Sunday, June 21, 2015

Re-Post: Atheism and Totalitarian Atheist Mass Slaughters

[This was originally posted here]

A reader asks,
“One thing that I read on your site is that Atheists such as Mao and Stalin are responsible for the deaths of millions. Atheists would argue that these individuals ambition and drive came from personal origins and was not religious in nature. Basically stating, “Hey Atheism had nothing to do with this!” In order to combat this retort is there any reading material that would allow me to derail the aforementioned?”
The following barely counts as a surface accounting of Atheism and its necessity within Communism, and further the relation of Atheism to Communist Atrocities. The history is readily available to everyone who is free, both physically and intellectually.

The connection is two-fold. First is the nature of Atheist self-derived pseudo-morality, which derives from the elevation of self to the position of elitist moral authority. Second is the use of pseudo-scientific principles in the development of Nietzsche’s ubermench, or in Communist terms, the New Man. Let’s look at how these two intellectual defects happen and their results.

Atheism, its Moral Void and Consequences

Atheism is the rejection of theism and its moral authority. External morality received via religion is rejected. There is no “objective” morality, no objective “good” nor “evil”. Nietzsche proved this in his book, “Beyond Good and Evil”. New Atheists have confirmed this, with Richard Dawkins claiming his inability to say what Hitler did was “evil”.

As a consequence, Atheists have no specific, external moral principles by which their actions are restrained.

Further, Atheists can and do make up their own moral principles. So morality is a personal set of conditions specific to each Atheist, derived or at least approved by the individual Atheist. The Atheist has granted himself moral authority to devise and approve moral principles. The key here is the promotion of the Atheist self to the position of moral authority, an elitist position.

Most sets of Atheist moral principles apply not to the Atheist himself, but to other people. In other words, the Atheist doesn’t restrict himself; he places his own “moral” restrictions on other people. This frequently comes in the form of social reformation of entire populations, except for the reformers themselves, those self-anointed saviors and change agents driving for a utopia under their principles and control. New morality requires new thinking, which the Atheist elites provide.

Examples of this are the use of the terms “freedom”, “tolerance” and “equality”, which permeate Atheist and Leftist moral pronouncements. These terms have been “undefined” from their original meanings, and redefined to mean something entirely outside their original intent.

“Freedom” now means that rights are given by the dominant party, (generally the state), and that rights do not include anything construed as “hate” by the dominant party; hate is to be obliterated. This especially includes dissent which is hate speech and is to be obliterated.

“Tolerance” now means that all behaviors and belief sets must be allowed, except dissent from this decree. Dissent is “hate”, “racist”, “sexist”, “homophobic”, etc., and is not to be tolerated: it is to be obliterated.

“Equality” now means that all belief sets, cultures and cultural practices are precisely equal and that there is no one belief set, culture or cultural practice which is more correct or true than the others. Further, dissenting beliefs are false, evil and are to be obliterated.

In each of these cases of redefined moral terminology, two things become obvious: first the terms appear to be “good” when understood under the old standard definitions, thereby the unwary are duped by misunderstanding the Atheist’s actual intent by claiming his morality under these principles. Second, the new definitions do not constrain the Atheist in any manner, they restrict only his dissenters.

Because Atheists are not constrained by any moral principles except those of their own devising, they find themselves free to pursue their heart’s desires, unhampered by any constraints. This is moral anarchy, and it is a direct result of Atheism as a worldview.

The moral anarchy which is the direct consequence of Atheism allows all possible actions to be pursued, with no compunction on the part of the Atheist. Atheism is the enabling function which releases evil from its restraints, and allows it to be called "good". After all, under Atheism there is no such thing as objective good, nor objective evil. These terms are undefined first, then redefined to suit the needs of the “Progressive” Atheist Social Justice Warrior. (It is internally contradictory for a Progressive Social Justice Warrior to claim Christianity; Christianity is voluntary, where Social Justice is totalitarian).

It is arguable that only mentally disordered persons would become the mass torturers and mass killers which Atheists did, in fact, become en masse. Yet it is also arguable that Atheism results from mental disorders acquired as children, resulting in blanket rejection of authority starting with dominant mothers and absent fathers, and extending to include the authority of theism and common moral principles which derive from religion.

However, it is important to note that it was not just one man involved in the murders of hundreds of millions of people; there were millions of Communists who were involved in these atrocities. They all believed in the premises of Marxist Dialectical Materialism, the Atheist philosophy and worldview necessary to even be a Communist.

