• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Who has committed greater attrocities people of faith or atheists? (1 Viewer)

Which have committed greater attrocities?

  • A) People of faith

    Votes: 20 80.0%
  • B) Atheists

    Votes: 5 20.0%

  • Total voters
    25

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I here that catch phrase "religion is responsible for some of the worst attrocities in history," bantered about quite a bit, but is true? Is it not more true that atheists have been responsible for far greater attrocities than people of faith?
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
I here that catch phrase "religion is responsible for some of the worst attrocities in history," bantered about quite a bit, but is true?

Yes.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Is it not more true that atheists have been responsible for far greater attrocities than people of faith?

No. The only atheists who have ever committed atrocities on a grand scale were the communists...and the fact that they were atheists had nothing to do with their atrocities. This is in mark contrast to Christian and Islamic leaders who actually justified their atrocities based on their religion.

And it's also ignoring the atrocities that were committed OFF the battlefield...such as the Catholic Church preventing scientific progress for nearly a thousand years, making countless lives more miserable.

With that said, religion has also brought us some of the greatest moral leaders that the world has seen. So I find this thread slightly stupid.
 
Kandahar said:
Yes.



No. The only atheists who have ever committed atrocities on a grand scale were the communists...and the fact that they were atheists had nothing to do with their atrocities. This is in mark contrast to Christian and Islamic leaders who actually justified their atrocities based on their religion.

Since you say that Communists are not representative of atheism, then by that standard I could say that Christians and Muslims aren't representative of people of faith. The bottom line is that the people of faith have committed far less attrocities and killed far less people than atheists whether they did it in the name of Atheism is inconsequential to the question at hand, the Communists were atheists thus the atheists have committed worse attrocities than people of faith.
 
Well, consider the Crusades, the mass pogroms in Russia and Eastern Europe committed under the flag of Christianity, consider the Spanish Inquisition, the slaughtering of Jews and Christians by Muslim extremists. Think about the clashes in India and Pakistan over Hinduism and Islam. How about the repeated intifadas in Israel and the multiple wars between Israel and the Arab Middle East, all centred on gaining control of 'holy land.' Catholics fought Protestants in the Hundred Years' War, Muslims along with Muhammed fought pagans in the battle of Yathrib (Mecca).

However, I guess you have to also consider the Holocaust and Mao's Leap Forward for the atheist side. Also, one might add in the USSR's banishment of religion on the list of atheist-led or -inspired killings. All in all, I don't know. I think that terrible things can be done when someone thinks they're doing the right thing for God or their religion (I.e. the peversion of the Qur'an by present-day Islamofascists to kill Jews, Christians, and to bring down the US).
 
Atheists also have a faith. It's called Atheism. It doesn't matter what you believe in. The things which matter are things that you do and since the deeds are the results of a faith (any faith) then bad deeds are the result of bad faith/religions.

Indeed religions cause attrocities. Religion cause wars (one's religion against other's one). In the future there will be no religions. God doesn't like religions. Religions twist the laws that God gave to humans.

Religions are heresy.
 
Last edited:
The face of Jacob said:
Atheists also have a faith. It's called Atheism. It doesn't matter what you believe in. The things which matter are things that you do and since the deeds are the results of a faith (any faith) then bad deeds are the result of bad faith/religions.

Indeed religions cause attrocities. Religion cause wars (one's religion against other's one). In the future there will be no religions. God doesn't like religions. Religions twist the laws that God gave to humans.

Religions are heresy.
Atheism is not a faith. The very deffinition of faith
: allegiance to duty or a person : [SIZE=-1]LOYALTY[/SIZE] b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
Strike 1 out aeithists hole no allegiance to duty or person
2. No god - scratch that out. Aethists do not believe in which there is no proof hence scratch out 2b as well.
3. maybe but too lightly to signify as a faith and no ability to generalize all aethists as such
 
jfuh said:
Atheism is not a faith. The very deffinition of faith

Strike 1 out aeithists hole no allegiance to duty or person
2. No god - scratch that out. Aethists do not believe in which there is no proof hence scratch out 2b as well.
3. maybe but too lightly to signify as a faith and no ability to generalize all aethists as such


In religious studies religion is defined by any pivotal value to which all other values are subordinate by that definition atheism is very much a religion.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
In religious studies religion is defined by any pivotal value to which all other values are subordinate by that definition atheism is very much a religion.
What pivotal value transcends from a non belief in god?
None.
Hence aethism is not a religion.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
The pivotal value in atheism is that there is no god, all other values are subordinate to that maxim.
Can you give an example?
Thall shalt not kill because there is no god?
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
The pivotal value in atheism is that there is no god, all other values are subordinate to that maxim.

