The new Athiest Humanities downfall?

[Revoltingest]

Atheists appreciate the arts as much as any. The Bible, as are all religious texts, works of literary art. As an atheist I can appreciate The Bible as a literary work of art, along with the stained glass windows, cathedrals, chants, and so on.

Indeed, the Bible is a literary work (fiction).
Nonetheless, to say that religion is art, is
to ignore that religion is so very much more.

Ask a Christian what Christianity is.
They'll describe beliefs. They won't say art.
(I've actually had such conversations.)

 

[lukethethird]

Indeed, the Bible is a literary work (fiction).
Nonetheless, to say that religion is art, is
to ignore that religion is so very much more.

Ask a Christian what Christianity is.
They'll describe beliefs. They won't say art.
(I've actually had such conversations.)

They don't call it art but they describe their beliefs because they are passionate about their favorite works of art.

 

[Revoltingest]

They don't call it art but they describe their beliefs because they are compassionate about their favorite works of art.

I've never heard that view before.

 

[blü 2]

As long as you don't claim this as true or whatever. But accept it as a belief system in the end, then okay.

I accept it as a reasonable accurate conclusion about reality, derived by repeatable experiment. So it fits my definition of 'truth'.

"... Religion is the most comprehensive and intensive manner of valuing known to human beings. ..."

Human values are that mix of evolution and of acculturation that I've mentioned many times before.

And there's no such single thing as the "valuings" provided by religions. Instead their entire history has been about tribe, division, identity and ego ─ which is no doubt relevant to the observation that there are many tens of thousands of sects just in Christianity alone.

 

[blü 2]

There is no strong objective universal stand for reason for all of the world. That is your dogmatic belief that your subjective reasoning is reasonable and mine is not, because it doesn't match yours.
You are in effect authoritarian, because you think that your reasoning is authoritative for all humans.

In that case you're the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[lukethethird]

I've never heard that view before.

I have read it explained that way and it explains a lot if you think of it in those terms. People can be very passionate about their art, just imagine how one would react if they lost their entire music collection.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have read it explained that way and it explains a lot if you think of it in those terms. People can be very compassionate about their art, just imagine how one would react if they lost their entire music collection.

The word "compassionate" doesn't seem to apply.
How about "passionate"?

 

[lukethethird]

The word "compassionate" doesn't seem to apply.
How about "passionate"?

Yes, thank you. Fixed it.

 

[Sheldon]

I ignored nothing. You opinions simply don't interest me. In a debate, I'm interested in your arguments.

Not interested thanks, as that's just your opinion.

.I don't care whether you agree or not. Your opinions have no value in debate. If you can supply a good reason to support your opinions, that's a different story.

Not interested thanks, as that's just your opinion.

1) It doesn't matter what Marx actually meant. What matters is how his statements were received and how they influenced Soviet thought.. (2) You can't make any reasonable reader of this thread believe that you are one of the world's foremost authorities on Karl Marx's thinking. Your claims are obvious BS.

Not interested thanks, as that's just your opinion, and obviously BS.

Alright, I'm willing to amend my statement to: Marx was dismissive of religion for the ignorant and uneducated masses since the statement doesn't change a thing since the Soviet masses were not intelligent and educated.

Not interested thanks, as that's just your BS opinion.

Are you claiming that Marx blamed only the rulers and not the religious leaders for the oppression?

Can you not read? Go back and read what I actually posted, I can embolden the bit you missed is it helps, but that's very tedious.

 

[Sheldon]

Atheists appreciate the arts as much as any. The Bible, as are all religious texts, works of literary art. As an atheist I can appreciate The Bible as a literary work of art, along with the stained glass windows, cathedrals, chants, and so on.

Exactly so, one can find Harry Potter entertaining without believing in wizardry.

 

[lukethethird]

Exactly so, one can find Harry Potter entertaining without believing in wizardry.

Yes, strange but true.

 

[joe1776]

Not interested thanks, as that's just your opinion.
Not interested thanks, as that's just your opinion
Not interested thanks, as that's just your opinion, and obviously BS.
Not interested thanks, as that's just your BS opinion.
Can you not read? Go back and read what I actually posted, I can embolden the bit you missed is it helps, but that's very tedious.

Nah, I'm done here. Have a good evening.

 

[Sheldon]

Did Marx famously make the statement about religion that I quoted?

No, you paraphrased him.

Was Marx's thinking influential in the Soviet Union's Communist Party?

No, and the idea that you paraphrased wasn't either, it was just part of an observation by Marx on the religious notion of an afterlife being a barrier to action for change for the better in this life. So the idea championed by Christianity for centuries, that kings and Tsars ruled by divine right, was not dependant on Marx or his ideas on economics, and was demonstrably a stronger motivator to eradicate adherence to such religious dogma in the populace.

Did the Party restrict religion?

Was it a totalitarian regime? Do they generally allow people freedom of expression? Might they have had good reason to distrust religions independent of Marxist economics?

 

[Sheldon]

Nah, I'm done here. Have a good evening.

Bye then.

You opinions simply don't interest me.

Your opinions have no value

It doesn't matter what Marx actually meant.

Your claims are obvious BS.

 

[Colt]

By what? Show us the facts of a creation. If you can't, it's not relevant.

Celestial beings are outside of our limited range of vision or other senses.

 

[lukethethird]

Celestial beings are outside of our limited range of vision or other senses.

But you know all about them?

 

[Sheldon]

Celestial beings are outside of our limited range of vision or other senses.

This assumes they exist at all, and of course would be true of all non existent things.

 

[Augustus]

it was just part of an observation by Marx on the religious notion of an afterlife being a barrier to action for change for the better in this life. So the idea championed by Christianity for centuries, that kings and Tsars ruled by divine right, was not dependant on Marx or his ideas on economics, and was demonstrably a stronger motivator to eradicate adherence to such religious dogma in the populace.

This isn't really accurate.

Any problems you describes are just the icing on the cake. Had religious institutions been liberal the problem would be mostly the same.

Belief in God was the problem as humans had to be the "supreme being" to be fully in charge of their destiny

Materialism (and thus atheism) wasn't incedental to Marxism but a key doctrinal foundation.

This is evident in the quotes I provided earlier.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Celestial beings are outside of our limited range of vision or other senses.

But you know all about them?

I know, eh? That's the part that always gets me, too. All that stuff that is supposed to be "ineffable," and unknowable, that the people making those very claims are then happy to explain to you! Too funny, really.

 

[We Never Know]

Why resort to petty personal insults? If your beliefs are so fragile they can't take critical scrutiny, then why bring them to a public debate forum.

Asking someone if they are sure about their parents isn't an insult. However it does show we do take some thing's on faith, by word, without question.