What is the best way to respond to this common atheist objection? (religious violence)

[JChapel]

I’ve heard this argument once or twice, never personally directed at me, but I’d like to be well-equipped should I ever have to respond to it.

It usually goes something like this: “Radical muslims may have been the ones to attack us on 911, but Christians provoked it, therefore all religion (in general) is good for is causing war, and while some good may come out of it (e.g. religious charities), it’s more trouble than it’s worth.”

The crusades / spanish inquisition / violent old testament chapters are occasionally brought up to bolster this argument against Christians.

What do you think is the best way to go about responding to this?

 

[freethinker83]

Religious folks like to bring up Stalin because he was an atheist and did many horrible things. Also note that there is no holy book for atheism and therefore no scripture to interpret which leads to violence. You might want to start with Stalin. If you can figure out how his intepretation of a non-belief with no dogma or belief system was what led to his actions you will have a winning argument.

 

[Garyjohn2]

There are many angles to take, but you’d probably first have to get down to specifics. How did Christians provoke 9/11? Was this due to their faith, or in spite of it?

Most violence is not done because of faith, but in spite of it. Since Christianity doesn’t condone or promote violence, this is almost always the case and is a good platform to jump off from. It’s also a very, very important fact to consider.

In addition, religion isn’t the only thing used to justify violence and trouble in the world…and if for some reason religion didn’t exist, men and women of greed, corruption, or insanity would just filter out to the other “excuses” they need to cause harm.

It’s good to ask questions to the accuser, get to specifics and then go from there.
I’d write more, but I’m have a time restraint right now!

 

[nickybr38]

I’ve heard this argument once or twice, never personally directed at me, but I’d like to be well-equipped should I ever have to respond to it.

It usually goes something like this: “Radical muslims may have been the ones to attack us on 911, but Christians provoked it, therefore all religion (in general) is good for is causing war, and while some good may come out of it (e.g. religious charities), it’s more trouble than it’s worth.”

The crusades / spanish inquisition / violent old testament chapters are occasionally brought up to bolster this argument against Christians.

What do you think is the best way to go about responding to this?

I don’t know a good way to respond but I usually respond to this objection as follows:

Without religion there would still be evil men who would instigate wars… their excuses would just change from religious means to something else.

To blame religion FOR wars and violence is short-sighted. We have to look deeper. Into humanity and inside of humanity you will find the real root of war and violence, not inside religion.

 

[freethinker83]

Most violence is not done because of faith, but in spite of it. Since Christianity doesn’t condone or promote violence, this is almost always the case and is a good platform to jump off from.

It is easy to say this, but there are plenty of verses in the Bible that could be reasonably understood to condone violence against non-Christians or non-Jews that the atheist could point to. I’m by no means a bible scholar, but more studied atheists are better at pointing these out.

I understand the Catholic Church does not preach violence, but it would be easy for some nut to read the Bible that way.

 

[Garyjohn2]

It is easy to say this, but there are plenty of verses in the Bible that could be reasonably understood to condone violence against non-Christians or non-Jews that the atheist could point to. I’m by no means a bible scholar, but more studied atheists are better at pointing these out.

I understand the Catholic Church does not preach violence, but it would be easy for some nut to read the Bible that way.

That is very true! That’s why its important to have an authority to interpret and spread the correct teachings (ie, the church). Still, nuts will always find a way.

 

[freethinker83]

Without religion there would still be evil men who would instigate wars… their excuses would just change from religious means to something else.

This is one of the best posts I’ve read anywhere on the topic. There are atheists who do horrible things, there are religious men who do horrible things. An atheist can’t really do it in the name of atheism as there is not really any unified atheist philosophy. Other “isms” have been used by evil atheists to justify their actions.

 

[nickybr38]

It is easy to say this, but there are plenty of verses in the Bible that could be reasonably understood to condone violence against non-Christians or non-Jews that the atheist could point to. I’m by no means a bible scholar, but more studied atheists are better at pointing these out.

I understand the Catholic Church does not preach violence, but it would be easy for some nut to read the Bible that way.

It can be argued that much literature can be seen as inciting violence and/or encouraging it. Does that mean we should ban any ideas that could possibly incite one to violence?

You’re not one of those who think violent music should be banned are you?

 

[nickybr38]

This is one of the best posts I’ve read anywhere on the topic. There are atheists who do horrible things, there are religious men who do horrible things. An atheist can’t really do it in the name of atheism as there is not really any unified atheist philosophy. Other “isms” have been used by evil atheists to justify their actions.

Oh, thanks. Like I said I’m not sure if it’s necessarily a strong argument but it’s how I see things.

Religion, or lack thereof, is often just the excuse for people who are mentally unbalanced and/or inclined to evil. It’s unfortunate but true.

 

[freethinker83]

It can be argued that much literature can be seen as inciting violence and/or encouraging it. Does that mean we should ban any ideas that could possibly incite one to violence?

