Atheism
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Philosophy and Theology
Forum Discription: Topics relating to philosophy
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=21719
Printed Date: 23-May-2024 at 18:29
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Atheism
Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Subject: Atheism
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2007 at 22:33
| Many people here are quite secular in their thinking and many think that religion is the worst bane of mankind and has resulted in many atrocities over the years. I would like to ask them that when they list the biggest atrocities done in modern times they are all done by philosophies rooting from athiesism, Hitler and Nazies atrocities were commited in the name of race theories, stalin's and Mao's atrocities were commited in the name of athiest marxism Pol Pot's crimes were again commited in the name of athiestic philosophies. The real problem with modern athieism is that it suffers badly from the influence of Darwanist thinking by which they feel that they under the pretext of the philosophy of survival of the fitest they can do just about anything and end up being completly anti moral while atleast the a religous person tries to be moral and live a clean life. |
Replies:
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2007 at 22:52
|
The thing you forget is that secularism (keeping religion out of government) and atheism (the belief that there is no divine power), do not actually cause deaths. You see, just because someone has a certain belief and then does certain things, that doesn't prove that the belief causes the action. For example, as an analogy, it starts to rain and a dog barks. Does the fact that it starts to rain cause to dog to bark? Probably not, there was more than likely some other cause such as a cat running nearby.
Secular ideals and atheism had nothing to do with mass murder. The same cannot be said for a range of Jihads and Crusades waged throughout history. In those instances, there is an undeniable cause and effect relationship between the religious institutions and acts of warfare. Stalin and Mao's atrocities were committed in the name of one thing - quest for personal power. Also, how in the hell do you link Nazism to not being religious and keeping religion out of government? Nazi atrocities were based on a racial superiority complex which had existed long before Darwin arrived on the scene, that was the link between Nazism and the atrocities, not secularism or atheism. Again, you are just assuming that because two things occur at once that one must somehow cause the others, which is totally flawed. ------------- |
Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2007 at 23:44
|
I dont know how religions cause wars anymore than secular reasons. See, i dont know of any religion whose focal belief is tokill others. Nor do i know any secular system whose focal belief is to kill others. I believe they can cause harm to other humans, but that isnt their official policy.
I think the West had religious wars starting from the Crusades to the WW2 Holocaust. They are tired of religion and want to focus on something else as official policy, so downplay religion and bring up ethnicity or nationality. Suddenly the nation you are born in, a thing you had not the ability to choose, becomes your international identification.
Westerners dont understand Islam and Religion. Muslims dont understand Westerners (Christians unofficially) and Secularism. It has to do with our psyche.
In the West when you lived under religion (Catholic Church) you were backward. You couldnt protect yourselves from the evil muslims attacking the Byzantine Empire or the Vandal and Frankish Kingdoms. As you began to distance yourself more and more from religion, you got more and more powerful.
In Islamic Tradition/HIstory - the more Muslim we were the more powerful we were:
The Ummayad Khilafat
The Abbasid Khilafat
Samanid Empire
Fatimid Empire
Al-Andalus
Mameluke Empire
Dehli Sultanate
Almorabitun
Almohadis
Mali Empire
Songhay Empire
Sultanate of Malacca
Sultanate of Demak
Ilkhanid Empire
Kanem-Bornu Empire
Morrockish Kingdom
Mogul Empire
Safavid Empire
Ottoman Empire
You name it, we were the center of the world (besides China). As we became more secular post Khilafat Rashidun we became more degraded; beginning with the First Islamic Civil War: Madinah vs Damascus.
Our psyche is totally off the Western Cultural Sphere. Total clash of civilizations.
This is why Egypt's Islamic party won the most seats in Egypt, why the Morrocan Islamic Party recently won seats, why Anti-Islam Turkey ultimately chose Islamist Gul to lead the nation, why Pakistan clamours for Islam, and why Islam defeated the Shah of Iran.
The Secular regimes: Hosni Mubarik, Pervez Musharraf, Shah Pahlavi, they are all off tune with their people.
Its all about the mental psyche.
And so the threads will continue by people of Islamic background, and people of Western background will rebut. ------------- Mughal e Azam |
Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 00:08
Religion doesnt cause deaths either. Only when interests collide do deaths occur.
Today Allan Greenspan announced the Iraq War 2 was a war for oil. We estimated 1,000,000 Iraqis dead.
Go figure. If we have enough of these then well bounce of the nationalist platform too. ------------- Mughal e Azam |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 00:21
|
The real problem with modern athieism is that it suffers badly from the influence of Darwanist thinking by which they feel that they under the pretext of the philosophy of survival of the fitest they can do just about anything and end up being completly anti moral while atleast the a religous person tries to be moral and live a clean life.
Lets see here, All we have to do is reject evolution and, going by the direction of his post, likely accept Creationism and intelligent design, and we're immediately cleansed.
Count the number of recognized "religious conflicts" in the last 6-800 years and your examples will quickly lose significance. Compare the number of innocents slaughtered in the name of one religion or another and your boys really lose out.
By anti moral I assume you mean any one who doesn't believe as you
a religous person tries to be moral and live a clean life.
You mean like Jimmy Swaggert and Jim Baker
 Oh, and don;'t leave out the right Reverend James Jones.It's late I'm very tired and in a very good mood or I would have handled this in a much less jovial manner. There are others here who will be less kind.
We here are of many beliefs, and where we will often debate on aspects of those beliefs, we always respect everyone's right to there own system of beliefs.
A word of advice if your going to make posts such as this. First read the Code of Conduct. 2nd Come armed with statistics you can source. Especially in a thread such as this half a**ing is like bringing a minicoop to a tank battle.
Last word- Atheists do lose out on an important thing though, by rejecting religion and the existence of god they deny themselves the opportunity to feel superior to others.
------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 00:49
Why do you bring up Iraq? It has no relevance to this thread.
And perhaps you hadn't read history, but religious movements do result in deaths. Muhammad's call to campaign against Persia and Byzantium in the name of religion? The Crusaders setting out to the shout of "Deus lo volt" - "God Wills It!". The mass suicides at Wako? Are these things all lost on you? So yes, religion does sometimes result in death which otherwise would not have occurred. ------------- |
Posted By: ulrich von hutten
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 00:59
so do I, although i'm not religous.
The enlightenment and the humanism don't have killing of brothers and sisters on it's agenda.
I for my part don't try to force others to think in my way, like the most
(Sorry, presed the update button) deputies of religions are doing.
Many of the wars you listed were "managed" like religous wars, with bigotry and with a leader , bloody similar to god.
What's about the term Holy war"? How can a war be holy ? To slaughter innocents enjoys god?
But, for you bilal, nearly every war held on this planet since the beginning was a war about economical and politcal power. Faiths and Gods were only used to make the reasons easier to understand for even the very last simple man.
What makes me so worried is, that God has obviously no opportunity to arrest this.
I think the mankind has suffered too much from this hypocrites.Time to replace god, cause he is not in the possition to end all this distress on earth.
May god bless you all ( might be, you can't wait a bit til this second).
------------- 
http://imageshack.us"> 
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 01:02
I wouldn't not say that Hitler and the Nazis were atheistics. On the contrary, they are better defined like pagans. In doubt, just look at the rituals of the SS. They were believers, although in an evil religion that tried to reproduce the believes of the ancient germanic people of Europe.
In the case of Stalin and Mao, I won't say that atheism pushed theirs ideologies but rather it was comunism. Comunism is another form of dogmatic belief that, like religions, creates a biassed worldwiev in people. In a very real sense, communists, particularly fanatics, belong to something very similar to a religious sect. Atheistics, on the other hand, are usually isolated people.
With respect to darwinism, I won't blame Darwin himself but Spencer. The later, was the creator of Social Darwinism and coined the phrase "survival of the fitest". Eutanasia, Social Darwinism and the crimes of the twentieth century all come from the same ideology founded by Spencer, and where man tries to play God. Is that a synthom of atheism? I don't think so, because many religious believers share the same ideas than atheistics on this matter. The problem is "social darwinism" and not "atheism".
Pinguin
|
Posted By: mamikon
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 01:13
|
People do not use atheism to go to war, while people have been killing each other in the name of Christianity and Islam for centuries...Tyrants dont kill in the name of "Atheism" (at least I dont know of any who did) ------------- |
Posted By: ulrich von hutten
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 01:25
|
sorry, reply completed. See above.
-------------
http://imageshack.us">
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 02:56
|
ConstantineXI, Muhammad did not call for war against Byzantium and Persia that would be his successors.
And red clay where did anybody mention creationism or intelligent design? Darwinism is completely different from evolution.
As for the topic at hand, well its true that the most violent and bloody conflicts in history did not have religion as the cause, indeed they were between nations who were democratic and industrialised. But, it is undeniable that wars over religion have been disasterous for all concerned. Perhaps it would be better to state that wars start when there is disagreement over something, be it religion or anything else. ------------- |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 03:08
You had me in full agreement until the second paragraph. Stalin committed atrocities, including against non-atheist religions, for personal power. This is no different to the Pope calling a crusade, usually (but not always) against other religions, to increase his personal power. Basically, "just because someone has a certain belief and then does certain things, that doesn't prove that the belief causes the action" applies in exactly the same way to atheism, as it does to religion. The rhetoric doesn't define the action. If GW calls for a war to bring freedom, it doesn't actually mean freedom is responsible for the war. If he says that Democratic governments can't tolerate countrty x's existence, it doesn't mean democracy is violent. Niether is banning religion in russia a crime of atheism, or launching a crusade of jihad a crime of christianity or islam
Don't you believe it. They'll just find another reason such as being of a greater social class, going to the right school, being from the right side of the city, earning more money. If someone is inclined to feel superior to others they'll find which ever way suits them best.
