Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler*, Mao....

strobe

"I know one thing, all the most evil and destructive societies in history were based on atheism".

The above quote is paraphrased from something I heard someone say recently. But various variations (alliteration bonus!!!)seem to crop up every now and again.

My question is, do any Christians here really believe that atheism is the defining factor in the above people/regimes doing what they did? Or maybe not defining, but do you think it had more of an influence than say, all of them being below average height? Or is that just some silly stereotype in the same vein as atheists believing that all religious people are unintelligent? I.E something a very few people claim and everyone else in thier group are pretty embarrassed(sc) by.







*(Bonus points if you know why Hitler and Nazism get thier very own asterix)

PDN

Hitler's a bit of a different case. Although he was strongly influenced by Nietzche (sp?) he was more of an occultist than an atheist.

The other guys were obviously more influenced by their atheism than by their lack of stature - otherwise they would have been throwing tall people into jail instead of Christians.

But, no, I don't think that atheism was their defining characteristic, or the major factor in why they did what they did.

The reason they get mentioned a lot is probably because they provide a convenient response to anyone spouting nonsense about religion being the cause of all the wars and suffering in the world. They demonstrate that people who reject religion are just as capable, if not more so, of causing war and suffering.

Also, if we look at all the people in history who have professed to be atheists, probably the vast majority of them have done so because they lived under the regimes led by these nutjobs and their acolytes.

ISAW

PDN wrote: »

Hitler's a bit of a different case. Although he was strongly influenced by Nietzche (sp?) he was more of an occultist than an atheist.

I think "Theosophy" is the word you might be looking for.

But, no, I don't think that atheism was their defining characteristic, or the major factor in why they did what they did.

I think the kernel might be whether evangilisation and exclusion is endemic to a belief system. What i mean is whether christian Bhuddist atheist etc. whether your belief system ( and i include atheism in this) insists first that you must force it on others ( ironically Jews and Muslims have an opt out here) and whether you should look upon other belief as inferiour. Militant atheism ticks all the boxes for this, as does militant Islam or militant anything.

the question then is "does atheism insist it is better" It is a bit like the difference between anthrocentrism xenophobia and racism. Saying a "race" is different is one think and it is very close but different to saying it is better. When you get to the "we are better" stage you are not far away from persecuting the "lesser" people.

antiskeptic

strobe wrote: »

My question is, do any Christians here really believe that atheism is the defining factor in the above people/regimes doing what they did? Or maybe not defining, but do you think it had more of an influence than say, all of them being below average height?

The general mechanics of evil-doing involve sin's enticement on the one hand and our suppression of what we know to be good (so that we can have what sin offers) on the other. Combine the two and you have evil - as certainly as water arises from a combination of 2 hyrdogen and one oxygen atoms.

Atheistic doctrines form but one route into the suppression necessary to bring about evil. Religious doctrines (either satan sourced or skewed biblical ones) constitute other routes into the same zone.

The reason why atheistic systems have produced evil on such elevated scales might have less to do with that suppression technique itself and more to do with the availability of mass-destruction techniques to apply by the suppression technique.

I've no reason to suppose the Crusaders wouldn't have dropped an atomic bomb on their enemies - had such technology been available to them.

Fanny Cradock

strobe wrote: »

My question is, do any Christians here really believe that atheism is the defining factor in the above people/regimes doing what they did? Or maybe not defining, but do you think it had more of an influence than say, all of them being below average height? Or is that just some silly stereotype in the same vein as atheists believing that all religious people are unintelligent? I.E something a very few people claim and everyone else in thier group are pretty embarrassed(sc) by.

A deciding factor? No, I don't believe it was. What I am sure of is that their ignominious deeds were built on top of the same stuff for Mao as they have been for every other despot and petty thug throughout history. Namely: fear, greed, envy, manic desire... all collectively known as sin. Drill down deep enough and I think these are what lies at the heart of every conflict from the Punic Wars to the Second World War.

Rephrasing the question to the following: "Was Stalin's atheism ever a factor in his decisions?", I would answer that I believe it was.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

Hitler's a bit of a different case. Although he was strongly influenced by Nietzche (sp?) he was more of an occultist than an atheist.

He was nowhere near being atheist.

Adolf Hitler wrote:

The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will.

To the extent he believed in a divinity, Hitler did not believe in a "remote, rationalist divinity" but in an "active deity,"[69] which he frequently referred to as "Creator" or "Providence". In Hitler's belief God created a world in which different races fought each other for survival as depicted by Arthur de Gobineau. The "Aryan race," supposedly the bearer of civilization, is allocated a special place:

The other guys were obviously more influenced by their atheism than by their lack of stature - otherwise they would have been throwing tall people into jail instead of Christians.

Stalin's atheism had as much to do with his 'evilness' as his beard.
You have made this same statement so many times and have never given a single good reason why you believe Stalin was influenced by his lack of belief in a deity.

Or would you accept that religious people who do evil things do so because of their religion ? Many serial Killers in the US did so because of their Christianity ? Cromwell made his choices because of his religion ?

