Quantcast

«

»

Feb 21 2013

Terrible Apologetic Argument of the Day

Christian apologist Bill Pratt tries to answer a very bad question with an equally bad answer. The question is, looking at God ordering slaughters in the Bible, “Isn’t God breaking his own commandment to not kill?” But Pratt seems to want to answer a different question, which is whether God is justified in killing at all. His answer is hardly a compelling one.

Third, since God possesses divine attributes that we do not possess, it is a gross error to compare God’s taking human life with our taking human life. As the guarantor of life after death, philosopher Paul Copan reminds us that “any harm caused [by God] due to specific purposes in a specific context would be overshadowed by divine benefits in the afterlife.”

This is a crucial point: God promises an afterlife for everyone. Only he can do that, as no human has that power. As the all-wise, all-knowing guarantor of the afterlife, he is uniquely justified in taking human life.

But wait. The usual excuse for the God-demanded slaughtering of the Midianites, Amelikites, and others is that those were very bad people so God was justified in killing them. So God is “promising” them that they’ll burn in hell for eternity, so that somehow becomes a justification for killing them now? Was he just too impatient to wait to send them to the lake of fire?

All of these are post hoc rationalizations, of course. And none of them make any sense. Anyone who claims that God tells them to commit genocide is a barbaric madman. And any God that might exist that would order genocide is also a barbaric madman.

123 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Reginald Selkirk

    Also, the way Yhwh killed all those Amelikites, et al. was to have people, the Israelites, kill them.
    So this certainly does not get him off the “people killing people is bad” hook.

  2. 2
    Raging Bee

    Selkirk is right: Gods don’t kill people, people kill people. (But guns save lives!)

  3. 3
    cswella

    In other words, “I can do horrific things to you now because I can promise you happiness later”.

    As if losing free will in a supposedly blissful eternal afterlife is any justification for torturing and killing people.

    But wait, does this mean that God didn’t want to grant the good afterlife to the virgins that were not slaughtered but instead were forced to be wives of the men? Or did god spare the virgins from hell, instead granting it to the boys and pregnant mothers?

  4. 4
    eric

    Third, since God possesses divine attributes that we do not possess, it is a gross error to compare God’s taking human life with our taking human life.

    Very true. Given our limited power and knowledge, sometimes we see killing as the best available option (well, least worst). A being without those limitations should never have to resort to it. Second, because we are imperfect sometimes we just screw up and make errors that cause another person’s death. That should never happen to a perfect being.

    So it IS a gross error to make the comparison – God killing people can only be considered far less understandable or moral than many instances of people killing people.

  5. 5
    Raging Bee

    Correction: Gods don’t kill people, people kill people (with gods).

  6. 6
    Acolyte of Sagan

    But aren’t It’s morals supposed to be both perfect and beyond our ken, eric? As I heard it, everything It does is good simply by dint of the fact that It did it, but it’s bad if we do it because we’re not It. and we do not have Its knowledge so we can’t understand why It can do it but we can’t, but neither can we ask (either It or It’s earthly minions) why. We can only do as we’re told.
    Or some such bullocks.

  7. 7
    Kevin, 友好火猫 (Friendly Fire Cat)

    Besides that, Hell wasn’t even mentioned in the Old Testament (and hardly in the New)

  8. 8
    Scr... Archivist

    As the guarantor of life after death, philosopher Paul Copan reminds us that…

    Why is Pratt claiming that this Copan guy is the guarantor of afterlife? Who died and … well, erm, didn’t really?

  9. 9
    Acolyte of Sagan

    .
    Scr… Archivist
    February 21, 2013 at 3:12 pm
    [...]Why is Pratt claiming that this Copan guy is the guarantor of afterlife? Who died and … well, erm, didn’t really?

    Elvis?

  10. 10
    raven

    As the all-wise, all-knowing guarantor of the afterlife, he is uniquely justified in taking human life.

    This is the god and his ant farm model of the earth and humans. We are just the ants.

    This is a crucial point: God promises an afterlife for everyone.

    For most people, this is being tortured in hell for eternity, especially anyone deemed bad enough for god to murder. Anyone who could would reject such an afterlife in favor of annihilation.

    Bill Pratt’s god is a vicious sadist and evil. Fortunately, he doesn’t seem to exist.

  11. 11
    tynk

    Q: “Isn’t God breaking his own commandment to not kill?”
    A: No, the commandment was “Thou shall not kill”, not “We shall not kill”

    See? That was easy, simple, logical and irrefutable cause fingers fit nicely in ears.

  12. 12
    hexidecima

    aka might equals “right”

    pathetic.

  13. 13
    busterggi

    So Yahweh is like a schoolyard bully who has the only ball – the game can be played only by his rules which don’t apply to him. Yeah, that pretty much matches what the bible says.

  14. 14
    eric

    It occurs to me that fundies have an ulterior motive for using such logics – it allows them to treat their children like chattel. “He gives afterlife, therefore justified in bringing death along the way” is very analogous to “I’ll get you to adulthood, therefore justified in beating you along the way.”

  15. 15
    d.c.wilson

    If Pratt wanted to justify Yahweh committing genocide, I wonder why he didn’t use the story of Noah. It’s the one time in the babble where he didn’t use humans as his finger puppets.

  16. 16
    unbound

    And if your god doesn’t follow our definitions of being good in regards to taking lives, what makes you think your god will follow our definitions for a rewarded afterlife? That god may put you under excruciating pain for all eternity because that god views it as a reward.

  17. 17
    phhht

    God promises an afterlife for everyone. Only he can do that, as no human has that power.

    But we puny humans DO have the power to reject the “gift” of eternal life! If we have free will, we can willingly and freely choose to really actually die when we die.

    It kind of kicks the teeth out of the threat of hell.

  18. 18
    Jasper of Maine

    Oh, so, moral relativism…

  19. 19
    Nick Gotts

    Also, the way Yhwh killed all those Amelikites, et al. was to have people, the Israelites, kill them.
    So this certainly does not get him off the “people killing people is bad” hook.

    Quite so – he could simply have annihilated them instantaneously and painlessly. The question I tend to ask apologists for these genocides is whether the more holy way for the Israelites to carry out Yahweh’s orders was to kill the children first in front of the parents, or vice versa.

  20. 20
    Michael Heath

    Nice job bringing eternal punishment into the argument Ed. Lots of apologists like to bring weak-ass justifications to the table regarding God’s supposed evil to humans in the Bible in this life, but I’ve yet to see one apologist actually confront the implications of a god who promises eternal punishment within the framework of the Bible’s assertions. I suppose because there is no compelling defense, only absurd ones.

  21. 21
    Acolyte of Sagan

    tynk
    February 21, 2013 at 3:19 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

    Q: “Isn’t God breaking his own commandment to not kill?”
    A: No, the commandment was “Thou shall not kill”, not “We shall not kill”….

    Or, as my old chain-smoking, whisky-drinking, foul-mouthed headmaster used to tell us when he caught us smoking, drinking, or swearing (and often all three together) – and just prior to swinging the cane – “You are to do as I say and NOT as I do, you little bastards”.
    I never noticed back then the similarity to the god he also professed to believe in – another one of his foibles that regularly gave this little heathen reason to pop an exercise book or two down the back of my trousers.

  22. 22
    Rip Steakface

    God is perfect and beyond judgment.

    Killing is sometimes the best of a crop of bad options, given the imperfection of humanity.

    Therefore God should never *need* to kill people, because he has all options at his disposal. Shit, for the Israelites, if he wanted the Canaanites to get the fuck out, he could have just temporarily changed environmental or societal circumstances in the area that would convince them to get out with minimal harm while maintaining free will. I’m an imperfect human and I thought of that!