Umm
I don't know of any atheists who base their values off of the fact that their is no god. That doesn't even make sense.

What values are implied by the nonexistence of god? How about the nonexistence of leprechauns? The nonexistence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
 
Kandahar said:
Umm
I don't know of any atheists who base their values off of the fact that their is no god. That doesn't even make sense.

What values are implied by the nonexistence of god? How about the nonexistence of leprechauns? The nonexistence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Exactly what I'm trying to ask.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
I here that catch phrase "religion is responsible for some of the worst attrocities in history," bantered about quite a bit, but is true? Is it not more true that atheists have been responsible for far greater attrocities than people of faith?


Religion can be used to try and justify war, but it isn't the cause. Wars are fought over territory and economics.

All the same wars would have been fought without religion (including the crusades, I dare someone to disagree with me on that).

The Salem With trials, the Spanish Inquisition, and some nations in the middle east making women 2nd class citizens are examples of social injustices yes, but not wars.

My name "FreeThinker" implies that I am and atheist, which I am, but don't confuse atheism with a hatred for religion.
 
FreeThinker said:
Religion can be used to try and justify war, but it isn't the cause. Wars are fought over territory and economics.

All the same wars would have been fought without religion (including the crusades, I dare someone to disagree with me on that).

The Salem With trials, the Spanish Inquisition, and some nations in the middle east making women 2nd class citizens are examples of social injustices yes, but not wars.

My name "FreeThinker" implies that I am and atheist, which I am, but don't confuse atheism with a hatred for religion.
Aethism has never been used to justify war.

I'm biased as I see religion as a veil pulled down to cover the eyes from asking questions.
Philosophy on the other hand opens the mind. Too often I hear religion as justification over this this and that. But you are correct with your rational as far as my ignorance goes. I can not think of any war started strictly because of religion, it was always used as the justifiable excuse.
 
jfuh said:
Aethism has never been used to justify war.

In grade school I punched a kid in the face and took his lunchmoney. He asked me why I did it and I said "because there is no God". I then proceeded to declare the Green power ranger cooler that the Red power ranger, and also made the statement that my dad was absolutely capable of beating up his dad. This ends my paragraph having nothing to do with the debate. Thank you.
 
I think that depends on your definition of "people of faith".

In my mind, atheists are also people of faith, in that they have faith that there is no god.

I would say that this poll has little to no point.

Most if not all atrocities have been committed by people or groups of people who want power.

I will say that I think religion has been used to justify more atrocities than any other justification.
 
FreeThinker said:
Religion can be used to try and justify war, but it isn't the cause. Wars are fought over territory and economics.

All the same wars would have been fought without religion (including the crusades, I dare someone to disagree with me on that).

The Salem With trials, the Spanish Inquisition, and some nations in the middle east making women 2nd class citizens are examples of social injustices yes, but not wars.

My name "FreeThinker" implies that I am and atheist, which I am, but don't confuse atheism with a hatred for religion.

The point is that many athiests who are actually opponents of religion; such as, Bill Maher claim that religion is responsible for the worst attrocities in history when the fact of the matter is that THE worst attrocities in history have been perpetrated by atheists.

I'm not an atheist or relgious, I'm agnostic and with good reason I challenge anyone to prove or disprove the existence of a supreme being.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Umm
I don't know of any atheists who base their values off of the fact that their is no god.

