Militant Atheism

[paarsurrey]

It does matter, because it's the same "no true Christian/Muslim/Etc." would use to defend their own group against the bad things people did in its name. The Crusades, for example, many Christians will argue that it was somehow different, somehow not applicable, and not something that represents their religion. The most frequently used phrase is "no true (or real) Christian would do this."
Stalin was an atheist. In terms of his views of the supernatural, however, it seems to be entirely irrelevant, except that it does show that people do not need religion to do great acts of violence.

I agree with you.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

How can someone be "born" theist if everyone by default is atheist? You mean his family and parents where theists, but not that he was actually born a theist. Right?

A good argument.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6487
http://www.alternet.org/belief/6-types-atheists-and-non-believers-america
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
There are many types of atheism.

Indeed: there's as many "types of atheism" as there are atheists.

sure enough, well said.
Regards

 

[Ouroboros]

Correct.

Good catch. I meant born into theism. Brain does not always communicate well with the typing fingers

So true. Same here. My fingers type faster than I think, most of the time.

 

[paarsurrey]

If we as atheists are going to spend most of our time debating people's most deeply held beliefs and criticising them, eventually- it ours turn. Communism is atheism's problem. it's that simple. atheism doesn't come in a single shape or size and yeah and it isn't an automatic relationship between communism and atheism. there are alot of ways to become an atheist. But communism is still atheist and it was used to justify some really aweful things. Stalin was an atheist. Mao was an athiest. Pol Pot was an atheist.

If we want to blame religion for a load of stuff they did, theists get the right to do it to us to. if we want to criticise religious people for having beliefs that don't measure up to the facts, they get to do it to us as well. Skepticism and Free Thought work both ways. We get to be sceptical of them, and they do of us. We question they're faith, and so why shouldn't we question our reason? it's not a reflection on us when we get it wrong. But it is a reflection on us when we prefer to ignore the truth.

After 13 pages, the freethinkers are still in denial. Good luck with your scepticism.

Very good points, I appreciate the post.
Regards

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's already been done via Karl Marx. He saw religion as suppressing the greatness of man. Religion is oppression like slavery. If you don't free your fellowman from oppression, allowing each person to become the greatest possible being they could be, what kind of human are you? (that's a rhetorical question)

I said "no other premises", but you gave me a boatload of them.

You're trying to sell me stone soup. If you need Marxism to get from atheism to the conclusion that religion should be eradicated, why not just be open about what you're doing and say that MARXISM, not atheism, leads you to this conclusion?

The question for you would be rather you see religion as a good healthy pursuit. If yes then why don't you pursue it? If no then, if you don't see religion as healthy, why don't you have any concern for your fellowman?

A third choice would be to have no opinion about religion, which would mean that you'd be equally fine with a theocracy.

There's another option but I don't want to dilute the response yet.

Of course there's another option: PLACE VALUE ON HUMAN FREEDOM AND AUTONOMY. Give theists the respect due to people.

 

[ether-ore]

This is from the 1959 court case which challenged prayer recitation in the public schools.

"Your petitioners are atheists, and they define their lifestyle as follows. An atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An atheist accepts that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth – for all men together to enjoy. An atheist accepts that he can get no help through prayer, but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and to enjoy it. An atheist accepts that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help lead to a life of fulfillment."

Sounds a bit like Marx.
Wouldn't an Atheist want his fellowman to also find a life of fulfillment?

Why worry about separation of church and state if there is nothing wrong with religion?

Certainly there is no necessary reason an atheist has to care about his fellowman. Let all them folks remain slaves to their religions beliefs. So there are caring atheists who fight against the slavery of their fellowman and those which don't care about anyone else being suppressed by it as long as they are left alone.

Lets say for the sake of argument that a person is an atheist and happens to care about his fellowman. This is the logical position of Marx isn't it?

Personally, I find a contradiction in the two phrases: "[loves] his fellow man" and "[those fellowmen] being suppressed (and enslaved by religion)". Love is far from being indicated in the presence of the real emotion of contempt. The assumption is that people of faith are being suppressed. That is not the faithful's feeling on the matter. That is the projection of the atheist on the person of faith out of a feeling of hate and disgust, not "love".

