your effing ad-hominems and shove 'em back where they came from.
You can read THAT however the hell you want. FReegards.
:/ ttt
Or percentage. Or destruction of land. Etc. Not that any of this matters to him.
For the last time, atrocities are atrocities, no matter who the hell committed them. That is not what's under dispute. I don't give a damn whether it's Attilla the Hun that did it, or if it's Mr. Rodgers. There's no justifying evil acts.
What is being argued is the INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST reading of history, which states that religion in general, Christianity in particular, has committed more acts of evil than any other group. This is patently and grossly untrue.
(It's a waste of time to argue it with such an anti-religious nut (if I may say so), though.)
:) ttt
OWdKc recycles his arguments when he disrupts a thread, no matter how many times they are responded to. If it is not the Inquisition, it is the Crusades. If it is not the Crusades, it is Salem. If it is not Salem, it is the "peacefule aboriginal peoples" of north and south America. And it goes on and on. A literal head of stone, if you will.
A fun project would be putting together a web page for the OWdKc FAQ. That way, when he starts trolling on a thread, simply link to the page. Maybe I would do that, but I am too nice of a guy. ;)
He has certain a priori concepts which he is blinded to by their very nature, and when you throw something at him that doesn't fit into his paradigm, arguing with him can sometimes be like butting your head up against a wall.
But it is usually never worth losing your temper over, even on a thread like this one, where he has been guilty of a number of ad hominem and straw man arguments.
I don't necessarily think numbers of dead are the only yardstick by which we are to measure history's "worst" attrocities. Particularly given the technological disadvantage in the tools of war which the crusaders and conquistadors had, relative to the 20th century communist butchers.
I personally would count the inquisitor's attempts to help others confess their love of Jesus, by ripping the flesh off of their quivering backs, among the worst of history's attrocities, but I guess that's just me.
And for what it's worth... I said earlier, (and I repeat now) that the actions of the inquisitors, the crusaders, and the conquistadors were in diametric opposition to the teachings of the Nazarene.
I'm not attempting to rest these attrocities at the feet of Christianity. I am attempting to help others understand that the communistic atheist butchers of the 20th century, and the theologically oriented butchers of the middle ages didn't share a faith... but they shared one common trait which allowed them to brutalize their fellow men in unspeakable ways. They shared a fundamental disregard for the rights of their fellow men.
Any man (whether claiming Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or atheism) who disregards the rights of others is a potential butcher.
Any who respect the rights of others, are not.
(good to see you by the way)
This is of course, an exaggeration. To come up with that kind of number one has to blame the spread of smallpox amongst native Americans on a belief that the Europeans spread the disease on purpose and they did it in the name of Christ. Denying your exaggeration is not making an excuse for their actions.
Now let's do a little math here. 1.5 Billion Muslims, divided by of, Oh let's say 500 condemners of the evil acts of 9/11. I make it 0.0000000033% of Muslims worldwide who condemn this form of jihad.
Thank you for reassuring us. I can see now that Islam is truly a religion of peace and that the 200 Million or so Muslims who really want me converted or dead, and their 3 or 400 Million enablers, are merely a statistical aberration among an otherwise upright group of mosque-going, Allah-fearing folks, who are tolerant, live-and-let-live, and just want to get along.
Drop by my place sometime, show you pictures of bridge I just bought down to NYC. Goes over the East River to Brooklyn. Real deal. In the meantime, do us all a favor, take your Muslims back to Sandistan and have them reapply under your sponsorship when YOU guys get it sorted out.
As to your comment about what is the real distinction to be made, I must say that it is not the distinction being discussed on this thread. Nor, for that matter, is it particularly helpful, other than to give yourself an opportunity to pat yourself on the back for being morally and ethically superior. Because certain groups and philosophies and theologies have a logical and historical propensity to violate the God-given rights of others to either a greater or lesser degree, athiests presently holding the record for the worst atrocities of all time.
And it is good to see you as well, although I have not been around here of late.
Once again, I am trying to draw an important distinction (which I think you are struggling to ignore).
It is not atheism which shapes my dealings with other human beings. Atheism simply describes my beliefs with respect to the existence of deities. My ethics are derived from my philosophy. At the core of this philosophy, is the concept of individual human rights. As such, you need not fear the initiation of force from me under ANY circumstances, regardless of my lack of theological beliefs.
And likewise theistic beliefs are no guarantee of respect for the rights of others. The initiation of force has often historically accompanied the advancement of religious beliefs.
So it is not religion, or lack of religion, which empowers history's butchers. It is a system of ethics (whether philosophically or theologically inspired) which disregards the rights of individuals.
Have atheistic communists butchered millions? you betcha...
Have theistically minded zealots butchered quite a few themselves? Yup.
What did they share in common? Not religion, but corrupted ethics which disregarded rights.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.