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

  • Thread starter Thread starter JChapel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
I don’t know that it would even be possible for you to come up with numbers to justify this claim. Also, the world population has grown quite fast over the centuries, so it is probably fairer to look at it on a percentage of the population basis. It is probably also important to note the grim reality that modern technologies make it easier to kill on a widespread basis than ancient ones.

What about the US dropping the atomic bomb twice in Japan? Yes it was an act of war, but it also killed thousands of innocent men, women, and children. With abortion doesn’t the Church say you cannot justify taking one life to save another? Would you say that it was the act of a Capitalist Christian regime? The president at the time, Harry Truman was a Christian. I don’t think it would be fair not to label it this way if you want to label others in the opposite way.

Another point; look at the current violent crime statistics in a largely religious country like the US. Compare those stats to violent crime numbers in countries with large atheist populations such as Japan and the Scandinavian countries.
 
I don’t know that it would even be possible for you to come up with numbers to justify this claim. Also, the world population has grown quite fast over the centuries, so it is probably fairer to look at it on a percentage of the population basis. It is probably also important to note the grim reality that modern technologies make it easier to kill on a widespread basis than ancient ones.
Be serious. One murder 2000 years ago, will count as 10 murders now? Or better yet, a life counts less, because there are just so many more of them? Unless you’re Paul R. Ehrlich, 30 million lives now count as much as then.
What about the US dropping the atomic bomb twice in Japan? Yes it was an act of war, but it also killed thousands of innocent men, women, and children. With abortion doesn’t the Church say you cannot justify taking one life to save another? Would you say that it was the act of a Capitalist Christian regime? The president at the time, Harry Truman was a Christian. I don’t think it would be fair not to label it this way if you want to label others in the opposite way.
So where does the Church say it’s OK to bomb civilian populations?
Another point; look at the current violent crime statistics in a largely religious country like the US. Compare those stats to violent crime numbers in countries with large atheist populations such as Japan and the Scandinavian countries.
We’re just too tolerant. 😉 Besides, Japan atheist? I think you may be confusing atheist with secular. Scandinavian countries are about as large and atheist as U.S. is small and religious.
 
Thanks for the answers so far, everyone. Just thought I’d like to mention that today’s episode of Catholic Answers Live on Islam (should be available in podcast form Monday night) was really helpful on the Islam side of the argument.
 
Be serious. One murder 2000 years ago, will count as 10 murders now? Or better yet, a life counts less, because there are just so many more of them? Unless you’re Paul R. Ehrlich, 30 million lives now count as much as then.
No, lives are not less valuable now. I’m just saying that to accurately compare statistics they must be taken in context.
So where does the Church say it’s OK to bomb civilian populations?
I didn’t say that it did. I was just saying that Truman happened to be a Christian and also happened to order the bombs dropped. Stalin happened to be atheist and happened to commit horrible atrocities.
We’re just too tolerant. 😉 Besides, Japan atheist? I think you may be confusing atheist with secular. Scandinavian countries are about as large and atheist as U.S. is small and religious.
Many Japanese are Buddhists and many people consider Buddhists to be atheists. I don’t follow your issue with my Scandinavian comparison. If you compare per capita crime stats they are much lower than the US.
 
There is also the aspect that religion is a response to the existence of God.

If He exists then religion is mandatory - no matter how much individual followers may get it wrong.

Which then brings one to the question of how a person knows what God wants, which brings up Divine Revelation and God’s Son - who founded a Church.

Just because there are medical quacks out there does not invalidate the concept of medicine. So just because there are folks who make a mess of following God does not invalidate all attempts to do so.

IMHO
 
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?
Hahaha tell your stupid little pal that the Majority of Wars are for ECONOMIC REASONS!

WWII wasn’t caused by Hitler wanting Christendom to rule Europe it was Lebensraum or Hitler’s moronic policy of having an autarkist Germany which would have no agricultural imports and would need to invade Poland and Russia in order to grow enough food because poor old Addy decided to skip Economics 101 for another lame art course on “how to hate Jews through bad imitation Kinkade art”

WWI wasn’t caused by Christianity it was secret alliances that started with the American Revolution (yep you can trace wars that far back) which led to the French Revolution, which led to Napoleon, which led to the Napoleonic Wars, which led to treaties among Prussia, Austria, and Russia to protect monarchy, which lead to the future Central Powers, which also wanted reparations against France for the wars, which lead France to be unstable, which led to Napoleon III, which led to the Franco-Prussian War, which led to a powerful growing Germany, which led to the Entente, which led to Austro-Hungary to declare war on Serbia, which led to Russia to declare war on AHE, which led to Germany to declare war on Russia, which led to WWI, which led to WWII, which led to Cold War, which leads to today, and which is all still 6 degrees from Kevin Bacon.

Vietnam wasn’t caused by religion, it was imperialism and after millions of deaths there still aren’t any Christians in Vietnam all the Frenchies left.

Gulf War was about Kuwait’s sovereignty, checking Iraq’s war mongering, and keeping oil supply stable

American Revolution was about debt and taxes

American Civil War…yeah you can blame that on Christianity. Christianity started with the “let’s end Slavery!” yep rotten Christians ruining everything, life was so much better with slaves before those meddling Christians had to intervene

Okay I really want to ask that big dummy who tells you these stupid questions, just what kind of wars is he talking about?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top