The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Originally posted by psmith81992
[B]Really? So you chose to remember only your version of Stalin and Mao? Or none at all. Amazing what the atheists will come up with next.

Apparently, you didn't get the point, I was trying to make. That Stalin and Mao were atheists doesn't mean that atheism made them do all the terrible things they did. None of them did murder in "the name of atheism". Atheism is fundamentally based on the idea, that one should only "believe" in things that one can measure / prove to exist. How does that make you kill people or comit other atrocities? That doesn't make sense, much like doing the same because of math, grammar or gravity.

I hesitate to add Hitler in the mix because you're probably going to scream that hitler was a Christian, ignoring his disdain for Christianity.

On paper, Hitler was a Christian. He, much as Himmler, remained a member of the Catholic church until his death. So he probably was as much a Christian as Osama bin Laden was a Muslim. But once more: That doesn't even matter, because atheism doesn't make you kill people. Hitler was also a vegetarian, but you certainly don't want to tell me that this made him murder people.

Originally posted by psmith81992
In the name of the state. If you're really going to nitpick and desperately try to find a difference between the religious killing people, and secularists doing the same thing, then I'll give you that. But secularism has exponentially more deaths tied to its name than religion.

And once again: Killing in the name of a state or a political ideology is not killing in the name of "secularism". Hell. The only people one could kill in the name of secularism are religious people trying to implement their religious beliefs in the working of the state (e.g. turning dogmas into laws).

Compare that to fun-stuff like the Massacre at Béziers. "Kill them all for the Lord knoweth them that are His" doesn't work for atheists.

So you're not contesting the fact that secularists have killed infinitely more people than the religious? Gotcha.

And yes, you can't kill in the name of secularism. But you can kill in the name of the state (enemy of the state), or in the name of the german race/etc..

Lolwut? Religious dudes have killed way more people than secularists. Da fuq you on boi?

My life in a nutshell. ^ Praise the Lord. 😄

Originally posted by Nephthys
Lolwut? Religious dudes have killed way more people than secularists. Da fuq you on boi?

Really? You could add up all the religious death throughout history, and it wouldn't come close to what Mao did. I don't need to add Stalin in there, or even half Hitler (half because he was allegedly Christian). The numbers aren't even close.

Originally posted by psmith81992
So you're not contesting the fact that secularists have killed infinitely more people than the religious? Gotcha.

Which had nothing to do with secularism. Hitler killed more people than Hannibal Lecter. Therefore cannibalism > vegetarism. Does that sound right?

And I find it rather hard to perform a "bodycount" here. But the religious people would most likely "win", due to the fact that atheism / secularism weren't really popular until the 20th century (advantage in terms of time-span), and most people would still decribe themselve as "religious", given that side a huge number advantage.

And yes, you can't kill in the name of secularism.

Then don't try to attribute killings to it.

But you can kill in the name of the state (enemy of the state), or in the name of the german race/etc..

And none of that has anything to do with secularism / atheism. If you kill in the name of the state, you do it because of a political agenda the state represents. If you do it in the name of the german race, you are doing it because of racism, not secularism. Lenin and Mao killed most people, because they were opposing their political views, not because they rejected the idea of state atheism.

Question: Is there ever, in the whole mythos, an example of a person charging up a Force power in their sleep? Is it possible that someone could prep in their sleep?

Originally posted by Nephthys
Question: Is there ever, in the whole mythos, an example of a person charging up a Force power in their sleep? Is it possible that someone could prep in their sleep?

The only incident of people using the force while sleeping, that comes to my mind is Bane killing his dad while sleeping (stopping his heart?). Luke also used the Force to keep him alive / heal him while being knocked out by an explosion, if I remember correctly ("Children of the Jedi"😉.

Ok, thanks. Someone very silly is suggesting that Zannah sensed the Force Storm in her sleep, charged her power before it got to her and used an amped Bubble to block it, while still asleep. I was just checking if it was as nonsensical as I thought it was.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Ok, thanks. Someone very silly is suggesting that Zannah sensed the Force Storm in her sleep, charged her power before it got to her and used an amped Bubble to block it, while still asleep. I was just checking if it was as nonsensical as I thought it was.

Hmm. Now that you mentioned it, I think there is a comic ("Jedi vs Sith" I think), where she rides a flying ball of fur (Laa?) and gets caught in the force storm, instinctively protecting herself and her companion with the Force. But I don't think she was asleep at that point.

Yeah. It's a pretty great feat imo to protect herself from such a powerful attack on pure instinct with no training.

I didn't think she was asleep either but whatever, I don't actually have the comic.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Ok, thanks. Someone very silly is suggesting that Zannah sensed the Force Storm in her sleep, charged her power before it got to her and used an amped Bubble to block it, while still asleep. I was just checking if it was as nonsensical as I thought it was.

Was that in POD or the comics? That's impressive

She blocks it in the comics.

And in the novel. 😬
Currently searching through it to see if it supports my theory.

No, she only has one chapter in the novel. Well after that point.

In fact:

"She remembered what Laa had said just before the entire forest had exploded in flames: Bad dreams, Rain. Death dreams."

Theory crushed. 😎

Nope. 🙂 I'll reply to this on the other thread.

If she was talking with Laa right before the Storm hit them then she wasn't asleep. Concede, fool.

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
Nope. 🙂 I'll reply to this on the other thread.

And none of that has anything to do with secularism / atheism. If you kill in the name of the state, you do it because of a political agenda the state represents. If you do it in the name of the german race, you are doing it because of racism, not secularism. Lenin and Mao killed most people, because they were opposing their political views, not because they rejected the idea of state atheism.

Who were the first to go in the Hitler and Stalin genocide? The Jews and Christians. The religious groups are the first ones to go.

And I find it rather hard to perform a "bodycount" here. But the religious people would most likely "win", due to the fact that atheism / secularism weren't really popular until the 20th century (advantage in terms of time-span), and most people would still decribe themselve as "religious", given that side a huge number advantage.

1. Atheists use the Crusades and 'religious killings' in a historical context to condemn religion, and then ignore the opposite side of the coin, which is Communism/Secularism.

2. Even if atheism/secularism is a 20th century construct, Mao and Stalin were responsible for close to 100 million deaths. You spend your time in education, count up all the religious bodies throughout history, see if you get to 1-2% of that amount.

As to your nitpicking regarding religion vs. secularism, I can argue that religious deaths are simply the product of people who intentionally misinterpret their bibles for their own agenda. Otherwise you're using double standards.

Are you conflating deaths at the hands of atheist/secularist people with the deaths because of atheism/secularism? Like, if you killed someone, and you're an atheist, then therefore you must have killed him because you're an atheist? Or if the victim was a theist and you weren't, then you must have killed him because he was a theist.

Nai is arguing intent. He's saying all those people who died under the Communists were not killed because they lacked sufficient atheism. That the mullahs in charge were atheist was not the reason they killed so many people. They didn't do it for atheism, or because they were opposed to theists. Their religious orientation was not what drove them to mass murder and oppression.