The Intelligent & Relentless Pursuit of Muscle™
Politics and World Issues
 
Come On In and Have a Seat Over There
 

Brother Chris
Level 2

Join date: May 2005
Posts: 17056

groo wrote:
.


I forgot Pope John Paul II and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, were all like death to the Great Satan. Allahu Akbar!

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

groo
Level

Join date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1122

Brother Chris wrote:
groo wrote:
.


I forgot Pope John Paul II and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, were all like death to the Great Satan. Allahu Akbar!

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.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

thunderbolt23
Level

Join date: Mar 2003
Posts: 8162

groo wrote:
.


Imagine no religion? No thanks, but even more, I don't have to imagine it. It ends at the guillotine and the gulag. Pick up a history book - you'll find it delightful.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Brother Chris
Level 2

Join date: May 2005
Posts: 17056

groo wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
groo wrote:
.


I forgot Pope John Paul II and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, were all like death to the Great Satan. Allahu Akbar!

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.



Because Jihad isn't a tenet of Christianity, or Judaism. Neither is forced conversion. However, it is for Islam.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

groo
Level

Join date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1122

thunderbolt23 wrote:
groo wrote:
.


Imagine no religion? No thanks, but even more, I don't have to imagine it. It ends at the guillotine and the gulag. Pick up a history book - you'll find it delightful.



Back at ya. I think you'll find the scales significantly balanced toward atrocity carried out by the religious. It hasn't ended yet though. Crusades. Holocaust. 9/11. On going wars in the Middle East and Africa.

Jonestown was the most terrible example of the radically anti religious, but without religion the temple wouldn't have been set up in opposition to it.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

groo
Level

Join date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1122

Brother Chris wrote:
groo wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
groo wrote:
.


I forgot Pope John Paul II and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, were all like death to the Great Satan. Allahu Akbar!

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.



Because Jihad isn't a tenet of Christianity, or Judaism. Neither is forced conversion. However, it is for Islam.

I have no intention of defending Islam. I'd be game for saying its the worst of a bad lot. Just because Herpes is less virulent than syphilis doesn't mean I'd advocate it.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

thunderbolt23
Level

Join date: Mar 2003
Posts: 8162

groo wrote:

Back at ya. I think you'll find the scales significantly balanced toward atrocity carried out by the religious.


Why would I? Look at the body count piled up by secular ideologies (especially the ones that promised to extinguish religion), and redo your math, chief.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

thunderbolt23
Level

Join date: Mar 2003
Posts: 8162

groo wrote:

Jonestown was the most terrible example of the radically anti religious, but without religion the temple wouldn't have been set up in opposition to it.


Uh what? Worse than the French Revolution/Reign of Terror, or the body count of communism in the 20th century?

History book. Seriously. Even Wikipedia. Do something.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

pushharder
Level 5

Join date: Apr 2005
Posts: 37916

WW3General wrote:
there are no non-catholics who say anything bad about me.


I'm not a Catholic and I think you're dumber than a box of rocks riding on the wheel well of the short bus with your dunce cap on upside down.
















AND.........you're a mindless hater.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

pushharder
Level 5

Join date: Apr 2005
Posts: 37916

groo wrote:

...I think you'll find the scales significantly balanced toward atrocity carried out by the religious...



And that would be because you don't know your history.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

groo
Level

Join date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1122

http://shatteringdenial.com/...of_violence.pdf


Even if you disagree with his conclusions on the origin and nature of genocide an interesting read. Not short though.

Is there a comparable work arguing that genocide comes from more secular motives? I'll give it a read.

I would nitpick the Reign of Terror as a lot of how it was defined lies within the western way of thought.

History is largely somewhat fictional so saying someone doesn't know their history is often something akin to saying ones view doesn't hold constant with my own cherished illusions.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

thunderbolt23
Level

Join date: Mar 2003
Posts: 8162

groo wrote:

Even if you disagree with his conclusions on the origin and nature of genocide an interesting read. Not short though.


