Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I know your claim is that more people have been killed by secular humanists than all the religions throughout history, combined, you just never supplied any data to support that claim. What I supplied earlier was an extensive, but not exhaustive list that contradicts your claim.
Ive never been aware of any killing done under the banner of secular humanism. On the other hand, God is on our side, is a slogan often used to whip an armed force into believing their killing is justified. .
Lol, and no one has killed anyone under a banner labeled 'Religion' either, genius.
No, the secular humanists are a small subgroup of non religious who have slaughtered people for their own reasons; lust for conquest, lust for power, enslavement to foolish ideologies, etc. No one called it 'Secular Humanism', but that is what it was, lolol.
You should take some time to learn history.
Christianity might have crapped out if it hadn't been for Constantine winning his campaigns after having a "vision" to slap a cross on the shields of his infantry. There's that dynamic again though -- Constantine wants to be victorious, so he boosts the morale of his men by citing a fierce god will give them victory under "H"is name, and when they win, it seems the prophecy is upheld. Now that entire empire, safe and a lot richer, has a vested interest in being adherents to the religion that won the day. "lolol"
Lol, and no one has killed anyone under a banner labeled 'Religion' either, genius.
No, the secular humanists are a small subgroup of non religious who have slaughtered people for their own reasons; lust for conquest, lust for power, enslavement to foolish ideologies, etc. No one called it 'Secular Humanism', but that is what it was, lolol.
You should take some time to learn history.
I doubt that. Aside from bluster and the persona of a swaggering teenager who just drank his first six pack, you offered nothing.I have forgotten more history than you will ever know dear.
Christianity might have crapped out if it hadn't been for Constantine winning his campaigns after having a "vision" to slap a cross on the shields of his infantry. There's that dynamic again though -- Constantine wants to be victorious, so he boosts the morale of his men by citing a fierce god will give them victory under "H"is name, and when they win, it seems the prophecy is upheld. Now that entire empire, safe and a lot richer, has a vested interest in being adherents to the religion that won the day. "lolol"
So what?
No one is arguing that the history of Christianity is free of bloodshed or that it has had no exploitative leadership who have done other harm.
The point is quite singular; Secularists have killed far more people in the name of secular causes and ideologies than the sum total of all religious causes combined.
Nothing you quoted about Constantine changes any of that.
You made no point "quite singular". What you offered was a lot of blustering "because I say so", nonsense.
You might have offered a coherent argument by actually addressing the data I offered. But of course, you didn't.
False premise.IN fact, I have. Perhaps you should use your Internet search engine and explore the issue.
You might want to consider doing exactly that.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/7040768-post267.html
I never claimed it.
I said more people have been killed by secular humanists than all the religions throughout history, combined.
And I am right. The number of killed by secular governments are staggering when compared to all other motives for war and killing.
Actually rdean, it was the Christian monks and the jewish Rabbi's who were the scientists in medieval Europe lead the people out of the Dark Ages. ...
You should take some time to learn history.
I doubt that. Aside from bluster and the persona of a swaggering teenager who just drank his first six pack, you offered nothing.
So what?
No one is arguing that the history of Christianity is free of bloodshed or that it has had no exploitative leadership who have done other harm.
The point is quite singular; Secularists have killed far more people in the name of secular causes and ideologies than the sum total of all religious causes combined.
Nothing you quoted about Constantine changes any of that.
You made no point "quite singular". What you offered was a lot of blustering "because I say so", nonsense.
You might have offered a coherent argument by actually addressing the data I offered. But of course, you didn't.
I doubt that. Aside from bluster and the persona of a swaggering teenager who just drank his first six pack, you offered nothing.
Ah, jim-bob, so basically, you're befuddled and aside from bluster, you can't defend your argument.Yes, I did, fool. I pointed out that the secular causes of deaths by war of the 20th century and the Mongol conquests far out number the deaths of ALL PREVIOUS WARS, and tossed in Mao's slaughterings for added fluff.
Apparently you missed that one, dumbshiht.
You made no point "quite singular". What you offered was a lot of blustering "because I say so", nonsense.
Such a sprightly lexicon when intellect fails.WTF? You cant et a rough estimate of the total war deaths of the tw world wars, or you are just too lazy or what?
Why don't you go play with your dolls and leave the discussion to adults who can actually handle numbers? fucking twat.
You might have offered a coherent argument by actually addressing the data I offered. But of course, you didn't.
You not grasping my point doesn't mean I didnt make one, bitch.
I doubt that. Aside from bluster and the persona of a swaggering teenager who just drank his first six pack, you offered nothing.
Ah, jim-bob, so basically, you're befuddled and aside from bluster, you can't defend your argument.Yes, I did, fool. I pointed out that the secular causes of deaths by war of the 20th century and the Mongol conquests far out number the deaths of ALL PREVIOUS WARS, and tossed in Mao's slaughterings for added fluff.
Apparently you missed that one, dumbshiht.
Such a sprightly lexicon when intellect fails.
You might have offered a coherent argument by actually addressing the data I offered. But of course, you didn't.
You not grasping my point doesn't mean I didnt make one, bitch.
The issue being you made no point, offered no data to support your claim and lacking a bit of tact, you're forced to flail around like a petulant child.
I doubt that. Aside from bluster and the persona of a swaggering teenager who just drank his first six pack, you offered nothing.
Ah, jim-bob, so basically, you're befuddled and aside from bluster, you can't defend your argument.
Such a sprightly lexicon when intellect fails.
You not grasping my point doesn't mean I didnt make one, bitch.
The issue being you made no point, offered no data to support your claim and lacking a bit of tact, you're forced to flail around like a petulant child.
