| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
1 Mao 49-78 million deaths
2 Stalin 23 million
3 Hitler 17 million
4 Leopold II of Belgium 15million
5 Hideki Tojo 5 million
6 Ismail Enver Pasha 2.5 million
7 Pol Pot 1.7million
8 Kim Il Sung 1.6 million
9 Mengistu Haile Mariam 1.5 million
10 Yakubu Gowon 1.1 million
In the last 40 years of Queen Victoria's rule there were tens of millions of deaths from man made (trade policy led) famines in India. The numbers are disputed and sometimes the timeframe slips to 1880-1920, but I am confident that over 15 million Indians (that is pre-partition India - The Raj) died of starvation and disease directly caused by the actions of imperial administrators. That is from one part of the British Empire over just a few decades.Originally Posted by fingers
Absolutely Jon. During the British brutal colonial rule of Queen Victoria, 165 million excess deaths in India between 1880 and 1920. This figure is larger than the combined number of deaths from both World Wars, including the Nazi holocaust. But hey, never mind, send her victorious, happy and glorious …
Is that really true? The population of India was about 200 million in 1880 and rose to 250 by 1920, so how did three quarters of the population die in 40 years and another 200 million spring up? I’ve no doubt things were brutal in many places, they still are now but doesn’t seem to add up.
https://m.economictimes.com/news/ind.../102696431.cms
[QUOTE=fingers;5508831]https://m.economictimes.com/news/ind.../102696431.cms[/QUOT
Michael Palin's series on Nigeria highlighted similar points and is well worth a viewing.
While religion is often aired as the key cause of such loss of life and/ or dignity, atheism reigns supreme, certainly throughout the 20th Century. It's interesting that atheists routinely urge that the Nazis were Christian, invoking Christianity to justify their horrors. This is false. Nazism and fascism never held themselves out as Christian enterprises. More particularly, Hitler himself despised Christianity. He saw Christianity as “meek” and “flabby” and sought to destroy it “root and branch”. He bemoaned why Germany was “stuck” with “feeble minded” Christianity and preferred other “strong-arm” systems. Hitler’s writings and speeches are so full of passages dripping with contempt for Christianity that to argue he was Christian is like arguing George Washington fought for the British during the Revolutionary War.
The same article continues:-
5 uncomfortable facts atheists need to hear
The most common argument is that atheism is not an ideology; it merely reflects the absence of faith in religion. They just don’t believe in God. Why can’t we please leave them alone?
But it turns out they don’t want to leave you alone. On social media most atheists are bizarrely vocal about their contempt for Christianity and, to a lesser extent, Judaism, for their beliefs. They believe these religions frustrate progress. They argue with great passion that we’d be better off if we just eradicated God once and for all. Godless regimes have always sought the eradication of God with passionate zeal, deadly efficiency on a mass scale, and unspeakable cruelty.
Such thinking is an ideology. Such “non-belief” has devastating consequences. Not believing in God is like not believing in seat belts. Or better yet: it’s like not believing in the police, the judiciary, medicine or fire stations. You don’t have to believe in them, but living in a world without them has consequences:-
Not least the top five on a list already mentioned in this discussion - all atheists:-
Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,00 people murdered
Jozef Stalin (USSR 1932-39 only) 15,000,000 people murdered
Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000 people murdered
Kim II Sung (North Korea 1948-94) 1.6 million people murdered
Tito (Yugoslavia 1945-1987) 570,000 people murdered
Interestingly Richard Dawkins, the atheists' Messiah, has recently declared himself to be a "cultural Christian".
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...hat-he-thinks/
What a delightful irony coming from the guy who wants to destroy Christianity! As TP says, you don't have to believe in Christianity but living in a world entirely without it has consequences. I'm sure Sludge can't wait for that day but good luck is all I can say, as I probably won't be around to say I told you so - I'll be in a better place!
First of all, atheists don't have Messiahs. That is simply a contradiction in terms. Those who are interested in science (and which means truth) do not seek to follow a deity or human being as being the source of all truth and knowledge. In fact, any scientist worth his salt enjoys being wrong about something - as it meas that his or her knowledge expands. It's the total opposite of clinging onto unproven myths from thousand of years ago and which can never be proven or corroborated to a satisfactory degree for most people.
As for Dawkins stating that he is a 'cultural Christian' I think you need to listen to his explanation rather than perceive it as 'a delightful irony'. I am an atheist but can appreciate some of the cultural aspects of Christianity that surrounds us i.e. churches, various hymns, religious paintings etc - and it's all very familiar to me. Some non-Christians even go to Midnight Mass at Christmas purely for the enjoyment of it.
Similarly, I have hosted numerous Japanese people (both at home and regarding my work) who visit both a Shinto shrine and Buddhist temple every New Year's Eve (and who exchange presents at Christmas time). They have not been believers but they enjoy the cultural backcloth of their country and history.
Dawkins is an intelligent chap and probably brighter than those who misinterpret what he is saying.
Dawkins is certainly intelligent. But there can be a chasm between knowledge and wisdom.
I don't have time (atm) to address all your points and will return to your comments when time allows, but I would ask why (apart from eternal convenience) you like to label the bible "unproven myths" - are you suggesting that none of it contains accurate science and history (as we understand both those disciplines today)?
Also, could you explain this statement >> "Those who are interested in science (and which means truth)" << in more detail please?
I don't really want to get into the religious stuff as it gets nowhere - as what believers consider to be proof does not pass the threshold of being proof as understood by the majority of educated people.
I merely wanted to comment on the misinterpretation of Dawkins' comment.
As far as the meaning of the word 'science', the etymological root comes from Latin ('Scientia' meaning 'knowledge/to know something) and came to English via Norman-French.
It's true that the modern usage has narrowed down to what the Oxford Languages Dictionary describes as 'the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.' - but it's still about knowledge and the search for it, albeit in certain fields.
The irony is that he effectively wishes that Christianity had been strangled at birth. If he had had his way there would be no churches, cathedrals, hymns, Christmas, Easter, or religious paintings for him (or you) to appreciate! Also what kind of society would we be living in now - something along the lines of the Roman empire perhaps. Uhm, not too appealing that!
Clearly Dawkins is a very intelligent chap but I do question whether he has seriously investigated the circumstances of the resurrection or if he has, perhaps dare not even alolow himself to think that it really might have happened? As he presumably would reject any narratives from the New Testament, then he would say that there is no evidence -end of discussion.
BTW I am a PhD scientist, and yes, during my career I have found that new scientific evidence has overturned my previous conclusions and I agree this is how scientific achievement develops of course. I came to faith through investigation into the resurrection of Jesus and I started off as a complete skeptic along the lines of Lee Strobel or Frank Morrison. I do not reject the New Testament as evidence because I always have to come back to the question - why? Why would anyone write accounts of such an event other than their lives were completely turned around as a result, and indeed they risked their very own lives when trying to share the news with others. Many were martyred. Would they really do this based on a fantasy?
Didn't Churchill's Bengal famine in 1943 cause over 4 million deaths?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote