Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Were Not Atheists
Some people claim that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were atheists, and they were very bad people, therefore atheism is bad (or some equally specious conclusion). One of the biggest problems with that is that none of those people were really atheists.
Hitler will be first because he’s the easiest. In Mein Kampf and later in a speech at the Reichstag he said, "... I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work." Oh, but he was just using that for rhetorical purposes, he didn’t actually believe it, right? Wrong, he’s also said, "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." (Both from here.)
Hitler was also a staunch creationist, "Human culture and civilization on this continent are inseparably bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he dies out or declines, the dark veils of an age without culture will again descend on this globe. The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise." Any claims that Hitler was inspired by Evolution are mere propaganda attempts to make Evolution look bad.
Besides all of this, it’s quite easy to make a really strong case that, if not for Christianity and its irrational hatred of the Jews up until the middle of the Twentieth Century, the Holocaust wouldn’t have happened. Sam Harris does a wonderful job in Chapter 3 of his book, The End of Faith, and there’s plenty available online, such as here. For some perspective on Nazis, here’s a discussion on books they had banned or burned.
Stalin and Mao are a bit tougher to crack, mainly because there’s no quotations attributable to them either way (at least that I can find, if you know of a reliable source for some, feel free to tell me). But most people seem to assume that because they abolished religion, they must be atheists. In fact, they abolished religion so that they could establish cults of personality, and become gods themselves. They did what they needed to in order to get more power, and religion was a rival power source, which is why they abolished it. Stalin actually reinstated the church after Hitler invaded, because he thought it would help him (from here). Religion simply got in their way, and they eliminated anything and anyone that got in their way.
Even if any of these people were atheists, what would it say about atheists or atheism in general? I’ve never heard an atheist make the claim that because Hitler was a Catholic, Catholicism and Catholics are evil, which is exactly the way people use the Stalin/Hitler/Mao/whoever argument. I would contend that it is far easier to manipulate religion and use it for evil than it is for atheism, mainly because religions are actually organized and unite people with a common belief system, while atheism is unorganized and typically disunited. Religion’s potential for evil is therefore greater, but no more necessary than atheism being evil.
However, put up against each other, religion beats atheism by several orders of magnitude in number of people killed. But that’s another story.
Hitler will be first because he’s the easiest. In Mein Kampf and later in a speech at the Reichstag he said, "... I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work." Oh, but he was just using that for rhetorical purposes, he didn’t actually believe it, right? Wrong, he’s also said, "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." (Both from here.)
Hitler was also a staunch creationist, "Human culture and civilization on this continent are inseparably bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he dies out or declines, the dark veils of an age without culture will again descend on this globe. The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise." Any claims that Hitler was inspired by Evolution are mere propaganda attempts to make Evolution look bad.
Besides all of this, it’s quite easy to make a really strong case that, if not for Christianity and its irrational hatred of the Jews up until the middle of the Twentieth Century, the Holocaust wouldn’t have happened. Sam Harris does a wonderful job in Chapter 3 of his book, The End of Faith, and there’s plenty available online, such as here. For some perspective on Nazis, here’s a discussion on books they had banned or burned.
Stalin and Mao are a bit tougher to crack, mainly because there’s no quotations attributable to them either way (at least that I can find, if you know of a reliable source for some, feel free to tell me). But most people seem to assume that because they abolished religion, they must be atheists. In fact, they abolished religion so that they could establish cults of personality, and become gods themselves. They did what they needed to in order to get more power, and religion was a rival power source, which is why they abolished it. Stalin actually reinstated the church after Hitler invaded, because he thought it would help him (from here). Religion simply got in their way, and they eliminated anything and anyone that got in their way.
Even if any of these people were atheists, what would it say about atheists or atheism in general? I’ve never heard an atheist make the claim that because Hitler was a Catholic, Catholicism and Catholics are evil, which is exactly the way people use the Stalin/Hitler/Mao/whoever argument. I would contend that it is far easier to manipulate religion and use it for evil than it is for atheism, mainly because religions are actually organized and unite people with a common belief system, while atheism is unorganized and typically disunited. Religion’s potential for evil is therefore greater, but no more necessary than atheism being evil.
However, put up against each other, religion beats atheism by several orders of magnitude in number of people killed. But that’s another story.
posted at
10/03/2006 09:26:00 AM
Measured Against Reality Feed
46 Comments:
Am I your only source of material for blog posts anymore, Stu?
I'll cede you Hitler, but you'd ought to edit out Mao and Stalin from that title, since you completely failed to prove the point.
Hitler's policies were fundamentally inspired by evolutionary teaching. I will not cede that point because it is true. You have not refuted it.
Nikolai Lenin was a confirmed atheist, and said “Darwin put an end to the belief that the animal and vegetable species bear no relation to one another, except by chance, and that they were created by God , and hence immutable.” (The heart of this statement is: “Darwin put an end to the belief that the animal and vegetable species..were created by God....”
His atheism and denial of God inspired his brutal dictatorship. Please try to refute this.
Joseph Stalin, too, was a Godless atheist - like yourself- and a materialist - like yourself.
Mao Zedong absolutely was an atheist, and imposed an atheistic personality cult on communist China.
It's not hard to find citations. Just type any one of these names + atheist into google.
