6 ms·

Mao and Stalin might disagree.

by rmatt2000 4y ago

nautilius 4y ago
Would they? What's that god they killed for?
- getcrunk 4y ago
  I think the point was trying to make is that having a god is ultimately irrelevant to being an evil murderer
  - nautilius 4y ago
    No one claimed atheists cannot be murderers. But I have yet to learn of an atheist starting a crusade in the name of that god they don't believe in.
    - forum_ghost 4y ago
      did mao and stalin believe in communism?
- rhexs 4y ago
  The state?
  - jleyank 4y ago
    $RELIGIONS have the group, they state AND the $GOD get people motivated. They can promise the hereafter.
    - JetAlone 4y ago
      The hereafter... I think even without believing in an afterlife in your religion, you can believe some idea or value transcends your own death. For example a person could say "I am okay with dying young in an atrocious urban conflict if it means that in the future we can start a socialist regime where everyone has food, health care and shelter provided by the state as it should have been for my family." It's not a promise of an afterlife, but it is a promise for something good existing after your life because of your willingness to take on death. And in that way, an ideology can inhabit tons of the psychological territory that religion often does.
  - nautilius 4y ago
    The state? Buildings and bureaucrats? Now that's a low bar for 'god'. That's it? There isn't more to it? That's what all the fuzz is about?
    - forum_ghost 4y ago
      why are you so insecure about your atheism?
      - JetAlone 4y ago
        I wouldn't immediately assume it's insecurity. I used to be an atheist for a good decade and a bit. I remember making fun of Christians in high school. You get to be edgy and the Christians start to feel real bad because you're making fun of what is their "silly sky daddy" to you. But the extra fun part is they're conditioned to be nice in response so it's like you get to sit on a tall branch and drop things on their head and you don't have to take so much flak from them. And if they do act out, you can call them a hypocrite and insult their faith because it clearly doesn't work. It feels like a fun game you can't lose, until one day things get too real and you discover in horror what you'd been doing.
      - nautilius 4y ago
        I don't even understand how one could, even theoretically, be insecure about atheism. It would be great to believe in the 'big sky daddy', as someone else calls them here, it would make lives much easier if you don't have to think and worry for yourself. Alas, I wasn't indoctrinated form an early age. What pisses me off in this discussion here is that you guys aren't able to have this discussion without either lying or goalpost moving. It is completely incomprehensible to you that something outside of your tiny believe bubble exists. Smug remarks about the 'smug materialists' show how insecure you guys are, then proving that atheists really only also are religious, but still need to be enlightened from you guys. Salvation!
        forum_ghost 4y ago
        What discussion? Canada doesn't like freedom of thought, and likes to police thoughts? That's not newsworthy, it is an irrelevant backwater country with no substance of it's own. What's even a Canadian? a deeply religious Hutterite in Alberta? An Inuit with their own tribal/folk religion? An atheist in coastal British Columbia or metropolitan Ontario? Catholic Quebecker? A somewhat religious Hindu immigrant? religious for appearances only Middle Eastern immigrant? a Scottish Druid? Canada is just a hotel, with really bad weather. As for "discussions", at the very core, belief is freedom of thought. If one can no longer have whatever wacky beliefs anything from cargo cults to ufo religions, anything really - now we are getting into thought policing. However, Canadians appears to think policing thought is not damaging to society, who would've expected a hotel of a country with no culture of its own and history of mere 300-400 years to have any other opinion? It is profoundly important to have freedom of belief, conscience and thought. As long as others doesn't infringe on my freedoms, they can believe whatever nonsense. To think that institutions that supported humanity for thousands of years, helped us survive until today, through all sorts of disasters, difficulties and strife, are all of a sudden damaging to society? Only a lunatic could believe this. The better question would be to ask why is there a global resurgence in religion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desecularization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desecularization P.S. I'm not sure why you assume everyone you are talking to online is Christian? Religions vary wildly, and all have very different values. Some don't even have concepts of "salvation" or enlightenment. in others, even some similar concepts might exist - even your personal existence and well being is actually of little to no concern in some creeds, as they are inward oriented.
- TimTheTinker 4y ago
  Nationalist socialist ideology. It held itself up as the "true" alternative to Christian religion in particular. No need for a God - we can do it all ourselves. Perhaps because it saw Christians who were loyal first to God and then to the state as a threat to its plans for totalitarianism.
- JetAlone 4y ago
  In the case of Mao and Stalin? That would be the idol of Ideological purity. It is presented as the one true ideal variant of humanistic utilitarianism, and conveniently because they are the glorious leader through whom it is to be enacted, they are basically the prophet of this god. It is an impersonal god, a "force" or natural economic/social principle whose pseudo-personhood emerges from collective humanity. It uses its adherents to oppress outsiders for resisting. It holds itself together by using its adherents to watch and keep each other in line. It callously punishes insiders to demonstrate that this god doesn't need any of the individual humans it supposedly serves, since they are so much like animals in the first place. Materialist don't get to make a smug escape from the stigma of "killing in the name of god". Anything you place at the top of your value hierarchy is, for all intents and purposes, your god. It's a little on the cheesy side but I think this clip from They Live illustrates simply the idolatrous place capital can take in our day-to-day lives. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8WttFoF3Og https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8WttFoF3Og
  - nautilius 4y ago
    That's it? That's all your god has to offer? That's all your god is? An ideology? Bureaucrats and formalism? I feel betrayed! To you, god is indistinguishable for from this? How? Now, I am not a religion-apologist, but it seems to me you're selling god short, no? What about all the metaphysical mumbo-jumbo? Here's Oxford: 1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. 2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity. Wow! Yeah! Thats's a god! But you're arguing that god is equivalent to formalism and bureaucracy?! Wow, what a disappointment!
    - JetAlone 4y ago
      I wasn't saying that's what God is. I was saying that is what a person can try to make a god out of. I agree that bureaucracy and formalism makes for a disappointing god. That's the way the pharisees tended towards practicing.
smt88 4y ago
Mao and Stalin didn't kill for religious reasons.

Mao and Stalin might disagree.

nautilius 4y ago

Would they? What's that god they killed for?

getcrunk 4y ago
I think the point was trying to make is that having a god is ultimately irrelevant to being an evil murderer
- nautilius 4y ago
  No one claimed atheists cannot be murderers. But I have yet to learn of an atheist starting a crusade in the name of that god they don't believe in.
  - forum_ghost 4y ago
    did mao and stalin believe in communism?
rhexs 4y ago
The state?
- jleyank 4y ago
  $RELIGIONS have the group, they state AND the $GOD get people motivated. They can promise the hereafter.
  - JetAlone 4y ago
    The hereafter... I think even without believing in an afterlife in your religion, you can believe some idea or value transcends your own death. For example a person could say "I am okay with dying young in an atrocious urban conflict if it means that in the future we can start a socialist regime where everyone has food, health care and shelter provided by the state as it should have been for my family." It's not a promise of an afterlife, but it is a promise for something good existing after your life because of your willingness to take on death. And in that way, an ideology can inhabit tons of the psychological territory that religion often does.
- nautilius 4y ago
  The state? Buildings and bureaucrats? Now that's a low bar for 'god'. That's it? There isn't more to it? That's what all the fuzz is about?
  - forum_ghost 4y ago
    why are you so insecure about your atheism?
    - JetAlone 4y ago
      I wouldn't immediately assume it's insecurity. I used to be an atheist for a good decade and a bit. I remember making fun of Christians in high school. You get to be edgy and the Christians start to feel real bad because you're making fun of what is their "silly sky daddy" to you. But the extra fun part is they're conditioned to be nice in response so it's like you get to sit on a tall branch and drop things on their head and you don't have to take so much flak from them. And if they do act out, you can call them a hypocrite and insult their faith because it clearly doesn't work. It feels like a fun game you can't lose, until one day things get too real and you discover in horror what you'd been doing.
    - nautilius 4y ago
      I don't even understand how one could, even theoretically, be insecure about atheism. It would be great to believe in the 'big sky daddy', as someone else calls them here, it would make lives much easier if you don't have to think and worry for yourself. Alas, I wasn't indoctrinated form an early age. What pisses me off in this discussion here is that you guys aren't able to have this discussion without either lying or goalpost moving. It is completely incomprehensible to you that something outside of your tiny believe bubble exists. Smug remarks about the 'smug materialists' show how insecure you guys are, then proving that atheists really only also are religious, but still need to be enlightened from you guys. Salvation!
      - forum_ghost 4y ago
        What discussion? Canada doesn't like freedom of thought, and likes to police thoughts? That's not newsworthy, it is an irrelevant backwater country with no substance of it's own. What's even a Canadian? a deeply religious Hutterite in Alberta? An Inuit with their own tribal/folk religion? An atheist in coastal British Columbia or metropolitan Ontario? Catholic Quebecker? A somewhat religious Hindu immigrant? religious for appearances only Middle Eastern immigrant? a Scottish Druid? Canada is just a hotel, with really bad weather. As for "discussions", at the very core, belief is freedom of thought. If one can no longer have whatever wacky beliefs anything from cargo cults to ufo religions, anything really - now we are getting into thought policing. However, Canadians appears to think policing thought is not damaging to society, who would've expected a hotel of a country with no culture of its own and history of mere 300-400 years to have any other opinion? It is profoundly important to have freedom of belief, conscience and thought. As long as others doesn't infringe on my freedoms, they can believe whatever nonsense. To think that institutions that supported humanity for thousands of years, helped us survive until today, through all sorts of disasters, difficulties and strife, are all of a sudden damaging to society? Only a lunatic could believe this. The better question would be to ask why is there a global resurgence in religion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desecularization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desecularization P.S. I'm not sure why you assume everyone you are talking to online is Christian? Religions vary wildly, and all have very different values. Some don't even have concepts of "salvation" or enlightenment. in others, even some similar concepts might exist - even your personal existence and well being is actually of little to no concern in some creeds, as they are inward oriented.
TimTheTinker 4y ago
Nationalist socialist ideology. It held itself up as the "true" alternative to Christian religion in particular. No need for a God - we can do it all ourselves. Perhaps because it saw Christians who were loyal first to God and then to the state as a threat to its plans for totalitarianism.
JetAlone 4y ago
In the case of Mao and Stalin? That would be the idol of Ideological purity. It is presented as the one true ideal variant of humanistic utilitarianism, and conveniently because they are the glorious leader through whom it is to be enacted, they are basically the prophet of this god. It is an impersonal god, a "force" or natural economic/social principle whose pseudo-personhood emerges from collective humanity. It uses its adherents to oppress outsiders for resisting. It holds itself together by using its adherents to watch and keep each other in line. It callously punishes insiders to demonstrate that this god doesn't need any of the individual humans it supposedly serves, since they are so much like animals in the first place. Materialist don't get to make a smug escape from the stigma of "killing in the name of god". Anything you place at the top of your value hierarchy is, for all intents and purposes, your god. It's a little on the cheesy side but I think this clip from They Live illustrates simply the idolatrous place capital can take in our day-to-day lives. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8WttFoF3Og https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8WttFoF3Og
- nautilius 4y ago
  That's it? That's all your god has to offer? That's all your god is? An ideology? Bureaucrats and formalism? I feel betrayed! To you, god is indistinguishable for from this? How? Now, I am not a religion-apologist, but it seems to me you're selling god short, no? What about all the metaphysical mumbo-jumbo? Here's Oxford: 1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. 2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity. Wow! Yeah! Thats's a god! But you're arguing that god is equivalent to formalism and bureaucracy?! Wow, what a disappointment!
  - JetAlone 4y ago
    I wasn't saying that's what God is. I was saying that is what a person can try to make a god out of. I agree that bureaucracy and formalism makes for a disappointing god. That's the way the pharisees tended towards practicing.

smt88 4y ago

Mao and Stalin didn't kill for religious reasons.