Atheism has been around for thousands of years, and responsible for many philosophical and scientific developments. Like any movement, it has had its fair share of evil characters. As atheism has no moral precepts, outside of natural morality and ethics, it is hard to say how their atheism influenced their behavior or the particular political and similar movements they chose to follow. It seems that no matter what philosophy or religion people profess, people will always do wrong, whether or not in the name of their faith. This list is a follow-on from the Top 10 People Who Give Christianity A Bad Name.

Alfred Kinsey was an infamous American biologist and professor of entomology and zoology, who made groundbreaking research on human sexuality. Undoubtedly, he helped to progress social values – but, nevertheless, he took sadistic pleasure out of his research, and did some very weird stuff, including exploiting children for sex. Moreover, much of his research was fraud.

Many people agree that Napoleon Bonaparte, heavily involved in the anti-clerical French Revolution, was atheist – he claimed that “all religions have been made by men”. He was one of the best ever military commanders, and conquered much of Europe. He staged a coup and declared himself Emperor. While he ended anarchy in post-Revolution France, many considered him a tyrant and usurper. He ignored treaties and conventions, seeking undisputed rule throughout Europe. He plundered conquered territories. His 17 years of rule resulted in the bankruptcy of France, loss of many of her territories, six million dead Europeans and economic setback in just one generation.

Than Shwe is the 77 year old dictator of Myanmar/Burma, the head of the ruling military junta. He has overseen the formation of one of the most closed societies in the world. There is no notion of free press, and journalists who opposed his regime are detained. Aung Suu Kyi, the leader of the main opposition party, is kept in house detention by him. Civil servants are forbidden from resigning. Burma has the highest rate of child soldiers in the world, and uses forced labor on construction projects. As far as dictators go, Than Shwe keeps a relatively low, and even sullen, profile. Nevertheless, he reportedly leads an extravagant lifestyle, while his people continue to suffer a life of extreme poverty and natural disasters. In the aftermath of Cyclone Nargis, he refused entry into the country for many foreign aid organizations.

Kim Jong-Il is the de facto leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and responsible for the deaths of four million of his fellow Koreans. He is also at the heart of a bizarre personality cult; apocryphal stories such as how “at the time of his birth there were flashes of lightening and thunder, the iceberg in the pond on Mt. Paektu emitted a mysterious sound as it broke, and bright double rainbows rose up” are abundant. Those caught stealing food in the famine-struck nation, or attempting to cross the borders, are subject to public execution. Kim is continuing his lavish lifestyle and military obsession in spite of the crumbling economy. In North Korea he and his father are deified, considered saviors of the whole universe. 250,000 dissidents are confined to “re-education camps”. He has waged a war on South Korea that involved assassinating South Korean leaders and blowing up South Korean planes. He presents a great threat to the world in terms of nuclear warfare, having persuaded the Soviet Union to award him a nuclear reactor in 1984.

Jeffrey Dahmer, an infamous serial killer and atheist sentenced to 900 years in prison, said “if a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?”. He brutally killed seventeen men and boys, dismembering them, storing their parts and indulging in cannibalism and necrophilia. In 1991, he was caught by the police after one of his would-be victims escaped. Despite pleading not guilty on the basis on insanity, the court found him sane and fully accountable. He later expressed remorse.

Jim Jones drew people into atheism through the People’s Temple, largely based in California. He said that he “took the church and used the church to bring people to atheism”. In 1978, 909 people at the restricted communist “sanctuary” he presided over in Jonestown, Guyana, committed “revolutionary suicide” at his command. This occurred after the arrival of an American delegation, which he claimed was conspiring against the People’s Temple. Men, women and children took a vial of cyanide and died within five minutes. Only a few people escaped. This event was the largest single loss of American civilian life, in a non-natural disaster, up until 9/11. This entry has the unique status of being on both the atheism and Christianity list. The reason is that the majority of people considered Jones to be the leader of a type of Christian cult, but, as the quote above illustrates, it was really a ruse to attract people who would otherwise have steered well clear of him.

Mussolini is notorious for his war crimes as a Fascist dictator during World War II. As a young man he openly declared his atheism, and in his early career as a politician was openly anti-clerical. He was the Italian leader of the National Fascist Party, became Prime Minister in 1922 and was eventually a dictator who severely restricted freedom of speech. Mussolini supported Hitler’s conquest of Austria. In 1935, he invaded Ethiopia, using poison gas, bombing Red Cross hospitals and concentration camps to kill civilians and destroy “inferior” cultures. He ordered the execution of prisoners without trial and the shooting of “witch-doctors”. Italian troops used public executions, hostage taking and burning of villages to crush the Slavic population of Yugoslavia. These acts are now widely considered an attempt at genocide. However, later he tried to associate Fascism with Catholicism in order to garner dwindling support (however his widow made it clear that he was still staunchly atheist). Mussolini was also deeply anti-Semitic.

Mao Zedong led the Communist Party of China to victory in the Chinese Civil War, helping to establish the People’s Republic of China. He had ambitions for a strong China, but his programs largely failed altogether. He has been blamed for the death of between 20 and 67 million of his “comrades”. Under his insane rule there was a culture akin to anarchy, that killed the economy and industrial production. His “Great Leap Forward” triggered a catastrophic and massive famine. However, he is most notorious for the precepts of the “Cultural Revolution”, which led to perhaps the greatest era of cultural vandalism the world has ever known. Antiques, historical sites, artifacts, ancient documents, feng shui traditions, Chinese traditional dresses and monasteries were destroyed for being associated with the “old ways of thinking”. Many copies of the Qu’ran were burnt. Red Guard groups around the country destroyed political and educational stability, criticizing anyone who considered himself superior, destroying reputations and lives. Mao, privately, led a life of great deviancy and excess. He also exacted revenge on all those, mainly intellectuals and professionals, who had disgraced Mao in his earlier career. He also targeted anyone with links to the Chinese Nationalist Party as well as anyone who posed a threat to him. Five million were executed in death camps. 36 million were persecuted and tortured. There were even instances of cannibalism.

Pol Pot was the leader of the Khmer Rouge and Prime Minister of Cambodia from 1976 to 1979, having been de facto leader since mid-1975. During his time in power Pol Pot imposed an extreme version of agrarian communism, where all city dwellers were relocated to the countryside to work in collective farms and forced labour projects. The combined effect of slave labour, malnutrition, poor medical care and executions is estimated to have killed around 2 million Cambodians (approximately one third of the population). His regime achieved special notoriety by singling out all intellectuals, and other “bourgeois enemies”, for murder. The Khmer Rouge committed mass executions in sites known as the Killing Fields, and the executed were buried in mass graves. In order to save ammunition, executions were often carried out using hammers, axe handles, spades or sharpened bamboo sticks. His attempts to “cleanse” the country resulted in the deaths of 1.7 to 2.5 million people. He also had an intense dislike of anyone with the semblance of being intelligent, such as those who wore glasses or who spoke another language.

Stalin was General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union’s Central Committee, from 1922 until his death in 1953. Under Stalin’s leadership, the Ukraine suffered a famine (Holodomor) so great it is considered by many to be an act of genocide on the part of Stalin’s government. Estimates of the number of deaths range from 2.5 million to 10 million. The famine was caused by direct political and administrative decisions. In addition to the famine, Stalin ordered purges within the Soviet Union of any person deemed to be an enemy of the state (i.e. capitalists, theists). In total, estimates of the total number murdered under Stalin’s reign, range from 10 million to 60 million. His government promoted atheism with mass propaganda in school, and held a terror campaign against the religious. He crushed the Russian Orthodox Church, leveling thousands of churches and shooting more than 100,000 priests, monks and nuns between 1937 and 1938.
N.B. Adolf Hitler is left off this list because it is widely acknowledged that, while he abhorred organized religion, there is much evidence that he engaged in “nazi mysticism” or occultism.




















Please do not repeat: Alfred Kinsey “exploited children for *****”. I think this refers to research he did into childhood *****uality and the behavior of pedophiles (the nature of which was sometimes controversial i.e. asking children questions, etc.) But “exploited children for *****” sound a lot like “had ***** with children”, which would be, as far as I can tell, the first time anyone’s accused him of that. Do not repeat.
Atheism has been around a lot longer than thousands of years. You’re too funny.
Well, since people are in fact born atheists, and in the general sense, it’s just the lack of belief in the God, then atheism has existed since the beginning of life, and in another sense, the beginning of time.
Being unable to comprehend the idea of theism, makes you an atheist after all.
Man, it must suck having to deal with the fact that the lack of belief in deities cannot, by definition and by default, ever be held accountable for crimes, hatred, ideologies, genocide or belief structures.
Whereas the vast majority of sects have people belonging to those religious sects who commit crimes in their religions name, using their religions beliefs.
You can cry over and over about how they aren’t “real” Christians, Hindus, Vikings, Jews or Muslims…but they based their actions on your beliefs.
Atheists can’t do the same. The lack of belief in deities doesn’t, and literally cannot, ever promote any crime or action. Try again.
Exactly. The title would be better if it were, “10 People Who Give Humanity a Bad Name.”
Viking isn’t a religion
Hell there is nothing that doesnt have a bad name anymore. Everything is tainted at this point.
Wherever fallible men are involved, there will be taint.
the list over people that has given religion (of any kind) a bad name is forever going to be longer….
Just wait – this one will get more comments because of all the atheists who will deny that the members of this list are actually atheists
I was about to query Jim Jones. Thank God
I read the entire list before making that mistake.
I don't think that the debate of whether or not these individuals are atheists is a problem. I think the title should be changed to "10 people who did bad things and were coincidentally atheists". Contrary to the previous list on Chrstianity, I don't see the link between the people's deeds and their atheistic beliefs.
I was going to make the same suggestion once I got through reading the comments. It seems like a lot of these people aren't defined by their atheism, as the members of the other list were defined by their faith.
This can be debated.. while I am not arguing that atheism itself necessarily makes a person evil, the fact that many of these leaders were promoting ideologies that were more or less based on a materialistic view of the world, and would be willing to go to any lengths to protect this view (and saw themselves as completely unaccountable for their actions), shows that they are pretty well defined by their atheism (or, at least, their particular brand of it).
As for religion, I think if you look at the root of most “religious conflicts” there is an ulterior secular motive behind most of them. Land, money, power, you name it. Religion can sometimes be used in this case as an excuse for violence; if there is no religion, evil people will simply find another reason to kill each other.
