(August 14, 2015 at 1:16 pm)Cephus Wrote: My point is, there are a lot of theists out there who insist that Stalin persecuted the churches and outlawed religion and that's all there is to it, when that view is factually incorrect.  Nobody is saying Ol' Joe Stalin was a nice guy, he wasn't, but he wasn't the religion-hating atheist that the religious desperately want to make him out to be, especially when they want to blame his atheism for his actions, which is likewise, entirely untrue.  Stalin was pushing communism, a political system which requires functional adherence to the state, he was wiping out other institutions which got in the way of that and religion was one, but hardly the only, one of those systems that he got rid of, at least for a while.  But there are a lot of Christians out there who are trying desperately to twist the historical facts to their religious narrative, that atheists are religion-hating, baby-eating monsters, and they're doing history entirely wrong.

That's the sum total of what I was saying.

I'm certainly not arguing with that, just pointing out that there was indeed some persecution of the church and that was justified by appealing to Marx's "opium of the masses" quote, and official Bolshevik policy regarding the ROC in particular. We each simply have a slightly different perspective on the matter and that's fine.

(August 14, 2015 at 1:29 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(August 14, 2015 at 1:16 pm)Cephus Wrote: My point is, there are a lot of theists out there who insist that Stalin persecuted the churches and outlawed religion and that's all there is to it, when that view is factually incorrect.  Nobody is saying Ol' Joe Stalin was a nice guy, he wasn't, but he wasn't the religion-hating atheist that the religious desperately want to make him out to be, especially when they want to blame his atheism for his actions, which is likewise, entirely untrue.  Stalin was pushing communism, a political system which requires functional adherence to the state, he was wiping out other institutions which got in the way of that and religion was one, but hardly the only, one of those systems that he got rid of, at least for a while.  But there are a lot of Christians out there who are trying desperately to twist the historical facts to their religious narrative, that atheists are religion-hating, baby-eating monsters, and they're doing history entirely wrong.

That's the sum total of what I was saying.

I'm certainly not arguing with that, just pointing out that there was indeed some persecution of the church and that was justified by appealing to Marx's "opium of the masses" quote, and official Bolshevik policy regarding the ROC in particular. We each simply have a slightly different perspective on the matter and that's fine.

It is true other institutions were persecuted, but if religion was just one more troubling institution like any other why do these states always or almost always declare state atheism and generally pursue measures to diminish religious belief and increase the number of those who don't believe? Yes, other institutions were destroyed, but anti-religion was almost as rampant as anti-capitalism, the latter is much more prevalent as it is essential to communist ideology but, the former was also important as religion was seen as a form of the powerful Czars to control the masses during the recession and extreme poverty years. You don't necessarily need to hate religion to be a Marxist, but it is strongly frowned upon to be religious yourself.

Understood. As has been mentioned previously, it's a very complex issue, and not amenable to one simplistic explanation: we're addressing raw beliefs, and power-bases in a dictatorship, and ideological demands, and I think that while we might disagree on the proportion this or that reason carries weight, we each understand in this discussion that the several factors had a part to play. I'm enjoying the to-and-fro'.

I lean towards power-base as a big reason for the hostility the Bolsheviks displayed to religion, and yes, the ROC's cooperation with the tsars was a big, if only semi-official, reason for Bolshevik enmity.

(August 14, 2015 at 3:17 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Understood. As has been mentioned previously, it's a very complex issue, and not amenable to one simplistic explanation: we're addressing raw beliefs, and power-bases in a dictatorship, and ideological demands, and I think that while we might disagree on the proportion this or that reason carries weight, we each understand in this discussion that the several factors had a part to play. I'm enjoying the to-and-fro'.

I lean towards power-base as a big reason for the hostility the Bolsheviks displayed to religion, and yes, the ROC's cooperation with the tsars was a big, if only semi-official, reason for Bolshevik enmity.

