Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The beliefs of every atheist I know are diametrically opposed to the actions of Stalin. You argued as if Stalin should be relevant to modern atheists. I assumed you were trying to say something on-topic and took my best crack at an inference. Maybe you should clarify what you meant.
I was responding to someone's blanket statement that there were no instances where atheists ever harmed anyone. I was providing evidence to the contrary. If I gave the impression that I was referring to atheism as some sort of monolithic block, I apologize, as that was not my intent. My intent was that some atheistic regimes quite actively harmed theists and other religious people and institutions, specifically because they saw religion as backward and an impediment to achievement of their view of what society should be like. It was not their only motivation, but it was among their motivations.
Your portrayal of my reasoning here reflects poorly on your ability to understand what others are saying. The statement was made that there were no examples of atheists causing harm based on their atheism; I was providing historical and current examples of individuals/groups who persecuted theists and other religionists because of religion vs. atheism, as well as social, political and economic reasons, many of which were closely related to their atheism. If you are so afraid that accurate historical evidence might damage your modern/different version of atheism, that is YOUR problem, not mine. I pointed out that it was "one kind of atheism" BECAUSE it is different from modern humanistic/secular/freethought atheism, which seems to be your orientation.
No one ever claimed this, though. It was stated that no one harms people in the name of atheism, but who on earth would contend that no atheist has ever harmed anyone. Could you have misread their claim? Can you cite what you are talking about?
What I was responding made no mention of "Modern" versus any other kind of atheist. See my post 143. Stalin et al are relevant because they were atheists--that they are/were different than modern western secular/humanist atheists is irrelevant.
Even Stalin didn't harm people in the name of Atheism, though. His pursuit was for political power, which included taking power away from organized religions. But, in no way was his end game to merely spread atheism or act on its behalf.
No, that sounds like what I read, too. Stalin etc., used the excuse/reason of atheism for their actions regarding religious individuals and institutions. I don't see how you can say they weren't doing it in the name of their atheism, even if they also had political and economic and social reasons for doing so, when they themselves cited the necessity of atheism for their future goals.
Any atheist you might be addressing in this thread is a modern atheist.
The red hat is relevant to the red Chevy because they're both red.
It's a simple difference. Stalin and his cronies were using atheism and anti-theism as tools for their political purposes. The horrors they perpetrated were not done in the name of atheism, they were done in the name of their political aspirations. Otoh, look at the Middle East. There are many countries where horrors are done in the name of religious beliefs, outlawing certain behaviors and demanding punishment for things they BELIEVE God sees as unacceptable. That's the difference ... Stalin's aim was to gain power for himself and his party, not atheism. Whereas many religious people act in the name of their religious beliefs explicitly.
I see, and any action by any religion or state that cites religion as a reason for doing something is ONLY doing in the name of religion? Of course not, everyone has multiple motivations, and in the political and economic realms, religion and social views play into political and economic actions. I am saying that atheism was ONE of the motivations, and was an argument used by Stalin etc., to do things to break the political and economic and social power of religion.
No, you weren't. This all started with a claim about atheism as a motive, not about atheists harming people.
I don't believe you. When you say that the differences between Stalin and secular humanists are "not relevant", I can only conclude that you intend to tar them all with the same brush.
I think you need to do a better kob of understanding the motives of modern atheists and the "new atheism" movement. It would make no sense to try to combat authoritarianism and denial of the freedom to think and believe as we please by replacing religious authoritarianism with a non-religious authoritarianism.
The fact that they held positions that were incompatible with theism doesn't mean that their positions were "derived from" atheism.
... but again: you argued as if it has something to do with atheistic viewpoints in general; something that you've still failed to justify.
If you rephrase this so it's parsable, and explain what it would mean for atheism to be "invalidated", maybe I'll be able to answer.
They act in the name of their religious beliefs so they can have and hold political and economic and social power. Religion is one of several contributing beliefs that lead to policies and actions. Making a distinction because one is religious and one anti-religious is disingenuous. Power is power, and it comes from ideological, political, religious, economic and social sources. The people in the Middle East who are pushing religion are doing so because their interpretation of the religion allows them to have social, economic and political power--no different than Stalin, Mao and company.
It's irrelevant.
No, I don't believe I ever said or implied that it has anything to do with atheistic viewpoints in general, and certainly not to modern/humanistic/secular atheism--which I note, Stalin and the like might have agreed with in principle, but the evidence is they did away with anyone who did not support their state atheism, including many anarchists; I was providing evidence of historical/current cases where atheism is an important part of the social/political/economic theory of certain individuals and governments.
Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. It's just as foolish to lump all theisms and religions together, on the exact same basis as you are pointing out: not all Christians have the same political, social and economic beliefs, not to mention differences in their religious beliefs. Religious actions are also motivated by political, social and economic desire for power, just as your argued differences in atheism--which I am not disagreeing with, btw. Your argument that Stalinism, Maoism, etc., "wasn't really atheism" just doesn't hold water--it was just different atheism. But it was STILL atheism, because it was a denial of the existence of gods and other religious ideas.
Of course. I've only ever advocated holding people to the implications of the beliefs they actually hold, the creeds they actually proclaim, and the traditiond they explicitly adopt.
Have you read a single word I said? When you rephrase my arguments like this, you show that you completely missed the point.
Stalin's regime was atheist, but it makes no more sense to call it an example of "atheism" than to call a red car an example of "redness".
Atheism was certainly necessary for Soviet communism; it was incompatible with theism. However, it was not derived from atheism, since atheism itself leads to no other conclusions than a lack of belief in gods.
I think you - and sone of the other posters here - have some very strange ideas about what atheism is. Here's the thing about atheism: it's a conclusion, not a foundation.