http://whomurdered.ytmnd.com/

this is actually a nice learning tool. i got it off another political board. the works cited are at the end of the presentation.

10/11/2006 12:25:38 AM

YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS

10/11/2006 12:31:22 AM

did you watch the presentation?

10/11/2006 12:32:19 AM

Yes I most certainly did.

Are you putting me on the same level as Pol Pot and Stalin?

10/11/2006 12:33:26 AM

Wow

10/11/2006 12:38:26 AM

I'm not going to say anything. Just watch the presentation. Religion is/has been a key pilar of civilized societies.

Now, discuss.

[Edited on October 11, 2006 at 12:38 AM. Reason : .]

10/11/2006 12:38:44 AM

Asians killed the most people! KILL THE ASIANS!

10/11/2006 12:43:29 AM

religion kills more people than athiests

atheists have no god to kill in the name of

common sense

[Edited on October 11, 2006 at 12:46 AM. Reason : 5]

10/11/2006 12:46:07 AM

Quote :

"I'm not going to say anything. Just watch the presentation. Religion is/has been a key pilar of civilized societies. "

What about the Norse war cult? Or the Roman empire? Or the ancient Egyptians? Let's not forget that the Hebrws allegedly destroyed an entire group of people (if the bible is to be believed).

10/11/2006 12:48:01 AM

Logical fallacy after logical fallacy.

This kid has no clue how to think rationally.

10/11/2006 12:56:54 AM

Nero

10/11/2006 12:57:39 AM

Randy, go back to gheying up chit chat and attempting to pick up college girls and organizing events where no one wants to meet you. That "presentation" was fucking pathetic. And I am not even an athiest.

10/11/2006 1:52:27 AM

While the ymtnd was pretty dumb, it does show that all the "religion is the cause of violence" crap that people present is just as retarded.


PEOPLE are violent, including Catholics, Muslims, Athiests, and Polocks.

10/11/2006 2:16:38 AM

http://digg.com/videos_animation/Who_killed_the_most_people

10/11/2006 3:12:53 AM

^^ Um..the dictators were against organized religion...therefore religion is still to blame

10/11/2006 3:19:36 AM

Quote :

"That "presentation" was fucking pathetic. And I am not even an athiest."

And if you don't understand why, give up.

10/11/2006 6:52:28 AM

God Randy you just keep getting better and better.

10/11/2006 3:15:56 PM

The REAL question is: Who killed the most people?

A. Aids
B. Cancer
C. Alcohol
D. Rabbits (specifically, one's with a weakness to Holy Hand Grenades of Antioch)

10/11/2006 3:30:53 PM

Ok I know Wikipedia is not the most reliable source, but I just needed rough numbers. According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_religions about 16% of the world's population is "not religious" (meaning agnostic, atheistist, etc).

Why is it suprising that the other 84% of the population commits most of the murders?

Quote :

"In the Western world, murder rates in most countries have declined significantly during the 20th century and are now between 1-4 cases per 100,000 people per year. Murder rates in Japan and Iceland are among the lowest in the world, around 0.5; the rate of the United States is among the highest among all developed countries, around 5.5 (2004, [1]), with rates in major cities sometimes over 50 per 100,000[2]. Developing countries often have rates of 10-100 murders per 100,000 people per year."

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder#Murder_demographics.

If using the high value from the developing countries (100 out of 100,000 people or .1%) and applying it globally (much higher than actual numbers, pretty much a "worse case scenerio")... that would mean about 6 million people get murdered in an average year (when there aren't any major wars or genicides).

But for a given year, all you would need is one mass-murdering atheist for it to outwiegh all of these murders. Hitler killed that many Jews during the Holocaust (not counting the handicapped, Poles, Serbs, homosexuals etc, and OK that was over the course of several years), but if he had happened to be atheist (I think officially he was "Christian" although its pretty clear he didn't really believe much of Christianity), that would skew those numbers.


Of course you can officially be a member of a religion but not really abide by its tenets... so are we counting people who say they are X religion but never go to church, never read that religion's holy book, and don't follow most (if any) of that religion's core principles?

[Edited on October 11, 2006 at 3:42 PM. Reason : ...]

10/11/2006 3:39:27 PM

10/11/2006 3:52:03 PM

pwnt

Also, that phrase was on all SS belts.

[Edited on October 11, 2006 at 4:03 PM. Reason : .]

10/11/2006 4:02:35 PM

hahaha wait where are these 265,000,000 deaths from?

also what happened to hitler?

