[BRussell]

This has come up in a couple of threads recently. I'm interested in people's ideas about this - I just have some vague thoughts about it. Please correct my list, and add/subtract from it.

For the atheists, we have the Chinese and Soviet Communists, and other less ambitious communists, who killed maybe 50-100 million people in about 50 years. However, the killing was not primarily done in the name of atheism, it was done to crush political dissent.

For the religions, we have the Crusades in the 10th-12th centuries, killing probably a couple hundred thousand people over 200 years. This was done explicitly in the name of religion. There are also the witch trials and the Spanish inquisition, which probably killed another couple hundred thousand(?).

We also have the probably hundreds of conflicts including Yugoslavia, the Arab-Israeli conflict, bin Laden's war on infidels, Ireland, etc., that are based largely and explicitly on religious differences. I have no idea how many people were killed in these conflicts, but I would guess less than the 50-100 million killed by atheists.

Where do the Nazis fit in? They killed another 10 million people (what a great century it was), and they were Christians. And the killings were largely based on religious identification (Jews). If we count the communists as atheists who killed, we have to count the Nazis as Christians who killed.

Conclusions:
1. Atheists have killed more people than religions, even though religions had a long head start.
2. The reason atheists have killed more is entirely because of (mainly Soviet and Chinese) Communism.
3. Religions often kill people using religious justification; atheists don't usually invoke atheism to justify killing.
4. Atheist governments kill their own citizens, but religions kill people of other cultures/religions.
5. Atheist killers are a more recent bunch, mainly in the last 60 years or so; religions have been doing it for far longer.

[Niubi]

In my stint as a student on a politics degree, I did democracy, and was quite intregued by the lecturer's view that previous communist governments and nazi one's were in fact awfully simlar in their facets to that of theocracies, <governments founded on religion>

Consider that the West came out of religion when Henry the Eighth perverted Catholisism into Protestantism just so he could divorce and get a heir. Anyway the West was founded first on Hereditary monarchy with the 'divine right' that is the King or Queen was believed to be in direct contact with God. As the Monarchy and it's influence via British Empire waned, we as in the West came out of the Theocractic government. Other governments are still in it.

Although Communist states are atheist, they all base themselves on the rarified tenants of one strain of communistic though. Russia for instance held leninist doctrine in as high a regard as did Spain the Catholic faith before Franco.

Anyway, that was far to intelligent a post for me.... smell my feet

[AKcrab]

It's not the Athiests killing, it's Communists! Had they been christian or budhist, they still would have killed.

[MikeM32]

Your argument seems to be based that non-religious people(s) have killed more people than religious people have. I can't help but beg to differ. The real issue is what religion was everyone following?

Let's not forget issues like slavery and over-all oppression. I'd love to actually see the numbers on religious killings versus atheistic ones. There's probably alot of un-documented things that happenned in the name of someones "god".

The mere fact that a group of people choose to follow one "notion" is proof enough. They oppose anything that does not agree with that notion/belief. Fanaticism breeds fanatics this is proven time-and-time again.

If people didn't think they "knew everything" the world would be a better place.

Mike

[grand illusion]

fundamentalism of any stripe is at the root of this...

[simonjames]

And what type of people did the Communists kill? The people who wouldn't conform to the ruler's new laws - with religion outlawed the majority of the non-conformists would have been religious and therefore you could say the genocide was actually religion based.

Atheists do not kill people - we cherish life as we know this is the only one we have. Don't group us with Communists or dictators.

Face it - religion has always been the reason behind genocide and the destruction of foreign cultures.

[Mac The Fork]

I'm not going to debate this. Not quite up to it, today anyway.

For those who are going to try, I don't think you can draw a meaningful set of conclusions with the argument as it has been proposed. Religions versus atheists sounds like... orchards and oranges to me.

[Creation]

I don't like organized religion much. It's great that you can get together and share relatively the same ideas. It's not so great when you pervert the original intent of the religion to suit selfish needs. Yes we're selfish people, but one of the goals of religion is to make people better people based on doctrine.

I'm sure I'll be proven wrong about that soon.

In any event, it's not religion or lack thereof that gets people to kill each other. But it makes a great excuse.

God Angrily Clarifies "Don't Kill" Rule

[Lerkfish]

my answer would be that people have always killed people, because they could get away with it. If you can label the victims as this or that it becomes more palatable to kill them.This is the purpose of uniforms in battle, not only does it make it easier to identify your side and their side (handy while targeting) it makes the soldiers like bricks...one breaks you just move up the next one in line. Instead of thinking, gosh, we just lost Simpkins!, you think, ok, another casualty, but we're still going ahead.

