Sunday, June 29, 2008

Anonymous wanted a body count total, so he will get one

In the comments on my previous, brilliant post, an anonymous commentator politely observed that there is (supposedly) a rather wide disparity in the body count between atheists and theists in the 20th century. So, in his honor, I am going to tell you who wins and who loses the body count in history.

Spoiler alert: theism wins the body count game. And by "wins" I mean they've killed way, way, way, way, way more people than atheism. The differential is catastrophic.

Firstly, a note on methodology. Where deaths from theism are concerned, I have normally low-balled the estimates as a favor because the differential is so staggering and theism needs all the bones it can have tossed in its direction. For atheism, I go with the highest possible estimates.

Secondly, I am not going to split hairs over "things done in the name of atheism" and "things done in the name of theism" versus "things done by atheists or theists." I am going with theists versus atheists, because as soon as we parse up the theists ('but which theists were SINCERE' or 'but MY theism is more peaceful than THEIRS'), we will have to parse up the atheists ('but Pol Pot was a totalitarian scumbag, which most atheists aren't'), and then things will just get confusing. Brace yourself, anonymous, your shit is about to get rocked.

Theism
So, let us begin with the crimes of theists. They are extensive, so I have parsed them up according to eras of history.

Pre-Modern:
Middle Ages:
Early Modern:
  • The unabashed holocaust perpetrated against the aboriginal inhabitants of the North America is far and away the most lethal item on this list. Between the militant Catholic fundamentalists known as Conquistadors, and the deaths caused by militant Protestant fundamentalists known as Puritans using biological warfare in the form of smallpox-infected blankets against natives, the total desolation across the continent exceeded 100 million even before the American nation swept most of the rest from the continent by force.
  • The Spanish Inquisition is an oft-cited example, but its real death toll is insignificant. Perhaps 1,000 or less.
  • The witch trials of North America (Salem and Connecticut being the only two famous, but far from the only, examples) are also oft-cited examples, but they too are utterly insignificant as measures of the depravity of the average theist. 100 or less.
Modern:
  • The early 20th century's Armenian Genocide (and yes, it was a genocide), carried out by a vassal state of the theocratic Ottoman empire, cost 1.5 million lives.
  • Hitler, an avowed Catholic, Mussolini, who had the good sense to be non-religious in his youth but who later converted to Catholicism in 1927, and Hirohito, an avowed participant of the state religion of Japan, launched the Second World War in 1939 (or was that 1941?). The total deaths from this war have been calculated at about 72 million, including the Holocaust. The largely atheistic citizens of the Soviet Union were the biggest victims of this war of theistic expansionism. This does not include
  • the Nanking massacre, which modern historians estimate took about 500,000 lives, almost entirely Chinese.
  • The 1948 Arab-Israeli War has been reliably tallied at almost exactly 20,000 casualties.
  • The Six-Day War has been reliably tallied at almost exactly 22,000 casualties.
  • The First Sudanese Civil War (which is not the Darfur crisis), which was explicitly religious in nature, cost about 500,000 lives. The Second Sudanese Civil War (which is also not the Darfur crisis) cost about 2 million.
  • "Operation Searchlight," the pogroms carried out by the megalomaniacal theists in charge of Bangladesh in the early 1970s, cost 3 million lives.
  • Conservative estimates of the Hindu extremist group known colloquially as the Tamil Tigers place the ongoing death toll at 215,000.
  • Other forms of modern Hindu violence against other religions or lapsed Hindus (almost entirely in the form of Hindu-on-Muslim violence) can be veeeery conservatively estimated at 25,000.
  • Late 20th century violence by the Islamic Ba'ath party of Iraq (a nation so religious that it had the phrase Allahu Akbar scrawled across its flag and which once hosted one of the largest mosques in the region built by Saddam Hussein) against ethnic Kurds cost about 150,000 lives.
  • The 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War, also known in Iran as the Holy War, cost about 750,000 lives, conservatively.
  • The 1994 Rwandan genocide, not religious in nature but certainly caused by theists, resulted in about 1 million deaths.
  • The Ustasa regime's mass murders, which would have been impossible had not the regime been propped up by the Catholic Church (whose fingerprints can be found in nearly every example of 20th century fascism; see "God Is Not Great" by award-winning journalist Christopher Hitchens), tally up to "hundreds of thousands." Lets call it 200,000.
  • The 2001 attack on the World Trade Center by Muslim fundamentalists who all came into extremist Islam in adult life after coming out of good educations and good backgrounds in countries that had never known any measure of oppression by the United States cost almost 3,000 lives.
  • The 2003 invasion of Iraq by the avowed theocrat George W. Bush who said that the war was waged on instructions from God, launched against the (above-mentioned) theocratic Ba'ath Party of Iraq, has, between insurgents, Americans, Iraqi security, Iraqi civilians, foreign military officers, and foreign civilians, cost about 1 million lives, mostly caused by Muslim fundamentalist extremists.
Deaths from theism whose full tallies are impossible to calculate:
  • Routine violence, starvation, economic attrition against, denial of medical services to, and criminal negligence of India's dalits over the millennia have probably cost hundreds of thousands or millions of lives.
  • Religion's endless war on vaccines has caused and will cause the resurgence of old diseases and the ravaging of current populations, mainly in Africa, since it takes only a few unvaccinated people to allow a virus to mutate into a strain that resists vaccination. The death toll from this encouragement of disease-related deaths by religion will undoubtedly skyrocket in the coming century.
  • The Vatican's and Muslim leaders' routine opposition to safe-sex practices, especially through the murderous criminals known as "missionaries" in Africa, has exasperated the HIV problem considerably and there is no way to know how many hundreds of thousands of people have died slow, agonizing deaths at the hands of HIV as a result, and how many will continue to suffer in the future.
  • The death toll from those who refuse to seek medical attention because of religious beliefs, Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse blood transfusions, Christian scientists who refuse all treatment, those who subscribe to the undeniably religious pseudoscientific New Age beliefs that prefer bullshit to real medical therapies, etc., is impossible to calculate. I do not doubt that it is thousands every year.
  • Honor killings in Muslim societies. Probably hundreds every year.
  • The deaths that will be caused by the inevitable famine in the fundamentalist Confucian state of North Korea will be staggering but difficult to precisely calculate.
Disputed theist deaths:
  • A 3rd-century compendium of ancient Semitic fairy tales and military procedures known as the Bible records a number of deaths, mainly at the hands of a genocidal maniac worshiped as a patriarch named Moses. I doubt most of these, so I will not include their tens of thousands in the final tally.
Negligible sources of theism-related deaths:
Final tally for theism: 2,229,074,100

And now for Atheism:

  • The French Revolution, built on Enlightenment principles, probably cost somewhere from 1-2 million lives.
  • Maoism in China, indisputably atheist, was indirectly responsible for the starvation of 20-40 million Chinese citizens during the "Great Leap Forward" and the "Cultural Revolution" combined.
  • Even though I could find no evidence that Pol Pot was an atheist, his regime was anti-most religion, so I will include the tally of his regime, whose very tip-top highest estimates place the death toll at 3 million.
Disputed atheist:
  • Stalin: recently-unearthed secret documents indicate that Stalin may have been made a deist who “made his peace with God” and who brought priests back into favor and who encouraged religious icons to be paraded around Leningrad for good luck during the siege. He had “complex” relations with religious institutions in the Soviet Union, notes Hector Avalos, and so there is every indication that Stalin might have been a closet atheist turned closet diest, or even Orthodox Christian, who kept his faith very private. You're welcome I didn't include the 50 million victims of his pogroms under the theism casualties, because the new, very modern evidence against Stalin's post-1940 atheism is pretty damn good.

