The dangers of monolithic ideologies?

[eugler]

Hi everybody,

I am writing this because I have a sincere concern about religion in general. This is not meant in a deprecative way, I'm simply curious about different perspectives of different people. In the end, the best way to grow as a person is to compare your conclusions with those of other people. So here it goes:

Looking back it seems the worst atrocities commited in history were always commited when people are convinced that their doings are completely and utterly right. On this basis their conviction usually gives them a feeling of superiority based on a variety of different factors from race to ideology to the belief in their own one true god/scripture and so on. Closely related is the notion that there is something called good and evil in the world. And as long as a person can claim to fight for the "good" side, there seem to be no limits in what dreadful deeds can be done to defend the good (of course this is an oversimplification yet look around what terrible things are done by "good people" to keep "evil" at bay). These thought patterns seem to be prevalent in many political ideologies e.g. facism and communism as well as any radical movement of the religious side.

From my point of view the whole basis of this can be boiled down to an even simpler paradigm which is "There is just one truth and I know exactely what it is". This is one of the most dangerous convictions a person can have especially if this truth is dictated by someone higher up in the system (be it a religious, spiritual or political leader). This is usually the case because any individual on its own will have a hard time reaching this conclusion without being told the "ultimate truth" and being reinforced by its peers. While this doesn't necessarily lead to catastrophy, it has huge potential of doing so. And as history shows it has done uncountable times in the past.

Being an atheist and being content with contemplating the various "truths" people have come up with around the world as well as my own personal version of it, I can't help but worrying about religion. It seems to me that there is a huge potential of misleading otherwise well meaning people to whatever end religious leaders deem correct. This is more relevant than ever because in the modern times we live in we have aquired an ability which before was only credited to god - the ability to end all live on this little planet. The conclusion comes to mind that if we as a species want to become a truly enlightend and peaceful civilisation - without wiping each other out in the process - one of the grand obstacles we have to overcome is religion. And just so that I am not misunderstood, I don't want to imply that the means for this could be violence because violence in general cannot be the path to any such goal.

I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm just genuinly interessted in what believers think of this idea - controversial as it is. Maybe there is even someone who could free me of such worries. I'm looking forward to an interessting discussion.

A little addendum for clarification: The hypothesis is that religion can be one potential slippery slope toward a monolithic mindset but by far not the only one. The point that there was also mass murder in the name of political ideology e.g. communism is not contradicting this, it's part of the hypothesis. The question is if this is true and if it would be resonable, in order to get rid of such mindsets as a civilisation, to - preventivly - get rid of religion as well?

 

[aiki]

I am writing this because I have a sincere concern about religion in general. Looking back it seems the worst atrocities commited in history were always commited when people are convinced that their doings are completely and utterly right.

This belief has been held by those who had no faith in God, too. And it has resulted in the killing of millions.

On this basis their conviction usually gives them a feeling of superiority based on a variety of different factors from race to ideology to the belief in their own one true god/scripture and so on.

Is this your sincere belief? Are you convinced this is completely and utterly right?

Closely related is the notion that there is something called good and evil in the world.

And what are you doing when you refer to "atrocities"? Are you not calling something evil when you describe it as an "atrocity"? And do you not imply in so doing that there is an opposite good?

And as long as a person can claim to fight for the "good" side, there seem to be no limits in what dreadful deeds can be done to defend the good (of course this is an oversimplification yet look around what terrible things are done by "good people" to keep "evil" at bay).

What are you thinking of here, exactly?

These thought patterns seem to be prevalent in many political ideologies e.g. facism and communism as well as any radical movement of the religious side. From my point of view the whole basis of this can be boiled down to an even simpler paradigm which is "There is just one truth and I know exactely what it is". This is one of the most dangerous convictions a person can have especially if this truth is dictated by someone higher up in the system (be it a religious, spiritual or political leader) which is usually the case because any individual on its own will have a hard time reaching this conclusion without being told the "ultimate truth".