Note that I did not make the oft-mistaken jump to "since these people are atheists, atheism is bad", but I'm illustrating a point, here. You've been saying "since religion has caused wars and death, all religious faith is evil and should be abolished"
I've never said the same thing about atheism. I respect your (lack of) faith, I just ask that you stop trying to shoot down other peoples'.
A quick trip down your blog links list leads me to believe a lot of you atheists have nothing better to do than insult the faiths of others.
By
Nicholas E Coutis, at 9:52 AM, October 03, 2006
Hitler did not use evolution.
Actually, Stalin didn't either. Ever heard of Lysenko? Try googling that, you might learn something about history.
And I did exactly that search, and couldn't find any quotes attributable to them (one of my links, that you obviously didn't read, is a Russian scholar saying that there are none attributable to Stalin, among other things).
By
Stupac2, at 10:02 AM, October 03, 2006
The second line in my post notes that I spoke hastily in regards to Hitler, and I cede you that point on further research.
By
Nicholas E Coutis, at 10:32 AM, October 03, 2006
Also, the link you provided does not refute the point that Hitler used social Darwinist rhetoric to justify ethnic cleansing/genocide.
All of my points stand, and you should still edit the title of your post.
By
Nicholas E Coutis, at 9:18 PM, October 03, 2006
if you gays can get past the athiest v xtian punch-up, I think yo9u'll find that the problems lies in ideologies. stalin, zedong etc repleced religious ideologies with political ideologies which, like religions before them, they forced upon their population. most athiests I know reject the concept of enforced single-ideology systems and prefer more modern pragmatic and flexible approaches to the issues of laws, ethics etc
By
Reg Spyder, at 6:10 PM, October 12, 2006
Yes, reg sums it up nicely. Weather any of these people were or were not atheists is of no relevance. What is important is that all of them, along with all organized religion, forces a system of non-thinking on the populace. Which allows them to control and manipulate the populace in whichever way.
That is why many(some or most, I'm not really sure) are also anti-authoritarian, because they recognize that inherent effect of ideologies, no matter their source, are the cause for much of the evils in the world, of which religion is simply the greatest example.
By
Unknown, at 8:28 PM, January 19, 2007
I got more on my blog:
If Hitler was an atheist...
Mr. Fantastic has been lied to about Hitler's belief in evolution.
By
normdoering, at 1:14 AM, April 25, 2007
Your way off on the Hitler is catholic stuff:
Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:
National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)
10th October, 1941, midday:
Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)
14th October, 1941, midday:
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity [is] the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)
19th October, 1941, night:
The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.
21st October, 1941, midday:
Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St. Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St. Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)
13th December, 1941, midnight:
Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... [here he insults people who believe transubstantiation] .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)
14th December, 1941, midday:
Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)
9th April, 1942, dinner:
There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)
27th February, 1942, midday:
It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold its demise." (p 278)
By
Anonymous, at 1:20 PM, July 11, 2007
A bit suspiscious that we have two posts supposedly from different people, but absolutely identical.
Anyway, thanks for being the first person I've seen who acknowledges the religious natures of Stalin's Russia and Mao's China. They may have tried to remove other religions, but as far as I'm concerned, anyone who tries to start a religion is religious.
By
Unknown, at 2:07 AM, August 17, 2007
A very interesting discussion. I do agree that religion is more vulnerable to misuse by virtue of its organization, but misuse of something does not make that something invalid. An ambulance can be used to run over someone, but that does not mean we should ban ambulances.
And certainly the actions of a few atheists does not render the entire atheist population evil. (I do appreciate the earlier point that many argue the actions of a few religionist, such as Osama bin Laden, somehow taint all religion.) The danger presented by atheism is not its misuse, per se, but the fact that it provides no check on those historical figures predisposed to atrocity. No doubt Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot slept in (deceptive) comfort, believing their actions would see no judgment at the end of this life. In fact, did that notion spur them in their quest for power? After all, if man is the ultimate judge and punisher, then better to be the one doing the judging and punishing at the top of the power structure.
Regrettably, arguments about the violent misuse of religion tend to forget about the billions (trillions?) of dollars in good work that have been done in the name of faith. Just as atheism cannot be misused, it also does not bear much power to mobilize good.
As a side note, Hitler's claim of Catholicity is, I suspect (speculation only), a reference to identity more than adherence. Catholicism, like Judaism, has a strong element of identity to it - people will call themselves Catholic even if they have not attended church for years or do not hold any of the major beliefs of the Church.
Bryan Kirchoff
By
Anonymous, at 8:20 PM, September 16, 2007
You're wrong, stalin and mao were atheists
Mao himself also spoke at times against religion specifically, rather than merely in favour of his own brand of political ideology. Famously he stated that "religion is poison. It has two great defects: It undermines the race ...(and) retards the progress of the country." We see in this all the hallmarks of atheism joined with a fanatical dedication to eliminate its perceived opposition. After his annexation of Tibet (which has, to their shame, remained unopposed by western governments to this day) Mao openly endorsed the destruction of Tibetan cultural heritage, including Buddhist monasteries, in part as a campaign to eliminate "theocratic authority". It has been estimated that the number of Tibetan monasteries was reduced by the Chinese from some 2,500 to "only just over 70" in the period 1959-1961. The number of monks and nuns fell from 100,000 to just 7,000 in the same period. Hundreds of thousands have died as a result of the invasion and the suffering goes on today. And, it should be noted, Mao's attack on religion in China was equally forceful.
