Who Kills More, Religion or Atheism?

Has religion or atheism been responsible for the greater death toll throughout human history?

Filed under Religion

Skeptoid #76
November 27, 2007
Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe
Bookmark and Share

Religion vs Atheism
Artwork: Nathan Bebb

Hide that Bible in your pocket as the guard hustles you down the snowy road on your way to eventual death in Stalin's Gulag, for today's subject is the debate over whether more people throughout history have been killed in the name of religion, or in the name of atheism.

Atheist authors like Christopher Hitchens, Michael Shermer, and Sam Harris are always debating religious authors like Dinesh D'Souza, William Dembski, and Alister McGrath about whether or not God exists, or whether or not religion is good for the world. And, as predictably as the sun rises, these debates nearly always devolve into the argument of which side is responsible for the greatest death toll throughout history. Which is a more terrible killer: religious fundamentalism, or the lack of religion?

Christians charge that the most killing in history has come from modern atheist regimes. Adolf Hitler led Germany during World War II when he executed six million Jews in the Holocaust, three million Poles, three million Russian prisoners of war, and as many as eight million others throughout Europe. Joseph Stalin was the General Secretary of the Soviet Union following the Russian Revolution until his death after World War II. Between 10 and 20 million Soviets and German prisoners of war died under his regime, depending on how many famine victims you count, from Gulags, execution, and forced resettlement. Mao Zedong, who led China for more than a quarter of a century following World War II, created the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution programs which collectively killed unknown tens of millions of Chinese, most of them in public executions and violent clashes. Pol Pot led the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia during the 1970's, when as many as 2 million Cambodians, or as much as 20% of the population, died from execution, disease and starvation.

History is full of uncounted massacres by armies carrying a religious banner, though most such episodes were in ancient times with much less efficient killing technology and microscopically smaller populations. The number of religious exterminations of entire villages throughout history is innumerable, though most had body counts only in the hundreds or thousands. Alexander the Great is estimated to have executed a million. 11th century Crusades killed half a million Jews and Muslims. Genghis Khan's massacres of entire populations of cities probably totaled a million. The Aztecs once slaughtered 100,000 prisoners over four days. An unknown number, probably in the millions, died in the Devil's Wind action in Colonial India. Up to four million Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims died in post-Colonial India. The Ottoman Empire massacred two million Armenians over the years. Franco's Spanish Civil War killed a hundred thousand. A million have died in Rwanda, half a million in Darfur. And Christian vs. Muslim violence has obviously dominated our headlines for a decade, totaling somewhere in seven figures.

So who has been the worst throughout history: atheist regimes or religious regimes? Obviously the big numbers come from the 20th century superpowers (China, Russia, Germany) so the answer depends on how you classify those. And this is where the meat of these debates is usually found, splitting hairs on which regime is atheist, which is merely secular, which is non-Christian and thus fair game to be called atheist. Hitchens points out that Stalin's government had all the trappings of religion, including Orwell's totalitarian theocracy, and thus it's merely a play on words to say that it was not religious. Pol Pot was raised a Buddhist monk who grew up to execute Buddhist monks, along with anyone else he could lay his hands on. Whole books have been written on the occult underpinnings of Nazi Germany, the symbology of the Norse gods, to say nothing of the claims that Hitler was a Christian, Hitler was a Jew, and his own writings expressing the kinship he felt with the Muslims. A favorite counterpoint raised by Christian debaters is that these despots practiced Social Darwinism and were thus atheists by definition. In summary, the winner of these debates is the one who can convince the other that the big 20th century genocidal maniacs were motivated either by religion or by a desire to destroy religion. The entire debate is the logical fallacy of the excluded middle.

Here's the thing. If you write a book called God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, you sell a lot of books. If you write a book called What's So Great About Christianity on the evils of atheism, you also sell a lot of books. If you say that neither extremist viewpoint makes any sense, you end up doing a podcast and working as a greeter at Wal-Mart directing customers to the section where they sell Hitchens and D'Souza books. The truth is less incisive, it's less inflammatory, it raises no ire, and it draws no audience.

And that truth, as I've said time and time again, is that people are people. No matter what segment of society you look at, you'll find good people and you'll find bad people. You'll even find, as has been said, that the line between good and evil cuts through every human heart. Certainly there are people in the news who kill in the name of religion, but just because they kill in the name of religion doesn't really mean they kill because of religion. The Islamic militants who cut off Nick Berg's head are not nice men who would have otherwise been his best friend, if it weren't for their religious convictions forcing them into this grievous act. They are base murderers, and they should be punished accordingly, I don't care whether they go to church or not. Killers don't really kill because of their religion. Neither does a lack of religious convictions cause one to run wild in the streets with a bloody axe and a torch. Religion is a convenient banner for many to carry, but there are plenty of other banners available as well, and if it wasn't religion, they'd do their deeds under some other justification, if they care to even have one. The real reason they do their evil deeds is that they're human. Humans are very smart, very capable; and when we want something, we generally find some way to get it, even if that means killing someone or committing genocide.

By doing this episode, I'm going to be called an apologist for atheist genocide. My dismissal of the entire argument as pointless and fallacious will be interpreted as a dodge from advocating a weak position. So go ahead and post that as a comment on Skeptoid.com, if you're still convinced that this is argument that can ever have a useful conclusion. I'm convinced that arguing either side is merely an opportunistic way to tingle sensitive nerves and sell a lot of books. And, I'm convinced that any discussion of the religious causes of genocide is a divisive distraction from the more worthwhile investigation into the true cultural and psychological causes. We are human beings, and we need to understand our human motivations.

So I am no longer going to participate in the childish debate of what religion has killed more people in history, because it doesn't matter. The way I see it, you might as well debate what color underpants are worn by the largest number of killers, and try to draw a causal relationship there as well. Religion does not cause you to kill people, and it certainly doesn't prevent you from killing people. Let's stop pretending that it does either.

$2/mo $5/mo $10/mo One time

Follow me on Twitter @BrianDunning.

Brian Dunning

© 2007 Skeptoid Media, Inc. Copyright information

References & Further Reading

Becker, J. Hungry Ghosts: Mao's Secret Famine. New York: Holt Paperbacks, 1998.

D'Souza, Dinesh. The Catholic Classics. Huntington, Indiana: Huntington : Our Sunday Visitor, 1986. 166.

Harris, Sam. The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. New York: W.W. Norton, 2004. 336.

Hitchens, Christopher. God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. New York: Twelve Books, 2007. 307.

Nicholson, H. J. The Crusades. Wesport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2004.

Shermer, Michael. Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1997. 306.

Reference this article:
Dunning, B. "Who Kills More, Religion or Atheism?" Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc., 27 Nov 2007. Web. 21 Apr 2014. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4076>

Discuss!

10 most recent comments | Show all 445 comments

Jason's conclusions about atheists fail on the point that atheists do not have a dogma. Among us are humanists and libertarians, adherents to various political views, tolerant and not so tolerant. There is no such thing as an atheist regime - it might be anti-religious as that helps purge allegiance to interests other than the state. You won't see a Supreme Court Chief Justice walking down cathedral steps while conversing with an archbishop or a President squeezing his eyes shut in a service at a Washington DC church or a chaplain of a governmental body offering a benediction. In Czarist Russia the Church dominated the political landscape, though it offered only prayer for the masses who frequently faced starvation and disease.

There's a difference between removing religion from public function and purging religion from a society. We should all be free but one can't be free when a majority imposes its belief systems on everyone.

John, Michigan, USA
October 16, 2013 3:03pm

John,
on dogma; that is precisely the argumentative technique that WLC uses in his debate. Its about the poorest one New Atheism dishes up from time to time.

If you are going to repudiate an argument based on morals with one based on dogma, people will note you are using the same techniques.

