Which Religion has Killed the Most...

[InChrist]

Ok, we are not talking about the teachings of Jesus or even the teachings of Marx, even though Marx did call for revolution. We are talking about cultural identities which evolved beyond their origin. For better or worse, this is what they became. The originator failed to explain their ideologies is a way that held in any meaningful way.

I don’t think Jesus or the biblical scriptures necessarily fail to give instructions concerning violence or the proper treatment of others. Jesus was clear about the priority of loving God and loving your neighbor. It’s more like humans often prefer to be self-serving and will use whatever means they can to put themselves first.
Just my thoughts.

 

[InChrist]

Religion?

I would say that for the most part, religion is blasphemous.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

In the last 2000 years.

Not surprisingly, it's Christianity. Way to end up on top for a peaceful religion.
Unfortunately not far behind is Atheism as a Communist ideology.

Imagine how many folks are not alive today because of Christianity and Communism.
Though perhaps we should thank them for limiting the drain on our natural resources.

Last time I checked, teh Soviet Union killed way more people than any religion ever has, including Chrsitianity.

 

[Augustus]

Of course the easiest response to make is that because he is a Muslim he is obviously a liar.

Again, I specifically said I won't factor that in as it is so obviously flawed without that, although a work of Islamic apologetics is not necessarily the most trustworthy.

When such a work uses very strange methods to make a very "convenient" argument, we might start to wonder even more.

I'm more than happy just to focus on the methods used though.

The addressed this in the book along with the methodology they used to deal with this.

It just says "the numbers are inaccurate but we will use them anyway"

How do you think people got casualty numbers in the 3rd C for example? What methodology did they use?

They largely made them up.

Do you, for example, think Darius invaded Greece with 2.5 to 4 million troops as the sources say, or that these numbers were just made up to mean "a very large army" (the real number would likely have been 3-10% or that)

If Army sizes are ludicrously overstated, why should we assume casualty figures which are exponentially harder to estimate were more accurate?

And if numbers may be out by a factor of 10 or more, what value do they have?

Which wasn't done. They only included wars in which there were more than ten thousand caualties.

A somewhat pointless quibble, that avoids the main point. Small wars make no real difference to the number.

The point was that using the idea that any war that happens in a "Christian" part of the world as being is inane.

For example, counting WW1 and 2 as "Christian" Wars is stupid.

Counting cholera and smallpox related deaths in the Americas as "Christian" is stupid. As it comes from the subcontinent, obviously Cholera should be considered a Hindu disease

Not relevant here as the deaths were purposefully isolated to violence causes.

No they weren't. Are you saying Europeans physically killed 16 million Native Americans.

Almost all pre-modern casualty figures are primarily due to disease and famine (yet no one adds Spanish Flu to the WW1 death toll). And when you lump together several decades or even centuries of intermittent conflict into one "event" and count every death in that period as being "violent" you end up with pretty meaningless stats, even if you assume they weren't simply made up (which they mostly were).

We are comparing the causal violent deaths of one cultural identity to another. Nothing more nothing less. Of course it might be more interesting to show the deaths as a percentage of the population of the earth at the time but I haven't come across such a study.

We are comparing apples to oranges, while also including pears as apples and melons as oranges and doing the comparison using only our ears.

We are comparing mostly made up figures, for pretty nonsensical cultural categories, that may or may not be violent deaths and depend significantly on the longevity of cultures, their record keeping, population sizes, technological advancement, geography, resources, climate, epidemiology and many other things and saying these deaths should be attributed to a single cause - religion - and that we can make a meaningful comparison based on this.

People have countless cultural identities.

Mongols conquered Islamic countries then some converted to Islam and continued to be violent and warlike. Instead of looking at Mongol culture, we arbitrarily say the original conquests were "motivated by paganism" and the latter "motivated by Islam"?

Sure there could have come to exist other reasons for causal violence, but that didn't happen. Of course you can throw up counter-factual speculation but all we actually have is what did happen and the numeric consequences.

You threw up a counterfactual by saying "how many more people would be alive?"

The answer is we don't know but there is no reason to assume it would be more.

I don't agree that humans are violent by nature. Humans are motivated to violence by their human leadership instilling some claimed "just" causality in the populace. Humans can live peacefully if their leadership would allow it.

Science and all of human history seem to suggest otherwise.

Seeing violence as a kind of "error" that can be fixed is just magical thinking of the purest kind.

Prone perhaps that humans can be motivated to violence but the motivation has to be there. I don't agree that the majority of human if left alone will resort to violence.

Humans aren't left alone, they form groups, they struggle for status within these groups and these groups come into conflict with each other over resources, access to mates, an easier life, etc.

Like all animals, humans are in competition with humans and other animals.

 

[Augustus]

I am providing a link to the Wikipedia entry on Communism. It is very long, and quite comprehensive. But please, do me a favour, and search that entry for "atheism" or "atheist" to get an idea of how very central to Communism atheism actually was. You will find, I think, that is really is an afterthought in the grand scheme of Communism.

Atheism on its own doesn't make people violent. Neither does generic theism.

Theism can obviously underpin violent ideologies though.

Atheism wasn't an "afterthought" in 20th C Communism but a fundamental principle. Hence the documented history of communist philosophy prior to gaining power, and things like "atheist 5 year plans"and league of militant atheists after gaining power.

Atheism very much underpinned violent Communist ideologies too though. For example an explicit rejection of the sanctity of human life, and the idea that god beliefs had to be eradicated as a form of false consciousness preventing the emergence of a Communist state.

Neither theism or atheism should be considered specifically prone to violence, just that they can be used to underpin violent ideologies in some situations, but some people do want to make a case that theism leads to violence but atheism cannot.

This is not supported by the historical evidence

 

[1213]

Not surprisingly, it's Christianity. Way to end up on top for a peaceful religion.

How can it be, when Jesus says:

but I say to you, Love your enemies; bless those cursing you, do well to those hating you; and pray for those abusing and persecuting you,
Matt. 5:44

If I would call my self an atheist and make atrocities in the name of atheism, would it be fair to accuse atheism for that, when atheism itself doesn't in any way endorse to do so?

I think it is wrong to accuse religions for evil things humans do, unless the religion actually tells that people should do evil things.

 

[Nakosis]

How can it be, when Jesus says:

but I say to you, Love your enemies; bless those cursing you, do well to those hating you; and pray for those abusing and persecuting you,
Matt. 5:44

If I would call my self an atheist and make atrocities in the name of atheism, would it be fair to accuse atheism for that, when atheism itself doesn't in any way endorse to do so?

I think it is wrong to accuse religions for evil things humans do, unless the religion actually tells that people should do evil things.

Have you ever heard of Pope Urban II?
He was the leader of the Christian church who called for the Holy Crusades in 1095.
The leadership of the Christian church didn't end with Jesus. I'm not even sure it began with Jesus once Paul came on the scene.
What Jesus was reported to have said 2000 years ago doesn't seem historically relevant to the leadership/actions of the Christian religion.

 

[metis]

I would say that for the most part, religion is blasphemous.

Like Christianity?

 

[Nakosis]

Again, I specifically said I won't factor that in as it is so obviously flawed without that, although a work of Islamic apologetics is not necessarily the most trustworthy.

When such a work uses very strange methods to make a very "convenient" argument, we might start to wonder even more.

I'm more than happy just to focus on the methods used though.



It just says "the numbers are inaccurate but we will use them anyway"

It say they did their best to collaborate the numbers from several sources. Did you read it?

How do you think people got casualty numbers in the 3rd C for example? What methodology did they use?

They largely made them up.

Do you, for example, think Darius invaded Greece with 2.5 to 4 million troops as the sources say, or that these numbers were just made up to mean "a very large army" (the real number would likely have been 3-10% or that)

3%-10% based on what? Also since the majority of the wars reported were not from the 3rd century this ends up being a red herring.

If Army sizes are ludicrously overstated, why should we assume casualty figures which are exponentially harder to estimate were more accurate?

And if numbers may be out by a factor of 10 or more, what value do they have?

So you are guessing a "factor of 10" or 3% to 10% based on what? A need to support your argument. What are your sources?

A somewhat pointless quibble, that avoids the main point. Small wars make no real difference to the number.

The point was that using the idea that any war that happens in a "Christian" part of the world as being is inane.

For example, counting WW1 and 2 as "Christian" Wars is stupid.

Then you miss the point of the study. The study simply dives the world into religious demographics and and the violence associated to that demographic.

Counting cholera and smallpox related deaths in the Americas as "Christian" is stupid. As it comes from the subcontinent, obviously Cholera should be considered a Hindu disease



No they weren't. Are you saying Europeans physically killed 16 million Native Americans.

Almost all pre-modern casualty figures are primarily due to disease and famine (yet no one adds Spanish Flu to the WW1 death toll). And when you lump together several decades or even centuries of intermittent conflict into one "event" and count every death in that period as being "violent" you end up with pretty meaningless stats, even if you assume they weren't simply made up (which they mostly were).

