Can anybody point to any religion or non-religion which has not caused death because of its believes?

Question

These includes christians, Muslims, buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, pagans , etc. Nobody is totally inoocent and nobody is totally guilty, so why can't we all accept no matter what religion you are attrocities occurs.

Buddhism is not as innocent as you make it out to be.

I am think of stalin's Russia and Mao's China.

Answer 1

You raise an interesting question. As some of the other answerers have pointed out, there may be certain religions, such as Jainists, which are adherents of non-violent beliefs and practice those beliefs in their lives and in pursuing their religion. Others have also pointed out sects within some of the established religions (such as the Amish, Quakers, and the specific example of the Muslim sect) which also practice their religion in a way that has not caused harm/death to believers AND to non-believers.

However, and unfortunately, like many other things in life, there is a spectrum of views/beliefs/practices of the religions. At one end of the spectrum, you will find those adherents, such as the Amish, who are non violent / non confrontational, etc.

As you move along the spectrum, there is the middle ground, people who practice their religion, with some "fuzziness / gray areas" regarding treatment of believers and/or non-believers.

Continuing along the spectrum to the other extreme, you find the zealots, who, like the other sects, have their own particular interpretation of how their religion should be practiced. Unfortunately, those tend to be intolerant of how others are practicing the religion, never mind their views of other religions or "non-believers". These are the folks who have caused misery and tragedy for others, believers and non-believers alike, throughout history. Examples might include the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, treatment of the native peoples of South America by the Spanish conquistadores, the Branch Davidians (ie. David Koresh), the Taliban, and a countless number of other individuals and sects from all the major religions.

Unfortunately, I don't think much can be done about these people/sects who are on the fringes, at the extremes of their particular religion's system of beliefs, values and teaching. There will always be those people who have their own view of how the religion should be practiced, who can convince others of their beliefs, who believe they are the "chosen one", and who will follow whatever means necessary, including violence, to compel others to "share their vision" and adopt their way of believing and practicing the religion, and, for those who don't, they will contravene and subvert all the teachings and values at the core of their religion in the name of their own way of practicing the religion, with the belief that they are saving the other people or doing god's work or whatever other guise they choose to cloak their actions with.


Just to comment on a few inaccuracies I have noticed; Hitler did not exterminate a single Jew in the name of religion or in the name of the teachings of Martin Luther. You don't need to be a believer in any religion to be an anti-Semite (or anti-whatever for that matter). He was an extremist, an ignorant, hateful man, who also happened to be a very powerful speaker and motivator who was able to capitalize on a general Anti-Semitic sentiment that existed in Europe at the time (read the book "Explaining Hitler" and you will find that the anti-Semitism in Europe during the 30's was very strong, even stronger in France than in Germany at the time). Hitler was able to channel the misery and disappointment and economic troubles of Germany during the 30's towards one group, the Jews. The Jews become an easy scapegoat for all of Germany's ills of the period. The Holocaust was the result of the channeling of this blame into the most extreme, violent acts immaginable, but was NEVER done under the guise of Hitler's religious beliefs or Martin Luther's teachings

Answer 2

The Jain religion believes in not harming any living creature. Some Jains even wear gauze over their mouths so they won't inhale insects.

Buddhism is not too bad. There are different kinds of Buddhists, though. I mean Japan was Buddhist when they started WWII, so it's not a perfect rule. But in general Buddhists are relatively non-violent.

There is a philosophy of non-violence, as written about and practiced by Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King. It' s not a religion, but is usually thought of as being related to religion--MLK, for instance, believed it was part of Christianity (though apparently most Christians woudln't agree with him about that, which is very sad). But this idea of non-violence is not about just being passive and letting people step all over you, it says that you can get what you want by non-violence because violence doesn't work.

The main reason I am not religious is that I see all religious beliefs seem to have a frightening capacity for hypocrisy. People join a religion because of the principles but then too often they leave the principles behind. Not all religious people do this, just some. Religion, for them, becomes just a justification to do some very ungodly things. 8^<

Answer 3

Most every religion, if practiced the way it teaches, results in a peaceful following.

Islam has been trampled on the most and has been called a violent religion. However, this is largely in part due to Muslims not practicing Islam properly at all.

