Are theists more violent than atheists?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The most often cited factors in the development of violent behaviors are the following (no particular order) according to criminal statistics and studies:

Being a man;
Being between 14 and 28;
history of child abuse or neglect;
exposure to lead or mold in the breathing air;
social isolation;
scoring high on the social dominance scale of personnality;
certain mental illnesses like psychosis;
lack of employment;
history of substance abuse;
contact with violent political ideologies (jihadist, neo-nazi, etc)

I probably forgot a few ones, but I'm pretty damn sure that religion isn't there unless it's a very weird cult or some bad mix of religion and violent political ideoloy. Criminality in humans seems to be a strange mix of economical problem and healthcare problem.

I thank you for that. The point I was hoping to make, which you have very nicely demonstrated, is that it is an individual issue, and not something that we can attribute to one (non-aligned) group or other.

(By non-aligned, of course, I mean that if joined a violent gang, you'll be violent because of your affiliation. A black person or white person, a Christian, Muslim, Jew or Atheist, gay or straight, tall or short, is not necessarily violent or non-violent by virtue of their inclusion is any of those groups.)

 

[robocop (actually)]

Or are atheists more violent than theists?

How can we know? Can we know?

What is the evidence one way or another?

I think atheists are more violent than theists.

Look at this:

Marx was Satanic and killed like 100 million people or his philosophy.

Hitler was a fake Christian and killed like 10 million people with severe torture.

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed fewer, but it was the quickest mass-killing ever and many suffered radiation cancer for a long time. It was entirely secular.

So yeah, I think atheists are more violent than theists. The Raelians maybe, maybe not.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I think atheists are more violent than theists.

Look at this:

Marx was Satanic and killed like 100 million people or his philosophy.

Hitler was a fake Christian and killed like 10 million people with severe torture.

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed fewer, but it was the quickest mass-killing ever and many suffered radiation cancer for a long time. It was entirely secular.

So yeah, I think atheists are more violent than theists. The Raelians maybe, maybe not.

Question for you: was it atheism that drove their violence, or some other ideology?

How many violent acts can you find in history that were incited by nothing except for a disbelief in gods?

Just out of curiosity.

 

[SomeRandom]

I think both are equally capable of violence.

I used to think self proclaimed “skeptics” were inherently better at evaluating evidence and dismissing bigotry. Due to my exposure to all the American atheists pointing out the crazy element of fringe religious groups. I was only in high school at that time. A bit younger even. So it heavily shaped my bias.

Well that illusion was absolutely obliterated. Ironically by many of the same skeptics who so encouraged their audience to think critically.

Though I suppose one can make the argument that there is at least one less incentive for atheists to commit violence.

 

[Augustus]

Question for you: was it atheism that drove their violence, or some other ideology?

How many violent acts can you find in history that were incited by nothing except for a disbelief in gods?

The same would be equally true for "theists" though to be fair, and almost everyone else.

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

 

[Dawnofhope]

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

There hasn’t been too much of that where I live in recent times. Can you think of any atheistic ideologies that have contributed to widespread death, torture and suppression of human rights?

 

[Augustus]

If religion can not result in a discernible change in behaviour for the better then what is its value?

It is a fundamental requirement for human cognition (either a religion or a 'religious-type' worldview that is, people my quibble the semantics but they are functionally equivalent).

The value in religion is that if it is not there then you need to create it in some other form and that this is often worse (for example utopian political ideologies).

 

[Dawnofhope]

The most often cited factors in the development of violent behaviors are the following (no particular order) according to criminal statistics and studies:

Being a man;
Being between 14 and 28;
history of child abuse or neglect;
exposure to lead or mold in the breathing air;
social isolation;
scoring high on the social dominance scale of personnality;
certain mental illnesses like psychosis;
lack of employment;
history of substance abuse;
contact with violent political ideologies (jihadist, neo-nazi, etc)

I probably forgot a few ones, but I'm pretty damn sure that religion isn't there unless it's a very weird cult or some bad mix of religion and violent political ideoloy. Criminality in humans seems to be a strange mix of economical problem and healthcare problem.

I agree with that assessment.

 

[JustGeorge]

There hasn’t been too much of that where I live in recent times. Can you think of any atheistic ideologies that have contributed to widespread death, torture and suppression of human rights?

I'm not terribly knowledgeable on the topic, but it seems some totalitarian regimes can be fairly antireligious.

 

[epronovost]

I'm not terribly knowledgeable on the topic, but it seems some totalitarian regimes can be fairly antireligious.

Or deeply religious. Totalitarian regimes are basically regime that seek to control all spheres of society and do not tolerate any form of dissidence. Theocracies are good example of totalitarian regimes that are religious as would absolutist monarchy of divine rights are also good historical example. Only certain brand of communism are totalitarian and anti-religious at the same time and they are pretty much the only completely anti-religious form of totalitarian regimes. Fascist, nazi, franquist and juche regimes are all relatively tolerant of religion as long as it supports the regime and in the case of franquist and other of its type, they even rely on this association to keep themselves in power and increase the influence of the regime to get even into people' personnal lives.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I'm not terribly knowledgeable on the topic, but it seems some totalitarian regimes can be fairly antireligious.

Marxist based communist regimes in Russia and China are good examples.