Tell that to the Russian clergy. ------------- |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 03:16
|
Sparten, I was under the impression that the first Islamic incursions
into the Byzantine Empire did occur during Muhammad's time, such that
Abu Bakr was left with the legacy of continuing these as the first one
had been defeated. wikipedia says this on the situation when Abu Bakr came to power:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam#Rise_of_empire_.28632.E2.80.93750.29 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam#Rise_of_empire_.28632.E2.80.93750.29 ------------- |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 05:25
|
Of aal the ways one could start a discussion about the subject, this must be close to the most moronic one possible. Perhaps in the future, you could be so kind as to not blast out your personal bias for all to see and take offence. We would not tolerate such an attack on any religion lightly, so why do you presumt it is ok to be so insulting to others?
Ideologies kill. Ideologies cause wars, Ideologies make reasonable humans into crazy fanatics. Religions are ideologies, political movements, be they communist, fascist, or indeed democratic, are ideologies too. Fortunately, the freak effect of ideologies affects a small portion of the people involved in the movement. Fortunately, only a few religioous people turn suicide bomber or crusader, only a few turn dictator/mass murderer. But these few have rather a large impact on the group as a whole.
Atheism is not an ideology. It is actually the absence of a religious ideology. This does not mean there is also an absence of any other ideology, and it does not mean there is absence of any basic values.
In fact, I think it is not possible to be free of all and any form of ideology. Humans are group animals. We want to feel like we belong to a group, have things in common with a group. Ideologies are these groups. Anyone without ideology can be considered to be outside of society. Because ideologies give us a frame of reference how to live our lives, how to hope, what to fight for. One without an ideology is a miserable person indeed, without hope, or without something to live for.
The basic mistake made by Bilal here is to assume that one form of ideology is inherently better than another, which is a stunning example of biased tunnelvision. Just because he believes something, automatically makes all else wrong, or untrue. Because his religion gives him a reference on how to live, he automatically assumes that those who do not follow his religion must be living wrong. The idea that there are other thruths but his own when it comes to how to live ones live properly has not yat occured to him. And that is exactly the frame of mind that causes wars over ideologies. ------------- 
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 06:35
Regarding the Pope, do you honestly believe that a Crusade would have taken place had the irresistable promise of remission of sins not been offered? To a medieval man, it was the ultimate prize, and only an ideology like religion could offer that. Also look at the nature of the Crusades: intolerant, fanatical and pitiless. Conventions of military honour and decency were considered irrelevant because the fight was against the "unbeliever". The Crusades would never have occurred, or occurred with the degree of brutality they did, had it not been for religious influence. Did Stalin attack the religious authorities in Russia because secularism calls for it, or because they were a vestige of the previous power structure which would be automatically opposed to his interests? Stalin supported partisan bodies in WWII which were formed with Orthodox Christianity as a common practice within them, simply because such partisans were useful to his interests. With Stalin, it really did come down to what kept him in control. Just as religion has existed for thousands of years as a controlling institution aligned with state power brokers, in the Soviet era it was an old vestige that no longer served state purposes. With your example of GWB, there is a point to be made about claiming something as your ideology and then doing what is contrary to that ideology. But GWB will direct wars on the basis of state or clique interests anyway, what he claims it in the name of doesn't necessarily cause it. On the other hand, as I have stated earlier in this thread, there are instances when religion acts as the primary cause behind violence and war - something I have yet to see atheism or secularism cause. ------------- |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 09:29
|
Sparten wrote
And red clay where did anybody mention creationism or intelligent design? Darwinism is completely different from evolution.
Gee, I must have been confused by Darwin's Theory of Evolution and his reference to Natural Selection, "survival of the fittest".
I mentioned Creationism, as when someone attacks Darwinist theory that is usually the brick they are standing on.
So enlighten me, how, in the context of religion vs atheism, is Darwinism "completely different from evolution"?
------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 09:39
|
Communism, fascism, etc. are not religions. If you do not understand why check a dictionary. Or better, scholarship. Also religion and ideology are not mutually inter-changeable. Same advice as the previous applies.
The only sensible affirmation in this thread is that religion as secularism, in itself, it is not a source for war. There are seemingly two sides here constantly bashing each-other: the anti-religious one and the anti-atheist one. Maybe such issues should be added on the blacklisted topics as they are constantly a source of hate-speech, intolerance and ignorance.
|
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 09:58
|
[ There are seemingly two sides here constantly bashing each-other: the anti-religious one and the anti-atheist one. Maybe such issues should be added on the blacklisted topics as they are constantly a source of hate-speech, intolerance and ignorance. [/QUOTE]
Perhaps these are the reasons these topics should be openly discussed. ------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 10:00
Well, your going to have to open the windows to your brain; because nothing will ever get through if they remain shut.
My stance is anything causes wars. Religion or Secularism (WW1/WW2).
Take this incident, in the view that this affair has the occurence of both a nationalist and secularist agenda.
The Crusades: 1000-1300. On the East Islam was faced with Christian Crusaders fighting for religion, on the West it was faced with Mongol Hordes fighting for booty.
So yes, open your mind to understand what im saying.
Iraq War was in reference to Secularism causing 1.000.000+++ deaths. ------------- Mughal e Azam |
Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 10:03
Nah, they look for oil, natural gas, resources, etc. ------------- Mughal e Azam |
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 10:08
Religion has requirements on how to fulfill your life, idealogies, and leaders which have the power to change past ideals or create new ones on the behalf of their god in order to better there religion. The Religious of a specific denomination will more then likely agree with each other then a group of athiest unless your asking the question, "Do you believe in a supreme being?"
Secularism as a philosphy for the government is about not favoring one Religion. The members of it can be a wide range of different religions, and is usually done in the modern sense to promote equality among the nation.
------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey 
|
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 10:09
Mughaal, that's a very baseless and illogical conclusion to come to about Iraq. Do you even know what secularism means? I'll define it for you. It means the absence of religion in government administration, and freedom from religious favouritism in public affairs. By you saying that secularism caused the Iraq war, you are effectively saying that the absence of religion in American government caused the USA to invade Iraq. Do you even realise how absurd that sounds? ------------- |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 10:10
|
So yes, open your mind to understand what im saying.
We understand what your saying, we just don't agree with it. [And the open window thing goes both ways]. ------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 10:12
All this Mumbo Jumbo is totally meaningless. Call me what have you but these types of posts only confirm to me Westerners think in structured, unesoterically.
If not A, then only B.
Why cant A & B exist together in different amounts?
I dont know about Christianity, but in Islam war and destruction isnt a focal point of the religion nor its 5 tenents (5 pillars).
Yes there are people who have claimed to war in the name of God (not in the name of Aryanism, or White Power, or oil, or strategic geographic location: Kashmir) but you have to understand things in context.
Well, in Islam, everything is governed from having sex to taking a sh*t to eating, to yawning, to praying, to managing your Will, to clipping your nails. Everything has ettiquete. Even war.
Yes you will see people fighting in war, as you will see people saying "Allhamdulillah" when they are done washing their hands after pooping. Or when people recite a prayer before loving their wife. The more religious a person is the more he does.
As for the current state of affairs, the US financed and trained Al Qaeda to fight the soviets.
The Irani people had a revolution because they disposed of the US Puppet: Shah Pahlavi.
The Arab world is pissed off because America is fighting for imperial ambitions in Iraq: geostrategy, oil, Israel.
------------- Mughal e Azam |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 10:21
My German sucks, but it probably says 'The dialectics of nature is with us!' right?
Hitler and his Nazi ilk were Catholic, Pagan, and practically anything, but atheists. In fact, they were quite anti-atheists.
Darwin did not advocate the 'survival of the fittest' nonsense, he said that the animals which are most responsive to changes would be more likely to survive. |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 10:22
It makes perfect sense, I'm not dumbing myself down to your level so you can have it spoonfed to you. When I was a little boy and didn't understand a large word, I reached for a dictionary - give it a shot.
Yes I was aware of the tenets of Islam, some basic Islamic etiquette and some of the post WWII issues in the Middle East. All of which is going off topic and doesn't take into account anything in the post I made which you are presumably replying to. ------------- |
Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 10:25
Your going to have to continue on, dont just stop there. Everything needs a purpose:
you eat because you want to entertain yourself or your hungry
you work because you enjoy it and need money
you play to amuse
Point is everything needs a reason, a claim you can boast when someone asks you whats your purpose?
Ok, absent religion. Suddenly you have a vacum to fill. What do you fill it with? In the USA, you have democracy and here is an example how:
America, mimicing its counterparts 1000 years ago, decides to go on a (GWB's words) Crusade in the Middle East. Were talking about totally restructuring a people's way of life on our bases. Is it good or bad? Senseless or sensible? Reagan tried it but he reported pulled out because of the illogical politics of the ME.
Your effectively replacing one ideology with another.
Another absence we fill it with is economy.
The Ancient Egyptians built pyramids for the glory of their gods (and kings who were gods post partem). The Muslims built fine madrassas and masjids. The christians built churches. The aztecs built pyramids to sacrifice to god.
In secular nations they build fine buildings clutteredf in one place called a "downtown". They work 8-10 hrs in a day to keep money flowing in their pockets. Soon they realize energy is going to be a problem. They see all the energy is in a hostile part of the world. They realize they need energy.
New reason: were going in for democracy. Not into N Korea, the psychopath who has his people praise him like god and who threatened to bomb the pacific seaboard for whatever reason.
No - Iraq - the American backed dictator who fell out of favor when his usefulness was finished (iran-iraq war).
Walla, how the human mind thinks.