The numbers I find were 56 million deaths total caused by European settlers, but that includes death by disease.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379118307261#!

Also this number refers to the Americas, South, Central, North and Canada. So about 28% caused by direct physical violence doesn't seem unreasonable. However, if you have more accurate numbers, then by all means.

We are comparing apples to oranges, while also including pears as apples and melons as oranges and doing the comparison using only our ears.

We are comparing mostly made up figures, for pretty nonsensical cultural categories, that may or may not be violent deaths and depend significantly on the longevity of cultures, their record keeping, population sizes, technological advancement, geography, resources, climate, epidemiology and many other things and saying these deaths should be attributed to a single cause - religion - and that we can make a meaningful comparison based on this.

People have countless cultural identities.

Mongols conquered Islamic countries then some converted to Islam and continued to be violent and warlike. Instead of looking at Mongol culture, we arbitrarily say the original conquests were "motivated by paganism" and the latter "motivated by Islam"?

No, that's not what is being done here. You're over thinking this. It is nothing so sinister. It is simply looking at violence attributed to cultural identities. Not religious causality.

You threw up a counterfactual by saying "how many more people would be alive?"

The answer is we don't know but there is no reason to assume it would be more.

People were killed. You want to argue about the numbers fine. Historically, people were killed. That is not counterfactual. People who are dead no longer propagate. Again not counterfactual. I'm not referring to population numbers I'm referring folks killed no longer have offspring.

Science and all of human history seem to suggest otherwise.

Seeing violence as a kind of "error" that can be fixed is just magical thinking of the purest kind.

Science and all of humanity huh? Must be nice to have science and all of humanity backing your argument.
A statement not even worth the electrons used to display it on the screen.

Humans aren't left alone, they form groups, they struggle for status within these groups and these groups come into conflict with each other over resources, access to mates, an easier life, etc.

Like all animals, humans are in competition with humans and other animals.

They are also in cooperation. None of that means violence is a necessary answer.

So you don't seem to understand the point of the study.
You want to argue against a few of the hundreds of reported stats based on your disbelief in them.
I not really seeing a counter argument here. Just a general disagreement with what the study implies.

That's ok. Don't use the study if you have some better sources. Feel free if you want to present them, or not.
Just throwing up garbage is not that interesting.

 

[Nakosis]

Last time I checked, teh Soviet Union killed way more people than any religion ever has, including Chrsitianity.

Ok, if you have a reference for those numbers, it would be appreciated.
It's the only one I found so far that tries to correlate this numbers.
You disagree with the numbers, fine with me but based on what would be useful.

 

[Nakosis]

I don’t think Jesus or the biblical scriptures necessarily fail to give instructions concerning violence or the proper treatment of others. Jesus was clear about the priority of loving God and loving your neighbor. It’s more like humans often prefer to be self-serving and will use whatever means they can to put themselves first.
Just my thoughts.

Jesus should have thought of that, imo.

Certainly an all-knowing God should known the nature of his creation and accounted for that is all I'm saying.

 

[Nakosis]

I think its a pretty safe claim that humans existed before religions but who knows.
I mean fish have schools lol

I find the safe assumptions that most people make are generally also the most risky.
Just not sure how much such assumptions actually add to a discussion.
Especially since this is regarding the time period of the year 1CE to 2000CE.

 

[Augustus]

It say they did their best to collaborate the numbers from several sources. Did you read it?

Yes. The more I read the worse it got.

Aggregating made up numbers doesn’t make them any more reliable.

Also it seems to consistently have missed out “Islamic” wars or massively lowered numbers of Islamic casualties.

It has the Arab slavery trade as killing 1 and a bit million when most estimates put it ten times that.

I’d say it is one of the worst articles I’ve ever read, and should be considered rank apologetics.

3%-10% based on what? Also since the majority of the wars reported were not from the 3rd century this ends up being a red herring.

Based on what we know is logistically possible.

Replace 3rd c with any pre modern time and you get the same.

So you are guessing a "factor of 10" or 3% to 10% based on what? A need to support your argument. What are your sources?

We can roughly work out what is logistically feasible as we have been fighting wars since (accurate) records began.

An army of 3 million would require such a ridiculous amount of food and such a ridiculous supply chain that it obviously couldn’t be an accurate number.

Napoleon couldn’t even support 15% of that in Russia with vastly superior logistics.

Why would you trust such obviously fantastical numbers?

