Teacher beheaded near Paris after showing cartoons of Prophet Muhammad

[DanH]

Just google it dude. I'd say that the casualties of Mao, Stalin and Nazi Germany are about equal to the casualties of Christianity and Islam but the latter managed in far less time.

But that's not what he said is it? You've picked out 2 religions rather than 'religion' How would you quantify the deaths that religion has caused pretty much since the beginning of our species?

 

[calodo2003]

Okay I missed the mark around 100 million of point.

And you just compared two religions. Add in all the others, the number dwarfs.

 

[Marcosdeto]

Roughly 85 million. Vastly more deaths have occurred in the name of religion than that throughout all of history.

mate, try 100 millions the comunist, and 75 millions in the second world war
thats doubles your number
i'm not arguing that religions killed more, i don't have the numbers, i'm just stating that nazis and comunists killed a lot more than you said

 

[calodo2003]

mate, try 100 millions the comunist, and 75 millions in the second world war
thats doubles your number
i'm not arguing that religions killed more, i don't have the numbers, i'm just stating that nazis and comunists killed a lot more than you said

WWII wasn’t just about fighting the Nazis. It was also just Stalin-caused deaths.

If you want to start comparing ‘-ism’-caused deaths with deaths caused by religion, then there can be more of a debate. But that’s not what was posited.

 

[dumbo]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_of_the_Greek_Classics#Arabic_translations_and_commentary

Western European reception of Greek ideas via the Arabian tradition[edit]
While Greek ideas gradually permeated the Islamic world, Muslims conquests extended to the European continent. Spain was conquered by the Arabs around 700 AD, even reaching as far as Poitiers, France by 732 (Battle of Tours). By 902 Sicily was conquered. With the aid of Greek and other ideas, Spain in particular quickly became the most heavily populated and thriving area in Europe.[29] One of the rulers of Muslim Spain, Al-Hakam II, made an effort to gather books from all over the Arab world, creating a library which would later become a center for translation into Latin.[30]

As books were gathered, so were many Arab scholars who had studied Greek ideas in the east. For example, Muhammud ibn 'Abdun and 'Abdu'l-Rahman ibn Ismail came to Spain and introduced many ideas about medicine as well as several of the works of Aristotle and Euclid. Ibn Bajjah (known as "Avempace") and Ibn Rushd (known as “Averroes”) were among the other famous philosophers of Spain who furthered the expansion of Greek ideas in medicine and philosophy.[31]

Prior to Averroes, many Arab philosophers had confused Aristotle with Plotinus, a Hellenized Egyptian who founded Neoplatonism and had mixed Aristotle's ideas with Plato's. Averroes rediscovered the “true” Aristotle by translating key texts reintroducing him to Arab Spain. He also challenged Al-Ghazali's largely anti-Greek philosophies and offered some of the best reconciliation of Islam and philosophy of the time.[32] Key to his arguments was the idea that although there was only one truth, that truth could be expressed in many ways, including both philosophy and religion. He even used the Qur'an to back up his arguments in favor of Greek philosophy and logic, especially the passage: “It is He, [O Muhammad] who has revealed the Book to you...some of its verses are unambiguous...and the others are ambiguous...only God and those confirmed in knowledge know its interpretation.” Averroes argued that “those confirmed in knowledge” were philosophers.[32]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averroes#Aristotelianism_in_the_Islamic_philosophical_tradition

Aristotelianism in the Islamic philosophical tradition

In his philosophical writings, Averroes attempted to return to Aristotelianism, which according to him had been distorted by the Neoplatonist tendencies of Muslim philosophers such as Al-Farabi and Avicenna.[34][35] He rejected al-Farabi's attempt to merge the ideas of Plato and Aristotle, pointing out the differences between the two, such as Aristotle's rejection of Plato's theory of ideas.[36] He also criticized Al-Farabi's works on logic for misinterpreting its Aristotelian source.[37] He wrote an extensive critique of Avicenna, who was the standard-bearer of Islamic Neoplatonism in the Middle Ages.[38] He argued that Avicenna's theory of emanation had many fallacies and was not found in the works of Aristotle.[38] Averroes disagreed with Avicenna's view that existence is merely an accident added to essence, arguing the reverse; something exists per se and essence can only be found by subsequent abstraction.[39] He also rejected Avicenna's modality and Avicenna's argument to prove the existence of God as the Necessary Existent.[40]

