Originally posted by The_Tempest
Like 2 or 3, tops.
Completely agree. I think the 60-80 million mark is only set by Wikipedia but I've seen 10-15 sources that range anywhere from 200k to 3 million, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say 3 million. Hardly comparable to the atrocities by Stalin, Mao, or Pot.
I'm honestly wondering why Nai purposely inflated the numbers but I can't think of anything other than attempting to make his argument work.
I can't find the 20 million figure either. Where'd you get it, Nai?
Roughly 108 billion humans have lived over the past 50,000 years. The majority of them dying of disease, starvation, natural factors etc. Of those who were murdered, butchered, slaughtered, etc., how many billions (millions?) were killed primarily for religious reasons? Caesar boasted of slaughtering a million Gauls, but it wasn't because they worshiped the wrong gods, it's because they weren't Romans and they had lots of land to satisfy his needs.
Trying to sift through history's dead and determining which were killed for specific reasons is pretty damn tough without submitting to gross over-simplifications/exaggerations. The 100,000 dead of the Peasant's War were ostensibly killed over the Church's schism, but were certainly also put down (and revolted in the first place) over simpler, more bread-on-the-table reasons, namely for not having enough bread on the table. The countless millions slaughtered by the Mongols weren't for religious purposes--they tolerated every religion.
Then there's the issue of timing; the 20th century had a massive death toll in war and genocide because there were vastly more people alive then there was not even 50 years prior, nevermind 500, or more. Industrial methods of killing made mass murder easy. Give the same factory-line machines of death to any killer or despot throughout history--and the massive population of humans to unleash them on--and you're going to see very similar bodycounts regardless of religion's presence or lack thereof.
It's not really about atheism or theism, it's about using whatever you have at hand to justify or rationalize your actions. The medieval Christians used God and the Cross, the Romans used the state, the Nazis used "science". There's any number of various factors at play, it's not so easy as theism vs. atheism.
👆
Let's stop making the absurd hair-trigger fallacy of equating or otherwise associating atheism—the lack of belief in supernatural deities, right?—with every possible secular ideology or organization. Reverent conformity by the masses to the tenets of an institution, ideal, or figurehead—probably rendered political, whether or not it's mythological—can be and has been manipulated by men (probably more often than not with ulterior motives) toward some very bad ends. But the total number of atrocities of a scale you casualty fetishists would care about perpetrated by a party whose primary motive or justification was atheism is, as far as I am aware, precisely zero. Where frequency is more telling than body count, there have been "exponentially" and "infinitely" fewer crimes of magnitude committed by atheists with ulterior motives than religious men with [ulterior] motives. That should be evident. It's not a blanket indictment of religion, but this needs to be understood.
Dave
I'm waiting on someone to start screaming "blame religion". Obviously the problem is with humans, whether it's religious fundamentalism or secularism.
Think you missed the part where we moved on beyond "intent". You're just repeating what was already said. We are simply discussing deaths by the religious groups, vs. deaths by the secularist groups, whether they're atheist or communist, in which case, our numbers comparison applies here.
It's not really about atheism or theism, it's about using whatever you have at hand to justify or rationalize your actions. The medieval Christians used God and the Cross, the Romans used the state, the Nazis used "science". There's any number of various factors at play, it's not so easy as theism vs. atheism.
I'd also like to point out that all the deaths committed in the name of "God', throughout history (if we're to take 3 million as the high point), still pales in comparison to the Holocaust. JUUUUUST saying.
Edit: Also, let's stop saying atheists. Most of the mass genocide has been committed by secularists/communists who also happened to be atheists. Happy Faunus?
Dave
edit: Also, let's stop saying atheists. Most of the mass genocide has been committed by secularists/communists who also happened to be atheists. Happy Faunus?
edit: wait wait wait.
Dave
I'd also like to point out that all the deaths committed in the name of "God', throughout history (if we're to take 3 million as the high point)
Tell me Beefy, under what circumstances would you lay significant blame at the feet of one's religion for his or her crime?
It's a step. I'm still not sure you understand the magnitude of the distinction, hence the above. What's your operating definition of secularist?edit: wait wait wait.
