Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/05/12/christianity-faces-sharp-decline-as-americans-are-becoming-even-less-affiliated-with-religion/

Originally posted by psmith81992
A little over 1% point a year and it's still 71%. I don't see that as continuously declining but yea we can start a new thread.

True, but you must think long term. If it goes at the same rate for 30 years, Christians would make up 40% of Americans.

I'd imagine if you limited the study to just non-Hispanic whites, the drop would be even more severe.

Also, look back to 1990. In my lifetime Christianity has dropped 15%. That's not negligible at all.

This is nothing but a positive development. Finally some good news today.

Originally posted by Surtur
This is nothing but a positive development. Finally some good news today.

You make zero sense.

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/05/13/the-real-but-overstated-decline-of-american-christianity/?_r=0
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/faith-matters/2015/05/14/decline-in-us-christians-doesnt-mean-god-is-losing-ground
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/losing.faith.in.america.study.shows.decline.in.religion.rise.in.atheism/53790.htm

As pertains to the last link (which is the general study being discussed), I did not know they only interviewed 35,000 people. That is a SMALL sample size.

I've seen some similar things, and it's interesting data. From everything I've read, this is a general trend worldwide, with exceptions in many African countries and scattered others. But it's important to note that the total number of Christians is slightly increasing worldwide, due to population increase and the African boom, even while the percentage drops slightly worldwide.

One of the things I found most interesting was the data on unaffiliated people. "Unaffiliated" certainly doesn't mean non-religious. But the article has an interesting data point when it mentions that 31% of "nones" identify as agnostics or atheists (I'd imagine that split being heavily toward agnostic), which is up 7 points from 2007. That's the most interesting point to me, because in the past those numbers have held steadier even while "unaffiliated" increased slightly.

I see this as mostly a good thing, mainly because we're reaching a point where there's going to be more of a homogeneous distribution of beliefs in society. Which, over a few generations, will equal more tolerance. I honestly don't think quite as much will change as many of my fellow atheists might - good and evil in society are human good/evil, minus a couple negative issues where religion plays a definite catalyst. But there are other reasons it's a positive trend, as mentioned. Mostly, though, I see this as neutral. Interesting, but not earth-shaking.

Banal as comments usually are beneath blogs like that, one comment touched on an interesting point. Is the far religious right actually driving people away from religion more quickly, because people don't want to be associated with it? I was Catholic growing up, and I listened to reasonable, moderate Catholics say they were ashamed to be associated with the Church as they went through one child rape scandal after another. They knew enough to know that their beliefs were NOT those acts, but it still weighed on them. What affect does this have when you multiply that by all of the media channels we have in today's world, compounded by the vocal extremists operating under a Christian name? I'm not conflating the two personally, but for someone growing up and seeing it all around them, how could it not be an influence?

Christianity declines.

Selfishness increases dramatically.

Sounds about right.

Originally posted by psmith81992
You make zero sense.

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/05/13/the-real-but-overstated-decline-of-american-christianity/?_r=0
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/faith-matters/2015/05/14/decline-in-us-christians-doesnt-mean-god-is-losing-ground
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/losing.faith.in.america.study.shows.decline.in.religion.rise.in.atheism/53790.htm

As pertains to the last link (which is the general study being discussed), I did not know they only interviewed 35,000 people. That is a SMALL sample size.

Properly controlled for demographics, neither is it insignificant. As with any study, it's not the end of the discussion but the beginning. Any single study is insufficient for so large a point. But trying to dismiss it on such grounds is equally cavalier. Pew is like THE entity that does these studies, so this isn't a hack-job study that can be quickly ignored.

As it happens, a quick Google search will turn up that this matches other studies on the subject, so it becomes even less easy to dismiss.

Your one link called it "real but overstated" and that might be a more reasonable compromise between your position and that of the OP's article.

Another of your articles makes an interesting point about people tending to be "wired for belief." He frames it in religious terms, while I'd frame it in biological terms, but he's got a point. There's ample reason to believe we have an evolutionary predilection for belief. The takeaway is that while individual belief systems may fade - even the world's most massive - but the population as a whole will likely continue to have some sort of belief, whether specific or agnostic. The "none" category may continue to increase indefinitely, but that's not to say people are abandoning religious or spiritual beliefs as a whole.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Selfishness increases dramatically.

Citation needed.

Digi, can you wire me 100 dollars?

Originally posted by Omega Vision

True, but you must think long term. If it goes at the same rate for 30 years, Christians would make up 40% of Americans.

That strikes me as... pretty unlikely. We've got a lot of Christian traditions and get a lot of Christian immigrants.


While some decline isn't unlikely, we're quite far from Christians not being the solid majority.

Originally posted by Q99
That strikes me as... pretty unlikely. We've got a lot of Christian traditions and get a lot of Christian immigrants.


While some decline isn't unlikely, we're quite far from Christians not being the solid majority.
I realize that. I think Hispanic immigration should at least somewhat offset a decline in white believers, but the question is if Hispanics will start to follow suit and see their numbers decline as well.

The left can only hope.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
The left can only hope.

This isn't politics; it's sociological data.

srug

Beyond that, this is nonsensical following the previous post. The left is hoping that Hispanics will leave religion? Does the left not already command the VAST majority of the Hispanic vote?

This is a long-term thing. We have no idea what politics will look like in 10 years, let alone the 40-50 we'll need to see some of these trends play out fully.

Originally posted by Digi
This isn't politics; it's sociological data.

srug

Beyond that, this is nonsensical following the previous post. The left is hoping that Hispanics will leave religion? Does the left not already command the VAST majority of the Hispanic vote?

This is a long-term thing. We have no idea what politics will look like in 10 years, let alone the 40-50 we'll need to see some of these trends play out fully.
Although I think it's a safe bet that Latinos will still be safely in the Liberal camp in 40 years, unless Republicans completely change their policies.

What were politics like in 1975? Now compare them to today. Prediction that far out is impossible with these things.

That said, if you're right, it makes Fly's comment all the more irrelevant.

Latinos, except Cubans, were liberal in 1975, weren't they?

I actually have no idea. My knowledge of political minutia evaporates before Clinton. Even if they were, though, my point was about the number and scope of changes in general from 1975. Maybe that particular demographic wasn't affected by the changes this time, but there's no reason to think that will continue.

All other things being equal, yes, it's more likely, but hardly a certainty. I'd also agree more strongly with you if it were a slightly smaller number. 10, maybe even as much as 20-25.

I have no doubt Christianity is on the decline. That's one of primary reasons why our nation has fallen so far and not only from a morality standpoint either. Also, it's a clear sign that we are living in last days because the decline (along with persecution of Christians) was propheseid in the Bible. So believers rejoice at this news because they know it means we are getting close to the time when Christ will return.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Christianity declines.

Selfishness increases dramatically.

Sounds about right.







Exactly.

Originally posted by Star428
I have no doubt Christianity is on the decline. That's one of primary reasons why our nation has fallen so far and not only from a morality standpoint either. Also, it's a clear sign that we are living in last days because the decline (along with persecution of Christians) was propheseid in the Bible. So believers rejoice at this news because they know it means we are getting close to the time when Christ will return.

Reminds me of that old Patton Oswald bit about everybody standing around in the afterlife and this one guy bragging about how he died during the APOCOLYPSE BABY!!!!

Originally posted by Star428
I have no doubt Christianity is on the decline. That's one of primary reasons why our nation has fallen so far and not only from a morality standpoint either. Also, it's a clear sign that we are living in last days because the decline (along with persecution of Christians) was propheseid in the Bible. So believers rejoice at this news because they know it means we are getting close to the time when Christ will return.

So instead of promoting what you see as a just and true religion to bring people into the fold, you're delighting in the idea that billions are about to die, future generations will never exist, and most of those billions - many of them goodly and innocent people - are to be condemned to Hell for believing the wrong stuff.

Am I getting that right? I'm not attempting a debate here. Believe whatever you want. I'm just genuinely curious about the specificity of your position on this.

i wonder if trump is the antichrist

he has plenty of antichrist potential imo

Originally posted by Star428
I have no doubt Christianity is on the decline. That's one of primary reasons why our nation has fallen so far and not only from a morality standpoint either. Also, it's a clear sign that we are living in last days because the decline (along with persecution of Christians) was propheseid in the Bible. So believers rejoice at this news because they know it means we are getting close to the time when Christ will return.

