David M. Payne

The old heading: Who has committed the most evil, theists, or atheist/agnostics?

For the purpose of this thread I will start with some basic definitions of evil.

From the American heritage dictionary; e·vil n. 1. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness. 2. That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil.

From Encarta: Evil, that which is morally bad or wrong, or that which causes harm, pain, or misery. In theology, the problem of evil arises if it is accepted that evil exists in a universe governed by a supreme being who is both good and omnipotent. In a formulation of the problem attributed to the Greek philosopher Epicurus (see Epicureanism), either God can prevent evil and chooses not to (and therefore is not good) or chooses to prevent it and cannot (and therefore is not all-powerful).

The belief in a God, that is not here, and has never been shown to exist, and organized religion (theism) has led to the following “partial” list of theistic evil deeds, deeds powered by theists who’s blind devotion to their religion and their God has, and does, fuel this malevolence. Let me be clear here, I’m not just blaming Christens, Muslims, or Jews here for the fun of it, their theistic beliefs have left all these religions with their hands dripping in the blood of their enemies, some more so than others.


The Inquisition, 1231-1834, run by theists, or atheists-agnostics?
The Crusades, 1095-mid to late 1300’s, run by theists or atheists-agnostics?
Religious warfare off and on, in Europe, the Middle East and other parts of the world from the beginning of recorded history to right now. Run by the theists or the atheist-agnostics?
The conquering of the new world, north and south, Manifest Destiny, run by theists or atheists-agnostics?

Current events:
The 9/11 attacks, run by theists or atheist/agnostics?
The war in the Balkans, run by theists or atheists-agnostics?
The war in the Middle East, run by theists or atheists-agnostics?
Heavens gate, Jim Jones/the peoples temple, and the murders in Guyana, David Koresh and Waco. Were these murderous cults run by Theists, or atheists-agnostics?
As you can see we atheists and agnostics have had little to do with the evil that has been done in this world from the beginning of recorded history to now. I’m sure there have been isolated instances of atheists/agnostics committing evil in the name of atheism/agnosticism, but I have never seen a reference to them, ever! Perhaps our theist friends can show us some incidents of this behavior done by, and in the name of, Atheism/agnosticism. With religious conflict, or outright war, religion and the belief that God is on their side is always one of the main reasons for the conflict. (Funny how God is on all sides of any religious conflict, at the same time.) There are always other components in these conflicts that have importance; economic, political, social, ethnic divisions etc. But in a religious war they take a back seat to the driving force of the conflict, religion and the belief that “God” is on their side.

Atheism is never a driving force for warfare or large conflicts that I can recall. Perhaps some of our theist friends can point out some examples of where this view is in error. I’m always ready to learn new things.

[ March 17, 2002: Message edited by: David Payne ]

[ March 27, 2002: Message edited by: David Payne ]

[ March 27, 2002: Message edited by: David Payne ]</p>

ju'iblex

i'd also like to add Nazi Germany to that list, and the Catholic church's involvement. apart from that, youre preaching to the converted.

David M. Payne

Yes, juiblex in one sense I am preaching to the converted, but I am also pointing out to the theists here that their “King of Kings” God, has no clothes on, so to speak.
If you clarify what you mean by Nazi Germany and the Catholic churches involvement, I may add them to the list.

David

Tercel

Firstly I would like to note that your assessment suffers from significant problems.

The first major problem is that historically the number of theists has been significantly higher than the number of atheists. Hence even if atheism promotes evil to a greater extent than theism, the results will still show theism as having more evils committed.

Secondly, your analysis fails to distinguish scapegoat-ing from encouragement. Numerous times in history religion has been used to motivate the masses for what are purely political ends. Now you might want to argue that it's bad that religion is capable of being used for such motivation, but that doesn't seem to be your argument here. So you should distinguish what events theism encouraged vs what events theism was used as a manipulative tool by politicians for.

Thirdly, atheism/agnosticism is not really a positive view but rather a negative. People might be motivated to do something because they believe, but if they lack belief that is hardly going to be a motivation. "I'm going to conquer the world because I lack of belief in God"... unlikely. This seriously flaws any such comparison from the outset.

Fourthly, your selection of "evil" events is selective. Just a few of the top of my head:
What about Stalin? As I understand it, he ordered more people killed than any other individual in all history. Theists, or atheists?
What about the kids with guns who shoot their schoolmates? What about those that ask who in the class are Christians and then shoot them? Theists or atheists?
What about Hitler? Yes, I know we could argue all day about whether he thought of himself of a Christian or not. But it is very clear that the philosophies of racial superiority that caused him to set the Holocaust in motion came completely from atheist philosophers.
Communist China. Communism in general even. Atheist or Theist?


