The Morality of Atheism

[steve_bank]

I did look at it and my response is the same. The OP is atheist morality.

Yes,some Christians paint atheists as the spawn of Satan responsible for all that is wrong. I have heard it personally.

Chrstans lump atheists without definition much as atheists do. I do not see any difference out in the real world between Christians and atheists on the average. I ave worked with people from around the world, we all have the same general morality expressed in different term

We also tend to focus on the extremes of region.

There us no 'atheist morality' to begin with. There are people who reject theism and have different beliefs.

Some atheist become a reflection of theists claiming atheism is superior.

That atheist stes in the last century all turned out to be oppressive and counter to our wetern priciciples of human rights is clearly demonstrated. Putin is the Soviet Union part 2.

If you want to make it an academic debate, we know what Christian moralty is. Before going any further define atheist morality.

 

[steve_bank]

The problem with polls that ask whether you believe in god or not is that it does not explore alternative supernatural beliefs. A Brutish poll concluded the question was useless. Back in the 90s a study concluded that the decline in Christianity was offset by growth in other beliefs.

A valid debate would be secular Humanism versus Roman Catholic, or Judaism, or Lutherans, or Sikhism, or Buddhism, or Hinduism.

I was talking with an atheist who was involved in Seattle atheist groups. As we parted ways he said enjoy being Hedonist. Apparently he equated atheism with Hedonism.

 

[southernhybrid]

That atheist stes in the last century all turned out to be oppressive and counter to our wetern priciciples of human rights is clearly demonstrated. Putin is the Soviet Union part 2.

I was done with this discussion, but I can't resist correcting your last false claim. Puttin isn't an atheist. He's a Christian or at least he claims he's a Christian, and he's using Christianity to justify his actions. Who knows what Putin really believes, but he seems to realize that he can use Christianity to manipulate people. I think you should do a little research before you make claims about most anything. Christianity makes it so much easier for dictators to take charge. Donald Trump also claims to be a Christian. I doubt he believes in anything other than himself, but he sure knew how to manipulate American evangelicals, didn't he? Sadly, most of them still worship him.

The Soviet Union was militantly atheist, following Karl Marx’s idea: “Religion is the opium of the people.” But the atheist government collapsed in 1991, and religion returned, because it works too damn good.

Putin later claimed his mother, Maria, was a Russian Othodox Christian. In “secret,” he says, she took him as an infant to a cathedral in Leningrad, and had him baptized. A helpful story when he came to prominence in a Russia that was lurching back toward Russian Orthodoxy.

He says he converted in 1993. In a biography, Fiona Hill and Clifford G. Gaddy add: “Embracing the Orthodox Church became very popular in KGB circles in the 1990s.”

A cozy relationship had been growing between the church and the government, and Putin, on becoming president, made it official.

 

[steve_bank]

Who knows what Putin really is. He is a porduct of the harsher aspects of the Soviet communism. He is all abot image manipulation.

He was KGB espionage and counter intelligence.

Wen he met GWB known for being a vocal bible bleeding Christian Putin appropriately wore a vsiisble cross around his neck. If you belive any of the Putin facade then you are gullible.

GWB said he looked into Putin's soul and saw a good man. He is a genocidal amoral dictayor.

If yiou argument is Putin is Chisrtian therefore the Soviet communists were not atheist and anti religious and oppressive, then your argumnet is laughable. If you are arguing Marxist-Leninist was not anti relgion and atheist by ideology then you are ignorant.

WE ctiicize theist apologists for ignoring the obvious issue with religion. It would appear there are atheist apologists on the flip side.

And again, there is no atheist morality. There aretheists who have non religious beliefs and ideologies. Are all atheists Humanists?

Secular Humanism compared to say Catholicism is a valid moral debate. Aheism vs theism is not a valid moral debate. As with atheists there is no ne Chrtianity. Christianity runs form the liberal to the conservative. There are moral distinctions within Christianity.

Asa sketic I look at atheists and theists with the same lvel of criticism.

I ienify as atheist on the form because it is covient.

I reject the atiest vs than eist denate as equalyy non sense on both sides. Neither side is provable. If you want true freedom from religion neither an atheist nor theist be.

Other tan general expressions of anti religion generalizations how about a more meaningful debate of Humanism vs some religious group. How do the points line up?

