Atheism has claimed more lives than all religions combined?

I'm sure this was debated here before, but here goes anyway. I recently came across this argument in favor of religion - the claim is that atheism (and atheistic regimes) have killed more people than all religions combined. The person making this claims continued with sweeping generalizations about the propensity of violence and unrest of different religions. I will not mention that here. I am more concerned with this statistic. Common examples of atheists responsible for mass-killings are Hitler Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

First of all, can anyone verify the religious beliefs, or lack thereof, of the people above?

Do you believe there is any truth to this argument?

How can one accurately tally the deaths caused by these two subgroups (deaths "in the name of 'God'" and deaths by "atheists?"

Are we justified in pinning the blame of the killings solely on the religious proclivity of an individual?

Pretty sure Hitler had a religion, either he was a Jew (Teh irony) or Catholic I can't remember.

Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were atheists. Hitler definitely wasn't.

IMO, religious belief or no belief has nothing to do with mass murder or waging wars.

There's no justification in killing for a belief or non-belief, just that the person who took lives under that is insane and a coward. People bring that up to make an irrelevant point. =\

Well, it is true that communism as envisioned by Karl Marx is necessarily atheist. Marx referred to religion as the opiate of the masses.

Claiming that this means that all acts of communists are done in the name of atheism, however, is absurd. The Soviet Union was not known as the Unholy Atheist Empire.

(Also, Hitler was not a communist.)

Pretty sure Hitler had a religion, either he was a Jew (Teh irony) or Catholic I can't remember.CJL13

Pretty sure Hitler had a religion, either he was a Jew (Teh irony) or Catholic I can't remember.

CJL13

Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were atheists. Hitler definitely wasn't.

Oleg_Huzwog

Pretty sure Hitler had a religion, either he was a Jew (Teh irony) or Catholic I can't remember.

CJL13

My teacher said he was 1/25th Jewish so I wouldn't really consider him a jew.

Anyway, religion doesn't cause wars, people cause wars. Didn't you see that South Park? United Atheist League vs Allied Atheist Alliance :lol:. The point I'm trying to make is that people will always find something to fight about.

Atheism has claimed more lives, because there are a lot more people to kill in modern times. In Biblical times and the Crusades, way too many people were killed in the name of religion, but there were fewer people back then. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot were all atheists, but Hitler was either some denomination of Christianity or he was secretly Jewish (that's almost funny. Almost). It's probably pretty close if you're talking about number of deaths, but atheism has "killed" more people than all religions.

Hilter had a religion... But does it really matter? You shouldn't be killing people, without a god, or in the name of God, period.JustPlainLucas

My teacher said he was 1/25th Jewish so I wouldn't really consider him a jew.hedden93

Atheism has claimed more lives, because there are a lot more people to kill in modern times. In Biblical times and the Crusades, way too many people were killed in the name of religion, but there were fewer people back then.

cowplayinghalo

To be honest, what struck me most about this claim is the sheer confidence with which it was stated. What and where are the numbers?

Pretty sure Hitler had a religion, either he was a Jew (Teh irony) or Catholic I can't remember.

CJL13

Hitler was an Arian, which was a pagan religion with vague roots in Hinduism (though Hitler changed it and combined it with elements from Buddhism and Christianity to make one super-****ed religion).

Mao, Pot, and Stalin were atheists. The eradication of religion and its dividing attributes was high on the agenda for all three in their plans for utopia, and all three targeted religious centers and people. Some of the most beautiful and ancient religious relics in the world were destroyed to make room for government centers.

Property's killed more than atheism and religion combined. So has communism.

Death is the result of idiocy not belief.