Stalin was also an atheist:
The Pope? How many divisions has he got?
— Josef Stalin, to French Foreign Minister Pierre Laval, in reply to a suggestion that the Soviet Union should encourage Catholicism in order to propitiate the Pope, in Winston Churchill, The Second World War, vol. 1, "The Gathering Storm," ch. 8, (1948), said, 13 May 1935, quoted from, The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations
Stalin is quoted as saying "You know, they are fooling us, there is no God...all this talk about God is sheer nonsense" in E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow 1940
I assure you that Stalin followed Dialectical Materialism, an inherently materialist philosophy, in which you cannot possibly be religious
when i read Dawkins' challenge of finding a single case of specifically atheism-inspired violence, at least one instance does come to mind:
The year 1967 saw Enver Hoxha, Albania's leader, declared the country to be the world's first atheist state -- and proudly so. In fact, Hoxha decreed a ban on religion, religious names being given to newborns, ordered the demolishing of places of worship and imprisoned those found in possession of holy texts.
Needless to say, his human rights record drew widespread international condemnation. Critics of this example will attempt to tie it in with the communist ideology shackling eastern European states at the time, but it is clear that Hoxha was determined to carry out his anti-religious campaign specifically for atheism's sake.
who can deny that Stalin and Mao, Pol Pot and a host of others, all committed atrocities in the name of a Communist ideology that was explicitly atheistic? Who can dispute that they did their bloody deeds by claiming to be establishing a "new man" and a religion-free utopia? These were mass murders performed with atheism as a central part of their ideological inspiration, they were not mass murders done by people who simply happened to be atheist.
But of course how can a lack of belief motivate people to do bad?...One feels you are neglecting to acknowledge the subtle distinction between the absence of a belief in God, and the firm belief that God is absent. The former is a rather placid position which results from merely failing to be persuaded of the positive case for God. By contrast the latter is positively invested in the idea that God is non-existent, and it is this that presumably comes prior to the atheism-inspired atrocities
More than this, some call themselves overtly "anti-theist", which suggests an opposition to religion and possibly the determination to erradicate it to the fullest possible extent.
By
Anonymous, at 7:22 AM, November 07, 2007
This blog discusses wether Mao&Stalin were atheists, he failed as i clearly showed
Atheists say "there is no god" in other words they already covered this "fact", anti-theism inspired them to kill which believes that "religion is poison" as Mao said
Atheism informs Marxism; it is a central tenet. Chesterton tells us, “When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing – they believe in anything.” That is how the tyrant becomes drunk on power and is led to committing terrible evils.”
Massacres have taken place for and in the name of atheism. Two examples: Mao’s destruction of Tibetan monasteries, as well as the anti-religious campaign in China; and, Enver Hoxha, the Albanian leader who razed mosques, churches, monasteries, and forbid parents from giving their children religious names. Believers were imprisoned, tortured or executed (or all three). All in the name of declaring “the world’s first atheist state”.
Look at all the good deeds religious people have done, how many charities exist inspired by Jesus, for example. Islamic fundamentalism is a minority position, exacerbated by the way, by the incessant and inhumane military interventionism in the Middle East. You can’t just ignore politics and blame everything on God, you know. And what about slavery? It was a religiously-inspired Wilberforce whose efforts resulted in a commendable leap forward.
By
Anonymous, at 4:32 AM, December 20, 2007
You wrote: "In fact, they abolished religion so that they could establish cults of personality, and become gods themselves. "
Is this really your entire argument for claiming that they were not atheists?
By
Anonymous, at 6:50 AM, December 22, 2007
For a better argument go to: vjocys.blogspot.com
By
Anonymous, at 9:43 PM, December 30, 2007
Regarding evolution:
Even if Hitler claimed to be inspired by evolutionary teaching, this is a total perversion and misunderstanding of the theory. Hitler was enacting artificial selection, NOT natural selection, the main mechanism of evolution(the other being generic mutation). Evolution assigns no universal or moral value to individuals it selects. Rather, it says that that individual is better suited to survive and reproduce in that specific, local environment.
Second, even if we say that Hitler was acting based on evolutionary theory, so what? This is completely irrelevant. It doesnt mean that evolution is not true, even though theists seem to imply this. Atheists and evolutionary biologists don't claim that we should use evolution as a guide to live our lives or a moral code. They simple say that it is scientific fact.
By
Anonymous, at 9:02 PM, January 08, 2008
Very sad and pathetic article. Hitler was NO Catholic by the time he became Chancelor, and quite clearly acted in a manner not resembling a Christian. Stalin and Mao were both atheists in their adulthood. By the way, it takes as much "blind faith" to be an atheist as it does to believe in God. It is foolish to think that if our little brains cannot prove something with our imperfect use of our sight, touch, smell, etc...then it must not exist. Scientific Reasoning is only a tool, like a hammer or screwdriver. It is silly to put your faith in a screwdriver or hammer (and down right deadly if you put it in a hammer and cicle). This article fails to prove points and is mearly apologetic propaganda - a cop-out.
