Stalin - Relevance of his Atheism?

PDN

MOD NOTE:
This is an off-topic discussion from another thread that has been moved to it's own platform, rather than a thread started by PDN.

stereoroid wrote: »

Yes, and he was also a megalomaniac, who eventually thought he had god-like authority. Have a read of Khruschev's Secret Speech (1956) before you try to hold up Stalin as an exemplar of an atheist, please. He

He attacked the Orthodox Church in Russia, which allows theists to create the "violent atheism" myth - but they should be reminded that the Church was suppressed because it was an authority among the people of Russia, in opposition to the Party.

That would make sense if the Orthodox Church was the only religious organisation that suffered persecution. However, some of the most savage persecution was directed at tiny groups like Pentecostals, Baptists, Jehovah's witnesses etc that were no authority at all among the people of Russia.

Stalin might be gone but apparently there are still those who rewrite history.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

That would make sense if the Orthodox Church was the only religious organisation that suffered persecution.

Huh?

Stalin and did not tolerate any group which he did not control. That's why he's called a 'dictator' and in broad terms, it's what he shares with other such people like Mao and so on.

How come you do not accept this standard explanation? It's really quite simple.

Dades

The Ultimate Stalin Thread - begins here...
(Discussion moved from another thread)

Zombrex

Oh it's On!!!

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

That would make sense if the Orthodox Church was the only religious organisation that suffered persecution. However, some of the most savage persecution was directed at tiny groups like Pentecostals, Baptists, Jehovah's witnesses etc that were no authority at all among the people of Russia.

Stalin might be gone but apparently there are still those who rewrite history.

As Robin points out that doesn't make sense.

All religions have authority over the people who are members of the group, even if that is simply a group of Christians reading the Bible in an antic.

Ultimately Russian Communism, and particularly Stalin, were against all religion because it was a devotion to something other than the Party and the State (and Stalin)

Nothing was supposed to come higher than the State, not even God (which they didn't believed existed anyway).

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

All religions have authority over the people who are members of the group, even if that is simply a group of Christians reading the Bible in an antic.

...which also explains the Chinese communist party's current antipathy towards the free-market, non-state-controlled, christian churches which are springing up all over China.

A dictatorship demands absolute loyalty from its citizenship, just as a church, or a church's beliefs, do.

Neither tolerate divided loyalties, and hapless believers are frequently tortured either by the state on the one side, or the believer's own conscience on the other.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Huh?

Stalin and did not tolerate any group which he did not control. That's why he's called a 'dictator' and in broad terms, it's what he shares with other such people like Mao and so on.

How come you do not accept this standard explanation? It's really quite simple.

I would say it is simplistic rather than simple.

Not all religious groups lie outside a dictator's control. In fact, dictators will frequently support those religious groups that will be spiritual Quislings and kowtow to the dictator's whims. This was the case in Nazi Germany, in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, and is still the case in Communist China.

I didn't actually start a thread on this. I was simply replying to stereoroid's historically inaccurate statement that Stalin's treatment of the Russian Orthodox Church (purely on account of their position of authority in Russia) gave rise to a myth of violent atheism.

Atheism was an integral part of Stalinism. That is why (unlike many other dictators) he waged war against religion in general - not just against those elements of it that resisted his control.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Nothing was supposed to come higher than the State, not even God (which they didn't believed existed anyway).

There's a technical term for that lack of belief. It escapes me at present, but I'm sure I'll remember it sooner or later. I think it begins with the letter 'a'.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

There's a technical term for that lack of belief. It escapes me at present, but I'm sure I'll remember it sooner or later. I think it begins with the letter 'a'.

There's a technical term for that lack of belief. It escapes me at present, but I'm sure I'll remember it sooner or later. I think it begins with the letter 'a'.

Hmm...and would you say that also explains the Elizabethan persecution of Catholics?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

There's a technical term for that lack of belief. It escapes me at present, but I'm sure I'll remember it sooner or later. I think it begins with the letter 'a'.

That would be "atheist"

You seem to be labouring under the false impression that we should be bothered by the fact that Stalin was an atheist, as if being an atheist is supposed to not make you a genocidal mad man.

The issue is that most religions, including Christianity, claim a moral righteousness, that being a Christian is supposed to make you a better person. Atheists often point out that fact that Christians have been responsible for some terrible atrocities throughout history would seem to suggest otherwise. In fact religion seems to be a strong motivating factor in carrying out atrocities.

Christians often counter by claiming firstly that those people weren't really Christians (we will leave this argument for the time being), and then inevitably pointing out that atheists have also carried out terrible atrocities.

The point that you guys some what miss is that atheism isn't supposed to stop you carrying out terrible atrocities in the first place, where as religious faith and devotion is. Atheism isn't a better moral system to adopt. It isn't a moral system at all. Atheism is simply the default position of not believing in supernatural gods and their moral systems in the first place.

