photo blog_head_zpsonl8fonu.jpg
Meesa gonna kill you!

Get email updates of new posts:        (Delivered by FeedBurner)

Sunday, April 03, 2011

Best car crash ever

"I hate life, I hate death and everything in between just doesn't interest me." - Chris Rapier

***

A: life is sacred is a religious heuristic....this cannot be derived rationally

And humans have lived and prospered using religious dogma for almost the entire time they've existed on this planet.

Late 19th and early 20th century are the products of rationalism. Communism in particular. Plus human life has degraded in the modern age.

B: A I hope you are kidding with the above statement - because only a delusional person would make such a statement and actually believe in it!

Please explain all these things to me:

a) The Inquisition/The Witchhunts/Wars of Religion Between the Catholic & Protestants in 16th and 17th century Europe - millions were killed with Christian religious heuristics

b) The Crusades - millions were killed when the religious heuristics of Christianity and Islam clashed.

c) The Islamic Conquest of Arabia and Northern Africa, Islam's domination of India - millions have been killed in the name of Islamic heuristics.

Look forward to a sane response.

A: What you wrote were minor conflicts compared to modern conflicts.

World War 1/2, Communism, Nazism etc are way greater. The classical medieval era was a time of peace compared to the modern age.

25,000-100,000 people were estimated to have been killed in the crusades. (can't find an authentic source)

And this war lasted 3 centuries!

A mere drop in the ocean. Nothing compared to the modern age, and the crusades were supposed to be the greatest conflict in human history.

Just compare that figure to the combined death toll of world war1 and 2 lasting only a few years.....it's simply laughable

world war II - 60 million killed (lowest estimate available) world war I - 30 million (rough estimate)

I haven't even included deaths from the horrors inflicted by Stalin and Mao in their respective countries.

97 million people killed by communist states...which were run by dialectical materialists (something similar to the rational method)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism

And you people still think that religion is the root of conflict....

B: A,

Your numbers are laughable. Please cite your references.

I will provide you with my references this evening when I get back from work.

And why do you include the deaths of world war II and world war I? Japan was a Buddhist nation, Germany was a Christian nation. Hitler never disavowed his belief in Catholicism. On what basis do you claim these deaths to be "caused" by atheism?

We are finally "drilling down" on your claims!

Looks like you did not even bother to read the whole article in Wikipedia - which contains criticism of the estimate.

Me: The medieval era was a time of great peace? Funniest thing I've read all day. Granted I just woke up...

http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

C: Are we seeing cognitive bias in action?why only casualties from the crusade? What about the Inquisition, the pogroms against the Jews for many centuries, the India-Pakistan separation, Northern Ireland etc? A drop in the ocean indeed.

Haven't included deaths where religion caused a part indirectly, e.g. slavery in the US, frudalism durjng the dark ages in Europe, lack of education/sanitation in areas where religious conflicts are/ were rife.

B: A,

Since you are found of taking the upper end of estimates, here are mine (with sources cited). The examples (especially for Islam) are very laconic with a lot of the deaths due to the various wars of conquest not estimated. The total deaths due to just Christianity and Islam is 125,000,000 +.

Before you see the references below: I would like to remind you of what you have written:

" And humans have lived and prospered using religious dogma for almost the entire time they've existed on this planet."

" What you wrote were minor conflicts compared to modern conflicts."

So pray tell, is 125 million deaths (a conservative estimate in my opinion) "minor" to you??

Here are the references:

ESTIMATES OF THOSE MURDERED BY RELIGION/RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION/ RELIGIOUS WARS

CHRISTIANITY

11th - 13th centuries CE
The Crusades: 9,000,000 died
Source:Robertson, J.M., A Short History of Christianity, Watts & Co., London 1931: p153

12th-13th centuries CE
The "Crusade" Against the Albigensian Heresy in Southern France: 1,000,000 Albigensians murdered by the Roman Catholic Church
Source: Robertson, J.M., A Short History of Christianity, Watts & Co., London 1931: p153

15th - 18th centuries CE
The Witchhunts - estimated of people murdered ranged from 100,000 to 2,000,000
Sources:
Graham, Phyllis, The Jesus Hoax, Leslie Frewin, London 1974: p112
Harris, Marvin, Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches, Random House, New York 1974: p178
Haught, James, Holy Horrors: An Illustrated History of Religious Murder and Madness, Prometheus, Buffalo 1990: p73

15th century CE
The Spanish Inquisition - 31,000 murdered (at the stakes), 150,000 Jews driven to sea where many died.
Source: Knight, Margaret, Honest to Man: Christian Ethics Re-examined, Pemberton, London 1974: p86-89

