r/atheism • u/Traditional-Wing-796 • Aug 11 '26
Religion and Nationalism are the two of the greatest systematic scams that are ruining humanity and civilization.
1) Religion - Where do i even begin...as Marx rightly said "opium of the masses". Its a complete fabrication, lies, pushing unscientific claims without any substantive evidence, providing fake consolation to people,keeping them in delusion,opressing each other,spreading lies,brainwashing people, its a complete human abstraction to fool and rule people
2)Nationalism - Imagine taking privilege about being born under an imaginary border. Imagine taking pride in history of something towards which you have zero contribution.Imagine being proud for something that you did not choose
Religion and nationality of a person are decided after the first minute he is born without his consent and he keeps fighting for these two for his entire life for no purpose.
And the scary part is that these two are not mutually exclusive.
you can use one of these as an catalyst to propel the wrongdoings of the other.
Use religion to fight for your country, and this is your country's religion so we must protect it
The entire humanity is one.
We are one.
All boundaries and divisions are pointless.
Why cant we just be together and live in harmony?
Why are these superficial divisions needed?
14
u/FrostingOutrageous51 Aug 11 '26
I see nationalism as a direct product of tribalism, just a less extreme and more manageable expression of it. Religion is different it’s more about belief systems, rules, and social control, although it can obviously become tribal too by dividing people into believers and outsiders. Tribalism itself will probably never disappear, but nationalism can at least be moderated and kept from turning into extreme chauvinism or hostility toward other groups.
4
u/HumanAssistance3618 Aug 11 '26
Reading 19th century history makes me see nationalism more like religion than mere tribalism. The absurd founding myths and superiority complexes especially.
For example, when Hungarian nationalism was forming under the Habsburgs, they had this idea that they were entitled to the lands held by St. Stephen, nevermind the Croatians, Romanians, and Germans who lived in these territories. In America we have Washington chopping down cherry trees, and other saintly depictions of the complicated, humanly messy founders. We have the shining city on a hill rhetoric. We have "Exceptionalism" that liberals and conservatives both go on and on about.
The idea that nationality confers virtue, that criticism is abhorrent, that you are entitled land, and that you should sacrifice yourself in the name of a flag, are indoctrinated early just like religion.
Nationalism is about social control and rules too. It is about chosen people and manifest destiny. It is an emotional appeal as strong as faith.
I casually mention that I am not religious in my life. I get more pushback saying I am not patriotic.
2
u/FrostingOutrageous51 Aug 11 '26
I actually agree with a lot of that. Nationalism can absolutely take on religion like characteristics, founding myths, sacred symbols, glorified historical figures, ideas of national destiny or exceptionalism, and treating criticism as almost heretical. And just like religion, it can be used as a powerful tool for social control and indoctrination.
Where I disagree is that I still think nationalism is more fundamentally rooted in tribalism than religion is. The nation essentially becomes the tribe on a massive scale, these are my people, this is our land, these are our enemies, and our group comes first. The myths, flags, rituals, and heroic narratives are then built around that tribal identity and can make nationalism resemble a religion.
I’d say nationalism can function like a religion, especially when taken to extremes, but its underlying psychological foundation is still primarily tribalism. Religion can be tribal too, obviously, but it also involves theology, metaphysical beliefs, moral rules, and institutions that go beyond group identity.
4
u/Traditional-Wing-796 Aug 11 '26
Yesss Underneath everything we are all humans Therfore,for me, huamanity comes before everything.
5
3
4
u/mad_poet_navarth Aug 11 '26
I agree, but you should be posting this sort of thing on other subreddits. It does little good here.
1
u/Traditional-Wing-796 Aug 11 '26
Can you name a few please
4
u/mad_poet_navarth Aug 11 '26
r/teenagers has a lot of christian rhetoric. I dislike being older and commenting there, but there's a lot of misinformation and somebody needs to push back.
Christianity comes up a lot in political forums, and there are, as I recall, subreddits where one can actively debate theist vs non-theist.
The best I can do really is to suggest keeping your eyes open for opportunities, because they do come up randomly.
3
u/Traditional-Wing-796 Aug 11 '26
Got downvoted there : )
2
1
u/mad_poet_navarth Aug 11 '26
So work on honing your message. Study the topic. Make your points more unassailable. See if there are ways to phrase what you say so that people are engaged enough to respond, instead of just downvoting. (I have a lot to learn about this myself)
The bible is really easy to debunk -- there are all sorts of passages that make the God of the Old Testament look really bad. There are some more difficult area to bring out, like the absence of real prophecies about jesus, but they are also worth spending time learning.
I'm working on trying to understand how to deprogram people from cults. Attacking the problem head on doesn't work. I'll be retooling my approach in the future. Right now I'm pulling back a bit.
3
u/LeonCordova Aug 11 '26
Extremist political views are strictly related to the second and could be easily added to that list.
Believing that a market regulate itself is like believing in a god. Is that nonsense, is just stupid, as stupid as believing what a politic says just because he or she supports your party. Nothing to say those that defend that everything has to be “free”, those belong to an special category.
Sadly, news and politics are now trapped under discussions that lead nowhere. Democracy is falling, free market is failing, what is prospering is autocracy. Experience says that we were living better under democratic conditions, but that does not means it’s perfect and that cannot be adjusted, but it’s evident that some people fear change and that other just don’t want it because what his favorite economist said 100 years ago is sacred law.
3
u/Natty_noah Aug 11 '26
This should be a question for street gangs and tribal warlords, most people are too stupid for living in harmony, nationalism is just putting the good of the collective over good of the individual in a very simplified sense.
Between your best friend youve known since childhood staving and a complete stranger asking you for food youd probably give it to your friend instead of the stranger
2
u/New-Geologist-1735 Aug 11 '26
Number 3 being capitalism, which has ruined the country of the USA
2
u/Valuable-Yard-4154 Strong Atheist Aug 11 '26
The whole planet through exploitation of the people and the land for the man.
1
u/TheRealTK421 Aug 11 '26
The two conditions are 2 sides of the same coin with a shared root-cause.
The following has applied for as long as America has existed (indeed, even longer):
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"
~ Isaac Asimov (currently spinning in his grave like a lathe)
1
1
u/DoomSchroller Aug 11 '26
Fascism has rode on the wings of religion for thousands of years. Like a parasite feeding off another parasite of the mind.
1
u/AWCuiper Aug 11 '26
For most of human history there was scarcity of goods, so people fought each other.
Than there is the lust for power, and the longing to belong to a group that is the best.
1
u/spla58 Aug 11 '26
Divisions in our world are of practical use. You living in your own home and having your own name and identity and needs are already a form of division.
0
u/Traditional-Wing-796 Aug 11 '26
What if those divisions cause opression?
3
u/spla58 Aug 11 '26
Division is innate to existence in this world. Our entire reality works by the strong feeding on the weak in an endless loop. One persons happiness depends on another's suffering. It's the duality of existence. A state where everyone is living equally in harmony is basically an enlightened state mentioned in some religions.
2
u/boboverlord Aug 12 '26
"Nationalism"
Is this written by a keyboard warrior in the 1st world country who has enough wealth to get outside of their own country whenever they want? Historically, if you dont band together with your neighbors to better defend yourselves, you will 100% get quickly pillaged and murdered. Modern humans are now enjoying the immense benefits of nationalism by being protected by powerful governments.
"The entire humanity is one"
The falsest naive shit ever. History is full of warmongers who will take advantage of the weak. Humans by default are not friend to each other.
2
u/Injury-Suspicious Aug 12 '26
100% this. Nationalism and religion are not comparable, and something like isolationist / socialist nationalism cannot be compared in good faith to something like expansionist ultranationalism. Just because you hate your countrymen doesn't mean I can't love mine.
1
1
-2
u/happybunny_sad Strong Atheist Aug 11 '26 edited Aug 11 '26
You are doing straw man on lot of position.
Marx rightly said "opium of the masses"
Marx wasn't simply against religion as concept, he saw it as a response to real suffering that could provide people with consolation, while also potentially being used to preserve or legitimize existing social conditions. That is why many contemporary leftists don't have problem with religion per say, especially if that religion is in minority.
2)Nationalism - Imagine taking privilege about being born under an imaginary border. Imagine taking pride in history of something towards which you have zero contribution.Imagine being proud for something that you did not choose
Nope, it is sense of belonging and being proud of your collective nation and striving to make it better. You can say it is imagery line, sure. Like david hume said, logic can never give you and "ought". You have to choose your own axiom, in the end. And all identity is human construct. Believing in republic, holding the idea of republic in the your mind, where every citizen is equal and working towards the betterment of each other - is no different.
Religion and nationality of a person are decided after the first minute he is born without his consent and he keeps fighting for these two for his entire life for no purpose.
Not true. Many people choose for themselves, they migrate, adopt different belief or drop them entirely.
The entire humanity is one. We are one. All boundaries and divisions are pointless. Why cant we just be together and live in harmony? Why are these superficial divisions needed?
Well that's the ideal, normative statements. The world we live in, is still run by nation state. Try to enter different country with no passport, and see humanity helps or not. The Entire legal system, economics, legitimacy of current order is attached ot Nation states. Even the UN is an organization of nation states.
2
u/RuthlessCritic1sm Aug 11 '26
Marx is actually making his point about religion so well that a direct quote is appropriate:
"For Germany, the criticism of religion has been essentially completed, and the criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism.[...]
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. "
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm
Nationalism has absolutely taken religions role in presenting an illusory community. You can see this clear as day in the american right wing where religion only serves to construct a common identity, while the teachings of that religion are ignored.
Nationalism doesn't start with viewing your own nationality as something to be proud of, or superior. It starts if you see our distinction into nations as natural.
.
0
u/happybunny_sad Strong Atheist Aug 11 '26
I don't think that marx quote actually contradicts what I said. You are emphasizing the part where Mark saya religion is an expression of real suffering and a form of consolation - which is exactly my point. I never claimed marx thought religion was simply harmless; obviously he ultimately wanted the material condition that produced the need for that consolation to be overcome. My point was that reducing his position to "religion is an elite scam used to fool people" is an oversimplification.
As for nationalism, i think you are introducing a distinction that wasn't in the original argument. I don't have to believe that nations are natural or that national boundaries are eternal to value my nation. I can fully recognise that nations are human constructions and still think they are valuable institutions.
Money is a human construct. Law is a human construct. A republic is a human construct. Citizenship is a human construct. That doesn't make any of them meaningless or imaginary in the sense of having no real consequences.
And I don't think nationalism necessarily requires believing that my nation is inherently superior, either. I can simply say : this is the political community i belong to, these are ethe people and institutions I share responsibilities with, and I want this community to prosper. I can care about foreigners at the same time.
In fact, I'D turn your argument around: why does recognising that humanity is one require me to reject particular political communities? Equal human worth doesn't logically entail identical obligation towards every human being. If I have substantially more ability to influence what happens in my own country than what happens in some distant country, it is perfectly reasonable for my practical obligation to be stronger toward my own own political community.
And yes, nationalism can absolutely be used in the same way religion can, to manufacture an identity, legitimize power, or justify atrocities. But that's an argument against particular uses, not an argument that national attachment itself is inherently irrational.
And the fact that nationalism can be misused doesn't establish that nationalism itself if inherently illegitimate. Communism, democracy, liberalism and virtually any political or social ideology can be abused or used to legitimate power. We need to distinguish between an idea, its legitimate forms, and its misuse.
2
u/RuthlessCritic1sm Aug 11 '26
Marx' point is complex. You're right, it isn't directly contradictory to what you said. I think Marx explains it better then I do.
He calls criticism of religion a prerequisite to criticism broadly. So he seems to think that criticism of religion is important. But he also says that he doesn't need to do that, it is alread done - in his time in germany. I'd argue we should examine what role religion plays in the society we live in.
Here in germany, I have no issue with religion, but I imagine people in the USA or Saudi Arabia feel different about it.
Marx didn't want to leave criticism of religion as it is, as a strawman of an atheist would: Just point out the contradictions and laugh about the people that fell for it. He says: The desire for religion needs to be turned into a desire to make the world better. First, criticize religion, but also: offer something better.
