Atheists questioning their Atheism?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And yes, I guess you were talking about communism w/ a small c. Saying Jesus was a communist is a pretty big leap.

Acts 4:32-35:

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.

No individual ownership of property, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"... sounds pretty communistic to me.

 

[Alceste]

Acts 4:32-35:


No individual ownership of property, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"... sounds pretty communistic to me.

Thank you Pengo. . Saved me the trouble.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Thank you Pengo. . Saved me the trouble.

No problem!

The bit just after that passage, where a couple decides to keep some of their property for themselves and are struck down by God for their "sin" makes for some interesting reading as well.

 

[asketikos]

Acts 4:32-35:


No individual ownership of property, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"... sounds pretty communistic to me.

Hmmm . . . if your definition of communism is simply living without property, then yes.

But the purpose of renouncing property in communist ideology is completely different from the vow of poverty, and renunciation of the physical world in Christianity - two characteristics do not make ideologies the same

feudal peasants owned no property - where they communists?

Hitler preached that most property should be owned by the state - they were surely not communists.

Christians for a long time were simply not allowed to property because they were hunted down and killed.

I would say that because you are religious yourself you have a tendency to overestimate the historical significance of religion. Religion is only one of many factors that helps humans distinguish between the groups of "us" and "them" our psychologies seem to have to manufacture in order to do violence to one another.

If you read your bible, you'll see that Jesus and his disciples lived a communal lifestyle. IOW, they did not own private property. Everything they had was held in common. And don't get me started with the bread and fishes! Jesus was a raging communist if ever there was one. If you have failed to pick up on this it is due to the fact you have a distorted view of communism due to over-estimating the significance of religion.

I don't think that I've distorted communism at all. I'm quite well read on Marx and Engels and Lenin, as well as Hegel who influenced Marx.

"communal lifestyle"?
are you seriously arguing that the mircales of Jesus are similar to communist principles?

Communism is based on the principles of class struggle, the workers vs. the capitalists, clergy, and farmers -- wheras Christianity preaches an inclusive philosophy (in the doctrine at least).

 

[asketikos]

You hope? I would need a moment to check for sources, but I believe it to be a very serious and solid argument.

What reason or grounds there are to want to doubt it?

Because Marxism is an eighteenth century political framework developed out of the concepts of a class struggle on the principles of one class verses another (workers vs. other), it is a political and economic philosophy that has its direct roots in Hegel's dialectical materialism. Marxism presents economic evidence for its assertions.

Religion - which abounds most human cultures - is rooted in faith.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hmmm . . . if your definition of communism is simply living without property, then yes.

But the purpose of renouncing property in communist ideology is completely different from the vow of poverty, and renunciation of the physical world in Christianity - two characteristics do not make ideologies the same

Not by itself, no. To get to full-blown communism, we have to recognize other characteristics, such as its classless, stateless nature ("In Christ there is no man or woman, no Greek or Jew...", "In the Kingdom of God, the last shall be first and the first shall be last", etc.), and how it attacks the symbols of the bourgeoisie of the time, such as the Sanhedrin and wealthy merchants.

feudal peasants owned no property - where they communists?

Some of them may have been - I don't know. Since they didn't choose to own no property, I don't see how they're relevant.

Hitler preached that most property should be owned by the state - they were surely not communists.

No, they weren't, for lots of reasons. For instance, they sure didn't go by the principle of "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" that I mentioned before.

Christians for a long time were simply not allowed to property because they were hunted down and killed.

But that's not what we're talking about here.

This passage in Acts doesn't describe some fugitive group of Christians who didn't own property simply because they were on the run with only the clothes on their back; it describes a group of Christians (some of them apparently very settled and wealthy, based on the fact that the Bible mentions that some of them owned land) who voluntarily chose to forfeit their individual claims on their property to the community for the good of other members.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"communal lifestyle"?
are you seriously arguing that the mircales of Jesus are similar to communist principles?

