Are theists more violent than atheists?

[TagliatelliMonster]

If religion can not result in a discernible change in behaviour for the better then what is its value?

The change I see in behavior due to religion, is more often then not a change for the worse, not for the better.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But does religion result in peoples becoming more or less evil?

I think religion has the unique capability of making people who do evil believe they are doing good instead of evil.

Like the infamous saying goes:

Good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things, that takes religion.

And while these otherwise good people do those bad things, they actually think they are doing good things, because their religion calls it "good".

People who look to religion for "morals" are, imo, morally bankrupt. Even if such results in them become "better" people. I consider them morally bankrupt, because ultimately their motivations are corrupt. And the only reason they end up being "better" is because they happened to pick a religion which commands behavior that is better then what they previously engaged in.

If their religion would command other, more evil, things, they'ld do them as well with the same conviction, still thinking they are doing good.

When you get your morals from a perceived authority, you are morally bankrupt. Even if those morals that are dictated to you are better then those you had before joining said religion.

Moral bankruptcy, is when you shift from "moral reasoning" to mere "obedience" without reasoning, questioning, thinking,...

If you give to charity because god commands you to, then your motivation is corrupt.
If you don't kill because god commands you to, then your motivation is corrupt.

If you give to charity and don't kill as a result of an understanding of an actual moral argument to motivate those things, for actual rational reasons, then it's a whole other ball game.

Because what happens when god commands you to kill someone?
Logic dictates that you should follow just like follow the commandment to give to charity, and it would be "good".

But there is no reasonable moral argument that could be made to excuse cold blooded murder.

Moral reasoning is vastly superior to mere obedience to a perceived authority.
The first is actual morality. The latter is the excuse give for "befehl ist befehl".

 

[firedragon]

The verse of Paul from Corinthians in regards effeminate men is intriguing and has been the source of much discussion as to its meaning. Is it the passive partner in a homosexual relationship or something else? I’m not sure but believe both the Hebrew Bible and New Testament forbade sexual relationships other than those between a married man and women. However its up to each of us to investigate what if anything constitutes God’s guidances and whether or not to follow it. The society where I live doesn’t collectively recognise such guidance, yet the people have many admirable qualities. They are my friends.

The question I asked with you is different. I didnt ask about society and what they recognise. I respect your thought process and your acceptance.

Thats irrelevant.

You referred to Corinthians. So my question is "What about the New Testaments (Paul) condemnation of homosexuals and those so called "effeminate men"? Does that resonate with you or do you condemn that type of thought?

It clearly says that none of them (including other kinds of sinners like thieves, fornicators, drunkards, etc) will inherit the kingdom of God.

Basically they are condemned or cast out of the ability to inherit the kingdom of God. Soft men and homosexuals. If you wish to reinterpret soft men with whatever insight, still the issue is that they will not inherit the kingdom of God.

""What about the New Testaments (Paul) condemnation of homosexuals and those so called "effeminate men"? Does that resonate with you or do you condemn that type of thought?""

Peace.

 

[epronovost]

“Abnormal level”....that’s creative.

From the very Wikipedia article you yourself posted:
“...there is no indication that the rate of sexual abuse among Jehovah's Witnesses is higher than found in general society.”

Indeed, but following that line are the varioud reasons why Jehovah's Witnesses organisation have few of those accusations and those they have are few and far between as well as the various efforts in two different countries to cover them up and the trials linked to those cases (they did win some of them thouh). Never read just one paragraph.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Without absolutes, in a post-modernist world, you define your own morals.
And most of the evils in this world are carried out by people who think they
are right.

This is just as true for religious people as it is for anyone else; it's just that some religious people - e.g. yourself - are in denial about it. Because of this, they approach the issue of morality without proper reflection.

 

[PruePhillip]

This is just as true for religious people as it is for anyone else; it's just that some religious people - e.g. yourself - are in denial about it. Because of this, they approach the issue of morality without proper reflection.

Absolutely correct. But it's harder for a religious culture (ie Judea Christianity) to engage in
bad behavior than it would be for someone who believes in 'dialectic materialism.' The great
inquisition for instance employed confession, atonement, penance and mercy - so it was
never to kill as many people as say Communism killed.
But the Christian standard does not permit inhumanity - only the breach of its principles
can allow that to happen.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Absolutely correct. But it's harder for a religious culture (ie Judea Christianity) to engage in
bad behavior than it would be for someone who believes in 'dialectic materialism.'

Nonsense.

The great
inquisition for instance employed confession, atonement, penance and mercy - so it was
never to kill as many people as say Communism killed.
But the Christian standard does not permit inhumanity - only the breach of its principles
can allow that to happen.

Again: nonsense.

If you've personally arrived at some form of Christianity that you think is incompatible with violence, great. But a quick glimpse at history shows that Christianity as a whole has never had a problem with inflicting violence.

