(August 13, 2015 at 6:08 pm)Gawdzilla Wrote:

(August 13, 2015 at 2:36 pm)Cephus Wrote: Yes it can be.  Atheism, however, has no choice.  You can't be a religious atheist, that's an oxymoron.

Who said otherwise?

Are you kidding me ? Atheism is the lack of belief in gods or the strong disbelief in them, it doesn't mean you can't adhere to a non-theistic religion - It may seem weird for westerns but many eastern and asian small religions don't require belief in any supreme god or anything like that - In fact, I think it was Reza Aslan who said 1/3 or 2/3 (not really sure here) of religions on earth don't have a god. So yeah, you can be a religious atheist. There's nothing contradicting about it.

Atheism isn't secularism as you can be an atheist and favor a theocracy or think religion is better than atheism like our ex-friend Mozart Link thought, if that is right or wrong it's another question


Parkers dear Parkers, here's some info about the census on wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Census_(1937)

Religious part is quoted:

Quote:Another serious blow was a very high percentage of people who stated that they were religious. 55.3 million or 56.7% of those who provided answers stated they were religious (the question was asked only of people older than 16 years old), 42.2 million stated they were atheists and around 1 million refused to give an answer. Historian V. B. Zhiromskaya stated that people expected to be persecuted if they declared themselves as belonging to a religion but considered the answer to be important: If many people would say they are religious, the authorities would have to open the churches, was a common attitude.[5] The Soviet authorities were so upset by the results of the census that they did not include a question on religion in any future censuses.[

Bear in mind that additional reading is required but this is a pretty decent exposure of the mentality going on - This isn't about people killing in the name of atheism as we understand it today but about promoting state atheism and rejecting people who believe in anything other than dialectic materialism. They killed in the name of atheism and in the name of marxism, but it isn't atheism as we define it today - Arguably, it isn't marxism as defined by many marxists today. People don't share blame for what their ancestors did, so no worries there. Of course not every source will admit that these people would be executed right away, but we know that opponents of the regime, which were people who didn't share the whole common ideology, could be sent to gulags right away, or even for no reason.


Abaris, I'm against single minded exposures and analysis of anything but you have to acknowledge scientific racism theories that were prevalent in the western world (not just Germany) and already being slightly carried out like it happened in California had a higher influence on Hitler's view that Christianity itself. There's little in Christianity to justify the kind of nazi racism and their scientific, physically measurable perfect race and how they split the white race into various sects (Nordics, Germans, Mediterraneans, etc.)


I strongly disagree with people saying that Communist Russia worked like a religion - Political ideologies have similarities to religion but it's really not the same - The cult of personality is just a "healthy" part of the system, it's not the core ideology of the worker's movement. Arguably, capitalism requires worship and complete submission to the market and democracy requires almost blind acceptance of freedom as a virtue and anyone who dares saying freedom is bad is called a fascist, so who's being religions after all?

I'm so sick of people talking about what the nazis believed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

(August 13, 2015 at 7:33 pm)Dystopia Wrote: Parkers dear Parkers, here's some info about the census on wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Census_(1937)

Religious part is quoted:

Quote:Another serious blow was a very high percentage of people who stated that they were religious. 55.3 million or 56.7% of those who provided answers stated they were religious (the question was asked only of people older than 16 years old), 42.2 million stated they were atheists and around 1 million refused to give an answer. Historian V. B. Zhiromskaya stated that people expected to be persecuted if they declared themselves as belonging to a religion but considered the answer to be important: If many people would say they are religious, the authorities would have to open the churches, was a common attitude.[5] The Soviet authorities were so upset by the results of the census that they did not include a question on religion in any future censuses.[

Bear in mind that additional reading is required but this is a pretty decent exposure of the mentality going on - This isn't about people killing in the name of atheism as we understand it today but about promoting state atheism and rejecting people who believe in anything other than dialectic materialism. They killed in the name of atheism and in the name of marxism, but it isn't atheism as we define it today - Arguably, it isn't marxism as defined by many marxists today. People don't share blame for what their ancestors did, so no worries there. Of course not every source will admit that these people would be executed right away, but we know that opponents of the regime, which were people who didn't share the whole common ideology, could be sent to gulags right away, or even for no reason.

The thing is, though, you strongly implied that being faithful was treated as treason -- i.e., a death sentence -- when such was not the case.

"Opponents of the regime" is the larger set, and "religious people" was a very tiny subset there, was my point. Arguing that people were sent away "for no reason" does not in any way support your point, because obviously sending someone away on religious grounds is sending them away for a reason. By widening the point, you're diffusing the discussion, and making it harder to address your point, but it doesn't make your point more valid.

