Top 10 most evil people of all time

[EricTheBaptist]

No, read Mein Kampf, Read the Origin of Species, Read The Communist Manifesto. Why? So you can see how that site is lying or being dishonest. No! There is no such ism. Nothing Stalin Did was based off the theory of Evolution or Darwin's book The Origin of Species. If you had read it you would see this. Tell me what Stalin did that is mentioned in the Origin of Species. It sure wasn't communism, it sure wasn't the arms race, Starving and killing his own people. Nope, he did it because he was a dictator who loved power and control. Guess what the Origin of Species is about? Organisms adapt to their environment and it was breathed into being by its creator. Wait a minute those don't sound the same at all. Wrong, look under the D section. Whose name is that? Charles Darwin! You know, the author of the Origin of species? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authors_banned_during_the_Third_Reich Read Mien Kampf! Hitler thought he was doing the work of God. The Matto of Nazi Germany was God with US. Hitler even remained allies with the Vatican. I'm not saying what Hitler did was Christian. No, what I'm saying is that you need to stop blaming Darwin for what a Nutcase in Germany did. It was not his fault and what you are doing is really petty.

Charles Darwin, was not banned. That's Wikipedia I can go on there right now and add Adolf Hitler as a banned author if I want. Wikipedia is written by volunteers and random people across the internet, no one is going to accept that. Stalin did base his ideas off of this as the website proves. Hitler also did NOT think he was doing the work of God. He persecuted and killed preachers because the Bible was anti-Nazi propaganda.

 

[MarbleShooter]

Charles Darwin, was not banned. That's Wikipedia I can go on there right now and add Adolf Hitler as a banned author if I want. Wikipedia is written by volunteers and random people across the internet, no one is going to accept that.

And at the bottom of the article is a list of sources, including the lists where the author of the article got the information. I used wikipedia because guess what its sourced. Oh, by the way, wikipedia requires sources for articles now. Its not as easy to mess with articles any more.

Stalin did base his ideas off of this as the website proves.

No, you are blindly accepting what you want to hear. I have a question, why do you trust that site? What about that site convinces you? Its clear you have no idea what Darwin actually said. You are refusing what Darwin has said without even reading or hearing what he said.

Hitler also did NOT think he was doing the work of God.

Not according to Mien Kampf! Read it!

He persecuted and killed preachers because the Bible was anti-Nazi propaganda.

No, He killed preachers that spoke against the Nazi Government. Anyone spoke out against the government. The Vatican even helped him on some occasions. Why don't you apply this same line of thinking to Mendel? The father of genetics? Hitler was more into genetics then evolution. Hitler was trying to figure out how to cleanse the arian race of the bad people. Mendel makes more sense then Darwin. Outside of Darwin, do you know any other biologists?

 

[Nevalti]

And I also do realize this, but had Darwin not been around we might of prevented a lot of deaths. Darwin taught racism, and that all humans evolved at a different rate, with African Americans being at the very bottom of the totem pole. Had he not been around the following things might of been prevented or at least delayed enough to save some people.

Jim Crow Laws
Stalin's Mass Persecution
Hitler's Mass Persecution
Sterilize Act in America
ALL OF THESE were based on Darwin's views or had some involvement, Hitler and Stalin being the biggest because they took it to a radical new level with "Creating a supreme race above all other races" and "When my soldiers kill these peasants it's simply Natural Selection." This is what happens when you get ideas and give them to the wrong type of people.

This is very sad hatemongering of the worst kind Eric, unworthy of a fair minded Christian. I have followed the very sensible arguments presented by others and you are clearly allowing yourself to be blinded by your hate. Your 'arguments' are extraordinarily biased and appear to be based on propaganda rather than fact. You are effectively saying, 'don't confuse me with facts'! You really should try to differentiate between facts and propaganda. Or is indoctrination the real problem?

Back to your basic premise that Darwin was responsible for 50million deaths(sic). Obviously your argument holds no water whatsoever but you can use exactly the same argument about God. It is often said, with rather more reason, that God is responsible for countless millions of deaths in holy wars etc but we all know that God is simply being used as an excuse to grab power, wealth and territory.

Put your bias to one side Eric and look at facts.

 

[Nevalti]

Outside of Darwin, do you know any other biologists?

