Take Back Our Country

[rogue06]

No - I was speaking incidence to world population. More people and better weapons...more death. We happen to have both of those since the industrial revolution, which also happens to be the time when theocracies have diminished and secular regimes have gained prominence.



So longer a longer period of time to commit the atrocity makes it less of an atrocity? I could have picked the Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire (23.4 M est dead, 13 years), the Inquisition (30-300K conservatively, with some claims in the millions), or any number of other wars that were from religious roots. The point is, there is no significant distinction between what men do in the name of god, and what men do without having it be in the name of a god. People in power sometimes do bad things; bad people in power do some very bad things.

The bolded can safely be dismissed as nothing but a left-wing atheist meme

Seriously though, such numbers (especially those on the higher end) for the Inquisition are almost certainly highly exaggerated. As William D. Rubinstein (who has held chairs of history at Deakin and Aberystwyth Universities, and is an elected Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities, the Australian Academy of the Social Sciences, and of the Royal Historical Society) noted in his Genocide: A History:

Critical History of the Inquisition

The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision (he changed his opinion about the Inquisition while researching the book) wrote, "In fact, the Inquisition used torture very infrequently. In Valencia, I found that out of 7000 cases only two percent suffered any form of torture at all and usually for no more than 15 minutes . . . I found no one suffering torture more than twice." And Valencia was one of the areas hardest hit.

And on a BBC program produced by the BBC, Spanish historian Jaime Contreras (who wrote El santo oficio de la Inquisicion de Galicia [The holy office of the Inquisition of Galicia] and with Gustav Henningsen wrote Forty-Four Thousand Cases of the Spanish Inquisition (1540-1700): Analysis of a Historical Data Bank) said "We find when comparing the Spanish Inquisition with other tribunals that the Spanish Inquisition used torture much less. And if we compare the Spanish Inquisition with tribunals in other countries, we find that the Spanish Inquisition has a virtually clean record in respect to torture."

Let me emphasize this is not to excuse the brutality that they inflicted, but the fact is that the Inquisition almost always tended to be less brutal than the secular courts and methods they employed during this time. Secular courts usually started the process by trying to extract a confession through torture. As barbaric as the Inquisition was they saw torture only as a last resort. Still, killing people who disagree with us is indefensible. 3000 to 10,000 victims are 3000 to 10,000 too many.

[Mountain Man]

It's also worth noting that the Inquisition was more a political movement than a religious one.

[One Bad Pig]

Violence...bad...they differ in degree only. And again, determining who is worse (on the scale of theistic/atheistic worldviews) is, IMO, an exercise in...well...stupidity.

Now that we've exposed your attempts at equivalence as patently false, yes. Funny how you change your tune when you can no longer massage the facts to support your point.

[rogue06]

It's also worth noting that the Inquisition was more a political movement than a religious one.

And carpe's mention of "Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire (23.4 M est dead, 13 years)" is duplicitously including the millions upon millions killed as a result of coming into contact with a wide variety of diseases to which they had virtually no resistance

[KingsGambit]

[One Bad Pig]

OBP...there is nothing I can put forward in terms of numbers that will ever convince the religious right that the positions "religion is good and does comparably less evil" and "atheism is bad and has fostered on the world the worst atrocities in the history of mankind," are biased

...because the numbers don't support you, and you know it.

In fact, atheism and theism are two different worldviews. They have both done very bad things - they have both done very good things. Most atheist see religions as "bad." Most theist see atheism as "bad."

What, pray tell, has atheism qua atheism done that is "very good"?

In my experience, so long as a group is committed to the concept "we're better," facts are not really going to shake them loose of that perception.

Well, yes, you're demonstrating that quite nicely.

[carpedm9587]

...because the numbers don't support you, and you know it.

Actually, I ran the numbers, several times. When you compare atrocities with world population, the percentages are about equal. Atheist governments are a tad higher, but they also came into prominence when weapons became more powerful.

Like I said, too many variables for either side to claim superiority. And what's the point, anyway? To say, "we're better than you?" Do Christians REALLY need to beat that drum...?

What, pray tell, has atheism qua atheism done that is "very good"?

I cannot speak for all atheists. I do not have that authority. I can speak for myself. Since I have become atheist, I find that I am less judgmental of others. My worldview admits a wide variety of ideas and belief systems. I find I am able to evaluate things without the baggage of "what do I think god thinks?" I can evaluate positions and beliefs on their direct effects, rather than trying to figure out what "god" thinks about them and then evaluating them according to that. Who is "saved" and who is "not saved" is no longer part of my lexicon, and does not color my assessments.