 

[Dawnofhope]

It is a fundamental requirement for human cognition (either a religion or a 'religious-type' worldview that is, people my quibble the semantics but they are functionally equivalent).

The value in religion is that if it is not there then you need to create it in some other form and that this is often worse (for example utopian political ideologies).

Religion has traditionally meet a fundamental human need throughout history and its not going away anytime soon.

Why Muslims are the world’s fastest-growing religious group

 

[Dawnofhope]

Behaviour which way though? Surely you've met folks who've become worse people by getting religious.That same person who thinks he's become a better person might very well be seen as a jerk by old friends. My acquaintance who allowed his gay son's gay friends to use his house as a safe after school hangout got better by becoming less religious.

It's complicated.

I like complicated and that’s why I asked the question. Religion can clearly have a role in promoting peace or violence. It won’t be hard for either of us to come up with anecdotal examples as you have. There are examples of violent and peaceful communities too. We would be hard pressed to generalise those examples to all theists and atheists. So the best approach IMHO would be avoiding characterisation of atheists or theists as being more violent or peaceful than the other.

 

[Deeje]

But does religion result in peoples becoming more or less evil?

I see all violence as evil.

But what drives the violence is probably more the issue IMO.....both camps are capable of justifying violence when an issue close to their heart is involved or violated. Political or religious issues seem to produce equal fervor when it comes to fighting an opponent who has slighted your most precious principles and ideals (the violence does not have to be physical IMO) so.....science is defended by the atheist, and religion or God by the theist. There are bound to be ruffle feathers if there is strong disagreement.....BUT then there is an issue that crosses both boundaries according to my observation....patriotism. Theists and atheists seem to have equal desire to fight for their country.....it is an expectation that military service is part of a person's duty to their nation to take up arms, and for some it means jail if they refuse. Being a pacifist is still unacceptable and even punishable in some nations, as it was in our nations in earlier times. But in today's world, too many who serve their country in armed conflicts, are so damaged when they return home, that their lives and relationships are ruined. Is the price too high then? Who has the right to ruin someone's life by making them feel like its some sort of sacred duty to go and kill people because of national or political differences?

I see Patriotism and Nationalism both as religious concepts because saluting you nation's flag is considered an act of worship....the flag itself is viewed as a sacred object....and National Anthems are considered 'hymns' ( prayers set to music)....theists and atheists alike will join as one when patriotic issues are involved. Both will then participate equally in violence...but should they?

For Christians the answer is simple.....follow the teachings of Jesus Christ in all things. (not just some things) No politics, ( He said, be "no part of the world") no patriotism, ( "God is not partial"....we are all citizens of planet Earth) no violence ("love your neighbor" and even your "enemies") and put religion and science in their proper place. (If everything is a "creation of God"...there can be no arguments. Science and creation must mesh.)....we find the way to combine them so that one does not contradict the other.

Is this impossible? I don't think so....

 

[Estro Felino]

I think theocracies turn out to be very violent.

 

[epronovost]

For Christians the answer is simple.....follow the teachings of Jesus Christ in all things. (not just some things) No politics, ( He said, be "no part of the world") no patriotism, ( "God is not partial"....we are all citizens of planet Earth) no violence ("love your neighbor" and even your "enemies") and put religion and science in their proper place. (If everything is a "creation of God"...there can be no arguments. Science and creation must mesh.)....we find the way to combine them so that one does not contradict the other.

Is this impossible? I don't think so....

You forgot no property either. You share what you have with fellow Christians are don't take a grain more than you need.

 

[SomeRandom]

You forgot no property either. You share what you have with fellow Christians are don't take a grain more than you need.

I swear Jesus and his disciples have always sounded like a Middle Eastern version of a hippie/communist commune to me.

 

[Deeje]

I think theocracies turn out to be very violent.

That is sadly true....but it only happens when those who lead the theocracy fail to obey their God.

Justification is the catalyst for violence in many instances....for Christians, it is a reason to put Jesus in the closet and allow your patriotic feelings to take over. You then let him out once you have washed the blood from your hands.....trouble is, that blood is on your head.

 

[Deeje]

You forgot no property either. You share what you have with fellow Christians are don't take a grain more than you need.

Christians are to care for one another.....that is how you can tell if they are genuine. Sharing your material things takes a selfless attitude, and today's world is about taking more of everything than you need. Its about being content with what you have, but the world is not a place that allows contentment....that comes with the latest gadget or car or whatever....we are constantly bombarded by the commercial world to gain more.....and more.

We have been propagandized to believe that "things" make you happy.....if you're not happy, then it means that you haven't got enough "things"......but its a lie. "The best things in life are not THINGS".

I am pleased that my brotherhood places a high priority on encouraging us to help one another. We take care of our own....and if every denomination did that, especially when these churches are among the wealthiest organizations on earth, we should see no homeless people, or those who cannot afford medical treatment, or beggars in the street.

What do you think is the reason why the churches fail so badly to help their own? I have some opinions on that...what are yours?

 

[epronovost]

I swear Jesus and his disciples have always sounded like a Middle Eastern version of a hippie/communist commune to me.

Nah, they were not big fan of "free love" and "sex and rock'n roll". If you want to see the ideal of Christianity, I'd look to monks and nuns who have made vows of poverty, contemplation and charity and take them very seriously.