 

[Tigers!]

The communists states which were atheist ideology were all oppressive. State atheism has been demonstrated to result in the polar opposite of western liberal rights

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.

State atheism has been demonstrated not to prevent the polar opposite of "western liberalism rights".

That's a very long way from being a demonstrated cause.

You have put me on ignore, and now you are making a fool of yourself with bad logic. Therefore putting me on ignore has been demonstrated not to prevent to cause the use of foolishly bad logic.








This post is provided for the edification of those sufficiently reasonable not to put me on ignore

FIFY.
Thank you for the edification. I still prefer Cadbury's chocolate.

 

[bilby]

The communists states which were atheist ideology were all oppressive. State atheism has been demonstrated to result in the polar opposite of western liberal rights

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.

State atheism has been demonstrated not to prevent the polar opposite of "western liberalism rights".

That's a very long way from being a demonstrated cause.

You have put me on ignore, and now you are making a fool of yourself with bad logic. Therefore putting me on ignore has been demonstrated not to prevent to cause the use of foolishly bad logic.








This post is provided for the edification of those sufficiently reasonable not to put me on ignore

FIFY.

Yes, that was my point. Did you think I was being too subtle?

 

[southernhybrid]

Who knows what Putin really is. He is a porduct of the harsher aspects of the Soviet communism. He is all abot image manipulation.

He was KGB espionage and counter intelligence.

Wen he met GWB known for being a vocal bible bleeding Christian Putin appropriately wore a vsiisble cross around his neck. If you belive any of the Putin facade then you are gullible.

GWB said he looked into Putin's soul and saw a good man. He is a genocidal amoral dictayor.

If yiou argument is Putin is Chisrtian therefore the Soviet communists were not atheist and anti religious and oppressive, then your argumnet is laughable. If you are arguing Marxist-Leninist was not anti relgion and atheist by ideology then you are ignorant.

WE ctiicize theist apologists for ignoring the obvious issue with religion. It would appear there are atheist apologists on the flip side.

And again, there is no atheist morality. There aretheists who have non religious beliefs and ideologies. Are all atheists Humanists?

Secular Humanism compared to say Catholicism is a valid moral debate. Aheism vs theism is not a valid moral debate. As with atheists there is no ne Chrtianity. Christianity runs form the liberal to the conservative. There are moral distinctions within Christianity.

Asa sketic I look at atheists and theists with the same lvel of criticism.

I ienify as atheist on the form because it is covient.

I reject the atiest vs than eist denate as equalyy non sense on both sides. Neither side is provable. If you want true freedom from religion neither an atheist nor theist be.

Other tan general expressions of anti religion generalizations how about a more meaningful debate of Humanism vs some religious group. How do the points line up?

I'm not arguing anything. I was merely correcting you, when you claimed that Putin was an atheist. Yes. Putin lacks empathy and he has no morals, but despite your refusal to accept it, Putin is a christin Of course, both atheists and Christians can be disgusting, hateful human beings. We are all products of the things that influence us both genetically and environmentally. But, the atheist Soviet Union died in 1991, so why do you keep associating Russia with atheism, when the country now embraces the Russian Orthodox religion and it has for over 30 years!

Religion can be a very negative influence on people, which is why I started on my own pathway away from Christianity, when I was about 18, which eventually left me without religion. I attended a conservative Christain college for one semester. The nasty, racist attitudes that I saw among some of the young men, along with the condemnation of those outside the evangelical Christian Faith, were enough to make me skeptical about what I had been taught as a child. I realized that Christians could be very awful, mean spirited people, so I looked for a different religion, but quickly found the same flaws in all of them, even one of the nicest ones, The Baha'i Faith. For all of its goodness, like most world religions, it condemns homosexuality and denies women the right to hold a position on their world governing body.

"Atheist morality" doesn't have a set of rules, but atheists generally speaking, tend to have higher moral values compared to those who cling to a major religion. Maybe that's because we tend to think instead of following a set of rules lockstep. Because, we don't have strong in-groups, it easier to be accepting or tolerant towards those who are different from ourselves. It's pretty obvious. Sorry you don't see it.

And, despite the author of the linked article using the term atheist morality, it would probably be better if a term like skeptics or doubters morality was used, since a majority of the people who sided with the atheists are simply doubters, not strong atheists. I think for most of us it's easier to be moral without the didacticism of religion, statistically speaking of course.

