Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Marxist Orthodoxy" is by definition atheist. If people wish to blame the oppression of religiously motivated people on religion as a whole, they also have to accept that such leaders who were following an atheistic ideaology were the responsibility of athiesm as basis.
"Marxist Orthodoxy" is by definition atheist. If people wish to blame the oppression of religiously motivated people on religion as a whole, they also have to accept that such leaders who were following an atheistic ideaology were the responsibility of athiesm as basis.
To a certain extent, yes. But the problem with marxism is not that it was atheistic, but that it was a dogmatic political ideology - just as Nazism was.
Nobody has seriously claimed that Religion was to blame for Hitler, why on earth should atheism be to blame for Stalin?
07-29-2014, 11:17 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Yep, atheism does not necessitate any religious/political ideology.
Nazism and Marxism were State Religions run by tyrants like YHWH and Allah.
Most Christians and Muslims today, given the opportunity, would marginalize anyone or any ideas that conflicted with their theology. Eventually the tribal attitude that one is morally superior and the others are a cancer to society means that persecution and injustice for the latter eventually happens. Unless you have a society built around freedom and equality kept in check this is the way of these these three religions and any state religions built upon that mindset.
If you believe in the literal truth of the Bible, then God has everyone beat, wiping out hundreds of millions of people in the Great Flood. Are you going to deny that the Flood wasn't about religion?
And that doesn't even count the hundreds of thousands of others that were killed either by God directly or through his direct command.
To a certain extent, yes. But the problem with marxism is not that it was atheistic, but that it was a dogmatic political ideology - just as Nazism was.
Nobody has seriously claimed that Religion was to blame for Hitler, why on earth should atheism be to blame for Stalin?
It the case of communism, it was the dogma and the rigid ideology combined with the Utopianism. If you're making a Utopia, where everyone will be happy forevermore, slaughtering a few million/tens of millions/hundreds of millions of evil people (read: all disbelievers) is a small price to pay.
It's the exact same logic of the Inquisition, of flying planes into buildings, of planting bombs at the Olympics and persecuting gays and the usual horrors that always accompany religions that cling to A Universal Truth (as almost all do). If an omnipotent being wants everyone to do X in order to receive an eternal reward, slaughtering a portion of those who refuse to do X is not only directly righteous, it indirectly will cause some non-Xers to repent, and thus gain the reward of eternal pleasure, and so is a utilitarian good.
Such are the implications of such thought.
And as for Hitler, all the "Don't point out that he was a Christian!" whining aside, he spent two decades railing against the Jews, endlessly pinning on them the 'Christ-killers' label. So, Hitler used the same justification for killing Jews that Christians have used for centuries upon centuries, yet he killed people because he was an atheist? Uh huh... I guess lebensraum and resentment over Versailles are atheistic grievances, too...
I don't blame religion for Hitler. But a component of his grievances, for which he conducted genocide, was religious.
On a side note, the only reason communism slaughtered more people than the Christian crusaders is that communism's apex was in the mid-20th century, when the machinery of wide-scale slaughter was widely available and humanity hadn't quite reached the level of violence taboo of the present. If the medieval popes and European kings had possessed tanks and bombers and machine guns, they'd have made Stalin blush in their actions. Timing is everything.
To a certain extent, yes. But the problem with marxism is not that it was atheistic, but that it was a dogmatic political ideology - just as Nazism was.
Nobody has seriously claimed that Religion was to blame for Hitler, why on earth should atheism be to blame for Stalin?
In precisely the same way that religion is to blame for the abuses perpetrated in the various subsets that come under the thesis that there is a god.
Do you people NEVER read posts? Hitler was a Christian - according to his way of thinking. You would say not a 'Real' Christian, but he was definitely a God believer.
As for the Marxist dictators, Marxist orthodoxy was their religion, and they carried out a crusading Holy war to spread it. They may have been technically atheists, but they weren't 'real' atheists.
Blaming Stalin and Pol pot on atheism - never ind Hitler - is what has been debunked. Either you don't read posts or you put them right out of your mind if they don't support your prejudices.
What tenets of Christianity do you believe led Hitler to do what he did?
Atheistic tyrants have killed many more people in the last 100 years than religious folk. Honestly...do you people never THINK before you spout off the nonsense?
I think the point is decidedly more nuanced that you seem to think. Lets examine this a bit further...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
And before anyone even thinks of saying that we said this:
NO, no one is saying that without religion there would be no war or killing.