Highest possible atheism death toll without Stalin: 45,000,000.
Highest possible atheism death toll with Stalin: 95,000,000
.

So, at its very highest, atheists have caused almost a whopping 100 million deaths throughout world history. This is about 1/20th the casualties caused by the morally depraved theists who have dominated history. Given that statistically about 16% of the world is non-religious but only about 5% of total world military/genocidal violence has been caused by atheism, we can safely add one more piece of evidence that theists have proven themselves to be far and away more morally depraved, violent, aggressive, brutally selfish, and downright nasty to each other than us infidels.

And to think that the theists say that we atheists can't know right from wrong.

Dear childish idiots,

Somehow some of you have managed to figure out that the end result total doesn't like up with (some) of the numbers listed. Some of you have gone so far as to indicate that children should be able to figure this out, therefore I'm less intelligent than a child. Permit some consistency then when I say that you are less intelligent than children because a child should be able to read the explanation I have provided over and over and over and over and over again in the comments thread.

Some of the numbers have imprecise figures, some of them I did not provide numbers for. This includes estimates of damage done by Catholic anti-condom lunacy, a certain fraction of deaths from vaccine-curable diseases in Africa in the last fifteen years, etc. For some of these numbers you have to actually go to something called a "book" for the end result. But, as I have already concluded that several of you are illiterate, I doubt that this word "book" will mean much to you.

70 comments:

Logossfera said...

I don't think that religious people of today are morally depraved. Just because
1. they want a reward infinetely greater than what they deserve (heaven for a finite good they did in this life)
2. they are willing to accept infinite punishment for others (hell for those who commited finite evil in this life)
3. think it is GREAT to look at a murder/rape without doing nothing (god is great and he's watching right now some kid being raped with his hands on his chest)
4. they accept natural explanations when they want and supernatural explanation when they want (they use the internet, the product of science method, but reject evolution the product of the same science method)
doesn't mean they are morally depraved. They are just under the influence of the noodly appendages of Flying Spagetti Monster that is messing with their brain.

Ed Bruner said...

Bush a theocrat? What evidence do you have? "God told me to invade Iraq" surely you can do better than this. He gave this speech off the record and behind closed doors. What evidence do we have that he actually said this? Just because something is on the NET doesn't make it true.
Hitler a Catholic? Pleeeese! I guess this is why he persecuted Catholics? If you walked into a mental health hospital, I'm sure that you'd hear patients declaring all kinds of things about themselves.

Oliver said...

ed bruner: You have to remember the methodology that went into these numbers.

Bush is a Methodist, and he helped kill around 1 million people, so that's 1 million in the Theist column. There are some reports that God really did communicate to him to go to Iraq.

Hitler was a Catholic who had the full support of the Catholic church. This clearly goes in the Theist column. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_hitler.html

And your assessment that Hitler claimed to be Christian because he was delusional.... I have to agree with that one.

Logossfera said...

@ed bruner.
1. There are people in mental hospitals claiming to be Mesia. Your point is?
2. Just because something is written on a paper doesn't make it true either.
3. Bush told something behind closed doors and off the record a few years ago and you don't believe it. yet if 40 years after a person's death if a manuscript appears with his sayings it's ok to believe it's true because some infailible council dead for almost 2 milenia chose the right manuscripts.

Another proof of the notorious christian arrogance. Just about every christians KNOWS apriori which source of information is trustworthy or not. It's like they are almost omniscient.

GoodNewsAtheism said...

Ed,
"Hitler persecuted Catholics?" Show me the evidence.

And as for George Bush, if you click on the link where I mention that quote, it takes you to a news article about the speech where he said that exact quote, silly.

Allen said...

lol, yeah, atheists didn't do much killing back in the days when there weren't really any/many. Wow, that's a shock.

D- for making any kind of useful point.

Logossfera said...

@allen
well if you believe in the bible the biggest criminal are adam and eve and they were theist. all the people that died since they ate the apple are their bodycount. but if you come to think about it god made them stupid enough to listen to a snake and not to eat from the tree of life afterwards... so Yaweh seems to be the greatest murderer of all. God is great!

openlyatheist said...

"lol, yeah, atheists didn't do much killing back in the days when there weren't really any/many. Wow, that's a shock.

D- for making any kind of useful point."

Then I'm sure you'll join us atheists is a collective F- to the idiots like "anonymous" who smirk about "comparative historical body counts."

Knapweed said...

I think you're missing an important point. If religion is the opium of the masses, those who direct it are probably not subject to it, i.e. they are atheists who know that a religious prod will get the masses in an uproar.

I don't believe for one minute that the popes in history, who committed horrendous crimes, believed in a deity. Nor do I believe those that make the decisions to go to war are bound by religion. I just believe religion is an easy way to instill fear and those in charge play it like a violin.

So, I don't think your argument has total merit unless you actually know the mindset of Ghengis Khan et al. How do you know they were 'really' into religion as opposed to a cynical use of other people's beliefs?

GoodNewsAtheism said...

Given that you cannot prove or disprove the mindset of ANY other person (could you "prove" in some kind of rigorous, exhaustive way that Richard Dawkins is "really" an atheist?), the only thing on which we could converge is what they say they believe and how they act, knapweed. Why even make the retreat to the unfalsifiable epistemic no-man's land of "what they REALLY believed? Such an escape is as useless as it is self-defeating.

Logossfera said...

@Knapweed
let's asume you are right. how many leaders are mentioned in the articles? 50? how many people do you think those leaders killed with their own hands? let's say we have 10000 per leader (which is pretty high). You have only 500.000 killed by those non-believer type of leaders. The point of the article that the most killings were done by the religious still stands.
Now, assuming religion is the opium of the masses and all religous people that killed were actually lied to by their leaders there is no motive to defend religion since it makes it so easy to convince people of such horible acts or the concept of a god who sits on his ass watching how lyers claim to follow his guidelines and lets people die because of such leaders.

Are you the "i-believe-in-belief" type of agnostic?

Knapweed said...

Who is defending religion? It needs no defence from me. The majority of people subscribe to one form of religion or another, they just don't necessarily see it that way.

