The new Athiest Humanities downfall?

[lukethethird]

Not contradicting myself, you are just quibbling as usual. We cannot see them unless they want to be seen when they want to be seen and for their reasons. We don’t have a choice. When faith is the point of this life then signs and wonders are limited.

So now you are saying they can be seen, your head must be spinning, you change your mind so much.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

They all are actors. Spinning stories.

Just like us and our cultures.

 

[F1fan]

Revelations from time to time inform us.

Only factual revelations. Religions aren't fact-based.

 

[F1fan]

He has the book which says it all. He does not need even to apply his mind to it.

Except for him to extend his ultimate authority in deciding the book is true at face value, despite being a fallible mortal prone to mistakes.

 

[F1fan]

So what is religion?

The social and cultural phenomenon that has a set of definitions readily available on the internet, and books, for anyone to access at their leisure.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The social and cultural phenomenon that has a set of definitions readily available on the internet, and books, for anyone to access at their leisure.

So this is religion?
-the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

 

[blü 2]

Yeah, that is because religion is unnatural. We, the atheists, are much more the correct version pf evolution as we are one and have a united worldview, including about how to collect stamps.

I've pointed out from time to time here that since supernatural beliefs have been found in virtually all cultures, it seems reasonable to suppose they arise from our evolved nature; and I've mentioned the hypothesis that it's part of tribal identity along with having language, customs, wisdom, stories and heroes in common; and that human curiosity, as part of its function as aid to survival, has an appetite for answers to apparent mysteries such as thunder, drought, plague, luck at love, hunting, war &c, dreams, death and so on.

And we can add that since the cultures don't agree on what supernatural entities exist, or what they are or what they do, or why, or where, that's consistent with their not being perceptions of an actual supernatural realm but incidental products of our evolved nature as gregarious primates who benefit from tribal solidarity and cooperation.

It's also part of my position that I can be persuaded I'm wrong by examinable evidence, which unfortunately is so far not to be found.

 

[Augustus]

How so?

Because that's not what the quote was referring to in context.

Marx imagined the problem not me, and that idea alone matters as that idea alone was the one described as dangerous, and that alone was what I contested.

From the same text:

the criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism...

It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. 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.

The only liberation of Germany which is practically possible is liberation from the point of view of that theory which declares man to be the supreme being for man

Marx - A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right

In order to think action in this life was worthwhile? I doubt that, but Marx's statement here certainly didn't suggest that he thought so. This still doesn't make his idea dangerous.

No, because it was a core axiom that underpinned his entire philosophy.

Historical materialism - Wikipedia

I never mentioned materialism? Nor did I claim atheism was incedental (sic) to Marxism. I merely contested this particular idea was a "dangerous idea of atheism". Of course Marx was an atheist, so it would be bizarre to imagine his life work in styling an economic ideology would then involve religion or theistic belief. However there are other secular governments that don't suppress religions. Some even have separation of church and state written into their constitution.

Marx did though, and that is the context of the quote you responded to. We need to look at it as part of a broader framework rather than simply isolate a few words.

Not sure if you are contesting that the idea as dangerous, or that it should be considered a a "dangerous idea of atheism", or both. As such ignore any part that doesn't apply to you

1) It was a dangerous idea as it resulted in many deaths in a pretty direct fashion, that is people taking it in pretty much the spirit it was intended that religion could not exist if they wanted to achieve a communist society and thus had to be eradicated one way or the other.
2) People can quibble was it "a dangerous idea of atheism" in the same way they can quibble if jihad is a dangerous idea "of theism". This seems to me to be unnecessary pedantic and indicative of tribalism rather than interest in history though.

It does make sense to look at how atheism and theism can become axioms which underpin violent ideologies due to the way they make people think about the world. Do you agree with this?

The role of atheism in Marxism is similar to the role of God in classical monotheism On its own god belief means little, but take it away from the religion and it starts to collapse. As monotheism requires a God, Marxism requires no god: (Marx: The criticism of religion leads to the doctrine according to which man is, for man, the supreme being.")

While classical monotheist religions generally understood the impossibility of eradicating 'false' teachings, and the 'perfection' of humanity without divine intervention during the eschaton, Marxism considered this achievable via human endeavour. The eradication of religions and god-beliefs is thus a necessity in order to create the communist society, and violence was always accepted as a necessity to drive change.

So Marx's ideas on atheism created a direct path to Soviet violence

Lenin: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism"
Leon Trotsky: “We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life”.
Yemelyan Yaroslavsky: 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.
Nikolai Bukharin: Many weak-kneed communists reason as follows: 'Religion does not prevent my being a communist. I believe both in God and in communism. My faith in God does not hinder me from fighting for the cause of the proletarian revolution.'

This train of thought is radically false. Religion and communism are incompatible, both theoretically and practically.

Every communist must regard social phenomena (the relationships between human beings, revolutions, wars, etc.) as processes which occur in accordance with definite laws. The laws of social development have been fully established by scientific communism on the basis of the theory of historical materialism which we owe to our great teachers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. This theory explains that social development is not brought about by any kind of supernatural forces. Nay more. The same theory has demonstrated that the very idea of God and of supernatural powers arises at a definite stage in human history, and at another definite stage begins to disappear as a childish notion which finds no confirmation in practical life and in the struggle between man and nature...

