Stalin - Relevance of his Atheism?

Zombrex

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 think that is PDN's point, that it is unfair to criticize atheism because of Stalinist Russia, and it is equally unfair to criticize religion because of something like the Crusades. The followers and supporters of Stalin didn't do what they did because they were atheists, and the Crusaders didn't do what they did because they were Christians.

I disagree.

I think it is possible to criticize a belief doctrine and for behavior that results. The point that is seemingly missed is that with the example of Stalin's Russian people are picking the wrong thing to direct criticism towards

It wasn't atheism, since atheism isn't beliefs system in the first place, it was Communism, specifically the form practiced under Lenin and Stalin. This is worthy of strong criticism, including the part that stated that religion was harmful to the State and should be outlawed and oppressed.

There is a key point there that is also missed. I am not saying atheism isn't deserving of critizism because it is some how a good belief system that shouldn't be picked on. Atheism is not a belief system. It is not a good belief system, it isn't a bad belief system. This isn't a question of if atheism deserves to be criticized, this is an issue of whether that even makes sense.

Its like saying an apple is a worse car than a Honda. If I say "no it isn't", I'm not saying that an apple is actually a better car than a Honda, I'm saying an apple isn't a car, so it doesn't make sense to even be comparing the two things.

Dades

So would the Crusades have happened under some other guise had there not been the religious 'justification'?

I'm not trying to wind anyone up, just curious.

Zombrex

Dades wrote: »

So would the Crusades have happened under some other guise had there not been the religious 'justification'?

Quite possibly, but then I would criticize that as well

The idea that without religion people would still find ways to be horrible to each other isn't a reason to not criticize religion (and it certainly isn't a reason to say religion isn't to blame), in the same way that saying that without guns all the drug dealers would simply stab people is a not a reason to not criticize illegal gun ownership.

I think the issue has some what been confused by this idea that religion is the source of all problems, and that some how removing religion will fix all problems.

At the end of the day religion is simply a human way of organizing society. Humans ultimately are the cause of all problems, and if they don't cause problems one way they can cause problems another way.

What is important though is to criticizes all these ways, religion included.

I would criticize Communism as much as Christianity, because I think they are both flawed and dangerous ways to set up and organize human. There are other bad ways and I would criticize them as well.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

I think that is PDN's point, that it is unfair to criticize atheism because of Stalinist Russia, and it is equally unfair to criticize religion because of something like the Crusades. The followers and supporters of Stalin didn't do what they did because they were atheists, and the Crusaders didn't do what they did because they were Christians.

I disagree.

I think it is possible to criticize a belief doctrine and for behavior that results. The point that is seemingly missed is that with the example of Stalin's Russian people are picking the wrong thing to direct criticism towards

It wasn't atheism, since atheism isn't beliefs system in the first place, it was Communism, specifically the form practiced under Lenin and Stalin. This is worthy of strong criticism, including the part that stated that religion was harmful to the State and should be outlawed and oppressed.

There is a key point there that is also missed. I am not saying atheism isn't deserving of critizism because it is some how a good belief system that shouldn't be picked on. Atheism is not a belief system. It is not a good belief system, it isn't a bad belief system. This isn't a question of if atheism deserves to be criticized, this is an issue of whether that even makes sense.

Its like saying an apple is a worse car than a Honda. If I say "no it isn't", I'm not saying that an apple is actually a better car than a Honda, I'm saying an apple isn't a car, so it doesn't make sense to even be comparing the two things.

Atheism may not be a belief system, but neither is religion. The term 'religion' is an all encompassing term that includes many belief systems - some of them harmful, some of them benign, and some of them extremely beneficial.

Now, I fully agree with you, Wicknight, that humans are ultimately the cause of all problems. Whatever the dominant value system that is in place, human nature is such that evil people will find themselves in power and will find a way of hurting others and doing it in a way that enables them to stay in power. In order to stay in power they have to rationalise and justify their actions in a way that pays lip service to the dominant ideology and value system of the day. For the Crusading Popes this meant that their political motivations (controlling a quarrelling class of barons with too much time on their hands) had to be given a veneer of Christianity. For Stalin it meant that his meglomaniacal dreams of world dominance had to be couched in terms of the existing ideology of Marxism-Leninism (which, given Marx's views on the subject, almost inevitably involved embracing and promoting atheism). Tom Friedman has argued very convincingly that the same applies today to Al Quaeda. Friedman sees bin Laden et al as Islamo-Leninists whose motivation is much more political & cultural than religious. However, to make any headway in the Arabic world they have to use the language of Islam.