Atheists will reject these observations. But they have no objective scientific proof to the contrary, nor do they have a deductive case disproving it. History of Communism shows otherwise. And finally, arguing psychology is a non-starter as will be demonstrated.

They also cannot disprove the Atheist component which is necessarily associated with the massive slaughters within Atheist regimes. Without proof to the contrary, they have no case in their defense. But there is plenty of historical documentary evidence which shows the Atheist principles of Marxist/Leninist/Trotskyist/Stalinist totalitarian brutality and mass slaughter.

It is readily acknowledged that Atheism does not of necessity entail Leftist totalitarianism; however, the correlation is so significantly high that it cannot be denied that Leftist totalitarianism does entail Atheism.

Nor does this mean that all totalitarianism is Leftist/Atheist; obviously Islam differentiates itself into a religiously-based totalitarianism.

Further, totalitarianism inevitably involves the perversion of terminology, such as "tolerance, equality, freedom" and "religion of peace".

Communism and Dialectical Materialism
“The materialist doctrine concerning the changing of circumstances and upbringing forgets that circumstances are changed by men and that it is essential to educate the educator himself. This doctrine must, therefore, divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society.

The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-changing can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice.”
Karl Marx; “Theses on Feuerbach”;

[emphasis added]
Stalin wrote an essay called “Dialectical and Historical Materialism” in 1938 [note 1]. This entails that everything is deterministic in the sense that all of existence is an integrated material unity and yet is changing. History can be scientifically analyzed and the change can be guided. Further, natural change is seen as being toward a higher order, logically, as nature sorts out whatever paradoxes crop up.

“Dialectics” refers to a “logic” complex consisting of Hegelian thesis-antihesis-synthesis (which is taken as a theory of naturally increasing order) which is interpreted via the sciences of Darwinian evolution and Newtonian physics as a continuing motion toward a superior man, a New Man. [note 2]. Materialism is the expression of material-only existence; i.e., the rejection of theist concepts. [note 3]. Darwinism, along with physics and under Hegelian philosophy, is the major rationalizing component of Atheist Communist dialectical “scientific” thought. [note 4].
"The coupling of natural science and social history, first formulated by Lenin, made the emergence of Communism not simply historical accident but historical destiny, a product of the essential nature of things". And, "Soviet morality, according to Lenin, was determined by the historical struggle of the proletariat. What was moral was anything that served 'the interests of the class struggle'; what was immoral was anything that hindered the march to communism."
Overy, p267.
The conclusion of Dialectial Materialism and Dialectical Historicism is that, due to the guidance of the inevitable upward motion of order from disorder in nature (ignoring entropy, of course), a New Man could – and should – result. This New Man would have increased consciousness of his position in history, his position in a collective society, and his position in the scientific guidance of natural processes toward a utopia on earth, inhabited only by New Men. [note 5] Materialism, the default Atheist theory of existence, is a primary fundamental premise for the Communist purging of resistance. Materialism is bolstered by Darwinist story-telling “science” and Hegelian progression from disorder to order: hence, Atheist Dialectical Materialism is the driving force for Communism.

One of the first requirements in the Communist march toward utopia was to obliterate religious oppositional thought; Atheist Materialism was not just a necessity for Communist justification, it was necessary that Atheist Materialism be the only, de facto philosophy of all surviving populace. Even surviving churches became de facto Atheist, teaching only government approved thoughts in order to survive; those religious leaders who did not become de facto Atheists were eradicated. (This also occurred under the NAZIs, where Christianity was perverted into the preached voice of National Socialism, yet claimed to be “Christian”, and Christian theologians and pastors who refused this were eradicated). In 1921, Lenin called for "the party to adopt a programme of ‘militant atheism’ and ‘militant materialism’". [note 6].
“The physical assault on religion meant the closure or confiscation of churches chapels, mosques, synagogues and monasteries.”
“The Russian Orthodox Church had 46,457 churches and 1,028 monastaries at the time of the revolution[ 1917]; by 1939 estimates vary from 100 to fewer than 1000 still operating… Not even the pro-Communist Living Church’ was spared”. [note 7].

In the course of expropriation over 8,000 clergy were killed and there were more than 1,400 violent clashes with angry parishioners.
Recently the Chinese government declared that Communism and Atheism are in their essences synonymous, and that Communism could not survive without Atheism. [note 8]:
“The editorial, written by Zhou Weiqun, chairman of the Committee on Ethnic and Religious Affairs of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, blasted Chinese academics who suggest that Communist Party members can also adhere to any religion. This prohibition against religion has been a “consistently upheld principle” since Mao Zedong, the founder of the People’s Republic of China, declared Zhou. “It’s impossible to have another choice besides the dialectical materialist worldview.”