I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work. [Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]

And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God. [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp.174]

Even today I am not ashamed to say that, overpowered by stormy enthusiasm, I fell down on my knees and thanked Heaven from an overflowing heart for granting me the good fortune of being permitted to live at this time. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 5]

10/11/2006 4:20:06 PM

That high number killed includes people that were starved to death in accordance with totalitarian economic principles (Mao Zedong, for example, starved about 60 million Chinese to death while trying to forcibly restructure China's agricultural economy).

Which means, probably, most leftist regimes in Africa were included in that figure. While those leaders were clearly responsible for those deaths (economic liberty would have prevented them), it had nothing to do with being atheist and everything to do with being military despots that brutalize the productive spirit of their people. Therefore, to be fair, the "Catholics" tab should (but does not) include the Kings of France (and all other Catholic despots) that starved their people to death on similar grounds.

[Edited on October 11, 2006 at 5:44 PM. Reason : .,.]

10/11/2006 5:39:19 PM

Quote :

"economic liberty would have prevented them"

/libertarian talking point.

there's no way you can make a generalization that broad, and there's no way you could know that "economic liberty" simply would prevent death in Africa of all places, a place where even the freeest of economies has seen impoverished people as you are implying here. there's good and bad capitalism, just as there is good and bad socialism. i learned this from pj o'rourke years ago during my conservative phase, who is for all intents and purposes a libertarian. if economic liberty assured success, then albania would be kicking ass right now.

[Edited on October 11, 2006 at 5:59 PM. Reason : .]

10/11/2006 5:51:58 PM

Most religiouns, Christianity especially, place great value on the idividual. We might all be children of God, but each one of us is a unique creation. All successful coutries have realized the importance of the individual over the group and have thus allowed the flourishment of religious traditions and free markets. Communism, which has never allowed religion to take place, denys the individual, and thus lessens their importance, aside from their importance as a part of a collective group, usually for the gains of the few who run the state, while the masses suffer in poverty. with no greater good to turn to, they become slaves to the state, devoid of life.

10/11/2006 6:32:44 PM

Quote :

"economic liberty assured success, then albania would be kicking ass right now."

Conflict of definition. There is no economic liberty when there are men with guns stealing everything you make, whether they work for the local warlord (Albania) or a single national warlord (Zimbabwe).

PJ O'Rourke was debunking anarchists, not libertarians. Anarchists believe the men with guns will volunteer to mind their own business. Libertarians believe the men with guns should be made to mind their own business. In Albania there was no one making the men with guns mind their own business, with predictable results.

10/11/2006 7:47:02 PM

thats great and does not address the retardedness of the clip.

also I would go as far to say that no one here is a communist. But the principles of Christianity did not place emphasis on the individual untill they were mixed with platonic ideals which then broadened its scope which was evident during its beginings before being destroyed by the catholic church. The Catholic church is just as much enemy of the individual as communism is and has caused much more pain and suffering than communism has.


[Edited on October 11, 2006 at 7:50 PM. Reason : !!]

10/11/2006 7:47:25 PM

On a related note...

http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=438277

Btw, did the Crusades really kill between one and five million people? I find that a little hard to believe.

10/11/2006 7:54:08 PM

& I think there were 7 of them and ended shitty every time so I wouldnt be suprised.

10/11/2006 8:09:28 PM

I guess if you count all of them, it might add up to a million. There weren't nearly as many people back then, though.

If really wanted to blame deaths on Catholics, the New World should be included.

10/11/2006 8:12:46 PM

If your refering to my post then I would say that I wasnt really attacking deaths caused by Catholics but more of their complete destruction of life for about 1000 years. Now different interpretations of the dark and middle ages can be taken as for the spread of Greek thought during the 1000 - 1500's but that doesnt take away from the fact that they destroyed the individual and ruined life for millions.

10/11/2006 8:21:09 PM

Let's compare deaths in the name of religion v. deaths in the name of atheism

10/11/2006 8:35:22 PM

yea and while we're using old pointless talking points, we'll talk about how those silent moving pictures are never gonna catch on

10/11/2006 8:40:31 PM

Quote :

"ll successful coutries have realized the importance of the individual over the group and have thus allowed the flourishment of religious traditions and free markets."

Most people would say China has been pretty damn successful, and even without communism it's not an individualistic culture.

Quote :

"There is no economic liberty when there are men with guns stealing everything you make, whether they work for the local warlord (Albania)"

Albania's incredibly fucked up, but it isn't exactly divided among warlords.