  23. 23
    Owlmirror

    “Isn’t God breaking his own commandment to not kill?”

    There is no commandment to not kill per se.

    There’s a commandment to not murder. Unlawful killing is proscribed. But some killing is commanded by God — implementation of the various death penalties; killing in war; massacres (and even genocide) of Israel’s enemies, and like that — and is presumably lawful. And obviously, if God makes the law, then God can decree that that genocide is lawful, if God wants for that genocide to be lawful.

    any harm caused [by God] due to specific purposes in a specific context would be overshadowed by divine benefits in the afterlife

    So… if someone will give you something completely unevidenced and completely unlike your life as it is now, that someone is allowed to destroy your life as it is now?

    As the all-wise, all-knowing guarantor of the afterlife, he is uniquely justified in taking human life.

    As soon as you accept that there is a guaranteed afterlife, “taking human life” is pretty much justified for everyone.

    I mean, isn’t that Andrea Yates’ logic? That her children would be “guaranteed” an afterlife, and an infinitely good afterlife at that?

  24. 24
    martinc

    1.

    “it is a gross error to compare God’s taking human life with our taking human life”

    … because doing so might cause rational thinkers to recognize the moral paucity of the Old Testament God.

    2. It’s funny that the same people arguing “God can kill people because he’s going to give them an afterlife anyway, so no loss” are usually the same people who tell you what a terrible sacrifice it was for Jesus to give up his life to save our sins.

    3. Rats … Scr…Archivist @ 8 got to the Dependent Clause vs. Subject failure before I could make a smartass comment about it.

  25. 25
    joachim

    Since when have atheists had a problem with killing?

    Gimme a break.

  26. 26
    dingojack

    Run along Jo-Jo, the adults are talking.
    :\ Dingo

  27. 27
    joachim

    Oh, and all that Old Testament stuff?

    Since you don’t believe in god, what you are saying is that the Jews were Mass Murderers. Never mind that they faced extermination from the surrounding culture.

    It reminds me of some of the old style Nazi Propaganda about the Murdering Jews from the thirties that you can find on line. All designed to marginalize and dehumaize the jews.

    So in that war, they did Not fight. And look what happened. If the allies had not come and exterminated the nazis, literally burning the cities to the ground, they would have been wiped out.

    And a lot of atheists would have been find with that. It was Hitchens who said that if only the Jews had been wiped out in ancient times, “we could have been spared the whole thing”.

  28. 28
    raven

    Since when have atheists had a problem with killing?

    Gimme a break.

    It started around the Big Boat massacre in Genesis when god invented genocide and killed almost everyone..

    It got going when god helped the Israelis genocide the Canaanites and steal their land, women, and stuff.

    It’s been kept alive by the xians habit of killing whenever they can. Rome fell to xian Germanics. The Crusades, the Albigensian genocide, the Reformation wars, Vietnam, Iraq.

    Even today, xian terrorism is a serious problem in the USA and they occasionally murder someone, usually MDs or often their own children.

  29. 29
    raven

    Joachim the idiot troll:

    Since you don’t believe in god, what you are saying is that the Jews were Mass Murderers. Never mind that they faced extermination from the surrounding culture.

    I really that joachim is just a mindless troll.

    But archaeology has shown that the Canaanite genocides in the bible never happened.

    The OT is known to be mostly fiction and it isn’t even that old, probably compiled and edited around 500 BCE.

    The Israelis were just a tribe of Canaanites. There is no such thing as the Canaanite language. There is a Canaanite language family and one of the languages is…Hebrew.

    What we can say is that whoever wrote the OT parts about the Canaanites thought it was a great plot idea. We don’t blame an entire ethnic group for what some Jerry Falwell wannabe did 2500 years ago.

  30. 30
    raven

    And a lot of atheists would have been find with that. It was Hitchens who said that if only the Jews had been wiped out in ancient times, “we could have been spared the whole thing”.

    Now you are just lying.

    Who rescued the Jews from the Germans?

    The large majority of the dead soldiers were from the Soviet Union. Yes in our universe those atheistic commies fought at great cost for years against the Catholic and Lutheran Germans. And won.

  31. 31
    joachim

    Raven claims the atheistic commies recued the Jews from the Germans. Clumsy liar. The atheistic commies allied with Hitler and made his successes over Poland and France, and the mass esterminations possible in the first place.

    And then their buddy screwed them over and they about lost their asses. Only because the British had held out all along and the Americans came in did the Allies win the war.

    The Christian Brits held out alone while the atheistic commies were trading with Hitler, you lying sack.

  32. 32
    Akira MacKenzie

    Care to give an actual citation to that Hitchens reference?

    No, I didn’t think so.

  33. 33
    gopiballava

    Joachim:
    Right. Because if Christopher Hitchens said it, it must be believed by the majority of atheists. It’s not like Hitchens had any views outside of those held commonly by other atheists, right?

    Oh, wait, he did. He was in favor of invading Iraq, which got him significant disagreement within the atheist community. Quoting him to suggest that a view was widely supported is unreasonable.

    Also, your quote of Hitchens is quite inaccurate. The quotation marks are accurate, but Hitchens expressed a preference for the Romans allying themselves with less militarized and dogmatic Jewish groups. How you get from that to anybody being wiped out is a mystery to me, but the bottom line is that he didn’t say what you claim. Did you pull that quote out yourself, or did you read somebody else’s bad summary?

  34. 34
    gopiballava

    Akira: it’s from God is Not Great.
    “Since the Romans eventually preferred the violent and dogmatic Maccabees to the less militarized and fanatical Jews who had shone in their togas in the Mediterranean light, the scene was set for the uneasy collusion between the old-garb ultra-Orthodox Sanhedrin and the imperial governorate. This lugubrious relationship was eventually to lead to Christianity (yet another Jewish heresy) and thus ineluctably to the birth of Islam. We could have been spared the whole thing”

  35. 35
    dingojack

    He also forgets the Danes.
    Dingo

  36. 36
    raven

    Joachim lies some more.

    The first country to sign an agreement with the Nazis was the Vatican. The Reichskonkordat was signed by future Pope Pius XII and Adolph Hitler.

    The second country was the xian UK. Neville Chamberlain signed agreements appeasing the Nazis and selling out the Czechs.

    How many Russian soldiers died in WWII – Ask Community
    ww w.ask. com › All › Politics, World Events & Society

    10700000 is the total number of soviet soldiers dead in ww2. But couple that with 15900000 civilian deaths and your looking at 26600000 dead, not to mention …

    Most of the allied casualties during WWII were from the godless Soviet Union, 11 million dead.

    Joachim proves it once again. If xianity was true, they wouldn’t have to lie all the time.

  37. 37
    raven

    I looked up military deaths during WWII in wikipedia.

    USA 416,000

    UK 383,000

    Soviet Union is given as 8.8 to 10.7 million.

    The Soviet union lost 10 times as many soldiers as the USA and Great Britain combined.

    FYI, looks like Joachim has had his yearly dose of reality and went back to his own small universe.

  38. 38
    rickdesper

    @25

    So, you avoid difficult questions by smearing the entire group of people asking them?

    Well that’s rather mature of you.

    You obviously know nothing about atheist thinking. I’m torn between educating you and flipping you off.

    Ultimately, it’s your responsibility to learn how to behave in a civil fashion. And you’re not doing that right now.

  39. 39
    Marcus Ranum

    Well, that’s an answer to the Ethyphro dilemma. It’s just a really bad one.

  40. 40
    Marcus Ranum

    Quite so – he could simply have annihilated them instantaneously and painlessly.

    More importantly: he could have caused them to never be in the first place.