Relation between religion and philosophy[edit]
During Averroes' lifetime, philosophy came under attack from the Sunni Islam tradition, especially from theological schools like the traditionalist (Hanbalite) and the Ashari schools.[41] In particular, the Ashari scholar al-Ghazali (1058 – 1111) wrote The Incoherence of the Philosophers (Tahafut al-falasifa), a scathing and influential critique of the Neoplatonic philosophical tradition in the Islamic world and against the works of Avicenna in particular.[42] Among others, Al-Ghazali charged philosophers with non-belief in Islam and sought to disprove the teaching of the philosophers using logical arguments.[41][43]

In Decisive Treatise, Averroes argues that philosophy—which for him represented conclusions reached using reason and careful method—cannot contradict revelations in Islam because they are just two different methods of reaching the truth, and "truth cannot contradict truth".[44][45] When conclusions reached by philosophy appear to contradict the text of the revelation, then according to Averroes, revelation must be subjected to interpretation or allegorical understanding to remove the contradiction.[44][41] This interpretation must be done by those "rooted in knowledge"—a phrase taken from the Quran, 3:7, which for Averroes refers to philosophers who during his lifetime had access to the "highest methods of knowledge".[44][45] He also argues that the Quran calls for Muslims to study philosophy because the study and reflection of nature would increase a person's knowledge of "the Artisan" (God).[46] He quotes Quranic passages calling on Muslims to reflect on nature and uses them to render a fatwa (legal opinion) that philosophy is allowed for Muslims and is probably an obligation, at least among those who have the talent for it.[47]

Averroes also distinguishes between three modes of discourse: the rhetorical (based on persuasion) accessible to the common masses; the dialectical (based on debate) and often employed by theologians and the ulama (scholars); and the demonstrative (based on logical deduction).[41][46] According to Averroes, the Quran uses the rhetorical method of inviting people to the truth, which allows it to reach the common masses with its persuasiveness,[48] whereas philosophy uses the demonstrative methods that were only available to the learned but provided the best possible understanding and knowledge.[48]

Averroes also tries to deflect Al-Ghazali's criticisms of philosophy by saying that many of them apply only to the philosophy of Avicenna and not to that of Aristotle, which Averroes argues to be the true philosophy from which Avicenna has deviated.[49]

with Pythagoras:
.

Nothing but murder and pain though. Don't know why I'm bothering quite frankly

 

[Marcosdeto]

WWII wasn’t just about fighting the Nazis. It was also just Stalin-caused deaths.

If you want to start comparing ‘-ism’-caused deaths with deaths caused by religion, then there can be more of a debate. But that’s not what was posited.

75 million died because the nazis started that war, i'm holding them accountable for every death caused then

and in no way i'm trying to compare religions death with "isms" deaths

the fact that religions are supposed to be about love amongst men, makes any death unacceptable

 

[Gehrman]

But that's not what he said is it? You've picked out 2 religions rather than 'religion' How would you quantify the deaths that religion has caused pretty much since the beginning of our species?

Okay that's true if we add in casualities by hindus, buddhists, jews, vikings, ancient greek theology followers, roman mythology, casualites of the ancient Egyptian empires etc it probably adds to a lot.

 

[Jippy]

Why would I do that? Got better things to do than that believe me. On a few occassions, and especially when gruesome things like here in France happens some feel the need to actually excuse these actions and act like their religion has nothing to do with it though.



That's a strange argument. First off it's plain wrong and second off, I don't see many rational people defend these eras.

I've not read much about this case, but presumably the guy was mentally ill.

To think that the three listed mass murderers caused more deaths than religion is something. You think that those three causes contributed to more deaths than all the deaths caused by / in the name of religion? You’re looking at roughly 85 million between those three. Religions have been around for thousands of years.

Here’s a thumbnail sketch of deaths in the name of religion, don’t see things like the conquest of Latin America, etc. in this list. There’s certainly debate to be had in there, but most of these deaths occurred in the past few hundred years. Extrapolate that back fifteen hundred more years, this number explodes upwards:

It's bs that these wars were all purely motivated by religion. The Iraq war, seriously? Most were over power, territory, resources or whatever, with religion at best a rallying cry to the masses.