Also, if we look at all the people in history who have professed to be atheists, probably the vast majority of them have done so because they lived under the regimes led by these nutjobs and their acolytes.

The vast majority of atheists were forced to be so ?
Unlike Christians who all choose it of their own free will ?

monosharp

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Rephrasing the question to the following: "Was Stalin's atheism ever a factor in his decisions?", I would answer that I believe it was.

Why ?

Fanny Cradock

And off we go...

iUseVi

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And off we go...

*grabs popcorn*

--amadeus--

PDN wrote: »

The other guys were obviously more influenced by their atheism than by their lack of stature - otherwise they would have been throwing tall people into jail instead of Christians.

Nonsense - all authoritarian regimes crack down on any organisation that claims to supersede the state. Totalitarianism demands loyalty to the state and the state alone. That is the only reason they targeted the religious. And when religion can be allied to a states aims (be it the Taliban in Afghanistan or the religious right in the States) you get the opposite effect.

It has nothing to do with faith and everything to do with power.

crotalus667

PDN wrote: »

Hitler's a bit of a different case. Although he was strongly influenced by Nietzche (sp?) he was more of an occultist than an atheist.

Nope Hitler was more of a christian , some of his hench men where more intrested in the ocult but a huge amount of of resources where spent trying to track down christian relics

PDN wrote: »

Also, if we look at all the people in history who have professed to be atheists, probably the vast majority of them have done so because they lived under the regimes led by these nutjobs and their acolytes.

:rolleyes:

PDN

crotalus667 wrote: »

Nope Hitler was more of a christian , some of his hench men where more intrested in the ocult but a huge amount of of resources where spent trying to track down christian relics

We've had threads before where we've posted what Hitler really thought about Christianity. It shouldn't take but a moment to cut and paste them .......

Quotes from Hitler on Christianity. These are taken from Hitler's Table Talk, private conversations recorded by Martin Bormann.

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:
National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday:
Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday:
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity [is] the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)

19th October, 1941, night:
The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

21st October, 1941, midday:
Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St. Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, ******s? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St. Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)

13th December, 1941, midnight:
Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... [here he insults people who believe transubstantiation] .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

14th December, 1941, midday:
Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

9th April, 1942, dinner:
There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)

27th February, 1942, midday:
It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold its demise." (p 278)

:rolleyes:

Thank you for that thoughtful and intellectual contribution to the debate. It might not have added anything to the discussion, but God bless you, I'm sure you did your best.

crotalus667

PDN wrote: »

We've had threads before where we've posted what Hitler really thought about Christianity. It shouldn't take but a moment to cut and paste them .......

Quotes from Hitler on Christianity. These are taken from Hitler's Table Talk, private conversations recorded by Martin Bormann.

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:
National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday:
Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday:
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity [is] the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)

19th October, 1941, night:
The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

21st October, 1941, midday:
Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St. Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, ******s? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St. Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)

13th December, 1941, midnight:
Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... [here he insults people who believe transubstantiation] .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

14th December, 1941, midday:
Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

9th April, 1942, dinner:
There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)

27th February, 1942, midday:
It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold its demise." (p 278)

Not one of thoes quotes prove he was more intrested in acultisim than christianty

PDN wrote: »

Thank you for that thoughtful and intellectual contribution to the debate. It might not have added anything to the discussion, but God bless you, I'm sure you did your best.

I gave it as much thought as it was worth , what did you expect when you posted some thing so ill concived ???

PDN

crotalus667 wrote: »

Not one of thoes quotes prove he was more intrested in acultisim than christianty

They demonstrate he wasn't a Christian. I'm not quite sure why he's in this thread anyway because no-one AKAIK has claimed him to be an atheist.

I gave it as much thought as it was worth , what did you expect when you posted some thing so ill concived ???

I don't care how much thought you give something. I'm addressing what you posted. For all I know you thought for hours about that rolling eye emoticon.

I stated a fact. You might not like the fact, but that doesn't change it. The most influence that atheism has had in history,and notably in the last century, has been through the activities of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and their cohorts.

crotalus667

PDN wrote: »

They demonstrate he wasn't a Christian. I'm not quite sure why he's in this thread anyway because no-one AKAIK has claimed him to be an atheist.

No it does not , all it proves is hitler can be quote mined to prove he was and was not a christian ,

PDN wrote: »

I stated a fact.

PDN wrote: »

Also, if we look at all the people in history who have professed to be atheists, probably the vast majority of them have done so because they lived under the regimes led by these nutjobs and their acolytes.

Firstly that is an out and out lie .What you posted was your personal opinion.Secondly probably is not a word used to describe facts.

Fanny Cradock

crotalus667 wrote: »

No it does not , all it proves is hitler can be quote mined to prove he was and was not a christian

You were the one making accusations about Hitler being "more of a Christian". If the quotes are accurate then they demonstrate that he wasn't a Christian. This is an unwelcome diversion from the OP.

kowloon

The below is worth a look. I don't subscribe to the idea of Atheism as the primary motivator any more than I do to the idea that they are started over religion. The real motivators behind the faith and ideology are usually material ones.

http://one-evil.org/people/people_20c_Stalin.htm

crotalus667

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You were the one making accusations about Hitler being "more of a Christian".

and he was more of christian than an acultist whats your point ???