So, do you believe what you've written above is true? Are you certain it is true? If not, why should we give it any weight in our thinking? If so, are you not guilty of doing the very thing you say is "most dangerous"?

Being an atheist and being content with contemplating the various "truths" people have come up with around the world as well as my own personal version of it, I can't help but worrying about religion.

But athiesm is defined by one "absolute truth": There is no God. It is, therefore, as dangerous a thing as any religion - if you are correct.

It seems to me that there is a huge potential of misleading otherwise well meaning people to whatever end religious leaders deem correct.

Atheism has the same potential to mislead.

The conclusion comes to mind that if we as a species want to become a truly enlightend and peaceful civilisation - without wiping each other out in the process - one of the grand obstacles we have to overcome is religion.

Oh? Is this absolutely true? You've certainly stated it as though it is. Sounds very much like the dangerous thinking you condemn in your post...

Selah.

 

[E.C.]

You do know the same can be said about atheism, ya?

And as a corollary of sorts to your post all I can say is this: more people were killed in the name of State Atheism by Bolsheviks, Communists and Leninists within the USSR than by any other regime in human history.

I hate to say it, but Lenin and Stalin both said the same thing you are saying.


Although looking at history I do have to say that one of the many causes for any large growth of fanaticism is the failure to differentiate between problems of a system vs. problems of individuals who are part of the system.

 

[eugler]

I know no matter how I would have formulated this idea although it is not deliberately offensive, it will be understandably be perceived as such. So first of all thank you for taking the time to answer me.
There are some misunderstandings to clear up
​

I am writing this because I have a sincere concern about religion in general. Looking back it seems the worst atrocities commited in history were always commited when people are convinced that their doings are completely and utterly right.
​

This belief has been held by those who had no faith in God, too. And it has resulted in the killing of millions.
​

You are absolutely right but your point doesn't contradict mine. Notice that I didn't say anything about religion in particular but about a certain mindset that doesn't necessesarily has to be religious.

On this basis their conviction usually gives them a feeling of superiority based on a variety of different factors from race to ideology to the belief in their own one true god/scripture and so on.
​

Is this your sincere belief? Are you convinced this is completely and utterly right?
​

No I'm not. This is just an idea I'm toying around with. If I was convinced that this would be completely and utterly right I probably wouldn't be interessted in the opinion of others about it. All I'm pointing out is that if common people take the life of others on the basis of class, race or religion they usually perceive themselves as superior or the others as inferior which is of course the same thing.

Closely related is the notion that there is something called good and evil in the world.
​

And what are you doing when you refer to "atrocities"? Are you not calling something evil when you describe it as an "atrocity"? And do you not imply in so doing that there is an opposite good?
​

Good point. The words good and evil are pretty childish oversimplifications of more complex connections. In a way they are an attempt to apply right or wrong to a skale where its just not that simple anymore.

And as long as a person can claim to fight for the "good" side, there seem to be no limits in what dreadful deeds can be done to defend the good (of course this is an oversimplification yet look around what terrible things are done by "good people" to keep "evil" at bay).
​

What are you thinking of here, exactly?
​

Simple example, the US going to Iraq because apparently God told George Bush and yep that has to mean the US is good and the others are evil. In the same context from the other point of view Islamists fly planes into buildings because according to their Imams their are good and the US are evil. Same excuse, no honest attempt to resolve the problem from either side. To be fair and state a none religious example, the ALF destroying animal research labs because killing animals for research is evil and they are good and that's that. I could go on and on but I think you get the picture.

These thought patterns seem to be prevalent in many political ideologies e.g. facism and communism as well as any radical movement of the religious side. From my point of view the whole basis of this can be boiled down to an even simpler paradigm which is "There is just one truth and I know exactely what it is". This is one of the most dangerous convictions a person can have especially if this truth is dictated by someone higher up in the system (be it a religious, spiritual or political leader) which is usually the case because any individual on its own will have a hard time reaching this conclusion without being told the "ultimate truth".
​

So, do you believe what you've written above is true? Are you certain it is true? If not, why should we give it any weight in our thinking? If so, are you not guilty of doing the very thing you say is "most dangerous"?
​

I think I answered that above. But I have to add one thing, if someone is certain something that complex is absolutely and irrevocably true you shouldn't take his opinion seriously at all because he probably isn't a very reflective person.

