That atheists can be good without God, does not mean they can’t be evil. Stalin usually comes to mind. Now we have Hicks.
The best reads on this here at FtB so far are the short, informative, spot on commentaries by Heina Dadabhoy, Ed Brayton, Greta Christina, and Dana Hunter. I concur with them all.
Richard Carrier is the author of many books and numerous articles online and in print. His avid readers span the world from Hong Kong to Poland. With a Ph.D. in ancient history from Columbia University, he specializes in the modern philosophy of naturalism and humanism, and the origins of Christianity and the intellectual history of Greece and Rome, with particular expertise in ancient philosophy, science and technology. He is also a noted defender of scientific and moral realism, Bayesian reasoning, and historical methods.
Is it confirmed that Stalin really was an atheist?
It’s often claimed that he became an atheist after reading Darwin, however:
“we need not believe one later Soviet claim that he read The Origin of Species at the age of thirteen while still at Gori, and told a fellow pupil that it proved the nonexistence of God. The story fails on several obvious accounts, including Stalin’s remaining religious, even pious, for some years longer.”
Stalin: Breaker of Nations by Robert Conquest page 20
“As Stalin noted in 1952: “Jesus Christ also suffered, and even carried his cross, and then he rose up to heaven. You, then, have to suffer too, in order to rise up to heaven””
Political Thought of Joseph Stalin: A Study in Twentieth Century Revolutionary Patriotism By Erik van Ree
“Influenced by his years in an Orthodox seminary, Stalin resurrected the vocabulary and symbolism of religion to make his ruthless social engineering more palatable to the masses”
Soviet Fiction Since Stalin: Science, Politics and Literature by Rosalind J. Marsh page 132
In the Document “The ‘Purge’ of the Libraries” Stalin ordered the withdrawal of “all anti-religious literature, exposing religion on the basis of natural science data” Source: The Stalin Era By Philip Boobbyer
I think you are being misled by data manipulation and rhetoric merely trying to spin things that way.
Here are some more competent analyses of the evidence:
Why Stalin Tried to Stamp Out Religion in the Soviet Union
USSR anti-religious campaign (1928–1941)
And Stalin let up on religion later in order to use its institutions to fight the Nazis and other political opponents, not because he converted (so don’t confuse “Stalin abandoned atheism as state policy” with “Stalin abandoned his own personal atheism,” and even his change of policy came late in life and was entirely situational):
World War II Rapprochement
How Stalin Enlisted the Orthodox Church to Help Control Ukraine
As an example of how you might be misled, we do not have that quote about Jesus from Stalin, but Malyshev. Sources like that are often of dubious authenticity, but if you trace that one (Malyshev’s diary, “Dnevnik Narkoma,” Istochnik 5: 138) you’ll find the context is sarcasm (Stalin is not actually advocating the belief, but mocking it, in frustration at the indolence of Christian troops; and as such, being merely a recollection of Malyshev, might be embellished, much like the myth of the Roman general who declared of the oracular chickens preventing his going to battle, “If they will not eat, let them drink!” and drowned them, then was promptly defeated in battle).
By contrast, Stalin’s daughter attests her father was an atheist to his very death (“my father would have shot me” for converting to Catholicism, she says—rather than, perhaps later in his life, supported her or been indifferent to her abandoning atheism).
0) the page has a holy image of stalin with a saint, right off the bat, not very convincing
1) they’re quote mining Marx, he continues to say that atheism is far from communism and is not needed
2) they’re not giving a source to the claim ““socialist man,” Stalin argued, was an atheist one” nor the time nor even the full quote so I can’t say for sure what he said or meant
3) Wikipedia says ” after World War II, the anti-religious campaign stormed on for decades, with Bibles forbidden” they are definitely exaggerating hotels still had bibles and nobody planted bibles in their enemies to accuse them of breaking the law this is worthy of a Monty python
4) Wikipedia says “officially the state claimed that no such persecution existed and that the people being targeted – when they admitted that people were being targeted – were only being attacked for resistance to the state or breaking the law.[7]”
“Metropolitan Sergii told foreign press in 1930 that there was no religious persecution and that Christianity shared many social goals with Marxism.[7] ”
[7]
Reesorville (20 February 2012). Metropolitan Sergii of Vilnius, Exarch of Latvia and Estonia, Unpublished Report (to the Germans) on the Church under the Soviet Regime. Church Social Media Inc. Retrieved 9 December 2022.
https://gloria.tv/post/cjG3jYSycwv12YxjPxDMS1PDr
“Under the USSR’s policy of denying the existence of religious persecution, the press only admitted the existence of persecution in the past during the Russian Civil War and during the campaign to seize church valuables, and this was justified by claiming that the Church was conducting counter-revolutionary activities. Under the same policy, it was claimed that the mass closure of churches represented a voluntary decline in religion of the population (and closed supposedly as a result of demands of the workers).”
some of it is downright funny “Students were given homework assignments to try to convert a member of their family to atheism.”
Wikipedia is not a peer-reviewed source and much like their Hitler’s religious beliefs article, their religion in the USSR articles should be taken with skepticism
5) stalin btw was not a member of the “League of the Militant Godless”. And just like how America has atheist organisations, Russia had them too, for the first time only after 2 centuries and only for it to be closed down anyway some two decades later and forced to write articles like “Why religious people are against Hitler” (“Почему религиозные люди против Гитлера”). Notice how they never had stuff modern day religious countries had like an atheist bus campaign, atheist billboard campaign, atheist out campaign, much less things like a “there is no god” adhan(which exists in Norway)
6) the quote “You know, they are fooling us, there is no God… all this talk about God is sheer nonsense.” comes from the story of stalin reading Darwin, we already know this didn’t happen and stalin wasn’t a Darwinist even in adulthood, infact Darwinists and geneticists were often persecuted. the quote “One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic” is also probably a misquote
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/21/death-statistic/?amp=1
7) speaking of Stalin’s daughter. Stalin told to his daughter Svetlana Alliluyeva-Stalin that Christ existed.
