'Splain this one Atheists...

[rachelbean]

[Forty Two]

Hah! "Incidental atheism" my ass. Atheism was and is a central component of Marxism. Now, one could say that Marxism is itself a religious belief that Marxists practice as " a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith", which would mean that "religion" is the most prolific killer of humans ever, but that would require us to identify the specific religions involved and their body counts, and if we do that, the atheist religion of Marxism still wins hands-down.

Yes, atheism is central to Marxism, but it's also central to Buddhism and Jainism, and most humanism, all of which are for the most part rather kind and gentle belief systems.

Marxism adopted atheism as a means of centralizing power in the State. That is, any societal structure that allows power to exist outside of the state is on Marxism's hit list. If you read Marx and Engels writing on the topic, you'll see this to be true. WHY do Marxist want all rents to be paid to the State and the abolition of private property? Because those are features of individual power and autonomy (things that allow an individual to act on his own, outside of the will of the community). Similarly, why does Marxism posit children being raised by the State, the abolition of marriage and the abolition of the nuclear family unit? Again, it's because of the Marxist theory that the community should be the deciding actor and the community should hold the power, the means of production and the authority. Similarly, why do you think Marxism adopted atheism? Because Marxism needs to destroy the churches and religious institutions. These are, and especially in the 19th century were, huge sources of private power -- the priests operated outside, to a great degree, of the will of the State (the community).

So, atheism doesn't motivate Marxists to act in a certain way -- atheism is just a means used by Marxists to achieve their end - Communism, wherein the individual becomes wholly subservient to the collective/the community, in part by virtue of the total destruction of private religious institutions and the loyalty of the individual to gods, churches or other institutions beside the state. The state/community is the only thing that should tell people what to do, not gods, priests or churches.

But, atheism is not what motivates Marxist totalitarian dictators to purge the intelligentsia, the petit bourgeousie and the churches -- what motivates them to do that is politics, power and the philosophy that all power must be in the State and all loyalty must be to the state.

Lots of people are atheists. Ayn Rand, who loathed communism about as much as anyone possibly could, was a staunch atheist. Yet, far from advocating or wishing the murder of religious people, Ayn Rand was a staunch proponent of reason, logic and persuasion, in a world of a free market of ideas wherein, she thought, reason would triumph over unreason.

[Forty Two]

[JimC]

Forty Two wrote:

But, atheism is not what motivates Marxist totalitarian dictators to purge the intelligentsia, the petit bourgeousie and the churches -- what motivates them to do that is politics, power and the philosophy that all power must be in the State and all loyalty must be to the state.

I accept that atheism was a virtually automatic choice for early Marxist states, for the reasons explained effectively in your post - they were basically potentially troubling competitors for power and influence. However, there is a strong strand of Marxist thought co-existing with christian theology in the liberation theology movement in the recent past in South America; it was, however, not a state.

But the key point, which you explained well and Seth does not get, is that atheism was not the motivator for totalitarian atrocities, whether on religious people or not.

[Seth]

Hah! "Incidental atheism" my ass. Atheism was and is a central component of Marxism. Now, one could say that Marxism is itself a religious belief that Marxists practice as " a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith", which would mean that "religion" is the most prolific killer of humans ever, but that would require us to identify the specific religions involved and their body counts, and if we do that, the atheist religion of Marxism still wins hands-down.

Yes, atheism is central to Marxism, but it's also central to Buddhism and Jainism, and most humanism, all of which are for the most part rather kind and gentle belief systems.

True enough.

Marxism adopted atheism as a means of centralizing power in the State. That is, any societal structure that allows power to exist outside of the state is on Marxism's hit list. If you read Marx and Engels writing on the topic, you'll see this to be true. WHY do Marxist want all rents to be paid to the State and the abolition of private property? Because those are features of individual power and autonomy (things that allow an individual to act on his own, outside of the will of the community). Similarly, why does Marxism posit children being raised by the State, the abolition of marriage and the abolition of the nuclear family unit? Again, it's because of the Marxist theory that the community should be the deciding actor and the community should hold the power, the means of production and the authority. Similarly, why do you think Marxism adopted atheism? Because Marxism needs to destroy the churches and religious institutions. These are, and especially in the 19th century were, huge sources of private power -- the priests operated outside, to a great degree, of the will of the State (the community).

Absolutely correct. It is the substitution of the judgment of the collective and it's power to compel behavior and obedience for the power of a god to compel social behavior and obedience. It's one form of "government" control being substituted for another. Religion has always been a means of social control and government, which is in fact why it persists today.

