Who Kills More, Religion or Atheism?

Religion (or a lack of it) doesn't kill people. People kill people. :-)

Funny how easily correlation becomes causality...

Alan B., Long Island, NY
November 27, 2007 10:20am

Guns don't decide to kill people either, but they certainly make it easier. A bit like religion. You could think of it as a homicidal lubricant. Doesn't necessarily cause the act, but certainly lessens the physical and moral hardships. This of course applies to atheistic (apparently) memes also. Communism, fascism, et al

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabor Plain, Australia
November 27, 2007 3:49pm

Brian I'm a huge fan of the podcast. I think you've missed the mark on this episode.

"Religion does not cause you to kill people.."

I have a hard time accepting this considering the data. Why did 19 men fly planes into buildings on September 11, 2001? Explicit religious convictions.

"Killers don't really kill because of their religion."

I find it hard to believe these 19 men walked through life until that point wanting to kill but failing to find a reason to do it.

In 1996 and 1997 Eric Robert Rudolph detonated bombs at several locations including Centennial Olympic Park, a lesbian night club, and two abortion clinics. His motivation? He wanted to start a guerrilla campaign against abortion and the "homosexual agenda". He had a long association with the Christian Identity movement and the Army of God.

If religion doesn't cause people to kill someone really needs to inform people like the 9/11 terrorists and Eric Robert Rudolph. Apparently, when said explicitly they killed because of their respective religious convictions they were mistaken.

Regarding the 20th century's atheistic regimes, not a single act was done explicitly in the name of atheism but rather in the name of a dogmatic ideology that is almost identical to a religion. You might want to re-read arguments by Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris.

"Good people will do good things, bad people will do bad things. b But for good people to do bad things, now that takes religion."

Aaron, Saint Louis, Missouri, USA
November 27, 2007 5:35pm

Aaron -

What leads you to conclude that Eric Rudolph et. al. were well adjusted, peaceful people?

Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
November 27, 2007 5:58pm

"What leads you to conclude that Eric Rudolph et. al. were well adjusted, peaceful people?" - Eric Schulman

I don't. I conclude their ability to reason was very much clouded with religious belief. The motivation they claimed for their actions is pretty much all the evidence I need. I think the onus is on the person who claims these people (and the many like them throughout history) did what they did for reasons other than they claimed.

I'll admit not all murders in the name of religion were done explicitly for religion. Hitler professed Christianity in many of his speeches but probably wasn't a believer. But the claim in the podcast was "Religion does not cause you to kill people...". This absolute statement is absolutely wrong.

Aaron, Saint Louis, Missouri, USA
November 27, 2007 8:52pm

"Religion does not cause you to kill people...".
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live?
Jihad?
My undies are blue and have holes.
Some times I would like to kill people, but I always woose out at the base of the clock tower. Must get a lighter rifle. The 30.06 is just too heavy for all those ladders. I'll just stick to adding fluoride to the drinking water. Apparently thats lethal.

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabor Plain, Australia
November 28, 2007 2:09am

I must say, I am continually impressed. I think you have rather well hit the nail on the head.

Both religion and atheism can be used as "homicidal lubricant"; one can kill in the name of God, or because there is no god to send you to hell. People who want to commit a terrible act will contort their already held beliefs to bless their act.

Some of the most damnable people I have met were Christian; some of the best people I know are atheists. Once we get down to it, regardless of the existence of God, we are all human. That, I think, was the point of this episode.

Kevin Mellis, La Verne, CA
November 28, 2007 2:34am

Aaron -

If that statement is "absolutely wrong", how is it possible to account for the overwhelming majority of profoundly religious people who have not been driven to violence by it?

Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
November 28, 2007 5:49am

Amen, Brian!

Cambias, Amherst, MA
November 28, 2007 5:54am

Eric,

My claim is not religious belief always results in violence. It seems your question is attempting to confront that strawman.

The podcast stated "Religion does not cause you to kill people..," Replace the informal "you" with the more grammatically correct word "people". Now the statement reads "religion does not cause people to kill people..." I called it an absolute statement because it states in absolute terms that religion does not cause people to kill people. If one can demonstrate, as I believe I have, that religion can cause people to kill others the statement is false and since that particular statement cannot be partly true it is absolutely false. If the statement were changed to "Religion does not always cause people to kill people" or even "Religion seldom causes people to kill people" then I would agree whole heartedly but that would have changed the meaning of the entire podcast.

Aaron, Saint Louis, Missouri, USA
November 28, 2007 7:20am

I think his point was that religion does not convert peaceful, well-adjusted people into killers. There may be exceptions, as you say; but if religion does have that effect, it's pretty poor and weak, being effective only .0001% of the time.

Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
November 28, 2007 7:27am

I'm not sure I understand your position now, Eric. Religion doesn't cause otherwise peaceful people to kill...except sometimes it does? Aren't you agreeing with me?

In some cases .0001% is a small factor. With rougly 5,610,000,000 religious people in the world it's not. Half a million people motivated to kill by their religious convictions is, in my books, way too many. Your .0001% may be accurate but it doesn't represent other factors such as the number of people who think killing in the name of their faith is permitted. About 25% of young American Muslims believe to some extent that suicide bombings can be justified to defend Islam. Outside the US the percentage is higher. This belief is also not a result of some vague socioeconomic reason but a result of their religious doctrine.

I think the point that is being missed (and explicitly denied) in the podcast is that when people kill in the name of religion it's strictly because of religious belief but when killings are blamed on atheism it's most likely not because of atheism but because of some sort of ideology that, at it's heart, resembles religion.

Aaron, Saint Louis, Missouri, USA
November 28, 2007 8:45am

Hey there Brian, and fellow fans

As I understood people like Harris, Hitchens, and the like, they aren't really claiming that religion itself kills people. As I understand them, they are claiming that Dogmatic beliefs can easily lead to making it "easier" to see yourself in an us-them framework, and thus makes it easier to go and kill someone than if you're operating under more critical and moderated assumptions. Human beings respond to incentives (so say the Economists anyway), and its difficult to believe that the dogmatic religious incentives that encourage tribalism and a rather quirky ethical system are totally ignored because they are unsavory.

Thus I wouldn't phrase the argument as "religion kills people" so much as "dogmatic and uncritical ways of thinking can more easily lead to reducing the cognitive dissonance of otherwise unethical behavior".

On the flip side, Atheists who hold their beliefs for dogmatic and faith-based (read: non-rational) reasons must be in that same boat.

The question, I believe, is "do people who hold rational/critical/ carefully-thought-out views of the world behave in ethical ways more than their counterparts"? I believe the answer is yes, and I further believe that uncritical individuals gravitate towards religion. That is, of course, an empirical question in need of hard evidence.

Anyway, those are my 2 cents. I'll be sure to say hello at the Amazing Meeting in January, perhaps we can debate the point some more in person ;)

Max, Miami, FL
November 28, 2007 2:05pm

"Atheists who hold their beliefs for dogmatic and faith-based (read: non-rational) reasons must be in that same boat." -Max.
You hear this often. Meaning the description of atheism as a "belief".
I don't believe that there is no deity, I accept that all evidence for the existence of one (or more) is absent. Belief is the the acceptance of a concept despite evidence being absent or contradictory to the premise.
To describe atheism as a belief and merely a alternative to another belief is in my opinion, way off beam. 2+2=4. You can believe it equals five all you like, but I know its 4.

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabor Plain, Australia
November 28, 2007 3:53pm

I "believe" that China exists, I "believe" that the Earth is round, and I "believe" that Homeopathy is garbage. Some people hold their beliefs despite the evidence, others hold their beliefs because of evidence and logic. I was referring to those people who call themselves atheists (or whichever term you prefer) just because they are angry with their parents and their parents are religious, or various other dumb non-argument/reason/evidence/fallacious reasons. There are plenty of these people out there. There are even a number of people out there who after looking at the evidence/reason/argument end up believing in a deity, though I feel that these people have drawn the wrong conclusion from the evidence, i must concede that there are "thinkers" as it were in both camps. I just think that empirically you'll find more in the non-theistic camp, as frankly the evidence is loaded here.

Max, Miami, FL
November 28, 2007 4:51pm

When killing and murder are committed in the name of "christianity", it goes against the very teachings of Christ and Christian doctrine, and the acts themselves argue in support of the words and teachings of Jesus, which is : humans are utterly sinful! When the same acts are committed for the furtherence of athiesm, we see the inevitable outcome of its doctrine, and then atheists use the wrongs done by "religion" to justify the ideas of atheism.
What about the other side of the argument? How much good has been done in the name of atheism compared to the good done by Christians throughout the world in the last 2000 years?

Onus Ford, Detroit, Michigan
November 28, 2007 5:58pm

Onus,

The "love your neighbor" and "do unto others" doctrines in Christianity are not unique to Christianity but are universal to humans. As we humans evolved into social creatures we naturally adapted altruism as it helped ensure survival and the spread of genes. This means some (but certainly not all) deeds that are thought to be done because of religion are done because of this natural mechanism and slapped with a religious label. When most people in the world are religious and religion is supposed to cause good deeds of course good deeds are going to be seen as religious. This is confusing correlation with causation.

To answer your question:
First, you asked (maybe on purpose) what good atheism, an idea, has done compared to Christians, people. You cannot expect an idea to do anything. You cannot expect good to be done in the name of atheism since atheism does not have a moral agenda but accepts morality is inherently human.

And again, you cannot assume all good deeds done by Christians are done because they are Christians. You can only assume the things are done because they are done by humans. (See episode 2 of Skeptoid)

Aaron, Saint Louis, Missouri, USA
November 28, 2007 6:56pm

You ask:

A. Have more people throughout history been killed in the name of religion, or in the name of atheism?

B. Which side is responsible for the greatest death toll throughout history?

C. Which is a more terrible killer: religious fundamentalism, or the lack of religion?

These are not the same question.

The question is this: Given what we know about human psychology, of those killings done *explicitly* in the name of religion (or atheism), is there a plausible causal story to tell about the relationship between one's religious beliefs/convictions (or lack thereof), and the propensity to murder? Though I agree that the answer to this question would most likely be *quite* complex (as I have framed it, this is an *empirical* question), it doesn't follow (a) that this "entire debate is the logical fallacy of the excluded middle", or (b) that the possible causal story to tell here is analogous to something like the color of one's underpants. It's surely not (a) because no one is saying that the two choices exclude other types of killings, like homicidal mania. And it's surely not (b) since it's just a fact that people *do* explicitly kill in the name of religion but not because they're wearing purple underpants. The underpants analogy is a bad one since it ignores the real and serious role that one's religious convictions can and do play in driving one's behavior. To trivialize this fact by analogizing it to underpants color is to miss the point and power of the question.

Robert, New Haven
November 28, 2007 7:26pm

Wow - thanks. I've heard this argument several times and I enjoyed your cutting of the Gordian knot. The killing of humans is done by humans and their particular belief system is only an excuse, if anything.

The real question is why have we as a species killed so many of ourselves? It seems plausible that killing between tribes for land aided survival. But Ruwanda, Darfur, etc. show that we are still doing this now. What is with this species?

Mike, Denver, CO
November 28, 2007 8:50pm

Wow - I usually don't see eye to eye with Brian, but I have to agree on this one. It's widely known that people love to become part of a larger cause. There are plenty to choose from - the noble mission of your employer to various charities to politics to religion. Some people are sheep, but it seems most select the cause that fits their belief system.

I'm with Brian - the credo is part of the effect, not the cause.

Chris, Decatur, GA
November 29, 2007 7:55pm

Marius:

While it's true, technically, that atheism, being the absence of belief, cannot qualify as a "belief" -- surely you've lived in the world long enough to know that a plurality, if not a majority of atheists _act_ like people with a strong, rigid belief system. Non-belief can function as a belief just fine in practice.

Cambias, Amherst, MA
November 30, 2007 6:37am

"While it's true, technically, that atheism, being the absence of belief, cannot qualify as a "belief" -- surely you've lived in the world long enough to know that a plurality, if not a majority of atheists _act_ like people with a strong, rigid belief system."

Actually, exactly the opposite is my experience. Most non-believers have lots of other important things to do and think about. It's only those of us who are interested in issues of philosophy, politics, culture, and religion in particular that spend much time involved in those sorts of debates.

Plus, the claim that even outspoken atheists are running around with a rigid belief system is generally just a cheap cop-out "I'm rubber, you're glue" accusation.

Bad, Cleveland, OH
November 30, 2007 3:52pm

I agree that the debate on this topic is tiresome, but we shouldn't let religion off the hook here. Religion and atheism are NOT two sides of the same coin as Brian suggests. By his own admission, "when we want something, we generally find some way to get it, even if that means killing someone or committing genocide."

I agree.

However, religions are value/belief systems that foster and create wants.

On the other hand, atheism has nothing to do with wants, except where it excludes justifications for them.