At anyrate, I'm not sure the question is a sensible one. I think you should rather be looking at the question of what theism and atheism are trying to promote. What a few crazy individuals or groups have done in their name over the past thousand years or so is all but irrelevant, -unless you can show these people were acting according to what the system itself promoted and not simply manipulating it for their own ends.

Datheron

David Payne,

Well, that's hardly a fair list for theistic/atheistic causes. Any theist would point out communist China and the Soviet Union as examples of atheistic horror.

I believe you're looking at the function of atheism and theism incorrectly.

In truth, neither one is really the direct cause of conflict, war, and evil. Rather, theism is easily abused - it can be easily misinterpreted and twisted to whatever the user wants it to mean. Obviously, we see much of this behavior now, and no doubt they were the driving force behind most of these atrocities that you mention. It is not the religions themselves that cause evil, but rather the abuse and inappropriate use that make these evils possible. The combination of easy misinterpretation, in addition to the strict faith and mindless following that most religions require, make for potential for some really bad things - as you have illustrated. Think of religion as a tool for oppression and evil.

Also, note that for the most part, this world is theist; hence, most of the actions, both good and evil, will have been done by theists. It's basically biased sampling - if 95% of the world is populated by God-believers, then obviously most of the good and bad will have been done by them. As such, it's no question that the religious have done really bad things - but the question is, was the religion the main cause for these actions, or was it merely a tool and catalyst for them? I hold the position that it is the latter.

Samhain

Yes, I have to agree with Tercel on this one. You cannot categorize the good acts & bad acts of theists/atheists/agnostics, because these actions cannot speak for all of these groups or types of people. Generally speaking, yes, religion has seemed to cause more harm than good, but then again it is in the eye of the beholder. The problem does not lie within religion, as we can see, none of these acts were specifically cited in religious text, but interpretation can be the mother of your "evil" in this sense. The problem lies not within the actual text but the fact that people use their religious beliefs as a means to an end.

I also disagree with Tercel on this point, at the same time, though. The fact that one can use their religious beliefs as a means to an end should be considered by ALL to be ridiculous. This is not the case, though, since obviously, when these acts occurred they were all by some fashion "ordained" by God, and therefore were right and justified acts for those who believed that the "heathens should be smitten" in a sense. Now as with atheism, one has no excuse for their actions. If a man commits an act of "evil" he has nothing to justify it to himself or others. Therefore this excuse would cease to exist, and these people could be punished accordingly based solely off of the act and not by their psychological reasoning in reference to their religion.

kctan

Idealogues.

Not theists, atheists or agnostics.

E_muse

From the outset I find myself questioning the validity of the question. Allow me to explain.

In the Bible, the apostle Paul simply states that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. He states this as being true of all people regardless of their world view or their ideology. He is simpy saying that man falls short of some standard of behaviour which is attributed to a divine being.

I would say that historically this is true. People are capable of the same evils regardless of their stance theistically or atheistically. People can always employ their particular world view to justify some form of action.

Whether the 'standard' derives from man's own desires or is there by God's command, man has fallen short of a desired standard. Whether man is atheist or theist is considered almost beside the point.

kctan

Man falling short of the glory of god ?

It seems that paul's god is really not a good standard to pit one against to.

That god seems to commit as much atrocities as one would expect a sadistic madman to do.

Alonzo Fyfe

To be fair, these examples must be determined on a per-capita basis. If 95% of the population are theists, but they do 90% of the evil, then the competition would go to the atheist, in spite of having the larger absolute count.

Another problem (which you implied in your attempt to define evil) is in determining exactly what evil is. Under our contemporary definition of evil, theistic evil may outscore atheistic evil. Yet, if one uses a definition from the 1500s, then many of the items we classify as theistic evil would be removed from the list.

Correspondingly, it begs the question substantially to use an atheistic definition to answer the question, just as it would beg the question to use a theistic definition.

Third, it may be the case that whether the evil is religious or nonreligious is derivative of the culture. People with a propensity to do evil will attempt to justify it according to whatever cultural norms are prevalent at the time. If those norms are predominantly religious, then the justifications will be as well. Thus, in a culture that is 60% religious, it would still be the case that nearly 100% of the justifications for any evil done will be religously based.