It is right in line with the sentiment that people of faith (especially Christians) should be... (and I quote) "put to the fire".

 

[Augustus]

It is politic problem, because politics used atheism as a tool to control people. Atheism did not control the political decisions

(have removed name from quote, as the following post is not specifically related to any one person)

The purpose of Marxism was to FREE people, not control them. It didn't work out in practice, but atheism was man's route out of slavery and towards freedom.

Plenty of evidence has been posted on this thread, including from primary philosophical sources such as Marx and Lenin, that atheism wasn't just an accessory of Marxism, it was inseparable from Marxism.

Aren't atheists on RF supposed to be skeptical and interested in critical enquiry? If a religious believer kept ignoring every piece of evidence simply because they had come to some preconceived opinion there would be howls of protest from the 'sceptics'.

Plenty of posters still deny that atheism is a core, fundamental component of Marxism-Leninism despite such evidence from multiple posters (and this is just a selection, not the totality)

The criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism.

It is our duty to destroy every religious world-concept... If the destruction of ten million human beings, as happened in the last war, should be necessary for the triumph of one definite class, then that must be done and it will be done.

The criticism of religion leads to the doctrine according to which man is, for man, the supreme being; therefore it reaches the categorical imperative of overthrowing all relationships in which man is a degraded, enslaved, abandoned, contemptible being.

There therefore was no distinction between it's [Marxism's] philosophical views regarding atheism and it's political views.

The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness.

Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics."

There can be no doubt that the fact that the new state of the USSR led by the communist party, with a program permeated by the spirit of militant atheism, gives the reason why this state is successfully surmounting the great difficulties that stand in its way - that neither "heavenly powers" nor the exhortations of all the priests in all the world can prevent its attaining its aims it has set itself

Religion and communism are incompatible, both theoretically and practically.

Struggle against religion is a struggle for socialism

Stalin called "to bring to completion the liquidation of the reactionary clergy in our country". Stalin called for an "atheist five year plan" from 1932–1937, led by the League of Militant Godless, in order to completely eliminate all religious expression in the USSR. It was declared that the concept of God would disappear from the Soviet Union.


We have had comments from various 'sceptics' like: 'Marx was a Christian', 'Marxism was political not about religion', 'Atheism is not a component of Marxism', 'no amount of evidence about communism from communist sources is valid to support a point about communism', 'atheists who say atheism is part of Marxism are really just desperate theists', etc. etc. but no discussion of the evidence posted.

You have someone like 'Laika', who actually knows a lot about Marxism, being 'refuted' by people who appear to know very little except the ability to retort to a standardised vapid cliche of the kind propagated by vocal atheists. "Let's show our free-thinking ways by mindlessly parroting what evangelical atheists say about atheism".

No one ever critiques the actual evidence provided, just a response that resorts to redefining atheism as 'nothing' (rocks and babies are atheists and rocks can't be communists); pretending that it can't be a philosophical position with significant knock on consequences; fragmenting definitions and concepts to an atomised level and pretending that they exist in a vacuum and thus can't be said to be related in any way; unilaterally deciding that unless a characteristic can be said to apply to all atheists, then it is applicable to no atheists; and deciding that because something is not true about 'my' atheism, then it can't even be considered atheism at all.

The same sort of atheist who sees the word 'Christian', in Nazi propaganda and takes this as overwhelming evidence that Hitler was a Christian (despite plenty of evidence that shows he wasn't [not necessarily an atheist though]), ignores the repeated use of atheist in fundamental philosophical texts written by the founders of Marxism-Leninism as simply some rhetorical flourish that really only relates to cynical political opportunism.

There are numerous forms of atheism, some passive and relatively inconsequential, there are other forms in which it is a fundamental statement of the nature of the world and the foundations of their entire belief system.

You can't just wish the forms you don't like away through semantic trickery.

Whether people like it or not, they exist in a world defined by religion, gods and related tradition. Many atheists like to claim being atheist is like being an a-unicornist, which is the worst kind of specious sophistry. Atheism, for many people in the modern world, means accepting that the foundations of our entire society, morality and way of life are built upon a lie. How can this not be something of immense significance?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The purpose of Marxism was to FREE people, not control them. It didn't work out in practice, but atheism was man's route out of slavery and towards freedom.

