NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been looking it up almost everywhere, but I cant really find numbers on people killed by religion (I mean in the way that shows the victims caused by every religion seperately)
sorry to bother you with it, but I would like to know, in the mean time I will continue looking
Thank you for taking notice

I don't think anyone is too proud of it, so I don't think there are actual numbers. Just estimates.

I've been looking it up almost everywhere, but I cant really find numbers on people killed by religion (I mean in the way that shows the victims caused by every religion seperately)
sorry to bother you with it, but I would like to know, in the mean time I will continue looking
Thank you for taking notice

it'd be hard to find any statistics for that,try indirectly searching,like try and find the nember of people killed in the various crusades,and any other religious wars.that'd surely number in the millions.

I can't find the number of people who were killed by empiricism...

Damnit who keeps track of these things!

also, how do you define Religion?

witchcraft can be considered one. and so does Voudoun (VooDoo)

also, how do you define Religion?

witchcraft can be considered one. and so does Voudoun (VooDoo)

you could also include the sectarian deaths in nothern ireland.

also, how do you define Religion?

witchcraft can be considered one. and so does Voudoun (VooDoo) and ancient Religions like the Aztecs are rumored to have human sacrifices.

Just how do you attribute a death to religion ? how do we know it not to be a death for power, for land, for money, for ethnic or racist concerns, or for just pure pleasure. We could probably attribute every war in mans history to some degree to a religious belif... but in this same breath, we would have to attribute it to every other causality which leads to war including all of the above motivators.

You will likely never find an accurate number from which to cite.

also, how do you define Religion?

witchcraft can be considered one. and so does Voudoun (VooDoo)

I mean official religion, though if you could find numbers on deaths by any other religion or sect, that would be even better

I'd say it's pretty low. Almost all of the time, the killing is due to purely secular reasons dressed up in religious overtones to get the people to go along with it...the religion's just an excuse to do it. There are very few people who are truly motivated by religion to kill, so I'd say the number is low.

Of course, if you were to tally the people killed by anything even remotely involved with religion, it would be very high...definitely in the tens of millions, or even hundreds.

Such statistics are meaningless; people will always have one excuse or another to hurt or kill one another. Religion is merely a time-honoured excuse. Take it away, and people will simply find another.

Ain't humanity grand?

Religion is the ultimate form of propaganda, and the easiest scapegoat.

I'd say it's pretty low. Almost all of the time, the killing is due to purely secular reasons dressed up in religious overtones to get the people to go along with it...the religion's just an excuse to do it. There are very few people who are truly motivated by religion to kill, so I'd say the number is low.

Of course, if you were to tally the people killed by anything even remotely involved with religion, it would be very high...definitely in the tens of millions, or even hundreds.

That's exactly the reason I am looking for those numbers, to make people realise religion isn't bad in se, but it's so easily abused to make the undereducated agree with war or any other killing

That's exactly the reason I am looking for those numbers, to make people realise religion isn't bad in se, but it's so easily abused to make the undereducated agree with war or any other killing

Religion is dangerous.

I mean official religion, though if you could find numbers on deaths by any other religion or sect, that would be even betterare you looking for any time period?

and Religion doing the killing or Religion being the cause of the killings.

i.e. Person A is a member of the Bigtopian faith and he is killed because he is religious

I don't believe in victims. Classifying someone as a "victim" means that they are powerless to do anything about the situations they find themselves in. If one wants to say that a person's actions were not sufficient to change a situation, that's fine, but to classify people as completely helpless is degrading.

we ought to make a Victims of Religion website to parody Victims of Communism.org.

and/ or Victims of Capitalism.

you could also include the sectarian deaths in nothern ireland.You could if, in ignorance, you assumed that Protestant and Catholic actually meant their respective religious connotations rather than a community separation.

Religion is dangerous.

No, dogmatism is dangerous. Any ideology that has ever existed is dangerous if no one ever questions it and there is no independent thought.

I don't believe in victims. Classifying someone as a "victim" means that they are powerless to do anything about the situations they find themselves in. If one wants to say that a person's actions were not sufficient to change a situation, that's fine, but to classify people as completely helpless is degrading.

Well, if the person has been killed, and is unable to rise from the dead to take revenge, then I think 'victim' is a pretty good descriptor, don't you?

Well, if the person has been killed, and is unable to rise from the dead to take revenge, then I think 'victim' is a pretty good descriptor, don't you?

No. Viewing someone as a victim implies they never had an opportunity or any power to alter the situation. In some situations, the opportunity may be limited and the power may not be sufficient, but no situation is hopeless. After all, in a boxing match, would you consider the person that got KO'ed to be a "victim"?

