Does atheism lead to socialism?

[Spirit of Light]

Because if you dont have religious or alternative institutions to challenge the state. Then it essentially leads to the state getting full governship. And you rely more on state basis principles. Or am i wrong?

Religion and state should never be mixed (in my understanding)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why can't atheists challenge the state?

Because we are all nihilists who don't care about anything except for raping and eating small babies, obviously...

What, did you mist the last meeting of the Atheist Association?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Because we are all nihilists who don't care about anything except for raping and eating small babies, obviously...

What, did you mist the last meeting of the Atheist Association?

What's wrong with big, chubby babies...?

 

[exchemist]

Because if you dont have religious or alternative institutions to challenge the state. Then it essentially leads to the state getting full governship. And you rely more on state basis principles. Or am i wrong?

If anything, one would expect Christianity to be inclined somewhat towards socialism, or at least towards redistribution of wealth. Here in Europe, we see the Church making regular critiques of aspects of capitalism. Doesn't that happen in Norway?

It is a bit strange to assume that the chief institution challenging the state is a religious one, though. That's the function of a political opposition, isn't it? And a free press? Not to mention academia, the arts and various movements of one sort or another.

 

[ChristineM]

Because if you dont have religious or alternative institutions to challenge the state. Then it essentially leads to the state getting full governship. And you rely more on state basis principles. Or am i wrong?

Atheism : a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods

Nothing more, nothing less. You will find atheists cover the entire political spectrum.

Atheism are involved in socialism at perhaps the same rate religious peeps are involved in socialism... But there are a hell of a lot more religious peeps.

And welcome to RF. Sit back, relax and enjoy the cake

 

[F1fan]

Because if you dont have religious or alternative institutions to challenge the state. Then it essentially leads to the state getting full governship. And you rely more on state basis principles. Or am i wrong?

I see a lot of people refer to government as some separate entity with excessive powers from the governed. In a representative government with elections periodically the government is supposed to follow the will of the majority.

the USA has had a great deal of diversity due to the history of slavery and immigration. But that has led to a great deal of racism and inequality. It's been since the 1960's that the racism and inequality has been opposed in a successful way. Despite success it hasn't created a full solution. Racism and equality are two issues that superficially most people agree on, but with politics and social attitudes becoming more polarized the subtleties are becoming apparent. Conservatives are pushing for more independence from government, and letting the natural process of the advantaged versus the disadvantaged play out in rather brutal ways. Government exists partially as a means for a large, diverse society to balance the advantaged from the disadvantaged.

We often hear the political fray being a contrast between Capitalism and Socialism. This isn't accurate. Most every government anywhere is some sort of lite socialist system. Capitalism only refers to how an economy functions, is has no political reference. Capitalism without laws does tend to be exceptionally immoral as the Industrial Revolution showed us. So this whole debate over Socialism being caused by atheism, or social unrest, or some other thing is typically rhetoric and misleading.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What's wrong with big, chubby babies...?

They make us fat, which might put off some people at the sex club..

 

[MikeF]

United States is more a interesting comparison, since unlike Europe. It relies on Two Party system, which explains why they are easily more polarized on extreme political views. Where as in Europe its parties of whatever you ideologically agree with

"Socialism",
"Social Democrats(Labour party)"
" Religion"
"Left party"
"Right party"
"Anti Immigration Party"
"Center Party"

Those options dont really exist in USA.

Not true. The coalition building just happens at a different stage. Everyone in the US has their own ideologies and must compromise them in some way or another at the ballot box. A centrist democrat is not equivalent to a strong socialist democrat.

 

[blü 2]

Because if you dont have religious or alternative institutions to challenge the state. Then it essentially leads to the state getting full governship. And you rely more on state basis principles. Or am i wrong?

Is socialism needed, do you think?

We have it now. For socialism is
An element in any government.
There’s no such thing as socialism pure—
Except as an abstraction of the mind.

Robert Frost, 'Build Soil' 1932
​

You don't have to be a commie to want age pensions, unemployment benefits, public hospitals, national health systems, public housing ... and so on. You just have to be a human.

 

[RestlessSoul]

In the UK it is often said the Labour Party owes more to Methodism than Marxism.

My family come from a small Welsh mining village and it is easy to see that the socialism of my grandfather and father came from chapel.

Spot on. Even the Trade Union banners you see on marches were inspired by the ones hanging on walls in non conformist churches.

 

[Yerda]

You don't have to be a commie to want age pensions, unemployment benefits, public hospitals, national health systems, public housing ... and so on. You just have to be a human.

Wow, calm down there, Engels! If we treat our collective wealth as something to enrich all of our lives we'll be doing famines and gulags before the day is through.

