I hear this very often and I've been trying to look for this statistic. Anyone know where I should check? Has this been researched, is it debated? One more question.. Isn't it pretty obvious that the leading cause of death would be the most important thing in people's lives? Since it's so obvious, what value does that statement hold really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate developed countries? Ischaemic heart disease undeveloped countries: HIV-AIDS overall: Cardiovascular disease War isn't exactly high on the list. I don't see religion on there. You could make an argument about Africa and AIDS, because of the Catholic's church spreading of disinformation about condoms, and then add on part of the War/Violence/Suicide death toll to religion. I haven't seen your stat before, but Cardiovascular disease really is the King Kong of the death list right now (#3 is Ischemic heart disease, I'm too dumb to know why they wouldn't be combined.... figuring out why will give me something to do this morning!). Maybe your statistic is supposed to be in the history of the world? But then, I wouldn't see how infectious and parasitic disease wouldn't be at the top (currently #2).
I don't think anyone would seriously argue that religion or violence inspired by religion is the leading cause of death.
happened to see this on digg a few days ago, not sure how credible it is..interesting nonetheless http://bhascience.blogspot.com/2009/06/atheist-nations-are-more-peaceful.html
does the BBS Hangout: Debate and Discussion need to be broken down into even more categories? BBS Hangout: D&D - Religion BBS Hangout: D&D - Politics & Other
OK um. The reason its quoted is because of all the deaths related to religions such as those during the crusades and any other religious war. I beleive the holocaust is counted in this number as well. And when you have thousands of years of folks being killed over religion, its easy to see how it ranks on top. But no, for you as an individual in the USA I would put death at the hands of a religious situation to be extremely low. Unless you are a Christian and some how some anti-Christian laws come into effect in the future. But don't count on it.
Unless religion causes heart disease and cancer, the answer to your question is no. If you mean to say that religion is the leading cause of violent death, the answer to your question is still no. Why? Because religion isn't a cause for anything; it's a pre-text for rationalizing human behavior: some bad (genocide, judgmental parenting, christian rock), and some good (Western government, education and culture, abolitionism, civil rights, Friday fish fries).
I am not religious nor do I think it's particularly necessary in the modern world. However - without it human civilization may not have existed. We are evolved to have religion - it's wired into us. It's part of forming social groups and social justice in primitive man.
I would think old age was the leading cause of death. But religion is probably the leading cause of war or conflict throughout history. DD
Religion is not the leading cause of war. Land is. Look at WWI, WWII, VIetnam, Korea, The revolutionary war, The Civil War, Qin Shi Huang's war to unify China, The French's wars in Northern Africa, The Thirty Years war in Europe, The Boer Wars with the British. The War of 1812, etc. The list of wars that weren't caused by religion are far more numerous than those caused by religion. I often here the phrase uttered that Religion is the cause of most of the wars, but it just isn't true.
Everything is about economics. Land is but one of many resources that are fought over. Religious wars in the past meant fighting for control of the will and consent of the masses -- a necessary requirement if you hope to govern them. Nowadays? Not so much. It's mostly wrapped up in just another we vs. them distinction, with the we seeking to gain economic advantage at the expense of "them", who of course deserve to die because they pray differently than we do. I used to argue that the wars of modern Israel and the Falklands weren't about economics, but I was wrong. They were.
True, economics is the reason behind the reasons. That's true of the crusades as well. When you have Christians attacking other Christian strongholds it only goes to show that it wasn't all about religion. That was only the guise.
To expand your definition here, I would say that the leading cause of war is resources (of which land is a part). However, religion is probably the all-time leading justification of war - meaning it's the "stated reason" for fighting or the means of demonizing the opponent. Even more modern wars have used religion (i.e. taking down those godless commies) as a justification. Of course, everything I've just said is a gross simplification - the reality is that war is fought by large groups of people, and each of those persons has a number of priorities/reasons/justification that had led them to participate.