Sure you do, think of it this way evangelical Christains believe there is a god and he wrote the bible that is their pivotal value, all other values are subordinate to that maxim, IE since their is a god and he wrote the bible the heavens and the earth were created in 7 days, the world is 10,000 years old, and god created man in his own image from Eves rib, now flip that the Atheist believes there is no god that is their pivotal value, all other values are subordinate to that maxim IE, since there is no god then the big bang created the heavens and the earth over a time span of trillions of years, the world is billions of years old, and man evolved from apes.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
The point is that many athiests who are actually opponents of religion; such as, Bill Maher claim that religion is responsible for the worst attrocities in history when the fact of the matter is that THE worst attrocities in history have been perpetrated by atheists.

Bill Maher is like John Stewart without the funny.

I'm not an atheist or relgious, I'm agnostic and with good reason I challenge anyone to prove or disprove the existence of a supreme being.

I think, therefor I am.

I just proved the existence of God.

I win.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Sure you do, think of it this way evangelical Christains believe there is a god and he wrote the bible that is their pivotal value, all other values are subordinate to that maxim, IE since their is a god and he wrote the bible the heavens and the earth were created in 7 days, the world is 10,000 years old, and god created man in his own image from Eves rib, now flip that the Atheist believes there is no god that is their pivotal value, all other values are subordinate to that maxim IE, since there is no god then the big bang created the heavens and the earth over a time span of trillions of years, the world is billions of years old, and man evolved from apes.

Well to be honest everyone living in modern society has morals that originated from religion. Whether anti-religious wackos admit it or not the ethical codes we live by in America came from the Bible (some of them).
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
How did that prove the existence of god? I know I'm a little slow but you're going to have to extrapolate that for me.

If you were a liberal I would use this opportunity to attack you.

However,

You are a like minded conservative.

So,

I quoted "I think therefor I am" as the proof of God because I was calling myself a God: a joke of amazing wit and subtlety.
 
FreeThinker said:
If you were a liberal I would use this opportunity to attack you.

However,

You are a like minded conservative.

So,

I quoted "I think therefor I am" as the proof of God because I was calling myself a God: a joke of amazing wit and subtlety.

Oh I thought it was a reference to Descartes 3rd meditation IE his proof for gods existence, I must confess that I don't understand it one bit and from what I can understand it seems extremely flawed:

[edit] Meditation III

Argument 1
  1. I have an idea of God (an infinitely perfect substance).
  2. That idea must have a cause.
  3. Nothing comes from nothing.
  4. The cause must have at least as much formal reality as the idea.
  5. I am not infinitely perfect.
  6. I could not be the cause of the idea.
  7. There must be a cause that is infinitely perfect.
  8. God exists.
Argument 2
  1. I exist.
  2. My existence must have a cause.
  3. The cause must be either:
a) myself b) my always having existed c) my parents d) something less perfect than God e) God
  1. Not a. If I had created myself, I would have made myself perfect.
  2. Not b. Continued existence does not follow from present existence.
  3. Not c. This leads to an infinite regress.
  4. Not d. This idea cannot account for the fact that the idea is of something supreme.
  5. e. God exists.
 
