Proof that Atheists caused more suffering

[Slayer]

Hi! Can anyone back up any statistics of various atheist leaders who caused more suffering/death than the typical saying that “religion causes more suffering”? Like Hitler and Stalin for example.

I can’t find anything that list all the atheist leaders and the number of people they killed along with sources to back up the claims…

 

[rossum]

Hi! Can anyone back up any statistics of various atheist leaders who caused more suffering/death than the typical saying that “religion causes more suffering”? Like Hitler and Stalin for example.

I can’t find anything that list all the atheist leaders and the number of people they killed along with sources to back up the claims…

Stalin was an atheist, though at one time he started training for the priesthood. Hitler is much less certain; he was a politician so it is difficult to be certain that anything he said in public was true, but he certainly claimed to be a Christian:"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
You will need to provide proof that Hitler was actually an atheist as opposed to a bad Christian. Judging by the above he was certainly a very bad theologian.

rossum

 

[Black_Jaque]

Here is a thread I started on the similar topic.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=127049

You have to be careful, Slayer. Don’t put yourself in the position of making a claim “that Atheists caused more suffering”. Because if you do, then the burden of proof is on you to do the research and the comparison. Of course, if you’re up for that kind of research go for it, perhaps you can prove it.

However, it’s usually the atheists that try to advance the arguement that “religion causes more suffering…”

For that you don’t need any proof. You simply need to review their evidence. Usually their evidence will consist only of those events in history that support their claim. Your job is made very easy then. You simply pull out a handful of major events of human catastrophe which they completely neglected to consider in their comparison. The French Revolution, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, Sadaam Hussein.

Ask the atheists to then compare their list to yours. I had a brother-in-law make the typical arguement that religion causes more suffering… He never responded when I fired off my brief handful. I suspect that when it actually came down to making the comparison he saw how silly that claim really is.

 

[ABostonCatholic]

The atheistic philosophy of Jean-Paul Sartre, who supported Stalinism, heavily influenced Pol Pot who slew a couple of million. His “choice for choice’s sake” philosophy influenced pioneers in the pro-abortion movement. Both Sartre and Nietszche (a self proclaimed anti-christ) taught that life has no meaning other than what we give it, thus it is within our hands to take and give life. Justice, in effect, becomes the power of the strong over the weak (an idea that Plato refuted 2500 years ago in the Republic). Read “Architects of the Culture of Death” by Donald DeMarco.

 

[marciadietrich]

Stalin was an atheist, though at one time he started training for the priesthood. Hitler is much less certain; he was a politician so it is difficult to be certain that anything he said in public was true, but he certainly claimed to be a Christian:<SNIP…CUT SPEECH TEXT QUOTE FOR BREVITY>

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April **1922 **(Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)You will need to provide proof that Hitler was actually an atheist as opposed to a bad Christian. Judging by the above he was certainly a very bad theologian.

Hitler was a politician, a dynamic speaker and personality, and he certainly appealed to what he needed to at the time and circumstances to garner whatever support he could muster early in his rise to power. That quote is very early from1922. Even pre-jail time and had not written his autobiography/political rant Mein Kampf, as opposed to the time he was in control of Germany, certainly far before WWII and the concentration camps.

Hitler was not a practicing Christian as an adult (though I believe raised Catholic) and I would suggest the definitive biography titled “Adolf Hitler” by John Toland would easily show he was much more what I term neo-pagan (not druid or wiccan, but not Christian): including the choice of the swastika as opposed to the Christian cross or a Catholic crucifix as an image for his Nazi regime.

 

[Kaninchen]

I think there is a problem when discussing the crimes of people like Stalin and Mao and describing them as Atheists.

They may not have believed in divine beings but they led political parties that were very, very seriously into ‘belief’ - in their way as much closed systems as any religious belief structure and just as incapable of refutation.

Their belief structures failed but there are a lot of failed religions in history too.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

I think there is a problem when discussing the crimes of people like Stalin and Mao and describing them as Atheists.

They may not have believed in divine beings but they led political parties that were very, very seriously into ‘belief’ - in their way as much closed systems as any religious belief structure and just as incapable of refutation.

Their belief structures failed but there are a lot of failed religions in history too.

I would argue that Stalin and Mao may have followed a religion called Communism but simply because it is a disciplined system does not suggest that they were theists. The system itself was Atheistic, i.e., completely Materialistic and had no place for a God of any sort.