And the quote you posted doesn't support the point you made earlier that religious people would have to be "taken care of". All that quote demonstrates is that the answer discomfited the government, and they stopped asking the question. That is a significant difference, and you should acknowledge as much.

(August 13, 2015 at 7:33 pm)Dystopia Wrote: Abaris, I'm against single minded exposures and analysis of anything but you have to acknowledge scientific racism theories that were prevalent in the western world (not just Germany) and already being slightly carried out like it happened in California had a higher influence on Hitler's view that Christianity itself. There's little in Christianity to justify the kind of nazi racism and their scientific, physically measurable perfect race and how they split the white race into various sects (Nordics, Germans, Mediterraneans, etc.)

First, to call these theories scientific is doing them an honor they don't deserve. It's on the same lines as calling the medieval practice of bloodletting scientific. Or Lombroso's theory that you could recognize a criminal by measuring his face.

And when have I made the point that the Nazis were christians? They weren't in their large majority. But they weren't atheists either - again in their vast majority. To try and nail the nazi movement to one single factor is simply ignorant, since it misses the many influences it combined. There were many many obscure movements and role models in Austria as well as in Germany at the turn of the last century and you can actually look up where people like Heinrich Himmler or Josef Goebbels took their ideas from. They both had reading lists they penned down when being young men.

Yes, Euginics are in the mix. But they aren't the only ingredient. Not by a long chalk. But to see that, one has to actually study the vast material being available on the third Reich. Primary as well as secondary sources. I already mentioned the various influences Hitler got during his Viennese years between 1907 and 1913. After the first war, he had a German mentor called Dietrich Eckart, who was one of the cofounders of the NSDAP. And he was an antisemitic christian, who wasn't a follower of the Eugenic movement. Hitler was also friends with the Wagner family, who in turn was related to Houston Stewart Chamberlain. Again antisemitic to the bones but not in the Eugenics movement. And another important influence in Hitler's life.

So, again, as I said before. There are too many influences and factors to mention in one thread.

(August 13, 2015 at 7:43 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(August 13, 2015 at 7:33 pm)Dystopia Wrote: Parkers dear Parkers, here's some info about the census on wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Census_(1937)

Religious part is quoted:


Bear in mind that additional reading is required but this is a pretty decent exposure of the mentality going on - This isn't about people killing in the name of atheism as we understand it today but about promoting state atheism and rejecting people who believe in anything other than dialectic materialism. They killed in the name of atheism and in the name of marxism, but it isn't atheism as we define it today - Arguably, it isn't marxism as defined by many marxists today. People don't share blame for what their ancestors did, so no worries there. Of course not every source will admit that these people would be executed right away, but we know that opponents of the regime, which were people who didn't share the whole common ideology, could be sent to gulags right away, or even for no reason.

The thing is, though, you strongly implied that being faithful was treated as treason -- i.e., a death sentence -- when such was not the case.  

"Opponents of the regime" is the larger set, and "religious people" was a very tiny subset there, was my point. Arguing that people were sent away "for no reason" does not in any way support your point, because obviously sending someone away on religious grounds is sending them away for a reason.  By widening the point, you're diffusing the discussion, and making it harder to address your point, but it doesn't make your point more valid.

And the quote you posted doesn't support the point you made earlier that religious people would have to be "taken care of".  All that quote demonstrates is that the answer discomfited the government, and they stopped asking the question.  That is a significant difference, and you should acknowledge as much.

My primary source before quoting the wiki is a marxist friend of mine, who I assumed to be correct because he is very devout and reads all kind of marxist literature - Mistakes are more likely because when you hear something from someone you may eventually forget parts or even confuse things, so I apologize for that. 

You should note that the fact the government didn't ask the question anymore means they didn't see religion as a part of their agenda, quite the opposite, it's something they were against and Lenin himself had views hostile towards religion but not asking the question was a need because too many people were theists. Of course I exaggerated rated by saying those people would be executed right away, sorry - But it's certainly one of the many reasons the government could be hostile towards you, kinda like if you were pro USA during the harshest cold war years.