It is, there is nothing in this world that has one single cause to it. Having read some Marxist literature out of academic curiosity (not all) I can understand why hostility towards religion and traditional institutions like marriage (many communists seek to abolish marriage instead of expanding it, they're against marriage itself) make sense for marxists and it's not a surprise. Of course, it is possible to merely seek to diminish religion's power and wait for people to voluntarily stop believing, just like it is possible to strip the burgueoise of their wealth without executing them or sending them to Gulags - A stalinist would most likely prefer the more violent and quick approach, some more liberal marxists seem to support some degree of democracy and Humanism. 

I also think it is important to look at what happened with impartial lenses - Soviet Russia did progress during Stalin's staying quite a lot, they got into space and had a massive increase in military power, not to mention technology - I don't believe anymore in the notion that socialist societies can't produce or innovate properly, though I'm still skeptical about trying them - There's also all kinds of contradictions like the fact Stalin reinstated the churches or was at least a little homophobic which is a slightly incompatible with the idea of uniting workers - Even though there's some social conservative marxists.

I don't think Stalin or Lenin killed because they were atheists, but I do think not believing in the supernatural was a fundamental part of their ideology, not as much as anti-capitalism and uniting the workers, but certainly an important part because it's a variable in the whole revolution thing and breaking up with tradition and the past.

I think they killed because they wanted their party's vision to come to fruition, and that anyone who stood in the way was an enemy -- hence Article 58 of their Penal Code, vaguely worded as it was.

Stalin certainly advanced the USSR's place in the world -- but at what cost! It's a lesson to men, the persecution of kulaks, the industrialization of prison labor in support of infrastructure development, and the foundation of the world's first terror-state, where the judiciary was harnessed not to the goal of justice, but rather the overarching needs of the state. Their atheism certainly had a role in that, insofar as they believed (correctly, in my view) that religion was (and is) a brake on man's progress. If their atheism was responsible for atrocities, and it apparently was according to what you wrote earlier, we atheists should certainly be wary of extolling their methods, morally repugnant as they were, alienating as they were.

South Park has an answer for everything, HAH.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uccMmQksqHk

(August 14, 2015 at 4:00 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Their atheism certainly had a role in that, insofar as they believed (correctly, in my view) that religion was (and is) a brake on man's progress.

That was certainly Marx' general idea when he penned down his famous quote, which has to be read in context to get the whole meaning. He more or less says that religion is used by the powerful to hold the masses down and in line. That was certainly more true in his day and age than it is now, given that he wrote it in 1843. So even before the failed revolutions of 1848/49.

But in the case of the Russian Bolshevist leaders it's up for debate. We're talking about only two persons after all. Lenin and Stalin. And of course their advisors and helpers. In Lenin's case Marx might have had more of an influence on how he designed the Soviet Union. But Stalin was different. He was more of a power player in his own interest. There's an excellent book by Simon Sebag Montefiore on Stalin's rule. Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar. Montefiore spent his whole professional career studying Russia and the Soviets and published numerous books on the country and it's most prominent leaders. It's worth reading for everyone wanting to learn more on the details, since Montefiore was one of the first historians to get access to Russian archieves after the Soviet Union broke apart.

Indeed. Stalin was certainly less the ideologue than Lenin, more the power player. Lenin was almost irrelevant by the time of his own death anyway, brandished about as a figurehead/weapon, because the power play had already begun. Stalin, I think, never took a decision without pondering how it might affect his own position -- even at Berlin, he set two generals each against the other in order to exalt his own position.

He was, perhaps, the ultimate cynic.

(August 12, 2015 at 12:51 pm)abaris Wrote: Wow, that's simplistic to use a friendly word - and only based on some select quotes. For starters it doesn't take into account how the party changed over the years. The program has been written in 1920. It also doesn't take into account how figures like Rosenberg, Himmler and Hitler himself defined themselves.

I take offense with that kind of simplistic views, since it's as stupid as theists saying that Communism was an atheist movement.

It's not simplistic at all, it's true. But before I get into that you should know the whole reason this issue began was because of a post by a christian that claimed every dictator in history was an atheist, especially hitler and that such was proof that all atheists are "evil" for not believing in religion.