CDL

 

[Imagine23]

Stalin was an atheist, though at one time he started training for the priesthood. Hitler is much less certain; he was a politician so it is difficult to be certain that anything he said in public was true, but he certainly claimed to be a Christian:"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
You will need to provide proof that Hitler was actually an atheist as opposed to a bad Christian. Judging by the above he was certainly a very bad theologian.

rossum

Great post rossum. I remember that quote from Dawkins’ book. Theists love to claim that Hitler was an atheist (ostensibly to support the idea that if you don’t have some irrational belief in a supernatural force you will be driven to mass murder) although there is plenty of evidence to show he did in fact think of himself as a Christian.

Further, the Christian German citizenry (“Hitler’s Willing Executioners” as one historian titled his book on the topic) was well indoctrinated in the Christian tradition of anti-semitism, which made Hitler’s work all the easier to accomplish.

 

[Kaninchen]

I would argue that Stalin and Mao may have followed a religion called Communism but simply because it is a disciplined system does not suggest that they were theists. The system itself was Atheistic, i.e., completely Materialistic and had no place for a God of any sort.

CDL

I think I said that they didn’t believe in divine beings?

On the other hand, they had a vision of a perfect society (a ‘World to Come’) to be achieved by those called upon by history (the enlightened proletariat) according to the rules of a text (Kapital) and anything that could be seen to be ‘outside’ that, or opposed to that, was part of the forces of darkness (Capitalism and its dupes) or madness (so well described by Solzhenitsyn) - wonderfully dualistic.

It was a system of thought that was incapable of refutation - you couldn’t prove it to be incorrect - in scientific terms there was no ‘test’ that, if it failed, would prove it wrong. In that sense, it was far from ‘materialistic’, existing in the realm of the metaphysical.

Looks like a secular religion to me.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Yes, it is a secular religion i.e., an Atheistic one.

CDL

 

[steveandersen]

Hi! Can anyone back up any statistics of various atheist leaders who caused more suffering/death than the typical saying that “religion causes more suffering”? Like Hitler and Stalin for example.

I can’t find anything that list all the atheist leaders and the number of people they killed along with sources to back up the claims…

It really isn’t a competition
And I don’t think that it is a good approach to state that religious leaders caused less suffering than Mao or Stalin. That is kind of like saying, “yeah you ran me over with a car but at least you didn’t use a truck like that other guy”

Were wars fought over religious views? Sure, but that isn’t the fault of the religions just the practitioners.

Human action or inaction causes suffering. Wars have been fought for all types of reasons, gold, glory, God, girls… It is not the objects fault but what we choose to do about them.

Stalin was a communist (or at least claimed to be, perhaps he just used the system that was there) but there have been millions of communist (and there still are) and fortunately only one Stalin.

Similarly there have been people who acted badly in the name of religion but the numbers of people who didn’t is far larger and more representative.

 

[mchale]

I agree with those that it is a fools game trying to compare the atrocities of atheists with those of theists. Those of us who are Christian knows what cause suffering, its sin. Everyone of us is guilty of it. Everyone of us is responsible for the suffering in the world and we are responsibile for alievating that suffering.

If Stalin was more oppresive than the Torquemada, it is because he had the means available.

I think the most that can accomplished by this exercise is refuting the silly notion that Dawkins and some others have espoused that religion somehow predisposes people to committing evil acts. Ultimately we are all predisposed to commit evil. Religion, Communisim, Capitalism, etc, merely become justifications of what we recognize to be an otherwise uncharitable act.

–
Bill

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Hitler was a politician, a dynamic speaker and personality, and he certainly appealed to what he needed to at the time and circumstances to garner whatever support he could muster early in his rise to power. That quote is very early from1922. Even pre-jail time and had not written his autobiography/political rant Mein Kampf, as opposed to the time he was in control of Germany, certainly far before WWII and the concentration camps.

Hitler was not a practicing Christian as an adult (though I believe raised Catholic) and I would suggest the definitive biography titled “Adolf Hitler” by John Toland would easily show he was much more what I term neo-pagan (not druid or wiccan, but not Christian): including the choice of the swastika as opposed to the Christian cross or a Catholic crucifix as an image for his Nazi regime.