Now, an ideology does not have to be destructive or dangerous in itself in order to be abused in this way. Buddhism is one of the most inoffensive creeds imaginable (religious or secular) yet it was exploited by the Japanese military in the early Twentieth Century to justify xenophobia, militaristic fascism, and resulted in unimaginable cruelty at the Rape of Nanking.

When an atheist mentions the Crusades on these boards they are usually trying to make a point that that religion (or Christianity) is the cause of so much bloodshed etc. The problem, of course, is that, since the vast majority of mankind has been religious in some shape or form, you can attribute almost every atrocity in history prior to 1900 as being caused by religious people. Also, because our knowledge of history is dominated by events in Europe in the last 2000 years, you can argue that the majority of atrocities have been caused by Christians.

The obvious way to test this assertion is to say, "OK, let's look at a control group. Let's see what happens when religion is taken out of the equation altogether. If your thesis is correct then we should expect to see a dramatic decrease in bloodshed and cruelty when religion is no longer a factor." That is where Stalin (Mao is an equally good example, but Stalin's brutality is more familiar to Westerners) is drawn into the debate. Just mentioning Stalin's name instantly reminds us that our control group turned out to be even more bloodthirsty and evil than where religion was a factor.

There have been very few such control groups where we can observe how humanity behaves when religion is removed from the equation - yet the suffering and bloodshed in those few control groups has been immense. That would indicate that religion, even though it can be distorted to justify unspeakable cruelties, can actually act as a restraining factor. It took several hundred years for Catholicism to distort Christianity (turn the other cheek) into Christendom (burn the heathen). Yet it took less than 50 years for Marxism to be similarly distorted.

So, when I quote Stalin in response to your dragging up of the Crusades, I am not arguing that atheism is bad because Stalin was an atheist, nor am I saying that Stalin's atheism made him bad (If Stalin had lived his entire adult life in a religious society I have no doubt that he would have been a persecutor of heretics). I am quoting Stalin to expose the falsity of the whole "religion causes wars and bloodshed" argument. History has demonstrated that humans without religion cause at least as much war and bloodshed as those who have religion. The name 'Stalin' is a convenient shorthand for that rebuttal.

Dades

Good stuff.
This will make a good thread for future referrals, methinks.

Tim Robbins

Dades wrote: »

Good stuff.
This will make a good thread for future referrals, methinks.

Would it be fair to say:
1. Atheism makes no claims on morality. Atheists have done good and done bad.
2. Christianity makes major claims on morality. It has also done good and bad.

The difference is that there is an element of major hypocrisy in Christianity where there is none atheism as it makes no claims on virtue and morality.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

The term 'religion' is an all encompassing term that includes many belief systems - some of them harmful, some of them benign, and some of them extremely beneficial.

All religions, by definition, share a number of fundamental properties, such as faith in supernatural explanations and a concept of moral and ethical direction from a higher power or authority.

Or if it is difficult to encompass absolutely all religions into that definition, the major ones (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hindu, Sikh, Scientology etc etc) certainly are.

PDN wrote: »

Now, an ideology does not have to be destructive or dangerous in itself in order to be abused in this way.

I agree 100% with you, but then that was never my charge.

The ideology is in itself dangerous and destructive if it puts in place systems that can so easily be manipulated to do immorality, even if that immorality doesn't stem directly from the doctrine of the ideology.

If it did it would be easy. Few humans would follow a religion or ideology that specifically stated that babies should be killed or non-members burnt at the stake. If they did this it would be easy to react against them.

The issue is that ideologies like religion, create environments of belief that allow immorality to sneak in, under the radar, quietly and confidently.

Stalin didn't raise to power under the promise of killing intellectuals or persecuting religious people. That isn't the doctrine of Communism. If it was denouncing Communism would be trivial (who is for killing babies?) He rose to power under the promise of protecting and promoting the principles of communism, protecting and promoting the workers against enemies that would endanger them. Which sounded perfectly reasonable to the members of the Party that supported him in the early years. It sounded perfectly reasonable because they themselves were indoctrinated into the "faith" of Communism, they placed authority in it to tell them how is the best way to be.

It isn't that these ideologies, including religion, actually say do these horrible things. It is that they create environments where people are indoctinated into believing they should do what they are told, even if it is bad. And eventually the bad comes along.

As it is said, for good men to do bad things it takes religion (I would expand that out further to faith in the infallibility of an ideology).

