An article about common ground between atheists and Christians.

Wacker

If this has been posted here before, apologies, and feel free to delete. It's definately worth reading:

http://www.cracked.com/article_15759_10-things-christians-atheists-can-must-agree-on.html


So, what are your thoughts? I have a little trouble with some of point 9, but other than that I think it is right on the money.

PDN

Makes a lot of sense.

pH

Wacker wrote: »

So, what are your thoughts? I have a little trouble with some of point 9, but other than that I think it is right on the money.

Seemed like all the usual theist arguments dressed up as some form of conciliation.

I'll take #1
1. You Can Do Terrible Things in the Name of Either One

Yes you can do terrible things in the name of either one, so bloody what?

I could go out tomorrow and blow up buildings in the name of atheism ... so what?

There is isn't an atheist doctrine, there's no book that I can get my atheist ideals and inspiration. If I go kill things, even in the name of atheism then that still has nothing per se to do with atheism.

The same could be true of religion, there are lots of evil things that a believer could do "in the name of religion" that are not that religion's fault. I could go and start killing babies in Buddha's name, but that's hardly Buddhism's fault is it?

However if a central core teaching of Buddhism was that certain babies were evil and needed to be killed (it's not!) then yes, I think that it would be entirely reasonable to lay that infanticide squarely at the Buddha's feet.

The issue and the evil laid at religion's feet is the evil that is done in it's name, conducted and overseen by its hierarchies, inspired and justified by its violent thousand year old texts written by desert nomads.

When millions say that "this book is the true word of God" and that book supports murder, torture, slavery, bigotry then I think it's reasonable to lay the consequences of people committing evil acts inspired by these texts at the feet of the religions who claim these books are God's work.

As far as I know very little killing has ever been done in the name of atheism. By atheists - surely, in the name of Communism and political ideologies - indeed, but a purely atheistic movement with its primary goal being the eradication of religion? I can't think of one.

And to re-iterate, even if they did, even if an armed group appeared (real militant atheists!) bent of destroying churches and killing believers, even then you still couldn't hold 'atheism' responsible. Atheism is a lack of belief in God, no more no less - any leap you make from that has nothing to do with atheism.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Ciaran500

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Its not meant to

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Dades

So that's where my old username went...

Fanny Cradock

pH wrote: »

As far as I know very little killing has ever been done in the name of atheism. By atheists - surely, in the name of Communism and political ideologies - indeed, but a purely atheistic movement with its primary goal being the eradication of religion? I can't think of one.

Interesting. I wonder if Communism had yielded it's promise of a utopian society would you claim that the absence of religion wasn't a factor in this. Anyway, I think we are both missing the point of this blog.

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I would suggest re-reading the title of the blog. There is a clue is in there somewhere.

Son Goku

The blog reminds me that the atheism and christianity debate has been converted into the " evangelical christianity and new atheism* " debate.

*New Atheism being the new super-ultra-rationalist stuff that occasionally goes as far as applying formal logic to morality.

pH

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Interesting. I wonder if Communism had yielded it's promise of a utopian society would you claim that the absence of religion wasn't a factor in this. Anyway, I think we are both missing the point of this blog.

Hypothetically (if communism had produced a utopia) I'd claim:

Based on this evidence you don't need to believe in a God or follow a set of rules laid down by him to have a free, tolerant, peaceful and fair society. I suppose you could also note that this peaceful utopia had not murdered, tortured or oppressed anyone on behalf on a God that doesn't exist. Yes I guess that if communism had of produced utopia then you could say those things about it with regard to its atheism.

I don't think that atheism brings happiness, it's not a set of rules or a philosophy, it's not good or evil - It's just something I'm sure is true - there is no God that matters.

Where you go next from there is up to you.

Zombrex

pH wrote: »

I don't think that atheism brings happiness, it's not a set of rules or a philosophy, it's not good or evil - It's just something I'm sure is true - there is no God that matters.

Exactly.

Its like saying that the theory of gravity starts wars.

Atheism != the conclusion that religion is bad or should be restricted.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Exactly.

Its like saying that the theory of gravity starts wars.

Atheism != the conclusion that religion is bad or should be restricted.

Which, I think, is the point of the article.

Atheism != the conclusion that religion is bad or should be restricted

Equally Christianity != genocide, slavery, wars etc.

But no doubt bigots on both sides will argue differently.

Zillah

See, my problem with this is that its about how atheists and religious people can get along because we won't convince each other. I have two problems with this:

- I combat theists because I don't want their nonesense swaying naive middle-of-the-road people and those who don't know any better (read: Children and the traumatised). I have little hope I can argue a hard core theist out of his position, but thats not my goal. I want to combat his fallacies so they don't sway others. He can bite me for all I care.
- Both sides have gotten converts. Loads of them. I can't count the amount of times I've heard some born again nut job talking about how he was an atheist and has now embraced Gods love. Harris and Dawkins get letters all the time from former-theists saying that their books convinced them it was a load of hogwash.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Which, I think, is the point of the article.

