The New Atheists: "Communists aren't atheists" and its wider social implications

[Laika]

I'm kind of ranting here, but I hope it can start a dialogue between theists and atheists on a large number of scientific and ethical questions that are sidelined by re-defining atheism to exclude communism. (skip to the last paragraph if you want as it sums it up nicely)

Believers often raise questions regarding the implications of Atheism on Morality. Typically this means associating atheism with totalitarian regiemes in the "atheist atrocity fallacy". Any attempt to equate Atheism with Hitler and Nazism is factually inaccurate and historically false: Hitler was a catholic and Nazi's were anti-christian in so far as egalitarianism conflicted with their racial ideology. It is wrong for Atheists to be equated with Nazis.

However, it has become common practice (including on this forum) to say that when Theists equate atheism with communism, communism is dismissed as 'not real atheism' for reasons other than the lack of belief in god. This mainly is because atheism is implicitly associated with liberal political values of free thought, reason, individual liberty. In otherwords, to avoid the association with communism, the very definition of atheism has been changed to exclude the possibility of recognising communism as a 'legitimate' expression of atheism. This position is pretty much unanimious amongst the New Atheists, including Christopher Hitchens who was in his youth a Marxist.

Sam Harris:

Christopher Hitchens:

Richard Dawkins:

The following video develops the argument, although actually is somewhat more honest in trying to deal with the fact that communists professed a militant atheist and anti-religious ideology, and the implications of the association between atheism and communism in the Cold War. Again, they are implicitly arguing that only liberals and secular societies are 'real atheists'.

This point has become one in which theists and atheists simply don't communicate on and it is important in discussing the relationship between religion , atheism and ethics; theists use communism is tar all forms of atheism as a nihilistic rejection of "gods law" and morals, whereas atheists don't touch the issue and say it is "not our problem" as only liberals are can be "true" atheists and ethics are the result of individual choice.

I thin the issue with this is that it dramatically reduces the scope of the discussion which can be had between atheists and theists on ethics, as atheists evade some of the biggest and most fundamental questions because they stick to 'individual choice'. This is infact counter-productive to atheism as organised religion creates an anti-intellectual climate in which anti-scientific prejudices abound so that faith based cliams are readily accepted; whilst atheists profess individusl choice, theists use the mass media to promote conformity.

Importantly, this has implications on the role of science- as by dismissing communism, it also means dismissing the role of science in forumlating ethical and political concepts which may (or not be) in opposition to religious belief. Theists can use the Soviet Union as an example in which science became a political tool for the suppression of religion and therefore argue that their 'freedom of religion' means they have the right to reject the scientific consensus on evolution. [This may also apply to climate change.] Evolution can be demonised by equating it with "social darwinism" of Nazi and Communist systems, and consequently that the truth- when it conflicts with exisiting ethical beliefs is unethical. Whilst the former was a much more explicit in its support of biological social darwinism, communists had an atheist view of social change and that ethics were entirely man-made with natural causes.

The inability of atheists to respond to the questions raised by social darwinism- difficult as they are- as an attempt to apply scientific thinking to politics, society and ethics, surrenders those areas to religion because they actually agree with them that science can't tell us very much about ethics. Overall, both theists and atheists agree that "scientific materialism" is a dogma and this consequently closes off large areas of our understanding to natural and secular explanations, as well as leading to theological interpretations in research in natural science (e.g. does the big bang, quantum mechanics etc support belief in god?). By refusing to engage in this question, atheists are shooting themselves in the foot by letting religious people use free experession as a justification for the defence of unsubstainated cliams- often which are partially or entirely false. attempts to counter this are considered attacks on individual rights even as ignorance has damaging and widespread consequences. This has led to a reversal of the progress of reason, where issues whose moral concerns stem from religion such as abortion, gay marriage, contraception have entered the political sphere in the culture wars because religion- not reason or evidence- has become accepted as a legitimate basis for morality and therefore law. That is not to say there aren't reasons for these issues to be discussed, but that we should try to do so based on evidence rather than scripture.

It is also bad practice for atheists to call for evidence on a range of questions by theists to substanciate their views, only to turn round and deny evidence when it is presented to them because they redefine thier position on the basis of political bias. As a commie, I personally find it deeply insulting and cowardly since it demonstrates atheists unwillingness to deal with uncomfortable truths.