Yeah, not interested. Why? 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.

Is there a comparable work arguing that genocide comes from more secular motives? I'll give it a read.


Doesn't matter - we aren't talking strictly about genocide.

I would nitpick the Reign of Terror as a lot of how it was defined lies within the western way of thought.

History is largely somewhat fictional so saying someone doesn't know their history is often something akin to saying ones view doesn't hold constant with my own cherished illusions.


Translation: I have no idea what I am talking about, but since I fear that an empirical review would undermine my cherished ideological ax to grind that "religion is the driver of violence, secularism rules!", I will try and buffalo my way out of it with some abstract horseshit criticism of history.

I assure you, there is nothing fictional about the gulag or the killing fields.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

groo
Level

Join date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1122

thunderbolt23 wrote:
groo wrote:

Even if you disagree with his conclusions on the origin and nature of genocide an interesting read. Not short though.


Yeah, not interested. Why? 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.

Is there a comparable work arguing that genocide comes from more secular motives? I'll give it a read.


Doesn't matter - we aren't talking strictly about genocide.

I would nitpick the Reign of Terror as a lot of how it was defined lies within the western way of thought.

History is largely somewhat fictional so saying someone doesn't know their history is often something akin to saying ones view doesn't hold constant with my own cherished illusions.


Translation: I have no idea what I am talking about, but since I fear that an empirical review would undermine my cherished ideological ax to grind that "religion is the driver of violence, secularism rules!", I will try and buffalo my way out of it with some abstract horseshit criticism of history.

I assure you, there is nothing fictional about the gulag or the killing fields.

You miss the point. Here would be a concrete bit of text from the work I referenced. Disputing how the Western world views history that is largely in opposition to the facts. Genocide isn't that narrow of a term. Certainly fitting to discuss violence between groups. I will say you do nothing but give a few personal jibes and give no sources other than naming a couple specific events in history. If you aren't going to back your thesis up with anything at all fine its your opinion and everyone has one of those.


In the latter 1990s, Ann Curthoys and I were fortunate to attend
a speech given by the central Australian Aboriginal leader,
Galarrwuy Yunupingu, to the National Press Club in Canberra
(on 13 February 1997). Yunupingu said he was continually
astonished by the way the European colonists of Aboriginal
lands always referred to themselves as the settlers while designating
his people by contrast as nomads. Such a characterization,
he observed, was historically preposterous. The European
colonists and migrants, he pointed out, were the inveterate
wanderers on the face of the earth, they were the ones who had
THE ORIGINS OF VIOLENCE
[ 34 ]
travelled to distant places, across oceans and far from their own
homes, and now constantly roamed within the Australian continent.
European politicians in the Northern Territory, where his
people lived, constantly boasted that they were the settlers and
belonged to the Territory. Yet, he noted with irony, those same
white politicians some years later could be observed living elsewhere
in Australia. Meanwhile the Aboriginal peoples, who stay
on their own lands as far as they are permitted by the colonizers
to do so, to look after their country and because they belong to
it, are always referred to as nomads!
We discussed Yunupingu‚??s speech many times afterwards, for
it changed much of our thinking about colonization, migration and
world history, in particular his highlighting of such pervasive colonizer
and migrant reverse narratives. Ann explored Yunupingu‚??s
insight in relation to the persistent ways settler colonists in
Australia always see themselves as victims and so incapable of
being the victimizers of others.46 In Is History Fiction? (2005) we
related Yunupingu‚??s thinking to Herodotus‚??s Histories in our
discussion of the hubris of colonizers from agricultural societies in
regarding themselves as the settlers wherever they restlessly roam,
concluding that it is the supposedly settled and urbanized peoples
who are the nomads of world history.47

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

thunderbolt23
Level

Join date: Mar 2003
Posts: 8162

groo wrote:

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


Read it, completely irrelevant.

