The rejection of god and religion seems to lead to depraved acts of mass murder

The French Revolution
Pol Pot's reign in cambodia
Lenin and the Red Terror
Stalin's regime
Nazi Germany
Cuba and Che Guevera's mass murder of 1000s by firing squad.
Vietnam
Mao Zedong
Kim Jong Il

What do all of these governments have in common? They consciously rejected god and religion. And they have disgustingly high death and murder counts.

Point out the witch hunts and the crusades? I did the math, The Reign of Terror lasted about 8 months, and had a comparable total deathcount to the witchhunts which lasted 200 years.

Everything Hitler and Stalin did blows away anything that happened during the crusades.

Everyone is always saying Jesus is the biggest mass murderer of all time and religion leads to all this bloodshed.

While I can't deny religion has lead to much bloodshed in the past and currently, as it clearly has, atheism and the rejection of god and religion has lead to a much higher level of depravity and murder.

It's hard to argue.

During the crusades both sides had MAX 25k each. Even if all 50k of those died, plus we can throw in 100k civilian deaths (even though the actual number is nowhere near that) that's 150,000 deaths compared to the atheist stalin killing 20 million.

Can anyone argue this correlation?

Zealotry leads to bloodshed. It doesn't particularly matter what direction said zealotry is in.(unless it's pacifism)

[QUOTE=raiderfan19]Zealotry leads to bloodshed. It doesn't particularly matter what direction said zealotry is in.(unless it's pacifism)[/QUOTE]
Yes.

But atheist zealotry seems to lead to an exponentially higher level of depravity than religious zealotry.

I'm just looking at the raw numbers as an outsider when I state this.

I think it has more to do with overcentralized government power, than a lack of religion. A lot of examples on your list support that, as well.

You allow a political position with unlimited power, and eventually a sociopath is going to take it over. It's a guarantee.

[QUOTE]The most detailed discussion of the role of religion in the Rwandan genocide is Timothy Longman's Christianity and Genocide in Rwanda.[5] He argues that both Catholic and Protestant churches helped to make the genocide possible by giving moral sanction to the killing. Churches had longed played ethnic politics themselves, favoring the Tutsi during the colonial period then switching allegiance to the Hutu after 1959, sending a message that ethnic discrimination was consistent with church teaching. The church leaders had also long had close ties with the political leaders, and after the genocide began, the church leaders called on the population to support the new interim government, the very government that was supporting the genocide.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=ProfessorMurder]Yeah, because the Crusades were just pillow fights.[/QUOTE]
The total death count of all 7 crusades does not even come close to 1 million.

Probably more about 500k TOTAL MAX.

Hitler alone did about 24 times that in 3 years.

What is your point in bringing up the crusades?

[QUOTE=joe]I think it has more to do with overcentralized government power, than a lack of religion. A lot of examples on your list support that, as well.

You allow a political position with unlimited power, and eventually a sociopath is going to take it over. It's a guarantee.[/QUOTE]
Death count in the Rwandan genocide, estimated between 500k and 1 million

Stalin did 20 times that.

Your example only serves to emphasize my original thesis.

Also the Tutsi and the Hutu is a racial thing (despite the fact they are racially the same) rather than a religious thing.

Did all these murders happen in the name of athesism?

I mean.

Those governments all had penises. Did they murder in the name of the ***** also?

[QUOTE=cuad]Did all these murders happen in the name of athesism?

I mean.

Those governments all had penises. Did they murder in the name of the ***** also?[/QUOTE]
Not in the name of atheism. But can you deny the fact that all of the largest genocides throughout human history have been committed by atheist governments, and nothing that any religious government has ever done can compare to them in terms of large-scale death count?

Has a religious government ever had a murder count comparable to the governments of pol pot, mao, stalin or hitler?

There have been other murderous dictators who were religious, but none of them have done anything comparable to what Hitler or stalin have done.

To emphasize this fact, there are also a much smaller amount of athiest leaders and governments throughout history.

I'm religious but the reason the crusades didn't cause more deaths is because there were less people

[QUOTE=raiderfan19]I'm religious but the reason the crusades didn't cause more deaths is because there were less people[/QUOTE]
Do you compare soldiers who die on the battle field to civilians executed on a mass scale, like for example in the reign of terror?

Has anyone killed as many people as Japan in and around WW2?

Briefly skimmed, but atheism is a pretty new concept. Religion and government have been intertwined for the most part until the last century or so. So those mass-murdering governments will be more efficient in killing more densely populated groups of people.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Has anyone killed as many people as Japan in and around WW2?[/QUOTE]
yep, his name is Joseph Stalin.

correlation does not equal causation. there are other factors besides rejecting religion that caused these travesties. most of them come under some type of state fanaticism (which is akin to religious fervent belief) and/or socioeconomic or political disparity.

