Militant Atheism

[Nakosis]

Personally, I think religion is a bad ingredient in any soup, just like arsenic. It doesn't matter how you frame it or how you try to hide it, putting arsenic in your soup is a horrible idea.

Thank you,
I was afraid that it had become politically incorrect for an atheist to be critical of the belief in God. So you open yourself up to having a position to justify.

Well damn right you do. So what, deal with it. What's there to debate it you are not going to hold a position really...

 

[Augustus]

Agree with what? Why would you have to wait a thousand years before you agree that you can't hold a knife if you're carrying a big pumpkin with both hands?

Would agree that the 2 things were analogous, I mean.

Western tradition is built on much more than theistic religion. Religion is just one small part of it, and how big a part varies from person to person.

Western tradition is built on Western tradition. How big a part religion plays is very hard to tell.

But I didn't say that. Why are you arguing against points I didn't make that you consider irrelevant?

Was just a clarification.

The Russian Revolution was by an oppressed people against their oppressors generally, including the aristocracy, the government, and the clergy. Atheism really had little to nothing to do with it. It would have played out virtually the same if it was a revolt by some oppressed religious group.

The oppressed lashed out against their oppressors. That's it. The fact that some of those oppressors were clergy is no more important than any number of factors.

Millenarian movements do grow out of societal conditions, I agree. The societal conditions allow the utopian movement to gain traction. The ideology is very important though, and Communism seems to have been especially murderous.

As we see with ISIS (an Islamic/Leninist hybrid and a radical replacement of tradition with fantasy tradition), some millenarian ideologies are worse than others.

I'm not massively pro-religion, I'm just sceptical of anything that thinks you can wipe tradition and start from a 'blank slate'. I think atheism facilitates this, which is why I see it as a potential cause problem (just as I see religion can be).

Based on religions longer track record of both preserving tradition, and adapting to contemporary realities, I see no reason to assume that atheistic society will automatically be an improvement.

I'm sceptical of both religion, and what the effects of widespread atheism may be on society.

 

[Cephus]

Thank you,
I was afraid that it had become politically incorrect for an atheist to be critical of the belief in God. So you open yourself up to having a position to justify.

Well damn right you do. So what, deal with it. What's there to debate it you are not going to hold a position really...

Yes, I'm critical of anyone believing things for which they can provide no objective evidence. That includes religion but is not restricted to religion. No one should ever believe anything that they cannot provide evidence for to others to evaluate critically. Gods, Bigfoot, conspiracy theories, you name it, it's all the same.

 

[Augustus]

Yes, I'm critical of anyone believing things for which they can provide no objective evidence. That includes religion but is not restricted to religion.

What about the idea that it is worse to kill a human than a baboon or a pig?

 

[Cephus]

What about the idea that it is worse to kill a human than a baboon or a pig?

Define "worse". Is it a subjective or objective statement?

 

[Augustus]

Define "worse". Is it a subjective or objective statement?

Do you believe it is worse if someone kills a woman and feeds the body to pigs rather than someone who kills a sow and feeds the body to humans?

If so, what is your objective evidence that removes you from the criticism you insist should be given to others who believe things based on no objective evidence?

 

[Cephus]

Do you believe it is worse if someone kills a woman and feeds the body to pigs rather than someone who kills a sow and feeds the body to humans?

If so, what is your objective evidence that removes you from the criticism you insist should be given to others who believe things based on no objective evidence?

Do I subjectively think that? Maybe. Do I think it is objectively true? No. Humans think humans are special because we're humans. It's enlightened self-interest and there's nothing wrong with it. I'm sure if pigs could talk, they'd tell you that killing pigs is much worse than killing humans, but they'd have their own enlightened self-interest. In reality, we're all just animals, killing one is no better or worse, objectively, than killing the other.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's not true for every atheist.

Yes, it is.

Especially with regards to this discussion, explicit atheism. The layers underneath are important to the direction one goes after atheism.