I bet he knows about Richard Dawkins!:yes

 

[Christ_empowered]

Eugenics wasn't really science. Eugenics was really about white rich people controlling poor and/or non-white people by sterilizing them. It was basically class warfare through surgery. Although we all think of the Nazis when we think eugenics, American eugenics programs predated the Nazi system. In fact, American psychiatrists were leading the way sterilizing undesirables. Now, you could say "well, they really thought mental illness was genetic." In a way. Mental defects and "feeble-mindedness" were genetic--if you were poor and in a state mental hospital. For the affluent classes, mental problems were usually amenable to talk therapy and occasional adjunctive use of somatic treatments--back them, barbiturates, opiates, cocaine, and bromides (amphetamines came slightly later; ECT and lobotomy didn't hit the scene until the late 30s, and they were used largely on women, poor people, and minorities). According to the excellent book Mad in America, American psychiatrists were so "advanced" that they almost pushed through laws in some states that would allow the "mercy killing" of the more hopeless cases. Of course, many of these cases were "hopeless" because of a mixture of poverty, discrimination, and cruel treatment in state hospitals, so, once again: racism and class warfare.

I read about a lawsuit in South Carolina back in the day. The only OB/GYN in a relatively small city would only deliver babies for welfare recipients (I believe he was the only guy in town accepting Medicaid) if the woman agreed to be sterilized. Could it be more blatant?

So, yeah--don't blame Darwin for eugenics. The term was actually coined by Aldous Huxley's cousin, who apparently had a similar view of life as Aldous, but I suppose wasn't as literary. The movement caught on because rich people loved the idea and pumped money into it. They even managed to get ministers to preach pro-eugenics sermons (I'm guessing in the more sedate, mainline denominations favored by the middle- and upper-classes of the time). People like Margaret Sanger often agreed with eugenics largely because it was considered an "enlightened" and "educated" opinion. Keep in mind that Sanger wasn't pro-abortion. From what little I've read about her, she was really just about preventing unwanted pregnancy, probably because her feminist beliefs caused her to see children--especially excess, unwanted children--as a form of oppression for women, especially poorer women.

I enjoyed Brave New World. I don't agree with Huxley's enthusiasm for chemically-altered consciousness (although I do take 2 psychiatric medications, so I can't exactly argue that I'm not at least in some way living out his dreams). I wouldn't put Sanger or Huxley on the most evil list.

I'd definitely put Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda mastermind, on the list. What could be more sinister than brainwashing the masses to accept whatever the powers-that-be wanted them to accept, and make them feel good doing it? Keep in mind that his propaganda techniques were adapted to mass media, especially once TV hit the scene. I know manipulating information doesn't seem as evil as shooting people or gassing minorities, but think about it: Goebbels not only led a whole society down to the road to Hell, he laid the groundwork for the mass brainwashing that is modern mass media.

 

[Nevalti]

......i will not call stalin,pol pot and che good or heroic. they are evil.

I suspect we will all agree that Stalin & Pol Pot were evil but what have you got against Ernesto "Che" Guevara?

You may not agree with everything he did but being a revolutionary is far from being evil. Were the early American settlers evil for being revolutionaries against the British? Of course not; they were fighting against oppression and unfairness - exactly the same as 'Che'.

What is it about 'Che' that makes you describe the poor chap as 'evil' when to millions of people world wide he was seen as a hero?

 

[antares434]

WHAT?!?!​

What on earth do you mean by this? Who do you imagine that Darwin killed?

The fact that Darwin lost his faith when he realised that Genesis was not literally true certainly does not make him evil, bad or in any way responsible for any deaths. There were of course many others working on parallel research to Darwin. The best know is probably Robert Chambers in his amazing book, 'Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation'. That pre-dated Darwin's 'On the Origin of Species' but Chambers was not vilified, presumably because he retained his faith. It is not therefore Darwin's work on evolution but presumably his public loss of faith in God which causes such hatred amongst the ignorant.

You could just as well say that Colt, Ford, Nobel & Oppenheimer etc. were responsible for many thousands of deaths. However, someone was always going to discover evolution, make better fire arms, mass produce cars, develop better explosives, test unrestricted nuclear fission etc. The person who, rightly or wrongly, becomes known as the inventor or discoverer of any particular natural phenomenon certainly does not become responsible for that phenomenon. Who do you think is responsible for natural phenomena?

I was being sarcastic.