[QUOTE=vapid]Briefly skimmed, but atheism is a pretty new concept. Religion and government have been intertwined for the most part until the last century or so. So those mass-murdering governments will be more efficient in killing more densely populated groups of people.[/QUOTE]
Atheism is a new concept, so is government sanctioned large-scale mass murder, which also seems to correspond with the rise of atheist governments.

[QUOTE=raiderfan19]I'm religious but the reason the crusades didn't cause more deaths is because there were less people[/QUOTE]

additionally they didn't have the means to kill that many people. when you have the luftwaffe, armored tanks and radio communication it increases your killing power exponentially.

[QUOTE=miller-time]correlation does not equal causation. there are other factors besides rejecting religion that caused these travesties. most of them come under some type of state fanaticism (which is akin to religious fervent belief) and/or socioeconomic or political disparity.[/QUOTE]
Yes agreed. But what I'm saying is being religious seems to lead to a certain cut-off point in terms of mass moral depravity, whereas having no religion seems to have no cut off point in terms of morally disgusting acts that humans will commit.

My rhetoric is abit off at the moment as I have 24 hours no sleep from studying and doing coursework, but I hope you understand the point I'm trying to make.

The "most evil" regime of the last century, Nazi Germany, was very religious and largely endorsed by the religious establishment that existed in Germany and Europe at the time. The holocaust was actually only and exclusively made possible because of biases established due to religion.

[QUOTE=LJJ]The "most evil" regime of the last century, Nazi Germany, was very religious and largely endorsed by the religious establishment that existed in Germany and Europe at the time. The holocaust was actually only and exclusively made possible because of biases established due to religion.[/QUOTE]
even as a Jew I have to consider Stalin's russia to be more "evil" than Nazi germany. Much higher death count. And Nazism's religious emphasis can be argued.

[QUOTE=Nick Young]Yes agreed. But what I'm saying is being religious seems to lead to a certain cut-off point in terms of mass moral depravity, whereas having no religion seems to have no cut off point in terms of morally disgusting acts that humans will commit.

My rhetoric is abit off at the moment as I have 24 hours no sleep from studying and doing coursework, but I hope you understand the point I'm trying to make.[/QUOTE]

i understand what you are saying but i still disagree. the americans dropped the bomb on civilian targets, the british bombed german cities with horrific losses to civilian life to "lower moral" those are two examples of mass atrocities committed by "religiously backed" governments. obviously those two countries didn't initate the war, and i don't want to get into a conversation about the morality of dropping the bomb, my point is that mass deaths of civilians were options [U]played out[/U] by the other side.

additionally, if you gave osama the bomb in 2001 do you think he would have used that instead? the delivery of mass death is only limited to the technology the person or group has at the time. give any pre-20th century religious war instigators the kinds of weapons we have now and see how many more people they kill.

[QUOTE=Nick Young]even as a Jew I have to consider Stalin's russia to be more "evil" than Nazi germany. Much higher death count. And Nazism's religious emphasis can be argued.[/QUOTE]

It can absolutely not be argued that Nazism rejected religion. Absolutely not. Revisionist history.


That leaves communism exclusively then. And pretty much only Stalin's Russia and a few marginal countries. (Because the horrors committed in Mao's China are actually quite overstated and subject to much negative propaganda here in the west)

Some trend you got there! Yeah, the Stalinistic communism is bad, you are really dropping intellectual gemstones here! Let's conveniently forget that Russia is at least 85% religious and at the time probably an even higher percentage. Let's forget almost all of the government officials of communist Russia were raised on Christian ideals and values. And above all let's forget that 99.99% of Russia's population under the Trarist Theocratic rule basically lived in horrible slavery for centuries. Very convenient indeed.

The Catholic Franks under Charlemagne butchered their fare share of Saxons and other infidels under the guise of doing it for The Laws.

All mass murder in the ancient world could be argued to be theocratic genocide because of how intertwined religion was in every day life, warfare, and government.

The modern genocides you list were made possible by technological advances.

[QUOTE=Nick Young]yep, his name is Joseph Stalin.[/QUOTE]


Stalin is supposed to be around 20 million. Japan killed more chinese alone than that.

I think the change in technology has a lot to do with the death count. Crusaders couldn't just call in an airstrike and level a city or unload a machine gun and kill 100 people.

