Philosophy Now Forum

Greta wrote:Hitler, Stalin and Mao were not atheists. Each believed themselves to be a god, and there was so little trust that none dared reveal "that the emperor was wearing no clothes".

These cults of personality are a long way from atheism, which declines to make any deity claims whatsoever. The Scandinavian countries provided a promising model of how secular societies may work.

I think that resembles the 'no true Scotsman' argument. Any atheist who does bad things isn't a true atheist.

What's wrong with the notion that there is no connection between religion, (or lack of it), and behaviour?

Why would we consider religion as somehow fundamental? It seems to me more likely that religion is secondary, that it reflects the needs and concerns of a particular society. The reason I say that is we call see that religions change over time. The scripture may remain the same but the interpretation adapts. I think religion is much more an effect than a cause.

Londoner wrote:

Greta wrote:Hitler, Stalin and Mao were not atheists. Each believed themselves to be a god, and there was so little trust that none dared reveal "that the emperor was wearing no clothes".

These cults of personality are a long way from atheism, which declines to make any deity claims whatsoever. The Scandinavian countries provided a promising model of how secular societies may work.

I think that resembles the 'no true Scotsman' argument. Any atheist who does bad things isn't a true atheist.

Any person who believes in God or deities is, by definition, not an atheist.

Greta wrote:

Londoner wrote:

Greta wrote:Hitler, Stalin and Mao were not atheists. Each believed themselves to be a god, and there was so little trust that none dared reveal "that the emperor was wearing no clothes".

These cults of personality are a long way from atheism, which declines to make any deity claims whatsoever. The Scandinavian countries provided a promising model of how secular societies may work.

I think that resembles the 'no true Scotsman' argument. Any atheist who does bad things isn't a true atheist.

Any person who believes in God or deities is, by definition, not an atheist.

The claim was that Hitler, Stalin and Mao were not atheists because they believed themselves to be gods. Surely you don't mean that literally?

If I thought I was god, I would know there was no point in shooting myself, like Hitler, since it would make no difference. Unlike Hitler, Stalin and Mao I would not bother myself about conspiracies against me, or waging war, or politics, since I could simply remake the universe at will to suit my own preferences!

Londoner wrote:

Greta wrote:

Londoner wrote:
I think that resembles the 'no true Scotsman' argument. Any atheist who does bad things isn't a true atheist.

Any person who believes in God or deities is, by definition, not an atheist.

The claim was that Hitler, Stalin and Mao were not atheists because they believed themselves to be gods. Surely you don't mean that literally?

If I thought I was god, I would know there was no point in shooting myself, like Hitler, since it would make no difference. Unlike Hitler, Stalin and Mao I would not bother myself about conspiracies against me, or waging war, or politics, since I could simply remake the universe at will to suit my own preferences!

Yes, a fair correction. While Hitler believed himself to be invincible, along with various occult beliefs, including that he was doing God's work by exterminating Jews. The others, as you note, were rather more divine :)

I don't mind what happens to religions as long as the ideals of love and kindness aren't forgotten.

A_Seagull wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:This question isn't one that can be answered sensibly, because it assumes all "religions" are the same.

Which "religion"? What "boons"? What "banes?" Until those questions are addressed, there's simply no way to generalize at all.

The purpose of many questions is not to arrive at a specific answer but to explore the question and to encourage people to think about possible answers.

Maybe.

But philosophers know that looseness of language is likely to lead to error, which is why they are so particular about terms in premises. Your question forces on your respondents a false assumption: namely, that "religions" is a single collective noun that refers to something intelligible. So if they answer in the way you ask them to, they have to be wrong before they begin. If they would prefer to be right, they have to call into question the premise you supplied them.

Which I did, and still do: it isn't the factually correct way to frame the question. But if you want to reframe, that's perfectly good philosophical practice, and also a better way to proceed.

Greta wrote:Hitler, Stalin and Mao were not atheists.

That's a pretty funny line, by any reckoning. Two were avowed Marxists, and one was a Socialist. Marx claimed that the critique of religion was "the first of all critiques" (his words). When Stalin turned the churches into museums, or when Mao rounded up the Christians and put them in "re-education" camps, you can be quite assured that "love of God" had nothing to do with their motives. But just go and look at what they said about themselves.

These cults of personality are a long way from atheism, which declines to make any deity claims whatsoever.

Stalin did not claim to be God. Nor did Mao. To do so would have been a denial of dialectical materialism, which was the very essence of their philosophies. Rather, they claimed there WAS no God, so their leadership and their social program were the only hope left.

See, what's really interesting about the role of Atheism in delusion is this: that because it requires materialism (naturalism or physicalism, if you prefer) it makes it inevitable that there is neither morality nor meaning in the universe, but only contingency. Thus it empties the existential field. What's left is some ideology, like Marxism or National Socialism, or Liberationism of some kind, because people can't live without meaning or morals. It clears the field for every secular ideological delusion that comes along.

You're right about this: if man doesn't worship God, he still worships. But he then worships something really foolish, some ideology of his own making, or even himself. He must then force his delusion to become "true," even though it cannot be made secure at all, because it's not based in reality. Thus he becomes a fanatic, but also a fanatic without moral limits. To make his "meaning" true, or to compel people to buy into it, he has to do a lot of evil things. And historically, the pattern is that he kills a ton of people along the way.

Witness North Korea today.

attofishpi wrote:Noax stated:- "God commands us to kill these unbelievers so that makes it OK"

The question i posed was what religious doctrine that you know of has statements directing followers to kill unbelievers?

I was quoting a typical leader which uses the local religion to justify a war, as was done in the crusades or WWII for instance. The word unbeliever may not be used, but the doing it for God's sake is almost always there. The bible simply has record of God commanding killing of others not because of unbelief, but simply because those people (who were never a threat) had something that was coveted. The will of God was used to justify this action, just as it is used today. The only difference seems to be that today we're not allowed to add a new book to the bible to document our glorious deity-justified exploits.

My mother still has a prejudice against Jews, even while admitting the wrongness of it. While not a German, she was raised in an occupied country under the continuous anti-semantic indoctrination of the time, and she admits it is almost impossible to shake even knowing it for what it is. The Germans may have been well hated, but what they taught still stuck.

Greta wrote:I don't mind what happens to religions as long as the ideals of love and kindness aren't forgotten.

Well, I believe in those values too. But I know why I do. Might I ask you how you know?

Do you believe in them as just values you happen to like, but values that really can't be made requirements for anyone else, or do you believe in them because you actually think they're objectively right?

For it seems like you believe other people ought to share your affirmation of "love and kindness." But why would you say we ought not to "forget" them, if they are only derived from your personal preferences? It's not necessary for people all to have the same preferences.

But if they are objectively right, how do you show doubters that they are right, and that they'd be wrong to "forget" those values?

Greta wrote:While Hitler believed himself to be invincible, along with various occult beliefs, including that he was doing God's work by exterminating Jews.

I just want to point out that we might not know Hitler's actual beliefs, which seem almost irrelevant in the rise to power. What matters is that he claimed to be doing God's work, and the claim fueled his power.
Trump is an example of that sort of thing. He takes a stance of hating just about everybody that isn't a white male, wholesale destruction of the environment, and taking away social programs that feed and give health care to those unable to afford it on their own. Clinton took essentially the opposite stance. The defining difference seemed to be which one was holding a bible in front of them during the campaign. And the sheep-people totally bought it. The people don't actually read that book that Trump is holding out. The GOP recognizes religion as the tool that it is. The church itself seems to care not for the will of God, but rather for the party willing to put out legislation that gives the church more power, even at the cost of the sort of the sort of principles taught in that bible that nobody seems to be reading.

Noax wrote:...we might not know Hitler's actual beliefs, which seem almost irrelevant in the rise to power. What matters is that he claimed to be doing God's work, and the claim fueled his power. Trump is an example of that sort of thing...

That's an astute observation, and one we'd all do well to recognize. There is a difference between believing a religion (and hence practicing what it requires) and using a religion (contrary to what it requires, for some purpose one already has).

We see the same thing in Liberal catch-phrases like, "American values," or "European Spirit," or whatever. They're clearly using the respective geographical concepts, not speaking of anything inherent to standing on American or European soil. They're co-opting them to propagandize.

We must distinguish between "that which is or has been done using the name of religion," and "that which is or has been done in the spirit or expressly obedient to the religion in question."

That's basic. Thanks for pointing it out.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: Consider Hitler's eugenics, Stalin's gulags, Mao's "re-education" camps, Pol Pot's killing fields...all performed by avowed Atheists.
.

Hitler's was very religious indeed, and made a pact with the Vatican to help him round up "filthy" jews.

The other three are interesting since they had no particular interest in Atheism, but modelled their leadership styles on religion, forging themselves in the image of gods. Take a look at Kim il Un.

Countless numbers have died horribly due to the church strangling the shit out of science; preventing contraception, and pretending to be doctors with no medical knowledge.
Even today Jahovah's witnesses are killing their own children with medical neglect; and traditionalists Jews infecting children with dirty circumscision.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/jew ... -1.2055911
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... erpes.html


http://adc.bmj.com/content/90/7/715.full
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=16763280

Not forgetting the disgusting misogynistic muslim practice of female genital mutilation.

Greta wrote:

Reflex wrote:

Greta wrote:Hitler, Stalin and Mao were not atheists. Each believed themselves to be a god, and there was so little trust that none dared reveal "that the emperor was wearing no clothes".

These cults of personality are a long way from atheism, which declines to make any deity claims whatsoever. The Scandinavian countries provided a promising model of how secular societies may work.

On the contrary; it is atheism incarnate.

How do you justify that claim?

By using your own words: "Each believed themselves to be a god."

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Not forgetting the disgusting misogynistic muslim practice of female genital mutilation.

It isn't particularly Muslim.

Within those countries where it happens it can be the practice amongst all religions, for example in Egypt amongst both Muslims and Copts. Elsewhere it can be concentrated in a particular subgroup, for example amongst the Kurds in Iraq.

To call it a 'Muslim practice' is a way of creating hatred against all Muslims, even though the vast majority have nothing to do with it. Suppose I was to call child molestation a 'disgusting Catholic practice' because some priests do it?

Londoner wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Not forgetting the disgusting misogynistic muslim practice of female genital mutilation.

It isn't particularly Muslim.

Within those countries where it happens it can be the practice amongst all religions, for example in Egypt amongst both Muslims and Copts. Elsewhere it can be concentrated in a particular subgroup, for example amongst the Kurds in Iraq.

To call it a 'Muslim practice' is a way of creating hatred against all Muslims, even though the vast majority have nothing to do with it. Suppose I was to call child molestation a 'disgusting Catholic practice' because some priests do it?

I would have thought all the blowing up of random people would do more to create hatred against muslims than a simple comment. I'd never heard of anyone else doing it until now. It's only muslims you ever read about practising it. I suppose 'honour' killings aren't a muslim thing either. And your analogy is ridiculous, although the way the catholic church covers up for and protects perverted priests you have to wonder if your comment isn't true. You didn't mention previous posts on orthodox jewish circumcision. That could 'create hate'.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: I would have thought all the blowing up of random people would do more to create hatred against muslims than a simple comment. I'd never heard of anyone else doing it until now. It's only muslims you ever read about practising it. I suppose 'honour' killings aren't a muslim thing either. And your analogy is ridiculous, although the way the catholic church covers up for and protects perverted priests you have to wonder if your comment isn't true. You didn't mention previous posts on orthodox jewish circumcision. That could 'create hate'.

Yes, you are right, it is only Muslims you read about practicing it - at least in the mainstream media. However, if you look at reports from the specialist agencies that study these things you get a different story. Now I would say that tells us something about the mainstream media.

I'm not sure why you say my analogy with calling child abuse 'a Catholic practice' is ridiculous when you follow up immediately by saying 'you have to wonder if your comment isn't true'. But in case it wasn't clear, I am the one saying it would be ridiculous, for the obvious and simple reasons that (a) most Catholics are not child abusers and (b) not all child abusers are Catholics. Therefore it cannot be the case that being a Catholic makes you a child abuser. The same goes for Muslims and FGM.

Regarding Jews, the reason we should be guarded against the sort of remarks that link a whole group with the behaviour of a few members is because that is what was done to the Jews. 'Jewish capitalists', 'Jewish criminals', 'Jewish cheats', 'Jewish Bolsheviks'....keep making the connection and sooner or later people will get it into their heads that all Jews are malevolent by nature.