No. Viewing someone as a victim implies they never had an opportunity or any power to alter the situation. In some situations, the opportunity may be limited and the power may not be sufficient, but no situation is hopeless. After all, in a boxing match, would you consider the person that got KO'ed to be a "victim"?
noun
1 victim
an unfortunate person who suffers from some adverse circumstance

Being killed by a crazy crusader would make one a victim.

No. Viewing someone as a victim implies they never had an opportunity or any power to alter the situation. In some situations, the opportunity may be limited and the power may not be sufficient, but no situation is hopeless. After all, in a boxing match, would you consider the person that got KO'ed to be a "victim"?

Being dead is pretty limiting, don't you agree? I know it's hard for you to follow, but KO =/= dead. Once you're dead, you can't struggle to make your fate better, can you? Therefore, dead == 'victim'. See?

there have been many crusades in history regarding religion. including the holy wars between the catholics and the muslims. there is also the continuing war between israel and jerusalem. the exact numbers of deaths in history cannot be sure but estimations can account fro practically billions. its also common sense about things of this sort, exact numbers are too hard to find.

noun
1 victim
an unfortunate person who suffers from some adverse circumstance

Being killed by a crazy crusader would make one a victim.

Still disagree. Who is to say that someone is unfortunate because they got killed? They may have been spared undergoing torture. As far as suffering goes, who is to say that they didn't die fighting for what they believed in?

This is one of my core beliefs here. That's why I'm digging my heels.


Being dead is pretty limiting, don't you agree? I know it's hard for you to follow, but KO =/= dead. Once you're dead, you can't struggle to make your fate better, can you? Therefore, dead == 'victim'. See?
Not necessarily, unless you want to say that all the martyrs in the world were victims of their causes.

And please refrain from being condescending. I do respect your opinion. I only ask that mine are shown the same respect.

I've been looking it up almost everywhere, but I cant really find numbers on people killed by religion (I mean in the way that shows the victims caused by every religion seperately)
sorry to bother you with it, but I would like to know, in the mean time I will continue looking
Thank you for taking notice
The answer is: 4. Not including Jesus.

Still disagree. Who is to say that someone is unfortunate because they got killed? They may have been spared undergoing torture. As far as suffering goes, who is to say that they didn't die fighting for what they believed in?

This is one of my core beliefs here. That's why I'm digging my heels.

Well, I don't dig your heels, but pumps tend to kill my feet, so I'll leave it at that. When you die against your will, you by definition become a 'victim'. Why is that so hard to understand?

No, dogmatism is dangerous. Any ideology that has ever existed is dangerous if no one ever questions it and there is no independent thought.

As I said, religion is dangerous. Religion is an ideology that promotes dependent thought.

I've been looking it up almost everywhere, but I cant really find numbers on people killed by religion (I mean in the way that shows the victims caused by every religion seperately)
sorry to bother you with it, but I would like to know, in the mean time I will continue looking
Thank you for taking notice
My goodness, i had no idea religion killed.

I know that knives, blunt objects, swords bullets that sort of thing wielded by people can kill--I was unaware that believing in a standardized set of Moral values based on a specific Mythos was lethal tothe Human condition.

Here I thought it was Human NAture that was the cause of so much death.

But of course--the Jews in Nazi Germany, the Catholics, the Unionists(oh but that isnt a religion is it) if they hadnt been people of religion they would not have been Murdered by an Atheist regime.

All the Soviet catholics tottured under that regime for not towing the party line and denouncing what should be a trivial fairy tale-of course it was indeed religion that killed them and not cruel human nature which slaves itself to power.

Ah, the Crusades--yes this was a religious endevour--any educated Historian will be the first to say otherwise but of course your brilliant insight into the lethality of having a different opinion then say perhaps YOU has opened my eyes.

You are one ofthe classic reason that so called "Believers" and "Non-Believers" can never sit in and have an insightful discussion.

Your misuse of Language to dilberately persucute people whom you happen to have a different opinion then is absolutely as bad anything you might claim to lay blame upon the History of religion.

It is just as bad because it is that line of thinking and not following a prescribed set of moral ideals that causes Wars , Genocide, Xenophobia and out right hatred and misunderstanding.

Well, I don't dig your heels, but pumps tend to kill my feet, so I'll leave it at that. When you die against your will, you by definition become a 'victim'. Why is that so hard to understand?
Simply because it is impossible to determine a person's "will" at the time of their death. Besides, what could be worse? Dying or surviving, only to be forced to practice a religion that one doesn't believe in?

Simply because it is impossible to determine a person's "will" at the time of their death. Besides, what could be worse? Dying or surviving, only to be forced to practice a religion that one doesn't believe in?

Dying is always worse, because the chances of you bettering your condition become zero once you're dead. With life, there's always the chance to change things. Being dead eliminates any possibility of being anything other than dead.

Dying is always worse, because the chances of you bettering your condition become zero once you're dead. With life, there's always the chance to change things. Being dead eliminates any possibility of being anything other than dead.

On the contrary, being dead can be liberating. How many people in the world have given their lives so that their friends, relatives, comrades, children, etc can go on to have a better life? If one limits their concept of life to just their own body, then death can be a truly terrifying experience. When one's life includes the life of others, then death is trivial.

On the contrary, being dead can be liberating. How many people in the world have given their lives so that their friends, relatives, comrades, children, etc can go on to have a better life? If one limits their concept of life to just their own body, then death can be a truly terrifying experience. When one's life includes the life of others, then death is trivial.

Only a moron believes giving your life for a cause will make things better. More can be achieved if you work to stay alive to ensure your cause succeeds.

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.
He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
- Attributed to General George Patton Jr

Only a moron believes giving your life for a cause will make things better. More can be achieved if you work to stay alive to ensure your cause succeeds.

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.
He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
- Attributed to General George Patton Jr
Morons may think that drinking water will satisfy their thirst, but that doesn't invalidate the idea because it came from a moron. Please stick to wrestling with the ideas, not the participants.

Anyway, if your choices are die so others may live, or die along with everyone else, giving one's life seems like a reasonable choice to me. If one allows concern for death to interfere with one's ideas, it tends to result in a life that's probably not worth much anyway.

Back to the term "victim" for a moment. The Nazis could definitely be considered "unfortunate people who suffered from some adverse circumstances" but I doubt that anyone would consider them "victims of American agression".

My goodness, i had no idea religion killed.

I know that knives, blunt objects, swords bullets that sort of thing wielded by people can kill--I was unaware that believing in a standardized set of Moral values based on a specific Mythos was lethal tothe Human condition.

Here I thought it was Human NAture that was the cause of so much death.

But of course--the Jews in Nazi Germany, the Catholics, the Unionists(oh but that isnt a religion is it) if they hadnt been people of religion they would not have been Murdered by an Atheist regime.

All the Soviet catholics tottured under that regime for not towing the party line and denouncing what should be a trivial fairy tale-of course it was indeed religion that killed them and not cruel human nature which slaves itself to power.

Ah, the Crusades--yes this was a religious endevour--any educated Historian will be the first to say otherwise but of course your brilliant insight into the lethality of having a different opinion then say perhaps YOU has opened my eyes.

You are one ofthe classic reason that so called "Believers" and "Non-Believers" can never sit in and have an insightful discussion.

Your misuse of Language to dilberately persucute people whom you happen to have a different opinion then is absolutely as bad anything you might claim to lay blame upon the History of religion.

It is just as bad because it is that line of thinking and not following a prescribed set of moral ideals that causes Wars , Genocide, Xenophobia and out right hatred and misunderstanding.
Relax, man, it's just a figure of speech. If you look at later posts, you'll see the original poster specifically states that they are looking for statistics to back up an argument that religion gets a bad rap for violence that actually has other motives. They are looking for historical statistics on a particular phenomenon, and the only point that's not clear is whether they mean:

1) killed because of their religion, as in the Christians persecuted by the Romans; or

2) killed by agents claiming authority under a religion, as in executions conducted by the Inquisition; or

3) killed by a war driven by religious division, as in the English Civil War.

Sheesh, don't be so touchy.

EDIT: Before you jump on me, I agree with the poster who said religion was the excuse for all these events, not the true cause. If it hadn't been religion, the perpetrators would have found some other excuse.

Well, I'm not sure about other religions, but in the case of SRA(Satanic Ritual Abuse), people don't do that stuff because of Satanism, but because of their own sick, twisted mind.

I hope you realise as you're looking for these stats ((That is, if you're trying to use them against religion)):

Almost 100% of the time the "martyrs" are completely disregarding their religion's doctrine.
'Fundamentalists' don't follow ANY fundamentals of their religion.
Islam and Christianity both preach love, peace, and acceptance. And they both have major laws against killing in any form but defence. They're just idiots that have- let me take a phrase from the old testament-

"He who troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind" - King Solomon, Book of Numbers ((I believe))


What religion is supposed to be: :fluffle:

What islamofascists and crusaders make it seem like:
:eek: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:
:confused: :sniper:

I've been looking it up almost everywhere, but I cant really find numbers on people killed by religion (I mean in the way that shows the victims caused by every religion seperately)
sorry to bother you with it, but I would like to know, in the mean time I will continue looking
Thank you for taking notice
Religion doesn't kill people. People kill people.