Being an atheist and being content with contemplating the various "truths" people have come up with around the world as well as my own personal version of it, I can't help but worrying about religion.
​

But athiesm is defined by one "absolute truth": There is no God. It is, therefore, as dangerous a thing as any religion - if you are correct.
​

Nope, common misunderstanding. An atheist doesn't have to be 100% certain that there is no god - if so you would be right - and I've never met an Atheist who would state that. I think the possibility that there is a god is from my point of view neglectible. Besides the only common ground for atheists is the non-belief in a personal god, from there on its a very diverse group which is not a group in a faith based sense.

It seems to me that there is a huge potential of misleading otherwise well meaning people to whatever end religious leaders deem correct.
​

Atheism has the same potential to mislead.
​

As I said there are different ways to apply this mindset. Religion is just one of them. Atheism as I stated above is not.

The conclusion comes to mind that if we as a species want to become a truly enlightend and peaceful civilisation - without wiping each other out in the process - one of the grand obstacles we have to overcome is religion.
​

Oh? Is this absolutely true? You've certainly stated it as though it is. Sounds very much like the dangerous thinking you condemn in your post...
​

3rd time you use this argument. I think it was answered above.

Looking forward to your reply.
Regards

 

[ToHoldNothing]

This belief has been held by those who had no faith in God, too. And it has resulted in the killing of millions.

The difficulty is that their belief in no God was not necessarily the primary motivation so much as their totalitarian desire that can be found in someone who also believes there is a God.

But athiesm is defined by one "absolute truth": There is no God. It is, therefore, as dangerous a thing as any religion - if you are correct.

Not all atheists would consider their belief that there is no God an absolute truth, but a probable truth. This is again a red herring in suggesting that since some atheists believe absolutely there is no God every atheist must also believe as such.

Atheism has the same potential to mislead.

Abusus non tollit usum. Atheism being misused doesn't mean it does not have a proper use.

 

[eugler]

@EC

Yup, you are right Stalin and Lenin said something similar. Thanks for the polite way of pointing that out, it would have been easy to say that in a much ruder way. But these people were a great example of a monolithic mindset where people of a certain class are evil and deserve to be killed by the millions. They were not atheists because of their contemplation about the existence of a personal-god, they saw the church in the way of them being in absolute control which is an entirely different approach to the subject. Their atheism wasn't the reason for murdering monks or nons. The argument never was "we don't believe in god therefore religious people are evil" but "in order to fight the establishement (which is evil) we have to fight the church (which is part of the establishment and therefore evil as well)".

your raising a very interessting point with your final statement.
thanks for your reply

 

[ephraimanesti]

I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm just genuinly interessted in what believers think of this idea - controversial as it is. Maybe there is even someone who could free me of such worries. I'm looking forward to an interessting discussion.

MY DEAR FRIEND,

i assume that in your "studies" you have come across the fact that atheists in the last century slaughtered infinitely more human beings than the total of all religious belief systems since time began. Atheist Russian, Atheist China, Atheist Cambodia, Atheist North Vietnam, Atheist North Korea, etc. have been responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths through the implementation of their godless belief systems.

My suggestion would be that you first focus your attention on your own lack of belief and that of your peers and straighten yourself and your fellow non-believers out--somehow defusing atheism's propensity to create monstrous evils--before moving on to "fix" the admitted lesser shortcomings of religious adherents.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[eugler]

My dear friend,

actually I've read the black book of communism which accurately describes the mass murders in their context in all those countries one by one in the details that the surviving historical documents permit to come up. Its a very gloomy read and makes you really wonder about the potential for human cruelty. But as stated above you are actually making a point for my proposal. The lack of faith of communist totalitarian regimes was not the reason for mass murders, the totalitarian mindset was. And if you had taken just a tiny bit of time to lern about this topic you should know that.
Besides it is preposterous to compare systems by how many million vicitms they produced. Even if it wouldn't be you couldn't honestly argue for religion in general with this line of thought.

 

[ephraimanesti]

My dear friend,

actually I've read the black book of communism which accurately describes the mass murders in their context in all those countries one by one in the details that the surviving historical documents permit to come up. Its a very gloomy read and makes you really wonder about the potential for human cruelty. But as stated above you are actually making a point for my proposal. The lack of faith of communist totalitarian regimes was not the reason for mass murders, the totalitarian mindset was. And if you had taken just a tiny bit of time to lern about this topic you should know that.
Besides it is preposterous to compare systems by how many million vicitms they produced. Even if it wouldn't be you couldn't honestly argue for religion in general with this line of thought.

MY BROTHER,

i beg to differ regarding the effect of godlessness on the actions of totalitarian regimes. The situation is that either human beings are created in the image and likeness of God--their Creator--and thus have infinite worth and value simply because of who and what they are, or human being are no more than evolved animals--the fruit of some kind of cosmic accident--and thus have no intrinsic value in and of themselves because their lives have no real meaning or purpose beyond that which they construct for themselves.

The former idea leads to a sense of the sacredness of human life while the other leads to the Darwinian rule of the animals--"the survival of the fittest." In the first, mankind are brothers and sisters of equal worth and value; in the other, human beings' value to society--as determined by the strongest members of society--dictates their fitness to live and their worth in the order of things. It is, therefore, not hard to see how atheistic communism--based largely on social darwinism--could quite easily perpetrate the horrors they did--"in the name of the people."

i would agree with you that the comparison of numbers is of little avail--that 1 killing in the name of the God of Love is way too many. But at least with believers, when abominations such as the Inquisition and the Crusades occur, it can be readily demonstrated to all concerned that these perversions are very much UNchristian given that they directly transgress our Lord's teachings and the Love on which true Christianity is based. For unbelievers and the atrocities committed in their name, there are no concrete boundaries upon which to pass judgment beyond "the good of the people." As Dostoevsky put it, "If there is no God, then everything is permitted."

In order to live like human beings, there MUST be an ultimate source of Good, and Truth, and Moralitiy--i.e., a God-given set of commandments and guidelines--rather than merely the situational ethics atheists tout and which end up creating a hell on earth.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[eugler]

My friend,

you seem to mix up not only historical facts but even cause and effect.

Let's start with the godlessness of totalitarian regimes. First of all the communist ideology is the very opposite of social darwinism by definition - there cannot be any serious argument about that. Furthermore communist regimes are to my knowlegde the only explicitly atheistic totalitarian regimes. We live in very priviledged times enjoying the freedoms that democracy and sacularism give us but this is somewhat of an exception during the ages. Just a few centuries ago there was no such thing as democracy and freedom for the individual (with the arguable exeption of some of the ancient Greek city states). Back then almost all regimes where totalitarian and almost all of them had the local religion wooven in into their system. The monarch ruled with absolut power and this power was given to him - according to the clergy - by noone lesser than god himself. Challenge your ruler and his absolut power and you challenge god. Some cultures took it even a step furture and made the ruler himself a god or an incarnation of one (e.g. the Egyptans). This is not a history lesson so I will not go on since you freely admit the incredible cuelties to which this led and claim that they are based on misunderstanding the divine. But how come that they were so common if the divine ruled? How come they gradually lessend with the arrival of enlightenment and sacularism? They are the only reason we have the luxury to discuss such philosophical implications via the internet and don't have to worry about food or shelter. In fact without them neither you - if you're not coming from a mainstream denomination - nor me as a non-beliefer would be able to talk about this without fear for our lives. The source of what makes us a modern society is not religion but civilisation.