OK for the people who voted for "people of faith" can we please see some statistics, because I'm going to show you the statistics for just one group of atheists the Red Chinese which I think would pale by comparison every attrocity committed by all peoples of faith put together:
  1. [SIZE=+1]People's Republic of China, Mao Zedong's regime (1949-1975): 40 000 000[/SIZE]
  2. Agence France Press (25 Sept. 1999) citing at length from Courtois, Stephane, Le Livre Noir du Communism:
    • Rural purges, 1946-49: 2-5M deaths
    • Urban purges, 1950-57: 1M
    • Great Leap Forward: 20-43M
    • Cultural Revolution: 2-7M
    • Labor Camps: 20M
    • Tibet: 0.6-1.2M
    • TOTAL: 44.5 to 72M
  • Jasper Becker, Hungry Ghosts : Mao's Secret Famine (1996)
    • Estimates of the death toll from the Great Leap Forward, 1959-61:
      • Judith Banister, China's Changing Population (1984): 30M excess deaths (acc2 Becker: "the most reliable estimate we have")
      • Wang Weizhi, Contemporary Chinese Population (1988): 19.5M deaths
      • Jin Hui (1993): 40M population loss due to "abnormal deaths and reduced births"
      • Chen Yizi of the System Reform Inst.: 43-46M deaths
  • Brzezinski:
    • Forcible collectivization: 27 million peasants
    • Cultural Revolution: 1-2 million
    • TOTAL: 29 million deaths under Mao
  • Daniel Chirot:
    • Land reform, 1949-56
      • According to Zhou Enlai: 830,000
      • According to Mao Zedong: 2-3M
    • Great Leap Forward: 20-40 million deaths.
    • Cultural Revolution: 1-20 million
  • Jung Chang, Mao: the Unknown Story (2005)
    • Suppression of Counterrevolutionaries, 1950-51: 3M by execution, mob or suicide
    • Three-Anti Campaign, 1952-53: 200,000-300,000 suicides
    • Great Leap Forward, 1958-61: 38M of starvation and overwork
    • Cultural Revolution, 1966-76: > 3M died violent deaths
    • Laogai camp deaths, 1949-76: 27M
    • TOTAL under Mao: 70M
  • Dictionary of 20C World History: around a half million died in Cultural Rev.
  • Eckhardt:
    • Govt executes landlords (1950-51): 1,000,000
    • Cultural Revolution (1967-68): 50,000
  • Gilbert:
    • 1958-61 Famine: 30 million deaths.
  • Kurt Glaser and Stephan Possony, Victims of Politics (1979):
    • They estimate the body count under Mao to be 38,000,000 to 67,000,000.
    • Cited by G & P:
      • Walker Report (see below): 44.3M to 63.8M deaths.
      • The Government Information Office of Taiwan (18 Sept. 1970): 37M deaths in the PRC.
      • A Radio Moscow report (7 Apr. 1969): 26.4M people had been exterminated in China.
      • (NOTE: Obviously the Soviets and Taiwanese would, as enemies, be strongly motivated to exaggerate.)
  • Guinness Book of World Records:
    • Although nowadays they don't come right out and declare Mao to be the Top Dog in the Mass Killings category, earlier editions (such as 1978) did, and they cited sources which are similar, but not identical, to the Glaser & Possony sources:
      • On 7 Apr. 1969 the Soviet government radio reported that 26,300,000 people were killed in China, 1949-65.
      • In April 1971 the cabinet of the government of Taiwan reported 39,940,000 deaths for the years 1949-69.
      • The Walker Report (see below): between 32,2500,000 and 61,700,000.
  • Harff and Gurr:
    • KMT cadre, rich peasants, landlords (1950-51): 800,000-3,000,000
    • Cultural Revolution (1966-75): 400,000-850,000
  • John Heidenrich, How to Prevent Genocide: A Guide for Policymakers, Scholars, and the Concerned Citizen: 27M death toll, incl. 2M in Cultural Revolution
  • Paul Johnson doesn't give an overall total, but he gives estimates for the principle individual mass dyings of the Mao years:
    • Land reform, first years of PRC: at least 2 million people perished.
    • Great Leap Forward: "how many millions died ... is a matter of conjecture."
    • Cultural Revolution: 400,000, calling the 3 Feb. 1979 estimate by Agence France Presse, "The most widely respected figure".
  • Meisner, Maurice, Mao's China and After (1977, 1999), doesn't give an overall total either, but he does give estimates for the three principle mass dyings of the Mao years:
    • Terror against the counterrevolutionaries: 2 million people executed during the first three years of the PRC.
    • Great Leap Forward: 15-30 million famine-related deaths.
    • Cultural Revolution: 400,000, citing a 1979 estimate by Agence France Presse.
  • R. J. Rummel:
    • Estimate:
      • Democide: 34,361,000 (1949-75)
        • The principle episodes being...
          • All movements (1949-58): 11,813,000
            • incl. Land Reform (1949-53): 4,500,000
          • Cult. Rev. (1964-75): 1,613,000
          • Forced Labor (1949-75): 15,000,000
          • Great Leap Forward (1959-63): 5,680,000 democides
