This is not a shitpost, merely a shit post.
Yeah they have, I did it last week ffs.
Stalin and Mao would like to have a chat with your if you think this is true.
Tanked to dead, sent to concentration camps without due process… Sure.
But not stoned!
Low effort, provocative, sorta correct but kinda not: the perfect formula to get some real low-level, unproductive flame wars going. Excellent shitpost.
TIL: you can only kill someone by throwing a rock if you are religious. Do not attempt otherwise, it will not work.
also: there has never been a single person in history who followed the crowd even though they secretly didn’t believe in a god.
I’m an atheist, and there are plenty of people I would stone to death if given the chance.
So if the number really is zero, it’s probably due to a lack of opportunity.
stoning is a particular method of public execution, so most rock-related deaths don’t count
Because they use other weapons?
That’s not true. Lots of drugs can kill you. Don’t know if they all count as ‘stoned’ though
Where can I? Asking for a friend
Just walk around downtown asking for drugs. If you dont find any and the drugs don’t kill you, someone probably will eventually.
I feel like this is one of those things where, even though there is a likelihood that you are right, you don’t actually know that you are correct.
People are weird.
People are occasionally evil, especially towards weird people.
There’s an entire possibility that atheists have stoned somebody to death, and since you’re the one making the claim, I feel like you should be the one to scour every single instance of death in all of human history to verify your claim.
This isn’t even a good shitpost
It’s not even true. Like not even close. The Chinese liberation army forcing Tibetan children to murder their parents to “liberate” them from “religious oppression” is one example.
Where did you hear that had happened
forcing Tibetan children to murder their parents
Gonna need a source on that one, chief.
Fairly common knowledge. Even portrayed in movies like Kuru and Seven Years in Tibet. Unfortunately the whole thing has been wrapped up in lots of misinformation. The Tibetans have both accused China of atrocities and claimed that they didn’t happen. Outsiders looking in on this could argue that they were trying to appease the Chinese to maintain the paltry religious autonomy granted by the Seventeen Point Agreement. Here is a link to a PDF from the Tibetan Bureau in Geneva listing their atrocities. It is worth noting that even these claims are impossible to verify. The Chinese government has worked tirelessly to scrub the world knowledge base, and most search companies are more than willing to cooperate with such large governments with huge resources. Additionally, sensationalism is equally attractive, meaning it is easy and tempting to over report and exaggerate war crimes.
But the simple fact remains that May Zedong openly opposed religion and claimed that his annexation of Tibet was a “liberation” from what he called “religious oppression.”
I think they are referring to the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Kids publicly denounced, criticised and some even harmed their parents but we are not sure if they killed them. This was done to achieve several things. Destroying religious practices was a part of it.
Recommended book: The cultural revolution: a people’s history, 1962-1976 - Frank Dikötter
It’s really ambiguous what they’re talking about or what they even mean. Here are two things that could both be described as, “Forcing Tibetan children to kill their parents.”
-
A Tibetan soldier volunteers to join a war, and through sheer chance, they learn that their parents are fighting on the other side of the battlefield. They ask to leave the front and their CO refuses - technically, they’ve been forced to kill their parents.
-
A communist agent abducts a family in the dead of night and hands the child a gun while putting a knife to their sister’s throat and telling them if they don’t kill their parents, they’ll be killed, along with their siblings. This happens systematically across Tibet, and only Tibet.
They could be referencing the Cultural Revolution. A lot of shit happened during this period, including what you described. But to my knowledge, the struggle sessions and such were more the actions of the Red Guards, who were student led paramilitary groups, not the same as the People’s Liberation Army that went into Tibet.
So like, what they said was, “the liberation army forced Tibetan children to murder their parents,” but, what actually happened (so far as it’s possible to connect that claim to anything in reality) was that the PLA failed to maintain control (although they did eventually succeeded in suppressing them) against young radicals denouncing their parents and subjecting them to public humiliation (the Red Guards also committed all sorts of atrocities during this time, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were cases of children killing parents but I’m unaware of any specific cases). Which happened decades after the PLA went into Taiwan, which wasn’t (to my knowledge) really a main area involved in the chaos.
And that’s why I asked for a source.
-
May not be stonings, but you’ve got the French Revolution, Stalin’s purge during the Soviet Union and Cultural Revolution - all mass executions caused by Atheist states.
The Holocaust wasn’t motivated by religion either- Actual bible-believing Christians were against it. The predecessor to our “progressive” Christians (“Christ of the culture” mentality)
Yea. Humans never needed an excuse for violence.