Theists, particularly those that believe in the weakness of humans, such as Christians, often argue that something like Stalin demonstrates that atheism causes people to be immoral, which fits back into their world view that humans will be immoral without the help of the religion. Without God humans revert to their sinful state. I guess there isn't a whole lot of point debating that because it is based on theological grounds, one has to accept concepts like the Fall of Man to put it in context, and few atheists would accept that such supernatural events actually happened.

The other charge is that people cannot attack religion as being responsible for atrocities because atheism clearly demonstrates that humans will carry out atrocities without religion. That is certainly true, but it misses the point of why people attack religion for being responsible for atrocities in the first place. Communism under Stalin was a system very similar to a religion, it shared a number of key components such as singular devotion and the faith in a system to be correct no matter what is actually happening on the ground.

So while it is wrong to say that only religion brings out these bad traits of humanity, equally it is wrong to say that religion has nothing to do with them and they exist independently of religion. Religion contains some fundamentally bad systems of human organization, but it is equally important to recognise that these systems exist in other non-religious concepts such as communism, which should be criticised as much as religion. But that doesn't mean you give up criticising religion.

PDN

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm...and would you say that also explains the Elizabethan persecution of Catholics?

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Elizabethan persecution of Catholics was carried out in the name of Protestantism. I don't think I've ever denied that. There is violent Protestantism just as there is violent atheism.

I'm not sure quite what your point is in context to this thread.

CerebralCortex

PDN wrote: »

...violent atheism...

Thats impossible because atheism doesn't describe major parts of one's core beliefs its very superficial to say "I'm an atheist" because its just means I don't believe in gods. Am I wrong? Its too small a characteristic or trait to mean that someone would be motivated to be violent. The idea theists have and I've had it too is that once you don't believe in a higher power you've no moral frame of reference but the truth is I behave to my expectation from and to others. Again atheism is just no belief in god/gods, that is the only link between two atheists, however I could believe for example homosexuality is ok and my fellow atheist could believe it is an abomination. (You see nothing to do with atheism). Stalin was a bad motherf*cker regardless of his atheism I believe(I'm pretty sure I know). I was a good person when I was a theist (at least I think I was) and I'm the same now, what I worship or not is irrelevant.
My two cents.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

That would be "atheist"

You seem to be labouring under the false impression that we should be bothered by the fact that Stalin was an atheist, as if being an atheist is supposed to not make you a genocidal mad man.

The only reason I think you and others are bothered about Stalin being an atheist is the hysterical pant-wetting response every time his name gets mentioned on this forum.

We were discussing stereoroid's assertion that Stalin wasn't really a persecutor of religion per se, but that he simply concentrated on wiping out a competing power bloc (the Russian Orthodox church) who conicidentally happened to be religious. My response (one that nobody has successfully rebutted) is that steroroid's assertion is not borne out by the facts.

The issue is that most religions, including Christianity, claim a moral righteousness, that being a Christian is supposed to make you a better person. Atheists often point out that fact that Christians have been responsible for some terrible atrocities throughout history would seem to suggest otherwise. In fact religion seems to be a strong motivating factor in carrying out atrocities.

Christians often counter by claiming firstly that those people weren't really Christians (we will leave this argument for the time being), and then inevitably pointing out that atheists have also carried out terrible atrocities.

By leaving out that crucial clause at the end, you create a straw man that has no relevance to the post at the head of this thread. I didn't ask to be the OP in this thread, but Dades apparently decided to make me so, and therefore I will ask you to keep on topic and stop introsducing irrelevancies.

Nobody claims that simply calling oneself a Christian will make you a better person. In fact, I would believe that calling oneself a Christian, without any genuine experience of Christ, will actually make someone more likely to act immorally than otherwise. So, if you want to address that particular straw man I don't think this is the thread to do so.

The point that you guys some what miss is that atheism isn't supposed to stop you carrying out terrible atrocities in the first place, where as religious faith and devotion is.

Have I argued anywhere that atheism is supposed to stop you carrying out atrocities? Have I argued that religion and faith in general (irrespective of what variety) will stop anyone carrying out atrocities? Of course I haven't! Kindly stop trying to drag off-topic subjects into this thread. There is a name for such off-topic insertions. It escapes me at the moment, but I'm sure I will remember it sooner or later. I think it starts with the letter 't'.

Theists, particularly those that believe in the weakness of humans, such as Christians, often argue that something like Stalin demonstrates that atheism causes people to be immoral, which fits back into their world view that humans will be immoral without the help of the religion. Without God humans revert to their sinful state. I guess there isn't a whole lot of point debating that because it is based on theological grounds,

Maybe you should insert 'some' before theists, to avoid inaccurate blanket condemnations. I have never claimed that atheism causes people to be immoral, so I am unsure why you want to argue this point with me. Maybe you could address the points I actually make and avoid dragging out your theist bogeymen or stereotypes that are irrelevant to anything that I have said.