There's more to atheism than explicit atheism.

Explicit atheism in not a staring point. Ignorance is the starting point.

... IOW, implicit atheism.

You can't claim ignorance since you know at least about the Christian God. Here's knowledge about God which you reject for some reason.

Why are you calling god-claims "knowledge about God"? If you think Christian claims are justified & true (i.e. knowledge), why aren't you a Christian?

I've had people try to explain their gods to me in ways that are incoherent - I can't even parse their claims, let alone evaluate them and reject them.

I've also had people give me bad arguments for their gods. Still, the mere fact that a bad argument has been given doesn't necessarily mean that the conclusion being argued is wrong; true things can be argued using bad reasons.

 

[Nakosis]

Yes, I'm critical of anyone believing things for which they can provide no objective evidence. That includes religion but is not restricted to religion. No one should ever believe anything that they cannot provide evidence for to others to evaluate critically. Gods, Bigfoot, conspiracy theories, you name it, it's all the same.

I agree that I think it is a bad idea for people to make decisions based on a belief they can't justify. I don't think man can validate the existence of God. Therefore it is a bad idea to to make decisions based on a belief in God.

A belief with a lack of evidence is nothing you want to be basing your decisions on. Even if it turns out with good results sometimes. That only means you got lucky, not that you made a good decision.

This I think leads to atheism as well as Marxism. I don't or haven't seen anything yet inherently bad about Marxism. I do see it was used politically in bad ways.

There are plenty of other ways other than violence to deal with a belief in God we see as bad, like education. Encouraging an open dialogue etc.

 

[Cephus]

I agree that I think it is a bad idea for people to make decisions based on a belief they can't justify. I don't think man can validate the existence of God. Therefore it is a bad idea to to make decisions based on a belief in God.

No, therefore it is a bad thing to believe in a god. Any god. The time to believe in anything is when you actually have evidence to support it and not one moment before.

A belief with a lack of evidence is nothing you want to be basing your decisions on. Even if it turns out with good results sometimes. That only means you got lucky, not that you made a good decision.

It's nothing you want to be holding in the first place. To do so displays a significant lack of critical thinking or logical skills.

This I think leads to atheism as well as Marxism. I don't or haven't seen anything yet inherently bad about Marxism. I do see it was used politically in bad ways.

It doesn't lead to atheism, it leads to rationality. Atheism is just rationality displayed for a particular philosophical position. And I think there is a ton wrong with Marxism, but this is a religious debate forum, not a political one.

 

[Nakosis]

Yes, it is.

Sorry, it's not true for me.

There's more to atheism than explicit atheism.

Yes but in discussing Karl Marx I thought it was understood to be about explicit atheism.
My mistake.

Why are you calling god-claims "knowledge about God"? If you think Christian claims are justified & true (i.e. knowledge), why aren't you a Christian?

Either a person has knowledge about the Christian God or they don't. A lack of knowledge allows implicit atheism. Rejecting what is offered as knowledge they must have a reason for rejecting it.

I've had people try to explain their gods to me in ways that are incoherent - I can't even parse their claims, let alone evaluate them and reject them.

Lack of a coherent explanation is not a sufficient reason to reject a claim? I think it is.

I've also had people give me bad arguments for their gods. Still, the mere fact that a bad argument has been given doesn't necessarily mean that the conclusion being argued is wrong; true things can be argued using bad reasons.

You judge the argument as bad and so rejected their claim of knowledge about God. Good for you.

 

[Nakosis]

It doesn't lead to atheism, it leads to rationality. Atheism is just rationality displayed for a particular philosophical position.

So it leads to rationality which leads to atheism for a particular philosophical position. Got it. Guess I just missed an intermediary step there.

And I think there is a ton wrong with Marxism, but this is a religious debate forum, not a political one.

Yes, I could be wrong about that. I was just looking at his views with regard to religion, so there maybe other things to disagree with, I just haven't come across them yet.