Zhou warned that if CPC members were allowed to have beliefs in various religions, the Party “would become a loosely bound group that can be broken down due to individual gain.” Consequently, he wrote, members must have “a united worldview.”

Zhou noted: "Without the foundation of the worldview, the mansion of the Party's ideologies, theories and organizations will all collapse. We could no longer be called the 'Chinese Communist Party.'"

Without Atheism, Communism will not exist.

It is absolutely false to claim that Atheism had nothing to do with Communist slaughters; Atheist Dialectical Materialism is the founding and driving philosophy which underlies Communism and its slaughters. The slaughters and atrocities were specifically done in the name of Atheist Dialectical Materialism. Atheists who deny this are claiming a fatuous lie in order to preserve a false narrative.

1. Richard Overy; “The Dictators”; WW Norton & Co; 2004; p266.

2. Leon Trotsky; "The ABC’s of Materialist Dialectics";

“Hegel wrote before Darwin and before Marx. Thanks to the powerful impulse given to thought by the French Revolution, Hegel anticipated the general movement of science. But because it was only an anticipation, although by a genius, it received from Hegel an idealistic character. Hegel operated with ideological shadows as the ultimate reality. Marx demonstrated that the movement of these ideological shadows reflected nothing but the movement of material bodies.”

3. Trotsky, Ibid.:

“We call our dialectic materialist since its roots are neither in heaven nor in the depths of our "free will" but in objective reality, in nature. Consciousness grew out of the unconscious, psychology out of physiology, the organic world out of the inorganic, the solar system out of nebula.”

4. Trotsky, Ibid:

“Darwinism, which explained the evolution of species through quantitative transformations passing into qualitative, was the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter. Another great triumph was the discovery of the table of atomic weights of chemical elements and further the transformation of one element into another. With these transformations (species, elements, etc.) is closely linked the question of classifications, just as important in the natural as in the social sciences. Linnaeus's system (eighteenth century), utilizing as its starting point the immutability of species, was limited to the description and classification of plants according to their external characteristics.
The infantile period of botany is analogous to the infantile period of logic, since the forms of our thought develop like everything that lives. Only decisive repudiation of the idea of fixed species, only the study of the history of the evolution of plants and their anatomy prepared the basis for a really scientific classification.”

5.Che Guevara; from gonzalo fernández; “the new man in cuba”;

“In a letter to the editor of the Uruguayan weekly Marcha, published March 1965 under the title “Socialism and Man in Cuba”, Che Guevara addressed the issue of the "new man" (in Cuba) saying: “To build communism it is necessary, simultaneous with the new material foundations, to build the new man….This is the dictatorship of the proletariat operating not only on the defeated class but also on individuals of the victorious class…. Man under socialism, despite his apparent standardization, is more complete…. In this way he will reach total consciousness of his social being, which is equivalent to the full realization as a human creature…”

6. Overy, Ibid, pg 271.
Pospielovski, “Marxist-Leninist Atheism”: I; pp 30-34.

7. overy, Ibid, pg 273-4.

De Grunewald, “God and the Soviets”, p. 54;

Pospielovski, “Marxist-Leninist Atheism;I, pp. 44-5.



Greg12 said...

Just for my information, re-post from when?

Stan said...

Feb. 3, 2015. There's a link to the original article at the top of the page, on the word "here". A click on that word will take you there.

Phoenix said...

I recently had a discussion with an Atheist who said Atheism has no connection with Communist slaughters.When I pointed out that Atheism is a neccessary prerequisite for Communism,he then responded with a tu quoque "So what?Theism is a neccessary prerequisite for Islam".Besides,the tu quoque/red herring and the false association fallacy,I pointed out to the Atheist that Islam is a false representation of Theism and cannot withstand rational scrutiny,while my theistic beliefs can.I then asked this Atheist if Dialectal Materialism is a false representaion of Atheism,if not then are there any rational versions of Atheism?He responded with "We are certain God doesn't exist".Well that response pretty much sums up the in-depth intellectual reservoir of Atheist thought.

Stan said...

I like that; nice piece of logic as a rebuttal to his Tu Quoque. You had him on the metaphorical ropes... did you go for the coup de gras? I personally could never walk away from a claim of certainty where there clearly is no possible evidence for support. But that usually resulted merely in eliciting name calling at that point...

Phoenix said...

