I'll say it. Religion has never directly killed anyone.

[Taverner]

Indirectly, yes.

Directly, no.

And I am even counting places with religious police (Iran, Saudi Arabia) where religion was used exclusively as justification for killing people.

No, these people let their fanaticism dictate their reason, and as a result, they concluded the reasonable thing to do was killing the sinner.

[MindMover]

1. take a look at this....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

[Taverner]

Perfect example of religion indirectly killing thousands. Millions perhaps.

Let me address it this way: religion says anything you want it to. I can use the Koran to show support for homosexuality, the bible to show support for staying drunk all day and Buddhist scripture to show support for war.

Now the interpreter of the religion is where the direct/indirect crux changes.

[Thats my opinion]

23. Like every other perspective,

religion has its very dark side. When it is exclusive, walls all others out, believes it has the only truth, it can be deadly. But so can Pol Pot, Stalin, and good secularists who decided to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and to Agent Orange an entire nation--without a shred of religious sentiment. Maybe it says something about human nature when it is imperialistic--as often religion haws been.

[no_hypocrisy]

10. + 1

[AmericaIsGreat]

2. Of course it didn't

It's a belief system, not an object or person so obviously it cannot directly kill anything.

But people become the tools for religion to cause death when they are uneducated, uninformed, and indoctrinated into this belief system, one based on nothing more than the attempts by early, superstitious, desert-dwelling tribes to explain reality.

[Taverner]

3. And on that we agree completely

I am an Atheist who harbors quite a bit of ill will for religion and faith

However, I would argue religion becomes the tool (justification) for people to cause death

[MarkCharles]

6. Well stated. Right! Belief systems, in and of themselves only serve to

motivate groups of humans to kill or to not kill, (love) other groups of humans.

Many wars in history have had a religion used as a motivating factor. Don't we all remember 9/11/2001 and Bush's improper use f the word "Crusade" soon thereafter?

[We_Must_Organize]

4. But thats not the point is it?

Religion is the root of the largest, most ridiculous problems in the world. It makes no difference if religion has killed people directly or indirectly - it still kills people because of idiots who believe in fairy tales.

[Taverner]

7. It can lead to killing people, yes. And it is built on a house of cards.

Invisible friends that the believer can only "feel" but that leave no evidence

No way to base the structure of your reality on...

BUT, it can lead to good

Mostly, however, it leads to the banal and mundane...

[Speck Tater]

5. Bullets have never directly killed anyone either.

They have only caused a leak in an artery, or damaged some organ or another which was, indirectly, involved in a failure to deliver glucose and oxygen to the brain. The bullet was only indirectly involved in the events that lead to the brain shutting down.

[Taverner]

8. If you take a holistic approach, then yes, religion kills

But if you are going to do that, you have to go all the way and take in the interconnectedness of everything...

[Speck Tater]

20. OMG! My last post killed a kitten in Australia!. (Butterfly effect don't ya know.) nt

[FiveGoodMen]

9. What about exorcisms-gone-wrong?

[MarkCharles]

11. Or even what we have seen with people who refuse to get medical treatment

for their children, or fellow members of their faith?

ONLY a religion and outlandish religious beliefs kept them from getting what is proper human medical care.

[Taverner]

Hmmm...you have a good point there

Because exorcisms are direct. Not indirect, but flat out direct.

Yet another reason to look at this all in a holistic sense

[HockeyMom]

12. Crusades or even Northern Ireland?

What about those?

[Taverner]

14. Indirect, yes. Direct, no. HOWEVER, a poster pointed out exorcisms gone wrong

And that is a case of a direct link...so let me get back to you

[Tempest]

13. Apparently you've forgotten about that Spanish Inquisition thing. n/t

[haikugal]

15. Nonsense...

If that were true a case could be made for the KKK or the Nazi's....of course religion has been directly responsible for the murder of millions...look at what happened to the Aztecs...but their 'souls' we saved...the same story was repeated over and over around the world. Yes religion is responsible...

[saras]

16. People practicing religion kill all the time, but no, abstractions don't kill

Their religious books, religious leaders, and religious experiences tell them to kill, so they do.

But no, religion doesn't kill any more than velocity does. Object MOVING at high velocity kill.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. Nice Sophistry

[shraby]

18. How about Bloody Mary in England??

And the witches who were dunked and didn't float?

[darkstar3]

19. Horrifying ideas don't kill people. People who hold horrifying ideas kill people.

[LAGC]

25. +1

Well said.

[pennylane100]

21. Religion has caused the death of millions of people

maybe even billions. Regardless of whether it was directly or indirectly, it does not matter, they are still dead, gone, never coming back. The rest is just semantics.

[Plantaganet]

22. Mmmm...

...well, the Bible does, in no uncertain terms, call for homosexuals to be put to death. And for a whopping number of people around the planet that's their instruction book, so...

It's not precisely the same thing as a Bible standing up and actually murdering a gay person, but it's pretty close. Not much fanaticism is necessary at that point!

[jeepnstein]

27. Not any more.

Jesus pretty much put an end to the concept of stoning someone for certain sins when he drew that line in the sand over the woman who was accused of adultery. How can I possibly put someone to death for a sin when I'm chock full of them myself. And the biggest sinner is the one who thinks they never do it.

[Plantaganet]

31. Phew!

What a relief! I assume the OT will be taken out of circulation pronto, eh?

[PassingFair]

24. Oh yeah? What about THIS:

[jeepnstein]

26. Directly, all the time.

Some religions were known to include human sacrifice as a central part of their rituals. Oh, and nobody ever expects the Spanish Inquisition. The Jonestown tragedy was the direct result of a directive from the cult's leader. I could go on and on.

Religion is a dangerous thing that must be handled with care. In the wrong hands it can be used to justify about any heinous act you can imagine. I'm religious but that doesn't mean I don't see the dangers of it all.

[LeftishBrit]

28. I'm reminded of the slogan by gun owners...

'Guns don't kill people; people kill people'.

Similarly, religions don't kill people; people kill people.

But the world would be a better place if *both* guns *and* religion could be kept out of the hands of those who are already violent, sadistic, or seriously out of touch with reality.

[deacon_sephiroth]

29. I'll say this. That's stupid

You're simply making a semantic point.

"Beiber Fever" has never killed anyone. A stampede of crazed girls might, but not the condition of liking someone.

Liking Classical music has never killed anyone. You might get hit by a car if you're listening to it on your headphones, but the music didn't kill you.

DU has never KILLED anyone. I might lose brain cells because I actually stooped to respond to this pathetic troll of a post, but the website didn't KILL me...

Your point is made, and I agree, but it was a waste of time AT BEST.

[MarkCharles]

30. Why a supposed Atheist would start a pointless exercise in sophistry as a legitimate

thread here?

I cannot imagine why. Boredom?