I think they are.

Marx was all about the proletariat wresting control of the means of production from the bourgeoisie. The New Testament is all about Jesus proclaiming that the bourgeoisie never had control of the true means of production at all, and it's in fact held by a God who's quite partial to the interests of the proletariat.

It's not really that different.

Communism is based on the principles of class struggle, the workers vs. the capitalists, clergy, and farmers -- wheras Christianity preaches an inclusive philosophy (in the doctrine at least).

Yes... the Gospel, with its "woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites!", its proclamations about how the Kingdom of God will turn the existing class structure on its head, and its talk about the "wailing and gnashing of teeth" of the unrighteous in the afterlife is very inclusive and doesn't talk about class struggle at all.

 

[asketikos]

I think they are.

Marx was all about the proletariat wresting control of the means of production from the bourgeoisie. The New Testament is all about Jesus proclaiming that the bourgeoisie never had control of the true means of production at all, and it's in fact held by a God who's quite partial to the interests of the proletariat.

It's not really that different.


Yes... the Gospel, with its "woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites!", its proclamations about how the Kingdom of God will turn the existing class structure on its head, and its talk about the "wailing and gnashing of teeth" of the unrighteous in the afterlife is very inclusive and doesn't talk about class struggle at all.

There's a differance between class and faith. These are economic arguments we are waging against arguments of religious philosophy - am I the only one who see's a big differance -- obviously Marx and Lenin saw a big differance,

because if the Bible was so fluidly resembling communism, they would have used it to promote their agenda

 

[Orias]

I don't know why so many theists seem to hold the mistaken notion that lacking belief in (the existence of) god should equate to not having an opinion about the claims about god put forth by its followers.

You misunderstand. I said atheists claim a stance of skepticsm, yet if they were as so skeptical about a certain belief they would care to understand it, instead proclaim a certain ignorance about it.

Truly, if one were as skeptical as they claim they would go to the source, instead of basing "empirical" observation of those who follow it.

Who says I don't/can't have an opinion? Of course I do! I have a lot to say about your (general "you") claims about your god, and may tell you that your claims are not convincing or do not make sense, or whatever.

It is obvious that you care, that is why you are here. Who said that you can't have an opinion, I simply stated that atheist's opinions lack in as much evidence as theists do.

So? Do you think his existence is dependent on the claims that men make about him? Let's assume you're a christian for example: Your god has revealed himself to others and many even claim to have a relationship with him. Who's to say whether or not this could happen to me? I may find your claims to be unconvincing, but if god himself revealed himself to me, I would then at least have some kind of evidence.

This was the point I was trying to make the whole time.

Atheists look towards those who follow a certain belief to base evidence of it, which is just stupid.

Also, even if I totally believed that your particular god did not exist, that would not mean that I believed that all gods did not exist.

I don't know what your trying to get at, atheism is defined as predenial of any higher beings. You sound like an agnostic that thinks he is an atheist.

I actually find it "believable" that there could be an impersonal, creator type deistic god that we cannot perceive and has no interaction with us.

I didn't know you could perceive something beyond perception.

I have not yet found any evidence to convince me to believe that such a god does in fact exist, but I cannot claim that such a god does NOT exist.

So then why do you call yourself an atheist?

You seem to be under the impression that if atheists have an opinion about your god, or argue with you about your unconvincing claims, that we hold the belief that all gods do not exist.

I'm just under the impression of what the denotative definition of what atheism is.

Hate to break it to you, but the majority of the world does not believe in your triune god (again, assuming you're christian). There are plenty of other gods out there besides just yours.

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

To correct you, if I were in fact Christian, a majority of the world would be on my side, along with others of the Abrahamic faiths and even animism.

It is pretty obvious there are plenty of other Gods out there, but I don't see how this is relative to the subject matter.

And I have no idea where you got this last statement from, it just sounds like your testing out arguments against a guy that you have no idea in what he believes in

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There's a differance between class and faith.

What does that have to do with anything?

And what does it have to do with statements like this?

Luke 6:24-26:

24 “But woe to you who are rich,
for you have already received your comfort.
25 Woe to you who are well fed now,
for you will go hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now,
for you will mourn and weep.
26 Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you,
for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.

These are economic arguments we are waging against arguments of religious philosophy - am I the only one who see's a big differance -- obviously Marx and Lenin saw a big differance,

Religious philosophy can have economic implications. Religion isn't some sort of isolated "other" that doesn't affect things; religious beliefs have real-world effects.

because if the Bible was so fluidly resembling communism, they would have used it to promote their agenda

I can see why they didn't. The Christianity of their day was more closely aligned with the interests of the aristocracy than it was with the interests of the proletariat. Christianity was part of the problem they saw. The messages of the Bible had been spun by ministers and bishops into support for states and monarchies.

IMO, it wouldn't have made much sense for them to look to the scriptures of a religion they thought to be tainted and corrupted for support for their argument.

Also, the Bible has a conflicting message... at least in terms of what Marx and Lenin were interested in: while Jesus' message supports something close to radical communism, Paul's stuff in the Epistles (e.g. "slaves, obey your earthly masters" and "all authority is appointed by God and should be obeyed as you would obey God") doesn't exactly support the idea of overthrowing the government.

IMO, the overall message of the Bible is that the ideal society is quite close to the communist ideal, but at the same time, it's God's responsibility, not man's, to put that society in place.

 

[LuisDantas]

Marxism presents economic evidence for its assertions.

We will probably have to agree to disagree on this matter.

Religion - which abounds most human cultures - is rooted in faith.

It is a bit more complicated than that, since for instance there are various definitions of faith, some of which are very much needed for Marxism.

 

[Alceste]

Hmmm . . . if your definition of communism is simply living without property, then yes.

They didn't just live without property, they lived with communal property. The collective had shared wealth and the individual had nothing. That is the very definition of communism.

But the purpose of renouncing property in communist ideology is completely different from the vow of poverty, and renunciation of the physical world in Christianity - two characteristics do not make ideologies the same

feudal peasants owned no property - where they communists?

Hitler preached that most property should be owned by the state - they were surely not communists.

Christians for a long time were simply not allowed to property because they were hunted down and killed.



I don't think that I've distorted communism at all. I'm quite well read on Marx and Engels and Lenin, as well as Hegel who influenced Marx.

"communal lifestyle"?
are you seriously arguing that the mircales of Jesus are similar to communist principles?

Communism is based on the principles of class struggle, the workers vs. the capitalists, clergy, and farmers -- wheras Christianity preaches an inclusive philosophy (in the doctrine at least).

I'm not comparing "the miracles of Jesus" with anything. I do not believe there ever were "miracles of Jesus". I am comparing the ideology conveyed by the metaphorical, allegorical story of the bread and fish with socialism.

 

[Erebus]

I would imagine that for the most part an atheist would not become theistic after questioning their lack of belief, but rather by questioning their worldview. For me personally, empiricism didn't really fit with my own experience of the world and so I opted for pragmatism instead. Taking the pragmatic approach to belief means I could technically be called a theist, but not in the conventional sense.

For a lot of people empiricism offers a useful guide on what to believe and what not to believe. It brings order to a chaotic world and so I can understand the appeal, I just don't find it applicable to my own experience anymore.

 

[Commoner]

I don't know what your trying to get at, atheism is defined as predenial of any higher beings. You sound like an agnostic that thinks he is an atheist.

That's the stupidest thing I've heard in at least a week. Congratulations, you've made my monthly "stupid things people say about atheists" leaderboard.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Orias, you should probably learn what Atheism means before you discuss it...

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I said atheists claim a stance of skepticsm, yet if they were as so skeptical about a certain belief they would care to understand it, instead proclaim a certain ignorance about it.

