Fact, every single german nazi was a christian

[Mister Agenda]

Political secularism is government neutrality towards religion. Communism frequently oppressed religion, and to the extent that it did so, it was not secular. It can be said to have been secular in the sense of 'worldly instead of religious'. Just thought I'd throw that out there because secularists in the USA are whole different critter from communists under Stalin.

Any sentence that starts with 'Fact, every single member of a large group of humans was X' can be assumed to be incorrect barring intricately detailed supporting evidence.

[Gawdzilla]

The same is true of the US constitution to the never-ending annoyance of xtian fucktards everywhere.

Again, the word you need is "secular."

Atheism is, by its very nature, secular.

Atheism means "no belief in any god or gods". "Secular" means "denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis." A philately club can be secular. 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The thread's title is obviously ridiculous. "Every single German NaZi" -- as if the OP has conducted a poll and spoken to every single one! And simply presenting a roll of quotes doesn't support this ridiculous assertion, either.

Did you know there was a census on Soviet Russia during Stalin's time that revealed a significant part of the population believed in god? What happened? Well it was hidden because under the normal rules all those people would have to be considered traitors and 'taken care of'.

I'd like to see a link to something supporting this claim. I've never been to the old Soviet Union, but everything I've read about it indicates that while the Orthodox Church was persecuted at times, particularly before the Second World War, people weren't incarcerated simply for being faithful, much less executed as traitors. That is according to Solzhenitsyn in The GULag Archipelago.

The only group he mentions being targeted because of their faith were the Anabaptists, and that wasn't for their faith in and of itself, but rather, the profound pacifism it preaches. Anabaptists refused to serve in the Soviet armed forces, so the Soviets gathered them all up -- and there weren't many -- and put them in work camps, not executed them. Of course, those who went to camps like Kolyma or Vorkuta were worked to death; but being religious in the USSR was not a capital offense, indeed hardly an offense at all.

Per Wikipedia:

The main religions of pre-revolutionary Russia persisted throughout the entire Soviet period, but they were only tolerated within certain limits. Generally, this meant that believers were free to worship in private and in their respective religious buildings (churches, mosques, etc.), but public displays of religion outside of such designated areas were prohibited.

This canard is often tossed about by the religious in order to smear atheists, but it's wrong. Stalin et al did not kill the faithful in the name of atheism.

[Cephus]

Atheism is, by its very nature, secular.

Atheism means "no belief in any god or gods". "Secular" means "denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis." A philately club can be secular. 

Yes it can be.  Atheism, however, has no choice.  You can't be a religious atheist, that's an oxymoron.

[Cephus]

Did you know there was a census on Soviet Russia during Stalin's time that revealed a significant part of the population believed in god? What happened? Well it was hidden because under the normal rules all those people would have to be considered traitors and 'taken care of'.

I'd like to see a link to something supporting this claim. I've never been to the old Soviet Union, but everything I've read about it indicates that while the Orthodox Church was persecuted at times, particularly before the Second World War, people weren't incarcerated simply for being faithful, much less executed as traitors. That is according to Solzhenitsyn in The GULag Archipelago.

The only group he mentions being targeted because of their faith were the Anabaptists, and that wasn't for their faith in and of itself, but rather, the profound pacifism it preaches. Anabaptists refused to serve in the Soviet armed forces, so the Soviets gathered them all up -- and there weren't many -- and put them in work camps, not executed them. Of course, those who went to camps like Kolyma or Vorkuta were worked to death; but being religious in the USSR was not a capital offense, indeed hardly an offense at all.

Actually, while Stalin did, indeed, persecute the church in the early days, he also reinstated the church and used it quite extensively for political purposes.  Of course, the religious aren't usually aware of actual history, they have no clue what their own religion has done and even less knowledge of the world outside of it, they just go by what they've been taught from the pulpit.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'd like to see a link to something supporting this claim. I've never been to the old Soviet Union, but everything I've read about it indicates that while the Orthodox Church was persecuted at times, particularly before the Second World War, people weren't incarcerated simply for being faithful, much less executed as traitors. That is according to Solzhenitsyn in The GULag Archipelago.

The only group he mentions being targeted because of their faith were the Anabaptists, and that wasn't for their faith in and of itself, but rather, the profound pacifism it preaches. Anabaptists refused to serve in the Soviet armed forces, so the Soviets gathered them all up -- and there weren't many -- and put them in work camps, not executed them. Of course, those who went to camps like Kolyma or Vorkuta were worked to death; but being religious in the USSR was not a capital offense, indeed hardly an offense at all.

Actually, while Stalin did, indeed, persecute the church in the early days, he also reinstated the church and used it quite extensively for political purposes.  Of course, the religious aren't usually aware of actual history, they have no clue what their own religion has done and even less knowledge of the world outside of it, they just go by what they've been taught from the pulpit.

Indeed, but it's fair to say Stalin reinstated tolerance for the ROC for cynical reasons; the country was being shattered by German hammerblows in 1941, and the government needed support from every quarter of civic society.

[Cephus]

Actually, while Stalin did, indeed, persecute the church in the early days, he also reinstated the church and used it quite extensively for political purposes.  Of course, the religious aren't usually aware of actual history, they have no clue what their own religion has done and even less knowledge of the world outside of it, they just go by what they've been taught from the pulpit.

Indeed, but it's fair to say Stalin reinstated tolerance for the ROC for cynical reasons; the country was being shattered by German hammerblows in 1941, and the government needed support from every quarter of civic society.

It doesn't matter why he did it, it only matters that he did it.  The religious don't want to acknowledge that, or aren't even aware of it, because it interferes with their oppression narrative.

[abaris]

It doesn't matter why he did it, it only matters that he did it.  The religious don't want to acknowledge that, or aren't even aware of it, because it interferes with their oppression narrative.

Misses the mark by a lightyear. It matters very much why he did it. You can't bend history to suit your agenda, since it's on the same lines as what you're rightfully accusing theists of doing.

[Gawdzilla]

Atheism means "no belief in any god or gods". "Secular" means "denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis." A philately club can be secular. 

Yes it can be.  Atheism, however, has no choice.  You can't be a religious atheist, that's an oxymoron.

Who said otherwise?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Indeed, but it's fair to say Stalin reinstated tolerance for the ROC for cynical reasons; the country was being shattered by German hammerblows in 1941, and the government needed support from every quarter of civic society.

It doesn't matter why he did it, it only matters that he did it.  The religious don't want to acknowledge that, or aren't even aware of it, because it interferes with their oppression narrative.

I get what you're saying, that they are dissimulating, but from the atheist perspective, it very much matters why he did that. He wasn't being generous, and we shouldn't give the impression we think he was, in order to avoid the inevitable "aha!".

As Abaris has pointed out, history is a very complicated and nuanced study. Appealing to the simple-minded thinking of religionistas in order to score points demotes us to their rank. We should exemplify the thinking we wish to encourage, even when we cannot garner points in argumentation about it.