Therefore, religion - while it may not be the only thing responsible for influencing human wants and thus reasons for killing - certainly kills more than atheism does, since NOBODY has EVER killed in the name of their non-belief in a deity.

Why religion apologists keep getting away with equating atheism to a motivating belief system in these debates, I'll never know. Even ardent atheists who insist there is no way a god could exist aren't comparable to religious believers, because they don't believe in something that they can act upon. It's a shame that I keep hearing more and more skeptics running for the hills on this issue, since humanity needs every voice it can get questioning the validity of our wants and motivations - especially religious ones - a lot more than it needs paranormal and pseudoscience claims debunked.

Todd Barton, Crawfordsville, IN
November 30, 2007 4:23pm

"Those who make peaceful change impossible, make violent revolution inevitable."
-President John F. Kennedy

I live in the UK.

1- christians vs. christians
2- protestants vs. catholics

Moving further afield...

3- NI - The Troubles - see above.

4- Africa... muslims vs. christians

5- Europe... muslims vs. """"

6- Israel... jews vs muslims

7- India... Hindus vs muslims

Would anyone like to name an ATHEIST conflict?

I'm off to OZ....

Griff...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
November 30, 2007 5:30pm

Finally, a useful discussion on Atheism and Religion. Thank you! This new movement of public Atheists is annoyingly similar to evangelical Christian movement.

Matthew Schuld, Kalamazoo, MI
December 01, 2007 7:04am

Brian, I think this piece was a bit of a cop-out on your part, including the part where you predicted that folks would call it a cop-out.

I certainly empathize with irritation over this particular sort of argument, and kind of feel that it deserves it's own sort of Godwin law (<a href="http://badidea.wordpress.com/2007/12/01/266-of-266-popes-agree-you-should-believe-in-our-god-atheism-is-naughty/">though the Pope, apparently, disagrees!</a>).

But the reality is that the "everything can be explained by the fact that we're humans" idea is way way too simplistic: it's own dogmatic little answer in its own right. Ideas DO have power, and they aren't ONLY ever really after the fact justifications just because they sometimes can be. It would be nicer and neater if this were not true, but unfortunately, it is true.

So we can't so easily dodge the whole debate as you've basically done. We can find it, in virtually every form, so simplistic as to be worthless, but we unfortunately cannot escape it by sheltering in another simplistic characterization of human behavior.

My .02c

Bad, Cleveland, OH
December 01, 2007 10:41am

If mr. Dunning has even READ Dawkins', Harris' or Hitchens' books, it does not show. None of their arguments are based on simple adding up of numbers. Evil acts by bellievers is only used as examples, if they can be seen as natural consequences of the spesific contents of their faith.

If it was DEFINITELY TRUE that sacrificing one's life to kill as many infidels as possible would send you straight to paradise, if it was DEFINITELY TRUE that all infidels and heretics were so totally perverted that it was only right and just of God to make them burn for all eternity, if it was DEFINITELY TRUE that this was all justified for reasjons that were only know to God and nothing for us to worry about, and if we KNEW it to be true, then i am sure this would not in any way affect mr. Dunning's way of dealing with others (who cares about such unimportant things as the absolute good or where they will spend eternity when there are short term political goals and a basic human desire to be bad...)

IF, on the other hand, you suspect that this WOULD make a difference, you might want to consider the possibilty thar thinking AS IF such statements were definitely true, might make you ACT as if they were definitely true, and that what we call "extremism" is simply just what follows - quite naturally - from that. If mr. Dunning denies that anybody actually thinks like this, he should be telling THESE people and not us:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article543551.ece

Bjarte Foshaug, Trondheim/Norway
December 02, 2007 12:17am

Brian, tell me you're not a greeter at Wal-Mart...

Dave, Rochester, NY
December 03, 2007 10:03am

Does Wal-Mart even carry books by Dawkins, Harris, or Hitchens...

Mike Daugherty, Fremont, Nebraska
December 03, 2007 8:51pm

What it comes down to is that powerful regimes/institutions/etc., often abuse that power, whether they are religious, simply secular, or atheist.

The most powerful institutions, governments, (whether backed by religions or not), have murdered millions of innocent people. Some interesting research on this has been conducted by the author of "Death by Government".

My conclusion is that the power of such institutions should be limited as much as is possible.

Also, the arguments about which is the greatest evil in this regard, religion or atheism is a smoke screen used to denigrate the opposition and thereby gather more power.

The Heretic, Seattle
December 04, 2007 7:14am

I really think you have identified the fallacy in these "debates". I would like to see these book signing events moderated into actual debates where people are kept on track and away from such fallacious mistakes.

As to the "people are just people" answer. Please consider:

"Religion is an insult to human dignity.
Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
-- Steven Weinberg

:-Dan

Daniel Malcor, Lake Forest, California
December 04, 2007 7:50pm

I agree with your assessment that trying to figure out whether any form of religion or atheism has led to more death than another is not the most mature or reasonable way to go. It's absurd to treat all religions as the same, or to treat all atheists as univocal.
However, I do not think that is the same as asking whether there is a particular brand of religion or a particular brand of atheism that leads to a greater respect for life. Whether an ideology at its core promotes the value of human life is worth asking (even if the self-proclaimed adherents to that ideology do not follow their own professed belief system).

PeterTerp, Washington, DC
December 05, 2007 5:57am

Without "religion" you have neither good, nor bad. Simply relativism; for who or what sets the rules? Hitler and Mother Teresa are equals, simply with a difference of opinion and motive. By the way, are there any
"atheist" hospitals?

"Atheism is an insult to human reason.
With it you would have people doing neither good nor bad things and evil people doing what all people do, without consequences!
But when people to do evil things and it doesn't matter, that takes away the need for religion."
B. Tough

Bill Tough, Windsor, Canada
December 05, 2007 6:05pm

RE: "without consequences" - There are lots of people in prison who actually belong there because of the sound judgment of a jury of their peers.

In addition to that there are no end of minor evils that people lose friends over and suffer embarrassment and shame over.

Question: How do you know what is good and evil?

I have to use my own judgment. I can't just read a book that tells me to kill my neighbor when he lies. I have to use reason and my knowledge of the society I'm living in. I think you do the same.

:-Dan

Daniel Malcor, Lake Forest, California
December 05, 2007 7:58pm

When you "use your own judgment", what criteria do you use when "your judgments" go against the judgments of others and disagreements ensue. Does the majority win out? and, Can a majority be wrong?
What book tells you to kill your neighbor for lying? You should be a little more selective in your pick of literature!

Bill Tough, Windsor, Canada
December 06, 2007 2:50pm

I agree with your assessment that the argument, "do creation myths" or "political systems" kill more people is pointless. To my mind it we let lots of evil bastards off the hook by debating this. It was Stalin a his henchmen, it wasn't communism, it was Torquemada, seeking power, not Christianity.

I think people look like to attribute grand organisations to great evils, rather than believe that individuals will commit genocide for personal gain. In the case of the Mongols, it was straight up and down, they killed people because humans compete with their sheep for grazing land. It's kind of chilling when you try and attribute the same motivation to other great killers, and you find similarly trivial motivation.

So now for the lists, which historical political/religious systems have the lowest body count, and what can we learn from them.

Matware, Adelaide, Australia
December 07, 2007 4:10am

Aaron in St Louis seems to be the clearest thinker here on this topic. We need a rebuttal podcast.

Brian, you are WRONG about religion not motivating people to kill. History is full of religious motivation and justification of murder. Remember all the "witches" that were burned? All the Jews that were murdered? The millions who were killed during the Inquisition? The wars between Catholics and Protestants? The religious persecutions throughout history? The spread of Islam? The spread of Catholicism in the new world?

And what religion is doing all the killing today (in the name of itself)? Islam. Only Islam. They do it for Allah, for Mohammed, for the honor of Islam, for the spread of Islam. Because their RELIGION tells them to do it.

In contrast, those who want to kill muslims are not doing it for Jesus, or for Moses, or for Shiva or Vishnu, or for Buddha, or for Communism or Fascism. They want to stop the spread of the cancer on humanity that Islam is. They want to ensure their own freedom, and secure it for their descendants.

James, Simi Valley, California, USA
December 07, 2007 12:36pm

James, lets not just single out Islam. All religion is insane and should it vanish with out a trace, lets face it, we would probably be better off. More time and money for the important things in life,like beer, chicks, Gretsch guitars and motorcycles. I try to derive pleasure from each of these things every day.Works for me.

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australa.
December 08, 2007 1:47am

Marius, Spoken like a true pagan!
We are all very aware of your god. He is you, and indeed your "religion" is insane. If not for Christianity, you and I would not have made it out of childhood.

Bill Tough, Windsor, Canada
December 08, 2007 2:30pm

Dear Bill,
thank you for your wise words. You have made me realize that all along I have been religious, but didn't know it. He is me! Well, there you go. Have you been outside my bedroom window at night, watching me perform the rights I now understand as worship?I'm glad you and I made it out of childhood Bill, with the aid of the Lamb of God. I didn't spot him, however. Perhaps he was hiding. Though come to think of it, I did see a bit of lamb come Sunday dinner, just near the mint sauce. does that count?
Thanks Bill. My life of hedonism is now behind me. This Christmas I'm going to ask Santa for a Koran.

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia.
December 08, 2007 7:09pm

Wouldn't it be more accurate to get to the root of the matter and ask what things breed hate in the hearts of men?

It seems to me that differences between populations and intolerance of those differences are the root cause of killing. For Hitler, it was gay, gypsy, the handicapped, and Jews. For Stalin it was all those who opposed communism. And for many others, it's those who worship a different prophet or God.

Tom, Audubon, PA
December 09, 2007 11:38am

Lets say there is no God - never was - never will be. So religion is invented. By whom? People. Who are people? All of us. So we all are to blame for the bad things today and in history. The root cause of violence is the human heart. Let's just say that at midnight tonight we could erase from every person's memory all thoughts of religion. Do you suppose that tommorrow no banks would be robbed, no road rage, no murders anywhere in the world? I doubt it. People do bad things because they are people. Religion can and does give them more of a reason to do bad things. So let's not blame religion for all the world's ills. Non religious people have the capacity for evil too.
I'm reminded of the trial of Adolph Eichmann - a Nazi war criminal. When one of the witnesses came forward to testify against him and came face to face with him, he was stunned. Eichmann didn't look like a killer at all. He then realized that all of us, given the right conditions, have the capability within us to do awful things to each other.

Dennis Smith, Bothell, WA
December 09, 2007 11:42pm

What occurred here over the weekend is the inevitable outcome of the indoctrination of the likes of Hichens and Dawkins. This is what happens when people are left without hope.

Ray Hopewell, Golden, Colorado
December 11, 2007 10:11am

Sorry Ray, please enlighten this ignorant atheist what you are referring to? Is it yet another gun totin' crazy going hog wild in a church? If this is the case, then to accuse Hitchens and Dawkins is quite possibly the largest straw man I have ever seen. I'm talking The King Kong of straw men. Though technically that would be a straw ape, but as we share a common ancestor and independently evolved to separate species, thats ok for the sake of this dodgy analogy.
Why blame them?
Perhaps it was Satan, or Jesus, whispering in his ear? Or aliens.
Perhaps this sad individual was out of his mind on drugs and the holy spirit? Perhaps he was not of sound mind. Assuming that was what you were referring to Ray. Perhaps you had organized a barbecue and it rained.

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabor Plain, Australia
December 11, 2007 1:58pm

From your previous posts, I don't think that you believe in satan, Jesus, or the holy spirit, so why bring them up? Aliens, perhaps. We do have quite a few illegals here abouts. In all probability, this guy was persuaded by an internet posting from some whacked out atheist living out his dreary existence! It has been said that "When men destroy their old gods they will find new ones to take their place."
Let me introduce you to your diety!

Ray Hopewell, Golden, Colorado
December 11, 2007 3:19pm

Religion scores! Young girl in Toronto strangled by her own father because she refused to wear the Muslim headscarf thingamabob.

Sean Harvey, Newport Beach CA
December 13, 2007 7:56am

Howdy Ray. Let me quote you.

"In all probability, this guy was persuaded by an internet posting from some whacked out atheist living out his dreary existence!"

What, someone like me, you mean?

""When men destroy their old gods they will find new ones to take their place."
Let me introduce you to your diety!"
I think what he means is deity. Though I could benefit from a few pounds off. All that beer and fatty food served by attractive young ladies in skimpy outfits.

Does this mean your going to have me whacked Ray?
First you accuse me of incitement to murder, then threaten to introduce me to the Atkins diet or some such. Very old testament, I must say. Of course you could indeed be threatening to send me to meet my deity, but in order to do this Ray, by your logic I would have to be dead. Hmmm. Hardly seems reasonable, old chap.

