The cultural revolution had nothing to do with atheism or Communism. It was (and is) a dictatorship. A foul, ruthless tyranny hiding behind various masks. But in the end, it is still a tyranny.
The reason the revolution attempts to destroy religion is because it wants its people to worship the state. No authority is higher than the state. If you have any religion at all in that environment, you have dissent. China doesn't want dissent, it wants pure and blind obedience.
China is not a good example to use in this context. It hasn't performed any action "in the name of atheism;" it performed actions in the name of a small number of men who wanted power at all costs. That isn't atheism, that's tyranny.
The cultural revolution had nothing to do with atheism or Communism
That's a lie.
Except if you're willing to, by the same brush, say that the Crusades, the Inquisition, and 9/11 had nothing to do with theism, because they don't have to do with theism that you like during the modern day within your culture.
I WILL have to say though that Atheists don't do horrible things in the name of their religion. You are wrong. They have done horrible things in the name of their non-belief.
There is a significant difference.
Ultimately, I'd say both you and John are right in some places and wrong in others.
I'd say a better argument/thesis would have been:
Atheists have committed genocide and other horrific acts against humanity motivated by their hatred for believers and in the name of atheism.
Also, quick note: Hitler was neither a atheist or a Christian, he was a occult mystic who had a Christian-Nationalist Society. I've seen the various patches for the concentration camps and Atheist is one of them. Stalin, however, was probably an atheist, but while Theists were oppressed, most of the time their crimes were listed as , "Subversion Against the State," (which was a political front), not, "For being a Christian."
As far as I know, China is the only nation in the world ever to have enshrined atheism as a special belief system under law and given special rights to atheists. People keep going on about Germany, the USSR, and Cambodia but that seems to just be a distraction.
And, you know, if people would go read a book they could make up their own minds about their culpability for it.
My own personal thought is that modern American Atheists are no more culpable for the cultural revolution than modern American Muslims are for 9/11, modern American Christians are for the Salem witch trials, and so on and so forth.
Atheism is not a belief system any more than determinism is a philosophy. Determinism (all actions are caused) is not a philosophy; it's a statement. An observation. You can't build a philosophy on determinism or atheism alone.
The statement "I don't believe in a deity" isn't enough to qualify as a philosophy any more than "I believe in a deity" is. You still need more.
I may have to disagree with you regarding your argument that you can't build a philosophy on determinism or atheism alone.
I'm reserving full disagreement for later, but I believe that there are a number of people who have built their belief systems on determinism and atheism alone.
Can you more fully define what you mean by philosophy. I think that you're creating a working definition of philosophy (as in, "The set of beliefs and ideas a person uses to go about their life in a rational manner") and not an esoteric definition (The ideas a person enjoys thinking about in abstract ways). Then after you've done that what are the limiting factors that prevent a person from having just one single core belief (There are no gods) to guide them?
I may have to disagree with you regarding your argument that you can't build a philosophy on determinism or atheism alone.
I have to disagree with that statement, too... because that's not what I said.
I said you cannot say a single statement of fact is a philosophy. "I don't believe in unicorns" is not a philosophy or a religion. You need more than a single statement to make a philosophy; that's why philosophers write entire books on the subject: to create a cohesive statement covering subjects as diverse as freedom, metaphysics, ethics, morals, etc.
I understand what you're saying now. At the time I was confused at what you meant by philosophy - was it a philosophical statement or a cohesive philosophical world view. I understand that it was the later now. ^_^
>>As far as I know, China is the only nation in the world ever to have enshrined atheism as a special belief system under law and given special rights to atheists. <<
Apparently the modern Chinese national constitution does not specifically enshrine Atheism. However, it enshrines the Communist party as the official state party, and the party's constitution enshrines Atheism as a required belief for all members.
"As far as I know, China is the only nation in the world ever to have enshrined atheism as a special belief system under law and given special rights to atheists."
Well, I'll admit that I am not up on my history details as much as I would like to be, but I am pretty sure there was a well-established and documented persecution of religion in the USSR starting from Lenin and going forward. As far as I recall, atheism and loyalty to the state (and the party) was the only acceptable position to take in Soviet Russia (just like China).
However, I can certainly understand sticking with the area of history one is most familiar with. It is what I do as well.
All in all, your main point seems rather obvious, especially when generalized. Throughout history any number of groups who found themselves in the ruling group have made persecuted/committed atrocities against some other group in the name/ideal of something or other. I would note that usually the underlying (or parallel) causes of such actions are also grabs for power/money.
I can see that you are reacting to some specific foolishness stated elsewhere, but really, most opinions that say "group A, which I happen to belong to, is SOOOO nice and NEVER EVER did anything bad or evil" are silly and are at best tangential to a worthwhile argument.
