Deadliest religion ever?

[Brian37]

No, it applies to any religion. If someone is committing violent acts in the name of a religion, then it would be because of their religious beliefs that motivate them. If you belief in a religion with writings that may imply that violence is immoral, the person may also justify themselves in disagreement that the religion they hold to fully condemns their violence. 

People who have held to that religion killed people because of religious purposes, the religion itself doesn't kill anyone, but what makes something a religion is its followers that contain it and/or writings that propose it. 

So, by "deadliest religion", I mean religion with most violence and deaths in its name. If I practice Christianity and I am spiteful to someone else and decide to kill them in revenge, then no, that is not religious violence. However, if I murder people because they are homosexuals and use the bible and morality of God as the reason I am justified in this, then I am committing religious violence. Now, you try to make a point that someone may go against their religion but try to justify their actions with the religion, however, there are clearly ideological differences among religious people of the same religion concerning their religion, and to say that they are not part of the religion because they disagree with what you think is surely inaccurate to do. Same applies with religiously motivated violence.

Then you are equivocating. You don't really mean what is the most deadly religion, you mean what religion did people correctly or incorrectly conduct violence in the name of. These are not the same question.

I don't like the topic of this thread one bit because it is a distraction that allows humans of all labels to ignore we are not a a separate species. Our behaviors as a species, both compassionate and cruel, good or bad are evolutionary. No one label in our species history has been 100% violence free. Your book is not a scientific explanation of evolutionary biology nor does it explain human psychology/sociology in groups. It, like every other religious writing merely reflects the times of which they were written and the bad guesses humans made as to where they thought morality came from.

I don't buy your "My God/bible is the source of human morality". But I don't buy it when Muslims or Jews or Buddhists or Hindus try to claim a patent on morality either. 

We can see other mammals display acts of compassion and we can see other mammals be very cruel to other species and even within their own groups. Our behaviors are in us, in our genes, not in mythology or superstition or fictional sky wizards. 

Not even in Buddhism or Hinduism. There is no such thing as "Nirvana" or reincarnation. Just like you wont get punished after you die for not following Allah/Jesus/Yahweh, you wont be punished by  becoming a cockroach in your next life as some believe. 

The only thing that can be said about ANY religion is time place and context as to which sect and which geography is causing more problems. But our ability to be violent and cruel is in our species, religion allows humans to compartmentalize that to the point of making excuses to be violently cruel. That is not a patent owned by any one label.

Right now at this point in history, the Middle East is far more theocratic than the west, sure. But once you read world history about all religions, you can find plenty of religiously justified cruelty. There is not one religion with a 100% squeaky clean history. Now if you insist on masturbating over your super hero we can point out past and present events that prove your book is also used as an excuse to be cruel to others.