Who Were The Most Evil Atheists That Ever Lived? (Srs)

[AsianAesthetics]

But seriously, you see why that's stupid, right?

it's sentimental in most cases

[lemonadedildow]

humans are animals by nature, with religion came civilization..

[hooked4life]

I didn't say died while he was ruling them, I said suffered because of his actions. Mao set out to deliberately cause others evil to consolidate his power and create his political system. I don't think you can't discount intent either. I'm not a Bush fan, but I don't think he had evil intent, just poor process and understanding of the consequences of his actions.

So it's Mao's subjective inner mental process that makes him so evil now? What if he really believed he was doing the best for China. Most Chinese still think that's, mostly, true.

[Melkor]

So he's more evil because China had more people? Because Chinese took Mao's ideas and -RAN- with them?

More people died under G.W.Bush's leadership than Nero's (safe guess here), does that make Bush > Nero?

And I second the idea that, wiki, while good -might not- be the best place to link information from a HIGHLY controversial figure.

I'm not making the argument that Mao is the most evil to have lived, anyway. I'm just saying I can understand why he made the argument. Mao isn't exactly a great guy, and he did plenty of things to hurt people for no other reason than to gain or demonstrate his power. Wiki is probably not the best source, I agree, but I used it because it was easy and knowledge about Mao is pretty commonplace nowadays and agreed upon. Not many people disagree beyond just hashing out the actual numbers, as far as I understand it.

[hooked4life]

I'm not making the argument that Mao is the most evil to have lived, anyway. I'm just saying I can understand why he made the argument. Mao isn't exactly a great guy, and he did plenty of things to hurt people for no other reason than to gain or demonstrate his power. Wiki is probably not the best source, I agree, but I used it because it was easy and knowledge about Mao is pretty commonplace nowadays and agreed upon. Not many people disagree beyond just hashing out the actual numbers, as far as I understand it.

I don't think it's agreed upon at all. Personally, I'm sure of a few things about Mao.

[1] He believed in what he was doing
[2] He made a lot of mistakes, especially towards the end of his life
[3] He wasn't afraid to be brutal to keep power

I even think that China was better off for his rule, at least initially, than it would have been under a lot of other political outcomes.

[Milo3]

lol @ atheists saying Hitler wanted to kill Jews because of his religious convictions yet at the same time refuse to except what Stalin did. And Christians are the deluded fools.

LOOOOOOL!

[jusgentium]

Lavrentiy Beria.

He was Stalin's "Butcher" who killed countless people and was second in charge under Stalin until he was purged. He got the nickname of butcher because he wore his very own leather apron to cover his uniform when killing people

[hooked4life]

lol @ atheists saying Hitler wanted to kill Jews because of his religious convictions yet at the same time refuse to except what Stalin did. And Christians are the deluded fools.

LOOOOOOL!

It's not crazy at all.

Christianity: a positive belief system

Atheism: not believing something.

It's hard to kill people in the name of not believing in something.

[Melkor]

I don't think it's agreed upon at all. Personally, I'm sure of a few things about Mao.

[1] He believed in what he was doing
[2] He made a lot of mistakes, especially towards the end of his life
[3] He wasn't afraid to be brutal to keep power

I even think that China was better off for his rule, at least initially, than it would have been under a lot of other political outcomes.

What we appear to disagree on then is whether the ends justify the means. I don't think they do.

[hooked4life]

What we appear to disagree on then is whether the ends justify the means. I don't think they do.

Not at all. I think he thought he was doing the best for China, I also think he did some good, and it could have been much worse. I mean, the level of devastation in China after the imperial powers, warlord period, Japanese invasion, and civil war was just unimaginable. Mao got the country functioning (poorly at times) in a matter of years.

He's still celebrated today, there is -some- reason for that.

Again, not a fan of Mao at all, I just don't see how he can possibly be constantly thrown into a list with people like hitler and pol pot.

And honestly, I think a lot of that is simple mass miss-information.

[bird72]

So it's Mao's subjective inner mental process that makes him so evil now? What if he really believed he was doing the best for China. Most Chinese still think that's, mostly, true.

Some KKK think that lynching black people was on the best interest of America, that make their actions something good?

Mao is below the scum of the earth.

[Melkor]

Not at all. I think he thought he was doing the best for China, I also think he did some good, and it could have been much worse. I mean, the level of devastation in China after the imperial powers, warlord period, Japanese invasion, and civil war was just unimaginable. Mao got the country functioning (poorly at times) in a matter of years.