I hope I've made some good points with which to start a wider discussion between theists and atheists, as this isn't just about communism, but as to whether there are limits on what science and reason can tell us about society, and how far we can progress as a species if we accept that somethings can only be answered by religion. atheists are pretty much surrendering the goals of the enlightenment by accepting that the failures of communism mean that science cannot be applied to ethical and political questions. the inability of atheists to do so also makes religion more compelling choice as a belief system because it provides answers to some of the most important questions, no matter how many books people like Harris and Dawkins sell saying how irrational or implausible religion is.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm not sure I've ever heard it argued that atheism is only atheism if it is associated with "liberal values". As far as I'm concerned, the most common argument raised against the "Communist = atheist" argument is that atheism is not a position which carries with it any political or ideological baggage other than a lack of belief in a God, and therefore any beliefs "around" that cannot be said to be a direct result of atheism. In the case of Communism, the actions and beliefs of Communist regimes were a result of ideologies that were separate and distinct from their atheism. Their atheism was largely incidental - a preferred position of the ideology, certainly, but the position is not an ideology in itself. Communism cannot therefore be called a reflection of atheism, and the actions and beliefs of Communists cannot therefore be used in any way as a criticism of atheism or the atheist position.

 

[Laika]

I'm not sure I've ever heard it argued that atheism is only atheism if it is associated with "liberal values". As far as I'm concerned, the most common argument raised against the "Communist = atheist" argument is that atheism is not a position which carries with it any political or ideological baggage other than a lack of belief in a God, and therefore any beliefs "around" that cannot be said to be a direct result of atheism.

In order not to carry any political or ideological bagge, that assumes that atheism is the product of individual choice rather than based on adherence scripture or dogma. That implies acceptance of liberal political beliefs as a basis for atheism.

In the case of Communism, the actions and beliefs of Communist regimes were a result of ideologies that were separate and distinct from their atheism. Their atheism was largely incidental - a preferred position of the ideology, certainly, but the position is not an ideology in itself.

That is a very fair description of their position as their athiesm is product to accepting materialism and seeking naturalistic explanations for everything.

Communism cannot therefore be called a reflection of atheism, and the actions and beliefs of Communists cannot therefore be used in any way as a criticism of atheism or the atheist position.

Your assuming that Atheism can't be dogma because your equating it with liberal tenants of free thought. that's what I'm getting at. notions of free thought are not political neutral but is ideologically ussually liberal.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

In order not to carry any political or ideological bagge, that assumes that atheism is the product of individual choice rather than based on adherence scripture or dogma. That implies acceptance of liberal political beliefs as a basis for atheism.

How? Atheism needn't necessarily be the result of any kind of choice - it is the lack of belief, not the "choice" not to believe. I fail to see how atheism requires or entails any particular set of religious beliefs any more than theism does.

That is a very fair description of their position as their athiesm is product to accepting materialism and seeking naturalistic explanations for everything.

But atheism isn't necessarily materialistic or naturalistic. It is the absence of belief in Gods, not the absence of belief in the supernatural, or acceptance of belief in materialism or naturalism. Those are ideological positions that are distinct from atheism.

Your assuming that Atheism can't be dogma because your equating it with liberal tenants of free thought. that's what I'm getting at. notions of free thought are not political neutral but is ideologically ussually liberal.

This is just an unfounded assumption on your part. You're linking atheism with "free thought", naturalism and materialism, but it isn't necessarily any of those things, and you've yet to provide any logical argument as to how and why they are necessarily linked. I've not linked atheism to any method of thought, free or otherwise. Practically everything I have said thus far could equally be applied to theism, so would you say that I'm equating theism with liberal tenants of free thought? Your argument makes no sense.

 

[Augustus]

However, it has become common practice (including on this forum) to say that when Theists equate atheism with communism, communism is dismissed as 'not real atheism' for reasons other than the lack of belief in god. This mainly is because atheism is implicitly associated with liberal political values of free thought, reason, individual liberty. In otherwords, to avoid the association with communism, the very definition of atheism has been changed to exclude the possibility of recognising communism as a 'legitimate' expression of atheism. This position is pretty much unanimious amongst the New Atheists, including Christopher Hitchens who was in his youth a Marxist.



This point has become one in which theists and atheists simply don't communicate on and it is important in discussing the relationship between religion , atheism and ethics; theists use communism is tar all forms of atheism as a nihilistic rejection of "gods law" and morals, whereas atheists don't touch the issue and say it is "not our problem" as only liberals are can be "true" atheists and ethics are the result of individual choice.

I thin the issue with this is that it dramatically reduces the scope of the discussion which can be had between atheists and theists on ethics, as atheists evade some of the biggest and most fundamental questions because they stick to 'individual choice'. This is infact counter-productive to atheism as organised religion creates an anti-intellectual climate in which anti-scientific prejudices abound so that faith based cliams are readily accepted; whilst atheists profess individusl choice, theists use the mass media to promote conformity.