Or rather, we always found an excuse, religion is merely one of them.
Even then, most of the time Religion was used as a justification for the actual intent which was usually some form of colonial subjugation. “We’re spreading the Gospel” wasn’t the actual intent, moreso just what you told people at home questioning the ethics of you conquering faraway lands
I’m not so sure of that Christian version of “no true Scotsman”, but it’s true that religion is typically just a tool used by people with power to direct the people to violence, rather than the source of it.
But man is it an effective tool for that purpose.“No true Scotsman” isn’t just a thing you can scream at everything.
The No True Scotsman tale is as follows:
Person A: “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.” Person B: “But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge.” Person A: “But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”
I don’t know about you, but having sugar on your porridge isn’t a large scale distinction as okay-ing the mass murder of an ethnic group.
A more accurate example within Christianity will be:
Person A: “No Christian says swear words”
Person B: “But my uncle Angus is a Christian and he swears sometimes”
Person A: “But no true Christian says swear words”
no Christians supported mass murderer
Hitler and his supporters were Christians
Notruebible-believing Christians supported itSounds an awful lot like the scenario that you described. In fact it matches the archetypical example so well that it’s kinda wild that you quoted it when trying to say it doesn’t apply
In fact it matches the archetypical example so well that it’s kinda wild that you quoted it when trying to say it doesn’t apply
What type of horse kicked you in the head to make you think that mass murder is as trivial as sugar on porridge or saying no-no words?
What type of house kicked you in the head to make you think that “no true Scotsman” cannot apply to serious topics?
Why do you think the example being trivial means that they all have to be trivial to apply? Examples are not all encompassing, nor do they seek to additional constraints that were not part of the definition.
The whole point of the fallacy is to disingenuously distance the group from acts that members of the group have done.
There’s nothing disingenuous about it. If you don’t hold to a belief system, you don’t hold to a belief system. A genocide of a people that God once considered “chosen” purely on the grounds of race is not part of the Christian belief system. My overall point is that you cannot blame Christianity for the holocaust - the main proponents of the Holocaust weren’t Christian at all.
If you’re going to be strict, there exist no true Christian, because every single Christian has violated some Christian tenant, especially because some tenants are contradictory.
But if you allow enough wiggle room to allow for the existence of Christians, then you’re going to run straight into true Scotsman when you try to exclude specific groups
The example used to illustrate the No True Scotsman fallacy in no way means that it only covers similarly minor things. That’s not how logic works, you’ve completely missed the point.
The claim “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge,” is falsifiable, because we can first determine whether someone is a Scotsman and then check if they put sugar on their porridge or not. But if it’s, “No true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge,” where a true Scotsman is defined as someone who would never put sugar on their porridge, then it’s a truism, it’s just saying, “People who don’t put sugar on their porridge don’t put sugar on their porridge (also, this has something to do with Scotsmen for some reason).” It’s not predictive and it’s not falsifiable, and it’s just as true for any other group of people defined the same way as it is of Scotsmen. The actual material world has no bearing on the claim and the claim tells us absolutely nothing about the material world.
Likewise, if you’re saying “No true Christian would ever commit mass murder,” then it’s a meaningless claim because you’re defining a “true Christian” as someone who would never commit mass murder. So really the claim is, “People who don’t commit mass murder don’t commit mass murder (also, this has something to do with Christians for some reason).” If I define a true Buddhist or a true Muslim or a true Communist or a true Liberal or a true man or whatever else as being someone of that group who doesn’t commit mass murder, then it’s just as true of any of those groups as it is of Christianity. The claim that “true Christians” or “bible-believing Christians” don’t commit mass murder is a meaningless truism, it’s not predictive and it’s not falsifiable, even if someone you think is a true, bible-believing Christian and has every appearance of being so goes off and commits mass murder, you only conclude that you were wrong about the person being a true Christian. And that would be equally true of any other group or ideology you apply the standard to.
If you actually follow Christ, you wouldn’t commit mass murder. It’s like claiming to be a vegan yet eating meat.
Is the defining quality of Christianity a set of political beliefs based on your personal interpretation of the Bible? Would it be accurate to say, “There’s never been a Christian president in the US,” if none of them have lived up to your particular moral standards? Do I, and everyone else, have to consult you specifically any time we want to know if someone is or isn’t a Christian?
No, obviously not.
