Talk:Atheism and Mass Murder
Anti-Theism and Mass Murder?
Not all communists were atheists. Stalin was an admitted deist, Hitler a self-proclaimed Catholic. They were both anti-theist (towards religions other than their own). This article should be renamed "Anti-Theism and Mass Murder"
- Hitler was an atheist and supposed believer in evolution. He was also a proven liberal. Don't try and split hairs to support your liberal agenda. Open your eyes and embrace God! Myrobi 09:13, 27 February 2010 (EST)
Just a quick correction to the preceding comments: Stalin was an atheist and Hitler was a catholic who later eventually despised God in his later years (but that's my opinion and it is still unconfirmed). Hitler was a fascist, not a liberal. Hitler was a Right winged socialist (AKA Fascist and Statist dictator; Liberal on economic issues, but conservative on social issues). Hitler would've been your typical demopublican. He endorsed imperialism and genocide through his promotion of scientific racism. Nashhinton 10:29, 24 September 2011 (EDT)
"Who cares what liberals think?"
Personally, I found Malirin's contribution to this passage to be rather valid, and especially the first paragraph struck me as particularly well-written. The second paragraph could have used better wording. But to see this whole passage reverted with just a "Who cares what liberals think" saddens me. --Maquissar 22:05, 26 February 2010 (EST)
- Conservapedia is not a dumping ground for liberal and atheist apologetics and excuses. If readers really want that, they can head on over to wikipedia and drink their fill. DouglasA 22:46, 26 February 2010 (EST
Offensive?
Does it not occur to anyone that to suggest that to suggest that atheists are more likely to kill masses of people is offensive? Hitler was a very sick man, and everyone knows that, but it doesn't mean that every atheist is as sick as that. It is also constantly asserted that to disagree with this article means that the person disagreeing is automatically dumping their liberal agenda. There are plenty of religious liberal persons, as there are non-religious conservatives.
It must also be mentioned that there have been MANY killers of masses that were religious. --thedrunkencat
- We don't care if atheists are offended. --Jpatt 20:32, 21 March 2010 (EDT)
Why not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joaanes (talk)
- Because the truth (and forgiveness) is a more important value than speculation about whether someone may be offended by it.
- Also, feigned offense is used as a tool of censorship. Often the offense is fictional.--Andy Schlafly 22:03, 13 May 2010 (EDT)
- Sorry for being so blunt. If atheists do not like the truth here well than they have hate for what is written. Should we care they're upset? No. We do care- just not how you want us to. We refuse to confirm you in your sin. We want your conversion and your rightful place in the afterlife, Heaven.--Jpatt 23:19, 13 May 2010 (EDT)
- cat, thanks for the input, I added some additional clarification. You input was very helpful as I added some additional data concerning the connection between atheism and mass murder. In addition, I recommended some books on Soviet atheism as well. Also, if there is not a "see also" link to atheism and uncharitableness, I will add that now. Again, thank you for your input. Lastly, please feel free to write an article on Soviet atheism. conservative 23:39, 13 May 2010 (EDT)
- Cat, I also added this resource to the main atheism article: Forced Secularization in Soviet Russia: Why an Atheistic Monopoly Failed Given that you claim to want to be fair, if you want to demonstrate your claimed fairness by putting together a quality Conservapedia article on Forced secularization, Conservapedia would be most indebted to you. conservative 00:01, 14 May 2010
- Cat, I also added this excellent resource to this article and the main atheism article: Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history by Dinesh D'Souza. Given that you displayed an interest in being fair minded, I would certainly suggest reading that article. conservative 00:19, 14 May 2010 (EDT)
- Cat, I also added this resource to the main atheism article: Forced Secularization in Soviet Russia: Why an Atheistic Monopoly Failed Given that you claim to want to be fair, if you want to demonstrate your claimed fairness by putting together a quality Conservapedia article on Forced secularization, Conservapedia would be most indebted to you. conservative 00:01, 14 May 2010
So let me get this straight...
