In contrast, the record of avowedly atheistic regimes is, shall we say, less than inspiring. Atheist regimes like the Soviet Union, Red China, and Cambodia killed tens of millions of people in an effort to establish an atheistic alternative to the City of God. For men like Stalin and Mao, people were expendable precisely because they were not created in the image of a personal God. Instead, they were objects being manipulated by impersonal historical forces.
One atheist understood the moral consequences of his unbelief: That was Nietzsche, who argued that God is dead, but acknowledged that without God there could be no binding and objective moral order.
Of course, the “New Atheists” deny this. Instead, they unconvincingly argue that you can have the benefits of an altruistic, Christian-like morality without God.
46 comments
Chuck, old buddy, those killing were for political purposes only. The "City of God" was about the last thing these tyrants had on their minds. As to altruistic, Christian-like morality, we've had 2,000 years of it. And frankly it sucks the big pepperoni, know what I mean?
No matter how many times you try to convince someone that Stalin and Pol Pot may have been atheists, but they did not commit atrocities out of anti-religious conviction, they won't get it into their heads. Best we can do is prove them wrong by example.
Considering the morals of radical christians, I'd say we have better morals without god. I also find it amusing that you completely ignore the atrocities that "christian" regimes were responsible for. Things like the inquisition, the crusades, and the holocaust come to mind.
Because of course a Watergate plumber is exactly the sort of person I want to be taking moral instruction from -- isn't Colson almost as nuts as Liddy?
Stalin, Mao, Kim, etc. didn't suppress religion because they were atheists; they did it because it competed with their aims and personality cults. (Mao and Pol Pot also had fierce cases of Not Invented Here syndrome and made their people pay in torrents of blood for it.) The Soviet Union never did figure out what to do with religion, and in modern Russia, the Orthodox Church is very powerful; modern China asserts state control over all religion but does allow it.
At this point I would love to see someone wallpaper Colson's office with pictures of Mark Felt. I don't care what Felt's motivations were or what crimes he may have committed before ratting Nixon out; in these Bush-ridden days, the man is a fucking hero.
"altruistic, Christian-like morality"
Like the "kill-all-the-homos-and-blacks-and-other-ethnic-groups-other-than-Anglo-Saxon-and-everyone-not-in-our-particular-brand-of-Christianity and brainwash the rest into thinking we're the most righteous of all" Christian-like morality?
You can be a believer and lack moral, you can be a non-believer and have it.
Belief has very little to do with moral, mostly because of all the christian hypocrites.
In contrast, China is an emerging economical power and so was Russia at the time, let alone the wonderful educational standards they have left in schools and universities. Again, if we count merits, at least have all the numbers.
Fucktard, Stalin graduated from the Tbilisi Seminary. It's a priest high-school.
BTW, that's where his (not all that good) criminal carrier as a petty thief started. I'd say it speaks volumes for christianity.
Okay...now take a look at the Church of England, the Crusaders, the Salem Witch Trials. They were done in the name of God, and were deplorable. Clearly, it is neither religion, nor a lack thereof, that makes an ethical society. Other factors must be at play.
killed tens of millions of people in an effort to establish an atheistic alternative to the City of God.
Um, no. They killed people to solidify their own power.
@Brian X
Because of course a Watergate plumber is exactly the sort of person I want to be taking moral instruction from -- isn't Colson almost as nuts as Liddy?
I think Colson has expressed repentance for some of his actions as part of the Nixon White House. He certainly doesn't take pride in them like Liddy does.
And while I may disagree with some of his political and religious viewpoints, I think he deserves credit for trying to improve the US prison system, and help prisoners return to a better life.
You're right. We shouldn't have atheists running things. We should have creationists who are Catholics in good standing, have good relations with the church hierarchy, and seek to do the will of the creator. Any guesses as to who that might be?
Can I point out that Stalin didn't graduate from the Tiflis Seminary (he got expelled), and he didn't really train as a priest. Less well-off families in Georgia sent their sons to the seminary for education (because they couldn't afford university), without necessarily intending them for the priesthood. (Although Stalin's mother would have liked it if he had been a priest).
Well I think if you look at history it's not only those regimes that don't believe God exists that are dangerous. History has shown us that regimes that do not believe I am an unstoppable sex machine will commit terrible strocities. The nazis didn't believe I was an unstoppable sex machine, nor did the communists, nor did the Catholics for that metter. This clearly states that the only true foundation to build a society on is the belief that I am in fact an unstoppable sex machine.
Ah yes, Nixon's own murderous henchmen back to tell us about 'wicked' atheism. Chucky forgot to mention the Inquisition, witchburnings, and Christian Nationalist Nazis in his diatribe.
Another Chrisitan calling the kettle black.
True, the leaders of those regimes were atheist, but they persecuted religious people not because of their atheism, but because religion just happened to get in the way. (China is still officially an atheist state, but religion is allowed under government supervision, and the government discourages it because they think it's nonsense and superstition.)
Last I checked, Stalin was in bed with the Russian Orthodox Church.
Besides that, no one was killed in the name of atheism that I am aware of, most of them were killed for political reasons. And the religious people who were persecuted and killed were members of the "wrong" religion.
"If a man has enough faith, he can indulge in the luxury of skepticism" Nietszche
Sorry, but he wasn't atheist.
I'm not an atheist, but it really bothers me when fundies start using this morality argument. So here is a quote I really like about the subject:
"If good means “commanded by God,” then good is arbitrary. Why should we praise God for being good if good is whatever God wills? According to this view of the good, it doesn’t matter whether God commanded, “Thou shalt not kill” or “Thou shalt kill”. Either way, the command would have been good by definition. If you object that there is no way God would command us to kill, because life is good and destroying it is bad, then you are admitting that there is a standard of right and wrong separate from God. In that case, we can talk about the good with-out talking about God. This opens the door to rational discussion about morality.
Michael J. Quinn. Ethics for the information age. Addison Wesley."
Stalin etc didn't kill people in the name of atheism, they killed people because they were power-hungry fuckwits. There have been lots of power-hungry fuckwits in the ranks of Christianity too.
And most of what you mean by "Christian morallity" predates Christianity and is found in many other religions, and the secular work of some ancient philsophers to boot, the Golden Rule in particular has a version in every major religion as far as I know, and in many secular writings.
altruistic, Christian-like morality
WTF? Christian-like morality is "be good or I torture you for eternity"
Altruistic is unselfishly concerned for or devoted to the welfare of others.
Polar fucking opposites... talk about contradiction.
Except that when someone dies, they either go to heaven, which is paradise, or go to hell, which means they deserve it. That is what you believe, so killing people to further your goal is perfectly fine, right?
(I don't think most Christians would actually kill people, I'm just pointing out how the argument can be turned around)
For men like Stalin and Mao, people were expendable precisely because they were not created in the image of a personal God. Instead, they were objects being manipulated by impersonal historical forces.
*ahem*
"Kill them all, God will know his own."
I fail to see how you can get more impersonal objectification than that.
"Kill em all and let god sort them out"
(Religion has never viewed anyone as expendable, ever).
^ GigaGuess: I guess that's what I get for posting before reading the comments haha
atheists do not WANT christian morals.
If my daughter had sex before she is married I would say "gee, what a surprise" and would NOT stone her to death as a fornicator.
It seems that christians today ignore much of their Gods laws and think nothing of fornicators, eating shellfish or wearing mixed fibres.
None of the regimes mentioned were simply atheist.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.