I am in complete agreement with this statement. I would reason that people would argue that Atheism is bad because of these individuals. However, that train of thought is false which would make your title more fitting.
As, of course, is the list on Christianity in which the items on the list are bad but not necessarily because they identify as Christian. Bad people are bad people regardless of their creed.
I agree with you, although Dahmer seems to have the connection of not being liable for his actions. Although I'm guessing that he realized that, although it's no hell, eternity in prison is still pretty bad since he showed signs of repenting.
Well, most would agree that if you compared the beliefs of the "Christians" listed before to the central doctrines of Christianity, they would only be considered members of pseudo-Christian religions (or "cults" if you prefer).
It's also pretty striking that the "Christians" list had mostly unfavored rhetoric (some of it absolutely horrible no doubt about it!) while this list has several mass murderers.
Does that go for Muslim terrorists also? "10 people who did bad things and were coincidentally Muslims." because people blame the entire religion, even though terrorists who do such things aren't who they claim to be a "Muslim".
It’s not about whether they’re actually atheists. It’s about whether they do what they do because of their (alleged or real) beliefs.
right on!
Then don’t think of it as being defined by specific beliefs. Think of it as not being defined by religious beliefs. If you took it with your definition, every single atheist could do the most awful things but it would have nothing to do with atheism, just as they could do the most wonderful things and it wouldn’t have to do with atheism. But when people say they do or don’t do something because of their faith or beliefs, it generally implies that if it weren’t for their beliefs, they would (or wouldn’t) have done it. Therefore it wouldn’t be the state of atheism that caused the action, but the lack of faith.
So if you want to say that, then you better not link everybody together as ‘atheist’ but rather, ‘people who who happen to not believe in any sort of god’.
your point? so what if a nutter is an athiest or a believer, doesn’t make them right troll (*****).
ignore me…may have misread, may be on the same page.
So you guys have no problem saying that this list's title should be changed because these people didn't do what they did "in the name of atheism" but have no problems lumping every Christian together into one group because, say, ten people did bad things in the name of God? Nice…
Yep – that sums up my previous comment that all the controversy here will be people saying that the list is invalid because the atheists didn't do their evil deeds in the name of Atheism. But all of those saying that will say the Christian list was valid because Christianity is to blame for their misdeeds.
it saddens me
WhiteDragon I have been saying this for years. I'm a Christian and not ashamed to say so. I have nothing personal against atheists and agnostics. If you respect that I believe in something then I will respect you back. But when I hear people go on about how "religion" ESPECIALLY the Abrahamic religions Judaism,Christianity and Islam are creators of some of the worse problems the world has ever had that's when I have a problem. The Crusaders were so-called "Christians" but do you think their actions were "Christlike?" The guys who blew up the WTC were practioners of "Islam" but would Allah want you to be a mass murderer? My point is this: You can call yourself ANYTHING you want but your ACTIONS will ALWAYS speak louder than your WORDS. And I don't care how much an atheist doesn't believe that doesn't make them stupid,surely one would know that these people didn't practice what they preached.
I kinda agree with you chris. A problem in religion though is that you may follow acertain path or guideline from a certain holy book that is bad and at the same time someone else will do a good deed based on the same words from the same book. It’s the ambiguity that frightens me here. Being a christian or an atheist doesn’t make you a bad person though. Bad people you find everywhere.
a lil correction there,all the christians doing those deeds beleived they had divine validation.
nobody is lumping all christians into one group, at least that I see.
Agreed, being atheist does not prevent you from being an idiot. Although I’m continually sceptic towards religion I have toned down my scepticism in ways of who killed the most. I have more detailed and reasoned arguments against religion than that. Suffice to say. Bad people do bad things, good people do good things. They just happen to be people.
Obviously,because more people are religious than atheist.
Just started to wonder how old some of these list makers are. I mean I don't care about trying to sound high brow and grammatically correct that much myself.
>>He was one of the best ever military commanders, and conquered much of Europe. <<
What exactly is the problem with that? Are you complaining about "best ever"? You could argue for that being a valid sentence in that one can be the best of his generation – or the best of all generations (best ever).
There definitely is something wrong with that sentence. Let's say you replaced the word "ever" with an equivalent phrase "in history". Would it be grammatically correct to say "He was one of the best in history military commanders"? I believe not.
I really don't care that much, just wanted to point that out since no one else did in almost a day.
There's nothing wrong with that sentence. "that much myself" however, is technically improper. You cannot substitute "that" for "very". Or you could eliminate "that"
Great list… most are Communists!!!
better than fu** things up and claim it's what god wanted
just as some special american leaders tend to do.
Where is Barack Obama? According to comments on fox news.com he hates America/Americans, Israel/Jews and God/Christians ie he is the anti christ.
Don't you know? Barak Obama censors the internet. He got to this list long before we did.
Glen? Glen Beck? Is that you? If it is, SUCK MY CHOCOLATE SALTY BALLS!
Wow James really classy. BTW how watch fox news for a week before you embarass yourse;f by repeating lies your liberal masters are spoon feeding you.
Ha. You assume mocking fox news means mocking conservatism. In a way, you have demonstrated what is wrong with this list. BTW, watching fox news, cnn, msnbc etc in the past is what has turned me off watching fox news, cnn, msnbc etc in the present. Tell me what is happening in the world, just don't give me bull***** reasons why. That's not news. That's propaganda.
I love it when people are labeled as the Antichrist. From what I've read the Antichrist is supposed to be a charismatic figure that claims to lead the way to righteousness but really paves the way to oblivion. That means that he is vague enough that you could label most men as the Antichrist and labeling someone as the Antichrist, in my opinion, rather shows the persons intolerance than anything else.
The thing I can't understand is how much the Christian community loved Bush!
Actually, the initial definition of antichrist was just someone who doesn’t believe in Christianity, so I am the antichrist!
I find it offensive when people compare Obama to the anti-Christ. It is one thing to be a bad politician and another to be the prince of evil. Obama isn't even a socialist – if he was he would be putting laws into place to abolish private ownership of property. Obama is not the anti-Christ – he is just a bad politician like 99.9% of all politicians – democrat or republican.
I <3 you and this list JF
I must say, I was SO excited to see it today. (Not to say that I was a little bit depressed after reading it, because WOW, these people really do give atheists/non-theists a horrible image.
they say power is best given to those who don’t want it.
Hey James!… Did you know that Barack Obama is right now attempting to gobble up little babies at night after he has ***** with your wife?!
I know right… You're an idiot!
Most conservatives don't honestly think he's the Antichrist, just like I know most Liberals don't honestly think Bush was. It's all just propaganda from our own parties — they're trying to pit us against each other.
Exactly 100% right.
Never thought of it that way. Good point
Just like Bush and/or Cheney were Hitler, Nazis, Fascists, Satan and all the other names thrown at them by the fanatics on the other side of the fence for the past 10 years. Stupid hyperbole like that has no partisan boundaries.
if he is the Anti Christ then that makes you the …. anti – smart?!!!
I do not agree that that these people gave atheism a bad name. They have never killed in the name of atheism or for atheism. They have killed for their philosophy which is not determined by their atheism. The dislike for intellectuals (Pol Pot) is not part of atheism. Yet, muslims and christians have killed countless people IN THE NAME OF CHRIST OR ALLAH. thats they difference. You have never hear them say, "atheism is great" before killing, but yet muslims fadmentailsts shout:" allahu akbar." when they suicide bomb. So these people did not give atheism a bad name. And i have a feeling the the person who compiled the list is a christian.
I have no idea what the compiler's religious views are, but he's not above some pretty biased posts – see his Che Guevara list where he calls Che an Emo because he liked poetry, or his constant fawning over Ayn Rand to get an idea of what I mean.
However, he does have a list about the people who give Christianity a bad name, so there is a balance to this.
Umm – Xanthius wrote the list on Che Guevara and SallyH wrote this list. In fact, as far as I am aware, this poster has never had a list published here before. I pick the lists that are published and I try to have a balance when it comes to political or religious opinions.
Also – the comment about Che being an emo was meant as a joke – as were most of the titles to the items on that particular list
Apologies for the error about who wrote the lists, but as this is your site, what you choose to publish represents you whether you want it to or not. As for the Che list, that was biased to the hilt and you know it, claims of jokes to mask the fact or not.
Good post. It does seem that the title of the list itself should be changed on the basis that the atheist stance is in no manner argued against because of these individuals listed above. However, I do think that the description does a fair job of saying that people are involved in evils regardless of religious beliefs or lack thereof.
How was the Che list biased? He was an idiot psyhopath
I couldn't have said it better.
Only Staling did something against the church, and not even sure if that is because he is Atheist.
Atheism doesn't mean destroying or suppressing the Church – it means coming from a morality that excludes the existence of a higher being. All people on this list meet that criteria.
True, but their atheism is a random variable that tells us little about why they did what they did. Other random variables that tell us little and can serve as list titles include:
People with X-chromosomes who give men a bad name
People who wear pants that give pants-wearing a bad name
Upright walkers who give bipedalism a bad name
Perhaps the most accurate title would be: 10 megalomaniacs.
I'm an atheist myself but I think you are making it to easy for yourself.
You (like so many) are implying that the atheistic beliefs of those persons had nothing to do with their actions. This is of course not true. Your beliefs are shaping you like nothing else.
Let's take your megalomania for example. It's certainly no coincidence that so many megalomaniacs are atheists. A megalomaniac dreams of omnipotence and unlimited power.
There are two main ways in 'achieving' this:
1) You are declaring yourself as God or god-like like the Pharaos, Jesus, etc.
2) You are declaring that there is no God and that you are the most poweful human in the world =)
or 3) You are untethered from reality.
You are looking for rational thought on the part of people who think eating people (Dahmer) or mass executions (Stalin, Pol Pot, Zedong, etc.) are reasonable activities. Of course megalomaniacs are likely to reject a god, or, just as likely, embrace a god fervently and declare themselves that god's representative on earth. That is the nature of megalomania. Atheism or fervent belief are not the cause, megalomania is. Adherence to or rejection of religion are symptoms.
Religious people who do horrible things in the name of religion are "people who give religion a bad name." Religious people who do horrible things because they are horrible people are just horrible people. Likewise, atheists who do horrible things because they are horrible people are just horrible people.
Surely there is an example of someone somewhere who has done horrible things in the name of atheism. I am not sure this list contains one example of such a person, however. Even those who sought to wipe out religion did not seem to do it because of a particular rejection of a god; instead, they reasonably determined that it was a threat to their power. Megalomania.
