It has been a few posts back, so would you mind making that argument explicit? I for one don't know what it would be.
The basic argument as I understand it is:
1. God(s) do not exist.
2. Religions are just make-believe created by man. Religion is a tool of oppression, manipulation, and enslavement of the masses. Religion provides 'false happiness' i.e. "Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes" (from Karl Marx)
3. The people cannot find 'real happiness' until religion is abolished.
4. In order for that to happen, millions of people must die.
I feel confident that neither is what
@It Aint Necessarily So meant, and I suspect that so do you.
He will have his own answer, but mine is that wrong beliefs can be a problem because, quite simply, they misguide people. Sometimes with tragic results.
The question is 'why is false happiness not a problem', not 'why are wrong beliefs a problem'.
And if wrong beliefs are a problem, then, in this case, what belief specifically is 'wrong'.
It is always tricky to talk about religion as a whole, because that tends to result in absurd generalizations. Do you want to propose some understanding or definition of religion for the purposes of this thread?
Ah, well if there is an absurd generalization at work here, then I would like to know what it is.
I didn't think that 'religion' was unclear. From Marx we get: "Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion."
The primary definition of 'religion' is 'the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods'. The secondary definition is 'a particular system of faith and worship'.
There is no true sophistication there. Quite plainly, we must have less children and care better for those that we do have.
Ah, how disappointing. Fancy term, but no substance.
Yes, I do.
As a matter of fact, I think that it is strange for a religion to propose itself as true. That is an odd category for a religion to pursue. Religions as I understand them can be effective, sincere, and inspiring, among other positive qualities. But what does it even mean for a religion to be "true"? That there are indeed adherents to it, perhaps? One would expect that to be sufficiently self-evident.
That religion is made up by man is core to the Marxist argument. Marx asserts that the happiness that religion provides is false happiness. This is the sense of true that is meant here. So I'll ask the question again with greater clarity: Do you assert that some religions are made up by man and some religions are not made up by man? If so, what religion(s) are these that are not made up by man?
That, definitely. Much of the discussion here involves claims that lose nearly all of their clarity and meaning until this obstacle is resolved. For instance, you seem at times to assume that religion is necessarily theistic. That is not a premise that would ever take when given a choice.
Ah, well.
The argument uses the non-existence of god(s) as evidence that religions are made up by man. Perhaps you believe religion has made man as opposed to man has made religion. Marx believed that man has made religion.
I thought that the merits and flaws of their regimes were the subject of this thread. And I am fairly certain that their victims were not uniformly religious, although that seems to have been a significant factor at certain circunstances.
Hmm, I suppose
@ronki23 would need to clarify, but the title of the thread is
"Mao Tse-Tung and Pol Pot killed in the name of atheism"
and the OP asks specifically:
"Do atheists and antitheists justify the killings of theists under Mao and Pol Pot?"
And the justification for the killings is the Marxist communist philosophy (I laid out the essential argument for you).
So I feel confident that we are not here simply to discuss the 'merits and flaws' of Mao and Pol Pat, but rather the religiously relevant issue.
Truth be told, I have very little notion of how religious, if at all, those victims were.
For such a recurrent claim, it comes with very few details or supporting evidence.
I feel fairly confident about the oppression of Tibetans by China and of Orthodox Church priests in Russia, but in both cases it is less than clear that religion was much of a factor except perhaps as a source of motivation for unified resistance against the new rulers. As a matter of fact, China has in fact been attempting to present itself as an authority for Buddhist priests in recent years.
I see. That's fair. I don't have any detailed data for you. I am also just going by the claims as well. So I'll regard that as a fair point. Perhaps religious people were not targeted and killed, perhaps religious structures were not repurposed into state buildings, etc. I can't tell you which specific structures were appropriated in this fashion or which specific people were killed for their religious beliefs. I have assumed that these claims are correct.
On the other hand, the basic argument that religion must be abolished for the masses to attain 'real happiness' is not merely my assumption, that is the basic Marxist argument. And both Mao and Pol Pat ascribed to that idea.
I will need some context here.
Who is reaching that conclusion? How did they word it originally? Are there divergent interpretations?
What is meant by "having to die", and which circunstances and timeframe is that number of "millions" associated to? It feels like a safe bet that millions of people will die in the future, regardless of any prospects about happiness, real or false, likely or unlikely.
I don't know about divergent interpretations, that's what I'm asking about. Maybe someone can explain what those are. My attachment of the term 'millions' is to say that millions of people exist who will not give up their religion. Hence the only way their religion could be abolished is for them to die. This is the apparent argument - that atheism (the proposition that 'Gods do not exist') under the guise of communism justified the killings of millions of people by Mao and Pol Pat (unless I misinterpreted the argument somehow).
It should be fairly self-evident that the best possible solution for any religious people that oppress, manipulate and enslave any masses is for them to learn better and stop doing those clearly detrimental things. I don't really know what better answer could exist.
That's fair. So your objection is to the logical step that says in order for religion to be abolished millions of people have to die. You instead would like to say that those people can be reformed instead of killed. And for that reason, you would say that mass killings are
not justified. Practically speaking, do you think religious people can be reformed en mass? It's not clear to me that the 'best possible solution' is practically attainable.
Thank you for your useful comments.
