Take Back Our Country

[Cow Poke]

So they're not morals, they're instincts, and nothing more than an accident of evolution.

Thank you for conceding the point.

He won't have a clue what that means - he'll simply regurgitate some of his goofy talking points.

[MaxVel]

As with many such claims, this skews the statistics. The atheist regimes that committed these atrocities largely committed them in the 20th century, AFAICT. In that century, the tools of war had been enhanced with technology, and the population growth was beginning to skyrocket. So the opportunity for greater atrocity was real. If you look at the numbers not as "raw numbers," but as a percentage of the population, there is no significant difference between the two groups.

People kill - and wage war - and commit atrocities, whatever their beliefs may be. God has been the reason for many of these - but godless wars have also been common.

Cambodia

[carpedm9587]

Cambodia

I'm not sure I understand your response.

[Cow Poke]

I'm not sure I understand your response.

I'm certain that I don't.

[carpedm9587]

I'm certain that I don't.

I think he may be referencing the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge, a communistic regime that is believed to have been the cause of between 1.4 and 2.2 million deaths (some estimates go as high as 3 million and some as low as 740 thousand). Over 20,000 mass graves have been found in Cambodia. However, this is a 20th century phenomenon, which kind of supports the point I was trying to make.

[One Bad Pig]

I think he may be referencing the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge, a communistic regime that is believed to have been the cause of between 1.4 and 2.2 million deaths (some estimates go as high as 3 million and some as low as 740 thousand). Over 20,000 mass graves have been found in Cambodia. However, this is a 20th century phenomenon, which kind of supports the point I was trying to make.

I believe the point he is disputing is your assertion re: percentage of population.

[MaxVel]

The atheist genocide in Cambodia didn't rely on modern technology for its killing. It's a counter-example to the idea that atheist atrocities only look so bad because by pure chance they happened in a time when military technology allowed greater killing rates.

[carpedm9587]

I believe the point he is disputing is your assertion re: percentage of population.

So the Khmer Rouge killed between 1.4 and 2.6 million people in a population that was estimated to be 3.7 Billion the late 1960s. That's an atrocity that killed between 0.038% and 0.054% of the population of the planet.

The estimates are that 200K people died in the crusades (which spanned a significantly longer time). World population in 1290 was estimated to be 360-450 million (that's the end of the Crusades). That means the crusades killed between 0.044 and 0.056% percent of the world population. If you take the average world population over the 200 year period, the percentage is even higher.

You find similar numbers when you take other conflicts, religious or otherwise. Bottom line - people kill for a variety of reasons. When there are more people, and more powerful weapons, more people get killed. Trying to point to one group (theists vs. atheists) and suggest they are more or less prone to violence is not viable, IMO. There are simply too many variables. Indeed, defining which wars are and are not religious is itself problematic.

[Cow Poke]

So between 1.4 and 2.6 two million people...

Is this that newfangled new math?

[carpedm9587]

The atheist genocide in Cambodia didn't rely on modern technology for its killing. It's a counter-example to the idea that atheist atrocities only look so bad because by pure chance they happened in a time when military technology allowed greater killing rates.

I have been trying to find some description of the weapons used by the Khmer Rouge to execute this many people, with no luck. I'd be curious to know where you get this information.

[carpedm9587]

Is this that newfangled new math?

- bad editing...

[Cow Poke]

- bad editing...

That's a relief.

[rogue06]

So the Khmer Rouge killed between 1.4 and 2.6 million people in a population that was estimated to be 3.7 Billion the late 1960s. That's an atrocity that killed between 0.038% and 0.054% of the population of the planet.

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

Pffft. What's a million or two people butchered.

[carpedm9587]

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

Pffft. What's a million or two people butchered.

At no point did I say, imply, or think any of that, Rogue. That is a very disingenuous response - and a somewhat dishonest one. The topic was about "who has committed the greatest atrocities." The point is that the question itself has no valid answer - not that atrocities are of little concern.

[Tassman]

So they're not morals, they're instincts, and nothing more than an accident of evolution.

Morals are just rules of behaviour and our rules of behaviour are grounded in our natural reciprocal instincts as a social species, certainly. They're hardly likely to be contrary to them.