Yeah, because the morals of the Christian majority were so great before.

No they bloody weren't. And it's a shame too, because for all the good Christianity did and does do, people like to drag it down in to the dumps.

Originally posted by Digi
So instead of promoting what you see as a just and true religion to bring people into the fold, you're delighting in the idea that billions are about to die, future generations will never exist, and most of those billions - many of them goodly and innocent people - are to be condemned to Hell for believing the wrong stuff.

Am I getting that right? I'm not attempting a debate here. Believe whatever you want. I'm just genuinely curious about the specificity of your position on this.

It has very little to do with what a Christian or non Christian wants to promote Digi. It's just something that is happening in the world that we are currently living in. Instead of looking solely at the decline of Christianity in the US, we should also pay attention to what is forcibly happening overseas. In northern Africa ISIS has actually been one of the sole reasons for Christianity declining in several countries. Churches have literally come under fire, Christians are being put to death by being beheaded, and many Pastor's simply give up their churches for fear of reprisal. To many of these Pastor's, the Christian faith is nothing more than a job that they are unwilling to die for. There's more to it than the simple surface dust that you may know about. Real talk. Oh, and before i forget, the things that are happening just happen to have been written to happen in the bible. Stopping it from continuing would be a lot like trying to stop the pollution from spreading in the waters around the planet, and keeping several species of animals from becoming extinct. People try, but in most cases, they find themselves losing the battle.

Originally posted by Stoic
It has very little to do with what a Christian or non Christian wants to promote Digi. It's just something that is happening in the world that we are currently living in. Instead of looking solely at the decline of Christianity in the US, we should also pay attention to what is forcibly happening overseas. In northern Africa ISIS has actually been one of the sole reasons for Christianity declining in several countries. Churches have literally come under fire, Christians are being put to death by being beheaded, and many Pastor's simply give up their churches for fear of reprisal. To many of these Pastor's, the Christian faith is nothing more than a job that they are unwilling to die for. There's more to it than the simple surface dust that you may know about. Real talk. Oh, and before i forget, the things that are happening just happen to have been written to happen in the bible. Stopping it from continuing would be a lot like trying to stop the pollution from spreading in the waters around the planet, and keeping several species of animals from becoming extinct. People try, but in most cases, they find themselves losing the battle.

Er, yeah, ok. Go back and look at the context of my quote that you responded to. I was only responding to Star's apocalyptic rant. I wasn't trying to touch on, well, any of the things you're bringing up. If you want to lead the discussion there, that's fine. But it's a bit of a cheap shot to act like I'm ignorant of Christianity outside a single country when I clearly wasn't having a discussion about it until you brought it up.

LOL. Digi, as I"ve mentioned in religion forum before, I have no interest in anything you have to say religion-related because you always display a condescending attitude towards believers. MY "apocalyptic rant", LMAO. You have a strange notion of what a "rant" is. Get over yourself, Digi. I couldn't care less what you think about my beliefs and things that are clearly propheseid to happen. So please, keep up your pathetic trolling everytime I post something religion-related. I'll just keep ignoring it.

Originally posted by Stoic
In northern Africa ISIS has actually been one of the sole reasons for Christianity declining in several countries. Churches have literally come under fire, Christians are being put to death by being beheaded, and many Pastor's simply give up their churches for fear of reprisal.

I think there should be more awareness about Christian massacres currently going on. The Catholic Orthodox churches have greatly suffered because of these wars

Originally posted by Bentley
I think there should be more awareness about Christian massacres currently going on. The Catholic Orthodox churches have greatly suffered because of these wars


There is no doubt christians killed in the past but currently muslim extemists own the title of killing for crazy, alot.

Originally posted by Digi
Er, yeah, ok. Go back and look at the context of my quote that you responded to. I was only responding to Star's apocalyptic rant. I wasn't trying to touch on, well, any of the things you're bringing up. If you want to lead the discussion there, that's fine. But it's a bit of a cheap shot to act like I'm ignorant of Christianity outside a single country when I clearly wasn't having a discussion about it until you brought it up.

Oh really well i guess i took what you said out of context. I really thought that I was actually responding to what you said. This is what I was replying to, and I will quote you.

"So instead of promoting what you see as a just and true religion to bring people into the fold, you're delighting in the idea that billions are about to die."

That was what I replied to. If you felt slighted or insulted by what I wrote, keep in mind that I have no idea what you know, or do not know about what is actually going on in the world concerning the decline of Christianity. All the same, it has a lot to do with with the climate of this discussion, and what is going on as a whole with the topic worldwide. My entire point was simply to bring up that nothing can stop what is happening. People can cheer it on, or boo it, but nothings going to actually change it. Not really sure what's with the attitude Digi? I did take note of your general pleasure for the decline though.

Originally posted by Bentley
I think there should be more awareness about Christian massacres currently going on. The Catholic Orthodox churches have greatly suffered because of these wars

Yes, and what is to stop this sort of thing from happening in the US? things may not become as gory, but what stops political correctness from turning all religions into a one world religion? Shit, Riv just posted a topic that brought up the idea that it is politically incorrect to call a man a man, and a woman a woman.

Originally posted by snowdragon
There is no doubt christians killed in the past but currently muslim extemists own the title of killing for crazy, alot.

Can you be more precise in what you mean by Christians and Muslims? I know Muslims that would never think of killing. ISIS like the Crusaders that killed in God's name were just murderers hiding behind religion to complete their hidden agendas. Just because you confess to be something, does not mean that you are that something. To be a Christian, or a Muslim you have to actually follow the tenets of those religions, or should we consider the KKK, or people that practice Santeria (La Regla Lucumi) Christians as well? Not getting on you, just trying to show the differences.

Originally posted by Stoic
Can you be more precise in what you mean by Christians and Muslims? I know Muslims that would never think of killing. ISIS like the Crusaders that killed in God's name were just murderers hiding behind religion to complete their hidden agendas. Just because you confess to be something, does not mean that you are that something. To be a Christian, or a Muslim you have to actually follow the tenets of those religions, or should we consider the KKK, or people that practice Santeria (La Regla Lucumi) Christians as well? Not getting on you, just trying to show the differences.



Good post for those that attribute mass murder to religion.

Originally posted by psmith81992
You make zero sense.

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/05/13/the-real-but-overstated-decline-of-american-christianity/?_r=0
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/faith-matters/2015/05/14/decline-in-us-christians-doesnt-mean-god-is-losing-ground
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/losing.faith.in.america.study.shows.decline.in.religion.rise.in.atheism/53790.htm

As pertains to the last link (which is the general study being discussed), I did not know they only interviewed 35,000 people. That is a SMALL sample size.

But none of what you just said means what I said makes zero sense. Even if its a small size, this is a positive thing IMO. But you realize you're kinda saying "you make no sense" and then one of your reasons for that is I didn't know the size of the survey..something you said you didn't know either until looking at the link. I also didn't mention a number of any kind in my post, so how could an opinion of "I find this to be a positive thing" not make any sense?

But anyways, if it is in decline..even a little bit, it's time we started removing any references to "God" from our currency and anything else issued by the government.

.Originally posted by psmith81992


Good post for those that attribute mass murder to religion.

But some mass murder can be attributed to religion. It's quite irrelevant if they act in a way not befitting of the religion they follow. If someone is killing in the name of religion that is..killing for religion. Nobody has ever said all mass murder in history was due to religion. On the other hand anyone acting like murder hasn't been done in the name of religion is woefully ignorant to history.

You can also see the craziness religion brings out in people first hand in this very thread. I mean someone was talking about the friggin end of days with and how having less Christians is a bad thing for the country.

Secularists are also responsible for mass murder. I said your argument makes no sense because you keep saying that a decline in religion is good because....

I never said religious people were the only people who committed atrocities. As for a decline in religion being good, well..you haven't really shown why it would be bad.

I could meet you half way and say it is neither bad nor good.

It isn't bad or good, it's irrelevant i think.

I read that Christianity is on the rise, not on the decline.

Originally posted by Star428
LOL. Digi, as I"ve mentioned in religion forum before, I have no interest in anything you have to say religion-related because you always display a condescending attitude towards believers.

This is not true. He's always been respectful towards me in our religious discussions and he has even praised me on multiple occasions.

I'm all about calling out anti-religious condescending assholes but in this case, it's just not true.

The problem is your approach.

