Shouldn't there be an atheist "movement" or common position that atheism also despises the synthetic party religion of despots?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jaume on November 14, 2009 at 7:07pm

I see a few reasons why they shouldn't make this a high priority:

(1) vehement rejection of these 'synthetic religions' is widespread, while vocal and visible anti-theists are few.
(2) most of these cult leaders are 6 feet under now, there aren't many Kim Jong-Ils around nowadays.
(3) Christianity is an immediate concern to their intended audience. I doubt Dawkins, etc. have that many readers in Communist, Nazi or Maoist countries.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Roy Batty on November 15, 2009 at 12:36pm

"Where information flows free totalitarian governments topple."

I agree.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Louis on November 14, 2009 at 10:16pm

They have and they do -- it just doesn't come up in their discussions that often because we're not dealing with Stalinists, Nazis, or Maoists anymore.

Hitchens in particular goes on at length about the character cults of men like Stalin, Hitler, and Mao.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Roy Batty on November 15, 2009 at 12:49pm

What of governments or ideologies where there is no identifiable, charismatic personality? What if a political party formulates doctrine, mandates strict adherence and punishes dissent? If the indoctrination and training (for submission and obedience) begins in schools at an early age where the curriculum is determined by the party, then there is again a cult with dogma, focused on an idea, instead of a person. I'm inclined to think that where competing ideas are extinguished, and not permitted to compete by one idea, or a body of complementary ideas, that seeks political supremacy, atheists would be inclined to dissent as they would against religion? I believe I am, even in the absence of a personality at it's figure head or leading it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Roy Batty on November 15, 2009 at 2:36pm

When I wrote this I was envisioning what a constructive response would be to a North Korea without a Kim Jong-il. Subtract the person, and you have a cult of personality around a party.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Hein on November 17, 2009 at 3:54pm

"Cult" doesn't require a religious element. Hell, your link to doesn't even say that it does. In any case, the word has common definitions in English that do not require any religious element but instead are just admiration or devotion to some thing. This also applies to the 'cult of personality' discussion below...that could still be a cult he's describing but clearly not 'of personality'. Of course, that's just nitpicking.


Slam the guy if it's your hobby but at least be fair about it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Hein on November 18, 2009 at 6:33am

Cheers, I had to look it up too.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Howard S. Dunn on November 17, 2009 at 4:07pm

Yes. Commies aren't atheists - they are far more akin to fundies.

But you lose me with "movement". Atheism is a feature of evolution. :^P

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Фелч Гроган on November 18, 2009 at 7:14am

Politics will never possess the minds of any populace the way religion does for one simple reason - there are no promises of eternal life in paradise. Personality cults can attain the fervor of religion and indeed appear indistinguishable from religion to persons unaware of the gods or the personalities in question. But personality cults fail when the personality is removed - there is no persistence of memory. Cults without a figurehead simply don't function at scale. Can you name a non-theistic one that has ever existed on the scale of a major religion ? You can have cults of ideology, but without a personality they always remain marginal - such as anti-abortion, anti-vax nuts and the whole zoo of conspiracists.

China is perhaps the only thing that comes close - the regime has become entrenched to the point that there are no longer any members of the working population that remember anything other than Chinese communism. So you have a majority of the population that really knows no better than what they have, and the current cycle of prosperity makes them sincerely believe it is a desirable system - to the point that there are Chinese hacker groups identical to their western black hat counterparts in every respect: they are fringe outsiders, rebels and outcasts - the difference being though that they perceive the government as a greater good worth defending and actually do a lot of the dirty work for Chinese (I loathe to use the term) cyber warfare and internet police out of a sense of honour and duty, while ours despise anything that has the faintest whiff of authority. I doubt the current Chinese status quo would survive past another generation though.

You can't compare religion to any secular ideology. You're closer if you compare it to race. It is usually something you are born into, that traces back innumerable generations and is considered by many to be as natural to them as the colour of their skin. Ideologies can vanish as quickly as they appear. As such they are a lesser evil to the overall species than religion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim DePaulo on November 18, 2009 at 9:18am

I agree with the points you've made. I would, however, compare religion with nationalism rather than race. Nationalism and religion have both excelled at the creation of human misery. And when they work in concert it's a shit sandwich with no mayo for the unwashed masses.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim DePaulo on November 18, 2009 at 6:49pm

Not really. Culture is somewhat nebulous while religion and nationalism is very specific. Although culture may play a role in antagonism between peoples, the blind adherance to religious and nationalist ideals can stir a population into a war.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Marshall on November 19, 2009 at 3:47am

Oh yes, when is somebody going to finally speak out against Nazism and Stalinism? Batty you say the goofiest poop.

• ▶ Reply