Death Toll: Theism Vs. Atheism
Many theists argue that atheism has caused only death and destruction, whilst their respective religions preach only peace and love. So what does the evidence look like? The Teapot Atheist did a load of research and counting and has reported his results.
His findings don’t bear well for theism, even with his extremely generous methodology in its favour:
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.
To add insult to injury, The Teapot Atheist included in the atheism section, deaths caused by Pol Pots regime even though there is no evidence that he was an atheist (his regime was harshly anti-religious though), as well as Stalin, who has recently been considered a deist / closet-theist by historians.
So how do the scores match up?
Theism has managed to kill an estimate of 2,229,074,100 people.
Atheism has managed to kill an estimate of 95,000,000 people.
Just let those figures sink in a bit. Over 2 billion people are dead as a result of theist wars and actions. That number is about 33.3% of the current human population of Earth. In contrast, atheism is responsible for the deaths of just less than 100 million, roughly 1.58% of the current human population of Earth.
Now, these results don’t in any way suggest that theism causes people to commit murder, but that the main factor in most of the wars and conflicts in history has been a difference in religious beliefs. Every holy book of every theist religion preaches love and respect for fellow man, there is no way I can debate that. However, every holy book also preaches the destruction of anyone who says otherwise and stands against the words of whichever god it claims is the “correct” one.
This is the deep deep flaw of theism. There are too many varieties, and whilst each one has a similar story, its author has taken an extraordinary amount of time making sure that it differs in some conceivable way. Just enough to provide the necessary contradictions to send all religions colliding against each other in a never-ending war.
The victims are both those who get killed and those killing in the name of religion. Brainwashed by men who wanted to control the world, and used religion to try to achieve their goals. The heroes in this tragic truth are easy to point out. They are the freethinkers, the skeptics, the naturalists, the rationalists; every single person who has ever seen the flaws of theism and said “Enough is enough”.
If atheism has proved anything, it is that without a god, humans still murder for no good reason; they just do it much less often.
Contact Adrian Hayter
My Facebook
My Atheist Nexus Page
My Twitter
My Reddit
My Atheist Spot
My FriendFeed
My Technorati
Atheist Forums
Loading ...
It would be helpful for all, and to better prove your point if you showed your work on this one. otherwise you could just be pulling numbers out of thin air, or your ass.
personally i agree with you theism kills more than atheism. but you gotta show your work as prove, otherwise it is meaningless and easy to poke holes in your argument.
-i
FWIW: "According to University of Hawaii political scientist Rudolph J. Rummel, the total number killed in all of human history is estimated to be about 284,638,000. Of that number, 151,491,000 were killed during the past 100 years." http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
Did you even click the link that says “his results” at the top? All the data is there for you to read (with links to prove it).
I didn’t want to repeat the data when it was so easily organized on another website, and it would have looked like I had done the research when in fact it was The Teapot Atheist who did it and deserves the credit.
In case you can’t see the link (for whatever reason, although it seems a little odd), here it is:
http://teapotatheism.blogspot.com/2008/06/anonymous-wanted-body-count-total-so-he.html
Sorry, but that’s a HORRIBLE post by Teapot Atheist. In a number of cases he badly, and I charge deliberately, conflates correlation and causation.
Example: Hirohito was divine, according to Shinto. That in no way means he invaded China because of his Shinto beliefs.
Nonetheless, that’s about the substance of much of Teapot Atheist’s death claims.
Second, in some cases, such as the “smallpox genocide” allegations, he simply gets facts wrong. In fact, in that case, he perpetuates an old, and hugely mistaken, myth.
SocraticGadfly,
I think you are missing the point. The Teapot Atheist never intended to evaluate theist caused deaths, but rather deaths caused by theist based nations. Lots of fundamentalists claim that atheist nations kill more people, but the adverse is true in this case.
As for facts he get’s wrong, I admittedly didn’t look at all his cases, but I reckon if you take away those he did err in, you would still find the massive gap.
That’s pretty impressive that Atheism could kill 95,000,000 people, since it’s only been around for about a hundred years.
Mike,
Nice try. Epicurus was an atheist and predated Jesus. The ideas have been around since the beginning of time (everyone is born an atheist).
Adrian,
I was going to say the same thing. Ownage!
XVX for life, R.A.S.H. ’til death.
Still, to be sound, you should not consider the total number of murders, but murders per theist vs. murders per atheist.
One thing I could not find was the credentials of the person who did this research from the teapot Atheist blog site. I would hope this person has some credentials to establish some credibility at least. Furthermore, some of the sources he or she references are from Wikipedia and with no further sources mentioned. One place, this person inadequately provided sources for is for example with the information under with the link name, The Mughal conquest of North India. The link leads to a Wikipedia article and again no sources are mentioned. Wikipedia is by far not an authoriatative reference source.
At the same time, I also found a site that says atheistic communism regimes have killed more and it references RJ Rummel works, who is a professor of political science at the University of Hawaii. The title of this article is, Just How Many People Has Religion Killed? by Kirk Durston, National Director, New Scholars Society. You can read it at this link, and then scroll down until you get to that article title. It also at the end provides a link to RJ Rummel’s website. http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/Pl/DthByAthsm.htm.
Other than that I find this debate not a good one anyways because what it really proves is that both non-religious (that would include atheists) and religious ran forms of government have the potential to be mass killing machines. Then again, I guess one should also factor in differentiating between justified killings and unjustified killings.
Actually I find that to be very intriguing that you claim Stalin was a “closet theist” when that is a damn lie. Plus you must not forget those who solely put their faith into Science have used that same science to kill billions. China is an Atheistic country and besides all of that, the death tolls on both sides are a FUCKING ATROCITY.
@Willywill3
I never claimed Stalin was closet atheist, the original writer did. To back up his assertion he outlined Stalin’s contradictory beliefs.
As for putting faith in science and using science to kill billions, that is such a bullshit argument. Science tells us what is part of the natural world and how it works. We then use that knowledge to commit atrocities. That isn’t the fault of science, it is the fault of humans.
Otherwise, perhaps you should blame gravity for all the bombs dropped on cities.
Um, in-the-name-of atheism? I don't think so. No contest. Atheist deaths: 0. Infinitely more dead in-the-name-of one theism or another.
Your point is really about semantics. I'm thinking you're saying that killing with the intent or purpose of supporting a religion or atheism would be what would constitute as a killing in the name of religion or atheism. You have a point, many religionists have killed with the explicit intent or purpose of supporting religion and probably no atheists have claimed to kill specifically with the intent or for the purpose of atheism. Atheists like the late Soviet dictator, Joseph Stalin have killed millions but that doesn't necessarily mean it was for for atheism because instead it was rather for communisim.
With that said, maybe non-religious governments would be a good word to substitute for atheistic governments since both involve no religion. So whether you want to say non-religious-based governments like Joseph Stalin's or atheistic governments is not really that much of a difference. The point still remains that both non-religious systems and religious-based systems (which sums up every type of system of thought that we have pretty much) have perpetrated mass killings.
Nonetheless, I think it is a vitally important distinction. The relevant meaningful question is how many people have been killed in the name of religion, politics, resources, etc. To suggest that one either kills in the name of religion or in the name of something-other-than-religion implies, quite irresponsibly, that killing for a reason other than religion is killing for lack of having a religion. Regardless of the number of existing reasons for killing, removing the silliness of superstition from the human experience will mean one less reason for mass killings… period! Atheism, non-theism etc. do not belong in the conversation at all.
Steve, I can't speak for all religions but as for Christianity, there has been no killings done in defense of *true* Christianity. True Christianity has never been used to justify killings, only the *abuse* or *distortion* of Christianity has. NO where in the NT (Jesus' teachings and the knowledge basis for Christianity) does it say kill to gain power or because someone disagrees with you.
It would be unfair to call those Christians who killed people for non-Christian (since killing for disbelief is not a true Christian practice) related reasons as being people who killed in the name of Christianity or who represented Christianity as it is suppose to be.
If you wanna say well we should get rid of it anyways because it can be corrupted and abused, well so can any other belief system. Science can lead to mass killings and sickness and has before when it comes to nuclear weapons, chemical/germ weapons, etc all in the name of experimental research. Even atheism can be corrupted and used for killing, and that's not inconceivable when you see the *hatred* that *some* atheists have for religions. Also, you can't forget about the intellectual elitism of some atheists which can lead them to think that they are superior to one race of humans over another, and next we have survival of the fittest taking place as Darwin espoused. Many other motives can be drawn as to how someone can use science and atheism to lead to mass killings or just killings.. period! Any belief system can be corrupted really.
Here we go, a classic "No True Scotsman" argument.
You've veered so far off any path of logic it's no longer sensible to argue with you. You're just another one of those "I've made up my mind. Don't confuse me with the facts" theists. All of your kind only know how to change the subject when you've lost the point. Therefore I choose to follow this advice: "When arguing with a fool, make sure he's not doing the same."
You've basically called me a fool and you call that a logical argument or being sensible? If you're logical stop resorting to ad hominems and stick to the point, not to personal attacks. If you can't comprehend what I said, I'll break it down.
If an atheists kills someone for stealing lets say, is that a killing in the name of atheism? NO, why? Because stealing has nothing to do with atheism. Even if that atheists claims he or she did kill for an atheistic purpose, that person would be lying, and all you have to do to determine that is to look to the definition of atheism.
In the same way if a Christian kills someone for disbelief, is that a killing in the name of Christianity? No, why? Because killing for disbelief has nothing to do with Christianity. The NT or Jesus' teachings defines what Christianity is and no where does it mention to kill for disbelief. Even if that Christian claimed he or she did kill for Christianity they would be in error because Christianity as defined does not instruct to kill for disbelief.
To add to my last comment…You've agreed with this logic before in my analogy with Stalin, but all the sudden when I apply how also a Christian killing doesn't necessarily mean it was in the name of Christianity, you get your panties in a bunch. Hmm, I wonder why the double standard. You probably don't like it because it's an argument that supports a religion, and I call that biased. If an argument is right on either side (atheist or religion), I have enough intellecutal integrity to accept it, w/out name calling and close-mindedness or denial.
it is not a double standard. many parts of many religions all advocate death to those who do a certain type of behavior, and there is friction between those who actively pursue fulfulling those tenets and those who do not. atheism is simply a lack of belief in any god and, usually, a belief only in that which has a significant amount of empirical evidence. when people kill in the name of religion, they are being religious extremists. when people kill in the name of no belief in anything supernatural, they are simply being evil people.
Steve my friend Angel is right. You unfairly put all religions on the same boat as if all of them tell to kill people. Some religions are a problem, not all. Deaths done in the name of Atheism so far equal ZERO (as far as I know at least). Deaths done in the name of Christianity equal ZERO. Now if you want to just go by deaths done by people calling themselves an atheist or Christian while not actually killing for a Christian or atheist purpose, then Stalin being an atheist killed MiLLiONs.
If anyone believes that there is no higher power than themselves, which happens to be a human with little control over anything in life and guaranteed to die even with all the great flawless science the human mind can fathom, then that's on you. I wouldn't bet my life on humans that thought up ideas like the world is flat, the sun spun around the earth, killing babies is ok but killing murders is not and that we came from monkeys or a primordial ooze to come up with accurate answers to if there's a God or not. We keep messing it up through out history and that's why we needed a Savior like Jesus Christ and that is why we want you to know Him as well.
The implications of STRONG or POSiTiVE, or hardcore atheism (believing no god exists) can influence ideology and the behavior of a person. This is clearly expressed in patterns of atheistic thinking in which life has no ultimate meaning, purpose, or much value. We are here by chance and we're nothing more than biochemical reflexes with no free-will. Emotions don't matter, only pure intellect does, etc, etc. So with that said, I would assume these hardcore atheists types would not think much about life and find it easily expendible. Stalin being an atheist I'm sure killed for political reasons to reinforce communism, but I'm sure his atheistic ideology played a role as well even if indirectly or implicitly. So it's justified to consider that atheism can play a role in the actions of some of the atheists who have been in power.
Why do you all work so hard to disprove Christ and God? If a belief in a higher power is really that crazy an idea with no support for it at all then why is there even be a debate? Explain how we came to be and you will disprove God. Explain why we have emotions and traits that can't be described, only understood, that every other creature does not have. Explain why everyone has to make a decision about God with in themselves at some point in their life. Explain why cultures that have never been in contact with the known world still believe in some sort of higher power. Explain this and you will disprove God. Good luck, people have been wasting their lives doing it and have nothing to show.
The math is wrong, even using his own numbers. Theism doesn't reach 300 million, much less billion.
To ChallengeGodOpenly: Read Darwin and Dawkins and you will have all the answers to the questions you would like atheists to answer for you proving there is no god to the extent that you can prove there is one. I don't really mind that you believe in god. That is fine with me. I don't believe in god – why must you insist that I do?
Regarding killing, I don't need a god or his son to tell me that killing, other than through necessary defense, is wrong. I see murder, war and mass murder as a tool for greed and righteousness on the part of religious AND non-religious people or countries. It is just particularly ironic that many have killed in the name of god or a godly cause.
As an atheist, I rebuff the idea that I don't have a purpose in life or that I don't care about anything. My purpose is to live a full life while I'm here, meaning a life that is enriching to me and to others and to leave something good behind after I'm gone. I care deeply about the quality of my experiences and the experiences of those around me – especially my children, family and friends – but also all humans. I believe that creating good in the world is a satisfying way to live and we are all enriched through it. I don't have to believe in anyone's god to understand this and I don't have to go to church to be reminded of it. God is a primitive explanation who's mythology, like other deities, has lasted long after other explanations override god's appropriateness as "the one" explanation. Humans have trouble giving up their mythology. That's just the way some of us are wired and is also a testament to a lack of curiosity.
Humans kill people, not theism or atheism. Neither theism or atheism has enough influence all by itself to cause or prevent murder. There are many other factors involved – all of them human. Humans are defined more by their brain function than by their particular religious belief (or lack of). In fact, studies show that brain type is correlated with belief type – I assume more research is needed.
Again, to answer your questions, take some time to actually read authors such as Darwin or a Darwinian contemporary such as Dawkins. Take a brief look at triune brain evolution – there is plenty of research out there. Google it, to start. The bible, although interesting to some, is not definitive on any topic. People who constantly point to it and ask others to disprove it are not only missing the point, they are closing their eyes and ears to the answers all around them. The discussion on the death count of atheists vs theists isn't even relevant.
Lol so I got to reading your "proof" and wow, way to go fluffing the numbers of people died from theism.
I got to Genghis Khan (FYI: did not kill for god or religion but for more land and greed) and knew you was just another crack pot Atheist. Good job with the worthless post.
"At least 180 million people have been killed by secular governments in the 20th Century"