... are you serious?
Also, I wonder if I should include the 400 years of Jewish slavery in Egypt among the death tolls. Wouldn't even matter for this discussion.
Tell me Beefy, under what circumstances would you lay significant blame at the feet of one's religion for his or her crime?
Secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries. One manifestation of secularism is asserting the right to be free from religious rule and teachings
A little more drastic definition then what I bolded.
Dave
Someone who despises religion in favor of his own purposes?
Dave
I meant to edit but too late. Three million for the Middle Ages, which is what we were discussing. Although I can't imagine it being more than a million or two more before that time period because of population shortages. Would you like to give an estimate that doesn't make us lol (60 to 80 million)?Also, I wonder if I should include the 400 years of Jewish slavery in Egypt among the death tolls. Wouldn't even matter for this discussion.
Dave
I don't blame religion for the Crusades anymore than I blame guns or other tools humans use to murder each other and/or justify it. If you're asking me if the Crusades were a purely religious affair, they obviously were. But if you're going to blame religion for the Crusades, and then human assholes for all other mass genocides, then you're using double standards.
Where you and I diverge is in our application of that scrutiny. You've been posing secularism as the antithesis of religion in these matters for years, and it's just a completely fallacious, inaccurate position to take. Theistic religion—or the absence of it—is one of many considerations in the affairs of a sufficiently developed society. To the extent that we can parse the differences, all of the other aspects of culture falling into the sociology of civil society, the economics, and the form of government constituting your civilization are therefore inherently secular by the word's proper contextual definition. So no, I don't think it's fair to look at a group like Al-Qaeda and simply attribute their atrocities to Islam, which is not the same thing as just flat out denying that their "faith" has any culpability whatsoever. It is a common practice, if of sometimes dubious worth, to look at a group who themselves confess to being motivated by the will of God and wonder what they'd be fighting for—or at least, how hard—if not for the promise of lusty paradise once they've blown up a school.
But to observe that there is a problem with the deficit of critical thought strongly correlated with religious fervor—which doesn't happen in a vacuum in the real world... or in a sense, it only happens in an epistemological vacuum: when people are denied insight via the education and freedom of thought that can usually only be provided by sufficient advancement and stability in all the other aspects of a society—shouldn't have to be interpreted as a blanket condemnation of religion. To observe that a dictator can run a secular, specifically antireligious regime and murder twenty million of his own people indicates that theism is not the sole cause of fairly unilateral disasters of human suffering; it should not lead anyone to conclude that government or atheism are inherently destructive, and it really shouldn't lead to the association of persecution with secularism. That makes me laugh and be sad.
Long story short: blaming atheism was probably just unspecific, I'm less sure about you conflating antireligious sentiment with all of secularism. It's either blunt or dumb, you can tell me which.
Dave
Deaths caused by the religious vs. deaths caused by the secularists, since it's usually the #1 argument condemning religion.
That depends on your methods of and criteria for attribution of blame, which are obviously wildly different from mine. But literally the first entry on Wikipedia's list (links are bad) of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll is the long campaign of Muslim conquest in South Asia and the Indian subcontinent. Casualty estimates for that alone are—get this—60 to 80 million.
Is there an entry in any dictionary you can find where that's one of the definitions listed under secular?
here you and I diverge is in our application of that scrutiny. You've been posing secularism as the antithesis of religion in these matters for years, and it's just a completely fallacious, inaccurate position to take.
o the extent that we can parse the differences, all of the other aspects of culture falling into the sociology of civil society, the economics, and the form of government constituting your civilization are therefore inherently secular by the word's proper contextual definition. So no, I don't think it's fair to look at a group like Al-Qaeda and simply attribute their atrocities to Islam, which is not the same thing as just flat out denying that their "faith" has any culpability whatsoever. It is a common practice, if of sometimes dubious worth, to look at a group who themselves confess to being motivated by the will of God and wonder what they'd be fighting for—or at least, how hard—if not for the promise of lusty paradise once they've blown up a school.
I agree with everything, but looking at your last sentence, you'd have to seriously mistranslate any form of religious text to come to that conclusion. There's a reason 99% of the world's muslims aren't terrorists. Same goes with any monotheistic denomination.