I don't see a problem with religion per se; the problem occurs when there are differences in beliefs. The root problem being that people will kill each other over different belief systems - religion is just one example.

I would fully support any argument that tackled the insanity of the human race killing each other over trivial nonsense but this article doesn't do that. Unfortunately, it presents a rather fatuous argument that religious people are responsible for more deaths than atheists.

No doubt people over five foot are responsible for more murders than midgets. So what? Does that mean that tall people are inherently more violent?

I don't know where you got agnostic from. Do you find security in labels? I'm an atheist but I just don't have quite the same religious zeal to evangelise it that you appear to do.

Atheism is, like it or not, a belief system. It doesn't have to be 'anti' anything in order to exist. In that respect, your post shows all the hallmarks of the root problem, i.e. you attack people with a different belief system to your own.

TJ said...

Knapweed, the point is that it is people of religion who constantly trot out this argument about how many people have been killed by atheists, as some sort of proof of atheist lack of morals. The point of the article is that this argument by "body count" is a pile of crap.

GoodNewsAtheism said...

Sorry you don't like it, Knapweed. I'm sorry that everyone standing up to theism is 'part of the problem,' and I have no doubt about the volume of internal dissonance you feel about simultaneously attacking atheism.

I also am sorry that every atheist who is proud of who they are warrants weasel-words like "religious zeal" and "evangelism." Some of us actually like to push back. If you want to keep your atheism in a box and let the poor, oppressed theists keep their beliefs to themselves (which, as we all know, they do quite poorly), that's your business.

I hope you note that I have made no attempt to label you as trying to "evangelize" your private brand of atheism with "religious zeal."

Josh Spinks said...

Why is the French Revolution under atheism? Robespierre was a deist (he invented his own religion, the cult of the supreme being).

Jeff said...

Another interesting study would be the comparative number of people in heaven and hell according to each of the competing belief systems that contain the notion of heaven and hell in their theology.

I liked the earlier response that everyone who has ever died of natural causes is really due to religious wrath as punishment for the original sin. This religious wrath would have caught up with all the people who died for other reasons eventually. Hands down, God is the biggest mass murderer according to the Old Testament. According to the New Testament, most of the people that die are also tortured for ever (that a long time) in Hell for not believing the right things. Only a small percentage go to heaven. Seems to me that the New Covenant is infinitely more cruel then the Old Covenant.

GoodNewsAtheism said...

The French Revolution is there because I wanted to throw theism a bone. You're right, it shouldn't be, but come on, look at the body count outcome- the total depravity of theism needs a leg up.

And if someone makes a heaven-hell comparison chart, I'll post it.

Knapweed said...

@goodnewsatheism

It's not about hiding it in a box.

Christopher Hitchens, I'm sure, wouldn't resent being described as having religious zeal when he evangelises atheism. But Hitchens describes himself as an "anti-theist", which I believe describes your position better than "atheist".

I think Hitchens does a tremendous job but I also see the same intolerance, contempt and arrogance in his delivery that I see in other religions.

On one point, I'm sure even you would agree. If everybody kept their beliefs to themselves and never tried to ram it down another person's throat, there could be no conflict. No matter whether that belief be in a deity or not.

If that is the case, it can't be religion as the root cause, can it?

BTW, I did like your essay. It was well written and well presented. I just disagree with some of the polnts you were making.

Anonymous said...

Amazing, the number of outright lies that article relies on John, old sport.

Examples, Mussolini...committed atheist by all accounts, whether he "converted" to Catholocism or not...after all, you continued to preach after you decided it was not true. Were you a "Christian" then because you said you were?

Example, a toll of 100 million in North America...the total population was no where near that figure.

Etc.

You know all this already, I am sure. Do you really think people don't notice?

Anyway, we all look forward to providing MANY reviews of your book! LOL!

Anonymous said...

And by the way, you do NOT know who I am...all you have is an ip number a A computer, moron!

LOL!

GoodNewsAtheism said...

The sources provided indicate that Mussolini converted as an adult. If you think he was an atheist throughout his life, you have a burden to deal with.

And if you contest the estimated death toll of the Catholic fundamentalist and Protestant fundamentalist-sponsored bacteriological genocide against American aboriginals, deal with the sources, not with me.

I do not understand the rest of your post, anonymous.

Gadfly said...

First, there’s only one documented instance, at least in British-American history, of a white official deliberately smallpox-laden blankets to Indians.

The Spanish, etc., who brought smallpox with them? Yes, per Jared Diamond, that gave them an advantage, but Hernando Cortez didn’t cough in Montezuma’s face or something. Certainly, the Spanish didn’t bring smallpox-bearing slaves from Africa (per your linked webpage) for the purposes of genocide to American Indians, either. For the first century or so after “Contact,” Europeans didn’t even know they had this advantage, let alone why.

Genocide implies deliberation, and with the exception of Sir Jeffrey Amherst, I’ve yet to see a documented case of it.

Beyond that, your linked webpage, in more than one spot, uses phrases like “some believe,” with no empirical documentation.

Next, the British, especially, didn’t claim to be conquering in the name of God. Amherst certainly didn’t make that claim. Therefore, any deliberate casualties of his bioweaponry can’t be considered “religiously caused.”

In short, that whole graf of yours is emotionally biased, emotionally laden, and of almost no factual support.

And, even earlier, you confuse correlation with causation. Did Jinggis Khan kill his 40 million because of his animist religious beliefs? I hugely doubt it. Did medieval Japan invade Korea for religious reasons? Again, I hugely doubt it.

Despite the Japanese emperor being “divine,” can Japan’s WWII invasion of China be called religiously driven? You would have a boatload of historians rejecting that.

The Iran-Iraq War? Not religious. A secular Muslim, Hussein, launched the invasion. Later, after losing the Gulf War, Hussein wrote the Quranic statement of belief on the Iraqi flaq as a PR gesture. It didn’t make him any more religious than before, nor did it make his gassing of the Kurds religious.

In short, I can easily knock about a third of your numbers out of the ring.

Don’t give atheist intellectualism a bad name.

Gadfly said...

Oliver, re your comments to Ed Bruner, then the methodology is wrong. You're ignoring motivation.

Oh, and incase the last line of my original post didn't make clear, I am an atheist.

GoodNewsAtheism said...

"Genocide implies deliberation.

No it doesn't.

Anyway, tl;dr, take it up with the sources if you have a problem.

"Hussein wrote the Quranic statement of belief on the Iraqi flaq as a PR gesture."

So you have special insight into what Saddam Hussein was thinking and feeling at the time? No, you have creative guesswork that clashes sharply with the facts. Meanwhile, I can tell you what actually happened in reality.

"In short, I can easily knock about a third of your numbers out of the ring."

Rather than "knocking out," apparently all you have to do is miss out on the statement right before the list about how an action gets on the list. What a waste of literacy.

"Don’t give atheist intellectualism a bad name."

