Best answer to the "Stalin Gambit?"

[Formless]

For other responses, Mike has an entire blog post about the Stalin Argument. I think the first two perspectives he points out are probably the best: that it is a strawman of Atheism to presume it is a moral code rather than simply a state of skepticism, and that the person posing the argument is assuming that atheism caused Stalin's megalomania when this is not in evidence (although again see the Marxist view of religion).

[Channel72]

It isn't too helpful to sort of parody the argument with things like "well... Hitler had a mustache so I guess anyone with a mustache is evil!" The typical Christian who brings up Stalin is likely to already have made the connection in his mind that Stalin = godlessness and godlessness leads to all sorts of immorality. The quality of godlessness, (not mustache-growing or looking like a male supermodel apparently) is specifically what they are implying is the issue here. It's not guilt by association - it's providing a particularly egregious example in order to confirm an overall general hypothesis that godlessness = immorality.

You can obviously point to Christians who did horrible things, but then you have to deal with No true Scotsman bullshit. Really, I think the best response is to point out examples of atheists who do very charitable, selfless things, like Bill Gates or something. Sadly, there aren't too many high profile atheists who are known specifically for their acts of charity, (in the same vein as Mother Teresa or something), however there are many high-profile atheists who engage in philanthropic or charitable activities. It would probably be more helpful to use these as counter-examples to Stalin, because it undermines the general premise that godlessness = immorality.

[Kitsune]

You my want to reconsider Mother Teresa as an example, sorry. . . . Granted, convincing Christians and espeically Catholics may be harder.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... arest.html
Add this one too
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com ... e-thought/

Another issue that was recently brought up when I was more or less defending at least the concept that care needs to be managed.
If you have person who might live an extra year while spending $100,000 for his/her health care. Health care has to be rationed.

I was accused of channeling Goebbels and Melanges. My answer was that Hitler likes dogs too, that does not mean that dogs are evil (No, cats are .) Also pointed out that they violated Godwin's law but they did not get it

[energiewende]

You are talking about Atheism. . . .Suddenly somebody brings up that Stalin was an atheist and he killed millions of his own people.
I have a few different answers but wondering what are opinions on the best answer to this?

Don't try? The argument for atheism is that it is the best explanation for the evidence. It doesn't matter that atheists murdered people and the truth or not of atheism is not dependent on the effect of people believing it on murder rates.

I don't think you can 'answer' the charge that there has been anti-religious terror conducted by atheists because of their intention to force others to be atheists. This really is substantially similar to religious terrors. It just has no bearing on whether atheism is true or false.

[Formless]

Don't try? If anything, this is the kind of argument where it is vital that you try. Why? Two reasons. If they are your friend, coworker, or someone you have to deal with all the time the subtext of their challenge is that they don't trust you. There are even atheists who seem to really buy the saying "if there were no god it would be necessary to invent him", which is bullshit. If you want to get along with people, you have to make them understand that you are a moral person. This is what we call "stigma", and atheists have it so much up the ass that there are literally dictionaries that define atheism as a synonym for "immoral". It has to be corrected (and the dictionary writers beaten with their own books).

The other reason is human beings are not that rational, and most do not understand the basics of skeptic thought. However, they are emotive and easy prey for irrelevant appeals. This particular one appeals to their fear, their disgust, and potentially their sense of guilt or shame if they are in the process of de-converting from their religion. For myself, even after I was convinced that there was no need to believe in god the issue of deriving a moral code and sorting out the "problem" of meta-ethics was a big deal. With religion, its just too easy. Without it, even if you know faith is obviously not necessary for someone to act morally, its a lot harder (but more rewarding) to figure out the justifications for moral rules.

[energiewende]

It's perfectly respectable to argue that God does not exist but the belief in God is a useful form of social control. That is a concession to the atheist position; the person making this argument has accepted that God does not actually exist, only that the false belief that he exists can be useful. Whether or not religion really is socially useful is of course another question. But predicating the non-existence of God (which is almost certainly true) on religion being socially harmful (which is possibly true, but certainly arguable either way) is a good way to weaken your own argument.