 

[EricTheBaptist]

And at the bottom of the article is a list of sources, including the lists where the author of the article got the information. I used wikipedia because guess what its sourced. Oh, by the way, wikipedia requires sources for articles now. Its not as easy to mess with articles any more. No, you are blindly accepting what you want to hear. I have a question, why do you trust that site? What about that site convinces you? Its clear you have no idea what Darwin actually said. You are refusing what Darwin has said without even reading or hearing what he said. Not according to Mien Kampf! Read it!No, He killed preachers that spoke against the Nazi Government. Anyone spoke out against the government. The Vatican even helped him on some occasions. Why don't you apply this same line of thinking to Mendel? The father of genetics? Hitler was more into genetics then evolution. Hitler was trying to figure out how to cleanse the arian race of the bad people. Mendel makes more sense then Darwin. Outside of Darwin, do you know any other biologists?

Sure do I know Dawkins, Laewenhook, Virchow, Robert Hook, Robert Brown, Rudolf Virchow, Schwann, and Matthias. Hitler believed that he was God's "commander" of some sort but not Yahweh. He began to eliminate ALL RELIGION even Christianity which you say he believed in. I trust this site simply on the fact it is not Wikipedia. My pastor who happens to be a historian told me that Wikipedia is not reliable. I believe him too, he recommends REAL sources like Encyclopedia.com and Britannica, these are written by people in the field of things NOT VOLUNTEERS.

This is very sad hatemongering of the worst kind Eric, unworthy of a fair minded Christian. I have followed the very sensible arguments presented by others and you are clearly allowing yourself to be blinded by your hate. Your 'arguments' are extraordinarily biased and appear to be based on propaganda rather than fact. You are effectively saying, 'don't confuse me with facts'! You really should try to differentiate between facts and propaganda. Or is indoctrination the real problem?

Back to your basic premise that Darwin was responsible for 50million deaths(sic). Obviously your argument holds no water whatsoever but you can use exactly the same argument about God. It is often said, with rather more reason, that God is responsible for countless millions of deaths in holy wars etc but we all know that God is simply being used as an excuse to grab power, wealth and territory.

Put your bias to one side Eric and look at facts.

And on what bases do you seek to judge the works of a deity? I mean who do you think is going to know best about things? Mortal humans or a supernatural deity who was overseer to the biggest work of moral code ever?

 

[stovebolts]

I suspect we will all agree that Stalin & Pol Pot were evil but what have you got against Ernesto "Che" Guevara?

I'd be kind of curious to see your top 10 list.

BTW, I don't have a top 10 list, but you seem a bit more educated than I in the matter.

 

[handy]

I suspect we will all agree that Stalin & Pol Pot were evil but what have you got against Ernesto "Che" Guevara?

You may not agree with everything he did but being a revolutionary is far from being evil. Were the early American settlers evil for being revolutionaries against the British? Of course not; they were fighting against oppression and unfairness - exactly the same as 'Che'.

What is it about 'Che' that makes you describe the poor chap as 'evil' when to millions of people world wide he was seen as a hero?

I think the reason why millions of people world wide see Guevara as a hero is because his history is being whitewashed. Robert Redford turns the Motorcycle Diaries into a Standing Ovation film at Sundance, and surely Robert would never glorify a cold-blooded killer. But, there is plenty of evidence to show that he gloried in killing, that he oversaw the executions of many who were bound and helpless, not to mention that pretty much every single one of his "revolutions" have brought nothing but chaos and economic depression expanding poverty for millions of people for decades.

As long as I live, I will never, ever, begin to figure out how the left has turned a cold-blooded killer into a cult hero. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that people are going to believe what they want to about a hero. Despite the testimony of many Cuban exiles and escapees, not to mention journalists of the time, so many are just willing to...overlook...Guevara's executions of over 500 political prisoners within 3 months. Hate to tell you, but George Washington et. al. never did that.

I think people like to think of him as some glorified freedom fighter, crouching in the jungle and leading the oppressed folks in war for freedom. The image of a man who would drag people off in the middle of the night, bind them, gag them, and blow their bodies in half with gunfire, then order their families to be paraded by to witness their loved ones gory remains...nah..that's just right-wing-nut propaganda.

 

[jasoncran]

I suspect we will all agree that Stalin & Pol Pot were evil but what have you got against Ernesto "Che" Guevara?

You may not agree with everything he did but being a revolutionary is far from being evil. Were the early American settlers evil for being revolutionaries against the British? Of course not; they were fighting against oppression and unfairness - exactly the same as 'Che'.