 

[capumetu]

The abnormal level of sexual and child abuse within Jehovah's Witnesses communities would say otherwise. Though this might be due to their insularity.

Like most all faiths sir, Jehovah's witnesses do not allow child abuse, in any form. Matter of fact if we confirm that happens we disfellowship the person and recommend charges be filed with civil authorities.

 

[Audie]

I think religion has the unique capability of making people who do evil believe they are doing good instead of evil.

Like the infamous saying goes:

Good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things, that takes religion.

And while these otherwise good people do those bad things, they actually think they are doing good things, because their religion calls it "good".

People who look to religion for "morals" are, imo, morally bankrupt. Even if such results in them become "better" people. I consider them morally bankrupt, because ultimately their motivations are corrupt. And the only reason they end up being "better" is because they happened to pick a religion which commands behavior that is better then what they previously engaged in.

If their religion would command other, more evil, things, they'ld do them as well with the same conviction, still thinking they are doing good.

When you get your morals from a perceived authority, you are morally bankrupt. Even if those morals that are dictated to you are better then those you had before joining said religion.

Moral bankruptcy, is when you shift from "moral reasoning" to mere "obedience" without reasoning, questioning, thinking,...

If you give to charity because god commands you to, then your motivation is corrupt.
If you don't kill because god commands you to, then your motivation is corrupt.

If you give to charity and don't kill as a result of an understanding of an actual moral argument to motivate those things, for actual rational reasons, then it's a whole other ball game.

Because what happens when god commands you to kill someone?
Logic dictates that you should follow just like follow the commandment to give to charity, and it would be "good".

But there is no reasonable moral argument that could be made to excuse cold blooded murder.

Moral reasoning is vastly superior to mere obedience to a perceived authority.
The first is actual morality. The latter is the excuse give for "befehl ist befehl".

Morsl bsnkupcy and great evil, yes.

Belief is absolute morality is presented as
the absolute and only barrier to the horrors
of moral relativism, and the skipprry slope
to total depravity.

A recent example of moral absolutist
thinking was in the response to "thou shalt
not steal" a god given absolute.

" So would you steal a penny- that you
could soon pay back-if it could save a
child from slavery and torture."

Of course the answer was no.

 

[epronovost]

Like most all faiths sir, Jehovah's witnesses do not allow child abuse, in any form. Matter of fact if we confirm that happens we disfellowship the person and recommend charges be filed with civil authorities.

Unfortunately that rule was not respected on several instance. I posted a small wikipedia article that presents many of the cases of concealment of such abuse as well as the rules within several Jehovah Witnesses communities that stifle any denounciation of sexual abuse, especially sexual abuse toward children. Like the Catholic Church, the Watchtower society and various other organisation of hte Jehovah Witness have pledged to improve in this regard, but only time will tell.

 

[PruePhillip]

Nonsense.


Again: nonsense.

If you've personally arrived at some form of Christianity that you think is incompatible with violence, great. But a quick glimpse at history shows that Christianity as a whole has never had a problem with inflicting violence.

The Inquisition is considered the greatest reign of religious violence in Western
civilization. It occurred over 600 years and about one million people died.
Under Stalin and Mao, in particular, that many people could die in a single day.

I don't equate Catholicism with 'Christianity' as I read it in the New Testament.
And even if it was - there's no comparison with the cruelty of secular behavior.

Hitler's mother was Catholic, Pol Pot and Mao came from Buddhist backgrounds.
Stalin studied for the Orthodox ministry. Lenin's mother was a Jew who converted
to "Christianity." I put it to you that history would have been very different had there
been no collapse of religion in the 1900's.

 

[Dawnofhope]

The question I asked with you is different. I didnt ask about society and what they recognise. I respect your thought process and your acceptance.

Thats irrelevant.

You referred to Corinthians. So my question is "What about the New Testaments (Paul) condemnation of homosexuals and those so called "effeminate men"? Does that resonate with you or do you condemn that type of thought?

It clearly says that none of them (including other kinds of sinners like thieves, fornicators, drunkards, etc) will inherit the kingdom of God.

Basically they are condemned or cast out of the ability to inherit the kingdom of God. Soft men and homosexuals. If you wish to reinterpret soft men with whatever insight, still the issue is that they will not inherit the kingdom of God.

""What about the New Testaments (Paul) condemnation of homosexuals and those so called "effeminate men"? Does that resonate with you or do you condemn that type of thought?""

Peace.

For context:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

1 Corinthians 6:9-12

Paul is speaking to members of a Church in Corinth and saying that some of them used to identify with such behaviours but now they are followers of Christ they should avoid their past behaviours.

