3 ms·
Atheists would have been worse because it is not a problem of religion per se. Western Christianity always held out hope that the church could oppose the state
by einhverfr 10y ago
Atheists would have been worse because it is not a problem of religion per se. Western Christianity always held out hope that the church could oppose the state (and sometimes did). There is no real room for any competition to the state in a fully atheistic society. That's why Mao and Stalin were so bad. It wasn't because of atheist doctrines (outside of atheistic political doctrines), but there was too much power concentrated in too few hands.
- mikeash 10y agoI don't see how that has anything to do with religion. Having multiple opposing powers is happens without religion, and having a single powerful authority happens with religion.
- einhverfr 10y agoReligion is a social pattern and it connects to other social patterns too. Also I think it is important to scope that "atheism" is usually a shorthand for "Western, Secular Humanistic Atheism" which is philosophically an off-shoot of Protestantism in general and Calvinism in particular. You get a different set of results when you look at Buddhist Atheists or Hindu Atheists for example (because in neither of these traditions is religion dependent on belief like it is in Christianity). Hope that helps.