Theism, Atheism and the body counts

[Tim the Skeptic]

I am constantly reading in posts on this forum that Christianity is responsible for slaughtering millions over the centuries. And I am constantly reading the Christian rebuttal that Communist Atheism slaughtered more. It seems that many believe that the "theism" with the lowest body count is the more ethical belief. I believe this issue has been greatly oversimplified.

Was Hitler a Christian? Is that why he slaughtered "under-humans"? I don't think so. I believe a case could be made that Hitler cynically used Christianity in order to get believers to do his bidding. But there were too many German and Polish Catholics or German and British Prostestants killing each other to believe that WWII was about religion.

I believe European nationalism plays a much bigger role in all the European wars since the Crusades than is recognized in this forum.

As for the slaughters in the atheist Communist states, they seem to me to be more about power than religion. Anything seen as a threat to the status-quo power structure is ruthlessly suppressed. Did Stalin shoot all his army officiers because they believed in God?

The debate topic: Is Faith or non-Faith really responsible for all these slaughters or is there more to it than that?

[juliod]

In other words, disregard the real cause, just go with whatever random reasoning they provide?

Whoever said that? History is, after all, the projection of ideology into the past. They will always identify "causes" that may or may not have been important to the people at the time.

I can't comprehend how anyone can cite religioin as a driving factor in the outbreak of WW2.

It's difficult to see how Hitler could have come to power without pandering to the right-wing anti-semitic aspects of German society. That was his native eloquence. And anti-semitism is inherently religious.

Looking back at history, I conclude that religion is rarely the cause, merely the justification.

Can wars start without a justification? Wars, more than any other social program, require major sacrifice. Religion has been, and still is, the usual support for such sacrifice.

The Crusades were instigated by greed, jealousy, and intolerance... none of which was greatly influenced by religion (considering Christianity openly condemns each of these things).

Oh, come on! The Medieval Catholic Church opposed to greed and intolerance? That's absurd. And the Crusades not a religious enterprise? Doubly absurd. Of course there may have been non-religious motives as well, but the Crusades were organized, supported, and directed by the main religious hiearchy. And since the two sides in the war were determined mainly by religion, it would have been a significantly religious war if it were run by secular means.

I certainly think it would, as a matter of fact. Extremeism is dangerous in all forms.

Let me get this staight. You think that "exuberant atheism" is behind some major mass violence in the world right now? Are there terrorist atheist groups fighting for their supposed "homeland"? Atheist nations or political groups waging war? Is atheism cited by any major political figure in support of a violent cause?

Atheism might be dangerous, at some future date, but right now we are beset by major religious zealot organizations.

Nevermind all the greed and intolerance that lies at the core of ALL wars. Ignore those. All we need to do is abolish religion, and we can all skip merrily off to utopia! Right?

I think religion is a major cause of greed and intolerance. Underestimating the negative aspects of religion seems to be a major contributor to our world and national problems. In the US, how many viscious bigots are not motivated in at least a large part by religion?

But of course, no one notices the benefits religion offers. Those sorts of things never make the 5:00 news.

Oh, come on again? We often see news stories about the "good works" of church groups. Whenever there is a disaster or emergency we always see religious leaders on the news, usually multiple ones.

Religion obviously does some good things, but it is my view that the harm currently outweighs the benefit many times over. You are free to be wrong (oops, I mean disagree).

DanZ

[juliod]

I don't believe the war between China and Japan in WWII was fought over religion.

Ooooo, bad example. Japan was a theocracy, with a real, living god-emporer. Everything they did was a religious act.

DanZ

[juliod]

The Soviet Union definitely discriminated against religions. But it seems uneven. Didn't churches exist throughout the history of the Soviet Union? Wasn't there a continuing Jewish and Muslim population? To prove that atheism is solely responsible for deaths, shouldn't it be the case that belonging to a religion was an immediate death sentence?

It is of interest that Stalin purged the armed forces severly. Given that those people had the actual power to oppose him, he certainly could have wiped out the Russian church if he had chosen to. Churches were only oppressed to the extent that other organizations were, and less then some (i.e. trade unions).

Three additional points about communism and religion. The Chinese Communists have actual official christian churches. I understand that Dubya was recently at one. Secondly, Fidel Castro, the leader of one of the only real communist nations, is a devout Catholic. Finally, North Korea seems to have become a genuine theocracy, worshipping their "Dear Leader" as a god. It seems doubtful to link atheism and communism is any significant way.

DanZ

[The Persnickety Platypus]

It's difficult to see how Hitler could have come to power without pandering to the right-wing anti-semitic aspects of German society. That was his native eloquence. And anti-semitism is inherently religious.

A perfect example of religion as the convulted justification and/or means of attaining.

The Bible I read is certainly not anti-semitic.