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia.
December 13, 2007 10:49pm

Isn't it quaint. You switch on the TV and yet another bunch of Teddies (I mean muslims) are chanting..."kill, Kill, KILL!"

I find this rhetoric laudable- yes, I do!

You see I realise that they really do have my 'atheistic' self-interest at the centre of their hearts!

No I mean it; let me explain...

If there is a god, then having one of those wackier-Teds shot, burn or other Me will be doing Me a favour. I'll get to meet IT; yes Me...

Oh joy...

And just think. Those Teddies will still be here but I'll be in heaven - because {faced with direct evidence of IT's existence} I will immediately repent My ignorant atheist ways and exclaim:"Oh Gord... Take this sinner to Thoust Boosum so thet He may yet be saved..." {Please excuse the attempt at bible speak!}.

I can't understand why Faithers pray for those in mortal danger; I can't appreciate the threats from extremist Teddies...

Surely in the first inst. - why pray? Surely they would be better off in heaven with their gods, so why worry about being decapitated?

In the second inst. - Why think that threatening (and then killing) people will terrorise them, when you'd be doing them a favour?

The favour is that they would see their god sooner...

Surely only atheists would fear death... yet no!

Come over here Teddies... if you think you're hard enough... {weak threat!}.

Griff...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
December 21, 2007 4:11pm

Keep out of the woods today, Griff.

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain,Australia
December 21, 2007 10:40pm

Ho, ho, ho, Merry Xmas Marius... if I do venture into the woods I'll be sure to take my .375 which should take care of any pesky Teddies! {ouch, my shoulder!}

And talking of things you see when you haven't got a gun...

In terms of "peace on Earth and goodwill to mankind"...

A thought occurred to me while out teaching a sufferer of ADHD/OCD etc. today, and it was this:-

A long time ago (like last week) religion would have labelled these children as naughty (nay - EVIL!).

Today, in our scientifically enlightened society, we recognise all conditions as symptoms of a less than perfect evolutionary process, hence we give each person/child a label that suits their condition, yet, which maintains their respect and dignity within society.

BRAVO Science.

It makes me think that all the beginings of warfare are due to this "us and them" mentality of all religions....

ADHD/OCD are most certainly NOT "lifestyle choices". A term used all too frequently by Faithers.

Griff.... Happy Winter-Festival to all my fellow Atheists!

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
December 23, 2007 12:55pm

Headline in todays paper reads: "Risky Sex Returns Syphilis to Europe". Seems as though a little bit of biblical education may be in order for our intellectual brethren across the briny! This does not seem much of an equitible trade-off. Let's see: We throw God out and accept venereal disease in His place? We don't need no stinking morality, we have penicillin. Atheism rules?!?!?
Even Richard Dawkins has seen the light. He professes to be a "cultural christian", but he may simply be hedging his bet.
Choose wisely, Grasshopper!

Sam Arington, Poly Cal., USA
December 28, 2007 6:29pm

Taiping rebellion, China, mid 19th century,
'Christian'-sect motivated, 20-30 million
deaths.

tigger, london
December 30, 2007 1:07pm

Typical atheistic rant against "christianity", but you should always use accurate information when railing against a well known historic fact. The Taiping Rebellion was a revolt against the authority and forces of the Qing Government in China. It was conducted by an army and civil administration led by a "heterodox Christian convert" named Hong Xiuquan. Heterodoxy includes "any opinions or doctrines at variance with an official or orthodox position". According to Wikipedia, "Heterodox" is used to describe a subject as "characterized by departure from accepted beliefs or standards" (status quo). The noun heterodoxy is synonymous with unorthodoxy, while the adjective heterodox is synonymous with dissident." This group was of a Chinese folk religion by a peculiar form of Christianity, holding that Hong Xiuquan was the younger brother of Jesus Christ. This definitively was not orthodox Christian believers! Nice try, but truth prevails.

Sam Arington, Poly Cal, USA
December 30, 2007 5:55pm

Syphilis was once very common,,particularly pre 100 years ago before scientific medicine really kicked off. Religion was a much more understandable thing then as well. Both were common midst the uneducated. The coming of science has given us a potential cure for both. If anything, the religious habit of ridin' bareback has helped spread this old sexual nemesis. (Thank you The Vatican).
To blame this on a lack of "stinking morality" is indication of a very large red flag indeed. Fundamentalist Christian anyone?
This slight increase is predominantly in the gay male population, who may have become a bit complacent in their infection control. Perhaps this factor is what is setting the previous poster off, given the fundamental's policies on homosexuals.

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia
December 30, 2007 7:14pm

An excellent point {once again}...

The fact is that the 'stupid' idea that 'gayness' could be stamped out has lead directly to its PROLIFERATION...(a big word requires big print).

The fact is that by trying to force gay people into heterosexual marriages for millenniums, the Faithers have 'selected' in favour of 'gayness'- as natural selection would try and rid the world of it because they usually wouldn't propagate. A lower % at any rate.

So when the BIG Faithers say that :" HIV, via gays, is sent from god." Well, it's kinda true, since it is their beliefs and constraints that have allowed it to PROLIFERATE!

Disclaimer: I have nothing against gays.

Griff...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
December 31, 2007 6:49am

Try reading the headline: "Risky Sex Returns Syphilis to Europe". The operative word is "risky". Not merely sex, but behaviors that are deemed risky! It is astounding that so many are willing to overlook one fact of STD's: Every STD, including AIDS, could be wiped from the earth if people would simply change their behaviors. Oh, but wait, that is a question of morality!
I looked up the definitions of morality: 1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
2. moral quality or character.
3. virtue in sexual matters; chastity.
4. a doctrine or system of morals.
5. moral instruction; a moral lesson, precept, discourse, or utterance.
Atheism would never allow for such standards in a society, therefore we suffer the consequences.

Sam Arington, Poly Cal, USA
December 31, 2007 2:59pm

In the pre-ambling of this topic you stated the following: "History is full of uncounted massacres by armies carrying a religious banner...." If history is indeed full of "uncounted massacres", how then do you cite so many examples of those massacred in the name of religion? Again, you write: "An unknown number, probably in the millions…" If I am not mistaken, "in the millions" would be a known number! But, not "probably". And, a few credits as to your research sources would have been very helpful.
Everybody is religious about one thing or another, in spite of the atheist claim that their beliefs are not religious. (Look it up in the dictionary.) "Killers don't really kill because of their religion", they kill in spite of or for lack of it!

Brahm Moseley, Clifton, Oh
December 31, 2007 7:19pm

Thank you Sam, for your insights into the definitions of morality. I had no Idea. Of course, your right. Given the chance, all us atheists would be on the streets, a-whoopin' it right up with all manner of debauchery and lawlessness. The only things stopping me form gettin' it on right now are the suppurating sores that cover my body from a life hellbent on hedonism. Lucky for society.
Is it just Jesus that keeps you in line, do you think? Must be, as you imply it is impossible to be moral and an atheist.
Who did it before 2008 years ago, do you suppose. Which God kept the lid on the Id of the Athenians?

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia.
January 01, 2008 1:13am

Brahm Moseley... An interesting name...

To cite examples and (I'm sure you 'must' agree) accurate numbers let us read from the book of Moses, Mr.Mose-ley.

I remember reading it (once) while bored in a hotel room in Florida.

It went on-and-on, & on, listing the numbers in the army raised {on the say-so} of your god, to massacre, and I quote(ish):"All the men, women and children of that land... but not the life-stock... as they are of use..."

Just as in the koran, the bible lists and exults the rancid behaviour known as warfare and genocide.... in the millions!

LOOK IT UP, Sam, in that bible you claim to read...

Griff...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
January 01, 2008 9:10am

So sorry to hear about your medical condition Marius. And Neil, "in the millions" is still not comparitive to the "millions upon millions" murdered just in the last century by your atheist brethren! The thing that atheists cannot argue against is this: The concept of goodness versus wickedness means absolutely nothing if there is not an ultimate lawgiver to whom we must be accountable. You have no criteria with which to comparitively judge Adolph Hitler as to, say, Mother Teresa! Without God, it is merely a matter of opinion. So why are you so quick to judge the God of the Old Testament? And why should your opinion matter? By the way, you should look up the word "hermeneutic" in the dictionary. It is a great way to study the bible!

Brahm Moseley, Clifton, Oh
January 02, 2008 4:42pm

Why thank you for the sympathy. the sores have miraculously vanished. It's as if they were never there. Have you been praying for me? Perhaps you might like to address the questions I posed in my previous post, Brahm? Sam seems uninterested.

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabor Plain,Australia
January 02, 2008 5:32pm

Wiki - it's faster:

"A hermeneutic is defined as a specific system or method for interpretation, or a specific theory of interpretation. However, the contemporary philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer has said that hermeneutics is an approach rather than a method and, further, that the Hermeneutic circle is the central problem of interpretation."

Meaning... it's nonsense, I guess.

The central point I was making, was this: YOUR bible, in the book of Moses, BRAGS about god ORDERING jews to slaughter men, women and CHILDREN, for what... a bit of land.

Actually, to an atheist, I suppose you could say that makes perfect sense... in line with evolution of species by exterminating competition for land and resources - very scientific!

IT IS NOT THE NUMBERS THAT COUNT. It's the fact that your god ORDERED the killing to occur!

AND like LAMBS the Faithers followed their orders to the letter... reminds me of what the Nazis officers said!

Griff...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
January 03, 2008 6:36am

The notion that one needs a system of belief in order to lead a "moral" life is patently absurd. To think otherwise is religious fundamentalism, even fascism.
I find this notion one of the most vile attributes of the righteous, and they have plenty to choose from.

Marius vanderLubbe, nullabour Plain, Australia.
January 03, 2008 1:47pm

Marius, This bit of information finds that morality and religion are closer than you would like to think. And I quote: "In a poll conducted by Reggie Bibby of The University of Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada he found that adults who profess a belief in God are significantly more likely than atheists to say that forgiveness, patience, generosity and a concern for others are “very important.” The poll also found that on 11 of 12 values, there was a double-digit gap between theists and atheists, with theists more likely to label each value “very important.” Professor Bibby argues its because religion is good at spreading and exposing many of these values and as society turns away from religion many of these values aren't being spread."
I can only go by what the experts find. And yes, I have been praying for you.

Brahm Moseley, Clifton, OH
January 03, 2008 6:54pm

Really. Have a look at this.
http://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2007/10/war-on-atheism.html
You wont like it.
You wont like this one either.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1767,Atheists-arent-a-bad-lot,Dan-Gardner-Ottawa-Citizen

Don't put all you eggs in one basket. The opinions of one Proff scientifically mean nothing. If they all said Jesus makes you good, then I might be tempted to give them some ear. Till then, I'll stick with evidenced based reality.
As stated before, to think that the godless are without morals is completely and profoundly incorrect.To even say that indicates a narrow range of life experiences and/or tolerance for your fellow Homo Sapiens. I am in my 40's, and have had ample opportunity for immoral behavior, and guess what? I live a moral life. Is it that I don't accept that there is a god that you find me immoral?

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabor Plain, Australia
January 03, 2008 8:48pm

Neil, Let me propose this situation to you: "If I am not mistaken, one of your beloved countrymen, Winston Churchill, ordered the extermination of thousands upon thousands of German soldiers during WWII, did he not? I am sure that you find him to be a great figure in Britain's history. But I am wondering why such a bloodthirsty human being would be held in such high regard! Many, many, German children undoubtedly died because of the decisions of this one man."
These facts are true, and if not viewed within the correct context of the historical facts, what makes Churchill any different than Hitler? We all know the difference! "Hermeneutics is an approach." Throughout mankind's history, death has been a necessary evil. Look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki! Many perished, but many were saved in ending the war.
I find it quite telling that you would reference a philosopher's writings about whom Wikipedia says: "Truth and Method is not meant to be a programmatic statement about a new 'hermeneutic' method of interpreting texts. Gadamer intended Truth and Method to be a description of what we always do when we interpret things (even if we do not know it)…"
So very true, indeed!

Onus Ford, Detroit, Michigan
January 03, 2008 8:52pm

I may be wrong, but your usage of only communist and atheist websites, (talk about putting all your eggs in one basket), for referencing a topic such as this make me a bit squemish as to whether or not you are willing to openly debate the facts. Nowhere did I say that atheists are without "morals". I merely exposed the dilemma that the issue brings to bear. The problem is this: When atheists judge the acts of others to be "good things" or "bad things", what authority are you basing your personal opinion on, and why then do you have the right to judge another's actions as to be right or wrong? Greg Koukl wrote that "a 'moral' atheist is like a man sitting down to dinner who doesn't believe in farmers, ranchers, fishermen, or cooks. He believes the food just appears, with no explanation and no sufficient cause." The atheist's morality has no grounding. If true, I would consider the atheist to be "amoral".