    Remember: god is either infinitely cruel and mysterious or a powerless bumbler. There’s no other option.

  41. 41
    gopiballava

    Marcus: You are making the mistake of using your own moral intuition to evaluate god. You simply don’t have the ability to morally evaluate an omnipotent being.

    (Bonus points if, when you see an apologist using this reasoning, you can find them elsewhere arguing that our own innate sense of morality is evidence of god. God gave us an innate sense of morality! One that says that he is immoral…)

  42. 42
    joachim

    Raven in typical lying fashion completely ignores the Hitlter/Stalin pact of 1939 which allowed Hitler and Stalin to divide Poland and left Hitler free to attack the west and defeat France.

    The fact that Britain held out alone while the atheistic commies traded with Hitler is also ignored.

    As is the fact that when the United Stated came in on the side of the allies the defeat of Hitler became certain.

    The fact that Britain and the United States were able to inflict massive defeats on the Nazi War Machine without the massive casualities racked up by the Soviets only reflects Soviet stupidity, not superiority.

    Raven is not only mispresenting the military situation but is doing it stupidly as well.

  43. 43
    dingojack

    And then, of course, there’s the elephant in the room. What was the religion that the Germans followed again….?
    Dingo

  44. 44
    raven

    Joachim ignored the Vatican Catholic Pact. Again. The Reichskondordat that facilitated the Nazis rise to power.

    Ignored the British Neville Chamberlain pacts with the Nazis that sold out the Czechs.

    Made up some more history.

    “Declaration of War with Germany. Declared by Joint Resolution of Congress, December 11, 1941″
    (wikiipedia) “In June 1941, Germany began an invasion of the Soviet Union,”

    When the USA entered the War allied with the British, the Soviet Union was already at war with Germany, allied with the British. As Joachim seems to struggle to comprehend, the USA, Britain, and the Soviet Union were on the same side. The Soviet Union did much of the fighting and ultimately lost around 10 times the soldiers of the USA and the UK.

    Jaochim then quote mines and mangles something from Christopher Hitchens, a form of blatant lying again.

    In fact, Jaochim probably has never once told the truth on any Freethoughtblogs. But it is obvious why he is here. He is an atheist hater. Lying and Hate, two of the three sacraments of the fundie perversion of xianity.

    BTW, Jaochim, Hitler was a Catholic and his millions of willing followers were Catholic and Lutheran xians. Antisemitism started in the NT bible and the Catholic church kept it alive for 2,000 years. Martin Luther set the stage for the Holocaust with a plan that the Nazis carried out in a book called, On the Jews and Their Lies.

  45. 45
    raven

    Munich Agreement – Appeasement Munich Agreement
    militaryhistory .about. com › … › Strategy & Tactics › Strategies & Treaties

    The Munich Agreement was part of a policy of appeasement which led Europe down the path to World … Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain & Adolph Hitler …

    Jaochim must have been home schooled by xian idiots. He really has no idea of what has happened in the world even a few decades ago. And I’m sure not the slightest interest in looking it up.

    The second country to sign an agreement with Hitler and the Nazis was Britain. In 1938 Neville Chamberlain sold out the Czech’s to the Germans to prevent war in Europe.

    The first was the Vatican and future Pope Pius XII, the Reichskondordat between the Catholic church and the Nazis.

  46. 46
    David Hart

    People have already had a go at Joachim’s extraordinarily bad-faith arguments here, but I’ve just got to call him up on this as well:

    Since you don’t believe in god, what you are saying is that the Jews were Mass Murderers. Never mind that they faced extermination from the surrounding culture.

    Since we don’t believe in gods, we are perfectly happy to take the position that the Old Testament is fiction – so those mass murders never happened – what we object to is not mass murders in a book of fiction, but attempts by holywillies who think the book is non-fiction to make excuses for genocide based on their mistaken belief that the killings actually happened and were actually commanded by a god.

    But the salient thing is this: facing extinction from the surrounding cultures, even assuming those cultures actually existed, is only sufficient justification for defending yourself militarily against the surrounding cultures. It is not justification for committing pre-emptive genocide against the surrounding cultures, including non-combatant men, women and children.

    If you cannot see the difference, then I submit that your moral compass has become so badly warped by your religious convictions that you are in no position to lecture anyone else about the ethical issues raised by historical or mythological genocides.

  47. 47
    birgerjohansson

    Rip Steakface @ 22,

    Or he could simply have teleported the rival Caananites away, like Doctor Manhattan did.
    The average superhero is a saint compared to YHWH.
    — — — —- — — — —
    Regarding Joachim and arguments; see the crucial difference between “truth” and “truthiness”!

  48. 48
    Nick Gotts

    joachim the hater,

    Raven in typical lying fashion completely ignores the Hitlter/Stalin pact of 1939 which allowed Hitler and Stalin to divide Poland and left Hitler free to attack the west and defeat France.

    Not to mention something that is common knowledge and has already been raised is not lying; pretending that it is, however, is lying.

    The fact that Britain held out alone while the atheistic commies traded with Hitler is also ignored.

    As raven implies, it was the Munich agreement that led Stalin to abandon his policy of trying to construct an anti-Hitler alliance with France and Britain. That doesn’t make the Nazi-Soviet Pact right or even rational, but the Pact arose out of Stalin’s fear of Hitler. As a side-note, Britain was never “alone”: Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa all joined the war well before France was defeated. Britain also had the Empire, making available huge resources. It also got crucial American help short of joining the war during 1940 and 1941, of course.

    As is the fact that when the United Stated came in on the side of the allies the defeat of Hitler became certain.

    The US did not “come in”: it was attacked by Japan at the same time as Britain, and Germany and Italy then declared war on the USA, not the other way round. This happened at more or less exactly the same time as the German assault on the Soviet Union, operation Barbarossa, failed in its aim of knocking the enemy out in a single campaign, as the advance ground to a halt outside both Moscow and Leningrad. It failed, despite Stalin’s early blunders, because of the superior industrial performance of the Soviet Union and its superior tanks – see Adam Tooze Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy. Up to this point very little allied assistance had been delivered to the USSR: it fought the Nazi war machine to a standstill from its own resources.

    The fact that Britain and the United States were able to inflict massive defeats on the Nazi War Machine without the massive casualities racked up by the Soviets only reflects Soviet stupidity, not superiority.

    No, it doesn’t. Britiah armies were of course repeatedly defeated by the Nazis in the early part of the war: in Norway, in France and in Greece. There certainly was stupidity on the Soviet side, but the huge casualties arose because the Nazis sent the great majority of their forces to the Soviet front, and furthermore murdered civilians and PoWs without restraint on that front, which they largely did not in the west. If you don’t know these things, you are wantonly ignorant, and should cease making such a prize ass of yourself – but I know that’s what you come here to do.

  49. 49
    eric

    Marcus Ranum:

    Well, that’s an answer to the Ethyphro dilemma. It’s just a really bad one.

    They are all really bad. That’s what makes it a dilemma.

    Am enjoying the Joachim takedown. The general history of the beginnig of WWII is obivous (or should be), but the details everyone is bringing up are still interesting.

  50. 50
    DaveL

    Marcus: You are making the mistake of using your own moral intuition to evaluate god. You simply don’t have the ability to morally evaluate an omnipotent being.

    One thing I never understood about this theodicy: if we’re not competent to judge the morality of God, how do we get off calling him “good?” If an infinite being is so far beyond our comprehension, if he moves in mysterious ways we can’t begin to understand, isn’t it all in vain to say “God wants this”, or “That is God’s will?” Wouldn’t it make more sense to simply say “God is; nothing further can we know?”