Unlike veganism, the question of what the defining quality of a Christian is is more debatable. If you want to define it as, “following Christ’s teachings,” then it’s impossible to establish any sort of reasonably objective standard since people have vastly different interpretations of those teachings. Have you sold all your possessions and given them to the poor? I doubt it. A strict reading of the text might consider that a requirement.
From an academic perspective, it isn’t appropriate to weigh in on one’s own personal interpretation of which sects and which people should be considered heretical. We should use unbiased terminology that’s consistent with common use and can be commonly understood and based on observable things including (but not necessarily limited to) self-identification. When we debate whether or not someone is/was a Christian, trying to match our own personal interpretation of Christ’s teachings with our own personal evaluation of their moral qualities would be an absolute nightmare, and it would be impossible to discuss anything past sectarian lines.
And again, it’s not just Christianity that this comes up with. A Buddhist might argue that the Japanese temples that endorsed the country’s actions during WWII weren’t “real” Buddhists, that if they were actually following Buddha’s teachings they wouldn’t have done that. Should I also consult you personally every time I want to know who is and isn’t a Buddhist? Or do I need to read the whole Pali canon and derive my own interpretation and denounce every Buddhist sect that deviates from it as not being real Buddhists - even if I myself am not one and don’t have a dog in that fight?
I mean that buddhist objection sounds reasonable
Found the Heritage Foundation shitposting account.
Btw:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Christianity
https://theopolisinstitute.com/evangelicals-for-adolf-christians-in-hitlers-germany/
And, of course, Stalin actually politically allied with the Orthodox Church during WW2.
Leadership lacked spiritual strength because of serious Biblical ignorance and unbelief.
Yeah, it’s reinforcing my point. That’s why I specified “bible-believing”. Just identifying as a Christian because it’s your culture isn’t the same as being an actual believer.
And before you pull out a “no true scotsman”, that argument is moot. It’s like saying “vegans don’t eat meat”, then someone else says “xyz is a vegan and eats meat”. It’s a valid objection to say that somebody isn’t actually something, unlike the “no true scotsman” where ethnicity and nationality are being debated over something trivial like sugar on porridge. You need to hold actual Christian beliefs to be a true Christian.
So literally no one except the people you find personally convenient for your argument, awesome.
edgy teenage bullshit argument
Dachau literally had barracks for clergy
St James, the Brother of our Lord wrote the following:
James 1:26-27
If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless. Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.
Now, to address your allegation referring to a “Heritage Foundation” (which I had to google) you’re probably referring to an American “conservative” think-tank. They are apparently behind the “Project 2025” satanic mandate laid out by the antichrists of American politics. Doesn’t St James write to keep ourselves unstained from the world? Why would I ever align myself with the leader of the USA? Do you automatically assume that because I follow Christ? Would Christ approve of what your president is doing? If Christ will return today, I tell you, it’ll be worse for the USA and the anglosphere in general facing God’s judgement than many other countries. I would never worship anyone other than God, unlike the cultists in that cesspit of a nation. You lot will have a lot to answer for, committing such evil, some doing so claiming in the Name of God, and others rejecting and blaspheming Him! Repent and turn to the Gospel. Don’t follow the ones who’ll die, who tickle ears and show off spectacles. follow He who was raised from the dead and is seated at the right hand of the Father almighty - for He will return in Glory to judge the living and the dead! His Kingdom will have no end!
Lol, you’re so full of shit. Good luck in the war.
Which war are you referring to?
I don’t know about that dude, I’ve been given some pretty strong shit before. Definitely felt like I was dying.
A fact check of this claim would be interesting.
Nah we just don’t write fun stories about it when it happens.
Humans climbed to the top of the food chain by throwing rocks and that was before gods. Everything was stoned to death by atheists in the day.
Just needs a slight tweak to be a little less historically inaccurate: Nobody has ever been “hunted for sport” by a Zoroastrian.
Nah Persia got wild sometimes.
The guys you want are the Jains. They’re supposedly the origin of the pacifist and global brotherhood messaging in Christianity, which is clearly at odds with just about everything else in the history of the religion.
Oh, you believe that Jesus went to India when he was young? Jainism is so far removed, what mental gymnastics leads you to this conclusion?
No, I think the Middle East had cultural contact with India and this has always been the case, including the interplay of religious beliefs being a historical fact, you dumbass.
I mean christianity has a lot of obvious influence from zoroastrianism which makes sense geographically and it adopted some motives. But sure, Jainism is the only peaceful religion ever so it has to come from there. Or are there other commonalities as you would expect when you assume contact?
