Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RAM]

Please bear in mind that there is a difference between the states that have attempted communism and communism itself. The idea of sharing everything only opposes religion because god wants all the best stuff for itself and religious leaders are close behind...

[Sordid]

Eh, no, not really. See, when e.g. a clergyman was forced to get the hell out of his church, because it's going to be used for some other purpose now, he wasn't told that it's because he's not a communist. He was told that belief is damaging the society and there's no need for religion anymore.
Communists were in fact doctrinal, hardcore atheists.

I thought we were talking about killing people, if you're going to expand this into confiscating church property, then I would point you to Henry VIII of England and his dissolution of monasteries. Confiscating the lands allowed him to dismantle the power of the Catholic church and strenghten his own, graing these lands to the nobility ensured their loyalty to him, since if he were to be overthrown and the Catholic faith reinstated they would lose their new lands again. Would you call that a religiously motivated act? I sure as hell wouldn't.
The exact same thing happened in the Soviet Union. The government attempted to dismantle religion as the focus of the people's reverence and place itself in its place. The only thing different was the rhetoric.

[Il Palazzo]

Please bear in mind that there is a difference between the states that have attempted communism and communism itself. The idea of sharing everything only opposes religion because god wants all the best stuff for itself and religious leaders are close behind...

Ok, perhaps I should've used Marxism-Leninism instead of communism. Other than that, the point stays.

Sordid, it's all true. It's also true that in case of Soviet Union, it was done in the name of atheism(and people died there too). It's the same as with religious wars - all of them can be reduced in principle to some power(state, noble) trying to gain/expand their power while using religious rethoric to gain support for whatever they were doing.
It's not that religion is there to blame for causing hate per se. It's just that when people believe something to be universally true, be it atheism or theism in any of it's many forms, they are willing to go postal on anybody who thinks otherwise.

[Leafsnail]

Nope, none of it was done in the name of atheism.  If it was, then world war 1 = started by a Christian = religious war.  They just felt like seizing the church's wealth, and taking the influence it had once had.  Seizing things from the church was also based on communist ideology - the rich (eg the clergy) had their stuff seized from them regardless of whether they were atheist or not.

[Sordid]

Sordid, it's all true. It's also true that in case of Soviet Union, it was done in the name of atheism(and people died there too). It's the same as with religious wars - all of them can be reduced in principle to some power(state, noble) trying to gain/expand their power while using religious rethoric to gain support for whatever they were doing.
It's not that religion is there to blame for causing hate per se. It's just that when people believe something to be universally true, be it atheism or theism in any of it's many forms, they are willing to go postal on anybody who thinks otherwise.

I'm not entirely convinced of that, or at the very least I'd say religion is much more conducive to such manipulation and much better at enabling it. See, "the Lord wills it, and if you do well you will be rewarded with eternal bliss" is a motivating message. "What you do ultimately doesn't matter, there's nothing and when you die you rot in the ground and that's it", not so much. Atheism isn't exactly a very comforting belief, it's not something people would readily rally behind, and it doesn't give any cause to act in its name, whereas gods tend to give all kinds of commands.

[Il Palazzo]

Leafsnail: The point is, Christian rethoric was never used with regard to WWI, while atheistic rethoric is an integral part of the M-L system(if not communism as such), and was used to justify the persecution of religious beliefs across USSR. While confiscating Church's property was indeed reinforced by the economic ideology(rich bastards), the overall persecution, which involved discrimination of believers(lack of freedom of faith, imprisonment of clergymen, lynching) was based on the ideologically founded superiority of atheism/scientific approach.

Sordid: I agree with you on that one. Religion seems indeed more conductive to being used as tool for manipulating people. However, as the example of USSR shows, atheism can be used in the same fashion.
As long as any belief includes a sense of it's own superiority and ufallability in it's dogmatic base, it can be used to attack any other belief.

[Leafsnail]

Leafsnail: The point is, Christian rethoric was never used with regard to WWI, while atheistic rethoric is an integral part of the M-L system(if not communism as such), and was used to justify the persecution of religious beliefs across USSR. While confiscating Church's property was indeed reinforced by the economic ideology(rich bastards), the overall persecution, which involved discrimination of believers(lack of freedom of faith, imprisonment of clergymen, lynching) was based on the ideologically founded superiority of atheism/scientific approach.

Sordid: I agree with you on that one. Religion seems indeed more conductive to being used as tool for manipulating people. However, as the example of USSR shows, atheism can be used in the same fashion.
As long as any belief includes a sense of it's own superiority and ufallability in it's dogmatic base, it can be used to attack any other belief.