And I have found that atheists, like theists, spend a lot of their time and energy involved in public service, supporting the poor, and enabling the disenfranchised. We are at the forefront of the latest push to undo disenfranchisement of the LGBTQ community. You can find other things atheist groups (and individuals) are moving forward on here.

Well, yes, you're demonstrating that quite nicely.

[Tassman]

And carpe's mention of "Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire (23.4 M est dead, 13 years)" is duplicitously including the millions upon millions killed as a result of coming into contact with a wide variety of diseases to which they had virtually no resistance

The diseases were brought in by the Conquistadors themselves to a people who had very little resistance to them as you say. But the greatest damage by far was the virtual destruction of the culture and reducing native people to second-class status in their own country. The same applied to the Christian colonists who took over Nth America and Australasia et al.

[One Bad Pig]

Actually, I ran the numbers, several times. When you compare atrocities with world population, the percentages are about equal. Atheist governments are a tad higher, but they also came into prominence when weapons became more powerful.

Like I said, too many variables for either side to claim superiority. And what's the point, anyway? To say, "we're better than you?" Do Christians REALLY need to beat that drum...?

I don't believe you. The example you jumped to give regarding Cambodia in half a decade was a marginally smaller percentage than the Crusades over 200 years. How is that "about equal"? The "more powerful weapons" idea is flatly irrelevant; they weren't a necessary cause of the slaughter.

I cannot speak for all atheists. I do not have that authority. I can speak for myself. Since I have become atheist, I find that I am less judgmental of others.

One, Christians are not supposed to be judgmental; atheism says nothing about judging others, so your personal position cannot be ascribed to atheism because of atheism. Two, you appear to be no less judgmental regarding those with whom you disagree (here, noted by your repeated castigation of "the right").

My worldview admits a wide variety of ideas and belief systems. I find I am able to evaluate things without the baggage of "what do I think god thinks?" I can evaluate positions and beliefs on their direct effects, rather than trying to figure out what "god" thinks about them and then evaluating them according to that.

Oh noes!1!1!!!1 Baggage! What you no longer have is a standard by which to measure anything. I'm sure that's liberating, but you're well aware that I would consider that "very bad" not "very good".

Who is "saved" and who is "not saved" is no longer part of my lexicon, and does not color my assessments.

It doesn't really color mine, either.

And I have found that atheists, like theists, spend a lot of their time and energy involved in public service, supporting the poor, and enabling the disenfranchised. We are at the forefront of the latest push to undo disenfranchisement of the LGBTQ community. You can find other things atheist groups (and individuals) are moving forward on here.

At best, that's a wash. Atheists do not do so because they are atheists.

[Sparko]

No - I was speaking incidence to world population. More people and better weapons...more death. We happen to have both of those since the industrial revolution, which also happens to be the time when theocracies have diminished and secular regimes have gained prominence.



So longer a longer period of time to commit the atrocity makes it less of an atrocity? I could have picked the Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire (23.4 M est dead, 13 years), the Inquisition (30-300K conservatively, with some claims in the millions), or any number of other wars that were from religious roots. The point is, there is no significant distinction between what men do in the name of god, and what men do without having it be in the name of a god. People in power sometimes do bad things; bad people in power do some very bad things.

One difference i can think of is that the Crusade deaths were mostly military. Armies on both sides killing each other. I am sure there were some civilian casualties or atrocities along the way from both sides (The crusades started because the muslims were attacking Christian pilgrims on the way to the Holy Land) - But the Khmer Rouge was genocide. Killing cambodian civilians. Pol Pot was more akin to Hitler than the Pope of the Crusades. Not a valid comparison on your part.

[carpedm9587]

I don't believe you.

You're certainly not the first, nor do I suspect you will be the last...

The example you jumped to give regarding Cambodia in half a decade was a marginally smaller percentage than the Crusades over 200 years. How is that "about equal"?

So if an atrocity takes longer to unfold, it's less of an atrocity?

The "more powerful weapons" idea is flatly irrelevant; they weren't a necessary cause of the slaughter.

No one said "necessary." When weapons become more powerful, the opportunity for greater destruction increases as well. In other words, we don't know what the destruction during the Crusades would have been if they had had 20th century weapons. Likewise, we don't know what the destruction in Cambodia would have been if they had not had them.

One, Christians are not supposed to be judgmental; atheism says nothing about judging others, so your personal position cannot be ascribed to atheism because of atheism.

"Not supposed to be" and "are not" are not the same thing.