Plenty of evidence has been posted on this thread, including from primary philosophical sources such as Marx and Lenin, that atheism wasn't just an accessory of Marxism, it was inseparable from Marxism.

"Theism is incompatible with Marxism" does not equal "Marxism is the inevitable result of atheism."

Aren't atheists on RF supposed to be skeptical and interested in critical enquiry?

Some of them, sure. My skepticism is what stops me from credulously swallowing what you're trying to feed me.

Plenty of posters still deny that atheism is a core, fundamental component of Marxism-Leninism despite such evidence from multiple posters (and this is just a selection, not the totality)

Who's doing that?

Atheism is necessary but not sufficient to be a Marxist. Abstaining from alcohol and pork is necessary but not sufficient to be a violent Jihadi.

So what? This no more means that someone who doesn't believe in God has to worry about the implications of Marxism than a straightedge vegan has to worry about the implications of Muslim terrorism.

No one ever critiques the actual evidence provided, just a response that resorts to redefining atheism as 'nothing' (rocks and babies are atheists and rocks can't be communists); pretending that it can't be a philosophical position with significant knock on consequences; fragmenting definitions and concepts to an atomised level and pretending that they exist in a vacuum and thus can't be said to be related in any way; unilaterally deciding that unless a characteristic can be said to apply to all atheists, then it is applicable to no atheists; and deciding that because something is not true about 'my' atheism, then it can't even be considered atheism at all.

If you have a problem with the idea that if something is true in general, it's also true in the specific, I'm not sure anyone can help you.

It seems you're confusing the idea that there are atheists with certain characteristics with the idea that atheism causes those characteristics.

The same sort of atheist who sees the word 'Christian', in Nazi propaganda and takes this as overwhelming evidence that Hitler was a Christian (despite plenty of evidence that shows he wasn't [not necessarily an atheist though]), ignores the repeated use of atheist in fundamental philosophical texts written by the founders of Marxism-Leninism as simply some rhetorical flourish that really only relates to cynical political opportunism.

Find me a tenet of Marxism that I agree with that leads to some conclusion like "theists should be forcibly converted" and I'll either reject that tenet or accept the conclusion. As it is now, I don't know of any.

When it comes to Hitler, though, it's generally irrelevant whether he was a "true Christian" or just feigned Christianity for political gain; he relied heavily on Christian thought, especially the writings of Martin Luther, for his positions toward Jews. While there are plenty of Christians who disregard or actively disagree with those writings (e.g. most Catholics), they still damn those specific Christians who uphold them as good and true... and there are millions upon millions of such Christians. Other Christians might not have this connection to Hitler, but many of them have similar problems, whether that means embracing anti-Semite John Calvin as a good man or refusing to say that various Popes were wrong when they issued bulls endorsing slavery against various groups.

THAT is the difference.

Whether people like it or not, they exist in a world defined by religion, gods and related tradition. Many atheists like to claim being atheist is like being an a-unicornist, which is the worst kind of specious sophistry. Atheism, for many people in the modern world, means accepting that the foundations of our entire society, morality and way of life are built upon a lie. How can this not be something of immense significance?

Nobody is saying that it isn't. It's the next step that's the issue: where we ask "... so what are you going to do about it?" That's the question that atheism does absolutely nothing to answer. It's entirely informed by our values and attitudes from other sources.

When you stop believing in gods, this frees you to believe in things that aren't compatible with belief in gods. That's it.

In a similar way, not carrying a pumpkin around frees up your hands to carry other things. Maybe some people who don't carry pumpkins will choose to carry weapons instead, but it makes no sense to talk about the implications for violence of not carrying a pumpkin... even though not carrying a pumpkin "enables" violence from a certain perspective.

 

[Pudding]

http://www.newzimbabwe.com/columns-24021-Atheism+Blind+men+arguing+about+sunset/columns.aspx

Atheism: Blind men arguing against the beauty in sunset

“An atheist is a man who believes himself to be an accident” - Francis Thompson

I COULD NOT resist sharing a beautiful story I heard after coming across a recent wave of campaigns by a militant Atheist group in the United States going by the name ‘Undo Jesus.’ The group is on a “mission” to rid the world of Christianity. They oppose the idea that Jesus Christ is the son of God, among other ludicrous things.

