A Common Misconception. Hitler Wasn’t An Atheist & Stalin Isn’t A Weapon.
Despite what you hear and see, the opposition to Science and Non-theism is highly aggressive in their campaign to cast shadows of evil among people such as myself who have non-religious morals. It almost feels like I’m being persecuted for my beliefs (or lack there of), and although this is not anywhere near the severity it is a tactic I have seen time and time again through-out history. Opposition meets aggression, but instead of fighting fire with fire, I will be the better man who comes in and says “wouldn’t it be better to use water to put that out?”. The opposition commonly uses sympathy to gather support, despite the aggressiveness that they use to show how frustrated skeptics and scientists can get. I bet you if we remained patient and argue in a more passive way, they will get aggravated waiting for us to crack, and being the better person we will not point out this aggression because it will not need to be pointed out.
Hitler was actually a deeply “religious” man. What I mean by the quotations is that during his reign he didn’t support any Christian religion, but did beleive he was doing the work of God. His goal was to essentially (and don’t quote me ever) create his own religion or cult. Members of the Nazi party would not claim to be part of a religion but labeled themselves as “gottglaeubig” or roughly translated (pretty accurate actually) “beleiving in god”. I had read quotes by Hilter mentioning a “god” but I’m not sure how accurate those quotes may be.
When it comes down to Stalin, who may have killed more people with in the Soviet Union then the total population of Canada in the 1950’s. Stalin was on record as being an Atheist, but what most people fail to realize is that Atheism is not idealistic in any way. What does that mean? Nothing, because even though there are no ideals linked to Atheism that does not mean I have no ideals, its just my ideals are far different then the Atheist sitting next to me. Stalin didn’t kill in the name of Atheism, he killed in the name of Russia. There is no “Bible of Atheism” or a leader that we follow. There is no “we”, because “we” to an Atheist is humanity as a singularity. So, in conclusion to Stalin, I have Ukrainian family who I love and I have a deep fondness with the culture and any suggestion that I have common ideals with Stalin is an insult not to just me but to the millions of Ukrainians killed by Stalin for entirely different reasons. Atheism is not to blame, only the people who allowed it to happen.
So then why does non-religious person like me have morals, well without explaining this through a long history of evolution, I’ll simply tell you why I could never commit a crime against my fellow man (or women). I am not susceptable to fear tactics, which helps me appreciate the world more. With what I know in my background of science, the millions of years that it took to evolve and learn and develope our technology. After all that we have gone through to become what we are it would be a waste and is a waste when we kill our fellow people. With everything that we know and don’t know about the human body and how it evolves to adapt to its environment, why would you destroy this amazing biological machine? With the possibility that our bodys our made up of elements that could have been a star or a planet in another galaxy is far more incredible and interesting then it just magically appearing. I do have feelings, and I do realize why a person of religion may feel threatened by this growing movement away from religion, but as everything in history, I do not beleive we should let it go entirely.
I agree with this: Stalin killed because he was Stalin. It’s really not fair to lump all atheists in with him, and I don’t.
Nevertheless, since there is no official atheist moral code, I wonder how other atheists could condemn what Stalin did, except on the basis of their own personal moral standards — which would seem to carry no weight beyond the individual.
Given atheism, how can we say that anything is absolutely wrong or unfair?
Your right, no one can say that anything is absolutely wrong or unfair, and generally I don’t condemn the beliefs of others just as some wouldn’t condemn mine. However, just as there are people within Atheism who say that people are absolutely wrong in their beliefs, the opposition does the same.
As for fairness, is it fair to classify a people who have nothing in common or any connection? Sure, the odd Atheist has things in common such as some have green eyes, drink water, or have the obvious lack of a deity. To condemn a group of people because they simple choose not be part of religion and have only that in common is like blaming all people wearing blue shirts for something a blue shirted man once did.
Ideology is a dangerous thing in the hands of a mad man, but in the right hands it can excel the evolution of our society.
I wonder how theists could condemn what Stalin did, what with there being three distinct Abrahamic religions and numerous Christian denominations, with the texts being so contradictory, with people not agreeing what is symbolism and what is literal, and with the rampant disagreement on interpretations . . . I wonder how they can condemn what Stalin did if not on the basis of their own personal moral standards, which carry no weight beyond the individual.
A technique for understanding an issue is to flip it around. If it sounds unsound and ridiculous, chances are that one’s original statement is too. I have a discussion like this going on my blog right now and a commenter who responds to any ‘flipping’ in a tick-like fashion, declaring: that’s a non sequitur!
This issue on how Atheists can be moral often arises. I would disagree that one’s personal moral standards carry no weight. In the hands of a charismatic leader, their personal moral standards spread quite far. Moreover, some truths appeal to the reason and morality in most of us.
As humans, our tendency to do ‘good’ is innate—thankfully so or there is a very good chance that without it, we would have gone extinct long ago. With this innate desire to do good, we automatically share a common moral universality—to encourage happiness and decrease suffering.
If you remove religion from the decision making process, more individuals would agree on what is ‘good’ and what is ‘bad.’ This is because the supposed sacred texts, written as they were by Bronze Age men, are outdated and attempting to reconcile primitive beliefs with modern life requires a suppression of our innate goodness and a blind eye to evidence. This is clear on the issue of homosexuality. Take away Religion, and it is easy to see that homosexuality is not bad at all. It causes happiness in participants and does not encourage suffering any more than heterosexual relationships.