No, I’m saying that Stalin and Mao and their followers killed millions of people in the name of a philosophy that explicitly advocated atheism and materialism. Atheism is critical to the philosophy. Remove materialism from Marxism, and you’ve removed the Marxism; it’s like trying to remove the wetness from water. Insisting that atheism is not critical to Marxism is like insisting that theism is not critical to Christianity. No matter how you look at it, if you’re the least bit honest you have to admit that tens of millions of people died in the name of an explicitly atheistic philosophy, a secular, materialist philosophy.
Now, turnabout is fair play. If some atheists use the Inquisition and 911 as evidence that all religion is evil it is entirely proper for Christians, Muslims and grouchy old misanthropic agnostics like me who don’t really like much of anybody or anything in the first place to point out to that huge stack of tens of millions of corpses and ask if this somehow invalidates all forms of secularism and materialism. If Torquemada and Osama bin Laden invalidate religion, then Stalin and Mao invalidate secularism and materialism. Claiming that communism is somehow really a religion or that the explicitly atheistic nature of the Marxist variation of communism is somehow irrelevant isn’t just dishonest, it’s dishonest and stupid. Saying that atheism had nothing to do with the gulags is every bit as absurd as saying that theism had nothing to do with the Inquisition. One group offers theistic explanations for its actions. The other offers atheistic ones. There may even be some truth in them. But what’s the difference to the victims?
Religion didn’t cause the Inquisition. Specific people claiming religious motives did. Secularism didn’t cause the Ukrainian famines. Specific people justifying their actions with a secularist philosophy did. It doesn’t prove anything about either religion or secularism.
Christ on a pogo stick! Am I the only one who ever gets tired of this childish, tit-for-tat argument? “You’re a meanie!” “Yeah, well, you’re a bigger meanie!” To bed without your supper! Both of you! Now!
I think I get it: To say that something a person does is “due to their theism” or “due to their atheism” is to say that it’s due, simply, to which side of the “God exists/God doesn’t exist” question that person comes down on.
Since there’s invariably more to it than that, you can’t say people do things due to their atheism or their theism, but they may do things due to their belief system, which may include theism or atheism among its tenets.
Exactly. And throw in lots of other things like class, ethnic, tribal and racial conflicts, often justified or denied with whatever philosophy or religion prevails in the cultures of the societies involved, and you’ll understand why I said that no one ever got killed solely because of some abstract principle.
Exactly. I can’t remember ever making any kind of important decision or ethical choice because I’m an atheist. That never enters into my mental calculus.
For the record, i’m not one of the people that says religion makes people evil or that the Inquisition proves God doesn’t exist or anything like that. I’ve disparaged religious fanatacism, but I see that as a different phenomenon than normal religious faith.
I suppose you have never heard of Liberation Theology and Marxist priests? Here’s an article that mentions them - they were much bigger back 20 years ago. There are clearly people who believe in God and Marxism both. Now the Pope doesn’t like them much, but they certainly have seemed sincere to me.
And if you look hard enough, you’ll find a geologist who’s a young earther, or an astonomer who believes in astrology. A relative handful of confused people who think they’ve somehow reconciled Marxism with Catholicism doesn’t mean very much.
I agree that no one did anything just because they became convinced god exists, but don’t you think some people take actions because they think, or are told, that God wants them to? Theism becomes a necessary but not sufficient condition for this kind of religiously inspired evil (And good also, to be fair.)
The whole argument against religion in this context is that people might feel that God’s desire sets morality, and overrides their natural morality, causing them to do things they otherwise wouldn’t do. It might go against their inbred morality, or it might let them express evil tendencies that would otherwise be repressed.
It’s not only religion - jingoism might have a similar effect.
It was a fairly significant movement in Latin America - far more than a handful of people. In any case it demonstrates that someone who is well versed in religion, (and not just a random Sunday churchgoer) can be a Marxist also.
If Christians can throw out large chunks of the Bible which are now embarrassing, why can’t Marxists throw out small chunks of what Marx said? I don’t think even they say he was infallible.
And some people felt that the Revolution was so important that they were exempt from ordinary standards of morality. The Animal Liberation Front thinks they have the right to wreck laboratories, commit arson and terrorize scientists and their families. Campus lefties think they have the right to harass and shout down conservatives who have been invited to speak at their campus. People looking for excuses to bully others will always find them. What’s your point?
How many chunks can you throw out before it ceases to be Marxism? Sorry, but there is no room in Marxist doctrine for supernaturalism. It’s like claiming to believe in geocentrism and heliocentrism at the same time. In the Marxian worldview, this world is all there is. If you believe in a hereafter or a spiritual world, you aren’t a Marxist.
Well, that’s certainly never what I meant when I (if I) said that something a person does is “due to their theism”. And really, I don’t think that that sort of verbiage is that unclear; I can respect being picky about language but to profess incomprehension of this is a bit much.
Plus I think it’s perfectly valid to say that people do things due to their theism or atheism. For example, my atheism leads me to take the atheistic side in debates like this one. Sure, sure, it’s not my atheism alone, I also have inclinations toward argument and using computer and whatever, but come on people.
Wow. I could have sworn that the basis of Christianity was that Jesus died for our sins, that you die in your sins if you do not accept this, and Christians have a moral duty to spread these teachings to the four corners of the earth. He also said some stuff about loving your neighbor, doing unto others, etc, but people tend not to dwell on that too much. The free will thing is like number #23 on the list of characteristics of Christianity. In fact, correct me if I’m wrong, I don’t think it’s even in the bible… it’s just sort of inferred after the fact to fill in a bunch of plot holes in the Christian worldview.
Is this the no true Catholic priest argument, or the no true Marxist argument? I’m not either, but I can see someone downplaying the atheist part, playing up the far more economic part, and identifying the workers paradise with heaven on Earth. Anyhow, no matter what you and I think, people better versed in religion than either of us seem to be able to handle it.