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

[icehorse]

First thing you will need to do is create a criteria as to how to assign the blame for each death.

For example, Nagasaki and Hiroshima, where the deaths from those two incidents religious or secular?
How do you determine that?

I mean, are they Christian because the USA is a Christian nation?
Are they Christian because it was Christians in the plane the dropped the bombs?
What happens if it comes out that half the crew was Christian and Half was atheist?

No doubt that establishing such a criteria would be contentious at best, more likely impossible. When we get down to specifics I have no doubt that we will hear that religion was never to blame. In any case here's a link that gives a nice overview of Christian conquests:

Christian Atrocities | Victims of Christianity | Catholic Church Inquisition | Crusades

 

[Quintessence]

Most interesting how this was completely ignored....

I still see as a question of "do guns kill people, or do people kill people." Religions don't directly cause death any more than they directly cause birth. I just think making it about a body count one way or another is a foolish way of framing the issue. What's the point of framing it that way? What, exactly, do people hope to do with that information?

 

[icehorse]

I still see as a question of "do guns kill people, or do people kill people." Religions don't directly cause death any more than they directly cause birth. I just think making it about a body count one way or another is a foolish way of framing the issue. What's the point of framing it that way? What, exactly, do people hope to do with that information?

Everything is a part of a complex system, so this sort of discussion will always be about significant factors. Religion is a significant factor in creating beliefs, and beliefs are a significant factor in driving behaviors.

And, when a religious person declares that he's doing something "in the name of his religion", why would we doubt him?

 

[McBell]

I still see as a question of "do guns kill people, or do people kill people." Religions don't directly cause death any more than they directly cause birth. I just think making it about a body count one way or another is a foolish way of framing the issue. What's the point of framing it that way? What, exactly, do people hope to do with that information?

I see it as a blatant double standard.
Religion is not to blame for any deaths but gets the credit for anything good they can attach to it.

 

[icehorse]

I see it as a blatant double standard.
Religion is not to blame for any deaths but gets the credit for anything good they can attach to it.

"double standard" works! We could create a list... how about "playing tennis without the net" or "having your cake and eating it too"?

 

[columbus]

I still see as a question of "do guns kill people, or do people kill people." Religions don't directly cause death any more than they directly cause birth. I just think making it about a body count one way or another is a foolish way of framing the issue. What's the point of framing it that way? What, exactly, do people hope to do with that information?

I agree with Quint, it's an awkward way of asking the question. But Mestemia also has a point.

It is hard to say why any particular preventable death occured, and "The victors write the history books, including the death tolls. So any real evidence is going to be murky at best. The fact that EuroChristian societies were extremely warlike and bloody for centuries may have nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus, but those teachings didn't stop the horrors either. Does that make the destruction "Christian"? That depends on who you ask, and for that matter how you define Christian. "People who believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and is God" is one thing, "People who behave in a Christlike fashion" something else entirely. Often people will equivocate on that definition, depending on their goal.

Tom

 

[Quintessence]

I see it as a blatant double standard.
Religion is not to blame for any deaths but gets the credit for anything good they can attach to it.

I think you may be misunderstanding what I'm saying, because that isn't what I'm suggesting. What I'm saying is that ideologies - any ideology - is not a direct cause for people dying (supposedly a bad thing) or being born (supposedly a good thing). The motive or instrument used for something is not the direct cause, nor typically the root cause; it is a cause and a factor amidst a myriad of variables. You want a direct cause or a root cause? Take a look at biology and the social sciences. Take a look at the core nature of being human, which is full of examples of both cooperation and competition, which are driven both by biological needs and social needs. These things are universal. They will exist regardless of whether or not there is some social phenomena we decide to label "religion" or religion X, Y, or Z. It is because of this that I truly don't see the point of asking the question.

Again, I ask: what do people hope to do with the information gleaned by asking the question? That word "responsible" carries with it connotations of being held accountable. For the people who ask this question, do you or do you not intend to actually hold the "responsible" religions accountable? Do you or do you not intend to take actions against those deemed "responsible" by socially ostracizing them, making laws that discriminate against them, or going all the way to cultural genocide? That's what I see in questions like this.

