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

[Quintessence]

Perhaps a worthwhile question to ask:

For those of you who consider ideologies to be responsible for deaths, do you also feel that guns kill people?

I'm reminded of the trite saying "guns don't kill people, people do." The same could be said of ideologies. Ideologies don't kill people, people do. I'm just curious if people are being consistent in their reasoning and if not, why not.

 

[ChristineES]

So, tell me. For the sake of argument, if atheism is called a religion (it is NOT a religion). If a man, who is an atheist, committs murder is only the man responsible for the murder or is the fact that he is an atheist responsible. I would believe the former, of course, that the man is guilty of murder and not atheism. The murder would have nothing to do with the fact that the man is an atheist.

The same would be for religion, too.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

Could or should?

 

[Willamena]

Perhaps the question is not expressed in the best way, but it is a legitimate question about which there has been much discussion/accusation

Pointing fingers at others is never helpful.

 

[Paradox22]

Could or should?

My suggestion was that the killings "could" be attributed to a specific religion when someone claims that it was done "in the name of [deity]". But I also, in the following comment, criticized that approach as problematic. I would not go so far as to say it "should" be tallied up this way. I simply offer that as one potential, but flawed way to address the question, if we choose to ignore the truism that religion does not kill people. People kill people. What is valid for guns is valid for religion.

Pointing fingers at others is never helpful.

I think Dawkins engages in such finger-pointing to make the case that the world would be better off if people didn't believe in deities. It can come off as a pretty childish way to say my belief (or non-belief) is better than your belief.

 

[Underhill]

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?

I know this wasn't directed at me but I'm going to give it a shot.

When the death wouldn't have happened without the religion. Examples: I'm sure the deaths caused by Hitler would have happened regardless of his religious claims. Just throwing a cross on his lapel doesn't make those killed by his regime 'christian' deaths.

On the other hand, when a guy kills someone specifically because they aren't believers I don't see how that could be anything but a death as a result of his religious beliefs.

But it is a hard thing to quantify. Even in cases where a persons 'cause' is religion, it could very well be that he/she wouldn't have acted if poverty or other influences hadn't played a role.

 

[ChristineES]

My suggestion was that the killings "could" be attributed to a specific religion when someone claims that it was done "in the name of [deity]". But I also, in the following comment, criticized that approach as problematic. I would not go so far as to say it "should" be tallied up this way. I simply offer that as one potential, but flawed way to address the question, if we choose to ignore the truism that religion does not kill people. People kill people. What is valid for guns is valid for religion.




I think Dawkins engages in such finger-pointing to make the case that the world would be better off if people didn't believe in deities. It can come off as a pretty childish way to say my belief (or non-belief) is better than your belief.

I hear you!!

The thing is that what Dawkins says is rather misleading: there are those who believe in deities, who kill in the name of those deities. If they didn't believe in those deities, would they still kill and use something else as an excuse? I believe that most of them would. In Christianity, Yeshua (Jesus), never said to go out and kill anyone at all and yet people still do kill in His name. The same can be said about other faiths and religions.

 

[Paradox22]

If they didn't believe in those deities, would they still kill and use something else as an excuse? I believe that most of them would.

sad, but true. I don't disagree with you.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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.

I understand, but I disagree with almost everyone about that. If a murder was committed in your religion's name, then that should place a general need for repayment upon members of that religion. It should be conceptually like insurance. Religion is supposed to make things better, not just 'Same'. That means religion implies more responsibility than normal, not a dismissive attitude of "Hey, I didn't make that mess so not my problem."

Every other responsibility and institution in life works this way. If you have children and they do something wrong, do they cease to be yours? No, so when they break a window or tramp dirt on someone's carpet you the parent have to pay. Similarly when someone claiming to be in your religion does something bad, the 'Real' believers should own it and try to reverse the damage. There should be a general awareness of the wrong and an effort to undo it, otherwise as a group you are actually saying that you support what was done. That is logical to me.

 

[ChristineES]

I understand, but I disagree with almost everyone about that. If a murder was committed in your religion's name, then that should place a general need for repayment upon members of that religion. It should be conceptually like insurance. Religion is supposed to make things better, not just 'Same'. That means religion implies more responsibility than normal, not a dismissive attitude of "Hey, I didn't make that mess so not my problem."

Every other responsibility and institution in life works this way. If you have children and they do something wrong, do they cease to be yours? No, so when they break a window or tramp dirt on someone's carpet you the parent have to pay. Similarly when someone in your religion does something bad, the 'Real' believers should own it and try to reverse the damage. There should be a general awareness of the wrong and an effort to undo it, otherwise you are actually saying that you support what was done. That is logical.

People will remain in the human nature, no matter what faith or religion they follow. Faith and religion is supposed to make a person better (better being subjective in this case) but the person doesn't always learn the faith the way it was intended or they still follow their own idealogies at the same time as the faith.

 

[Brickjectivity]

People will remain in the human nature, no matter what faith or religion they follow. Faith and religion is supposed to make a person better (better being subjective in this case) but the person doesn't always learn the faith the way it was intended or they still follow their own idealogies at the same time as the faith.

Yes it should make individuals better and at a young age. Anybody can learn to be good when they're old. Also it should teach individuals to clean up more messes than they make. Otherwise what's the use?

 

[Quintessence]

I disagree with the suggestion that religion is supposed to make things "better." What the heck is "better" anyway?

 

[Brickjectivity]

I disagree with the suggestion that religion is supposed to make things "better." What the heck is "better" anyway?

Less boring and more interesting. More fun.

 

[Willamena]

I think Dawkins engages in such finger-pointing to make the case that the world would be better off if people didn't believe in deities. It can come off as a pretty childish way to say my belief (or non-belief) is better than your belief.

It is, indeed, childish. So please don't encourage it.

 

[Sabour]

There is no religion responsible for death unless it says go kill people

 

[icehorse]

There is no religion responsible for death unless it says go kill people

Hi One-answer,

Can you give an example of something religion should be responsible for?

 

[Sabour]

Hi One-answer,

Can you give an example of something religion should be responsible for?

It is responsible for what it ACTUALLY tell people to do. Actually is key here

 

[icehorse]

It is responsible for what it ACTUALLY tell people to do. Actually is key here

Is religion responsible for the actions people take when they do what the religion tells them to do?

 

[Sabour]

Is religion responsible for the actions people take when they do what the religion tells them to do?

I think my answer was clear.

Yes, if it tells them to do it. That is what I meant by the word actually

 

[icehorse]

I think my answer was clear.
Yes, if it tells them to do it. That is what I meant by the word actually

From my perspective, over the last 1400 years or so hundreds of millions of Christians have committed 250-300 Million murders in the name of Christianity, and in that same period hundreds of millions of Muslims have committed 250-300 million murders in the name of Islam.

Of course the Christians and Muslims will tell me that all those hundreds of millions of religious murderers "got it wrong", and that religions don't do that. While it seems to me that, of course religions are responsible.

But the defense of religion goes on and on and on...