I don't think you all really get what he is saying. There are people who have to done bad things in the name of atheism, but most of these people did nothing in the name of atheism, excluding a couple. I was expecting to read about people killing or forcing others into atheism, not doing bad things and just happening to be atheist
Political power. Stalin spent about a year breaking the power of the church and pretty much ignored them after that. Stalin spent a lot of time crushing apponents real and imaginary.
Completely agree.
This is a pretty pathetic reply. You are saying the people killed for reasons that could be interpreted as atheistic by someone who didn't really understand why they did it, and that the atheism was just an excuse or coincidence. Most religious people who kill will try to make it religious when the real cause rarely is. Recent terrorist attacks, they arent religiously motivated, religion is an excuse, only morons who watch FOX news 24/7 think they are motivated just by their "evil" religion. Yet even though it could even be totally unrelated to their religion, it still gives it a bad name. "I do not agree that that these people gave atheism a bad name." yes they do. Not to you, but you're an ignorant bigot.
"And i have a feeling the the person who compiled the list is a christian. "
They person who wrote the "10 people who give christianity a bad name" article was a christian too.
Stop thinking atheism is perfect. Of course people will kill because of it, of course it is imperfect and certain religions do things better than it. You are not excempt from anything because you are an atheist.
This is a pretty pathetic repyly. You are saying the people killed for reasons that could be interpreted as atheistic by someone who didn’t really understand why they did it, and that the atheism was just an excuse or coincidence.
It’s not an excuse. If something’s an excuse, then someone is trying to say that X was the reason they did something, which these people didn’t do (with 1 or 2 exceptions).
Most religious people who kill will try to make it religious when the real cause rarely is.
But they do use it as an excuse, unlike these people. That is my response to the rest of the paragraph too.
They person who wrote the “10 people who give christianity a bad name” article was a christian too.
That actually explains a lot, mainly the discrepancy in standards for making the list. The other list consists mostly of people with unpopular rhetoric, while this is a list of tyrants and serial killers. Also, I believe you mean the person, not they person.
Stop thinking atheism is perfect. Of course people will kill because of it, of course it is imperfect and certain religions do things better than it. You are not excempt from anything because you are an atheist.
Strawmanning and putting words in peoples mouths. Nothing in the previous post contradicted this paragraph.
What about how Jeffrey Dohmer said how you shouldn't alter your behavior to normality if there isn't a god to worry about. Sounds like killing in the name of Atheism to me. Also, a lot of these dictators didn't like organized religion so, wiping it out to instill Atheism is also killing in the name of it.
I agree about Jeffrey, his belief in the absence of God may have had a direct influence on his actions.
However Communist Dictators destroy religious organisations is not so much about the presence of God or the absence of God and more removing the powerful influence of religion. Communists believe it was a tool used by the elite. If religion was not seen in this context they would not have cared about it. (opiate of the masses = control of the masses))
I also question any inclusion of some who raises themselves to deity status, as they think they are GOD, a belief atheists would dismiss.
Some Atheists can be evil, some Believers can be evil. But in my humble opinion the bulk of the names here do what they do regardless of which side of the line they started with.
Why would a Christian write a list about people who gave all athiests a bad reputation, as if they needed to be overlooked to defend athiests in general? That would be like an athiest writing about the "Top 10 People Who Give Christianity A Bad Name". And why specifically Christian, and not any other group? Muslamic and Buddist count as "religious" too, right?
People – Atheism is a worldview, a set of presuppositions about the world that informs and guides every decision you make consciously and subconsciously as a human being. There is no fundamental difference between an atheist and a theist in regards to its power of influence over the shaping of who you are as a person. To claim that an atheist or anti-theist or whatever you want to call it is free from the "constraints" or "handicaps" that religious people face is a complete lunacy.You are what you believe, not perfectly, not fully, but you are definitely a product of your worldview. People seem to think that atheism is somehow un-religion. Simply replace Jesus with any such leading author of Atheist ideals, and bible with their books, and church with whatever your "heart" worships under, i.e. a sports stadium, the outdoors, NASCAR (for the redneck atheists out there, a minority to be sure).
It seems that a lot of people are forced to back-track and swallow words when there are very clear examples of Atheistic ideals in practice on a massive scale and the outcome is the mass murdering of millions of people. How can anyone be in objection to ANYTHING if there is fundamentally, absolutely and infinitely no rhyme, reason or purpose to anything that ever was and ever will be? How can anyone object to a "wrong doing"? Judgment calls don't exist in a universe of neutrality, there isn't a yin and yang, it's just stuff happening to stuff happening to stuff. People will disagree to this line of reasoning all the time – simply because they are idealists that have borrowed from the ideas of a higher power passing down laws and precepts to Creation (Us). In essence, they are very inconsistent atheists. The men in the list above appear to be very consistent and true-to-their-word atheists of you ask me.
You are making a classic straw man argument. You are saying that if you do not believe in god you cannot have morals. I do not believe in god. I believe in the human race. It is not a universe of neutrality, it is a universe in which things are judged, not by the distant perspective of a god, but the immediate effects upon the human race and society.
The men you describe as consistent atheists are not: They are only such if you based on your (false) assumptions about the morality of atheists. The men on this lists were megalomaniacs who were attracted to atheism, because they didn't want to believe in anything more powerful than themselves.
Take the communist dictators. Communism, in its true form (which has never been achieved, to my knowledge) is a utopian system that is heavily based on a materialistic worldview, and derives its goals from that worldview. The communist dictators did all that they did in an attempt to push toward that goal of the perfect communist society, and saw no limit to the sacrifices that must be made to achieve that goal (nor did they feel accountable for their actions). To say that these men were not formed by their atheism (at least, their particular brand of it) would be dishonest. A communist dictator is, more or less, a “fundamentalist atheist,” just like Al-Quaeda is a “fundamentalist Muslim” organization, or a rabid crusader is a “fundamentalist Christian.”
If people want to have ACTUAL dialogue with one another (which to be honest doesn't seem to be the case on the internet for the most part), instead of all this vilification and cheap debate tricks, why don't we all just recognize the very obvious fact that we ALL follow something. Whether its, God, Jesus, Allah, yourself, whatever, it guides who you are and you can't escape it.
"Stalin ordered purges within the Soviet Union of any person deemed to be an enemy of the state (i.e. capitalists, theists)"
- this means he killed those people because they were theists, that is killing in the name of atheism.
I completely agree
there is a difference between the lists.
In the Top 10 People Who Give Christianity A Bad Name,
most people on the list did weird things in the name of christianity
where as, in this list its just people who have done bad things, while at the
same time having no religious belief.
Take the communist dictators. Communism, in its true form (which has never been achieved, to my knowledge) is a utopian system that is heavily based on a materialistic worldview, and derives its goals from that worldview. The communist dictators did all that they did in an attempt to push toward that goal of the perfect communist society, and saw no limit to the sacrifices that must be made to achieve that goal (nor did they feel accountable for their actions). To say that these men were not formed by their atheism (at least, their particular brand of it) would be dishonest. A communist dictator is, more or less, a “fundamentalist atheist,” just like Al-Quaeda is a “fundamentalist Muslim” organization, or a rabid crusader is a “fundamentalist Christian.”
Go atheist's! Like the church wouldn't opt for totaltarianism. You idiots!
#1 You cannot deny they were/are atheists who did/do a lot of killing.
#2 Atheists use this quacky logic that you can't kill for atheism, kind of like saying, "I didn't kill that guy, the gun did".
Fully agree with you on that, They did not do their atrocity in the name of Atheism, unlike the religious people do.
People who do these evil things in the name of their religion are mentally unstable people to begin with. They simply take whatever religion they choose as a way to justify their evil deeds. Regardless, these people are atheists and did horrible things, and chances are the people who are going to try to vilify atheism will use these people as examples of how wrong it is, thus giving atheism a bad name. The list is not titled "10 people who did evil things because they are atheists."
Most of the communists in the list did specifically target religious people to be persecuted. Stalin authorized the (millions strong) League of the Militant Godless to go around terrorizing Christians for example, because he wanted the USSR population to progress to "scientific atheism". The anti-religious violence got so bad, the Party had to blame their activities on "enemies of the state"
I am so glad that Richard Dawkins isn't on this list.
A list of 10 people who make atheism look silly should include Bill Maher btw.
Dawkins will be on the list of Top 10 People who are out of their Depth when it comes to honest debate. The man has studied modern science and tries to use it to prove traditional philosophy wrong. First off, they are two entirely different studies these days, and secondly, science isn't meant to "prove" anything but merely to describe things. Dawkins is not qualified to debate theology. His zealotry takes atheism to a new level – he doesn't disbelieve the concept of a creator – he wants everyone to believe his view – that is cultism and a form of religion. True atheism does not want to convert people – it doesn't care.
Actually Dawkins doesn't care either. What got him to what he is now, is his scoffing disbelief when it comes to god. I have seen his interviews, read his book and watched The Four Horsemen. His true weakness is he just doesn't seem to understand why, when there is logic and reason, someone would believe in something that isn't there.
In fact, logic and reason prove that God must exist – nothing comes from nothing, therefore there has to be something outside of physical reality which is the first creator. Dawkins is rabid because he knows he can't prove that wrong so he ignores it and screams instead.
Simple logic proves that the universe can't have just appeared from nothing as nothing can come from nothing – you can't give what you don't have. Equally, it can't be infinite because that would require an infinite regress of movers which is impossible.
Actually most scientists don't believe it started from nothing. That's what theists believe…that god just poofed it into existence. We are still looking for answers so we can't say for certain (like theists do) what really went on. We are still learning.
As for saying logic and reason just happen to fall into his lap because there are no other answers in incorrect…again, we are still learning.
If nothing can come out of nothing, where did the creator come from? If something can be said to have always existed, why can't that something be the universe? I don't understand the need for creator.
jamie——-
i know, very well, your opinions on religion and over time i have noticed that you have a great affinity to argue your points on this subject.
which is great — a lot of ppeople to that here
which is why i really really really wanted you to add this topic as a bonus to the paradoxes list from last week — that would haave been quite interesting
r
Dawkins Delusion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QERyh9YYEis
"Nothing comes from nothing"
'Comes from' and 'nothing' are both concepts of convenience that humans use to make sense of what is around them. To expect everything to have a cause leads to infinite regress which,
1. we have no reason to dismiss (tell me one if you disagree), hence an infinitely old universe is plausible. Modern physics only points out that the instant of the big bang was a singularity and no information up to that point (if any) is recoverable now.