Meaning doesnt matter what you peg your societal concerns on "secularism or religion" . . . you get war.
As for saying that secularism doesnt explicitly cause war, but religion does ... please show me where in the books of buddhism or islam or christianity does it say "Go to war, for that beith the 14th commandment".
Here let me ask you a better reason, because i already know where your mind is taking you to. Why not attack Honduras? What about Russia, why not attack them? Why not attack China? Why USA? Does the Quran say "Attack USA, for you will be rewarded"? Or do you think its based on politics? ------------- Mughal e Azam |
Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 10:29
This man has it. ------------- Mughal e Azam |
Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 10:39
Exactly: okay take a religious book: Bible and find a certain reason for killing:
Hain and Cabil. 2 brothers like one girl. No religious zealotry here, is there? One killed the other for girl.
As long as 2 men remain on the face of this earth, they will fight for whatever reason. you dont need religion to fight. you need emotions, anger, etc.
WW1. No religion. Secular ideals caused the man to pull the trigger to kill Ferdinand of Austria.
Again, you can do without religion to kill.
Heres another example: Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda. Ones nose was bigger. 800.000 dead.
Relgions:
crusades
all european wars. etc.
Look i dont care for a secular or religious govt. i like the things the way they are. but i wont fill fantasies in my head about religion. if you must, enjoy. ------------- Mughal e Azam |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 10:49
Another unfounded assumption. Just because something is removed, that doesn't mean something else has to replace it. If you get a cancerous tumour removed, does that mean you have to replace it with another disease? No obviously not.
The motivation behind the Crusades and the motivation behind Gulf War II are very different, some of the rhetoric is similar - but it doesn't go much further than that.
No, secularism removes the ideology altogether. It doesn't replace it with anything, people are instead encouraged to explore for themselves what ideology (if any) explains existence for them. This is in contrast in pressuring people to conform to a state sponsored ideology. [/quote] Another absence we filll it with is economy.
The Ancient Egyptians built pyramids for the glory of their gods
(and kings who were gods post partem). The Muslims built fine madrassas
and masjids. The christians built churches. The aztecs built pyramids
to sacrifice to god.
In secular nations they build fine buildings clutteredf in one
place called a "downtown". They work 8-10 hrs in a day to keep money
flowing in their pockets. Soon they realize energy is going to be a
problem. They see all the energy is in a hostile part of the world.
They realize they need energy.[/quote]
Nice try, but secularism doesn't cause people to build buildings. People inherently desire construction and growth. That's civilisation itself. So your conclusion here fails, secularism doesn't lead to a country invading the Middle East. Lack of resources affects societies of all ideologies, and those without ideologies.
Another attempt, which also fails to show a causal link between secular government and war.
I've read Deuteronomy in the Old Testament (applies to Christianity and Judaism), the idea that God will made his believers a chosen people and give them the right to carry out not just war but actual genocide against non-believers seems pretty awful. We must also remember that religion is not just what is written down, it is also what is practiced by the leaders who invented the religion to begin with. So it is unsurprising that for the next century after the inception of Islam, that that religion engaged in a headlong campaign to conquer as much of the world as it could. Do you really expect the Bedouins to have gone a fraction of the distance in the absence of religious fervour and inspiration?
The US attacked Iraq in my mind for one of two reasons. Either they thought they were going to win and make a lot of political and economic capital in the process. Or special interest groups made the government pursue a war it knew was unwinnable, but would profit those same special interest groups. ------------- |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 11:24
|
Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 11:48
|
Constantine, your totally off track - or im not making myself clear. Perhaps others who understand can help you. I dont know if you dont want to understand or you genuinely cant. Im busy now, maybe tonight. Its almost like your nearsighted.
------------- Mughal e Azam |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 11:57
|
As Cywr (I believe it was him) said in a similar topic, claiming secularism or atheism is to blame for most atrocities in history is like claiming snakes are better than non-snakes, because most deaths are not caused by snake bites. Besides, before the 18th century atheism was virtually nonexistent, so no pre-18th century atrocities can be ascribed to atheism. Of course that doesn't mean that all pre-18th century atrocities are caused by religion either - that's exactly the point here: not all atrocities that aren't caused by religion are caused by 'non-religion', 'atheism' or 'secularism'. Religion or non-religion has little or nothing to do with the majority of all historical nastyness. ------------- |
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 12:25
|
What idealogy does Secularism promote? In the Western world it's equality, why? Because the idea is that no citizen is better then any other even if a another idealogy promotes it. Governments that a Secular are created so that in the eyes of the law eveyone is seen on equal footing, atleast this is the idea behind it.
Foreign Policy is not dictated by Secularism, as Mughaal has been saying. He likes to use the US as an example, but seems to fail to grasp it at all. It's been the Neo-Conservative movement, one that Bush and Cheney are apart of that was driving our foreign policy in recent years. One that also likes to promote itself to Christians, and claims to champion their Pro-Life idealogies, yet still goes out of it's way to attack Iraq as you put Mughaal.
Bush like to use the word "god" and says that he speaks to him often and that he guides him. This isn't what secularism promotes, there wouldn't be a push for pro-life policies, and it's mostly been the Christian Right who are staunch supporters for this war. While the moderates, those against Religion becoming apart of our government, have been protesting this war, obviously for various reasons, but the secular in Western Society seem to be very anti-war, just look up anything about the "Left" and compare to to the "Right" in our politics. Right is usually pro-war and Christian. ------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 12:31
|
Red Clay, darwains theory of evolution was that the animals who adapted the most quickly would survive. That is a scientific theory.Darwinism was a Victorian era politcal philosphy which was used to explain/justify colonialism. ------------- |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 12:48
|
SearchAndDestroy, secularism generally is the belief that certain institutions and activities should be separated from religion. Secularism is not necessarily equality. Communist regimes like those experienced in Eastern Europe or in China are secularist. Any modern state in whose administration, legislation, etc. religion does not participate is secularist. The notion can be extended in past, using it avant la lettre. It can be also extended or even abused, calling any motivation or activity not grounded in or bounded to religion as secular. A secular philosophy for instance is a rather natural extension of the notion. A secular armed conflict is rather an abuse.
The idea behind this thread is a classic topic here (and in many other forums) - whether most violence in the history of humanity was caused by religion or not. But the approach is often flawed as people use baseless equivocations and redefinitions to change one notion with another until they'll achieve the rhetorical value they need to accuse the other side.
|
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 13:10
With Communism, it was about bettering life for the workers, not Secular people. Why? Because there isn't a established way of life for Secular people, being Secular means you can be Christian too.
In the best way I can describe Secularism is by calling it a soft philosphy, in that there aren't set values, or ways of life. It mostly accompanies another Idealogy, atleast this is what I get from looking through history and current politics. ------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
|
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 14:37
You can describe secularism as you like it (to me, those people who compare Communism with religion but cherish Secularism and Capitalism, please also note the capitalization, are religious in the way they use the term), however I recommend you dictionaries and a more rigurous approach without equivocating words to promote some values for an universal truth and state of welfare everyone should be happy to have.
|
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 15:14
What I'm saying is it's impossible to blame Secularism because there isn't a idealogy to follow on the national level, no one rallies around it.
------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
|
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 16:30
|
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 17:21
|
lol Chilbudios, you just got my brain juices going, and in my thoughts I got myself into a corner which I could not come out of, or atleast you put me there. I think I'm finding myself agreeing with you now.
I've been saying Secularism is a definition, but with this line here,
Secularism-Ideology= Communism(example you gave before, right?)
Religion-Ideology=Christianity
Would this sound right?
------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
|
Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 20:37
| Its interesting that so many people here think that i am a religous fanatic of some sort and looking at my name they must have figured out that i am a muslim especially Aelfqifu. Well they are wrong because i am not. I was born a muslim but do not believe in Islam anymore. The reason i started this thread is because i wanted to open the eyes of Ahtiesists, who have quite a high opinion of their "broadmindedness" and "enlightenment", to show them the other side of the coin just like many other here have advised me to do. I consider myself a humanist not an athiest, and about Social Darwanism i just told you my impression of it which i had gotten by reading on it and it is that it is a very amoral philosophy and for them a human is nothing but just a beetle lacking any intellegence and complexity and making decisions only dictated by his concern for survival. |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 21:29
From Wiki-
The term Darwinism is often used by promotors of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism - creationism to describe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution - evolution , notably by leading members of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement - intelligent design movement . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism#_note-0 - [1] In this usage, the term has connotations of atheism. For example, in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Hodge - Charles Hodge 's book What Is Darwinism?, Hodge answers the question posed in the book's title by concluding: "It is Atheism." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism#_note-1 - [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism#_note-2 - [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism#_note-3 - [4] Creationists use the term Darwinism, often pejoratively, to imply that the theory has been held as true only by Darwin and a core group of his followers, which they cast as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma - dogmatic and inflexible in their http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief - belief . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism#_note-4 - [5] Casting evolution as a doctrine or belief bolsters religiously motivated political arguments to mandate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy - equal time for the teaching of creationism in public schools. However, Darwinism is also used neutrally within the scientific community to distinguish modern evolutionary theories from those first proposed by Darwin, as well as by historians to differentiate it from other evolutionary theories from around the same period. For example, Darwinism may be used to refer to Darwin's proposed mechanism of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection - natural selection , in comparison to more recent theories such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift - genetic drift and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_flow - gene flow . It may also refer specifically to the role of Charles Darwin as opposed to others in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought - history of evolutionary thought — particularly contrasting Darwin's results with those of earlier theories such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism - Lamarckism or later ones such as the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_synthesis - modern synthesis . A notable example of a scientist who uses the term in a positive sense is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins - Richard Dawkins . [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Darwinism&action=edit§ion=2 - edit ] Classical DarwinismIn the 19th century context in which Darwin's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Species - Origin of Species was first received, "Darwinism" came to stand for an entire range of evolutionary (and often revolutionary) philosophies about both biology and society. One of the more prominent approaches was that summed in the phrase " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest - survival of the fittest " by the philosopher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Spencer - Herbert Spencer , which was later taken to be emblematic of Darwinism even though Spencer's own understanding of evolution was more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Baptiste_Lamarck - Lamarckian than Darwinian, and predated the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_of_Darwins_theory - publication of Darwin's theory . Sparten, I'm well aware of the various forms and distortions of Darwinist thinking and my usage was indeed appropriate to his post.