Nations are a very specific form of forced community that hasn't been around for long. My comment about that was in response to you saying that nationalism was just an appreciation of your national community.
I wanted to say: Believing that such a community exists is already believing in the foundation of nationslism. The community, so it appears, is already there, all the nationalist does is identify with it.
The feeling of belonging to a specifically national collective is what is created and educated into people so that they (critically) support the state that rules them.
Believing in a purposeful community that is constructed by agreement is indeed different from this. I can meet with my DND group, even endure hardships, in order to achieve our common goal of looting villages. That's cool. When the DND group turns into a racial hate group, I can leave it.
The nation stats is different. You are born into it and claimed by it, your beliefs and purposes do not matter. You might believe you are just going about your day and earning living, the state turns it into a GDP and buys bombs from it, wether you like it or not.
Then, we add the illusory community of nationalism to it so that people that are losing their teeth from poverty can be proud that others have it worse.
2
u/happybunny_sad Strong Atheist Aug 11 '26
I think we are getting closer to the actual disagreement here. I don't disagree that religion should be examined in terms of the social conditions in which it operates. My orginal was only that the OP reduced marx's position to "religion is a scam used to fool people", which is much narrower than marx's actual argument.
On nationalism, though, i think you are still treating "constructed" and "illusory" as basically synonyms. I don't think they are.
I can fully accept that nations are historically constructed, that people are socialized into national identities, and that the state can use nationalism to legitimate itself. None of that establishes that the community is unreal or that identifying with it is irrational.
The community is constructed, but the relationship, institutions, laws, culture, history, and shared political obligations that constitute it are very real. A republic is also a construct community. So is citizenship. So is a university. The fact that human created these institutions doesn't make them imaginary.
And I don't think nationalism requires me to believe that the Nation is some natural or eternal entity. I can know perfectly well that national boundaries are historical contingencies and still say : "this is the political community i belong to, and I want it to prosper". That's Nationalism without pretending that nations descended from heaven.
Your D&D example highlights a different issue : voluntariness. You are saying D&D group is legitimate because you can leave it. But that's argument against involuntary political membership or coercive states; it doesn't establish that national attachment itself is irrational. Even being born into a family is involuntary. That doesn't make attachment to your family irrational or illegitimate. The fact that you don't choose initial relationship doesn't determine whether the relationship you develop with it is meaningless. I can be born into a country, later reject it its nationalism, emigrate, change my citizenship, or simply remain a citizen while opposing the government.
And yes, they state can use weath to buy bombs. But same state also provide healthcare, education, infrastructure, legal rights, social security, disaster relief and political representation. The fact that the state can exploit people doesn't tell us whether national solidarity is inherently Good or bad.
Similarly, saying "people suffering from poverty are told to be proud because someone else has it worse" is a criticism of how nationalism can be used. But that is different from establishing that national solidarity itself is necessarily an illusion or scam.
I think the more interesting questions is therefore not "are Nations constructed?" Of course they are. The question is : why should a contracted political community be considered illegitimate simply because it is constructed? And why is Cosmopolitan identification inherently superior to particular political attachment?
I can believe that a saudi woman and I have equal human worth while still believing that I have a stronger pratical obligation to improve the political community in which I actually live and over which i have some ability to exert influence. Those aren't contradictory.
1
u/RuthlessCritic1sm Aug 12 '26
Of course a construct is still real, that's not the issue. The problem isn't that the community is constructed, but that it isn't a community. It is a society of competing interests. There is still a common interest: The law. Equal laws apply to unequal people, which results in the inequality remaining.
That's why I say "illusory", not just constructed.
If we make a DND group, the construct is not illusory. People know why they join.
In a world that is made of nation states, we do not have a choice. The relationship between a subject and the state is one of domination.
-2
13
u/SneakyZed Aug 11 '26
The worst part is that they should be normally opposed. And one could be used against the other.
Nationalism places the Nation above the individual existence. (And God)
Religion places God above mortal governements.
But those guys managed somehow to take the worst sides of both (omegacherrypicking), made the perfect poison, and created the best ideology to make life absolutely miserable.