2. we MAY choose to skip by the following logic from St Augustine : "Time is a property of the universe that God created. It did not exist before the beginning of the universe.". Sums it up pretty well (except for the three letter word in there
).
Dawkins is rabid because we don't take to adults believing in invisible friends, invisible pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters, very kindly but make a ludicrous exception when it comes to larger groups of people subscribing to equally preposterous ideas.
“In fact, logic and reason prove that God must exist – nothing comes from nothing, therefore there has to be something outside of physical reality which is the first creator.”
Wow, so proof of nothing is proof of something? Humans used to believe violent weather was made by angry gods, I don’t personally know the physics involved, so it must be made by an invisible man in the sky!
Not having an understanding of something doesn’t make ancient beliefs true. Science involves the pursuit of evidence, a good scientist accepts failure and keeps looking for evidence and works to reproduce or disprove anothers findings, theology is based on hearsay and bastardized documents written decades and centuries after the birth of a David Koresh type character with the gift of the gab.
FRATER,
with that comment,your stock crashed to the floor.just apply your logic and ask “from where did god come into existence,since nothing exists without anything”?your logic dude don look at me.
Nice circular reasoning, oouchan. Reason and logic, eh? Like Richard "argument by ridicule" Dawkins, a believer in a reverse assertion, prover of negatives (a logical impossibility) . Not just disbelief — "scoffing disbelief". His true weakness is that he shares lacks logic and reason, just like many believers. The difference between Dawkins and them? Believers accept that they are just that. A "disbeliever", as opposed to agnostic, who accepts that they don't know one way or the other, has concluded a negative in the absence of proof (yet another logical fallacy, since absence of proof is not proof of absence).
jfrater was exactly correct, Dawkins is completely out of his depth. He makes atheism look like a silly side of the same believer coin. Dawkins should have made #1 on this list.
He is not out of his depth. What I stated is true.
You stated that absence of proof is not proof of absence…that works the same way you know. We are still searching for answers…logical ones, not fairy tales. This separates us from agnostics in that regard.
Believers stopped learning. They found their answer and are happy with it. Some of us aren't happy with that answer and are searching for a more reasonable one. Many of us keep quiet about this and keep searching, while Dawkins doesn't. Does that make him worthy of this list? No. He just doesn't want religious dogma shoved down our throats anymore. Can't blame him when I keep getting hounded every weekend by the religious groups in my neighborhood. They can't accept the fact that I don't want them on my property. Period.
I have no problem with someone wanting to believe in god or gods or what have you…..just leave ME out of it.
The only thing that separates agnostics from atheists is that if you twist an agnostic's arm hard enough, they'll admit that there might possibly be a God. I'm agnostic, but I don't behave in any way as if there is a God. I am essentially the same as an atheist, but I simply don't think that there is unshakable proof for or against God. I search for answers in science and philosophy the same way an atheist might.
@majava: well if you say the universe is the THING that always existed, then ill ask you to prouve it. In
physics you cant say something and not test it: you’ll only get string theory.
… and what would constitute proof of infiniteness of age, I ask ?
Science does not "say" that the universe is infinitely old, it only accepts that possibility. The point majava was making is that the classic "there must be a creator" argument is flawed to its core and doesn't help explain anything at all.
As for string theory, http://abstrusegoose.com/137, http://abstrusegoose.com/272 (click on) …
I am yet to see Dawkins out of his depth in a debate about God. His arguments are very clear and have silenced his opponents on stage many times. A casual Youtube search should be enough to dig up examples of this. Bill Maher, as I said, would feature on that list though.
Secondly, I don't recall Dawkins trying to falsify traditional philosophy per se. Atheism has had a very long tradition in philosophy too. Buddhism and Jainism denounce the idea of a creator God (but retain supernatural beliefs), Hinduism has branches which reject God and Greek philosophers have developed "Godless" philosophies too.
Also, if science isn't meant to "prove" anything, then what is ? Proof is an elusive concept and science attempts to minimize assumptions (Occam's razor / principle of parsimony) in its explanations of phenomena. That's the best we can hope for rationally.
As for Dawkins' qualifications, how qualified are we to debate anything on listverse ?
"it doesn't care" doesn't describe atheism at all. That phrase goes better with apatheism, a different philosophy. Is trying to teach a child that there is no monster in his closet, or that the pain in his stomach is not because of a shamanic curse but stale food proselytizing ? Of course not ! Similarly, trying to explain to grownups that the more logical position on matters of the universe is the one that dispels the notion of God is not proselytizing.
If Dawkins isn't qualified to debate theology then no one is. Since religions aren't based on facts or evidence – qualifications in schools of thought about things which have no evidence are completely meaningless.
"he doesn't disbelieve the concept of a creator"
What are you smoking, Frater? He's admittedly not of Hard Atheism (no rational person can be since the idea of god isn't disprovable) but he describes himself as a 6.8 on a scale of 0 – 7 (hard theism <-> hard atheism) so I don't know where your getting your information from.
Dawkins bag is evolution and evolution awareness in a world permeated by superstition and mistrust of science. His goal is to help people to see the world isn't 6500 years old but 4.5 billion and that we are apes whom share common ancestry with other humans, hamsters, horses, everything. Beyond that it's not about converts.
He's not the crass zealot that the religious paint him as. I never cease to be amazed at how vocal atheists get demonised as militant, persecuting bigots as if they're going to pick up an AK, don a suicide vest and declare war on all believers. How threatened must the religious feel to react like this.
Bill Maher isn't an atheist. He said that atheism just mirrors the certitude of religion. He called himself an apathetic theist since he doesn't care about the thing at all
That's a technically correct (the best kind of correct) point, but after watching "Religulous" , you'd have to agree that the man favors the atheistic position very, very much.
I haven't seen the movie so i can't argue with that but i have wanted to see it so i'll make sure to check it out. Thanks.
Heh..I was actually expecting him to be on the list. I'd hate to be involved in any sort of organized religion, but RD is fighting this thing in a wrong way. He's fighting the dogma by being dogmatic himself. Unwise. Bill Maher is nowhere near his level of silliness (simply because Dawkins is not even funny while being a jackass).
dont forget ricky gervais, that bum should be on this list.
most people don’t know he’s atheist, but he makes a good point, “The burden of proof is on the believer”.
Great list and very interesting, but if Kim Jong Il is deified then how can he truly be an atheist?
It's interesting how few of the people on this list have actually commited their atrocities in *the name of* atheism, as opposed to how many theists commit their atrocities in *the name of* their god. But it just goes to show, there's good and bad in all walks of life.
Your add about Hitler isn't strictly true – there's actually more evidence to suggest he went to church on a fairly regular basis than there is for any of his other alleged religious views. He publicly stated that he believed Germany to be a Christian nation and was considered "deeply religious" by Goebbels.
Stalin really was a monster. In some ways I think he was even worse than Hitler.
Atheism is the belief that there is no first creator.
Kim Jong Il believes that – thus he is an atheist.
Regardless of what his people believe, he is still an atheist. If 1 million people believe Richard Dawkins is God, it doesn't stop him being an atheist – it just means that 1 million people are extremely deluded.
Umm.. because Kim Jong Il himself sanctified the deification? That would imply that he does believe in some kind of deity, therefore negating his atheist status.
Whew, for a minute there, I thought it was just me that caught that. I mean Jim Jones was definitely not an atheist. I never even heard of this alleged quote made by Jones.
Other than Jeffrey Dahmer (who later became a Christian), I can't see that any of these people committed their terrible acts because of their atheism. It seems like politics played a MUCH larger role in their decisions.
Best comments ever!
I disagree, lets argue!
Oh man! I became so thumb sensitive!
Look at that ! They gave me 5 down to me and 2 up for you.
Guess the argument is over… you won.
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness."
Karl Marx, or any American Liberal.
As an American liberal, I firmly disagree with the above statement; for some people, religion is all they have and would totally fall apart without it. Lets not make any hasty generalizations.
I don't know about this list. Very interesting read (the Kim Jong Il part brought back great memories of a recent list), but the title threw me a little. Good job, anyway.
Did the list writer actually do any research on Alfred Kinsey or did they just believe what his detractors say without actually examining it? From what I understand, Kinsey was a bit of a masochist, not a sadist, and he never exploited or experimented with children.
The only one on this list whom I see as actually giving atheism a bad name is Dahmer, who explicity stated that he had no moral compass because he had no religious beliefs. Most atheists will ridicule that idea. If people are only "good" or refrain from committing murder, rape, and other crimes because they fear a god's punishment, what kind of moral compass is that? The rest of the entries on this list are people who did reprehensible things, but it seems their atheism had little to do with their actions.
That is a very good point.
It's a fair point that merely relying on pleasing religion doesn't provide a moral compass.
However, in an atheistic society, people could certainly have vastly different levels of morality, and it would be difficult to argue against them. If one was to take a purely scientific approach (which you'd have to), one could make the case for eugenics, genocide etc. Of course there's always the law. However, if a country had laws allowing racial persecution, would that make them right? Could we assume that our ideas, based on centures of living under Judeo-Christian religion, are correct?
Troubling questions
Atheism=/=science.
You are right to an extent – he didn't directly interfere with children. However he did request and take the testimony of child rapists under a veil of secrecy to get his information on how young a child is before they have an orgasm. That is tacitly endorsing child rape.
Actually Dahmer was part of church of christ and a christian creationist. Look right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer
All things considered, I'll stick to religion, specifically, in my case, moderate Christianity, which has given the world art, science, music, architecture, health care and human rights (most of the time).
But then why would you base your beliefs based on what they've provided the world. Firstly, that doesn't make the religion true. Secondly, a multitude of other religions have provided the world with those things as well. As a result, that's no reason to choose Christianity or put it above any other religion.
I don't think Astraya said that. I think he said that many of the arguments given above don't provide a reason to give up Christianity.
Christianity gave us none of those things, and vehemently opposed the arts (theatre, and anything the church deemed morally depraved: most of it), and medical science for many many years. What they gave us was missionaries who crossed the world destroying other cultures, the rest of your list was appropriated by Christians, just like they appropriate the monotheistic beliefs of the Jewish people and supplanted that onto the culture of Rome to create the Christian religion.
You are seriously wrong. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Michaelangelo, Donatello, Messiaen, Schnittke – these are all great artists who were devoted to their faith. The Church has NEVER oppose art – it is one of the great patrons of the arts. As for medical science and other science, Aristotle set the ground for modern science, but it was St Thomas Aquinas (with full acceptance by the Church) who brought it into modern life. Copernicus was a monk, the man who invented the big bang was a priest – Father Lemaitre.