What is "atheist intellectualism?"

Gadfly said...

GoodNews: You yourself, in that introduction you reference, use the phrase "deaths from theism," which itself indicates you are contending theism was the driving force behind these deaths. It wasn't.

As for intentionality of "genocide," yes, it is just as intentional as "homicide"; they're both MURDER, as opposed to "manslaughter" that we might call war in general.

Don't blame me for your own use of language.

Gadfly said...

Let me go you one better. The oldest tentative evidence for religion goes back 50,000 years.

But Homo sapiens evolved 500,000 years ago. There's a LOT of "atheist" murders you forgot to count.

This post is actually a good example of classical "village idiot atheism."

GoodNewsAtheism said...

""deaths from theism," which itself indicates you are contending theism was the driving force behind these deaths."

Nope. Just deaths caused by theists. Like I said.

"As for intentionality of "genocide," yes, it is just as intentional as "homicide"; they're both MURDER, as opposed to "manslaughter" that we might call war in general.

Don't blame me for your own use of language."

I only blame you for the mistakes you make deliberately. This one I can chalk up to your own ignorance.

"The oldest tentative evidence for religion goes back 50,000 years."

It does not logically follow from the adduced age of religion that all crazy sky-gazings postdate 48,000 BCE. Neither you nor I can know what our oldest ancestors told each other around the fire to keep each other alive, but I doubt that the numerous angles of potential extinction would permit our forefathers to kill each other in any kind of great number.

"But Homo sapiens evolved 500,000 years ago."

Richard Dawkins thinks about 250,000 years ago. Francis Collins thinks about 100,000 years ago.

"This post is actually a good example of classical "village idiot atheism.""

If the other kind of atheism is the kind that runs around poo-pooing other atheists because they do not share your spinelessness, then I humbly decline any invitation, real or imagined, to join it. Particularly if it's the sort that whose adherents are sure they know how True Atheists [TM] "ought" to behave.

Sage said...

This is amazing. Keep up the good work!

joem said...

>Botched circumcision, Waco, various >Mormon atrocities in the 19th century, UFO >cult suicides, and >genuinely bizarro psychos >like Andrea Yeats, or other oddities like >this have not been included.
>
Nice that you didn't include it, but since you did mention it, I thought I should clarify one point: Waco WAS caused by theists, but not necessarily the ones you had in mind. The theists behind the massacre at Waco are Janet Reno and Bill Clinton. David Koresh and his followers, no matter how depraved or insane, were not murderers but MURDER VICTIMS.

Volker said...

Sorry, I don't think your count is fair. Before someone thinks that I'm pro religion, I'm not, I am a strong atheist from Germany:

You should have counted your numbers for the 20th century only, because before that time there weren't many atheists. And of course, these number should be put into relation to the estimated numbers of theists versus atheists.

FVThinker said...

You cite some interesting figures that I can neither refute or support (at least not without much more research).

One thing that you (nor anyone else that I know) takes into account are deaths in proportion to world population. Something that I have considered is that killing 1 million people when the world population was under 1 billion is far more significant that than it would be if the world population were 2.5 billion...or 6.5 billion.

Another related factor in world population is that, say, in the Dark Ages people were more isolated. It would seem that you sort of had to go out of your way to find and kill them. In an overpopulated planet; antagonistic groups are forced into conflict (i.e. along state borders). Add to all this that in the romantic days of olde, you didn't have automatic weapons and explosives. Back then, a good many of those deaths on the roster was a single, face-to-face act of one person killing another (none of the sanitary sniper shot from 200 yards or bomb from 3000 feet)

It would seem to me that a killing toll in the dark ages could be painted as being more insidious than a killing toll with modern warfare...at least in terms of the effort and conscious will to perpetrate the killing. Imagine what the results of the Crusades have been if they had B-2 bombers and laser weaponry at their disposal? (Don't misconstrue my comment as diminishing the value of life today vs. then)

Grumpy said...

What about Ireland?

GoodNewsAtheism said...

*you forgot about Poland

Royimous said...

You have gotta post this on Edger.

Dennis said...

I understand why you have counted communism under the atheism total but I think it should be pointed out that communism has all the hallmarks of theism. Infallible leader who must not be critisised. Philosophical ideas that are forced onto the unconverted. Death to those who don't accept the philosophy. Irrationality to the absurd degree where the logical outcome disagrees with idealology...

Anonymous said...

You seem to have forgotten the India-Pakistan partition."The newly formed governments were completely unequipped to deal with migrations of such staggering magnitude, and massive violence and slaughter occurred on both sides of the border. Estimates of the number of deaths range around roughly 500,000, with low estimates at 200,000 and high estimates at 1,000,000" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India

FYI: I'm an Indian and a Hindu, and i completely agree with you.

Lima said...

Its a great list, but you missed quite a few. The religious Russian czars killed a ton specifically the devout and extreme christian Ivan the terrible and the Romanian with a similar penchent for impaling humans on sticks Vlad the impaler. Then there was the Pogroms under the latter czars to name a few. The vikings were quite devout.

There was a Christian peasant rebellion in China before during and after the opium wars that cost 20 million lives.

Theres a ton others, but to add them all up would take a ton of time.

Anonymous said...

Your methodology is seriously skewed. For one thing, as is pretty much inevitable, you've missed some glaring recent examples. For example, there have been reports of violent suppression during the rise of Albanian state atheism, and during the Spanish Civil War Catholics were targeted by atheist revolutionaries. I'm sure any an hour with a search engine would turn up significant missed results on either side. But that's really a minor problem compared to the other two.

Secondly, dividing it up by theists and atheists is shaky way to determine which deaths go in which column, not least of all because we have almost no figures for atheists prior to the Enlightenment. That means you could technically count all homicides prior to, say, the 16th century in the theist column, but to what end? What would that prove? The question cuts to the heart of what a tally like this would prove anyway. After all, what you're after is a demonstration of religion as causation. Simple affiliation isn't going to demonstrate that.

Better categories would be "deaths caused by violence perpetrated by atheists against religious believers" and "deaths caused by violence perpetrated by religious believers against dissenters". Even better would be categories that insisted on evidence of motive, in order to discount, for example, instances of predominantly Christian nations warring with predominantly Muslims over territory rather than explicitly over religious differences. But motive is far more difficult to substantiate, particularly since, documentation tends to be representative of the wrigter's intent (if even that) rather than of the intend of others in the group. To illustrate what I mean by that, consider Confederate claims that the Civil War was fought over the issue of State Rights. Presumably, many of the writers predicated their involvement in the Confederacy for exactly that reason, but at the same time, there were no doubt many Confederates who fought for slavery, for seccession, for personal greivances or prejudices, and so on.