16th -17th centuries CE
The Wars of Religion in Europe (Between catholic and Protestants):
1. The Benelux Countries (1576-1579): at least 16,000 murdered (Antwerp, 8,000; Maastricht, no less than 8,000)
Source: Bailey, Brian, Massacres: An Account of Crimes Against Humanity, Orion, London 1994: p.33-35

2: France (including the infamous St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, 1562-1593): 70,000 to 100,000 slain
Source: Bailey, ibid: p31

3, Germany, France , Italy, Spain, Sweden, Denmark (30 Years War:1618-1648): estimates of those who died in this war in Germany alone between the Catholics and Protestants vary from a "conservative" 6,000,000 to 14,000,000 (Germany's population was estimated at only 18 million at the beginning of the war - this means that between 1/3 to 2/3 of the population of Germany was extirpated during this war - proportionately more than what was lost during the two world wars in the 20th century)
Source:s
Knight, ibid: p.89
Haught: p106-107

4. Ireland: Cromwell and his men killed murdered 8,000 soldiers and civilians in Drogeda and Wexford in 1649
Sources:
Bailey, Massacres: p48-49
Haught, Holy Horrors: p121
Magnusson, Magnus, Landlord or Tenant: A View of Irish History, Bodley Head, London 1978: p35-36

5. Christian pogroms against Jews (throughout history of Christendom): Jews were killed for the flimsiest of reasons. Jews were blamed for the Black Death for instance. The historian Philip Ziegler estimated that there were three hundred and fifty separate massacres of Jews by Christians during the three years of the Black Death. At least 20,000 Jews were murdered.
Sources:
Haught, Holy Horrors: p69-71
Knight, Honest to Man: p98

6. Christian Missionary Work is something that has also caused many native deaths:
Tahiti (19th century): 14,000 dead (due to execution for witchcraft, refusal
to convert etc)
Source:
Lewis, Normam, The Missionaries: God against the Indians, Arena, London 1989: p9-15

There are thousands more deaths (I count around 40,000) caused in part by Christian missionaries in South America. (read Lewis' book!)

7. Black Slavery (by Christians)

The historian Basil Davidson, estimates for deaths due to the slave trade (something sanction by the Bible) from 1650-1850 to around 9,000,000
(Around 2,000,000 African slaves died in the journey to the new world, while
another 7,000,000 died "before embarkation").
Source:
Davidson, Basil, Black Mother: Africa and the Atlantic Slave Trade, Penguin 1980: p.271

Estimates of murders and deaths due to Christianity: 30,000,000+

ISLAM

1. Muslim Conquest Outside Arabia

History shows many records of Muslim murdering conquered peoples:

7th Century CE: Wars of conquest and massacres of local populations reported in Syria (thousands), Mesopotamia, Egypt (towns of Behnesa, Fayum, Nikiu, Abiot murdered), Armenia (entire population of Euchaita wiped out), Cyprus ('great massacre' of population), Carthage (mosy inhabitants killed).
Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roma Empire" estimated 50,000 romans were killed in the battle of Syria,
Source:
Serge Trifkovic, "The Sword of the Prophet: Islam, History, Theology, Impact on the World", Regina Orthodox Press, Boston 2002: p.90-96

2. Islam's Conquest of India

The actual number of Hindus who died due to the muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent may never be known - but the numbers are almost unbelievable large. When the Muslim conquered what is today known as Afghanistan they annihilated the entire Hindu population. Indeed the place is called Hindu Kush (i.e. "Hindu Slaughter") to this day. Prof K. Elst, a specialist of central Asia cited estimates that as many as 80,000,000 (yes, 80 million!) Hindus may have been died due to the muslim conquest between 1000 (conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 (end of Delhi Sultanate). The estimate is certainly high, but it is certain that the numbers of Hindus and Buddhists killed by Muslims exceed the numbers killed by the Nazis in the Holocaust.
Sources:
Koenraad Elst, "Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of Islam", Voice of India, Delhi 2002 p:34
Serge Trifkovic, "The Sword of the Prophet: Islam, History, Theology, Impact on the World", Regina Orthodox Press, Boston 2002: p.109-113

3. Fall of Constantinople (1453): Estimated deaths between 4,000 to 30,000
Source: Gibbons, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Vol VI: Chapter 68

4. Armenian Genocide (1915-1923) - the Muslim Turks slaughtered Christian Armenians - estimated Armenians murdered 1,500,000
Source:
Robert Spencer, Onward Muslim Soldiers, Regnery 2003: p.182

5. Slavery (by Islam)

Abdi (Black slaves): The Islamic world from its beginning to the 20th (!) century as estimated to have traded around 14,000,000 black slaves. For each slave traded, the number "lost" is variously estimated to around 1:1 to 1:200. We can safely estimate, at its most conservative, that 14,000,000 African died due to the muslim slave trade.
Source: Segal, Ronald, Islam's Black Slaves, Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, New York 2001: p57 (etc)

Mamluk (white slaves): It was estimated that around 1,000,000 white Americans and Europeans were captured by muslims into slavery. Since many of these were known to have died from mistreatment, malnutrition, diseases etc, and based on the conservative "loss" ratio of 1:1, we can estimated at around half of these (500,000) would have died before being sold as slaves.
Source:
Milton, Giles , White Gold: The Extraordinary Story of Thomas Pellow and Islam's One Million White Slaves , Picador, New York 2004: p.271, (on deaths e.g. p89 & p101)

Total (very laconic) estimates of deaths due to Islam: 95,000,000 +

Look forward to what you have to say.

A: I didn't deny religion was responsible for the deaths of so many (most of the figures are unsubstantiated by the way)

But religious deaths are a very minor fraction.

Just look at the last 100 years. The death figures are mind bogglingly large. Only Communism using state terrorism is responsible for more deaths than almost the entire massacres of the last 2000 years.

And I bring in Communism because it epitomizes the rational method. Dialectical Materialism is as rational as rationalism gets.

And religion is a vast field. My problem is with bigotry in general. Rational bigotry is far worse because there are no apriori truths and it could be rationalized that life is not sacred, as was the case with Nazis (using eugenics) or Communism (using dialectical materialism).

For example, one of the ten commandments states that "You shall not Kill", So were the christians/muslim conflict really substantiated by religion or was it religious bigotry. Man in his very nature likes war and we are all just a few missed meals away from committing murder.

Some of the examples that you quotes, for example the India-Pak conflict, was it really due to religion? The modern Nation State is a modern rational concept which originated in the 16th century. Through out the history of india, muslims and hindus lived in relative harmony and since most of you are not aware of the history of mughals and muslim rule, then let me remind you that religion had no role at state level. You can read on Akber's deen e elahi if you want to know what role was played by religion in India. Can't really remember any religious conflicts in India, the mughal's weren't really spreading islam when they conquered India.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters...

this link probably gives a better example. If you seriously still believe that religion has produced more conflict than rational concepts (nation state/ communism/ nazism) then you are honestly deluded and what you practice is just pure bigotry. No one's here denying that religion hasn't got its problems, but the problem with human thinking are far worse and there simply isn't a comparison between the figures that are staring right at you.

@B
I seriously doubt the figures that you are throwing around. Didn't know that most atheists are just as apologetic and throw around propaganda as any religious extremist would.

B: A,

You have just made another unsubstantiated claim.

How is 120,000,000+ deaths due to religion a "minor fraction" - pray tell how do you define minor.

Look forward to some specific statements rather than "hit and run" claims you never substantiate.

"Can't really remember any religious conflicts in India, the mughal's weren't really spreading islam when they conquered India."

You should read Sita Ram Goel's "Islamic Imperialism in India"

http://voiceofdharma.com/books/siii/

and Konrad Elst's "Negationism in India"

http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/books/negaind/index.htm

I would like to hear your SPECIFIC critiques of their claims - not vague ones like "Oh, these guys are radicals" etc. The sort of tiresome thing you have been doing all these weeks.

...

A: The rational method, dialectics etc is fine...but meaningless without apriori truths.

Where is the criterion coming from? The absolute apriori criterion which suggests that this is right or this is wrong.

You say that you are rational and I suspect that you all agree with the fact that "life is sacred" Once the criterion is established then it's easy to distinguish but the criterion is coming from ancient heuristics (christian heuristics).

Communism did away with this criterion and the result was simply mass death. Mao/Stalin/Lenin/Hitler did not consider life sacred and most of their populations agreed with them (they were popular leaders in their time). Rationalism could go one way or the other if the absolute apriori truths and criterions are not established.

Here's the solution.

Extract as many ancient heuristics and once a criterion is formulated then live your life rationally based on those criterion.

Here's one --> all ancient heuristics treat "debt" as bad and bankers are evil.

Modern economist think that debt is good. Economist encourage countries to take on debt, and encourage people to use debt for consumption. Wealth distribution has never been this skewed. The effects are clearly becoming visible slowly.

Follow and learn from ancient heuristics and never indulge in epistemic arrogance.

B: A,

I am still waiting for your response on "minor" versus "major" conflicts.

I think it's time you knuckle down and provide concrete answers, don't you?

Or is your religious heuristics best enjoyed in "soft focus"?

A: I can't see you major vs minor post?

Hey....start emailing me personally....I can't read so much stuff in 5 minutes and reply too, the replies get all jumbled up and I loose track of what's going on.

You can later post the replies here but try emailing me personally so that there is no clutter and we can focus on what's going on

B: No, I'd like other to see our discussion. Anyway I am told you get rather rude in personal e-mails, so I try to avoid this. I like to keep things civil.