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If the quotes are accurate then they demonstrate that he wasn't a Christian.

No they demonstrate he can be quote mined to prove both sides of the argument

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

This is an unwelcome diversion from the OP.

and yet you and antoher mod carryed it on ???

Fanny Cradock

crotalus667 wrote: »

and he was more of christian than an acultist whats your point ???

But you have not explained what this means, provided evidence for your claims or even told us the relevance all this has to the OP.

crotalus667 wrote: »

No they demonstrate he can be quote mined to prove both sides of the argument

What this "quote mining" nonsense? Hitler either said those things or he didn't. Dismissing them as quote mining is a cheap diversionary tactic. Go to Wiki and have a read of the entry about Heir Hitler's views on religion. If you want to debate it further then start another thread.

crotalus667 wrote: »

and yet you and antoher mod carryed it on ???

No, he corrected your claims. We should now be moving on.

Fanny Cradock

kowloon wrote: »

The below is worth a look. I don't subscribe to the idea of Atheism as the primary motivator any more than I do to the idea that they are started over religion. The real motivators behind the faith and ideology are usually material ones.

http://one-evil.org/people/people_20c_Stalin.htm

I've had a glance through that link and I have to say it is chock full of spurious claims.

crotalus667

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No, he corrected your claims.

He corrected nothing

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

We should now be moving on.

it's funny how you say this every time you have gotten you two cents in, it is very un mod like and borders on the lines of abuse of power , I am leaving it at that lets see if the two mods do:rolleyes:

--amadeus--

PDN wrote: »

I stated a fact. You might not like the fact, but that doesn't change it. The most influence that atheism has had in history,and notably in the last century, has been through the activities of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and their cohorts.

Again I consider this to be nonsense.

The religious views of the likes of Pol Pot, Stalin or Mao had as much relevance to thier activities as the colour of their underpants. Claiming that these three represent the pinnacle of athiestic influence is at best misleading and disingenuous and at worst outright ad hominem.

By that logic the most influence that vegetarianism has had was introducing the Holocaust, because Hitler is the worlds most influential vegetarian.

Fanny Cradock

crotalus667 wrote: »

it's funny how you say this every time you have gotten you two cents in, it is very un mod like and borders on the lines of abuse of power , I am leaving it at that lets see if the two mods do:rolleyes:

You have already ignored two of my requests to stop. Perhaps you should listen because I'm running out of good will towards you and this chip on the sholder nonsense. If you have a problem with how I have behaved on this thread take it to one of the c mods.

crotalus667

crotalus667 wrote: »

I am leaving it at that lets see if the two mods do:rolleyes:

I guess you answered that one .

Seeing as you have chosen to grandstand on an open forum instead of taking it to pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You have already ignored two of my requests to stop.

“We should now be moving on” and “This is an unwelcome diversion from the OP” are not considered requests especially when you tag them on to the end of a post which is addressing some one else’s post from a personal view at best they are your personal view at worst they are veiled threats. ie abuse of power after you have gotten your 2 cents in.
"Perhaps you should listen because I'm running out of good will towards you" makes threat number 3 for not agreeing with you.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

and this chip on the sholder nonsense..

Just because i do not agree with you does not mean i have a chip on my sholder


Now you can say what you like as I do not intend on opening this thread again,

hinault

Regarding Hitler : Hitler had not time for established religions such as Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism and other Protestant denominations and Judaism.

Hitlers view, such that it was, centred around the idea of the Volk.
Hitler invoked the ancient Germanic concept Volkism : which is based upon folklore/romanticism/occultism.

Glenster

Fact is we dont really know what Hitler believed, religion-wise. He did this he did that, he was a complicated guy.

And attributing all his horrible acts to him being an atheist or a christian really misses the point and the lessons we should take from his history.

tbh it smacks of childish point-scoring

Fanny Cradock

Glenster wrote: »

tbh it smacks of childish point-scoring

Agreed. Let's turn back to the OP.

"My question is, do any Christians here really believe that atheism is the defining factor in the above people/regimes doing what they did? Or maybe not defining, but do you think it had more of an influence than say, all of them being below average height? Or is that just some silly stereotype in the same vein as atheists believing that all religious people are unintelligent? I.E something a very few people claim and everyone else in thier group are pretty embarrassed(sc) by."

hinault

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Agreed. Let's turn back to the OP.

"My question is, do any Christians here really believe that atheism is the defining factor in the above people/regimes doing what they did? Or maybe not defining, but do you think it had more of an influence than say, all of them being below average height? Or is that just some silly stereotype in the same vein as atheists believing that all religious people are unintelligent? I.E something a very few people claim and everyone else in thier group are pretty embarrassed(sc) by."