Scientific communism, in its judgements concerning natural phenomena, is guided by the data of the natural sciences, which are in irreconcilable conflict with all religious imaginings.

When you believe you are creating a utopia, the ends justify the means. With a materialistic worldview and man as the 'supreme being' there was no sanctity of human life', just a ruthless utilitarian outlook where the greater good is whatever further the revolutionary cause.

"What violence would you not commit to exterminate violence?" (Bertolt Brecht)

Per religion, it's more than the destruction of their power bases though, it is their total eradication. They cannot exist in the final stage of Communism: "It is our duty to destroy every religious world-concept"


Obviously people can believe religion is the opium of the masses without becoming a violent communist, would you agree that Marx's views on religion when viewed as part of his broader ideology bear at least a degree of responsibility for inspiring violence in later generations? If you argue religion must be eradicated for the greater good, it's not hard to see how people may see it moral to hasten this process as the Soviets tried.

If not, we can at least agree that the Marxist-Leninst view was a dangerous idea that was underpinned by atheism and thus can reasonably be said to be a "dangerous idea [that developed] from atheism [in conjunction with other factors]"?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I've pointed out from time to time here that since supernatural beliefs have been found in virtually all cultures, it seems reasonable to suppose they arise from our evolved nature; and I've mentioned the hypothesis that it's part of tribal identity along with having language, customs, wisdom, stories and heroes in common; and that human curiosity, as part of its function as aid to survival, has an appetite for answers to apparent mysteries such as thunder, drought, plague, luck at love, hunting, war &c, dreams, death and so on.

And we can add that since the cultures don't agree on what supernatural entities exist, or what they are or what they do, or why, or where, that's consistent with their not being perceptions of an actual supernatural realm but incidental products of our evolved nature as gregarious primates who benefit from tribal solidarity and cooperation.

It's also part of my position that I can be persuaded I'm wrong by examinable evidence, which unfortunately is so far not to be found.

Evidence as a culture phenomenon is in practice the belief that the world is natural. So that is an exercise in the absurd.
Basically I accept religion as part of the everyday world and don't consider it right or wrong, as both those claims are too simple.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Says the man who started yet another bogus theist created list, to demonize nonbelievers.

This is a discussion on an article I found about 'New Athiest' and the list it contained.

So far it appears that #3, #11 and #12 seem to be the most controversial.

What part of the list do you see is bogus?

Maybe its the 'Downfall of Humaity' added to the title you see is inaccurate?

That part of the title is in relation to Biblical Prophecy, basically it says if we stop following God, we bring upon ourselves destruction, passages such as this;

2 Thessalonians 2:3 "Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,"

There are many writings that show when we stop practising what God has offered, that humanity faces downfall of civilizations.

Life is the sum of our choices.

Regards Tony

 

[Augustus]

The social and cultural phenomenon that has a set of definitions readily available on the internet, and books, for anyone to access at their leisure.

Some of these books would point out that there is no meaningful way to define religion that demarcates it from non-religious belief systems.

While we can use the term as a convenient shorthand that conveys a reasonable amount of meaning, we cannot use it as a meaningful concept for analysis.

If we want to ask "does religion cause violence?" or "does religion make people more moral?" we need to be able to look at both religious and non-religious belief systems

We tend to look at religions through the lens of Abrahamic monotheism and then decide what counts as a religion based on sharing sufficient in common with that: gods, beliefs, rituals, religious/secular distinction, etc.

What we consider to be a religion is culturally and historically contingent (it's really a concept that developed out of Western Christianity so it's not surprising). The Romans saw their tradition as religio but Christianity as superstitio.

What makes (atheistic) Buddhism a religion and Secular Humanism not though?

AFAIK, there is no definition of the term that is not culturally and historically contingent and thus makes a meaningful category for analysis.

How would you define religion?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Because that's not what the quote was referring to in context.



From the same text:

the criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism...

It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. 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.

The only liberation of Germany which is practically possible is liberation from the point of view of that theory which declares man to be the supreme being for man

Marx - A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right

...

Well, to me the same problem can be found in this manifest from the organisation of American Atheists;
"...
Definitions
Atheism is the comprehensive world view of persons who are free from theism and have freed themselves of supernatural beliefs altogether. It is predicated on ancient Greek Materialism.

Atheism involves the mental attitude that unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.

Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose; that it is governed by its own inherent, immutable, and impersonal laws; that there is no supernatural interference in human life; that humankind, finding the resources within themselves, can and must create their own destiny. It teaches that we must prize our life on earth and strive always to improve it. It holds that human beings are capable of creating a social system based on reason and justice. Materialism’s ‘faith’ is in humankind and their ability to transform the world culture by their own efforts. This is a commitment that is, in its very essence, life-asserting. It considers the struggle for progress as a moral obligation that is impossible without noble ideas that inspire us to bold, creative works. Materialism holds that our potential for good and more fulfilling cultural development is, for all practical purposes, unlimited."
Our Vision

 

[joe1776]

No, you paraphrased him.