What labels are used is immaterial. Just like no doubt Bin Laden used islam to recruit, but he wasnt recruiting devout followers. He was actually recruiting killers, its just that religion made it easier to round them up. If atheism could round up fanatical killers as easily, he'd use that instead.

I think for that reason this comparison is flawed, because it attempts to make a point that one way of thinking is more murderous than another way of thinking, but the problem is the murders were actually unrelated to the philosophy or religion. Nazis killed Jews because they controlled business and banks, among other things, it just became EASIER to justify killing them by using the label "jew" If the Jews were completely powerless in Germany at the time, I doubt there would have been any need to kill them. (I'm being overly simplistic here, sorry for any inaccuracies, and PLEASE don't think I approve, I'm appalled actually at how murderous we are as a species). In other words, the label, like the uniform, just makes it easier to target the enemy, and easier to accept losses on your own side. Makes it easier to create martyrs, etc.

so....although atheists or communists or buddhists or shinto or Shawnee or Nepalese or Austrians or Kmer Rouge or Stalin or Hitler Or the Crusades or the Inquisition killed more than one from column b, it doesnt matter because POWER was the real motivating factor...everything else was just convenient labeling.

[Mole]

This is all being pointless we know the real problem: it is sex.

If you are thinking about it the many people who have died in some way because of sex is greater than all from religion or atheism so this is what we should be trying to fix. Finding ways to stop things like:

- fat people from smothering their lovers.
- drunk dudes from releasing the parking break while screwing.
- anal bleeding.
- mistakes with chains, leather and the whips.
- heart attacks from the old coots and lardos doing it too fast and often.
- orgy tragidies.
- butt plugs that get stuck.
- falling off the bed when doing it bumpy style and breaking necks.
- all of the millions of zoo sex problems that are hurting farm boys.
- slipping and hitting head while doing it in the shower.
- getting toxic panties stuck in braces.
- death from sex boredum.

I have had many of these problems myself so I am knowing the evil! Solving problems like these will help the world a lot more than stopping the war or something easy like that.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by simonjames:
<STRONG>Atheists do not kill people - we cherish life as we know this is the only one we have.</STRONG>

Atheists don't kill people? Why do you want to defend your fellow atheists if they're killers?
PS: I'm an atheist, too, but I prefer "freethinker."

[BRussell]

Originally posted by grand illusion:
<STRONG>fundamentalism of any stripe is at the root of this...</STRONG>

I agree... Or at least "true-believer-ism:" When people believe in their ideologies so strongly that they stop thinking.

[Mole]

I am still saying sex problems are worse...

[zigzag]

It's an intriguing question but I'd be surprised if there were any way to answer it conclusively. I'm sure there are many who have killed because of religion, many others who have killed for other reasons but have used religion as a pretext, many others who have killed for reasons having nothing to do with religion, etc.

I'm a perfect example. I'm agnostic and have only killed when someone's cell phone rings while I'm trying to make a putt.

[nonhuman]

I originally posted this in the Car Bomb in the UK thread but I think it's relevant to this thread too, especially as a few other people have hinted at the same general idea. (Gotta love recycled rants )

Marxism/Bolshevism/Leninism/Stalinism/Maoism is, in many ways, just as much a belief system as Christianity/Judaism/Islam. People were driven to an essentially religious ferver by the propaganda (and threats of death) from their leaders, and it was in that state that they killed so many people (many were even killed because of their religion). It's not religion specifically that's the problem, it's any belief system that has a strong enough hold on people that they would kill for it. Killing in the name of Marx/Lenin/Stalin/Mao/Hitler is no different than killing in the name of God/Yahweh/Allah/Buddah/Krishna or even in the name of freedom/liberty/truth/justice/"the American way". None of these things/entities justify killing, and it is impossible to say that one is any better of a reason than another.

For a more general spin replace "freedom/liberty/truth/justice/'the American way'" with your cause of choice, and to me it will still be just as valid. In my mind the only real justification for killing is survival. If my life (or the life of someone close to me) is threatened (either through violent act or starvation) I wouldn't hesitate to kill a person or animal in order to alleviate that threat (there are circumstances in which I wouldn't kill another person even to ensure my own survival, but the specifics aren't really important here).

[San Acoustic]

I'm disappointed no one took this to task: " Nazis killed Jews because they controlled business and banks, among other things"

You've been reading too much Mein Kampf after your lobotomy.

[mindwaves]

Just to get the stuff right, you should always (well almost) think in terms of percentage and not just raw numbers.

[rjenkinson]

...thus trivializing each death even more. brilliant.

-r.

[ 11-07-2001: Message edited by: rjenkinson ]

[VRL]

Ignorant people kill most, often provoking others to defend themselves.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by San Acoustic:
<STRONG>I'm disappointed no one took this to task: " Nazis killed Jews because they controlled business and banks, among other things"

You've been reading too much Mein Kampf after your lobotomy.</STRONG>

I dont think you read my disclaimer correctly (or I didnt state it clearly) My point was that (and I'm no expert, I was just using this as an example) Hitler's reasons for the horrific genocide were related to his warped perceptions of their power base. The fact that he could label them more easily for ethnic or religious reasons just helped accelerate the process of hatred. He also did the same with poles, homosexuals, people that helped jews, etc. He was one extremely sick and distasteful evil character that I wish the human species had never spawned.
As I said, I wasnt supporting that, making the point only that power was as much or more so a motivator in his actions than religion. Its just that the label made it seem more palatable to other germans because then the label made the individuals faceless and therefore easier to hate without troubling their conscience.

I am against hate and against murder and against bigotry of any kind. I was in fact making the opposite argument from what you misunderstood. If you knew me (which you don't) you'd realize how far off is your accusation.

[San Acoustic]

Lerkfish: You said: "the problem is the murders were actually unrelated to the philosophy or religion."

Then you bolster that by saying "Nazis killed Jews because they controlled business and banks, among other things,"

Then you wrap it up with: "If the Jews were completely powerless in Germany at the time, I doubt there would have been any need to kill them."

Then you say you are appalled at how murderous we are as a species, which softens the focus on the particular and moves it into the general, a tactic used for centuries but honed to perfection in Nazi Germany.

Then you say "the label, like the uniform, just makes it easier to target the enemy, and easier to accept losses on your own side. Makes it easier to create martyrs, etc."

Martyr returns the subject to religion, specifically in your post, to the Jews.

All of this, however, is superfluous to "If the Jews were completely powerless in Germany at the time, I doubt there would have been any need to kill them." It's damn hard to read into that anything but what it says.

My advice, for what it's worth: If you plan to stick around, change your nickname and stick to the Dodge Neon posts.l

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by San Acoustic:
<STRONG>Lerkfish: You said: "the problem is the murders were actually unrelated to the philosophy or religion."

Then you bolster that by saying "Nazis killed Jews because they controlled business and banks, among other things,"

Then you wrap it up with: "If the Jews were completely powerless in Germany at the time, I doubt there would have been any need to kill them."

Then you say you are appalled at how murderous we are as a species, which softens the focus on the particular and moves it into the general, a tactic used for centuries but honed to perfection in Nazi Germany.

Then you say "the label, like the uniform, just makes it easier to target the enemy, and easier to accept losses on your own side. Makes it easier to create martyrs, etc."

Martyr returns the subject to religion, specifically in your post, to the Jews.

All of this, however, is superfluous to "If the Jews were completely powerless in Germany at the time, I doubt there would have been any need to kill them." It's damn hard to read into that anything but what it says.

My advice, for what it's worth: If you plan to stick around, change your nickname and stick to the Dodge Neon posts.l</STRONG>

well then, mea culpa for poor phrasing. certainly how people are reading that is NOT how I intended it. I'm sorry I picked that example, as I was originally going to use the Kmer Rouge.
I was trying to state how in Hitler's mind he sought to change the balance of power, which was more important to him in the long run.
But the other reason I shouldn't have used that example is I know very little about it (obviously) I have never read much of anything on the topic, just going by what history professors have told me.

I cannot prevent what people misunderstand, but I know that I am not as you have characterized me....in fact I'm about as opposite as you can get.

all of which PROVES my point, that since you can label me (incorrectly) it becomes that much easier to hate someone you don't know. The label in this case is completely superfluous to the truth, and therefore allows an injustice against me, and one which you can perpetrate and still feel good about it and justified because you have lashed out against a perceived label instead of finding out who I am before attacking.

see? proves my point, albeit at great cost to me.

[anarkisst]

Hey, people will kill people. Give one an idea, a belief, a cause or even a method (Final Solution) and watch the bodies drop...sad but true. We as humans have so much more within us to do good. But only time will tell...

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by anarkisst:
<STRONG>Hey, people will kill people. Give one an idea, a belief, a cause or even a method (Final Solution) and watch the bodies drop...sad but true. We as humans have so much more within us to do good. But only time will tell...</STRONG>

thanks. that's in a nutshell one of my points, only stated much better and shorter.

[San Acoustic]

As well as claiming you believe the opposite of what you clearly stated, you say:

"I cannot prevent what people misunderstand, but I know that I am not as you have characterized me....in fact I'm about as opposite as you can get. all of which PROVES my point, that since you can label me (incorrectly) it becomes that much easier to hate someone you don't know."

I haven't labelled you as anything. You did that with your own words. I didn't write them. Your post is Nazi doctrine 101.

Don't say you cannot prevent what people believe. You cannot write the word "elephant" then claim seriously I "misunderstood" you and should know "elephant" really means "mouse."

What you have proven, in addition to everything else, is a failure to even shift the blame when saying I have labelled you incorrectly, therefore making it easier for people to hate you.

1. I don't need to label you. You are quite capable of doing that yourself.

2. By saying "label you incorrectly," you imply I could have labelled you correctly, thereby making it easier for people to love you, I presume. A moment's thought about the latter shows its absurdity, revealing the absurdity of the former, which in turn illustrates the hollowness of the entire "label" gambit.

3. The latest from you: "I was trying to state how in Hitler's mind he sought to change the balance of power, which was more important to him in the long run."

4. Go away.

[ 11-07-2001: Message edited by: San Acoustic ]

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by San Acoustic:
<STRONG>4. Go away.</STRONG>

LOL!
well, holey moley, you appear way too psycho for me, in addition to being dead wrong. I'll just chalk this one up to experience, then, and realize that I can be disastrously misjudged.

My friends would be very surprised to hear me thought of as racist or anything of that sort.

I think going away is excellent advice, however, and will heed it.

[San Acoustic]

Show your friends your post, then ask them whether they think it's funny.

[Millennium]

Martyr returns the subject to religion, specifically in your post, to the Jews.

Not all martyrs die for their religions. While the most famous martyrs have died for their religious beliefs, a person can be a martyr for any cause.

Your post is Nazi doctrine 101.

Don't forget that even if it is Nazi doctrine, then that's exactly what it is: Nazi doctrine. That's what they believed. People act on what they percieve, which is not necessarily what is real. This is exactly how Hitler was able to attract so many people to his cause: he managed to construct a plausible delusion, and then tricked people into it. Perhaps not all that unlike a religion of its own.

By the way, it is in fact true that Hitler's hatred of the Jews was not due to their religion. He didn't much care about that; what he was fixated on was the racial component of the Jewish people (perhaps more accurately called "Hebrew" or "Semitic", though these were not the terms he used). He even went so far as to literally call hatred of Judaism "misguided", something that didn't earn him a lot of friends in the existing anti-Semitic community of the time (which generally focused on religious hate, rather than the racist hate Hitler espoused). He literally built a new -and in some ways even worse- form of anti-Semitism, one which came frighteningly near to winning.

The question of Hitler's own religious beliefs is a matter that's up to a lot of debate, actually. It's well-known that he was born a Catholic, however it's generally accepted that by the time he rose to power he no longer affiliated himself with those beliefs (I don't know whether or not he was formally excommunicated; he might have been). The two prevailing theories are that he was either atheist or a neo-pagan of some kind; this gets debated back and forth all the time and there's some evidence for both sides of this. I don't claim to know what he was or what difference it made, if any. It is known that the Nazi government actually did quite a bit of research into paranormal phenomena, among other more gruesome things.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Millennium:
<STRONG>
Don't forget that even if it is Nazi doctrine, then that's exactly what it is: Nazi doctrine. That's what they believed. People act on what they percieve, which is not necessarily what is real. This is exactly how Hitler was able to attract so many people to his cause: he managed to construct a plausible delusion, and then tricked people into it. Perhaps not all that unlike a religion of its own.</STRONG>

Here is exactly one of the points I've been trying to make. To say that religion is what leads people to kill unreasonably, and therefore atheists would only kill for "good" reasons is completely false for this reason.

Hitler's followers, like those of Stalin, Mao, Putin, or Bush, kill(ed) not because, as atheists [read: people not guided (in this particular instance) by religious principles] who are thus not subject to the irrationalities of relgion, they had realized that it was the logical or rational or good thing to do, but because it was in accordance with their belief system. The fact that that belief system had nothing to do with a god or higher power other than the government does not change the fact that it was/is dangerous. Killing in the name of communism is not any better or worse than killing in the name of God.