 

[calodo2003]

75 million died because the nazis started that war, i'm holding them accountable for every death caused then

and in no way i'm trying to compare religions death with "isms" deaths

the fact that religions are supposed to be about love amongst men, makes any death unacceptable

That’s an interesting take on WWII deaths, but hey, you have it. Pushes the number up over 100 million, still a paltry figure.

If you take the ‘ism’ deaths, then the number approaches more closely with religious deaths. All deaths caused by fascism, communism, racism, xenophobia definitely adds up & would create a more appropriate debate.

 

[Gehrman]

To think that the three listed mass murderers caused more deaths than religion is something. You think that those three causes contributed to more deaths than all the deaths caused by / in the name of religion? You’re looking at roughly 85 million between those three. Religions have been around for thousands of years.

Here’s a thumbnail sketch of deaths in the name of religion, don’t see things like the conquest of Latin America, etc. in this list. There’s certainly debate to be had in there, but most of these deaths occurred in the past few hundred years. Extrapolate that back fifteen hundred more years, this number explodes upwards:

Why is the holocaust attributed to religion though? Because of the complicity of the catholic church?

 

[calodo2003]

I've not read much about this case, but presumably the guy was mentally ill.

It's bs that these wars were all purely motivated by religion. The Iraq war, seriously? Most were over power, territory, resources or whatever, with religion at best a rallying cry to the masses.

So religions aren’t power brokering, money brokering entities focused on the subjugation of others to their own betterment & survival? Sure, it’s all peaceful missionaries.

Not saying purely motivated by religion, deaths under the name of religion. The delusion is broad enough that not just religious wars kill people in the name of religion.

 

[calodo2003]

Why is the holocaust attributed to religion though? Because of the complicity of the catholic church?

Not certain, that’s a good question. Fascism is looked at as a political religion by many, that could also be a contributing factor.

 

[calodo2003]

Okay that's true if we add in casualities by hindus, buddhists, jews, vikings, ancient greek theology followers, roman mythology, casualites of the ancient Egyptian empires etc it probably adds to a lot.

They’re all religions & many have been killed in their names. Real number is undoubtedly impossible to quantify due to the length of time in which these deaths occurred.

 

[Marcosdeto]

That’s an interesting take on WWII deaths, but hey, you have it. Pushes the number up over 100 million, still a paltry figure.

If you take the ‘ism’ deaths, then the number approaches more closely with religious deaths. All deaths caused by fascism, communism, racism, xenophobia definitely adds up & would create a more appropriate debate.

as i said before, i'm not arguing that religions killed less people, in fact i stated the hypocrisy of religions to be about "love amongst men" and still being the cause of wars and masacres
and you posted a list of death for religious reasons that puts to shame the "isms" numbers

 

[DanH]

Even then, how can you quantify? Would the conditions for the Nazi party have existed with out the underlying structures of a civilisation that had grown under the western Christian tradition? Did the roots of Maoism sprout millennia before in the battles between Confucianism and the legalists.

Jippy subsequently mentioned religion not being the primary driver of modern wars, but rather a rallying cry to the masses. I would contend that largely it has always been that. It allows a select few to legitimise their actions.

 

[calodo2003]

as i said before, i'm not arguing that religions killed less people, in fact i stated the hypocrisy of religions to be about "love amongst men" and still being the cause of wars and masacres
and you posted a list of death for religious reasons that puts to shame the "isms" numbers

I agree, deaths in the name of religion could dwarf all. It’s just when you add the deaths in the name of all the ‘isms,’ the difference would undoubtedly narrow.

 

[Jippy]

So religions aren’t power brokering, money brokering entities focused on the subjugation of others to their own betterment & survival? Sure, it’s all peaceful missionaries.

Not saying purely motivated by religion, deaths under the name of religion. The delusion is broad enough that not just religious wars kill people in the name of religion.

Religion is clearly ultimately responsible for millions of deaths, but I'm just saying that's not down to religion in itself. Man will use any means to justify power grabbing or retention. Xenophobia alone must rank very highly as a motivator.

 

[calodo2003]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_of_the_Greek_Classics#Arabic_translations_and_commentary



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averroes#Aristotelianism_in_the_Islamic_philosophical_tradition

with Pythagoras:
.

Nothing but murder and pain though. Don't know why I'm bothering quite frankly

At what time do these advancements start losing the purchase they had & current realities of the times start to be considered more appropriately?

 

[calodo2003]

Religion is clearly ultimately responsible for millions of deaths, but I'm just saying that's not down to religion in itself. Man will use any means to justify power grabbing or retention. Xenophobia alone must rank very highly as a motivator.

I absolutely agree, that’s why I am discussing with @Marcosdeto about ‘ism’ caused deaths being closer to total deaths in the name of religion & such a debate would be more appropriate. But trying to tie religious based deaths to other types doesn’t absolve the fact that it potentially leads in sheer numbers over the past 2000ish years.

 

[e.cantona]

Which is worse, Nazism/Stalinism/Maoism/Marxism or religion? Kind of a lose/lose no matter which one you're into. A man beheaded, no worries, Hitler was worse

 

[calodo2003]

Which is worse, Nazism/Stalinism/Maoism/Marxism or religion? Kind of a lose/lose no matter which one you're into. A man beheaded, no worries, Hitler was worse

It’s definitely a race to the bottom with both.

 

[Penna]

I'd agree but in case of religion talking in absolutes may be one of the few times it's absolutely right to do so. Looking at history and what it brought upon mankind is unparalleled. I may have been a tad extreme in that sentence but this is a topic that just angers me. Secularization and rationalism took centuries and it acutally seems we are going backwards these days.

And in reality I don't mind people that keep their believes by themselves. Quietly. But if they go out and their believes get questioned and they start to get aggressive they instantly lose any credibility for me. Actually it's more than that. I question their mental health.

You're being quite aggressive yourself on here. You need to be a little more measured. Saying that everyone who has a religious faith also has mental illness (you've said that twice now) is a pretty unpleasant slur on billions of people.

I'm a Christian myself. There are many people on this forum of various faiths. Stop throwing out this ridiculous line about religious=mentally ill. It's childish and rude.

 

[Gehrman]

Not certain, that’s a good question. Fascism is looked at as a political religion by many, that could also be a contributing factor.

I would argue that the holocaust was more inspired by social darwinism and eugenics though. I don't think the Nazi's in Auschwitz were praying to Jesus while gassing and torturing jews. Facism is only religious if it fits the definition of religion.

 

[Jippy]

I would argue that the holocaust was more inspired by social darwinism and eugenics though. I don't think the Nazi's in Auschwitz were praying to Jesus while gassing and torturing jews. Facism is only religious if it fits the definition of religion.

The Rwandan civil was not a religious war either, but it was just a shite random list someone pulled off reddit.

 

[calodo2003]

I would argue that the holocaust was more inspired by social darwinism and eugenics though. I don't think the Nazi's in Auschwitz were praying to Jesus while gassing and torturing jews. Facism is only religious if it fits the definition of religion.

This is a pretty good discussion of ‘political religions.’

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/countering-radical-right/political-religions-and-fascism/ (forgot the damn link)

Fascism does tick off some key tenent boxes when being compared to traditional religions.

 

[calodo2003]

The Rwandan civil was not a religious war either, but it was just a shite random list someone pulled off reddit.

For all the ones what can be whittled away, there are many deaths under the name of religion that aren’t on this list. The list is certainly not definitive, but it’s certainly emblematic.

 

[calodo2003]

The Rwandan civil was not a religious war either, but it was just a shite random list someone pulled off reddit.

Only tacitly studied the genocide at college, never knew that much about it. Just quickly read this article about how religion potentially played a part in the atrocity -

http://venturesafrica.com/catholic-church-rwandan-genocide/

 

[dumbo]

At what time do these advancements start losing the purchase they had & current realities of the times start to be considered more appropriately?

I'll let you know when mathematicians and physicists stop using Newton's law of universal gravitation.

 

[Godfather]

You're being quite aggressive yourself on here. You need to be a little more measured. Saying that everyone who has a religious faith also has mental illness (you've said that twice now) is a pretty unpleasant slur on billions of people.