What is it about 'Che' that makes you describe the poor chap as 'evil' when to millions of people world wide he was seen as a hero?

cuba is less then 100 miles from my state and i know cubans.

so in russia some still worship stalin and in europe still see hitler as ok.

talk bad about mao in china and che in the same breathe and see how long you live. i have seen what commie countries do to the people they feel the need to help.

ever heard of the invasion of afghanistan by the ussr. that wasnt done by stalin but by breshnev, and gorbochev was the one to get them out.

 

[Nevalti]

cuba is less then 100 miles from my state and i know cubans.

so in russia some still worship stalin and in europe still see hitler as ok.

talk bad about mao in china and che in the same breathe and see how long you live. i have seen what commie countries do to the people they feel the need to help.

ever heard of the invasion of afghanistan by the ussr. that wasnt done by stalin but by breshnev, and gorbochev was the one to get them out.

So, I have to ask again. What is it that you think was evil about 'Che'?

'Commie countries' may be the clue to your hate. To me, communism was always doomed to failure because of human nature (greed). The Communist ideal of looking after your fellow man is very close to the Christian idea. We humans just aren't up to the challenge. Go and read 'Animal Farm' again!

The elected Afghan government asked the Russians to come into their country to help stop the Mujahideen and Islamic insurgents from many other countries who were trying to take over the country. The Russians responded to that request and were doing moderately well until the CIA gave modern arms to the Mujahideen so that they could destroy the Russian tanks and helicopters. Here we are now, over 30 years later, and the USA has 'invaded' Afghanistan trying to fight off the same Islamic take over that the Russians were fighting. Now, what was the problem with the Russians going into Afghanistan? Oh yes, and what is your problem with 'Che'?

 

[Christ_empowered]

I'd like to remind everyone that General Talk is open to both our Christian and Non-Christian members, so there's probably going to be some conflict now and then. However, this is a Christian forum, so harsh, negative comments about the Christian God and His character cannot be tolerated. Try to be tactful, or perhaps refrain from writing certain things.

 

[Nevalti]

But, there is plenty of evidence to show that he gloried in killing, that he oversaw the executions of many who were bound and helpless......

As long as I live, I will never, ever, begin to figure out how the left has turned a cold-blooded killer into a cult hero.

I think people like to think of him as some glorified freedom fighter, crouching in the jungle and leading the oppressed folks in war for freedom.

It is very difficult to present a case for anyone to kill anyone else. Very rarely have I ever thought killing justified but once in a while I think it may be. I have no idea if your image of 'Che' as a ruthless killer has any substance at all as that is not part of any history that I have read and I could not quickly find any substantiation for your claim. What I will say though is that the Batista regime was bad, bad, bad. Here is a brief extract which you can find in any history:
"

When the guerrillas took control of territory they redistributed the land amongst the peasants. In return, the peasants helped the guerrillas against Batista's soldiers. In some cases the peasants also joined Castro's army, as did students from the cities and occasionally Catholic priests.

In an effort to find out information about the rebels people were pulled in for questioning. Many innocent people were tortured. Suspects, including children, were publicly executed and then left hanging in the streets for several days as a warning to others who were considering joining the revolutionaries. The behaviour of Batista's forces increased support for the guerrillas. In 1958 forty-five organizations signed an open letter supporting the July 26 Movement. National bodies representing lawyers, architects, dentists, accountants and social workers were amongst those who signed. Castro, who had originally relied on the support of the poor, was now gaining the backing of the influential middle classes​

."

Was 'Che' and others justified in executing the Batista officials who tortured innocent people and left men, women and children hanging in the street? Possibly not but I think I understand it. War is an unimaginably awful place to be and it always involves questionable executions in the field. 'Che' was just a soldier at that stage and without a shadow of a doubt he was a popular liberator which is why he is fondly remembered by many. The questionable growth of communism later, and his part in it is a different matter but his motives in fighting oppression can only be admired.

[If you have any evidence of him acting in an 'evil' way, I would really appreciate the document references. It may just be anti Cuban propaganda and there is plenty of that around.]

 

[Christ_empowered]

hey nevalti,

please realize you are in a forum created by Christians for the purposes of exploring and understanding Christianity and having a sort of online fellowship with other believers. As much as I respect your views, I must ask that you refrain from insulting the Christian God. This isn't the Inquisition--no one's going to burn you at the stake--but this is a moderated forum for people who believe in Jesus Christ. Please respect that. If you have a problem with how your posts or other people's posts are being handled, you can contact a moderator and/or administrator. If you're still not satisfied, I imagine there are plenty of religious forums on the internet that aren't moderated.