Atheism != the conclusion that religion is bad or should be restricted

Equally Christianity != genocide, slavery, wars etc.

But no doubt bigots on both sides will argue differently.

Quite correct ... its more

Christianity = Faith in the promise of salvation in return for obedience = genocide, slavery, wars

You guys really seem to have a problem with that point.

Equally

Communism = Faith in the promise of better society in return for obedience = genocide, slavery, wars

The key point is the obedience

Atheism doesn't require obedience to anything. That doesn't mean atheists can't be obedient to some doctrine. But atheism itself isn't one

pH

PDN wrote: »

Which, I think, is the point of the article.

Atheism != the conclusion that religion is bad or should be restricted

No, but atheism is the conclusion that religion is wrong. You may find some atheists arguing that even though it's wrong (ie incorrect) that's not necessarily a bad thing. Not me, I think we'd be better off without it.

I don't think it should be banned, I don't think religious folks should be persecuted, killed, tortured or ostracised. I think that in a free and democratic society they have every right to believe in a God and worship him, and also to live their lives by any additional morals they believe their God has asked them to adhere to (not eating pork, sex before marriage - that sort of thing).

However most religious folks don't see their faith as a personal issue, and some seem to truly believe that *I* need to live my life according to what their God told some bronze age desert nomads thousands of years ago.

Equally Christianity != genocide, slavery, wars etc.

So why not start a process to refine what Christianity is about? It's openly admitted by Christians that the contents of the bible were edited and decided by a committee in the past, why not re open that process and remove all the text that supports these positions?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Christianity = Faith in the promise of salvation in return for obedience = genocide, slavery, wars

You guys really seem to have a problem with that point.

Yes, I have a problem with it because it is untrue.

Christianity = Faith in the promise of salvation in return for obedience to the commands of Christ = feeding the hungry, turning the other cheek, blessing your enemies

Christendom = Oppression carried out for selfish reasons in the name of Christianity

Communism = Oppression carried out for selfish reasons in the name of atheism.

You guys really seem to have a problem with that point.

PDN

pH wrote: »

It's openly admitted by Christians that the contents of the bible were edited and decided by a committee in the past, why not re open that process and remove all the text that supports these positions?

You need to insert the word 'some' in between 'admitted by' and 'Christians'. I certainly do not believe that the Bible as we receive it today was edited, nor that it was decided by a committee (Church Councils ratified choices that had already occurred by a natural and sensible process among Christians in various congregations in recognising which books were Scriptural and which were spurious).

homah_7ft

Was there anything in that article about people who don't believe in unicorns getting along with christians?

homah_7ft

PDN wrote: »

You need to insert the word 'some' in between 'admitted by' and 'Christians'. I certainly do not believe that the Bible as we receive it today was edited, nor that it was decided by a committee (Church Councils ratified choices that had already occurred by a natural and sensible process among Christians in various congregations in recognising which books were Scriptural and which were spurious).

Haha you need to look up the meaning of a commitee.

PDN

homah_7ft wrote: »

Haha you need to look up the meaning of a commitee.

And you need to learn how to spell it.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

And you need to learn how to spell it.

+1 for sig!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Son Goku

PDN wrote: »

Communism = Oppression carried out for selfish reasons in the name of atheism.

Wouldn't it be:
Communism = Theory of the distribution of wealth, which commonly has an athiest base.

Stalinistic Autocracy = Oppression carried out for selfish reasons in the name of Communism.

Christendom = Oppression carried out for selfish reasons in the name of Christianity

You seem to be using Christendom in an unusual way. What way are you using it? (This is a genuine question.)

Scofflaw

Son Goku wrote: »

Wouldn't it be:
Communism = Theory of the distribution of wealth, which commonly has an athiest base.

Stalinistic Autocracy = Oppression carried out for selfish reasons in the name of Communism.


You seem to be using Christendom in an unusual way. What way are you using it? (This is a genuine question.)

What you might call the Christian politico-religious complex, with established churches supporting the political status quo, and vice versa. Still fairly true here, but not as much as 20+ years ago.

cordially,
Scofflaw

homah_7ft

PDN wrote: »

And you need to learn how to spell it.

How unfortunate. I suppose it could be worse. Do you think what you described was a committee though?

PDN

homah_7ft wrote: »

How unfortunate. I suppose it could be worse. Do you think what you described was a committee though?

The Church Councils I mentioned were committees, but the natural & informal process by which books were accepted or rejected by congregations were not. A committee is a body which is formally elected or appointed and therefore has a responsibility or task 'committed' to them.