What's interesting is that I've come across one critic who complaint is that the problem with Marxism is that it is contemporary materialism.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1907/fundamental-problems.htm

 

[Augustus]

Do I subjectively think that? Maybe. Do I think it is objectively true? No. Humans think humans are special because we're humans. It's enlightened self-interest and there's nothing wrong with it. I'm sure if pigs could talk, they'd tell you that killing pigs is much worse than killing humans, but they'd have their own enlightened self-interest. In reality, we're all just animals, killing one is no better or worse, objectively, than killing the other.

How do you square that with the idea that "All irrationality is an insult to human dignity." though? I assume you personally find it much worse though, and believe murderers should be imprisoned, but not meat eaters. Most people would think it worse to kill a woman and feed her body to pigs, than to just kill a woman, even though it is less wasteful if the pigs eat her.

Human dignity is in itself built on nothing but irrational preference. It makes no more objective sense that porcine dignity.

All our morals and values are irrational. Arguably irrationality is what makes us human. In Palymyra, ISIS is currently turning some big stones into little stones and moving them around a bit, but we care about it. That's irrational. You value knowledge and objective truth, that's irrational though. There's no reason why it matters at all, especially when ignorance may be bliss.

You can only be rational, by starting from a foundation of irrationality. If you get rid of god, you just replace him with something else equally irrational.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sorry, it's not true for me.



Yes but in discussing Karl Marx I thought it was understood to be about explicit atheism.
My mistake.

I think you've been making a number of assumptions in this thread.

Either a person has knowledge about the Christian God or they don't. A lack of knowledge allows implicit atheism. Rejecting what is offered as knowledge they must have a reason for rejecting it.

Rejecting an argument does not necessarily mean rejecting the argument's conclusion. I can reject the claim "the sky is blue because pixies paint it that way" without rejecting "the sky is blue."

When I encounter a bad argument for a god, all I can say in response is "if this god exists, it isn't for the reasons that this guy is claiming." I can only out-and-out reject a god when there's reason to think that a god can't exist... e.g. when a god-concept is internally contradictory or implies that things in the world would be a particular way when they're demonstrably not.

Lack of a coherent explanation is not a sufficient reason to reject a claim? I think it is.

If you don't understand a claim, what grounds would you have to reject it? What mistake in logic in an argument can you point to if you don't know what logic it purports to use?

It's perfectly valid not to accept an argument that hasn't been expressed in a way you don't understand. It isn't valid to reject it.

You judge the argument as bad and so rejected their claim of knowledge about God. Good for you.

Don't try to speak for me.

 

[Jumi]

", although disbelieving in a supernatural deity."

Sounds like active atheism.

And here's the context:

Jose Porfirio Miranda, in particular, found Marx and Engels to be consistently opposed to deterministic materialism and broadly sympathetic towards Christianity and towards the text of the Bible, although disbelieving in a supernatural deity.

So again... no, Marxists aren't and have not been all atheists.

 

[Jumi]

forgive me if I don't consider someone who teaches Marxist literary analysis in a cultural studies department of a university as being actually a Marxist in the sense of Karl Marx. Every idea associated with Marx is 'Marxist', but relying on one of them no more makes you a Marxist in the true sense, than believing you should 'love thy neighbour' makes you a Christian.

Not everyone who considers themselves part of a group follow the group in everything themselves. A local Marxist politician for example is studying for his PhD in Theology. He's a Christian.

There were quotes from Marx, quotes from Lenin, quotes from Stalinist organisations. The ideological foundations of all of these were built on Marxism, and for Marx, atheism was inseparable from politics.

Propaganda from the organizations did not equal reality. Nor did reality follow the propaganda in many cases. Just like "love" doesn't follow from Jesus being for love, and it does not extend to people such as the Westboro Baptists.