Importantly, this has implications on the role of science- as by dismissing communism, it also means dismissing the role of science in forumlating ethical and political concepts which may (or not be) in opposition to religious belief. Theists can use the Soviet Union as an example in which science became a political tool for the suppression of religion and therefore argue that their 'freedom of religion' means they have the right to reject the scientific consensus on evolution. [This may also apply to climate change.] Evolution can be demonised by equating it with "social darwinism" of Nazi and Communist systems, and consequently that the truth- when it conflicts with exisiting ethical beliefs is unethical. Whilst the former was a much more explicit in its support of biological social darwinism, communists had an atheist view of social change and that ethics were entirely man-made with natural causes.

The inability of atheists to respond to the questions raised by social darwinism- difficult as they are- as an attempt to apply scientific thinking to politics, society and ethics, surrenders those areas to religion because they actually agree with them that science can't tell us very much about ethics. Overall, both theists and atheists agree that "scientific materialism" is a dogma and this consequently closes off large areas of our understanding to natural and secular explanations, as well as leading to theological interpretations in research in natural science (e.g. does the big bang, quantum mechanics etc support belief in god?). By refusing to engage in this question, atheists are shooting themselves in the foot by letting religious people use free experession as a justification for the defence of unsubstainated cliams- often which are partially or entirely false. attempts to counter this are considered attacks on individual rights even as ignorance has damaging and widespread consequences. This has led to a reversal of the progress of reason, where issues whose moral concerns stem from religion such as abortion, gay marriage, contraception have entered the political sphere in the culture wars because religion- not reason or evidence- has become accepted as a legitimate basis for morality and therefore law. That is not to say there aren't reasons for these issues to be discussed, but that we should try to do so based on evidence rather than scripture.

It is also bad practice for atheists to call for evidence on a range of questions by theists to substanciate their views, only to turn round and deny evidence when it is presented to them because they redefine thier position on the basis of political bias. As a commie, I personally find it deeply insulting and cowardly since it demonstrates atheists unwillingness to deal with uncomfortable truths.

I hope I've made some good points with which to start a wider discussion between theists and atheists, as this isn't just about communism, but as to whether there are limits on what science and reason can tell us about society, and how far we can progress as a species if we accept that somethings can only be answered by religion. atheists are pretty much surrendering the goals of the enlightenment by accepting that the failures of communism mean that science cannot be applied to ethical and political questions. the inability of atheists to do so also makes religion more compelling choice as a belief system because it provides answers to some of the most important questions, no matter how many books people like Harris and Dawkins sell saying how irrational or implausible religion is.

Interesting topic.

I agree with some points you raise but disagree with others.

The view among new atheists tends to be that "if we abolish religion and instead rely on science, human reason and rationality" we will have a far better society. For many it is almost axiomatic that no religion = science and reason = moral, ethical man. This view is highly irrational as humans have never shown themselves to be rational, reasonable or anything other than a diverse and contrary species.

The problem new atheists have is they have to propose an alternative to religion and unfortunately for them post-religious regimes don't have very good track records - generally worse than religion. The excuse for these regimes - Communist, Jacobin, Nazi, etc - is usually 'they represented a new religion, so weren't really atheist' or they relied on 'pseudoscience' so we can't blame enlightenment values for them.

Moderate religious believers have to take full responsibility for extremist views and are not allowed to say 'but that's not what my religion teaches', but 'enlightenment values' only represent the good things, never the bad things. Even though social Darwinism was a view subscribed to by many people who had 'enlightenment values' and was, at some time, considered legitimately 'scientific', it doesn't really count because we now know differently. Democracy is not an enlightenment value and many enlightenment thinkers were decidedly illiberal and dehumanising.

The idea that post-religious values are automatically going to be 'superior' to religious values is utopian. Science and reason are neutral and can just as easily be used to harm as to help. You often get facile internet memes like "Religion stoned shot a girl in the head, but science cured my cancer" therefore science is the hero. Atheists are much less likely to say 'Religion counsels against avarice, but science weaponised anthrax in the search for profit'.

What is rational depends on your start point. The final solution was certainly rational from a Nazi point of view. If communism eventually leads to the end of suffering, and communism is The Party then it is rational to let 40 million people die if it benefits The Party. This start point however is always going to be subjective.

The liberalism associated with new atheism treats the unit of morality to be the individual - the rights of the individual trump all. May societies however treat the unit of morality as the group. For blasphemy laws, it is more important that the group is not offended than the individual has the right to free speech. Making the individual king though is purely subjective. As social animals who rely on the group for survival, it is more probable that, on a continuum, a 'natural' code of ethics is closer to the group than the individual (although this is speculation).

An excessively 'scientific' worldview seeks to find 'the truth' and 'universal values' rather than 'a truth' and 'societal values'. They will always be multiple competing codes of ethics and values and no amount of 'science' is going to change this. Replacing a religious worldview with a non-religious one is simply exchanging one subjective construct for another one.