I agree that this militant Atheist group can be considered as extreme.
I say let people have the freedom to practice their religion, if their religion's practice infringe your human rights only then you could/should criticize/oppose the religion's practice.

Don't sweeping generalise all religion/theist/atheist that they're all the one same type of religion/theist/atheist. Some people is good, some is bad, not all people is the same.

Don't criticize/oppose those religion's practice which do not infrige your human rights.
Only criticize/oppose those religion's practice which do infrige your human rights.

Honestly, in my view, atheism would have been so funny if it were not so sad. One has to see the vainness of being an atheist; first they claim God does not exist and then go on to expend resources, time and energy trying to rid the world of someone they claim doesn’t even exist. It does not add up!

So the beautiful story goes: two unborn babies were discussing in their mother’s womb. One asked the other: “Do you believe in life after delivery?”

The other replied, “Why, of course. There has to be something after delivery. Maybe we are here to prepare ourselves for what we will be later.”

“Nonsense!” said the first baby, “There is no life after delivery. What kind of life would that be?”

The second said, “I don’t know, perhaps the light will be more than here. Maybe we will walk with our legs and eat from our mouths. Maybe we will have Mother take care of us.”

The first replied, “Mother! You actually believe in Mother! That’s laughable. If mother exists, then where is she now?”

The second said, “She is all around us. We are surrounded by her. We are of her. It is in her that we live. Without her, this world would not and could not exist.” To which the second replied, “Sometimes, when you’re in silence and you focus and you really listen, you can perceive her presence, and you can hear her loving voice, calling down from above.”

Surely, I may not write this article from a religious or Christian standpoint and yet still come to the firm conclusion that atheism is a cousin of insanity. Probably, like Albert Einstein said, the world is like the tail of a lion which we cannot see.

Atheism - disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Some atheist don't believe in the existence of any God(s) as they find no convincing evidence to support the existence of those God(s), because of this they can be call being insanity?

All that science can only do is to discover the sophistries put in place by God.

Not sure what the sophistries is refer to.

Apparently, the ultimate goal of atheism is to negate all moral standards and to make humanity a little closer to animals.

Unsubstantiated claims and an attempt of sweeping generalizations to all atheism/atheist.

The point though is not to senselessly take aim at atheism but, for an adult gifted with five senses to suppose that the human system itself is the work of nature and not a Maker is to go a little insane.

It's not insane for some atheist to don't believe in any Maker because they find no convincing evidence to support the existence of those Maker.

To me, just like Einstein observed, the mere arrangement of nature or the function of the human body - its intricate systems like the endocrine system or nervous system would prove amply the existence of a Maker whether I had been an atheist or not.

It's an argument of "if some things can't be explain then its only plausible explanation is God did it".

When some things X can't be explain, the logical response is "i don't know" not "using some other concept which again cannot be explain/prove like God(s) and claims/assume that God did it".

It therefore brings me to the inescapable conclusion that atheists have a more sinister agenda than merely denying the existence of God because atheist arguments sound more like blind men arguing against the beauty in a sunset; they are like deaf men denying the beauty of a song.

Perhaps no atheist captures the atheist ethos more than Aldous Huxley (1894-1963) the brother of the atheistic evolutionist sir Julian Huxley who advocated a drug-fuelled utopia. He gave the reason
for his anti-Christian stance saying, “I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning… the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political”.

Inappropriate sweeping generalizations.

Like Huxley, some people don’t like God because they don’t like moral constraints-you can make up your own rules, or have none at all, if God does not exist. And it is religion, particularly Christianity that reminds them of God hence the venomous hatred.

I hope the "some people" which have mention is not refer to "all atheist", otherwise it's another inappropriate sweeping generalizations.

I, at times, wonder why the gift of common sense is not universal to all. To any thinking and intelligent men the footprints of God are there in every path of our lives; from the time the baby is in the womb, the provisions made and the protection of the outer membrane cannot be the work of chance by any inch.

The argument of "if some things can't be explain then its only plausible explanation is God did it".