He's still celebrated today, there is -some- reason for that.

Again, not a fan of Mao at all, I just don't see how he can possibly be constantly thrown into a list with people like hitler and pol pot.

And honestly, I think a lot of that is simple mass miss-information.

Yeah, but to be fair, Hitler is still celebrated in Germany by some, Pol Pot by some, etc. I met people in Uganda that still loved Idi Amin. I can see your point, and I agree that there is probably a lot of misinformation about him, but I don't think it's skewed enough to move him out of the "evil dictator" column into the "whoops, I made a mistake" column.

[hooked4life]

Some KKK think that lynching black people was on the best interest of America, that make their actions something good?

Mao is below the scum of the earth.

Right, which is why I was rejecting that line of reasoning.

What you just did was reply to my reply of another poster. My reply was a paraphrase and questioning of that poster's assertion.

You should be quoting Melkor, but you won't because you agree with him.

[hooked4life]

Yeah, but to be fair, Hitler is still celebrated in Germany by some, Pol Pot by some, etc. I met people in Uganda that still loved Idi Amin. I can see your point, and I agree that there is probably a lot of misinformation about him, but I don't think it's skewed enough to move him out of the "evil dictator" column into the "whoops, I made a mistake" column.

Can we agree that Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot >> Mao?

Mao can still be evil for us to agree on this btw.

[Melkor]

Can we agree that Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot >> Mao?

Mao can still be evil for us to agree on this btw.

Sure, I'll go with you on that. I don't have any objective basis for doing so though.

[hooked4life]

Sure, I'll go with you on that. I don't have any objective basis for doing so though.

Touche :P

[bird72]

Can we agree that Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot >> Mao?

Mao can still be evil for us to agree on this btw.

I can agree on that....

[Scoundrel]

So it's Mao's subjective inner mental process that makes him so evil now? What if he really believed he was doing the best for China. Most Chinese still think that's, mostly, true.

hitler believed he was doing best for his people, etc. but ya, its all in the eyes of the beholder. some people think putting a bullet in the head is more evil than torture, and vice versa.

point being, there are 'evil' atheists, rephrased there are people who dont beleive in God who are evil as well. religion, community welfare, resources, etc are all excuses used for one to fulfill their agenda.

[hooked4life]

hitler believed he was doing best for his people, etc. but ya, its all in the eyes of the beholder. some people think putting a bullet in the head is more evil than torture, and vice versa.

point being, there are 'evil' atheists, rephrased there are people who dont beleive in God who are evil as well. religion, community welfare, resources, etc are all excuses used for one to fulfill their agenda.

You, like bird, are quoting the wrong person. I'm arguing against that assertion.

I also believe you don't know much about Mao, but are parroting some agenda you've heard.

But that's just my subjective belief.

[IAMRED]

it's sentimental in most cases

What is?

[NiceBoat]

Pol Pot maybe?

[TH3SHR3DD3R]

I would appreciate it if someone would go ahead and post, maybe, I dunno, a dictator that killed solely on the premise that he/she doesn't believe in God . . . or something higher than humanity such, as I dunno, their state. because any dictator that killed others in the name of his state would totally have, like, a theistic belief in the state. And thusly wasn't atheist. Jus' sayin'.

kthxbye

[Melkor]

I would appreciate it if someone would go ahead and post, maybe, I dunno, a dictator that killed solely on the premise that he/she doesn't believe in God . . . or something higher than humanity such, as I dunno, their state. because any dictator that killed others in the name of his state would totally have, like, a theistic belief in the state. And thusly wasn't atheist. Jus' sayin'.

kthxbye

lol @ a theistic belief in the state

not sure if srs

Pol Pot and others definitely killed people because they wanted to exterminate religion, so call that whatever you want, they killed people specifically to rid the world of religion. Sounds like killing in the name of atheism to me, but you can call it anti-theism if it makes you sleep better at night. In the end, it doesn't really matter, because no one has really learned anything from it anyway and we still have people that hate people because of their beliefs or lack thereof.

[TH3SHR3DD3R]

lol @ a theistic belief in the state

not sure if srs

Pol Pot and others definitely killed people because they wanted to exterminate religion, so call that whatever you want, they killed people specifically to rid the world of religion. Sounds like killing in the name of atheism to me, but you can call it anti-theism if it makes you sleep better at night. In the end, it doesn't really matter, because no one has really learned anything from it anyway and we still have people that hate people because of their beliefs or lack thereof.