Journalist: It is interesting, that from all residents of Kremlin, maybe, just Stalin believed in God…
S.Alliluyeva: In father’s library, between other books, were few tomes of “Christ”. It was history of Christ, written by vox populist Morozov. I said to my father: “But Christ didn’t exist!” and he answered: “Oh no, Christ, certainly, existed.”
source: “Mysteries of the Century: Kremlin Kids”
2003-03-19, Channel One Russia
In other-bigger Interview to Russian magazine “Version” («Версия») and second Russian TV channel RTR (РТР) (1998) Svetlana spoke more about her father’s belief in God. She said, that Stalin told history of Christ her later. And she thinks that he was believer.
8) at Stalin’s funeral. The representative of the Russian Orthodox Church – Metropolitan Nicholas (Николай), Archbishop Nikon (Никон) and archpriest Nikolai Kolchitsky (Николай Колчицкий) – were part of the honor guard at the coffin of Joseph Stalin.
From speech of the most holy patriarch of Moscow and all Russia Aleksii before requiem on I.V.Stalin, told in the patriarchal cathedral in day of Stalin’s funeral (1953-03-09).
“We, who gathered for a pray about him, can not pass with silence his always benevolent, sympathizing attitude to our church needs. Any question, with which we addressed to him, has not been rejected by him; he satisfied all our requests. And a lot of good and useful, thanks to his high authority, has been done for our Church by our Government.”
source: Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate (JMP), 1953, №3, p. 5; №4, p. 3-4 (Журнал Московской Патриархии (ЖМП), 1953, №3, стр. 5; №4, стр. 3-4)
I don’t see how anything you state here contradicts anything I just said.
Maybe you misunderstood what I said. Give reading my remarks another try.
But, for example, millions of atheists believe Christ “existed.” So that has no relevance to whether Stalin was an atheist.
Possibly you are unaware of the backstory of Soviet anti-historicity propaganda, which was launched during the atheism-as-state-policy period; Stalin’s daughter is simply revealing he didn’t buy that propaganda, as propagandists usually don’t (that’s why it’s called propaganda), but that doesn’t make him a theist.
millions of atheists believe that a vague guy with the title of Jesus existed(Josephus himself mentions over twenty jesuses so no surprise there), not in “christ”, not with such “certainty”, not with keeping apologetic works, and not for bedtime stories, not to the extent that your daughter says she thinks they’re believers in christ.
English historian Simon Sebag Montefiore studied Stalin’s hobbies, personal library, what Stalin liked to read, what kind of marks he left in his books. He found that Stalin liked to quote long quotes from the Bible.
Stalin: A Biography – Page 462 by Robert Service
“all that is in the past , and the past belongs to God” – Stalin
It is not without reason told, that God takes brains from whom He dooms to die”. – Speech on 5-th All-Union conference of A-ULYCL 1927-03-29, I.V.Stalin
According to Stalin’s grandson Alexander Burdonsky, Stalin confessed.
Moskovsky Komsomolets number 25303 on March 17, 2010 E. Svetlova, “Stainless Stalin”
Alexander Burdonsky: “Stalin was a very clever man, he knew and understood what to do. It was interesting for me also to understand, what he was thinking, when he sat for hours at night in a chair and looked out the window, which faced the woods. What kind of thoughts went through him, why he wanted to confess? There was a confession. The priest was interrogated under Khrushchev with terrible force, but he said nothing.”
Stalin attended Temple of All Saints to pray.
Newspaper “Moscow Falcon” №1(77) 2005-01-??; Sofia Pavlova “Only Church, visited by Stalin …”
Тhe head of the Temple of All Saints Michael Aleksandrovich Rodin: “Joseph Vissarionovich come during war in our temple to pray. And even today there are parishioners alive – a few very older persons, who remember this fact and saw Stalin themselves. Stalin, as tell, came to a temple three times and stood long, facing to two icons, – Nikolay Chudotvorets and Kazan Divine Mother. Joseph Vissarionovich has not stood all service, his visits last 15-20 minutes.”
Antireligious literature for Stalin is waste-paper.
M.V.Shkarovskii “Russian Orthodox Church under Stalin and Khruschev” p. 201
Before war, selecting library for a summer residence, Stalin has attributed for executors: “Please, no any antireligious maculature! (maculature = paper waste, junk)”
Photocopy in magazine “New and contemporary history” (historian B.S.Ilizarov).
Book “Stalin” by Dmitri Antonovich Volkogonov.
“A note to the librarian (Ivan Pavlovich Tovstukha). My advice (and request):
…
3) All the others (books) to assort by authors, excluding from classification and having put aside: any textbooks, small magazines, antireligious waste-paper, etc.). 29.V.25 y. I.Stalin”.
None of that evinces anything useful to the point.
What point?
Of the discussion.
You must have forgotten what your point was.
Try starting over:
Go to your original comment and what it’s point was (“Is it confirmed that Stalin really was an atheist?”), to which point I responded. Read my response to your point. If you are still confused, read your impertinent reply (that ignored my point), and then my reply (pointing out that you ignored my point).
Then you’ll be caught up.
Sorry for coming off as impertinent, I did not intend it and have a lot of respect for your work.
I’m sorry, I’m confused, I presented all kinds of evidence like when stalin said “all that is in the past , and the past belongs to God”, how can he say sth like that while being an atheist
I did present evidence to my point that Stalin was not an atheist and responded to your points. Please clarify what I missed
What makes you so sure that he was an atheist when you can’t find a genuine quote of him saying he’s an atheist(I already debunked the story of him reading Darwin)
I already refuted all your evidence. You just kept repeating the same kind of evidence already refuted.
Please re-read the thread and pay attention to what I actually said.
If you continue to fail to do this, that is in violation of policy, and you will be banned here for life.
Since people were killed specifically for having religious beliefs, doesn’t that mean they were killed in the name of atheism?
If you mean specifically in this case, i.e. Hicks (the subject of this post), then no. He was an atheist (even an antitheist), but he didn’t kill “in the name” of atheism, as in, he didn’t publicize it as in pursuit of atheism as a cause, and he wasn’t even motivated to do it by his atheism. He was just a murderer who happened to be an atheist. The actual motive was, as the linked report says, “a long-standing dispute over parking spaces at the condominium complex.”