I see no point in continuing this discussion with you, especially since you keep bringing up things that aren't related. I have several good Christian friends, but only one is a conservative Christian and she voted for Trump and still doesn't seem to realize what an immoral narcissist he is, but since I realize that we are all influenced by what we were told to believe and how we were raised etc, I still care for her and try not to judge her for her foolishness, including her refusal to take the COVID vaccine. None of us have much control over who we are and what we do. So, thanks for responding to the thread, please have a nice day. I'm sure we can find something else to disagree about sooner or later.

 

[Tigers!]

The communists states which were atheist ideology were all oppressive. State atheism has been demonstrated to result in the polar opposite of western liberal rights

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.

State atheism has been demonstrated not to prevent the polar opposite of "western liberalism rights".

That's a very long way from being a demonstrated cause.

You have put me on ignore, and now you are making a fool of yourself with bad logic. Therefore putting me on ignore has been demonstrated not to prevent to cause the use of foolishly bad logic.








This post is provided for the edification of those sufficiently reasonable not to put me on ignore

FIFY.

Yes, that was my point. Did you think I was being too subtle?

Probably. Yanks as a general rule do not do subtlety , satire or irony (IMHO) well at all.

 

[Kylie]

I read an article today that I thought might make an interesting discussion. It describes some statistics about the moral values of atheists versus theists. ( well at least until we derail it

https://thehumanist.com/commentary/the-morality-of-atheism

According to the latest General Social Survey results–and for the first time in such survey history—the percentage of Americans who are absolutely convinced of God’s existence has fallen below 50%. And just last year, Gallup found that church membership in the US—also for the first time–has fallen below 50%.

Many will find such news worrisome, given the widespread prejudice that nonreligious people are, at root, immoral. After all, if you don’t believe in God, how can you be moral? What do you even base your morality on? The likes of Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao certainly didn’t help much on this front: as bloody dictators who caused unimaginable misery and destruction—and were explicitly atheistic–their carnage only deepened atheism’s linkage with immorality in many people’s minds.

And yet, contrary to the widespread stereotype of atheists as immoral, the surprising reality today is that atheists and agnostics actually exhibit very compassionate, ethical, altruistic, and humane proclivities. Indeed, if anything characterizes the personal orientation of contemporary secular people, aside from their godlessness, it is their care and concern for the well-being of others—care and concern that is often stronger and more pronounced than that of religious people.

Does the above description fit you or other atheists who you've known? And, while I have seen some examples of racism from some of the atheists on this forum, the atheists I know in real life have never appeared to be racists. I've met and joined in with the Black Nonbelievers of Atlanta a time or two and everyone got along very well and seemed to appreciate the diversity when the group met up with Atlanta Freethought. Btw, the Black atheist group is lead by women, unlike most Black churches. Our local group, which hasn't been active much at all since the pandemic, is racially diverse as well, unlike the majority of Christian churches in my area. Atheist groups usually include members of the LBGTQ community as well. Our local group has always had at least one gay member or couple, as well as mixed race couples. Considering that our group is very small, and our town is rather conservative, that's a bit of an accomplishment.

The point of the piece isn't to necessarily claim that atheists have the moral high ground. The point is to give evidence that atheists tend to be at least as morally inclined as any religious group. I am almost always open about my atheism, partly in an attempt to help theists realize that we tend to be just as morally concerned and compassionate as people who claim to be religious. I don't like being in the closet about my atheism, although sometimes when I meet an overly zealous Christian who starts talking about the end times etc.,.....it's usually easier to be polite and walk away.

When it comes to compassion and sympathy for racial minorities, especially African Americans, the secular community again stands out. Numerous studies have found that atheists and agnostics exhibit markedly lower levels of racism than their religious peers, are the least likely of all religious groups to blame African Americans for the suffering they endure, and are far more supportive of social justice/civil rights movements than religious people. That is, despite the apparent religious emphasis on caring for others, sympathy for racial minorities is actually much more pronounced among white Americans who are notreligiously active than among those who are.

I'm not sure the article's sentence - "the percentage of Americans who are absolutely convinced of God’s existence has fallen below 50%." - necessarily refers to atheists. It could include people who believe, but have some doubts. Or Social Christians. Or people who would answer the question, "Do you believe that God absolutely exists?" with anything other than, "Absolutely yes."

But I do agree that atheists tend to have some pretty good morals, generally speaking. At least, their morals are no worse, on average, than any other group.

 

[Jarhyn]

I read an article today that I thought might make an interesting discussion. It describes some statistics about the moral values of atheists versus theists. ( well at least until we derail it

https://thehumanist.com/commentary/the-morality-of-atheism

According to the latest General Social Survey results–and for the first time in such survey history—the percentage of Americans who are absolutely convinced of God’s existence has fallen below 50%. And just last year, Gallup found that church membership in the US—also for the first time–has fallen below 50%.

Many will find such news worrisome, given the widespread prejudice that nonreligious people are, at root, immoral. After all, if you don’t believe in God, how can you be moral? What do you even base your morality on? The likes of Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao certainly didn’t help much on this front: as bloody dictators who caused unimaginable misery and destruction—and were explicitly atheistic–their carnage only deepened atheism’s linkage with immorality in many people’s minds.

And yet, contrary to the widespread stereotype of atheists as immoral, the surprising reality today is that atheists and agnostics actually exhibit very compassionate, ethical, altruistic, and humane proclivities. Indeed, if anything characterizes the personal orientation of contemporary secular people, aside from their godlessness, it is their care and concern for the well-being of others—care and concern that is often stronger and more pronounced than that of religious people.

Does the above description fit you or other atheists who you've known? And, while I have seen some examples of racism from some of the atheists on this forum, the atheists I know in real life have never appeared to be racists. I've met and joined in with the Black Nonbelievers of Atlanta a time or two and everyone got along very well and seemed to appreciate the diversity when the group met up with Atlanta Freethought. Btw, the Black atheist group is lead by women, unlike most Black churches. Our local group, which hasn't been active much at all since the pandemic, is racially diverse as well, unlike the majority of Christian churches in my area. Atheist groups usually include members of the LBGTQ community as well. Our local group has always had at least one gay member or couple, as well as mixed race couples. Considering that our group is very small, and our town is rather conservative, that's a bit of an accomplishment.

The point of the piece isn't to necessarily claim that atheists have the moral high ground. The point is to give evidence that atheists tend to be at least as morally inclined as any religious group. I am almost always open about my atheism, partly in an attempt to help theists realize that we tend to be just as morally concerned and compassionate as people who claim to be religious. I don't like being in the closet about my atheism, although sometimes when I meet an overly zealous Christian who starts talking about the end times etc.,.....it's usually easier to be polite and walk away.

When it comes to compassion and sympathy for racial minorities, especially African Americans, the secular community again stands out. Numerous studies have found that atheists and agnostics exhibit markedly lower levels of racism than their religious peers, are the least likely of all religious groups to blame African Americans for the suffering they endure, and are far more supportive of social justice/civil rights movements than religious people. That is, despite the apparent religious emphasis on caring for others, sympathy for racial minorities is actually much more pronounced among white Americans who are notreligiously active than among those who are.

I'm not sure the article's sentence - "the percentage of Americans who are absolutely convinced of God’s existence has fallen below 50%." - necessarily refers to atheists. It could include people who believe, but have some doubts. Or Social Christians. Or people who would answer the question, "Do you believe that God absolutely exists?" with anything other than, "Absolutely yes."

But I do agree that atheists tend to have some pretty good morals, generally speaking. At least, their morals are no worse, on average, than any other group.

As it stands, objective measures of moral commitment and follow through indicate atheists are on par more moral than Christians.

Staunch atheists show higher morals than the proudly pious, from the pandemic to climate change

When it comes to the most pressing moral issues of the day, hard-core secularists exhibit much more empathy

www.salon.com

Atheists and believers both have moral compasses, but with key differences: Belief in God associated with stronger endorsement of moral values that promote group cohesion

A new study suggests that, while atheists and theists share moral values related to protecting vulnerable individuals, atheists are less likely to endorse values that promote group cohesion and more inclined to judge the morality of actions based on their consequences.

www.sciencedaily.com

I buck the trend because I vote both "protect the vulnerable AND prevent negative consequences".

But arguably prevention of negative consequences is generally going to always lead to more effective ethics/morality.