PDN wrote: »

Buddhism is one of the most inoffensive creeds imaginable (religious or secular) yet it was exploited by the Japanese military in the early Twentieth Century to justify xenophobia, militaristic fascism, and resulted in unimaginable cruelty at the Rape of Nanking.

And why was that allowed? Because of the mind set of the "believers"

PDN wrote: »

Just mentioning Stalin's name instantly reminds us that our control group turned out to be even more bloodthirsty and evil than where religion was a factor.

But as I said that is missing the point of the objection.

All humans, religious or otherwise, can be manipulated if systems that allow this manipulation are dominant either in society or simply in the person themselves. This doesn't have to be religion, but it can be. The objection is not simply against what they do, or who tells them to do it, but with the over all doctrine that sets it up so they do what they are told to do in the first place.

You do what you are told to do by the Bible. The people who wrote the Bible are in essence, manipulating you into do what they consider to be correct.

You of course don't accept this because you believe the supernatural explanation that feed to you, that it is actually God who is telling you want to do and that what you are told to do cannot be wrong or immoral or unethical.

You may also argue that there is no harm because what you are told to do and believe, even if it is not from a higher authority, is generally good. I would disagree with that (I don't think the Christian position on homosexuality is good), but it is also rather beside the point. There are plenty of example of Christians that do far from good (everything from the abortion snipers to the Creationist lawyers) and they are being manipulated in exactly the same fashion as you are.

It isn't even the fact that you are being manipulated. It could be argued that everyone is manipulated, in some way, by the ideas they receive from other people. The real problems start from the way you are being manipulated, from the issue of infallibility and faith. This is where religion and Communism have a lot in common.

Communists in Russia where taught the infallibility of Communism. It wasn't simply a good idea, it was the only way to properly, fairly, run the country, protect the workers, It was infallible. To reject that was to state that you did not want a properly, fairly run country. To reject that was to reject all the wonderful things that it was supposed to provide. That was a very powerful factor in how people turned, willfully, on perceived threats in Russia.

The same holds for religion. In fact the introduction of the untestable supernatural makes this phenomena even worse. You believe that what you believe in relation to your religion comes from God, and as such isn't and cannot be wrong. You can be wrong, but it can't be wrong. To reject even one detail of any of the religion concepts as being incorrect is to reject your entire belief. That is very dangerous when it comes to how people are manipulated to do horrible things because the alternative, rejection of the entire faith, is simply inconceivable.

PDN wrote: »

History has demonstrated that humans without religion cause at least as much war and bloodshed as those who have religion.

That may be true, but as I said it isn't a reason not to criticize religion, any more than saying that stabbings cause just as much deaths as gun shots (more actually in the USA) is a reason not to criticize gun ownership.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

That may be true, but as I said it isn't a reason not to criticize religion, any more than saying that stabbings cause just as much deaths as gun shots (more actually in the USA) is a reason not to criticize gun ownership.

That is a poor analogy. A better analogy would be that if areas with no gun ownership manifested a much higher murder rate than those areas with gun ownership, then that would be a reason not to criticise gun ownership.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Would it be fair to say:
1. Atheism makes no claims on morality. Atheists have done good and done bad.
2. Christianity makes major claims on morality. It has also done good and bad.

The difference is that there is an element of major hypocrisy in Christianity where there is none atheism as it makes no claims on virtue and morality.

Atheism may not make claims concerning morality, but some atheists do. When someone uses the argument, "Religion causes war and bloodshed, therefore the world would be better off without religion" then they are making claims for the morality of an atheistic, or religionless, society. Those claims, I contend, are contradicted by history.

If you define 'Christianity' as every religious system that has ever used the name of Christ then I will happily agree with you that they have been guilty of gross hypocrisy. Such systems have indeed done much harm.

Galvasean

PDN wrote: »

Atheism may not make claims concerning morality, but some atheists do. When someone uses the argument, "Religion causes war and bloodshed, therefore the world would be better off without religion" then they are making claims for the morality of an atheistic, or religionless, society.

IMO they shouldn't be making those claims in the first place.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Atheism may not make claims concerning morality, but some atheists do. When someone uses the argument, "Religion causes war and bloodshed, therefore the world would be better off without religion" then they are making claims for the morality of an atheistic, or religionless, society. Those claims, I contend, are contradicted by history.

Doesn't matter if some atheists do. Christianity makes no claims what speed you should be able to do 100 meters in, but some Christians do.

So you are missing the point. There are no moral rules in atheism. Religions (most of them) make all sort of claims of morality. Atheism by definition does not. Therefore there has been and is an element of hypocrisy that is not logically possible to be in Christianity.