New atheists tend to suffer from the belief that they are the archetype for the human race though - given enough education and knowledge and freed from 'irrationality', everyone will be liberal humanists just like them. Humanity is on the road to 'progress' gradually getting better and better. This belief ultimately rests on a similar logic to that of religious believers an is no more rational.

 

[Laika]

How? Atheism needn't necessarily be the result of any kind of choice - it is the lack of belief, not the "choice" not to believe. I fail to see how atheism requires or entails any particular set of religious beliefs any more than theism does.


But atheism isn't necessarily materialistic or naturalistic. It is the absence of belief in Gods, not the absence of belief in the supernatural, or acceptance of belief in materialism or naturalism. Those are ideological positions that are distinct from atheism.


This is just an unfounded assumption on your part. You're linking atheism with "free thought", naturalism and materialism, but it isn't necessarily any of those things, and you've yet to provide any logical argument as to how and why they are necessarily linked. I've not linked atheism to any method of thought, free or otherwise. Practically everything I have said thus far could equally be applied to theism, so would you say that I'm equating theism with liberal tenants of free thought? Your argument makes no sense.

The question of God's existence has cascading implications and its why its such a difficult topic. The problem is not whether god exists or not, but the central role that god plays in establishing order in the universe as creator. I would guess that this is what fightens religious people most; that without god providing some sense of order, their is a cruel and brutual anarchy in nature and in society.

Whilst it isn't obvious, to have a logically consistent argument- particuarly if it is a philosophical 'worldview'- means that the premise and conclusions of an argument must be consistent. It doesn't make sense to have an atheist who is a creationist, since you need a creator to believe in creation. The inverse, is that if god does not exist, we must necessarily try to find naturalistic explanations for the universe without resorting to explanation based on a higher power.

Communist and Theocratic Systems of government share in common the belief that you cannot divorce morality and law; both legislate to ensure that their legal systems correspond to their belief systems and are consciously derived from their religious scripture and political/philosophical literature. Both also insist that science is not neutral in the struggle over the existence of god, but must be a weapon in taking sides, Communists especially.

Yet, these kind of arguments are unheard of today mostly because we have a secular system of government which is offically neutral in religious matters. The democratic process however is an arena where moral and cultural struggles are fought out and that these things are the choice of the individual rather than the state. This is why I'd argue that saying because Communism is an ideology means it is not atheist assumes that atheism is based on free thought. Whilst the state is offically neutral, the connection between the question of god's existence and the order of the universe remains important; so it therefore remains the right of the individual to choose. In a Communist system- atheism is stated as fact and taken for granted.

What happened under Communism was the reverse of a theocratic system; the state consciously took sides on the question of gods existence, promoting and offical ideology that was atheist, persecuting and discouraging religious belief based on the expectation that the advance of scientific knowledge into the realm of social sciences would be sufficient to show that religious belief is not innate in man, but is the product of a combination of ignorance and oppression rationalised as a higher power. When there was a conflict between scientific theories and the atheist-materialist ideology of the communist party, the ideology won out; this applied to the big bang, quantum mechanics, and even to the theory of relativity because they did not conform with materialist philosophy and could present theological interpreations of natural phenemeona.

Belief systems do not simply represent ideas, but ways of rationalisng the world on which we base our actions. Both Theocratic and Communist systems work on the principle that they're beliefs are a fact because they under-pin there entire ideology and therefore their system of government. "Lack of belief" does describe atheism, but "lack of belief" is not a sufficient basis for an ideology that organises a whole society- religious or not. It's why these systems are so hostile to scepticism because to doubt the belief is to doubt the legitimacy of the system. It is however, a legitimate view point for an individual since it does not carry the burden of acting on the belief.

Whilst Communism is an ideology- that is because it rejected god and sought to develop wholly naturalistic explanations for the organisation of nature and society. It was an ideology because it was a set of organising principles for an entire society, rather than for an individual. Communists were atheists, but just because it is an ideology rather than a lack of belief, does not detract that for nearly a century communists promoted ideas, systems of government and policies that were consistent with materialism and atheism.

 

[Laika]

Interesting topic.

I agree with some points you raise but disagree with others.

The view among new atheists tends to be that "if we abolish religion and instead rely on science, human reason and rationality" we will have a far better society. For many it is almost axiomatic that no religion = science and reason = moral, ethical man. This view is highly irrational as humans have never shown themselves to be rational, reasonable or anything other than a diverse and contrary species.