Brahm Moseley, Clifton, OH
January 04, 2008 5:59pm

"When atheists judge the acts of others to be "good things" or "bad things", what authority are you basing your personal opinion on, and why then do you have the right to judge another's actions as to be right or wrong?" - Brahm

I give money to a few charities, ones that I can see the cash being used well. I myself deem this to be "good thing".
I see parents who actively campaign against vaccination. I deem this to be bad.
In both cases we might well agree, and had you had been A Hindu, A Buddist, or an atheist, you might still agree. I don't need any heavenly justification for my actions. We developed this sense of egalitarianism via evolution. The common good. (Sorry if that sounds a bit communist).
So to expand on you logic, you yourself as a righteous man, are unable to make that choice for yourself. You are not going to grab that pram in the path of a steamroller without consulting god's representatives on earth or his rule book. Yes or no? You need to differ any judgment to god? (Makes the legal system a bit superfluous then.)
I think you are going to save the baby, just like I would. Neither of us needed jesus to sent us instructions to do so. We would both do the right thing.This is not the hand of god directing us.

"Nowhere did I say that atheists are without "morals".

Point conceded.
It was Sam Arlington.
"I looked up the definitions of morality:.....Atheism would never allow for such standards in a society, therefore we suffer the consequences." -Sam

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia.
January 05, 2008 12:39am

winston churchill: an anglican (christian!)

http://www.nndb.com/lists/757/000094475/

Get your facts straight!

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
January 05, 2008 9:46am

Marius, My very point is that all men seem to have a standard of morality, that, worldwide, is fairly common. Where do we get it? Believer or not, why would all men have a sense of right or wrong, and ultimately, who's standard do we go by? This is the problem.

Onus Ford, Detroit, Michigan
January 06, 2008 6:09am

In case you missed it the first time Onus, here it is again.We developed this sense of egalitarianism via evolution. The common good. A bit like ants.
Why do you feel the need to give the credit to an imaginary figure?

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia.
January 06, 2008 12:51pm

Why is it then Onus, that some people, say Hitler, have a different sense of morals?

Bearing in mind, of course, that he was raised by the Roman catholic faith...

Surely, Hitler, learned his sense of morality from the bible as a child... {Yes, I think that's obvious}...

But, the point you (and your like) must take on board, is that those of us who have never read the bible to any great extent (or not at all until I was about 35 - and then only to learn how to criticize it!) - some will never read it... YET we still show the same morals as any one else (on average). How come?

AND if the morals come from god, then ergo, you are not making the moral judgement yourself and are there by being amoral. You are claiming to have the decisions made for you rather than making them yourself! So you don't posses them intrinsically, they are placed in you by god?

Then you are amoral!

Griff...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
January 08, 2008 3:20pm

The question is poorly constructed. It should ask "How many people has dogmas killed?

Then we can group these together:

Religion
Communism
Fascism
Racism

Will Nitschke, Sydney
January 08, 2008 4:58pm

Hitler, Like every other human, made decisions to the contrary of that which he knew to be right and "moral". You have totally missed my point. I believe that all men and women has an inate sense of right and wrong, or what we call morality. The morals come from God, but we act independant of what our conscience tells us is correct. We have been given free will and we generally choose according to our desires and wants. We are indeed a selfish and self centered lot. All of us!

Onus Ford, Detroit, Michigan
January 08, 2008 7:04pm

"The morals come from God" -Onus
Evidence please.

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia.
January 08, 2008 11:05pm

Whenever someone starts talking of a god giving us our sense of morals I feel a little 'ideomotor' coming on...

Onus:"... We have been given free will and we generally choose according to our desires and wants. We are indeed a selfish and self centered lot. All of us!"

Do you have children Onus?

I have watched my 2 grow the last few years and one thing I am certain of, is that they LEARN what is acceptable and what is not... As do we all.

They learn that if a scream doesn't get your milk; a bigger scream is needed... if survival, via milk, is selfish; then so be it!

Innate - only via evolution.

You say as others, that we have a choice to follow what we're taught... yet that bucket doesn't hold water... if the persons have never heard of a bible, let-alone read one: yet they can still show right from wrong.

Then, if not the bible (or other book) you say god gave us these features - programed us? - so to speak... then are we not robots?

Griff...?

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
January 17, 2008 4:21pm

Brian,

I'd like to know your views on the Manson Family. As I understand what you said, murderers are murderers, and whether they use religion to justify their murders is irrelevant.

So, would you claim that Manson had no role in convincing those people to murder? That they would have been murderers whether or not they had come into contact with Manson?

It seems to be like you are claiming that people are not moved to murder by other people, be they religous or atheist. Are you?

Thanks...

Mark, Arcadia, CA
January 20, 2008 5:35pm

Griffiths, what you feel coming on is probably not an "ideomotor??", but, rather, a conscience! As a matter of record, I have four children. And I never taught any of them to do wrong or disobey. It seems like it was just so natural to them. Even as wee small children, they would look around before they touched things, to see if anyone was watching, and then touch, knowing they were doing wrong. You may say that they needed to learn to do right!!! They knew what was right, and still did wrong things. Did you teach your children to do wrong, Neil? No? Why do you suppose that to be the case? Why would children not "do good" all their lives, as they start out life so cute and cuddly? And when your children learned what is acceptable, did they choose to do the acceptable things all the time? Do they still scream for food or do you hold them to a higher standard now that they are older, and do you consider selfishness a virtue? If evolution is true, what right do you have to correct your children? Just give them a few hundred thousand years and they will grow out of it! The bible declares that we are "born" with the innate nature to sin, but that we are "created" with the ability to know of right from wrong. We have the choice to do right or wrong, but not much of a desire to do right.

Onus Ford, Detroit, Michigan
January 30, 2008 6:20pm

What a sad thing, religion, so negative towards the working of the Human brain.

As Onus says:"The bible declares that we are "born" with the innate nature to sin..."

Since your god has created us (I don't mean us really) to sin; WHY?

Seems, as usual, the Faither way of thinking is twisted around the idea that we're all naughty boys & girls. Designed to be so, aye, Onus?

Strange design, that!

If we were designed to sin, as you say, then Hitler was living up to his design brief; no?

What a load of cobblers...

When children do something that is meant to be 'wrong' ( as you call it ).... what they are doing is "investigating".

If I tell a child "not to touch"... it's usually to stop them getting hurt...

If they DO touch... it's not wrong! I don't care if they "disobey me". They will LEARN not to touch, by themselves.

They will learn it is dangerous or something... BUT I will not be teaching them that I am the great Onus, knower of all right from wrong... as dictated to by the bible (a work of fiction, hardly relevant to today!)

By the way, it's Griff (or Sniffer) to my friends...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
February 02, 2008 9:08am

Heard about your podcast on the Skeptic's Guide and I'm enjoying it so far.

On to the point: I agree it is not religion directly that is to blame for so many deaths. I do think it is the larger group of irrational thinking and collectivist mentality that is to blame (which religion is a subset of).

This explains the genocides perpetuated by Stalin, Hitler and ilk under a secular government -- the root cause, I think, is people's "faith" in their leaders, following without question the rest of their "flock" and not thinking critically, skeptically about their actions.

Carlton Stedman, Warwick, RI, USA
February 04, 2008 10:03am

Just for starters:

http://www.theskepticalreview.com/JAHPoliticsDeathToll.html

Religon = Death in the Millions

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
February 12, 2008 12:15pm

Heck, even if you grant the absurd notion that atheism had anything to do with the actions of Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot, you can point out that the list of atheists isn't complete without Norman Borlaug.

If you include Norman Borlaug, you can turn around and say that even including the death tolls of Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot, atheism saved the lives of nearly a billion people in the 20th century. That's using their own "logic" against them.

Denis Loubet, Austin Texas USA
March 15, 2008 8:27pm

i cannot believe christianity is even a concept that still exists in the twenty first century.. oh well i guess you could say that about people inhaling toxic smoke into their lungs for a kick too... these are just bad stages in the history of the human race and i believe theres one thing better than complaining about things.. its doing something about these things.. the best you can do is pass on GOOD information onto the next generation after all that's evolution isn't it..

jon, canberra
March 18, 2008 12:45am

I was interested when you said something like, "it doesn't matter what banner we carry," and "either side."

What about the banner itself? Maybe it's having a banner that makes us kill? I don't think that healthy individuals want to kill, but there are things that make us kill--like self-preservation. If we have a gun to our head. What if that gun is on the other end of a commanding officer?

I don't think you can talk about people and killing and not question war itself. The only reason people say "kill in the name of X" is because we know that we have "higher powers" that force us to kill, higher powers with flags and badges and guns.

Hellbound Alleee, Wenatchee, WA
March 28, 2008 11:23am

Excellent advice:

"i believe there's one thing better than complaining about things.. it's doing something about these things.. the best you can do is pass on GOOD information onto the next generation after all that's evolution isn't it..?"

jon, canberra
March 18, 2008 12:45am

Good on ya mate!

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
April 04, 2008 4:44pm

Its not a religion or belief that causes mass murder, its a persons desire to get something regardless of who they have to go through to get it.

Stalin used an atheist, marxist idology to gain power over millions. He was willing to kill 20 million to achieve his goals.

The Crusaders wanted to gain new lands that they could send there children to rule over. The holy land was rich because of the trade and the Muslims had been weakened by war. Holy War! 700,000 dead and lots of rich Christians.

The easiest way to get others to help you achieve your goals seems to be to find a wedge belief. Religion, Marxism, Fascism, Capitalism, Race, ethnicity. In the west religion seems to be weakening so the others have come to the fore.

Aaron Richoux, New Orleans
April 09, 2008 10:01pm

although i can't prove it, i very much doubt that many suicide bombers would be suicide bombers if not for the false reality they believe in because of their religion.

d hawke, ottawa, canada
April 19, 2008 5:04am

An excellent point.

I enjoyed listening to a news report of a convicted religious terrorist in the UK...

It said that the jury listened as on a video as he said goodbye to his wife and children (whom he 'claimed to love very much!).

Yeah, I chuckled, he loves you girl, but what can he say?

He's off to god's land to claim his 72 virgins... I bet she hopes he has good sex and wishes him all the best.

The only thing worse than a religious suicide bomber ... and that's one that didn't go BANG!

Keep blowing yourselves up... Best wishes!

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
April 27, 2008 5:26pm

I think you are making the same mistake here as the christians make in interpreting the viewpoints and arguments of the "new atheists" (and before I go into this I should say that the new atheists have done an abysmal job at correcting this mistake so the blame does not lie entirely with you). The argument is not between religion and atheism it is between irrationality and rationality. The principle issue being raised regarding religion is (in the opinion of the "new atheists") that belief in its tenets is irrational, and, (again, in the opinion of the new atheists) it is better to live a rational life than an irrational one. When I see the atheists you speak of publicly debating these prominent christians I see them avoiding the bodycount argument" as much as possible and stressing that whether these people committed the horrors they did because of atheism is not a relevant question. The question is whether or not they were being rational, that is whether they had rational or irrational reasons for doing what they did. In this way they would be decried in the same way as religion is, based on its irrationality.
As an aside I am amused that the Pol Pot argument is still trotted out by these people considering every one of the new atheists is a prominent intellectual and "intellectuals" were a prominent part of Pol Pots hit list.

Neill Raper, Hadley Mass
May 28, 2008 8:08pm

I agree on this to a point. Yes, the people behind genocide and mass murders are probably just good old fashioned power hungry, evil people and whether they are religious or not is a mute point. However, when it come down to the little people, I think what you say is completely wrong. When you are a child and taught that the infidel is the devil, throwing a stone at the "devil" (or later on shooting him/her with an automatic rifle), is what you are supposed to do as a good *enter faith here*. It's a great and noble thing to do, as your religion has told you, and you shall be rewarded by those around you and in heaven (or wherever) for doing it. In your mind, you are making the world a better place. I argue strongly that this person would not have killed without this religious belief. As is has been said, there are good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

elaine ellerton, austin, TX
July 11, 2008 1:00pm

I heartily agree Elaine...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
July 11, 2008 1:22pm

Me too, Neil!

GOD, HEAVEN
July 22, 2008 4:58pm

I wish I knew how I get to post 3 times on the trot. If I did I'd do it more - just to spice things up...

Like this...

To me, the Faither is the more dangerous. Why? Simple. The Faither will inevitably account for extreme actions by saying it was for the request of a god/spirit, or even an alien.

They are gutless, and will never take the responsibility for their own thoughts & actions, whence these crimes have originated.

Atheists, on the other hand, {for want of a 'much' better term for describing rational free thinking!} will always hold their hands up and come clean concerning any wrong doing - why? - because they have to; it's part of the definition. They can't blame a super being because they know they don't exist.

Chalk & cheese!