And if you mean generally, then usually no. When Catholics killed Protestants (and vice versa) in Ireland, it had nothing to do with atheism. Most religious people in history who were killed for being religious were killed by other religious people. Religion usually is creating the pretext to kill people of different religions or sects. See Hector Avalos, Fighting Words: The Origins Of Religious Violence.
That’s even the case for Stalinist Russia insofar as Stalinism was just another religion. It just happens to be a religion without a supernatural deity. But many religions lack supernatural deities (e.g. Buddhism, Scientology, Raelianism). But at least in that case the perpetrators were atheists and were targeting people for their religious beliefs (albeit for political, nevertheless still ideological ends; and many atheists were also targeted for mass murder by the Stalinists). But that’s actually unusual in the overall history of religious violence.
More relevant is that there has never been an instance of this by Secular Humanists. Which reminds us that “atheism” is as non-designating as “theist.” Theists can be pacifists or white supremacists; so the word “theism” doesn’t tell you much about a person. Likewise, neither does “atheism.” One needs to look at their actual worldview. Atheists, just like theists, can have a white supremacist worldview and thus be evil, or be devoted humanists and thus be morally respectable, just like theists can be.
The dangers of religion are not a simple binary: see What’s the Harm.
Can you prove that “Most religious people in history who were killed for being religious were killed by other religious people. ”
Stalinism is a political ideology, not a religion, it lacks things a religion has like rituals. the argument that having trappings that can also be found in religions somehow makes Stalin’s Marxist-Leninism into a religion is false. The Olympic movement also has slogans, ideals, symbols, iconography, parades, rituals and other elements that parallel religious practices and ideas, but it is not a religion. Nor was Soviet Marxism. And to pretend that an ideology that was fundamentally atheistic and anti-religious was somehow a de facto religion is wrong, especially when at least a proportion of the crimes it committed were specifically and explicitly motivated by that atheism. This argument is an attempt at a sleight of hand.
either way Stalinism is still atheistic and had a number of people killed specifically for believing in god
Dimitry V. Pospielovsky’s Soviet Anti Religious Campaigns and Persecutions: A History of Soviet Atheism in Theory and Practice and the Believer Vol 2 (Palgrave Macmillan, 1988) catalogues a large number of the more prominent cases of summary arrest, imprisonment, exile and execution of clergy and religious activists. No-one can credibly pretend that this was anything other than state-mandated atheism being imposed by violence. For example:
“The geologists were told to remove themselves to the nearby tents. From the tents they heard how, before every individual execution, the victim was told that were he to deny God’s existence this would be his last chance to survive. In every case, without exception, the answer was: ‘God exists’. A pistol-shot followed. This procedure was repeated sixty times until the whole operation was over.”
(Pospielovsky, pp. 82-3)
“Early in 1934 three Orthodox priests and two lay believers were taken out of their special regime Kolyma camp to the local OGPU administration. Each of them was asked to renounce his faith in Jesus. Instead, all of them re-confirmed their faith, although they were warned: ‘If you don’t deny your Christ, [death] awaits you.’ Without any formal charges they were then taken to a freshly dug grave, and four were shot. One of the three priests, however, also without any explanation, was told to bury the dead and was spared.”
(Pospielovsky, pp. 83)
Buddhism has the adi Buddha, that’s the only reason why it’s legal in Indonesia, it does have supernatural elements and so does scientology
https://www.scientology.org/faq/scientology-beliefs/what-is-the-concept-of-god-in-scientology.html
raelianism has unconfirmed aliens that are significantly superior to humans
none of them are quite the same as the anti religious stalinism
which atheists were targeted for mass murder?
whats “unusual in the overall history of religious violence.”?
secular humanists have never taken over a government so this has never been tested, whereas communism took over 40 countries and a third of the world’s population and it was communism that enforced atheism. it was communism that was more popular than secular humanism
atheism is an ideology in its own way, as Nathan Johnstone counters:
“But politically, sociologically, culturally, even biologically, atheism is no longer an answer but a question. If there is no God, why has mankind been so disposed to believe in one? If so much of our lives have been shaped by an unreality, has this been beneficial or harmful? How far are we obligated to reshape our cultures in line with scientific naturalism, and is continued supernaturalism now a barrier to human well-being? The metaphysical conclusion of atheism has always been a trigger to sociological, cultural and political analysis – it makes almost unavoidable the development of a viewpoint on these issues.”
(Johnstone, The New Atheism, Myth, and History: The Black Legends of Contemporary Anti-Religion, Palgrave Macmillan, 2018, p. 179)
Being an atheist himself, Johnstone is pretty clear that this is the case. And the New Atheists he is critiquing can not really argue otherwise, since most of them have written whole books presenting detailed answers to these very questions. No New Atheist book consists of one page saying simply “Is there a God? No. The end.”
So it is disingenuous to pretend that atheism is a pure abstract concept that can never be a central part of an ideology. And it is a historically wrong that it was not a critical and motivating part of the Marxist-Leninism that led to the anti-religious campaigns and deadly persecutions outlined above. To brush aside evidence of NKVD goons asking people if they believed in God and then shooting them in the head if they said “yes” as if this has nothing to do with Soviet ideology’s intrinsic atheism is wrong.
Religions are political ideologies. So that is not a distinction.
But in any event, regardless of how you define religion, Stalinism isn’t Secular Humanism, and is in fact an extremely rare belief system (Stalinism doesn’t even exist anymore, and its replacements, like Maoism, have almost no adherents, which is why they are able to kill people only in autocracies where a tiny few can enact their will over a mostly opposed population). The fact remains that most violence against the religious has historically and still come from the religious (source already cited). And Secular Humanism has never done this.
And nothing else you say matters to the point. Atheism remains as non-identifying as “theism.” Muslim Fundamentalists and Nazis are theists. So are Deists and Unitarians. So it’s not possible to talk about what “theism” does or causes, because that’s too non-specific. Likewise “atheism.” You have to look at the worldview, not one isolated belief in it. Because the word “atheism” otherwise does not designate which ideology the atheist embraces, just as the word “theism” does not. And its ideology that decides behavior.