Theatre? Opera came from Monteverdi who followed the example of Palestrina – the greatest Church musician in history.
Ultimately – rather than give you examples to disprove you, I will as you to prove your point by giving me 5 examples in the last 2,000 years of the Church opposing the arts.
Arguable, certainly. The Church definitely had periods where they suppressed art, but that was mostly on a pope-to-pope basis, and hardly substantial. What can be said, though, is that the Church kept people from creating much that wasn't religious in nature during a great deal of their time. There are LONG periods of time where every single painting and sculpture had a saint, Mary, Jesus, or a similar figure in it. And, as an atheist AND an art history major, I find little else more annoying than having to spend a thousand years of our history drawing nothing else. Aside from a handful of paintings of independently rich commissioners, we really do get little else.
They have an entire list of books that can't be read! A black balled list of books that are forbidden. Also, Shakespeare wasn't allowed to build a church in London because of the objections of the church.
You are the one that is wrong, lemaitre had little to do with the big bang theory. Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding, the only thing lemaitre did was point out the obvious, that the expansian must have a starting point, he didn’t even coin the term.
Religion has always supressed art that differs from their views, there would have been much more diversity in art history hadn’t it been for the church, and many artists went the way of the church because it was the easiest way to get a grant.
@opiucha: and for 10.000 years we only had paintings on cave walls depicting animals running. Whats your point?
@eye licker: yes maybe, should have, etc etc etc. Can you honestly say that david’s statue is worth less than whatever wathol made? Its called cultural heritage buster. The greeks had it romans also. Thats what humanity did. Represent the gods. Saying it would have been different without religions is like saying we would have had relativity theory 10.000 years ago if einstein would have been born 10.000 years ago. Its a stupid statement we can safely say.
Afraid you misunderstood there, chap. Had it not been for Christianity we would have different arts, not less. The church has not been a patron of the arts, it has merely guided it in a certain direction. Beethoven’s music would have been no less magnificent had he been a atheist, agnostic, deist or pantheist.
And it’s not at all like your statement.
Science?
I was pretty sure that Kinsey, and confidant that Napoleon were both Agnostic and not Atheist.
Agnosticism is not inherentlly mutually exclusive to atheism. You can believe there is no god and still not be certain.
Great list. I’m just waiting to see how many comments this list will gather. As soon as religion is mentioned the post becomes highly controversial.
make a distinction between inferring that someone is atheist based on a theistic bias interpretation of actions & having actual evidence they are theists as in being a publicly proclaimed member of some religion such as a priest. make a distinction between horrific acts explicitly committed by someone publicly pronouncing such acts in the name of some god & actual atheists stating publicly that horrific acts were committed for the sake of atheism & no other reason or explanation. the historical tally sheet weighs much, much more heavily on the side of theists than atheists. i would like to see actual evidence of people publicly proclaiming that their agenda or rationale for whatever horror they committed was based on atheism…Jim Jones aside…that bit needs documentation. it is much simpler to look up public records of public figures ..such as birth certificates, baptismal records, marriage licenses…etc. & public statements of testaments of some religion than hard evidence not just hearsay or after the fact inference of atheism.
Stalin in an interview to First American Trade Union Delegation in 1927:
"The Party cannot be neutral with regard to religion, and it conducts anti-religious propaganda against any and all religious prejudices because it stands for science, while religious prejudices go against science, since every religion is something contrary to science."
that was one good example.
just bear in mind being antitheistic is not the same as being an atheist. one can believe in a god (supreme being, higher power etc) & not participate in any religion. that said, as horrific as Stalin's 'body count' was…to date i do think the overall 'body count' plus the horrendous impact on society most especially women & children by religion far exceeds the impact of atheism.
@cyn. That actually doesnt make any sense. What are comparing? After 200 years will your grand grand children start to make body counts on religion vs eating fatty foods?
A killing does not happen because the person is a theist or not. It involves multiple factors and religion is just easy to name.
Im sorry to say but your comment is stupid. Its like saying counting the wtc like a body count. Its insensitive.
i would recommend you refrain from personal attacks if you want to be taken seriously. as for your statements…you need to be more specific as to what bearing fatty food has on religion. i do not see the correlation. as for your statement re: multiple factors that too is not clear please specify. & i see absolutely no connection to using WTC as a metaphor in this context. given this system of commenting please direct any questions or responses specifically to that person not just in the body of a responding comment to someone else. it is one of many of the aspects of this system that is difficult to track & yes that was not directed at you Arsnl…just a general observation re: this comment system.
@cyn:im using a mobile version so the commenting is difficult.
I say your comment is stupid because you say things like “body count” like its a game. Its very childish. Ive used the wtc example cuz like you said. Its just a body count. I could have also used the holocaust. We can both agree that it was not the best way to express an idea.
Multiple factors: if you use religion to claim power, is it religios fault?how many killings/wars happened because some forces collided. Like desire of power, land etc etc. There i see religion being used as a tool.
I also generaly think people can become fanatics because its in their nature.
If you are an atheist you can say that societies created religion. So its society’s fault if women or children have a lower status. Its the fault of HUMANS. Not religion. Thats a fault that happens alot with atheist. They say humans created religion. Then they say religion persecutes women. Ergo religion is “bad”. They dont say well humans are “bad”. They say religion is “bad”.
Ps i will not retract my statement that your previous comment was stupid. Thats how i see it.
a game? body count is not a game. it is a phrase i grew up w/ watching the news re: the Vietnam war…so it is not a game but a heavily weighted & tragic phrase. agreed – religion is a tool. a brutally used tool. i have my own opinions re: how religion is used against women & children that is not pertinent to this list. as for you not retracting your comment…that is your opinion as it is mine that it was a poor word choice. so we're done. i posted another comment w/ a link much more pertinent to this list plus a link to a more general site..which ends my commenting on this list.
Nice list. I have to disagree with your first two selections though. Kinsey's research really revolutionized the way we think about ***** today. His research wasn't mostly fraudulent, but most people believe that because of the stigma surrounding ***** at the time.
Secondly, Napoleon is regarded by many people as the French national hero. While he did all the things you said, how can you then say that he gives atheism a bad name with a reputation as a hero? He only lost a lot of french Territory because during his rule French territory was Europe. When he was dethroned he was forced to give it all up. You also fail to mention some of the good things he did like: establishing a national bank, write a fair tax code, improve road and sewer systems, and finance higher education.
I think this is somewhat missing the point. Most of the people on this list did not commit their evil because they believe there is no god; most of them are evil and happen to be atheist. This is a marked difference with people who commit evil in the name of their religion.
Do you ever consider that many evil acts committed in the 'name of religion' are merely that – by name only? Many religious conflicts have other debates going on as well – i.e. Northern Ireland is as much, if not more, about unionism and republicanism than religion; the Crusades was arguably a money-making exercise.
I'm not saying that ends the argument. I just wondered if you ever considered this.
I said this very early in the comments – the Atheists will say that these people did not commit their crimes in the name of atheism – but neither do most Christians. However, many atheists in their opposition to Christianity will certainly blame their faith for their actions even if their religion does not support their actions.
Hitler was a baptised Catholic but his actions were condemned by the Church. By your argument Hitler would not be allowed on a list of people who gave Christianity a bad name, but many atheists cite him as an argument against it.
So because atheists supposedly blame the actions of evil people, who happen to be theists, on their faith, it's okay for theists to do the exact same to atheists? Right.
"I said this very early in the comments – the Atheists will say that these people did not commit their crimes in the name of atheism – but neither do most Christians."
That's correct. Most Christians that end up committing crimes is because of reasons that don't involve their religion at all. However, there have been Christians that have committed crimes because of their belief in god or their religion. (A warped view of Christianity if you want)
Take for example the Lord Resistance Army in Uganda that actually commits terrorist acts. That can be an example of Christians giving their religion a bad name. Just like Al-Qaeda gives Islam a bad name. Wouldn't you agree?
As for Hitler, I don't think he gives religion a bad name. His acts had nothing to do with religion, rather they were the result of his Nazism. However, the Catholic Church didn't exactly oppose/condemn Hitler during his time.
Kim isn't an atheist – he fancies himself a god, the reincarnation of his father.
Adolph Hitler:
"As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice"
Nazi uniform beltbuckles:
"Gott mit Uns."
Although the Alfred Kinsey is a bit arguable, it's a decent list.
No he doesn't – the people of North Korea do. That is a very big difference.
Strictly speaking, I think theism has more to do with worship and respect than just belief. One can believe in Jesus, but if you disobey his word and disrespect him, then are you really a Christian? (Although with that logic, few people these days are really Christians.) Furthermore, a God cannot be anything but an atheist, unless there is a higher figure which he believes in and worships. God need not believe in himself, for he knows he exists; God doesn't worship himself. Therefore, he can't be a theist.
What? No. Theism is belief in deities – religion is about worship and respect. There's a sizeable canyon of difference between the two.
Gott mit Uns has been a Prussian military motto for centuries though, it was not a something the Nazis came up with.
@to several comments
If a religious person commits a crime, it's because they're religious. If an ateistic person does the same crime, it's just a coincidence, that they they are ateistic. I don't see any logic in this. Only prejudice.
We can list many atrocities done in the name of religious belief — the Crusades, witch trials, suicide cults, Islamic terrorism, many deaths that could have been avoided if people sought medical care and not prayer, not to mention all of the terrible deeds committed in the Bible. And that's just scratching the surface. Can you, in return, name just as many atrocities done in the name of non-religious or anti-religious belief? If you can, please do.
Stalin.
His regime killed believers because the doctrine of the USSR was intolerant of theism and advocated atheism.
You argue semantics, and it is cheap trick that devalues the death of countless thousands in order to foist up your atheistic circle logic.
The number of atrocities may not be as high since atheists haven't had much power until the 20th century, but they made up for it by the sheer numbers killed in each atrocity (the much larger modern populations help). Also, since things like the crusade happened 800 years ago, whereas the atheist things happened 80 years ago, it is telling that you still see the religious things as more of a threat.
The League of Belligerent Atheists under Stalin went around terrorizing (often fatally) worshipers until WWII, when Russian needed to use its resources to fight Nazis. They attacked religious people so brutally, even the USSR government called them "enemies of the state" officially (though they were still supported by the government secretly). To quote wikipedia: "In the period between 1927 and 1940, the number of Orthodox Churches in the Russian Republic fell from 29,584 to less than 500."