Act 10:28
He said to them, "You understand how wrong it is for a Jewish man to associate or visit with anyone of another race. But God has shown me that I should no longer call anyone impure or unclean.

Rom 15:7
Therefore, accept each other in the same way that Christ accepted you. He did this to bring glory to God.

Jam 2:1
My brothers and sisters, practice your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ by not favoring one person over another.

Anti-semitism is unwarranted by Biblical standards. And yet, many German Christians were anti-jewish, as you say. Another example of intolerance overpowering the doctrine.

Oh, come on! The Medieval Catholic Church opposed to greed and intolerance?

The Bible is opposed to greed and intolerance.

The medieval Catholic Church was a hopeless case when it came to accurate Biblical doctrine, of course.

But all the same, a true Christian following true Biblical doctrine cannot justly do the things the Crusaders did. The concept that the Crusades was a religious war is a fallacy in this regard.

And the Crusades not a religious enterprise? Doubly absurd. Of course there may have been non-religious motives as well, but the Crusades were organized, supported, and directed by the main religious hiearchy.

The hiearchy you mention was not very influenced by their respective religion, from what I can see. The possibility of power and land shrowded anything the Bible had to say.

Heeding this, I remain in my assertion that the Crusades were not greatly influenced by religion. You can call my view absurd, given you provide ample reasoning. Show me where I am wrong.

Let me get this staight. You think that "exuberant atheism" is behind some major mass violence in the world right now? Are there terrorist atheist groups fighting for their supposed "homeland"? Atheist nations or political groups waging war? Is atheism cited by any major political figure in support of a violent cause?

Do you not see the belittling Christians face at the hands of athiests every day?

Consider the Zionist murder and oppression of the religious in the 50's. China has recently undertaken a crackdown on unregistered churches, using threats, demolition of property, extortion of "fines," interrogation, detention, and reform-through-education sentences. The examples are endless. Just refer to any basic history book.

No one is denying the evils religion is responsible for. But to deny the atrocites many of your kin take part in is not only a major cop-out, but entirely hypocritical.

I think religion is a major cause of greed and intolerance.

Do you know of any verses that advocate it?

Once again, we are blaming Smith for Communism, so to speak.

Religion obviously does some good things, but it is my view that the harm currently outweighs the benefit many times over.

The only truly accurate illustration I can provide is the effect of religion on my life. Christianity has influenced me to in many aspects, from the smallest things such as abstaining from cheating on tests, to taking part in philanthropy. The way I treat others when under the Bible's influence is noticable. Not major, but noticable.

On the other hand, I can't recall my religion ever inciting hatred or discrimination in my life. As of yet I have not felt any urge to strap a bomb to my chest and run into a forign embassy.

Clearly it all depends on how one uses their faith. If I had suddenly got a lust for power and violence I suppose I could take something like Luke 19:27, purposly mistranslate it, and be off in "the name of God". But then again, my religious inclinations would probably stifle that lust on their own.

You are free to be wrong (oops, I mean disagree).

Glad to see we are all open-minded.

[juliod]

a true Christian following true Biblical doctrine cannot justly do the things the Crusaders did.

And thus the No True Scotsman sticks his head up. I see your point. You want to contrast "religion" from "religion-as-it-should-be". I see that Nazi-christians must not have read the bible at all. I see that the medieval church could not have been further from the original eastern cult.

But it does no good. Religion is what the followers do, not how some later philosopher thinks they should have behaved.

You are free to say that the Crusaders were not followers of your religion, but they were certainly followers of a religion. And a violent, bloody one at that.

I remain in my assertion that the Crusades were not greatly influenced by religion. You can call my view absurd, given you provide ample reasoning. Show me where I am wrong.

You might try reading something like the Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades. They were every bit a religious exercise, and a religious experience for the soldiers who viewed Crusade as a form of service or worship. For one thing, they were fighting for land on which they did not want to live. At all times the main weakness of the crusader kingdoms was a lack of populace. They drove out the "infidels" but few europeans wanted to move in. In essense it was a war for nothing exepct a religious ideal.

It is also instructive to look at the crusades that did not involve the "holy lands". Crusades were launched toward Spain and Germany. These two had a religious purpose, namely the suppression of dissident groups within christendom.

Do you not see the belittling Christians face at the hands of athiests every day?

On these forums, yes. But not in the larger society. I mean, when there is some disaster we never seem prominent atheists on the network news, pointing out that prayer won't stop a hurricane. That would be suicide for a network.

China has recently undertaken a crackdown on unregistered churches, using threats, demolition of property, extortion of "fines," interrogation, detention, and reform-through-education sentences.

Unregistered, mind you. China has official churches, and so counts as a semi-theocracy. I am more concerned about official churches in the US than I am about unofficial churches in China. BTW, didn't Dubya just visit one of these official churches, and therefore legitimize it?