[QUOTE="cowplayinghalo"]

Atheism has claimed more lives, because there are a lot more people to kill in modern times. In Biblical times and the Crusades, way too many people were killed in the name of religion, but there were fewer people back then.

entropyecho

That was my point exactly. The percentages are probably higher for religious killings, but the numbers are much higher for atheists because most atheist regimes have committed genocide in recent times. More people in world = more people dying, but the percentage is much lower. And I said later in my post that I was pretty sure, not 100%. Either way, like JustPlainLucas said, nobody should be killing others in the name of some cause they think is just.

tl;dr: I'm an atheist myself.

IMO, religious belief or no belief has nothing to do with mass murder or waging wars.

There's no justification in killing for a belief or non-belief, just that the person who took lives under that is insane and a coward. People bring that up to make an irrelevant point. =\

supa_badman

Does anyone have any evidence, or numbers to back any of this up? Also proof that those killed were done because of atheism/religion and not just by someone who was either an atheist or religious? Just because someone who was an atheist/religious kills someone does it mean they did it because they were one.SaintLeonidas

I'm sure this was debated here before, but here goes anyway. I recently came across this argument in favor of religion - the claim is that atheism (and atheistic regimes) have killed more people than all religions combined. The person making this claims continued with sweeping generalizations about the propensity of violence and unrest of different religions. I will not mention that here. I am more concerned with this statistic. Common examples of atheists responsible for mass-killings are Hitler Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

First of all, can anyone verify the religious beliefs, or lack thereof, of the people above?

Do you believe there is any truth to this argument?

How can one accurately tally the deaths caused by these two subgroups (deaths "in the name of 'God'" and deaths by "atheists?"

Are we justified in pinning the blame of the killings solely on the religious proclivity of an individual?

entropyecho

People say religion is the cause of war. Quite frankly, it's much larger than that. It's all about ideology and the will to commit to such an ideology in which the Communists did before. Such examples also include the American revolutionaries who committed to the principles of liberty and the Islamic Jihadists who commit to the ideology of Islam and Sharia. That or because of land and/or resources but they tend to hide behind ideology.

As for Hitler I'm not sure. I use to believe he was religious but I would have to read Mein Kempf as well as personal biographies on him instead of reading what he spoke. He used religion as a justification but the same argument could apply to our founding fathers who spoke of religion in a positive light in public but criticized it in private.

As for this atheist vs religious violence, you're going to have extremists and even if a person is an atheist, there will always be a cult of personality. I believe that people, not matter what they are, tend to find a leader who is willing to tell them what to do, real or imaginary.

No religion is responsible for claiming lives. The stupidity of those killing others for their religious beliefs is what should be held accountable.

I'm sure this was debated here before, but here goes anyway. I recently came across this argument in favor of religion - the claim is that atheism (and atheistic regimes) have killed more people than all religions combined. The person making this claims continued with sweeping generalizations about the propensity of violence and unrest of different religions. I will not mention that here. I am more concerned with this statistic. Common examples of atheists responsible for mass-killings are Hitler Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

First of all, can anyone verify the religious beliefs, or lack thereof, of the people above?

Do you believe there is any truth to this argument?

How can one accurately tally the deaths caused by these two subgroups (deaths "in the name of 'God'" and deaths by "atheists?"

Are we justified in pinning the blame of the killings solely on the religious proclivity of an individual?

entropyecho

No, we're not. When atheists say that religion has claimed lives, we're talking about the fact that people actually go to war over religion. It's not Christians killing people we're talking about but rather Christians killing people because they think God wants them to (and the same goes for any other religion that has a history of violence, which most do).

Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin may have been atheists, but none of their mass killings were conducted in the name of atheism. Rather all those purges and executions were done in the name of their government. As for Hitler he was a Christian and the Nazis routinely appealed to Christian beliefs to gather support for the holocaust ("They killed Jesus!").

Even if they all were Atheist did they kill people FOR Atheism? If not then how can we say it claimed more lives?

Even if they all were Atheist did they kill people FOR Atheism? If not then how can we say it claimed more lives?

Yandere

Pol Pot certainly did.