Prince Norodom Sihanouk was the former king of Cambodia from 1941 as well as Head of State from 1955 to 1970 before resigning in 1976. He once said of Pol Pot:

"Pol Pot does not believe in God but he thinks that heaven, destiny, wants him to guide Cambodia in the way he thinks it the best for Cambodia, that is to say, the worst. Pol Pot is mad, you know, like Hitler."

Buddhists may not believe in God, but Atheists, by comparison, don't believe in anything beyond the natural and observable, heaven included (and Pol Pot’s comparison fellow Hitler in Sihanouk’s description was not an Atheist either). It seems that Pol Pot was not so big an Atheist as some Christians would like to present, mixing communism (social relations between humans) with atheism (humans relations with god) - they are two separate ideologies. The inflammatory comparison between the two is a logical fallacy in which the secular nature of Communism is assumed to justify the conclusion that all secularists are Communists, which is clearly not the case since an attribute of one system may also be an attribute of other systems. The American constitutional republic, for example, is also secular in nature.

Pol Pot convinced the Vietnamese to help the Cambodian Communists set up their own base camp. The central committee of the party met later that year and issued a declaration calling for armed struggle. The declaration also emphasized the idea of "self-reliance" in the sense of extreme Cambodian nationalism. In the border camps, the ideology of the Khmer Rouge was gradually developed. The party, breaking with Marxism, declared rural peasant farmers to be the true working class proletarian and the lifeblood of the revolution. This is in some sense explained by the fact that none of the central committee were in any sense "working class". All of them had grown up in a feudal peasant society. The party adapted elements of Theravada Buddhism to justify their non-standard Communism.

The class struggle of Marxism contradicts the individual competition implied by natural selection of Darwin's theory. Pol Pot tried to erase individuality as he thought that differences create conflicts. With his artificial equality, abolishing private possessions and so erasing natural selection from society he was doomed by Evolution to fail, like all other communists. Pol Pot targeted not just different religions as differences, but education, science and medicine too. Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge were composed of Buddhists and Pol Pot himself was a communist and Theravada Buddhist. Pol Pot studied at a Buddhist monastery (1 year) and then later at a Catholic school (8 years). As for “Collège Preah Sihanouk” and “Lycée Sisowath” I don’t know if they were secular or Buddhist oriented education institutions. Cambodia’s communism was influenced by Theravada Buddhism (the belief system of 95% of the Khmer people) and its teaching to renunciation of the material world as Pol Pot with his followers organized perfectly by smashing cars and modern industrial equipment with hammers.

WUT BUT I THOT HE WAS ATHIEEX?!?!?!

[Melkor]

Prince Norodom Sihanouk was the former king of Cambodia from 1941 as well as Head of State from 1955 to 1970 before resigning in 1976. He once said of Pol Pot:

"Pol Pot does not believe in God but he thinks that heaven, destiny, wants him to guide Cambodia in the way he thinks it the best for Cambodia, that is to say, the worst. Pol Pot is mad, you know, like Hitler."

Buddhists may not believe in God, but Atheists, by comparison, don't believe in anything beyond the natural and observable, heaven included (and Pol Pot’s comparison fellow Hitler in Sihanouk’s description was not an Atheist either). It seems that Pol Pot was not so big an Atheist as some Christians would like to present, mixing communism (social relations between humans) with atheism (humans relations with god) - they are two separate ideologies. The inflammatory comparison between the two is a logical fallacy in which the secular nature of Communism is assumed to justify the conclusion that all secularists are Communists, which is clearly not the case since an attribute of one system may also be an attribute of other systems. The American constitutional republic, for example, is also secular in nature.

Pol Pot convinced the Vietnamese to help the Cambodian Communists set up their own base camp. The central committee of the party met later that year and issued a declaration calling for armed struggle. The declaration also emphasized the idea of "self-reliance" in the sense of extreme Cambodian nationalism. In the border camps, the ideology of the Khmer Rouge was gradually developed. The party, breaking with Marxism, declared rural peasant farmers to be the true working class proletarian and the lifeblood of the revolution. This is in some sense explained by the fact that none of the central committee were in any sense "working class". All of them had grown up in a feudal peasant society. The party adapted elements of Theravada Buddhism to justify their non-standard Communism.