  51. 51
    dingojack

    Or even ‘God is nothing, further can we know?’
    Dingo

  52. 52
    democommie

    C’mon people. Slapping around Jokekim is like whacking a pinata. A pinata that is waist high and you don’t got no blindfold on. Just be careful if you crack this one open, it is not full of candy and little prizes.

  53. 53
    tbp1

    I’ve been saying for a long time that most theology and, as far as I can tell, all theodicy, is basically a more-or-less elaborate justification for the idea that might makes right.

  54. 54
    eric

    @53: interesting, but I’d say not quite right. I think there’s a component of the naturalistic fallacy to it. Its not ‘he’s right because he can kill us” but rather “anythnig with that amount of authority must deserve it.” Does that make sense? Its a fine distinction but I think a real one.

  55. 55
    Marcus Ranum

    gopiballava:
    Marcus: You are making the mistake of using your own moral intuition to evaluate god. You simply don’t have the ability to morally evaluate an omnipotent being.

    You’re saying god gave me a weak, inferior, flawed moral intuition? So then the argument that “morals come from god” must be replaced with the argument “really shitty morals come from god”?

    I actually don’t have a moral intuition. I’m a moral nihilist. So apparently god entirely forgot to give me a moral intuition. Or, as is more likely the case, he gave me a moral intuition just like his. Crowley summed up god’s morals best: “do as thou will’t shall be the whole of the law.”

  56. 56
    democommie

    @55:

    Marcus I know you’re not saying it, but I had a delicious moment thinking:

    “So GOD created, in his own image and likeness, millions of psychopaths. And he looked upon his work, saying, “This is good!”.

  57. 57
    joachim

    RAVEN crows about the Vatican pact.

    The Vatican had no armies, moron. It was Stalin who famously asked, “How many divisions does the Pope have?”

    The same Stalin who entered the pact with Hitler in 1939, which freed up Hitler for his military success in the West.

    And, in a further display of dishonesty, both he and Nick Gotts make excuses for Atheistic Commie Incompetence in the handling of their armies, which were much bigger than Britains and Germanys combined.
    Nick Gotts pretends like Soviet industry and tanks saved the day, when in fact the winter conditions had as much or more to do with Saving the Atheistic Commies Asses. (Gott even gets his dates wrong…Barbarossa was launched almost Six Months before Pearl Harbor.)

    Allied technology, in the form of Air Power not man power incinerated Germans resources in the Fatherland, making it possible to inflict massive casualites on the Nazis, which the Soviets had to use masses of peasants to do. Stalin had plenty of cannon fodder to save him from his Criminal Incompetence, thats for sure.

    Russia should have been a powerhouse that could have easily have stopped the Germans at the gates, but the Atheistic Commies in their arrogance crippled the Officer Corps with purges and failed to heed warnings of the Nazi attack, leading them to get caught with their pants down.

    The Atheists were not just liars, they were incompetent.

  58. 58
    fifthdentist

    Or, Rip Steakface, Yahweh could have had Caanan inhabited by hordes of bears or particularly vicious unicorns for the Israelites to kill.
    That way they get the same benefit of having to endure a struggle to conquer their homeland, and no humans — including children — would have to die.
    My fundie brother was not amused by this idea.

  59. 59
    fifthdentist

    Joachim, the Russians had broken the Nazi war machine’s back looooong before the landing at Normandy. They were helped along by idiot Hitler who saw himself as a master tactician but whose mandate to not retreat one inch led to whole armies being wiped out or capturer. Without a successful landing at Normandy and the establishment of a second front, the Russians would still have won. It would have taken them longer and cost more Russian lives, but Stalin would never in hell have stopped before annihilating Germany.
    Speaking of lives, the Soviets lost 9 to 11 million in military deaths and up to 20 million total — roughly 14 percent of its total pre-war population. U.S. casualties in all theaters about 415,000, about 0.3 percent of population.

  60. 60
    The Lorax

    The Atheists were not just liars, they were incompetent.

    Just popping in to say this…

    The Soviets were the first to put a satellite in orbit, a man in orbit, a woman in orbit, spacewalk, and (first and only) to put something on the surface of Venus. Flash forward to 2013, rockets derived from Soviet technology are the only way we’re getting crews to the ISS.

    Incompetent as hell, those atheistic Soviets…

  61. 61
    dingojack

    And how many Soviets died during Operation Barbarossa*? Around 4.5M (out of 196.716M) about 2.288%. Steep but not insurmountable.
    OBTW – Barbarossa finish on 8 December 1941, that’s early winter, genius. Winter would have caused some deaths and injuries, but very few. Hmmm… guess you can’t have it both ways (no matter how much you’d like to).
    Dingo
    ——–
    * Including the separate, non-Nazi, invasion by Finland.

  62. 62
    Nick Gotts

    You’re a complete lackwit, joachim, as well as a liar.

    WTF does it matter that the Vatican had no armies? The point is that the Vatican gave Hitler considerable assistance by signing a concordat with him – as it had earlier done with Mussolini, while the Catholic Centre Party gave Hitler the votes he needed to pass the Enabling Act that made him dictator. It sided with fascism throughout the 1920s and 1930s. The troops and supporters of fascism and Nazism were, throughout, overwhelmingly Christian. Hitler, of course, persecuted atheists, boasting about suppressing their organizations.

    And, in a further display of dishonesty, both he and Nick Gotts make excuses for Atheistic Commie Incompetence in the handling of their armies

    A bare-faced lie, of course, since I already commented on Stalin’s errors and stupidities. BTW, raven is a woman – I’d have thought even someone as shit-headed as you would have noticed that after the time you’ve both been commenting here.

    Nick Gotts pretends like Soviet industry and tanks saved the day, when in fact the winter conditions had as much or more to do with Saving the Atheistic Commies Asses. (Gott even gets his dates wrong…Barbarossa was launched almost Six Months before Pearl Harbor.)

    Of course the weather contributed – but this was entirely predictable, and worked to the Soviet advantage because they had better cold-weather equipment; Hitler had counted on defeating Stalin before the winter. I’ve already given you the reference for the achievements of Soviet industry and tanks; take it up with the professional historians, you invincibly ignorant dolt. Over the ten years prior to Barbarossa, a huge programme of industrial expansion established Soviet industrial centres east of the Urals, out of reach of the German armies, and in the early days of the invasion, astounding feats of organization moved much of the industry in the west, to these centress. As for tanks, Tooze notes (p.489) that:

    To the thousands of agile, heavily-armoured T34s that now began to pour off the Soviet production lines, the Germans had no answer.

    Of course I know when Barbarossa was launched you purblind nincompoop – as I said, the failure of Barbarossa to achieve its objective coincided with Pearl Harbor, the first Soviet counterattack being launched on December 5 1941. My point – which you have not even attempted to refute – is that the Soviet Union defeated Hitler’s attempt to take Moscow and Leningrad, and laid the foundations for victory, before it had received any significant outside help. Hitler, and almost all third party observers, grossly underestimated Soviet capabilities and resilience. They, unlike you, had some excuse for doing so; you’re just trying to rewrite history to fit with your prejudices.

    Russia should have been a powerhouse that could have easily have stopped the Germans at the gates, but the Atheistic Commies in their arrogance crippled the Officer Corps with purges and failed to heed warnings of the Nazi attack, leading them to get caught with their pants down.

    It is true that both the purges, and Stalin’s failure to read Hitler’s intentions, gave the soviet Union an enormous disadvantage. However, it still outperformed Imperial Russia of WWI, which was defeated by a Germany that was obliged to fight a full-scale war on the western front as well.