So, atheism doesn't motivate Marxists to act in a certain way -- atheism is just a means used by Marxists to achieve their end - Communism, wherein the individual becomes wholly subservient to the collective/the community, in part by virtue of the total destruction of private religious institutions and the loyalty of the individual to gods, churches or other institutions beside the state. The state/community is the only thing that should tell people what to do, not gods, priests or churches.

Well, I wouldn't say that exactly. While atheism is a means to an end, it does indeed motivate Marxists to act to suppress competing systems of social control, including religion. It's not really proper to say atheism doesn't motivate Marxists because it does.

But, atheism is not what motivates Marxist totalitarian dictators to purge the intelligentsia, the petit bourgeousie and the churches -- what motivates them to do that is politics, power and the philosophy that all power must be in the State and all loyalty must be to the state.

Well, perhaps not directly, but certainly indirectly. Atheism itself, you see, posits no sort of social, moral or ethical structure as a replacement for either religion or secular government. Atheism (small-"a") is the nihilistic proposition of an absence of theistic guidance that does not propose to replace that guidance with anything else at all. It leaves the atheistic individual without any overarching moral or ethical guidance and we commonly see atheists arguing that religion is "not necessary" to the living of a moral and ethical life. This is true, on occasion, but hardly universally so, as we see with Marxism.

Once the "fear of God" or the threat of some sort of judgment and/or retribution from a source outside of humanity is removed, it is demonstrable that some people simply reject common social conventions and do as they please, based on their own ideological preferences because they have nothing hanging over them to help control atavistic impulses such as eternal damnation or some such divine retribution. This aspect of divine social control is the reason religion continues to exist today.

Marxism is a perfect example of the sort of morals-free, ethics-free society that emerges when all power is vested solely in the human intellect. Stalin had no problem at all liquidating anyone who he deemed to be "counterrevolutionary" to his goals of Marxist control in large part because his moral compass did not exist and there was no overarching authority to judge his moral behavior that he recognized and submitted to.

The primary aspect of every religion is social control, at least within the particular religious society. This is as true of Islam as it is Catholicism or any other deistic religion. While many religions consider "outsiders" or infidels to be enemies of the religious society, internally the systems of control generally act beneficially towards members of the religious community, which is why they continue to exist today.

When a cult of personality arises, however, as in Marxism or Jonestown or Waco, the moral compass guides no one because it always points towards the cult leader who himself has no moral compass or guidance that constrains his selfish human nature. That's what Marxism is and does. It created a cult of personality in Marx and extended that cult to Marxist leaders like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Kim Jong Un. Without any outside, overarching moral guidance, these cult leaders fall prey to their base human instincts of selfishness and avarice and everybody else suffers.

A non-human "supernatural" authority like God, who can hand out punishment for eternity for violating the moral structure of the community is a powerful force for stability and proper social behavior. Of course, even this concept can be perverted, as in the cult of personality of North Korea, which considers Kim Jong Un to be a 'god."

But all in all, religion has a much, much better record of controlling bad behavior and keeping societies operating in a more or less peaceful manner than atheism ever has.

Lots of people are atheists. Ayn Rand, who loathed communism about as much as anyone possibly could, was a staunch atheist. Yet, far from advocating or wishing the murder of religious people, Ayn Rand was a staunch proponent of reason, logic and persuasion, in a world of a free market of ideas wherein, she thought, reason would triumph over unreason.

While I admire Rand, she was simply wrong because she, just like Marx, failed to understand actual human nature and behavior. Reason only prevails when the reasonable are allowed to resist the unreason of those who are unreasonable, the foremost of whom happen to be politicians.

[Seth]

Forty Two wrote:

But, atheism is not what motivates Marxist totalitarian dictators to purge the intelligentsia, the petit bourgeousie and the churches -- what motivates them to do that is politics, power and the philosophy that all power must be in the State and all loyalty must be to the state.

I accept that atheism was a virtually automatic choice for early Marxist states, for the reasons explained effectively in your post - they were basically potentially troubling competitors for power and influence. However, there is a strong strand of Marxist thought co-existing with christian theology in the liberation theology movement in the recent past in South America; it was, however, not a state.

But the key point, which you explained well and Seth does not get, is that atheism was not the motivator for totalitarian atrocities, whether on religious people or not.

You're wrong. Atheism is a motivator precisely because atheism seeks to suppress the authority of religion as a guide to moral behavior, which allows totalitarians to substitute their own guide to moral behavior without competition.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

You're wrong. Atheism is a motivator precisely because atheism seeks to suppress the authority of religion as a guide to moral behavior, which allows totalitarians to substitute their own guide to moral behavior without competition.