Thirdly -- and this may be the most crucial point -- your body count makes no accomodation for the differences in time period or population. The sample pools are radically disproportionate. Of course, it isn't your fault that atheism has really only been visible since the Enlightenment, and that atheists have, for as long as we've had reliable statistics, made up a smaller proportion of the population than religious believers -- but a thorough-going statistical analysis will accomodate for differences in sample sizes. In other words, you should be looking for a statistic that actually says what it purports to say. What you're comparing now is basically "how many people have died at the hands of every human who ever lived prior to 1600, plus most humans who have lived since, v. how many people who have died at the hands of 5-17% of the population in the last 400 years". Even if we assumed that atheists and religious believers were equally likely to kill, we'd expect the numbers to be radically disproportionate.

Just adjusting for time shows how stark your tallies make the disparity. Assuming that your figures for kills by theists cover a ballpark span of about 4000 years, that makes a "kills per year" figure of about 557,268 for theists. And rounding the span of events you cite for atheist kills down to 300 years (that's rounding off about 11 years, yes, but it makes the math easier, and I'm rounding down for the religious figures as well, probably by a good deal more), that amounts to 150,000 kpy for atheists -- using the lower of your two figures. That puts the atheist:theist ratio closer to 5:19 rather than the circa 5:247 that we'd get by comparing your raw figures for 300+ years to your raw figures for 4000+ years. (Feel free to check my math; there's a good chance I screwed up somewhere, but not so much as to void my point.)

Even that figure isn't totally fair. What I'd suggest is looking for a number representing "kills per person" for each, in a given period of time. You are, of course, stuck using the modern era for atheists, or some sample portion thereof, simply for lack of figures from any other. With theism, you can pick and choose, so long as you're scrupulous about it. Simply because we have better reason to trust the data, it's probably best to go with the modern era there, as well.

Once you've tallied up the raw numbers, adjust for population. In other words, divide the number of people killed by someone of another religion by the number of people profession religious belief during the same period, and the number of religious believers killed by atheists by the number of atheists for the same period. That means, in order to come to a reliable kills/person ration, you're going to also need population figures for the period in question, as well as demographics on the number that did not subscribe to religious beliefs.

That's important because, while the "kills per year" estimates I came up with above still show religious believers killing disproportionately more than atheists, the 5 out of every 19 deaths considered are attributable to a group that presumably never makes up more than 1/4th of the total population. Adjusting for the scarcity of atheists relative to religious adherents, that would actually make atheists as murderous, if not a little more so, than theists.

Which isn't to say that atheists acutally ARE more violent than theists. Personally, I'd say all of this statistical analysis adds up to very little, and I don't think anyone should find it compelling. The only reason I make that point is to demonstrate to you just how specious this whole "body count" line of reasoning really is. And the only reason that some atheists think it pragmattic to constantly raise the argument is that they wrongly think it adds up in their favor.

Anonymous said...

I think your figure of 100 million Native Americans in North America may be quite high.

Pre-columbian population figures are highly politicized and wild guesswork, but the median of a large number of reasonable guesses seems to be about 40-50 million for the entire New World.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm#America

Steve said...

Hitler a Catholic?
Wow, who knew?
Anyways, for anybody who wants the real numbers without this clown's horrific bias, I recommend two reads:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm
and
David Berlinski's book: "The Devil's Delusion" Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions.

FVThinker said...

@Steve,
Well, yes, there is every indication that Hitler was a Catholic and had tacit support of the Catholic church. Whether Hitler was a Christian or not is a bit of a red herring though. Hitler frequently invoked God and Christian dogma to forward his efforts. Whether he believed it or not, it demonstrates how religious dogma can be the root of much nastiness.

Anonymous said...

this is basically stupid. World History for Atheism starts in 1789? Seriously? Why not compare similat time periods? Shallow and obvious attempts to mislead destroy your credibility even on the stuff that might accidentally be true.

And Genghis Khan never conquered -anything- in the name of religion. Innocent IV corresponded with him trying to end the violence. Khan wrote back saying, essentially, that the Mongols conquer whatever they can, because that's what they do.

Wars are fought for power, territory, resources, and trade. Even the First Crusade was preached in part over territory, as Arabic forces were about to encircle the Mediterranean.

You seem to appreciate that there's much more to history than body counts,and congratulations on that perception. But your comparisons are jaded and unjustified.

Anonymous said...

oh, and that's -
247,700 per year for theists
433,800 per year for atheists.
.

The basic point is, if I as a Christian have to own the Crusades, atheists can damn well step up and own the 20th century. I don't know who invented razor wire, land mines, or Zyklon-B, but I suspect there were no Priests involved.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, you're a moron. You apparantly missed (or more likely ignored) the point. Deaths CAUSED BY THEISTS are counted, Deaths CAUSED BY ATHEISTS are counted. Not necessarily caused because OF THEISM or ATHEISM.

That aside, you seem desperate to believe that Atheists are worse no matter the amount of evidence to the contrary. But the simple fact remains, you can't get the slightest clue as to the personality of an atheist just based on their atheism. All Atheism is is a skepticism in the unproven. To state that being skeptical of absurd claims makes one more inclined to commit murder, genocide, etcetera is frankly laughable.

On the other hand, Theists all have something in common. Belief in a God(s) or religious dogma. That implies something about them. Not a lot, I'll agree, but it is something as opposed to nothing for Atheists.

Anonymous said...

Most of your examples are not wars CAUSED BY Religion, but rather, wars that involved Theists. And that's besides the point. Most of these people's agendas were not rooted to religion at all. Maybe you could count the Arab-Israeli conflicts, and maybe a few more examples, but that's it, really. You'd be pretty wrong to say that something like World War II was caused by Christians hating on other religions. Maybe the Holocaust, but that does not make a war.

Not only that, a vast majority of the Earth's population has always been Theist. That mere fact pretty much suggests that a majority of conflicts in the world are caused by Theists, but that does not necessarily mean that these conflicts are due to theism itself. That's stupid.

You see, even if you give us numbers or claim that Hitler was a Christian, there's still no proof that his religion was the cause of anything. So what if Hitler believed in a god? Does this mean that his god told him to kill 6 million jews and take over the world? Of course not! That was his own agenda, nothing more. You did get some things right, so that's alright. But the fact of the matter is, conflicts caused by religion are actually pretty minimal, most conflicts have nothing to do with religion.

FVThinker said...

Can you even identify and segregate a group called 'Jews' without having a religion involved? Without religion; aren't Jews just 'other people'. Hitler repeatedly invokes biblical interpretation.

Spencer said...

Wow. Hitler was absolutely ANTI-religious. Religion was his competition for power. His beliefs were more pagan than anything, believing in Racial and Genetic superiority. He was FINANCIALLY motivated to round up the people and groups he did, not religiously motivated. Religion was just one of the many things he manipulated to control people. Try reading Mein Kompf before claiming Hitler has any religious beliefs beyond self gratification.

FVThinker said...