I don't think atheism or religious belief played any part in the actions and policies of the dictators listed.

In fact, in the case of Stalin and Hitler they went out of their way to silence established religions during their reigns.

prinz

crotalus667 wrote: »

Nope Hitler was more of a christian , some of his hench men where more intrested in the ocult but a huge amount of of resources where spent trying to track down christian relics..

Hitler despised anything he couldn't control. To him Christian teachings and values were the polar opposite of everything he stood for. His aim was to eventually remove Christianity from Germany, organised religion was only useful to Hitler as long as he could exploit it.

Atheism would have an influence to be sure. Just like religion cannot be discounted in influencing other people.

Zombrex

strobe wrote: »

"I know one thing, all the most evil and destructive societies in history were based on atheism".

Isn't this sort of a given, since Christianity says being evil and destructive to your fellow man is wrong and you shouldn't do it?

If everyone was actually a Christian, as most understand it here, there would never be war or suffering or destruction.

It is easy then to see how a Christian would frame these flaws in society as an absence of Christianity.

You could make the same claim about any moral system that promotes the opposite of harm and destruction. All the most evil and destructive societies in history were based on the opposite of humanism, for example.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

If everyone was actually a Christian, as most understand it here, there would never be war or suffering or destruction.

Sadly I don't agree with this. No Utopia of our own making.

Blueboyd

Mao's motives were not religious or atheist.

And he differs from the rest in that he is still very popular in China. To us he is the murderer - but for the Chinese - he is still the hero who united the nation. They could not care less what we think of him here in the west. And when I say they - I mean common people.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Sadly I don't agree with this. No Utopia of our own making.

I agree that it is an unrealistic goal, that you will never make everyone a Christian, or every Christian won't act as a Christian all the time.

My point was that I can easily see how a Christian would view the bad things in the world as a move away from Christianity (ie atheism)

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

I agree that it is an unrealistic goal, that you will never make everyone a Christian, or every Christian won't act as a Christian all the time.

My point was that I can easily see how a Christian would view the bad things in the world as a move away from Christianity (ie atheism)

Many probably do. However, notable thinkers like C.S. Lewis and N.T. Wright have been keen to point out that a strictly Christian society isn't necessarily a good thing. That's not to say they are proposing that atheism or Hinduism or whatever else that isn't Christianity adds the spice to life and is therefore to be encouraged. Rather, I think they are critiquing the unrealistically lofty expectations of the potential output of a strictly Christian world. But perhaps we are ever so slightly talking across one another.

BTW, I should point out that I'm talking about the above in a political sense.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

BTW, I should point out that I'm talking about the above in a political sense.

Ah that could be the confusion. I'm not, I'm talking about everyone being superhumanly "Christian", never doing something destructive or evil.

AtomicHorror

Why the focus on atheism? Surely the real problem, from a Christian's point of view, ought to be the rejection of Christianity, rather than the rejection of all those other false religions? I mean, any real Christian would reject those too and it certainly wouldn't do to suggest that such a rejection might be morally erosive. If the suggestion is that Christianity is so very essential to human morality, and its absence so very detrimental, then the test of this is whether any and all combinations of faiths which omit Christianity produce the same proportions of murderous despots as does atheism. And of course when we compare each such population against a Christian population, we ought to see a statistically significant difference. Unless we have evidence of this sort, the debate is mostly speculative.

I do hope also that we can sidestep the annoying bit where every unpleasant Christian that is mentioned gets relabelled as not being a "real" Christian. Totally with the Christians on the Hitler thing, that said. Guy clearly wasn't Christian, "real" or otherwise.

PDN

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I do hope also that we can sidestep the annoying bit where every unpleasant Christian that is mentioned gets relabelled as not being a "real" Christian. Totally with the Christians on the Hitler thing, that said. Guy clearly wasn't Christian, "real" or otherwise.

It depends on how you define 'Christian'. The word means 'anointed one' and was first used in Antioch to describe believers whose lives were modelled on that of Christ.

Unfortunately the word gets used in so many different ways today that you need to pin down what definition someone is using before you can understand what they are saying.

Fanny Cradock

AtomicHorror wrote: »

If the suggestion is that Christianity is so very essential to human morality

I don't believe it is the suggestion. I would have though that my above post implied this to some extent. Countless times people here have said that non-Christians are just as capable of wonderful kindness and generosity as any Christian - Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are two big names that spring to mind.

StealthRolex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't believe it is the suggestion. I would have though that my above post implied this to some extent. Countless times people here have said that non-Christians are just as capable of wonderful kindness and generosity as any Christian - Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are two big names that spring to mind.

Wealth is a strange thing - both Buffet and Gates can afford to give vast quantities of their riches away before is even begins to have an impact on their lifestyles. Not to dis their philanthropy but it would appear they should go further. Buffet is also known for pay less tax in percentage terms than his employees which is technically cheating both his own employees and the rest of the tax paying population.
Gates foundations are not always doing the best for example because their clinics can pay higher salaries medical resources are attracted away from other more needy areas. Is their philanthropy window dressing?