So you are taking a few key people who happened to be atheist (rather than killing for the sake of atheism) and have now used them to brand all atheists as potential mass murderers. You have also used the "No True Scotsman" fallacy in order to dismiss Christians and other religious folk who have committed murder in the name of the faith. Shouldn't it be the other way around, since generally atheists don't kill people for being religious, but rather because they are political opponents and Christians often kill because people aren't Christians? JohnPaulJonesRevWar 11:20, 29 October 2011 (EDT)
- Only a few key atheists were responsible for about 140 million deaths under atheistic communism? They must have been very busy those few key people! Conservative 06:12, 16 December 2012 (EST)
- I'm an atheist myself. Despite that, I agree with you: it wasn't just the leaders that killed, it was the entire state apparatus more often than not employing numerous other atheists. Therefore, even on average, atheists have been more mass-murderous than theists. Twerkyourpussy (talk) 11:20, 4 March 2017 (EST)
Can someone add in that the French Revolution, which was largely atheistic, also resulted in several attempts at mass murder as well? Most notably the genocide at Vendee? I'd add it in myself, but the article's locked. Pokeria1 19:03, 29 June 2013 (EDT)
Beria
Rapist and mass murder Lavrenty Beria was also an atheist.--JoeyJ 05:22, 5 August 2014 (EDT)
great article
such a same all those innocent people where brutally killed by those deranged atheists AnitaPalmer 10:53, 3 February 2015 (EST)
Shintos in WW2
WW2 Japan was not an atheist state but a Shinto state. The Emperor was revered as divine because he was supposed to be a descendant of the Sun Goddess, (Amaterasu) The Kojiki and Nihon Shoki of Japanese mythology make the emperor's status as a divine descendant of Amaterasu clear (Son of Heaven). As the son of heaven, the emperor's power was absolute unlike emperors in China under the mandate of heaven. During WW2 the state strongly controlled Shinto teachings as pushed such narrative in order to support nationalism through Shinto religion.
- It was removed.Conservative (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2017 (EST)
Ghanghis Khan vs. 20th century atheists
Two sources indicate that Ghanghis Khan and the Mongols caused 5-10 percent of the world to die.[1][2]
"All told, the Mongols’ attacks may have reduced the entire world population by as much as 11 percent."[3] ZME science says: "The wars led in his name killed some 40 million people (about 10% of the world’s population at the time)."[4]
Ghangis Khan and the Mongol religion: "Their work on Mongol Creation Stories: Man, Mongol Tribes, the Natural World, and Mongol Deities is an important reference as it explains the ancient Mongol’s ideology of self and their center of place in the universe and world. Through translation it explains the creation of the world, the Mongolian tribes, the natural world and the deities who inhabit the earth and heavens. Historically these stories are important as they explain the beliefs ancient Mongols held before their unification under Genghis Khan. Such stories were certainly passed down and told to the young Temujin who in turn interpreted there meaning and incorporated them into his Shamanistic practices." - PHD proposal[5] If this PhD proposal is correct then this would make Ghanghis Khan a polytheist.
My source indicate that it is estimated that in the past 100 years, governments under the banner of atheistic communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40,472,000 and 259,432,000 human lives. Stalin died in 1959. Mao's Cultural Revolution which killed around 20,000,000 was in 1966. In 1960, there were around 3 billion people.
Given the numbers above, if the high estimate of Ghanghis Khan's and the Mongols killing of the percentage of the world is correct, it is possible that the Mongols caused a greater percentage of the world to die.
Ghanghis Khan gave cities a chance to surrender. If they surrendered, he largely left them untouched as far as killing them. If they didn't they were slaughtered. Khan also granted religious freedom to those the Mongols ruled. 20th century militant atheist communists weren't as tolerant as Ghanghis Khan! Conservative (talk) 03:49, August 13, 2022 (EDT)