Andrew Stephenson

2018-02-03 20:52:59 -0500

Al Peterson commented 2018-02-03 16:15:20 0500

Andrew you are self deluded. That same article from Cornell University at the end totals 41 million killed in wars in the 20th century. The quote from the film maker also calls the 20 th century the most violent in history. Anyone who pays a lick of sense to the news will see this is true. No other century comes close.

-

I acknowledge(d) the number. My point was that it was almost entirely driven by WWI and II (the difference in figures arises from an order-of-magnitude uncertainty in Russian casualties in WWII ). Death tolls in the second half of the 20th were a fraction of that of the first, and those of the 21st to date, a fraction of those in the second half of the 20th. The bloodiest war of the 21st century is probably the War on Terror, with circa a million casualties, largely at the hands of the US. The first 18 years of the 21st have a fraction of the deaths of the same point a century earlier.

-

“The inquisition is a BS “fact” that lefties always drag out. Here is amore realistic study”

-



Which is to say, it happened, which is what I claimed. I made no claims on numbers.

===

“Even a worst case scenario dosen’t come close and furthermore thse were not Christians. They were , like the Hitler example you gave, thugs using Christianlty to gain power.



Your example of comparing muslims to Jews is again one of the flawed tactics of the left…. […]." The Old Testament and Quran are derived from the same original source. Borth are similarly cruel in intent and often, phrasing. Yes, the Torah does indeed advocate for killing of unbelievers. The difference is in how it’s used. You use the “it’s not really the religion, it was a tool for power” explanation to explain the blood shed at the hands of Christians – could the same argument not be made for Muslims? Most do not believe in violence, incidentally, even if there are extremist factions.

-

Your moral absolute cannot be derived from your presuppositions as an evolutionist. If there is not creator and if life is a chance occurrence and if life is simply about survival of the fittest then it is A-OK to do what ever you can to survive: kill, cheat, lie, steal ,rape. There is no morality to be derived from chance. Here again, atheists can see the problem of their position so they ride on the Religionists coat tails a but try to devise an independent source for what can only come from a creator God.

-

Evolutionarily speaking, we are a social creature. Killing friendlies is decidedly unhelpful, as is robbing etc. You don’t see other social creatures killing within in-groups, only hostile outsiders. There’s nothing about us that says fighting and pillaging is necessary, especially when resources are plentiful as they are today.

- -

“Your problem of the religious right is only exacerbated by the atheist left. Trudeau is working over time to force his morality on us. Every law made is an attempt to force someone’s morality on someone else. Tax laws, highway laws, sex laws, smoking laws, the list is endless. All are attempt by someone to say this is wrong, you shall not do it or you must do it.”

-

Taxes aren’t a moral issue, and as for smoking and highway laws, you’ll notice that smoking and irresponsible driving have societal costs beyond the individual partaking. Again, I point to my ethos, which enables freedom as long as it doesn’t come at the expense of others.

There should be no “sex laws”. However, educating society on how to do it safely, is important for the same reason as safe driving laws are.

-

Your attempt to see democracy before the Reformation is a joke. The only democracy prior was among the Greeks and it was very elitist. Hardly one person one vote. Since the secularization of the west this concept has devolved into the Antifa and university screeds against freedom speech we see today. The left does not have an adequate foundation to build morality on so it is built on a quaking bog of feeling and manufactured office taking and victim hood.

- -

We still don’t have one-person-one-vote. It’s one of the fundamental reasons for electoral reform – first-past-the-post only counts the votes the winner took, and only those necessary to win, discarding all else. How do you explain “majority governments” where the winner gets less than 40% of the vote, as both Trudeau and Harper did? Stateside, it’s even worse – Trump wouldn’t be president if it were OPOV , and of course they have gerrymandering, specifically designed to disenfranchise politically inconvenient demographics – the electoral college itself has its roots in letting slaves count as electors without letting them actually vote. Universal suffrage is a product of the secular era.

commented