Mao didn't recognize the right for religion to exist during the cultural revolution so countless religious leaders and clergy were oppressed and often killed.
Pol Pots' Khmer Rouge specifically targeted religious clergy, and often killed people simply for praying.
Also wikipedia said the anti-religious purges in communist Mongolia killed "30,000–35,000"
The Republicans in the Spanish and French civil wars killed nuns and priests in their anti-religious campaigns.
The list goes on, look up state atheism
When a religious person commits a crime it is often done because of their beliefs-fundies bombing abortion clinics, crusaders slaying innocents because they won't convert, witch hunts, suicide bombers, spreading a message that is heretical to the church, martyrs who wouldn't renounce their personal belief systems-the list goes on.
The atheists in this list are mostly committing crimes in a show of corruption from the power their positions bring. Which means, the cause of their badness isn't their lack of belief in a deity, but the powers given to them to allow escape from retaliation in the standard sense.
Dahmer said he acted the way he did because he found no reason to adjust his behavior based on the fact he believed there to be no ultimate judger of sins, but he was a sociopath as well. Most serial killers on record were religious, and the only reason Dahmer is singled out is because this is a list of atheists, not a list of bad people in general. Dahmer may have reconciled his actions with himself with the fact that he wouldn't conform to a religious person's god-induced restraint, but he would have tortured, ate and raped the bodies of his victims regardless of religious belief. None of it was CAUSED by his atheism, but all of the other traits he shared in common with most every other serial killer.
No prejudice here, just logic.
People don't kill for a lack of god, but people certainly DO kill for deities.
While I agree with the fact that this is mostly a list of people commiting crimes and horrible actions while at the same time, unrelatedly, being atheists (with the possible exception of Dahmer), I also have to stand up against this kind of generalisation of religious people. While there definately has been numerous cases of horrible things being done in the name of religion, or under the guise of religion, the same thing can be said for other views, such as political views or national disagrements, and it doesn't immediately make the religion evil – that is a wholy different discussion. It should be obvious that all religious people are not evil, in the same manner that all atheists are not evil. It should be self-explanatory.
While I'm on the subject, I actually have a hard time imagining someone commiting crimes or evil actions in the name of atheism, simply because I believe, as an atheist myself, that atheism isn't a belief or an "religion" in the same manner as christianity or hinduism – it is an absence of religion, an absence of belief – it's in many ways nothing at all, a bit like the way anarchy is the absence of organized society. In this line of thinking, I don't believe someone can actually act "in the name of atheism", because that would be acting in the name of nothing. In no way am I by this defending atheists as infallable and perfect – we are humans just like any other person – or saying that religion is evil without exceptions; I am simply asking wether a person can commit a crime in the name of nothing.
Saying that atheism is a religion is like saying that not playing sports is a sport itself or it's like saying that bald is a hair color. It's just plain wrong.
It isn't a religion by definition but it is functionally the same. It informs what kind of person you are and determines your moral outlook on life (that doesn't mean every atheist has the same outlook, just like theists don't). Atheism is just another worldview.
And sports and baldness have absolutely nothing to do with your belief in the meaning of or purpose of existence.
“sports and baldness have absolutely nothing to do with your belief in the meaning of or purpose of existence”-and neither does atheism.
“Atheism is just another worldview”-one belief isn’t a worldview.
Napoleon was an atheist ? Consider these:
"I am a monarch of God's creation, and you reptiles of the earth dare not oppose me. I render an account of my government to none save God and Jesus Christ. "
Addressing members of the Catholic clergy assembled during ‘Bonaparte's Conference with the Catholic and Protestant clergy at Breda,’ May 1, 1810
"The existence of God is attested by everything that appeals to our imagination. And if our eye cannot reach Him it is because He has not permitted our intelligence to go so far."
"Jesus Christ was the greatest republican."
"Charity and alms are recommended in every chapter of the Koran as being the most acceptable services, both to God and the Prophet."
"I do not see in religion the mystery of the incarnation so much as the mystery of the social order. It introduces into the thought of heaven an idea of equalization, which saves the rich from being massacred by the poor."
Perhaps you can explain then the fact that he put severe restrictions on religion. It is one thing to speak and another thing to believe. Actions speak louder than words. As for that last phrase, that is clearly the comment of a politician before he introduces an anti-rich rule in order to convince them that it is for their own good when it is probably not.
"Perhaps you can explain then the fact that he put severe restrictions on religion. It is one thing to speak and another thing to believe. Actions speak louder than words. As for that last phrase, that is clearly the comment of a politician before he introduces an anti-rich rule in order to convince them that it is for their own good when it is probably not."
Have you actually looked on how were things run during Napoleon's time? The Catholic Church and Other Christian Churches influenced a played a big role in government. In fact, during that time, the Catholic Church opposed freedom of religion. Fighting against Religious Institutions' abuses does not mean that you are an atheist.
For example, in Mexico many people fought for making this nation a Secular one. In order to do that they had to fight the Catholic Church, because it opposed Religious Freedom and because it had privileges within the nation. Most of those people that fought to make this country a Secular One were Catholics themselves.
Napoleon and Hitler both fall into the same category in regards to their theism, in my opinion. They both certainly kept an eye that they were theistic, and perhaps they really were, but they saw the importance of religion in controlling the people. And Napoleon, who is honestly not the worst of guys as this article makes him out to be, most likely was struggling between the urge to use religion for his liking and what amounts to the strong and rightful belief in the separation of Church and State. He certainly wouldn't be the first honest Christian, though, who suppressed religion for the good of the people, nor the first to use it to control the people. That's been going on since the dawn of Christianity; and before that, it was used by honest polytheists to control the polytheistic masses. Nothing new, but I can't say it is obvious what he believed without further research.
Hitler didn`t believe in the Occult or Mysticism. That was that guy with the glasses. And it`s hard to work out if he was religious or not. He said, "Christianity is for sick brains," and "The best thing to do is to let Christianity die a natural death." But he was also was raised a Roman Catholic and trained to be a Priest. So it`s hard to work out.
It was actually stalin that went to a seminar to become a priest. But he hated it and we can all see the result. I hate stalin. I hope im allowed to hate him.
You're allowed to hate him. He's worse than anyone else.
As below, Stalin was the one who went to a seminary. Hitler definitely believed in a mythological pagan religion which saw the Germanic tribe as the superior tribe. Many people were raised Catholic who reject (by their actions) the teachings of the Church – those people are not Catholics. They have chosen to reject the Church.
I was always under the impression that rather than Hitler himself believing it, he used it as a tool of propoganda.
The sad thing about this list is that the author, inadvertently i hope, is just adding fuel to the fire, without getting some of his facts straight. Some people have already stressed that none of these people committed various heinous acts simply because they were atheists. It's like saying that Joe, who doesn't drink alcohol, and is a convicted ***** offender, gives anti alcoholism a bad name. Think about things like this when considering the condemnation of someone's traits which are independent of the acts one committed.
I think you missed #1. Try and read it again. When you are over, read it again.
No it isn't – the people on this list professed anti-religion; Joe, in your example didn't.
The point of this list is that if someone goes to church and commits a crime, it is okay to blame their religion, so, a person whose religion is the denial of God should be under the same set of rules.
'..a person whose religion is the denial of God ….'
what is the name of this religion that denies God…& which god does it deny?
just because you went to seminary school and are a theist jamie doesn't give you a pass to misrepresent/misunderstand the very concept of non-believers.
they only thing i can think of that begins to fit the idea of "a person whose religion is the denial of God" would be a person who participates certain versions of satanism that recognize the concept of a biblical god and deliberately embrace its "opposite" power, and maybe certain gnostics who believe the biblical god is merely an imperfect tyrannical demiurge who may even be seen as evil as it created suffering, not one to be worshiped or respected.
neither of those are versions of non-believers, aka "atheists". anyway, one can't really be a denialist in relation to something that hasn't been shown by way of evidence to even exist, all one can do is say "i choose not to believe in this concept until supporting evidence is indeed found." and that's not a religion by any definition of the concept….
Case in point as far as Stalin is concerned. His RELIGION, or rather, his mockery of an idea of a stage in human development is to blame. People constantly forget that socialism, as opposed to some forms of atheism, had an agenda. Basically, socialism (not communism, these two terms do not mean the same thing, and there was never a regime that was truly communist; no wonder since "true" communism is a form of utopia) was a CIVIL RELIGION, meaning that certain profane institutions and acts, like the cult of the leader, the communist party, various public displays etc were , in a way, made sacrosanct.
Religion as we know it was seen as unwanted competition. Attempts at eradicating it served the purpose of imposing a new ideology – largely similar to that of most religions, and not exterminating the need for any form of belief and worship whatsoever.
i agree matt. apt *****ogy
Sally H must be a Conservative Christian. Why #10, Alfred Kinsey – comments are from Conservative Christians who don't like his work. While they clam he and is research is a fraud, most scientists consider his work ground breaking and ahead of its time.
And what Sally H doesn't realize that most listed in her 10, are reacting to the Christian Church ties with oppressive Goverments . If she knew anything about history, she know Russia Christian church's ties with the Tzar, Christian Missionary Zealots actions in pre-communist China and French Vietnam. No wonder the tyrants renounced religion.
But, most of the Christians I know, don't care about history even their own church's history.
Some documentary placed the collective wealth of the Tsar in today's money at more than $1 trillion I believe. Just an interesting fact.
Wow. With 2 exceptions here, I would say that none of these fit in with giving atheism a bad name. Unlike religious zealots, atheists don't kill in the name of unbelief. It just happens that we find out AFTER that they are atheists…during research or study of the above mentioned.
Unfortunately they do kill in the name of unbelief. Of their particular philosophy. That in particular has nothing to do with being either an atheist or theist. It's just a failing of human nature. Religious nuts will argue that their doing God's will. Atheistic nuts will argue that there doing for the greater good. For both it's a picture that only they see.
You're foregtting that Atheists have no belief in overarching, inescapable divine justice, and no moral absolutes. They thus have no moral check on their behavior. They thus engage in whatever behaviors they feel are expedient at the time. It's no accident that Atheists have killed more people since 1917 than all the religions in the world put together since the beginning of time.
Of course they did….they were around WAY before religion got started………however, it seems religion is doing it's best to try and keep up. …go figure.
but some atheists do believe in moral absolutes. your argument starts with a false premise.
Yes, nothing can come from nothing, therefore I am saved by Jesus the Jewish Zombie and his sky wizard daddy. You theists are hilarious.