 

[Wiploc]

...
As a naturalist, weak agnostic, strong atheist how do you derive your morality and sense of right and wrong? As compared to Christians and the bible.

I can never understand mixed atheism, you either accept or reject religious gods or you don't.

Theists think some things are obviously wrong. They look for patterns and principles that support and codify: If killing Joe was wrong, then it stands to reason that killing Jane would be wrong.

Then, when they think they've got their principles worked out well enough that they can live with the remaining cognitive dissonance, they proclaim, "Gods said this, so I know it is true!"

Non-theists use the same procedure, except they leave off the last bit.

-

What is "mixed atheism"? Are you talking about weak atheism?

- Theists believe that gods do exist.
- Strong atheists believe that gods do not exist.
- Weak atheists (everybody else) don't believe either way.

I'm a strong atheist (I believe that no gods exist) but I don't see anything wrong or misguided about weak atheism.

Babies are weak atheists. Noncognitivists are weak atheists. I suspect that some strong agnostics ("I don't know whether gods exist, and you don't know either. Nobody knows. Nobody can ever know. Anybody who thinks she knows whether gods exist is an idiot") are weak atheists.

 

[Wiploc]

But I do agree that atheists tend to have some pretty good morals, generally speaking. At least, their morals are no worse, on average, than any other group.

I assume that, on average, atheists have better morals than theists. But that's not a high bar.

Theists think they have the moral high ground because their morality is more logical, better grounded, than atheist morality.

That's hogwash. Their moral arguments are based on the same sleight of mouth as the rest of their arguments. It's easy for atheists to come up with moral foundations that are at least as good as theist moral foundations.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

According to the latest General Social Survey results–and for the first time in such survey history—the percentage of Americans who are absolutely convinced of God’s existence has fallen below 50%. And just last year, Gallup found that church membership in the US—also for the first time–has fallen below 50%.

Many will find such news worrisome, given the widespread prejudice that nonreligious people are, at root, immoral. After all, if you don’t believe in God, how can you be moral? What do you even base your morality on? The likes of Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao certainly didn’t help much on this front: as bloody dictators who caused unimaginable misery and destruction—and were explicitly atheistic–their carnage only deepened atheism’s linkage with immorality in many people’s minds.

And yet, contrary to the widespread stereotype of atheists as immoral, the surprising reality today is that atheists and agnostics actually exhibit very compassionate, ethical, altruistic, and humane proclivities. Indeed, if anything characterizes the personal orientation of contemporary secular people, aside from their godlessness, it is their care and concern for the well-being of others—care and concern that is often stronger and more pronounced than that of religious people.

Does the above description fit you or other atheists who you've known?

Some atheists I've known are OK morally speaking, but many atheists I've dialogued with online appear to be downright sinister. Although I don't like to label myself, I am what most people would think of as an atheist. My morals I think are good, of course, but I suppose most people feel that way about their morals. In any case, I am a law-abiding citizen who does not smoke, drink, use illegal drugs or solicit prostitutes or chases married women. I try to treat people with respect and help them if they need help.

And, while I have seen some examples of racism from some of the atheists on this forum, the atheists I know in real life have never appeared to be racists.

I've known at least two racist atheists.

When it comes to compassion and sympathy for racial minorities, especially African Americans, the secular community again stands out. Numerous studies have found that atheists and agnostics exhibit markedly lower levels of racism than their religious peers, are the least likely of all religious groups to blame African Americans for the suffering they endure, and are far more supportive of social justice/civil rights movements than religious people. That is, despite the apparent religious emphasis on caring for others, sympathy for racial minorities is actually much more pronounced among white Americans who are notreligiously active than among those who are.

The sociological data I'm familiar with supports the conclusion that religious fundamentalists tend to be more antisocial than either the liberal religious or the nonreligious who are about even. See What You Don't Know About Religion (but Should) by Ryan Cragun.

 

[steve_bank]

I doubt Putin is Christian. He was raised in Soviet communism and still laments the Soviet fall.

When religion again became legal the Russian church came back with a vengeance suppressing other faiths, and it made a poltitical alliance. The head of the church strongly supports Putin's war.

Putin famously wore a big cross arond his neck when he net GWB and Bush said he looked into Putin's eyes and saw a good man. Putin played on Bush's faith.

 

[steve_bank]

Conservative sects tend to be parochial and self segregating. Orthodox Jews in NYC., they try to do business and socialize only with other Jews.

Christian Jehovah Witness is notorious for separation from isolation fro others. In the 80s I humng around with a JW that was expelled form the com minty for his behavior. Thngs like dating and sex..

He was not just expelled, he was shunned. His mother and sister could not talk to him. To see them he could sit next to them in church but nobody would talk to him.

 

[TomC]

Christian Jehovah Witness is notorious for separation from isolation fro others. In the 80s I humng around with a JW that was expelled form the com minty for his behavior. Thngs like dating and sex..

Yeah, dang...

Awhile back Doug and I had a gay buddy. Nice as the day is long, truly excellent person. Mike.
Mike came out to his JW family as gay in his late teens. Actually, someone else outed him. That all went as badly as you'd think.
Tom

 

[southernhybrid]

According to the latest General Social Survey results–and for the first time in such survey history—the percentage of Americans who are absolutely convinced of God’s existence has fallen below 50%. And just last year, Gallup found that church membership in the US—also for the first time–has fallen below 50%.

Many will find such news worrisome, given the widespread prejudice that nonreligious people are, at root, immoral. After all, if you don’t believe in God, how can you be moral? What do you even base your morality on? The likes of Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao certainly didn’t help much on this front: as bloody dictators who caused unimaginable misery and destruction—and were explicitly atheistic–their carnage only deepened atheism’s linkage with immorality in many people’s minds.

And yet, contrary to the widespread stereotype of atheists as immoral, the surprising reality today is that atheists and agnostics actually exhibit very compassionate, ethical, altruistic, and humane proclivities. Indeed, if anything characterizes the personal orientation of contemporary secular people, aside from their godlessness, it is their care and concern for the well-being of others—care and concern that is often stronger and more pronounced than that of religious people.

Does the above description fit you or other atheists who you've known?

Some atheists I've known are OK morally speaking, but many atheists I've dialogued with online appear to be downright sinister. Although I don't like to label myself, I am what most people would think of as an atheist. My morals I think are good, of course, but I suppose most people feel that way about their morals. In any case, I am a law-abiding citizen who does not smoke, drink, use illegal drugs or solicit prostitutes or chases married women. I try to treat people with respect and help them if they need help.

And, while I have seen some examples of racism from some of the atheists on this forum, the atheists I know in real life have never appeared to be racists.

I've known at least two racist atheists.

When it comes to compassion and sympathy for racial minorities, especially African Americans, the secular community again stands out. Numerous studies have found that atheists and agnostics exhibit markedly lower levels of racism than their religious peers, are the least likely of all religious groups to blame African Americans for the suffering they endure, and are far more supportive of social justice/civil rights movements than religious people. That is, despite the apparent religious emphasis on caring for others, sympathy for racial minorities is actually much more pronounced among white Americans who are notreligiously active than among those who are.

The sociological data I'm familiar with supports the conclusion that religious fundamentalists tend to be more antisocial than either the liberal religious or the nonreligious who are about even. See What You Don't Know About Religion (but Should) by Ryan Cragun.

I've known lots of atheists who were members of various social groups for atheists and others who want to join our social groups. Yes. The vast majority of them were very good people, but if you read all of my earlier posts from months ago, I think you would already know my position.

My Black Christian friends are all very good people and I only have one White Christian friend. She's had a hard life. I've helped her out numerous times. We love each other like sisters and neither of us cares what the other believes, but the point of my OP is that surveys demonstrate that most atheists have good moral values and try to be good people.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

I doubt Putin is Christian. He was raised in Soviet communism and still laments the Soviet fall.

When religion again became legal the Russian church came back with a vengeance suppressing other faiths, and it made a poltitical alliance. The head of the church strongly supports Putin's war.

Putin famously wore a big cross arond his neck when he net GWB and Bush said he looked into Putin's eyes and saw a good man. Putin played on Bush's faith.

So, Putin was raised in Soviet communism, and is therefore not a True Christian.
Stalin, the most powerful and influential Soviet leader was raised as a Christian and went to a seminary to study to be a priest, so when he became dictator he was still really a Christian.

How was it that the Orthodox Christian church was able to come back so quickly and strongly? Because it never went away. The "suppression" it had under communism wasn't very effective, because the people were secretly still Christian.

Of course Putin is only a pretend Christian and that is the truest Christian of all, just like Trump. Because True Christianity has nothing to do with the Bible and is all about power and control, and for them the Bible is just a weapon.

 

[Copernicus]

I doubt Putin is Christian. He was raised in Soviet communism and still laments the Soviet fall.

When religion again became legal the Russian church came back with a vengeance suppressing other faiths, and it made a poltitical alliance. The head of the church strongly supports Putin's war.

Putin famously wore a big cross arond his neck when he net GWB and Bush said he looked into Putin's eyes and saw a good man. Putin played on Bush's faith.

So, Putin was raised in Soviet communism, and is therefore not a True Christian.

Communism itself was a type of religion that competed ideologically with Christian beliefs, but the Soviet government was never able to eradicate religion. They always had working churches and a relationship with the clergy. When our Russian language study group was there in 1965, we were exposed to a lot of atheistic propaganda (beginning with our first day), but we were also taken to officially sanctioned working Christian sites and even visited attended a church ceremony conducted by clergy. The point was to claim that there was not discrimination against Christians--an obvious lie. I even met informally with the Latvian Catholic bishop, who assumed I was Catholic because of my Polish surname. (A friend of mine on the trip, who was a real Catholic, took me along to meet him.) Putin would have professed atheism as a member of the Communist Party during the Soviet period, but I have no reason to believe that he is not now a sincere Christian. Most of Russians I knew back then struck me as not particularly interested in religion.

Stalin, the most powerful and influential Soviet leader was raised as a Christian and went to a seminary to study to be a priest, so when he became dictator he was still really a Christian.

How was it that the Orthodox Christian church was able to come back so quickly and strongly? Because it never went away. The "suppression" it had under communism wasn't very effective, because the people were secretly still Christian.

I don't believe that, and I have known a lot of Soviet citizens since the 1960s. The suppression was felt by devout Christians who held on to their traditional religious beliefs, but I never saw any sign that most people were "secretly still Christian". I think that they had a belief in the occult, magic, and spirits. Communism didn't manage to free people of superstitions and goofy beliefs any more than science classes do today. However, after the fall of Communism, people flocked back to the churches, IMO, primarily because the Russian Orthodox Church was deeply associated with Russian ethnicity. It was always part of their cultural heritage. That's not the same as actually knowing a lot about the religious doctrine. That had to be discovered anew. Churches and cathedrals were being rebuilt, and the ROC became the official government-backed religion again. At that point, being religious was consider a social plus rather than a social negative.

Of course Putin is only a pretend Christian and that is the truest Christian of all, just like Trump. Because True Christianity has nothing to do with the Bible and is all about power and control, and for them the Bible is just a weapon.

I don't think we can say that Putin is a pretend Christian, and your reason for believing that he is seems to be an endorsement of the No True Scotsman theory of how to define Christians. Good luck with that.

 

[steve_bank]

I read a book Memoirs Of A Revolutionist by a Russian Kropotkin. He was born to plantation as we might say. The upper levels of aristocracy. He was radcalzed ad is labed an anarchist.

He descrbes what life was like at lower levels.

Religion was an oppressive arm of the aristocracy. Kill a lower classs person if oiu were high eno

Given the role of religion in Russia the Soviet bias against religion is understandable. It stemmed from experience not ideology.

Stalin wanted to eradicate religion. Anything that organizs people is a threat to dictators.

Memoirs of a Revolutionist - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

USSR anti-religious campaign (1928–1941) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I had a philosophy teacher from Lituania. As a teen he was pressed into the army by Nazis. He deserted and fought in the resistance. He told a post war Russian occupation story.

A Soviet political officer held a town meeting. One of the people stood up and saud 'If god does not exist why do you have to prove it?'. The Russian drew his pistol and shot him.

There are no redeeming qualities of the Soviet communists. If you want a picture of Stalin and the Soviets look at Putin.

On paper China has freedom of relgion and the ste promotes atheism. In prcce after tryng to eradicate religion the CCP decided to allow religion but have poitlcal control. Indvidual churcs are approved. Appointing Catholic clerics. You can be religious as long as relgion does not provide a medium to organize any criticism or oppostion to the CCP.