It is very hard to get to the truth on this one. Himmler was certainly a believer in the occult, and there is some evidence that Hitler treated his subordinate’s views as rather a joke.

However there are persistent stories that Hitler was also involved in occultism in some capacity or other.

 

[marciadietrich]

It is very hard to get to the truth on this one. Himmler was certainly a believer in the occult, and there is some evidence that Hitler treated his subordinate’s views as rather a joke.

However there are persistent stories that Hitler was also involved in occultism in some capacity or other.

Hello Malcolm,

Good point. The occult connection is possible as well. But I view Hitler more as someone who was basically non-religious or non-spiritual (didn’t believe in God or Satan on a real level) but had a fascination with and drew on a variety of ideas and symbols -mythological and mystical and even traditional religious- to flesh out and promote his vision of society. To the extent a belief system supported his ideas he would claim it.

Also, the “Third Reich” a name taken for his belief that they were building a new era of the Holy Roman Empire and had city plans for modernized roman or greek style architecture. He fancied himself a great artist though rejected in his youth by the Vienna Art academy (he did have some basic talent and could have been an artist, but probably not a great artist). Hitler liked the symbolisms and particular hand-picked ideas from various “pagan” religious sources, but not the meat of things religious or spiritual. Perhaps I need a better term for that than neo-pagan.

Marcia

 

[mlchance]

In terms of sheer body count, sure, atheist ideologies win the prize. Also, sure, religious people have done horrible things as well. But here’s the difference: Christianity contains within itself the reason and the means to reject evil. Atheist ideologies, however high-minded, ultimately do not.

Regarding Hitler: He believed in a god, namely, himself. Look up the Nazi version of the Lord’s Prayer in which children were taught to invoke Hitler.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[mchale]

In terms of sheer body count, sure, atheist ideologies win the prize. Also, sure, religious people have done horrible things as well. But here’s the difference: Christianity contains within itself the reason and the means to reject evil. Atheist ideologies, however high-minded, ultimately do not.

Regarding Hitler: He believed in a god, namely, himself. Look up the Nazi version of the Lord’s Prayer in which children were taught to invoke Hitler.

– Mark L. Chance.

I would be careful in invoking that. While the 20th century was the bloodiest century in human history and dominated by atheist ideologies, religious ideologies had an awful long time before then to rack up a body count I don’t think there is any way to be sure which has justified more deaths. In addition, Al Quaeda and other religious fundamentalist groups would likely kill at least as many people as the Communists under Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot did if they were given the means.

Ultimately ideologies, whether religious or atheistic ones are simply a means of justifying evil; they always in the end seem to assume that they can impose themselves on others… for their own good. Christianity when viewed as an ideology seems, to me, to be just as prone to it as any other. Only when Christianity is a way of life and not an ideology will it avoid the mistakes of all ideologies.

–
Bill

 

[mlchance]

I would be careful in invoking that. While the 20th century was the bloodiest century in human history and dominated by atheist ideologies, religious ideologies had an awful long time before then to rack up a body count…

Admittedly, but given the fact that the Communists alone killed about 100 million between 1917 and 2000, one would be hard-pressed to argue that religious ideologies could top that number. Certainly, they could come in second-place.

In addition, Al Quaeda and other religious fundamentalist groups would likely kill at least as many people as the Communists under Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot did if they were given the means.

What might happen in the future isn’t relevant when discussing history.

Ultimately Only when Christianity is a way of life and not an ideology will it avoid the mistakes of all ideologies.

You’re certainly on to something, but all ideologies are ways of life. The question is this: Do you want a way of life based on Life and Truth, or based on the scribbling of someone like Karl Marx?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[mchale]

Admittedly, but given the fact that the Communists alone killed about 100 million between 1917 and 2000, one would be hard-pressed to argue that religious ideologies could top that number. Certainly, they could come in second-place.

I am not so sure. How many died during the Wars of Religion that spread across Europe in the 16th and 17th century? 7-10 million may have died in the 30 years war alone. How many in the Spanish and Portugese Inquisitions. How many in the English Civil Wars and in particular the campaigns of Oliver Cromwell and William of Orange in Catholic Ireland?

How many died as a result of the Islamic expansion through the 8th century? And in the Christian attempts to reconquor territory lost to the Muslims?

Further, where do you draw the line between the religious and the secular. Certainly spreading the faith was a motivator for the Spanish Conquistadors and their actions resulted potentially in the deaths of millions (depending on who exactly you blame).