Man, half of the list are communists!!!
Luckyly, to be an atheist doesn't mean you are a commie.
Communism really sucks…
Great list, by the way
Most of these men seem to be leaders of communist nations, and nothing else is given to specify them as being atheists.
Just because a person is a communist doesn't mean they don't believe in any god.
I'm not saying these guys weren't, but when there is no other evidence of them being atheists other than tyranically ruling a communist nation, it's hard for me to accept that they are just based on that alone.
not all atheists are commies, but all commies are atheists
Marx explcitly called religion the "opiate of the masses". If you have proof that these communist dictators believed in God, let's see it.
I've just had a quick look at the '10 people who give Christianity a bad name' list.
8/10 of the people listed on there do or did do bad things BECAUSE of the religion. Here, 0/10 people did the bad things they did BECAUSE of atheism. I just thought I would point this out in reply to:
'…all the controversy here will be people saying that the list is invalid because the atheists didn't do their evil deeds in the name of Atheism. But all of those saying that will say the Christian list was valid because Christianity is to blame for their misdeeds. '
Christianity – or, more accurately, the belief within Christianity that the Holy Bible is pure truth – IS to blame for 8/10 of the bad deeds on that list… most certainly number 1 on the list, Fred Phelps. We of course shouldn't tar all Christians with the same brush – but, very unfortunately, we can safely say that the actual base point of the religion (the book) can and does promote a degree of hate. Thankfully, many believers cherry pick and ignore these hateful bits of the Bible – and that's more than fine with me.
Atheism has no 'rules to follow' like Christianity, so as much as people will try to say otherwise – once in a while, bad things will be done by those who are of Christian faith in the name of Christianity, while not by an atheist in the 'name' of atheism. Well, if someone said 'I am going to kill thousands of people SPECIFICALLY and ONLY because I have no belief in God' then that would be in the 'name of atheism', technically.
Also, atheism shouldn't be capitalised unless the start of a sentence. It's not a group or 'thing'. Just noting that from reading some of these comments… and only noting it as it shows a slight misunderstanding of what atheism is……
Im just going to love today. Hello!!!! Are you HUMAN. Can you READ? Try reading the STALIN entry. God dammit are you actually so strong on proving a point that you would ignore one of the most evil dictator of the 20th century?
Im sure you are strong on debate but please read again the STALIN entry.
Ps i used capital letters cuz you seem to enjoy it.
That is still only 1 out of 10, compared to the 8 out of 10 on the Christianity list. Also, Jim Jones is on both lists. Seems that there's a little difference of opinion there.
LOL, yes. So is Jim Jones an atheist or a theist?
But definitely agree with the comment of Danielle, most people that commit crimes believe in god (totally expected since most people are religious); however, they commit their crimes for reasons that aren't related to their belief in god or their religion. You can't say that those people give their religion a bad name.
yeah and that 1 caused more deaths than the 8 'christians' COMBINED
It's not about quantity, It's about the quality
Stirring for the sake of it again Arsnl or just being a dickwad? Stalin promoted atheism and attempted to destroy the Church not for any 'religious' belief of his own but because he viewed The Cjhurch as an effective rallying point for dissent against the rule of The Communist Party. ie Him. Therefore as a pragmatic measure (and Stalin was quite the pragmatist) he did all in his power to destroy the possible rallying point for opposition.
Cheers
Lee
@Danielle Christians who have read the bible from start to finish understand that it is a history lesson, and everything changed with the arrival of Jesus (“You have heard it said … But I tell you now … “). Unfortunately, Those who take from the old testament should still be offering up lambs at the altar. “Cherry picking” is for the homophobes on the far right and Westboro Baptist. Most Christians are loving, caring people who accept everyone as they are.
Seriously, what is this about "cherry picking"? From what I know, most athiests (as well as many Christians, ironically) don't consistently read the Bible. Also, if they do, many athiests can't do so without finding some false "double-meaning" or "hidden message".
I question Pol Pot's prominence in this list, being placed ahead of Mao, especially seeing that he controlled a much smaller country than China and killed far less people. I have seen figures ranging from 40 million to 150 million deaths caused by Mao. That is 83 million unaccounted-for people that went missing under Mao. Mao and Stalin together make up possibly more than 100 million people that went missing under their leadership but have never been officially been declared murdered.
Pol Pot only failed to reach Mao or Stalin like numbers due to lack of opportunity. Had he been in control of China or USSR he would likely have racked up even bigger numbers than either of those two. Without going to the trouble of getting the raw numbers for total population in each country during each reign, I think you will find that Pots % of killing exceeds Mao and Stalin. Certainly the effects of his genocide was every bit as profound on his country.
Cheers
Lee
If I say that I am killing in your name but everything you have ever said or thought is opposed to my actions, does my killing still getvtied to you? If a Christian kills someone because “God told me to do it” then they are not acting in line with what God has previously said in the Bible. This means they are not acting the way Christian theology prescribes. Hitler was not Christian in any way, shape or form because the Bible explicitly condemn his actions.
As far as Old Testament is concerned God doesn't have too much against massacre. And he definitely doesn't condemn killing.
Why do people so fervently defend Christianity but when Islam, a parallel belief, is called a violent, evil belief, no one seems to mind?
This is an awfully tricky topic, this. In my opinion, as others have said, you cannot commit evil in the NAME of atheism, exactly. There is no unifying belief in atheism other than "there is no God." That said, most of the evils committed in the NAME of a religion were in no way following the doctrines of those religions. Also, many of the above were communists, and the result of poor implementation of an inevitably flawed political system are what lead to all of these evils. Atheism is incidental; communism isn't an a/theocracy; atheism is an expectation of a communist government, but it doesn't lead to the evils of it. Atheism is as important to communism as free public education is, and that certainly didn't kill tens of millions of people.
Also, neither Kinsey nor Bonaparte are the worst of people, and while they are hardly heroes or role models (in my opinion), they are hardly the bad names of atheism. I really think miss Sally isn't an atheist, because an atheist might have only had one or two of these people on their personal Top 10 list.
Hahaha!
I stopped reading comments after the first Obama comment. This does have alot of political undertones.
So what does me being agnostic and a believer in conservative government make me?
I could see early on that this list was going to be controversial, so I wanted to include a lighthearted comment. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being conservative or liberal. The problem comes when one is so conservative or liberal that they say or do absolutely braindead things.
Indecisive and close minded to the plight of your fellow man.
"So what does me being agnostic and a believer in conservative government make me? "
A smart person =). I'm an atheist voting for conservative governments ever since. And I know a lot people who do the same. Not to mention famous examples like Rand, Hayek, Friedman, etc. etc.
"A smart person =). I'm an atheist voting for conservative governments ever since. And I know a lot people who do the same. Not to mention famous examples like Rand, Hayek, Friedman, etc. etc."
Yes well, they do not do so because of their Conservative leaning, rather, they do so because of Economic Policies and Theories. And seriously, I don't see why people make the link between Austrian Economics and Conservativism, or between Libertarian Ideology and Conservativism. They are just so different.
Conservatives do not really endorse "free market policies in which the government doesn't interfere", nor do they support individual freedoms to the extent that Libertarians do.
A lot of the entries on this list have no reference to the subject's atheism.
They don't always have to. People will attribute a person's lunacy to the fact that they are simply an 'atheist'. As if it were synonymous with Satanist.. Therefore, it unfortunately helps to propagate the ignorance further along.
Actually, quantum physics demonstrates that something can indeed come from nothing. Whilte this fact doesn't make intuitive sense to most people, we didn't evolve to understand the quantum world because we didn't need to. (Note that from a seemingly intuitive, common-sense perspective, the world seems flat, not round. We have to use science to see the bigger picture, that the world is round, and also to understand why we don't all fall off the bottom.) Also, if one believes something cannot come from nothing but believes in God, then that position begs this question: from where did God come?
While it is true the church, for the most part, didn't oppose art, it did primarily support only art that depicted religious themes. Michaelangelo et. al. were mostly dedicated to their patron's financial support more than their personal beliefs in the Abrahamic diety. At least one of the great artists mentioned in this discussion was also homo*****ual, a sin desrving of death by the Biblical Yahweh.
continued below
continued from above:
conclusion below:
extention of comment from above:
Of course, religions, the Christian-based ones in particular, and their accompanying dogmas aren't completely evil; nothing or no one I can think of fits the description of veing completely corrupt; religions have sporatically supported certain scientific endeavors and artistic creations that have enhanced society; however, I unwaverlingly believe religions' negative aspects far outweigh the good. Carefully review history and note religions' systematic oppression of advancements in science, theater, human rights, and the list goes on… and on. For hundreds of years, scientific advancements that did not support biblical teachings were banned and the scientists were jailed, or worse, killed. Certain music was stifled for centuries because of tthe church's stance that the harmonies were sensuous pleasures and therefore sinful. LIkewise, theater was banned for a lengthy period, thousands of women were burned as witches, people were held as slaves, ad nauseum, all in the name of religion.
Its my understanding that kinsey did research on an published such articles as how young a child could orgasem (sp?) and how many times a 13 year old boy can ejaculate in one day. I apologise for being so specific (TMI i know) but it begs the question of HOW would he be able to do research on this? either he would do it himself, or he would ask child molesters to do it for him.
The fact is kinsey or someone else at his request was molesting children.
The Kinsey Institute's response to questions of how statistics about children were gathered is here (http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/about/controversy%202.htm):
"Kinsey clearly stated in his male volume the sources of information about children's *****ual responses. The bulk of this information was obtained from adults recalling their own childhoods. Some was from parents who had observed their children, some from teachers who had observed children interacting or behaving *****ually, and Kinsey stated that there were nine men who he had interviewed who had *****ual experiences with children who had told him about how the children had responded and reacted. We believe that one of those men was the source of the data listed in the book."
So while there were apparently a few subjects interviewed who had abused children, they did not do it at Kinsey's request, nor did Kinsey himself experiment on children to gather data. Further, while some sick people have probably used Kinsey's research as a way to justify their own sick behavior when they abuse children, in no way did he or his researchers solicit or condone it.
I got that information from a Google search. The list writer has a clear bias and didn't bother to check her facts.
Your best source is google? And it must be fact? Did you ever think that maybe the Kinsey Institute would be biased FOR Kinsey? Shocker there!