If you are saying that one should make a dishonest argument because it is more effective at persuading irrational people you are right, then I'm not sure there is much difference between your position and that of the false-religion-as-social-control advocate.

[Formless]

It's perfectly respectable to argue that God does not exist but the belief in God is a useful form of social control.

I disagree. I don't take the Marxist argument to the degree the Soviets did, but it is a fact that religions create self destructive tendencies when allowed to control people's lives. Consider the issues that religion frequently talks about today, and the positions taken on: abortion, sex education, birth control, homosexuality, racism, economics, religious tolerance/violence (ironically), etc. It is a fact that as our culture got more secular, people have become more tolerant, and that in the places where people are most religious still they are the most bigoted, and often less wealthy. Religions are not a "good" form of social control. They are a parasite on it.

That is a concession to the atheist position; the person making this argument has accepted that God does not actually exist, only that the false belief that he exists can be useful.

No, idiot, because it is never advocated honestly and doesn't require you to disbelieve god at all; merely to equate godliness with morality. It generally comes from people who would be more comfortable if you would just stop acting like you don't believe, because many Christians are convinced that you are really just in denial or angry at god (or both). Ask me how I know.

But predicating the non-existence of God (which is almost certainly true) on religion being socially harmful (which is possibly true, but certainly arguable either way) is a good way to weaken your own argument.

No, because my argument is that religion is NOT a defining requirement of morality. Are you paying attention, or just mounting a soapbox?

If you are saying that one should make a dishonest argument because it is more effective at persuading irrational people you are right, then I'm not sure there is much difference between your position and that of the false-religion-as-social-control advocate.

What the hell does that have to do with anything I actually said?

Look, energiewende, actually fucking read before commenting. I never advocate dishonesty as a counterpoint to dishonesty. That rarely, if ever, ends well. People aren't rational, but they still hate liars.

[K. A. Pital]

It's perfectly respectable to argue that God does not exist but the belief in God is a useful form of social control.

It is. It is even easier to push this point across if you actually get them to admit religion is a social control tool - the next sentence is: "So you have a mechanism of social control which has been pretty much fixed for centuries - horribly outdated by now, as any system would be, since society, the world and everything around changes constantly". Then you try to get across just how horribly outdated religion is. The other side will either try some fancy apologetics or just concede the thing.

[Channel72]

Don't try? The argument for atheism is that it is the best explanation for the evidence. It doesn't matter that atheists murdered people and the truth or not of atheism is not dependent on the effect of people believing it on murder rates.

Yeah, you're right - but it doesn't fucking matter. The logical case for atheism is not on trial in this thread. We're talking about fucking PR here. Atheism has pretty bad PR in the hearts and minds of a lot of Christians, and unfortunately that does matter, since the opinions of Christians matter politically. The whole Stalin argument is just an instance of a general assumption in the minds of believers that there is a major correlation between godlessness and immorality. Yes, everyone in this thread probably knows it's not valid - it's a classic case of "correlation does not imply causation". (And ultimately even if there was a major correlation and causal relationship between atheists and assholes, it still wouldn't have any bearing on the actual existence of God/gods).

But in practice, demonstrating that atheists can be kind, compassionate, charitable people is a lot more effective, on an emotional level, then any logical refutation.

[Crake]

As I am now many, many years removed from my "conversion" to godlessness I tend to avoid religious debates, as they sorta, kinda, tend to be pointless and unproductive. Yet, even in my debating prime I don't recall coming across anyone throwing this douche move out there. It is, quite frankly, imbecilic. If you absolutely must cross this bridge with someone I guess there are a few avenues you could take. The nuclear option might simply be: HITLER. I mean, you could argue that Stalin's responsible for more deaths, but in most people's minds, Hitler is pretty much the king of genocide in the 20th century, and he was a wee bit Christian. And if you choose to follow this path, pretty much every major genocide/mass elimination of humanity ever was conducted by religious fellas...King Leopold II, Pol Pot(a commie but not an atheist as I understand it), etc...pretty much backwards throughout all of history. I think there's even some debate as to Stalin's actual atheist cred. And then there's the bit about Stalin's behavior being politically, rather than ideologically motivated. And you could give examples of atheists who are just sparkling examples of human goodness, or that one's belief system doesn't necessarily translate to behavior, etc. In the end, I would just do what you can to avoid this debate altogether. Just be like, "hey, isn't there a Clippers game on, let's check that out and drink some beers".