 

[viole]

Because if you dont have religious or alternative institutions to challenge the state. Then it essentially leads to the state getting full governship. And you rely more on state basis principles. Or am i wrong?

Maybe it is the contrary. If we mean "socialism" like in Sweden (and not the Soviet Union), then you have a situation where the social welfare system takes care of you from the cradle to the grave (since people agree to have extremely high taxation to finance that).

And when you have that, what do you need a God for?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Martin]

We colonials have learned well from our Brit roots.

Jolly good show. That's the ticket.

 

[Martin]

Trust me, it's not as easy as that in Europe lol. The UK is pretty polarised.

And don't mention Brexit.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We colonials have learned well from our Brit roots.

Instead of Brits and Celts we have Blues and Reds. Damn red coats!

 

[Lars]

I can't make any sense from this line of "reasoning".

I'm an atheist living in a secular democracy and wouldn't want it any other way.
So what are you talking about?



PS: if you would actually apply Christian sentiment and philosophy to governmental rule, then you pretty much end up with socialism, where everybody helps (pays for) each other and where you can't have 1 guy who's personally as rich as an entire medium sized country. A true christian country would not be capitalistic in nature. You can't have capitalism without poor people. For some people to be rich, others are gonna have to be poor. And as christianity says: help the poor, the hungry, the sick etc.
That essentially introduces socialism programs like welfare, foodbanks, paid leave, paid sick leave, etc etc etc.

All things which corporate america is pretty much allergic too.

In that context it depends if the culture would benefit it. Religious cultures historically and even present time, such as Catholicism or Sunni Islam are hugely into devotion culture. Whereas Protestants and Secularists developed work culture. Protestantism dont really have to go along with devotion to be Christians as Catholics do. You have the point where you just want to do whats best to achieve heaven, thats devotion basically, and it leads to stagnation in developments, but work culture think more on how to improve life conditions.

Overall this may not apply today, but devotion culture historically havent helped on that level. Sunni muslims managed to have intellectuals in its early stages like improving Algebra, but then fundamentalism probably took over... and you can see where that led too.

 

[AlexanderG]

Because if you dont have religious or alternative institutions to challenge the state. Then it essentially leads to the state getting full governship. And you rely more on state basis principles. Or am i wrong?

This is a fascinating idea, especially given the long and almost universal historical phenomenon of churches supporting authoritarian governments in exchange for reciprocal government support. The "divine right of kings" was preached in Europe, and the monarchies in turn supported the Church with their purse and patronage.

The solution attempted by democracies around the world is to create a government that can compete with and impose checks on itself by pitting ambitious individuals, parties, and bureaucratic institutions against each other. As long as everyone at least buys into the rules and framework of the government, then they can duke it out with their ideas or charisma all they like, and prosperity can still endure.

Socialism is about the common good for as many people as possible, where we create a floor for poverty and lack of opportunity that we won't allow people to fall beneath. Then again, it depends how you define "socialism." There is a profound difference between Sweden today and Russia under Stalin. To be honestly, Sweden seems to operate under a socialist capitalism based on secular humanism that prioritizes human flourishing, whereas Stalin operated under a communist socialism based on a religious model of absolute unquestionable authority of the state, focusing on his personal power.

Basically, I think your characterization is way too simplistic and probably ignores too much relevant history.

 

[AlexanderG]

Wow, calm down there, Engels! If we treat our collective wealth as something to enrich all of our lives we'll be doing famines and gulags before the day is through.

Right. In the US for example, when Democrats talk about socialism, they mean adding some more programs to lift up the least of us and give them an opportunity to realize their full potential. Republicans then accuse Democrats of advocating for the oppressive socialism seen under Stalin, thus frightening people away from maybe having a pension plan and more affordable healthcare. It's bizarre and tragic.

I've read between the lines and heard from enough people that I think what Republicans are actually opposed to are minority people getting the chance to catch up, which social programs will advance. Within all their shifting moral stances and opposite arguments from one day to the next, white supremacy seems to be one of the only constants for Republicans. But I'm getting off topic.

 

[Revoltingest]

Because if you dont have religious or alternative institutions to challenge the state. Then it essentially leads to the state getting full governship. And you rely more on state basis principles. Or am i wrong?

You're wrong.
This atheist loathes the idea of giving government such
control over us. Does the church really challenge the state?
I see an unholy alliance between them.

 

[Revoltingest]

If anything, one would expect Christianity to be inclined somewhat towards socialism...

Aye, how often do we see Christians citing Jesus as the
basis for vitriol directed at capitalism. They urge ever
greater taxation & government control over us & business.
Of course, this is not all Christians.