When some things can't be explain, the logical response is "i don't know" not "making unsubstantiated claims/assumption that God did it".

To be consistent with atheism is to deny the existence of any moral standard, but it shocks me to find that in real life atheists adopt the theistic worldview if someone steals from them. Since their ultimate goal is to be liberated I wonder why an atheist would find the idea of marrying an animal repulsive.

That is all that atheism aims at; to be our own gods and our own masters and creators. They are inconsistent, only consistent when it is convenient for them.

To conclude, again I say atheism surely would have been hilarious, a circus of some sort if it were not so sad. There is God in heaven.

“Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.” Revelation 1:7 (KJV).

Inappropriate sweeping generalizations and unsubstantiated claims to false accuse atheists of stealing [moral/world view] from theists.

If there is God in heaven, then prove it.
After the proving have been done and if some atheists still find the proof to be unconvincing for them, then everyone carry on to live their life. No need to continue to criticize those atheists for not believing in God's existence because they find no convincing evidence to support the validity of God's existence.

 

[Jumi]

The purpose of Marxism was to FREE people, not control them. It didn't work out in practice, but atheism was man's route out of slavery and towards freedom.

Not so much for Leninism and Stalinism which are different beasts.

Plenty of evidence has been posted on this thread, including from primary philosophical sources such as Marx and Lenin, that atheism wasn't just an accessory of Marxism, it was inseparable from Marxism.

It was not and still isn't. Many Marxists in my country still are religious as it is in South America for example.

Aren't atheists on RF supposed to be skeptical and interested in critical enquiry? If a religious believer kept ignoring every piece of evidence simply because they had come to some preconceived opinion there would be howls of protest from the 'sceptics'.

I don't think you've reviewed the whole evidence.

Plenty of posters still deny that atheism is a core, fundamental component of Marxism-Leninism despite such evidence from multiple posters (and this is just a selection, not the totality)

Now you are talking about Marxism-Leninism which is different from Marxism.

Stalin called "to bring to completion the liquidation of the reactionary clergy in our country". Stalin called for an "atheist five year plan" from 1932–1937, led by the League of Militant Godless, in order to completely eliminate all religious expression in the USSR. It was declared that the concept of God would disappear from the Soviet Union.

And he later changed his mind, supporting the priests and having them bless the Soviet arms used against their enemies, including my country.

We have had comments from various 'sceptics' like: 'Marx was a Christian', 'Marxism was political not about religion', 'Atheism is not a component of Marxism', 'no amount of evidence about communism from communist sources is valid to support a point about communism', 'atheists who say atheism is part of Marxism are really just desperate theists', etc. etc. but no discussion of the evidence posted.

And we have people who can't separate Marxism from Marxism-Lenininsm and Stalinism.

No one ever critiques the actual evidence provided,

If it was actual evidence, you wouldn't need to do logical jumps.

The same sort of atheist who sees the word 'Christian', in Nazi propaganda and takes this as overwhelming evidence that Hitler was a Christian (despite plenty of evidence that shows he wasn't [not necessarily an atheist though]), ignores the repeated use of atheist in fundamental philosophical texts written by the founders of Marxism-Leninism as simply some rhetorical flourish that really only relates to cynical political opportunism.

Indeed the Nazis had a plan to make a new Christianity, a new church that had a nationalistic bent. They had little tolerance for atheism, especially not in the SS. We can't blame the "Christians" for it, but we can blame some of his antisemitism on the antisemitism of the Christians that inspired him.

Whether people like it or not, they exist in a world defined by religion, gods and related tradition. Many atheists like to claim being atheist is like being an a-unicornist, which is the worst kind of specious sophistry. Atheism, for many people in the modern world, means accepting that the foundations of our entire society, morality and way of life are built upon a lie. How can this not be something of immense significance?

What do you mean that the foundations are based on a lie? The laws are from the Roman Empire, philosophy from the Greeks etc.