    I note you have no reply to the points that:
    1) You were lying when you falsely accused raven of lying.
    2) The Nazi-Soviet Pact was a consequence of Munich.
    3) The USA did not “come in” to the war, but was forced into it.
    4) British armies were repeatedly defeated by the Nazis when fighting alone.

    The damage inflicted by all branches of the western allies’ armed forces together on the Nazis did not begin to compare with that inflicted by the Soviet forces. If any one person deserves credit for Hitler’s defeat, it’s Stalin. I don’t, of course, say this through any partisanship for that evil and rebarbative tyrant, whose achievements were completely dependent on the use of state terror; but unlike you, I value the truth.

  63. 63
    fifthdentist

    Also, reading Joachim’s last brain fart I’ll add: Stalin was begging the British and French to sign a pact with him. He waited months and expended much effort. When they dithered, Ribbentrop made him an offer he couldn’t refuse.
    Granted, Stalin was an idiot when Germany massed its entire army on his border and he failed to prepare.

  64. 64
    imrryr

    Allied technology, in the form of Air Power not man power incinerated Germans resources in the Fatherland, making it possible to inflict massive casualites on the Nazis

    The Allies had the major advantage of having a huge aircraft carrier, also known as Great Britain, that was impossible to quickly overrun due to it’s being, you know, a fortified island.

  65. 65
    Marcus Ranum

    democommie @56:
    Marcus I know you’re not saying it, but I had a delicious moment thinking:

    I’m not smart enough to say that. But I would if I were! :D

  66. 66
    joachim

    Nick Gotts likes fisking, a sure sign that his ire is up!

    And it hilarious to seem him making excuses for the Atheistic Idiot Stalin while he is pretending that he doesn’t.

    Lets rack up his lies…

    !. You are lying when you accuse me of lying.

    2. Munich was a factor in the Hitler Stalin pact, but not the only reason. Stalin though the Nazis and the West would wear each other out and then he could come in and take a large part of Europe. He shit his pants when he saw how fast the French Collapsed.

    3. The United States did come into the war; they could have negotiated with the Germans and Japs but chose to see it through to the end.

    4. The Nazi armies were much bigger than the British armies, so your reference to their defeats is another misleading lie..they held out alone while Stalin continued to supply Hitler with all the resources he could use.

    But the Biggest Lie of all…”If any one person deserves credit for Hitler’s defeat, its Stalin.” Bahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!! What an utterly stupid statement. Stalins incompetence, his purging of the Officer Corps, his dismissal of warnings about the coming attack, almost led to Russian defeat. No one person deserves credit, but there were many competent Russians who rose to the occassion even though millions of soldiers were captured (which led to those big death tolls) due to Stalins incompetent interventions in military strategy.

    You didn’t tell the truth about Stalin, you butchered the truth. If anything, the Russians won in spite of Stalin and because the Allies were fighting with them.

    The Atheistic “Man of Steel” was, at least you admit, was completely dependend on state terror. Just like the other Officially Atheistic Governments that have plagued humankind.

  67. 67
    joachim

    Lorax, those Atheistic Soviets had some firsts…largely because they ignored the human risks…but they never made it too the moon at all.

    They couldn’t develop a booster that compared to the Saturn Five…one that didn’t routinely blow up, that is.

    And more bad news…you may not have heard, but their system completely self destructed back in 1991.

  68. 68
    gopiballava

    Joachim,
    Speaking of lies, I haven’t seen you yet apologize for your lie about what Hitchens said.

  69. 69
    David Hart

    Okay, Joachim, I’m starting to get the impression that you don’t really care about the details of how World War II played out; you just want to blame non-religious people for the atrocities committed by Stalin (and possibly even Hitler). If so, please drop that moronic zombie meme right away. It does no good at all to argue that people who were obviously motivated by deranged political ideologies, and who quite possibly suffered from diagnosable personality disorders, are somehow representative of what people who happen not to believe in gods tend to do if they achieve political power. To think that the most salient feature of Stalin’s government was that it was ‘officially atheistic’ – as opposed to, say, the fact that it was dogmatically Communist, and brutally intolerant of free thought and free expression, or indeed, callously unconcerned with the lives of its citizens, is just fantasy. And to think that it was any of these things because it was ‘officially atheistic’ is completely untenable – if you want to make that point, then you need to show why non-belief in gods logically requires you to become a dogmatic communist who is brutally intolerant of free thought and has no regard for the value of other people’s lives, something which no religious apologist who trots out this meme has ever been able to do.

    If, on the other hand, you are actually here to engage in a historical debate about the conditions that led to the defeat of the Nazis in 1945, and which has nothing to do with the subject of the blogpost, then fire away, but at least make it clear what your intent is.

  70. 70
    joachim

    Gawd Damn Jew Hating liars.

    David, Gotts is the one who claiimed that if anyone deserved credit for Hitler’s defeats, its Stalin.

    Anyone who claims that or defends it obviously is either utterly deluded or does not care about the historical situations you crow about.

    And the fact that EVERY Officially Atheistic Government has been a bloody dictatorship, not just Stalins, is no conincidence.

  71. 71
    The Lorax

    Hey Joachim, considering most other countries couldn’t do what the Soviets did (and still can’t), I think that, even if they didn’t succeed as well as others, it still defeats your argument that they were incompetent. Unless the only thing that is considered ‘competent’ is ‘absolute perfection’, in which case, Apollo 1, amongst others. So go ahead, tell me that the Soviet’s crumbled eventually and that Stalin was a dictator and that red is an ugly color. I don’t care. You’re saying they’re incompetent, when they proved otherwise time and again. It is you, and only you, who is ignorant of facts.

  72. 72
    dingojack

    Jokeim – Post #70, again clearly showing he’s got nothin’.
    You’re nothing but a busted flush, baby.
    :) Dingo

  73. 73
    busterggi

    “And the fact that EVERY Officially Atheistic Government has been a bloody dictatorship, not just Stalins, is no conincidence.’

    Hey Joachim, have you ever looked at the history of Christianized Europe from Constantine until practically today? You might be surprised to find that the system of ‘divinely appointed’ monarchies produced some pretty brutal bloody dictatorships & with the RCC’s permission too.

  74. 74
    imrryr

    And the fact that EVERY Officially Atheistic Government has been a bloody dictatorship, not just Stalins, is no conincidence.

    I’d mention that there are countries like France which are officially secular and have been for decades, but you’d probably find some way to weasel out of including them because they allow freedom of religion. However, if you’d like to hear about incredibly bloody events brought about by officially Christian governments, feel free to read up on the Thirty-Years War.

  75. 75
    freemage

    Joachim, I’m gonna skip the whole Stalin debate; it’s a nice little side-track, but really, it’s way off topic.

    What you’re failing to miss is that we don’t believe the stories of the Bible are factual, nor that there is an invisible sky-daddy who gave orders of genocide and barbarity to his followers.

    However, the folks who believe in the Bible being at least largely accurate as a historical document DO believe in this being and those events. And yet they choose to worship this vile monstrosity. Cthulu cultists out of Lovecraft have chosen a more comprehensible, compassionate deity than Bible-believing Christians.

    So not only are the Christians and Jews believing a myth, they are also believing a monstrous one, and calling it good. That, Joachim, is the problem that Ed’s post is addressing. So, do you have any comment on that, or would you prefer to continue to derail it by talking about an evil atheist?

  76. 76
    Nick Gotts

    joachim the liar and hater,

    !. You are lying when you accuse me of lying.

    No, I’m not – you just added another lie.

    2. Munich was a factor in the Hitler Stalin pact, but not the only reason. Stalin though the Nazis and the West would wear each other out and then he could come in and take a large part of Europe. He shit his pants when he saw how fast the French Collapsed.