By
Anonymous, at 4:32 PM, May 03, 2008
I love this argument for Mao and Stalin not being atheists:
"Er... because they wanted to be gods. Ok?"
Wrong. Anyone, no matter what religion they do or do not subscribe to is capable of setting up a "cult of personality". This does, in NO way, either refute or support their beliefs in religion or atheism.
This is basic logic 101. A person can *easily* be an atheist and desire to be worshipped as a "god".
This is easily the poorest argument against Mao and Stalin not being atheists I've ever read. But then, it really wasn't an argument, but a abysmal attempt at keeping religion on the hook for atrocities in antiquity.
By
DallasDeckard, at 5:10 PM, May 06, 2008
"However, put up against each other, religion beats atheism by several orders of magnitude in number of people killed. But that’s another story."
I applaud you.
Whenever this discussion thumbles down to numbers its allways. "hey we didnt kill THAT many".
I wonder when somebody with an actual sense for social issues makes the conclusion that killing eachother is not a matter of freaking belief its a matter of human nature.
People kill eachother for everything. Money, pride, dignity, body color, language, eye color, girls and a half million of unthinkable retarded things.
Atheism yet suggests that the cause for every conflict on planet earth is caused by religion. I cant add to that. Who truly belives in the ideology of atheism is nowhere better than any beliver of any religion.
Humans is the only word to describe this. Stop vreating labels to prove that you are better than others. You are not.
By
A, at 2:12 PM, October 19, 2009
atheism kills. liberal estimates put the total number of people killed in 250 years of the crusades at 800,000
1 atheist beat that in just a few years.
20th century secularism killed more people than all religious wars in the last 1000 years and you can take that to the bank.
murder? rape? human cruelty? No religion needed.
By
Anonymous, at 4:23 PM, December 09, 2009
This comment has been removed by the author.
By
Anonymous, at 6:05 PM, March 05, 2010
This comment has been removed by the author.
By
Anonymous, at 6:24 PM, March 05, 2010
Claiming atheists do not kill in the name of athiesim is observational selection. There are numerous cases of individuals killing "in the name of atheism", from local college rampages to mass genocides.
Claiming that atheists do not kill because it is not believing in something is a special pleading. It is still a belief system. Rarely do people live to academic definitions.
Claiming that personality of faith or anyone acting on a belief system is a religious system is a straw man. A cult of personality is a belief in a man not a God.
Arguments that you could address:
1) That an atheistic man replaces himself for God, in a behavioral aspect, answering only to himself. These Machiavellin leaders are extreme examples.
2) That an atheist as a humanist has made imperfect man the measure of all things. Yet, man's present incorrectness is astounding. Only be nurturing ourselves in the spiritual, not a total engrossment of every day life, do we avoid rampant materialism and focus on morals
3)That atheist as Darwinists devalue man, Lenin and Stalin are examples with supporting citations.
Judging theists by their the acts, not their proscribed beliefs, and yet not accepting responsibility for the actions of known atheists comes across as hypocritical.
Perhaps we should simply recognize that blame frames such as God, nature, choice, etc. are all used to quell the internal dissonance people experience when encountered with injustice. In the end, those that avoid violent conditioning, will tend to avoid continuing violence.
By
IceHawk, at 2:06 AM, April 20, 2010
This comment has been removed by the author.
By
Anonymous, at 11:57 AM, April 20, 2010
This comment has been removed by the author.
By
Anonymous, at 11:58 AM, April 20, 2010
This comment has been removed by the author.
By
Anonymous, at 11:58 AM, April 20, 2010
This is one of the dumbest things I have read on the net in a long time - though, granted, I don't visit very low-brow sites.
1. Hitler - sure, he was not an atheist. Granted. A few people say he is, they are wrong. I think this debate occurs, however, because of the number of atheists, ever thinking themselves to be overly clever by their rebellion, who claim Christianity has led to the deaths of 10000000000000000000 people and cite Hitler as a Christian. Hitler was raised Catholic, he was not a practising Catholic. He eventually persecuted Catholics. Naziism co-opted the Evangelical Church of Germany (now very liberal - as Protestant churches are always more pliable than Catholics), but eventually persecuted anyone there with independent political thoughts. He shocked the Strasser brothers, who built the NSDAP in the North, by allowing neopagan attacks on Catholicism in party newspapers, telling them privately that the party must defend Christianity now but look to the future (meaning, neopaganism will be the real Nazi religion). Neonazis, by the way, tend to be pseudo-pagans rather than pious Christians.
Hitler was probably a vague deist personally, and no, I don't think he worshipped Thor. But he wanted the Germans to return to the old proto-Germanic religion, which is a much better fit for Naziism than internationalist and egalitarian Christianity (esp. Catholicism).
And Hitler was certainly a Darwinist eugenicist, which is a product of evolutionary biology - ideas he imported from the US and UK. Atheist world elites think very much the same things today, they just code their language.
2. Stalin - Stalin was obviously an atheist because he said so many times. There is much speculation that he came back to a belief in God privately and that this influenced his support for the Russian Orthodox Church. The man had been to seminary in his youth and there are also theories that this influenced his creation of a quasi-religious style of Marxism-Leninism, complete with prophets, martyrs, bishops, devotions, holy days, and a damn mausoleum. I can subscribe to most of this. However, if Stalin did indeed come back to a belief in God, it was in the 40s. His great crimes were in the 30s, during the open atheist period, when 99% of churches disappeared. That was atheist persecution of the faithful.
Mao - you didn't even make an argument here. Mao only claimed to be an atheist. Chinese culture is not highly theistic, though perhaps somewhat idealistic. At most he could be said to have had influences of Idealism, but not theism. And the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution even destroyed much of what was left of Chinese (non-theistic) religion.
By
Thomas, at 4:23 AM, June 26, 2010
(cont.)
The Jews - Why, oh why, do these atheist anti-Christians think they can blame the crimes of a Christian on Christianity but Jews haven't done anything wrong? Jesus was a Jew, every Christian admits this. A few Jews followed Him, the Pharisees led most of them to oppose Him. Roman soldiers nailed Him to the cross, but only because Jews demanded it over Pilate's protests (so these Christian Coalition types who say the Romans killed Christ and the Jews did nothing wrong are Zionist puppets). That is not a reason to hate Jews who have nothing to do with that, however, just like it is wrong to hold a prejudice against Germans or Japanese or Southern Americans now (though some do). Another problem is that surviving Judaism was markedly anti-Christian and, especially with the advent of the Talmudic writings, the tribalistic and racial-superior aspects of Judaism became more manifest. Furthermore, Jews practised usury, whereas this was forbidden for Christians (and also for Jews to practise on other Jews, just okay to take from Goyim). Thus, the Jews were closed-knit groups of people making their money from trade and finance in cities (at least insofar as Europeans knew them). You still find it irrational that Christians and Jews didn't get along all the time?
Another major point here is indeed what happened in the USSR. Neonazi groups will exaggerate this and claim that Bolshevism was Jewish (in fact, this was the claim of mainstream West European conservatives in the 20s-30s) with false figures claiming 98% of their first congresses were Jews. That is rubbish. Bolshevism belonged to no one group. Jews were, however, very disproportionately represented among the intellectual leadership of the movement. According to Soviet statistics, 40-45% of NKVD officers in the mid-30s were Jews. This is at the height of the Terror and at the height of anti-Christian fanaticism, pushed especially by the Trotskyite Left faction. As Stalin brought this to an end in 1938-39 (by turning the guns on the NKVD), this number fell to under 10%. Again, I don't see Bolshevism as a Jewish plot, I am actually a socialist and wish history were a bit neater. But Jews were disproportionately represented in the party and state-security apparatus precisely at the USSR's worst and bloodiest moments. Of course, this has nothing to do with Judaism, as these Jews were all ATHEISTS.
So don't you go telling me Christianity is guilty of everything and atheism is more rational and peaceful. Atheism is as rational or peaceful as the political ideology to which it is attached. The path of Christ, however, is clear and evident to all.
By
Thomas, at 4:24 AM, June 26, 2010
There are numerous cases of individuals killing "in the name of atheism", from local college rampages to mass genocides.
Citation seriously needed. Answers in Genesis is NOT a legitimate source. Some rube with a page on Geocities isn't either. Primary sources. Do you even know what those are?
In fact all of your assertions are questionable and lacking in any kind of credibility for the same reason.
Welcome to real history, rather than making shit up.
By
Aquaria, at 5:53 AM, July 08, 2010
This comment has been removed by the author.
By
Anonymous, at 9:11 AM, July 08, 2010
This comment has been removed by the author.
By
Anonymous, at 10:35 AM, July 13, 2010
The logic presented here is that:
1. I am a practicing Christian, or I have been a Christian.
2. I commit a horrible crime.
3. I commit the crime because I am a Christian.
But in contradiction, the logic is also used:
1. I am an atheist
2. I commit a horrible crime
3. The crime I commit has nothing to do with me being an atheist.
This is the same flawed logic:
1. I play violent video games
2. I commit a horrible crime
3. I commit the crime because of video games
Hitler, Stalin and Mao did not implement their policies because of their religions. What motivated them was not their religion.
What someone IS is irrelevant. What MOTIVATES them is relevant. The REASON for their actions is relevant.
Religion can unite a country to one purpose to try to destroy an enemy. But so can nationalism and race, as was the case in Germany. They murdered a lot of gipsies, for example.
Religion also compels people to do good things. People give blood, volunteer, give money to charities, because their religion compels them to do so.
One argument is an atheistic society looks to and relies on the state more and, thus, they give the state more power that can result in much larger crimes. This was the case in Germany and communist Soviet Union, China, southeast Asia.
Germany's population that was rounding up Jews and putting them into trains was not compelled to do this by their religion. They were compelled to do this by their state and their united hatred of a race, blamed for their economic woes over their depression era.
You might volunteer because of your belief that the planet is being destroyed by humans. This movement, Global Warming, also might compel an unbalanced individual to do harm to someone or destroy private property.
So the truth is any movement, belief system, or personal identity, can compel people to do horrible things. People do stupid things because of their football team.
Does Christianity teach me to hate people who don't believe the same as me? No, my experience is it teaches me to be tolerant and forgiving. That's my personal experience. I have never heard a sermon that told me to persecute or even judge.
Are there people who hate? Yes. There are people who hate people who drive SUVs because of their belief it is destroying the planet. There are people who hate liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, Mexicans, rednecks, homosexuals...
But the fact remains if you want a body count of people who were killed in the name of a specific religion versus people who were killed because of nationalism or race, the nationalism/race murders DWARF the murdered committed in the name of any god.
What compels a person to do good? Most religions do that. They compel people to give, to help the less fortunate.
An atheist might very well have an influence that compels them to do good. Religion isn't the only source for motivation to do good. However, it is the largest source for this motivation. And many studies have shown that people who go to church are much more likely to volunteer their time, donate blood, donate money to charity, donate goods, etc.
Of course, people who go to gardening classes are more likely going to do gardening, right?
By
Anonymous, at 12:16 PM, November 27, 2010
The logic presented here is that:
1. I am a practicing Christian, or I have been a Christian.
2. I commit a horrible crime.
3. I commit the crime because I am a Christian.
But in contradiction, the logic is also used:
1. I am an atheist
2. I commit a horrible crime
3. The crime I commit has nothing to do with me being an atheist.
This is the same flawed logic:
1. I play violent video games
2. I commit a horrible crime
3. I commit the crime because of video games
Hitler, Stalin and Mao did not implement their policies because of their religions. What motivated them was not their religion.
What someone IS is irrelevant. What MOTIVATES them is relevant. The REASON for their actions is relevant.
Religion can unite a country to one purpose to try to destroy an enemy. But so can nationalism and race, as was the case in Germany. They murdered a lot of gipsies, for example.
Religion also compels people to do good things. People give blood, volunteer, give money to charities, because their religion compels them to do so.
One argument is an atheistic society looks to and relies on the state more and, thus, they give the state more power that can result in much larger crimes. This was the case in Germany and communist Soviet Union, China, southeast Asia.
Germany's population that was rounding up Jews and putting them into trains was not compelled to do this by their religion. They were compelled to do this by their state and their united hatred of a race, blamed for their economic woes over their depression era.
You might volunteer because of your belief that the planet is being destroyed by humans. This movement, Global Warming, also might compel an unbalanced individual to do harm to someone or destroy private property.
So the truth is any movement, belief system, or personal identity, can compel people to do horrible things. People do stupid things because of their football team.
Does Christianity teach me to hate people who don't believe the same as me? No, my experience is it teaches me to be tolerant and forgiving. That's my personal experience. I have never heard a sermon that told me to persecute or even judge.
Are there people who hate? Yes. There are people who hate people who drive SUVs because of their belief it is destroying the planet. There are people who hate liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, Mexicans, rednecks, homosexuals...
But the fact remains if you want a body count of people who were killed in the name of a specific religion versus people who were killed because of nationalism or race, the nationalism/race murders DWARF the murdered committed in the name of any god.
What compels a person to do good? Most religions do that. They compel people to give, to help the less fortunate.
An atheist might very well have an influence that compels them to do good. Religion isn't the only source for motivation to do good. However, it is the largest source for this motivation. And many studies have shown that people who go to church are much more likely to volunteer their time, donate blood, donate money to charity, donate goods, etc.
Of course, people who go to gardening classes are more likely going to do gardening, right?
By
Anonymous, at 12:17 PM, November 27, 2010
Give me a break Communism is inextricably tied to atheism.
They HAD to root out people of faith as Hitler did because people of real faith stand up against tyrants.
It is not that religion isnt' dangerous its that religion has a better chance of producing followers who will not stand for tyrants.
Atheism CANNOT have an ideology or a teaching or a morality. IT CANNOT spew as you will to the opposite.
eh.. you atheists are puke. Get real. Communism killed TONS more people than religion ever did and communists who killed ALL hated religion.
SO you are in with a nasty crowd.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/welcome.html
By
Anonymous, at 9:15 PM, December 19, 2010
Mao and Stalin attacked intellectuals. Why? Mao had plans for turning China into a modern industrial state.
Mao Zedong, The Chinese Intellectuals and The Ferromagnetic Theory of Cancer http://www.tutuz.com/?p=1682
The famous Bulgarian prophetess Vanga prophesied iron death of cancer.
Irons (Handcuffs, Manacles, Shackles, Fetters) & Ferromagnetic Theory of Cancer (Iron Conception) http://www.tutuz.com/?p=1669
By
Anonymous, at 10:57 AM, December 20, 2010
Stalin is quoted as saying "You know, they are fooling us, there is no God...all this talk about God is sheer nonsense" in E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow 1940
However it's important to emphasize that Stalin's religious life has contradictions of whether he truly was an atheist or not:
Stalin's daughter Svetlana Alliluyeva Stalin said (documentary "Mysteries of the Century: Kremlin Kids" ("Тайны века" - "Дети Кремля") 2003-03-19, 1 Channel 1 Russia), how Stalin told her that Christ existed.
Journalist: It is interesting, that from all Kremlin' residents, maybe, just Stalin believed in God...
S.Alliluyeva: In father's library, between other books, were few tomes of "Christ". It was history of Christ written by vox populist Morozov. I said to my father: "But Christ didn't exist!" and he answered "Oh no, Christ, surely existed."
Under Stalin's insisting In 1939-11-11, Politburo of the Central Committee has admitted prosecutions of believers "inexpedient". In 1939-11-11 Stalin canceled Lenin's instruction from May, 1st, 1919 for N 13666-2 "About struggle against priests and religion" and gave orders to People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs (NKVD) to release from custody already arrested priests "if activity of these citizens didn't harm the Soviet authority".
Stalin "hated" religion so much, that in 1951-06-27 he gaved "Stalin's Prize" to English clergyman Hewlett Johnson. Various prizes under Soviet authority received and other priests.
So the common claims that Stalin was an anti-theist is wrong, a deeper research into Russian history will give you a different percpective.
By
K.e.n.n.e.t.h., at 1:24 AM, December 28, 2010
saywhatitis.com
I share some of your dislikes of christianity and most of your disgust with religion. I am an atheist -- I got here by experience and study. I wanted only to point out that when one scratches a member of the Communist Chinese empire they find some Budhist flesh bleeding confucionism. While Mao was probably intellectually from the religiosity of these beliefs, he authoritarianism was 110 percent Confucionist, embellished with the slaughter of millions who didn't conform or even if something about them suggested nonconformity to the Maoist worldview. Stalin on the the same hand was from a peasant/serf family and his mother was probably steeped in religion trying to make certain that he didn't die as his preceding siblings and died in infancy. He was well taught in religion and won a scholarship to Tiflis Seminary. But he was a Marxist and a "administrative" revolutionary well versed in Marxist and Communist intellectual liberation from organized religion. So while he couldn't be completelyfree of it, he could purge the masses in millions when the dictates of his views of power led him to it. Probably didn't need very much leading. I don't know that this serves your point which seems to be to defend atheists as non-violent people. I don't think I would like to get in a pissing match on that issue, except to say that far few real atheists have made it to power position of being a Military Mass Murderer leader so to speak.
Saywhatitis.com
By
PoliticsofPartitiondivisionreintegratn, at 9:14 PM, February 27, 2011
Mao openly supported the idea that he was the son of GOD (In Chinese, it is called Tianzi"). So, not an atheist.
By
Anonymous, at 6:41 AM, April 03, 2011
It is irresponsible scholarship to make a sweeping characterization one statement from a whole body of work. The whole must be taken into account. To determine the belief system (worldview or context for understanding the world and our place in it, which everyone has) the whole body of work must be looked at over time, allowing for the maturation or changing of ideas over time. Also, use of rhetoric must be understood in full context of political, social, and military realities--it is used to manipulate and persuade, and smart leaders must employ it, and is only a totally reliable indicator of personal belief over political savvy when backed up by action. From this responsible perspective:
Mao and Stalin clearly persecute and denigrate religion, and seek to set up systems of belief with non-deist frameworks and objects of trust, guidance, and faith (personality cult, if you will). They are atheists, and Stalin by some accounts kills more than Hitler.
Hitler is a convoluted mess of ideological rhetoric and paranoia, with the singular goal of megalomaniacal domination, although his whack system seems a mishmash of personality cult and nationalism. Religious reference is inconsistent and subject to the sway of his notion of support from it. He clearly persecuted religious leaders who countered him. The best label for him is INSANE, and the lesson to be drawn is not that atheists or theists spawned him but that rhetoric designed to demonize any group is dangerous, contagious and horribly wrong.
No one's cause is served by manipulating history to reflect what you want to see. Issues of identity, which include belief system both religious and not, are easily leveraged to make certain groups appear superior and others dangerous to "good" society". It is better for all groups to accept and learn from their lunatics and demons, for all have them, than try for the humanly impossible goal of being perfection in human form. And accept that insecurity in identity is the real danger--humans have hated and started conflict over ethnic, national, language, and religious differences in their tumultuous history, and manipulated them to pursue goals of resources and power. We must seek to stop the continuation of this dangerous cycle of misusing identity if we are to really achieve something akin to peace on earth.
By
wildsylver, at 6:25 AM, July 17, 2011
Excellent Post! Mr. Fantastic, just because you can't understand doesn't make it not so. Anonymous, nice of you to try to use logic, but the reason some Christians and or Muslims acts are tied to violence is because they are done "in the name of their god" whereas atheism ...you have to make assumptions and stretches.
By
CHAD, at 10:30 AM, August 02, 2011
In my view everyone have to glance at it.
By
diseno web valencia, at 11:26 PM, August 12, 2011
Atheism is not a belief system, it's not an ideology, it's not a political ideology, it's only a statement, a label.
Calling Atheism anything else, is like calling bald a hair color.
Stalin and Mao were both Atheists, and for some reason some here want to think that they did their atrocities *because* of Atheism.
But that is not remotely the case.
What motivated their actions were their dogmatic political ideologies of centralizing power through marxist communism, one of those actions is dismantling all other areas that would syphon power away from them, and religion holds *massive* amounts of power in the world.
What motivated them was the religion of dogmatic political ideologies and *Anti-Theism* the fierce opposition to Religion.
Mao and Stalin also dismantled Buddhist temples, and buddhism is an Atheistic Religion, they do not believe in deities.
Religion is a belief system, which can motivate good or evil, just like a political belief system. Atheism, again, is just a label. It'd like saying someone committed their atrocities because he was bald.
By
Anonymous, at 11:42 AM, September 07, 2011
Pretty effective data, thanks so much for your article.
By
muebles murcia, at 2:11 PM, October 10, 2011
"I’ve never heard an atheist make the claim that because Hitler was a Catholic, Catholicism and Catholics are evil, which is exactly the way people use the Stalin/Hitler/Mao/whoever argument."
Really? Someone ought to tell these people to give up atheism: https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/381869_10150490224451083_654046082_10899919_1694503209_n.jpg
By
Anonymous, at 9:02 AM, December 01, 2011
"religion beats atheism by several orders of magnitude in number of people killed. But that’s another story."
The Soviet Union, Germany and China combined killed over 40 million people in non-combat situations in the 20th century. Can you cite anywhere in history where religion has even come close to these numbers?
By
Robyn Hode, at 10:11 AM, April 06, 2012
Yes
The Muslim Conquest of India killed 80 million(Will Durant, Koenraad Elst), the Taiping Rebellion killed 20-100 million(Black Book of Communism page 468, TaipingRebellion.com, atimes.com, entered the Guinness book of world records as the bloodiest civil war in the world), and if we take the upper estimates for slavery in the Atlantic(150 million according to Fredric Wertham)) and the Middle East and the American Holocaust(Stannard, American Holocaust (1992), estimated 100 million and called this "the most massive act of genocide in the history of the world") then we can easily get to the hundreds of millions for each of these three, that aside from several other religious wars out there, the Thirty Years War has entered Guinness Book of World Records as the lonest continuous war, you might say this is unfair and try to underestimate it but people have no problem using the same methodology for deaths under Communism, and these are just for religious wars, If we just include every religious person who killed people regardless of his motive then we can get much higher, Queen Victoria herself killed as much as Mao(Mike Davis "Late Victorian Holocausts"), and most of Victoria's victims were killed in the same manner as Mao too(famine)
Anyway, atheism doesn't have commandments to kill so it can't be blamed for atrocities, but religion does have commandments to kill, that aside from the fact that there is serious doubt regarding Stalin and Mao being atheists
Soviet Fiction Since Stalin: Science, Politics and Literature by Rosalind J. Marshþ page 132
"Influenced by his years in an Orthodox seminary, Stalin resurrected the vocabulary and symbolism of religion to make his ruthless social engineering more palatable to the masses"
Political Thought of Joseph Stalin: A Study in Twentieth Century Revolutionary Patriotism By Erik van Ree
"Stalin had reproached his officers that they had shown less concern for the well-being of their men in the Finnish war than Count Kutuzov, who visited his soldiers to see how they were doing and what they had to eat(Malyshev, 1997: 110) But soldiers could not avoid suffering. As Stalin noted in 1952: "Jesus Christ also suffered, and even carried his cross, and then he rose up to heaven. You, then, have to suffer too, in order to rise up to heaven""
Stalin breaker of Nations by Robert Conquest
"historians doubt one later Soviet claim that he read The Origin of Species at the age of thirteen while still at Gori, and told a fellow pupil that it proved the nonexistence of God. The story fails on several obvious accounts, including Stalin remaining religious"
--
Recast All under Heaven: Revolution, War, Diplomacy, and Frontier China in the 20th century by Xiaoyuan Liu
"Mao told the tibetan leader that religion was poison. Mao's remark cannot be found anywhere in relevant publications in China. When recalling this incident on different occasions, the Dalai Lama has offered several versions of his reaction on the spot"
Search:
"The late Chairman Mao Zedong said when he received delegations from Peru in 1964 that "it is wrong to tell people to be against religion."
Mao Zedong's China by Kathlyn Gay page 112
"Chinese make the pilgrimage to Shaoshan each year because they view Mao Zedong as a god"
The Baker Pocket Guide to World Religions by Gerald R.McDermott
"Mao Zedong...seems to have believed privately in a realm beyond the grave....The thoughts expressed are reminiscent of a religious Daoist cosmos"
By
Unknown, at 6:41 AM, May 27, 2015
To bigots these people will be atheist, gay, or whatever it is that they happen to hate. You probably won't even try to consider the evidence, but anyway:
http://www.creationtheory.org/Morality/AtheistMorality-Hitler.xhtml
http://nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm
http://www.creationtheory.org/Essays/Hitler.xhtml
It also answers common nonsense like using Hitler's Table Talk
In the German census of May 1939, 94% of Germans considered themselves Christians and "only 3.5 percent claiming to be neo-pagan "believers in God," and 1.5 percent unbelievers. This census came more than six years into the Hitler era". So it's very weak to blame atheism on a society that was way more religious than modern day U.S, and saying he just pretended he was a Christian(he didn't pretend) just goes to show that it says alot about how religion itself is a useful ideology if you want to justify oppression and enslavement
“The anti-Semitism of the new movement [Christian Social movement] was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge.” –Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (This quote is very interesting for it disperses the idea that Hitler raged war due to being an Aryan supremacist. He states quite clearly that he has a problem with Jews for their belief not race. That is why many German Jews died in WW2 regardless of their Aryan nationality.)
By
Unknown, at 10:52 AM, May 27, 2015
Post a Comment
<< Home