 

[Jumi]

Marxists aren't necessarily atheists. I'll just leave this here:

Marxist philosophy, on the other hand, is famously atheistic, although some Marxist scholars, both Christian and non-Christian, have insisted that Marxist philosophy and the philosophy of Marx and Engels are significantly different from one another and that this difference needs recognition. 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.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism

 

[Jumi]

If you know something about South America, the Catholic and Marxist have often blended together. If someone South American could share more on this, it would be interesting as a topic in itself:

http://www.christiantoday.com/artic...oming.a.maverick.marxist.theologian/53805.htm

 

[ether-ore]

"Theism is incompatible with Marxism" does not equal "Marxism is the inevitable result of atheism."
Some of them, sure. My skepticism is what stops me from credulously swallowing what you're trying to feed me.
Who's doing that?
Atheism is necessary but not sufficient to be a Marxist. Abstaining from alcohol and pork is necessary but not sufficient to be a violent Jihadi.
So what? This no more means that someone who doesn't believe in God has to worry about the implications of Marxism than a straightedge vegan has to worry about the implications of Muslim terrorism.
If you have a problem with the idea that if something is true in general, it's also true in the specific, I'm not sure anyone can help you.
It seems you're confusing the idea that there are atheists with certain characteristics with the idea that atheism causes those characteristics.
Find me a tenet of Marxism that I agree with that leads to some conclusion like "theists should be forcibly converted" and I'll either reject that tenet or accept the conclusion. As it is now, I don't know of any.
When it comes to Hitler, though, it's generally irrelevant whether he was a "true Christian" or just feigned Christianity for political gain; he relied heavily on Christian thought, especially the writings of Martin Luther, for his positions toward Jews. While there are plenty of Christians who disregard or actively disagree with those writings (e.g. most Catholics), they still damn those specific Christians who uphold them as good and true... and there are millions upon millions of such Christians. Other Christians might not have this connection to Hitler, but many of them have similar problems, whether that means embracing anti-Semite John Calvin as a good man or refusing to say that various Popes were wrong when they issued bulls endorsing slavery against various groups.
THAT is the difference.
Nobody is saying that it isn't. It's the next step that's the issue: where we ask "... so what are you going to do about it?" That's the question that atheism does absolutely nothing to answer. It's entirely informed by our values and attitudes from other sources.
When you stop believing in gods, this frees you to believe in things that aren't compatible with belief in gods. That's it.
In a similar way, not carrying a pumpkin around frees up your hands to carry other things. Maybe some people who don't carry pumpkins will choose to carry weapons instead, but it makes no sense to talk about the implications for violence of not carrying a pumpkin... even though not carrying a pumpkin "enables" violence from a certain perspective.

What you say is a very nice bit of sophistry. Conflicting ideologies have been able to coexist in this country because of the constitution. Now that the government has all but destroyed the constitution and has polarized the populace by its all invasive methods and controls, there is very little left to keep one ideology from saying that opposing ideas and philosophies have no justification for existence.

I keep hearing atheists say that to be an atheist is to be free. It seems to me that in the resulting socialist/communist/dictatorial state the only thing an atheist becomes free of is the last bit of restraint which keeps him from physically expressing his contempt for anyone with a religious belief or anyone that opposes his position of power. So, what you say, in practical terms as well as historically, does not hold true. If and when atheists come to power (or at least dominance in the culture) then the gas chambers will be built and the furnaces lit.

It may well be that there are atheists who are not so militant, but that is not relevant. They will of necessity be obliged to follow suit with those who are militant... and militant atheists do exist and they are eaten up with hate for the religious and it is they who desire power.

 

[Nakosis]

I said "no other premises", but you gave me a boatload of them.

The problem there is atheism does not sit by itself in isolation.

You're trying to sell me stone soup. If you need Marxism to get from atheism to the conclusion that religion should be eradicated, why not just be open about what you're doing and say that MARXISM, not atheism, leads you to this conclusion?

You gave me a stone and asked me to make soup. What did you expect?

Of course there's another option: PLACE VALUE ON HUMAN FREEDOM AND AUTONOMY. Give theists the respect due to people.

But this is not answering the question. Is religion, in your opinion, a good or bad ingredient in your soup?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The problem there is atheism does not sit by itself in isolation.

Yes - no atheist is just an atheist. Every atheist will have all sorts of other views and values. It's those views and values that are the source for... well... everything the atheist believes. An atheist's beliefs don't really flow from atheism; it's just that atheists are free to believe things that are incompatible with theism.