Son Goku

Scofflaw wrote: »

What you might call the Christian politico-religious complex, with established churches supporting the political status quo, and vice versa. Still fairly true here, but not as much as 20+ years ago.

cordially,
Scofflaw

That's interesting I thought it might be something like that. In it's original form the word was meant to evoke the vague pan-European feelings of disparate peoples in the middle ages.

homah_7ft

I suppose if we keep going on down this road we get back to the authority of a, "Holy" book.

PDN may I ask what religion you belong to?

PDN

homah_7ft wrote: »

I suppose if we keep going on down this road we get back to the authority of a, "Holy" book.

PDN may I ask what religion you belong to?

And, of course, we have had the 'holy book' argument on these fora many times.

I am a Christian - more specifically a Pentecostal.

Gegerty

Totally disagree with every point. An atheist is someone who doesn't beleive in God, period. Apart from that, anything an Atheist says is his own beliefs and cannot be judged as the beliefs of all Atheist. I even hate the term Atheist, why does there have to be a label? Aren't we all just free thinking individuals?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Yes, I have a problem with it because it is untrue.

Christianity = Faith in the promise of salvation in return for obedience to the commands of Christ = feeding the hungry, turning the other cheek, blessing your enemies

Well I suppose this is the point we keep coming back to.

You think religious faith is ok, so long as religious faith is producing things that you view as being moral and good.

And naturally you think that religious faith that produces blown up buildings and sucide bombers is immoral and bad.

But that could be said about Communism, or dictatorships, or fascism. Often dictators get a lot of good things done due to the side lining of the inefficiency of democracies. Mussolini got the trains running after all.

The point is that the system itself is dangerous, not just when it is doing bad things, but at all times even when doing good things, because it is a system that facilitates bad things. A dictatorship removes the safe guards of a system like a democracy and replaces them with simply the luck that the dictator will do good things. That is bad even if the dictator is actually doing good things.

A similar principle applies to religion.

You see religious faith as good so long as it is producing good things. That "so long" is an unacceptable requirement, in the same way as the statement

Dictatorships are good so long as they produce good things

has an unacceptable requirement of the "so long" bit.

The system itself is flawed and dangerous, even if it is producing good things, because it removes the safe guards of rationality, discussion, reason etc. One cannot rely on the "so long" to stop the system from turning bad, in the same way as a dictatorship.

It leads to people blowing themselves up in school buses as much as it leads to Church homeless collections.

It is not simply a question of the bad results being bad, the system itself is flawed and dangerous even if it produces "good" things.

PDN wrote: »

Christendom = Oppression carried out for selfish reasons in the name of Christianity

Communism = Oppression carried out for selfish reasons in the name of atheism.

You guys really seem to have a problem with that point.

Please define what "the name of atheism" is :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Well I suppose this is the point we keep coming back to.

You think religious faith is ok, so long as religious faith is producing things that you view as being moral and good.

And naturally you think that religious faith that produces blown up buildings and sucide bombers is immoral and bad.

But that could be said about Communism, or dictatorships, or fascism. Often dictators get a lot of good things done due to the side lining of the inefficiency of democracies. Mussolini got the trains running after all.

The point is that the system itself is dangerous, not just when it is doing bad things, but at all times even when doing good things, because it is a system that facilitates bad things. A dictatorship removes the safe guards of a system like a democracy and replaces them with simply the luck that the dictator will do good things. That is bad even if the dictator is actually doing good things.

A similar principle applies to religion.

You see religious faith as good so long as it is producing good things. That "so long" is an unacceptable requirement, in the same way as the statement

Dictatorships are good so long as they produce good things

has an unacceptable requirement of the "so long" bit.

The system itself is flawed and dangerous, even if it is producing good things, because it removes the safe guards of rationality, discussion, reason etc. One cannot rely on the "so long" to stop the system from turning bad, in the same way as a dictatorship.

It leads to people blowing themselves up in school buses as much as it leads to Church homeless collections.

It is not simply a question of the bad results being bad, the system itself is flawed and dangerous even if it produces "good" things.

Not so. Religious faith is like many aspects of humanity - including logic, science, education and politics. These can all be used by bad people to produce horrific results - or they can be used to produce beneficial results. This is because they are not "good" or "bad" in themselves. The same applies to religious faith. I do not argue that religious faith is necessarily good or bad - in fact I think that those who insist it is necessarily good or bad are fatheads.

Please define what "the name of atheism" is

I have a friend, his Christian name is Joseph, who lives in China. Joseph was a member of the Communist Party and actually served as a judge. When the authorities discovered that Joseph had been attending an illegal underground church they interrogated him. They pulled his fingernails and toenails out one by one. After each extraction they asked him to make one simple declaration - namely that God did not exist. That was all they wanted from him. A simple denial of God's existence would have stopped the torture immediately.