Can you please tell me who are the “many atheists” who “were also targeted for mass murder by the Stalinists”
Do you not even know who the Trotskyites were? Countless communists were sent to the camps and killed—anyone who was a political opponent of Stalin, not just because of their religion.
The Trotsky article doesn’t mention anything about god and atheism. The Alexander one does once, but Alexander also said
“the world had never before known a godlessness as organized, militarized, and tenaciously malevolent as that practiced by Marxism. Within the philosophical system of Marx and Lenin, and at the heart of their psychology, hatred of God is the principal driving force, more fundamental than all their political and economic pretensions. Militant atheism is not merely incidental or marginal to Communist policy; it is not a side effect, but the central pivot. To achieve its diabolical ends. Communism needs to control a population devoid of religious and national feeling, and this entails the destruction of faith and nationhood. Communists proclaim both of these objectives openly, and just as openly go about carrying them out. The degree to which the atheistic world longs to annihilate religion, the extent to which religion sticks in its throat, was demonstrated by the web of intrigue surrounding the recent attempts on the life of the Pope.”
So, you don’t know anything about the Trotskyite Marxists? Got it.
I can’t help you if you don’t know basic history. Like, that Trotskyite’s are atheists.
The links also point to many other atheists being targeted.
Denying this is really a dumb hill to die on.
I’m not in a hurry to die on a hill, and this stuff wasn’t taught at my school not is history my profession, that’s why I’m talking to you, the historian, to get a clearer picture
The sources you gave say other atheists were killed but it doesn’t name them
“many other atheists” like who?
Also how true is the claim that Darwinism had anything to do with the crimes of communism? As I understand it they denied Darwinism and instead the communists believed in Lamarckian evolution which eventually caused famines
The Trotskyites. That’s who (including Trotsky himself, whom Stalin assassinated). You can research this. Unless you want to hire me to do it for you and write up a dossier on it.
Many other atheists (non-Trotskyite Marxists and scientists and philosophers) were also targeted by Stalin. Literally anyone who openly disagreed with Stalin and his policies. You can research that too if you care to.
That Stalinist purge of Darwinist scientists is indeed a good place to start. A lot of them were atheists. If you research them you’ll find out.
How much do you want me to pay you and via what method if I were to ask you to write an article similar to this one
https://www.ebonmusings.org/essays/communism.html
There are no sources cited in that essay.
If you want to invest in something, please choose a competent argument, something that cites sources for its claims.
When you find that, if you want to hire me to research and write a reply to it, my rate depends on the labor requested and the wordcount of the article I am to research a reply to or comment on (for researched articles, the rate is word-count divided by 30, with a minimum of $100; for mere at-sight commentaries, divided by 50, same minimum).
There are a few sources cited, many are just outdated, you can use the archive site to see what those links looked like in the past.
Anyway, that site was just meant to give you an example of how I want you to debunk the Stalin mao pol pot Kim il sung argument
As I understand it, if I want you to debunk this then I have to pay you 212 dollars correct?
https://historyforatheists.com/2021/01/the-great-myths-10-soviet-atheism/
Yes.
But that article isn’t arguing anything we’ve been discussing here. So I don’t know what in it you’d want “debunked.”
We all agree state-enforced atheism contributed to the criminal motives and acts of the Soviet regime.
Secular Humanism was not the atheist ideology of the Soviet Regime. So there is no way to use the Soviet atheist ideology to argue that the Secular Humanist atheist ideology has a tendency towards fascism and murder. And in result, there is no way to argue from the rare existence of evil atheism to “atheism is evil.” Just as there is no way to argue from the (far more) historically common existence of Christian evil to “theism is evil” (not all theism is Christianity). That’s what you’ve been trying to argue against and that I have been refuting. The existence of evil atheism does not relate to that debate. It neither supports you nor contradicts me. I already granted it above.
So I don’t know what you would even hire me to do here. That article refutes your original contention that Stalin wasn’t an atheist. So it already provides the debunking (of you) that you want there. It’s taking my side, not yours. Then you tried to deny the Stalin regime targeted atheists as well as believers. Which I refuted. The article you are pointing to now does not argue your position on that, either. And earlier you tried to argue that Soviet atheism entails atheism is evil, a position the article you are pointing to now also does not argue for.
So, like I said upthread, “You must have forgotten what your point was.”
“We all agree state-enforced atheism contributed to the criminal motives and acts of the Soviet regime.”
isn’t that a problem for atheism?
“Secular Humanism was not the atheist ideology of the Soviet Regime”
it wasn’t the atheist ideology for any regime. atheists chose communism as the ideology of over a third of the world and over 40 countries, they didn’t choose secular humanism, it’s like arguing that nobody was killed in the name of raelianism, too few atheists chose that to begin with.
“And in result, there is no way to argue from the rare existence of evil atheism”
over 40 countries is not “rare”
“Just as there is no way to argue from the (far more) historically common existence of Christian evil”
can you prove that it is “far more” historically common than communism? Stalin and Mao entered Guinness in the “mass killings” category possibly killing over a hundred million people. several tens of millions more were also killed in red-white civil wars
Of course not. No more than religious fascism and murder is a problem for theism. Because atheism isn’t an ideology. Just as theism is not. It’s a belief about one thing. It thus does not entail or predict anything beyond whether someone organizes their worldview around gods or not.
Motivations to fascism and murder come from ideologies, not isolated beliefs. And ideologies embraced by faith or by force are religions. Theism does not cause murder. Christianity does. Secular Humanism does not cause murder. Stalinism does.
Why you still don’t get this after having it explained to you three times now (at least) is baffling me.
Murderous Stalinism is not in “forty countries.” It isn’t in any now (it is a dead religion). And only lasted half a century. That’s a pretty poor showing as far as religions go (big religions, the kind that become a problem, survive thousands of years and expand; not shrink and die out within a single human lifetime).
If you mean “all” murderous atheist religions, like Maoism, say, then you are talking about a different ideology than Stalinism (and so you can’t just carelessly port conclusions from one to the other). But if we are just counting fascist murderous ideologies that are explicitly atheist, you are talking about far fewer than forty nations (and far less than a century of existence and no growth). For example, Maoism hasn’t even existed for a century yet, and is unpopular (it has failed to evangelize and grow beyond trivially outside its borders and its own population hates it).
