Is it true that atheism has killed more people then organized religion?...

[everythingafter]

A lot of Christians say that atheism, particularly Stalinism, has killed more people then religious conflicts. I wouldn't yet say that I am a full-fledged atheist, but is this true? PLEASE note that this question is not meant to offend anyone on these forums; I'm just looking for the truth on this issue.

Well God himself seems to make a great case against himself. The diligent person behind the Dwindling in Disbelief blog puts the number at some 2.5 million that God killed outright without any number-fudging. But this isn't all. According to the blog writer:

Note that this number is a gross underestimate of the total number. It doesn't include, in many cases, women and children, and it completely leaves out some of God's more impressive kills. (Like the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the firstborn Egyptian children, etc.)

So what happens if you use estimates when the Bible provides only numbers for adult male victims or no numbers at all?

Here's my estimate: 25 million

And here is a complete list. The winner? God. Hitler and the Crusade fighters would be impressed.

[lrh9]

High scores are cool.

[The Omnissiunt One]

Undoubtedly, with many wars, it's more complex than a simple matter of religions clashing. That said, I've studied the crusades, and it seems that religion was an overwhelming reason for most of the crusaders to go, even if some of the leaders had political motivations (and even they had some religious motivation too). Religion has often been a factor in war, if not the only one.

Basically, religion has been used to send the mindless herdes to a grisly death for centuries in the name of a non-existent being. What a waste.

[Captain Scarlet]

I don't believe many people have actually died in the name of atheism or even theism. The actions of people who are so inclined, are driven by their own lust for power and need to dominate populations. I don't believe atheism has been used as an excuse to perpetrate such acts, particular theistic beliefs have. You cannot blame theism however for those co-opting it for their own ends. I think the mindless point scoring on both sides over this issue is utterly pointless, as it says nothing for truth value of either position.

What it does do is demonstrate that god (if he exists) is yet again silent on the mis-use of power, having had things to say about it in the bronze age, and even commanding it himself. Strange; unless he was an invention by bronze age goat herders wanting to justify their own genocide to grab land, and he never really existed.

[Edwardo Piet]

Many atheists have killed people. Just as many theists have killed people.

But atheism itself has not killed anyone. There are no atheists who have killed people due to their atheism.

[Existentialist]

... atheism itself has not killed anyone. There are no atheists who have killed people due to their atheism.

These are two separate and mutually exclusive statements. I'll take them separately. "Atheism has not killed anyone" - this is only true because only people can kill (ie murder) anyone. Ideas don't kill people. Therefore, theism has never killed, nor can atheism. Next, "There are no atheists who have killed people due to their atheism" - people who kill ostensibly for religious reasons do so because their political or ideological position has led to them feeling that their victim is so bad or so evil that they deserve to die. I can't think of any religion that ever taught people to kill just because the religion said so. Usually it requires an interim step to determine that the person being killed is deserving of death. The thing is, the atheists are vulnerable to the same thought process, aren't they? ("Islam is evil - muslims deserve to die"). So in my view, religious believers don't kill people because of their religion. Atheists don't kill people because of their atheism. But religion and atheism can both contribute to a thought process that leads to a killing. In the case of atheists, this is less likely to be very well documented, hence the lack of evidence, and as soon as they become a killer their motives are more likely to be attributed to something else like racism or a psychotic episode. However there are a huge an increasing number of attacks on muslims due to their religion, and some members of the EDL have declared themselves to be atheists. Personally I think the conditions are in place for a killing by an atheist, attributed to their atheism, to take place, it's only a matter of time, and actually I'd be surprised if it hasn't happened already. Of course, when it does happen, the responsibility for it falls entirely on the killer. For anyone to blame their religion or their atheism is lame, so your statement will hold true, just as it holds true for religious believers: the killer is the killer, not the religion, not the atheism, so it is a bit of a meaningless statement that doesn't prove anything.

[chatpilot]

Existentialist wrote: 'I can't think of any religion that ever taught people to kill just because the religion said so.

I disagree slightly with this statement, although the crusades were generally a bid for power and the propagation of their religious beliefs the church did promise those that participated redemption for their sins as a reward for killing all infidels, namely the Muslims and in some cases even some of the Jewish settlements were attacked. Religion was used as a catalyst to violence. For example during the first crusade Pope Urban the 2nd said these words:" Christians, hasten to help your brothers in the East, for they are being attacked. Arm for the rescue of Jerusalem under your captain Christ. Wear his cross as your badge. If you are killed your sins will be pardoned."

Religion has been used effectively throughout history as a means to an ends and has made what would probably have been decent people into murdering animals who believed that their faith justified their cruelty.

[Existentialist]

Re: the Crusades - I give little or no credibility to any pre-20th Century social or political history, I tend to think that within two to three generations we lose all the constructs to interpret past human behaviour accurately, we can only suppose things - and even then, only subject to the acceptance that our suppositions are entirely based on 20th/21st century constructs. Essentially, every generation must invent itself, and nothing of any use can be communicated to us from past generations whom we haven't met. I do suppose, however, that humans would have started killing animals before religion was invented and said it was alright. Most religious culinary edicts are based on what is healthiest for their population in time and place, probably based on trial and error, as the first people who ate pork in hot climates would have discovered to their cost.

[Minimalist]

The report of Fulcher of Chartres concerning Pope Urban's launching of the Crusades.


http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-5vers.html

Then the pope said that in another part of the world Christianity was suffering from a state of affairs that was worse than the one just mentioned. He continued:

"Although, O sons of God, you have promised more firmly than ever to keep the peace among yourselves and to preserve the rights of the church, there remains still an important work for you to do. Freshly quickened by the divine correction, you must apply the strength of your righteousness to another matter which concerns you as well as God. For your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.

"All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested. O what a disgrace if such a despised and base race, which worships demons, should conquer a people which has the faith of omnipotent God and is made glorious with the name of Christ! With what reproaches will the Lord overwhelm us if you do not aid those who, with us, profess the Christian religion! Let those who have been accustomed unjustly to wage private warfare against the faithful now go against the infidels and end with victory this war which should have been begun long ago. Let those who for a long time, have been robbers, now become knights. Let those who have been fighting against their brothers and relatives now fight in a proper way against the barbarians. Let those who have been serving as mercenaries for small pay now obtain the eternal reward. Let those who have been wearing themselves out in both body and soul now work for a double honor. Behold! on this side will be the sorrowful and poor, on that, the rich; on this side, the enemies of the Lord, on that, his friends. Let those who go not put off the journey, but rent their lands and collect money for their expenses; and as soon as winter is over and spring comes, let hem eagerly set out on the way with God as their guide."

Sounds like a pile of religious horseshit to me.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Re: the Crusades - I give little or no credibility to any pre-20th Century social or political history, I tend to think that within two to three generations we lose all the constructs to interpret past human behaviour accurately, we can only suppose things

I think that's an excellent point,and one which which many contemporary historians would agree. I think you're probably right. The 'what' of things may become clearer with new evidence. Eg that the Jewish slavery in Egypt and the exodus simply did not happen and that the David kings are myth.However 'why' just becomes more elusive..

Most competent historians avoid making dogmatic claims, even about evidence. Historians and anthropologists make educated speculations about meaning,but less about motive.

The discipline we call history did not even begin until Edward Gibbon,in the C18th. Even his towering work, 'Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire' is full of assumptions and moral judgments based on his times and personal prejudices.

Of course I think we can always assume the basic human motivation of self interest,but the nuances are difficult,at any time. We can never know even individual motivation with accuracy.We're always forced to rely on our interpretation of behavior,and always make implicit assumptions.