The problem new atheists have is they have to propose an alternative to religion and unfortunately for them post-religious regimes don't have very good track records - generally worse than religion. The excuse for these regimes - Communist, Jacobin, Nazi, etc - is usually 'they represented a new religion, so weren't really atheist' or they relied on 'pseudoscience' so we can't blame enlightenment values for them.

Moderate religious believers have to take full responsibility for extremist views and are not allowed to say 'but that's not what my religion teaches', but 'enlightenment values' only represent the good things, never the bad things. Even though social Darwinism was a view subscribed to by many people who had 'enlightenment values' and was, at some time, considered legitimately 'scientific', it doesn't really count because we now know differently. Democracy is not an enlightenment value and many enlightenment thinkers were decidedly illiberal and dehumanising.

The idea that post-religious values are automatically going to be 'superior' to religious values is utopian. Science and reason are neutral and can just as easily be used to harm as to help. You often get facile internet memes like "Religion stoned shot a girl in the head, but science cured my cancer" therefore science is the hero. Atheists are much less likely to say 'Religion counsels against avarice, but science weaponised anthrax in the search for profit'.

What is rational depends on your start point. The final solution was certainly rational from a Nazi point of view. If communism eventually leads to the end of suffering, and communism is The Party then it is rational to let 40 million people die if it benefits The Party. This start point however is always going to be subjective.

The liberalism associated with new atheism treats the unit of morality to be the individual - the rights of the individual trump all. May societies however treat the unit of morality as the group. For blasphemy laws, it is more important that the group is not offended than the individual has the right to free speech. Making the individual king though is purely subjective. As social animals who rely on the group for survival, it is more probable that, on a continuum, a 'natural' code of ethics is closer to the group than the individual (although this is speculation).

An excessively 'scientific' worldview seeks to find 'the truth' and 'universal values' rather than 'a truth' and 'societal values'. They will always be multiple competing codes of ethics and values and no amount of 'science' is going to change this. Replacing a religious worldview with a non-religious one is simply exchanging one subjective construct for another one.

New atheists tend to suffer from the belief that they are the archetype for the human race though - given enough education and knowledge and freed from 'irrationality', everyone will be liberal humanists just like them. Humanity is on the road to 'progress' gradually getting better and better. This belief ultimately rests on a similar logic to that of religious believers an is no more rational.

New Atheists are politically liberal and therefore have not consciously sought to abolish religion in the same sense the communists have. They represent two very different forms of atheism and this is ultimately the substance behind the "communists are not real atheists" argument- it reflects different ways of asking and answering the question of gods existence. You are right to characterise their position as being based on the assumption that more rational= more moral, though to my knowledge only Sam Harris has explicitly dealt with the problem of a science of morality.

Communism was a remarkably destructive regieme (and most probably worse than compartive religious ones) because it used science as a weapon and employed the technology and organisation of the industrial age to wage war on it's enemies, both real and imagined, within its own borders. it was a direct product of the enlightenment belief in science and progress as a way to change society- thats why its so important for atheists to basically 'own up' and accept it was a form of atheism, as even if they disagree there are a great many lessons to be learned. Democracy does depend on the assumption that a people can be educated and informed, and in so far as religion promotes ignorance and fear of truths which conflict with established dogmas, democracy relies on enlightenment values.

I can agree that the superiority of post-religious values cannot be assumed by virtue of being based on reason, but must be demonstrated in practice. That is a somewhat scientific view, though an unusal one as social science relies more on philosophy than an experimental method. Social Darwinism was a scientific approach to understanding society, and it raises ethical questions because if man is not created in gods image and is instead born into a struggle for survival- whether by competition as with the Nazis, or co-operation as with the communists- it challanges our sense of moral significance of individual life and enourmous sacrifices ideologically acceptable. The problem with Communist ideology was not that it began as something subjective, but cliamed to be scientific and objectively true; that you could not fight the objective laws of history, nor show compassion to the 'class enemy' as human behaviour was determined by a scientific law of class struggle.

The problem with communism is not that it seperated scientific truth from social values, but that to work in accoradance with those truths was considered a value, even when taken to the extreme of 'liqidating' an entire social class. it was believed that progress was not an act of faith but a scientific law of history, and that the ends justified the means. the messianic and millenial aspects of communist ideology did encourage behaviour very like religious fanatics, but for completely different reasons. the apparent credability of their view was what made it so hard to defeat because it was thought the sacrificing individual liberties and lives could be justified according to these laws of history and the realisation of communism for the benifit of the opporessed and exploited of all mankind. Science and logic became the rationale for mass murder- and in that sense- communists and nazis are similar as both adhered to differnt forms social darwinism, but overall their ideologies are very different and opposed.

 

[Jumi]

I have only recently seen anyone claim the Nazis were atheists. Where does that claim originate from?

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't remember anyone ever claiming Communism isn't atheistic, personally.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Communists pushed atheism as a lack of religion. However the purpose for which they did these things was to push state-ism rather than simply lack of beliefs. It was done to remove political power from the church not as any kind of theological agenda.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The question of God's existence has cascading implications and its why its such a difficult topic. The problem is not whether god exists or not, but the central role that god plays in establishing order in the universe as creator. I would guess that this is what fightens religious people most; that without god providing some sense of order, their is a cruel and brutual anarchy in nature and in society.

I agree, but that doesn't really have much, if anything, to do with what I wrote...

Whilst it isn't obvious, to have a logically consistent argument- particuarly if it is a philosophical 'worldview'- means that the premise and conclusions of an argument must be consistent. It doesn't make sense to have an atheist who is a creationist, since you need a creator to believe in creation. The inverse, is that if god does not exist, we must necessarily try to find naturalistic explanations for the universe without resorting to explanation based on a higher power.

This isn't necessarily true. Again, atheism doesn't necessitate a naturalistic view of the Universe, merely a worldview that does not include an intelligent, supernatural agent that caused it. Atheists can believe in magic, spirits, aliens, or anything else as an explanation for the origin of the Universe - they needn't have to believe or even look for naturalistic explanations.

Communist and Theocratic Systems of government share in common the belief that you cannot divorce morality and law; both legislate to ensure that their legal systems correspond to their belief systems and are consciously derived from their religious scripture and political/philosophical literature. Both also insist that science is not neutral in the struggle over the existence of god, but must be a weapon in taking sides, Communists especially.

Yet, these kind of arguments are unheard of today mostly because we have a secular system of government which is offically neutral in religious matters. The democratic process however is an arena where moral and cultural struggles are fought out and that these things are the choice of the individual rather than the state. This is why I'd argue that saying because Communism is an ideology means it is not atheist assumes that atheism is based on free thought.

How does that follow? That is like saying "Christianity is not theism" means that theism "must be not based on the Bible". Saying that Communism is an ideology distinct from atheism implies absolutely nothing about what atheism is "based" on, merely that Communism is not an accurate reflection of the whole. It is no different to saying "some black people are members of the Black Panthers, but the Black Panthers are not an accurate representation of the overall views and beliefs of all black people".

Whilst the state is offically neutral, the connection between the question of god's existence and the order of the universe remains important; so it therefore remains the right of the individual to choose. In a Communist system- atheism is stated as fact and taken for granted.

What happened under Communism was the reverse of a theocratic system; the state consciously took sides on the question of gods existence, promoting and offical ideology that was atheist, persecuting and discouraging religious belief based on the expectation that the advance of scientific knowledge into the realm of social sciences would be sufficient to show that religious belief is not innate in man, but is the product of a combination of ignorance and oppression rationalised as a higher power. When there was a conflict between scientific theories and the atheist-materialist ideology of the communist party, the ideology won out; this applied to the big bang, quantum mechanics, and even to the theory of relativity because they did not conform with materialist philosophy and could present theological interpreations of natural phenemeona.

What does any of this have to do with anything that I wrote?

Belief systems do not simply represent ideas, but ways of rationalisng the world on which we base our actions. Both Theocratic and Communist systems work on the principle that they're beliefs are a fact because they under-pin there entire ideology and therefore their system of government. "Lack of belief" does describe atheism, but "lack of belief" is not a sufficient basis for an ideology that organises a whole society- religious or not. It's why these systems are so hostile to scepticism because to doubt the belief is to doubt the legitimacy of the system. It is however, a legitimate view point for an individual since it does not carry the burden of acting on the belief.

Whilst Communism is an ideology- that is because it rejected god and sought to develop wholly naturalistic explanations for the organisation of nature and society. It was an ideology because it was a set of organising principles for an entire society, rather than for an individual. Communists were atheists, but just because it is an ideology rather than a lack of belief, does not detract that for nearly a century communists promoted ideas, systems of government and policies that were consistent with materialism and atheism.

Again, you've said absolutely nothing addressing what I explained.

 

[LuisDantas]

I have only recently seen anyone claim the Nazis were atheists. Where does that claim originate from?

I find the claim rather unconvincing myself. It is supposedly originated from Hitler's Table Talk, but that sounds dubious at best.

Even if Hitler himself were atheistic (which I very much doubt, for reasons exposed below), even the angry clown with a penchant for oratory could not possibly change the religious beliefs of the Nazi Party to such an extent. Himmler, most notably, was not even remotely an atheist or an unbeliever, much the opposite really. And Germany, then even more than now, was deeply Christian. Its main relgious division was between Protestants and Catholics.