That’s rare in the ten thousand year history of human religions. Whereas, for example, the communists are the opposition party in Venezuela, not the fascist murderers there. The strongman Maduro has no ideology (much less an atheist one), but he is an avowed Christian and his government heavily supports Evangelical Christianity. So that doesn’t get into your category.
One by one you go through, and you’ll find murderous atheist ideologies are so rare in human history as to be literally bizarre, and never successful compared to, for example, the world’s most popular religions (thousands of Christianities, Islams, Judaisms, Hinduisms, even traditional paganisms). And none of them classify as Secular Humanist or any other positive atheist worldview. So no conclusions about things like Stalinism or Maoism port to other atheisms like Secular Humanism at all.
“But if we are just counting fascist murderous ideologies that are explicitly atheist, you are talking about far fewer than forty nations (and far less than a century of existence and no growth). ”
there were more than forty nations, count them
The soviet union alone accounts for 15 countries
proxy cold wars were fought in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Mozambique, Cambodia, Angola, Indonesia, Guatemala, Greece, el Salvador, Laos, Philippines, Argentina, Nicaragua
Civil wars were fought in China, Yugoslavia(now 7 countries), Cuba, Ethiopia
there were executions in mongolia, Poland, bulgaria, north Korea, hungary, east Germany, Romania, Czechoslovakia(2 countries now), and albania
there’s also Manuel Azaña, Atheist Prime Minister of Spain, under whose leadership Spain’s violently anti-religious Red Terror took place, which killed 38,000 to 72,344 people, among whom were members of the clergy.
atheism as a mass movement didn’t exist until the 20th century by the time evolution and secularism spread throughout the world so of course it didn’t last more than a century, french revolution excluded. and even if it didn’t grow current communist countries alone gives it a population of nearly 1.5 billion, that’s still alot
“Maoism hasn’t even existed for a century yet, and is unpopular (it has failed to evangelize and grow beyond trivially outside its borders and its own population hates it).”
I don’t know, Maoist insurgencies exist, Mao still has his defenders to this day, and it’s not clear to me that its own population hates it
“Whereas, for example, the communists are the opposition party in Venezuela, not the fascist murderers there. The strongman Maduro has no ideology (much less an atheist one), but he is an avowed Christian and his government heavily supports Evangelical Christianity. So that doesn’t get into your category.”
I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here
“One by one you go through, and you’ll find murderous atheist ideologies are so rare in human history as to be literally bizarre, and never successful compared to, for example, the world’s most popular religions (thousands of Christianities, Islams, Judaisms, Hinduisms, even traditional paganisms). ”
basically you’re hinting that religion is worse because it lasted longer and grew as opposed to communism which started late, and had its years but has shrunk
but can you prove religion was worse by body count? Hinduism in particular was very peaceful
Who else can claim to be so harmless? Certainly not the British. Nor the French. Nor the Americans, Turks, Japanese. Even the Mongolians and Portuguese have caused more trouble. That might be explained by geographic isolation, but there’s also a notable scarcity of massive killings inside India as well. Considering that India has usually contained around one-fifth or one-sixth of the human population—as many people as either China or Europe—why doesn’t mass violence in India show up as often as China and Europe? Even when India appears on the list, the worst megadeaths were inflicted by non-Hindus—Lytton, Yahya Khan, and Aurangzeb. This seems to make the native culture of India almost eerily nonthreatening.
“And none of them classify as Secular Humanist or any other positive atheist worldview.”
can you please elaborate what positive Atheist worldview has given us? particularly secular humanism
people like Maurice Hilleman, bill gates, warren buffet, although I’m unaware that any of them were secular humanists they were Atheist/agnostic
“Why you still don’t get this after having it explained to you three times now (at least) is baffling me.”
the answer doesn’t give me enough comfort
all anti-theists, are atheists. Atheism is a necessary precondition for anti-theism.
Strictly speaking, perhaps atheism itself may not have killed anybody, but the belief or ideology of anti-theism sure has.
it was state-mandated atheism being imposed by violence, they saw belief as an obstacle to their goals and saw atheism as a key path to those goals.
to say that their killing and oppression in the name of their atheism is not identical to any killing and oppression in the name of religion because religions are not like atheism in some respects is not saying much. The people they killed and oppressed remain dead and oppressed. In the name of atheism.
I think the problem is that you keep conflating different words and changing what they mean. You have no consistent definition of what a “religion” is or what that word is supposed to refer to. And you keep confusing atheism with “nonreligion” and theism with “religion” and even specific worldviews, which is illogical. It’s a fallacy called affirming the consequent: if P, then Q; therefore if Q, then P, hence e.g. “if Stalinism, then atheism; therefore if atheism, then Stalinism” and every other example you keep doing this with.
It is not possible to have any productive conversation with you if you keep doing this.
I think you need to actually pay attention to what I just said until you actually understand what I just said, before continuing this conversation in any way.
You’re right, atheism isn’t necessarily opposed to religion(Jainism, raelianism, etc) and I did commit that fallacy
My definition of religion is an ideology that has
1. A being higher than humans (be it aliens or gods)
2. Rituals
3. Moral commandments
4. Purpose to life
Can you please elaborate on your argument that murderous Atheist ideologies are rare? I already cited over 40 countries in which it was present so am I missing sth?
Now you are conflating “murder” with “opposition.” This makes no sense.
One can oppose a belief without thinking you can kill believers. Indeed that describes most opposition to anything in world history. Indeed Secular Humanism is founded on the principle that arguments are to be met with arguments, and only violence with violence. That’s codified in the U.S. Constitution.
And then you keep making the false claim that there are “over 40 countries” run by “murderous Atheist ideologies.” Where are all these atheistic murder countries?
You’re right, one can oppose sth without resorting to murder
“Where are all these atheistic murder countries?”