Originally posted by Stoic
Oh really well i guess i took what you said out of context. I really thought that I was actually responding to what you said. This is what I was replying to, and I will quote you.

"So instead of promoting what you see as a just and true religion to bring people into the fold, you're delighting in the idea that billions are about to die."

That was what I replied to. If you felt slighted or insulted by what I wrote, keep in mind that I have no idea what you know, or do not know about what is actually going on in the world concerning the decline of Christianity. All the same, it has a lot to do with with the climate of this discussion, and what is going on as a whole with the topic worldwide. My entire point was simply to bring up that nothing can stop what is happening. People can cheer it on, or boo it, but nothings going to actually change it. Not really sure what's with the attitude Digi? I did take note of your general pleasure for the decline though.

Few things. One, I wasn't slighted or insulted at all. I just wanted to make it clear that my post was responding to something having nothing to do with your post. The billions about to die was Star invoking the "end of days" which would presumably mean the entire world.

Second, my "general pleasure" has only to do with the decline in the US. Again, it has/had nothing to do with atrocities committed abroad, which I would condemn as quickly as anyone else. Based on the totality of my posts, it should be pretty clear that any positive trend I see is due to the increased secularization of the world, not forceful or violent reprisals against particular religions.

Third, I was actually fairly specific later in that post that I saw the decline as mostly a neutral thing. Please include that in your assessment of my posts.

Yes

Originally posted by Stoic
Can you be more precise in what you mean by Christians and Muslims? I know Muslims that would never think of killing. ISIS like the Crusaders that killed in God's name were just murderers hiding behind religion to complete their hidden agendas. Just because you confess to be something, does not mean that you are that something. To be a Christian, or a Muslim you have to actually follow the tenets of those religions, or should we consider the KKK, or people that practice Santeria (La Regla Lucumi) Christians as well? Not getting on you, just trying to show the differences.
I disagree.

They have a different interpretation of the religion than many, but they still belong to it. Christian communists would be pretty opposed to Star428 politically. Some may even argue capitalism is down right blasphemous.

Doesn't make them less Christian. Same for Islamic socialists(Sayyid Qutb for example).

Originally posted by dadudemon
I read that Christianity is on the rise, not on the decline.



This is not true. He's always been respectful towards me in our religious discussions and he has even praised me on multiple occasions.

I'm all about calling out anti-religious condescending assholes but in this case, it's just not true.

The problem is your approach.

I think what he means is Digi uses big words that he doesn't understand.

Is that condescending?

Ah well.

No, I meant exactly what I said. I'm not an idiot like the majority of libtards are on this site. I know damn well when someone is displaying a condescending attitude towards me. Probably half the people on my ignore list are there because of that. Unfortunately, Digi can't be ignored by using the convenient ignore function so I have to ignore him the old fashioned way. Which is harder and annoying but well worth it.

Originally posted by Star428


No, I meant exactly what I said. I'm not an idiot like the majority of libtards are on this site. I know damn well when someone is displaying a condescending attitude towards me. Probably half the people on my ignore list are there because of that. Unfortunately, Digi can't be ignored by using the convenient ignore function so I have to ignore him the old fashioned way. Which is harder and annoying but well worth it.

I'm joking, mate.

edit

Why the edit?

Not important.

Ah well. Suit yourself.

Originally posted by Star428


No, I meant exactly what I said. I'm not an idiot like the majority of libtards are on this site. I know damn well when someone is displaying a condescending attitude towards me. Probably half the people on my ignore list are there because of that. Unfortunately, Digi can't be ignored by using the convenient ignore function so I have to ignore him the old fashioned way. Which is harder and annoying but well worth it.
Or you know, maybe you could just engage people instead of ignoring them.

Though for me I hope we could still use this to try to get as much religious influence out of the government as we can. This is why I've said we don't need any mention of God on our currency or anything like that.

This also plays into my main problem with religion in that I find it's nearly impossible for most people to keep their religious beliefs separate from their job. Which is fine if you are working at McDonald's or something, but if you're holding public office..not so much.

Originally posted by Star428
I have no doubt Christianity is on the decline. That's one of primary reasons why our nation has fallen so far and not only from a morality standpoint either. Also, it's a clear sign that we are living in last days because the decline (along with persecution of Christians) was propheseid in the Bible. So believers rejoice at this news because they know it means we are getting close to the time when Christ will return.

Your yearning for death and the end of the world makes me sick.

Originally posted by Trocity
Your yearning for death and the end of the world makes me sick.

Your just jelly cause he has something to look forward to and you don't.

The Bible mentions a great apostasy, or falling away from the truth at the end of the age. That may be what Star was addressing.

But he also said we are getting close to a time when "Christ returns" which sounds like the end of days to me.

All I can say is, meh: if the world is going to end soon then the religious decline is a good thing. Means we put up with just a little less BS before the end. Now if only this "end time decline" could last like a billion years. I mean if God is real he is immortal, so his concepts of time might be different, to him a couple thousand years might be a short amount of time.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
The Bible mentions a great apostasy, or falling away from the truth at the end of the age. That may be what Star was addressing.

I got that feeling as well. What I find disturbingly strange, is that this was something that was written about long ago, and no matter how it happened, it is happening. I realize that this is about the decline of Christianity in America, but what about the ripple effect of the decline in other countries? The internet has in fact made the world smaller in terms of communications as we all know. So other than by choice to not believe in Christianity, we also have people forcibly being told to leave their beliefs, or die for them. Could the opinions outside of America contribute to this decline, when it is within our nature to be influenced by popular concepts? Just something to think about I guess.

Yep and the internet has made it possible for people to quite easily find out about shady things that have been done in the name of religion. Whereas in the past those in power might of been able to keep this information on the down low.

But who cares about the shadyness of atheism? You get the same shadyness with secularism, just another way to justify actions. There's no reason to single out religion here aside from hypocrisy.

Originally posted by Surtur
Yep and the internet has made it possible for people to quite easily find out about shady things that have been done in the name of religion. Whereas in the past those in power might of been able to keep this information on the down low.

I couldn't agree more with you on that, as long as we separate what one person believes to be correct vs with what is actually written within the bible. After all, I could work for a company, and still break every rule in that same company. I'd technically still be with that company until I was found guilty for breaking all of it's rules. However, I would make for a very poor representative of that company. Would you agree?

Originally posted by psmith81992
But who cares about the shadyness of atheism? You get the same shadyness with secularism, just another way to justify actions. There's no reason to single out religion here aside from hypocrisy.

You seem to think whenever someone says something negative about religion it is saying religion is the only thing that does those things. You ask who cares about the shadiness of atheism, but I don't think there is shadiness in the way you are talking about.

I'm hard pressed to think of any major things done specifically in the name of atheism. Horrid stuff done in the name of something other then religion? Absolutely, but specifically doing something because you feel there is no God? Eh, how often? Just because a person does something bad and might also happen to be an atheist doesn't mean they did that bad thing due to their atheism. Same with religious folk, I'm sure there are a variety of people belonging to various religions in prison who did not commit their crimes specifically because/for religion.

This is a thread about the decline of a certain religion, so discussing religion(good or bad aspects) would be things you'd expect people to focus on.

Nothing has to be done in the name of atheism for it to look bad. The fact that atheists/secularists have been responsible for far more atrocities than the religious should be telling enough.

That's a nice meme.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Nothing has to be done in the name of atheism for it to look bad. The fact that atheists/secularists have been responsible for far more atrocities than the religious should be telling enough.
I seem to remember you being unable to back this up.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I seem to remember you being unable to back this up.

I seem to remember nobody was able to back up their claim that religion has done far worse. And I did back it up. All you need is to mention Stalin, Pot, and Mao, and you have more deaths than the entirety of the crusades and that's without including hitler.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I seem to remember nobody was able to back up their claim that religion has done far worse. And I did back it up. All you need is to mention Stalin, Pot, and Mao, and you have more deaths than the entirety of the crusades and that's without including hitler.

Ok, on the religious side, you've got Hitler, you've got Imperial Japan, you've got pretty much every war in Africa, you've got the Mongols, Romans, Persian Empire, Muslim conquests, the Huns, the Goths, you've got the genocide of Native Americans in both North and South America (the Spanish Conquistadors, after all, were highly religious), you've got all the killing the Aztecs got up to for centuries, Vikings....



Simple math: There's more religious people than non in any particular period, and overall. If you're counting 'done by people who happen to be X,' it covers most everything. If you're counting 'done specifically in the name of X,' it covers most conquests in history.