Clearly, if you live in a state that you don't approve of and want to be an activist to change it, don't base your fundamentalism on the same as your opponent.

People believe in silly things and it gets in the way of education. Only education can slowly erode this.

Brian posts on it every week in his unique podcast "Skeptoid".

Mind you, i do find it odd that New Atheists and Skeptics describe themselves within identifying movements when they are the one and same thing.

Maybe the New Atheists allow for acupuncture and Big Pharma to get in the way of reason and skeptics allow for a bit of this religion.

Thats an argument for redefining yourself based on reason.

Personally, I'll stick with encouraging young people to get as best an education they can get and consequently losing the hangovers of previous generations.

I think the sign off is;

Credo!

Maison D\'etre, sin city, Oz
October 16, 2013 4:03pm

Firstly, to put the burden of proof on you "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." my evidence is below, where's yours. Secondly, you make irrelevant comparisons between religion and compulsion, saying "Religion does not cause you to kill people, and it certainly doesn't prevent you from killing people. Let's stop pretending that it does either." Well here are the numbers to prove you wrong. I do not type this out of spite, I respect your wish to find a middle ground between both parties. But I do type this to bring to light simple numbers that destroy the idea that "Religion poisons everything" is an extreme attitude.

Lowest Estimate of People Killed by Religion, Assuming Christian Bible is 100% correct: 10,951,364*

*Lowest death estimate from 6 largest religious wars + # of people God himself would have killed (2,821,364)

Highest Estimate of People Killed by Religion, Assuming Christian Bible is 100% correct: 26,571,364*

*Largest death estimate from 6 largest religious wars + # of people God himself would have killed (2,821,364)

Then go here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War) and read those figures that came about as a result of the existence of an extremist Muslim group attacking the US on September 11th 2001. So don't you dare try to force on us the idea that "Religion doesn't kill" It does, it has, and will sometime in the future. There is nothing more that needs to be said here.

Kyle, Croton-on-Hudson, NY
November 17, 2013 5:06am

Really Kyle? The American govt. tried to coerce Canada into the Iraq War on the grounds of WMD, and the threat to our safety, not the 911 attacks.

Fortunately the Canadian govt. held the Bush govt. to a standard of reasonable burden of proof, which they didn't even come close to meeting.

I don't think anyone really knows what the motivation for that war was. It had absolutely nothing at all to do with religion, 911 or WMD.

Maybe GW was seeking revenge on Saddam because he tried to kill his dad?

Roz, Calgary, Alberta
November 27, 2013 1:19am

If it wasn't for religion, people wouldn't follow their leaders as easily as they do.

I am going to use Osama bin Laden, merely as an example. If bin Laden says, "Allah wants you to kill the infidel", religious little sheep will follow, because they think it comes from god, and you are not supposed to question god's will.

If those sheep were atheistic, they would use they brains instead of blindly following. They'd say, "Allah doesn't exist, it is just this man, Osama, who says we're supposed to hate the non-moslems and the fake moslems. Fuck Osama!"

That is the whole point. People of religion are very hesitant to use their brains, if the name of god is involved.

By removing (or at the very least secularising) religion from politics and/or society, we would rob the corrupt leaders of their most effective tool.

What about the suicide-bombings? What cause would make those people blow themselves in the air, if it wasn't for the insane ideas of a sharia based world-wide caliphate?

It would've been great, if your point of view would reflect reality. Unfotunately, it does not.

Dennis, Germany
December 29, 2013 9:38pm

Dennis, though certain religious sects may harbor 'terrorists'', the bulk of those Believers have a different leader. In my case it's God.

Any radical religious fundamentalist will behave in a manner that will taint a religious following with such underserved characteristics as Racism, Religious Chauvinism, violence or other activities these people attribute to their religious beliefs. It is unfortunate that people who deride religion will cite these radicals.