What we -are- saying, however, is that it would be much harder to justify war and killing; there would be far less of a reason to be a jackass to your neighbor.
Let's be clear, Shirina is not saying all war and or atrocities are caused by religion. It is clear that people and nations kill for other reasons than a god.
But, I would argue that is cannot be denied that using religion to justify war is incredibly common, and effective. It appears to be much more effective than mere political ideology or nationalism alone.
For examples, we can take Hitler. Not because he was a Christian, but because he used Christianity as a justification and a rallying cry. It isn't about what Hitler believed, but about the fact that he was able to use religious rhetoric to justify atrocity to otherwise good and upstanding religious Germans. Even Stalin reestablished the Russian Orthodox church in 1941 specifically to use religious fervor to gin up support for the war against Hitler. Even during the Cold War, the US used a decidedly religious tone in its approach to Communist, painting it as a religious struggle. One need look no further than the myriad of Evangelical books written in the 50's through the 80's painting the conflict between Capitalism and Communism as a conflict between a Godly ( or at least more Godly) America and a Satanic Soviet Union. Even today, the majority of the violence in the Middle East, Africa, and SE Asia is justified and excused using religion. It makes no difference if these are "True" Christians or "True" Muslims, the fact is that religion is an incredibly powerful justification that is very effective at galvanizing public support behind conflict.
If, as Shirina pointed out, religion were suddenly cease to be used to justify violence, it would be orders of magnitude more difficult for these wars, atrocities, genocides, and persecutions to find popular support within a culture. The simplest evidence that this is true is to look at history. Virtually every conflict has had as least one side claiming God's sanction, usually every side makes the claim. If leveraging religion were not effective, it would not be such a pervasive pattern in history.
-NoCapo
Last edited by NoCapo; 07-29-2014 at 12:14 PM..
Reason: Becasue my bad typing was perpetrating crimes against Grammar
I think the point is decidedly more nuanced that you seem to think. Lets examine this a bit further...
Let's be clear, Shirina is not saying all war and or atrocities are caused by religion. It is clear that people and nations kill for other reasons than a god.
But, I would argue that is cannot be denied that using religion to justify war is incredibly common, and effective. It appears to be much more effective than mere political ideology or nationalism alone.
For examples, we can take Hitler. Not becasue he was a Christian, but becasue he used Christianity as a justification and arallying cry. It isn't about what Hitler believed, but about the fact that he was able to use religious rhetoric to justify atrocity to otherwise good and upstanding religious Germans. Even Stalin reestablished the Russian Orthodox church in 1941 specifically to use religious fervor to gin up support for the war against Hitler. Even during the Cold War, the US used a decidedly religious tone in its approach to Communist, painting it as a religious struggle. One need look no further than the myriad of Evangelical books written in the 50's through the 80's painting the conflict between Capitalism and Communism as a conflict between a Godly ( or at least more Godly) America and a Satanic Soviet Union. Even today, the majority of the violence in the Middle East, Africa, and SE Asia is justified and excused using religion. It makes no difference if these are "True" Christians or "True" Muslims, the fact is that religion is an incredibly powerful justification that is very effective at galvanizing public support behind conflict.
If, as Shirina pointed out, religion were suddenly cease to be used to justify violence, it would be orders of magnitude more difficult for these wars, atrocities, genocides, and persecutions to find popular support within a culture. The simplest evidence that this is true is to look at history. Virtually every conflict has had as least one side claiming God's sanction, usually every side makes the claim. If leveraging religion were not effective, it would not be such a pervasive pattern in history.
-NoCapo
Do you believe the men that used religion to carry out their atrocities would not have done those atrocities if there was no religion?
These simplistic claims about religion and human violence and the role of religion in human societies ... surely you guys can do better than that? Come on..... this is high-school argumentation. I expect that from some people on this forum who got their education on philosophy and religion from internet memes and books written by journalists (Christopher Hitchens), but the rest of you?
I have a huge problem with religiously motivated violence, but I don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. That does not follow. Religion has given humanity much more than mere violence. Abrahamic religions have influenced the very way you think as a Westerner, whether you realize it or not. But I don't have an agenda, I suppose. Many of you do have an agenda, and quite honestly will use any means necessary to achieve it. At least be honest about it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I guess lebensraum and resentment over Versailles are atheistic grievances, too... 