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
August 13, 2008 3:42pm

"...all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights..." is a section of the US Declaration of Independence. Given this religious underpinnig of the war, was George Washington a gutless faither who refused to take responsibility for his actions and therefore all of his fanatical murders go on the 'religion' baseball card of murder statistics, or was General Washington a rational free thinker who based his actions on detailed cost/benefit analysis and because of that those who died in the Amerian Revolution should go on the 'atheism/rationalism' baseball card.

I think the waters are too muddied to draw any real value analysis from numbers of dead. What about al Quaeda, religious fanatics with plainly secular goals, or Eurpoean colonization, when economic expansion was wrapped in occasional religious flourishes?

If it's true most evil in history has been commited by religious people, it's also worth rememberign that the vast majority of all people ever born were religious.

Morgan Z., Tracy, CA
September 04, 2008 10:01am

I doubt that Mao, Stalin, Lenin, or any communist totalitarian leader would call himself religious. But if you need to redefine them for the sake of making a skeptic's (rational free thinker's:) -- wink wink) argument feel free, but is it very honest.

Signed,

A "Faither" who hasn't killed anyone... yet:)

Ken Fairbrother, Rapid City, SD
September 08, 2008 2:17pm

good reading..

wanted to say though... i was atheist 25 years.. and have been a believer 11 - due to a sense of this 'guy' looking over my shoulder continually... i am actually more moral now...

as an atheist i had a belief that life was a competition - and thus.. if i dont know you, i have no real reason not to steal from you -- unless perhaps by accident of fate we meet again.. or perhaps it could lead me to jail.. if those two hazards could be avoided.. then more for me = more for me.. although honestly i didnt choose that option often.. i still had some sense of conscience..

but as a believer i honestly CANT steal... ive had situations where i was tempted.. and i simply CANT... knowing that a higher power is witnessing my actions.. its simply not worth it.. where as an atheist - that higher power was merely the possible policeman - and since i didnt see him... no fear.

so - simply put - i have 1 statistic showing that 100% definitely at least in some ways belief has made me more moral... maybe the thought is still there.. but the action doesnt happen.

lux, arizona
September 18, 2008 4:45am

lux,
I honestly CAN'T steal either, because i know i have to deal with my guilt and i would not be happy if someone stole something from me. Since i have become an atheist i feel i have become more moral because instead of answering to a "higher power" i answer to my self and answering to my self keep me in line way way more because that means i have internalized my morality instead of it being handed down by on high.

Zach, ames
September 18, 2008 6:49am

lux?

is that maube lux luther?

thankz for you to provide us with a extremely excellent example of the way with which a faither's mind does worketh.

yes i agree.

if a faither is no self deluding them selvez with that faith tosh, they would for certain be bashing all our heads in.

heaven help us if there's no god.

i have a statistic - ALL faithers are nuts!

QED.

funny how most peole in jail are faithers too.

i won't not bover to spel check this one though...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
September 23, 2008 4:01pm

lux,

You are not 'more moral', you are just better behaved, because you believe the bogeyman is watching.

Paul, Reading, UK.
September 29, 2008 7:40am

Atheists like to proclaim that those who were murdered by atheistic regimes (communism, nazism, etc) were not murdered "in the name of atheism." However, seeing as how over 90-95% of those intentionally targeted by suck regimes were in fact people who did hold some belief in some type of supreme being or another and since atheism is "the belief that there are no supreme beings", I'd say these apologists have "some splainin' to do!" And to those atheists who say "morality comes from within and not from some cosmic bogeyman" I have two words for you:

CHARLES FUCKING MANSON.

Check and, I do believe, mate.

That Guy, Louisville
September 30, 2008 12:27pm

"CHARLES FUCKING MANSON" is actually three words.

Also, capital letters and cussing aren't the same as having a point. One bad atheist proves nothing. I could just as easily say,

"I have two words for you:

CATHOLIC PRIEST PEDOPHILES"

and act like I made some kind of profound observation about good an evil.

I won't even bother to point out your fallacy to imply that killing someone who is religious is de facto done in the name of atheism. I think most of the people Bonnie & Clyde killed were Christian, does that make Bonnie & Clyde atheist crusaders?

Tag, and I do beleive, you're it.

Morgan Z., Tracy, CA
October 01, 2008 3:35pm

religion is just all opinions of ethics and morality, killing is immoral PERIOD! doesn't matter if its done under any religion or how many Christians or Atheist kills

kyle, ny,ny
October 01, 2008 7:39pm

I'll give Morgan an A* for that one...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
October 14, 2008 4:27am

Manson wasn't an athiest. He was a scientologist. He was the only member of the church that was ever taken off the mailing lists, and they only did that in the 1990's.

Anyway, as an atheist, the only type of murder that I am trying to do is deicide.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley, Ca
October 31, 2008 7:51pm

Hmm well what is shows is what can occur where there is the "absence" of a respect for a higher power. No Accountability!! just the away a atheist like it.

name 1 atheist in modern times that has been recognized a great humanitarian and match that against all the other religious figures in the modern era.

I think that will speak volumes about the nature of the two.

God Bless

Carl, Drexel Hill
November 04, 2008 11:29am

This episode was really bad. Dunning may as well claim that all of psychology and sociology is a hoax given that he denies religion - and therefore ideas and experiences - has an effect on people. Why do people go sit in the church on Sunday mornings? Well you see, people are people and they'd all sit in a building on Sunday morning even if they were atheists.

In response to Carl: just because a disproportionate number of atheists have been great humanitarians lately doesn't mean religion is worse. Atheism is disproportionately common among elites, so atheists have more opportunity to become great humanitarians.

Simon, Seattle
November 06, 2008 1:51pm

"Atheism is disproportionately common among elites, so atheists have more opportunity to become great humanitarians."

Simon, I hope this is well reasearched but most of all I hope it's true!

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
November 10, 2008 5:22am

"Atheism is disproportionately common among elites, so atheists have more opportunity to become great humanitarians."

How do you define elite?

Elite movie stars, the ones that make the multi million dollar contracts, tend to faith in a god.

Elite sports players also tend to believe in a God.

How do you define elite?

Joseph Furguson, Brawley Ca
November 30, 2008 10:24am

Brian,

I agree with your assessment that, in the end, this question is a distraction and not an issue.

What I wanted to point out, however, is that the very question of whether atheism or religion has claimed more lives is rendered pointless by the fact that religion (or the lack thereof) is a cultural construct that has traditionally been a part of one culture's conquering and domination of another.

From Constantine up until the Renaissance, the Roman Catholic church saw political and spiritual power as being the same thing. E.R. Chamberlin's "The Bad Popes" addresses this topic better than I'd be able to here, but the notion of a pope as a political figure demonstrates how much church and state were intertwined for over a century.

And this begs the question of how responsible religion truly was for the violence done in its name. Should we ascribe the Crusades and the Inquisitions to the church? Or should we examine the broader political and cultural issues that motivated these actions and blame them instead on the people who used their religion as a means to rally others to fight their political battles?

You'll get no argument from me that religion has played a role in some pretty heinous moments in history. But since religion is often used to cloak the motives of leaders, it's hard to say if these acts of violence were motivated by religion... or whether religion was used as a smokescreen.

But either way, I agree: the argument is stupid.

SeanJJordan, St. Louis
December 02, 2008 11:09am

That's the kind of paranoid-conspiracy theory that gives to governments far more credit for having brains than they deserve!

Far too much...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
December 04, 2008 3:59am

Ok... if tommorrow we found perfect, undeniable proof that Hitler was a God-fearing, Christ-loving Christian, would that change anyone's religion?

If we found Hitler's diary, that contained the phrase in his own hand, "I hate all religions and subscribe only to rational thought and skepticism. Hail Darwin!" would that make anyone rethink their worldviews?

I assume the answer to both of these questions is 'no' for all of us.

This argument is nothing more than an intellecutal game of 'Cooties.' "Oooh, you've got Hitler!"

Morgan, Tracy, CA
December 08, 2008 11:55am

Besides massively understating the deaths due to communism, the statement in the comments that "Atheism is disproportionately common among elites, so atheists have more opportunity to become great humanitarians.", you reveal that many atheists still follow a religion

Doesn't matter if it is one of the here and now (i.e. Marxism), it follows all the patterns of religion - a scared text, special anointed leaders, fanaticism and a firm belief in its own infallibility

Many so-called "elites" also have a disturbing tendency to have a "plan" to "save us". Ask the Cambodians how well THAT worked

I would hold that an atheist must reject both ethereal and corporeal gods. Once you decide that an ideology is the end all and be all of solutions, you have crossed the line into religion. And religions, mystical or mundane, will be the death of us all

GW Crawford, Toronto, ON
December 08, 2008 2:38pm

Morgan wrote:
"Ok... if tommorrow we found perfect, undeniable proof that Hitler was a God-fearing, Christ-loving Christian, would that change anyone's religion?"

“We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.” -Adolf Hitler October 13, 1933.

From Mein Kampf, which is Hitler's manifesto:
"Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition."

“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”

Here he is crediting his religious beliefs for what he calls his successful campaign: “Only in the steady and constant application of force lies the very first prerequisite for success. This persistence, however, can always and only arise from a definite spiritual conviction. Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain.”

His words from his book. He confessed to the world that he had Christian beliefs.

It never was about gotcha: it is more about owning your own evil people and not pawning them on to others.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley Ca
December 08, 2008 2:55pm

Re: My previous post: SACRED text - not scared text

Hitler was a christian, big whoop

This doesn't stain otherwise reasonable people who happen to be christian

What does it matter what faith he was, he was first and foremost a Nazi and it is that ideology that defined him

Many of the top Nazis were definitely followers of some bastardized ancient Germanic belief - just as legit as modern people who claim they are following the beliefs of the ancient Druids (actually, they follow an amalgam of aspects of primitive spirit worship like Shinto, environmentalism and the character class from Dungeons & Dragons)

GW Crawford, Toronto, ON
December 09, 2008 3:09am

Don't shift the goalpost. It is odd that you cry foul when I provide you quotations from Mein Kampf, which is Hitler's Diary for all intents and purposes. He made three dozen references to his Christianity and it is clear that he made them with his heart and soul attached to it. He made those statements in HIS OWN WORDS and not in written speeches that may or may not have been someone else's.

I am pretty sure that when Hitler's diaries are found, and the not the fake ones that someone tried to sell 25 years ago, that it will have a ton of references to his Christianity as well.

Once again, this is not about changing people's opinions about their religion. This is about accepting your evil people and not pawning them off onto others. I am getting sick and tired of this idea that christians have: "Well, he can't be a Christian because me god teaches love, so I will pawn him off onto the evil atheists."

Why do Christians get away with that?

Now get this: I do not care if you still believe in your faith. You can believe in Xenu for all I care.
I do not want you to pawn off your religion's evil people onto the atheists. Accept the fact that you religion had evil people in it.

Own the fact that your religion gave us Dennis Rader, Jim Jones, and Hitler. Own the fact that their faith did not stop them from killing. Own the fact that Hitler killed BECAUSE of his faith.

Do not force Hitler onto the Atheists ever again.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley Ca
December 09, 2008 7:20am

It might be useful to consider that many of the functionaries of the Nazis were Christians. How many of the people ordering the Zyclon B or driving the freight trains found their duties just a little less onerous because of the deicide charge against the Jews? If they could blame their victims for nailing their savior to the cross did it make it easier to bolt the shower door?

Flip the coin. Was it Stalin's rationalism that caused him to murder millions? Was it his evidence based world view that resulted in the gulags? Did some insightful bit of social science lead him to conclude mass murder was the way to go?

Craig, Washington DC
December 09, 2008 11:31am

Read the bible and become wise unto Satan's ways. Evil exists because Satan exists. What better way could Satan discredit the church than by possessing a man to call himself a Christian and then go about committing heinous acts such as someone like Hitler. Don't be fooled by Satan and believe the lie that this person did this because he was a Christian. True Christians worship God in spirit and in truth.

Dwayne, LaGrange,GA
December 24, 2008 12:49am

Why the No true Scotsman fallacy Dwayne?

As long as you keep parading under the banner of Christians, you will continue to be associated with the people you consider crazy or evil.
You are all Christians because you continue to call yourselves as such.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley Ca
December 24, 2008 6:41am

I completely agree with you. People always try to use any kind of ideology or philosophy to give an excuse for their actions or get more people to join them. Wheter it's a religion like Christianity or a political ideology like socialism. Hitler probably wouldn't have been a nicer guy if he was a devout Christian and Ghandi would probably still have done the same great things if he was an athiest.

Tom Tervoort, IJmuiden, the Netherlands
December 28, 2008 9:48am

Would that include the book of Job, Dwayne?

Here, do we not see satan as bosom buddies with god?

Link...

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/job-rsv.html

Quote...

"6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them. 7 The LORD said to Satan, "Whence have you come?" Satan answered the LORD, "From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it."

Would any faither of the xian persuasion like to explain the close friendship of these 2?