[QUOTE=Nick Young]The French Revolution
Pol Pot's reign in cambodia
Lenin and the Red Terror
Stalin's regime
[B]Nazi Germany[/B]
Cuba and Che Guevera's mass murder of 1000s by firing squad.
Vietnam
Mao Zedong
Kim Jong Il

[/QUOTE]


In Mein Kampf and later in a speech at the Reichstag he said, "... I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work." Oh, but he was just using that for rhetorical purposes, he didn

[QUOTE=LJJ]The "most evil" regime of the last century, Nazi Germany, was very religious and largely endorsed by the religious establishment that existed in Germany and Europe at the time. The holocaust was actually only and exclusively made possible because of biases established due to religion.[/QUOTE]

many in nazi high command including hitler was not religious, certainly in the christian sense, and were interested in promoting even pre christian pagan german culture

they endorsed or tolerated the christian institutions because of how instilled they were and because it provided easy course to anti-semitism. I don't think anyone believe nazi germany to be some religious fanatical state

[QUOTE=Nick Young]Yes agreed. But what I'm saying is being religious seems to lead to a certain cut-off point in terms of mass moral depravity, whereas having no religion seems to have no cut off point in terms of morally disgusting acts that humans will commit.

My rhetoric is abit off at the moment as I have 24 hours no sleep from studying and doing coursework, but I hope you understand the point I'm trying to make.[/QUOTE]

No, not really. People have done some awfully ****ed up things in the name of religion.

[QUOTE=heyhey]many in nazi high command including hitler was not religious, certainly in the christian sense, and were interested in re-establishing german paganism.

they endorsed or tolerated the christian institutions because of how instilled they were and because it provided easy course to anti-semitism. I don't think anyone believe nazi germany to be some religious fanatical state[/QUOTE]

Revisionist. Nowadays Christian apologetics love nothing more then to point out a handful of disputable and entirely inconsistent "proofs" that show that the Nazis weren't part of their club, but that certainly wasn't the case at the time.

There was a only a very small percentage of the German population that [I]wasn't[/I] Christian during Nazi rule. It's insane to try and state that "many in Nazi high command weren't Christian". Completely false. And Nazi practices were either wholesomely endorsed, or silently endorsed by nearly all Christian institutions that had any contact with it including the papacy.

[QUOTE=LJJ]Revisionist. Nowadays Christian apologetics love nothing more then to point out a handful of disputable and entirely inconsistent "proofs" that show that the Nazis weren't part of their club, but that certainly wasn't the case at the time.

There was a only a very small percentage of the German population that [I]wasn't[/I] Christian during Nazi rule. It's insane to try and state that "many in Nazi high command weren't Christian". Completely false. And Nazi practices were either wholesomely endorsed, or silently endorsed by nearly all Christian institutions that had any contact with it including the papacy.[/QUOTE]

Nazi germany was a totalitarian state, meaning the state tried to control all aspect of private life including religion. I'm saying that despite its anti semitism nazi germany wasn't a theocratic state unlike say Iran.

Hitler and co weren't interested in the spreading and establishment of some christian kingdom, they wanted a german state and subvert christianity to fit their program. In a totalitarian regime, the ultimate and only loyalty is to the state - religion is secondary and must be in line with the regime.

Sure many christians were complicit in the holocaust but I wouldn't call nazi germany religiously motivated. In fact nazi anti-semitism was seldomly justified using religious means as opposed to social darwinism, pseudoeugenics.

I think there's a difference between bad things done by christians and bad things done in name of christianity.

[QUOTE=heyhey]Nazi germany was a totalitarian state, meaning the state tried to control all aspect of private life including religion. I'm saying that despite its anti semitism nazi germany wasn't a theocratic state unlike say Iran.

Hitler and co weren't interested in the spreading and establishment of some christian kingdom, they wanted a german state and subvert christianity to fit their program. In a totalitarian regime, the ultimate and only loyalty is to the state - religion is secondary and must be in line with the regime.

Sure many christians were complicit in the holocaust but I wouldn't call nazi germany religiously motivated. In fact nazi anti-semitism was seldomly justified using religious means as opposed to social darwinism, pseudoeugenics.

I think there's a difference between bad things done by christians and bad things done in name of christianity.[/QUOTE]

The OP tries to show a correlation between "the rejection of god and religion" and "depraved acts of mass murder", using Nazi Germany as an example.

There was nothing non-religious or rejecting of god in Nazism, in fact Nazi's embraced religion and vice versa.



Never did I post that Nazi's did their thing [I]because[/I] they were Christians (although you could certainly make a convincing case it was an important prerequisite). Read the premise of the thread boyo.

I think this is the wrong connection to be making.

The big connection is between strong, central governments and mass murder.

And while people play the democrat Vs. republican game, the US federal government has made it legal to assassinate or kidnap us if it suspects us of being terrorists. The president is starting offensive wars on his own will, and thousands of new laws are being added every year. Our economy is overregulated by unchecked bureaucrats, and our money is being printed to the point of worthlessness.

The mainstream media ignores these issues. The people largely ignore them. Every presidential candidate but one is on the same page when it comes to these issues. I won't get into that, but you bitches know how I feel.

These are all unusual outliers. Every example cited in the OP was either an active revolution or a totalitarian regime. They were all subject to unique socio-political circumstances, or extreme eliminationist ideology. There have been millions of atheists who were normal decent human beings. Picking a bunch of extreme political regimes that committed horrific crimes and trying to pass that off as an accurate representation of all of atheism is ridiculously reductive.

And none of these crimes were carried out 'in the name of atheism'. Atheism was not a motive. There were either distinct ideologies divorced from atheism or clear political motivations (such as consolidating power) at work. Can you say the same for the Crusades or the Inquisition?

[QUOTE=Nick Young]Yes agreed. But what I'm saying is being religious seems to lead to a certain cut-off point in terms of mass moral depravity, whereas having no religion seems to have no cut off point in terms of morally disgusting acts that humans will commit.
[/QUOTE]

Tell that to the children who were systemically raped by Catholic Priests.

It was the very fact that those Priests were assumed to be pious morally sound men that allowed them to avoid scrutiny and get away with their crimes for so long. It

[QUOTE=magnax1]I don't get why people are so against being able to assassinate terrorists. Once they start assassinating people for political gain is when you should get worried. Democracy doesn't exist because of written laws. It exists because people uphold and believe in it. Killing terrorists doesn't change that lol[/QUOTE]

Because, who defines what a terrorist is? How do we know someone is guilty, once accused? That's what the courts are for. If we give the state the power to assassinate American citizens they "suspect" of being terrorists, all Americans are at risk. Especially with the dubious definition of terrorism that has been established here.

Think about it as rapists instead of terrorists. Imagine it was legal for the government to assassinate anyone they suspected of being a rapist. And, they could legally kidnap suspected rapists and lock them in secret military prisons. No trial, no innocent until proven guilty, nothing.

Now, anyone is at risk of being killed or tortured or locked in Guantanemo Bay, whether they're guilty or not. If some higher up in the Presidents cabinet doesn't like you for whatever reason.. your life is over. Do you see how that's alarming?

And you have to think in terms of the future. Right now, it seems impossible that our government would do anything like that. But what if terrorists attack the US again? What if the economy starts to really stumble and go into the dumps? What if occupy wall street becomes less peaceful? And now, imagine if someone like Rick Santorum is president at the time. Or, some political, lying sociopath that we've yet to be introduced to? These powers are now on the books for these people. It's not like the powers fade away when Obama leaves office.

Most of those examples are flawed Nazi Germany for example emphasized its Christianity. Also i would argue that all the communist examples did not abandon religion just switched there god from god to the government or state. A better way to look at this is big powerful central governments lead to mass murder.

How about we blame the people and not their religious affiliation? There's plenty of examples of religious people doing dispicable things (just look at serial killers). Some people just had the means to kill on a grander scale. How many people did Hussein kill and torture?

[QUOTE=Dasher]The Catholic Franks under Charlemagne butchered their fare share of Saxons and other infidels under the guise of doing it for The Laws.

All mass murder in the ancient world could be argued to be theocratic genocide because of how intertwined religion was in every day life, warfare, and government.

The modern genocides you list were made possible by technological advances.[/QUOTE]
this sums it up nicely. terrible thread.

Sweden is THE LEAST religious country in the world as of today. Also one of the best rated economies (better than the US, though smaller of course), and most peaceful country in modern times, stayed out of every major war.

Religion is for the weak minded.

I think it's time we elevated Nick Young to Godzuki/Bladers status.

I don't get why Nick Young creates threads that I don't he genuinely gives a shit about. He just does it to start controversy and get big views. No one cares about your threads Nicholaus.

[QUOTE=dunksby]I think it's time we elevated Nick Young to Godzuki/Bladers status.[/QUOTE]

its kind of cute how every week nick young posts a thread on the newest world ending revelation he had during his women studies class at community college. the thread on feminism from last week was actually fvcking hilariously stupid. he is pretty damn similar to bladers in a lot of ways, the black and white worldview being one example. i dunno if he needs to be elevated, i think nick young has already achieved bladers status of lifetime troll.