A lot of us understand. I was born Atheist and never was I a believer in any faith/god but I know of plenty of Atheist on this forum who went from being a believer to to being a non-believer. For them there must have been a reason but the fact is...they were believers at first and had an understanding of their faith.

Truly, if one were as skeptical as they claim they would go to the source, instead of basing "empirical" observation of those who follow it.

What source? The only sources are the ancient text and the believer.

I simply stated that atheist's opinions lack in as much evidence as theists do.

How so?....Atheist aren't the ones preaching the existence of "God", heaven, hell, damnation, judgment, afterlife...magic underwear or any of the religious dogma we see and hear throughout society. We simply require those that spout it to present some evidence...otherwise their claims are "faith based".

Atheists look towards those who follow a certain belief to base evidence of it, which is just stupid.

Why? Why should I believe in Jesus and not Muhammad? Why should I beleive in Yahweh and not the various gods of the Hindus? Should I follow the bible and not the quran or vedas or are you advocating believing in all without question and following all of them...similar to (Bah'ah)..? What's wrong with requiring some evidence?

atheism is defined as predenial of any higher beings.

No it's not. Sounds like you're unfamiliar with Atheism.

 

[Oneatatime]

Does this ever happen? I notice Atheists like to push Theists to question Theism, or even sometimes accuse Theists of not questioning enough because we didn't arrive at Atheism. Now I ask this. Do Atheists ever question their Atheism?

I make an effort to question the positions I hold to see if I can really justify holding them. In regards to God from a young age I simply found the whole notion implausable and intellectually unsatisfying. On the emotional side of things I'm not what I would consider to be normal and my partner who works with people with learning difficult often says I have traits of autism spectrum. Perhaps in my particular case the way I am acted as a barrier to forming the emotional connection to God that is so important to many believers I've met. I'm not suggesting that all atheists are emotionally wierd like myself but that it may be have contributed to my atheism.

Science on the other hand was able to satisfy me intellectually. That satisfaction in turn satisfied my emotional needs because few other things brought me as much pleasure as making learning and making discoveries. Fortunatly I'm not completely emotionally wierd because my family, fiance and few close friends emotional importance exceeds that of science through the love, comfort and pleasure they give me.

So to answer your question I try to understand my atheism but I feel no connection at all with theism.

 

[Alceste]

To rephrase what I said earlier, of course I question all of my beliefs quite ruthlessly. Atheism is not a belief, though. If I were to start questioning the possible existence of things I don't believe in there would be no end to it. What if God exists? What if leprechauns and fairies really exist? What if HAARP is responsible for global warming? What if Bush personally blew up the twin towers? What if the moon landing was a hoax? What if Johnny Depp found my myspace page and secretly fell in love with me?

Bah, who has the time for all that superfluous questioning? I'll stick to questioning my core beliefs (empiricism, secular humanism, pacifism, environmentalism, socialism etc), which is all I ask of theists.

 

[asketikos]

They didn't just live without property, they lived with communal property. The collective had shared wealth and the individual had nothing. That is the very definition of communism.


I'm not comparing "the miracles of Jesus" with anything. I do not believe there ever were "miracles of Jesus". I am comparing the ideology conveyed by the metaphorical, allegorical story of the bread and fish with socialism.

what property are you talking about? Christ asked people to renounce property, to live a life of poverty, chastity, and obedience, in what ways is this similar to communal ideas?

communism doesn't reject property -- Christianity does.

 

[LuisDantas]

what property are you talking about? Christ asked people to renounce property, to live a life of poverty, chastity, and obedience, in what ways is this similar to communal ideas?

communism doesn't reject property -- Christianity does.

Not absolutely, perhaps, but it does make a point of deemphasizing personal property, at least in comparison with other existing political systems. I don't know that it is all that different from Christianism in this regard. If anything it might be more emphatic.

Obedience is very much a communist value, as well. To a degree, so are chastity and even poverty.