Hmm, I guess I'm kind of arguing that beliefs are bad here... Take that as you will, I suppose.

[ 11-07-2001: Message edited by: nonhuman ]

[Sylvybee]

Originally posted by San Acoustic:
<STRONG>Show your friends your post, then ask them whether they think it's funny.</STRONG>

Hmm, I don't post here but I'd like to comment. I know our friend Lerkfish here some and you have him totally wrong.

I read his post, and didn't find it funny....cause he wasn't making a joke. I didn't find it rude or rasist either, he was making a point and using something of history as an example, he never once said that Hitlers views were his own.

[Hoopy Frood]

Originally posted by San Acoustic:
<STRONG>Show your friends your post, then ask them whether they think it's funny.</STRONG>

I've had online contact with Lerk for almost 2 years now through a message board we both post on. Although I've never met the guy, I would consider him an online friend.

So I've seen his post. I can honestly say that if he were to ask me if I thought it was funny, I'd have to say no. The problem with your statement is that nowhere is there any indication that he was trying to be funny.

Let's take a look at the issues you've taken with Lerk:

<STRONG>Nazis killed Jews because they controlled business and banks, among other things, it just became EASIER to justify killing them by using the label "jew" If the Jews were completely powerless in Germany at the time, I doubt there would have been any need to kill them. </STRONG>

These two sentences seems to be your main point of contention with what Lerk wrote.

Fact: Jews in the pre WWII Germany did control businesses and banks (among other things). Sure, they didn't control all of them, but no one claimed they did.

Fact: Hitler didn't like Jews (for whatever reasons).

Fact: Nazi propaganda portrayed Jews as lesser beings. (lesser beings who controlled a noticeable portion of the economy.)

Observation: Humans don't like being servile to those they believe are below them in status (regardless of what distinction that status is based on (e.g. class, race/etnicity)).

Side-fact: Hitler's Mother was part Jew (half IIRC). There was probably some Freudian motivation there as well.

So, Hitler saw a different ethnic group with power. He saw this power as a threat. Wether he truly believed Jews were below him, or acted purely out of a warped sense of self-preservation, is largely irrelevant. However, it was much easier to get people to follow him through portraying Jews as lesser beings and playing on nationalistic pride. This was Lerk's point. Powerless Jews would not have threatened Hitler. Even if he did view them as lower then he was, it would most likely have been a waste of his effort to get rid of them if he viewed them as harmless.

Nowhere did Lerk even imply that he believed in any of the Nazi propoganda. That was simply a case of you pulling out a strawman argument.

<STRONG>

1. I don't need to label you. You are quite capable of doing that yourself. </STRONG>

Actually, you are the only one on this entire forum who labeled him. Most of the people here understood Lerk's point.

<STRONG>

2. By saying "label you incorrectly," you imply I could have labelled you correctly, thereby making it easier for people to love you, I presume. A moment's thought about the latter shows its absurdity, revealing the absurdity of the former, which in turn illustrates the hollowness of the entire "label" gambit.</STRONG>

You never took a logic or mathmatical proofs course, did you?

Your first sentence in this argument is completely false. He said you labeled him incorrectly. That's it. You can't draw any conclusion on your ability to label him correctly at another point by that statement. Heck, given the evidence, chances are you won't be able to, because you've already been wrong once. The point Lerk was making was that you shouldn't be labeling at all, without really knowing who he is. You have very little evidence to base your labels on, and the evidence you do have has been twisted by your own lack of basic reading comprehension.


<STRONG>

3. The latest from you: "I was trying to state how in Hitler's mind he sought to change the balance of power, which was more important to him in the long run." </STRONG>

Why do you even mention this? I can't see how the regurgitation of that statement is relevant to your other arguments.

<STRONG>

4. Go away.</STRONG>

Why don't you? And come back when your reading comprehension has progressed beyond a 4th-grade level.

And for the general forum, very few people kill in the name of religion. Most of the atrocities committed when people hide behind God, stem more out of power and money.

The Crusades were a matter of the Roman Catholic Church fearing competition for its political and economic power. Both the Islamic nations and the Eastern Orthodoxy Church were seen as threats to the stranglehold the Pope and RC Church had on the governing bodies of the Middle Ages. Remember, the Islamic nations were very culturally and technologically advanced compared to Europe at the time.

The Inquisition was another instance of the Church fearing a diminishing of Power. Anyone who spoke out against the abuse of power could be labeled a "heretic" and tried by the Inquisition. It didn't matter what religion you were.