[QUOTE="entropyecho"]

I'm sure this was debated here before, but here goes anyway. I recently came across this argument in favor of religion - the claim is that atheism (and atheistic regimes) have killed more people than all religions combined. The person making this claims continued with sweeping generalizations about the propensity of violence and unrest of different religions. I will not mention that here. I am more concerned with this statistic. Common examples of atheists responsible for mass-killings are Hitler Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

First of all, can anyone verify the religious beliefs, or lack thereof, of the people above?

Do you believe there is any truth to this argument?

How can one accurately tally the deaths caused by these two subgroups (deaths "in the name of 'God'" and deaths by "atheists?"

Are we justified in pinning the blame of the killings solely on the religious proclivity of an individual?

gameguy6700

No, we're not. When atheists say that religion has claimed lives, we're talking about the fact that people actually go to war over religion. It's not Christians killing people we're talking about but rather Christians killing people because they think God wants them to (and the same goes for any other religion that has a history of violence, which most do).

Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin may have been atheists, but none of their mass killings were conducted in the name of atheism. Rather all those purges and executions were done in the name of their government. As for Hitler he was a Christian and the Nazis routinely appealed to Christian beliefs to gather support for the holocaust ("They killed Jesus!").

I'm sure this was debated here before, but here goes anyway. I recently came across this argument in favor of religion - the claim is that atheism (and atheistic regimes) have killed more people than all religionscombined. The person making this claims continued with sweeping generalizations about the propensity of violence and unrest of different religions. I will not mention that here. I am more concerned with this statistic. Common examples of atheists responsible for mass-killings are Hitler Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

First of all, can anyone verify the religious beliefs, or lack thereof, of the people above?

Do you believe there is any truth to this argument?

How can one accurately tally the deaths caused by these two subgroups (deaths "in the name of 'God'" and deaths by "atheists?"

Are we justified in pinning the blame of the killings solely on the religious proclivity of an individual?

entropyecho

Haha, Hitler was not an atheist. He was atheist...

Joseph Stalin was anatheist.

Mao was raised in a Buddhist family... Not sure if he's an atheist... Read a few different sources and nothing was really clear about it.

Here's a blog that you cancheck out.It just states that both Stalin and Mao weren't atheists but... It's debatable.

Genocides of the 20th Century: Death Toll

Anyway, have atheists committed more genocides than the religious? No. Many historians argue that many wars are fought in the name of God.

Killing in The Name Of God(Osama Bin Laden)

Crusades and Religious Terrorism(Check the bottom to see if the sources are accurate...)

Criminals And Religion

Well, I was going to look for some academic journals and etc. but, obviously, you have to pay to view the full context. As a student, I am entitled to view them free of charge but it's, sadly, not applicable to all places. :(

I tried Google. Yes, too many words and now my head hurts.

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were atheists. Hitler definitely wasn't.

CRS98

He was very deeply rooted in the occault, however all German soldier battle gear buckles had "Gott Mit Uns" (god is with us) stamped onto them

A crime in the name of a religion (or lack thereof) and a crime carried out by a religious person is not the same.

Religion doesn't kill people guns do.

Religion doesn't kill people guns do.

Grandotaku

[QUOTE="Grandotaku"]

Religion doesn't kill people guns do.

thriteenthmonke

Well technically speaking it's the blood loss that creates an unsustainable deficit in one's body that leads to the shutting down of all bodily functions that kills people. :P

These deaths are on the names of psychotic idiots; it is not atheism that has claimed these lives. Atheism is a description of a belief, not a set of beliefs that says you should go kill opponents of atheism.

Turds who think they're better than other human have claimed more lives than anyone else.

I don't think you could call Hitler a Catholic...he shipped most of the German priests to concentration camps.

He made up his own religion with himself at the top.

There is no proof he had any Jewish ancestry.

