If religion is the problem according to some, why the atrocities in non religious countries/governments?

Question

People are always saying wars are started in the name of religion and if we could do away with religion there would be peace. What planet do these people live on? Take a look at what happens in societies that are godless...!

Answer 1

it is a method of gain, in the name of Jesus.   brought on by frear  from the devil.   if we fear enough, then reason is tossed out the window.

Answer 2

I, for one, do not blame religion. The cause of such regimes is the human

instinct to serve symbols in a symbolic inefficient manner. A god is a

symbol. So is a nation, and so is a demogogue. Stalin was the god of the

soviet communists. Kim Il-Sung is the god of the north koreans. Hitler was

the god of the n***s. Allah is the god of the muslim regimes, armies,

insurgents, and terrorists. It's the same wrongful mentality. Many theist

fanatics desire to suppress that fact.

Answer 3

first Hitler was a Cristian not an atheist all the commies were atheists yet they are all committed to this myth of the great workers revolution bringing in a Utopian world. any cause or being higher then human suffering in the here and now can lead to horrible atrocities particularly if it is above criticism as it is the one truth.

that's the thing wars slavery whatever horrible things you want can be explained though human greed and arrogance but religion provides an easy way to explain why they deserve it or how your really helping them if not for dogmatic xenophobic faiths we would still have wars WWI1 was completely secular in nature, but we would have fewer and less useful idiots

Answer 4

You typically get this line from ignorant drug addicts or at the risk of sounding redundant, musicians. John Lennon is an example of both. Hitler was an atheist and so was Stalin need one say more. And by the way "nobodies" you will never make a good "Useful Idiot" or "Orwellian Goose" so long as you insist upon asking all these rational questions.

Nevertheless, just to play devils advocate or shall I say God's advocate. (As if He needs one.) If not having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ (Being saved.) will in the end lead to eternal damnation without chance of extrication, than a church (Say one on seven hills? Or any other.) which feeds the poor and visits those in prison yet keeps mankind from the only truth that can eternally save him from unquenchable fire makes Adolph Hitler and his atheistic like ideologues look like saints in comparison.

Answer 5

Yes, examples abound: Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Enver Hoxha, Mao Tse Tung, Castro...

It's just that religion is seen as a convenient scapegoat.

Answer 6

First off, Hitler was not an atheist, he was raised Catholic and frequently referenced Christ and God in his speeches.  Just because Nietzsche may have been , doesn't automatically make all n***s or even a majority of n***s atheists.  Much of the hatred for Jews in Germany came from along Lutheran tradition of hatred for Jews, that dates back to Martin Luther.

Communism is a close to a religion as a political belief can get.  It relies on a dogmatic, written belief system, not supported or altered by evidence.  Quoting the founder, deriving odd beliefs on the basis of minor passages in their "holy" book, irrational hatred for those declared outlaw within the book, etc...  If it looks like a duck...

As for secular countries, the USA is a secular country and we commit relatively fewer atrocities.

Answer 7

Religion is a problem in that it requires its followers to appease God.  Throughout history people have tried to do their appeasing by killing those who refuse to accept the "correct" means of appeasement or through rituals.  As a Christian I view my faith as a relationship rather than a religion due to the fact that Christ has fulfilled all the requirements necessary for me to relate to a righteous God. As far as atheistic nations or those involved in pagan or occultic practices, they have been responsible for far more atrocities, genocides, and wars than all of the so called religious wars combined. Hitler and Norega were devoted to the occult.  Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Castro were atheist.  So yes I think it especially hypocritical for atheist and pagans to criticize religious wars.

Answer 8

Yeah, religion tends to get a bad rap in this area. Not that there haven't been religious wars and atrocities, but religion certainly wasn't responsible for all of them. I might argue that something as simple as conflicts over resources have been responsible for the majority of the violence in our past. Territory is another big one, if you don't consider territory a resource. Deep down, most people are really very pragmatic like that.

I don't think getting of religion would solve any of our problems of this nature. People act out their violent tendencies through religion, using it as an excuse. It's not like getting rid of one excuse is going to change the whole exercise. Nearly identical atrocities get pervaded for purely political reasons. In fact, when we think of the big religious atrocities, like the Inquisition, we see that those countries had state religions. People were, in part, being tortured for political reasons.

Answer 9

people use religion as an excuse - wars are all about power and money and that is all.

Answer 10

I agree there are many reasons for this. Religion is like the human concience for some. Alot of some religions rules "do not kill, do not commit adultery,ect." keep people particially in line so as not to anger their god or goddess to where the "non believer" can run by their rules without much fear of punishment

Answer 11

Yes, but the fact that the non-religious can be as destructive as the religious, is no reason to keep hanging on to delusion.

Answer 12

Both ways are used destructively by ignorant people. The "religious" tends to claim that what they do is for the good, the "non-religious" claims to live by through their own logical reasoning without the help of religion. (Note that I putted quotations on the above terms as to not generalize everyone; I only meant these kinds of people who are siding on either of the two groups)

Even if the non-religious didn't believe in a god they would still have something to worship as if it/he/she was one. To me destructive use of religion as the excuse for violent actions takes longer to actually happen while it's the opposite for the non-religious. The religious are like the conservatives as the non-religious are like radicals. Non-religious people tends to be "open" or thinks the way they want to believe.

Most of the time if one were to reflect in the past between these two, of course non-religious groups were formed proabably from any unfair mistakes people (within religious groups) have done unto them, criticising them as if they were the "perfect" ones instead of just stating their opinions or perspectives. Non-religious people joins together and thus insists independence from religion, relying on what they believe is fair, logical, and reasonable as their best judgements.