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
January 06, 2009 11:43am

You work at Wal-Mart? heh

Really, great job on this one. I really enjoy this podcast for episodes like this one, which makes a very good point. Most episodes are about things I already agree with, but even these are appreciated for stating those things quite eloquently. This episode falls into that category. Some episodes have helped to confirm things that I always suspected. Others have cast doubt on my positions. I've even been convinced to change my mind a couple of times after doing some research on my own.

It's hard to be skeptical about everything I have ever heard, but by helping to correct a few common misunderstandings, this podcast has given me insight into the kinds of things I should go back and reexamine.

Will Tomlinson, Houston, Texas
February 01, 2009 2:35pm

Well, The real answer to who kills more is this:

Atheists and Secularists are at negative a billion and a half people. That is a Carl Sagan Billion. That is how many people were saved by the secular science in the 20th century.

Norman Borlaug, the man that started the green revolution, Has saved well over a billion people in the last 50 years. While the Christians were talking about easing suffering, he used his secular science to stop it.

Secular science eradicated Smallpox from the world. Who knows how many people that saved.

To the Christians: Even if we give in to your Hitler the atheist killed 6 million jews and add that to the 12 million that Stalin killed, that is still a drop in the bucket compared to the numbers that was saved by Borlaug and from the Smallpox vaccine.

Hitler was a Christian. He said so in Mein Kampf. The only quotes that you find of him being mad at religion were out of context and made AFTER the Catholic Church withdrew political support.

How many people have Religion saved?

Joseph Furguson, Brawley Ca
March 18, 2009 4:47pm

Guys, Adolf Hitler and the Nazis were NOT Christian. I really wonder why so many atheists want to label him as such.

Proof of this is in William Shirer's book, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich." In this book, he describes how Hitler and Heinrich Himmler wanted to eventually ELIMINATE Christianity from Europe. It says so right in that book and this is from somebody who had actually lived in Nazi Germany!

How could Hitler be a Christian and yet, want to eliminate it??

Furthermore, Hitler did NOT outright say in Mein Kampf that he was a Christian. It's common knowledge among scholars that Hitler said a lot of things in Mein Kampf that weren't very clear or concise.

Hitler and the Nazis said a lot of things to help them get to power but their true beliefs rested in science and racist biology, which were (unfortunate) byproducts of of atheism and Darwinism.

If anybody REALLY thinks that religion is the cause of wars and atrocities...think again because there is plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise.

Genghis Khan, who some scholars think was an atheist, killed more people than probably anybody else who lived in the last 2000 years. The Muslim world was rich in science and art...until Khan came riding through and slaughtered their cities.

When you think about it-There has to be a logical reason why so many people believe in a God. I believe that looking towards an afterlife is a perfectly natural and rational human instinct and idea.

John Hawkings, Cleveland, Ohio
May 04, 2009 10:04am

Hitler was a Christian. Why don't you look at Hitler's words instead of some apologist. In Mein Kampf, Hitler talked lovingly about his faith in god. Look at this is speech he made in 1922.

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison."

See that, he was using his religion to justify his hatred of the Jews. Only a Christian would say something like that. Do not try the no true scottsman fallacy on Hitler.

Now if you want to argue about who kills more, remember this: The smallpox virus was eradicated from the world because a ton of atheists wanted to improve the lives of other people. Millions are alive today because of the widespread use of the vaccine.

Norman Borlaug and his secular science improved the lives of a billion of people with his improved use of agricultural and food distribution methods.

Atheists are at negative (-) billion and a half people when it comes to who kills more.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley, Ca
May 04, 2009 11:09am

While many people have been killed by Atheists, no one was ever killed "in the name of Atheism". Hitler was clearly Christian, while Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot all killed in the name of Communism not Atheism!

That is the key difference.

Daniel Joycey, Sunshine Coast, Australia
May 14, 2009 3:25pm

Yeah, I think some sophistication of ideas needs to come to this discussion. To argue that in principle religion keeps humanity safe and free of wars and atrocities is clearly nonsense. By the same token, it’s clearly nonsense to claim that all wars and atrocities come from religious belief. Despite the title of the podcast, this isn't a religion vs. atheism debate.

What is at issue however is blind faith. Blind faith in a flag, blind faith in a leader, blind faith in a deity. When people stop thinking for themselves, or are no longer critically evaluating the information they are provided, then atrocities occur.

It doesn't matter whether you have blind faith in a god or blind faith in communism. Whenever you allow someone who bases their decisions on an ideology to go about their business without opposition, bad stuff is bound to happen. Decisions need to be made with reference to reality, not grand ideas. Good government bases its policies on evidence, committees and science. Christian ideology will not guarantee that your government will not abuse basic human rights (e.g., torture, imprisoning without charge). However, there is no reason why a good government can’t be both Christian (if that’s your culture’s thing) and evidence based.

Bronson, Sydney, Australia
May 14, 2009 4:45pm

god 2.5 million

satan 10. Just ten.

I'm going to hell... it's safer!

http://www.thefunnyjunks.com/who-killed-more-people-in-the-bible-god-or-satan-91/

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
June 12, 2009 6:06pm

Love your work Brian and I agree with you that the "competition" about who killed most is for the most part silly and there probably is a middle ground. However I think your flat statement that religion does not cause people to kill people can be refuted with just 1 piece of evidence - 9/11. Religion was the ONLY cause for this - the perpetrators stood to gain nothing other than 'virgins in heaven'. It wasn't motivated by greed or whatever. Another thing that could have been mentioned when discussing 'numbers killed" is that there is a large disparity between the technology to kill the "athiests" of the 20th century had and the technology to kill that say the crusaders had. How many more would have died if the crusadors had tanks and machine guns at their disposal? So talking about sheer numbers becomes meaningless for this reason as well.

Morden O'Hare, Albury, Australia
June 16, 2009 11:17pm

Great article. When will people realize that's absolutely no real difference between a religious person and a non-religious except idealogy. One does earn more income, pay less taxes, have better education, is more intelligent, becomes more successful and so on. There's no concrete difference, and you said it simply: people are people. No matter what religious affiliation you belong to or don't belong to you're still human no matter what happen and frankly humans kill.

Leo Khan, Virgina Beach, VA
June 18, 2009 11:13am

Morden, I think you misunderstand the role of the US in foreign politics, especially in the middle east. While 9/11 was committed by people using religion as a means, religion is not alone at fault here. At one point in time, the CIA supported those religious zealots. Eventually, the policies of the US made us targets of our own 'pets.'

Note that I'm not defending religion. Without religion there would be no religious zealots to be used as weapons, nor religion for corrupt governments to hide behind.

John, New York
July 13, 2009 3:03pm

I understand the point being made, humans are responsible for their actions.

Here, with a few short sentences, I will destroy this notion.

Religious killings; killing in the name of god as a religious person sees it - is not there own actions, but God's.

Now why an officer of the law may kill someone in the line of duty, or giving someone the death sentence is permitted by the statutes of justice, WE CAN CHALLENGE THIS AUTHORITY.

YOU CAN NOT CHALLENGE GOD'S AUTHORITY...It is that simple.

Dan Fouts, Forks, WA
July 15, 2009 10:55am

Well, Dan, what about Allah's authority?

John, New York
July 17, 2009 9:57am

I'm sorry but you quoted hitler as being a Atheist when he was a Christian.

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter." -Adolf Hitler 1922.

The point you make about the Soviet Prisoners who died in his camps also is completely beside the point, they were a majority of Christians as well.

Derek, Australia
July 20, 2009 4:18pm

True, Hitler is not an atheist. Hitler is a product of anti-semetic Christianity in which they blame the death of Jesus to the Jews.

Its true that religion gives them a reason to kill but if you remove religion from them, they will still kill for any other cause. Murderers are murderers. It's in their blood. The only difference between an religious murderer from a atheist murderer is that the religious murderer is that he is ready to die so that he will be "rewarded in heaven with 100 virgins" and the atheist will run cowardly in the face of death cause he thinks there is no afterlife.

Religion are more efficient killers than Atheism because they don't fear death. That's why in the middle ages, leaders were able to put knights in the front lines only to die in sheer numbers but still keep their morale and would fight to the last man. Atheists would run once they see that they are losing.

But Atheists are advocates of technology. They are very open-minded and will not constrict themselves to the beliefs and restrictions of religion. A religion-less nation will have greater technology enhancements than those nations who believe everything religion says. Remember the times when the church suppressed the belief that the sun is the center of the universe by Galileo and the church ignorantly insists that the earth is the center because the 'bible' says so?
Well he was right, they were wrong. Without religion, we'd have more advanced technology by now.

TRiAD, Philippines
August 21, 2009 8:46pm

Okay, Triad.

Name one atheist killer that killed in the name of his atheism?

Hitler is a Christian. He was not the product of some anti semitic thing that was going on at the time. He was a true believer in his faith. He has said so many times in Mein Kampf. He did not see Christ as the loving guy that you want him to be. He read the bible and found other passages that makes Jesus into a revolutionary. They do exist and you can see them if you did not have your religion blinders on.

How many times must it be said that he did those things BECAUSE of his faith? He did not use faith as a cover, like your rant implies.

From where I sit you are the coward Triad. You have not used your real name in any of your postings. What are you so afraid of? All the atheists here have used their real names in all their posting.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley, Ca
August 26, 2009 10:16am

Brian, you have a great show, but you have repeated a very commonly held, though false, belief in your podcast, when you mentioned the 10-20 million killed by Stalin.

Whether or not Stalin was a good guy or a bad guy, or whether you like communism or not, I think you'll agree that's irrelevant to the facts, and we should rely on the facts only.

Rational unbiased academics have placed the death toll during the purges and famines at closer to 700,000. The number has been multiplied many times over the years to arrive at the current ridiculous value. I'm sure in 20 years, the number will be 50 million.

While there certainly *were* purges and people *were* sent to camps and there were some famines, these were on a much smaller scale.

Much of the "evidence" used to back up the claims about famines that didn't happen and massacres that never happened are *literally* recycled propaganda made by the NAZIs in the 30s and 40s or by anti-Stalin soviet leaders in fifties and later. The americans, for perhaps understandable reasons, used this material and built upon it during the cold war.

Please, reference real academic sources, not political ones, and post a correction on an upcoming show.

This is one of the "truths" that's so widespread and has been repeated so often, even those that created the propaganda now believe it themselves.

This is not a defence of any political person or ideology, this is a defence of the truth. Thanks.

John, Washington
September 01, 2009 11:24am

I apologize for subverting the cookie check, which I will honestly admit to.

I was more than generous in my previous posting where I gave legitimate standing to a conspiracy theory, while trying to disprove it myself. This was wrong and misguided.

As you have said many times, and as most people agree, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The idea that the Soviets killed 20 million people in the 30s and 40s is without any real evidence.

Compare, please, to the holocaust. Of course, the holocaust was real. We have hundreds of thousands of eye witnesses. We have documents on the people sent to the concentration camps and killed. We have documents on the employees, guards, officers, and even cooks. We have evidence of how they were transferred to sites where they were murdered.

No rational person can look at the evidence and deny the holocaust.

But supposedly, several times more people were killed in Russia! We have anecdotes in books, "The Gulag Archipelago" being one of the most famous. But this is a book full of anecdotes, not evidence.

A facility large enough to exterminate that many people must have employees, supplies, infrastructure, food, etc. Where are the people that did that, or at least who witnessed it?

With the holocaust, there are many witnesses to the evil perpetrated. In the case of the supposed Soviet death camps, we have a few anecdotal stories, (written by dissidents), but little else.

Please, be skeptical!

Johnx, Washington
September 02, 2009 9:44pm

Is it being suggested that stalin commited genocide in the name of atheism? You wouldn't have to look as far back as the crusades to find a war that was wholly based on religion. The current Israeli Palestine conflict pretty much makes my point.

Robert Mcbride, Columbia, MD
September 15, 2009 10:31am

Whilst killing can still be accounted to both, religious killing and atheistic killing still have a major difference. Religious killing is killing because of belief that it will be rewarded in the afterlife, whilst atheistic killing is killing because of lack of belief in a higher moral order and hence they have nothing to fear from killing.

Therefore from this one can say that killing in the name of religion can be compared with communist killing like Stalin and Mao. Its not a case of 'killing in the name of' for atheism, but killing because of no fear. I think it is fair to assume that if Stalin or Mao were particularly religious, both their death tolls would be largely reduced. Does that make it fair then to blame communist killing of atheism?

Still I agree with Triad, that murderers are murderers. So blaming religion or atheism for killing can be akin to blaming the knife when a wife butchered her husband. This can apply to both religious and atheistic people. Religious people would use religion as a weapon for the killing, whilst atheists would use their atheism as an excuse for killing.

So to speak, one cannot really attribute religion or atheism as more or less guilty than the other. The death toll becomes irrelevant, because then it comes down to separating the causes to be of belief or of character, which is practically impossible.

Wally, Sydney
September 16, 2009 3:41am

Wally, I disagree with your premise. Stalin, Hitler, and Mao were killers for sure; though they didn't kill in the name of atheism. Nor did they torture people saying heretic either. There are on the other hand numerous examples of religous extremists who do kill in the NAME OF RELIGION.

Robert Mcbride, Columbia, MD
September 16, 2009 5:32am

Where is the evidence that Hitler was an aetheist? He made many statements about his Christian beliefs and a few statements attacking the Christian Churches but I have never seen anything to suggest that he did not believe in God. In a discussion about whether aetheists or religion are repsonsible for more killing it would be unfair to assume Hitler was an aetheist simply because he killed paople.

Lawrence Weir, Roseville CA
September 16, 2009 11:40am

I believe that some of Hitler's private letters are preserved and show that Hitler believed himself (whatever he actually was) to be a devout Catholic. Just this week, I heard a quote attributed to Hitler where he's calling for religious education in school.

Adrian, Brisbane, Australia
September 17, 2009 12:10am

i feel like many of you have not even read the above article. What Brian said is so true; blaming murder of genocide on a religious or athiest reason is just a lazy distraction to avoid delving in deep and finding out the true psychological reasons behind it all. For example, a guard might kill a prisoner in "the name of God". However, the REAL reason is because he was told by his master that if he did not kill the prisoner, he would be killed himself. Therefore, the religion is the surface reason, where fearing for his life is the true core. People are indeed people, and have developed throughout evolution into almost unstoppable forces relative to our fragile Earth environment. If religion was never, no offense, created out of the fear from the unknown and our existence, we would still be killing. It is evident in our modern day society. Take a serial killer, for example. He may believe in God, but he sure as hell ain't carrying a banner in the name of christ whilst stalking his target, same for an athiest serial killer. He is killing because he is human. Not to say all humans are like that. But thats why we should be delving into the deep psychological reasons as to why Hitler or Stalin or the Medieval kings really slaughtered all those people, and not making the excuse of petty labels that, in reality, are so irrelevant from the bigger scope of this earth, this universe, they are not worth mentioning. Peace :)

Nathan, LA, CA
September 22, 2009 5:38pm

Whatever the underlying psychological reason might be for a person to kill another human, there is surely no doubt that religion is more likely than aetheism to provide the necessary inspiration and justification.

Lawrence Weir, Roseville CA
September 23, 2009 5:48pm

Religionists try to claim that Stalin, Pol Pot, and their ilk killed more than christians ever did. Thy may have the body count right, but after that, they are lying through their teeth. Meglalomaniacs are cults of personality unto themselves and atheism has nothing whatever to do with it. No atheist has ever killed another in the name of atheism. Period. Atheist body count: zero. Christian body count: millions and millions. mizleeATaolDOTcom.

Lee Picton, Ellicott City, MD
October 02, 2009 10:24am

It is true to assume that most people who kill in the name of religion or belief (or lack thereof) system are simply using it as an excuse to commit such attrocities, so such high body counts cannot be attributed to religion or lack thereof. However, there are specialized cases where religion CAN be blamed for murder where two people would have been friends otherwise but their convictions led them to do something horrible. One example was that of Larry Hooper. Hooper was an atheist and his roommate a Christian fundamentalist. Larry revealed his nonbelief to his roommate and the roommate proceeded to blow his head off with a shotgun. This man did not have any psychological disabilities (other than a delusion belief in a supreme being), yet his belief in God led him, and his close family members who acted completely vile toward nonbelievers that showed up at the trial for support for Mr. Hooper, to show no remorse whatsoever for the murder. He felt completely justified. Now why is it OK that I blame this on religion? Because Mr. Hooper's murderer was simply acting directly upon what his holy book states. Whether or not most Christians follow this is irrelevant. Because cherry picking verses from the bible is so common, what stops someone, like Mr. Hooper's murderer, especially if their convictions in their book is so strong that they disregard the law of the place where they live and know that they will go to prison but do not care, from cherry picking verses like those that instruct Gods chosen people to stone nonbelievers, homosexuals, rebellious teenagers, etc.? The answer is nothing. There is, contrary to popular belief, nothing in the bible that specifically states that after Jesus was born Mosaic Law no lon

Erik Boyd, Los Angeles, CA
October 19, 2009 7:26pm

The religious people that argue this point more or less believe that a person without religion is a person without morals: someone with no concept of right and wrong - and therefore has nothing to stop them from committing all sorts of atrocities, free of guilt. Of course the idea that a person can only get their morals and sense of right and wrong from religion is utterly ludicrous.

Justin, Australia
October 25, 2009 6:22am

Wikipedia provides the following:
"A religion is a system of human thought which usually includes a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power, deity or deities, or ultimate truth."

If this is accepted as the definition of religion then we all have it and therefore religion has killed the most people.

Don, Denver, CO
November 18, 2009 9:58am

Religion has cause a lot less wars than you might think. Communism has caused more deads than every religion combined. Communism = atheism. And atheists are just bullies.

Taylor, South Dakota
November 24, 2009 5:27pm

Eric Boyd wrote: "There is, contrary to popular belief, nothing in the bible that specifically states that after Jesus was born Mosaic Law no lon(ger)" (valid)?

There absolutely is. Start with Ephesians 2:15, in which Paul says that Christ abolished the Law in his flesh with its commandments and regulations.

Next read the entire book of Romans where Paul argues that those who insist on remaining under Law will be judged harshly by the Law because it produces death, whereas those who are under grace find forgiveness from sin and life.

Finally, Colossians 2:13-14 reads: "He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross."

Try not to blame the actions of a crazy person on the Bible. Jesus made it explicit that we were to love our neighbors and even our enemies (Matthew 5:43). There's absolutely no justification for violence or wars for any sane Christian that reads the Bible.

Joe B., Long Island, NY
December 09, 2009 11:30pm

Hitler and the Nazi regime were believers in christ.

When exterminating Jews, Hitler saw himself as doing the work of God. “Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews …. The work that Christ started but could not finish, I—Adolf Hitler—will conclude,” he said in 1926 (John Toland, Adolf Hitler).

“We are not a movement, rather we are a religion,” said Hitler. “I’m going to become a religious figure” (Robert G.L. Waite, The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler).

Abe, LA
December 13, 2009 2:26am

Everyone has a religion.
Everyone has the desire to do good.
Some believe it is good to do away with a belief in God and that is their religion.
They believe doing so is a good thing to do.
Only the most base are completly selfish, they then are their own God.
If the most base and selfish believed in a supreme God and in a hell it might help them.

Vern, Bakersfield CA
December 21, 2009 6:06pm

"Religion has cause a lot less wars than you might think. Communism has caused more deads than every religion combined. Communism = atheism.""

Right, so when it's religion, you count only the people who killed because they were religious, but when it's atheism, you count all atheists, regardless of whether their atheism has more to do with the subject than their skin colour or favourite dish.

Your bigotry is showing.

""And atheists are just bullies.""
Hark who's talking.

Safe-Keeper, Bergen, Norway
January 01, 2010 4:04pm

I strongly believe that Atheism bring more cruelty to this world. Some wrote the Hitler was beliver of Christ but this is not true. Hitler was not a beliver of religion, he was a follower of Darwin theory of evolution (foundation of Atheism or Social Darwinism). Hitler believed that the Aryan race,(German are from Aryan race), was superior to all the other races and had to rule them. He dreamed that the Aryan race would found a world empire that would last 1,000 years.
Hitler's most important idea-moulder, the racist German historian Heinrich von Treitschke, was strongly affected by Darwin's theory of evolution and based his racist views on Darwinism. He used to say, "Nations can only develop by violent competition like Darwin's survival of the fittest," and declared that this meant lasting war. His view was that, "Conquering by the sword is a way of bringing civilization to barbarism and knowledge to ignorance." (Alaeddin Şenel, Irk ve Irkçılık Düşüncesi (The Idea of Race and Racism), Ankara:Bilim ve Sanat Yayınları, 1993, pp.62-6)

Mehmood, Amsterdam
January 05, 2010 7:25am

Hitler didn't subscribe to Christianity in any orthodox sense, but he believed that Christ was a divine figure whose work the Nazis were doing. Or he was one of those people who used Christ as an all-purpose paragon to justify his actions because he knew it would resonate with his audience. In either case, religion was in his M.O.
I ask myself questions like this:
1) What part do technology and population inflation play? The Inquisition may have had a bigger body count if they'd had trains, gas chambers, etc. Even with technology, you couldn't rack up a death toll like the Holocaust's back then; there just weren't enough people to kill!
2) How much killing would someone like Osama bin Laden do if he were in charge of a worldwide Caliphate? His intent, I think, surpasses his reach. Lots of non-converts would die, as would those Muslims who committed thought-crimes under Sharia law. While those theoretical dead aren't as tangible as Hitler's actual dead, I think they bear some considering.
3) This is not an empirical question, but still: who would you rather have governing you, Osama bin Laden (or Torquemada if you like) or Richard Dawkins? I use OBL not because he's Muslim per se but because he represents government power guided by religious thought. Would Dawkins punish you based on your religion? Would he even punish you based on your scientific views?

John, Ocean NJ
January 05, 2010 8:27am

Is it truly that hard to think that religion leads people to violence? The vast majority of people in the world subscribe to a religious dogma that blatantly promotes violence. Read any "scripture" and your find very violent action being taken against people who simply hold a different view.

I smile when I think about this-

In most beliefs, only after an apocalypse has wiped everybody from the earth,(along with all need of religion), will heaven finally exist.

I couldn’t agree more.

Steven Fendry, Orem, UT
January 21, 2010 8:35pm

"I strongly believe that Atheism bring more cruelty to this world. Some wrote the Hitler was beliver of Christ but this is not true. Hitler was not a beliver of religion, he was a follower of Darwin theory of evolution (foundation of Atheism or Social Darwinism). "

He didn't understand Darwin and judging by the comments in parentheses neither do you.

"Hitler believed that the Aryan race,(German are from Aryan race), was superior to all the other races and had to rule them."

Just one piece of evidence that Hitler didn't understand Darwinism. The concept of a master race is no part of evolution. Evolution in fact says something totally different, that all humans descended from a common ancestor meaning that there is absolutely no such thing as a master race.

" the racist German historian Heinrich von Treitschke, was strongly affected by Darwin's theory of evolution and based his racist views on Darwinism. He used to say, "Nations can only develop by violent competition like Darwin's survival of the fittest,""

Aaaand he didn't understand what "survival of the fittest" means either.

Tony, Toronto, Ontario
January 27, 2010 8:23pm

So you actually believe that if we eliminate belief in God or even organized religion, that war and killing would cease? I agree with the author, people kill people. They don't need ideological justification but might look for or fabricate some acceptable one, should they wish. Call it a flaw in humanity, call it sinful nature, or call it normal, it will occur.

sologos, NYC
January 30, 2010 2:05pm

I'm surprised how far this episode missed the mark. The debate from my understanding is how many people have been killed IN THE NAME OF religious beliefs or non-beliefs not a causal link between the presence or absence of a deity and murder.

Nic, Eau Claire, WI
February 13, 2010 2:42pm

Great episode. This debate is a favorite among so many people, and it completely depends on how you look at the facts and what facts you want to consider.

Some say the Nazi regime was atheistic. Some say Nazis were Christian and exterminating everyone else in the name of Christianity.

Communism supresses religious worship, so people argue that communism kills in the name of atheism. Yet Stalin was an anti-semite and favored killing Jews over Christians, so people argue that he killed in the name of religion.

It all depends on how you want to look at it.

Abby, Austin, TX
February 17, 2010 9:36pm

Brian tries to put himself above DeSouza with his baseless claims of truth that DeSouza actually has. Hitchens wrote his pathetic book first which needed a response like DeSouza to set the record straight. Brian would need to participate in the debate in order to no longer do it. His slush analysis here is useless except to the feeble minded.

Huh?, Michigan
March 02, 2010 6:35pm

I know that without religion there would still be killing and war. But I bet there wouldn't be nearly as much. Maybe people would think twice about blowing themselves up if they didn't think they were going to a magical fantasy land with virgins in it. I hate to see so many good religious people defending religion just because they grew up with it. And I really believe that most religious people are good, but on the other side you have some evil shit happening: burning people alive, raping little kids, blowing up buildings.

God is just an imaginary friend for adults, the idea of god helps us deal with things, if we think he has a plan for us. I remember being so scared when I started thinking he didn't exist. So scared that when I die there would be nothing, but believing in fantasy because you're scared is dumb. Now I have no fear, sure I don't want to die but I really love the life I have now and I want to enjoy life while I have it.

Also, Hitler was a Christian and referenced God may times in speeches and in private.