But to observe that there is a problem with the deficit of critical thought strongly correlated with religious fervor—which doesn't happen in a vacuum in the real world... or in a sense, it only happens in an epistemological vacuum: when people are denied insight via the education and freedom of thought that can usually only be provided by sufficient advancement and stability in all the other aspects of a society—shouldn't have to be interpreted as a blanket condemnation of religion.
The problem is, in today's society it IS interpreted as a blanket condemnation of religion. Certainly we can agree that both religious and non religious groups hold geniuses and morons. I don't think you'd go as far as saying atheists are overall more intelligent because they don't believe in a higher power.
To observe that a dictator can run a secular, specifically antireligious regime and murder twenty million of his own people indicates that theism is not the sole cause of fairly unilateral disasters of human suffering; it should not lead anyone to conclude that government or atheism are inherently destructive, and it really shouldn't lead to the association of persecution with secularism. That makes me laugh and be sad.
What you just said should apply to religious conflict as well, but is not thought of as such. I think you'd agree that as more and more people gravitate away from religion, society starts with the double standards. What you said is true about secularist regimes. The same logic is not applied to religious ones.
Long story short: blaming atheism was probably just unspecific, I'm less sure about you conflating antireligious sentiment with all of secularism. It's either blunt or dumb, you can tell me which.
Arguing this in earnest out of a few particular contexts is dumb, though. A position that hasn't considered all of the above is probably going to be so reductive as to be meaningless, possibly just stupid. The rote casualties game you folks are conducting is blind to patterns, and therefore just masturbation. I have no problem with that provided we understand what it is and isn't.
Originally posted by psmith81992
The problem is, in today's society it [b]IS interpreted as a blanket condemnation of religion. Certainly we can agree that both religious and non religious groups hold geniuses and morons.[/b]
The split isn't even. I'd agree that both the religious and non-religious hold "geniuses and morons." However, there is evidence to suggest that religiosity has a tendency to stifle critical thought and hinder intellectual growth.
I don't think you'd go as far as saying atheists are overall more intelligent because they don't believe in a higher power.
No, not raw agnosticism, I don't think. However, the religious tend to shy away from the more deductive, analytic, and critical aspects of intellectual thought. It comes with the territory of not asking questions and following dogma that's contradictory, unscientific, and bereft of thought-provoking content.
The split isn't even. I'd agree that both the religious and non-religious hold "geniuses and morons." However, there is evidence to suggest that religiosity has a tendency to stifle critical thought and hinder intellectual growth.
No, not raw agnosticism, I don't think. However, the religious tend to shy away from the more deductive, analytic, and critical aspects of intellectual thought. It comes with the territory of not asking questions and following dogma that's contradictory, unscientific, and bereft of thought-provoking content.
Religious people don't ask questions? Religious people follow contradictory dogma? Religion is bereft of thought provoking content? No offense but unless you actually delve into it even an iota, you're not qualified to make these statements. They're just baseless assertions.
I'm not saying that if you were religious or if you were to study any religion to a certain extent, that you'd find it thought provoking, or uncontradictory, or you would or wouldn't ask questions. What I'm saying is, someone on the outside looking in can't make those kind of statements without a healthy amount of skepticism.
Originally posted by psmith81992
This is based on...?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
This page provides a good summary on the research and studies that have gone into exploring the relationship between intelligence and religiosity.
I mean, you say "both" so I assume you believe it's an even split. Where's your evidence that it is, if so?
I'm wondering if you know anything of religion outside of your philosophy 101 class?Religious people don't ask questions? Religious people follow contradictory dogma? Religion is bereft of thought provoking content? No offense but unless you actually delve into it even an iota, you're not qualified to make these statements. They're just baseless assertions.
They don't. They do. It is.
"If" I delve into it? What a "baseless assertion" (LOL@hypocrisy) that is. I've studied theology for years. I'm no rookie, in terms of religion/religiosity.
Great response, where you effectively insult and add nothing. This is your specialty, though. I also had to expect this engaging you. I tend not to, for multiple reasons including what I listed above.