If you want to argue that atheism does not make people immoral, then go and find someone who has argued that it does.

The other charge is that people cannot attack religion as being responsible for atrocities because atheism clearly demonstrates that humans will carry out atrocities without religion. That is certainly true, but it misses the point of why people attack religion for being responsible for atrocities in the first place. Communism under Stalin was a system very similar to a religion, it shared a number of key components such as singular devotion and the faith in a system to be correct no matter what is actually happening on the ground.

So while it is wrong to say that only religion brings out these bad traits of humanity, equally it is wrong to say that religion has nothing to do with them and they exist independently of religion. Religion contains some fundamentally bad systems of human organization, but it is equally important to recognise that these systems exist in other non-religious concepts such as communism, which should be criticised as much as religion. But that doesn't mean you give up criticising religion.

No, actually comparing religion to Communism is inaccurate. There are many forms of religion that have nothing in common with Stalinistic Communism (eg Quakerism).

A more accurate comparison would be between politics and religion. Politics has been the motivation for untold evil - yet that does not mean that politics per se is evil. There are good politicians and some great advances have been made through politics. The same is true of religion.

PDN

CerebralCortex wrote: »

The idea theists have and I've had it too is that once you don't believe in a higher power you've no moral frame of reference

Please don't try to include me in your stereotypes. Not all theists have that idea.

Stalin was a bad motherf*cker regardless of his atheism I believe(I'm pretty sure I know).

I agree. I also believe that those who initiated the crusades were bad mother****ers regardless of their professed religiosity.

That is why I generally only mention Stalin when atheists start nonsense like introducing the Crusades into a discussion about whether Richard Dawkins is aggressive in the context of public debate in the 21st Century.

eoin5

PDN wrote: »

The Elizabethan persecution of Catholics was carried out in the name of Protestantism. I don't think I've ever denied that. There is violent Protestantism just as there is violent atheism.

I'm not sure quite what your point is in context to this thread.

Theres no such thing as violent atheism, only violent anti-theism.

CerebralCortex

Its just the idea as I said before that atheism is another version of religion when its not is probably what gets up our (well my) nose(s). The idea of Stalin using atheism to justify the purges etc. is ridiculous. I'm an atheist but I have no is aspirations to be a megalomaniac. Stalin was a murderous megalomaniac he just happened to be an atheist If I'm not mistaken he was a priest first which also means nothing because he was a murderous bast*rd who happened to once being a priest. Its pretty simple.

CerebralCortex

PDN wrote: »

Please don't try to include me in your stereotypes. Not all theists have that idea.


I agree. I also believe that those who initiated the crusades were bad mother****ers regardless of their professed religiosity.

That is why I generally only mention Stalin when atheists start nonsense like introducing the Crusades into a discussion about whether Richard Dawkins is aggressive in the context of public debate in the 21st Century.

I agree. The reason I engage with Christians(Irish majority)/theists is that I believe a nation has to be secular and society too in order to be a fair and pleasant place to live.

edit: spot on eoin5

PDN

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I agree. The reason I engage with Christians(Irish majority)/theists is that I believe a nation has to be secular and society too in order to be a fair and pleasant place to live.

I agree.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

The only reason I think you and others are bothered about Stalin being an atheist is the hysterical pant-wetting response every time his name gets mentioned on this forum.

My pants only get wet when posters imply that he carried out genocide for the "cause of atheism" or in the name of atheism.

And I would kindly ask that you stop feeling my pants.

PDN wrote: »

We were discussing stereoroid's assertion that Stalin wasn't really a persecutor of religion per se, but that he simply concentrated on wiping out a competing power bloc (the Russian Orthodox church) who conicidentally happened to be religious. My response (one that nobody has successfully rebutted) is that steroroid's assertion is not borne out by the facts.

Well no actually we were discussing the Crusades when you brought up Uncle Joe.

PDN wrote: »

By leaving out that crucial clause at the end, you create a straw man that has no relevance to the post at the head of this thread. I didn't ask to be the OP in this thread, but Dades apparently decided to make me so, and therefore I will ask you to keep on topic and stop introsducing irrelevancies.

According to Dades' explanation for moving this thread, the topic is to discuss Stalin's connection or relevance to atheism.

Perhaps you should glance at the thread topic.

PDN wrote: »

Nobody claims that simply calling oneself a Christian will make you a better person.

You are right, but then I don't seem to remember stating "simply calling oneself" (what was that about straw men? )

What is claimed is that being a Christian makes you a better person. In fact this is mentioned rather a lot on the Christian forum.