I'm a Christian myself. There are many people on this forum of various faiths. Stop throwing out this ridiculous line about religious=mentally ill. It's childish and rude.

I said I question people's mental health when they get all agressive about something like religion. Stop taking that comment out of context. Many people believed in Hitler too. Doesn't make it better (and no I don't compare religion to Hitler, but arguments like "x people believe in so and so, so stop beeing so offensive" don't work).

 

[Jippy]

Only tacitly studied the genocide at college, never knew that much about it. Just quickly read this article about how religion potentially played a part in the atrocity -

http://venturesafrica.com/catholic-church-rwandan-genocide/

Balls it did, the two sides were predominantly the same religion. From what I remember it was primarily down to how the Belgians had managed it, and the oppression of the majority hutus, but we're getting off topic.

 

[calodo2003]

I'll let you know when mathematicians and physicists stop using Newton's law of universal gravitation.

Fantastic advancements can’t absolve in perpetuity atrocities no matter how great they advancements are. That’s lunacy.

 

[calodo2003]

Balls it did, the two sides were predominantly the same religion. From what I remember it was primarily down to how the Belgians had managed it, and the oppression of the majority hutus, but we're getting off topic.

Being of the same religion doesn’t mean a war can’t break out between factions of said religion for religious reasons! My god.

Read the article. It gets down to verses being used to justify christians killing other christians. Not saying that it was an overriding factor, but it seems religion did play a part.

 

[Sky1981]

75 million died because the nazis started that war, i'm holding them accountable for every death caused then

and in no way i'm trying to compare religions death with "isms" deaths

the fact that religions are supposed to be about love amongst men, makes any death unacceptable

It's actually mankind that kills mankind

All ism, naziism, fascism, greedism, selfism is just the manifestation of the inherently evil mankind. Nazi isn't evil, it's just a political party lead by an evil people followed by more evil people. Ditto fascism / socialism / communism / capitalism / christianism.

There are 2 theories
1. Mankind are born evil (if you're religious)
2. Mankind are born clean slate (if you're not)

I'd rather believe that mankind are inherently evil, it's in our DNA. We solve problems by killing, and it's society that taught us kindness instead of the other way around. Could be both mind you, but principally speaking it's the first.

So, I don't think it's fair to compare who kills more, it's like comparing which weapon and costume you're using when you kill someone. It's still you, just another skin

 

[Jippy]

Being of the same religion doesn’t mean a war can’t break out between factions of said religion for religious reasons! My god.

Yeah but that was not the primary driver in this case, as I said.

 

[Jippy]

I said I question people's mental health when they get all agressive about something like religion. Stop taking that comment out of context. Many people believed in Hitler too. Doesn't make it better (and no I don't compare religion to Hitler, but arguments like "x people believe in so and so, so stop beeing so offensive" don't work).

You also described anyone religious as 'absolute fecking idiots', so the aggression is all coming from you.

 

[calodo2003]

Yeah but that was not the primary driver in this case, as I said.

Deaths still occurred in the name of religion apparently, regardless the flavor & if it was a ‘primary driver.’

 

[Godfather]

You’re going to get extremists in every walk of life.

But it very much comes across as if you’re tarring everyone with the same brush.

That is something I am culpable of yes at times. But only because I realised that normal discussions often can't be had with these sorts.

 

[Jippy]

Deaths still occurred in the name of religion apparently, regardless the flavor & if it was a ‘primary driver.’

Fair enough, but that feels like branding the holocaust a purge of homosexuals, when clearly they were not the primary target.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

Fantastic advancements can’t absolve in perpetuity atrocities no matter how great they advancements are. That’s lunacy.

Would you apply to same logic to something like capitalism? Fantastic advancements but ultimately responsible for more war, poverty and overall suffering in the last 100 years than any other single ideology or belief system in human history.

 

[Godfather]

You also described anyone religious as 'absolute fecking idiots', so the aggression is all coming from you.

No I didn't. I said it's stupid and idiotic to believe in something like religion in this day and age. And that happened after people that called out religion for what it is were being labelled as "ignorant" by some poster. In a thread where another Cheche Islamic terrorist went nuts because of his religious believes. So don't turn this into some sort of witchhunt. Time to stop the victim role and see religion for what it is and brings.