[Channel72]

Yeah, good luck getting your average Christian to admit that Hitler was "a wee bit Christian". At best, they'll admit he used Christianity to manipulate the German people. Besides, the reality is that Hitler's religious ideas weren't exactly orthodox. Yeah, he definitely seems to be a straightforward Christian in the tradition of Martin Luther judging from Mein Kampf, but it's obvious he also incorporated vaguely pagan Norse ideas into his Aryan Ubermensch mythology. Whatever. The point is, the waters are a bit muddied, so to speak, with regards to Hitler's religion, and even though a reasonably good case can be made that Hitler was a True Christian(TM), you'll never get another Christian to admit that if they're already stupid enough to think that Stalin is a good argument against atheism.

[energiewende]

Don't try? The argument for atheism is that it is the best explanation for the evidence. It doesn't matter that atheists murdered people and the truth or not of atheism is not dependent on the effect of people believing it on murder rates.

Yeah, you're right - but it doesn't fucking matter. The logical case for atheism is not on trial in this thread. We're talking about fucking PR here. Atheism has pretty bad PR in the hearts and minds of a lot of Christians, and unfortunately that does matter, since the opinions of Christians matter politically.

Eppur si muove.

The whole Stalin argument is just an instance of a general assumption in the minds of believers that there is a major correlation between godlessness and immorality. Yes, everyone in this thread probably knows it's not valid - it's a classic case of "correlation does not imply causation". (And ultimately even if there was a major correlation and causal relationship between atheists and assholes, it still wouldn't have any bearing on the actual existence of God/gods).

But in practice, demonstrating that atheists can be kind, compassionate, charitable people is a lot more effective, on an emotional level, then any logical refutation.

As false doctrines go Christianity isn't so bad. The pacificism is silly and impractical but a useful check on governments for the most part. Certainly a better dogma than Marxism. No need to argue against that proposition.

[Metahive]

As false doctrines go Christianity isn't so bad. The pacificism is silly and impractical but a useful check on governments for the most part.

1. All false doctrines are bad for the simple reasons that they promote falsehoods and Christianity promotes major falsehoods
2. There are only tiny subsets of Christianity that are pacifistic like the Quakers, none of which ever had much political influence
3. Christianity serves as a multiplier for authoritarian government power, not as a check on it

In short, you're wrong on all counts.

Certainly a better dogma than Marxism. No need to argue against that proposition.

It's nothing better than Marxism. In a way you could say that Marxism is just a modernized, updated version of Christianity.

[Formless]

In a way you could say that Marxism is just a modernized, updated version of Christianity.

Don't mistake Soviet doctrine for Classical Marxism. Its an easy mistake to make, but in no way correct. While you can find proto-socialist ideas in Jesus teachings (depending on the gospel and the chapter), the fundamental, incompatible and indisputable difference between Jesus and Marx is that in Jesus' preachings, absolute authority always flows from God to the people, just like in the Old Testament; whereas Marx held up the exact opposite ideal. Democracy taken to its purest form, with power evenly distributed among the people and the outright elimination of an arbitrary elite social class deciding everything behind closed doors. This means the difference between Feudal Serfdom (which the bible supports-- note that serfdom is NOT a market economy, let alone Capitalist!) and a Social Democracy (which Marxism supports, at least as a transitional model between Capitalism and Communism). I hope you see the difference.

[Zixinus]

Simple: Stalin didn't commit mass murder out of his atheism. He committed them because he was a crazy (I think they even managed to a diagnosis about him), egomaniac, paranoid dictator that climbed his way to power through murdering and scheming. This is well-documented, even just by people who just lived during those times.