I imagine if the question were "which race is responsible for more death?" more of us would see this question for what it is.

 

[McBell]

I think you may be misunderstanding what I'm saying, because that isn't what I'm suggesting. What I'm saying is that ideologies - any ideology - is not a direct cause for people dying (supposedly a bad thing) or being born (supposedly a good thing). The motive or instrument used for something is not the direct cause, nor typically the root cause; it is a cause and a factor amidst a myriad of variables. You want a direct cause or a root cause? Take a look at biology and the social sciences. Take a look at the core nature of being human, which is full of examples of both cooperation and competition, which are driven both by biological needs and social needs. These things are universal. They will exist regardless of whether or not there is some social phenomena we decide to label "religion" or religion X, Y, or Z. It is because of this that I truly don't see the point of asking the question.

Again, I ask: what do people hope to do with the information gleaned by asking the question? That word "responsible" carries with it connotations of being held accountable. For the people who ask this question, do you or do you not intend to actually hold the "responsible" religions accountable? Do you or do you not intend to take actions against those deemed "responsible" by socially ostracizing them, making laws that discriminate against them, or going all the way to cultural genocide? That's what I see in questions like this.

I imagine if the question were "which race is responsible for more death?" more of us would see this question for what it is.

Ah, you are going a different route than I am.

My apologies for the confusion.

 

[icehorse]

Quint,

My perspective is that the world's religions need some serious reforms. That starts with honest discussion. Reform is not possible until honest assessments can be made and agreed to publicly.

 

[kepha31]

kepha31,

What number do you think is more accurate?

There is no "accurate" number. It would help to know the total population of the affected countries for each given battle, and there weren't 100's of millions in existence in those countries at any one time, so that is why your figure is so unrealistic. Then it helps to know what time frame yo are referring to. There were 3 crusades and all of them were defensive wars. Far more people would have died under Islamic rule had there been no resistance to Islamic aggression.

Whatever the number, what really upsets people is the fact that a Pope can call a crusade in the first place. There is such a thing as The Just War Doctrine, and Jesus was not a hippie flower child from the '60's.

Myth #3
The accepted moral standard in all pre-modern European and Asian civilizations was that a city that resisted capture and was taken by force belonged to the victorious forces. That included not just the buildings and goods, but the people as well. That is why every city or fortress had to weigh carefully whether it could hold out against besiegers. If not, it was wise to negotiate terms of surrender. In the case of Jerusalem, the defenders had resisted right up to the end. They calculated that the formidable walls of the city would keep the Crusaders at bay until a relief force in Egypt could arrive. They were wrong. When the city fell, therefore, it was put to the sack. Many were killed, yet many others were ransomed or allowed to go free. By modern standards this may seem brutal. Yet a medieval knight would point out that many more innocent men, women, and children are killed in modern bombing warfare than could possibly be put to the sword in one or two days. It is worth noting that in those Muslim cities that surrendered to the Crusaders the people were left unmolested, retained their property, and allowed to worship freely. As for those streets of blood, no historian accepts them as anything other than a literary convention. Jerusalem is a big town. The amount of blood necessary to fill the streets to a continuous and running three-inch depth would require many more people than lived in the region, let alone the city.
Crusade Myths​

First thing you will need to do is create a criteria as to how to assign the blame for each death.

For example, Nagasaki and Hiroshima, where the deaths from those two incidents religious or secular?
How do you determine that?

I mean, are they Christian because the USA is a Christian nation?
Are they Christian because it was Christians in the plane the dropped the bombs?
What happens if it comes out that half the crew was Christian and Half was atheist?

Bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima had nothing to do with Christianity by an alleged "Christian" nation. These 2 cities were the only centers of Catholicism in all of Japan. hmm...

 

[McBell]

Bombing Nagasaki and Hiroshima had nothing to do with Christianity by an alleged "Christian" nation. These 2 cities were the only centers of Catholicism in all of Japan. hmm...

Seems you completely missed the point.

 

[Quintessence]

Quint,

My perspective is that the world's religions need some serious reforms. That starts with honest discussion. Reform is not possible until honest assessments can be made and agreed to publicly.