1. Adolf Hitler: Acting According to God's Will
I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2

2. Adolf Hitler: Thanking God
Even today I am not ashamed to say that, overpowered by stormy enthusiasm, I fell down on my knees and thanked Heaven from an overflowing heart for granting me the good fortune of being permitted to live at this time.
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 5

3. Adolf Hitler: Deutschland Über Alles
I had so often sung 'Deutschland über Alles' and shouted 'Heil' at the top of my lungs, that it seemed to me almost a belated act of grace to be allowed to stand as a witness in the divine court of the eternal judge and proclaim the sincerity of this conviction.
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 5

4. Adolf Hitler: God's Grace Smiles
Once again the songs of the fatherland roared to the heavens along the endless marching columns, and for the last time the Lord's grace smiled on His ungrateful children.
- Adolf Hitler reflecting on World War I, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 7

5. Adolf Hitler: Fulfilling God's Mission
What we have to fight for is the necessary security for the existence and increase of our race and people, the subsistence of its children and the maintenance of our racial stock unmixed, the freedom and independence of the Fatherland; so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator.
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 8

6. Adolf Hitler: Fate of God
But if out of smugness, or even cowardice, this battle is not fought to its end, then take a look at the peoples five hundred years from now. I think you will find but few images of God, unless you want to profane the Almighty.
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 10

7. Adolf Hitler: Sin Against the Will of God
In short, the results of miscegenation are always the following: (a) The level of the superior race becomes lowered; (b) physical and mental degeneration sets in, thus leading slowly but steadily towards a progressive drying up of the vital sap. The act which brings about such a development is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator. And as a sin this act will be avenged.
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 11

8. Adolf Hitler: Sacrilege Against God
Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise.
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 1

9. Adolf Hitler: Confidence in God
Thus inwardly armed with confidence in God and the unshakable stupidity of the voting citizenry, the politicians can begin the fight for the 'remaking' of the Reich as they call it.
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 1

10. Adolf Hitler: Gold has Replaced God
It may be that today gold has become the exclusive ruler of life, but the time will come when man will again bow down before a higher god.
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 2

1. Adolf Hitler: The Nazi Party Represents Positive Christianity
"We demand freedom for all religious confessions in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or conflict with the customs and moral sentiments of the Germanic race. The party as such represents the standpoint of a positive Christianity, without owing itself to a particular confession...."
- Article 20 of the program of the German Workers' Party (later named the National Socialist German Workers' Party, NSDAP)

2. Adolf Hitler: I am a Catholic
I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.
- Adolf Hitler, to General Gerhard Engel, 1941

3. Adolf Hitler: Religious Life as the Highest and Most Desirable Ideal
I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal.
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 1

4. Adolf Hitler: Christianity and the Holy German Reich
As long as leadership from above was not lacking, the people fulfilled their duty and obligation overwhelmingly. Whether Protestant pastor or Catholic priest, both together and particularly at the first flare, there really existed in both camps but a single holy German Reich, for whose existence and future each man turned to his own heaven.
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 3

5. Adolf Hitler: Significance of the Religion of Love
The more abstractly correct and hence powerful this idea will be, the more impossible remains its complete fulfillment as long as it continues to depend on human beings... If this were not so, the founders of religion could not be counted among the greatest men of this earth... In its workings, even the religion of love is only the weak reflection of the will of its exalted founder; its significance, however, lies in the direction which it attempted to give to a universal human development of culture, ethics, and morality.
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 8

6. Adolf Hitler: Personification of the Devil
....the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.
- Adolf Hitler (following the position of Martin Luther), Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 11

7. Adolf Hitler: Christians Should Deal with Atheistic Jews
And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God; because then, as always, they used religion as a means of advancing their commercial interests. But at that time Christ was nailed to the Cross for his attitude towards the Jews; whereas our modern Christians enter into party politics and when elections are being held they debase themselves to beg for Jewish votes. They even enter into political intrigues with the atheistic Jewish parties against the interests of their own Christian nation.
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 11

8. Adolf Hitler: As a Christian, I Feel that My Lord and Savior was a Fighter
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. ...Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. ...
- Adolf Hitler, speech on April 12, 1922

9. Adolf Hitler: Fascism is Closer to Christianity than Liberalism or Marxism
The fact that the Curia is now making its peace with Fascism shows that the Vatican trusts the new political realities far more than did the former liberal democracy with which it could not come to terms. ...The fact that the Catholic Church has come to an agreement with Fascist Italy ...proves beyond doubt that the Fascist world of ideas is closer to Christianity than those of Jewish liberalism or even atheistic Marxism...
- Adolf Hitler in an article in the Völkischer Beobachter, February 29, 1929, on the new Lateran Treaty between Mussolini's fascist government and the Vatican

10. Adolf Hitler: Compromises with Atheism Destroy Religious, Ethical Values
By its decision to carry out the political and moral cleansing of our public life, the Government is creating and securing the conditions for a really deep and inner religious life. The advantages for the individual which may be derived from compromises with atheistic organizations do not compare in any way with the consequences which are visible in the destruction of our common religious and ethical values. The national Government sees in both Christian denominations the most important factor for the maintenance of our society. ...
- Adolf Hitler, speech before the Reichstag, March 23, 1933, just before the Enabling Act is passed.

11. Adolf Hitler: Burn out the Poison of Immorality
Today Christians ... stand at the head of [this country]... I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit ... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past ... (few) years.
- Adolf Hitler, quoted in: The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol.
1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872

Spencer said...

Exactly! You can see time and again his manipulation of religion and absolutely no practice in his personal life. To be fair, he was on a Methamphetamine concoction for the last few years of the war so I'm sure he had some really interesting views, none of which were reflections of how he lived his life. To claim he was doing anything more than manipulating the semantics to accumulate power, you have to prove he did anything other than 'talk' religion. He used Christian language to incite the Christian community against the Jewish community while using science to motivate the intellectual community into following and then used labor laws and unions to combat any industry who's wealth he wanted. He used whatever language was necessary to manipulate the masses, that doesn't make him a theist. His actions and behavior do a lot more to show his beliefs and there is definitely no belief that goes beyond his own self gratification.

If you want to label Hitler, he was a failed artist and socialist that believed in holistic healing and ancient giant super humans and he did tons of meth. He killed and slaughtered to gain dominion and wealth and maybe even to lash out at the world for not accepting him, but definitely not to achieve any religious goals. He wasn't spreading the word, just killing the opposition and taking their property. He didn't try to convert people to his cause, just their money.

FVThinker said...

Well Spencer,
You make a completely fallacious argument. There is no way to prove that anyone espousing God and religion are not doing the same. I suppose if you like them, then they must be 'real' Christians. If you don't like them, then they must be 'false' Christians. You need to look up and understand the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.

Even if I concede your point, though; it is only slightly better for Christianity. If the religious populous is so credulous that they can be taken in with such rhetoric...it makes believers look gullible (and I wouldn't dispute that)

Spencer said...