I agree with you about the literature. I absolutely disagree with banning it, I didn’t mean to suggest that at all! I am about as big of a free speech supporter as they come!

You’re not one of those who think violent music should be banned are you?

See previous comment

 

[freethinker83]

Religion, or lack thereof, is often just the excuse for people who are mentally unbalanced and/or inclined to evil. It’s unfortunate but true.

Very true. I would never suggest that religion leads sane leaders to violence or that any other “ism” leads sane people to do evil.

 

[nickybr38]

I agree with you about the literature. I absolutely disagree with banning it, I didn’t mean to suggest that at all! I am about as big of a free speech supporter as they come!

See previous comment

Cool.

 

[followingtheway]

1. 
   *]Joseph Stalin - Atheist
   *]Mao Zedong - Atheist
   *]Pol Pot - Atheist
   *]North Korea - Atheist
   *]Fidel Castro - Atheist
   
   And so forth and so forth. I would say the abuse of religion is the true killer. Not religion itself.

 

[nickybr38]

Very true. I would never suggest that religion leads sane leaders to violence or that any other “ism” leads sane people to do evil.

Well, now I’m curious. Have you ever been the sort to argue that ‘religion is the source of violence’? And/or that if religion was just removed there wouldn’t be anymore wars? Or that religion is the ‘cause’ of every great evil in history?

If not, how do you respond when fellow atheists use this argument?

 

[freethinker83]

Well, now I’m curious. Have you ever been the sort to argue that ‘religion is the source of violence’? And/or that if religion was just removed there wouldn’t be anymore wars? Or that religion is the ‘cause’ of every great evil in history?

If not, how do you respond when fellow atheists use this argument?

I don’t really want to get into a debate here, so take this how you will. I would never say that religion is the source of violence. I would also never say that there would be no more wars. Again, I would never say that it is the cause of every great evil. I haven’t met many rational atheists who would disagree with me here.

Now do I think religion is the source of some violence? Yes. Just look at Israel’s situation in the Middle East. I’m not saying religion is solely to blame for the situation, but it is certainly a factor.

Yes, there would still be wars without religion. Was religion the cause of the 20th century wars in Korea and Vietnam? No.

 

[Nelka]

1. 
   *]Joseph Stalin - Atheist
   *]Mao Zedong - Atheist
   *]Pol Pot - Atheist
   *]North Korea - Atheist
   *]Fidel Castro - Atheist
   
   And so forth and so forth. I would say the abuse of religion is the true killer. Not religion itself.

1. 
   Adolf Hitler had the words of the Our Father changed so they would be saying it about him.

 

[nickybr38]

I don’t really want to get into a debate here, so take this how you will. I would never say that religion is the source of violence. I would also never say that there would be no more wars. Again, I would never say that it is the cause of every great evil. I haven’t met many rational atheists who would disagree with me here.

Now do I think religion is the source of some violence? Yes. Just look at Israel’s situation in the Middle East. I’m not saying religion is solely to blame for the situation, but it is certainly a factor.

Yes, there would still be wars without religion. Was religion the cause of the 20th century wars in Korea and Vietnam? No.

Fair enough. I can respect that position. I don’t really debate anyway, I was just curious.

 

[Angela77]

You could respond that factions form in human society regardless of religion. If there were no religion, there are still political, economic, and social factions that would cause just as much violence.

Additionally, doesn’t the Pope NOT support war today. I’m sure there’s some quote out there where he condemns it.

 

[dusza]

I think atheists use the “violent religion” argument as a retort to “no peace without God” religious angle. I seriously doubt that people are (or become) atheists because of religious violence unless they’re in complete denial of 20th century history. I believe it’s just one of many arguments, but Freethinker83 maybe better equipped to answer that.

Though there’s no atheist bible per se, there certainly is a number of communist ones, which push to eradicate religion. Atheistic communism has indeed resulted in millions of deaths.

One of important Christian doctrines is that the Old Covenant has been fulfilled and replaced by the New, and as such the biblical violence angle cannot be used against Christians. There is no call to violence for a Christian.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot etc. communist ideology was explicitly atheistic, they wanted their society to be religion free, atheism was ideological inspiration at the core of their regimes.
All the religious violence combined in 2000 years has not killed as many people as the Communist atheist regimes did in four decades in the 20th century.

Father Barron once said, People are sinful, and finite, therefore it should not be any surprise that up and down the centuries Christians have done things, sometimes in the name of the Church. But in themselves they do not undermine the the validity of the Church’s great message. Someone commented once that Einstein’s physics is the ground for the atomic bomb which killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people,that is true, does that mean Einstein’s physics is wrong? Well no, it has been used sometimes for bad purposes. Catholicism, Christianity have been hijacked and used sometimes for very bad purposes, sometimes by Christians themselves, but that does not in itself undermine the message.