The following passages give some indication to Jesus attitude to the wealthy and anyone who has spare change. It certainly appears that unless one treats money as valueless one is not ready for salvation.

Luke - 19

1 He entered Jericho and was going through the town
2 and suddenly a man whose name was Zacchaeus made his appearance; he was one of the senior tax collectors and a wealthy man.
3 He kept trying to see which Jesus was, but he was too short and could not see him for the crowd;
4 so he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore tree to catch a glimpse of Jesus who was to pass that way.
5 When Jesus reached the spot he looked up and spoke to him, 'Zacchaeus, come down. Hurry, because I am to stay at your house today.'
6 And he hurried down and welcomed him joyfully.
7 They all complained when they saw what was happening. 'He has gone to stay at a sinner's house,' they said.
8 But Zacchaeus stood his ground and said to the Lord, 'Look, sir, I am going to give half my property to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody I will pay him back four times the amount.'
9 And Jesus said to him, 'Today salvation has come to this house, because this man too is a son of Abraham;
10 for the Son of man has come to seek out and save what was lost

However in Matthew 19 he says this:

16 And now a man came to him and asked, 'Master, what good deed must I do to possess eternal life?'
17 Jesus said to him, 'Why do you ask me about what is good? There is one alone who is good. But if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.'
18 He said, 'Which ones?' Jesus replied, 'These: You shall not kill. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not give false witness.
19 Honour your father and your mother. You shall love your neighbour as yourself.'
20 The young man said to him, 'I have kept all these. What more do I need to do?'
21 Jesus said, 'If you wish to be perfect, go and sell your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.'
22 But when the young man heard these words he went away sad, for he was a man of great wealth.
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, 'In truth I tell you, it is hard for someone rich to enter the kingdom of Heaven.
24 Yes, I tell you again, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for someone rich to enter the kingdom of Heaven.'

Later in Luke 21

1 Looking up, he saw rich people putting their offerings into the treasury;
2 and he noticed a poverty-stricken widow putting in two small coins,
3 and he said, 'I tell you truly, this poor widow has put in more than any of them;
4 for these have all put in money they could spare, but she in her poverty has put in all she had to live on.'

StealthRolex

strobe wrote: »

"I know one thing, all the most evil and destructive societies in history were based on atheism".

The above quote is paraphrased from something I heard someone say recently. But various variations (alliteration bonus!!!)seem to crop up every now and again.

My question is, do any Christians here really believe that atheism is the defining factor in the above people/regimes doing what they did? Or maybe not defining, but do you think it had more of an influence than say, all of them being below average height? Or is that just some silly stereotype in the same vein as atheists believing that all religious people are unintelligent? I.E something a very few people claim and everyone else in thier group are pretty embarrassed(sc) by.

*(Bonus points if you know why Hitler and Nazism get thier very own asterix)

* Godwins law perhaps? More likely because he was raised with Catholicism and most nazis were probably Christian at some point in their pasts.

The question pre-supposes that the countries that gave rise to these regimes were atheistic to start with. This is not the case for Germany or Russia, both were predominantly JudeoChristian with hints of Islam and Buddhism and while I'm not sure about Cambodia it would appear they were mostly Buddhist prior to the rise of the Khmer Rouge.

The defining factor is not so much starting atheist but becoming atheist because the regime dictates this. In the case of Hitler he put himself in the position of either being a god or opposing the true God as evidenced by the Nazi oath
"I swear by God this sacred oath that I shall render unconditional obedience to Adolf Hitler, the Leader of the German empire, supreme commander of the armed forces, and that I shall at all times be prepared, as a brave soldier, to give my life for this oath."

So unconditional obedience to Hiltler puts Hitler into the position of being a false god, and moral absolutism and obedience to God went out the window.

Christianity in nazi Germany was most likely a factor in the fifth columns, resistance movements, and others who worked underground against the regime e.g. Schindler and von Stauffenberg where both from Catholic families.

Stalin, as an atheist, imposed his own moral values as did Pol Pot and this appears to be common to most dictatorial regimes.

Like wise the pre-Christian Roman empires - while not atheistic their gods where of human construction and the leaders were amoral if not immoral.

I would argue the reverse that it is not atheism that is a factor in the rise of evil regimes but that Christianity is the defining factor in their fall.

prinz

StealthRolex wrote: »

Christianity in nazi Germany was most likely a factor in the fifth columns, resistance movements, and others who worked underground against the regime e.g. Schindler and von Stauffenberg where both from Catholic families..

+1 notably the White Rose group who were made up of Christians from a variety of denominations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose

ISAW

strobe wrote: »

My question is, do any Christians here really believe that atheism is the defining factor in the above people/regimes doing what they did?