      • War: 3,399,000
      • Famine: 34,500,000
        • Great Leap Forward: 27M famine deaths
      • TOTAL: 72,260,000
    • Cited in Rummel:
      • Li, Cheng-Chung (Republic of China, 1979): 78.86M direct/indirect deaths.
      • World Anti-Communist League, True Facts of Maoist Tyranny (1971): 64.5M
      • Glaser & Possony: 38 to 67M (see above)
      • Walker Report, 1971 (see below): 31.75M to 58.5M casualties of Communism (excluding Korean War).
      • Current Death Toll of International Communism (1979): 39.9M
      • Stephen R. Shalom (1984), Center for Asian Studies, Deaths in China Due To Communism: 3M to 4M death toll, excluding famine.
  • Walker, Robert L., The Human Cost of Communism in China (1971, report to the US Senate Committee of the Judiciary) "Casualties to Communism" (deaths):
    • 1st Civil War (1927-36): .25-.5M
    • Fighting during Sino-Japanese War (1937-45): 50,000
    • 2nd Civil War (1945-49): 1.25M
    • Land Reform prior to Liberation: 0.5-1.0M
    • Political liquidation campaigns: 15-30M
    • Korean War: 0.5-1.234M
    • Great Leap Forward: 1-2M
    • Struggle with minorities: 0.5-1.0M
    • Cultural Revolution: .25-.5M
    • Deaths in labor camps: 15-25M
    • TOTAL: 34.3M to 63.784M
    • TOTAL FOR PRC: 32M to 59.5M
  • July 17, 1994, Washington Post (Great Leap Forward 1959-61)
    • Shanghai University journal, Society: > 40 million
    • Cong Jin: 40 million
    • Chen Yizi: 43 million in the famine. 80 million total as a result of Mao's policies.
  • Weekly Standard, 29 Sept. 1997, "The Laogai Archipelago" by D. Aikman:
    • Between 1949 and 1997, 50M prisoners passed through the labor camps, and 15,000,000 died (citing Harry Wu)
  • WHPSI: 1,633,319 political executions and 25,961 deaths from political violence, 1948-77. TOTAL: 1,659,280
Analysis: If we line up the 14 sources which claim to be complete, the median falls in the 45.75 to 52.5 million range, so you probably can't go wrong picking a final number from this neighborhood. Depending on how you want to count some of the incomplete estimates (such as Becker and Meisner) and whether to count a source twice (or thrice, as with Walker) if it's referenced by two different authorities, you can slide the median up and down the scale by many millions. Keep in mind, however, that official Chinese records are hidden from scrutiny, so most of these numbers are pure guesses. It's pointless to get attached to any one of them, because the real number could easily be half or twice any number here.
Perhaps a better way of estimating would be to add up the individual components. The medians here are:
  • Purges, etc. during the first few years: 2M (10 estimates)
  • Great Leap Forward: 31-33M (14 estimates)
  • Cultural Revolution: 1M (13 estimates)
  • Ethnic Minorities, primarily Tibetans: 750-900T (8 estimates, see below)
  • Labor Camps: 20M (5 estimates)
  • This produces a total of some 54,750,000 to 56,900,000 deaths. The weak link in this calculation is in the Labor Camp numbers for which we only have 5 estimates.
Notice that many early body counts (such as Walker) completely miss the famine during the Great Leap Forward, which was largely unknown in the west until around 1980. There are two contradictory ways to assess those early estimates which ignore the famine:
  1. "If these are the numbers that they came up with without the famine, imagine how high the true number will be once you add the famine deaths."
  2. "Can we trust any of these numbers? After all, if they missed such a huge famine, they can't have known very much about what was going on inside China."
... so this line of reasoning will get us nowhere. In fact, the median of the 7 estimate that predate 1980 is 45.7M, which is almost the same as the median of the 7 estimates that post-date 1980 -- 58M. (At this scale, a 12M difference counts as "almost the same".)

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm
 
Last edited:
FreeThinker said:
Well to be honest everyone living in modern society has morals that originated from religion. Whether anti-religious wackos admit it or not the ethical codes we live by in America came from the Bible (some of them).

But, the way I think of it......

Who is to say that those who wrote the scriptures didn't take thier own moral views and scribble them down, then use the false belief in a supreme being to back them up?

If man created religion, then he could have created the moral views as well, with the religion having nothing more to do with it than to scare people into acting how he wanted to act.

Who knows, maybe all of our moral views come from man who was high on peyote and hearing voices that told him to convince everyone to live a certain way.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom