Are atheists arrogant? immoral? angry?

[Augustus]

No, views such as this is about making negative stereotypes of atheists

No it isn’t. Don’t be silly. It is doing the exact opposite.

Your inability to read simple sentences in context is astounding.

The bold above still represents a selective consideration of history. No one should generalize about other beliefs such as Theism or atheism, The history of violent disregard for life is a part of the history of all the ancient tribal Abrahamic religions, atheism, and humanity in general. The problem is far greater than the superficial dismissal as being "simply incidental" in the history of Christianity.

No it doesn’t, don’t be silly.

Just read the post you are replying to without prejudice and you won’t continue to be completely wrong in every single post you ever reply to.

Atheism was a core part of Marxist Leninist political philosophy.

Acknowledging this is simply a fact. It is not “selective” as I’m making no other point than atheism was a core point of one specific philosophy.

You are a theist, does it “negatively stereotype” you to note jihadis believe in god?

Of course not, so stop your inane whining based on your own irrational biases.

 

[F1fan]

As did deists, atheists, agnostics, pagans and occultists, etc.

It is generally accepted by historians of all backgrounds that, by the time of the holocaust, leading Nazis such as Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich, Bormann, Goebbels, Rosenberg, etc. were not Christians and many of them openly despised Christianity.

Many dictators and their hierarchy have disliked the devotion the people have for religion and their authorities.

Yet the vast majority of Germans were Lutheran and Catholic, and this devotion did not prevent them from the committing the Holocaust. When religions pride themselves as a moral essential, and that atheism leads to evil, how do they explain such massive moral failures?

 

[shunyadragon]

No it isn’t. Don’t be silly. It is doing the exact opposite.

Your inability to read simple sentences in context is astounding.



No it doesn’t, don’t be silly.

Just read the post you are replying to without prejudice and you won’t continue to be completely wrong in every single post you ever reply to.

Atheism was a core part of Marxist Leninist political philosophy.

Acknowledging this is simply a fact. It is not “selective” as I’m making no other point than atheism was a core point of one specific philosophy.

You are a theist, does it “negatively stereotype” you to note jihadis believe in god?

Of course not, so stop your inane whining based on your own irrational biases.

You need to clarify your posts. I believe @F1fan questioned your post as I did. How you word things may be a problem.

 

[ChristineM]

Many dictators and their hierarchy have disliked the devotion the people have for religion and their authorities.

Yet the vast majority of Germans were Lutheran and Catholic, and this devotion did not prevent them from the committing the Holocaust. When religions pride themselves as a moral essential, and that atheism leads to evil, how do they explain such massive moral failures?

It took thousands of good, devoted Christians to help keep those death camps running.

 

[F1fan]

That’s irrelevant to the meaning of the terms. Because the terms are defined by their relationship to the proposition, not by their relationship to any individual person. I don’t know why you cannot understand this.

Again, this is irrelevant to the response the terms represent. Atheism is a specific logical response to the theist proposition. NOT any person’s position or opinion. So calling oneself an atheist means one is aligned with that logical response position.

One flaw in your argument here is that you are softening the theist position as a mere proposition. Yet we atheists engage with believers who seldom are so passive and agnosticc, many are downright certain God exists, and they treat their ideas of God as if factual. Sometimes they are just in a bad habit and refer to God as if it is a given and just don;t know any better, but others really think it exists and atheists are somehow unable to sense God. The believer never explains what special sensory perception they have that allow then to detect a God, so there's reason for doubt.

In any event we atheists who debate believers aren't dealing with mere proposals that a God exists, and what follows is a gentleman's discussion. Atheists and theists alike push back on the certainty that theists assert. As you say, it is a logical response to claims that not onl lack evidence, but also typically contrary to observations and science.

Again, gnosticism is a different issue and is not directly relevant to non-theism.

I disagree. I suggest everyone is agnostic where it comes to religious ideas since there is no factual basis for them. Gnostics tend to claim knowledge through a tradition of belief, not a factual assessement of how things are.

 

[F1fan]

It took thousands of good, devoted Christians to help keep those death camps running.

The book Hitler's Willing Executioners describes how ordinary Germans were caught up in committing the Holocaust. Ordinary Germans who were policemen and brought into military authority were organized into local units that would sometimes be ordered to help army units rounding up Jews and even executing them. I saw a documentary recently that documented one such police group and examined the mental health decline of many of the members. It is on Netflix and I wish I could remember the name but it was shocking to see how many of them killed Jews only to avoid being seen as weak and outcasts, and the power of peer pressure. Members of these units would become alcoholics to cope with their actions. The thing is there was no moral pressure by Christian authorities to not kill these Jewish citizens. Even Catholic hieracrchy in Germany had sympathy from Rome to eliminate Jews. So there was a social and religious failure to provide a moral basis for behavior.

 

[Augustus]

Many dictators and their hierarchy have disliked the devotion the people have for religion and their authorities.

Yet the vast majority of Germans were Lutheran and Catholic, and this devotion did not prevent them from the committing the Holocaust. When religions pride themselves as a moral essential, and that atheism leads to evil, how do they explain such massive moral failures?

As I’m not religious, it’s not my concern how they justify it.

From a historical perspective though, while most Germans were Christians, the higher up you were in the Nazi hierarchy, the less likely you were to be Christian. At the very top, it was mostly those hostile to Christianity.

The fact that Speer was told not to include any churches in his master plan for a new Berlin says a lot about what their future aims were.

 

[anna.]

It sort of was about unbelief though.

A bit like belief in god, simply believing in god doesn’t make folk violent or murderous, but as part of a broader set of beliefs then it can play a part.

Being a theist doesn’t make you a jihadi, but belief in god is not simply incidental to jihadism.

Atheism played a similar role in Communist ideology to theism in jihadism, as theism, as a form of false consciousness, was incompatible with utopian Communism.

Callousness towards human life was explicitly justified by the fact that an idea of the sanctity of human life was just a religious myth. Humans are just matter, so the ends justified the means.

This was all explicitly acknowledged by Lenin, Trotsky, et al.

I think (and am open to correction) that Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, et al. used a secular state totalitarianism as a tool to eradicate religion because religion empowered people with qualities that could make them more resistant to state control. That is, the totalitarian regime wasn't atheist as a non belief position, more a regime which required complete control over not only the body but the mind. To me, secular isn't interchangeable with atheism, being apart from rather than without. I can understand how the casual use of "atheistic communism" seems to equate atheism with communist persecution of religion when it's more complex, and I was trying to say I see that. I think I'll just go back to my books...

 

[F1fan]

It sort of was about unbelief though.

A bit like belief in god, simply believing in god doesn’t make folk violent or murderous, but as part of a broader set of beliefs then it can play a part.

Being a theist doesn’t make you a jihadi, but belief in god is not simply incidental to jihadism.

There are no jihadists without belief in a higher power that gives the human a moral authority to kill others. But why are these gods absent, and not telling us all directly that any militant jihad is valid?

Atheism played a similar role in Communist ideology to theism in jihadism, as theism, as a form of false consciousness, was incompatible with utopian Communism.

Atheism was part of Marxism that aimed to avoid assigning authority to religions that answer to imaginary beings. If you read Marx you will see that his aim was to cleanse the mind of illusions so it can make more humanist value judgments. This was also the ideal of communism which was an ideological framework that is similar to humanism.

What the Soviets did with Marxism is not much like what Marx wrote. And the dictators starting with a paranoid Stalin used the prohibition on religion as a way to prevent the hierarchy in Eastern Orthodoxy from being a political conflict. In fact Stalin reopened churches in 1942 when the Germans were winning the war. He did this because he knew it would help calm the masses. So was atheism really a core element? Not when churches remained standing and preists remained in their posts. Services were banned until Stalin needed them.

Callousness towards human life was explicitly justified by the fact that an idea of the sanctity of human life was just a religious myth. Humans are just matter, so the ends justified the means.

I wonder if secular laws that guarantee basic human rights did not exist in the USA would evangelicals justify killing gays and atheists.

 

[Augustus]

You need to clarify your posts

No. You just need to read better as you get literally every post entirely wrong.

People will always have misunderstandings on forums, but you get everything so wrong if is astounding.

 

[F1fan]

As I’m not religious, it’s not my concern how they justify it.

From a historical perspective though, while most Germans were Christians, the higher up you were in the Nazi hierarchy, the less likely you were to be Christian. At the very top, it was mostly those hostile to Christianity.

The higher ups were very disturbed people who had the freedom to experiment with various ideas that justified their immoral beliefs. But I'm not referring to these few, I'm referring to the ordinary person on the streets that were Christians yet aligned and obeyed the politics, but not their religion. We see similar attitudes with MAGAs in the USA. They are "Christian" but how do they balance the immorality and lack of ethics in MAGA and still believe they are moral and follow Jesus?

The fact that Speer was told not to include any churches in his master plan for a new Berlin says a lot about what their future aims were.

As noted dictators don't like to share leadership, and that includes religious authority. And don't forget the history of Johannes Churches in Germany, which are widespread and their own independent entity. Hitler did not assert a theocracy any more than Trump does, but both know how to exploit Christians for their political aims.

 

[Augustus]

I think (and am open to correction) that Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, et al. used a secular state totalitarianism as a tool to eradicate religion because religion empowered people with qualities that could make them more resistant to state control. That is, the totalitarian regime wasn't atheist as a non belief position, more a regime which required complete control over not only the body but the mind. To me, secular isn't interchangeable with atheism, being apart from rather than without. I can understand how the casual use of "atheistic communism" seems to equate atheism with communist persecution of religion when it's more complex, and I was trying to say I see that. I think I'll just go back to my books...

It was very much atheist as a non-belief position.

The goal of communism was a utopian society, this required the elimination of all forms of false consciousness that prevented humans realising their full potential.

Any superior power was incompatible with this aim, as humans had to be at ghe top of the tree in order to be fully in control of their own destiny.

The intellectual foundations of this date back to the mid 19th c and the Young Hegelians like Feuerbach, it was not simply a pragmatic ploy adopted only once in power.

Some quotes:

It is our duty to destroy every religious world-concept... If the destruction of ten million human beings, as happened in the last war, should be necessary for the triumph of one definite class, then that must be done and it will be done." Yemelyan Yaroslavsky - leader of The League of militant atheists


the criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism...

It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.

The only liberation of Germany which is practically possible is liberation from the point of view of that theory which declares man to be the supreme being for man

Marx - A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right


Lenin: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism"

Leon Trotsky: “We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life”.

Nikolai Bukharin: Many weak-kneed communists reason as follows: 'Religion does not prevent my being a communist. I believe both in God and in communism. My faith in God does not hinder me from fighting for the cause of the proletarian revolution.'

This train of thought is radically false. Religion and communism are incompatible, both theoretically and practically.

Every communist must regard social phenomena (the relationships between human beings, revolutions, wars, etc.) as processes which occur in accordance with definite laws. The laws of social development have been fully established by scientific communism on the basis of the theory of historical materialism which we owe to our great teachers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. This theory explains that social development is not brought about by any kind of supernatural forces. Nay more. The same theory has demonstrated that the very idea of God and of supernatural powers arises at a definite stage in human history, and at another definite stage begins to disappear as a childish notion which finds no confirmation in practical life and in the struggle between man and nature...

Scientific communism, in its judgements concerning natural phenomena, is guided by the data of the natural sciences, which are in irreconcilable conflict with all religious imaginings.


Obviously this does not reflect badly on generic atheism (I’m an atheist myself). Atheism wasn’t incidental to Marxism though.

 

[Augustus]

The higher ups were very disturbed people who had the freedom to experiment with various ideas that justified their immoral beliefs. But I'm not referring to these few, I'm referring to the ordinary person on the streets that were Christians yet aligned and obeyed the politics, but not their religion. We see similar attitudes with MAGAs in the USA. They are "Christian" but how do they balance the immorality and lack of ethics in MAGA and still believe they are moral and follow Jesus?

As noted dictators don't like to share leadership, and that includes religious authority. And don't forget the history of Johannes Churches in Germany, which are widespread and their own independent entity. Hitler did not assert a theocracy any more than Trump does, but both know how to exploit Christians for their political aims.

I agree religion doesn’t prevent people from doing wrong.

In general, being religious or irreligious says little about an individual’s morality.

Either can find ways to justify moral or immoral behaviour.

Neither is intrinsically predisposed to do good or bad, and either good or bad can just as easily result given the right/wrong circumstances.

 

[Augustus]

What the Soviets did with Marxism is not much like what Marx wrote. And the dictators starting with a paranoid Stalin used the prohibition on religion as a way to prevent the hierarchy in Eastern Orthodoxy from being a political conflict. In fact Stalin reopened churches in 1942 when the Germans were winning the war. He did this because he knew it would help calm the masses. So was atheism really a core element? Not when churches remained standing and preists remained in their posts. Services were banned until Stalin needed them.

Yes, the approach was pragmatic both because doing this often wasn't popular at home, and was also causing PR problems abroad. They also collaborated with the Nazis and used Western capitalists to help build their industrial system as they realised you couldn't magically transform into a communist utopia overnight.

While Stalin did ease off the persecutions during WW2, by then he had already destroyed most of the Churches in the USSR and killed or imprisoned tens of thousands of clergy, and after WW2 the persecutions resumed.

That they "only" eradicated 100,000 clerics and closed over 98% of the churches and all monasteries is not really much of a counter to the idea that they wanted to destroy religious belief. USSR anti-religious campaign (1928–1941) - Wikipedia

It didn't start with Stalin though, it started from the very beginning with Lenin. The party elites had trouble bringing the proles along with them of course, but the philosophical underpinnings were always there and are explicit. The end of god belief was necessary, by whatever means it would occur. Some felt it would die out naturally, others felt it needed a bit of a push.

The philosophy long predates the USSR: Marxist–Leninist atheism - Wikipedia

The more moderate wing proposed creating a religion of humanity, but Lenin found this to be weak-willed pinko appeasement: God-Building - Wikipedia


While it has nothing to do with generic atheism and more than jihadism has to do with generic theism, many folk will insist that, unlike theism, atheism cannot be a motivation for any oppressive action in any way even when combined with other beliefs. This is a nonsense though as no beliefs exist in a vacuum, and if you strongly believe there is no god and you think belief in god is an impediment to a vastly better world, then of course this can lead to a desire to forcefully speed up the process.

If this view is utopian, combined with a staunch materialist view and the idea that morality is simply what humans make it you can create a very violent "ends justify the means" logic. Infinite upside alongside a view that an individual human life has no intrinsic value makes it possible to justify horrendous short term suffering for the 'greater good'.

As an atheist, I don't really understand why it is even so important for other atheists to try to deny atheism was a key part of Marxist-Leninist ideology. They were pretty explicit about their views, and as I'm not a Marxist-Leninist then I feel no greater need to defend their views than I do for Nazis, Jihadis, the KKK or any other group who I don't personally identify with.

Humans of all stripes can be good or oppressive for different reasons, and belief or disbelief in god can play a role in that, or it can play none at all. In the USSR, it played a role.

 

[Revoltingest]

What on earth makes you think “Israel’s genocide is supported by most Jews and Christians?” Anecdotal evidence?

That’s your Amerocentric bias fooling you again. You should get out more.

Majority of voters in USA support
both political parties that support
genocide.
BTW, this is not anecdotal.

 

[F1fan]

Yes, the approach was pragmatic both because doing this often wasn't popular at home, and was also causing PR problems abroad. They also collaborated with the Nazis and used Western capitalists to help build their industrial system as they realised you couldn't magically transform into a communist utopia overnight.

While Stalin did ease off the persecutions during WW2, by then he had already destroyed most of the Churches in the USSR and killed or imprisoned tens of thousands of clergy, and after WW2 the persecutions resumed.

That they "only" eradicated 100,000 clerics and closed over 98% of the churches and all monasteries is not really much of a counter to the idea that they wanted to destroy religious belief. USSR anti-religious campaign (1928–1941) - Wikipedia

It didn't start with Stalin though, it started from the very beginning with Lenin. The party elites had trouble bringing the proles along with them of course, but the philosophical underpinnings were always there and are explicit. The end of god belief was necessary, by whatever means it would occur. Some felt it would die out naturally, others felt it needed a bit of a push.

The philosophy long predates the USSR: Marxist–Leninist atheism - Wikipedia

The more moderate wing proposed creating a religion of humanity, but Lenin found this to be weak-willed pinko appeasement: God-Building - Wikipedia

No doubt the Reds saw the Russian Orthodox church as a threat, politically and socially. It certainly seems an extreme policy and action, but notice the Reds had the brutal authority to do it, and they got away with it. Arguably putin is doing it today with his brutal actions against any opposition. If Trump wins in November we could see similar actions in the USA.

While it has nothing to do with generic atheism and more than jihadism has to do with generic theism, many folk will insist that, unlike theism, atheism cannot be a motivation for any oppressive action in any way even when combined with other beliefs. This is a nonsense though as no beliefs exist in a vacuum, and if you strongly believe there is no god and you think belief in god is an impediment to a vastly better world, then of course this can lead to a desire to forcefully speed up the process.

Well there are some gods that can be ruled out as real, like the gods that created the Hawaiian Islands. Even Yahweh is surely not real if a person claims a literal interpretation of Genesis. So the storng atheist position is in direct correlation to the claims made in any given argument.

If this view is utopian, combined with a staunch materialist view and the idea that morality is simply what humans make it you can create a very violent "ends justify the means" logic. Infinite upside alongside a view that an individual human life has no intrinsic value makes it possible to justify horrendous short term suffering for the 'greater good'.

I wouldn't say there is any utopian ideal out there. But the rest of what you say is apparent to any mind that doesn;t make religious assumptions.

As an atheist, I don't really understand why it is even so important for other atheists to try to deny atheism was a key part of Marxist-Leninist ideology. They were pretty explicit about their views, and as I'm not a Marxist-Leninist then I feel no greater need to defend their views than I do for Nazis, Jihadis, the KKK or any other group who I don't personally identify with.

It's never a thought for me until some theist in debate brings it up as some sort of defense for their religious belief that also has crimes against humanity. It gets argued by me when it's claimed that atheism is some dogma that is a core belief. In Stalin's case he was a paranoid dictator who targeted any person or group he saw as a threat. He also killed most every officer in the Soviet army in the 1930's which left the Red army unprepared for the German invasion.

 

[shunyadragon]

Majority of voters in USA support
both political parties that support
genocide.
BTW, this is not anecdotal.

Too simplistic to be real. As far as the Hamas war is concerned both Israel and the Hamas army have declared their rejection of any international influence in the conflict and are intransigent in their goals. Yes that it is only Bidin is attempting to promote a negotiated solution. Republicans are silent. Yes, it is a terrible tribal war another of many between the Abrahamic tribes for thousands of years.

As far as Ukraine goes the Republicans enthusiastically support Russia and their allies like hungary in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Conservative support for Russian genocide extends to Elon Musk allowing Russians to use their stailites and denying Ukraine access.

 

[Revoltingest]

Too simplistic to be real.

You're confusing "simplistic" with "simple".

As far as the Hamas war is concerned both Israel and the Hamas army have declared their rejection of any international influence in the conflict and are intransigent in their goals. Yes that it is only Bidin is attempting to promote a negotiated solution.

Biden has changed his tune, but so far it's all talk,
& no walk. USA aid supporting Israel's oppression,
killing, destruction, & land theft continues unabated.
And remember....he is a single politician.
My claim is supported by bi-partisan support in
Congress for massive money & military aid in the
ongoing genocide. And their censure of one member
who stood up for Palestinians. These are popularly
elected politicians who are overwhelmingly Christian
& Jewish, popularly elected by the same demographics.

Republicans are silent. Yes, it is a terrible tribal war another of many between the Abrahamic tribes for thousands of years.

Sounds like you're now agreeing with me.

As far as Ukraine goes the Republicans enthusiastically support Russia and their allies like hungary in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Conservative support for Russian genocide extends to Elon Musk allowing Russians to use their stailites and denying Ukraine access.

This doesn't relate to the issue of widespread
support by Christians & Jews for Israel's genocide.

 

[shunyadragon]

You're confusing "simplistic" with "simple".

Both work, you have only proposed an emotional shotgun assault without offering anything in terms of an unbiased assessment of the Hamas war.

Biden has changed his tune, but so far it's all talk,
& no walk. USA aid supporting Israel's oppression,
killing, destruction, & land theft continues unabated.
And remember....he is a single politician.
My claim is supported by bi-partisan support in
Congress for massive money & military aid in the
ongoing genocide. And their censure of one member
who stood up for Palestinians. These are popularly
elected politicians who are overwhelmingly Christian
& Jewish, popularly elected by the same demographics.

Sounds like you're now agreeing with me.

I am not agreeing with you. Do you realize that both Israel and Hamas are acting autonomously rejecting any international efforts to negotiate or resolve the conflict. Israel does not need any US Aid to achieve their goals and rejects any input or involvement by Biden.

The Republicans are silent as to any possible resolution for either side. The bottomline the Republicans would support Israel. Historically Biden has not changed his tone, He has always supported Israel, but he does support the aid to the Palestinians.

Considering the issues at hand and the intransigence of both sides: What could Biden do?

This doesn't relate to the issue of widespread
support by Christians & Jews for Israel's genocide.

Yes it does relate to the issue of widespread
support by Christians & Jews for Israel. In fact most support Israel, and the support is more by Republicans. This is the nature of USA politics for over 60 years You need to get in touch with reality.

You are neglecting the issue of Ukraine and the Republican Party

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What bigotry, that Stalin and Mao killed innocent people and were atheists?

And Stalin and Hitler both had mustaches also.

Is that different from me teaching that when Religious Christians “In the name of the Lord” kill unbelievers, or demean them that they are dead wrong? (which I do)

The difference is that neither Stalin nor Mao killed anyone "in the name of not believing in a theistic god".