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

[Sabour]

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...

Icehorse.

I think I made it clear what in my opinion a religion should be held accountable for. It is for what it actually teaches. That is the only logical way to do it. If you see it not that way than never mind me but don't ignore my answers and push the discussion the way you want. I am not going to argue about history because it will be a pointless discussion where you say this happened and I say no this happened. I don't want that type of discussion.

Hope you understand.

 

[icehorse]

Hi One-answer,

I understand that you believe that Islam teaches peace. I know you have good intentions, but I believe that what you believe about Islam is dangerous. I wish you believed that Islam should be reformed.

 

[Sabour]

Thought your response would be, does Islam teach that? or something like that, but since you are only interested in making your statements, one way or the other, than I am out.

 

[Awoon1]

Fish religion kills the most.

 

[icehorse]

Thought your response would be, does Islam teach that? or something like that, but since you are only interested in making your statements, one way or the other, than I am out.

I see evidence in the world that for most Muslims, Islam does not conflict with peace. I also see 1400 years of evidence that far too often, human beings interpret Islam to mean intolerance, violence, and conquest.

One-answer, I'm sincerely happy that you find Islam to be peaceful. The problem I see is that so many Muslims discover Islam to be violent, and they behave accordingly. I'm even happy to say that you're right and they're wrong. But none of that matters to me. Because what matters is what people actually *do*.

 

[Sabour]

I see evidence in the world that for most Muslims, Islam does not conflict with peace. I also see 1400 years of evidence that far too often, human beings interpret Islam to mean intolerance, violence, and conquest.

One-answer, I'm sincerely happy that you find Islam to be peaceful. The problem I see is that so many Muslims discover Islam to be violent, and they behave accordingly. I'm even happy to say that you're right and they're wrong. But none of that matters to me. Because what matters is what people actually *do*.

Thank you for being happy for me.

The statement I put in red is what I wanted to hear from you. I think this means we have nothing to discuss. First it will be pointless for the reasons I mentioned and second our criteria are different

 

[icehorse]

One-answer,

I think that's fair!

 

[Neo Deist]

Humans are responsible for any killings, not religions. Killings happen in the name of religion, as well as every other conceivable notion anyone can think of. We are naturally violent and enjoy the macabre. History is full of societies embracing violence as a form of entertainment; from the Roman Colosseum to boxing, wrestling, MMA, American football, rugby, soccer, hockey fights, race crashes, matadors, dog fighting, etc...and let's not forget the drunk idiotic fans that fight before, during or after a sporting event.

So, you take some simpletons who want to kill, mix in a charismatic leader, and away we go!

 

[Sabour]

Humans are responsible for any killings, not religions. Killings happen in the name of religion, as well as every other conceivable notion anyone can think of. We are naturally violent and enjoy the macabre. History is full of societies embracing violence as a form of entertainment; from the Roman Colosseum to boxing, wrestling, MMA, American football, rugby, soccer, hockey fights, race crashes, matadors, dog fighting, etc...and let's not forget the drunk idiotic fans that fight before, during or after a sporting event.

So, you take some simpletons who want to kill, mix in a charismatic leader, and away we go!

I don't fully agree but the first 6 words are golden.

 

[icehorse]

Praetorian said:

Humans are responsible for any killings, not religions.

You're just playing with semantics.

Would you agree that beliefs have consequences? For example, if you get a phone call and you're told that a loved one was in an accident and is now in the hospital, would that belief affect your behavior? Would you decide to go the the hospital?

Next, is it fair to say that religion is passed from generation to generation largely through indoctrination? For example isn't it the case that most religious parents "declare" their children to be "of religion X"? And then those children go through religious indoctrination? In other words, at a young age children are taught to believe what "their" religion teaches them?

And isn't it the case that throughout history we have countless examples of millions of religious people murdering other people "in the name of religion X"?

Therefore, wouldn't Occam's razor lead us to the conclusion that religions are change-resistant containers for violent beliefs that are passed from generation to generation?

This seems like a simple straight line to me.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

“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

What then is the opposite of hate?

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

Well, we can surmise that ideologies can contain or omit anything we can imagine, there are gun-like theologies which seem to carry certain languages of munition and those that might withhold that for more flower-power. When's the last time you saw an alert for fundamentalist jainists?

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.

Atheists by nature of the supposed 'free-thinking' element are harder to define, it is like saying one is a 'theist', that doesn't tell you anything. Atheists follow philosophies, and theists follow religion however. You could come up with hypothetically violent doctrines for both, if such is to connect with individual credence how can that not receive weight?

 

[Quagmire]

Materialism

 

[ChristineES]

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

Better is subjective in most cases.

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...

You are not judging by what Jesus taught. Jesus told His followers to pray for their enemies and so on. So why would His teachings be responsible for what people do? Religion itself is innocent, it is the people who might follow a religion who are guilty.

The problem with society nowadays is no one wants to take responsibility for their own actions, so they blame something else: Be it "The devil", "religion", "their parents", "their peers", etc. Most people have reason and know who the blame falls onto: ourselves.

 

[icehorse]

Better is subjective in most cases.

You are not judging by what Jesus taught. Jesus told His followers to pray for their enemies and so on. So why would His teachings be responsible for what people do? Religion itself is innocent, it is the people who might follow a religion who are guilty.