The reality is exactly the reverse however, not only did hitler himself profess that he was a devout catholic, he bragged openly about having put atheists and liberals (yes he literally used the word liberals) into the camps right along with Jewish people. Furthermore not only was hitler raised in a catholic monastery that bore a symbol almost identical to a swastika over its entrance, but in addition to the Jewish people, the nazi's also incarcerated and tortured homosexuals, Jehovah's witnesses, atheists and a list of other people who were all groups of people for whom hatred was openly endorsed by the catholic church at that time and prior too.

most telling of all however is that fact that the population of Germany at the time the nazi's rose to power was over 89% christian, an overwhelming majority and the nazi's were anything but secretive about their hate, if the vast majority of German Christians did not agree with that hate, they wouldn't have voted for them.

Lastly, it his a known, though not popularly known, historical fact that the source of the claim that hitler and the nazi's were atheists and pagans was actually the united states war department. You see just prior to world war two the nazi's had a ton of support in the American deep-south, so much so that American leaders had a very real and valid concern that nazi sympathizers in the American south would not only provide material support to our enemies, but they might revolt against the American government and literally join the nazi's in the war. So to prevent this the U.S., as a part of its information warfare campaign disseminated the claim's that hitler and the nazi's were atheists and pagans because it turns out that the only thing the southern bigot ministers hated more than people of other ethnicity, were atheists and pagans. While the documents regarding this wartime information effort are available and the majority of historians know of them, it's a fact not taught in schools, so therefore the average person is unaware and easily mislead on the subject.

While I don't blame the U.S. for the necessity of it's wartime information campaign, it remains that after the war they made no effort to correct the misconception they had created, it's now being used by religious revisionist historians to sidestep the responsibility for the nazi's atrocities that lie squarely in the christian religions publicly supported hatreds, and even the exaltation as holy of those who hate and attack with vehemence those people the religion chooses as enemies.

And finally, while those of us who know of the religious beliefs of the nazi's don't claim it reflects on every single christian, but rather note that it should be a word of caution regarding those who would exalt hatred as righteous or holy. conversely however, those Christians who continue to claim that hitler was an atheist, also claim that it does reflect on every single one of us in order to provide false justification for, ironically, their hatred for and violence toward anyone who doesn't obey their religious leaders with falsely based claims that we are "all evil" for not doing so, groups of people who were also hated by hitler and the nazi's, for much the same reason.

---

(August 12, 2015 at 6:33 pm)Cephus Wrote:

(August 12, 2015 at 12:51 pm)abaris Wrote: Wow, that's simplistic to use a friendly word - and only based on some select quotes. For starters it doesn't take into account how the party changed over the years. The program has been written in 1920. It also doesn't take into account how figures like Rosenberg, Himmler and Hitler himself defined themselves.

I take offense with that kind of simplistic views, since it's as stupid as theists saying that Communism was an atheist movement.

Communism is an atheist movement, in the sense that it supports no religions.  I guess you could say a non-theist movement.  However, the Nazis were very clear about their religious affiliation, they wore it on their sleeves (or on their belts, to be more accurate).

Oh I cant stand to look at those things. Your right however, in fact there are numerous images of hitler meeting with catholic leaders, cardinals, and even receiving blessings from the pope. I could post some, but I really, literally, cant stand to look at that stuff.

---

(August 12, 2015 at 8:52 pm)Dystopia Wrote: I'll keep my controversial stance - Nazism is, by it's very nature, profoundly anti-religious because you can only strongly worship and obey one being at a time. Hitler might have been a Christian - He could have been anything in his most intimate private life - It does happen he seemed to enjoy animals, at least dogs, and he also enjoyed painting. None of that is relevant o Nazism. Nazism is based on eugenics and scientific racism theories that were very popular in the US and the western world at the time, Hitler was actually very influenced by all these pseudo-scientific theories - Some of them even lead to the creation of eugenics attempt like in Sweden with forced sterilization. You can't theologically justify the Holocaust using Christianity, and the scientific racism implicit is not able to be justified by any religion as most of them are incapable of even explaining the most basic facts. Hitler might have been a Christian, he might have used Christianity as a tool mechanism, but that's nowhere as relevant for his ideology. European nazi groups accept people who are atheists for a reason - It's not a fundamental component. Fascism and national-socialism have always been profoundly incompatible with religion, and only use it as useful tool to manipulate people.

