Soviet Union wars in the name of Atheism?

[Brian37]

When we talk about the Soviet Union or even Cuba, China and North Korea I don't think there were any acts or violence or persecution in the name of atheism... I do think there was a strong (too strong) anti-religious sentiment and obviously being an atheist was preferable, Stalin was himself an atheist, so was Lenin...

I think this is the result of political dogma, in this case communist, marxist-leninist and stalinist, as well as maoist, together with a political agenda and anti-religious ideas. It's not atheism's fault. Any political ideology can end badly if it's applied trough force. I am right wing, but I'm not going to lump communists into the same category, because I've personally met some of them, and curiously they all seem to hate Stalin (but not Lenin so much).

It is, hypothetically, possible for a war in the name of atheism to exist if people fighting in it claimed that they were officially doing for the right of non belief in gods, but no one has ever done that. Quite the contrary in fact (pun intended).

Like I said it was merely replacing one religion with worship of the state which is also a religion. I don't like either.

[Dystopia]

In this case it's to hold non belief, so yeah, that's atheism, as far as I know (no belief in gods)...

No, that's not right. In order to "be in the name of atheism", they'd have to act specifically because they hold no belief in god (which is absurd). If they are fighting because they do not have the right to disbelieve in god, that's an entirely different thing.

It's freedom of religion, but indirectly they are fighting to be atheists.

I think quantifying why someone would act because of non-belief is complicated, unless these atheists made a new definition of atheism that involves rejecting religion and violently erasing it.

Still, if someone invokes that because of non-belief in gods he/she did this or that, that's pretty much atheism... Even if we don't agree because we are atheists and take "pride" into being one, it's not impossible for someone to commit crimes and blame lack of belief in gods as the cause, hypothetically it's not impossible, I just find it unlikely

If I killed a bunch of people and claimed it was because I didn't believe in god and therefore there's no punishment in hell, I'm not making a fair use of atheism, but it's still not refutable since I'm entitled to pick any reason at all.

[FatAndFaithless]

No, that's not right. In order to "be in the name of atheism", they'd have to act specifically because they hold no belief in god (which is absurd). If they are fighting because they do not have the right to disbelieve in god, that's an entirely different thing.

It's freedom of religion, but indirectly they are fighting to be atheists.

I think quantifying why someone would act because of non-belief is complicated, unless these atheists made a new definition of atheism that involves rejecting religion and violently erasing it.

Still, if someone invokes that because of non-belief in gods he/she did this or that, that's pretty much atheism... Even if we don't agree because we are atheists and take "pride" into being one, it's not impossible for someone to commit crimes and blame lack of belief in gods as the cause, hypothetically it's not impossible, I just find it unlikely

Yes, fighting for the right to hold non-belief would be fighting for religious freedom, not atheism. Just like if I, as an atheist, fought for the right of Chrsitians to be Christians (which I would), I would not be fighting "for" Christianity, I'd be fighting for religious freedom.

[Mister Agenda]

But there have been atheists who organized and acted badly. I never claim that we're better than theists, only that we're not worse.

NO we are still the same species.

I also get a lip twitch when I hear atheists say "When we become the majority we will treat you better",

NO NO NO NO, that is part of the "virtue of the oppressed" and that is in the moment when how you are treated is direct and fresh because you are living it. A future majority generations from now after we die will not be closely connected to the past.

Ultimately we are the same species and no label give anyone a patent on morality. No label will automatically make you do good or bad. Our species ability to be cruel or compassionate is in our evolution, not the labels we assign ourselves.

I'm not sure I want atheists to become a majority. A bigger minority, sure...but there's something about being in the majority that seems to invite dickishness.

I do want the majority of Americans (and people) to be rational humanists, I think that would be the best thing to hit humanity since the Green Revolution, but atheism implies no particular behavioral standards, it's not really significant enough to be for.

[watchamadoodle]

If religion is a mental virus, then doesn't it make sense for people to try to eradicate that virus - just like the smallpox or polio viruses?

I think schools should give children the skills to defend their minds against the religious virus. That might seem like a "war for atheism" (to theists). I don't know if this would be unconstitutional in the US or not. IMO, teaching atheism is not violating separation of church and state. (Of course the Soviets were more interested in controlling people than they were in freeing their minds from the religious virus.)

[Norman Humann]

If religion is a mental virus, then doesn't it make sense for people to try to eradicate that virus - just like the smallpox or polio viruses?

I think schools should give children the skills to defend their minds against the religious virus. That might seem like a war for atheism to theists. I don't know if this would be unconstitutional in the US or not. IMO, teaching atheism is not violating separation of church and state.

An institution with the purpose of education should be able to tell the children the truth. No politics involved, no "religious feelings" hurt. Just science without indoctrination.

[Brian37]

Any form of worship, becomes a religion, be it worship of a book, religion or political party. Stalin's Russia and Kim Jong Un 's rule are both concepts of absolute authority and worship of authority, and at best, just like God, will treat you well as long as you tow the tribal line.

[Thumpalumpacus]

But there have been atheists who organized and acted badly. I never claim that we're better than theists, only that we're not worse.

Now that's a standard I can meet! Phew!

[Brian37]

When Stalin needed morale boosters during WWII he reopened the churches, and the pews fill up quickly. When the Soviet Union collapsed people started openly worshipping in Russia. The habit is hard to kill.

But it does need killing.

How? Fascist force like Stalin? Or theocratic fascism like Saudi Arabia?

Tactics matter and as useless as religion is, it is still part of our flawed perceptions that cause that gap filling which is evolutionary. Our only compassionate tactic without becoming monsters ourselves is with our voices, not weapons. To rid the world of religion by force would require the same barbarism we rightfully blast religion for committing.

We can do our best to use education, economic stability, free speech in debate, ridicule and blasphemy. But I am no fan of mimicking the dark side of our species history.