The numbers I find were 56 million deaths total caused by European settlers, but that includes death by disease.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379118307261#!

Also this number refers to the Americas, South, Central, North and Canada. So about 28% caused by direct physical violence doesn't seem unreasonable. However, if you have more accurate numbers, then by all means.

That says 56 million died by 1600.

How many Europeans were even in the Americas then?

50,000?

So to reach 28% each European, including women and children, personally killed over 300 Native Americans?

How plausible do you find that?

So you are looking at almost all deaths being caused by disease or violence between Natuve Americans.

Obviously this balance will change over time, but you will never get close to your number.

Then you miss the point of the study. The study simply dives the world into religious demographics and and the violence associated to that demographic.

The point of the “study” is Islamic apologists.

I’m surprised an atheist would not immediately see that and be more sceptical of the data.

No, that's not what is being done here. You're over thinking this. It is nothing so sinister. It is simply looking at violence attributed to cultural identities. Not religious causality.

I think you are being very naive.

People were killed. You want to argue about the numbers fine. Historically, people were killed. That is not counterfactual. People who are dead no longer propagate. Again not counterfactual. I'm not referring to population numbers I'm referring folks killed no longer have offspring.

The expectation is many people will die violently in any enduring society.

Asking how many more people would be alive if society X didn’t exist necessitates a counter factual.

Science and all of humanity huh? Must be nice to have science and all of humanity backing your argument.
A statement not even worth the electrons used to display it on the screen.

The science of evolution and all of human history certainly support that.

Feel free to explain why they support your claim that it is only bad apples that make us violent.

They are also in cooperation. None of that means violence is a necessary answer.

So you don't seem to understand the point of the study.
You want to argue against a few of the hundreds of reported stats based on your disbelief in them.
I not really seeing a counter argument here. Just a general disagreement with what the study implies.

That's ok. Don't use the study if you have some better sources. Feel free if you want to present them, or not.
Just throwing up garbage is not that interesting.

Unless it wasn’t clear, most of the number are made up.

Comparing made up numbers is vapid and there is no solution by being “careful”. The numbers are still made up.

There are no accurate numbers, we just know the numbers that di exist are massively overstated, inconsistent between cultures, and meaningless for a comparison between cultures over thousands of years.

You didn’t even realise most of these deaths are disease and famine, try explaining the methodology for calculating these figures in pre modern wars and why you trust it.

We simply don’t know enough to make any meaningful comparisons over 2000 years.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Ok, if you have a reference for those numbers, it would be appreciated.
It's the only one I found so far that tries to correlate this numbers.
You disagree with the numbers, fine with me but based on what would be useful.

Stalin alone deliberately killed about six million people. Excess mortality in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin - Wikipedia.

The Spanish Inquisition killed between 3-5000. Spanish Inquisition - Wikipedia.

Six million... 3000....

 

[InChrist]

Jesus should have thought of that, imo.

Certainly an all-knowing God should known the nature of his creation and accounted for that is all I'm saying.

I’m pretty sure an all-knowing God is aware of human nature and has taken it into account. That’s why there’s so much focus on the “sinful nature” , the need for a Savior, repentance, forgiveness, transformation, etc. in the biblical scriptures anyway. I think freedom is of upmost importance to God. Humans must have the opportunity to freely choose, so life in this fallen world bears the results of good or bad choices.

 

[InChrist]

Like Christianity?

It can be used and abused in a blasphemous way.

 

[metis]

It can be used and abused in a blasphemous way.

We finally agree on something.

 

[paarsurrey]

Unless you're saying that you are overcompensating for this in your posts here, I fail to see the relevance.

I will say, however, that perpetually slamming theism does nothing to help improve atheist likability.


And again, I never indicated that this was my position here. I was merely reminding @paarsurrey that atheism isn't a religion. My position on this topic was made abundantly clear in post #4 of this thread.

" atheism isn't a religion "

Its adherents are shy to admit it, but isn't lately it "looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it definitely is a duck." , please, right??!

Regards

 

[SalixIncendium]

" atheism isn't a religion "

Its adherents are shy to admit it, but isn't lately it "looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it definitely is a duck." , please, right??!

Regards

Atheists aren't ducks, either.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

" atheism isn't a religion "

Its adherents are shy to admit it, but isn't lately it "looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it definitely is a duck." , please, right??!

Regards

Which is why atheism is NOT a religion. It has no deities, no prayers, no sacred books, no rituals... It doesn't walk like a duck at all.