    Right, you’ve admitted the point raven and I made. Neither of us, of course, said Munich was the only factor; but in all probability no Munich – no Nazi-Soviet Pact.

    3. The United States did come into the war; they could have negotiated with the Germans and Japs but chose to see it through to the end.

    A bare-faced lie. The phrase “come into the war” quite clearly implies a voluntary decision to enter it; there was no such decision.

    4. The Nazi armies were much bigger than the British armies, so your reference to their defeats is another misleading lie..they held out alone while Stalin continued to supply Hitler with all the resources he could use.

    They were not bigger than the armies of the western allies the Nazis faced when they invaded France: France alone had a larger army than Germany, and the western allies had more tanks and artillery than the invaders, although the latter had an advantage in the air. The Germans won that campaign through superior strategy, not material advantage. In the other two cases I mentioned, the British were outnumberds, but made stupid errors in both case – it should have been possible to hold northern Norway; and troops should never have been sent to mainland Greece. Britain was able to hold out, of course, only because it was an island – a much more vital advantage than the Russian weather.

    But the Biggest Lie of all…”If any one person deserves credit for Hitler’s defeat, its Stalin.” Bahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!! What an utterly stupid statement. Stalins incompetence, his purging of the Officer Corps, his dismissal of warnings about the coming attack, almost led to Russian defeat.

    Indeed they did – but it remains true that Stalin deserves more credit than any other individual for Hitler’s defeat, as he commanded the forces which made by far the biggest contribution to it; and after his initial blunders, was a highly effective war-leader. In any case, it just makes you look silly to call this a lie on my part – this would only be the case if it wasn’t really my opinion that Stalin deserves the credit I assign him. And of course, even if that were the case, you couldn’t possibly know it.

    Your problem, joachim – or one of them, the obsessive hate itself is clearly a more serious one – is that you can’t acknowledge any positive qualities in the objects of your hatred. This leaves you obliged to deny plain facts that don’t fit your cartoonish view of the world.

  77. 77
    joachim

    Imrryr…”Secular” does not equal “atheistic”.

    Quit equivocating or it will look like you are lying.

  78. 78
    joachim

    Gotts, when you blathered that if anyone person deserves credit for Hitlers defeat, its Stalin, you destroyed your credibility and revealed that you are willing to lie blatantly as long as you are arguing for atheism

    The fact that you are now backtracking and claiming that Stalin deserves “more credit” does not cover up your lie. His collossal blunders, and interference with military strategy, almost led to Russian defeat. Only when he got out of the way of some of his younger generals did the Russians have more success.

    And I said the Nazi armies were bigger than the British armies, and did not mention France…because you had been talking about the British defeats. So you are lying again.

    And this was all in spite of the fact the the Russian armies were bigger than the German and British combined.

    The atheistic “man of steel” buffoonishly thought the Allies and Germans would burn each other out and he would pick up a big slice of Europe. As I said, the shit his pants when the French collpased so fast.

    An Atheistic “Genius” who deserved credit, all right. But not for what you think.

  79. 79
    gopiballava

    Is there anybody here arguing for officially atheistic governments that attempt to make their citizens not be religious? I am an atheist and I am not arguing for that at all. I don’t think Joachim understands what people here want.

  80. 80
    Akira MacKenzie

    gopiballava @ 34:

    So essentially, joachim is merely quote mining and taking Hitchens out of context, because at no point does he say that the Romans could have spared us from or Islam by killing all the ancient Hebrews. He says we could have been spared from them if Rome hadn’t politically backed their religious leadership.

  81. 81
    Akira MacKenzie

    Edit: …Christianity or Islam…

  82. 82
    composer99

    joachim:

    Your dishonest attempt to derail the thread may have mostly succeeded, but nothing you have said has actually rebutted the conclusions of the OP. The PeeWee Herman defence (“atheists kill people too!”) is a failure for what I hope are obvious reasons.

    If you have anything on-topic to say – that is, directly related to Ed’s criticisms of Bill Pratt’s argument – please feel free to do so. Otherwise, kindly fuck off.

  83. 83
    imrryr

    Thanks joachim, I love taking advice about lying from serial liars like yourself.

    The real reason “divinely chosen” leaders like Louis XIV, or the powers behind the numerous religious crusades and inquisitions throughout history didn’t have body counts to match Stalin’s is because of much smaller populations and less effective means of killing people. And in the end, it’s less about religion (or lack of religion) and more about maintaining control and intolerance of differing opinions and beliefs, something you no doubt can relate to, what with your cartoonish black and white way of viewing the world.

  84. 84
    baal

    The troll is having a good day. OTOH, I think I’m getting a decent review of WWII.

  85. 85
    joachim

    Imrryr…Stalin required no advanced means of killing people.

    Just rounding them up and working them to death or simply cutting the food and water to a minimum enables starvation and disease to do the job.

    That what the Gulags were all about. Louis the XIV and similar leaders never did anything of the kind. So slow down on the lying.

    And the Nobel Prize winner Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote a Three Volume series called “The Gulag Archipelago” which definitively demonstrated that the Atheistic Commies made a concerted effort to wipe out religion because they were atheists and hated religion with a passion.

    Just like many of the Haters here.

  86. 86
    gopiballava

    Joachim,
    “Just like many of the Haters here.”

    Please name the posters here who you believe would ban religion if they were in power.

    Also, have you gotten around to apologizing for your false quotation? Or at least explaining why it wasn’t a deliberate lie?

  87. 87
    Owlmirror

    Stalin required no advanced means of killing people.

    So, you’re saying that he was very efficient?

    Just rounding them up and working them to death or simply cutting the food and water to a minimum enables starvation and disease to do the job.

    Or in other words, he let God do his killing for him. Very efficient indeed.

    Louis the XIV and similar leaders never did anything of the kind.

    Most people in the past died of starvation and disease. It kind of follows from not having a clear understanding of plant nutrition, hygiene, and germ theory, which allows God to kill people with disease and starvation.

    And the Nobel Prize winner Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote a Three Volume series called “The Gulag Archipelago” which definitively demonstrated that the Atheistic Commies made a concerted effort to wipe out religion because they were atheists and hated religion with a passion.

    Why do you think that hating religion with a passion would follow from being atheist?

    Just like many of the Haters here.

    Are you magically a mind-reader? All you’ve done is demonstrate that you hate atheists with a passion.

  88. 88
    dingojack

    Jokeim said: “Just rounding them up and working them to death or simply cutting the food and water to a minimum enables starvation and disease to do the job.

    That what the Gulags were all about. Louis the XIV and similar leaders never did anything of the kind. So slow down on the lying”.

    Speaking from the arse of of the world I’ve just gotta say: Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

    During the very worst year (1942) the Gulags killed about 250000 people in one year (about 17.857% of the gulag population or about 0.127% of the Soviet Population as a whole). On the the scale of the current American population today that’s about 394844 deaths (or 125.8 deaths per 100000 p.a., higher than death by all accidents and strokes, lower that all cancers and heart disease).

    The Thirty Year War (a religious war that degraded into a conflict between various [christian] nations) killed around 25-30% of the population of (what we would call) Germany. On the scale of the current American population (taking into account the higher urbanisation) that’s about 91015771 deaths (or about 966.667 deaths per 100000 p.a.).

    Overall the gulags probably killed 1.6M between 1929 and 1953 [Steven Rosefielde. Red Holocaust. Routledge, 2009]* . On the scale of the US that’s about 106,362 p.a (33.89 per 100000 p.a.).