What I believe is beside the point. whether someone claiming atheism is attached to the above regimes is supported by facts is the point.

the following quotes feature a lot in posts from a non believer who goes by the handle of fasgnadh

"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

Here is some of what he posted this month:
[fasgnadh]
"State atheism is the official promotion of atheism
# by a government, typically by active suppression of
# religious freedom and practice."
# - "Protest for Religious Rights in the USSR:
# Characteristics and Consequences,
# David Kowalewski,
# Russian Review, Vol. 39, No. 4 (Oct., 1980), pp. 426-441,

# "An atheist, Pol Pot suppressed Cambodia’s Buddhist religion:
# monks were defrocked; temples and artifacts, including statues of
# Buddha, were destroyed; and people praying or expressing
# other religious sentiments were often killed.
# ...the government emptied the cities through mass evacuations
# and sent people to the countryside. Cambodians were overworked
# and underfed on collective farms, often succumbing to disease or
# starvation as a result. Spouses were separated and family meals
# prohibited in order to steer loyalties toward the state
# instead of the family.
#
# About 1.7 million Cambodians, or about 20 percent of the population,
# were worked, starved, or beaten to death under Pol Pot’s regime."
# - http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579038/pol_pot.html
#
# The Cambodian Genocide:
http://www.lietuvos.net/istorija/communism/communism_photos2/392millo...

#
# "The country's 40,000 to 60,000 Buddhist monks,
# regarded by the regime as social parasites,
# were defrocked and forced into labor brigades.
# Many monks were executed; temples and pagodas were
# destroyed or turned into storehouses or jails.
# Images of the Buddha were defaced and dumped into
# rivers and lakes. People who were discovered praying
# or expressing religious sentiments in other ways
# were often killed.
#
# The Christian and Muslim communities were among the most
# persecuted, as well. The Roman Catholic cathedral of
# Phnom Penh was completely razed.
#
# The Khmer Rouge forced Muslims to eat pork, which they
# regard as an abomination. Many of those who refused were killed.
# Christian clergy and Muslim imams were executed."
# - http://countrystudies.us/cambodia/29.htm
#
# "Forty-eight percent of Cambodia's Christians were killed
# because of their religion."
#

Unlike atheists I'm not interested in justifying crimes, but
in exposing and condemning them. I have already condemned the
atypical medieval witchburnings and crusades.. what we are
discussing here is the failure of atheists to confront
the far greater death toll, 70,000,000 terrorised, tortured and
killed by atheist regimes, EVERY one of which which has been a
totalitarian tyranny... atheism produces no redeeming civilisation.

When Atheists pretend the USSR was a religion, in a crude coverup
attempting to deny the responsibility of the SELF CONFESSED atheists
who carried it out, it becomes clear that crimes committed 'in
the name of religion' has nothing to do with religion, and actually
violate it's central principles!

IT is perversion of the true message of religion and propaganda by lying
atheists who act as apologists for the atheist holocausts, killing over
70,000,000 people.

[/fasgnadh]

ISAW

prinz wrote: »

+1 notably the White Rose group who were made up of Christians from a variety of denominations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose

then there is the Irish Priest in the Vatican that saved more than three times as many jews as Schindler and went on to save others .. Hugh O'Flaherty

And there is a remarkable statistical negative correlation between the catholic areas of Germany and thoise that voted for Hitler.

http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/rise%28n%29-1.htm

compare the 1934 census and 1932 election here and note how the Catholics didn't vote for Hitler.
http://exlaodicea.wordpress.com/2007/07/31/the-truth-about-catholics-and-the-nazis/

nozzferrahhtoo

These arguments on this particular issue always end up in pointless bickering. Mainly because the whole argument of Hitler at al being Atheist is too easy and throw away to be of any use at all.

Can things be quoted to show that Hitler was Christian and/or not? Yes they can. By both sides.

There are quotes I can lift from his own book written in his own words showing he believed the extermination of the Jews was his god given mission. These are ramified in the text of his actual speeches which you can read any time you like. I prefer to take it from the horses mouth and think he was at some level Christian rather than take it from a book called:

Hitler's Table Talk, private conversations recorded by Martin Bormann.

For “private” we can easily substitute the words “second hand and unverifiable”. Not something we can claim for the book Hitler actually wrote and the speeches Hitler actually made. Especially when his army wore “God with us” written on their uniforms and his birthday was acknowledged and celebrated from the pulpit by the leaders of the Christian Faithful.

All of this however, if totally irrelevant.

No matter what it is you disagree with; atheism, Christianity, vegetarianism or anything else we can all find a list of names who were examples of that and arbitrarily link the two. It is a fools game and helps no one with anything. Showing a link is easy, showing a causal link between the two is not.

No what we need to do is look at each thought process in turn and see if there is a logical link between them and the outcomes in order to establish a causal link.

Can we show links between some forms of Christianity and the desire to do harm and violence? Yes we can. There are ideas and concepts in the bible for example that directly call for, or indirectly fuel, violence. Some of them are subtle, such as the concept of hell, which can be used to fuel violence without ever actually calling for violence so the users of it can sit back and claim "But I never suggested violence, I do not know why they acted like they did, not my fault"

Is there a link between saying “I see no reason to lend credence to the claim that there is a non-human intelligence responsible for the creation and subsequent maintenance of our universe” and violence?? I have yet to be shown one, except for this weak tactic of saying “Well I can name some crazy violent people who ALSO thought that way so there must be”. If anyone is aware of any I would be agog to hear them.