Johnny, Calgary
March 16, 2010 9:14am

Careful Johnny, Many christians like to put Hitler firmly in the athiest camp.

To my thinking the question shouldn't be do athiests commit more atrocities than believers, but "is more killing done in the name of athiesm or belief. To answer that question I'm not aware of any suicide bombers praising the ideals of nonbelief before blowing up the area they are in.

Robert Mcbride, Columbia, MD
March 16, 2010 10:26am

I've heard Sam Harris make the point that some theologies provide a motive for war or murder, while atheism does not. It's basically a rephrasing of Steven Weinberg's "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion."
The religious people's response, creating body counts, is the creation of and attempt to beat up a straw man.

Mark, Cincinnati
March 17, 2010 1:07pm

Given that Darwin and his work was banned in Germany throughout the Nazi regime, I find the idea that Hitler got his ideas from evolutionary theory is preposterous.

You don't need Darwin to realize that if you kill off unwanted people, they don't exist any more. This is breeding at its most simple. Saying he got his ideas from evolution is like saying that we got racism from the idea that the earth is round. It makes absolutely zero sense.

Safe-Keeper, Norway
March 18, 2010 4:38pm

Man has this a stange ideal that he must be a king of something. So he get a bunch of people that he can control and says I am the God of this land and you should worship me. Then the religious and atheist says no. Then he kills all that don't worship him. Then he feels he has a power of a god of some kind and feel like a god. then he 8is god till the next fellow comes along to replace him as another god.

People now days cross up Religion and atheism for every tom dick and harry will call his atheist ideals put into play by his action as a god of some kind and call it religious . Then all the killing is ear marked religious or religion. Religion is used too much to cover up a persons atheist ideal by calling it a religion. When a religion orders the killing of 1 person. It stops being a religion and becomes Atheism again,but covered up by religion. A few of the top religions today are just atheism covered up by religion. I will not say so Look at all to see who they are ? Who is Who is not hard to see !

Charles Terry Lee, Oakdale, Louisiana
April 10, 2010 12:12am

Neither Atheism nor Religion kill more. It's the Atheists that hate Believers, and the Believers that hate Atheists, and the people that can't get it though their skulls that people are allowed believe what ever they want.

Garett, Maine
April 18, 2010 3:58pm

To Safe-keeper from Norway: The idea you have about evolution being banned in Germany during the Nazi regime is so very, very wrong. In actual case, their entire plan was based on evolution, and the hope of 'breeding out' Jews and 'disabled' people. Watch 'Expelled; No Intelligence Allowed.'

To all Athiests: Just because terrible acts are done by the Christian Church does not mean that all Christians are evil, or that the Bible justifies such behaviour. The truth is, we are all sinners and Christians are not perfect. Those Christians who carry out those acts are evil, ignorant and hypocritical. Some Christians really do love their neighbour and would not do such acts, as I'm sure some athiests would not either. Besides, I know that the Roman Catholic church is the beast of Revelations, as all the horrors were carried out by them and only that power matches the description in the Bible.
God Bless.

Robert Poynter, Christchurch
April 18, 2010 11:09pm

"Watch 'Expelled; No Intelligence Allowed.'"

I think you've just lost all credibility, considering how often the producers there out-rigth lied (read "Expelled Exposed"). Besides, Hitler was one of you guys, not an atheist (re: Mien Kompf, or however you spell it--my German is terrible).

" Just because terrible acts are done by the Christian Church does not mean that all Christians are evil..."

Very true. However, systematic abuses of power indicate at minimum complacency by the administration, and are enough in the corporate world to get you shut down FAST (re: OSHA regulations). And the fact that some Christians DO NOT commit attrocities doesn't mean that they're good. Discussing Christians at all is a straw man--we have to go to the fundamental arguments of the religion, not poke fun at the people who align themselves with it.

Gregory, Alabama
April 19, 2010 4:06pm

The argument, I'll agree, is neither here nor there. In a-linguistic truth [if one were to lose all sense of language processing or comprehension through physiological design] one will see the real argument: that death, no matter the cause to the individual, is undesirable.

Being theistic is rife with inspiration for murder: violent symbolism, spiritual duality as biotic escapism, and abstract representation is mentally addicting and memetic - at which point the promotion of such text as the word of great motivation is simply an act of social incompetence and inconsiderate use of power over the less cogent of us.

Religion is: "a repeated behaviour expressing non-causal imaginations with the expectation of real results."

That alone does not inspire murder. It is not a valid point of contention as to whether that effect is unfortunate or not; as it should be an extra-textually defined social right to the free expression of one's potential.

What should be said for the argument is this; the necessity of murder as a tool of social engineering or personal benefit is wholly asinine. It is neither good nor evil, but as a motivational effect has no positive social consequence. Human Resources are far better spent on personal development, wellness training, degenerative health prevention, instruction and labour translation into production - Not Theocracy.

Human beings are neither good nor evil. We simply are. Genocide, murder and social neglect are symptoms of Predatory Economics.

Lee Thaiauxn, Terra, Novus
April 20, 2010 8:05pm

Well the sentiment is nice, but sorry it's quite as fluffy-headed to say "oh some people are just evil" as it would be to only blame one side or the other or the Christian/Atheist argument.

Each and every one of the major massacres can be boiled down to one defining characteristic - power.

The Christians wanted to break their Muslim rivals and vice versa during the crusades. Stalin wanted rid of his opponents and to quickly drag his industrial base up to western levels regardless of the pain caused. The Christian massacre of the peoples of the Americas was driven by greed for land and gold. Pol Pot took rather too literally the Greek proverb about cutting the tallest ears of wheat from the field.

It's only through such a lens that the reason behind mass movements of people doing terrible things can be explained, not through some vague manifestation of "evil."

Rob Ray, London
May 10, 2010 12:34am

Are you saying whats going on in iran, people having no freedom, being tochered for having un married sex, and being hung for absolutly no reason is not because of religion? and even IF relgion is real, why are there so many? which one is real? each religion has some bullshit they come up with to make it real. Relgion= people making somthing up, so they dont have to say i dont know. When fire was warshiped, people thought it was some type of god. But now that we understand what it is, we laugh at them. Eventualy all other relgions will fall to the same faith, and our future generation will laugh at us. We are waisting our time going to church. Being a good person has nothing to do with religion, it comes from the heart. Many people are being tochured in the name of religion for no reason. IF THERE IS GOD WHY IS HE NOT HELPING THEM? the answer is because there is no god. Simple. The sooner we understand this, the sooner we can start being more succesful as a human race.

Athiest, none, ofyourbuisness
June 03, 2010 5:19pm

I don't think it's a question of whether religion or secularism has killed more. The way I see it, dogma is what's responsible. Nazism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc are all highly dogmatic beliefs, a lot of them with blatant pseudosciences at their cores (e.g. Nazi racial and eugenic ideas). When you believe something without question, you're more likely to murder a lot of people over it. It's related to the Orwellian denial of reality that you find in authoritarian regimes where authority becomes the source of truth instead of reality. That, to me, is more of a religious attitude than anything, but that's besides the point. The fact that Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were Atheists is irrelevant. They were all dogmatists nonetheless.

Spin the wheel and choose a random dogmatic philosophical/economic/religious doctrine, then kill millions of people. That's how it works. Things like this happen when we put ideology before the dignity of human life. End of story. End of debate.

Nick, Kansas
June 14, 2010 11:17pm

Lol?

So... In summary, money kills all?

Scott, Texas
June 17, 2010 1:06pm

Impossible to tell - any murderer that was affiliated with a religion can quickly be discredited by it's members as not being a "true" believer. Atheist ,on the other hand, don't get that protection.

Ryan, Wisconsin
July 01, 2010 6:03pm

Religions codify old-world ideas (like homophobia, xenophobia, misogyny, etc.) and spread them like a contagion. Whether or not religion or atheism is responsible for more genocides or killings is not the point. The larger point for me (and I think for Hitchens et al.) is that religion is the rat that carries the fleas. Eliminate the rat, and the fleas have a much more difficult time spreading the Black Death which is these ideas.

People are prevented from progressing in their attitudes and thinking by religions. Whether it's science, social issues, politics, or whatever, the most deluded are the most religious. Countless scientific surveys find that archaic ideas correlate with religiosity.

To debate irrelevant topics like "who kills more people in the name of their philosophy" is a waste of time for both sides. The question should be, "Who comes to correct, moral decisions more often?", and "Whose methods get us medicine, computers, moon landings, and nutrition, and whose get us death by disease, lack of scientific progress, and a total misunderstanding of the natural world?"

Sheldon W. Helms, San Ramon, CA
July 25, 2010 10:48am

When I her about Jeffrey Daumer, I have to doubt the claim that once you free yourself of religion you become an enightened peson who has no need to hurt other people.

I seemm to remember him coming to the conclusion that if there is no God, people are just another kind of meat.

Trent, screw off
August 08, 2010 12:09pm

I think the failure of your argument, and it is a very good argument, is in your failure to account for the progress of civilizations through time. You are, by implication, assuming that an early culture is the same as a late culture, and assuming that cultures don't morph into new constructs.

I submit that the killings of the 20th century were the convulsions of Western Culture morphing into an Atheistic culture and the inability of the cultures to stabilize during the whole of the 'Total War' period (Napoleon-WW2). These convulsions actually killed Western culture, and it is now simply dying.

You can't really judge a system from within a system, and it is necessary to keep that in mind when observing large scale historic events, especially if you are living in a dying culture where many are invested in the dying process.

Atheism is faced with a fundamental fact: It cannot logically argue against the murder-suicide. If being dead and being alive are equal, then the important thing is the magnitude of the experience. That, on a social scale, is very dangerous, especially in the powerful.

Joel, Tulsa
August 12, 2010 9:35pm

I just wanted to comment on this: "Religion does not cause you to kill people, and it certainly doesn't prevent you from killing people."

Sorry, but that's not true. It's like saying that condoms don't protect you from getting sexually transmitted diseases. Of course they don't - if you don't put them on! Having condom in your pocket won't protect you. Same with religion - if you just claim to be christian/jewish/muslim/buddhist but don't actually act according to what it teaches - you're not christian/jewish/muslim/buddhist and just claimingto be one and acting as one are different things. Would living according to what Jesus taught prevent you from killing people?

And in response to Sheldon Helms' question "Whose methods get us medicine, computers, moon landings, and nutrition and whose get us death by disease, lack of scientific progress, and a total misunderstanding of the natural world?" - some of the most respectable scientist were religious (some of them just formally, but some were devout). Just a few names: Louis Pasteur (catholic), Werner Heisenberg (Lutheran), Max Planck (protestant), Christian Huygens (calvinist), Blaise Pascal (jansenist), Neils Bohr (jewish), Max Born (jewish). I'd say it that your question is on the same level as "Who kills more, atheism or christianity" - being christian, jewish or atheist has nothing to do with how great a scientist you are.

Domagoj Krvavica, Rijeka, Croatia
August 18, 2010 12:20am

I'll concede your argument that the debate over 'who killed more' is irrelevant. However, I disagree with a LOT of your ending statements.

The simple fact is, all religions are LIES. We must face this fact. To believe in a religion, of any kind, means that you have looked at reality and chosen to ignore it. Instead of believing in what evidence shows, your beliefs are determined by what you WANT to believe. It teaches people that rationalization is okay.

Yes, a good man will use the Bible as a justification to do good and an evil man will use the Bible to justify evil. I submit though that being raised on rationalization makes it far easier for a man to grow into the kind of person who will give in to his darker desires. Simply put, a man who would not kill otherwise might be more likely to kill if he believes God excuses (or endorses) his behavior.

I haven't seen any evidence that religion causes violence. But I have seen that it correlates to stupidity, and I think it absolutely functions as a way for religious people to insulate themselves from learning. It keeps the stupid from becoming smarter. And stupidity and crime also correlate.

I might not be right about all I've said, but I personally believe that we will progress more as a species if we stop telling ourselves that believing in fantasy, in LIES, is an acceptable alternative to reality. Any belief rooted in a lie will bear rotten fruit. Lies give no comfort and offer no wisdom. Lies should never be acceptable.

AlexReynard, Michigan, USA
August 21, 2010 5:38am

The funny thing about blaming religion (Christianity in particular) for all the violence in the world, is that you're actually trying to blame an entity that has no military presence of it's own, and claiming that it is the lowest common denominator in all of this perpetuated violence.

It is rulers and governments that wage these inhumane campaigns, and they simply exploit religion to gain support, just like they would exploit anything that you were passionate about to pull your puppet strings. And rather than take a stance against big oppressive government, some of these fools go after religion itself.

If guys like Dawkins and Harris got their wish and religion disappeared tomorrow, I give it a week before the first bloody genocide. And all the "smart guys" would be standing there thinking "What did we miss?"

Alan, right behind you...
August 31, 2010 3:29pm