That said, I think it silly to lump either 'theist' or 'atheist' as a singular, since either contain many very opposed belief *systems*.



And I will also say, I do not think anyone has ever been killed by someone who follows the great Atheismo.

Hitler wasn't religious, neither was Imperial Japan. Pretty much "every war in Africa" begs proof. The Huns and the Goths weren't religious and the Roman Empire persecuted Christians up until Constantine. The Persian Empire wasn't religious. Where are you getting all of this information? Furthermore, you did not provide any numbers. I'm not arguing in the name of religion vs. atheism. I'm arguing religious deaths vs. deaths perpetrated by secularists or atheists, and the numbers are on my side.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I seem to remember nobody was able to back up their claim that religion has done far worse. And I did back it up. All you need is to mention Stalin, Pot, and Mao, and you have more deaths than the entirety of the crusades and that's without including hitler.
And I believe I argued (to which you had no real counter) that none of those people killed in the name of atheism or secularism. They just happened to be atheists who killed for other reasons.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Hitler wasn't religious, neither was Imperial Japan. Pretty much "every war in Africa" begs proof. The Huns and the Goths weren't religious and the Roman Empire persecuted Christians up until Constantine. The Persian Empire wasn't religious. Where are you getting all of this information? Furthermore, you did not provide any numbers. I'm not arguing in the name of religion vs. atheism. I'm arguing religious deaths vs. deaths perpetrated by secularists or atheists, and the numbers are on my side.
I think you're conflating "religious" with "monotheistic" if you think the Persians, Goths, and Huns weren't religious.

If you count Stalin and Mao's atrocities as deaths perpetrated by atheists, then you have to count Hitler's as deaths perpetrated by religious people. Either is pretty silly though, because they weren't inspired by their atheism or theism, but by political ideologies.

Also, Psmith is basically just comparing deathtolls from industrial wars to pre-industrial wars. Not a fair comparison.

For the vast majority of history, religion has been more a cause for suffering than non-religion, and that's not really up for dispute.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Also, Psmith is basically just comparing deathtolls from industrial wars to pre-industrial wars. Not a fair comparison.

For the vast majority of history, religion has been more a cause for suffering than non-religion, and that's not really up for dispute.

Ok? And with industrial wars, the secularists and the atheists have done more damage in a limited amount of time than the religious groups throughout history.
And this is not up for debate either.

And no, Hitler wasn't religious or Christian. He created his own version to rationalize action. If you're going to call that religion, you might as well call every brainwashing action a religion.


That's the point (aside from hitler being religious). I'm not saying they committed crimes in the names of atheism but they persecuted religious groups and happened to be secularists. It's a response to those who argue that religion is the cause of most of the world's deaths throughout history. I can take religion out of the picture and you'll have more deaths in the name of a political ideology. So "God" and "political ideology" are interchangeable.

Looks like that's out.

As far as Timur is concerned, you need to find a number. I'm not surprised you listed the Crusades because only on wikipedia would you take the highest number of casualties to make your argument work. However, no other work on the Crusades even comes close to naming that many casualties.


The Bosnian War wasn't a religious war. And finally, the human sacrifice casualties are minimal compared to anything we've discussed. So you don't have a number approaching anything near 80 million.

Originally posted by psmith81992
The Huns and the Goths weren't religious and the Roman Empire persecuted Christians up until Constantine. The Persian Empire wasn't religious.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_Christianity
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tengrism

The Romans specifically persecuted Christians for their religion clashing against the Roman state religion, and the Persians were very religious

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

Stop talking about things you don't know.

Ok so it's clear you just found a bunch of wikipedia articles, read the first sentence and thought, "meh good enough". I just educated you on your own information and your response was telling. Good try

Oh, and the discussion was of religious groups persecuting others based on religion. So half of your stuff is gone here, but if now you're lumping everything having to do with religion together, I suppose I can do that with any individual or group that had no ties. You'd lose either way.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Looks like that's out.

As far as Timur is concerned, you need to find a number. I'm not surprised you listed the Crusades because only on wikipedia would you take the highest number of casualties to make your argument work. However, no other work on the Crusades even comes close to naming that many casualties.


The Bosnian War wasn't a religious war. And finally, the human sacrifice casualties are minimal compared to anything we've discussed. So you don't have a number approaching anything near 80 million.

The Thirty Year War was started by Catholic-Protestant strife, don't try and cop out.

http://wars.findthedata.com/l/90/Conquests-of-Tamerlane

The Bosnian War was all about the Christians and Muslims murdering each other, stop talking about stuff you know nothing about.

The Aztecs sacrificed around 1 million people in the span of their history, so if you think that's a small number, that's alright I guess.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Ok so it's clear you just found a bunch of wikipedia articles, read the first sentence and thought, "meh good enough". I just educated you on your own information and your response was telling. Good try

Oh, and the discussion was of religious groups persecuting others based on religion. So half of your stuff is gone here, but if now you're lumping everything having to do with religion together, I suppose I can do that with any individual or group that had no ties. You'd lose either way.

So you don't actually have a rebuttal.

Originally posted by psmith81992

That's the point (aside from hitler being religious). I'm not saying they committed crimes in the names of atheism but they persecuted religious groups and happened to be secularists. It's a response to those who argue that religion is the cause of most of the world's deaths throughout history. I can take religion out of the picture and you'll have more deaths in the name of a political ideology. So "God" and "political ideology" are interchangeable.


Ok, so if your issue is with people saying religion has caused most of the worlds (violent) deaths I agree with you. Political Ideologies have been much more prolific in killing people (the numbers in post-industrial times are of course considerably higher than in pre-industrial times).

If the statement is however more deaths have been caused in the name of religion than in the name of atheism, that's a different matter. Because relatively few deaths have been cause in the name of atheism.

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
So you don't actually have a rebuttal.

I gave you my rebuttal. You didn't read any of your own links, instead looking at the estimated casualties and took the highest number of all of them. At the end of the day, you don't come close to the deaths perpetrated by Stalin and Mao alone. But you can keep trying.


Yup this is what i'm saying. So if you take religion out of the world, you'll still get far more deaths.

Well obviously the interactions in history are not that simple. It's very possible that Religion has been a destabilising force that has stopped us from achieving more peace. But taking it at raw numbers, sure...

Nice assumption boyo, I bet you took the highest estimate for Stalin and Mao too.

You also conveniently ignored what I said about how Stalin and Mao lived in a modern era making it absurdly easy to murder millions of people compared to any other point in history.

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
Nice assumption boyo, I bet you took the highest estimate for Stalin and Mao too.

You also conveniently ignored what I said about how Stalin and Mao lived in a modern era making it absurdly easy to murder millions of people compared to any other point in history. I didn't use wikipedia for my sources, ignoring the fact that it's much easier to place an accurate death toll in the modern age. And yes, it's much easier to kill in the modern era and it happens to be the secularists doing it. You didn't make much of a point

It's much more impressive when religious individuals kill off a large percentage of the world's population, rather then just raw number

I misunderstood your point anyway though, I'm not arguing religion is the cause of more deaths in the world, people would have murdered the shit out of each other regardless so it's like whatever.

It's not impressive given the time that they had. It's much more impressive what Stalin and Mao did with the short amount of time and the much more casualties.

Not particularly, guns and man-induced famine make shit a lot faster.

Also, since when did everything in history take like a hundred years to accomplish?

I think this particular debate has strayed a bit (and I don't even mean from the original topic). For a refresher:

Originally posted by psmith81992
Nothing has to be done in the name of atheism for it to look bad. The fact that atheists/secularists have been responsible for far more atrocities than the religious should be telling enough.

Here it would seem that Psmith is arguing that atheism is bad because people who happened to be atheists were mass murderers. If you aren't arguing that, then I have no idea what you were going for, Psmith.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Nothing has to be done in the name of atheism for it to look bad. The fact that atheists/secularists have been responsible for far more atrocities than the religious should be telling enough.

But again you fail to see the difference between being an atheist who commits horrible deeds and being an atheist who commits horrible deeds specifically in the name of their atheism.

When I talk about shady religious stuff, I'm talking about stuff done specifically in the name of religion.

