I might retort that such hostility as I or other atheists occasionally voice towards #religion is limited to words. I am not going to bomb anybody, behead them, stone them, burn them at the stake, crucify them, or fly planes into their skyscrapers, just because of a theological disagreement.
―Richard Dawkins
______________________
#atheism #faith #god
The most genocidal regimes of the 20th century, Stalin’s USSR, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, were atheist. They didn’t just kill believers, they crushed the idea that human life has any inherent value. That’s the logical end of a worldview with no higher moral authority, no basis for human dignity beyond utility to the state. When there is no God, there is no grounding for why anyone, believer or not, deserves protection. History shows what happens when that void is filled by raw power.
I agree in principle, but still curious about what might be edge cases... Is Buddhism enough of a belief to qualify for the believer team? What about Animism? Wicca? Pantheism? Or do you have to have an explicit "king of the universe" kind of god?
I'm not an atheist - I'll say that to head off any team thinking.
Wicca, like Buddhism, Animism, and Pantheism, clearly reflects a belief in something beyond the material, a spiritual reality, a moral order, and reverence for life and nature. In that sense, yes, it belongs in the broader “believer” category far more than strict materialist atheism does.
From a Christian perspective, I would still see a key difference. Budism and similar paths often draw meaning from nature, energy, and personal intuition, but they don’t appeal to a transcendent Creator who defines truth and goodness outside of us. Christianity teaches that human worth and moral order aren’t just felt or observed, they’re revealed by a personal God who made us in His image.
That doesn’t mean Christians reject or devalue those who follow other paths, far from it. But we do see a difference in the foundation. It’s not just belief in something spiritual, but belief in Someone, a Creator who loves, commands, redeems, and invites. That’s what gives Christianity its distinct view on where meaning, dignity, and moral truth ultimately come from.
Did they and their genocidal regimes commit atrocities BECAUSE of atheism or were they persecuting religious people because they wanted to maintain power and have no competition? Rhetorical question, it's the latter. They may have been atheists, but when they removed God they effectively inserted themselves in his place, then committed atrocities in order to maintain control, and gain power over their enemies.
You’re right that regimes like the Soviets and Communist China committed atrocities to maintain power, but removing God made that kind of unchecked power possible. Without a higher moral authority, they weren’t just suppressing rivals, they were eliminating any competing source of truth, meaning, or accountability. Atheism wasn’t the sole motive, but it created the vacuum where the state could become absolute and conscience could be crushed without restraint.
The same pattern is true of much religious violence throughout history. It was often about control, not genuine faith. Leaders used religion as a tool to legitimise their power and eliminate competition. That wasn’t obedience to God, it was a distortion of belief for political gain.
The difference is this: when religious violence happens, it usually violates the core teachings of the faith, especially in Christianity, where Christ taught love, mercy, and nonviolence. But when atheistic regimes commit violence, they aren’t violating their worldview, they’re often acting entirely in line with it. Without God, there’s no moral limit to what can be justified in the name of progress or power.
There are a few fallacies here, but I only need to address one, the one at the very end. Atheism doesn't have a worldview. Atheism is simply describing a lack of religious belief. It would have a worldview the same way "off" is a television channel or that "bald" is a hair color.
What worldview would you assign to people who choose not to participate in the hobby of collecting stamps? What attributes could you reliably assigned to that group of people? Same thing with atheists.
I get the analogy, but it doesn’t quite hold up. Choosing not to collect stamps doesn’t shape how you view morality, human dignity, or the meaning of life. But denying the existence of God does touch all those things. Atheism might begin as a lack of belief, but when that lack becomes the foundation of your view of reality, it functions as a worldview whether it claims to or not.
Once you remove God, you're left with big questions: What grounds morality? What gives life value? What defines right and wrong? You must answer those somehow, and the way you do it forms a worldview. That’s why many atheists gravitate toward naturalism, humanism, or moral relativism. Not all answer these questions the same way, but they can't avoid answering them.
So while atheism might not prescribe a worldview, it inevitably shapes one. And when it’s the organising principle of a political regime, as it was in Stalin’s USSR or Mao’s China, it becomes much more than a personal belief. It becomes a framework for power, ethics, and human worth, and history shows the consequences of getting those answers wrong.