------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 22:02
|
and about Social Darwanism i just told you my impression of it which i had gotten by reading on it and it is that it is a very amoral philosophy and for them a human is nothing but just a beetle lacking any intellegence and complexity and making decisions only dictated by his concern for survival.
Then I would suggest that you do a whole lot more reading and not just creationist criticisms. Darwinist philosophies have been used and distorted much over the last century. Darwin, not Spencer or the others that cashed in on his writings, actually believed that natural selection strengthened societies by making them more moralistic and responsive to the human condition.
------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 22:20
|
Yes, Darwin is also guilty of some "Darwininsm". You can read his racist remarks in books like "the Ascent of Man". However, the main promoter of "Social Darwinism" it was Spencer and not Darwin himself.
The problem with Social Darwininsm is that lead people in believing there are better and worst human beings. Therefore, there are people that "contribute" to society and others that are just "parasits". Then start the debate of who is smart and who is dumb; who is pretty and who is ugly; who is good and who is evil.
The step from there to start a campain to killed the "unfited" there is just a single step. That's why social darwinism is liked to the worst crimes of the twentieth century: the eutanasia in an industrial scale as practised by Nazis among others.
In short, we could lost our religion but we better never forget our humanistic values in the name of ideologies.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: mamikon
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2007 at 22:33
They dont kill in the name of Atheism... PS: Bush isnt an Atheist ------------- |
Posted By: ulrich von hutten
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 01:40
|
For those who want o show me the other side of the coin:
The first condition for that is , having money in your wallet.
And here we are the main point. Islam or Christianity, or any other belief, are not the true reason for all those killing and oppression.
Economical ambitions, the increase of influence ,the accession to the resources are the reason for wars.
The religious justification is used very often and is favoured among those people who wants to smash their neighbor's face. -------------
http://imageshack.us">
|
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 01:55
The latter.
No, I just choose not to engage my imagination in place of logic when finding excuses to justify wishful thinking - which is what you are doing. Let's take a look at that quasi-logic of yours shall we. According to you, absence of religion in government causes people to build buildings in a cluttered downtown (you don't demonstrate how, you just assume cause and effect, while ignoring that in non-secular nations the same thing happens). You then link that to lack of energy to run things (rather than reaching the far more logical conclusion that lack of energy is actually a problem caused by overconsumption and failure to exploit renewable energy resources). You then link that desire for energy to a war in the Middle East. So here is your logic once again, a series of unfounded assumptions, wrong attributions, biased omissions and baseless conclusions which are so indefensible that when called to account for the weakness of that logic, the best you can do is accuse people of "not getting you". Enough said. ------------- |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 02:22
|
Just wanted to make a comment.
I have noticed, on this forum, a disturbing tendency to employ a double standard when it comes to analyzing the crimes against humanity committed by atheist regimes and comparing them with those committed by the theistic counterparts of these regimes. The case that bothers me most is that of Soviet Russia, where atheistic ideology was undeniably causally associated with the deaths, disappearances, and destruction of the persecution, and where there was an organized government propaganda campaign against theism.
It is often asserted, however, that atheism was not the "cause" of the persecution. This assertion is justified either by definining atheism so narrowly as to dissassociate it from its practical ramifications, or by stating that the motives behind the persecution were primarily political/economic. Ok, fine; if that is the standard we are going to employ, then let us do so. By this standard, we can hardly attribute the Crusades, anti-Jewish pogroms, Jihads, and other crimes committed by Christians, Muslims, or any other theistic group to those groups' ideologies. The Crusades and pogroms, being irreconcilable with the fundamentally pacifistic nature of Christian theology, could not possibly be caused by Christian ideology, even though Christianity was used as a justification. After all, the Crusades were merely the result of commercial interests engendered by overpopulation in Europe, the anti-Jewish pogroms in Europe were simply attempts to suppress a potentially subversive ethnic group, and the Jihads of early-Islamic history were attempts to realize Arab hegemony over the known world.
Perhaps the reason we find ourselves unable to employ consistent standards and discuss this reasonably is that the dialogue is always presented in childish "which was worse?" terms. Still, this is no excuse for us to ignore the faculties of reason we would employ in any other arena. "A militantly atheistic ideology wasn't a causal factor in the Soviet persecutions"? Tell it to the new-martyrs of Russia.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 03:08
No, the reason is because the title of this thread tends towards broad and ultimately meaningless generalization. Notice that when trying to account for the historical atrocities attributed to "atheism", you have to actually discern which specific regime, ideology, etc. was responsible and in what manner. Because there are no real codes or institutions of "atheism" per se.
The same broad and ultimately meaningless generalization applies when trying to account for the historical atrocities attributed to "religion", you have to actually discern which specific religion, sect, regime, ideology, etc. was responsible and in what manner.
The OP, in trying to refute the fallacious meme that "religion's" track record is worse than "atheism", got trapped by the illogic that made the meme fallacious in the first place-- that the cause-and-effect of historical atrocities can be easily and directly attributed to a singular idea or concept, even when such ideas or concepts are amorphous as "atheism" or as complicated as "religion".
Unless, of course, the OP was being sarcastic or facetious by pointing out that blaming "religion" for historical atrocities is just as meaningless as blaming "atheism"?
Since this is a history forum, I think other posters will understand my approach: broad and ultimately meaningless generalizations which gloss over the historical details are well, broad and ultimately meaningless-- except they are used as political spin....
 |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 03:40
|
I can sympathise with Akolouthos' concerns to an extent, but as pointed
out above the reason this thread has followed the path it has is
because of how the original poster approached the question. Atheism and
secularism refer to the absence of something in belief and in
government. In themselves, they have proven to be the cause of far less
harm than religion. If, however, the question of how much good had been done by the two paradigms were posed, then religion clearly has the better record. Most religions encourage virtuous principles such as forgiveness, charity etc. In the Medieval (when religion was more dominant than ever) era this proved very important as a form of social welfare - there was no Department of Human Services back then. Atheism, by contrast, does not encourage "virtuous" acts of welfare or the like. This does not mean atheists are lacking in those virtues (I would argue that discovery of such virtues requires no religious instruction whatsoever). It just means that atheists tend to find paths aside from dogma to guide their morality and principles, e.g. common morality indigenous to all humans, life experience, the legal system. What must also be questioned is how relevant certain ideologies are for a specific time and context. Each major religion appears to be configured for the people living in the time it was created. How relevant these custom designed ideologies remain in different times and contexts requires analysis. And from that the "goodness of fit" for contemporary people can be determined. ------------- |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 05:28
Perhaps, but this was not really the essence of my position. My revolt was against words like "ideology" which are usually used in a negative way (i.e. Religion is an ideology and both are bad, oppresive and trigger violence) or words like "secularism" which are usually used in a positive way (i.e. Secularism allows us Freedom and thus we are a better and happier society), though they obviously are much more general, much more of a definition (as you have said) and they are much more neutral (that's why I remarked that both US and USSR governments are secular or that any assessment of secularism transforms it in a value and consequently in an ideology).
But as you can see, even the current evolution of this thread started to notice that.
ConstantineXI, I like the last two paragraphs you have written. On the first two, I'm not sure how would one estabilish in the titanomahia between Atheism and Religion who has a better record in crime or good deeds.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 06:25
Precisely why there is no real titanomachia between atheism (even with the captial "A") and religion. Faced with an atheist person, regime, etc. , you will be forced to ASK exactly what are values being adhered to or promoted-- such as when you go on to say...
... but since you are unable identify which "path" (each and every) atheist follow, how did you arrive at the conclusion that "Atheism, by contrast, does not encourage "virtuous" acts of welfare or the like"? Good points-- but in trying to follow the logic of the title question, it's like you are trying to answer the question: which is a better color, white or transparent?