    Dingo
    ——–
    * remember this is an estimate, I have taken the highest reliable figure as being accurate estimate.
    About 14M went through gulags during this period [Robert Conquest in "Victims of Stalinism: A Comment." Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 49, No. 7 (Nov., 1997)] . Bear in mind some of these were POW and deserters, most were probably in or minor crimes and were not political prisoners (contrary to what is generally believed)

  89. 89
    joachim

    Gopiballava…there was no false quotation, but the subsequent quotation from you ally was a quotemine.

    That sentence was the last one in the paragraph where Hitchens made his rant against the Jews.

    The paragraph is very long, a covers more than a page.

    The very First sentence is key…”If one could nominate an absolutely tragic day in human history, it would be the occasion that is now commemorated by the vapid and annoying holiday known as “Hannukah”. Pages 273-274 of The Not So Great book by Hitchens.

    This was of course ignored, and there you have it. One of the key Jewish commemorations is “an absolutely tragic day in human history”. Dr. Goebbels would concur.

    The words of a Jew Hater could not be plainer. He is clearly saying that if the Jews had been wiped out at the battles commeorted by Hannukah we would not be troubled by them now.

    Moreover, no Christianity and no Islam as he says. We could have been spared the whole thing…the Ultimate Genocide.

  90. 90
    joachim

    Owlmirror, I see you at least don’t deny Stalins mass murders.

  91. 91
    joachim

    dungojack…your version of Gulag Denial is a clumsy lie. The Gulags killed anywhere from 15 to 30 million people…at least…depending on how you class the cause of death.

    http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/249117/Gulag

    Solzhenitsyn argues it was even higher. He argued that half of the Gulag prisoners did not survive.

    Of course defenders of the Atheistic Tyrant Stalin will want to minimize the figures, as you do, but all you show is that you are a Propagandist for Atheism desperate to miniimize the implications. Your statistical game playing to minimize mass murder is pathetic. It is untterly astounding that the Athesits can’t simply face it and deal with it.

    As for Louis the XIVth he was not even King during the Thirty Years war, a war that had as many economic and political causes as religious…and that was nothing compared to the Secular Wars of the 20th century. (Interestingly, when Louis’ line was deposed at the French Revolution, the atheists of that era also took to murdering their opponents like a Duck takes to water.)

    I think you should start signing off as “Dung” because thats what your “facts” represent.

  92. 92
    slc1

    Re dingojack @ #88

    Actually, the percentage of the population in Central Europe that was killed during the 30 Years War, which was a war of religion, was much greater then the percentage killed during either WW1 or WW2. How fortunate that Count Tilly, Albrecht von Wallenstein, and King Gustavus Adolphus didn’t have 20th century weapons at their disposal or the entire population might have been wiped out.

    Re Owlmirror

    In fairness, at one time, Christopher Hitchens was a borderline Holocaust skeptic and 2 fisted Israel basher. Then he discovered that he had Jewish ancestry and executed a 180, becoming pro-Israel, albeit with reservations relative to the settlement program, and dropped all his antisemitic and Holocaust skeptic attitudes.

  93. 93
    democommie

    I see that Jokekim is getting his wish of being vilified and abused. I hope he’s got plent of kleenex and astroglide.

    Oh, you Jockstrappyjokester, we don’t hate you, that would be like “hating” shit.

  94. 94
    joachim

    Sick one…more statistical game playing…far more died in the the Secular Wars of the 20th century than in the economiic, political, and religious conflict called “The Thirty Years War”; when you are talking about murder percentages don’t ameliorate the total number killed. And many more horribly…but perhaps the victims of the World Wars derived some comfort from the claim that they were supposedly as smaller percentage of the casualties than in previous conflicts.

    All this Atheist Apologetics reminds me of a quip by Uncle Joe Stalin…”One death is a tradgedy, a million deaths are a statistic.”

    You guys are hilarious. I mean, you just KILL me! …snicker…

  95. 95
    joachim

    And of course in the face of facts, the democommie is reduced to belching playground insults.

  96. 96
    dingojack

    SLC – a few 15Mt bombs would have sorted it all out. :D

    Jokeim – yes comparing apples to oranges, I would have expected no less of your ‘arguments’
    .
    Dingo

  97. 97
    slc1

    Re joachim @ #94

    Hey fuckface, more people were killed in 20th century wars in Central Europe then in the 30 Years War because there were more people around to be killed. This is despite the far greater killing efficiency of 20th Century weaponry as compared with 17th Century weaponry.

    By the way, Stalin, for all his many faults as a military leader, which were manifest and many, wasn’t a complete dodo. He did have the foresight to have Soviet weapons factories uprooted from Western Russia and reconstituted behind the Ural Mountains, placing them out of range of the Luftwaffe’s strategic bombers. Had this action not been taken, IMHO Germany would have knocked the former Soviet Union out of the war in 1941.

    Of course, Frankenberger wasn’t any better. His many strategic and tactical blunders before and during the war killed any chance of a German victory, which, contrary to popular belief, was far from out of the question.

  98. 98
    slc1

    Re dingojack @ #96

    Actually, a few Hiroshima sized bombs would have been sufficient in WW2.

  99. 99
    dingojack

    Possibly – I defer to the expert. :)
    Dingo

  100. 100
    slc1

    By the way, the fact that Stalin was caught with his pants down in June, 1941, was due in part to a very clever disinformation campaign run out of Tokyo by a German intelligence agent named Richard Sorge, who was masquerading as a Communist. The campaign was able to convince Stalin that high ranking officers in the Red Army were planning a coup d’etat against him. Stalin fell for it and purged the Red Army of almost all its generals, replacing them with incompetent political apparatchiks. When Operation Barbarossa got underway, the leadership of the Red Army consisted of these incompetent political generals who proved totally inadequate and inept against the likes of Colonel General Heinz Guderian and company. As Mr. Joachim says, it was only when the political generals were cashiered and replaced by the Zhukovs that things turned around.

  101. 101
    joachim

    Sickfuck, the fact that there were more people to be killed was, I bet, of little comfort to the victiims.

    When you are dealing with Miliions and Millions of deaths, the percentage makes little difference to the murdered.

    That said, you can assert that more people were killed because there were more people to be killed, but that also ignores the differences in purpose, strategy, and tactics.

    I am thoroughly enjoying these running examples of the Atheist Version Of Holocaust Deniial…there is always someone to make excuses for the killers.

    Priceless!!

  102. 102
    joachim

    And who the hell is Frankenburger?

  103. 103
    slc1

    Re motherfuckker joachim @ #101

    When you are dealing with Miliions and Millions of deaths, the percentage makes little difference to the murdered.

    The point is that, if the population had been greater in Central Europe in the 17th century, the number of people killed would have been commensurately higher.

    I am thoroughly enjoying these running examples of the Atheist Version Of Holocaust Deniial…there is always someone to make excuses for the killers.

    The Holocaust was carried out by religious Catholics and Lutherans, not atheists. It should also be pointed out that many, if not most of the executions carried by the Stalin regime were religious Eastern Orthodox Christians. Mr. Joachim, who doesn’t know his fuckken ass from a fuckken hole in the fuckken ground is not so cordially invited to go fuckke himself.

    Adolf Frankenberger, dictator of Germany from 1933 to 1945.

  104. 104
    dingojack

    Jokeim – again proves he’s got nothin’ (what a surprise).
    As I said at the start, ‘run along Jo-Jo the adults are talking’.
    Dingo

  105. 105
    imrryr

    I am thoroughly enjoying these running examples of the Atheist Version Of Holocaust Deniial…there is always someone to make excuses for the killers.

    Amusingly, this takes us back to the original point of this article: People making excuses for God’s genocides. Not that I believe your mass-murdering deity even exists.

  106. 106
    dingojack

    speaking of the holocaust:
    * 5.5M Jews
    * 2-3M Soviet prisoners
    * 1.8-2.0M ethnic Poles
    * 220,000 – 1.8M Romani
    * 200,000 – 250,000 disabled
    * 80,000 – 200,000 Freemasons
    * 20,000 – 25,000 Slovenes
    * 5,000 – 15,000 homosexuals
    * 2,000 – 5,000 Jehovah Witnesses

    12.75M+ in all.

    Much, much less than 1.6M – Clearly.

    @@

    Dingo

  107. 107
    gopiballava

    Joachim: Hitchens explicitly said he would have preferred that the Romans allied themselves with a different Jewish sect. Your inference is in direct contradiction to his explicit statement.

  108. 108
    joachim

    Sick One, you are now in denial, or just flopping around like a fish out of water as you spew outright lies.

    Blatant, Willfully Ignorant lies.

    The Gulags were run my Party Members and Commissars, and the Party was Officially Atheistic. The Eastern Orthodox Chrisians were among the vicitms, not the perpetrators.

    And no “Adolph Frankenberger” was ever dictator of Germany. Gawd Damn…you really are a Jew Hating Athesist aren’t you?

  109. 109
    slc1

    Re motherfucker joachim @ #108

    And who were the gulag camp guards, members of the Eastern Orthodox Church to a man. As for Adolf Frankenberger, it is rumored that Alois Schickelgruber aka Alois Heidler, aka Alois Hitler, the father of the fuehrer, was the son of 19 year old Leopold Frankenberger. Just for the record, there is no father listed on Alois’ birth certificate and he was christened Alois Schickelgruber, his mother’s maiden name, at his baptism ceremony.

    And no “Adolph Frankenberger” was ever dictator of Germany. Gawd Damn…you really are a Jew Hating Athesist aren’t you?

    Actually, as my Syrian friend Ammar Kanaan puts it, Dr. SLC is prejudiced against everybody.

  110. 110
    joachim

    Sick One, there is not a mainstream historian in the world that has provided any proof that Alois Hitler was the son of this so called Frankenberger.

    So you are not only lying again, but utterly incompetent at it.

    Its as Willfully Dishonest as your claiim that the guards were Eastern Orthodox “to a man”. They were Atheist Commies party members you lying sack.

    You have repeatedly demonstrated your historical ignorance and general inferiority.

    So, you are not only a Jew Hating Atheist but a really stupidshit too!

  111. 111
    democommie

    “And of course in the face of facts, the democommie is reduced to belching playground insults.”

    Actually, not. If a turd like you came out of my asshole, I would be worried about a possibility of colon cancer. Sorry, Jokeboy, but you’re so fucking far out of your depth here that it’s almost pitiable. I say almost because as long as a piece-of-shit like you continues to breathe there is a disturbance in the harmony of the universe.

  112. 112
    dingojack

    Jokeim – and I bet SLC’s a ‘poo-poo bum-hole’ as well!!
    :) Dingo

  113. 113
    slc1

    Re son of a whore joachim @ #110

    When schmuck joachim provides ievidence as to who Alois father was, then he will be a credible critic. Currently, his father could have been Leopold Frankenberger, Maria’s eventual husband Johann Heidler, or some other as yet undetermined sucker. The evidence of no father named on the birth certificate and baptized Schickelgruber seem to leave the answer now, as then, unknown. By the way, Frankenberger after the Anchluss, had all the records in his home town destroyed; apparently, he was somewhat concerned about his antecedents.

    An by the way, what makes schmuck joachim think that Frankenberger was a Jew?

  114. 114
    Dan J

    joachim continues to play the “I know you are, but what am I?” game for the entire thread. What a hopelessly pathetic vision of the worst Christianity has to offer us. Go play in the sacristy, jokey, your elders are trying to have a conversation. That’s a good little liar.

  115. 115
    joachim

    Dan J; you stupid atheist bigot, I am a Jew and I am enjoying the blatant display of Jew Hatred and the Atheist version of Holocaust denial as the atheists defend Stalin.

    Look at the fool, Sick One, trying to claim that Hitler was really a Jew named Frankenberger. (He pretends to ask why someone would think that but as he is familiar with the Legend of Frankenberger he is familiar with the Legend that he was a Jew.)

    He can’t produce a reference to a single mainstream historian who supports that view.

  116. 116
    joachim

    Sick One is getting Sicker, and I think he is bitter because he got beat up in school and buggered by some older boys in the bathroom.

    He can’t produce a single mainstream historian who supports his view about Frankenberger, but is just making stuff up as he pulls it out of his swollen infected ass.

    And Democommie, your girlyman threat is noted…how do you plan to make me stop breathing?

    You little bitch.

  117. 117
    Dan J

    Gosh, joachim; you really do have a hard-on for atheists, don’t you? Have you seen a psychotherapist about this infatuation of yours? A few years of Adlerian therapy would do you a world of good. Maybe you should take a few Xanax and have a little lie-down.

  118. 118
    joachim

    Yep, Dan J, and you have no idea how hard. And Big.

    But it is matched by the hard on for Jews and Chrsitians that the posters here have.

  119. 119
    democommie

    Dan J:

    I think that rather than Xanax, Jokecum might want to consider a cocktail of Drano, D-Con and Immodium. The synergistic effects might be enough to unblock his obviously plugged asshole so that the shit can exit in a normal manner instead of having to dribble out of his mouth.

    “Yep, Dan J, and you have no idea how hard. And Big.

    But it is matched by the hard on for Jews and Chrsitians that the posters here have.’

    Wow. I’m verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry scared, now.

  120. 120
    joachim

    Hey democomie, your threats are noted.

    Thats what atheist commies do, threaten the opposition.

    Of course, you can do nothing except talk.

    You little bitch.

  121. 121
    democommie

    “Hey democomie, your threats are noted.”

    Which threats would those be, you fucking moron?

    Thats what atheist commies do, threaten the opposition.

    And projection is what indignorant fuckwads like you engage in because that’s all you’ve got to work wth.

    “Of course, you can do nothing except talk.”

    I wouldn’t contaminate myself by touching a toxic piece-of-shit like you, pally.

    ‘You little bitch.”

    Oh, gosh, I weigh about 220. you sad shitsack, not exactly little. As for being called a bithch, well, that’s what little bitches like you tend to say to people when they’re in a tizzy.

    My strong suspicion is that you’re either a homeschooled 14 yo who likes to jerk off while looking at the dirty pictures in “The Lives of the Saints”. Enjoy yourself, fucktard.

  122. 122
    dingojack

    Jokeim – your adolescent misogyny is duly noted,
    No matter how hard it is for anyone to hold you in less esteem than you are now, still you manage to keep digging..
    Dingo

  123. 123
    slc1

    Re jochim @ #15

    1. Once again, Mr. joachim makes the assumption that Leopold Frankenberger was a Jew. Not a jot or a tittle of evidence is presented.

    2. Mr. Joachim claims that there is no reputable historian who will name Leopold Frankenberger as Alois’ biological father. There is also no reputable historian who will definitively tell us who Alois’ biological father was,. No father’s name on the birth certificate, christened Schickelgruber at his baptism. Any evidence as to his biological father was destroyed on the order or Frankenberger after the Anschluss. By the way, when I was in college, we usually referred to Adolf as Herr Schickelgruber. Perhaps Mr. Joachim would prefer referring to him as Schickelgruber, given that his old man was christened Schickelgruber.

    3. Just for the information of Mr. Joachim, the most influential purveyor of antisemitism in Germany was Martin Luther, not noted as an atheist. Schickelgruber stole much of his material from Luther, despite being a member of the Raping Children Church.

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site