"Yes, I did, fool. I pointed out that the secular causes of deaths by war of the 20th century and the Mongol conquests far out number the deaths of ALL PREVIOUS WARS, and tossed in Mao's slaughterings for added fluff. "
Just because you ignore it doesn't mean the response and the data are not given.
Lol, but I enjoy the way idiots like you display their idiocy for the world to see; it kills the libtard brand each and every time just a little more.
Ah, jim-bob, so basically, you're befuddled and aside from bluster, you can't defend your argument.
Such a sprightly lexicon when intellect fails.
The issue being you made no point, offered no data to support your claim and lacking a bit of tact, you're forced to flail around like a petulant child.
"Yes, I did, fool. I pointed out that the secular causes of deaths by war of the 20th century and the Mongol conquests far out number the deaths of ALL PREVIOUS WARS, and tossed in Mao's slaughterings for added fluff. "
Just because you ignore it doesn't mean the response and the data are not given.
Lol, but I enjoy the way idiots like you display their idiocy for the world to see; it kills the libtard brand each and every time just a little more.
I'm not at all impressed with blustering "because I say so", swill.
Your lack of ability to provide any identifiable data is only defended with a cranky foul mouth.
I'm afraid you would be wrong about that.I would venture to say that more people have died in the name of religion than all the wars combined (some of which were caused by religious differences).
Religion since the beginning of recorded history might....might.....account for 1 million.
"Yes, I did, fool. I pointed out that the secular causes of deaths by war of the 20th century and the Mongol conquests far out number the deaths of ALL PREVIOUS WARS, and tossed in Mao's slaughterings for added fluff. "
Just because you ignore it doesn't mean the response and the data are not given.
Lol, but I enjoy the way idiots like you display their idiocy for the world to see; it kills the libtard brand each and every time just a little more.
I'm not at all impressed with blustering "because I say so", swill.
Your lack of ability to provide any identifiable data is only defended with a cranky foul mouth.
Lol, you did it again.
Analogy:
Person A; can you give me any data that plagues really exist?
Person B; of course, there's the Black Plague, the Spanish Flu....
Person A; but you haven't given me any data yet.
Person B: I just did. I said the Black Plauge....
Persona A; still no data.
roflmao.
Do you seriously think that the killings from the secular wars of the 20tth century were surpassed by all the prior wars? If not then you have your data, if so then you are an idiot.
I'm afraid you would be wrong about that.I would venture to say that more people have died in the name of religion than all the wars combined (some of which were caused by religious differences).
Religion since the beginning of recorded history might....might.....account for 1 million.
You are quite wrong. In the Protestant v Catholic Thirty Years War, 1618-1648, alone many, many more than a million died. And in relation to the size of the then population a higher proportion died than in, say, WWII. German States lost between 25% and 40% of their population.
I'm not at all impressed with blustering "because I say so", swill.
Your lack of ability to provide any identifiable data is only defended with a cranky foul mouth.
Lol, you did it again.
Analogy:
Person A; can you give me any data that plagues really exist?
Person B; of course, there's the Black Plague, the Spanish Flu....
Person A; but you haven't given me any data yet.
Person B: I just did. I said the Black Plauge....
Persona A; still no data.
roflmao.
Do you seriously think that the killings from the secular wars of the 20tth century were surpassed by all the prior wars? If not then you have your data, if so then you are an idiot.
A lot of "lol'ing" doesn't support an argument you can't defennd.
Sorry about your inability to defend your argument. You have now tried to revise your argument with terms such as "secular wars".
I gave you data showing that religion actually "wins" in the body count where war and conquest had religious underpinnings.
You utterly failed to provide any support for your claim.
Should the lamp of religion be obscured, Baháulláh explained, chaos and confusion will ensue, and the lights of fairness and justice, of tranquility and peace cease to shine.
"On October 12, at the Temple Emanu-El in San Francisco, Abdul-Bahá put religion to the test. He asked the congregation to help him consider the record of religion, to see whether it is the animating impulse of all human advancement, or a detriment and a source of degradation to mankind. They would go to the source to the founders of religion to review the story of Their lives, compare the conditions preceding Their appearance with those subsequent to Their departure.
"Abdul-Bahá outlined the central events of Jewish history. He emphasized the four hundred years of slavery the Jews suffered at the hands of the Egyptians before Moses led them from captivity.
When a movement fundamentally religious makes a weak nation strong, he argued, changes a nondescript tribal people into a mighty and powerful civilization, rescues them from captivity and elevates them to sovereignty, transforms their ignorance into knowledge and endows them with an impetus of advancement in all degrees of development . . . it becomes evident that religion is the cause of mans attainment to honor and sublimity.
Religion: The Driving Force Behind Human Civilization
So...it wasn't agriculture, surpluses, specialized jobs, the rise of the cities, and technology?
Lesser factors, fool.
RELIGION was certainly one of the tools of group cohesion
But as religions existed Loooooooooooooooong before cities, this argument is tad overstated.
RELIGION was certainly one of the tools of group cohesion
But as religions existed Loooooooooooooooong before cities, this argument is tad overstated.
Yep...religion is not a requirement for civilization to develop....food surpluses, specialized jobs, complex cities and institutions, and technology is.
So...it wasn't agriculture, surpluses, specialized jobs, the rise of the cities, and technology?
Lesser factors, fool.
Oh really?
RELIGION was certainly one of the tools of group cohesion
But as religions existed Loooooooooooooooong before cities, this argument is tad overstated.
Yep...religion is not a requirement for civilization to develop....food surpluses, specialized jobs, complex cities and institutions, and technology are.