This is a man that DEMANDED parades not only to be in his honor, but that EVERY parade feature his image and his name in the highest regard. Anyone who made the slightest mistake regarding his depiction, the most accidental slight to him was rewarded by raving, paranoid fury where you were the luckiest man in the world if you just lost your job. Typically, you were sent to a gulag, or worse.

There is no point in trying to compare him to Hitler or even modern Christian terrorists. It should be enough that atheism was just a detail regarding him and that it was he that was responsible for the mass murders that he ordered.

"Atheist" is not a clear-cut label. It is a gathering word for a lack of specific beliefs (namely, what would be called religion). Other aspects are still up to the individual.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

I remember a small paragraph of Solschenizyn (I think) about a speech given by Stalin in a factory. The crowd clapped for ten minutes before the director bit the bullet and stopped first; he was taken away by the NKVD.

[Formless]

"Atheist" is not a clear-cut label. It is a gathering word for a lack of specific beliefs (namely, what would be called religion). Other aspects are still up to the individual.

You know, that reminds me of another way of tackling this. Do not immediately reveal that you are an atheist, just a skeptic. There are enough people out there who are skeptic christians that they might not jump to conclusions. Then ask how they know Stalin's behavior was linked to his atheism, and how atheism is so special that not believing in god can cause such specific moral failing in a person? If they can answer that, then ask them if it is necessary to believe in a specific god, or whether any god will fulfill that moral purpose? And point out to them that there are many people from other religions that are good people despite the inconsistency. That allows you to use non-christians as examples (like Ghandi) if you cannot think of a famous morally upright atheist on the spot. Go for the Socratic method and challenge their assumption that there even was a connection, and not just a coincidence, and you might just go far without the conversation terminating abruptly and emotionally.

[energiewende]

As false doctrines go Christianity isn't so bad. The pacificism is silly and impractical but a useful check on governments for the most part.

1. All false doctrines are bad for the simple reasons that they promote falsehoods and Christianity promotes major falsehoods
2. There are only tiny subsets of Christianity that are pacifistic like the Quakers, none of which ever had much political influence
3. Christianity serves as a multiplier for authoritarian government power, not as a check on it

In short, you're wrong on all counts.

Christianity is a pacifistic doctrine in its entirety. That people don't really like to be pacifists isn't germane to what the religion tells them to do. The Church has various supported and opposed the state and I think a claim that Christianity in general supports government power cannot be supported by history. The Reformation in particular splintered the established governments drastically and is probably one source of modern liberalism.

Certainly a better dogma than Marxism. No need to argue against that proposition.

It's nothing better than Marxism. In a way you could say that Marxism is just a modernized, updated version of Christianity.

I would agree with that to some extent. It has very striking similarities. But Marxism is an ideology explicitly aiming at the exercise of power; Christianity's original aim was to resist the exercise of power.

[Kitsune]

Curious is this a valid approach. . . .

Even if Stalin, Pol Pot, and others were motivated by their atheism, not all Christians are the same
The Klan and Fred Phelps both are Christians but I do not label all Christians the same way.
Should not atheists the same way.

Most of the atheists I deal with are skeptical rationalist and well as being secular humanist.
Has anybody murdered anyone as a result of skeptical rational or secular humanism?

[Metahive]

Formless, I'm actually thinking in a slightly meta direction here. Just consider, what's it that both Christianity and Communism do? Address the little guy. Target the lower rungs of society, promise them vindication and a glorious if nebulous future. Tell them that the current elite will pay for it's haughty arrogance and that they'll eventually all be equal. There are very few if any ideologies/religions that do this. Is it any surprise that Christianity and Communism became deathly enemies? They're competing for the same customer.
And ironically enough, once both were put in power, they just became bludgeons the new elite used to keep the little guy in check.

Christianity is a pacifistic doctrine in its entirety.