And the Salem witch trials were more a result of Politics and Philandering than religion.

[ 11-07-2001: Message edited by: Hoopy Frood ]

[Niubi]

San Acoustic: You Got Told !!!

LOL, prick,

[Varag]

Originally posted by San Acoustic:
As well as claiming you believe the opposite of what you clearly stated, you say:

"I cannot prevent what people misunderstand, but I know that I am not as you have characterized me....in fact I'm about as opposite as you can get. all of which PROVES my point, that since you can label me (incorrectly) it becomes that much easier to hate someone you don't know."

I haven't labelled you as anything. You did that with your own words. I didn't write them. Your post is Nazi doctrine 101.

To the contrary, you have clearly labelled Lerkfish as a NAZI, despite the actual contents of his message. What Lerkfish has attempted to do is to explain the rationale behind an event. At no point did he even vaguely suggest that he agreed with what occured. I take it that you label all World War II historians as NAZIs as well, since they also attempt to explain the underlying logic used in political and military decisions.

Don't say you cannot prevent what people believe. You cannot write the word "elephant" then claim seriously I "misunderstood" you and should know "elephant" really means "mouse."

What you have proven, in addition to everything else, is a failure to even shift the blame when saying I have labelled you incorrectly, therefore making it easier for people to hate you.

What Lerkfish actually meant was that he cannot force people to read and understand what he is saying. Its clear that you managed to read his message, but failed utterly to understand the general thrust of it.

1. I don't need to label you. You are quite capable of doing that yourself.

As I mentioned above, this is truly false. You have applied a label which is the total opposite of the content of Lerkfish's message.

2. By saying "label you incorrectly," you imply I could have labelled you correctly, thereby making it easier for people to love you, I presume. A moment's thought about the latter shows its absurdity, revealing the absurdity of the former, which in turn illustrates the hollowness of the entire "label" gambit.

There is a gram of truth in this message. There is no real way to label somone correctly. As soon as a lable is applied, an impression of that person is formed which is difficult to crack even with contradictory eveidence - which you yourself have demonstrated in this case.

3. The latest from you: "I was trying to state how in Hitler's mind he sought to change the balance of power, which was more important to him in the long run."

I'm not sure what the point of this point is. Are you saying that we shouldn't try to understand the mindset of individuals who commit acts that we see as evil? That's akin to sticking your head in the sand and hoping that the "bad men" will go away. How can you work to prevent something or at least recognise what's happening if you don't analyse it?

4. Go away.

LOL. Ummm, is your head in the sand at the moment? Do you think that Lerkfish is a "bad man"?

I'm sorry mate, but what you're trying to do is to prevent rational conversation on a topic by labelling anyone who tries to be rational as a NAZI. That's a form of censorship (the form used by those without the authority to exercise actual censorship). That's more the tactic of a NAZI than anything that Lerkfish has said.

[rambo47]

I'm with Mole. He got it right: its sex.

[Creation]

The amusement never ends!

And y'know, sex might not be that far off. To paraphrase George Carlin multiple times:

War is just a lot of prick-waving.

All the bullets and the rockets are shaped like dicks. It's the subconscious need to put the penis into other people's affairs.

"You believe in God?" "No." POW, dead.
"You believe in God?" "Yes." "Do you believe in my God?" "No." POW, dead. My God has a bigger dick than your God.

[ 11-07-2001: Message edited by: Creation ]

[Chucara]

Another friend that Lerkfish showed his initial post to....

After reading this thread, I've come to the conclusion that you (San Acoustic) are either a paranoid bloke, who sees nazis, communists and God knows what else everywhere OR just pulling Lerk's leg.

Either way... if it in any way harms Lerks honor or image on this board, I'll be glad to stand up for him. In the time, that I have known him, he has never uttered an oppinion that even as much as resembles that of the German nazi party.

I don't know where you are from, but I live relatively close to Germany(Denmark), and there is still a lot of people here who remember the war (my grandmother for one) and calling someone a nazi is a pretty serious accusation - one that should not be made without hard evidence.

The only evidence you seem to have is Lerks first post. That was a bit hard to understand, sure - but READ IT TWICE before you start raving.

I think mine and the other posts should clear this up... if not for you, then atleast for the other readers of this board.

(edit)
A quote I have in my signature on another board... think it's relevant in this case

"Against logic there is no armor like ignorance."
-- Laurence J. Peter
(/edit)

[ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: Chucara ]

[Millennium]

After reading this thread, I've come to the conclusion that you (San Acoustic) are either a paranoid bloke, who sees nazis, communists and God knows what else everywhere OR just pulling Lerk's leg.

I don't think it's either. More likely, San Acoustic thinks that the best way to deal with the horrible crimes of the Nazis is to purge them from history, to wipe out any reference, to forget even the existence of such a group (note that some Euqopean nations, most notably Germany and France, seem to believe this, as evidenced by their ultrastrict laws on artifacts).

Frankly, I consider that absurd. If we don't look over those actions, figure out exactly how and why such a madman could achieve such power, and what by what methods it was all possible, we run the risk of it happenning again. The idea that we can make it all go away by forgetting it stems the old "magic bullet" theory, that simply seeing something will inspire people to copy it (never mind that this theory has been soundly debunked numerous times during the past forty years alone).

But that's the general idea. SA appears to be trying to hold onto some illusion that if no one ever sees anything bad, no one will ever do anything bad.

[KellyHogan]

Conclusions:
1. Atheists have killed more people than religions, even though religions had a long head start.
2. The reason atheists have killed more is entirely because of (mainly Soviet and Chinese) Communism.
3. Religions often kill people using religious justification; atheists don't usually invoke atheism to justify killing.
4. Atheist governments kill their own citizens, but religions kill people of other cultures/religions.
5. Atheist killers are a more recent bunch, mainly in the last 60 years or so; religions have been doing it for far longer.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Youre conclusions are partially right and wrong. You only counted a couple of crusades for religious persecution. You did not count crimes in the name of religion going back thousands of years or amongst a variety of cultures. So therefore atheists have not killed more at all otherwise you might call Buddhists and Jains the biggest murderers too.

Look at the cultures that have fought in the name of religion (which is a cloak anyway). We have the Egyptians, Babylonians, Elamites, Romans, Muslims, Nazis, Assyrians, Vikings, Catholics such as the Portugese and the Spaniards. The list could go on to include various cults like Om Shrinkiyo or the Aryan Nations and various affiliates.

You also said atheist governments kill their own citizens and religious ones don't. This was as misguided a conclusion as I have ever seen.

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by Creation:
<STRONG>The amusement never ends!

And y'know, sex might not be that far off. To paraphrase George Carlin multiple times:

War is just a lot of prick-waving.

All the bullets and the rockets are shaped like dicks. It's the subconscious need to put the penis into other people's affairs.

"You believe in God?" "No." POW, dead.
"You believe in God?" "Yes." "Do you believe in my God?" "No." POW, dead. My God has a bigger dick than your God.

[ 11-07-2001: Message edited by: Creation ]</STRONG>

That's exactly right. Has anyone seen Doctor Strangelove? All those sexually insecure people in high positions can only become truly satisfied by showing what a big missile they have and then invade other people with it. It's like the satisfaction a rapist gets. Were they all to have sexually fulfilling lives they wouldn't need to create war. Bin Ladin, Bush, the Generals in the Pentagon, they are all just banging each other and we sit around and have to suffer because they can't get it up.

[Hoopy Frood]

Originally posted by Millennium:
<STRONG>
I don't think it's either. More likely, San Acoustic thinks that the best way to deal with the horrible crimes of the Nazis is to purge them from history, to wipe out any reference, to forget even the existence of such a group (note that some Euqopean nations, most notably Germany and France, seem to believe this, as evidenced by their ultrastrict laws on artifacts).</STRONG>

Originally posted by Niubi:
<STRONG>
LOL, prick,</STRONG>

Actually I think Nuibi is closest to the explanation. San Acoustic is just a prick.

(Bear in mind, this is based purely upon what I've seen in this thread only, since I'm too lazy to go searching for any of the other 300 some messages San's posted. I could be way off base, here; San could be a fine specimen of the human race, someone to be looked up to and greatly admired...but, frankly, I doubt it. Besides, it's more fun to think of San as a prick and just treat him as such. )

Edit: And I'm suddenly reminded of Occam's razor. When faced with two or more equally plausible theories that make the same set of predictions, the simplest is the better one. Therefore, even Occam would conclude that San is a prick.

[ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: Hoopy Frood ]

[Hoopy Frood]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>

That's exactly right. Has anyone seen Doctor Strangelove? All those sexually insecure people in high positions can only become truly satisfied by showing what a big missile they have and then invade other people with it. It's like the satisfaction a rapist gets. Were they all to have sexually fulfilling lives they wouldn't need to create war. Bin Ladin, Bush, the Generals in the Pentagon, they are all just banging each other and we sit around and have to suffer because they can't get it up.</STRONG>

Damn Commies! Always trying to destroy the purity of our bodily fluids.