Actually,I was the one who decided to bail first because our debate over the Kalam regressed into such bizzare responses from which I was unprepared.Such as,the universe doesn't have a cause nor a beginning and no one should extrapolate or pretend to know otherwise.Which brings me to another point.

Atheists,like Harris,are fond of pleading ignorance and will claim it is a sign of humility.But it seems this humility is dubious because why can't anyone else know when the Atheists doesn't know?In other words,the Atheist is forcing everyone to be humble when the Atheist displays ignorance,even if the Theist's proposition follows the rules of logic.But nay,this is not enough,because the Atheist is too busy being "humble".

Stan said...

That sounds like feigned Pyrrhonianism which is useful as specified or selective Radical Skepticism. This is what Lawrence Krauss means when he preaches that "doubt" should be taught in schools. He doesn't mean that it's OK to doubt any "science" such as evolution, AGW, cosmology, and certainly not his own proclamations. He means selective doubt with regard to religion, without any recourse to rational argumentation - just doubt, and just selectively aimed in the direction he dictates.

Doubt should always be accompanied by reasoning of two kinds: reasons for doubt in the first place; reasoning for addressing possible solutions to remove the doubt with deductive certainty (either way, pro or con). Doubt, by itself with no reasoning, is without intellectual content, and is an empty position - just a void.

Stan said...

I just realized - the statement, "no one should extrapolate or pretend to know otherwise", is both a moral dictate, and a logical positivist form of radical materialism. In other words, it is a logical positivist, radical materialist, moral dictate. The hubris is palpable... If that had any weight whatsoever, it would shut down all theoretical science, including evolution, AGW, cosmology and high-energy subatomic particle science, as well as anthropology, psychology and all the soft sciences, plus all history and all historical sciences such as geology.

Even A J Ayer admitted that that was just wrong.

Greg12 said...

Ah my bad Thanks!

Phoenix said...

Doubt should always be accompanied by reasoning of two kinds: reasons for doubt in the first place;reasoning for addressing possible solutions to remove the doubt with deductive certainty(either way, pro or con). Doubt, by itself with no reasoning, is without intellectual content, and is an empty position - just a void

1.The Atheists' reason for doubt is simply to doubt,for doubt's sake.(circular)
2.To remove the doubt and to replace it with certainty is to acknowledge the Theist's position.The Atheist's position of doubt is accompanied by a dubious humility,and to accept certainty will expose his arrogance masked in humble overtones.

Phoenix said...

just realized - the statement, "no one should extrapolate or pretend to know otherwise", is both a moral dictate, and a logical positivist form of radical materialism

Yes,after all,every hypothesis is an extrapolation and is faith-based before it can be tested for any empirical qualities.The Atheist seems to want to start at a position that is only empirically proven but this could possibly regress infinitely into proving all prior propositions.Thus knowledge either remains static or regresses.Only the Theist's position who dares to venture into unexplored territory can produce actual knowledge.

Whatevs said...

Stan, can you elaborate on the connection between atheism and the Dunning-Kruger effect, which is basically a scientific study showing that people who view themselves as above average in competence lack the competence to recognize their own incompetence, whereas the above average in competence take a humbler approach, viewing themselves as average or below average.

Stan said...

Interesting question. I'm sure I've addressed this before, but I'm not sure where. My current thinking is that Dunning-Kruger is not the same as Atheist rejectionism. Dunning-Kruger is a genuine defect of self-image which is based in incompetence, presumably low IQ.

That is not the case with Atheism. Atheism spans many causal factors, but it manifests in a self-image which is not fixed but which is based in both neediness and ultimately the desire to be viewed as extraordinary, i.e., elite. It is an image which one applies to oneself in the attempt to gain the personal authority which one believes the image to convey, much like a uniform does for an official.

The Atheist self-image is postulated to originate from missing or bad fathering and the accompanying smothering of mothering by maternal influence during the formative years around five years of age. There are other reasons, of course, such has having been brought up in an Atheist household (e.g., John Stuart Mill), but studies have related rebellion due to parenting or authority issues cause Atheism more frequently than logical deduction.

Atheists very commonly claim a feeling of euphoric freedom when they accept the Atheist VOID of rejection of all authority, moral and intellectual. So in a sense, Atheism is an escapist anarchy, within which the individual's ego rises incommensurately with actual intellectual accomplishments, and his desire for others to acknowledge his inflated self-image increases irrationally.

While that appears similar to Dunning-Kruger, it is not actually the same thing, in my opinion. For one thing, many Atheists are not of low IQ. So Atheism, as a syndrome, is not IQ dependent but rather is an emotional dependency.