Now, Joseph was not tortured in the name of Communism. His torturers agreed that he was a loyal party member and had never expressed any disloyalty to the Party or State. He was tortured for one reason alone - his refusal to verbally commit to atheism. You can post as many rolling eyes as you wish - but it is clear that Joseph was tortured in the name of atheism.

Do I therefore use this as an argument that atheism is therefore evil? No, because I am not that stupid or bigoted. There are plenty of nice and rational atheists. Atheism, like religion, can be used as a reason to oppress.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

Now, Joseph was not tortured in the name of Communism. His torturers agreed that he was a loyal party member and had never expressed any disloyalty to the Party or State. He was tortured for one reason alone - his refusal to verbally commit to atheism. You can post as many rolling eyes as you wish - but it is clear that Joseph was tortured in the name of atheism.

He was tortured in the name of communism - as communism is the system that deems he must be atheist. Were the individuals who tortured him not communists, this would never have happened.

All communists are (deemed) atheists, but not all atheists are communists.

PDN

Dades wrote: »

He was tortured in the name of communism - as communism is the system that deems he must be atheist. Were the individuals who tortured him not communists, this would never have happened.

All communists are (deemed) atheists, but not all atheists are communists.

So, by the same logic, heretics and Jews were tortured by the Inquisition in the name of Roman Catholicism - as Roman Catholicism is the system that deemed they must subscribe to certain beliefs. Were the individuals that tortured them not Roman Catholics, this would never have happened.

All Roman Catholics are (deemed) Christians, but not all Christians are Roman Catholics.

So, Dades, your logic leads to the inevitable conclusion that none of the Crusades, the Inquisition, or other historical atrocities were actually carried out in the name of Christianity. Will you admit that? Or do you want to have your cake and eat it?

Gegerty

PDN wrote: »

So, by the same logic, heretics and Jews were tortured by the Inquisition in the name of Roman Catholicism - as Roman Catholicism is the system that deemed they must subscribe to certain beliefs. Were the individuals that tortured them not Roman Catholics, this would never have happened.

All Roman Catholics are (deemed) Christians, but not all Christians are Roman Catholics.

So, Dades, your logic leads to the inevitable conclusion that none of the Crusades, the Inquisition, or other historical atrocities were actually carried out in the name of Christianity. Will you admit that? Or do you want to have your cake and eat it?

You're talking like Atheism is an organisation. It's communism that is the organisation, its separate to Atheism. Suppression of religions is an important part of keeping power in a communist society. From what you have described I would come to the conclusion that they tortured him because he is part of an underground organisation, whether it be religious or political its a threat to their dictatorship and will be quashed. You have to start thinking outside the box, not everything fits into a pigeon hole.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

So, Dades, your logic leads to the inevitable conclusion that none of the Crusades, the Inquisition, or other historical atrocities were actually carried out in the name of Christianity. Will you admit that? Or do you want to have your cake and eat it?

The similarities between RC and Christianity so far outweigh those between communism and 'atheism' as to make that analogy worthless IMO.

Yum - cake!

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

These can all be used by bad people to produce horrific results - or they can be used to produce beneficial results. This is because they are not "good" or "bad" in themselves. The same applies to religious faith.

That is not true, and I imagine you release it if you thought about it.

Human systems can be bad in of themselves if they are flawed systems. An example I've already used is a dictatorship. A dictatorship, or say a pure monarchy, if a flawed system for various reasons. The idea that you can have a good monarchy is the monarchy produces good things is ignoring the issue, that being the system itself is not designed to produce good things. Good things can be a result of the system, but equally bad things are just as likely, because the system itself is flawed.

Another example (which you theists love) is Communism. Communism is a flawed and dangerous system. Like any system it can produce good things, but that doesn't change the nature of the system.

Religion is flawed and dangerous not based on what it produces, but based on what it is.

It is the promise/reward/punishment system of religion that is the problem, not the issue of if this promise/reward/punishment system causes a person to produce good results.

PDN wrote: »

I have a friend, his Christian name is Joseph, who lives in China. Joseph was a member of the Communist Party and actually served as a judge. When the authorities discovered that Joseph had been attending an illegal underground church they interrogated him. They pulled his fingernails and toenails out one by one. After each extraction they asked him to make one simple declaration - namely that God did not exist. That was all they wanted from him. A simple denial of God's existence would have stopped the torture immediately.

Now, Joseph was not tortured in the name of Communism. His torturers agreed that he was a loyal party member and had never expressed any disloyalty to the Party or State. He was tortured for one reason alone - his refusal to verbally commit to atheism.