Hitler himself claimed to believe to have been spared for a greater destiny when he survived daring rescues in WW 1. The swastika was based on the emblem of the place where he studied to become a priest. The SS had "Gott in Himmel" (sp?) as its motto. And so it goes.

For more on that:

Hitler's Christianity

 

[Laika]

I have only recently seen anyone claim the Nazis were atheists. Where does that claim originate from?

I had a quick look round, and it looks like it comes from the Catholic Bishop of Augsburg, Walter Mixa. it looks quite recent.

Were the Nazis Atheists? - theTrumpet.com

'Hell on Earth': German Bishop Links Nazi Crimes to Atheism - SPIEGEL ONLINE

 

[Laika]

My apologies Immortal Flame as I am a bit tired and so am monoluging a bit.

In the case of Communism, the actions and beliefs of Communist regimes were a result of ideologies that were separate and distinct from their atheism. Their atheism was largely incidental - a preferred position of the ideology, certainly, but the position is not an ideology in itself. Communism cannot therefore be called a reflection of atheism, and the actions and beliefs of Communists cannot therefore be used in any way as a criticism of atheism or the atheist position.

The role of Atheism was a necessary part of Communist ideology because it was materialist. materialism is central the Marxist ideology and so therefore was atheism and naturalistic explanations. Communism was not simply an ideology limited to politics, but was a philosophical 'worldview' which affected every aspect of their thought; science, philosophy, politics, economics, logic, law, ethics, culture, art, etc. The all-embracing aspect of the ideology was symptomatic of being a totalitarian state that sought to plan all aspects of social life according to a materialist scientific ideology. Because the ideology was crucial to legitimising their system, for Communists therefore, atheism was a statement of fact rather than a lack of belief. This is why religious belief and scepticism were persecuted as to do so was to attack the system itself.

This means that communism represents a different form of atheism, but it is still atheist. The fact that it is an ideology or dogma does not dimish the fact it is atheist, only that it represents a different set of political realities as to how a people arrived at their beliefs.

I hope that is clearer.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The role of Atheism was a necessary part of Communist ideology because it was materialist. materialism is central the Marxist ideology and so therefore was atheism and naturalistic explanations.

But as I have already explained, atheism isn't necessarily a naturalistic or materialist position.

Communism was not simply an ideology limited to politics, but was a philosophical 'worldview' which affected every aspect of their thought; science, philosophy, politics, economics, logic, law, ethics, culture, art, etc. The all-embracing aspect of the ideology was symptomatic of being a totalitarian state that sought to plan all aspects of social life according to a materialist scientific ideology. Because the ideology was crucial to legitimising their system, for Communists therefore, atheism was a statement of fact rather than a lack of belief. This is why religious belief and scepticism were persecuted as to do so was to attack the system itself.

I understand and accept this, but I fail to see how you can extrapolate from this the idea that this idea either accurately reflects atheism or that those who don't believe it does must necessarily believe that atheism is inherently liberal.

This means that communism represents a different form of atheism, but it is still atheist. The fact that it is an ideology or dogma does not dimish the fact it is atheist, only that it represents a different set of political realities as to how a people arrived at their beliefs.

Again, I understand that Communism is atheistic, but I still don't see justification for your argument that it is in any way reasonable to use the actions and beliefs of Communists to accurately reflect or otherwise form conclusions about the opinion of atheists in general. Nobody here has doubted that Communists were atheists, just the assertion you have made that atheists somehow "dismiss" the fact that Communists were atheists by claiming that atheism was somehow inherently liberal, and that therefore they weren't "really" atheists. I've never really heard that argument made by anybody before.

I hope that is clearer.

I'm afraid not. Maybe we're both a little tired...

 

[jonathan180iq]

atheism is not a position which carries with it any political or ideological baggage other than a lack of belief in a God

Yup. This is all there is to say about it.

Some Communists are atheists and some Republicans are atheists. So what?
Some mass-murderers are Christian and some wonderful salt of the Earth people are Christians... So what?

 

[Augustus]

I find the claim rather unconvincing myself. It is supposedly originated from Hitler's Table Talk, but that sounds dubious at best.

Even if Hitler himself were atheistic (which I very much doubt, for reasons exposed below), even the angry clown with a penchant for oratory could not possibly change the religious beliefs of the Nazi Party to such an extent. Himmler, most notably, was not even remotely an atheist or an unbeliever, much the opposite really. And Germany, then even more than now, was deeply Christian. Its main relgious division was between Protestants and Catholics.

Hitler himself claimed to believe to have been spared for a greater destiny when he survived daring rescues in WW 1. The swastika was based on the emblem of the place where he studied to become a priest. The SS had "Gott in Himmel" (sp?) as its motto. And so it goes.