The problem with society nowadays is no one wants to take responsibility for their own actions, so they blame something else: Be it "The devil", "religion", "their parents", "their peers", etc. Most people have reason and know who the blame falls onto: ourselves.

You are correct, I am not judging by what people claim someone named Jesus taught. I am judging by the history of what people do and why they claim to do it. And, as it happens, it's extremely easy to align scriptural messages with all of these violent actions.

This is not to let people off the hook. Everyone is responsible for their own actions. This IS to say that religion fuels beliefs and people act on what they believe.

 

[ChristineES]

You are correct, I am not judging by what people claim someone named Jesus taught. I am judging by the history of what people do and why they claim to do it. And, as it happens, it's extremely easy to align scriptural messages with all of these violent actions.

This is not to let people off the hook. Everyone is responsible for their own actions. This IS to say that religion fuels beliefs and people act on what they believe.

And so do a lot of things that have nothing to do with religion. People make excuses all day long about why they are violent. Some people say it's because they hate their mother, others say it's because someone looked at them funny and so on.

 

[Underhill]

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.

Your comparison doesn't work. The difference is in the scale. It's one thing to say your 2 kids are your responsibility. But you cannot hold an entire organization responsible for every action of it's millions of members. It's like blaming the Boy Scouts for the molestations that happened years ago. We can hold them responsible for how they dealt with the problems, but holding them responsible for something like that is tough when you have tens of thousands of leaders. There is literally no way they could be responsible for the problem. Especially in light of the fact that every other large organizations had similar problems.

The same is even more true of religions with millions, or even billions, of members. Now if a problem comes up and they do nothing about it (the main difference between how the BSA handled the molestation charges and how the Catholic church handled them) or, in the case of religion, they don't at least disavow those involved, then it is on them.

 

[HonestJoe]

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?

I pretty much am proposing exactly that. People will do whatever they feel is right regardless. Religious people will follow a religion that is already consistent with their personal opinions (and variously interpret it in that manner too). None religious people can have temporal philosophies, individual or collective, that work in exactly the same manner. Even the best religion in principle could be misinterpreted, twisted or corrupted to support "bad" things. That wouldn't make the religion bad, it would make the people doing bad things but using the religion as an excuse bad. Why would it be any different switching the "bad" for "good"?

 

[Underhill]

I pretty much am proposing exactly that. People will do whatever they feel is right regardless. Religious people will follow a religion that is already consistent with their personal opinions (and variously interpret it in that manner too). None religious people can have temporal philosophies, individual or collective, that work in exactly the same manner. Even the best religion in principle could be misinterpreted, twisted or corrupted to support "bad" things. That wouldn't make the religion bad, it would make the people doing bad things but using the religion as an excuse bad. Why would it be any different switching the "bad" for "good"?

I would like to say I agree with that, but I think the evidence is otherwise. Just look at the affect Fox News is having on the populace to see an example. Sure, people who lean right tend to go there for news, but I think the evidence shows that they tend to get pulled even farther to the right.

And I think the same is true of religion (or any group that teaches, good or bad). People tend to go to places that they think share their views but the teachings can take them to places they would not have reached on their own.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Your comparison doesn't work. The difference is in the scale. It's one thing to say your 2 kids are your responsibility. But you cannot hold an entire organization responsible for every action of it's millions of members.

What I'm suggesting is that religions should hold themselves responsible, not that the law can place blame upon them. Even so, scale does hold I think. Unity comes not even through shared ideas or shared visions but through shared responsibility. It would be a huge subject and something for another thread.

It's like blaming the Boy Scouts for the molestations that happened years ago. We can hold them responsible for how they dealt with the problems, but holding them responsible for something like that is tough when you have tens of thousands of leaders. There is literally no way they could be responsible for the problem. Especially in light of the fact that every other large organizations had similar problems.

The Boy Scouts apologized for that occurrence, because they are a unit. If they weren't a unit no apology would be necessary. I'm not saying that the Boy Scouts should be prosecuted, but they do share an ethical responsibility to help the victims. It is a responsibility created in their unity, therefore they take responsibility rather than having it placed upon themselves.

The same is even more true of religions with millions, or even billions, of members. Now if a problem comes up and they do nothing about it (the main difference between how the BSA handled the molestation charges and how the Catholic church handled them) or, in the case of religion, they don't at least disavow those involved, then it is on them.

OK, so for argument lets accept the Boy Scouts are our standard now. Except that 'Religions' aren't merely the Boy Scouts, and they aren't merely institutions. No, because people pay with their own lives to be part of these religions. When you convert you pay so very much and count yourself as part of a religion, not just dues. Religions claim to be something better than 'Just the Boy Scouts'. If they refuse ownership for what is done in their names -- if they don't say sorry, and if they don't offer to help and don't accept some of the blame -- then the Boy Scouts are behaving better than they are and prove the religions unworthy of the Divine.

 

[HonestJoe]

And I think the same is true of religion (or any group that teaches, good or bad).

I've known people taught by priests, nuns, vicars, imams, rabbis, teachers and parents but never anyone taught by religion. I've also known people of the same religion teach very different things. Where does responsibility for what is taught actually lay? Where does responsibility for what you do in response to what you've been taught lay?