They suppressed religion because it conflicted with their ‘religion’ which was communism. Their belief was communism. And like most believers, anything that conflicted with that belief was at the least to be distrusted (as pointed out in this thread), if not actively fought against and destroyed.
Nonsense, on multiple levels. First; Communism is a belief system, atheism is not. The two are not comparable; you might as well equate Christianity with disbelief in Zeus. By your logic, 9-11 is proof of the evil of Christianity because it was committed by unbelievers in Zeus, just like Christians.
Second; as pointed out they were anti-religious because they were anti-competition; no different that Christians or Muslims persecuting unbelievers.
Third, why is it Communism, and Communism alone that is your example of evil atheism? Most atheists aren’t Communists; if the problem is atheism and not Communism, where are your non-Communist examples of the Evils of Atheism? If I want to bring up examples of the evils of theism, I don’t need to restrict myself to one sect. You do need to restrict yourself to Communism, because they behaved the way they did because they were Communists. Not atheists.
Agreed, but maybe the distinction was not clear to the OP, who is not in the US. So there is value in clearing it up for everyone.
The problem is that no-one is an atheist alone. Atheism is a description of a lack of belief. But everyone has beliefs - be they ethnic, cultural, nationalistic or political. Being atheist, as it turns out, is no guarantee of not being attracted to these other types of belief.
The issue here is that being “atheist” merely insulates one from harmful religious beliefs. It does not insulate one from other forms of harmful belief; and in point of fact, the most harmful beliefs of the last century have not been religious.
To the extent that being religious insulates one from being attracted to Communism, it has over the last century been better for you than being atheist, which insulates you from being a fundamentalist; as over the last century, Communism has done more harm, objectively speaking, than fundamentalism.
On what basis do you reach that conclusion? The Nazis and Italian fascists both wrapped themselves in the trappings of Christianity; if we’re blaming communism on atheism we have to blame fascism on theism.
Communism is no more a set of beliefs than Capitalism is, and neither is a “religion”, they are sets of economic principles at a community level.
But it is pretty telling that a theist would even suggest that being #2 “objectively” in some mythical “level of harm done in the last 100 years” is a result enough to excuse the harm done at all.
Is that the theistic strategy? To inflict harm, but not so much that people would say we are the worst example? Hmmm, I am not theist, but what religion teaches anything along those lines? Can any theists here tell me?
They did? My impression was that the Nazis were quite ambivalent about Christianity, to the extent of some promoting semi-seriously “germanic paganism”. I was not aware that they “wrapped themselves in the trappings of Christianity”; more like most Nazis (as were most Germans) happened to be from a Christian background, and most of them never totally repudiated it. The incompatibility of Christianity and Nazism did not go unremarked at the time.
Please note I’m not “blaming Communism on Atheism”. What I’m saying is that atheism is no defense against harmful beliefs such as Communism, which is a very different thing.
I’m not a theist.
Then why are you advancing the “…but there is another group worse than use, therefore we are not so bad” argument?
I think the point here is that (certain) religious beliefs may be harmful in and of themselves. You are simply saying that atheism may render one more open to certain non-intrinsic-to-atheism harmful beliefs.
Not quite the same thing.
Atheism itself may not be, but critical and rational thinking certainly is.
I’m not.
Agreed. Atheism is not harmful in and of itself. Certain religious beliefs (though not all) are harmful in and of themselves.
Looked at from a purely utilitarian point of view, one could regard a certain amount of traditional religion as a valuable “inoculation” against other, more harmful beliefs.
One could also regard a certain amount of traditional religion as a stagnant pond, which every now and then produces a huge cloud of mosquitoes carrying malaria.
Absolutely.
The concern is that, historically speaking, the two are not seemingly tightly correlated. Atheists have, based on historical evidence, no greater defense against being carried away by harmful “science-y” beliefs (communism, eugenics, some sorts of nationalism/racism, etc.) than non-atheists.
The reason is clear enough: in and of itself atheism does not, of course, prescribe any particular theory of social good: it is a mere lack of belief in deities. However, people cannot act without some sort of beliefs, philosophies or theories of social good. While in a perfect world an atheist would be free to construct a set of beliefs based on critical and rational thinking, and no doubt some do, in reality it would appear from historical evidence that the removal of traditional ethical certainties provided by religion (as irrational as they are) leaves many exposed to being swept up by mass movements which are no more rational.
The mechanism is through social isolation and alienation. I recommend as a study of this Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer - an oldie but goodie:
You are confusing cause and effect. The people of the former Soviet states were no less religious than anyone else; it was the removal of the traditional power structure that left them vulnerable to the new mass delusion of communism.
[Moderating]
Please don’t change another poster’s text inside a quote box, even when the “text” is hyperlink.
No warning issued.
[/Moderating]
Huh? People do that all the time - fix quoted links - without a warning.
He didn’t fix the link - he changed it from a picture of a cat to a picture of Sarah Palin.
Then what precisely did you mean by
if not to dismiss the level of harm of “fundamentalism” relative to “Communism”.
Also wonder how you account for the damage in the 18.5 centuries or so of “fundamentalism” before there was “communism”?
Because, come on, the best argument you have in favor of “fundamentalism” is to go on a red-baiting trip? Really? Hey! Look over there!