Do you disagree with that?

PDN wrote: »

Have I argued anywhere that atheism is supposed to stop you carrying out atrocities?

What?

Why would you argue that atheism is supposed to stop you carrying out atrocities?

PDN wrote: »

Have I argued that religion and faith in general (irrespective of what variety) will stop anyone carrying out atrocities? Of course I haven't!

No, but Christians (including yourself if I recall) have argued many times that being a Christian (actually being one, not simply calling yourself one, or being a member of a different religion, or any of the other straw men you are introducing) does.

If you would like to clarify for the rest of us that would probably be helpful. Does being an honest to God Christian make someone a better person?

PDN wrote: »

Kindly stop trying to drag off-topic subjects into this thread.

Kindly look at the subject heading of this thread.

It would be rather difficult to discuss the usage of Stalin on this forum without discussion of why atheists criticize religion, because Stalin is nearly always used as a counter example to such criticism.

A fact of which I'm sure you are well aware.

PDN wrote: »

Maybe you should insert 'some' before theists, to avoid inaccurate blanket condemnations.

The "often" does the same thing, so it is rather unnecessary.

PDN wrote: »

I have never claimed that atheism causes people to be immoral, so I am unsure why you want to argue this point with me.

I'm not arguing any point with you, I am summing up the state of the debate.

Is it possible to discuss something without it revolving solely around your good self?

PDN wrote: »

Maybe you could address the points

As far as I can tell you haven't made any points since my last detailed reply to your original post about Pentecostals.

When you do make new points I will address them.

PDN wrote: »

No, actually comparing religion to Communism is inaccurate. There are many forms of religion that have nothing in common with Stalinistic Communism (eg Quakerism).

That isn't true. Quakerism has a number of factors in common with Communism. Devotion to a specific doctrine and faith in a particular authority (that would be God, either revealed through the Bible or personal revelation) believed to be largely infallible being the most obvious.

PDN wrote: »

A more accurate comparison would be between politics and religion. Politics has been the motivation for untold evil - yet that does not mean that politics per se is evil. There are good politicians and some great advances have been made through politics. The same is true of religion.

Its not actually because politics can be completely different from each other where as all religions share similar traits.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I agree. I also believe that those who initiated the crusades were bad mother****ers regardless of their professed religiosity.

What do you mean by "professed" religiosity.

Are you saying they weren't really Christians, despite proclaiming to be?

If so why would you think that rather than simply assuming they were what they claimed to be?

(you can probably guess where this is going...)

Dades

PDN wrote: »

I didn't ask to be the OP in this thread, but Dades apparently decided to make me so, and therefore I will ask you to keep on topic and stop introsducing irrelevancies.

To protect your reputation, I've included a note in the OP....
The way the system works is that the oldest post moved defines the OP in a new thread.

The title of the new thread was meant to be generic. I figured all mini-discussions relating to Stalin here revolved around his atheism. If someone wants to suggest a different title, go for it. Titles never hold much sway on what direction threads go anyhow.

pH

Tim Robbins

This debates illustrates why more people should call themselves humanists as opposed to atheists. Atheism has no moral system, humanism does. Stalin was an atheist but not a humanist.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not arguing any point with you, I am summing up the state of the debate.

Is it possible to discuss something without it revolving solely around your good self?

I have no problem with you posting a rant against what you perceive to be theistic attitudes to Stalin. But if you aren't actually addressing the point I was making then please don't pretend you are by including a quote of mine at the top of your post.

If I say, "Hey Wiki, let's talk more about what you just said" then you have a right to expect that I will actually proceed to discuss your comments rather than launching into a rebuttal of something that somebody else once said.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I have no problem with you posting a rant against what you perceive to be theistic attitudes to Stalin. But if you aren't actually addressing the point I was making then please don't pretend you are by including a quote of mine at the top of your post.

I wasn't aware that was a "point" ... it appeared to be a (slightly poor) attempt at humour while avoiding a proper response to my reply to your original post.

What was your point then?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

I wasn't aware that was a "point" ... it appeared to be a (slightly poor) attempt at humour while avoiding a proper response to my reply to your original post.

What was your point then?

My point was that it is inaccurate to argue that Stalin's persecution of believers was purely a response to the influence of the Orthodox Church in Russian society.

CerebralCortex

PDN wrote: »

I agree.

Cool.

Pompey Magnus

pH wrote: »

I love the emblem on the crusader.

stereoroid

um... sorry? :eek:

Galvasean

So, can we all agree that Stalin was not a terrible person because he was an athiest, simply a terrible person who happened to be an athiest?

PDN

Galvasean wrote: »

So, can we all agree that Stalin was not a terrible person because he was an athiest, simply a terrible person who happened to be an athiest?

I certainly agree with that.