And even if you declare that these people were not really Christian or Atheist but they were evil and then using Christianity or Atheism to justify in retrospect their actions, then I ask the same question. Is there ways using the bible to justify barbarism and torture and violence? Is there ways of of using "I see no reason to lend credence to the claim that there is a non-human intelligence responsible for the creation and subsequent maintenance of our universe" to do so? Compare and contrast, as the English Leaving Cert papers would say. Again I am agog to hear the arguments for the latter as so far I never have. Regardless of whether Hitler himself was Christian or not, he certainly used that rhetoric to lead and control the masses in his books and speeches. The problem is not with Hitler being Christian therefore, but with his target audience being Christian and how easily he could use their beliefs to control them. Just like Stalin was able to rise to power in a society that was awash with superstition and credulity and was able to sell them everything from their very own inquisition to miracles in the form of Magic Biology which could never work. We are talking about a state here where the Tsarrs were considered to be something more than human. Sound atheistic to you?

What the large almost total majority of Atheists call for is to live in a state of freedom, free inquiry, democracy and free trade. If anyone, anyone at all, thinks that Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China or the current North Korea are in any way examples of states of free inquiry and open democracy then the education system where they were brought up has failed utterly in teaching whole swaths of history to them.

Also if anyone thinks a dictatorship such as existed in all of these countries is an example of open Democracy then I recommend the book “democracy for the lay man” on Amazon. Any example, atheism or Christianity, of the few forcing by the use of violence their views and beliefs on the masses is very very far from the secular democracy espoused by most atheists.

prinz

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

These arguments on this particular issue always end up in pointless bickering. Mainly because the whole argument of Hitler at al being Atheist is too easy and throw away to be of any use at all......

This I agree completely with... but then you go on to throw in some clangers of your own...

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There are quotes I can lift from his own book written in his own words showing he believed the extermination of the Jews was his god given mission. These are ramified in the text of his actual speeches which you can read any time you like. I prefer to take it from the horses mouth and think he was at some level Christian......

Some Muslims believe the same thing, does that make them Christian? Hitler believed in a lot of things, the Christian God was not one of them. People of all faiths believe various things to be their 'god given mission'. Hitler used religion when it suited him i.e., on the rise to power. Once he was in power it was of no further use.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Especially when his army wore “God with us” written on their uniforms...

The battlecry of 'God with us' goes back to Roman times. It was also worn by German Imperial troops in World War I. In Germany it was an imperial motto, and featured on the coat of arms of Prussia, a later leader of which was Frederick the Great, someone Hitler wanted desperately to emulate and whose portrait accompanied Hitler and hung on his walls.

The Nazis were extremely smart people. They needed to rekindle the spirit if the German Imperial Army, most importantly to get officers and leaders who were trained in that style to lead their armies. The Nazis were expert at using traditions to reinforce themselves and their programme.

Thus you will notice that only the Wehrmacht wore a Gott Mit Uns belt buckle. The Nazi constructed Waffen SS wore a very different motto.

PDN

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There are quotes I can lift from his own book written in his own words showing he believed the extermination of the Jews was his god given mission. These are ramified in the text of his actual speeches which you can read any time you like. I prefer to take it from the horses mouth and think he was at some level Christian rather than take it from a book called:

I have bold-faced the most relevant word in your post. You prefer to take the position that supports your ideology.

Especially when his army wore “God with us” written on their uniforms

I had wondered who would be the first to drop that particular clanger. As prinz has pointed out, the phrase was on German army belt buckles long before the Nazi party was formed.

It's depressing how this kind of unhistorical trash is still regurgitated on atheist blogs and propaganda websites.

ISAW

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

These arguments on this particular issue always end up in pointless bickering. Mainly because the whole argument of Hitler at al being Atheist is too easy and throw away to be of any use at all.

You cant apply a special case and insist it is true in general!
You can't take one person and extrapolate that and appliy it to all atheistic regimes.

Hitler was brought up a Roman Catholic.
He abandoned Christianity in his teens.
Nazism is influenced by Theosophy.
Catholics didn't vote for Hitler.
The Popes of his day opposed Hitler.

Can things be quoted to show that Hitler was Christian and/or not? Yes they can. By both sides.

There are quotes I can lift from his own book written in his own words showing he believed the extermination of the Jews was his god given mission. These are ramified in the text of his actual speeches which you can read any time you like. I prefer to take it from the horses mouth and think he was at some level Christian rather than take it from a book called:

http://www.answers.org/apologetics/hitquote.html
The book Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, _Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944, which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:

National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday:

Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday:

The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)

19th October, 1941, night:

The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

21st October, 1941, midday:

Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, ******s? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)

13th December, 1941, midnight:

Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

14th December, 1941, midday:

Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

9th April, 1942, dinner:

There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)

27th February, 1942, midday:

It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)

All of this however, if totally irrelevant.