For more on that:

Hitler's Christianity

"Gott mit uns" - It had a long history associated with Prussia (amongst others) that predates Naziism by a couple of hundred years. It was not the motto of the SS although it did appear in some places like Army belt buckles. I wouldn't associate its Nazi usage as being an emblem of Christianity though.

Identifying Hitler as in any way Christian is a pretty hard sell. He may well have used superficially Christian rhetoric on occasions, but this was part of a pragmatic attempt to utilise whatever available methods there were to achieve his goals. Referrals to things such as 'providence', should not be interpreted in the Christian sense, more of an attempt to redefine existing concept in the service of Naziism. Also if we want to highlight Christianity, his rhetoric certainly relied on 'enlightenment' scientific racialism far more than Christianity, and even more on Romantic nationalism. More to the point these formed part of Nazi ideology rather than just being rhetorical flourishes.

And Himmler would probably qualify for many people's definition of atheist but this is a debatable point. He was an anti-Christian though.

Naziism may not be a specifically 'atheist' ideology in the sense of Communism, religion could be tolerated if it didn't get in the way of the Nazi party. However, it did not draw on Christianity as much as it tried to replace it. Hitler said "It is more difficult to undermine faith than knowledge" which is why the Nazis coopted religious symbolism into political messianism.

Whether or not Naziism was 'atheistic' is open to debate, it was post-Christian though. A new worldview that sought to replace traditional Christianity with something completely different.

 

[Augustus]

As far as I'm concerned, the most common argument raised against the "Communist = atheist" argument is that atheism is not a position which carries with it any political or ideological baggage other than a lack of belief in a God, and therefore any beliefs "around" that cannot be said to be a direct result of atheism.

This may be true in the loosest sense of the word 'atheism', but then 'theism' carries with it no ideological baggage other than the belief in God.

The thread is about 'new atheism' though, which specifically rejects the role of religion in society, seeking to replace it with 'science and reason'. This is an ideological position and therefore does carry ideological baggage.

Moreover, any atheist who seeks to diminish the role of religion in society is also taking up an ideological position and has ideological baggage. Atheism only gets to play the "it's only non-belief in God" card when it is passive. As soon as the non-existence of God becomes part of an argument about society, it becomes ideological.

 

[Jumi]

And Himmler would probably qualify for many people's definition of atheist but this is a debatable point. He was an anti-Christian though.

Can you cite why you think Himmler would be an atheist? I don't think he was, given the fact that you couldn't even join the SS if you were an atheist.

Naziism may not be a specifically 'atheist' ideology in the sense of Communism, religion could be tolerated if it didn't get in the way of the Nazi party. However, it did not draw on Christianity as much as it tried to replace it. Hitler said "It is more difficult to undermine faith than knowledge" which is why the Nazis coopted religious symbolism into political messianism.

Indeed, it would be hard to argue it was an atheist ideology at all without avoiding all the facts.

Whether or not Naziism was 'atheistic' is open to debate, it was post-Christian though. A new worldview that sought to replace traditional Christianity with something completely different.

Anything is open for debate, as long as you can provide something tangible.

You should read about the Gottgläublig. Were they also atheists?

 

[LuisDantas]

"Gott mit uns" - It had a long history associated with Prussia (amongst others) that predates Naziism by a couple of hundred years. It was not the motto of the SS although it did appear in some places like Army belt buckles. I wouldn't associate its Nazi usage as being an emblem of Christianity though.

I guess you would not, but it looks very much of an arbitrary choice.

Identifying Hitler as in any way Christian is a pretty hard sell.

Actually, I find it rather easy.

He may well have used superficially Christian rhetoric on occasions, but this was part of a pragmatic attempt to utilise whatever available methods there were to achieve his goals. Referrals to things such as 'providence', should not be interpreted in the Christian sense, more of an attempt to redefine existing concept in the service of Naziism. Also if we want to highlight Christianity, his rhetoric certainly relied on 'enlightenment' scientific racialism far more than Christianity, and even more on Romantic nationalism. More to the point these formed part of Nazi ideology rather than just being rhetorical flourishes.

In that he is just not very different from many other nationalist christians, though.

And Himmler would probably qualify for many people's definition of atheist but this is a debatable point. He was an anti-Christian though.

Now that is a stretch!

Naziism may not be a specifically 'atheist' ideology in the sense of Communism, religion could be tolerated if it didn't get in the way of the Nazi party. However, it did not draw on Christianity as much as it tried to replace it. Hitler said "It is more difficult to undermine faith than knowledge" which is why the Nazis coopted religious symbolism into political messianism.

Whether or not Naziism was 'atheistic' is open to debate, it was post-Christian though. A new worldview that sought to replace traditional Christianity with something completely different.

I find that view hopelessly biased, sorry.