Which religion (inc Atheism) is responsible for more death?

[kidkunjer]

it seems so be something that comes up a fair amount so i thought why not lets sort this out for once and for all.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Silly Leading Questionism?

 

[Quintessence]

They say there is no such thing as a stupid question. One has to wonder about the correctness of this statement.

 

[Willamena]

Why are we tallying deaths? Why does it matter?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Complacency, mal-nourishment and plagues. Those are the three worst religions.

 

[HonestJoe]

I'd suggest concepts can't be considered responsible for anything in this context. The only entity that can be responsible for a death is a conscious being.

Therefore no religion (or other philosophical concept, such as atheism) can be declared responsible for any deaths at all. Religious and non-religious people can be but it's impossible to definitively determine that they wouldn't be responsible for deaths without the influence of the religions/philosophies or that there aren't people who would have caused (more) deaths were they not influenced by them.

Bottom line; If you kill someone, it's your own fault.

 

[LuisDantas]

It may be more interesting to ask about general misery as opposed to just death.

However, structuring the question as a competition of sorts is not advisable.

 

[Quintessence]

I think Paganisms win. We have all the death gods. Our gods are that which kills ALL THE THINGS.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'd suggest concepts can't be considered responsible for anything in this context. The only entity that can be responsible for a death is a conscious being.

Therefore no religion (or other philosophical concept, such as atheism) can be declared responsible for any deaths at all. Religious and non-religious people can be but it's impossible to definitively determine that they wouldn't be responsible for deaths without the influence of the religions/philosophies or that there aren't people who would have caused (more) deaths were they not influenced by them.

Bottom line; If you kill someone, it's your own fault.

That is probably going too far. Unless you are proposing that religions should not be assigned any merits for encouraging virtue or quality of live either?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Complacency, mal-nourishment and plagues. Those are the three worst religions.

“The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference.” ― Elie Wiesel

 

[Paradox22]

They say there is no such thing as a stupid question. One has to wonder about the correctness of this statement.

in this context. The only entity that can be responsible for a death is a conscious being.

Therefore no religion (or other philosophical concept, such as atheism) can be declared responsible for any deaths at all. Religious and non-religious people can be but it's impossible to definitively determine that they wouldn't be responsible for deaths without the influence of the religions/philosophies or that there aren't people who would have caused (more) deaths were they not influenced by them.

I think people are missing the point of the original post. This is, after all, something that atheist and theist authors have made claims about. One person will point to the inquisition and crusades and all sorts of dreadful things that have been done in the name of Christianity. Another person will talk about the deaths caused in the name of Islam. Yet another person will make competing claims about all things done by Hitler and others. Perhaps the question is not expressed in the best way, but it is a legitimate question about which there has been much discussion/accusation

 

[Quintessence]

I think people are missing the point of the original post. This is, after all, something that atheist and theist authors have made claims about. One person will point to the inquisition and crusades and all sorts of dreadful things that have been done in the name of Christianity. Another person will talk about the deaths caused in the name of Islam. Yet another person will make competing claims about all things done by Hitler and others. Perhaps the question is not expressed in the best way, but it is a legitimate question about which there has been much discussion/accusation

I realize this is a question that claims are made about. I am suggesting that making such claims serves little to no purpose. Not just because there is no objective way to make such an assessment, but because it does little but encourage hatred of groups of people instead of looking at individual people and individual circumstances, in addition to grossly oversimplifying complex situations.

 

[Akivah]

It's a question that can't be answered. First, how would one assign the reason for a given death? You'd have to try to split out religious effects from political, social, economic, and a host of other reasons that cause one person to kill another. Second, how can the exact religious belief of every killer in history be determined? Third, what if the killer's beliefs are not in accordance with the mainstream of the religion? A person can claim all sorts of things about their beliefs, but others will say those beliefs are not in accordance with the religion. How would that death be tallied?

 

[Paradox22]

I realize this is a question that claims are made about. I am suggesting that making such claims serves little to no purpose. Not just because there is no objective way to make such an assessment, but because it does little but encourage hatred of groups of people instead of looking at individual people and individual circumstances.

I get what you are saying, but it seemed like people were and are ganging up on a new member saying his comment was ridiculous.

 

[Underhill]

I understand the question and I think a better way to phrase it is which belief (or perhaps lack of belief) leads to violence as a part of its teachings.

Christianity has led to many deaths, but I don't know how many of those can seriously be attributed to the religion so much as the zealots of the religion. I don't know as much about Islam but from what I have read, it seems to be a similar case.

Very few religions teach violence in and of itself. On the other hand, some religions seem to have more zealous followers. When a religion teaches that all who don't believe are deserving of death, or all that don't believe are evil, or even that all that don't believe are irrelevant or unimportant, it is easy to see how this could lead to violence. And while the Bible (for example) doesn't teach to kill all non believers, it does seem to point out leaders that were very strict adherents of, 'all in my country will follow my god or die' as godly men. I've never understood how anyone could claim David was "a man after gods own heart' and be happy about it. Or how Christians or Muslims can read the story of Jacob willingly putting his son (Isaac or Ishmael) up for sacrifice and not condemn the man as a terrible father.

But poverty and jealousy are probably the root causes of more death and violence than anything else. I look at most of these terrorist countries and almost universally they all have massive underclasses who have been taken advantage of in one way or another and turn to zealotry for revenge.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I get what you are saying, but it seemed like people were and are ganging up on a new member saying his comment was ridiculous.

Actually, I suspect that it was agenda driven but I could be wrong.

You, on the other hand, obviously see the question as less than silly, so let me ask you a question: On what grounds do you claim that a religion (inc Atheism) (sic!) is responsible for death?

 

[Paradox22]

You, on the other hand, obviously see the question as less than silly

I was only defending the question on the grounds that I have seen it discussed by people who are not ridiculous. I seem to recall Dawkins devoted a chapter to it. I think Harris did as well. Similarly, theistic books that were criticizing those arguments gave counter arguments on the same question. If they found it a worthy question, I don't think it's fair to ridicule someone for throwing the question out there for discussion.

...so let me ask you a question: On what grounds do you claim that a religion (inc Atheism) (sic!) is responsible for death?

Speaking for myself, I agree that to give a comprehensive list is impossible, and problematic for reasons that have been said in other posts. This is especially the case with regards to atheism, because no-one kills people in the name of atheism. That cannot be said of all religions. When someone justifies a war or isolated act of violence by claiming that it was done "in the name of ...", then those are deaths that could be attributed to a religion, even though it may really be mostly political. At least, that is my interpretation of the question, and one way to go about answering it

 

[Paradox22]

When someone justifies a war or isolated act of violence by claiming that it was done "in the name of ...", then those are deaths that could be attributed to a religion, even though it may really be mostly political

To argue against my own comment, I could say that that is a stupid way to attribute responsibility. That would make Obama responsible for a crime someone does if the perpetrator cries out "This is for you, Obama!"

 

[ChristineES]

Hmm... Maybe we should go back and count bodies. (just kidding)

The religions themselves are not responisble for deaths. People who follow the faiths would be responsible. The crusades, for example, were done by people who didn't read Jesus' commands too clearly, though they did follow the faith.

 

[Paradox22]

The religions themselves are not responisble for deaths. People who follow the faiths would be responsible. The crusades, for example, were done by people who didn't read Jesus' commands too clearly, though they did follow the faith.

I wholeheartedly agree. That's a perfect example of something that was done "In the name of God" but was in a large part politically motivated