And remember, I am looking just at a few incidents in a few specific periods.

Now mind you, the whole concept of an atheisticly based ideology is relatively new (I would argue the French Revolution would be the first real example)… so its record over the past 2000 years is not one that reflects favorably on it. That being said the mere fact that wars based on religious ideology stretch back to the very beginnings of recorded history means that there has been plenty of time for religion to exceed the 20th century body count of the communists.

What might happen in the future isn’t relevant when discussing history.

Not directly no… but it is relevant to the larger issue regarding which is more dangerous (I answer all ideology is dangerous).

You’re certainly on to something, but all ideologies are ways of life. The question is this: Do you want a way of life based on Life and Truth, or based on the scribbling of someone like Karl Marx?

– Mark L. Chance.

The problem with ideologies, as far as I can see, is that those who follow them believe that they must impose themselves on others.

–
Bill

 

[jonk]

The problem with ideologies, as far as I can see, is that those who follow them believe that they must impose themselves on others.

“You will not impose your values on me. It’s my body, my choice!”

Just a thought that came into my mind and I thought I’d mention it… Absolute “freedom” is also an ideology - it’s called liberalism (not all the many forms thereof, of course). I’m not picking a fight, though - I agree with what you saying there. There is a problem with ideologies and you are right on the mark. Ideologies are an abstraction of reality made up by someone who thought he was clever, but they never correspond to reality. They couldn’t, because reality’s too complex. And the problem arises when people try and make reality fit in with a particular ideology by “imposing themselves on others.” It’s not gonna happen, and it frequently results in death.

General point regarding Mao and Stalin being considered “religious” atheists because their philosophies were dogmatic… That argument seems to me to be a cop-out. It’s too easy for an atheist to say, “yes, but it was those communist atheists, not us postmodern atheists. We’re only pro-choice.” What belief is not religious then? By that definition, isn’t any sort of atheism a religion anyway? It’s founded on some pretty shaky assumptions and it requires a lot of belief - you cannot disprove atheism either. It’s even evangelical. Can you even count how many times you have been preached at by atheists?

If one says atheism is not a religion but communist atheism is because it is dogmatic, then one might as well say that liberal Protestantism or Reform Judaism isn’t either, because they have no dogmas - in some congregations/denominations, even the belief in a Christian/Jewish God isn’t really required. In fact, they’re less dogmatic than atheism, which holds atheism to be a dogma.

That’s just my way of looking at it, though… I don’t expect anyone to agree.

I think there were about a billion abortions in the last 30 or 40 years. I don’t know if or how much of that counts, though…

 

[Black_Jaque]

Whoever posted that comparing the suffering caused by Atheism vs. the suffering caused by religion is a fools game was spot on!

That’s why in my post #3 I told the OP to shift the burden of proof onto those fools who make statements like, “Religion has cause more human suffering than anything else. . .”

Let THEM do the comparison. It’s a fool’s game and they will eventually look foolish. All we have to do is supply a little material for their comparison since they always seem so thin on evidence. I am dead serious. When you hear someone make the claim that religion causes more suffering… Just ask for the evidence they use to base that statement on. Of course you’ll get the usual Salem Witch Trials, Inquisition, Crusades, etc. But they ALWAYS leave out the French Revolution, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung.

All we, as believers, need to do is simply add those four names to their pile of evidence and they quickly shut up. Why? Because they realize they haven’t considered the “other side” when making their so-called “comparison”.

DO NOT TRY to prove that atheism causes more suffering than religion. Again, the whole venture is a fool’s game.

Here’s why. Number 1, the very notion itself, that our goal on earth is to eliminate human suffering is flawed. If there were no more human suffering, what would we have to offer up to Christ on the Cross? One of Catholicisms greatest aspects is that we find meaning in suffering. The problem with human suffering isn’t that it exists, it’s that so many of us don’t know what to do with it.

Number 2, if you try to engage in an atheism vs all religions debate you will find yourself of shaky ground. We can’t make a defense for all religions because we believe that only one of them is purely true. Of the many, many, religions that exist and have existed, the vast majority of them have false beliefs. Those false beliefs will cause the human tragedies. Atheism is like all the other religions - just another system of false beliefs that will ultimately cause tragedy when practiced to the extreme.