Your nitpick is in error. The statement has been quoted using both opium and opiate.

This statement was translated from the German original, "Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes" and is often rendered as "religion…is the opiate of the masses."
Opium of the people - Wikipedia

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.

Repetition won't add strength to your argument, Since neither of us have evidence to offer, probability should be the deciding factor for unbiased readers of this thread: So, how likely is it that the Communist Party which revered Marx, Lenin and Engels was unconcerned with Marx's attitude as expressed by his writing on religion.? It seems unlikely to me.

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?

Could their prohibition come from elsewhere? Well, of course. However, the question is is it likely that Marx's opinions on religion had no influence on the Soviet's Communist Party? No, not very.

 

[RestlessSoul]

When I travel (and it's been a couple of years, for the obvious pandemic reason...), I never miss the theatres, the museums or the houses of religion. (Of course, I never miss the best restaurants, either, but that's just satisfying the immediate desires.)

"Why would an atheist go to so many churches, big and small, cathedrals, mosques, temples, mandirs, synagogues," people ask. And my answer is always, "because those are the places where I can see humans expressing themselves most profoundly, where I can learn about the species (not just my little tribe of it) that I am part of."

Do you carry the label 'Atheist' on your shoulder with you everywhere you go? Don't you ever put it down and leave it at the door of the Cathedral or Temple, just for the time that you are in there? After all, when you enter a Mosque, it is customary to first remove one's shoes (you can put them on again, when you leave).

 

[joelr]

You can find it here:

Okay, all of you.

Let me show you all the core belief system of some non-religious believers with an example:

Translation: I'm butthurt because my philosophical drivel didn't trap joelr in the way I wanted to so now I'll pick at him in an underhanded way. Weak.

This has nothing to do with joelr in particular. It has to do with how some people use evidence/truth, rationality and real(ism)
The problem is that "this is all meaningless" is without evidence/truth, rationality and it is not real.

Then moment you realize that all non-religious people only have in common that they are non-religious and you start to check for different worldviews, you notice this one:
They as some non-religious people will with different variants claim in effect the same: Evidence/truth, rationality and realism. And when you then check what they say as such, they will make some claims, which are without those.

That is the game. They are like some religious people capable of it seems to believe that some of their beliefs are in effect objective, when they are in effect subjective. That is all.
They are it seems no different in that they believe something subjective is with evidence/truth, rationality and realism like some religious people do it.

First this is from the person who responded to "uh-huh" with this philosophical gem:

"Do you have any evidence for your "Uh-huh" and what makes it real?"
So have fun with that.

Second what I was calling "meaningless" is using the word Divine to describe nature as a non-metaphorical definition. As if nature is literally God and Divinity is some sort of substance that God/nature is endowed with.

If you say nature uses gravitation we can demonstrate this is true in many ways. If you say nature is beautiful we understand you are thinking and feeling something. If you say nature is divine you need to demonstrate a God or divinity. Can we contrast it with something non-divine? Everything is divine in this model so probably not. So no evidence. In terms of a physical reality it's become a meaningless topic.
The other thing mentioned in comparison was a computer, which can be demonstrated and confirmed in many ways by anyone willing.
I do not care to discuss philosophy of perception or realism but if someone does then you guys can have a dance party.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Translation: I'm butthurt because my philosophical drivel didn't trap joelr in the way I wanted to so now I'll pick at him in an underhanded way. Weak.




First this is from the person who responded to "uh-huh" with this philosophical gem:

"Do you have any evidence for your "Uh-huh" and what makes it real?"
So have fun with that.

Second what I was calling "meaningless" is using the word Divine to describe nature as a non-metaphorical definition. As if nature is literally God and Divinity is some sort of substance that God/nature is endowed with.

If you say nature uses gravitation we can demonstrate this is true in many ways. If you say nature is beautiful we understand you are thinking and feeling something. If you say nature is divine you need to demonstrate a God or divinity. Can we contrast it with something non-divine? Everything is divine in this model so probably not. So no evidence. In terms of a physical reality it's become a meaningless topic.
The other thing mentioned in comparison was a computer, which can be demonstrated and confirmed in many ways by anyone willing.
I do not care to discuss philosophy of perception or realism but if someone does then you guys can have a dance party.

Meaningless is without evidence, as it is based on how you think and feel. I accept that it is how you think and feel, but you are doing a first person subjective evaluation.

 

[blü 2]

Evidence as a culture phenomenon is in practice the belief that the world is natural. So that is an exercise in the absurd.

Except that you don't think even for a moment it's absurd ─ instead you continue to breathe real air in.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Except that you don't think even for a moment it's absurd ─ instead you continue to breathe real air in.

Real has no observable property. I don't believe in God and I don't believe in real. Thus I am more rational than you, because I believe in one less idea, which has no evidence.

 

[Colt]

So now you are saying they can be seen, your head must be spinning, you change your mind so much.

I said celestial beings are outside of our range of vision unless they want to be seen. If you can’t process that maybe you shouldn’t be on a discussion forum?

 

[Colt]

Only factual revelations. Religions aren't fact-based.

Revelations are as factual as those who deny that they ever happened.