 P.S. you don't have to argue that atheists have other paths, lots of people have already done it: modern humanitarianism, Confucian ethics, etc., all argue for charity, virtue, etc. based on the "first principles" of human nature, social order, etc.-- in an essentially atheist manner.
 |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 06:45
|
wang_yun, atheism refers to the belief that there is no god. That is
it, nothing more and nothing less. So while atheism doesn't actively
promote virtuous action, it doesn't in any way inhibit or discourage it. Atheism is not apathy, as it does not claim to provide answers for just about everything the way religion does. Atheism is not an ideology, as ideologies seek to explain everything of importance and provide a framework for how to live. Atheism does not do this, it is simply one belief. As to the other beliefs in life besides the question of the divine, an atheist must look elsewhere to find answers. Religion does encourage virtuous action, on the other hand. But as I mentioned religion is grounded in a specific time and place. While charity is seen as virtuous traditionally and still today, other actions once considered virtuous in the past may today not be considered virtuous (e.g. killing apostates). So with that final paragraph, I wish to rephrase what I said earlier. Religion does not promote virtue, it promotes principles and beliefs regarding both divine and temporal subjects. These principles' morality is open to interpretation based on the time and place which they apply to. From an historical perspective, the more successful religious movements tended to be those whose values were perceived as being virtuous and practical by the standards of the people in whose time the religion was conceived. ------------- |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 06:49
|
Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 07:04
I'm not religious; yet I do not feel I have a vacuum to fill. --- Everyone is talking pass each other. A religious man can start a war for non-religious reasons, so can a non-religious man. The point is, you don't have atheist people running around shouting "death to any person who believes", though there do exist religious people who advocate "death to people who believes in other gods than mine". Neither is it very common that there are atheists trying to convince religious people to give up their religion, though religious missionaries you see everywhere. In my opinion, therein lies the biggest difference between religion and atheism. Of course, the religious people who actually kill in the name of their religion is a small minority compared to the religious people who kill for other reasons. |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2007 at 13:53
On the whole, I think your post concisely outlined the essential problems with the discussion we are having. I definitely agree with you; too often we talk straight past each other. Still, I did think the above comment a bit anachronistic. Perhaps it was true decades ago, but there are definitely loads of atheist "missionaries" in the modern Western world. To some degree this has been true ever since atheism became an ideology in its own right. Once atheism developed from a basic, non-theist position into an organized ideological system that held to its own set of positivist assertions, it began to encounter the same issues that confront any ideology.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2007 at 14:18
|
This thread has been reopened after many off-topic posts were removed.
I also changed the name of it to simply- 'Atheism'. Unfortunately we have members that intentionally discrminate by seeking leverage when wording a thread's title. This bias places many individuals on the defensive and it is not appreciated. Surely I could go around the forum and instantly close at least five threads for discrminatory titles. Instead I am asking our membership to be mindful of intentions and respect fellow forumers.
Two members who have been active in this thread have recently opened complaint threads in this forum. They will be reprimanded for that by official or unofficial warnings yet to be decided. From now on normal complaint procedures will either be respected or the consequences will be strict and instant.
Lastly, this thread will be closely watched. ------------- |
Posted By: Praetor
Date Posted: 20-Sep-2007 at 05:13
The Albanian Communist government outlawed Religion (any religion other then the state sponsored Communist cult) declaring the state officially Atheist, though those who believed in a god weren't typically killed, individuals faced long prison sentences for being found in possession of the Quran or bible for instance.
In my opinion Atheism is a religious belief just like Theism though neither is a religion in and of itself and many religions or ideologies that are inherently Atheist do attempt to spread via convincing others that their beliefs are correct, including Atheism. Furthermore I do not see what is wrong with attempting to convince others peacefully to believe in what you consider the truth, I mean if we weren't allowed to persuade, teach and question each other then this forum would have very little purpose. Regards, Praetor. ------------- |
Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 20-Sep-2007 at 06:41
How many atheist organizations using terror to pursuade people so give up their gods does it exist, akin to the Inquisition, al-Qaida, Aum Shinrikyo etc?
Lack of belief is not belief. We have a bunch of Islamic, Christian (a lion's part young Korean girls, of some reason) and fringe-groups like the Jehova's running around trying to convert people, but I have never heard someone knocking at people's doors trying to prove the non-existance of god. Neither have I ever heard of missonary stations working to make people give up their beliefs. However, I never said there was something inheritly wrong in missionaries, just outlining a major difference so no need to go defensive there. |
Posted By: Praetor
Date Posted: 20-Sep-2007 at 09:16
I just mentioned one: the Albanian Communist government under Enver Hoxha. Another example would be Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge.
Athiesm is a belief that there is no God, that is a belief as much as the belief that there is one. for example not having an opinion about whether Alexander the Great was assassinated is lack of a belief on the subject, fervently insisting he was not is a belief.
Just because Atheists don't typically door knock doesn't mean they do not try to persuade others that their beliefs are correct and you should see the world in this way. A great example of such "missionary" behaviour is Richard Dawkins and his book "the god delusion" and other modern intellectuals and of course the previously mentioned mentioned Khmer Rouge and many other officially Communist regimes. So one attempting to spread their views and the other not is not a difference between Atheist and theist Religions or ideologies. It's good to know that you don't find anything inherently wrong with the concept of missionaries though and I apologise for the assumption, as I have read a number of posts in the past where people tend to express anger at the religious for attempting to spread their beliefs, I assumed you were doing the same. Once again my apologies and my regards, Praetor. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 22-Sep-2007 at 07:06
That statement appears to be based on religion necessarily including some transcendental or supernatural being or power or state. (If I'm wrong abut your basis, correct me.) I would agree with that.
However, I would still classify Soviet Communism or Marxist Communism as religions because they give that supernatural, transcendental attribute to the state (in the first case) and the historical imperative (in both cases). I would also classify Nazism as a religion because of the role the People (following Rousseau) plays in their ontology.
Fascism is a different matter, because studying what Mussolini wrote, notably in the Italian Encyclopedia, it's difficult to believe that he was concerned with anything except the tangible and the short term.
Much the same thing is happening with the Green ideology, within which, for many people at least, the 'environment' has become some kind of metaphysical concept, overlapping into Gaia beliefs, rather than the simple expression of our tangible surroundings.
My own touchstone for distinguishing between the secular and the religious is 'Does it place any cause higher than the benefit of actual human beings (some or all)?' If the answer is no, it is secular, if yes it is religious.
It is of course true that some issues may be secular in some cultures and religious in others. For instance in Christianity there are no particular bans on eating specific foods or food combinations. Even in a Christian theocracy therefore the issue of what foods should be allowed in restaurants is purely a secular one, depending on considerations of health. In many countries however, that same issue is immediately a religious one, because it comes up against rules of the established religion which depend on divine edict, rather than on medicine.
------------- |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 22-Sep-2007 at 09:12
|
gcle, I do not find anything "transcendental" in Communism (theoretical or applied - which was not exactly Communism but a flavour of Socialism), and I equate in this phrase "transcendental" with "any cause higher than the benefit of actual human beings" (to match your definition and examples). Marx's ideology was for the benefit of human beings and the "historical imperative" you're mentioning was justified by this benefit. I can't find a single principle of Marxism which cannot be reductible to that. Rousseau, as you have mentioned him, was concerned about the benefit of the man, too (the "social contract", the "noble and natural savage" are well-known concepts of his). Marx and Rousseau rebelled against the current order of the society which they regarded harmful to the human being. It's actually hard to imagine a political system commonly described as secular (like Communism - in its flavours - is) which has other purposes. Politics, economics, social issues are by definition about the benefit of human beings, though sometimes (and especially in practice) only for a privileged segment of them.
To hopefully do not prolong the discussion more than its needed, what are those principles (in Marxism, for instance, but I'm ready to discuss other ideologies) which are about things transcending the benefit of the individuals/society?
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 22-Sep-2007 at 13:24
|
Firstly, there is of course more than one way of reading Marx. What I'm referring to here however is the organising of society to fulfil the requirements of the historical imperative - i.e. the transition from capitalism to 'communism' in this instance, including the temporary establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
To fulfil that demand, human benefits were ignored, not considered. People were killed, and the killing was justified in the name of that (inevitable) historical imperative.
Similarly, Rousseau's 'general will of the people' referred not to the actual desires of the individuals comprising the 'people', such as might be achieved through democratic means, but the decisions of an oligarchy as to what that 'general will' was. That is not far removed from, say, the Roman Catholic view that the Pope and the episcopate determine what the 'will of God' is.
It's true that somewhere in the Marxist and the Rousseauesque views, the result of all this is benefit to 'humanity'. But that's also true of, say, Christianity. In the meantime though, all kinds of cruelty or suppression can be justified for the sake of that superhuman ideal - the future benefit of humanity.
Secularism, in my interpretation, never admits that the end justifies the means, and adopts as the highest goal the benefit of existing, actual, tangible people. Not some ideal concept called 'humanity'.
------------- |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 22-Sep-2007 at 14:32
|
Though I find very weird to link secularism ultimately to victims, in such circumstances you'd have to agree there is no such thing as secularism. People were killed in Iraq to bring democracy there, therefore, according your definition "democracy" and "freedom" (as US and their allies view it) are not secular because they put their ideal of "benefit of the people" before the benefit of the actual people, which died or they were hurt. I do not think there are (m)any ideologies working (in theory) for the benefit of the people, which left a process with no casualties behind them. In Marxism, the transition to communism was necessary because communism was the only "fair" society, the only rational goal, therefore at imperative was actually sub-summed to the benefit of people. People did not follow Marx just because they believed in a transcendent Imperative, but because they believed they will have a better society, anyway better than the one they witnessed during their lifetime. They did not do it for "humanity" but for themselves (if they hoped they will live those times) and/or for their children/descendants. Rousseau's general will we find it quite often around us, for instance in "human rights". My wish of killing my neighbour, for instance, can be counterbalanced by other individual wishes. However even if most people would like to kill their neighbours, it still wouldn't be possible, because the "human rights" ethics undermines such an absolute freedom. There are institutions, with absolute powers which enforce the human rights within states but also from one state to another. The difference between religions (Christianity) and these views (Marxism, Rousseauism and their flavours), is that the latter are built rationally from premises which are claims about humans and their needs and values (equality, happiness, etc. - I agree they are rather postulated but the Western philosophy came to agree upon them), while in Christianity, God (and the transcedent realm) is also a premise. Some religions' benefits do not come in this world, but in the "afterlife". Blessed are the sick ... |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 23-Sep-2007 at 10:46
I don't believe the people who invaded Iraq were doing so for the benefit of the people, either in an abstract sense or a real one. If they were actually doing it in the cause of spreading democracy or benefitting society in some sense, or whatever, then yes in my view it would not be a secular operation. However, I don't believe they were doing that, but working for purely personal ends, which makes it secular.
Selfish activity is secular whatever the pretext. If I've concentrated on non-selfish behaviour it's because that's the difficult area.
I'm drawing - or attempting to draw - a distinction between working for the benefit of actual people, and working for the benefit of some abstract, idealised entity called 'the people' (when the Nazis referred to 'das Volk' they didn't mean actual Germans, or even the descendants of actual Germans, but some mystic, transcendental entity, a kind of Platonic Ideal).
(This is something like the distinction that Popper draws between social engineering and revolutionary change.)
I think that's a misreading of Marx, though it is certainly the way a number of people thought about his teaching. For Marx, as for Hegel, the transition to communism was not 'necessary' becaue it was fairer. It wasn't a goal of the sort common to non-Marxist social reformers of the time, like the Fabians. It was 'necessary' because it was the Historical Imperative - it was bound to happen because the unstoppable force of history wouold ensure it. It was, if you like, 'God's Will', though without a god.
When Khruschev famously said "We will bury you", he wasn't just saying that the Soviet Union was a materialistically or militarily superior society. He believed (probably genuinely) that history was on the side of Communism: that it was ineluctably bound to win.
To me that is a religious attitude.
I don't dispute that many people followed Marx and the Soviets for that reason. Many people after all have followed Christianity in the belief that they will be better off in this world, not just the next. Ancient Judaism could only promise rewards in this life (though not reliably so - cf Job).
My point is that some look upon the triumph of communism in the same way as the Jews look upon the coming of the Messiah - something that is guaranteed by a transcendental force.
The general will remains however something different from the individual will, or even the sum or the average of the individual wills. It still to me is a metaphysical, transcendent concept. There is nothing like it for instance in Locke or Hobbes, both of whom get by happily without any need to postulate anything but individual humans bound together by mutual obligations one to another.
But Buddhism is also built from rational claims about humans and their needs and desires. Is that not a religion? Is the doctrine of Karma really significantly different from the doctrine of the historical imperative? Both are superhuman in that they are beyond the power of humans to control.
Incidentally, given the original reason for joining in here, I'm glad to confirm that we do seem to be trying to apply the same criterion, even though we differ on whether the actual criterion fits specific cases.
Given the variety of possible interpretations, it's quite possible there might be religious Marxists and also secular Marxists,
------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 23-Sep-2007 at 11:36
This is from Bertrand Russell (in the History of Western Philosophy).
It's from the page at http://tinyurl.com/ypl6tc - http://tinyurl.com/ypl6tc
(A tiny.url since the page is in Google's cache, but doesn't seem to work directly)
which has a lot of other material, (possibly less tendentious
 ) on the subject, including the views of Popper and Toynbee.------------- |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 23-Sep-2007 at 16:58
Also charity as motivated by human rights organizations is secular, and it's obviously not selfish. Thus, selfish vs charitable is not secular vs religious. Such dangerous equivocations triggered my replies in this thread, in the first place.
Writing about an esoterical (i.e. not detaling) Historical Imperative it doesn't mean is a transcendental concept, a religious concept, rather that we haven't discussed it properly. You haven't deconstructed Marx to the point you can say "see, this is not rational, this is not material, this is a supernatural entity". Here ( http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html - http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html ) is the text of the Communist Manifesto. Please show the irreductible concepts of it which you find religious. The way I read it, it's all about material interest, about society and economy. Flawed or non-flawed, we can discuss with other occasion.
|
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 23-Sep-2007 at 17:52
|
Oh, I've missed to answer on Russell's quote.
Though, Russell clearly refers to a "powerful appeal to the oppressed and unfortunate at all times", not to religiousity, allow me a parody, using a nowadays example.
Yahweh = non-discrimination of "black" people in US
The Messiah = Martin Luther King (or any proeminent speaker against racism)
The Elect = the Americans
The Church = Civil Rights Movements and other organizations fighting racism
The Second Coming = Current outlawing of racism and affirmative actions (I'd have said the Civil Rights Act of 1964 but since my Messiah is MLK, the second coming must be after his death
 )Hell = prison (punishments for the offenders)
The Millenium = an America free of racism
If you want quotes, maybe you remember the Eastern European names for their Marxist-Leninist ideology. I'll just give you one: "scientific atheism".
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-Sep-2007 at 20:06
|
I would like to make a point in here.
Atheism is not a dogma, but it is just the "belief" that God does not exist. It is, therefore, spontaneous, and do not requires a doctrine that regulates it. Actually, most atheistics and agnostics believe in things so different between themselves that never agree in anything.
Different is the case of "scientific atheism" or doctrines like positivism, that although based along the same lines are dogmas indeed.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 23-Sep-2007 at 20:12
|
I think the difference between the two is that atheism is a belief. Religion is a belief system. ------------- |
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 23-Sep-2007 at 20:19
|
Alright, I have a question then. What if a child was raised in a society that never taught him the concept of a creator god or anything supernatural. Is he not an athiest because he can't believe in a concept that doesn't exist in his mind until someone tells him of it? Everyone is born without this knowledge. ------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
|
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 23-Sep-2007 at 21:53
|
Pinguin, I know that atheism is a belief (and I agree with what ConstantineXI added), but it can be dogmatic as any other belief. Dogmatic means undisputable and irreducible (I assume you do not mean "dogma" as in "Church doctrine"). Any belief can be dogmatic or not, it all depends on how one holds that belief. And I guess most atheists/agnostics share quite many beliefs, that's why there are several ideologies (secular humanism, naturalism, positivism) which have the largest share in acceptance.
|
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 23-Sep-2007 at 23:32
Well put.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Praetor
Date Posted: 24-Sep-2007 at 03:57
I don't think you can say with any certainty that we have no concept of a god until informed of it by others. Regardless I will give you a definition of Atheism
There is a key difference between denying the existence of god and simply not thinking about the idea at all just as there is a key difference between those who claim that Atlantis was invented by Plato and those who have never even heard of Atlantis. Regards, Praetor. ------------- |
Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 24-Sep-2007 at 04:48
Not applicable. The Nazis were Christians, but they were not killing in the name of their religion. That goes for your examples as well, they were not killing in the name of atheism, which just happened to be a part of the Communist agenda. Give me an example of an atheist organization equivalent to al-Qaida or Aum Shinrikyo, trying to convert the world to atheism (NOT trying to make everyone follow the communist ideal). |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 24-Sep-2007 at 05:11
|
Actually Praetor is partially right. One of the lesser purposes of some Communist estabilishments was to convert the entire world to a view where science and materialism and Marxist-Leninist doctrine mean all, consequently an atheist world. A Communist utopia is by definition atheist.
Also such regimes oppressed and killed people just because they were religious, because they were giving other alternatives to the official ideology and order of things. There was an official report in 2006 on the crimes of Communism in Romania and I find in it excerpts like "the atheistic propaganda was since the beginning of the regime a reality" or "the most important persuasion was of the communist state itself which attempted to eliminate the influence of religion upon citizens, no matter what kind of religion". The report was signed by a number of scholars and it represents currently the official position of Romanian government on the crimes of the Communist regime between 1945 and 1989.
|
Posted By: Praetor
Date Posted: 24-Sep-2007 at 05:54
Some of the Nazis were "Christians" some were not. Nobody (or at least nearly nobody) kills in the name of Atheism or for that matter Theism either, however they do kill in the name of Religions or ideologies of which these beliefs are a central part. My two examples are entirely relevant as they were regimes that punished others for not adhering to their beliefs and values, their ideology of which in both cases Atheism was a central part and so therefore Theists were persecuted, however others are persecuted for other differences such as a different view on mankind etc. Similarly Al-Quaida and other such groups persecute others for not adhering to their religion or ideology of which Theism is often a central part however they will also persecute others for other differences with their ideology/religion those who believe in a god for example but have different opinions as to what he/she/it etc is like., in this sense they are no different from the groups I mentioned previously. Regards, Praetor. ------------- |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 24-Sep-2007 at 06:41
|
I've found an interesting article talking about an atheistic "crusade" (author's wording) in late 1940s in Communist Romania (in Romanian: http://www.itcnet.ro/history/archive/mi1999/current9/mi19.htm - http://www.itcnet.ro/history/archive/mi1999/current9/mi19.htm ). Expressive quote, Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej (the president of Romania at that time), in a Central Commitee meeting in 1949: "we have in the party a large group with religious feelings. We'll have to persuade them ... to help these commrades to free themselves of their religious feelings".
Also it's described the situation when a delegate of the Ministry of Educations in a meeting with the school teachers from a county started to claim God does not exist and that if God made man of clay, given the man has many holes, which is the hole God used to blow life into man?
 Also I'll quote from the famous July Theses (1971) of Nicolae Ceauşescu, the last president of Communist Romania, section 7:
"The atheist propaganda will be enlarged and intensified, mass operations will be organized for eliminating mysticism, all reactionary elements and educating the youth in our materialist-dialectic philosophical spirit."
|
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 24-Sep-2007 at 08:46
|
gcle, on more question, what opinion do you have on the famous dictum of Marx: "religion is opium for the people"? In the intellectual exercise of making Marx's theories a religion how do his views on religion fit in?