Google isn't a source, my dear, it's a search engine. And yes, that was the Kinsey Institute's rebuttal to the accusations so casually thrown out as if they were fact. If you have any evidence that those accusations are true, I would be happy to read and consider it, but since the statements in the original list were made without citing any source or backing it up in any way, I got the distinct impression that the list writer couldn't be bothered to read the source material before condemning it.
conclusion from above comment (Whew!)
Religion only improves as it becomes secularized. Throughtout history, we see religion changing as it becomes more tempered by the influence of rational thinking. The Abrahamic religion today is a mere shadow of the religion it once was, in which men owned wives as property, people were stoned for worshipping gods other than the Biblical one(s), women who had given birth were considered ritually unclean and so forth. We have the slow but steady encroachment of rational thinking into religion to thank for these, and other, progressions, which make religion more humane now than it ever has been.
Impassioned (yet hopefully rational) rant over.
I have to say, that Stalin must be the worst possible person to be presented on this list (from the view of atheists), since he's the second most evil person i've ever heard of. The most evil was of course: Vlad III the Impaler. I also think, that Napoleon wasn't THAT bad, compared to Jim yong Ill and all the other dictators on the list, and vice versa. Napoleon was bad to the goverment, the dictators to the people. But, it's up to you, if you start to wonder, wheter Napoleon was also bad to the people, being a dictator.
Also, the list of People who gave christianity bad name, there were loads of people much worse than these. And just to say, that dicounting leaders and dictaors, there are only 3 people left to conduct the list.
If you are romanian good for you. You dont know history. If you are not. Good for you. You dont know history.
Your ignorance is digusting. The people on this list killed more people than all the religions in the world put together.
I think he means that there were much worse people FOR the list of christians, not ON the list of christians
Oh Kim Jong Il…. you're really pathetic.
Jim Jones wasn't an atheist. He was originally a Christian, who built his cult upon Christian teachings.
However compile this list shows an astounding ignorance of the concept of atheism. It is not a belief system, it is free from any kind of doctrine, it doesn't compel individuals who are atheist to do anything.
Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods.
You could have similarly called this list the top ten most evil people who didn't belief in Santa Claus/the tooth fairy/the little blue gnomes under my bed.
i am really surprised that "Madalyn Myrray O'Hair" isnt on here!! She actually DID crap in the name of atheism, and was named "the most hated woman in the world". Heres a really good article about her! she seemed like a big pain in the ass, if i may say so!! http://www.dunamai.com/articles/atheist/murder_of…
oh, what i meant by "do things in the name of atheism" i was not bashing on the list. i just noticed alot of people saying these people dont belong because their crimes were not in the name of atheism. I agree with the list, just saying.
While reading the comments it occured to me, it’s fun to watch the atheists squirm for a change and get upset about a list, the miserable lot!
People are just pointing out that the lists title isn't exactly true to the articles in it. As people didn't do this in the name of atheism so it makes no since how they could have given atheism a bad name. Also, I'd like you to go anywhere on the internet that has to do with atheism (like a youtube video, a forum, etc.) and see how many Christians get mad at it. It's not a matter of religion, it's a matter of the attitude of the person itself, and most people are pretty hostile while on the internet, because they know their actions rarely have consequence.
It takes a miserable person to call any group of people "a miserable lot."
Does your remarkable compassion & forbearance stem from religious beliefs?
I am amazed that to this day there are people who believe Hitler & his regime murdered more human beings than anyone else. They need to be aware of Stalin & Mao & their bloody slaughter too.
The problem I see here is the difference between not believing in "religion" and not believing in "god."
Putting restrictions on a religion, which Napoleon probably actually did to limit their influence and wealth as opposed to doing it for any philosophical reasons, only indicates his opposition to the church as an institution. His speeches and writings tend to indicate he was a deist.
Kim Jong Il, on the other hand, understands how religion can be used as the "opiate of the masses," particularly in a society that is dogmatic and controlled. It's hard to know for sure, but it seems to be that he himself has no theistic belief but works to ensure his population continues to see him as a god-like figure to preserve his power and feed his narcissism.
Being completely insane is not exclusive to the religious or the atheistic. I don't see the list as a condemnation of atheism. Stalin was an atheist as was Dahmer, and they were both clearly sociopaths. Jim Jones was a communist and also a clear sociopath. On the other hand, there are also hundreds of priests who molested children and there are preachers who completely screw up people's lives through their interpretation of religious belief. Millions have died through various means in the name of various gods and goddesses and prophets and probably small furry things that wiggle on the end of a stick.
Insanity is a human trait.
"Putting restrictions on a religion, which Napoleon probably actually did to limit their influence and wealth as opposed to doing it for any philosophical reasons, only indicates his opposition to the church as an institution. His speeches and writings tend to indicate he was a deist."
That's correct. For example, the Founding Fathers of the U.S. wanted a government that allowed freedom of religion and didn't make laws that stemmed from religious beliefs or prevented them. They were clearly against the Church influencing governments. However, they were Christians and deists.
By this list's standards, you could say that they were atheist because they opposed Religious Institution's abuses… *rolleyes*
"insanity is a human trait." I've been saying that my whole life! and you have some very very good points here. people need to remember that all religions have their ups and downs, and that no religion is better then the other.
OK, did any of these men commit these acts specifically *in the name of atheism in equal *****ogy to killing in the name of God*?
Few of these men did what they did specifically in the name of atheism. Albert Camus in The Rebel describes many of the ideologies to which the above men subscribed as religions in themselves (specifically Communism and Fascism/Nazism). Jim Jones is the only person on this list who could almost claim to be doing what the religious do, but it is ironic because he created a religion in order to do so.
I agree. Most of the people on this list have committed these acts as part of their philosophy or visions-not necessarily because of their religion. Maybe the rationale for choosing these people was based around other peoples' perspectives of what they did: because they just *happened* to be atheists, their actions could be seen as damaging to the atheists merely by association.
#68, jfrater: “In fact, logic and reason prove that God must exist – nothing comes from nothing, therefore there has to be something outside of physical reality which is the first creator.”
I didnt know this web site was run by a Christian fundamentalist.
“Nothing comes from nothing”. That is trivially true for how the universe behaves as it currently is. When we say we “created a house” we are only meaning that “through the lapse of time, we rearranged matter/energy in to new forms”.
Talking about the very fabric of the universe; time, space and matter/energy is a totally different subject. How do we even know that it CAN be created? Its just an assumption that our primate brain makes, because we ourselves can “create” things out of smaller things. Our brains makes up models of the world, but just think about how many times in the past those models have been wrong, and we have had to work against our intuition as science makes new progress.
What does it mean to say “before the creation of the universe”, when BEFORE only makes sense when there already is time? How can we know that matter/energy even can be created, when it has never been observed and there are no models to explain how?
The correct answer is “We dont know how the universe came into existence, but we are working on it. It looks like it was always here”.
"In fact, logic and reason prove that God must exist – nothing comes from nothing, therefore there has to be something outside of physical reality which is the first creator."
Ah this is nothing. In another list on this site jfrater seriously insists that denying the existence of Jesus is the same as denying the Holocaust. This guy is so funny, I like him. Always a good laugh =)
Here is the quote:
"Regardless of whether you believe he performed miracles, there is an enormous amount of documentary evidence that Jesus existed. As I said before, to deny that is the same as the revisionists who deny the holocaust happened. It suits them to deny it so they do – in the face of enormous evidence to the contrary"
Is everyone who holds a contrary point to you a 'christian fundamentalist'?
Also, thank you for telling us the 'correct answer' to questions that mankind has tried to answer throughout it's entire history.
The 'correct answer' lol. I must have overread that. I thought I was the most arrogant person here.
But when I think about it, it must be a very close call between jfrater, you and me -.-
@The Major: Christian fundamentalists are the ones usually asserting stuff like this. Moderate Christians are usually more careful with how it is worded.
"The correct answer": This is not only me talking, this is the entire scientific community. This is not arrogant, this is just saying that we dont know, and lets not pretend that we do just to feel comfortable. Lets be honest about it, and lets not start our sentences with "In fact,… " to try to elevate delusions to facts.
@Voltaire: I would say that who ever wrote that stuff is delusional. There is tons of material written on this subject on the internet.
BTW, I think that ListVerse lists would be better if they required source references, like how Wikipedia is done. Sometimes it looks like the authors just pulled stuff out of thin air.
I think it should also be noted that Napoleon was elected leader of France before crowning himself emperor, so obviously the country wanted him in power.
I haven't read all the comments, but Bill Maher is tyrannical enough to deserve a spot on here, as well. Great list, Sally! I'm proud to have spawned a sequel.
I bet they all ate bread.
That gives bread a bad name, too.
(Not complaining about the list, just about the way (religious) folks argue about those people being atheists.)
Bread is evil, actually. Well, depends… the bread made by big companies is…
Mmmm… when people commit bad things in the name of their religion, that's when you can truly say that those people give their religion a bad name. For example: Islamic extremists. They do their actions in the name of their religion, not in the name of other ideal.
Pius IX, for example, wanted to forbid freedom of religion in Mexico. It wanted Mexico to be strictly Catholic. That's another person that gives a bad name to his religion.
For most of the people in the list, they did their wrong doings because of communism or other ideal. You can't really say that they gave atheism a bad name.
By the way, even if Hitler was a devout religious person you wouldn't be able to truly say that he gave his religion a bad name. He did his acts because of Nazi Ideology. Not religion.
Didn't Mussolini help give the Roman Catholic Church the piece of land that eventually became the Vatican? Oh well, just another business transaction, I guess.
"Didn't Mussolini help give the Roman Catholic Church the piece of land that eventually became the Vatican? Oh well, just another business transaction, I guess."
Mussolini is a very strange case. He in fact said he was an atheist and denounced the Catholic Church and religion overall. Yet, he actually made sure that his children made the communion. I guess that's what happens when you have a very religious mother and an anti-religious father. LOL.
Definitely, though, he made treaties with the Catholic Church. However, those treaties weren't treaties made out of Catholic Faith or Respect for the Church.
Even god himself is an atheist. And how many people have died( And still continue to die) in his name?
God would've been ideal for the bonus entry.
If there was a god why wouldn't it believe in itself? You're retarded.
It wouldn’t believe in a higher power.
I dont think this topic was very well researched
True that.
The main reason why i presumed he don't believe in himself is primarily due to his lack of confidence on his own creations, the Man. So he had to test his own creations by putting them here on earth instead of placing them on heaven in the first place. The logical implication of my comment was to inspire an intra-personal argument in believers. i.e. God don't believe in himself, so why should we?
Who is retarded now? you *****ing idiot!