For every "turn the other cheek" passage in the Bible you can find one were Jesus proclaims he didn't come to bring peace but a sword, promises to tear families apart and threatens cities that reject him with death and destruction. Then there's also revelation where Jesus will just flat out murder all those opposed to him. There's stuff for the doves and stuff for the hawks. Actually more for the hawks since the entire old testament is one long glorification of divine warfare.

Also, ever heard about the crusades? "God wills it!" with the "it" being "go to the Middle East and smack them muslims, yo!"? The Thirty Years War? Philip II sending the Armada to England with the explicit blessing of the pope? The Battle of Lepanto that likewise had papal blessing?

Saying that Christianity is pacifistic doctrine in its entirety is ignorant in its entirety.

That people don't really like to be pacifists isn't germane to what the religion tells them to do. The Church has various supported and opposed the state and I think a claim that Christianity in general supports government power cannot be supported by history.

Ever heard of the Divine Right of Kings? The christian doctrine that crowned heads rule by the grace of God and rebellion against them is therefore a rebellion against the God-given natural order? I'm beginning to think that you might not know as much as you presume to.

The Reformation in particular splintered the established governments drastically and is probably one source of modern liberalism.

Martin Luther, the guy who among others kickstarted the Reformation wrote an essay about the "Freedom of every Christian Man". A bunch of peasants and serfs took that as encouragement to rebel against their overlords which started the german peasant wars. Luther then "clarified" that he meant spiritual freedom only and that they should all obey their masters because it was the big guys who were paying his dues after all.

Also, the reformation didn't "splinter" established governments, it gave several german princes a stronger position against their liegelord and that only after the aforementioned Thirty Years War and this outcome was deliberately engineered by the likes of France who were simply afraid of Habsburgian hegemony. Notice also how none of the protestant princes actually left the Holy Roman Empire and still accepted the catholic Habsburgers as their lieges. Other protestant countries like Sweden, England* and Prussia kept their absolutist monarchies just fine.

Also on the last point, it's actually different, both protestantism and modern liberalism took cues from renaissance humanism, but the actual precursor of modern liberalism is the age of enlightment which had both protestant and catholic thinkers behind it. The more you know *cue NBC rainbow*.

I would agree with that to some extent. It has very striking similarities. But Marxism is an ideology explicitly aiming at the exercise of power; Christianity's original aim was to resist the exercise of power.

Wait for it...NOPE! Wrong, sit down, F.

*Okay, England is technically not protestant and not quite absolutist

[Formless]

Tell them that the current elite will pay for it's haughty arrogance and that they'll eventually all be equal.

Christianity doesn't do this at all. Have you read the New Testament? It goes out of its way to exonerate Pontius Pilate for the death of Jesus, even though we know the man had NONE of the hesitant qualities he displays in every biblical retelling. Why? Because more important than appealing to the everyday people was appealing to the Roman elite and making Christianity sound cool and non-threatening to the elite. This is the opposite of what you are proposing. Why? Because that's how you convert Romans (and most importantly the Roman Emperor) to your religion. And it was greatly successful; this is why the Vatican is housed in... oh, yeah, Rome. The council of Nicea: Rome, and was sat on by the Emperor himself. Christian doctrine is that everyone is already equal in the eyes of the Lord (by which I mean, he sees us as pathetic and always teetering on the edge of Sin). All the stuff about serving the poor and helping them is not because they deserve better, but to impress God with your personal virtue. There are passages that specifically state that the status quo is just fine the way it is, even going so far as to endorse slavery as a non-issue. You would think that if it was truly communist in the modern sense, even 200 years ago, slavery would be the first thing to be condemned or come under fire.

There are very few if any ideologies/religions that do this.

No, really most religions are interested in converting people to their religion. The only exceptions I can think of are Judaism (because we are gods chosen people. Others can apply, but we don't go out of our way to bring them in) and Hinduism (because Dharma states you were born into the cast and position you are supposed to be in, and even if you are in a competing religion, you are compelled to satisfy the tenets of that religion if you want to gain karma). Islam is a great example, as is Bhuddism and all the old polytheistic religions like the Roman Pantheon (just as long as you pay taxes and acknowledge the Roman pantheon we'll acknowledge yours. An arraignment that worked out for everyone except the Jews, because Monotheism). There are different ways to tackle this, but that's all Christianity was ever after. More worshipers

Is it any surprise that Christianity and Communism became deathly enemies? They're competing for the same customer.