Though you realize there are far more religious people in the world compared to Atheists. So if we did go the route of "any crime committed by an atheist must be due to atheism" that means any crime committed by a religious person is specifically due to their religious beliefs. Which means religion would of caused far far more damage just by the sheer number of religious people over non-religious people on this planet.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Here it would seem that Psmith is arguing that atheism is bad because people who happened to be atheists were mass murderers. If you aren't arguing that, then I have no idea what you were going for, Psmith.

He has no argument.

Originally posted by Trocity
He has no argument.

Incompetent troll alert



I've explained the past two pages. I'm not arguing about killing in the name of atheism. I'm claiming that religion and political ideology are interchangeable justifications for mass murder.

But what does that have to do with "atheism looking bad?"

Also again I would ask when atheism has specifically been cited as a motivation for committing some kind of atrocity?

Those atheists committed those atrocious acts because they have shit morals via not being religious.

The crusades and all the atrocities committed in the name of religion were done by people who used religion as a smokescreen to further their own agendas, so were not really Christians or true religious followers, and so also had shit morals.

Basically, religious people can do no wrong.

Originally posted by Trocity
Those atheists committed those atrocious acts because they have shit morals via not being religious.

The crusades and all the atrocities committed in the name of religion were done by people who used religion as a smokescreen to further their own agendas, so were not really Christians or true religious followers, and so also had shit morals.

Basically, religious people can do no wrong. That is an incredible rationalization.

Originally posted by Bardock42
If you count Stalin and Mao's atrocities as deaths perpetrated by atheists, then you have to count Hitler's as deaths perpetrated by religious people. Either is pretty silly though, because they weren't inspired by their atheism or theism, but by political ideologies.
He'd also have to count death commited by the American military in the religious category as well.

If the debate is "all religious people killing others vs all non-religious people killing others", religion wins always. There's just too many religious nations throughout history.

It's hilarious how atheists have to go way back to things that happened 800 or 900 years ago to support their ridiculous claims that religion is responsible for more pain and suffering than atheism. They also love to ignore the fact that the Crusades were started because of Muslim aggression against and persecution of Christians.The Crusades started off as defensive in nature. Only later did they go on the offensive and decide to take back Jerusalem from the muslims who were wrong to take it in the first place. I'm sorry that I don't view the Crusades as an evil campaign like most of the morons in this thread seem to think they were. I mean, sure, there were a lot of atrocious things done in the name of religion during the Crusades but there will always be those who act out on their own in cruel ways. Happens in every war but that doesn't mean those that did so had the approval of the Church to do it.


http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/the-crusades/the-real-history-of-the-crusades.html


I just find it amusing that atheists have to bring up the Crusades when they argue the morality of the religious vs that of atheists. Only an idiot would think atheists are known for being more moral than Christians. If our country was still as Christian today as it was when it was founded or even just a generation ago you would not be seeing all these acts of mass murder that we are seeing in country nowadays. Back then people had actual values, cared about their fellow man, and you could count on them to keep their word. That's not the case anymore.

Originally posted by StyleTime
He'd also have to count death commited by the American military in the religious category as well.




LMAO. BY all means, point it out please.

Originally posted by Star428
It's hilarious how atheists have to go way back to things that happened 800 or 900 years ago to support their ridiculous claims that religion is responsible for more pain and suffering than atheism. They also love to ignore the fact that the Crusades were started because of Muslim aggression against and persecution of Christians.The Crusades started off as defensive in nature. Only later did they go on the offensive and decide to take back Jerusalem from the muslims who were wrong to take it in the first place. I'm sorry that I don't view the Crusades as an evil campaign like most of the morons in this thread seem to think they were. I mean, sure, there were a lot of atrocious things done in the name of religion during the Crusades but there will always be those who act out on their own in cruel ways. Happens in every war but that doesn't mean those that did so had the approval of the Church to do it.


http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/the-crusades/the-real-history-of-the-crusades.html


I just find it amusing that atheists have to bring up the Crusades when they argue the morality of the religious vs that of atheists. Only an idiot would think atheists are known for being more moral than Christians. If our country was still as Christian today as it was when it was founded or even just a generation ago you would not be seeing all these acts of mass murder that we are seeing in country nowadays. Back then people had actual values, cared about their fellow man, and you could count on them to keep their word. That's not the case anymore.
You're confusing "religious violence" with "Christian violence". They were including all religious people, not just Christians.

No one is blaming the religious for all the world's woes. psmith seeemed to be saying atheist leaders killed more than religious leaders. We're pointing out that there are, and were, so many religious heads of states/militaries, that you'd have to throw an awful lot of groups together. I'm confident the deaths on the religious side would be greater. You can't discount them simply because they weren't Christian or monotheistic.
Originally posted by Star428
LMAO. BY all means, point it out please.
How many religious heads of state have we had, Christian ones especially?

I think it's silly to blame those deaths on religion too, but I didn't start this. Blame psmith.

Originally posted by StyleTime
You're confusing "religious violence" with "Christian violence". They were including all religious people, not just Christians.



I'm not really "confusing" anything. The point is that they keep bringing up the Crusades to bash Christians/religion just like all atheists pathetically do everytime when a debate like this comes up.

Originally posted by Star428
I'm not really "confusing" anything. The point is that they keep bringing up the Crusades to bash Christians/religion just like all atheists pathetically do everytime when a debate like this comes up.
They were trying to compare numbers here. Not sure why it should be left out.

Because, as I said, the Crusades were just a reaction to Muslim aggression against Christians. All the atrocious acts that were committed during Crusades would've never happened if not for that because there wouldn't have even been any Crusades. If Muslims had been persecuting atheists and/or shown aggression towards them on the same scale that they did to Christians then I"m sure atheists would've taken drastic action as well. I seriously doubt they'd just keep sitting around and continue to take it with a smile on their faces.

Geez, Star, your grasp of history is appalling, The primary target of the First Crusade was Jerusalem- in which case, your idea that it was targeted against aggression against Christians is ridiculous, because the Muslims had held Jerusalem for five centuries beforehand. And incidentally, they took it from the Romans. Who took it from the Jews.

The Byzantines may have sparked the whole thing off by asking for help, but they noone went out there to return their territory (as indeed it was not). The First Crusade were simply an opportunistic move to assert a new Christian authority in the Middle East, and the whole effort of the Crusades failed utterly because they were only interested in outright conquest, which could never be sustained with a hostile population.

You're just blundering here. You don't really know anything about history or culture in that respect so stop pretending you do in a pseudo- intellectual attempt to justify your arguments which rest on emotion alone. If you want to go with a "shit happened in the past" argument, then fine, and that even has merit, but you then mess it up by trying to make it a 'Good Christians were only trying to defend against the evil conquering Muslims' nonsense and it undermines the whole thing. There's only one reason the Christian states weren't doing the invading eastwards in those days- and that's that no single Christian state was strong enough. The Crusades were the opportunity they needed.

It's funny, because the Crusaders later ensured Muslim expansion into Europe by making the death sentence for the Byzantine Empire

Originally posted by StyleTime
He'd also have to count death commited by the American military in the religious category as well.

If the debate is "all religious people killing others vs all non-religious people killing others", religion wins always. There's just too many religious nations throughout history. That isn't accurate on any level. With that said, looks like we finished the discussion just at the right time.

Classifying violence by substance because it's done by atheists or theists is silly. Religious people can have political agendas using religion as a rallying cause and as excuse, atheism cannot be really used as an agenda because it doesn't represent a particular set of beliefs.

Saying that the "side" that does more attrocities is "worse" makes for a poor argument. Simply put, it isn't much about the evil or good nature of either theism or atheist, but entirely about the population when the conflicts happen. The most recent wars have killed the equivalent of the entire population of Europe in ancient wars, if we go by strict number of deaths, any modern war is inherently more evil. You can see how this is nonsense.


Originally posted by Star428
I'm not really "confusing" anything. The point is that they keep bringing up the Crusades to bash Christians/religion just like all atheists pathetically do everytime when a debate like this comes up.

Don't be revisionist Star.

