Why not just eliminating supernatural and natural killers, we are talking about humans here so let's leave out dingo killing and just focus on humans. Are you really denying that the biggest numbers come from modern superpowers?
I don't really distinguish between those that kill for God, or because of God, and those that kill for irreligious reasons or kill in response to religion or a hatred for religion. If Jihadest didn't have the Quran, they'd still find some other reason to kill. If Christians didn't have the Bible, and wanted to kill some witches and take over some lands and get some loot, they'd have found another reason for it.
My point was..here let's go through the absurdities:
1. Guilt by association- negative actions of any and all X reflect badly upon all X, all forms of beliefs held by X
2. Excluded middle- The big 20th century regimes were either by religious, irreligious. By those touting their religion or by a desire to destroy religion.
3. Snow Job- let's posit tons of supporting arguments and numbers to support and classify each side. Let's not, they're only marginally-relevant.
4. microscopically smaller and less dense populous and fractionally less practical mass murder tools in history make mass genocide much harder than it is today.
5. science attempts to limit populations, alter genes, invents more mass destruction capabilities, lengthens lifespans all without regard for cause or moral value outcomes.
All 5 of the above points are completely worthless. Science, religion, hate, fear, don't kill people any more than guns kill people. People will justify their actions with whatever is handy.
I'd rather see a conversation about trying to understand human motivations to kill and whether any social construct (law, morality, etc.) can prevent people from killing others, or are we all just domed for genocide?
I don't really distinguish between those that kill for God, or because of God, and those that kill for irreligious reasons or kill in response to religion or a hatred for religion. If Jihadest didn't have the Quran, they'd still find some other reason to kill. If Christians didn't have the Bible, and wanted to kill some witches and take over some lands and get some loot, they'd have found another reason for it.
My point was..here let's go through the absurdities:
1. Guilt by association- negative actions of any and all X reflect badly upon all X, all forms of beliefs held by X
2. Excluded middle- The big 20th century regimes were either by religious, irreligious. By those touting their religion or by a desire to destroy religion.
3. Snow Job- let's posit tons of supporting arguments and numbers to support and classify each side. Let's not, they're only marginally-relevant.
4. microscopically smaller and less dense populous and fractionally less practical mass murder tools in history make mass genocide much harder than it is today.
5. science attempts to limit populations, alter genes, invents more mass destruction capabilities, lengthens lifespans all without regard for cause or moral value outcomes.
All 5 of the above points are completely worthless. Science, religion, hate, fear, don't kill people any more than guns kill people. People will justify their actions with whatever is handy.
I'd rather see a conversation about trying to understand human motivations to kill and whether any social construct (law, morality, etc.) can prevent people from killing others, or are we all just domed for genocide?
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