**To Answer the Question Proposed**
The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community (www.alislam.org) practices Islam as it was meant to be practiced. Since it's inception in 1889, there is not a SINGLE CASE anywhere in the wold that caused death or violence by an Ahmadi Muslim, because of his/her teachings or understanding of Islam.

Answer 4

Religion can be instrumentally good, in that most people aren't bright enough to think for themselves in any meaningful way nor are they able to understand morality derived through reason. ( The latter is illustrated quite clearly by those here who think that morality can't exist without god. (btw, I just attended a round table of philosophy professors where the question was "can one be both religious and moral?" the consensus was no.)) Since most people would not be able to order their lives or act morally without simply being told what to do, religion is good for them and the rest of us should just ignore them and be happy they are not making a nuisance of themselves. The problem is that there are so many of them giving them political power that they are completely unsuited for. Religion is useful to control those whose intellect never exceeds that of a child, but we don't want children running the government.

Answer 5

Religion has nothing to do with it...People kill People..You take one fanatic, like HIlter...he convinced the Germans they were superior to the Jews and look what happened...

Or take Osama...Muslims belong to such a strict religion...you tell them thay can have 14 virgins and do whatever they want when they die...and they will slam airplanes into buildings to get there.

Jim Jones was a man who was slowly losing mind and look at the followers he had...he took the sad, the lonely, the rejected and made them into a family...they would have done anything he said...we are lucky he just decided to kill himself and his followers..he could have turned them into killers...they would have followered him anywhere.

A charismatic man can lead a whole nation astray and one is coming soon who will lead the whole world astray except for those who are following the right path and reconize who he is and what he is up to...the Anti-Christ..


You raise up a child to hate a certain group of people the way the Palenstians do,,,(see the new Killer Bee) and they will grow up with thinking it is their duty to kill off innocent people..religion is not behind this...it is pure hatred.."you took what is mine, I want it back" but the children aren't so much of aware, they just belive what they are told.

Hate...that is it, plain and simple....done by people with an agenda...hardly ever, does it have anything to do with loving God and following him or an other diety..most teach love, not hate.

And atheistis are just as guilty as anyone else of hate..the poster that implied atheists don't do these things is just ridiculous.

Answer 6

No. And it would be grossly unfair to blame the prophets that propagated these religions. All of them were advocates of peace, serenity and goodwill to others with a rider to the effect that it was "not on" to criticize anyone elses beliefs. Through the ages malevolent manipulaters of men have used religion as a tool to their own ends - that is were the whole thing falls apart. The prophets were peace loving souls..... all of them. I would rather burn in hell than believe that any of the above would have condoned the wars that were fought in their names.

Answer 7

Not possible. The Quakers were pacifists and even disowned members who joined military units. Still because they supported abolitionist causes, this lead to the civil war, and the deaths of thousands. So the support of even the most noble virtues may lead to unintended consquences.

Answer 8

That's right. Every reason has been used to kill or exploit people and usually the attrocities are contrary to the ethics of the cause in whose name the evils are committed.

Answer 9

I forgot who said it, but "Without religion you'd still have good people doing good things and bad people doing bad things, but for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."

The only death atheism has caused has been the death of atheists at the hands of theists. Christians and muslims used to (and sometimes still do, even in America!) kill atheists and non-believers whereever they were found. But there hasn't been real killing on the part of atheists because of their atheism.

More importantly, atheists never strap bombs to their chests and blow up in city squares, nor do they fly planes into buildings, blow up health clinics or start holocausts.


Stalin and Mao never killed for their atheism, they killed for their lust of power and their communist, totalitarian idealogies. Stalin didn't kill people for being christian, he killed those who were a threat to him, and he killed those who opposed his regime. His beliefs did not factor into it.

It wasn't like Hitler who killed Jews because he believed strongly in the word of Martin Luther and that Jews should all be killed for murdering the savior. Hitler killed because of his religion, Stalin and Mao killed for their ideology. See the difference?

Answer 10

theists cause way too many problems.

hell, even the same religions like to kill each other.. like the protestants and the catholics in ireland, or the sunni and the shiites in the ME. what a mess..

I'm not sure what atrocities you could think of coming from atheists or agnostics (I'm an agnostic).