But to deny the atrocites many of your kin take part in is not only a major cop-out, but entirely hypocritical.

I don't deny anything. But atheism should not be stained by things unrelated to atheism. Communist atrocities have nothing to do with atheism. And there are no large atheist movements commited to violence at the current time. We would be unable to count the number of religious groups committed to violence.

Do you know of any verses that advocate it?

I don't, no. But whenever I argue about christian poverty with conservatives they always have a set of verses that settle the issue for them. I dont usually understand their reasoning, but I must defer to them on their own beliefs.

I also note that the worlds religions are the greatest money-collecting organizations ever.

Consider the Knights Templars. Organized to protect the pilgrims on the bandit-crowded road from Jaffa to Jeruselem, they were founded on a principle of complete poverty. Within 20 years they were the richest organization in Europe, and were eventually suppressed because their wealth, power, and influence, began to worry the Papacy. What was used to bring them down? Why, accusations of homosexuality. How things have changed!

There you have a capsule history of religion. Greed, avarice, violence, bigotry.

DanZ

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Religion is what the followers do, not how some later philosopher thinks they should have behaved.

Religion is whatever its particular holy book dictates it as. Anyone teaching differently from the Bible is no longer a Christian.

You are free to say that the Crusaders were not followers of your religion, but they were certainly followers of a religion. And a violent, bloody one at that.

The Crusaders never established themselves as being a seperate religion. Therefore I can only conclude that they submitted to no religion at all. Verbally perhaps, but not in their actions. At the core they bowed to just one God: Power.

You might try reading something like the Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades. They were every bit a religious exercise, and a religious experience for the soldiers who viewed Crusade as a form of service or worship. For one thing, they were fighting for land on which they did not want to live. At all times the main weakness of the crusader kingdoms was a lack of populace. They drove out the "infidels" but few europeans wanted to move in. In essense it was a war for nothing exepct a religious ideal.

That is certainly legit, but I remain unconvinced.

The soldiers may not have wanted the land, but clearly the upper echlon responsible for the outbreak did. At this point in history Muslim numbers were mushrooming (if I am not mistaken), and naturally, European Christians saw this as a threat to their reign.

Most of the Crusaders were completely illiterate. For them, whatever the administration said went. If the Pope says that God instructs us to murder infidels and rape their wives? So be it!

It is easy to see how simple it would be to convince an ignorant common citizen to fight a religious war. As for the few who could read and knew better, God forbid they speak out and hamper the Magistrate's power trip. I am sure many did, and were probably slain.

On these forums, yes. But not in the larger society.

Are you certain we live on the same planet?

No self respecting news network is going to broadcast anything remotely controversial. But just look in the public square, the workplace, internet, even the government. Christians are surrounded with oppression

Communist atrocities have nothing to do with atheism.

If we hold religion to such an irrational standard, certainly we can do the same with atheism?

I don't, no. But whenever I argue about christian poverty with conservatives they always have a set of verses that settle the issue for them. I dont usually understand their reasoning, but I must defer to them on their own beliefs.

The Biblical position on wealth is not a matter of debate as far as I am concerned. The Bible advocates unrestricted philanthropy, and strongly discourages excess wealth.

I won't waste bandwidth by quoting all the verses, but here are a few to demonstrate where I am comming from:

1 John 3:17
Luke 3:11
Matt 6:24
Matt 6:19-21

I also note that the worlds religions are the greatest money-collecting organizations ever.

And account for the vast majority of charity contributions...

[youngborean]

But it does no good. Religion is what the followers do, not how some later philosopher thinks they should have behaved.

If this were true then you have no defense for atheism. Since atheism is a central tenent of Marxism, and millions have died in the name of Marxist revolutions. It is totally unfair to judge a philosophy by those who use it to do evil. You are trying to defend the same accuastions you point toward religion, it doesn't make sense. You are contrasting atheism (a volatile oppresive world-view in practice) to atheism as-it-should-be (a simple belief in no God) .

[ShieldAxe]

But it does no good. Religion is what the followers do, not how some later philosopher thinks they should have behaved.

If this were true then you have no defense for atheism. Since atheism is a central tenent of Marxism, and millions have died in the name of Marxist revolutions. It is totally unfair to judge a philosophy by those who use it to do evil. You are trying to defend the same accuastions you point toward religion, it doesn't make sense. You are contrasting atheism (a volatile oppresive world-view in practice) to atheism as-it-should-be (a simple belief in no God) .

Marxism is a philosophy. Religions are supernatural beliefs. I agree with you that the philosophy itself is not to blame; the supernatural belief coupled with philosophty IS to blame however. Take a rational philosophy and attach it to an irrational supernatural belief you often wind up with perversion of the philosphy and irrational behavior.