Note: The amoral nature of atheism is a problem I have with it which is why techincally I'd call myself a humanist.

If you define 'Christianity' as every religious system that has ever used the name of Christ then I will happily agree with you that they have been guilty of gross hypocrisy. Such systems have indeed done much harm.

Yes I define it has that and as a lifestyle an individual one believes in who may not belong to any particular denomination.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

That is a poor analogy. A better analogy would be that if areas with no gun ownership manifested a much higher murder rate than those areas with gun ownership, then that would be a reason not to criticise gun ownership.

I'm not following how you think that analogy fits at all.

The premise is the religion is fundamentally a powerful manipulation of people that puts people in a mind set with a supernatural doctrine that is presented as so powerful and tempting it can, and often does, override their natural systems of reason and morality, leaving the door wide open for, as they say, good people to do bad things.

The fact that other non-religious systems can also do similar things to this has little bearing on the criticism of it.

Galvasean

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Note: The amoral nature of atheism is a problem I have with it which is why techincally I'd call myself a humanist.

Would you not be both an atheist and a humanist?

Zillah

Galvasean wrote: »

Would you not be both an atheist and a humanist?

Or a Secular Humanist, as they're known.

Though I assumed Tim meant that he was a humanist as well as an atheist.

Dades

Tim situation is kinda pertinent. Tim is an atheist. But he feels his morality comes from Humanism, which is seen as a belief system. Although atheism will have a bearing on which belief system you follow (or make up) you are not restricted in your choice.

Tim Robbins

Galvasean wrote: »

Would you not be both an atheist and a humanist?

Yes both. But the word Humanist is more descriptive.

Zillah wrote:

Or a Secular Humanist, as they're known.

Interesting point. There is a debate in Humanist societies around the world whether they should rename / rebrand themselves to Secular Humanists or Secular Humanism. This would be to differentiate themselves from theist humanists. The thinking is they should not. I would support not changing or rebranding.

Tim Robbins

Dades wrote: »

Tim situation is kinda pertinent. Tim is an atheist. But he feels his morality comes from Humanism, which is seen as a belief system. Although atheism will have a bearing on which belief system you follow (or make up) you are not restricted in your choice.

Yes I would see my believes in morality and compassion as more important to me than my lack of beliefs in Gods. The word humanism would describe my philosophical outlook better. However, that doesn't mean they come from humanism, more that humanism is the word I use to describe my worldview.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Doesn't matter if some atheists do. Christianity makes no claims what speed you should be able to do 100 meters in, but some Christians do.

So you are missing the point.

I am not missing the point. Those who raise the issues of the Crusades or the Inquisition generally do so on the basis of an argument that a religionless world would be an improvement (otherwise their argument is simply "Christianity is morally less than perfect, but may still be more morally uplifting than atheism"). That is the context in which I raise the issue of Stalin. Therefore the fact that some atheists make no moral claims is irrelevant to our discussion of Stalin.

Religions (most of them) make all sort of claims of morality. Atheism by definition does not. Therefore there has been and is an element of hypocrisy that is not logically possible to be in Christianity.

I'm trying to make sense of that last sentence. You're saying that it's not logically possible to have an element of hypocrisy in Christianity? Maybe you should rephrase it.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I am not missing the point. Those who raise the issues of the Crusades or the Inquisition generally do so on the basis of an argument that a religionless world would be an improvement (otherwise their argument is simply "Christianity is morally less than perfect, but may still be more morally uplifting than atheism"). That is the context in which I raise the issue of Stalin. Therefore the fact that some atheists make no moral claims is irrelevant to our discussion of Stalin.

Again you are failing (rather spectacularly) to miss the point of what people want removed.

If manipulation based on the illusion of authority coupled with unquestioning devotion (which forms the basis of religion, but also things like Russian Communism) was removed from humanity it is doubtful you would also get something like the Communist purges or Stalin.

They are a symptom of the same thing.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

unquestioning devotion (which forms the basis of religion)...

No it doesn't

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No it doesn't

Er, when was the last time you questioned God? When was the last time you determined that God was in fact wrong?

Fanny Cradock

I questioned him some time today, or was it yesterday?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Again you are failing (rather spectacularly) to miss the point of what people want removed.

If manipulation based on the illusion of authority coupled with unquestioning devotion (which forms the basis of religion, but also things like Russian Communism) was removed from humanity it is doubtful you would also get something like the Communist purges or Stalin.

They are a symptom of the same thing.

Fanny is correct in objecting to your misrepresentation of religion. There are certainly religious systems which encourage unquestioning devotion - but there are plenty of others that do not. To try to assert that unquestioning devotion forms the basis of religion is the type of false slur that makes reasoned debate difficult.

I can't see that you have any evidence (except faith?) to back up your assertion that without religion you would not get something like the Communist purges or Stalin. Psychologists and sociologists readily identify a herd instinct in human nature that seems able to push people to acts of great cruelty. This can be motivated by religion, or nationalism, or homophobia, or racism or any other factor that causes people to be nasty to those who are in any way different. Heavens! It might even explained why some posters on this board get quite so abusive when a harmless old grey-headed theist like myself intrudes into their territory on this board and ventures a few innocuous observations.

eoin5

Would the whole thing not be generalised to dogma? Its pointless to blame religion if some political ideal can do just as good a job at thrashing the world.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

I am not missing the point. Those who raise the issues of the Crusades or the Inquisition generally do so on the basis of an argument that a religionless world would be an improvement (otherwise their argument is simply "Christianity is morally less than perfect, but may still be more morally uplifting than atheism"). That is the context in which I raise the issue of Stalin. Therefore the fact that some atheists make no moral claims is irrelevant to our discussion of Stalin.

Look I see it this way. There are two points.
1. There is an element of moral hypocrisy within most / all of the various Christian denominations that is logically impossible to be within atheism. Do you agree with this?
2. The second point is the cause and effect argument. Does Christianity, organised Religion or faith result in a higher probability of immoral unethical behaviour? Now, the best way to derive cause and effect relationships is to use to Scientific methodologies. Large sample sets and all that.

Personally, I don't think there's much good evidence to support a hypotheisis that Christianity / organised Religion / faith results in a higher probability of immoral unethical behaviour. There's just anecdotes that point different ways.

I'm trying to make sense of that last sentence. You're saying that it's not logically possible to have an element of hypocrisy in Christianity? Maybe you should rephrase it.

Typo. Should have been atheism.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I questioned him some time today, or was it yesterday?

Really, and did you come to conclusion that he was wrong? Have you ever come to the conclusion that he has ever been wrong?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Fanny is correct in objecting to your misrepresentation of religion. There are certainly religious systems which encourage unquestioning devotion - but there are plenty of others that do not. To try to assert that unquestioning devotion forms the basis of religion is the type of false slur that makes reasoned debate difficult.

Ok, same question to you.

When was the last time you questioned God and decided that he was wrong?

PDN wrote: »

I can't see that you have any evidence (except faith?) to back up your assertion that without religion you would not get something like the Communist purges or Stalin.

Umm, yes perhaps you should re-read my post. Religion is a symptom of a wider problem, not the cause.

PDN wrote: »

It might even explained why some posters on this board get quite so abusive when a harmless old grey-headed theist like myself intrudes into their territory on this board and ventures a few innocuous observations.

Well you are rather abusing yourself PDN (perhaps you want to call yet another poster who disagrees with you a "liar" or a "troll" :rolleyes:), so you seem quite capable of looking after yourself

stevejazzx

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not following how you think that analogy fits at all.

The premise is the religion is fundamentally a powerful manipulation of people that puts people in a mind set with a supernatural doctrine that is presented as so powerful and tempting it can, and often does, override their natural systems of reason and morality, leaving the door wide open for, as they say, good people to do bad things.

The fact that other non-religious systems can also do similar things to this has little bearing on the criticism of it.

Nicely put!:)

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

When was the last time you questioned God and decided that he was wrong?

Wrong question. If you are trying to argue unquestioning devotion is the basis of all religion then the correct question would be, "When was the last time you questioned your religious organisation or denomination and decided that it was wrong?" In that case my answer would be, "This morning."

Most believers, of whatever religion, try to ascertain as best they can, what is true about God and what God wants (excepting some Buddhists who claim not to believe in God at all). For many of us this means continually questioning what we are told about God, and continually questioning our own interpretations and understandings of God.

Are you seriously attempting to argue that unquestioning devotion is the basis of Quakerism or Buddhism (the liberal Asiaprod variety, not the ones who attack churches)?

Well you are rather abusing yourself PDN (perhaps you want to call yet another poster who disagrees with you a "liar" or a "troll" ), so you seem quite capable of looking after yourself

Given the double entendre inherent in the phrase 'abusing yourself' I am hoping you meant that I am rather abusive myself.

Dades

Hey PDN, congrats on your new role as shepherd!