Let me before I come to your main point say just one more thing, I respect you for saying that some of the atrocities commited were admittedly mistakes. But most of the religious institutions are far from openly agreeing with you. E.g. the organisational body that was the Inquisition is not refuted, it still exists. In fact the current pope was until he was made pope the head of the Sanctum Officium which is the proper name for this instituion which is colloqually called the Inquisition. This is not targeted at Christianity itself, I'm merely correcting you with a fact.

So all these inhereted texts which teach proper morality where repeatedly and more often than not somehow misunderstood - peculiarly the more literal they were taken (I'm not gonna start with the Dark Ages). Apparently we agree on this fact but how then can they be the source of morality if we humans are not even able to understand them? Is it arrogant to say that we are ourselves the source of our morality? Is arrogant to say that ultimately the moral measurements we set for ourselves are our own and therefore noone else but us is responsible for our actions? Or is that truly the meaning of humility?

You are implying that it must be a miserable state of existence to be unable to belief - as you would put it. I assure you, it is not. As you said the meaning of your life is exactly the one you are capable and willing to give it yourself. This is neither miserable nor scary. It's wonderful and awe inspiring considering the odds against being born in these times and it fills me personally with a deep feeling of curiosity and gratefulness (not towards any particular entity but as a general feeling). This leads to perspective of preciousness of your own life and the life of others - having a feeling of sacredness given by someone else is not necessary for that.

And finally what is wrong with being an evolved animal? Why would you feel bad about something like that? Heck, it looks like we are the only animal that is completely self aware otherwise we wouldn't have such discussions. We all agree that our mental capabilities and our sense for beauty and morality is superior to the one of other animals. Why do we need an even more superior entity to aknowledge something we all agree on? Furthermore saying that the alternative to being created by a divine being is that we are just a cosmic accident is just talking silly deliberately.


P.S.: Please stop arguing that the communists have commited their atrocities in the name of the non-believers. I can't help but pointing out that you have not even rudimentarily researched what happend and I find it insulting to the victims being used in such a way.

 

[ephraimanesti]

And finally what is wrong with being an evolved animal? Why would you feel bad about something like that? We all agree that our mental capabilities and our sense for beaty and morality is superior to the one of other animals. Why do we need a superior entity to aknowledge something we all agree on? Furthermore saying that the alternative to being created by a divine being is we are just the source of a cosmic accident is just talking silly deliberately.

MY BROTHER,

What is wrong with seeing oneself as an evolved animal is that, being untrue, it is extremely disrespectful to our Abba Who, in His Love, created us--as objects of His Love and also as returners of that Love--much as any earthly father does. What could be more painful--not to mention disrespectful--to deny the parenthood of the One to whom we owe our very existence?

We "need a superior entity" precisely because He exists and to cut ourselves off from Him by denying His existence negates the very reason for our existence--to give Him our praise and glory for what He has done for us in giving us life and a very interesting universe to play in.

Lastly, it appears obvious to me that there are only two options: either God purposely created all that is or all that is came into existence by accident. i see no third possibility--unless you hold that inanimate material objects can exert some type of control over their form and destiny.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[aiki]

You are absolutely right but your point doesn't contradict mine. Notice that I didn't say anything about religion in particular but about a certain mindset that doesn't necessesarily has to be religious.

My intention was not to contradict but to clarify.

No I'm not. This is just an idea I'm toying around with. If I was convinced that this would be completely and utterly right I probably wouldn't be interessted in the opinion of others about it. All I'm pointing out is that if common people take the life of others on the basis of class, race or religion they usually perceive themselves as superior or the others as inferior which is of course the same thing.

You are making an assertion here. You don't equivocate at all when you make this assertion. It seems, therefore, rather like you are expressing something you believe is certain - a conviction, if you will. You don't much sound like you're "toying around" with the thoughts you express above.

Good point. The words good and evil are pretty childish oversimplifications of more complex connections. In a way they are an attempt to apply right or wrong to a skale where its just not that simple anymore.

So, is an atrocity evil, or not? Is it an "oversimplification" to call the rape and torture of children evil? Is it "childish" to refer to skinning a human being alive as evil?

These thought patterns seem to be prevalent in many political ideologies e.g. fascism and communism as well as any radical movement of the religious side. From my point of view the whole basis of this can be boiled down to an even simpler paradigm which is "There is just one truth and I know exactly what it is". This is one of the most dangerous convictions a person can have especially if this truth is dictated by someone higher up in the system (be it a religious, spiritual or political leader) which is usually the case because any individual on its own will have a hard time reaching this conclusion without being told the "ultimate truth".

So, do you believe what you've written above is true? Are you certain it is true? If not, why should we give it any weight in our thinking? If so, are you not guilty of doing the very thing you say is "most dangerous"?
​

I think I answered that above. But I have to add one thing, if someone is certain something that complex is absolutely and irrevocably true you shouldn't take his opinion seriously at all because he probably isn't a very reflective person.

Many of the statements you make in the above quotation are declarative in nature. Declarations are statements of fact, they don't typically ask questions or posit theories, which would be more appropriate of someone making an inquiry or looking for a discussion.

Nope, common misunderstanding. An atheist doesn't have to be 100% certain that there is no god - if so you would be right - and I've never met an Atheist who would state that.

Then atheism is actually agnosticism, which asserts that knowledge of God is uncertain.

I think the possibility that there is a god is from my point of view neglectible. Besides the only common ground for atheists is the non-belief in a personal god, from there on its a very diverse group which is not a group in a faith based sense.

Atheists must take their view that God doesn't exist as much on faith as those who believe He does exist. An atheist can't prove God doesn't exist, so he must choose to believe that He doesn't. He may point to evidence that suggests his choice is reasonable, but he does no more in this than the Christian he accuses of trusting in a fantasy.

The conclusion comes to mind that if we as a species want to become a truly enlightend and peaceful civilisation - without wiping each other out in the process - one of the grand obstacles we have to overcome is religion.

Oh? Is this absolutely true? You've certainly stated it as though it is. Sounds very much like the dangerous thinking you condemn in your post...
​

3rd time you use this argument. I think it was answered above.

This is the third time you make a declarative statement, which is why I ask you the question I did.

Selah.

 

[Key]

I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm just genuinly interessted in what believers think of this idea - controversial as it is. Maybe there is even someone who could free me of such worries. I'm looking forward to an interessting discussion.

I think Joseph Stalin and Hu Jintao proved that the "religion" is moot when we as humans decided to commit atrocities.

Just saying.

God Bless

 

[ebia]

Dreadful consequences can come from the action of people utterly convinced that they are right. Or from the inaction of those who don't know or can't be bothered. The world faces a huge potential disaster that's not the the result of an ideology at all.

Ideologies can be dangerous. But a lack if vision us equally dangerous.

At the heart of the Christian faith is not an ideology but a person (Jesus) and an event (resurrection).

 

[eugler]

@ ephraimanesti

The fact that you are only able to imagine these two scenarios doesn't mean that there are only two. 500 ago years people couldn't imagine that the earth is spinning and the notion was considered ludicrous. 150 years ago it was completely unimaginable that people would one time communicate the way we are right now. 80 years ago people couldn't imagine that the universe is bigger than our own galaxy, turns out there are over a hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe and I don't think any person could even get close to imagine what this number means. There are more things between heaven and earth than you and I have dreamt of in our philosophies my friend.

@ aiki

Well I somehow thought if I ask what people think of this idea they would get that it is an idea. Of course I could have started every sentence with maybe or perhaps but thats not how you present a thesis.

And once again the good and evil thing. You are making it pretty easy for yourself. You consider these things as evil because you were brought up to do so (as we all were). If you would have been brought up a Maya 500 years ago you wouldn't consider it evil to cut open a living human being's chest to rip out his heart. You would consider your victim lucky for the honour of being a sacrifice to your god and you would feel good about yourselve. If you would have been brought up in medieval europe you wouldn't consider it evil to submit a women to unspeakable torture for days and burn her alive at the stake. You would be glad and consider this as an act of compassion to relieve the witch from her horrible existence. You would actually consider yourselves as a very good and moral human being. And so would I and probably almost everybody else brougth up there and then. Deeds are not good or evil exept in the mind of people. Foggy terms like this can be twisted to justify more or less anything. Deeds are right and wrong and they are for a reason not because somebody said so. And then of course there is this thing about skale I mentioned but apparently you chose to ignore that.

About the semantics there are different interpretations of the word agonstic and atheist. I use one of the rather common ones but I already explained what I mean by it.
Atheism is as much of a choice as not being convinced by any idea and its evidence is a deliberate choice of not wanting to believe in it. If your not convinced by something then you are not convinced by something, that has nothing to do with choice. Theism on the other hand - and I'm sure we can agree on that - is based on faith and not on evidence. Here there is truly a choice to make.

Again thanks everybody for contributing

 

[ebia]

Atheism is as much of a choice as not being convinced by any idea and its evidence is a deliberate choice of not wanting to believe in it. If your not convinced by something then you are not convinced by something, that has nothing to do with choice. Theism on the other hand - and I'm sure we can agree on that - is based on faith and not on evidence. Here there is truly a choice to make.

Faith (in the Christian sense) and reason are not exclusive. Faith is not "belief without reason", but "belief and trust".

Yes, there are worldview choices to make, about whether one thinks t
everything should be deducable from empirical observation and so forth (though few can really still hold to a naive positivism). However, because many of those decisions are operating at a worldview level, few are aware of their own ones.

I would also say that while belief is not completely a free choice, neither is entirely involuntary. If someone says "Loan me $5 - I'll pay you back tomorrow" we can, at least to some extent choose whether or not to believe that.

 

[E.C.]

@EC

Yup, you are right Stalin and Lenin said something similar. Thanks for the polite way of pointing that out, it would have been easy to say that in a much ruder way.

I always like a challenge

But these people were a great example of a monolithic mindset where people of a certain class are evil and deserve to be killed by the millions. They were not atheists because of their contemplation about the existence of a personal-god, they saw the church in the way of them being in absolute control which is an entirely different approach to the subject. Their atheism wasn't the reason for murdering monks or nons. The argument never was "we don't believe in god therefore religious people are evil" but "in order to fight the establishement (which is evil) we have to fight the church (which is part of the establishment and therefore evil as well)".

your raising a very interessting point with your final statement.
thanks for your reply

Lenin I don't know so much about, but Stalin was an atheist because of his contemplation about the existence of God, a god, deities, etc. You may have a point in that Stalin himself didn't use his atheism as a way of killing people, but his atheism influenced that atheism of others to commit such heinous acts which makes Stalin partly responsible. The problem was not the Church, but was the Russian Empire's control of the Russian Orthodox Church which goes back to Tsar Peter the First when he abolished the position of a patriarch and replaced it with an oberprokurator who was a civil bureaucrat and not a clergyman. Until then the Church may have enjoyed certain privileges and protection from the Romanovs, but was not used by the Romanovs until Peter's time.

Either way, my point remains the same: the answer is not Atheism because even the Communists believed that when they were murdering innocent civilians whose only crime was holding to their Christian faith, the Communists believed that they were the forces of "good" fighting the forces of "evil".

 

[eugler]

@ ebia

I didn't mean to say that faith and reason completely exclude each other. If my last statement was perceived this way then I'm sorry, I didn't mean offence.
I see your point and I partly agree but aren't we in worldly questions all usually using logic to find our way? Then there are some points in theism were logic can't be applied and the famous leap of faith is necessary while a naturalist can stick with logic. To give a classical example take Epicurs paradoxon about the coexistence of god and evil (his words, I would have said something about wrongdoings ):

If god is willing but not able, he is not omnipotent;
if god is able but not willing, he is malevolent;
if god is willing and able, whence all the evil in the world?
if god is neither willing nor able, why call him god?