Out of curiosity, do you know if there was actually legally enshrined status for Atheism in the USSR (as there was and, to some degree, still is in China) or if it was strictly off the books?
I think it is tough for me to decipher what you mean by legally enshrined. I am sure there were written directives regarding the repossession of church property, the 'reduction' of preachers/etc in the nation and the educational focus on "worshiping" the state.
To quote wikipedia:
The regime's efforts to eradicate religion in the Soviet Union, however, varied over the years with respect to particular religions and have been affected by higher state interests. Official policies and practices not only varied with time but also differed in their application from one nationality to another and from one religion to another.
The Crusades Kings and Popes used religion as a cover for greed and expansion and fueled it with religious bigotry.
The Inquisition I cannot find any secular reason for torturing and murdering thousands of Jews for the sole reason that they were Jews. And the Jews weren't the only ones who were targets of the Inquisition. All kinds of religious minorities (including fellow Christians) were targeted, too. Women who were painted with the wide-brimmed witch paintbrush, gnostics, cathars, etc.
9/11 You can't be serious.
You're making an all or nothing argument. "Either religion had everything to do with these events or nothing." Of course religion was a crucial element in all of these events. Without religion, could the Inquisition happen? No. How about the Crusades? No. How about 9/11? No. None of these events could happen without religion.
Can tyranny occur without atheism? Of course it can. And that's exactly what happened in China. Tyranny.
Stop hacking at the limbs. Start hacking at the root.
Maybe you looked upthread (http://benlehman.livejournal.com/149186.html?thread=926914#t926914)?
John, you're grasping at straws. I'm not saying anything particularly bad about atheism, except that it, like any almost other belief system, has the blood of innocents on its hands.
I wish that atheists could talk about the benefits of their beliefs, rather than talk about how everything else you could believe is so much worse.
yrs-- --Ben
P.S. If you were to study the history of Asia in the 20th century, you would find parallels to the inquisition, the Crusades, and 9/11, all without the presence of religion.
I don't know if it counts as a religion, but if it was a motivating force in how you treat people who do believe in unicorns, in a violent and terrible way, it'd be the same thing Ben is talking about.
See, that's what I told Ben. atheism is not a philosophy, is not a religion.
"Faithful devotion" is an important phrase in the defintion above. There is no "faith" in atheism. You cannot be faithfully devoted to something without having faith in the first place.
My problem with this post (and the method of thinking) is that it is the co-opting of terms. Calling atheism a religion expands the defintion of religion so wide, the definition itself ceases to be useful.
Disbelief in unicorns is no more a religion than disbelief of JHVH, Thor, Zeus or any other deity: it's actually the refusal of "faithful devotion."
Who would say that Atheism was a faith? (http://wickedthought.livejournal.com/740631.html)
Who indeed?
Your argument is semantic. I don't care whether Atheism is a faith, or a non-faith ideological construct.
To make me happy is simple. Just either:
1) Don't say "Atheists never massacre people / go to war / use suicide tactics / go on paranoid inquisitions in the name of Atheism."
or
2) Read a book about the Cultural Revolution. For extra credit, study the Tamil Tigers, the anti-Rightist purge, and the Great Leap Forward. For extra extra credit, read the 1973 promulgation of the Chinese constitutions, rights and duties of citizens header, or the modern Chinese party constitution.
Don't say "Atheists never massacre people / go to war / use suicide tactics / go on paranoid inquisitions in the name of Atheism."
I've never said that, I don't believe it. You said atheism was a religion. I disagreed. Now, you're backpeddling.
Read a book about the Cultural Revolution...
I've read many books on the Cultural Revolution. I know who the Tamil Tigers are, the anti Rightist purge and all ther rest. You're assuming I have knowledge you don't have because I disagree with your definiton.
I have no problem agreeing with you that people commit crimes. I want to know why they commit crimes. You cannot--CANNOT--say that religion was not a primary motivation for the Inquisition, 9/11 and the other things you listed above. If you remove religion, you remove the motivation.
Saying "I don't believe in any gods" is not a religion. Saying "I believe in a god" is not a religion. It's the philosophies we build on those statements that leads to religion or philosophy.
I have to agree with benlehman on this one. TONS of people were killed in China SPECIFICALLY because of their religious beliefs.
I'm not saying that the motivation of the GOVERNMENT (and those directly in power) was a pure, "KILL THE THEISTS!" That was just their propaganda to tighten their oligarchical control over the nation (Mao didn't run everything). HOWEVER, the lower levels of the Communist Party bought it, and on a local level just about everywhere went atheist and killed people who would not.
Just because the Wizard behind the curtain doesn't believe in his powers doesn't mean that the people of the Emerald City don't believe in his powers.
TONS of people were killed in China SPECIFICALLY because of their religious beliefs.
That's bigotry, not religion.
And you're actually arguing against Ben's point. Ben is saying atheism is a religion. It isn't. What the Chinese government is doing is creating a blind devotion to the state and bigoted hatred for a minority.
Blind obedience to the state. That's what China wants. That is a religion. But atheism, by itself, is not a religion anymore than refusal to believe in pink unicorns is a religion.
Much like theories are made of facts, both religions and philosophies are made of truth statements. Atheism or theism is a truth statement: "I (do not) believe in a divine power." That's the beginning of a religion or a philosophy, not the end. It takes a whole lot more to build a religion or a philosophy than just a single statement of fact.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
The reason the revolution attempts to destroy religion is because it wants its people to worship the state. No authority is higher than the state. If you have any religion at all in that environment, you have dissent. China doesn't want dissent, it wants pure and blind obedience.
China is not a good example to use in this context. It hasn't performed any action "in the name of atheism;" it performed actions in the name of a small number of men who wanted power at all costs. That isn't atheism, that's tyranny.
no subject
That's a lie.
Except if you're willing to, by the same brush, say that the Crusades, the Inquisition, and 9/11 had nothing to do with theism, because they don't have to do with theism that you like during the modern day within your culture.
no subject
There is a significant difference.
Ultimately, I'd say both you and John are right in some places and wrong in others.
I'd say a better argument/thesis would have been:
Atheists have committed genocide and other horrific acts against humanity motivated by their hatred for believers and in the name of atheism.
Also, quick note: Hitler was neither a atheist or a Christian, he was a occult mystic who had a Christian-Nationalist Society. I've seen the various patches for the concentration camps and Atheist is one of them. Stalin, however, was probably an atheist, but while Theists were oppressed, most of the time their crimes were listed as , "Subversion Against the State," (which was a political front), not, "For being a Christian."
no subject
As far as I know, China is the only nation in the world ever to have enshrined atheism as a special belief system under law and given special rights to atheists. People keep going on about Germany, the USSR, and Cambodia but that seems to just be a distraction.
And, you know, if people would go read a book they could make up their own minds about their culpability for it.
My own personal thought is that modern American Atheists are no more culpable for the cultural revolution than modern American Muslims are for 9/11, modern American Christians are for the Salem witch trials, and so on and so forth.
yrs--
--Ben
no subject
The statement "I don't believe in a deity" isn't enough to qualify as a philosophy any more than "I believe in a deity" is. You still need more.
no subject
I'm reserving full disagreement for later, but I believe that there are a number of people who have built their belief systems on determinism and atheism alone.
Can you more fully define what you mean by philosophy. I think that you're creating a working definition of philosophy (as in, "The set of beliefs and ideas a person uses to go about their life in a rational manner") and not an esoteric definition (The ideas a person enjoys thinking about in abstract ways). Then after you've done that what are the limiting factors that prevent a person from having just one single core belief (There are no gods) to guide them?
no subject
I have to disagree with that statement, too... because that's not what I said.
I said you cannot say a single statement of fact is a philosophy. "I don't believe in unicorns" is not a philosophy or a religion. You need more than a single statement to make a philosophy; that's why philosophers write entire books on the subject: to create a cohesive statement covering subjects as diverse as freedom, metaphysics, ethics, morals, etc.
no subject
no subject
I think France did this in the 1790's, actually.
Matt
no subject
Apparently the modern Chinese national constitution does not specifically enshrine Atheism. However, it enshrines the Communist party as the official state party, and the party's constitution enshrines Atheism as a required belief for all members.
yrs--
--Ben
no subject
Well, I'll admit that I am not up on my history details as much as I would like to be, but I am pretty sure there was a well-established and documented persecution of religion in the USSR starting from Lenin and going forward. As far as I recall, atheism and loyalty to the state (and the party) was the only acceptable position to take in Soviet Russia (just like China).
However, I can certainly understand sticking with the area of history one is most familiar with. It is what I do as well.
All in all, your main point seems rather obvious, especially when generalized. Throughout history any number of groups who found themselves in the ruling group have made persecuted/committed atrocities against some other group in the name/ideal of something or other. I would note that usually the underlying (or parallel) causes of such actions are also grabs for power/money.
I can see that you are reacting to some specific foolishness stated elsewhere, but really, most opinions that say "group A, which I happen to belong to, is SOOOO nice and NEVER EVER did anything bad or evil" are silly and are at best tangential to a worthwhile argument.
no subject
Out of curiosity, do you know if there was actually legally enshrined status for Atheism in the USSR (as there was and, to some degree, still is in China) or if it was strictly off the books?
yrs--
--Ben
no subject
To quote wikipedia:
The regime's efforts to eradicate religion in the Soviet Union, however, varied over the years with respect to particular religions and have been affected by higher state interests. Official policies and practices not only varied with time but also differed in their application from one nationality to another and from one religion to another.
no subject
Kings and Popes used religion as a cover for greed and expansion and fueled it with religious bigotry.
