Top 3 Mass Murderers Were Atheists

I personally dont agree that these are the top 3 mass murderer's of all time

"

Poutsos wrote:

I personally dont agree that these are the top 3 mass murderer's of all time

Yeah let's check "History" ;o

"

Inexium wrote:

"

Poutsos wrote:

I personally dont agree that these are the top 3 mass murderer's of all time

Yeah let's check "History" ;o

Yeah '""""""""history""""""""""" :D

"

Nilla wrote:

http://www.examiner.com/article/refuting-the-myth-that-hitler-stalin-and-pol-pot-were-atheists

Quite frankly, I don't understand how this topic went for so long.

Also, if all things are to be considered, the greatest mass murderer of all time is God, if he exists. And, depending on your take on who is this 'god' fellow, he may be responsible for all those mass murderers victims too.

EDIT: I should point out that the OP is clearly baiting for hate, for some reason. This thread should've been banned long ago.

@Pavhaus:

I essentially agree with Thomas Acquinas regarding human will to evil. He said, "there is no problem from the fact that some men desire evil. For they desire evil only under the aspect of good, that is, insofar as they think it good. Hence their intention primarily aims at the good and only incidentally touches on the evil."

The proof for this: no human acts with volition. For anything more complicated than a knee-jerk when hit by a hammer at the doctor's office, one must will himself to act. In so doing, one justifies ones actions to oneself. Justification is an ethical action involving the assignment of good to an action. Thus without self-justification, no human action occurs.

No matter how depraved, people commit actions according to their own view of ethics. For the person who steals a dollar out of someone's purse, stealing is a good — society might think it's wrong, but I could use this dollar for something, and that something is more important than societal convention, therefore — says the thief to themselves — good. For the mass murderer, murder is a good — it is their personal ethics which are so warped that they convince themselves of this.

Thus it follows that all evil stems from ethical ignorance. In most cases, it's an ignorance of proof, not of conclusion — the perpetrator knows, with absolute clarity, that "society" says a certain action is immoral, but not having worked out the proof of its immorality themselves, they suspend their acquiescence temporarily.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

@Pavhaus:

I essentially agree with Thomas Acquinas regarding human will to evil. He said, "there is no problem from the fact that some men desire evil. For they desire evil only under the aspect of good, that is, insofar as they think it good. Hence their intention primarily aims at the good and only incidentally touches on the evil."

The proof for this: no human acts with volition. For anything more complicated than a knee-jerk when hit by a hammer at the doctor's office, one must will himself to act. In so doing, one justifies ones actions to oneself. Justification is an ethical action involving the assignment of good to an action. Thus without self-justification, no human action occurs.

No matter how depraved, people commit actions according to their own view of ethics. For the person who steals a dollar out of someone's purse, stealing is a good — society might think it's wrong, but I could use this dollar for something, and that something is more important than societal convention, therefore — says the thief to themselves — good. For the mass murderer, murder is a good — it is their personal ethics which are so warped that they convince themselves of this.

Thus it follows that all evil stems from ethical ignorance. In most cases, it's an ignorance of proof, not of conclusion — the perpetrator knows, with absolute clarity, that "society" says a certain action is immoral, but not having worked out the proof of its immorality themselves, they suspend their acquiescence temporarily.

I don't deny that there is some merit to what you are saying but it just cannot be applied across the board. In a very micro and simplistic situation someone who is hungry beyond any hunger you or I may have known might steal a couple dollars from a local church donation box. He may do so fully knowing that the choice he is making is wrong but feels compelled to do so by other influences which are driving him to make a choice he otherwise would not. Clearly this man is not ignorant of the evil he does and in doing so I do not believe he assigned any good to the action. He may have felt it necessary and may very likely feel very guilty about it afterwards. The commission of an evil act does not necessarily require the assignment of good to the act in all cases and I think that is where things fall apart in the proof you have stated. Most social concepts do not lend themselves to universal truisms and good and evil are no exception.

"

Pavshaus wrote:

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

given that atheists are generally much smarter than religious people it follows that they will usually be better at what they do, including mass murder.

Or is it because they were not religious people that they had a higher propensity to lack the degree of social conscience which may have prevented the actions which resulted in mass murder? It's pure conjecture either way.

the last sentence touches on a concept that invalidates all arguments in this area as the idea that good and evil can be universally defined also falls into conjecture/subjective opinions. It was a throw away comment for the lolz but holds as much relevance as an opinion in this area can I feel, on some level.



On some level you could argue that a true religious person lacks any inherent social conscience. If I put a gun to your head and tell you to do the things 'good' people do or I'll kill you, does that make you a good person? In a way religious people have given up the right to call their actions or thoughts in the area of morality their own, they have divorced themselves from individuality in order to subscribe to someone elses morality, on some level true faith replaces individual conscience.


I think if anything religion has often been forced to bend to the inherent social conscience of society in order to remain acceptable, rather than vice versa. But then that implies mankind has an inherent social conscience, which is neither proven, able to exist along side my second paragraph as it stands or even a valid concept if we go by my first paragraph.

Yet given long enough we could probably make a sound argument that includes all 3 and yet works as a single, consistent premise. Such is philosophy, more often than not it is used to justify an existing idea rather than conclude a novel one.

I haven't read the thread, so apologies in advance for not adding anything meaningful to the discussion. Th thread title, however, did prompt a question in my mind.

If the "top 3" mass murderers in history were atheists, does that mean that 70% of the top 10 were believers?

"

Pavshaus wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Spoiler

@Pavhaus:

I essentially agree with Thomas Acquinas regarding human will to evil. He said, "there is no problem from the fact that some men desire evil. For they desire evil only under the aspect of good, that is, insofar as they think it good. Hence their intention primarily aims at the good and only incidentally touches on the evil."

The proof for this: no human acts with volition. For anything more complicated than a knee-jerk when hit by a hammer at the doctor's office, one must will himself to act. In so doing, one justifies ones actions to oneself. Justification is an ethical action involving the assignment of good to an action. Thus without self-justification, no human action occurs.

No matter how depraved, people commit actions according to their own view of ethics. For the person who steals a dollar out of someone's purse, stealing is a good — society might think it's wrong, but I could use this dollar for something, and that something is more important than societal convention, therefore — says the thief to themselves — good. For the mass murderer, murder is a good — it is their personal ethics which are so warped that they convince themselves of this.

Thus it follows that all evil stems from ethical ignorance. In most cases, it's an ignorance of proof, not of conclusion — the perpetrator knows, with absolute clarity, that "society" says a certain action is immoral, but not having worked out the proof of its immorality themselves, they suspend their acquiescence temporarily.

I don't deny that there is some merit to what you are saying but it just cannot be applied across the board. In a very micro and simplistic situation someone who is hungry beyond any hunger you or I may have known might steal a couple dollars from a local church donation box. He may do so fully knowing that the choice he is making is wrong but feels compelled to do so by other influences which are driving him to make a choice he otherwise would not. Clearly this man is not ignorant of the evil he does and in doing so I do not believe he assigned any good to the action. He may have felt it necessary and may very likely feel very guilty about it afterwards. The commission of an evil act does not necessarily require the assignment of good to the act in all cases and I think that is where things fall apart in the proof you have stated. Most social concepts do not lend themselves to universal truisms and good and evil are no exception.

I disagree with this analysis. The way I see it, the thief puts one good — satisfying that hunger — over another good. It might be that he prioritizes the social good over his hunger 99% of the time — but not in that moment when he decides to steal. If he did prioritize the social good higher at all times, there wouldn't be a time where he would will himself to steal. It is his doubt in the social good being the higher good that allows such an action to occur.

We could have a lengthy debate about which is truly the higher good in that situation. You might argue that the starving are justified in such actions, and perhaps you'd be right. But the point is that either they are justified or they're not; there is one absolute answer to which is the higher good in that situation, regardless of whether that answer is known to the thief or not, and regardless of whether anyone knows the answer (it could be that no one does, and all anyone has is conjecture). In any case, it is ignorance of the higher good that leads to improper justification, and thus to evil.

Good and evil are not "social concepts," they are real, because ethics is real and not a "social concept." Hunger and the murder of loved ones are evils to even the most primitive of societies — hell, even to animals. Determination of good and evil is a very difficult problem of ethics, but even a man marooned on an island with no other people must still contend with ethics, and thus good and evil, in much the same way that he must also contend with the laws of physics, even though the determination of those laws is a complex problem. If anything, being in such a desperate situation as being stranded alone to survive by oneself is one of the toughest trials of ethics, as how one justifies ones actions to oneself is key in determining whether one will survive or die.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Good and evil are not "social concepts," they are real, because ethics is real and not a "social concept." Hunger and the murder of loved ones are evils to even the most primitive of societies — hell, even to animals. Determination of good and evil is a very difficult problem of ethics, but even a man marooned on an island with no other people must still contend with ethics, and thus good and evil, in much the same way that he must also contend with the laws of physics, even though the determination of those laws is a complex problem. If anything, being in such a desperate situation as being stranded alone to survive by oneself is one of the toughest trials of ethics, as how one justifies ones actions to oneself is key in determining whether one will survive or die.

Damn you reminds me of someone that i liked to read his pots somewhere in some dark website.


Yeah not everything is a concept of mind, something can be true or false/real or not regardless of what a human can think about it. I support this.