The class struggle of Marxism contradicts the individual competition implied by natural selection of Darwin's theory. Pol Pot tried to erase individuality as he thought that differences create conflicts. With his artificial equality, abolishing private possessions and so erasing natural selection from society he was doomed by Evolution to fail, like all other communists. Pol Pot targeted not just different religions as differences, but education, science and medicine too. Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge were composed of Buddhists and Pol Pot himself was a communist and Theravada Buddhist. Pol Pot studied at a Buddhist monastery (1 year) and then later at a Catholic school (8 years). As for “Collège Preah Sihanouk” and “Lycée Sisowath” I don’t know if they were secular or Buddhist oriented education institutions. Cambodia’s communism was influenced by Theravada Buddhism (the belief system of 95% of the Khmer people) and its teaching to renunciation of the material world as Pol Pot with his followers organized perfectly by smashing cars and modern industrial equipment with hammers.

[size=T BUT I THOT HE WAS ATHIEEX?!?!?![/size]

You're trying way too hard, and you're still failing in that argument bro. Atheism - a lack of a belief in god(s). You can't have it both ways duder, atheism is simply the lack of a positive belief in a god, which Pol Pot fits. Buddhism in general is considered an atheistic religion. Atheism does not imply a lack of beliefs in any type of supernaturality, only the lack of belief in a god.

*edit* even the power of capslock can't save that argument

[VlKlNG]

Mao was a pretty evil mothafcker

this

Mofo killed a 100million people

[NiceBoat]

You're trying way too hard, and you're still failing in that argument bro. Atheism - a lack of a belief in god(s). You can't have it both ways duder, atheism is simply the lack of a positive belief in a god, which Pol Pot fits. Buddhism in general is considered an atheistic religion. Atheism does not imply a lack of beliefs in any type of supernaturality, only the lack of belief in a god.

*edit* even the power of capslock can't save that argument

Yes but tables can.

Because they need carpenters.

[TH3SHR3DD3R]

You're trying way too hard, and you're still failing in that argument bro. Atheism - a lack of a belief in god(s). You can't have it both ways duder, atheism is simply the lack of a positive belief in a god, which Pol Pot fits. Buddhism in general is considered an atheistic religion. Atheism does not imply a lack of beliefs in any type of supernaturality, only the lack of belief in a god.

*edit* even the power of capslock can't save that argument

Atheism most certainly does include lack of a belief in supernatural elements. 'God' isn't restricted to the notions of the monotheistic, Abrahamic-style God; it includes the Greek gods, the spirits of Shintoism, and the new-agey horsecrap about 'higher consciousness'. Atheism is a lack of belief in all the connotations that 'God' might inspire, including the elevation of the state to a level of supreme, infallible, eternal power. Of course, this last connotation stems from the dictator, and not the other way around - the state has its supreme, infallible, eternal power because the dictator views himself this way. Pot viewed himself, and his destiny, as something other than human, as having supernatural elements - making him decidedly non-atheist.

It does a great disservice to this conversation to suggest that 'God' is limited the narrow, ultimately self-serving definition you have put forth. 'God' is a title that describes everything I have mentioned above, and some people even use it to describe the binding, universal consciousness explored in physics. The whole point of atheism is that one lacks belief in these, be they monotheistic, polytheistic, or new-agey horsecrap. Pol Pot certainly didn't lack belief in these elements.

[Melkor]

Atheism most certainly does include lack of a belief in supernatural elements. 'God' isn't restricted to the notions of the monotheistic, Abrahamic-style God; it includes the Greek gods, the spirits of Shintoism, and the new-agey horsecrap about 'higher consciousness'. Atheism is a lack of belief in all the connotations that 'God' might inspire, including the elevation of the state to a level of supreme, infallible, eternal power. Of course, this last connotation stems from the dictator, and not the other way around - the state has its supreme, infallible, eternal power because the dictator views himself this way. Pot viewed himself, and his destiny, as something other than human, as having supernatural elements - making him decidedly unatheist.

If that's true, you'll need to get the word out. The first four entries in google, including Wikipedia, the Mirriam-Webster dictionary, and even an atheistic site called "infidels.org", plus dictionary.com, all agree that atheism is either (1) the doctrine or belief that there is no god or (2) disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. In every discussion I've ever seen about atheism on this board you have atheists defining atheism as the lack of a belief in god (agnostic atheism) while some theist tries to narrowly define it as the belief that there is NO god (gnostic theism) and hilarity ensues. Funny that both of them are correct, but you still are not.

[hooked4life]

this

Mofo killed a 100million people

lolololo - this is what I was expecting form people saying Mao