A much later edit - related to Praetor vs Styrbiorn dispute, I've found an intersting book via GoogleBooks: Zoe Katrina Knox, Russian Society and the Orthodox Church: Religion in Russia After Communism, Routledge 2004 and I quote a bit of it (pp. 49-51) to give an image to those not knowing some details of some Eastern European Commuinist regimes (in Romania was essentially the same):
<< Anti-religious propaganda was a highly visible instrument of social control. The regime dedicated a large amount of energy to eradicating religion: an estimated 6 million people were involved in the atheist propaganda in the early 1970s. The state regarded education as the most important forum for anti-religious agitation. A professional educator advised teachers in the mid-1970s: "When planning a reading lesson or outside reading in natural science, special questions for students that will help to reveal their atheist inclinations (or possible religious influence) are in order. Such questions are raised already when teaching the alphabet". Atheist youth groups were set up in primary schools throughout the Soviet Union. In Gorky students estabilished an atheist museum, which occupied an entire floor of the school. The students conducted tours for visitors, lent books from its library to other atheist groups, and performed plays and delivered lectures throughout the city.
For adults and pensioners, antireligious and atheist propaganda was waged through organisations as diverse as trade unions, medical institutes and the council on tourism. It was a requirement in factories and on collective farms, and most workplaces had committees for the promotion of scientific materialism. There were lectures and seminar series: an estimated 760,000 lectures on atheist themes were delivered throughout the USSR in 1966. In 1967 Nauka i religiia published twenty-two suggested themes for lectures on scientific atheism, each accompanied by key issues to address. Crude propaganda efforts such as letters to newspapers and journals, anti-religious publications, the ridicule of believers in the media and political posters all emphasized the scientific over the spiritual. When Iuri Gagarin entered space in 1961, this prompted propaganda not only touting the advanced technological capacities of the Soviet Union, but also proclaiming the event a conclusive triumph of science over religion. An editorial in Izvestiia was triumphant: Iuri Gagarin really has given a headache to believers! He flew right through the heavenly mansions and did not run into anyone: neither the Almighty, nor Archangel Gabriel nor the angels of heaven. It seems, then that the sky is empty! [...] Calls for an increase in both the quality and the quantity of anti-religious propanganda, such as that made by Khrushchev in 1954, demonstrate that CPSU (my note: Communist Party of the Soviet Union) was concerned by continued religious adherence. Clearly propaganda was not working. [...] Administratively organised coercion was an immediately recognisable characteristic of Soviet Rule. While the magnitude and intensity of the terror of Stalin's rule were unparalleled, the major policies and the major institutional features of the Soviet system did not significantly alter after Stalin's death. Adherents of Russian Orthodoxy were most often punished, not under criminal laws of religion, but rather under broader criminal laws. Orthodox believers were imprisoned in psychiatric hospitals and subjected to psychiatric abuse. Gennadi Shimanov, an Orthodox nationalist, was detained at a psychiatric hosptial for questioning in 1969. After an interrogation about his spiritual beliefs, the medical director of the hospital explained: "All Soviet people are Marxists; everyone acknowledges only a scientific philosophy; but you believe in God, so you are out of harmony with society". Shimanov underwent two years of intensive psychiatric treatment. The third objective of Soviet religious policy was to protect the positions of collaborationist religious leaders. The extent of this was not clear until the demise of the communist regime, when the full extent of the KGB inflitration of the Patriarchate became known. The CRA (my note: Council for Religious Affairs) appointed key Orthodox figures, and had the power to usurp those who challenged Soviet rule. The regime and the Church each benefited by working together to annihilate schismatic groups and sects. The Church hierarchy assured the international community that accusations of religious persecutions were merely anti-Soviet propaganda. In stark contrast to the Patriarchate's assurances, churches were destroyed, priests persecuted, and believers were beaten, imprisoned, raped and murdered. The accession of the Orthodox Church to the World Council of Churches (WCC) in 1961, at the height of Khrushchev's anti-religious campaign, the most intensive of the post-Stalin years, indicates the success of this arrangement. >> |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 24-Sep-2007 at 10:02
By 'the people who invaded Iraq' I had in mind the people who authorised and ordered the invasion, not everyone concerned with the invasion. Their motives were highly mixed, and some of them were certainly religious, including for some Christian proselytising.
It wouldn't mean corruption at all levels, just at the highest. Most of the people involved were either misled or simply following orders.
I do believe the action was instigated for purely personal ends - i.e. for the benefit of a limited circle of people - and therefore selfish. Anyway whether you accept that view of the Iraq war or not, the more germane consideration is that an action that is intended to benefit a limited group of people materially is selfish and ipso facto secular.
A theocracy is by definition religious. However religious people can be concerned with secular activities - indeed in a theocracy they must be. Even hermits have to pay some attention to secular needs like breathing.
Raising taxes for conspicuous consumption and organising charity to relieve famine are both basically secular activities. They could of course be religiously motivated (seeking reward in an afterlife, or simply carrying out God's will - or furthering the historical dialectic
 ) but the activity itself is essentially secular.
Agreed. I didn't say that secular equated to selfish, merely that selfish implied secular. One can certainly be unselfish and secular: I don't believe however that one can be selfish and religious.
The Volkswagen reference is irrelevant. The 'people' is not the same as the 'People', it's just that in German you have to use a capital letter in both senses. Or as John Hess put it in 1938:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0016-8831%28193801%2911%3A1%3C4%3AVUF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K - http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0016-8831(193801)11%3A1%3C4%3AVUF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K
It is the 'unique German race and nation' that is the metaphysical, Platonic, entity.
No, although I agree I wasn't clear. I meant Hegel's dialectic with its inevitable transition to the nation state. It's the inevitability of the dialectic they have in common.
It is of course possible to argue that Marx did have a moral position, or that he believed communism to be just though he didn't believe he believed it; in fact the link gives those arguments. However if you define Marxism by what Marx wrote, there is no assertion that communism is morally better than capitalism, just that it is the inevitable end of history.
Actually I read it just the day before yesterday, and I agree there's not much in the Manifesto to support me, except for about three statements that some development is are 'inevitable'. But the manifesto is a political programme, not a philosophical text. But one has to wonder why, if something is inevitable, you need a political party, just as one has to wonder why, if Christ's coming is inevitable, you need missionaries. (Notably Judaism in this is more rational - since the Messiah will come in his own good time there's no need to make converts.)
I agree with the last sentence, but not with your reading of Khrushchev.
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1319034 - http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1319034
In other words it was inevitable that western capitalism would collapse. As indeed Soviet dogma held.
I can live with that. Capitalism and Democracy are worshipped in a religious way by many people. People like Hayek and Friedman (Milton) get very close to setting them up as metaphysical forces: certanly many of their followers do. Of course many, perhaps most, capitalists and democrats don't, but that doesn't mean that noone does.
Not 'any' ideology, or at least not 'any' school of thought. Popperian social engineering doesn't postulate an ideal state that should be worked towards: it fact it more or less flatly denies that such a state exists: all we can ever do is marginally rearrange things so that the human condition - the actual human condition, measurable and tangible - improves.
Almost any ideology/philosophy/school of thought can indeed be treated as a religion by some people. There's no reason why any such ideology has to be categorised absolutely as religious or secular: for some people it may be a secular system, for others a religious one. That means no more than to say that some people may adopt it for purely pragmatic, materialist reasons, while others do so because they perceive elements of it as supernatural or superhuman: something in it triggers their sense of transcendence - indeed satisfies there longing for transcendence and metaphysical certainty.
For that reason it is indeed possible for two people to disagree whether a particular -ism is religious or secular, and both be right.
I don't think I could put it any better. 'Dogmatic and mystical, and incapable of logical or empirical verification or even discussion' is religious enough for me.
[/QUOTE]
Predicting a meteorite will hit the earth is not the same as saying it is inevitable or preordained that a meteorite will hit the earth.
There are actually many historical imperatives each with its own doctrine. Marx didn't use the term but Marcuse did in the title of his last essay. It should be obvious that I am using it here to refer to his view of historical necessity - I think Notwendigkeit is the word he actually uses.
Saying that empires fall is not the same as saying one empire in particular is bound to dominate. Saying that humans mutate is not the same thing as saying that humans are evolving to a final, defined, ideal state at which point all change ceases. (Moreover biological evolution is a matter of chance.) The 'historical imperative' does not simply mean that one thing leads causally to another, but that the end is predefined, known in advance, and will be fina.l That's what Marx's millenium has in common with the Jewish, Christian or Islamic one.
------------- |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 24-Sep-2007 at 11:46
[...] the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class [...] These laborers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market." etc. This is not about morals, but about equality, social and economical equality. It can be also morally motivated but also pragmatically.
Also please note that your quote does not address the idea of General Will but a concept on which this relies (a distinction between two selfs). Remembering that Rousseau was actually a Deist, it seems pointless to attempt to tell me Rousseau was actually religious. What needs to be shown is that General Will, as an concept representing the benefit at society's level is religious (as in transcendent, etc.) and this was not shown.
Ergo, Marxism is not a religion for its predictability. It's a just a theory. |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 24-Sep-2007 at 11:55
|
gcle, you haven't answered me on Marx's quote on religion, so here I found an even better one:
Thus, Lenin in 1922 wrote strongly on behald of "militant materialism". He declared that the Bolsheviks must be committed to "militant atheism" expressed through "untiring atheist propaganda and untiring atheist fight". Earlier he had re-quoted Marx in declaring: "Religion is the opium of the people. Religion is the kind of spiritual gin in which the slaves of capital drown their human shape and their claims to any decent human life". He had proceeded further: "Marxism is materialism. As such, is relentlessly hostile to religion as was the materialism of the encyclopedists of the eighteenth century or the materialism of Feuerbach. This is beyond doubt. But the dialectical materialism of Marx and Engels goes further than the encyclopedists and Feuerbach by applying the materialist philosophy to the field o history, to the field of social sciences." (Louis Francis Budenz, The Techniques of Communism, 1977)
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 24-Sep-2007 at 16:15
I can see how this has turned into a religion vs "communism" thread-- but considering that "communism" scare is pretty recent (20th century), it isn't unfair to equate "atheism" at large with "communism" (of the 20th century)? As other posters have noted, atheism probably dates back almost far as religion, or at least 2500 years when we have historical literature questioning the existence or nature of the gods.