Count them
The soviet union alone accounts for 15 countries
proxy cold wars were fought in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Mozambique, Cambodia, Angola, Indonesia, Guatemala, Greece, el Salvador, Laos, Philippines, Argentina, Nicaragua
Communist Civil wars were fought in China, Yugoslavia(now 7 countries), Cuba, Ethiopia
there were communist executions in mongolia, Poland, bulgaria, north Korea, hungary, east Germany, Romania, Czechoslovakia(2 countries now), and albania
there’s also Manuel Azaña, Atheist Prime Minister of Spain, under whose leadership Spain’s violently anti-religious Red Terror took place, which killed 38,000 to 72,344 people, among whom were members of the clergy.
Oh please.
The Soviet Union (a) doesn’t exist and (b) was one country.
As for the rest, you are just listing wars. You have lost the point again.
Remember we were talking about atheist regimes targeting religious people for murder because of their atheism. Not countries merely fighting wars or resistance movements.
That literally counts almost every nation on Earth (from the U.S. — revolution and civil war (as well as 1812, Indian Wars, Spanish War, Texas War, Japanese internment, etc., etc.) — to even Switzerland). Since that’s just “all countries” it clearly doesn’t signal anything to do with their religious status. You really are having a hard time following this conversation. Please concentrate. I’m going to ban you if we start talking in circles because I have to re-explain a thing I already explained to you three times already in this thread.
I’m really not doing this to annoy you and I appreciate your patience, unfortunately not all of us are as well acquainted with philosophy and logical fallacies as you are
“The Soviet Union (a) doesn’t exist and (b) was one country.”
“Remember we were talking about atheist regimes targeting religious people for murder because of their atheism. Not countries merely fighting wars or resistance movements.”
how about countries that still exist then?
Pewforum designated a listing for non-religious nations which it said are actively hostile toward religious institutions, featured in alphabetical order: Azerbaijan, China, Cuba, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, North Korea, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Vietnam.
“As for the rest, you are just listing wars. You have lost the point again.”
are you saying no religious people were targeted in these wars by communists? not even a little bit?
“it clearly doesn’t signal anything to do with their religious status. ”
as far as I’m aware the us was never a theocracy and was even the first secular country, if you pointed out theocracies like Timur or the Taiping kingdom you might have a point
But I’m not saying nothing bad was done in the name of religion so I don’t quite get your point here, sure, religious people have done bad things
The only relevant metric for this conversation is:
Are there countries that are (1) officially atheist and (2) murder lots of people and (3) do so because of their atheism (and not for some other reason).
So the question is: are those countries (only those, not others) rare both (1) now and (2) throughout history.
If the answer is “yes” then you agree with me. We’re done. You can go.
If the answee is “no” then you need to present evidence that those countries (only those, not others) are commonplace either (1) now or (2) throughout history.
Everything else is a waste of time. So stop spinning yarn. Respond to the only relevant question.
According to this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
There are 22 murderous atheist states, so I would say it’s not rare
But they kinda always did the murder for political reasons rather than atheistic anti religious reasons, atheistic anti religious murder is indeed rare, but murderous atheist regimes still aren’t, or are they?
Present your evidence that any of those “22” states murder people because of their atheism (and not some other reason).
If you cannot, then the number is 0 not 22.
But you already agreed regarding the USSR so that’s at least one rather than zero right?
Do you agree that Albania banned religion and persecuted people for anti-religious atheistic reasons?
The USSR does not exist anymore.
What year do you think you live in?
And Albania is actually famous for its religious tolerance (it has the most integrated Christian and Muslim population in the world). So I don’t know what you are talking about. (I actually extensively studied Albania’s 20th century history recently for a client project. So I know quite a lot about this example.)
If we’re only talking about modern countries then yes, you’re right that it’s rare, but it exists
Jiang Zemin, atheist leader of China ordered the torture and murder of 65,000 followers of the Falun Gong religion for example. Granted China is only one country, but it’s a huge country and practices state atheism, don’t you agree?
Didn’t Albania ban religion around 1976-1985? I was talking about the Enver Hoxha period. I understand that it’s in the past, but it’s an example of when atheists killed for an atheistic anti religious reason isn’t it?
But did China kill off Falun because they are atheists, or because Falun were feared as political insurgents? In other words, would China have killed them off even if China as a full-on Christian fascist state, like Nazi Germany or Imperial Spain? If the answer is yes, then that isn’t an example of atheism causing mass murder.
Enver Hoxha would be an example. It’s just that that state no longer exists; and it didn’t last more than a decade; and its entire society was against it (which is why it failed). That’s how rare those things are. The Soviet Union didn’t last half a century. China’s atheist regime is rare for actually beating a century (indeed that may be the only example in human history of an atheist state lasting more than a century).
When you add up “murderous atheist states” (as in states that murder because of their atheism; not states that are only incidentally atheist) it’s not a lot, and far, far fewer total years of rule, than “murderous religious states.”
I’m not aware of Falun gong being engaged in large scale insurgent movements, seems like they were just killed off because they were a new religion of a few people. China had the Muslim rebellions and the Taiping rebellion(entered Guinness as the bloodiest civil war) but I’m unaware of Falun gong causing serious trouble
if China was a Christian fascist state it would still have killed them or tried to convert them to Christianity. though that’s probably not what you meant with this example
about Enver Hoxha, I see many conflicting accounts of him banning religion in 1967 rather than 1976, what’s up with that and which one is it?
can you please prove that its entire society was against it? how did this even pass anyway?
as far as I’m aware it failed because Enver Hoxha died on 1985
can’t we say the same thing regarding the rarity of violence in modern Christianity? Christianity is the largest religion with more than 2 billion and +100 countries including high populous countries like the USA, Brazil, Mexico, Philippines, etc. yet Christian dictators killing millions of people because of modern Christianity is rare isn’t it? I feel this has more to do with modernity rather than religion
Modernity, yes. Because murderous regimes tout court are rare now. But we were talking about historical trends, and all major (global) religious ideologies. Stop trying to change the subject.
So, why don’t you actually check?
Like, I don’t know. This. This. This. This. This. Took me five minutes to find those.
You seem incapable of actually checking facts. You just make shit up based on whatever is in your mind, rather than checking to see what actually is the case.
This has been a consistent pattern with you. Why is that? Don’t you recognize that is a method guaranteed to routinely fail? Why not abandon that method for one that succeeds more often in getting things right? Why not check before making a claim.
Learn the Scary Truth about Critical Thinking.
Same with:
There are plenty of historical materials for you to consult of public attitudes about religion in Albania from the middle ages to now and every decade in between. I even referred you to this already. Actually check. I’m not your unpaid library assistant. You are morally obligated to do the work.
If you don’t, you will go on never having true beliefs about anything.
Your call.
“But we were talking about historical trends, and all major (global) religious ideologies. Stop trying to change the subject.”
can this also be said of Hinduism? wasn’t it relatively peaceful considering it had thousands of years and controlled nearly a sixth of the world population?
“Like, I don’t know. This. This. This. This. This. Took me five minutes to find those.”
but look up at what they say, they agree that Falun gong is peaceful and only wanted their religion to be tolerated, only later after they got persecuted did they start to have an anti communist attitude, and even then it was still peaceful and relatively (to 1.5 billion Chinese) small. even at its max the protest only reached 30,000 and as far as I’m aware this was one day before its ban and they only wanted their religion tolerated
do you believe the figures of there being 70-100 million Falun gong members? this seems unusually high for sth created in 1992, it’s almost like saying a population the size of Germany changed their religion within less than a decade
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/18/asia/hong-kong-china-falun-gong-intl-hnk/index.html
”
The protesters in Beijing were calling for the removal of restrictions placed on the faith, but the Chinese authorities responded with a massive crackdown and huge propaganda push demonizing Falun Gong.
“I was shocked,” said Rose, a Hong Kong-based Falun Gong practitioner. “I had friends who were traveling between Hong Kong and Beijing, they told me a crackdown was about to take place, but I said this was impossible, Falun Gong was just a belief, nothing political.”
”
https://www.dailynews.com/2014/07/14/why-china-fears-the-falun-gong/
”
China recently placed the outlawed group at the top of its list of terrorist organizations, despite no history of violence against others.
Listed first was the Falun Gong, a group with no history of violence or terrorist activities. Contrast that with other groups on the list such as “Almighty God” or “Three Grades of Servants,” members of which have been blamed by authorities for at least 20 murders.
The presence of Falun Gong alongside such dangerous sects shows that Beijing’s propaganda campaign against the group — banned outright in China in 1999 but still active in Hong Kong and Taiwan — is still going strong.
”
https://www.worldatlas.com/politics/communist-china-vs-the-falun-gong.html
”
At a cursory glance, the Falun Gong appears harmless. One, therefore, wonders how such an innocuous group can pose a threat to the government of the People’s Republic of China, a powerful bureaucracy known to exercise a stranglehold on various spheres of life.
”
“Learn the Scary Truth about Critical Thinking.”
this is very tough stuff, I’ve read your articles, it has many links to it and is not easy to learn
“I even referred you to this already. Actually check. I’m not your unpaid library assistant. You are morally obligated to do the work.”
I’ve read your Albania article, it doesn’t attempt to prove that Albanians were almost unanimously opposed to the ban on religion, it only mentions communism briefly as an explanation to why there might be harmony amongst Christians and Muslims and rejects that claim
I’m sorry for making you my unpaid library assistant, you told me you were good at this Albania subject so I was tempted to get easy answers from you. If it’s pay you want I might be willing to give it to you, tell me of how much and of the method, I think the atheist atrocities fallacy argument deserves an article from you and I’m not aware you did an article like it
Then you didn’t actually read the links.
So let’s try this. I will permanently bad you and never talk to you again unless and until you accomplish one feat:
Correctly quote from each link I gave you the stated reasons China has for suppressing Falun Gong.
Give me at least one sentence from each link. And make sure it is the correct sentence (don’t skip the sentence that actually answers my query and quote another instead).
Go.
https://www.worldatlas.com/politics/communist-china-vs-the-falun-gong.html
“The Chinese government started to restrict the operations of Falun Gong. Frustrated by the latest turn of events, an estimated 10,000 to 30,000 Falun Gong practitioners staged a protest in Beijing, particularly at the Zhongnanhai, the compound that serves as a residence for the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). It was the biggest protest in the capital since the 1989 Tiananmen affair. Unfortunately, it worsened matters for Falun Gong adherents. Low-key harassment turned to full-blown persecution. ”
“the Chinese government allegedly characterizing it as “the most serious threat to stability in 50 years of communist history.” ”
https://faluninfo.net/why-is-falun-gong-is-persecuted-in-china/
“Falun Gong ushered in a revival of traditional values — values that the communist regime had been trying to crush for decades.
According to many officials around him, Jiang grew desperate.
Seeking to solidify his power and crush this revival of traditional values, Jiang turned to the tactics used by many CCP leaders of the past. He launched a violent campaign against one segment of the Chinese society to eliminate them, while also scaring the remainder of society into submission and building up his own power.”
“According to the Washington Post, “The crackdown [against Falun Gong] was undertaken to demonstrate and solidify the power of the Chinese leadership … ”
https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1259&context=wilj
“China’s leadership has attempted to
justify the crackdown, citing both historical reasons and national security concerns.
Analysis of China’s history demonstrates that repression of anti-government groups has
only hardened their resistance. Similarly, the campaign against Falun Gong has failed to
stop protests staged by the group’s followers. In fact, Falun Gong’s expressions of
dissent have become increasingly defiant. The Chinese government’s policy of
repression undermines true national security. Lifting the ban will help the Chinese
government achieve its stated goals of protecting both China’s national security and the human rights of its citizens”
https://www.dailynews.com/2014/07/14/why-china-fears-the-falun-gong/
”
Falun Gong practitioners were incensed by the criticism and began staging protests and writing to newspapers to complain. When a Beijing TV talk show guest attacked Falun Gong on air, the group was successful in getting the station to sack the producer responsible for the segment and air a pro-Falun Gong film several days later.
This relative tolerance did not last long, however. When Falun Gong practitioners protested outside the offices of a Tianjin newspaper in April 1999, 300 riot police arrived to break up the demonstration and 45 people were arrested.
It was at this point that the group made perhaps the most ill-judged move in the history of peaceful protest.
On April 25, more than 10,000 practitioners gathered near the Zhongnanhai government compound in Beijing to demand an end to official harassment.
Then-party general secretary Jiang Zemin was reportedly enraged by the audacity and scale of the protest — the largest since the Tiananmen Square demonstrations of 1989 — and demanded the movement be “defeated.”
”
”
On July 20, 1999, security forces swooped, detaining several thousand leading Falun Gong practitioners. Days later the group was made illegal for “advocating superstition, spreading fallacies, hoodwinking people, inciting and creating disturbances, and jeopardizing social stability.”
”
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/18/asia/hong-kong-china-falun-gong-intl-hnk/index.html
“Can a religious group that wants to bring down China’s Communist Party survive in Hong Kong? ”
“Keep away from the Chinese Communist Party. Stop the persecution of Falun Gong.”
“While Falun Gong practitioners are not the primary target of the new security law – which is at times clearly designed to criminalize acts seen during last year’s anti-government protests – they and other groups like them could still fall foul of its broad remit.
In particular, the new offense of subversion makes it illegal in many circumstances to advocate “overthrowing the body of central power of the People’s Republic of China.” Given that the PRC government is indelibly intertwined with the Communist Party, Falun Gong efforts to get people to quit the Communist Party in protest, or otherwise harm its activities, could be deemed criminal. ”
”
Outside of the protest movement, Falun Gong is among the most vocal and visible opposition to the Communist Party, in both Hong Kong and elsewhere around the world.
”
”
Here again, Falun Gong may find themselves at the inadvertent frontlines of Hong Kong’s battle for civil liberties. During a recent protest against the law on July 1, Falun Gong practitioners could be seen handing out flyers saying “Heaven will destroy the Chinese Communist Party” as well as copies of Epoch Times. The newspaper, which was founded by Falun Gong practitioners and remains closely linked to the group, is one of the most vocally anti-government publications in the city.
Its Chinese edition refers to the coronavirus as the “Chinese Communist Party virus,” has called on the West to “fight back” against the Party, and regularly publishes stinging critiques of Beijing.
”
Did I get a passing grade?
Yes. You missed some. But you found enough.
The gist should be clear to you: Falun Gong was not suppressed because China is an atheist government; it was suppressed because China is a totalitarian state, and all totalitarian states (religious or not), cannot abide allowing anyone to openly defy its legitimacy or control. China fabricates a narrative of a dangerous cult not because it is against cults, but because it needs a narrative to cover its real motive: to silence any dissent (no matter where it comes from), and prevent anyone getting the idea that you can challenge the state.
Hence China allows submissive religions that don’t have hierarchies of control outside China (thus implicating subversive foreign agency), but cracks down on nonsubmissives (from secret societies to protest groups) and submissives controlled by foreign institutions (e.g. Southern Baptists, but not Approved Christian Sects whose hierarchy is entirely in China). And China suppresses nonreligious groups just as eagerly for the same reasons.
Hence only a minority of even Chinese top officials are atheists. So atheism is not the motive. Rather, totalitarianism is. By contrast, the order defended in Iran is explicitly religious and driven by religion, religious leaders, and religious principles of deciding who is a subversive and who not. For example, unlike China, deconverting from Islam or converting to Christianity is explicitly illegal and punished by prison or death (examples, examples). You can see these are explicitly different conditions: in one, state religion is causing and dictating everything; in the other, it is incidental.
the link you gave says 44 percent of party members are atheists and 41 percent are not religious and only 12 percent are religious. how is this “only a minority of even Chinese top officials are atheists. ”
it even says “President Xi Jinping and other officials stress that CCP members must be “unyielding Marxist atheists.””
it says ” 79% of CCP members say they have visited the gravesite of a family member in the past year.” but this isn’t necessarily a religious activity
granted china is only one country but it’s a huge country, if it split into its constituent states and became different countries while the European union became a federation would we be dismissing this as just one country?
Islam has commited atrocities, but isn’t this more of a problem with rigid monotheism rather than religion generally? how many examples like this do you have of Hindus, Buddhists, animists, and shamanists. aren’t they relatively peaceful?
I don’t see any relevance to these points.
You seem to have forgotten what we were talking about. Again.
This is the last time I will bother returning us to the point. If I have to do this again, you will be banned from this blog and this conversation will be over.
Once again.
You started by claiming Hicks killed people because of his atheism. That was proved false (he has weird personal reasons unrelated to his atheism).
I then pointed out that Stalinism didn’t kill people because Stalinism was atheist, but because of its political goals irrespective of its atheism. Unlike Islam and Christianity which often kill people specifically for being apostates and specifically because of their religious motives. And then I noted that there has never been an example of anyone killed in the name of Secular Humanism, not even by political excuse. And therefore “atheism” has no inherent connection to violence. It depends on the specific ideology. Hence:
Atheism did not create the pretext for Stalin’s crimes. His atheism was incidental. But religious ideology did create the pretext for Christianity and Islam’s crimes. Thus “atheism” is not correlated with violence in the way that Christianity and Islam are (specific religions, not “religion” in general).
You then went on a long convoluted effort to get almost all history wrong to try and rebut this. I kept refuting you with evidence. Over and over and over again.
Now, that’s where we are.
So now, for you to cite the fact that China’s leadership contains many (12%) religious people despite what Xi “claims,” disproves China is actually mandatory atheist and suppresses all religion. As does the evidence I cited of lots of thriving state-controlled Christian denominations and other religions (like Buddhism and Confucianism).
And what you are now citing has nothing to do with all the evidence I got you to read that China’s motives in suppressing some religions and not others is Stalinesque: it serves political ends that have nothing to do with atheism. So you are not making any relevant point here. You are ignoring what I said. Over and over again. And I will not tolerate that further.
Your point about Islam is similarly irrelevant. Indeed, I have consistently said “theism” by itself is not correlative with anything, just like “atheism” is not. That it is only certain kinds of religion (like, indeed, “rigid monotheism”) that correlates with violence his has been my point from the very first exchange in this conversation and you keep fucking ignoring me. That will not be tolerated further.
Stop making irrelevant points.
Stop ignoring what I say and all the evidence I present.
Stop making excuses to ignore what I say and all the evidence I present.
And stop trying to pretend we were talking about something else. Stick to the point. Or fuck off.