People are gullible, it is our nature. How many people do you tend to think truly break the mold and aren't just some form of cattle? Any form of social control, whether it is theistic or not relies on the gullibility of it's followers. The point is that very few of the death tolls you are counting are religiously motivated. They are almost all about dominion and property or resources. We haven't seen any country to date whose population isn't religious by majority. Until a few millinea of atheism, we have no idea how much science or morality will be manipulated to justify and cause the same ends as religion.

The inquisition can be easily proven to be religiously motivated. The goal was to actually convert people to their religion in the belief that God wanted it so. When Spain was Christianizing the world, even though they were doing it to expand the empire, they were also doing it under the assumption it was their duty to God to spread Christianity to the 'savages'. Religion has been responsible for deat and war but not nearly as much as the basic concept of domain and expansion. I think there should be a clear seperation between people who kill because of their religious beliefs and people who kill that happen to be or simply live in a religious society.

Hitler never mentions Jesus, or expresses any language that conveys himself as part of Christianity. His thoughts on the subject are always from a removed and objective perspective, like someone analyzing it, not believing it. Removing religion from stupid people won't make them less stupid. Whatever they choose to believe will be just as effectively used against them. It is up to those of us smart enough and capable enough to understand religion for all it's worth to do what we can to keep it from being misused. It's no different than intelligence, science or emotion. Not to mention, theism will not go anywhere as long as we face mortality, so better find a way to use it properly instead of pretending it's inherently evil.

Spencer said...

Look at how gullible we have been concerning global warming. It doesn't take religion to baffle believers. At least with religion I can take it with a grain of salt. When Science gets manipulated, where can we turn for truth?

FVThinker said...

You haven't looked up the "No True Scotsman" fallacy yet, have you?

And actually we DO have democratic countries that are atheistic by majority and they have the least violent crime, teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease and best health care. In fact, amongst prosperous democracies; religion correlates positively with a whole host of societal ills...and these are the results of a study conducted by a Christian university!

http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v12n03_are_religious_societies_healthier.html

The above links back to the original Creighton University study.

FVThinker said...

The link above got truncated. Try: http://tinyurl.com/jpfkk

FVThinker said...

Are you saying with we are gullible with regards to climate change in general or whether it is man-made or not?

Spencer said...

lol, no, 25 years won't cut it. I want to see how an atheistic or socialist, since most of the list qualifies for that too, nation will survive without theistic and capitalist nations supporting it. I doubt it will last long enough to judge but if one of those nations can actually make it through a few hundred years, overcome the adversities of a long term society and become the world's strongest nation. Right now, without religion, any country would struggle for dominion if it had to actually compete for people. The U.S. can offer some opposing statistics for atheism being more violent if you look at any of our major cities. Of course I am not going to sell that as any sort of statistic because it's about population more than religion but the numbers are there!

I read the Scottsman before, the idea has use but Hitler defined his beliefs with his actions. It isn't a situation of limited information in which we have some unknown person 'A'. We know what he did and we know why. He saw himself as a conqurour but he gave absolutlely no credit to God. You can choose to view Hitler as religious if you really want to but I think he was more motivated by his hatred of religion than his own belief in it if anything.

That 'survey' claims Spain to be the least religious... Have you been there? It has the Netherlands listed too. How were these numbers procured? I suggest going to these places and seeing for yourself how they are. My experience has been drastically different. I've heard most of the same arguments for why socialism is ok too. There is definitely an argument to be made, that the greater the opportunity, the greater the potential for damage. In the case of religion, it's ignorant to assume that it is not incredibly useful as well as incredibly dangerous. I personally am not religious at all. I respect it but I simply can't get my head around it and I truly admire people who can do so with a rational approach.

In regards to global warming, We are gullible in thinking we can change it. In general I think we need to be focused on how we are going to evolve to meet it. We could probably make a difference if we lost 70% or so of our global poulation but other than that we can't control the planet's cycles. We have been blessed to live in a blink of our planet's history that is so friendly. That will eventually change. If there is any man made culprit for global warming, it's modern medicine extended life expectancy beyond what our environment intended.

I'm not running away, but I wanted to take a second to say "Good convo!".

FVThinker said...

Wow! Spencer! Even *I* could give a better argument against the Creighton study than you...and that argument is right in the study summary. I guess I will leave that area alone for now.

Re: Global warming...
Sadly, you and I are not really that far apart. Man-made or not; we are in such a profound hole that I, too, wonder if we really can do much about it in the time-frame necessary.

Regardless though...we are obliged to not sit on our hands and throw in the towel. If we get some nukes to some religious extremists, though, we can cut the world population way down real fast...that would work! :-)

Anonymous said...

I added up the theist numbers, and got just under 300 million. Can anyone else repeat his math?

GoodNewsAtheism said...

Also add conservative estimates taken from sources linked through the "uncountable" theist crimes sections. Hinduism's racial war on dalits yields a particularly brutal body count when you average out several sources, but for most of the uncountables I had to (forgive me) resort to books from a library so HTML wouldn't exactly avail me for sourcing.

JW said...

There is something wrong with the math. When I add up the numbers, these are the figures:
* Theism: 294.064.100 (294 million)
* Atheism: 69-140 million
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this does not support the "way, way, way, way, way more people" and I think the article needs correction. Also, I find some attrocities higly disputable to allot them to the theist column. For instance, Hitler abused and later fought the church.
And please note that atheism hardly existed in earlier days and hence could hardly do anything wrong. This is like comparing attrocities from people on the entire northern hemisphere with attrocitied from citizens from Indonesia, in absolute numbers. One should compensate the numbers for the %theist-atheist in world population at that time.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for confirming the false totals, JW. I guess everyone else takes him at his word. Gullible.

GoodNewsAtheism said...

Dear previous several commenters,

Scroll up a little.

Cheers,
Author

Jesper Bech said...

Yes I am also curious about how an atheist, a master of reason and mathmatical skills, could arrive at a total so far out of line with any of the actual numbers listed, even if all the examples were at 50 mio (and many are only hundreds of thousands, or thousands) it would add up to 1.4 billion, not 2.2.

I learnt that in primary school, to make rough estimates. And these are the people who make 'science' for us..

jesperbech@msn.com

Jesper Bech said...

You said you used books, please list them, and the numbers they presented. Surely you can copy the numbers, or give numbers to the nearest million. Just remember to give the name of the book, and the ISBN.

God bless,

Jesper

jesperbech@msn.com

Jesper Bech said...

Last, you compare a few atheist countries to the entire world. I think that is unfair. Why not limit the death count to those having taken place in countries that have been subject to both religious and atheist mass murders?

That would include Russia, China, wherever Pol Pot is from, and potentially Germany.

I have a question about Germany though, when Hitler invaded Poland he had the Catholics there persecuted, I think out of 650 religious (nuns, monks, priests) in one area, 12 survived. They were targeted, sent to concentration camps. This was done because they were Poles, and so inferior. Doesn't that say that Hitler acted from Eugenics motives, rather than religious ones'? If he had been Catholic, surely he would have spared Polish Catholics?

What is more, Hitler routinely calls religion (Christianity) a curse, a draw-back, for idiots, etc in his private speeches. Calling a person who says Christianity is worse than small-pox a Christian is tentative at best.

Last, Hitler's Eugenics ideas came from Darwin, and from him, from atheistic science. Darwins ideas about the survival of the fittest was soon applied to human breeding, by other thinkers, and this in turn influenced politicians, such as Hitler. It also led to forced sterilizations in the US, and Denmark, where I come from, in the name of Eugenics, which is not a religion, but a scientific idea, and so related to atheism. I would say when scientific research and ideas are behind mass murders, it falls under the heading of atheism, because science is seen by most atheists as the source of the answers we must live by.

Your thoughts?

God bless,

Jesper

jesperbech@msn.com

GoodNewsAtheism said...

Like I've said to the last 18 people who have asked that question, JUST SCROLL UP A LITTLE BIT.. Argh! I am tired of repeating myself and of copy and pasting the same explanation. If you don't have the energy to poke around a little for the answer and resort instead to childish namecalling, then I'm not going to waste my time spoon-feeding you the explanation again.

Jesper Bech said...

Hi,

I assume this is what you are talking about:

"Also add conservative estimates taken from sources linked through the "uncountable" theist crimes sections. Hinduism's racial war on dalits yields a particularly brutal body count when you average out several sources, but for most of the uncountables I had to (forgive me) resort to books from a library so HTML wouldn't exactly avail me for sourcing."

I hope you don't mind me saying, but you giving a long list, and saying that becomes 2.2 billion, and then the actual list comes to 0.3 billion, and you then - without giving sources - say that oh there are also 1.9 billion 'that are there' but I haven't bothered including so you can verify them, is actually asking us to BELIEVE you without sound evidence, much like your criticism of the Bible.

If you do not post serious and fully credited sources for these numbers, then you are indeed a hypocrite for attacking religion for expecting others to accept their claims on faith, because that is exactly what you are doing.

This is not research, it would never pass for so in scientific circles, this is so far rumours and inuendo.

Do you think you can posit 1.9 billion casualties without giving other references than you 'read it somewhere'? I've been to University and that kind of cavalier attitude to sources would bring us close to failing an exam, on it's own.

Why don't you want to live up to the standards you expect from others? Are you just a hypocritical atheist?

GoodNewsAtheism said...

1. I do not care that you've been to "University."

2. No, I am tired of having arguments in this thread from quite a long time ago.

3. No, I will not go dig up a bibliography for you just because you want one.

4. I do not know what the term "hypocritical atheist" means. Please show me anywhere on this site where I have demanded that people writing on their own personal blogs on their own personal time write what I want when I want them to to satisfy my own whiny demands and I will retract this statement. Otherwise, close your mouth and stop complaining about what other people do with their own time voluntarily for your edification.

5. Telling you to do your own damn research so I don't have to waste any more time doing it myself for people who will never change their minds is not the same thing as asking you to accept something on "faith."

Cheers,
Teapot

Jesper Bech said...

1. I do not care that you've been to "University."

What does that mean? That you don't believe in education?

This argument has not been going on for long, I mean it is only in the last five or six posts. Are you out of touch with reality?

Two points about a bibliography. First of all, all good science includes this, but if you are not interested in this, maybe you should call yourself an atheist not founded in science? What does that leave? Second, how long can it take? You probably remember the names of the books, and could find them online in like five seconds. Is that the sin of sloth? Or do these books not exist, at all? Do you understand why I ask for them, because, your behaviour in refusing to give a bibliography is suspect. That is the prime reason I don't believe in you. And that is what you want isn't it? For me to believe in you. Why else post this at all in the first place? To waste people's time?

I said you were a hypocritical atheist, not a hypocritical blogger. Atheists, whether they state it everywhere or not, believe that science and good-documentation, peer-reviewed articles, etc is the way to go. That is part of their creed. However, you do not care about that. Maybe you are to be called a sinful atheist, in that you sin against what atheists stand for, which is truth? How could you possibly have a problem with listing your sources, it would only back your case and put the believers further into their hole. Instead you won't. Don't you see that is suspect, a bit convenient?

If you post good research you can change my mind, I went to University remember and I was taught to respect good science, to be aware of it's many uses. And, what you have done here is not research, since the sources are missing. It is a document of faith. So yeah I'll call you a hypocrite.

God bless,

Jesper

GoodNewsAtheism said...

1. No, it means that I don't care that you've been to University. How selfish of you to equate someone not caring about you with that person not caring about every institution with which you claim you have been affiliated. Universal generalization from a single instance is an invalid inference. But then, I'm getting used to those from people like you, so perhaps I won't meditate on it too long.

2. Again your selfishness shows itself: you are not the only person I am addressing, even if I am using you specifically as my punching bag.

3. You don't put a bibliography in your comments. Does that make you "a time-waster not grounded in science?" No, you're still just a regular time-waster.

4. You called me a "hypocritical atheist" by whining about me not putting a bibliography in my blog. Given that there is an analytic distinction between "atheist" and "blogger," you are probably simply confused on this point.

5. That you find my refusal not to dig around a stack of notes for your bibliography "suspect" suggests to me that there is a far more serious complex going on with you than the mere delusions of grandeur discussed in points 1 and 2.

6. I think that somewhere towards the end of your complaint you are equivocating on "atheist" and "scientist." An easy mistake to be sure since to the superstitious they are equally terrifying. But, suffice it to say, I do not know what you mean by the phrase "the way to go" and I doubt you will be able to locate any atheist writing on this planet or any other that contains this fictitious "creed" you have dreamed up.

7. Good of you to notice that atheists stand for truth. What does everybody ELSE stand for?

8. You act like I'm not listing my sources out of some kind of malice towards you personally. Again your various complexes provide hasty explanation for why you act this way, but for those not so steeped in madness: my sources aren't listed here because I don't keep my notes organized well enough to be able to go back to a blog post I wrote many months ago on a dime. If you want to rifle through my notes for them, let me know, and we can talk about an industry-competitive salary for your secretarial job. If you like, I can simply lie to you and invent convincing-sounding sources.

9. If you give me the link to your blog (if you have the capacity to operate one), I will handily go through and leave snide comments on every single post that does not have a tidy bibliography, as well as helpful comments for what I think you should write on your own time, perhaps accompanied by unreasonable demands and hasty generalizations. Otherwise, you are excused.

9a. You do not impress anybody by talking about going to "University." Notice that I have not yet asked you for the name of this university, or some sort of external source (a yearbook perhaps) cited MLA / Chicago style to demonstrate this point.

9b. Based your statement that "since the sources are missing. It is a document of faith," I assume that STOP signs must be terribly confusing for you.

10. Jesper, you strike me as the kind of guy who really, really, really needs to have the last word, so be my guest.