David Baker, Sacramento, CA
December 30, 2013 3:54am

The above comment by Jason.. whom assumes morality exists because of god telling us right from wrong can easily be dismissed. Even using bible logic.

Do you think before Moses presented the ten commandments that people knew it was wrong to murder? Oh course they did. Morality evolved with communities and knowledge from early man.. tens of thousands of years before any of the religious dogma creeds we follow today.

Jason's assertions (no god = no morality) reminds me of the individuals whom claim their only reason for not murdering is because of god. Very slippery slope.

Jordan, Denver, Colorado
February 21, 2014 1:25pm

I disagree with the premise.

Christians often confuse this argument because they falsely believe that one's religious orientation is the source of one's morality. In their minds, belief in God is the same as being moral, and disbelief in God is the same as being immoral.

They never stop to consider that morality and religious beliefs are completely independent concepts. They never stop to consider that this is precisely the reason why there plenty of examples of each:
1) Christian-moral,
2) Christian-immoral,
3) atheist-moral, and
4) atheist-immoral people.
This is what social scientists call a zero correlation.

Citizen, World
March 05, 2014 3:07am

Goodness! At the end of the day whatever you believe in is good if it gives you hope. It is better to have hope than no hope. If people could just believe in what they believe in and not try to push their religion on everybody else, then maybe we could all could just get alone. Anything that causes the human race to hate, kill, or just dislike someone for what they believe in is probably not a good thing. I myself am a nonbeliever but i accept everybody and have no problem with peoples beliefs unless it causes harm to people or animals. We need to be smarter and pull together as a human race and not continue to hate people who do not believe as we do. How hard could this be to do?

jc, easley,s.c.
March 14, 2014 5:41pm

Just something I would like to point out. There have been in total 0 deaths caused in the name of atheism. You cannot kill in the name of a lack of belief, it just doesn't work. But a better question is would religion have prevented these murders from murdering people.

But I have to disagree with skeptoid with this one, I think that without their religion those Islamic extremists would be nice people. I don't think people are born killers. Anyone could be turned into a killer if they were raised differently.

berock212, Citizen, World
March 30, 2014 8:40am

Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point). Anyone can post:

Your Name:
City/Location:
Comment:
characters left. Discuss the issues - personal attacks against other commenters, posts containing advertisements or links to commercial services, nonsense, and other useless posts will be deleted.
Answer 6 + 3 =

You can also discuss this episode in the Skeptoid Forum, hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation, or join the Skeptalk email discussion list.

What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?

Support Skeptoid
 
Skeptoid host, Brian Dunning
Skeptoid is hosted
and produced by
Brian Dunning


Newest
The Black Eyed Kids
Skeptoid #410, Apr 15 2014
Read | Listen (11:18)
 
Oil Pulling
Skeptoid #409, Apr 8 2014
Read | Listen (12:24)
 
Skeptoid Media is a 501(c)(3) Public Charity
Apr 4 2014
Listen (1:13)
 
15 Phreaky Phobias
Skeptoid #408, Apr 1 2014
Read | Listen (12:44)
 
The Death of Mad King Ludwig
Skeptoid #407, Mar 25 2014
Read | Listen (11:49)
 
Newest
#1 -
Listener Feedback: Alternative Medicine
Read | Listen
#2 -
The JFK Assassination
Read | Listen
#3 -
Asking the Socratic Questions
Read | Listen
#4 -
5 False Arguments for Raw Milk
Read | Listen
#5 -
The Vanishing Village of Angikuni Lake
Read | Listen
#6 -
The Riddle of the L-8 Blimp
Read | Listen
#7 -
The Secrets of MKULTRA
Read | Listen
#8 -
Who Discovered the New World?
Read | Listen

Recent Comments...

[Valid RSS]

  Skeptoid PodcastSkeptoid on Facebook   Skeptoid on Twitter   Brian Dunning on Google+   Skeptoid RSS

Members Portal

 
 


"The Bloop"
inFact with Brian Dunning


Support Skeptoid