Are theists more violent than atheists?

[Suave]

Or are atheists more violent than theists?

How can we know? Can we know?

What is the evidence one way or another?

The gods followed by theists might be more violent than the absence of gods followed by atheists, thereby making theists more likely to be violent than atheists.

 

[Deeje]

Historically, Christian thought has taken a number of approaches to war.

Christianity and violence - Wikipedia

I guess it depends on the “history” you are consulting.

“Christendom’s” approach to war is not the same as that which was promoted by Christ and his apostles.
e.g.....Jesus pronounced “happy” (or blessed) those who were were peaceable (or literally “peacemakers”) A peacemaker is not just a “peacekeeper” because a Christian was not to take up arms against anyone.

2 Corinthians 10:3-6...
“3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare according to what we are in the flesh. 4 For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. 5 For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are bringing every thought into captivity to make it obedient to the Christ;”

Romans 12:17-21...
“17 Return evil for evil to no one. Take into consideration what is fine from the viewpoint of all men. 18 If possible, as far as it depends on you, be peaceable with all men. 19 Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but yield place to the wrath; for it is written: “‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay,’ says Jehovah.” 20 But “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by doing this you will heap fiery coals on his head.” 21 Do not let yourself be conquered by the evil, but keep conquering the evil with the good.”

Jesus said....”You heard that it was said: ‘You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 However, I say to you: Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may prove yourselves sons of your Father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise on both the wicked and the good and makes it rain on both the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Matthew 4:43-45)

Can you see a single point in those verses where a Christian is ever given permission to shed blood?

We all know Christianity isn't a passivist religion and nor should we expect it to be. Imaging if the USA had not responded to the Pearl Harbor attack from the Japanese or the British had not resisted Nazi Germany.

If one is relying on God and his word, then history is already cast. Imaging that God was not in control and seeing a necessity to take matters into their own hands is why Israel got themselves into trouble, causing God to withdraw from them because of their lack of faith.
How can a worshipper of the true God ever imagine that he is not in control of what is going on here? What he allows is what he allows. He gives us no permission to interfere.

The world alienated from God will do what it wants....but only with his permission, and only so far as it serves his purpose. Misunderstanding the reasons why God has done what he has in the past, leads to confusion and disobedience. Understanding what God did back then will help us discern what he will do in the future. (All recorded for us in scripture) God has to allow mankind to take themselves to the brink of extinction before they get the message that mismanagement in self-governance, their hostile attitudes towards their fellow man (especially when demonstrated along racial or religious lines) and even detrimental decisions in their personal lives, is all part of the greatest object lesson that we will ever be given.

We will all be caught in the act of being ourselves, determining our own future by how we live this life. That is how I understand the state of the world down through history. All recorded for posterity and as precedents set for all time to come. God’s Kingdom will “come” as Jesus said it must.....ready or not. (Daniel 2:44)

The prerogative towards passivism is present in some groups including a minority of Christian sects.

It is simply a matter of obeying the one we claim to serve....not finding excuses to ignore him.

There is no doubt war results in unimaginable harm and all efforts towards peaceful resolution need to be made but sometimes war is necessary and the God of the Christian Bible has commanded it if some of the OT stories are anything to go by.

Using OT accounts of war is pointless. We are not under the old law covenant, nor are we contained in a God-given land, whose borders need to be defended. The only wars fought in OT times were to demonstrate the superiority of the God of Israel over the false gods of the nations who sought to take Israel’s territory.

The Diaspora meant that the Jews were no longer contained in one place but were dispersed into other lands. When Jesus walked the earth, there was no land that belonged to Israel and they had no military force. They had been gobbled up by the Roman Empire and were under their laws. This is in keeping with Daniel’s prophesy concerning the march of world powers. Jesus never once involved himself in politics or encouraged his disciples to fight for the freedom of his people. He said that “the appointed times of the nations” had to run their course. There were more world rulers to come, leading to our own time.

The Jews had no authority to execute anyone so they needed the help of the Roman government to have Jesus executed, despite the fact that Pilate found him innocent of any capital offence.

Nationalism certainly has contributed to the expansionist behaviours of some notable countries during the twentieth century and beyond. I don't see a problem with having pride in one's country but that can certainly become excessive and harmful. I quite like the NZ national anthem!

Having a love of one’s homeland is natural, but nationalism and its conjoined twin (patriotism) can lead people to sacrifice their Christianity for their nationality. A Christian has no “nationality” (Acts 10:34-35) because we see ourselves as citizens of God’s kingdom, never being placed in a situation where we would kill our own brethren over divisive political, racial or religious issues.

If a national anthem is a hymn, (a prayer set to music) then it has religious connotations like saluting a flag.....like it or not, it involves worship. We will not compromise our worship by participating in those things. We want to remain neutral, like Jesus taught us to be.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Beware being able to stand on the shoulders of giants and not being able to see further than them because one is too in awe of/attached to the past.

We can stand on the shoulders of primitive Christian and other philosophers and motivated by a well developed sense of empathy and compassion see further than them - to the point of genuinely compassionate treatment of the homosexual for example, or promoting the authentic equality of women at every level - if we want to, or we can rest on our laurels and pretend that it is not possible to progress beyond the past.

The choice is ours to make.

I'm in a good space at the moment with my idiosyncratic and offbeat view of the world. Having grown up with Protestant Christianity and briefly becoming a born again Christian in my early 20s, being a Baha'i for the last 30 years has worked for me and feels much more positive than where I've come from. I've seen a number of Baha'is over the years struggle with their faith's view of homosexuality and having an all male governing body. At the level of grassroots community my local assembly and institution of the counsellors as always been well represented by women.

I recently was approached by a senior nurse who I had worked with in psychiatry who wanted me to be her mentor with doing post graduate training in clinical skills. That including sitting in on 50 hours of consultations with me in general practice. She and her female partner with adopted children are well known in the health community. Its well known I'm a Baha'i. We got along fine as I've got along fine with friends and patients who identify as gay over the years. I don't feel the need to judge or criticise gays any more than the most of the other people who I have contact with who have different values and beliefs. Homosexuality is legal here in NZ along with the rights of a homosexual couple to raise children.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I think different religions have different effects.

Your religion may guide you away from striking your children, but I can't count how many times I've heard Christians quote Proverbs 13:24 ("spare the rod, spoil the child").

And at a societal level, there's the issue of power. Secularism is a relatively new - and still somewhat rare - thing. It's fairly common for the dominant religion in a society to exert influence on government; often, this influence gets used to shield people from punishment if they weild violence that's in line with the tenets of the religion, or if the perpetrator is someone with high status in the religion.

... and even when there isn't a formal relationship between church and state, religions exert informal influence just based on their size. Even when a society is nominally secular, a religion that represents the majorith can still use its influence to shield members from consequences for violent acts.

In general, atheists just don't have this sort of political and societal influence. They would be less protected from consequences and punishment if they were to want to commit violence; because of this, atheists are less likely to act on any violent impulses they might have.

In New Zealand it has been illegal to strike a child since 2007.

Many Kiwi parents still consider smacking as acceptable

The law has made a difference but it still doesn't stop many parents using physical discipline regardless.

That proverbs verse is certainly an important biblical justification Christians use to strike their children. My Christian mother frequently used physical punishments. It was one of a number of behaviours I decided I did not want to emulate when I became a parent.

 

[Clara Tea]

Atheists are more violent than theists and theists are more violent than atheists.

I've often said that 50% use statistics correctly, and 75% use statistics incorrectly.

 

[PruePhillip]

Or are atheists more violent than theists?

How can we know? Can we know?

What is the evidence one way or another?

The Roman Catholic Church killed about one million people during the years of the
Inquisition. But this was over a 600 year period. Many people had opportunity to
repent.
Not so with the Communists. About 150 million died under Communism from 1917
through till recent times. There is no moral standard with some secular philosophies,
and no grounds for repentance or forgiveness.

 

[PruePhillip]

Atheists are unlikely to engage in holy wars
kill witches, torture heretics, etc.

Not sure about that. A heretic is a heretic - it's not about religion. There's plenty of
heretics in the eyes of modern Woke People - and maybe one day they will have the
power to kill just like religious people once did.

 

[Audie]

Not sure about that. A heretic is a heretic - it's not about religion. There's plenty of
heretics in the eyes of modern Woke People - and maybe one day they will have the
power to kill just like religious people once did.

Woke does not equal atheist
Hypothetical future based on nothing does not
equal a well known track record of savagery.

"ONCE" did??? You think killing in the name of
religion has stopped?

 

[firedragon]

The gods followed by theists might be more violent than the absence of gods followed by atheists, thereby making theists more likely to be violent than atheists.

Thats just an assumption isn't it?

 

[darkskies]

Or are atheists more violent than theists?

How can we know? Can we know?

What is the evidence one way or another?

I don't think we can know.
Theists certainly do appear (to me) to have more "reason" to engage in violence, but there is no reason to think that the atheists wouldn't have any other sort of motivation.
We are humans after all, and the more diverse the society, the more conflict we have with something or the other.

 

[Audie]

I don't think we can know.
Theists certainly do appear (to me) to have more "reason" to engage in violence, but there is no reason to think that the atheists wouldn't have any other sort of motivation.
We are humans after all, and the more diverse the society, the more conflict we have with something or the other.

Violence in the name of religion has many,
obvious, and powerful incentives.

In the name of atheism is, nothing.
Its like in the name of not caring if the
Bulls or the Cowboys win the game.
Nothing to get excited about.

 

[loverofhumanity]

A religionist who lives his/her religion cannot be violent unless he goes against his own religious laws as religion basically teaches Ahimsa or non violence.

 

[darkskies]

Serious violence is rarely (perhaps never) the consequence of a single belief.

True, but when assessing the cause of violence we still have to broaden the causes beyond single belief.
Since theism is most commonly associated with religion, all of it is examined as a whole because a single belief almost never informs action.

 

[darkskies]

A religionist who lives his/her religion cannot be violent unless he goes against his own religious laws as religion basically teaches Ahimsa or non violence.

Many religious scriptures contradict themselves here. There many are laws for violence as well (sometimes implicit).

 

[Audie]

A religionist who lives his/her religion cannot be violent unless he goes against his own religious laws as religion basically teaches Ahimsa or non violence.

You might want to do a bit of study in
comparatheir religion. Like ones inwhich
violence is integral.


And whether you actually understand better than the tens, hundreds of millions who
have marched to war under the blessing of their religion.

 

[Audie]

It was lack of religion that drove the violence.

100 million due to Marx.
10 million due to Hitler.
250,000 due to secular war policy.

You don't seem to know much about 20th
century history, and nobody knows what this
"Secular war policy" is.

 

[darkskies]

Violence in the name of religion has many,
obvious, and powerful incentives.

In the name of atheism is, nothing.
Its like in the name of not caring if the
Bulls or the Cowboys win the game.
Nothing to get excited about.

I agree. But I think you mean nothing to get excited about in the name of religion/god(s).

Also there is a great lack of statistics on the topic so :')
The religious claim one thing and atheists the opposite.

The point is valid but I still hesitate.

 

[robocop (actually)]

You don't seem to know much about 20th
century history, and nobody knows what this
"Secular war policy" is.

Audie, I have been corrected.

 

[night912]

A religionist who lives his/her religion cannot be violent unless he goes against his own religious laws as religion basically teaches Ahimsa or non violence.

Violence is not based on religious laws. Violence is violence. Violence is action. Even if someone's religion's laws commands them to murder, but that person have never murdered or harmed others, the person is not violent.

 

[Audie]

Violence is not based on religious laws. Violence is violence. Violence is action. Even if someone's religion's laws commands them to murder, but that person have never murdered or harmed others, the person is not violent.

Its kind of weird to claim religions don't
presch, condone and result in violence.

Never mind individuals who are peaceful,
they've no effect on the millions who kill
or get killed.