The Inquisition
I cannot find any secular reason for torturing and murdering thousands of Jews for the sole reason that they were Jews. And the Jews weren't the only ones who were targets of the Inquisition. All kinds of religious minorities (including fellow Christians) were targeted, too. Women who were painted with the wide-brimmed witch paintbrush, gnostics, cathars, etc.
9/11
You can't be serious.
You're making an all or nothing argument. "Either religion had everything to do with these events or nothing." Of course religion was a crucial element in all of these events. Without religion, could the Inquisition happen? No. How about the Crusades? No. How about 9/11? No. None of these events could happen without religion.
Can tyranny occur without atheism? Of course it can. And that's exactly what happened in China. Tyranny.
Stop hacking at the limbs. Start hacking at the root.
no subject
Please qualify your terms. How do you define "religion" and how does atheism qualify?
no subject
Maybe you looked upthread (http://benlehman.livejournal.com/149186.html?thread=926914#t926914)?
John, you're grasping at straws. I'm not saying anything particularly bad about atheism, except that it, like any almost other belief system, has the blood of innocents on its hands.
I wish that atheists could talk about the benefits of their beliefs, rather than talk about how everything else you could believe is so much worse.
yrs--
--Ben
P.S. If you were to study the history of Asia in the 20th century, you would find parallels to the inquisition, the Crusades, and 9/11, all without the presence of religion.
no subject
Does my disbelief in unicorns qualify as a religion?
no subject
no subject
"Faithful devotion" is an important phrase in the defintion above. There is no "faith" in atheism. You cannot be faithfully devoted to something without having faith in the first place.
My problem with this post (and the method of thinking) is that it is the co-opting of terms. Calling atheism a religion expands the defintion of religion so wide, the definition itself ceases to be useful.
Disbelief in unicorns is no more a religion than disbelief of JHVH, Thor, Zeus or any other deity: it's actually the refusal of "faithful devotion."
no subject
Who indeed?
Your argument is semantic. I don't care whether Atheism is a faith, or a non-faith ideological construct.
To make me happy is simple. Just either:
1) Don't say "Atheists never massacre people / go to war / use suicide tactics / go on paranoid inquisitions in the name of Atheism."
or
2) Read a book about the Cultural Revolution. For extra credit, study the Tamil Tigers, the anti-Rightist purge, and the Great Leap Forward. For extra extra credit, read the 1973 promulgation of the Chinese constitutions, rights and duties of citizens header, or the modern Chinese party constitution.
yrs--
--Ben
no subject
I've never said that, I don't believe it. You said atheism was a religion. I disagreed. Now, you're backpeddling.
Read a book about the Cultural Revolution...
I've read many books on the Cultural Revolution. I know who the Tamil Tigers are, the anti Rightist purge and all ther rest. You're assuming I have knowledge you don't have because I disagree with your definiton.
I have no problem agreeing with you that people commit crimes. I want to know why they commit crimes. You cannot--CANNOT--say that religion was not a primary motivation for the Inquisition, 9/11 and the other things you listed above. If you remove religion, you remove the motivation.
Saying "I don't believe in any gods" is not a religion. Saying "I believe in a god" is not a religion. It's the philosophies we build on those statements that leads to religion or philosophy.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
no subject
no subject
I'm not saying that the motivation of the GOVERNMENT (and those directly in power) was a pure, "KILL THE THEISTS!" That was just their propaganda to tighten their oligarchical control over the nation (Mao didn't run everything). HOWEVER, the lower levels of the Communist Party bought it, and on a local level just about everywhere went atheist and killed people who would not.
Just because the Wizard behind the curtain doesn't believe in his powers doesn't mean that the people of the Emerald City don't believe in his powers.
no subject
That's bigotry, not religion.
And you're actually arguing against Ben's point. Ben is saying atheism is a religion. It isn't. What the Chinese government is doing is creating a blind devotion to the state and bigoted hatred for a minority.
Blind obedience to the state. That's what China wants. That is a religion. But atheism, by itself, is not a religion anymore than refusal to believe in pink unicorns is a religion.
Much like theories are made of facts, both religions and philosophies are made of truth statements. Atheism or theism is a truth statement: "I (do not) believe in a divine power." That's the beginning of a religion or a philosophy, not the end. It takes a whole lot more to build a religion or a philosophy than just a single statement of fact.