The Russian Communists Were Not Motivated By Atheism

I am thankful that my opponent has found time to post a reply. 1. "I never argued that Lenin was telling the people what they wanted to hear. What I said was that just because Lenin made no mention of atheism specifically does not mean that atheism was not a motivating factor. I maintain that my opponent does not know - and can never know - what his motivations or the motivations of others are, either in this situation or any, but especially a scenario with political aims." I argue that Con did state this because she said, "...politicians hardly EVER reveal their legitimate intentions or goals." Con was in essence saying that politicians almost never reveal their true goals, thus in order to hide them, they tell the people what they want to hear. It's done in politics all the time. For example, how many politicians does Con think might be atheists but claim a theistic position for fear of losing office? I was trying to show that if Lenin was truly just a politician who wished to hide his goals, why would he write a book that he outlines his ideas about religion which was read by the communists themselves? Lenin was very wedded to Marxist ideas and wanted to preserve them and not distort them, which is why Lenin "broke up Russian Social Democrats into Mensheviks and Bolshevicks...[h]e was convinced that an effective revolutionary party would have to consist of *only* those who were totally dedicated to the case." [1] Therefore, there is no logical reason he would mislead the people he wanted to follow him in the fight for socialism. As I've shown, the Communists did state their goals very clearly and we have their debates preserved about these goals. To quote historian Paul Gabel about Marxist ideology: "...[W]orkers have to be free from the entangling web of religion *before* they can become effective fighters in the revolutionary cause. How could nonmaterialists even carry out such an uprising?....The settled-upon rationalization was that, since modern Christianity was inherently antirevolutionary, it had developed into a powerful roadblock to the path that history must eventually take." [2] This is explaining what I've stated before; that it was the Marxist ideology they were trying to force upon the populace. 2. "Which came first - the religion or the politics?" It's obvious that the ideology came first, which is why all of the talk about revolution and doing whatever it took to ensure a socialist future, even if it meant killing priests, closing churches, etc. However, there is something Con doesn't tell you. It's the fact that the Communists actually supported churches as long as they were pro-Communist. [3] Now, if the goal was outright destruction of religion - because of atheism - then why would they support churches that advanced their cause? Because of their ideology, that's why. If it was purely atheism, as my opponent alleges, one would think they would brutally attack religion and never let up but this isn't the case by far. The relationship between the Communists and the churches were very complex, which is evidence of a much more complex reason than 'It was because of atheism' as my opponent claims. One also must understand the Communists' taking of church lands because it is, once again, tied in with their ideology. "...[C]onsistent with Marxist theory, the government was simply attempting to remove *all* private and corporate control of productive property. The church just happened to be the largest corporate owner of productive property in the tsarist system...Marxists were convinced that religion - especially Christianity - was a pillar upholding capitalism, and weakening this pillar would hasten the collapse of capitalist remnants..." [4] Con states: "this is a blatant example of how atheistic ideals influenced communism. Since they believed that there was no omnipotent God and/or Heaven, there could be no "real rewards" achieved other than the ones here on earth." Again, the basis of Communism, as even quoted by Lenin, was materialism, not atheism. Materialism is the belief in no afterlife and Con has once again failed to show how this belief comes directly from atheism. She even admits my definition is the correct one; with it being a negative and asserting nothing, though she seems to contradict herself because atheism holds no "ideals." "While Pro implied that *I* seem to not know much about the subject, I could just as easily say the same about my opponent...they USED ATHEISM TO PROMOTE COMMUNISM." I'm sorry, but despite Con's claims to the contrary, they promoted atheism *because* of their socialist ideology, as I've continuously explained. In order to pull the wool from their eyes, they must be materialists, as Marxist doctrine states. Clearly, the ideology came first. I see Con has cited Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. I would argue that his objectivity is seriously lacking since he was not only persecuted by the Communists (but later released) but he was also a theist thus obviously biased, [5] but like Con, never shows how this is the case with any clear evidence. However, there are many unbiased scholars who have looked at all the evidence and come to the same conclusion I have, including renowned historian Robert Conquest, who never once mentions atheism as the cause. The same goes with Dr. Rudolph Rummel, who is well known for his research into what he calls "Democide", or the mass murder by governments, which include Soviet Russia. In a Q & A session he had this to say about it: Q: Is atheism the principal factor in democide, such as that committed by the "Big Three," Stalin, Mao, and Hitler? A: No. I find that religion or its lack -- atheism -- have hardly anything to do in general with wide-scale democide. The most important factor is totalitarian power. Whether a church, atheists, or agnostics have that power is incidental -- it is having the power that is a condition of democide. Incidentally, some ideologies, such as communism, function psychologically and sociologically as though a religion. The only distinction is whether the subject is a god or a man, such as Marx, Lenin, Hirohito, Hitler, Mohammed, Kim Ill sung, Mao, etc. [6] 3. "So, communists promoted atheism to dismantle the idea that there was no afterlife." Yes, they tried to spread non-belief, but once again, it was *because* of their ideology. My opponent is trying to put the cart before the ox, when it did not happen in that fashion. 4. Con claimed that my quote had nothing to do with morality, when it actually did. I was simply pointing out her error. 5. "Pro asserts that my misinterpretation of atheism helps to prove his point. I have not misinterpreted anything, actually; I merely discussed why atheism was PROMOTED (to discredit the idea of an afterlife)..." She has failed to show how atheism - a negative - asserts a lack of belief in an afterlife. She has also not shown why atheism was promoted; not for atheism's sake, but ideology. Wiping away a belief in an afterlife was done due to Marxist ideology, not atheism. It was done to advance socialism, not atheism itself. Conclusion: Con has once again failed to show how atheism caused these atrocities. It was due to the Communists' ideology, which was framed by materialism, not atheism, as I've conclusively demonstrated. Simply asserting that a lack of evidence is somehow evidence ["...just because Lenin made no mention of atheism specifically does not mean that atheism was not a motivating factor."] is not a convincing argument and I argue that Con failed once again to provide one shred of evidence for her position. Because of Con's lack of evidence I kindly ask you to vote Pro. Thank you. References: 1. And God Created Lenin: Marxism vs. Religion in Russia, 1917-1929, by Paul Gabel; 93 2. Ibid.;92 3. Ibid.;237 4. Ibid.;144 5. http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. http://www.hawaii.edu...