You are mis-using the meaning of "motivator". Totalitarian regimes need nothing other than gaining and maintaining power as a motivator. Perhaps you are implying that the absence of religion makes actions by states or individuals without morality easier. However, there are other things absent in totalitarian regimes which enable them to persist and act without consequences. Once a society moves away from the rule of law, enshrined constitutional freedoms, a free press and at least a decent stab at electoral democracy, then dictatorships have it easy. Nazi Germany did not suppress religion, but it sure as hell took care of those other impediments to totalitarian rule.

And religion is not the only possible source of moral behaviour, nor is its presence a guarantee of moral actions. Can you say "Spanish Inquisition"?

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

You're wrong. Atheism is a motivator precisely because atheism seeks to suppress the authority of religion as a guide to moral behavior, which allows totalitarians to substitute their own guide to moral behavior without competition.

You are mis-using the meaning of "motivator". Totalitarian regimes need nothing other than gaining and maintaining power as a motivator. Perhaps you are implying that the absence of religion makes actions by states or individuals without morality easier. However, there are other things absent in totalitarian regimes which enable them to persist and act without consequences. Once a society moves away from the rule of law, enshrined constitutional freedoms, a free press and at least a decent stab at electoral democracy, then dictatorships have it easy. Nazi Germany did not suppress religion, but it sure as hell took care of those other impediments to totalitarian rule.

I'm sorry, but what part of "extermination of the Jews" is not "suppression of religion?" Do you know about Krystalnacht? I mean really...

And atheism is a motivator because a disbelief in gods justifies the suppression of those who believe in gods. Atheism may not be the primary motivator of totalitarian despots but it is most certainly a motivation, as Stalin proves. The motivation to suppress religion in order to facilitate totalitarianism does not mean that it's not a motivation. One need not have only one motivation for any action.

And religion is not the only possible source of moral behaviour, nor is its presence a guarantee of moral actions. Can you say "Spanish Inquisition"?

True, religion is not the "only" possible source of moral behavior, it is merely the most effective and long-standing method of inducing moral behavior in large populations ever practiced by human beings. Are there examples of immoral religious practices? Of course. But the number of victims of immoral religious practices pales in comparison to the hundred million killed by atheist immorality.

[surreptitious57]

Reason only prevails when the reasonable are allowed to resist the unreason of those who are unreasonable the foremost of whom happen to be politicians

But how do you decide what is and is not reasonable when here is no reliable metric for doing so. Every single civilisation in history has been governed
by politicians of every possible shade. So less you can replace them with something else you are always going to have them regardless of anything else
Non political systems would be unworkable since without some basic form of government there would be anarchy instead which is not very sustainable
The fundamental structure of society is hierarchal and every modern political system operates within that model so if that is removed it then collapses

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

I'm sorry, but what part of "extermination of the Jews" is not "suppression of religion?" Do you know about Krystalnacht? I mean really...

What idiocy, even for you!

Nazi aggression against Jews was not "suppression of religion", but purely racist in nature. Hitler was not interested in suppressing religion in general, which would be the case if the mythical atheist motivation was acting.

[Hermit]

I'm sorry, but what part of "extermination of the Jews" is not "suppression of religion?" Do you know about Krystalnacht? I mean really...

Extermination of the Jews is about race. Hitler, and the entire Nazi hierarchy made that perfectly clear. For someone who keeps repeating the slogan "correlation is not causation" (a quick search of your posts returns several dozen instances) so enthusiastically, you display a remarkably thorough inability to distinguish between the two in practice.

If you wish to look knowledgeable by using words that are not English, it might come in handy to spell them correctly. If you don't get them right you only succeed in making it crystal clear that you are a pretentious prat. In this instance you made two mistakes. Try "Kristallnacht".

[surreptitious57]

what part of extermination of the Jews is not suppression of religion

They were not exterminated because of their religion but because of their race
Their religion had nothing to do with it for it was entirely incidental to the fact

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

I'm sorry, but what part of "extermination of the Jews" is not "suppression of religion?" Do you know about Krystalnacht? I mean really...

What idiocy, even for you!

Nazi aggression against Jews was not "suppression of religion", but purely racist in nature. Hitler was not interested in suppressing religion in general, which would be the case if the mythical atheist motivation was acting.

Horseshit

Anti-Semitism is inherently religious persecution.

[JimC]

Anti-semitism is not persecuting religion in general, which should be the hallmark of atheist persecution. Persecution of one specific religion is typical of hatred deriving from a competing religion.

[Svartalf]

Dunno, as an avowed anti semite, I tend to have a major hatred for not one, but two religions (judaism and islam), which is not caused by a support for chretinity. I just feel that semites have caused enough damage in the worle in the last 2000+ years and that the world ought to give them back what it owes them.