10/11/2006 8:45:40 PM

i wouldn't say china has been that great of a success

10/11/2006 8:46:23 PM

as a whole they are.

everything we own is from China and they're using all of the oil. Out of the 3rd world they are kings

10/11/2006 8:54:08 PM

It's gone from being virtually entirely peasant/rural to being a global economic powerhouse in half a century

I'd say that's pretty fucking successful.

Before WWII nobody gave a shit about China except as something to dick around in with no consequences. Now most scenarios that would lead to an economic collapse in the western world involve China fucking with us. That is all to say nothing of the fact that they have a seat on the security council and are one of few nations with a substantial nuclear arsenal.

10/11/2006 8:55:52 PM

Quote :

"Most religiouns, Christianity especially, place great value on the idividual. We might all be children of God, but each one of us is a unique creation. All successful coutries have realized the importance of the individual over the group and have thus allowed the flourishment of religious traditions and free markets. Communism, which has never allowed religion to take place, denys the individual, and thus lessens their importance, aside from their importance as a part of a collective group, usually for the gains of the few who run the state, while the masses suffer in poverty. with no greater good to turn to, they become slaves to the state, devoid of life."

ive heard more insightful rants from 15 year olds


anyway....many dictators were very religous

[Edited on October 11, 2006 at 8:59 PM. Reason : 5]

[Edited on October 11, 2006 at 8:59 PM. Reason : 5]

10/11/2006 8:57:10 PM

Athanase Seromba put 2,000 people in a church and then told the military to shoot into it and bulldoze it with everyone alive inside

and he was a fucking priest

[Edited on October 11, 2006 at 9:01 PM. Reason : the goddamn ustashi had religion as well, you prick]

10/11/2006 9:00:56 PM

the numbers of that clip were very selective

10/11/2006 9:02:34 PM

Selective, my ass. They were everything short of outright made-up.

[Edited on October 11, 2006 at 9:03 PM. Reason : And I'm as religious as anyone you'll find on this board]

10/11/2006 9:03:21 PM

This entire argument is silly. People throughout history have always looked for any convenient rallying point to launch a killing spree on another group of people. Yes, religion has been one of the primary rallying points, but there are so many other reasons such as ethnicity, nationalism, and ideology that have taken millions of lives over the course of human history. Sure, religion is the most visible and certainly has a high body count, but it's also been around much longer. I imagine that ethnicity has killed just as many, if not more during the course of history. Also, concepts of nationalism and ideology didn't become so big until much later, but I think they've done a good job in catching up.

Heck, if the whole world were atheist, of the same religion, ethnicity, and all under one government, I believe we'd still be killing each other at the same rate. People are greedy bastards coveting what others have or desiring glory. If they can figure out some sort of rallying point to get others to go along with them, they'll do it. History has given us a huge slate of people who did just that.

10/11/2006 9:04:07 PM

haha i was being nice, so yes made up is good for me

10/11/2006 9:04:22 PM

the point still exists that economic liberty (unless your definition of economic liberty is so narrow that it only includes systems which you particularly admire) is no guarantee for success, especially in regions so subject to disease, drought, starvation, corruption, unstable social environment, unrest, etc. what good is the free market when you have no product? not to promote one system over another (china's proof that a command economy can be organized in a successful way, but i dont particularly want their system here), but there's alot more factors to it that economics.


[Edited on October 11, 2006 at 9:31 PM. Reason : .]

10/11/2006 9:22:57 PM

Quote :

"there's alot more factors to it that economics"

Then your definition of economics is too narrow.

"starvation, corruption, unstable social environment, unrest" are all man-made, there is nothing inherent in the African continent that makes it poor. An historical study of drought, famine, pestilence, etc, all finds a common correlation: the people that died in such events were invariably those least desired by the society in question. Throughout history starvation has been used as a weapon, today is no different.

What is inherent that makes Africa poor is the ideology of the African people, not foreign powers and definitely not the land itself.

Quote :

"china's proof that a command economy can be organized in a successful way"

Yes, yes it does. It proves that if a government learns to restrict itself to stopping crime, protecting private property, fighting corruption, and building basic infrastructure, then it too will develop a modern wealthy society built upon a foundation of economic liberty. I don't see how you could think it shows anything else, because in some ways China allows more economic liberty than many Western nations.

Regretfully, the governments of Africa are still incapable of restraining themselves, robbing their own people at gun-point, ultimately killing millions.

10/12/2006 12:01:07 AM

conflict of definitions

10/12/2006 8:31:25 AM

^^ but getting back to the topic, African nations are not athiest.

[Edited on October 12, 2006 at 11:58 AM. Reason : !]

10/12/2006 11:57:03 AM