It is true that he was illegitimate and his mother once was a housekeeper for a Jewish family.

he did attend a Church school when he was 11 years old but Barack Obama attended a Muslim school at the same age and that does not make him a Jihadist.

this and the lack of a father on his birth certificate are closest there has been to any solid evidence he really is part Jewish..

as ironic as it would be and as much as we want it to be true....it is not right to make up facts and this one is based on a rumour.

Mein Kampf shows definite infuence from the work of Martin Luthorr esp. On Jews and Their lies.

that sounds more Calvinist than Catholic.

No on will ever know just what religion if any Hitler had.

I think he worshipped himself and with the success he had getting much of the Aryan nations to follow him he was trying to become God to the rest of the world.

all we will ever know for sure is Herr Schickelgruber was one crazy bastard.

[QUOTE="thriteenthmonke"][QUOTE="Grandotaku"]

Religion doesn't kill people guns do.

GabuEx

Well technically speaking it's the blood loss that creates an unsustainable deficit in one's body that leads to the shutting down of all bodily functions that kills people. :P

More accurately, it is the inability of the brain to receive adequete nutrients and trophic factors that leads to rapid neuronal death which leads to cessation of neural function which is what results in death.

I'm sure this was debated here before, but here goes anyway. I recently came across this argument in favor of religion - the claim is that atheism (and atheistic regimes) have killed more people than all religions combined. The person making this claims continued with sweeping generalizations about the propensity of violence and unrest of different religions. I will not mention that here. I am more concerned with this statistic. Common examples of atheists responsible for mass-killings are Hitler Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

First of all, can anyone verify the religious beliefs, or lack thereof, of the people above?

Do you believe there is any truth to this argument?

How can one accurately tally the deaths caused by these two subgroups (deaths "in the name of 'God'" and deaths by "atheists?"

Are we justified in pinning the blame of the killings solely on the religious proclivity of an individual?

entropyecho

The problem is that "atheism" is about as much of an "ism" as "people who like lasagna" or "people who think that sex is fun". Some of them are total asses, no question about it. But atheism isn't really an ideology that has any effect on behavior. One could argue the same thing about religions, but at least there are Christian/Muslim/etc mandates about how people should conduct their lives (whether or not they actually follow those "rules").

Atheism is different. There's no church of atheism, no set of rules that atheists are supposed to follow. It's just...people can choose to be jerks or not. And if they choose to be jerks, it's entirely possible that they're atheists.

Have atheISTS claimed more lives than followers of all other religions combined? Don't know. Sort of doubt it, but I don't know. Maybe. However, keep in mind that this is VERY different than saying that atheISM has killed anyone.

Hell, that's one of the things that I love about atheism. Atheism doesn't tell you to kill people. Hell, atheism doesn't tell you to do anything. If you're an atheist and are also a total ass, at least you can't try to defend it by saying that you're following a higher power.

I would say more have been taken in the name of a god, or for religious reasons and practices, than by the hands of those who strictly know zero gods to exist, killing those who believe. I mean really, I can't name a religious text that does not advocate brutality on some level for nonbelievers. Naturally, many contemporary societies take such passages with a pinch of salt, even though in the new testament and the qur'an, absolutely deplorable behavior is considered accepatable, stamped in approval by your deity of choice. Stonings, burnings, honor killings oh my. You name it, religion tells of what should be done with those who do not walk the line of mentioned text. The more I read religious texts, the more sickened I grow. It really is no wonder that innocent people died in witch trials and for claiming the world might be flat, or differ in any way from what god apparently said. These documents, in their unaltered and even some modern forms, outright condone killing or at least ostracizing all who oppose your beliefs.

Trying to equate whether atheists or religious people have killed more overall is utterly pointless in itself. Ninja-Bear

Hilter was no atheist and I really doubt their lack of belief in God was a reason to kill all those people. Take me for example. Not only do I not believe in God but if he is real I detest him. Despite all that, I would never even think to hurt innocent people.

[QUOTE="thriteenthmonke"][QUOTE="Grandotaku"]

Religion doesn't kill people guns do.