Have a good one.

 

[jasoncran]

It is very difficult to present a case for anyone to kill anyone else. Very rarely have I ever thought killing justified but once in a while I think it may be. I have no idea if your image of 'Che' as a ruthless killer has any substance at all as that is not part of any history that I have read and I could not quickly find any substantiation for your claim. What I will say though is that the Batista regime was bad, bad, bad. Here is a brief extract which you can find in any history:
"

When the guerrillas took control of territory they redistributed the land amongst the peasants. In return, the peasants helped the guerrillas against Batista's soldiers. In some cases the peasants also joined Castro's army, as did students from the cities and occasionally Catholic priests.
​

In an effort to find out information about the rebels people were pulled in for questioning. Many innocent people were tortured. Suspects, including children, were publicly executed and then left hanging in the streets for several days as a warning to others who were considering joining the revolutionaries. The behaviour of Batista's forces increased support for the guerrillas. In 1958 forty-five organizations signed an open letter supporting the July 26 Movement. National bodies representing lawyers, architects, dentists, accountants and social workers were amongst those who signed. Castro, who had originally relied on the support of the poor, was now gaining the backing of the influential middle classes
​

."

Was 'Che' and others justified in executing the Batista officials who tortured innocent people and left men, women and children hanging in the street? Possibly not but I think I understand it. War is an unimaginably awful place to be and it always involves questionable executions in the field. 'Che' was just a soldier at that stage and without a shadow of a doubt he was a popular liberator which is why he is fondly remembered by many. The questionable growth of communism later, and his part in it is a different matter but his motives in fighting oppression can only be admired.

[If you have any evidence of him acting in an 'evil' way, I would really appreciate the document references. It may just be anti Cuban propaganda and there is plenty of that around.]

so then why do the cubans that were under both castro and also batista hate che?

 

[jasoncran]

So, I have to ask again. What is it that you think was evil about 'Che'?

'Commie countries' may be the clue to your hate. To me, communism was always doomed to failure because of human nature (greed). The Communist ideal of looking after your fellow man is very close to the Christian idea. We humans just aren't up to the challenge. Go and read 'Animal Farm' again!

The elected Afghan government asked the Russians to come into their country to help stop the Mujahideen and Islamic insurgents from many other countries who were trying to take over the country. The Russians responded to that request and were doing moderately well until the CIA gave modern arms to the Mujahideen so that they could destroy the Russian tanks and helicopters. Here we are now, over 30 years later, and the USA has 'invaded' Afghanistan trying to fight off the same Islamic take over that the Russians were fighting. Now, what was the problem with the Russians going into Afghanistan? Oh yes, and what is your problem with 'Che'?

actually no its not and no they didnt.

first off any christian will tell your wrong. we know the only in christ will there be peace as he will change the human condition to where no sin will be

and second. i was in an old russian base that isnt even on the maps and there were in the town near it mass graves of kids.

2000 of them in one post and the russian soldiers did that they they day they withdrew.
and they died for for that.as the officers left the killers who did their bidding.

afghanistan was long before the soviets an islamic country. we dont care if they remain as such so long as they dont attack us.

http://www.historyofnations.net/asia/afghanistan.html


they werent asked to come in

might i suggest the movie the beast of kandahar. filme in that country and also about the conflict. it will help you to see what i am talking about as i heard the stories myself.

 

[Mike]

Nevtali,

I joined a Muslim forum for a while just to ask some questions, and I was careful not to go in with guns blazing. Sure, they had some members who expressed views of Christians I found distasteful, but I knew I was joining their community. I knew I wouldn't last long if I came in and went off on Allah, but more importantly, I understood I was entering their discussion.

You are welcome to post your views and opinions, but I believe you'd be well served to play your distaste a little more close to the vest. We've had atheists here in the past who were very respected by everyone. When another atheist joined who was full of vim, they would actually call them out. If you don't plan on being here long or care if you upset others, I guess you're free to show your grudge. If you do, perhaps you would try to understand and post with more discretion.

We can always use other opinions to compare our world view, so I hope you'll take some friendly advice.

 

[Nick]

2.1: This is a Christian site, therefore, any attempt to put down Christianity and the basic tenets of our Faith will be considered a hostile act.​

From the Terms of Service.

 

[theLords]

Reply to moderator action is to be conducted via PM per the TOS. Back to topic.