Wiki also helps confirming that religious persecution and anti-religion hatred wasn't just against one tiny group:

Quote:The USSR anti-religious campaign of 1928–1941 was a new phase of anti-religious persecution in the Soviet Union following theanti-religious campaign of 1921–1928. The campaign began in 1929, with the drafting of new legislation that severely prohibited religious activities and called for a heightened attack on religion in order to further disseminate atheism. This had been preceded in 1928 at the fifteenth party congress, where Joseph Stalin criticized the party for failure to produce more active and persuasive anti-religious propaganda. This new phase coincided with the beginning of the forced mass collectivization of agriculture and the nationalization of the few remaining private enterprises.
Many of those who had been arrested in the 1920s would continue to remain in prison throughout the 1930s and beyond.
The main target of the anti-religious campaign in the 1920s and 1930s was the Russian Orthodox Church, which had the largest number of faithful. Nearly all of its clergy, and many of its believers, were shot or sent to labour camps. Theological schools were closed, and church publications were prohibited.[1] More than 85,000 Orthodox priests were shot in 1937 alone.[2] Only a twelfth of the Russian Orthodox Church's priests were left functioning in their parishes by 1941.[3]

Be aware that this was the second campaign against religious so there was another in 1921


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1928%E2%80%9341)


To say that atheism as a more desirable position for the State had nothing to do with this is extremely dishonest and Stalin specifically saw atheism as a better position on the existence of gods, and so did the party and the bolcheviks as a general rule (certainly there were exceptions)

(August 13, 2015 at 7:58 pm)Dystopia Wrote: My primary source before quoting the wiki is a marxist friend of mine, who I assumed to be correct because he is very devout and reads all kind of marxist literature - Mistakes are more likely because when you hear something from someone you may eventually forget parts or even confuse things, so I apologize for that. 

Well, here's a revolutionary thought. Maybe not listening to your Marxist friend and take his words as fact, but to real historians, who actually spent years at University to learn the ropes. And spent additional years doing research on certain matters.

I'm honestly amazed that people think they know all about history. But they wouldn't apply the same standards to a field like medicine. Or would you listen to your friend with the same credulity if he was a fan of medicine and read a lot of books about it? And yes, on comes the inevitable wiki link. They are infallible after all.

(August 13, 2015 at 8:05 pm)abaris Wrote:

(August 13, 2015 at 7:58 pm)Dystopia Wrote: My primary source before quoting the wiki is a marxist friend of mine, who I assumed to be correct because he is very devout and reads all kind of marxist literature - Mistakes are more likely because when you hear something from someone you may eventually forget parts or even confuse things, so I apologize for that. 

Well, here's a revolutionary thought. Maybe not listening to your Marxist friend and take his words as fact, but to real historians, who actually spent years at University to learn the ropes. And spent additional years doing research on certain matters.

I'm honestly amazed that people think they know all about history. But they wouldn't apply the same standards to a field like medicine. Or would you listen to your friend with the same credulity if he was a fan of medicine and read a lot of books about it?

Wow there Sherlock - I listen to my friends because I trust them and care about them and since the feeling seems reciprocate I believe they won't lie to me until otherwise proven. To understand an ideology an adherent is worth a thousand times more than any scholar. I have met national-socialists even though I am not friends with them, and trust me, the way outside scholars describe racists and the way they describe themselves and why they are like that is completely different, it's like saying an historical study of Christianity allows you to understand all of it without listening to priests and believers themselves.

Are you kidding me? If I want to know about marxism, I can easily ask my few marxist friends or my former political science professor, both of whom know what they're talking about. Do you expect me to go to the bookstore and buy a book on medicine anytime a doctor tells me to take X or Y pills, or should I trust that, because they're doctors, they know what they're doing?

There's a difference between being a fan or sympathizer and being a full Marxist yourself, it is a transition that changes your life and your worldview and can have horrible repercussions like your work performance (for example when you realize capitalism sucks you stop caring about working properly because you don't want to feed the system) - A devout Marxist, as well as a devout anything that understands what he or she is, is more than qualified to talk about their ideology, it's history and repercussions. My stepdad being someone who is slightly fascist and lived during the dictatorship taught me more about fascism and censorship than teachers did.

Oh, and usually when someone tells you something you forget bits of it or mentally alter some parts because your prejudices are always there, so naturally my first exposition of the census taking place in the USRR was not fortunate, but I corrected it later and it turns out it matches what other people told me, despite not being expert Historians

Can we at least agree that all Nazi Christian Nazis were Christian?

I don't see people calling communism a "non-dragon belief based belief system".

Yes, most communists claim that religion is explicitely incompatible with communism and therefore wrong. They will probably not sat the same of dragons.

Hmm...

Well, thinking everything is made of jelly which grants super powers when eaten and make you infinitely rich is also probably incompatible with communism. Theism is just one of a vast range of delusions which could cause a problem.