Disputing how the Western world views history that is largely in opposition to the facts. Genocide isn't that narrow of a term. Certainly fitting to discuss violence between groups. I will say you do nothing but give a few personal jibes and give no sources other than naming a couple specific events in history.


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.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

WW3General
Level 1

Join date: Feb 2011
Posts: 187

I think you mindless religious fools are the worst. When you can't just make up some fictitious faith derived reason that you are correct, you just become oblivious to reality. I love how you wish to vilify Islam which I myself hate, then cast a blind eye to the attrocities committed by your respective religions. I also find it fascinating that you choose to be oblivious to the fact your religions have all caused an immense amount of pain and suffering and death in this world. But, that can't be right? Because that does not fit with your world view,,, so it must be worng.....hmmm. Yet I am the stupid one? I may agree,I am stupid for even trying to talk rationally with religious people since they cherish irrationality as a virtue.

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.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

groo
Level

Join date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1122

thunderbolt23 wrote:
groo wrote:

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


Read it, completely irrelevant.

Disputing how the Western world views history that is largely in opposition to the facts. Genocide isn't that narrow of a term. Certainly fitting to discuss violence between groups. I will say you do nothing but give a few personal jibes and give no sources other than naming a couple specific events in history.


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.



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.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Brother Chris
Level 2

Join date: May 2005
Posts: 17056

groo wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
groo wrote:

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


Read it, completely irrelevant.

Disputing how the Western world views history that is largely in opposition to the facts. Genocide isn't that narrow of a term. Certainly fitting to discuss violence between groups. I will say you do nothing but give a few personal jibes and give no sources other than naming a couple specific events in history.


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.



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.



Wow, still no numbers. Interesting.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

SexMachine
Level

Join date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7266

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?




What a dummy.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

groo
Level

Join date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1122

Brother Chris wrote:
groo wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
groo wrote:

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


Read it, completely irrelevant.

Disputing how the Western world views history that is largely in opposition to the facts. Genocide isn't that narrow of a term. Certainly fitting to discuss violence between groups. I will say you do nothing but give a few personal jibes and give no sources other than naming a couple specific events in history.


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.



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.



Wow, still no numbers. Interesting.


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

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Sloth
Level

Join date: Dec 2002
Posts: 13663

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

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

groo
Level

Join date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1122

SexMachine wrote:
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?




What a dummy.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Tiribulus
Level 1

Join date: Aug 2006
Posts: 16196

groo wrote:
SexMachine wrote:
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?




What a dummy.

It's a bit disturbing how you can be so sharp one minute and so utterly vacuous the next. Must be youth.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

pushharder
Level 5

Join date: Apr 2005
Posts: 37916

groo wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
groo wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
groo wrote:

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


Read it, completely irrelevant.

Disputing how the Western world views history that is largely in opposition to the facts. Genocide isn't that narrow of a term. Certainly fitting to discuss violence between groups. I will say you do nothing but give a few personal jibes and give no sources other than naming a couple specific events in history.


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.



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.



Wow, still no numbers. Interesting.


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


You are complete fool to use numbers that actually help your opponents in this debate.

The vast majority of WWII casualties were caused by the two principal secular states involved in the war.

Know your history or use a pinch hitter.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

WW3General
Level 1

Join date: Feb 2011
Posts: 187

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.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

SexMachine
Level

Join date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7266

WW3General wrote:
Pusharder you act like you know about WWII,


I bet you know more than anyone here about everything.


yet you claim religion was not involved? Know your history or STFU. The whole war was based around the extermination of Jews,


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?"


and the percieved perfection of the blue eyed blonde haired aryan race. Which was mixed self servingly with religion,


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


and still is by skin head nazis today.


Say what?


Hence all the deaths in WWII can then be attributed to a religious war which is what it was.


Sorry, how does that work?

What works have you read on WWII BTW?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report