Originally posted by Bardock42
If you count Stalin and Mao's atrocities as deaths perpetrated by atheists, then you have to count Hitler's as deaths perpetrated by religious people. Either is pretty silly though, because they weren't inspired by their atheism or theism, but by political ideologies. i feel like it's a bit different though isn't it... because atheism is actually a crucial part of the marxist/communist ideology which lead to those deaths. it's not that communists just so happen to be atheist. atheism was considered a necessary ideological characteristic of communism, and so there was also an overt effort to crush religious sentiment and promote atheism as this went hand and hand with promoting the party and the state.

it seems like atheism is related to communism in the same way that nationalism was related to nazi ideology

where as my understanding is that the nazi ideology wasn't necessarily pro-christian... more it managed to coexist with christianity on a pragmatic basis and perhaps drew some cultural cues from christianity... but overall nazi ideology wasn't contingent on being christian, and in some cases even deviated into a sort of neo-paganism.

i think a better comparison could be made to say the conquering of the american continent under the banner of manifest destiny.

but my issue with this whole numbers argument of which side is worse is this... yea stalin and mao and them killed a shit ton more than let's say isis has. is this because stalin and mao were just that much more evil than isis? not really, imo. the death tolls are more a circumstance of history than anything else. largely just people being crushed under the weight of frantic efforts to industrialize agrarian peasant based societies at a rapid pace and consolidate power in said societies under a one party state. so any significant point that could be made about the danger of dogmatic ideologies is lost once you start playing that numbers game.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i feel like it's a bit different though isn't it... because atheism is actually a crucial part of the marxist/communist ideology

It didn't play like that at all though, Stalin enforced good relationships with the Russian Orthodox Church when he felt they could be useful. Also, there is a relevant difference between atheism and anticlericalism.

i am basically repeating my understanding of history, and i am no historian so i could be off on what i say, but this is how i understand it

marx wrote about religion being the opiate of the masses, basically a needless distraction. basically people find peace in religion and it prevents them from becoming agitated enough to do something about the unjust system (capitalism) they exist in

this promotion of secularism and atheism becomes a crucial part of communist ideology, with communist regimes eventually deeming it desirable and/or necessary to promote atheism in the population and minimize religious sentiments, basically regarding religion as a possible source of subversion. something about having a dogmatic all encompassing ideology that starts to regard other dogmatic all encompassing ideologies with some hostility.

yea, stalin compromised as a pragmatic strategy when it was beneficial to do so. but for all intents and purposes, the communist agenda was still inherently pro-atheism and anti-religion. not that these are the only or even main concerns of communist ideology. but they are considered necessary aspects of it.

but yea clearly the communist regimes we've seen will compromise their principles. communism was also supposed to work against nationalist sentiments... but look how that turned out.

i'm not saying that marx himself would have signed off on soviet policies or anything like that

but didn't he pretty much spell out that people should ideally be set free from the shackles of religion so they could make more rational decisions regarding their status and autonomy?

basically just saying that the ideological connection between communism and atheism seems much stronger than the ideological connection between nazism and christianity. that's the distinction i was trying to make.

nazism used and embraced and/or subverted christianity as it saw fit... as a pragmatic approach because it just so happened to arise in a christian society.. where as communism didn't arise in an atheist society but rather (unsuccessfully) sought to turn societies atheist... and pragmatically compromised with religious power where they saw fit.

Originally posted by red g jacks
nazism used and embraced and/or subverted christianity as it saw fit... as a pragmatic approach because it just so happened to arise in a christian society.. where as communism didn't arise in an atheist society but rather (unsuccessfully) sought to turn societies atheist... and pragmatically compromised with religious power where they saw fit.

As I see it, Nazism clearly appealed to a misguided sense of christianhood to push it's agendas, which is akin to the kind of practical anticlericalism pushed by actual Communist regimes. You could argue that if Communism were to be created outside a religious society, it wouldn't have had the same anticlerical undertones.

The nazis were anticlerical in their own way.

Originally posted by Star428
Because, as I said, the Crusades were just a reaction to Muslim aggression against Christians. All the atrocious acts that were committed during Crusades would've never happened if not for that because there wouldn't have even been any Crusades. If Muslims had been persecuting atheists and/or shown aggression towards them on the same scale that they did to Christians then I"m sure atheists would've taken drastic action as well. I seriously doubt they'd just keep sitting around and continue to take it with a smile on their faces.
Like I said, the aggressor is irrelevant in that discussion. Islam is still a religion. It counts as religious violence, and goes in that column.
Originally posted by psmith81992
That isn't accurate on any level. With that said, looks like we finished the discussion just at the right time.
No, it's pretty accurate. You keep equating "religious" with monotheist though.

For example, you discounted Imperial Japan despite their state sponsored Shinto. It was actually one of the big things we dismantled after the war. Emperor Hirohito, allegedly even after be forced to renounce his faith post WWII, believed he was a straight up descendant of Amaterasu dude.

I think it's a mostly silly discussion, but we need to be fair if we're going to have it. If "killing while atheist" is the only criteria for the atheist column, then "killing while religious" should be the only criteria for religious column...and most of the world is religious. I'd see the religious outpacing the atheists pretty quick on kill counts.

Not that it means anything of course. Assholes are assholes.

Hell, even Buddhists in Myanmar are slaughtering Muslims right now. No Monotheism involved, but that's religious violence.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Hell, even Buddhists in Myanmar are slaughtering Muslims right now. No Monotheism involved, but that's religious violence.

If Muslims are getting killed, monotheism is the target (hence involved), so your wording fails biscuits

That isn't a good argument. Simply stating that since there are more religious people in the world, there are also more religious related deaths in the world begs some kind of proof.



The antireligious always try and put a religious label on most atrocities.

Originally posted by Bentley
As I see it, Nazism clearly appealed to a misguided sense of christianhood to push it's agendas, which is akin to the kind of practical anticlericalism pushed by actual Communist regimes. You could argue that if Communism were to be created outside a religious society, it wouldn't have had the same anticlerical undertones.

The Nazis were anticlerical in their own way.

No, the Nazis were very clerical. Hitler gave taxes from Catholics to the Catholic Church. Owing to his involvement with the church, he went after gays, outlawed abortion, and set discipline standards. The Nazis ordered that Christianity be taught in schools. Religious mottos were part of Nazi uniforms. German troops were often required to be blessed by Catholic priests before going out. The SS enforced discipline against heresy against church doctrine.

One of the first things he did after gaining power was go after atheists.

Originally posted by Trocity
He has no argument.

Of course he doesn't, psmith is an Anti-Abortion freak who defends fascistic scum such as the Orange Order or the Pro-Life militants.

To answer his argument, Stalin was an atheist (which is debatable, owing to his choosing to study for the priesthood), but the countless deaths under his regime werent in the name of atheism, they were in the name of power.

While he came down on the Russian Orthodox Church, it should be remembered that this was the church whose seminary school he could not finish. He later named them a patriotic group during World War II and they revived parishes. Likewise, Mao (and his replacements) killed anyone who flouted his rules, including those of atheist religions such as Buddhism, Falun Gong, Taoism, etc. Dictators without fail kill to maintain and demonstrate their power, whatever excuses get put forward.

Religious people on the other hand, have killed for their Religion. Most murders in the world occur in Religious countries.

Originally posted by Bentley
If Muslims are getting killed, monotheism is the target (hence involved), so your wording fails biscuits
I know you're trolling me, but I meant monotheism isn't necessary for religious people to perpetrate violence.
Originally posted by psmith81992
That isn't a good argument. Simply stating that since there are more religious people in the world, there are also more religious related deaths in the world begs some kind of proof.



The antireligious always try and put a religious label on most atrocities.
Lol @ you thinking his post supports your arguments. He was razzing me over the wording of my post, not the idea behind it.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I know you're trolling me, but I meant monotheism isn't necessary for religious people to perpetrate violence.

Lol @ you thinking his post supports your arguments. He was razzing me over the wording of my post, not the idea behind it. LOL@you thinking that I thought that or that his argument contradicts mine.

Originally posted by Ayelewis
Of course he doesn't, psmith is an Anti-Abortion freak who defends fascistic scum such as the Orange Order or the Pro-Life militants.

To answer his argument, Stalin was an atheist (which is debatable, owing to his choosing to study for the priesthood), but the countless deaths under his regime werent in the name of atheism, they were in the name of power.

While he came down on the Russian Orthodox Church, it should be remembered that this was the church whose seminary school he could not finish. He later named them a patriotic group during World War II and they revived parishes. Likewise, Mao (and his replacements) killed anyone who flouted his rules, including those of atheist religions such as Buddhism, Falun Gong, Taoism, etc. Dictators without fail kill to maintain and demonstrate their power, whatever excuses get put forward.