A: grow up, It's just an email.....it can't get any worse than throwing rude words around, plus you don't even know me and we probably would never meet.....so who gives a shit. The internet is for watching porn and bullshitting with people, the rest is just noise.

i'll allow you to reciprocate, the classical man never hid his true feelings, unlike modern man (where you hate your boss but still are nice to him). Being civil is just another form of slavery which is acceptable if one is doing it for money. Have you read about Procrustes (greek myth)?, that's how modern man is, so i'll allow you to escape the procrustean bed. Hobbes said that if every man was given complete freedom, than they would kill each other, Hobbes would be happy in cyber space though.

The problem with an email is that 90% of our communication is body language (eye contact, posture, hormones etc). So if you remove that 90%, then an email is simply people bull shitting in cyber space with no real consequence. Don't take it seriously unless there's something wrong with you and you take electronic insults very seriously.

Human thinking and language is merely for flaunting and has no real practical use, It's a very late development (some animals are actually more advanced in language). I just use it to impress chics and get laid or to annoy people who take themselves really seriously, you might like to read up on Amotz Zahavi and what constitutes a human mating signal. Now somebody is going to accuse me of name dropping, seriously, I am very very well read. I read the complete works of Stuart Mill, Hobbes, Hume and Kant when I was 14 yrs old (by luck apparently). I can write and speak in 7 different languages (coincidently) and I have read stuff that you don't even have access to (language barrier). And I only do it to get laid, unlike people on this forum who actually think that their way of thinking is superior to some other way of thinking and take that very seriously. Epistemic Arrogance is just bigotry if you don't even know the problems with Episteme (not techne).

My only purpose is to figure out how truly religious an atheist really is and is he aware of his own level of ignorance, with communism and dialectical materialism (rationalism at its best) you can figure it out, I need to learn about the modern atheist, is it simply another one of those small cults popping up now and again. And sadly, not a single person on this forum has actually even figured out what's going on. You could've at least discussed Kant but I don't think that people here know too much about him.

And the news is that Japan is apparently draining radioactive particles into the sea, and some people are actually justifying that the radiation is simply very low. They can't figure out the difference between radiation and to actually have a plutonium particle embedded inside of you. The miracles of science just keep coming. So now a piece of the planet is off limits for human beings for approximately 4 billion years (i guess that's the half life). The church should've jailed all of Galileo's friends. The church should've been awarded a noble peace prize because they knew 100s of years ago that these nut jobs are going to destroy the planet, the climate change guys should thank the church as well for at least trying to save the climate.

B: What are the seven languages you know?

You claim you have read Mill, Hobbes, Hume & Kant, it does not look like you have read with understanding. The only way you can PROVE you have read them and that they are still in your memory is for you to meet at the next DS meeting where you do not have any reference book handy. (especially since you say 90% of communication is body language.)

Really I am tired of all this boasting when all I have seen of your claimed wide knowledge is the ability to make wild unsubstantiated claims.

D: You can write read and write in 7 different languages?
Well, Mr. A, apparently, one of them isn't English. Your command of the English language is at the approximate level of a ten-year-old.

You can't spell, have no understanding of the basic foundations of grammar and employ limited vocabulary. You don't even know that words starting a sentence should be capitalized. You may think you've got skills, but what I think after this sustained period of interaction of you is that you are simply a degenerate bibliophile with too great a confidence in your own abilities. You are obnoxious, egoistic and you think that you can disparage everyone else simply based on the alleged fact that you have read many books.

Firstly, I find it highly doubtful that you read the "complete works of Stuart Mill, Hobbes, Hume and Kant" when you were fourteen. Secondly, just because you read them does not mean that you understood them. Thirdly, reading books does not make you great. Books contain other people's knowledge, ideas and theories. You have purportedly read them and know about these ideas. Doesn't matter. Just goes to show that you appear to have a lot of time. Anyone can read books, but only the truly skilled can come up with better ideas. You don't have any. You are but a robot spewing out factoids and irrelevancy.

You seem to have the impression that your world view is automatically the best, most accurate, the greatest, etc. There is a word for that in the English language. Due to your pathetic command of English, you might not know it. It's known as megalomania. Most dictators have it.

The false impression of knowledge and being intelligent you project disgusts me. You disgust me. I abhor obnoxious, arrogant bastards who masquerade under a facade of intelligence and you are precisely that kind of person.

You have no humility. You have nothing except the false reassurances of your own ego.

I am really tired of you, A. Grow up. I'm probably younger than you in age, but I'm definitely more mature than you.
blog comments powered by Disqus
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Latest posts (which you might not see on this page)

powered by Blogger | WordPress by Newwpthemes