Well, um, no.  The Germans fought the war because "God was on their side".  Hence it would be a conflict caused by religion under your logic.

[Il Palazzo]

No. The reason for denying freedom of faith(and subsequent persecutions) across the Soviet Union was: it's unscientific, stupid, harmful. E.g. only atheism is right.

[Leafsnail]

No. The reason for denying freedom of faith(and subsequent persecutions) across the Soviet Union was: it's unscientific, stupid, harmful. E.g. only atheism is right.

Nope.  Quote from Marx:

Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.

So they eliminated religion in the name of communism, and not for atheism.

[Sordid]

As long as any belief includes a sense of it's own superiority and ufallability in it's dogmatic base, it can be used to attack any other belief.

Well that's really the crux of the issue, isn't it. Atheism does not have that. Religions, at least of the Abrahamic variety, claim to ultimately derive their dogma from an infallible, infinitely wise god. Atheism, on the other hand, only says that as far as we know, through our limited human understanding, there's no evidence for a god.
The difference between the way atheism was used in the Soviet Union and the way religion is used is in the dishonesty. Those who manipulate people with religion claim to do so for the deity, while in reality pursuing their own goals.
Marx, on the other hand, wrote that "the abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness", which was of course to be achieved through Communism. He doesn't urge people to do stuff in the name of atheism, on the contrary, he openly says that atheism is merely a means to an end, a necessary prerequisite for the true goal of establishing a classless society. Ergo, atheism was enforced in the name of communism, not the other way around.

Addendum: Eh blast, Leafsnail beat me to it.

[Il Palazzo]

Well, there was the same level of dishonesty in Soviet approach to atheism, wasn't there?

The exact same thing happened in the Soviet Union. The government attempted to dismantle religion as the focus of the people's reverence and place itself in its place.

Well that's really the crux of the issue, isn't it. Atheism does not have that. Religions, at least of the Abrahamic variety, claim to ultimately derive their dogma from an infallible, infinitely wise god. Atheism, on the other hand, only says that as far as we know, through our limited human understanding, there's no evidence for a god.

Which still can be used as a hate tool. As long as atheism will have an issue with what other people believe in.
And just look at all the religious threads out there, look at the zeal with which atheists battle religious ones. Look at how they loathe those "fools" who believe in a god of sorts. The potential for hate is right there.

Leafsnail: you're saying that they enforced atheism to some other end. Ok, sure. It was still used as a tool for persecuting believers, what does it matter if there was some higher(?) goal behind that?

[Andir]

a necessary prerequisite for the true goal of establishing a classless society

Correct.  You can't all be equal if you have priests and popes deriving favors for their stature in the group.  Communism used Atheism as a tool to achieve it's goal of total equality.  Religion (not belief...there's a very distinct difference) was an organization with ranks and levels that undermined the idea of a communist world.  It wasn't about killing belief.  It was about leveling the church.

[Il Palazzo]

It wasn't about killing belief.  It was about leveling the church.

I stand corrected. I shoudn't have used belief and religion interchangeably.

[Sordid]

Well, there was the same level of dishonesty in Soviet approach to atheism, wasn't there?

The exact same thing happened in the Soviet Union. The government attempted to dismantle religion as the focus of the people's reverence and place itself in its place.

I think that eventually there was, but it came only after the communist leaders abandoned the idea of equality and instead tried to place themselves as the focus of the reverence of the people (which I imagine happend pretty damn quick). North Korea does that also and I wouldn't call that country atheistic either. But after that corruption took place you can hardly blame atheism for what the powerhungry did.
Initially they were using atheism as a tool to establish equality, later on as a tool to accrue power. In neither case was anything done because of atheism.
Religion, on the other hand, works that way from the beginning, and of course where exactly do you draw the line between using a religion for personal gain and using it, for lack of a better word, honestly? God never speaks directly, always through an earthly representative. Were the crusaders just using God to justify their lust for power? Was Moses?

Which still can be used as a hate tool.

You keep saying that but have so far failed to elaborate on how exactly that would happen.

As long as atheism will have an issue with what other people believe in.

Haven't I just explained that it doesn't?

And just look at all the religious threads out there, look at the zeal with which atheists battle religious ones. Look at how they loathe those "fools" who believe in a god of sorts. The potential for hate is right there.

I really don't see how you can infer that kind of thing from the fact that people debate each other. Discussion is the epitome of civilization, hate and persecution is its opposite.

[Ampersand]

In addition to all that, I do not see any distinction between any kind of ideology, be it political or religious. The soviets may have been Atheists, but what drove their actions was their irrational belief in political ideology.