GabuEx

Well technically speaking it's the blood loss that creates an unsustainable deficit in one's body that leads to the shutting down of all bodily functions that kills people. :P

Atheism has claimed more lives, because there are a lot more people to kill in modern times. In Biblical times and the Crusades, way too many people were killed in the name of religion, but there were fewer people back then. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot were all atheists, but Hitler was either some denomination of Christianity or he was secretly Jewish (that's almost funny. Almost). It's probably pretty close if you're talking about number of deaths, but atheism has "killed" more people than all religions.

cowplayinghalo

You're making a mistake.

It's fair to say that atheISTS have killed a hell of a lot of people.

But atheISM hasn't killed one single person, ever.

One could also say the same thing about religions, and I'd agree with that. That's why I don't treat people like scum just because they gfo to a church or believe in the Bible. However, there IS a difference. There is NO holy text for atheists. There is NO set of rules by which they should conduct their lives. There's no ideology for them to follow. It's simply a term for one's beliefs about a very narrow and specific topic. It's not a way to live, it's about as meaningful as categorizing people on the basis of whether or not they like the Foo Fighters. Has nothing to do with morality or their propensity to kill/steal/do other bad ****. No religion MAKES people do horrible ****, but atheism is different from religions in that it has absolutely nothing to say about how people should conduct their lives.

Those that are willing to ruin another life are also almost always people who do not believe in anything.

they replace the common belief system with a cult of personality such as Stalin or Hitler started.

that is even worse than nothing.

Hilter was no atheist and I really doubt their lack of belief in God was a reason to kill all those people. Take me for example. Not only do I not believe in God but if he is real I detest him. Despite all that, I would never even think to hurt innocent people.

Assassin1349

You can not even think to detest what you know is not real. This is how I see it. God is a non-subject. I have no belief in him/her/it/them, thusly I have no emotional pull therefrom. I am only left with what I feel of those who do believe.

[QUOTE="Assassin1349"]

Hilter was no atheist and I really doubt their lack of belief in God was a reason to kill all those people. Take me for example. Not only do I not believe in God but if he is real I detest him. Despite all that, I would never even think to hurt innocent people.

dhyce

You can not even think to detest what you know is not real. This is how I see it. God is a non-subject. I have no belief in him/her/it/them, thusly I have no emotional pull therefrom. I am only left with what I feel of those who do believe.

[QUOTE="cowplayinghalo"]

Atheism has claimed more lives, because there are a lot more people to kill in modern times. In Biblical times and the Crusades, way too many people were killed in the name of religion, but there were fewer people back then. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot were all atheists, but Hitler was either some denomination of Christianity or he was secretly Jewish (that's almost funny. Almost). It's probably pretty close if you're talking about number of deaths, but atheism has "killed" more people than all religions.

MrGeezer

You're making a mistake.

It's fair to say that atheISTS have killed a hell of a lot of people.

But atheISM hasn't killed one single person, ever.

One could also say the same thing about religions, and I'd agree with that. That's why I don't treat people like scum just because they gfo to a church or believe in the Bible. However, there IS a difference. There is NO holy text for atheists. There is NO set of rules by which they should conduct their lives. There's no ideology for them to follow. It's simply a term for one's beliefs about a very narrow and specific topic. It's not a way to live, it's about as meaningful as categorizing people on the basis of whether or not they like the Foo Fighters. Has nothing to do with morality or their propensity to kill/steal/do other bad ****. No religion MAKES people do horrible ****, but atheism is different from religions in that it has absolutely nothing to say about how people should conduct their lives.

You can not even think to detest what you know is not real. This is how I see it. God is a non-subject. I have no belief in him/her/it/them, thusly I have no emotional pull therefrom. I am only left with what I feel of those who do believe.

dhyce

Believe to be not real, you mean. If any atheist claims to know there to be no god, he/she is just as delusional as someone who says he/she knows a deity exists.