Your OP title is retarded.



As for communism, give me a break - Some kinds of democratic socialism are secular but communism is itself an atheistic ideology in its core. You can use mental gymnastics to be a communist and a Christian as most early utopian communists were, but Marx's dialectic materialism is hardly compatible with any god or supernatural.

Every word of that is false, not only that, it is straight christian propaganda.

you religious bigots think its cute to pose as "one of us" and try to B.S. people from within, but your assuming no one is going to notice that every word you wrote in that first paragraph is the official public stance of the church today on these same issues.

how are you an atheist if every word you write is not only in support of religion, but is in fact the exact same false rhetoric of the modern church?

Having experience with christian bigots playing this same routine, I assume now your going to ignore all the valid facts I have posted and go on trying to convince me that hitler was an atheist and that racism is the fault of science when in fact the vast majority of racists even today don't "believe" in evolution? while pretending still that your not christian believer, or even possible a paid social media writer working on behalf of a lobbyist group like the christian colition?

I only assume that's what you'll do because I have seen this sneaky little underhanded trick pulled to many times, and you just gave yourself away as a believer, because I have never in my life heard a real atheist condemn their own point of view by regurgitating the same claims made by religion against science and the theory of evolution.

---

(August 14, 2015 at 8:45 am)Aractus Wrote: The fact remains that the OP did a hit-and-run post, which I've reported, on what is supposed to be a discussion forum (rules.gen.2.4).

The RCC had influence just as any other large company would have, but they didn't have legislative power. The fact that some views or policies between the NSDAP and RCC is hardly evidence of the NSDAP taking the RCC's views policies and beliefs wholesale.

FACT: EVERY SINGLE GERMAN NAZI WAS A GERMAN AND A NAZI.

How dare you, I'm not required to log on and post to this forum every single day, and I don't, I'll respond if and when I choose too.

Furthermore this board doesn't have rules against christian bigots posing as atheists to try and mislead from within?

I only ask because I find it tough to believe that with the amount of discrimination atheists receive from religious bigots at times, that an atheist would take offense at another nonbeliever criticizing the prejudices of religion.

In fact, I find you obvious.

---

(August 12, 2015 at 10:45 pm)Dystopia Wrote: Actually, atheism was a fundamental component of all those people's ideologies - Just think about it, communism was rampant back then and to be a communist you almost certainly had to be an atheist, at least on paper, so if you take atheism out of the picture that's a strong reason for the communist party to ignore you or worse, kill you, and therefore you wouldn't even have the chance to commit any crime against mankind. Many atheists think it's rationally consistent to blame Christianity or any other religion for the actions of X or Y people (even if X and Y people are fundamentally inspired by different reasons and live in different environments, for different goals etc) but suddenly when atheism plays a minor role in something it is not possible. Atheism wasn't always a lack of belief in god, it used to be a strong disbelief in deities and the adherence to strict materialism and rejection of the supernatural in its entirety. Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot didn't happen to be atheists - That's a dumb statement at worst, ignorance at best - They happened to be atheists as much as they happened to be communists. It's not comparable to the fact they had mustaches because atheism was a fundamental trait of their ideologies and was interpreted very differently compared to the modern, almost evasive and intellectually reductionist definitions of atheism.

IMO, we shouldn't even care about the argument at all - Arguably all of those people are inspiring for Marxists and setting aside poor decisions and terrible actions all of them, specially Lenin and Stalin, wrote great books - Worth a read - We keep evaluating it with a western concept of morality but it's necessary to put ourselves back in the day's mentality and cultural norms.

Your smoking crack by the way, the look up the Russian Orthodox church, it was the official church of the USSR.

Stalin by all accounts was an atheist when he took power, but that is misleading.

Even with that, there still was government tollerence to Russian Orthodox Christianity, which is why even today, you have former KGB thug Putin saying "We are all God's children" when responding to defending homophobic laws he defended. Stalin didn't ban Christianity, he banned dissent, just like Hitler.

Even to claim Cuba as an atheist state is bullshit. Cuba is a majority Christian.