I see no logical escape of this without a considerable amount of faith. Of course one could argue with the fallacy of man and the original sin but this is gonna hit a logical roadblock with the idea of a loving and all forgiving (not to mention omniscient) god at the latest. And this is just one of countless examples (and one of the simplest as far as I know). He didn't specifically mean the Christian god by the way for Christianity didn't exist yet.

@ EC

Interessting stuff. I again agree with you on your final statement but still atheism is not the driving force. Marx already clearly stated religion as an instrument of control that had to be annihilated, the "opium for the masses" as he called it. Still there was no discussion about philosophy or theology, the communist doctrin sees religion from the beginning as a competitior for absolut control over the peoples minds. Its not the believers that were evil but the people that gave the church influence over the masses i.e. priests. The murders commited were not as class even less as faith/race motivated as they are commonly believed to be (with the exeption of the Kulaks for the first and the Kosaks for the latter). The murders were completely arbitrary. The purpose of them was to be the weapon of terror which is also an essential part of communist doctrine. During the first two years there were simple killing quotas stating how many people had to be shot by the local Tscheka every day, regardless of who they were and what they believed in. I remember a passage where the Tscheka people in some district one day were too lazy to come up with an excuse to shoot people so they simply went to the local hospital and killed everyone there, doctors, nurses and patients. There was a copy of a note from Lenin personally about this incident complaining about the lack of creativity in finding excuses. Those Tscheka people were mainly criminals released from the prisons during the revolution and day labourers drifting around on the countryside starving like everyone else. None of them knew what they were doing this for execept for plunder and rape. Basically none of them were convinced bolschevics or communist - hardly any of them knew what these words meant - and non of them were asked wether they belonged to any denomination or if they were atheists.

My argument is not that atheism is the solution to all problems but the idea that one of the main problems for us as a civilisation is a certain monolithical mindset and that theism is one of the paths that easily can lead to it.

 

[ebia]

I didn't mean to say that faith and reason completely exclude each other. If my last statement was perceived this way then I'm sorry, I didn't mean offence.
I see your point and I partly agree but aren't we in worldly questions all usually using logic to find our way?

Partially, but only ever partially.

Then there are some points in theism were logic can't be applied and the famous leap of faith is necessary while a naturalist can stick with logic. To give a classical example take Epicurs paradoxon about the coexistence of god and evil (his words, I would have said something about wrongdoings

):

If god is willing but not able, he is not omnipotent;
if god is able but not willing, he is malevolent;
if god is willing and able, whence all the evil in the world?
if god is neither willing nor able, why call him god?

Really that's just observing the problem inherent in the naieve concept 'omnipotence' (and all other such naive concepts of the infinite).

It needs to be noted, however, that the bible's answer to "why doesn't God just wipe out evil" is the story of Noah. From which then follows the story of what God is doing to deal with evil - the story of Abraham onwards.

 

[eugler]

Sorry, this is not my mothertongue so I hope you can overlook some impurities in grammar and vocabulary.

There are just two ways of answering this question, either you disprove the notion by logic or you can tell me another way around that is not faith (the third one of course would be agreeing with me but I wasn't really counting on this one ). This paradox was stated more than 2000 years ago by the founder of one of the major schools of thoughts of greek philosophy and I think he would (as I would) agree with you that the concept of omnipotence is somewhat naive. But that doesn't answer the question, does it? Neither does refering to the bible without any clarification. I assure you that this is not the level at which I dismissed religion as a worldview for myself but it is an important question nonetheless. So I'm gonna put the question in the most naive way possible: If there is a supreme all loving, all forgiving, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator and all existence is according to his plan how come this place is so messed up?

Can there be an answer in favor of his existence without faith?