Theist: “And so, if you’re gonna criticize — you know, religious people for the Inquisition, then you need to praise them for the civil rights movement,” he said. You can’t sort of have it both ways. And similarly, if you’re going to praise atheists for these things, you need to criticize the Stalinists. I mean, some of the most murderous regimes that we’ve had in the 20th century were atheistic regimes.”
What this theist refuses to acknowledge is that he is conveniently comparing apples and oranges. I do not deny that some atheists do bad things, as some Christians do. The difference is, for example, in the case of the Inquisition, murders and torture were condoned in the name of their religion and their god. Even if Stalin was a devout atheist, he did not commit his tyranny in the name of religion or because he claimed to defend reason. Stalin was simply a megalomaniac and a political opportunist. When was the last time you heard a terrorist act being done in the name of atheism or science and reason? When was the last tine a terrorist act was done in the name of a religion’s imaginary god?
Stalin was not motivated by atheism; if he was motivated by an “ism”, it was Communism. While communism is an ostensibly atheistic political philosophy, atheism is not inherently communistic. To restate that more clearly: communists are supposed to be atheists, but atheists do not have to be communists – no matter what your local evangelical tells you. The intent of the communist revolution was to eliminate capitalism, not religion.
An atheist doesn’t need to be a communist, but he/she doesn’t need neither to be a capitalist, an anarchist, a feudalist, or anything else. In fact, an atheist doesn’t also need to be a humanist. There are atheists that see humanism as a kind of ’speciesism’ against other biological organisms, and thus reject it. There are also anti-humanist atheists that do not think that every human being deserves respect simply for being human.
There are all kinds of atheists, politically, socially, economically, etc.
Moving on…
Although Stalin was an atheist, he was praised as a god in the Soviet Union and in all the official Communist Parties in the world.
An example:
“O great Stalin, O leader of the peoples,
Thou who broughtest man to birth.
Thou who fructifiest the earth.
Thou who restorest the centuries,
Thou who makest bloom the spring,
Thou who makest vibrate the musical cords.
Thou, splendour of my spring,
O Thou, Sun reflected by millions of hearts …”
(Pravda, August 28, 1936.)
And another one:
“I would have compared him to a white mountain – but the mountain has a summit.
I would have compared him to the depths of the sea – but the sea has a bottom.
I would have compared him to the shining moon – but the moon shines at midnight, not at noon.
I would have compared him to the brilliant sun – but the sun radiates at noon, not at midnight.”
(Znamya, Soviet Authors’ Union Monthly, October 1946.)
Perhaps Stalin is a self-theist?
Also, the USSR didn’t reject religious doctrines out of some ‘rational analysis’, but because Marxist-Leninist doctrines called for it. It’s good to remember that unquestioned adherence to those doctrines drove them to reject real science (especially genetics) because, according to them, it contradicted orthodoxy and was therefore false. Ring a bell, theists?
The problem here isn’t Stalin and his supposed atheism. It is about unquestioning obedience to dogma, whatever that particular dogma may be. That is why religion is so dangerous, and this why theists need to wake the up.
Also: This particular theist has just lost the game.
Comments
RSS
Digg!
Stumble
Tweet
More by Shalini Sehkar
Author Tweets
tweets loading 
[...] latest post got me thinking. Not about Stalin, communism or even atheism, but about the Annals of Improbable [...]
Interesting point about atheists who reject humanism. When I first learned about humanism I fell into the category of finding it “speciesist” but I think that comes from a large misunderstanding. I don’t think humanism is meant to be a belief that humans are superior or somehow deserve to be treated with unconditional reverence. I see it as a philosophy that calls for all decisions to be made based on reason, compassion, and understanding, rather than dogmatism.
Also: THANKS A BUNCH.
If you read any Paul Kurtz (probably the father of modern humanism) you’ll see that Humanism is not speciesest. That is, if you take it that Kurtz’ writings are representative of Humanism.
I wrote a very in-depth article on the atheism=communism canard about a month ago. No theist has been able to rebuff it.
I agree, atheism is not synonymous with communism and being an ideologue is the problem, but that doesn’t mean we are in the clear. Any ideology, even something like humanism can be used to create atrocities.
As an example, I’m pro-choice, but one could argue that the individualism and ‘human’ centered ethics allow fetus’s without any ‘human status’ to be unceremoniously destroyed… even into the third trimester. Now I think the arguments for balancing the rights of a woman to control her body are strong, but many on the pro-choice side overstate their case, in a very scary way. And what I mean by this is that in order to defend their rights against anti-abortionists they become unwilling to even discuss the ethics of late term abortions, which are in a much greyer area of ethics.
A similar issue exists with both animal rights activists, some of whom are willing to commit acts of terrorism ‘to save the animals’ and environmental activists who also sometimes put lives in danger (spiking trees for instance). Even civil rights and human rights have been used as excuses for violence. Are they using humanist ethics to support their actions?
All of this is not directly related to simple atheism, but if you are a humanist, then humanist ethics will be your guide and if we aren’t self-critical and vigilant then someone like Stalin could co-opt and abuse the humanist ideology, much like Stalin did to Marxism.
The real question we should be asking is, what aspects of humanism may be prone to abuse… its our duty to make sure history does not repeat itself…. especially making sure its not us doing the repeating.
On this day of the American election, where its conceivable that someone like Sarah Palin could eventually become president…. ask yourself what you would be willing to do if abortion became illegal. What are you willing to do for your beliefs…. for your ideology.
http://www.evolvedrational.com/2008/11/fundie-claim-18-stalin-stalin-stalin.html Wtf !?!?!
What’s your point?
Agreed. We do need a critical approach to thinking and assessing our own ideologies, from which we can never escape. Perhaps by remaining critical, even of our own positions, this can be a firm foundation for secure thoughts. It is of course difficult to fathom stabilitiy out of something as vapid as the human mind, but I think “constant self-criticism” and in general critical thnking, can be good if everyone (those who agree and disagree with us) use it.
[...] latest post got me thinking. Not about Stalin, communism or even atheism, but about the Annals of Improbable [...]