Of course they are. Christianity wants everyone to worship their god, and is quite willing to do so by force. That doesn't mean that they want to overthrow the elite. They want to convert the elite, because the elite are good at forcing more conversions. In part because the elite pay the soldiers who can stomp out other people's religions.

And ironically enough, once both were put in power, they just became bludgeons the new elite used to keep the little guy in check.

You know, you should really do some research on the soviet system, particularly the part that came after the secret police assassinated Stalin. This line just serves to annoy me, especially coming from people whose country says that corporations have the same rights as real people.

[Spoonist]

Regarding communism and christianity:

The Fellowship of the Believers

42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. 44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. 46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

The Believers Share Their Possessions

32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

Communism and Socialism didn't rise from a vacuum, those ideas permutated their societies and the ideals of the times. This was also brought up during the Colonies revolution against the crown and then the French revolution etc.
Melinda Gates has quoted Acts in more than one of her fights with the Vatican over how catholics should behave. heck even the new pope brought back some Franciscan sentiment in his last "press release"...

[Formless]

I don't deny that those passages exist, I'm merely taking a holistic approach to what the religion teaches. Those passages merely attest to the behavior of the early Christians and the Apostles, but not to the teachings which lead them to give so much away to the community. Plus, the line, "And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved," tells you that this was in large part about conversion; plus, knowing the context of the early church and the role eschatology played in it ("those who were saved"), it also indicates that they believed more in the futility of wealth when at any moment the End Times will soon be at hand than in the need to liberate all people from their oppressors. Hence how it is so easy for Christians to find conflicting passages and interpretations that support less egalitarian societies and values.

[Channel72]

Ever heard of the Divine Right of Kings? The christian doctrine that crowned heads rule by the grace of God and rebellion against them is therefore a rebellion against the God-given natural order? I'm beginning to think that you might not know as much as you presume to.

No need to bother with the Divine Right of Kings to prove your point. Paul himself explicitly says that governments should be respected because they were established by God.

Christianity doesn't do this at all. Have you read the New Testament? It goes out of its way to exonerate Pontius Pilate for the death of Jesus, even though we know the man had NONE of the hesitant qualities he displays in every biblical retelling. Why? Because more important than appealing to the everyday people was appealing to the Roman elite and making Christianity sound cool and non-threatening to the elite. This is the opposite of what you are proposing. Why? Because that's how you convert Romans (and most importantly the Roman Emperor) to your religion.

Just because the early evangelists had to walk the line between appeasing wealthy Romans and poor Jews/Gentiles doesn't warrant your statement that "Christianity doesn't [appeal to the downtrodden/threaten the elite] at all." It very much explicitly does (see the Sermon on the Mount, etc.). Yes, it also tries to walk the line by sucking up to the Roman power structure, but fundamentally it was originally a religion mostly targeting the poor.

I think Metahive's comparison between Christianity and Marxism is pretty interesting. From a certain perspective, the only important difference between the two is that Marx wanted to actually implement a common man's Utopia on Earth, whereas Jesus claimed he would just use his supernatural powers to create an eschatological Utopia where the poor and downtrodden would be on top. Unlike Lenin, Paul and co. didn't want to overthrow the elite on Earth... but they did claim that God would overthrow the elite eschatologically, and literally subvert the entire power structure so that the poor and downtrodden would be on top. (The first will be last, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Sermon on the Mount, etc.)

The reality, of course, was a bit more complicated. Again, the early evangelists had to walk the line between appealing to the poor, and trying to convert wealthy Romans.

[Tanasinn]

Point out that atheism has nothing to say about economics or despotism.

Quote scripture where God commands murder, torture, slavery...

Alternatively, as others have said, point out that guilt-by-association is a logical fallacy.