Do these verses resonate with me or do I condemn them? They are words written nearly two thousand years ago to assist with the building of the Christian Church in that locality. However the principle of encouraging and admonishing members of a faith community to live by the laws of God should always remain at the forefront of any Abrahamic Faith community. So although I wouldn't be reading Paul in the first instance when looking for guidance, if seen in context much of what Paul has to say is universal and applicable from age to age.

 

[ppp]

The Inquisition is considered the greatest reign of religious violence in Western
civilization. It occurred over 600 years and about one million people died.
Under Stalin and Mao, in particular, that many people could die in a single day.

• You are taking one activity of one form of people who believe in a god, and comparing it to the activities of multiple forms of people who do not.
• Population. The assorted religious wars killed fewer people because there were fewer people to be killed. The thirty years war, as for instance, still managed to kill at least one-third of the population.
• The religious reign was primarily on foot and holding a spear or sword. The religious lost power around the advent of machinery - machine guns, tanks, planes, etc. The religious were not restrained by morality, but by ability.
• You are ignoring the fact that the rebellions you are citing were against religious regimes who had been doing to same thing that you are abhorring since those regimes were incepted. The religious Czars were not more moral than Stalin. They performed the same activities. They just didn't have the machinery to be as efficient in their brutality.

The question "Are theists more violent than atheists?" is loaded and ill-formed. The question should be, what makes people violent? People are violent when they believe they have reason to be.

 

[epronovost]

The question should be, what makes people violent? People are violent when they believe they have reason to be.

Good point. According to Steven Pinker, the most deadly of all human events were in a category he called "moralistic killings" as in killings that were justified under some moral ground like getting revenge, based on religious or ideological ground.

 

[PruePhillip]

Good point. According to Steven Pinker, the most deadly of all human events were in a category he called "moralistic killings" as in killings that were justified under some moral ground like getting revenge, based on religious or ideological ground.

Not much 'moral' ground when Stalin and Mao murdered about 100,000.000 people.
No religion at all, to be honest. Can you name any faith that did anything remotely
like this?

 

[ppp]

Good point. According to Steven Pinker, the most deadly of all human events were in a category he called "moralistic killings" as in killings that were justified under some moral ground like getting revenge, based on religious or ideological ground.

Exactly so. The Russian revolutions happened because the religious regime were chronically and brutally abusive to the populace. The fact that the uprisers became just like their oppressors does not mitigate that fact.

 

[epronovost]

Not much 'moral' ground when Stalin and Mao murdered about 100,000.000 people.
No religion at all, to be honest. Can you name any faith that did anything remotely
like this?

All of them have done something akin to this. The 30 years war saw the wholesale massacre of almost half of Holy Roman Empire population died in the war and the famine and plagues that accompanied them.

The Crusades saw a similar level of slaughter in Palestine and Syria where almost a third of the population was put to the sword or died in the following famine and epidemics.

The Reconquista saw a ridiculous amount of death and devastation over 8 centuries in a conflict fueled by religious animosity that ended up with the Inquisition and anti-jewish pogrom and forced exile.

As mentionned Joe W, often it's not the morals that limits death, but the means at one's disposal.

 

[ppp]

Can you name any faith that did anything remotely
like this?

Small pox blankets. Canadian Indian residential school system. The Atlantic Slave Trade.

Where are all of the pre-Columbian civilizations?
The Iroquois?
The Lakota?
The Mayans?
The Incans?

 

[PruePhillip]

Small pox blankets. Canadian Indian residential school system. The Atlantic Slave Trade.

Where are all of the pre-Columbian civilizations?
The Iroquois?
The Lakota?
The Mayans?
The Incans?

That small pox blanket thing could be a myth. People tried to pin this on the British
in Australia and no case could be made. Many thought small pox came from vapors
in the air, or rats. As it was it was it was Western civilization which banished many
of the diseases which ravaged the world - including new world ones. And the same
civilization banished slavery - something that new world peoples employed, so too
many African and Arab nations. You should have mentioned the Aztecs, why not?
They had an empire, slavery, cannibalism and ritual murder. Today no Nth American
Indian engages in tribal warfare, or slavery. And many, many nations which once
existed have been absorbed into other cultures. The Amorites, Amalekites, Moabites,
Phoenicians, Philistines of the bible are examples.

But this doesn't have much to do with Christianity. You can't say Christianity is bad
for abusing people on one hand, and Christian doctrine is loving your brother on the
other.

 

[epronovost]

That small pox blanket thing could be a myth.

Unfortunately, it's derived from a series of letter from general Jeffrey Amherst who used such a tactic to help defeat Pontiac's alliance which were revolting against british prices and behavior in the fur trade after they seized the area from the French 3 years prior. That's one of the reason many places named after Amherst have started to change their names and remove his statue. While the man was an apt governer of the recently conquered Canada, his cruelty toward Natives is very well known. This incident illustrates it nicely.