When I'm responding to someone who doesn't first throw his own "attitude" into the mix, sure.
Is it simply impossible for you to hold a civil conversation?
Certainly. I always hold civil conversations with people who are being civil themselves.
Or is it your normal approach to attempt to bully others into submission?
Not only is that not my "normal" approach, that's never my approach. I make my points through evidence and argument. If that also demonstrates that someone is being foolish or dishonest, so be it, and I won't shy away from pointing out the obvious.
While Hitler may have used parts of the Bible to justify his "master race" theories, it is not true that they were inspired by the Bible.
This sounds like splitting hairs.
It would be best for you to avoid accusations of "simplistic" until you can avoid the same sin.
My response was not simplistic at all, although your rebuttal is -- in order to have a cheap excuse to misrepresent me as "simplistic", you had to excise and fail to address the bulk of my post, wherein I identified the several flaws in your "analysis", which was indeed simplistic and flawed.
The 100 million corpses evokes the history of Communist China, Communist Russia, Communist Vietnam, Communist Cambodia, Communist North Korea.... All avowedly atheist. And they didn't really rely on modern technology to do it, either, except perhaps the use of firearms rather than swords.
...and modern communications, and modern transporation systems, etc. etc. etc., all of which greatly multiplied the effectiveness of 20th Century genocides compared to those of the past. For example, Stalin's reach and effectiveness extended across vast regions as a result, in to a degree not possible in earlier centuries.
Furthermore, modern populations are far larger than those in past eras -- to do an accurate comparison (assuming there's even any relevant point to such "death counts" -- see my prior post) one would have to pro-rate the death counts of 20th-century genocides on a per-capita basis and do the same with the smaller populations of past empires, in order to determine whether recent genocides were more or less bloody than those of times past, in terms of the bloodthirstiness of the tyrants (since that *was* the somewhat irrelevant metric you were attempting to use as a strange metric for the "honor and ethics" of the godless vs. godful).
They weren't exactly "warriors for God," but Ghengis Khan and Attila the Hun were very effective in their use of large-scale killing, and they didn't use high-tech weapons to do it. Your appeal to high technology is thus somewhat irrelevant;
Wow, what a lame "rebuttal". No, it doesn't make my point irrelevant in the least, unless you want to try to claim that Ghengis Khan *wouldn't* have been more effective at slaughter with modern tools and methods.
further, it merely points out something else: people are willing and able do really bad things and always have been.
That was my point as well, which is why I pointed out the disingenuous nature of your tallying only recent Communist genocides while pretending to have "forgotten" about the genocides committed through most of human history by those following some deity.
[why is it that it's the *creationists* who lie so frequently and unashamedly on these discussions, and not the allegedly "godless" evolutionists? Please explain.]
I guess this thread exposes you as a creationist.
If this is your cheap and dishonest way of trying to falsely imply that I have lied on this thread, then thanks for further reinforcing my point about the dishonesties on *your* side of the discussion.
Please advise.
I advise that you stop lying about me.
I also advise that you answer the question rather than dishonestly ducking it FOR THE SECOND TIME. Here it is again:
Finally, your desperate attempt to distract from the question by pointing to a few mass murderers just doesn't answer the question -- why is it that it's the *creationists* who lie so frequently and unashamedly on these discussions, and not the allegedly "godless" evolutionists? Please explain.
This sounds like you ducking your own statement.
If this is your cheap and dishonest way of trying to falsely imply that I have lied on this thread, then thanks for further reinforcing my point about the dishonesties on *your* side of the discussion.
It is not an implication. I am saying it straight out: you are being dishonest in this discussion. You consistently mischaracterize the issues under discussion, consistently make false accusations about the people involved, and consistently misrepresent the position of those who take a view different from your own.
Ichneumon - "This sounds like splitting hairs."
IMHO, 'r9etb' has a valid argument here.