I wouldn't disagree, but I also recognize that agreement with this is projecting cultural norms where they are neither wanted nor belong. It's something to be careful about, especially where the proposed changes are coming from outsiders instead of those who actually practice the traditions.

 

[icehorse]

I wouldn't disagree, but I also recognize that agreement with this is projecting cultural norms where they are neither wanted nor belong. It's something to be careful about, especially where the proposed changes are coming from outsiders instead of those who actually practice the traditions.

Well, as my sig. line suggests, I believe that there are some universal morals and values that *most* cultures share. (There are a few extreme cultures, e.g. the Taliban.) I think it's quite humane (and useful), to keep a public conversation of universal values and morals in the spotlight. I also agree that such conversations would be more useful if they came from within a culture, but barring that, shining light from any source is beneficial.

 

[islamtr]

The Bible and The Tevrat have changed in past by people. Islam's book is original and never change in time and in the future.Islam accept all the prophets as Muslim and Islam.
Hz.Yusuf,Hz.Yahya,Hz.İbrahim,Hz.İlyas,Hz.Musa,Hz.İsa,Hz.İsmail,Hz.İshak,Hz.Salih,Hz.Zülkarneyn,Hz.Harun,Hz.Davud,Hz.Nuh,Hz.Yakup,Hz.Yunus,Hz.Zekeriya,Hz.Eyüp,Hz.Şuayb,Hz.Lut,Hz.Hud,Hz.Adem,Hz.İdris,Hz.Süleyman,Hz.Elyasa,Hz.Zülkifl and the last prophet Hz.Muhammed(S.A.V)

 

[icehorse]

The Bible and The Tevrat have changed in past by people. Islam's book is original and never change in time and in the future.Islam accept all the prophets as Muslim and Islam.
Hz.Yusuf,Hz.Yahya,Hz.İbrahim,Hz.İlyas,Hz.Musa,Hz.İsa,Hz.İsmail,Hz.İshak,Hz.Salih,Hz.Zülkarneyn,Hz.Harun,Hz.Davud,Hz.Nuh,Hz.Yakup,Hz.Yunus,Hz.Zekeriya,Hz.Eyüp,Hz.Şuayb,Hz.Lut,Hz.Hud,Hz.Adem,Hz.İdris,Hz.Süleyman,Hz.Elyasa,Hz.Zülkifl and the last prophet Hz.Muhammed(S.A.V)

Welcome islamtr,

Approximately how many people do you think:

1 - Were murdered in the name of Christianity?
2 - Were murdered in the name of Islam?

 

[psychoslice]

Most deaths are because of belief systems, be it religious or whatever ever, if you got a belief you will try to protect it, this is why I try no to have any beliefs.

 

[Sha'irullah]

There is no such thing as Atheism. You are implying it is a coherent concept and group of people. Atheism is no more real than A-Call of Dutism yet alone A-World of Warcraftism. It is not even conceivable to many people who are atheists themselves and I am one of them.
I don't even care for the Atheist label but by default I am an atheist and above that a naturalist.

 

[idea]

I have not read the entire thread, did everyone come to agreement that atheists have by far (orders of magnitude) killed the most people?

"Religion is the opium of the people...Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism;" - Karl Marx

"A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice" - Vladimir Lenin

Stalin...Mao..

Perhaps a few wiki pages are in order?

Persecution of Christians in the Eastern Bloc - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Religious persecution in Communist Romania - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...

Mass killings under Communist regimes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sha'irullah]

I have not read the entire thread, did everyone come to agreement that atheists have by far (orders of magnitude) killed the most people?

"Religion is the opium of the people...Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism;" - Karl Marx

"A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice" - Vladimir Lenin

Stalin...Mao..

Perhaps a few wiki pages are in order?

Persecution of Christians in the Eastern Bloc - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Religious persecution in Communist Romania - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...

Mass killings under Communist regimes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Communism was what these men killed for. Please tell me the secret Atheist doctrine

 

[idea]

Communism was what these men killed for. Please tell me the secret Atheist doctrine

Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism;" - Karl Marx