You gave me a stone and asked me to make soup. What did you expect?

A rock in a pot of water, if you were approaching things honestly.

But this is not answering the question. Is religion, in your opinion, a good or bad ingredient in your soup?

I need something other than atheism to come to a value judgement about religion.

 

[Nakosis]

Personally, I find a contradiction in the two phrases: "[loves] his fellow man" and "[those fellowmen] being suppressed (and enslaved by religion)". Love is far from being indicated in the presence of the real emotion of contempt. The assumption is that people of faith are being suppressed. That is not the faithful's feeling on the matter. That is the projection of the atheist on the person of faith out of a feeling of hate and disgust, not "love".

It is right in line with the sentiment that people of faith (especially Christians) should be... (and I quote) "put to the fire".

I can only really tell you my position as an atheist. I don't know how unique it happens to be but here goes.

The purpose of life is the achievement of happiness. If being religious, following your religion makes you happy, then it is important that you are allowed to do so as long as it is not infringing on someone else's pursuit of happiness.

I think being an atheist is necessary for my happiness. There is no reason to think it is necessary for your's or anyone else's happiness. It's not my job to decide for you what is going to make you happy.

9-10th is correct, atheism itself doesn't lead to anti-theism, however atheism doesn't exist in isolation.

"PLACE VALUE ON HUMAN FREEDOM AND AUTONOMY"

If a person happens to see religion as oppressive, using this as a premise, is religion good or bad?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

.

"PLACE VALUE ON HUMAN FREEDOM AND AUTONOMY"

If a person happens to see religion as oppressive, using this as a premise, is religion good or bad?

- It's a foolish oversimplification to think of "religion" as if it's some monolithic thing. Religion is diverse.

- It isn't just a matter of binary "good" and "bad". Is it so bad that it would justify denial of freedom? Is it so bad that eradicating it d outweigh the cost and harm of whatever you needed to do to eradicate it?

- In general, it's much better to focus on the things you care about directly instead of working through proxies. If your problem is with oppression, then address oppression itself, whether religious or not. Even if oppression was pervasive in religion, it would make no sense to act against the few non-oppressive forms of religion and ignore non-religious oppression.

 

[Augustus]

It seems you're confusing the idea that there are atheists with certain characteristics with the idea that atheism causes those characteristics.

Almost nothing, on its own, causes anything else. To try to create a vacuum around every single concept that exists and pretend it has no broader context is pretty pointless.

Theism, on its own, causes nothing. Religious doctrines, on their own, cause nothing. Political ideology, on its own, causes nothing.

In most things it's belief A + belief B + situation X + experience Z

This no more means that someone who doesn't believe in God has to worry about the implications of Marxism than a straightedge vegan has to worry about the implications of Muslim terrorism.

It's not about the implications of Marxism, it is about the potential implications of atheism.

When you stop believing in gods, this frees you to believe in things that aren't compatible with belief in gods.

And this freedom from god can be just as dangerous as belief in god.

 

[Augustus]

It was not and still isn't. Many Marxists in my country still are religious as it is in South America for example.

'Marxist' can relate to lots of different ideas. Plenty of concepts that are related to individual ideas of Marx can be termed 'Marxist', even though they ignore other, more central parts.

When Marx himself, when describing his political philosophy, says "The criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism...Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.", 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.

Now you are talking about Marxism-Leninism which is different from Marxism.

In a forum post rather than an academic thesis, making general points relating to the Communist system that grew from the philosophies of Marx and Lenin, presenting views associated with numerous different figures, simplification is sometimes more useful than absolute precision as absolute precision would end up being very, very wordy.

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.

And he later changed his mind, supporting the priests and having them bless the Soviet arms used against their enemies, including my country.

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

And we have people who can't separate Marxism from Marxism-Lenininsm and Stalinism.

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

If it was actual evidence, you wouldn't need to do logical jumps.

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

They had little tolerance for atheism, especially not in the SS

As atheism was a seen as being fundamental to Communism.

What do you mean that the foundations are based on a lie? The laws are from the Roman Empire, philosophy from the Greeks etc.

But they were overwhelmingly theists.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.