Ok, you clearly need to have a read up on Communism

Communism (as practiced in Russia and China) dictates that not only is religion a false system used to keep the masses happy while they are oppressed, but that because of this religion should be routed out of society as much as possible, lest it get in the way of continuous improvement of the State.

Your friend was tortured in the name of Communism. Pure and simple.

The Chinese find the doctrine that religion is false and bad and should be routed out of society with force from the Russian Communists and Mao.

The idea that he was a member of the party is rather irrelevant, he was religious and as such, under Communist doctrine, he was a threat to the State.

I think if you thought about this you would realize that. Think of it this way, where is this "name of Atheism" printed or distributed. Where does atheism say that someone say someone should be atheist? In the Communist manifesto? Then it isn't atheism, its Communism. In the humanist manifesto? Then it isn't actually atheism, its humanism. etc etc

There is no "name of atheism" because there is no doctrine of atheism. Atheism is simply the rejection of theist beliefs.

PDN wrote: »

Do I therefore use this as an argument that atheism is therefore evil?

You could certainly use this argument as an example of why Communism is a flawed and dangerous system, and I would agree 100% with you.

These soldiers did what they did to your friend because (assuming they agreed with their orders, which I have no reason to doubt) they accepted the doctrine that the State as a body is more important than the individual and that obedience (there is that word again) to the wishes of the State will not only lead to a better life for them but also for their family, friends and country.

They are taught that anything the State says is correct, and that if they want a better life for their country then need to accept this. And the State is telling them that religion is bad and needs to be dealt with harshly.

The fact that they accept that what ever the State says is correct is the root of the problem, not simply that the State is telling them that religion is bad and needs to be dealt with harshly. That of course is bad, but even if the State was telling them that they should all go out and help build their neighbours house, the blind acceptance that everything the State says is correct is the issue

That doctrine of obedience is not flawed and dangerous only if it leads to people like these soldiers doing bad things. It is flawed to begin with, and it leads to people like these soldiers doing bad things.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

So, by the same logic, heretics and Jews were tortured by the Inquisition in the name of Roman Catholicism - as Roman Catholicism is the system that deemed they must subscribe to certain beliefs. Were the individuals that tortured them not Roman Catholics, this would never have happened.

All Roman Catholics are (deemed) Christians, but not all Christians are Roman Catholics.

So, Dades, your logic leads to the inevitable conclusion that none of the Crusades, the Inquisition, or other historical atrocities were actually carried out in the name of Christianity. Will you admit that? Or do you want to have your cake and eat it?

If PDN's brand of Christianity had been in the position of the Roman Catholic Church, would it have done what the RC Church did?


cordially,
Scofflaw

Black hole sun

PDN wrote: »

Yes, I have a problem with it because it is untrue.

Communism = Oppression carried out for selfish reasons in the name of atheism.

Communism = Oppression carried out for selfish reasons in the name of the greater good

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

So, by the same logic, heretics and Jews were tortured by the Inquisition in the name of Roman Catholicism - as Roman Catholicism is the system that deemed they must subscribe to certain beliefs. Were the individuals that tortured them not Roman Catholics, this would never have happened.

All Roman Catholics are (deemed) Christians, but not all Christians are Roman Catholics.

So, Dades, your logic leads to the inevitable conclusion that none of the Crusades, the Inquisition, or other historical atrocities were actually carried out in the name of Christianity. Will you admit that? Or do you want to have your cake and eat it?

Your really missing the point PDN.

The problem isn't just the specifics of the doctrine.

The problem is the system of obedience/reward/punishment system based around the infallibility doctrine in the first place.

What the doctrine is is largely irrelevant to this. The system is surprisingly independent of the actual details of the doctrine. A Islamic suicide bomber rants the same way as a die hard atheist Communist or a fundamentalist Christian Creationist.

Their motivations for why they choose to accept as infallible what they choose to accept are again amazingly similar. It is all based on this idea that some doctrine is the only way to provide a better life, be that the Bible, the Qu'ran, Diaentics or the Communist Manifesto.

And at the end of the day the people killed during Communism are no more or less dead than the people killed during the Crusades or the Inquistion.

You keep focusing on the specific doctrine because you seem to want to be able to say that your obedience to the infallibility of your particular doctrine is ok, while freely admitting that others who have obedience to the infallibility of other doctrines, religious or otherwise, are obviously wrong and this leads to bad things.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

Yes, I have a problem with it because it is untrue.

Christianity = Faith in the promise of salvation in return for obedience to the commands of Christ = feeding the hungry, turning the other cheek, blessing your enemies

Christendom = Oppression carried out for selfish reasons in the name of Christianity

Communism = Oppression carried out for selfish reasons in the name of atheism.

You guys really seem to have a problem with that point.

As a couple of people have already said, that's because it's wrong. Those who tortured Joseph, in your example, wished him to renounce religion because you cannot be a good Communist without doing so, according to the major interpretations of Communism.

Your little cartoon above requires that Communism be something undertaken to promote atheism - whereas atheism is something undertaken to promote Communism. What is correct is:

State atheism = form of oppression carried out in the name of Communism

By the way, if we similarly swap the terms in the other statement, we get:

Christianity = form of oppression carried out in the name of Christendom

which has also often been true, as I'm sure you'd agree.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

Scofflaw wrote:

Those who tortured Joseph, in your example, wished him to renounce religion because you cannot be a good Communist without doing so, according to the major interpretations of Communism.

I think it's more direct than that.

The Chinese Communist Party runs China as a one-party state and they've been in the business of controlling political power, remarkably successfully, since they first gained it. Powerful independent churches constitute a dangerous network of independent political power to the unbroken authority of the one-party state. Joseph's torture was intended simply to break his loyalty to his church, so that some kind of residual loyalty to the Communist Party could once again be assumed. And to encourage the others, of course too.

If you believe the Communists, Joseph's torture may well have been carried out "in the name of atheism", but what his torture was called is not the same as what his torture was for. Suspicions should be aroused that the Communist Party may be speaking with less than total honesty when one notes that the country has an "official catholic church" run by the state and whose bishop-apparatchiks are appointed by the Communist Party rather than the Vatican which seems to behave, with a certain degree of justification, as though its trademark had been swiped.

Rather, Joseph was tortured because the requirements of his religion for absolute loyalty to itself came into conflict with the paranoid Communist Party's requirements for absolute loyalty. He decided that his religious loyalty was the more important and paid the savage, and utterly unnecessary, price for doing so.

.

Fanny Cradock

Scofflaw wrote: »

Christianity = form of oppression carried out in the name of Christendom

May I chop and change here?

Scofflaw wrote: »

Christendom = form of oppression carried out in the name of Christianity (but without consent)

Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Scofflaw wrote:

Christianity = form of oppression carried out in the name of Christendom

May I chop and change here?

Christendom = form of oppression carried out in the name of Christianity (but without consent)

Be my guest! However, mine is a simple reversal of PDN's, done solely for comparison with the equivalent transformation of his atheist one. Your reversal yields, essentially, PDN's version again, with a rider.

Presumably you mean "without the consent of Christianity"? I don't really think that's true, though - it's clear that the early Christian community accepted the Eusebian compromise with Constantine's Rome as being good for Christianity.

Since that's the same early community from which all Christian churches derive their lineage, it would seem that the usual tactic of blaming these things on the Catholic Church is inappropriate.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Schuhart

I’m not totally satisfied at where this discussion ends (but then I am a bit of a bollix, really).

Atheism, indeed, can simply be taken to mean not believing in a god, with no further implication. Similarly, theism can be taken to mean believing in a god, with no further implication.

Both atheism and theism are broad churches (cough). You can have oppressive atheist philosophies like Stalinism. You can have oppressive theist institutions, like the Inquisition. You can equally have peaceful atheist and theist movements like, say, Buddhists or Quakers.

Marxism simply was an attempt to use reason to define the ideal human society. It doesn’t require ‘obedience’ in the same sense as a religion, which makes me feel Wicknight’s point in this regard is not correct. Marxism purport(s/ed) to explain by use of human reason – not by faith. You don’t have to ‘believe’ in the dialectic – Marx would feel he simply discovered what makes society works, and would also feel he could support his analysis with evidence. That contention might be right or wrong – but it’s not an act of faith calling for obedience.

Marxism is an example of where a materialist conception of the world took one deep thinker – and where many followed, convinced by his logic. Clearly it’s silly to say all atheists are Marxists, just as its silly to say all theists are Inquisitors. But if someone wants to maintain that the Inquisition is all the fault of theism, that would seem to be much the same as saying Stalinism is all the fault of atheism. The conclusion I would draw from this, if we can take a pragmatic meaning for ‘bad’ for a moment, its that a philosophy based on atheism and reason can be just as bad as a philosophy based on theism and faith.

[Note: I accept that what I’m saying here is just taking belief systems at face value. Clearly someone might join a revolutionary movement for irrational reasons, just as someone might adopt a religion for quite cool logical reasons. But I don’t think those human motivation questions are at issue here.]

Scofflaw

Schuhart wrote: »

I’m not totally satisfied at where this discussion ends (but then I am a bit of a bollix, really).

Atheism, indeed, can simply be taken to mean not believing in a god, with no further implication. Similarly, theism can be taken to mean believing in a god, with no further implication.

Both atheism and theism are broad churches (cough). You can have oppressive atheist philosophies like Stalinism. You can have oppressive theist institutions, like the Inquisition. You can equally have peaceful atheist and theist movements like, say, Buddhists or Quakers.

Marxism simply was an attempt to use reason to define the ideal human society. It doesn’t require ‘obedience’ in the same sense as a religion, which makes me feel Wicknight’s point in this regard is not correct. Marxism purport(s/ed) to explain by use of human reason – not by faith. You don’t have to ‘believe’ in the dialectic – Marx would feel he simply discovered what makes society works, and would also feel he could support his analysis with evidence. That contention might be right or wrong – but it’s not an act of faith calling for obedience.

Marxism is an example of where a materialist conception of the world took one deep thinker – and where many followed, convinced by his logic. Clearly it’s silly to say all atheists are Marxists, just as its silly to say all theists are Inquisitors. But if someone wants to maintain that the Inquisition is all the fault of theism, that would seem to be much the same as saying Stalinism is all the fault of atheism. The conclusion I would draw from this, if we can take a pragmatic meaning for ‘bad’ for a moment, its that a philosophy based on atheism and reason can be just as bad as a philosophy based on theism and faith.

[Note: I accept that what I’m saying here is just taking belief systems at face value. Clearly someone might join a revolutionary movement for irrational reasons, just as someone might adopt a religion for quite cool logical reasons. But I don’t think those human motivation questions are at issue here.]

Hmm. Part of the problem is that nearly all Marxists agree that Stalinism wasn't Marxism. Mind you, nearly all Christians agree that the Inquisition wasn't Christian.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. Part of the problem is that nearly all Marxists agree that Stalinism wasn't Marxism. Mind you, nearly all Christians agree that the Inquisition wasn't Christian.

Indeed, and I'd have no problem if we proposed that the following concepts were equivalent:

The religious equivalent of atheism is theism;

The religious equivalent of Marxism is Christianity;

The religious equivalent of Stalinism is the Inquisition.

Clearly I'm just suggesting these as rough examples to get the idea across. I'm not inviting exhaustive comparisons of Marxism and Christianity to see if they are truly equivalent in detail. I'm just making a point that I think is reasonably clear. Just as Christianity is an example of theist thought, Marxism is an example of atheist thought. Just as many theists regard Christianity as utterly invalid, many atheists regard Marxism as utterly invalid.

Apologies on labouring the point, but I do feel that it needs to be put to bed. Apologies also on once again seeking acceptance of commonsense meanings for 'good', 'bad', 'better' and 'worse', but I need these terms for my conclusion.

I think we should be capable of recognising that a bad atheist philosophy is worse than good theist beliefs. I feel its also hard to argue that a good atheist philosophy is better or worse than a good theist philosophy just because its atheist (and vice versa).

Scofflaw

Schuhart wrote: »

Indeed, and I'd have no problem if we proposed that the following concepts were equivalent:

The religious equivalent of atheism is theism;

The religious equivalent of Marxism is Christianity;

The religious equivalent of Stalinism is the Inquisition.

Clearly I'm just suggesting these as rough examples to get the idea across. I'm not inviting exhaustive comparisons of Marxism and Christianity to see if they are truly equivalent in detail. I'm just making a point that I think is reasonably clear. Just as Christianity is an example of theist thought, Marxism is an example of atheist thought. Just as many theists regard Christianity as utterly invalid, many atheists regard Marxism as utterly invalid.

Apologies on labouring the point, but I do feel that it needs to be put to bed. Apologies also on once again seeking acceptance of commonsense meanings for 'good', 'bad', 'better' and 'worse', but I need these terms for my conclusion.

I think we should be capable of recognising that a bad atheist philosophy is worse than good theist beliefs. I feel its also hard to argue that a good atheist philosophy is better or worse than a good theist philosophy just because its atheist (and vice versa).

That I agree with. Personally, I don't, in any case, consider religion as some kind of font of evil or folly - it's simply the clothes evil and folly sometimes put on.

However, I have pointed out before that there are Christian Communists, and there is nothing in Marx's economic or social theory that requires personal atheism. I don't see it as an example of "atheist thought", only of the thoughts of an atheist.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Schuhart wrote: »

Atheism, indeed, can simply be taken to mean not believing in a god, with no further implication. Similarly, theism can be taken to mean believing in a god, with no further implication.

Yes but believing in a god has an implication, that being that the person believes in a god. That puts into play a certain number of factors.

Schuhart wrote: »

Marxism simply was an attempt to use reason to define the ideal human society. It doesn’t require ‘obedience’ in the same sense as a religion, which makes me feel Wicknight’s point in this regard is not correct.

Communism, as practised in the USSR and China, does require obedience.

If you want to debate if that form of Communism is really Marxism or not go ahead, but its missing the point.

Schuhart wrote: »

Clearly it’s silly to say all atheists are Marxists, just as its silly to say all theists are Inquisitors.

True, but then that isn't what is being said.

Schuhart wrote: »

But if someone wants to maintain that the Inquisition is all the fault of theism, that would seem to be much the same as saying Stalinism is all the fault of atheism.

No, it makes as much sense as saying Stalinism is the fault of Communism.

To say that Stalin was the result of atheism is to fail to see any of the history of how Stalin rose to power.

Ask yourself why Stalin was able to reach the position of power he did with the support of the people he did?

Then ask yourself how the Inquisition was able to carry out the actions it did with the support of the people it had?

There is a common thread connecting the two. I wonder if people can guess what it is.

Schuhart wrote: »

The conclusion I would draw from this, if we can take a pragmatic meaning for ‘bad’ for a moment, its that a philosophy based on atheism and reason can be just as bad as a philosophy based on theism and faith.

Well no offence Schuhart but you are utterly and completely missing my point by your insistence of discussing this issue in terms of a debate between reason and faith.

This is actually nothing to do with reason or faith. Reason goes out the window in both systems.

It is to do with the consequences of systems of promise/reward/punishment.

A system like Russian Communism and Christianity are far more similar than they are different. The supernatural elements of the religion are simply window dressing, one of many ways to set the system up initially, a way of giving it a convincing authority.

And the end of the day it comes to do a rather simple system of people allowing moral of issues to be muddled because of the promise of some form of reward from a higher authority if they are obedient to the higher authority.

That higher authority can be God, or it can be the Party. It doesn't actually matter.

This issue has always been about how humans manipulate other humans and why some humans allow themselves to be manipulated

Its that simple

pH

Scofflaw wrote: »

That I agree with. Personally, I don't, in any case, consider religion as some kind of font of evil or folly - it's simply the clothes evil and folly sometimes put on.

My reading of that is that you disagree with Weinberg's

“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil — but for good people to do evil — that takes religion.”

Which when I think about it - that is all I really want to say on the matter. I just can't stop thinking that once you're convinced there's a sky god out there whose work you're doing it's easy to justify to yourself that what your god wants overrides everything else.

Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet.

Is there any way to get there with atheism?

Scofflaw

pH wrote: »

My reading of that is that you disagree with Weinberg's

“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil — but for good people to do evil — that takes religion.”

Which when I think about it - that is all I really want to say on the matter. I just can't stop thinking that once you're convinced there's a sky god out there whose work you're doing it's easy to justify to yourself that what your god wants overrides everything else.

Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet.

Is there any way to get there with atheism?

Well, obviously not exactly there.

Can I imagine someone saying "religion is a source of evil, and needs to be stamped out for the good of humanity"? Sure. Can I see that leading, in the wrong hands/minds, to "the priests and preachers of religion must die, that everyone else can better live. They are teachers of lies and delusion. Kill them all, and burn the books.". Heck, I have days like that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote:

However, I have pointed out before that there are Christian Communists, and there is nothing in Marx's economic or social theory that requires personal atheism. I don't see it as an example of "atheist thought", only of the thoughts of an atheist.

But presumably we could also drag in Mother Teresa, who seems to have been an atheist that lived out Christian ethics. I’d guess that some atheists and agnostics might vote for or join parties called ‘Christian Democrats’. It would strike me that any term we use is an approximation that can be quibbled about at the edges.

Just as Christianity is essentially theist, it would strike me that Marxism is essentially atheist. At the end of the day it is laying out a view of how impersonal forces in this reality determine how we live. Strictly speaking, it may not absolutely require atheism. However, it would very strongly suggest that every religion we know was ultimately created by those impersonal forces and not by divine revelation. In the perfect Marxist society religion would disappear as there would cease to be a need for it. (Which, I suppose, makes me think that we’re beating around the bush a bit).

Wicknight wrote:

Yes but believing in a god has an implication, that being that the person believes in a god. That puts into play a certain number of factors.

But surely atheism similarly puts in play some factors. The point is more how those factors are turned into something concrete. A theist might say ‘my belief in a god is just about me – it has no impact on anyone else’ just as an atheist might say ‘my disbelief is just about me – it has no impact on anyone else’. Or a theist might say ‘it’s very important that everyone believes in the same god as me, as it is the only good way for humanity to live’ and an atheist might say ‘it’s very important that everyone gives up this god delusion, as reason is better than unreason’.

Wicknight wrote:

There is a common thread connecting the two. I wonder if people can guess what it is.

There’s a common sociology in how human organisations work. If that’s all you mean to say, that’s fine.

All I’m worried about is a tendency (which you may not share) to run from acknowledging that Marxism bears a similar relationship to atheism as Christianity does to theism.