[San Acoustic]

"If the Jews were completely powerless in Germany at the time, I doubt there would have been any need to kill them."

[Hoopy Frood]

Originally posted by San Acoustic:
<STRONG>"If the Jews were completely powerless in Germany at the time, I doubt there would have been any need to kill them."</STRONG>

Those of us who know how to take things within context of the larger picture would interpret this as "If the Jews were completely powerless in Germany at the time, I doubt there would have been any need [from Hitler's standpoint] to kill them."

In other words, Jews were a threat to Hitler, that's why he got rid of them. If they weren't a threat, he wouldn't have even bothered.

If you look at the complete post Lerk did, you'll see that taking that quoted statement literally runs contrary to the meaning contained in the rest of it. He made a typo and didn't post exactly what he meant. This is a message board! He wrote this as part of a discussion, not as some formal thesis. You'll find numerous typos in my posts. Mainly because I don't give a damn to go back and make sure that every 'i' is dotted and every 't' is crossed. As long as people get the gist of what I'm writing, it doesn't really matter! Lerk even further clarified his point (not that it needed any) but you still insist on making a big deal over nothing.

This is why I told you to come back when your reading comprehension has progressed beyond a 4th grade level. Most adults can figure out the meaning of the statement based on context clues even if the statement isn't perfectly clear in its meaning. It seems you missed that part in your schooling, or were too stupid to get it.

Or, you're just a prick.

[ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: Hoopy Frood ]

[San Acoustic]

"If the Jews were completely powerless in Germany at the time, I doubt there would have been any need to kill them."

[roger_ramjet]

Hoopy, you're letting Lerkfish off too lightly. San Acoustic, you're being too hard on him.

[finboy]

I'd kinda argue that any ideology that justifies the taking of human life (as so many do) IS a religion. Atheism is just a label -- the folks are worshipping SOMETHING. Usually power.

[finboy]

Originally posted by Hoopy Frood:
<STRONG>


In other words, Jews were a threat to Hitler, that's why he got rid of them. If they weren't a threat, he wouldn't have even bothered.


</STRONG>

No, the Jews were a convenient and historically astute whipping boy for Hitler. Plus, their wealth was probably attractive to some of the less politically astute among the Nazis.

They weren't a threat so much as a political tool. Kinda like the Religious Right is treated by the media in this country (the perpetual Boogeyman). Or maybe even some of the less extreme conservatives. The anti-Jew climate of pre-war Europe is similar to the anti-conservative climate we face now. Snide remarks by comedians & political cartoonists, targeting by media, citing them as extremists by Leftist politicians, etc. Given of what I've read of the propaganda war that led to adoption of the Final Solution, it's pretty close. Except the rounding up part.

[KellyHogan]

Stop speaking and ranting. The Christian western banking fraternity funded Hitler and the Nazis as did many western corporations(IBM and all). Even Pope Pius at the time supported Hitler. They wanted Jews to die so that an exodus to the middle east would happen. They then divided the middle east and created various states and forms of conflict in order to make money out of war. The west had figured that physically present imperialist control would always bring violence or rebellion. There was revolt against the British and the French in many occupied countries. So what was their solution?

Their solution was to pull out and to create conflict in Africa and Asia. This conflict would be the basis for selling arms to various countries while plundering the oil. They took advantage of the Jews, the Arabs, the Persians and others by turning them all against each other. No loony conspiracy theory here. This should be common knowledge that modern imperialism is about creating conflict and taking advantage of the conflict.

Just look at the situation we have today. Bin Ladin family, the Sauds, the Bushes, the Vatican, opus Dei, multi-national corporations, GOP, the Christian Right, the CIA. It's pretty disgusting how they can claim we live in a free world. The internet and vast other forms of communication are going to liberate us from these modern wannabe monarchs or what I call 'ultra-capitalists'.

Capitalism is good. It is the ultra-capitalists who are no good. Men with sexual problems who need more and more money to feel good about themselves. Likewise, democracy has been raped by these people. They have taken advantage of it for themselves alone. Democracy cannot exist if people cannot choose whether to go to war or not, or where their tax money is spent penny for penny, or can't vote on legislation on a regular basis.

[John B. Smith]

I take it that Kelly Hogan is not a very educated babe

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by John B. Smith:
<STRONG>I take it that Kelly Hogan is not a very educated babe</STRONG>

I'm a Jew and I'm a male.