Two, you appear to be no less judgmental regarding those with whom you disagree (here, noted by your repeated castigation of "the right").

As noted - everyone take positions on issues. Mine do not require me to first interpret what god wanted as written in a 2,000+ year old tome with no original documents and available to most as a translation only. I can simply look at the situation, and assess it against my moral posture directly. And my moral posture can change as new information becomes available.

Oh noes!1!1!!!1 Baggage! What you no longer have is a standard by which to measure anything. I'm sure that's liberating, but you're well aware that I would consider that "very bad" not "very good".

OBP, when someone has determined that "X is what god wants," attempting to change that perspective is close to impossible. After all, anything you say is speaking directly against "the will of god." It locks people in worldviews. Some of these are good - which is good. Some of these are abysmally bad - but there is no shaking someone who believes they are acting "as god wills."

It doesn't really color mine, either.

In my experience, for fundamentalist Christians, that would make you a rarity - at least in my experience. I cannot tell you how many times I have been told (here and elsewhere) that my thoughts words are useless because I am "not saved."

At best, that's a wash. Atheists do not do so because they are atheists.

Actually - they do it because it's a good thing to do. They don't do it because of atheism. They also don't do it because god expects it. When an atheists acts, it's not because it is the will of god, or because it will earn them heaven. They do it for no other reason than it is the right/good thing to do.

[carpedm9587]

It's also worth noting that the Inquisition was more a political movement than a religious one.

Wow...

[carpedm9587]

Now that we've exposed your attempts at equivalence as patently false, yes. Funny how you change your tune when you can no longer massage the facts to support your point.

[carpedm9587]

The bolded can safely be dismissed as nothing but a left-wing atheist meme

Seriously though, such numbers (especially those on the higher end) for the Inquisition are almost certainly highly exaggerated. As William D. Rubinstein (who has held chairs of history at Deakin and Aberystwyth Universities, and is an elected Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities, the Australian Academy of the Social Sciences, and of the Royal Historical Society) noted in his Genocide: A History:

Critical History of the Inquisition

The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision (he changed his opinion about the Inquisition while researching the book) wrote, "In fact, the Inquisition used torture very infrequently. In Valencia, I found that out of 7000 cases only two percent suffered any form of torture at all and usually for no more than 15 minutes . . . I found no one suffering torture more than twice." And Valencia was one of the areas hardest hit.

And on a BBC program produced by the BBC, Spanish historian Jaime Contreras (who wrote El santo oficio de la Inquisicion de Galicia [The holy office of the Inquisition of Galicia] and with Gustav Henningsen wrote Forty-Four Thousand Cases of the Spanish Inquisition (1540-1700): Analysis of a Historical Data Bank) said "We find when comparing the Spanish Inquisition with other tribunals that the Spanish Inquisition used torture much less. And if we compare the Spanish Inquisition with tribunals in other countries, we find that the Spanish Inquisition has a virtually clean record in respect to torture."

Let me emphasize this is not to excuse the brutality that they inflicted, but the fact is that the Inquisition almost always tended to be less brutal than the secular courts and methods they employed during this time. Secular courts usually started the process by trying to extract a confession through torture. As barbaric as the Inquisition was they saw torture only as a last resort. Still, killing people who disagree with us is indefensible. 3000 to 10,000 victims are 3000 to 10,000 too many.

There is wide disagreement on the death total of the inquisition. Religious historians tend to report lower numbers. Non-religious historians tend to report higher numbers. Some numbers extend as high as into the tens of millions. I consider those to be outrageously high. Likewise, I consider the numbers you have quoted here to be outrageously low, and the result of a church trying to say "it really wasn't that bad..."

We will never know the numbers for sure, which is why I have quoted such a broad expanse. We do know that the number of people killed AND tortured ranks in the tens of thousands. And the torture techniques used were barbaric in the extreme, even when they did not kill.

And the point of all of this was, neither religious nor areligious have a claim to the higher ground when it comes to atrocities. People kill and people torture. They do so for religious and nonreligious reasons.

[carpedm9587]

And carpe's mention of "Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire (23.4 M est dead, 13 years)" is duplicitously including the millions upon millions killed as a result of coming into contact with a wide variety of diseases to which they had virtually no resistance

Duplicitous?

Rogue - if the Spanish invasion of the Aztecs had not happened on the pretext of "bringing the faith to the savages" (for the actual purpose of getting the gold), those diseases would not have happened. It does not matter if a person dies from a spear, torture, or a biological plague. They died as a direct result of the action of the Spanish in South America.