In 1961, the Soviet Union detonated a nuclear weapon, codenamed the Tsar. It was the largest bomb ever detonated, a record that still holds true today. It contained the equivalent of 58 million tons of TNT, which is all the explosives used during WWII---multiplied by ten. It is four times larger than anything America has ever detonated.

The aircrew that dropped the Tsar barely escaped with their lives. The smoke and cloud plumes from the blast rose forty miles high and the blast waves were still measurable the third time they made their way around the world.

And get this---the Soviets actually wanted to make this bomb TWICE as big as originally intended. They wanted to make it the equivalent of over 100 tons of TNT!

__________________

I don't think that most people then or now have more than the foggiest notion of what the True Believers of the Soviet System were willing to contemplate and execute to bring about the "Workers' Paradise."

In another thread today, I was trying to express to someone that this is the sort of thinking you get when you eliminate the spiritual aspect for your value system. And that generation of Soviets were piously Atheistic. Developing super weapons and using them in aggressive war would have made excellent sense to them.

__________________
“Quod scripsi, scripsi"

"Sometimes, the source of the beautiful dawning light that drives back the darkness, is your house burning"

Logical failure. Atheism does not equate abandonment of humanism, in fact, quite the contrary. And humanism is firmly opposed to the concepts of warfare.

__________________
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

-- Hitler, April 11 1942

What in Earth does "logic" have to do with it? Morality as most Americans think of it is highly illogical. Where is the logic, for instance in allowing potential enemies to live? What empirical reasoning tells us that we should waste any resources upon those who can provide us with nothing of value.

For that matter, how does one logically conclude that any happiness, freedom or satisfaction need be produced in excess of that needed for maximum economic efficiency?

Slavery is logical. Genocide is logical. A Forced Eugenics program is logical. Extermination of social deviants and criminals is logical.

The Soviets of the time had not a molecule of interest in notions of "Humanism," which they saw as another form of Western decadence.
They wanted their machine to function well. Their machine was made from people. All quite logical, a virtue upon which the Soviets placed great value.

They saw Humanity as a thing, just a thing. It was to be shaped, culled and herded into a more suitable form, and they had no God to give them pause.

Our current crop of Atheists are not immune from religious influence, of course. They merely were conditioned to a religious morality code by religious fore-bearers.

And with each generation they are further removed from the quite illogical wellsprings of that morality.

So Humanism will, of course, foster the same sort of thinking in the future. Man without the influence of religion soon becomes an smart animal, and little else. And he will behave accordingly, as unadulterated logic demands. Why ever should he not? Really, think about that question.

I certainty have.

__________________
“Quod scripsi, scripsi"

"Sometimes, the source of the beautiful dawning light that drives back the darkness, is your house burning"

Some of it is.

Because men who employ logic are more interested in turning potential enemies into friends instead of destroying them.

Actually, the logic is found in the development of under-developed nations. Creating the opportunity and ability to provide the world with something of value.

One does not.

Only to one who does not subscribe to humanism or the theory that if one does not study history they are doomed to repeat it.

False, see above.

Only on face value. It falls apart when one realizes that diversity creates the betterment of the human race.

[quote]Extermination of social deviants and criminals is logical.[QUOTE]

Again, see above.

I would say that this is true in relation to the Soviet leadership.

Yet their logic failed the basic tests of the ancient Greeks.

The same is true with religion. It sees humanity as a group to be culled and herded into a more suitable form.

Which were conditioned by cultures and religions long dead. It's part of human social evolution.

Funny, human society has actually moved closer to the supposed "wellsprings".

False. Religion is just like any other philosophy. It is only relevant as long as it is relevant. It comes and dies out, ebbs and flows.

So religion is causing murder, kinda defies your logic.

__________________
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

-- Hitler, April 11 1942

"Friendship," and "interest" are highly subjective and malleable emotional states, and not logical arguments. And in fact, many very reasonable people have no interest in making friends with those they find threatening. They want to destroy them.

For example, the Romans saw Carthage as a threat and so committed genocide against it. We know from surviving historical accounts that they saw this as the reasonable, "logical," thing to do.
Again this is highly illogical. Remember that in the Atheistic vision, countries are composed of "things" that are conditioned to experience a temporary subjective sensation of self awareness, probably quite false. And as backward countries, they have shown themselves to be defective.

The cure is death. Profit is in the seizure by superior societies of any resources those countries are currently wasting. Any concerns for the suffering or poverty of those people are completely and finally addressed with their extinction. no spirit, no memory, the suffering is negated from existence. Logic triumphs, as well as efficiency.
Theory? What were the tests and controls? "Theory" is a logical construct with firm rules, not a supposition. And one need not subscribe to Humanism, that is only the fashion of an irrational few. Nature has no use for it. Logic has none. Efficiency and the survival of the species have no0ne.

Slavery in completely logical so long as it does not detract from other resources.
True, see above, but more importantly think! Dead real or potential enemies cease to be a threat. And human beings, in a Materialist world are easier to replace that a truckload of turnips. So if you clear the land, you can repopulate with more desirable units. Farmers and cattlemen, who apply logic to their trades understand this.
"Betterment" is yet another subjective term that may be standardized by the dominant authority structure.

Certainly, the idea that "diversity" itself is a benefit to Humanity is a modern and very recent notion. Most socialites have always preferred standardized appearance, modes of thought and attitude.

Again, think of the cattleman. His operation loses efficiency when beeves perform in any deviant manner. He wants to know what a cow or bull will do in a set of known circumstances 100% of the time. Logic dictates that oddly behaving cattle are culled.

Some religions tell us that the individual is unique and therefore priceless, but that is not a logical nor biological concept.

Note that at this point, you are saying that the logical model failed.

That aside, the Soviet system failed largely through corruption and a lack of aggression.
Many do. But some think of man as a creature which can be elevated, which is not quite the same thing. I assert that man will have religion, must have religion and that almost all people who think that they don't, have merely substituted a stunted, primitive religion for a more established one.

I never said that all religions were positive.

Or decay. Atheism never last long. For one thing as I said just above, it rarely truly exists in an individual. And when humans lack external and established morality, they revert invariably to a bestial state, even if it takes a few generations.

The Atheist will have a hard time explaining what such wellsprings are.

Not quite. Materialistic philosophy must start and end with the hope that Man is complete or can be completed by his own actions. Religions posit that man is created as an inherently incomplete thing requiring external influence and guidance to function properly.

If Religion is correct, then Materialistic philosophy is a dead end. If materialistic philosophy is correct, it has never demonstrated significant or positive results.

See above to find your simple error.

__________________
“Quod scripsi, scripsi"

"Sometimes, the source of the beautiful dawning light that drives back the darkness, is your house burning"