Religious people on the other hand, have killed for their Religion. Most murders in the world occur in Religious countries. so you believe that whenever atheists kill or persecute religious people, they don't do it in the name of atheism... yet when religious people do it they can do it in the name of religion?

this seems like a dogmatic double standard to me. what specifically prevents atheists from acting 'in the name of atheism?'

let me give an example... in china you can get sent to prison for your religious beliefs or going to the wrong church or being perceived as 'spreading' your religion. the network of prison/labor camps that people are sent to, very often on the basis of their religious or political beliefs, is called the laogai. laogai in chinese means 'reform through labor,' and the camps are designed to alter people's beliefs by basically using them as slave labor for a while and then releasing them back into society once their stint is done. supposedly over half of the world's slaves are being held in these camps.

one example that was documented by al jazeera shows a christian woman who was sent to prison for 'spreading her religious views' and was told that she was being taken to the laogai 'to teach her that her belief in jesus is wrong.'

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/slaverya21stcenturyevil/2011/10/2011101091153782814.html

now imagine the roles were reversed. imagine it was a religious theocracy like iran that were imprisoning atheists and forcing them to do slave labor in order to reform their religious views and indoctrinate them into becoming muslims. would you not call that religious persecution in the name of religion? be consistent.

Originally posted by red g jacks
so you believe that whenever atheists kill or persecute religious people, they don't do it in the name of atheism... yet when religious people do it they can do it in the name of religion?

this seems like a dogmatic double standard to me. what specifically prevents atheists from acting 'in the name of atheism?'

let me give an example... in china you can get sent to prison for your religious beliefs or going to the wrong church or being perceived as 'spreading' your religion. the network of prison/labor camps that people are sent to, very often on the basis of their religious or political beliefs, is called the laogai. laogai in chinese means 'reform through labor,' and the camps are designed to alter people's beliefs by basically using them as slave labor for a while and then releasing them back into society once their stint is done. supposedly over half of the world's slaves are being held in these camps.

one example that was documented by al jazeera shows a christian woman who was sent to prison for 'spreading her religious views' and was told that she was being taken to the laogai 'to teach her that her belief in jesus is wrong.'

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/slaverya21stcenturyevil/2011/10/2011101091153782814.html

now imagine the roles were reversed. imagine it was a religious theocracy like iran that were imprisoning atheists and forcing them to do slave labor in order to reform their religious views and indoctrinate them into becoming muslims. would you not call that religious persecution in the name of religion? be consistent. \\


Nobody takes that lewis kid seriously. The minute he sees someone defending religion, they're already anti abortion and freaks. Basically, his stupidity is transparent.

Originally posted by red g jacks
so you believe that whenever atheists kill or persecute religious people, they don't do it in the name of atheism... yet when religious people do it they can do it in the name of religion?

this seems like a dogmatic double standard to me. what specifically prevents atheists from acting 'in the name of atheism?'

let me give an example... in china you can get sent to prison for your religious beliefs or going to the wrong church or being perceived as 'spreading' your religion. the network of prison/labor camps that people are sent to, very often on the basis of their religious or political beliefs, is called the laogai. laogai in chinese means 'reform through labor,' and the camps are designed to alter people's beliefs by basically using them as slave labor for a while and then releasing them back into society once their stint is done. supposedly over half of the world's slaves are being held in these camps.

one example that was documented by al jazeera shows a christian woman who was sent to prison for 'spreading her religious views' and was told that she was being taken to the laogai 'to teach her that her belief in jesus is wrong.'

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/slaverya21stcenturyevil/2011/10/2011101091153782814.html

now imagine the roles were reversed. imagine it was a religious theocracy like iran that were imprisoning atheists and forcing them to do slave labor in order to reform their religious views and indoctrinate them into becoming muslims. would you not call that religious persecution in the name of religion? be consistent.

No. Communists did not kill in the name of atheism. The killed in the name of the state. The killed to maintain power.

Those killed because they were a different religion by the religious were also killed to maintain power but religion was the excuse.

The same can not be said of those atheist regimes.

Originally posted by Ayelewis
No. Communists did not kill in the name of atheism. The killed in the name of the state. The killed to maintain power.

Those killed because they were a different religion by the religious were also killed to maintain power but religion was the excuse.

The same can not be said of those atheist regimes.

Yes, it can. Substitute "religion" for "political ideology" and you have the same thing. Especially if religion goes against a particular political ideology, then you get religious persecution. But we already know you're emotionally anti religious so you're going to come up with double standards.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Yes, it can. Substitute "religion" for "political ideology" and you have the same thing. Especially if religion goes against a particular political ideology, then you get religious persecution. But we already know you're emotionally anti religious so you're going to come up with double standards.

Wrong again. The point here is that there is no "name of atheism". In the name of means "by the authority of". Unless the sole purpose and "justification" for his killing was to rid the land of theists, and outlaw religion, then it is illogical to suggest that he was killing in the name of atheism. An atheist can justify killing in a variety of ways that has nothing to do with atheism. Conversely, when a religious person believes in killing in the name of God, that is a religious cause.

Last time I checked i believe that religiously motivated people are constantly looking for their martyr ticket to be punched.

No. He isn't "wrong" at all.

How amusing.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
No. He isn't "wrong" at all.

Oh really. He says: "Substitute "religion" for "political ideology" and you have the same thing."

Political ideology=/= atheism.

Especially if religion goes against a particular political ideology, then you get religious persecution.

Again, political ideology =/= atheism. Also, how do you account for the times religion has persecuted another religion?

Persecution is persecution, no matter who is on the business end of it and whose dishing it out. However, there has been no such act done in the name of atheism. By atheists yes, but not to spread the cause of atheism.

So how is he not wrong.

PS. Since the coward could not come up a rebuttal, I replied to you.

You answered your own question. Religion caused deaths, political ideologies cost even more. They are interchangeable.

Originally posted by psmith81992
That isn't a good argument. Simply stating that since there are more religious people in the world, there are also more religious related deaths in the world begs some kind of proof.



The antireligious always try and put a religious label on most atrocities.
No, pretty good argument since the only requirement is that they be religious. I can just google practically any war or other conflict, and the parties will be religious. Now apply that through out history and what do you think happens? Q99 already gave some of them. WWII involved mostly religious nations, and death toll estimates there go as high 80 million +. Throw in things like the British Empire, Imperial Japan, the Atlantic Slave trade, genocide of native people in the America's, Middle Eastern Empires/conflicts, etc and fun times are had.

We're just responding to your claims. Like I said, I think the discussion is silly anyway. Most of these killings were done in the name of other things, but you created this "killing while atheist/theist" metric, not me. If we limit it to things done in the name of "religion/no-religion", then your examples go out the window just like mine.

Most of us aren't "antireligious" either.
Originally posted by psmith81992
Religion caused deaths, political ideologies cost even more. They are interchangeable.
I'd agree.

Mostly religious nations? Like who? Russia? Japan? Italy? Germany? None of those are religious nations. I can google every conflict like you said and find non religious groups/nations/dictators and we'd be at square one.

Those were and are religious nations though. The Allies and smaller nations were also religious.

84% of the world is religious, according to this. You'd run out of atheists long before I ran out of religious options. We wouldn't be at square one. The religious numbers would keep stacking while the atheist ones peter out.

http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/

Except simply stating that there are more religious people in the world doesn't translate into "more religious related deaths". The modern era saw the majority of mass murders being perpetrated in favor of political ideologies.

I agreed that political ideologies killed more people.

The problem is that you said atheists had a higher kill count than the religious, which isn't true. I think you're misinterpreting this as some attempt to demonize the religious, which it isn't.

I'm more curious what you consider religious at this point, since you're rejecting openly religious nations like Japan and Germany.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Mostly religious nations? Like who? Russia? Japan? Italy? Germany? None of those are religious nations. I can google every conflict like you said and find non religious groups/nations/dictators and we'd be at square one.

Russia and Italy are overly religious.

Originally posted by Bentley
Russia and Italy are overly religious. You're kidding right? I'm from communist Russia. Russia is the opposite of religious.

I must admit that I was a little confused by his statement as well. Italy, I can understand people thinking that but Russia? Never heard that before.

Originally posted by Ayelewis
Oh really. He says: "Substitute "religion" for "political ideology" and you have the same thing."

Political ideology=/= atheism.

Especially if religion goes against a particular political ideology, then you get religious persecution.

Again, political ideology =/= atheism. Also, how do you account for the times religion has persecuted another religion?