I agree:
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html
In conclusion, I think that Hitler was not an atheist, but he was not a Christian either.

The point is that the Nazis were anti religion or at least pro anything that supported them.

Godless regimes still killed tens of millions of people.

Showing a link is easy, showing a causal link between the two is not.

What have atheistic regimes done for the world? what have they contributed?

No what we need to do is look at each thought process in turn and see if there is a logical link between them and the outcomes in order to establish a causal link.

"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

Can we show links between some forms of Christianity and the desire to do harm and violence? Yes we can. There are ideas and concepts in the bible for example that directly call for, or indirectly fuel, violence. Some of them are subtle, such as the concept of hell, which can be used to fuel violence without ever actually calling for violence so the users of it can sit back and claim "But I never suggested violence, I do not know why they acted like they did, not my fault"

Again to quote Fasgnadh:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e1283e687ae3a086/b1a56e2ecb0355a0?#b1a56e2ecb0355a0
70,000,000 people killed by the atheist regimes, Union of Savage
Slaughter and Repression, Mao's Great Leap Backward and Cultural
Devolution and Pol Pot's atheist genocide.

EVERY atheist state in history has been a TOTALITARIAN state.

(The modern, open, progressive, free, pluralist democracies,
in which even the ATHEISTS choose to live,
are MAJORITY RELIGIOUS societies! B^)

Atheists are hypocrites.
[/fasdnagh]

Also if anyone thinks a dictatorship such as existed in all of these countries is an example of open Democracy then I recommend the book “democracy for the lay man” on Amazon. Any example, atheism or Christianity, of the few forcing by the use of violence their views and beliefs on the masses is very very far from the secular democracy espoused by most atheists.

Including the ones that crucified Christians in the 2oth century?
Lest we forget the atheistic Kymer Rouge:
The following photo material contains brutal scenes of death by crucifixion. If you are concerned for your psychical/mental state of such images please don't click on it.[
http://www.lietuvos.net/istorija/communism/communism_photos2/44camboyano.jpg

strobe

ISAW wrote: »

Including the ones that crucified Christians in the 2oth century?
Lest we forget the atheistic Kymer Rouge:
The following photo material contains brutal scenes of death by crucifixion. If you are concerned for your psychical/mental state of such images please don't click on it.[
http://www.lietuvos.net/istorija/communism/communism_photos2/44camboyano.jpg

Yes. Quite obviously including the Kymer Rouge.

Maybe you should re-read the quote you provided that response for.

Here it is again:

Also if anyone thinks a dictatorship such as existed in all of these countries is an example of open Democracy then I recommend the book “democracy for the lay man” on Amazon. Any example, atheism or Christianity, of the few forcing by the use of violence their views and beliefs on the masses is very very far from the secular democracy espoused by most atheists.

Are you genuinely trying to say that you think the Kymer Rouge were a secular democracy? Really.....?

ISAW

strobe wrote: »

Yes. Quite obviously including the Kymer Rouge.

Maybe you should re-read the quote you provided that response for.

Are you genuinely trying to say that you think the Kymer Rouge were a secular democracy? Really.....?

No. I'm saying that they were an atheistic regime. I'm not aware of any atheistic countries which didn't have a controlling regime in charge which suppressed and slaughtered those that challenged their atheistic regime.

I suppose it comes down to
Believers think it matters that people believe.
Some atheists don't think it matters if people believe. Believers would disagree with these atheists and view them as bad for society but would not wish to harm them in any way.

Other atheists believe that everyone should be atheist and it is a superior way. They think it is bad for society if people believe. They also think that belief should be curtailed by law and atheism should be promoted. It is these other atheists who set up regimes with atheism as a central principle of the regime. These type of fundamentalists atheists have caused hundreds of millions of deaths.

Fundamentalist religions (which are a small minority and are not mainstream) have also caused deaths but religion has also contributed to developing society. What has atheism contributed? What great atheist civilization ever existed?

StealthRolex

Can I put in a claim for the bonus points?

Hitler and the Nazi regime were never allies or supported by any Western "Christian" democracy and were overtly challenged and defeated through external action.

Stalin's regime was an ally in World War II and was never overtly challenged when the West realized what the Soviet Union was really about for fear of precipitating another world war. Known to run labour camps and carry out summary executions. The Soviet Union and the empire Stalin built finally collapsed from within.

The Khmer Rouge were both covertly and overtly supported by Western powers in failed efforts to instigate a democracy even though there was knowledge of Pol Pots atrocities. The eventual failure of the Khmer Rouge also was due to internal actions.

China under Chariman Mao was technically an ally to the West during WWII and as with Stalin and the Khmer Rouge any murders or attrocities carried out within the borders where never overtly challenged. Known to run labour camps and carry out summary executions.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I have bold-faced the most relevant word in your post. You prefer to take the position that supports your ideology.

LOL ... what "ideology" is that then?

The Hitler wasn't an atheist but Mao, Pot, Stalin, Kim Il-sung were ideology :rolleyes: