I think you'll get some arguments against leaders putting themselves forward as "gods" being a legitimate argument. But not from me.

I think another good point is that the religious wars and attrocities were done for religion, however the wars by people who were atheists were not done in the name of atheism, they were done in the name of political ideals. There is no real link with atheism.

You may as well say: the pope wears a hat, and so did stalin! (note: I have not confirmed that this is a fact)

I think Philip Pullman says it best in this article in the Guardian on November 6th 2004:

I start from the position that theocracy is one of the least desirable of all forms of political organisation, and that democracy is a good deal better. But the real division is not between those states that are secular, and therefore democratic, and those that are religious, and therefore totalitarian. I think there is another fault line that is more fundamental and more important than religion. You don't need a belief in God to have a theocracy.

 

Here are some characteristics of religious power:

There is a holy book, a scripture whose word is inerrant, whose authority is above dispute: as it might be, the works of Karl Marx.

There are prophets and doctors of the church, who interpret the holy book and pronounce on its meaning: as it might be, Lenin, Stalin, Mao.

There is a priesthood with special powers, which can confer blessings and privileges on the laity, or withdraw them, and in which authority tends to concentrate in the hands of elderly men: as it might be, the communist party.

There is the concept of heresy and its punishment: as it might be, Trotskyism.

There is an inquisition with the powers of a secret police force: as it might be, the Cheka, the NKVD, etc.

There is a complex procedural apparatus of betrayal, denunciation, confession, trial and execution: as it might be, the Stalinist terror under Yezhov and Beria and the other state inquisitors.

There is a teleological view of history, according to which human society moves inexorably towards a millennial fulfilment in a golden age: as it might be, the dictatorship of the proletariat, as described by dialectical materialism.

There is a fear and hatred of external unbelievers: as it might be, the imperialist capitalist powers.

There is a fear and hatred of internal demons and witches: as it might be, kulaks or bourgeois deviationists.

There is the notion of pilgrimage to sacred places and holy relics: as it might be, the birthplace of Stalin, or the embalmed corpses in Red Square.

And so on, ad nauseam. In fact, the Soviet Union was one of the most thoroughgoing theocracies the world has ever seen, and it was atheist to its marrow. In this respect, the most dogmatic materialist is functionally equivalent to the most fanatical believer, Stalin's Russia exactly the same as Khomeini's Iran. It isn't belief in God that causes the problem.

Anybody with a higher education than grade 3 could understand what I was trying to say. That goes to other topics too.

How the fuck could anyone have possibly interputed my comment as anything else? How could I then say 'That's not what I'm saying' if the point is so obvious?

I never accused anyone of the No True Scotsman

Okay. seriously:

Point 1:

Point 2:

Point 3:

1) Redefine 'God' to include people and/or redefine 'religion' to include Communism

2) Point out atheists reject all forms of God and/or religion

3) profit

Can I have my chocolate milk now?

Honestly read the comment again 10 times.

Let's break it down.

'we' as in atheists. So the OP is saying 'we', as in atheists, do not accept Gods FLESH or ghost.

The OP also states Stalin projected himself as a God. Put two and two together.

Now unless the OP comes and posts another interputation of it, that's what I'm getting from it.

I tend to physically sound out word to spell it, and then type as they sound one syllable at a time. Which is why I have tons of errors like that.

On lab reports and stuff, I fix them. On the internet? nah.

Didn't know it bothered people that much

You say interpretation like interputation is spelled?  What kind of accent do you have?

*grins*  So you speak the "king's English"?  'ello.

I ain't got no accent.  So y'all need to git awn outa heare.

nuculear an shit.  Us Texans are the ones with no accents.

That's a Cockney accent. 

Of course you have an accent, silly.

...So you're practically illiterate, but feel you're still qualified to weigh-in on subject matter this complex that requires so much reading and historical understanding?

What a joke.

stalin was a seminary student.  just throwin' it out there...

by the way, you don't have to go as far back as the inquisition.  rafael trujillo, anastacio somoza, fulgencio batista, francisco franco, papa doc duvalier, benito mussolini--all these men were at least nominally christian and committed terrible atrocities in the interests of political power.  same as stalin.  incidentally, all of them except mussolini were completely supported by a good christian nation, the USA.

do i blame religion for what these men did?  no.  i blame big power complexes.  same as with stalin.  who gives a flying shit if he was an atheist?  some wolves are gray, some are black, etc., but all will eat your ass.

stalin was a marxist too.  same as mao, same as pol pot, same as kim jong-il, and same as me.  while i don't agree with stalin's interpretation of marxism (bureaucratization, forced collectivism, etc.), i don't believe he was a "fake" marxist.  he was just really fucking paranoid and very opportunistic.

and FUCK american history books and FDR-worship: if it hadn't been for STALIN, most of europe would be speaking nothing but german today. 

if it hadn't been for the US, Stalin would have made sure that they would be speaking Russian today.

To make another point ,however, even if Russia had never existed during WWII europe would not be speaking German today.  The USA would have atomized germany into a wasteland to ensure that. 

America would have defeated Germany with a fraction of the casualty rate that Stalin experienced.

While the Soviets contributed (After Hitler invaded U.S.S.R..) I think the British are the ones that did the most to stop the Nazis. U.S next, then Canada then Soviets.

And where was the U.S at the start of the war? Oh yeah...

And BTW historical knowledge of WWII is irrelevant to my original point. So it isn't such a 'complex issue'.

really?  because i currently live in the former eastern bloc (slovakia) and i can tell you, from firsthand knowledge, that slovak, czech, polish, ukrainian, belorussian, latvian, lithuanian, estonian, hungarian, romanian, etc., etc., are all languages which are alive and well.

on top of that, the soviets didn't have the same agenda as the nazis: wipe out indigenous populations and transplant germans (or rather russians) into the conquered lands.  they were looking to spread marxism-leninism-stalinism as a political ideology, but not russian culture, language, etc. 

well, we'll never know, will we?  besides, had there never been a russia, there never would have been a WWII, since that war was basically the inevitable climax of two nations of antagonistic political ideologies, simultaneously engaging in rapid industrialization and militarization.

i don't believe the US would ever have bombed nazi germany because, my friend, the US didn't give a SHIT about nazi germany.  the nazis weren't threatening any US economic interests.  the US has supported several fascist states in the past (franco's spain, anyone?).  the US only got involved in europe as a quid pro quo with the other allies, particularly the soviets, to aid them in the war against japan. 

saaayyy, where did the soviets get the steel to make the tanks?  ever hear of lend-lease?

.......oh wait, probably not.........

well, if you'll look closely at my post, you'll see i said nothing about FDR, but rather the US.  maybe it was FDR's personal convictions to "save europe" but, thankfully, we've never lived in an autocracy, and congress passed the neutrality act in 1935, which roosevelt signed, albeit to his chagrin.  but ok, let's talk about FDR.  if you'll recall the remark of mr. bullitt, the american ambassador to france, in 1938 that "the US and france were united in war and peace" (paraphrase), and that america would join an offensive against germany should war break out over czechoslovakia, you'll also recall that roosevelt said this was "100% wrong."  he stuck by the neutrality act.  just how many years before pearl harbor are you going back?  oh, and roosevelt's famous two-word telegram to chamberlain after munich, "good man"?  when the war broke in 1939, it is true that roosevelt sought every way he could to aid britain militarily (indirectly), but he didn't have much support in the government, and, if you'll recall, one of his campaign promises in 1940 was keeping america out of the war.

it was only AFTER pearl harbor, that churchill convinced roosevelt of "germany first," which was very unpopular with the american people.  why germany first?  was it noble sentiments?  well, in regards to saving britain, there were a few--mainly military bases in newfoundland, bermuda, and the british west indies that mr. churchill was only happy to hand over to his american cousin.  or was it maneuvering stalin into the war with japan?  funny how at the tehran conference in 1944, stalin promised to enter the war with japan after germany was defeated.  add lend-lease, extended to the soviets waaaaaay back in 1941, and you get a very funny picture indeed.   

yes.  why would it have gotten him impeached?  because maybe roosevelt cared; america didn't.  and, as i just mentioned, one of the "ways" we helped was lend-lease, which applied to the soviets as well as the british.  this allowed the soviets to speed up military industrialization and keep pace with germany.  to paraphrase historian richard overy, germany made high quality weapons, but not enough.  the soviets overwhelmed them in quantity.  this quantity was made possible by american materials and american expertise (weapons manufacture experts were sent to the soviet union from the US).  they could get fucked, huh? 

i don't believe the empire does "kindly deeds" at all, so we're agreed there.  maybe FDR's personal sentiment was "the soviet union can get fucked," but that wasn't his policy.  he knew he needed stalin, for germany and japan.

i'd like to see a source for that figure, because i don't recall encountering it.  even tried googling it, though admittedly it's difficult to google.  anyhow, i consider public opinion polls only a couple notches above anecdotal evidence.  hop over to youtube and check out penn and teller's "bullshit" on numbers.  howard zinn's chapter on WWII in "a people's history of the united states" presents a different viewpoint of how people favored the war.

that's funny, because i've always read about the reluctant roosevelt being badgered by churchill.  also, there's been so much debate in the last few decades about just how "surprised" roosevelt was by pearl harbor that we can hardly say a verdict has been returned on that point.

i think only patton wanted that.  the american people would never have stood for it, and even we didn't have bottomless resources.  the government always just managed to raise enough money for the war by the skin of its teeth.  it took a couple years for american popular sentiment to be turned against the soviets.  remember lyudmila pavlichenko, the female sniper?  she was a guest of honor at the white house and almost a folk hero thanks to woody guthrie ("fell by your gun / fell by your gun / more'n 300 nazis has fell by your gun...&quot.

plus, it would've been a strategic disaster.  it would have required either more atom bombs--and i have no idea how truman would have explained that...yesterday our allies, today toast--or else a campaign against partisan fighters that could put the viet cong and hezbollah to shame, not to mention the mujahideen...(ahem).  how huge is russia?  how fucking tough and pissed were its people at this point?  read steinbeck's "russian journal" to see how resilient the people still were, even several years after the war.  we fucked up cuba, smaller than many states, and you wanna take the single largest, not to mention most unforgiving, governed land mass on earth?  patton was a good general, but so was napoleon.

Holy fucking shit on a stick

Just tell me:

Do you think Stalin was atheist?

So, we've established that Stalin's atheism was not that which made him a sonofabitch. Fucking A.

There's a flipside to this coin - there are theist sonsofbitches in history (and alive today) whose religion is not that which made them so. Thinking specifically of Robert Mugabe (Catholic who at one stage was getting a shitload of money from Rhema). He has not declared his war against his own people a holy one, nor cited God as an inspiration for it. Worth stating here that Mugabe began his career as a revolutionary Maoist guerrilla. Perhaps power has a more corruptive influence than religion.

In terms of what the British did during the war, Churchill was an arrogant warmongering imperialist, but he was the right arrogant warmongering imperialist to be Prime Minister at the time. Britain did not fall (thanks English Channel & RAF) Without Britain's survival to be a staging area for D-Day, the Second Front would have had to have been opened in Italy, through the Alps, something that in itself would have been extraordinarily difficult to achieve without Montgomery's victory in North Africa. Yes, FDR/Truman could have nuked Germany to the point where it would still be glowing in the dark today, but did they have the resources to do so, and at what human cost?

It was also Britain that cracked Enigma.

US involvement in the war was absolutely essential to the Allies' victory, no question, but  the impression that the US won it on their own is a Hollywood fallacy.

i think it's unfortunate and unfounded to call "a large part" of russia's population at the beginning of the twentieth century "two-faced."  neither the february nor the october revolutions could have taken place had they been the work of opportunists, nor could the bolsheviks have consolidated their power in four years of civil war against the whites.  one could hardly call lenin, trotsky, bukharin, kalinin, et al, "opportunists."

as for stalin, in many ways he was an opportunist.  he was definitely a plotter politically: the fact that he was the only party member appointed to both the politburo and the orgburo, for example.  his fellow party men often jokingly referred to him as "comrade card index," meaning he carefully kept tabs on everyone in the party.

however, we have absolutely no hard evidence--quite the contrary--that he was ever anything other than a militant atheist and a convinced communist.  to paint him as some sort of cynical nihilist who hopped on any train that would take him to power is to show more acquaintance with political cartoons than with the facts of stalin's complex life.  as i said before, he didn't turn into the dictator overnight.

the fact that stalin never bothered to hide his past as a seminary student should tell you what he thought of it: an education and a possibility for a good job.  many students here in slovakia still become priests for that reason: it's a "good job."  why wouldn't stalin want an education to try to get away?  are you familiar with his childhood?  in the town he grew up in, you could get your throat cut for a kopek.  and are you familiar with his conduct at seminary?  he wasn't exactly a model student.  he rebelled against the tsarist russification that was going on in that school, as in so many others: forcing the students to speak russian rather than their native georgian, for example.  he was also punished for reading subversive literature, such as victor hugo and even marx.  if his seminary education was so opportunistic, you'd expect him to be blessing people left and right, but he openly hated prayers, something he remembered and mentioned for the rest of his life.

besides, lots of young russian men in those days were educated in seminaries; they were about the only schools around.  plus, if you really familiarize yourself with the russian orthodox church, you'll know that, as with the orthodox church in general, the really high positions, bishoprics and so forth, went to monks rather than seminary students.  stalin should have entered a monastery if he really wanted the road to power in tsarist russia.  rasputin was a monk, recall.

what point was that?  that stalin only believed in communism so far as it made him successful?  i didn't make it.  he was opportunistic within his own political worldview, but he was a convinced communist and an active revolutionary even while lenin was exiled.  even a casual reading of a standard stalin biography--robert conquest or dmitri vokolgonov, for example--will demonstrate this.

you can have no doubt if you like, but your conclusions aren't borne out by historical evidence.  along with all the examples i mentioned above, stalin's anti-tsarism can most be seen in the fact that he was imprisoned in tsarist labor camp at least 8 times.  helluva way to start a lucrative career, isn't it?