He resorted to pragmatism, rather than ideology as he did numerous times during WW2.. As with all millenarian revolutionary movements, sooner or later, reality catches up with you and pisses on your ideological chips. Stalin more than Lenin, and Lenin more than Marx had to deal with the realities of government rather than the perfection of ideological theories. Marx got to make lovely theories that didn't run into the problems of reality

Lenin was first and foremost a revolutionary who got angry with his the regime when his brother was executed for being a terrorist and a revolutionary. He didn't negotiate or agree with Marxists, he rammed his ideas into them. I think it's the same as saying Luther's ideas are Catholicism and using Luther as a warning for how much violence Chalcedonian Christianity can lead to.

And we have people who think that anyone who claims to be a Marxist follows the fundamental teachings of Marx.

And like Lenin they don't. Marx would never have worked for the Soviets. If you know the basics you should know this unless you subscribe to Leninist and Stalinist propaganda.

Logical jumps like pretending atheism wasn't a fundamental and essential part of the Marxism of Marx?

You were using three things interchangeably when they are not the same. I'm surprised Laika doesn't know the difference, but perhaps he learned the Soviet version of Marxism first.

As atheism was a seen as being fundamental to Communism.

If it's fundamental then why aren't all Communists atheists?

But they were overwhelmingly theists.

In public you had to be.

As you live in the West, secular liberal democracy, free market economics, humanism, humanity etc. all gained their foundations in Christianity and its precursors.

Yes, the precursors. Yet as we know people have fought hard against many of these things in the name of Christianity.

The idea that humans are 'special' comes from god. Otherwise we are just another animal, and killing a human is no worse than killing a pig. The dignity of man is a fiction, and absent god, we have to make up an equally subjective fiction to retain it.

That is only your view as theist. I'd say to that that many theists see no problem with "killing them all" since god decided who's a believer and who is not. You know where this quote comes from do you not?

When my country was force converted to Christianity much dignity was taken from the people. As we can see from the Native Americans, it's the same.

Our morality grew from gods, even if you now live in a post-Christian society. If god is a lie, then all our morality is a fiction. You can still choose to accept it, but there is no reason for you to do so.

The morality existed without the gods. You can go back to ancient Greek philosophers and see that they use reason instead of relying on rules set by the gods.

People talk about 'Enlightenment values' of scientific enquiry, scepticism and reason - but are these the Enlightenment values of secular humanism (Christianity-lite), or the Enlightenment values of The Reign of Terror and Communism?

I don't agree that secular humanism is Christianity-lite, it's more to do with Greek philosophy. I agree that the Communists were bad. So what's your point?

Atheism, the sciences and rationality are amoral - it is ideas derived from religions and mythology that humanise them, even if those who adopt these values are no longer theists.

No. And I will say that many times the evil has come from religions and the values of theism.

 

[Nakosis]

And here's the context:

Jose Porfirio Miranda, in particular, found Marx and Engels to be consistently opposed to deterministic materialism and broadly sympathetic towards Christianity and towards the text of the Bible, although disbelieving in a supernatural deity.

So again... no, Marxists aren't and have not been all atheists.

I don't see that that changes anything, but it's your story and I guess you are going to stick to it.

 

[Jumi]

I don't see that that changes anything, but it's your story and I guess you are going to stick to it.

Your quote needed the context. Otherwise I don't know where you were going with your story.

 

[Jumi]

Yes, Marx and Engels were atheists, but their materialism had a "direction". Their story was like a prophecy, that the world will of necessity move and develop until we are communists. It was not an atheistic idea and certainly not something most materialists would be comfortable with.

It doesn't mean that a communist or Marxist believes as Marx and Engels did, that the dialectic materialism "does not play dice". Especially we could take Lenin and the way he skips through necessary phases of development toward communism and destroys some "fundamentals" of Marx in the process.

 

[Nakosis]

Your quote needed the context. Otherwise I don't know where you were going with your story.

You said Marxist aren't necessarily Atheists. It's your story. I just haven't seen where you've supported that claim yet.