Persecution is persecution, no matter who is on the business end of it and whose dishing it out. However, there has been no such act done in the name of atheism. By atheists yes, but not to spread the cause of atheism.

So how is he not wrong.

PS. Since the coward could not come up a rebuttal, I replied to you. i don't know about this mantra.. just seems off to me

basically any example of "religious persecution" also had a political/power aspect to it... including the crusades, the inquisitions, 9/11, isis, etc

religion and power, or ideology and power have always mingled together in the intentions of people

it's never just about religious beliefs alone the way you are demanding it be about atheism alone... if we use that standard then the only 'religiously motivated acts' we should be talking about are crazy people who murder or do random shit based on their beliefs. which atheists have also done... more rarely (then again atheism is just getting started in terms of its ideological influence), but they have.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i don't know about this mantra.. just seems off to me

basically any example of "religious persecution" also had a political/power aspect to it... including the crusades, the inquisitions, 9/11, isis, etc

religion and power, or ideology and power have always mingled together in the intentions of people

it's never just about religious beliefs alone the way you are demanding it be about atheism alone... if we use that standard then the only 'religiously motivated acts' we should be talking about are crazy people who murder or do random shit based on their beliefs. which atheists have also done... more rarely (then again atheism is just getting started in terms of its ideological influence), but they have.

Originally posted by Star428
I must admit that I was a little confused by his statement as well. Italy, I can understand people thinking that but Russia? Never heard that before. i think russia is traditionally eastern orthodox christian... communism demanded atheism as a matter of ideology, but the russian people had such strong cultural roots in the russian church that they were unsuccessful in stamping out religious sentiment in russia

The leadership and the majority of russians have always been secular/atheist

Originally posted by red g jacks
i don't know about this mantra.. just seems off to me

basically any example of "religious persecution" also had a political/power aspect to it... including the crusades, the inquisitions, 9/11, isis, etc

religion and power, or ideology and power have always mingled together in the intentions of people

it's never just about religious beliefs alone the way you are demanding it be about atheism alone... if we use that standard then the only 'religiously motivated acts' we should be talking about are crazy people who murder or do random shit based on their beliefs. which atheists have also done... more rarely (then again atheism is just getting started in terms of its ideological influence), but they have.

You're generalizing.

What tenet of atheism do you believe these killings were conducted "in the name of?"

There is nothing about not believing in gods that commands you to kill the infidel.

Political ideology allows you to do whatever you want.

Originally posted by Ayelewis
You're generalizing. then give a specific example of systematic religious persecution/oppression/violence where politics and/or power/other earthly human motivations played no role

if my generalization is wrong then you should be able to give some examples where it doesn't apply.

i think you're falling back on petty semantics... cause technically "not believing in a god" has no ideology behind it, it's just one stance on one issue.

but in reality, that stance is mingled with a whole host of ideological beliefs... there are conclusions that typically follow from a materialist/atheistic pov just like there are conclusions that generally follow from a monotheistic religious pov... the only real difference is there is no official holy book or church of atheism.

Originally posted by psmith81992
You're kidding right? I'm from communist Russia. Russia is the opposite of religious. Originally posted by Star428
I must admit that I was a little confused by his statement as well. Italy, I can understand people thinking that but Russia? Never heard that before.
You two clearly haven't been keeping up with what's going on in Russia.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulcoyer/2015/05/21/unholy-alliance-vladimir-putin-and-the-russian-orthodox-church/

The strong mainstream push against homosexual rights in Russia is a result of a large and deeply conservative religious sector of Russian society.

Now here's a caveat: while Russia is still not an incredibly religious nation as a whole, the Russian Orthodox Church wields outsized influence over Russia's political landscape.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You two clearly haven't been keeping up with what's going on in Russia.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulcoyer/2015/05/21/unholy-alliance-vladimir-putin-and-the-russian-orthodox-church/

The strong mainstream push against homosexual rights in Russia is a result of a large and deeply conservative religious sector of Russian society.

Now here's a caveat: while Russia is still not an incredibly religious nation as a whole, the Russian Orthodox Church wields outsized influence over Russia's political landscape.

Not to mention, How U.S. Evangelicals Helped Create Russia's Anti-Gay Movement.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You two clearly haven't been keeping up with what's going on in Russia.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulcoyer/2015/05/21/unholy-alliance-vladimir-putin-and-the-russian-orthodox-church/

The strong mainstream push against homosexual rights in Russia is a result of a large and deeply conservative religious sector of Russian society.

Now here's a caveat: while Russia is still not an incredibly religious nation as a whole, the Russian Orthodox Church wields outsized influence over Russia's political landscape. Oh I'm definitely keeping up with it, it's just this movement isn't committing mass murder like the secular leadership. That's a nice attempt though..

Originally posted by Ayelewis
Oh really. He says: "Substitute "religion" for "political ideology" and you have the same thing."

Political ideology=/= atheism.

Especially if religion goes against a particular political ideology, then you get religious persecution.

Again, political ideology =/= atheism. Also, how do you account for the times religion has persecuted another religion?

Persecution is persecution, no matter who is on the business end of it and whose dishing it out. However, there has been no such act done in the name of atheism. By atheists yes, but not to spread the cause of atheism.

So how is he not wrong.

PS. Since the coward could not come up a rebuttal, I replied to you.

Am suddenly reminded of the old joke...
"What does Atheism support?"
"You get to sleep in Sunday Morning".

Abstinence makes the church grow fondlers.

^lol

Originally posted by Trocity
Abstinence makes the church grow fondlers.

Even I aint that drunk....but pretty damn close....

Originally posted by Star428
It's hilarious how atheists have to go way back to things that happened 800 or 900 years ago to support their ridiculous claims that religion is responsible for more pain and suffering than atheism. They also love to ignore the fact that the Crusades were started because of Muslim aggression against and persecution of Christians.The Crusades started off as defensive in nature. Only later did they go on the offensive and decide to take back Jerusalem from the muslims who were wrong to take it in the first place. I'm sorry that I don't view the Crusades as an evil campaign like most of the morons in this thread seem to think they were. I mean, sure, there were a lot of atrocious things done in the name of religion during the Crusades but there will always be those who act out on their own in cruel ways. Happens in every war but that doesn't mean those that did so had the approval of the Church to do it.


http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/the-crusades/the-real-history-of-the-crusades.html


I just find it amusing that atheists have to bring up the Crusades when they argue the morality of the religious vs that of atheists. Only an idiot would think atheists are known for being more moral than Christians. If our country was still as Christian today as it was when it was founded or even just a generation ago you would not be seeing all these acts of mass murder that we are seeing in country nowadays. Back then people had actual values, cared about their fellow man, and you could count on them to keep their word. That's not the case anymore.

It's no more hilarious then the silly ass notion of "this person was an atheist and thus EVERY SINGLE BAD THING THEY HAVE DONE was due to their belief that there is no God".

Actually it's far far less hilarious then the thing I just described.

If we play the game of "if you are an atheist and you do something bad it is due to atheism" then..religion has without question caused more suffering, massively more suffering.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Oh I'm definitely keeping up with it, it's just this movement isn't committing mass murder like the secular leadership. That's a nice attempt though..

How many homosexuals lynched would start to qualify as mass murder?

Originally posted by Bentley
How many homosexuals lynched would start to qualify as mass murder?

Not as many that has died under the banner of communism. Putin isn't religious, neither is his cabinet. Hating homosexuals isn't a religious trait.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Not as many that has died under the banner of communism. Putin isn't religious, neither is his cabinet. Hating homosexuals isn't a religious trait.

First, you dodged the question, nice reflexes.

Second, you claimed that a movement wasn't commiting mass murder, it doesn't have to be sponsored by the government to be a mass murder, and you don't need to have a barometer of the faith of each member to consider the movement religious.

Third, claiming someone is better than Stalin isn't much of a moral standard.

Either way, I already pointed out in earlier posts that playing the numbers game is empty on each side and I do believe some posts here are too overly concerned with semantics to make much sense.

No, I answered the question. I don't know how many it takes to be considered mass murder, but it's a drop in the bucket of the mass murder that took place in the name of communism. That's an answer, I'm sorry if you don't like it.


Yup, because your previous statement indicated that we haven't settled on a number for it to be considered mass murder


Where did I claim someone was better than Stalin? I said Putin isn't religious. You're reading way too much into statements.