But I must say that picking specific "atheist" atrocities to discuss is more meaningful-- though the people who say such atrocities "exemplifies" atheism should note the argument goes the other way. Which is why my first and only real point is that: trying "exonerate" religions of biased accusations by making biased accusations of atheism is erm, not very intellectual.
No it isn't, I'm going to assume that you are not an atheist at heart-- because the truth is, many atheists just don't think or concern themselves with any God. THAT's why/ how they are atheist-- don't assume or make it sound like they are choosing or "struggling" to deny some God in their hearts. They are only choosing to disagree (& even "struggle against") people who evangelize to them.
Like other posters have pointed out, each atheist's values system comes from... whatever other value system they hold dear. No one creates a value system out of denying things-- that's nihilism, which is nothing like a religion because nihilists are hardly going to get organized and be a force for change. OTOH, 20th century "Communism" is another kettle of fish-- which is being fried by some other posters.
Not speaking about you in particular, but I find that it is only the religious that insist on defining atheism as, well, just another form of religion-- which either misses or completely defeats the whole point of atheism.
Notice how in another series of exchanges in this thread, the definition of religions get so wide as include secular systems of thought/ government? Well, now you are defining atheism so wide that it becomes another religion? Whether this is done to "implicate" atheism or "exonerate" religion-- it just shows how that this thread is doomed by the Opening Post to make not very much sense.
P.S. Dworkins is just this writer/ thinker who is just dispelling a few "myths" and challenging a few established "conceptions", he doesn't really work for or represent the "Atheist Anonymous Association of Anywhere"-- but I suppose within a strictly religious context/ outlook, all writers and philosophers, etc. would be easy to lump together as "missionaries"... of yet anOTHER faith.
|
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 24-Sep-2007 at 17:19
|
Posted By: Beylerbeyi
Date Posted: 25-Sep-2007 at 11:50
Ideologies are not religions. One can interpret them as secular religions, but then he should be rational and include all ideologies in that classification.
However, it is typical propaganda behviour of ideologists to call everything else 'ideologies', 'dogmatic set of beliefs', 'biased' while at the same time declaring their own ideology as the only 'scientific', 'rational', 'common-sensical', 'realistic' etc. way of thinking.
Marx called his views 'science' (hence 'scientific socialism'), and negatively called liberalism an 'ideology'.
Of course today, as before, liberalism is the dominant ideology so it forms the basis of political 'common-sense'. Thus we get to hear 'Marxism is a religion', 'Proleteriat is God and Marx is his prophet' bullsh*t a lot, even after the collapse of the USSR.
All in all, it is quite funny to hear such things from people who worship 'liberty' which is a concept almost as metaphysical and ill defined as 'God'. ------------- |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 25-Sep-2007 at 12:14
|
Finally, common sense in the thread |
Posted By: Praetor
Date Posted: 26-Sep-2007 at 13:29
I did not equate Atheism with Communism I merely used as examples regime's that claim to be Communist.
If you look at my posts in this topic you will find that I was responding to a member who was under the impression that Atheist do not/have not persecuted Theist because they are Theists whereas Theists have persecuted Atheists for being Atheists . The fact that Theists have persecuted Atheists is a well known fact and I have not contested it however what I did contest was that Atheists have never persecuted Theists for their belief in a god/gods. Your allegation of hypocrisy does not apply to me as I simply reminded someone of what you have just attempted to point out to me, that "the argument goes the other way" too.
Those who do not have an opinion on the subject of god or claim to have not reached a conclusion are typically called Agnostics not Atheists.
When exactly did I make a remark in regards to the varying value systems of Atheists on this thread?
This is a definition for Secular:
Atheism takes a stance on the divine (as opposed to worldly or temporal matters) and so I would define it as a religious belief but not a religion.
Dawkins does indeed try to "convert" others into giving up theism I have read parts of the book written by him called "The God Delusion" and in it he writes the following: "If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down." I rest my case. Regards, Praetor. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 26-Sep-2007 at 20:44
Among the techniques of Communism is lying. In fact it's among the techniques of politicians in general. All this statement shows is that Soviet Communism was devoted to eliminating other religions. That's usually a hallmark of religious systems - they eliminate their rivals (or try to).
If religion is the opium of the people, then a classic example of it is the use of the millenial concept of the withering-away state to provide a dream world for the peoples of the Soviet Union. The inevitability of that 'Coming' is just as non-falsifiable, thus metaphysical, thus religious as the inevitability of the Coming of the Messiah.
One could rephrase the later quote with some significance: try "Religion is the kind of spiritual gin in which the slaves of the communist bureaucracy drown their human shape and their claims to any decent human life." 'Marxism' and 'religion' easily replace each other in that sentence.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 26-Sep-2007 at 20:54
Poor old Marx, he forgot that science is theory that stand the test of reality through experiments... In fact, if an experiment doesn't fit the theory then the theory is replaced... Well, Marxism has a chance to experiment with humanity... the experiment failed... therefore the Marxist theory should be replaced, or at least fixed.
I agree, though, with your comments about the worship of the godness "liberty"... That's shamanism in theirs more primitive stage
 Pinguin
|
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 26-Sep-2007 at 22:45
But the actual point is how do you prove these are lies? Is Communism always lying? Is Communism always lying on a certain type of claims and these are from that type? I've already quoted at length from Zoe Katrina Knox's book and what Lenin wrote was actually realized in SU (and not only) with vicious aggressivity against religion and fanatic propaganda for science and atheism. I've lived a Communist regime and believe me, Science and Atheism were shoved in our throats all the way (along with real misery and other problems, but these are not the topic now) and many of the details (not exactly, but similar and essentially the same) described in that book I've lived or heard from friends or relatives. It was not just an elimination of religion but an attack from an ideology whose main intellectual weapons were Science and Atheism!
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 26-Sep-2007 at 23:16
Yes, you are right. A scientific theory works in a frame of reference. Newton theory can only assure you precise results if relative speeds are very small with respect to light speed. However, it can assure you that if you follow those rules your results are correct.
On the other side, as far as I know of course, Marxism has never worked. The condition for that theory to work are still a mystery, no matter how many experiments has been tried so far.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2007 at 00:19
|
No, it's not only about frame of reference (and anyway, something that works in one observer's frame of reference and doesn't work in the other's, it's rather a phenomenon regarding the observer than the object observed!), Newton's formula F = m*a is simply inacurate because the mass of every object in movement is not constant, in other words it never works. Yes, it is an aproximative equation for low speeds, but no more than that. Newton's gravity does not correctly place planets on their orbits, because it does not predict the gravity affects the spacetime itself, so again only for small bodies it works as an aproximation, the larger the bodies the larger is the error.
If some of the Newton's equations still can be regarded as aproximations, other scientific theories are today in the trash bin and valued only as a stage in the history of science and of ideas. The theory of ether was disproved by Michelson and Morley. Lavoisier's theory that heat was actually a substance flowing from hot bodies to cold bodies was also disproved. The Copernican system was obsoleted by Kepler and Newton. The theory of continental drift was replaced by the theory of plate tectonics. And that are only few falsified theories to name and among the most famous of them. They never really worked, no one currently knows how to make them work in their original form, only that they were believed at that moment of time to be true, based on the available knowledge. Marxism makes no exception from this series of obsolete theories.
On the other hand, as you have noticed, some theories were not entirely thrown away. Similarly Marxism is not entirely thrown away, but some aspects of it got reused in other modern ideologies.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2007 at 01:59
Agreed! (In any case I wasn't thinking in terms of "frames of references" of Special Relativity, but in the fact that theories usually works only in certain "range of values" only. A "better" theory it is just more general: it works in more situations)
In any case, even the geocentric model of Ptolmy is precise enough to predict planetary movements, of course with less precision than modern theories
.
Yes, I can agree on that as well. It is the solutions given by the Marxism to inequality which have suffered after the recent experiences. On the other hand, the analysis that Marx made about capitalism as generator of inequality, in particular the way the proletarian is exploited and has to accept the salary and rules of the master, it is still today as valid as when it was written for the first time.
In fact, I challenge any of us that has to work for a boss that read Marx and that tell us if they don't feel identified with the proletarian.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2007 at 08:03
Small point of order. According to Princeton an Atheist is:
Not someone who does not believe in a god. So yes, Atheism is a belief. If one is to argue that Communism is a religion, as some people seem very much intent on doing, then one can just as successfully argue that Atheism is a religion. ------------- |
Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2007 at 19:26
|
The problem with modern Atheism is not Atheism per se but dogmatic Atheism. Bhuddism is an Atheist philosophy which is in my opinion far more moralistic than any religious philosophy and which fights against dogmatism by preaching moderation and non-dogmatist way of thinking, as is the case with Confucianism. However modern atheism suffers from the same problems as which it says religion badly suffers from, which is extremely Dogmatic thinking. Almost every major a-religous philosophy thinks that they have found the purpose of life which can be expressed in about a few lines. For Marxism it is that the purpose of Human life is nothing but to feed himself or cloth himself or provide shelter for one's self, for a modern "Freudian" psychologist it is that man's purpose in life is to have sex, for an evolutionist it is to maximize its chances for survival, for a racist it is to preserve its racial identity etc. You cannot deny it the whole history is witness to it. There was one guy who made the analogy that once you leave something there is a space left which needs to be fulfilled. It was dismissed as absurd by most however in the case at hand its a pretty useful analogy. What do people think when they realize that there is no God and therefore it cannot solve their problems they think oh evolution will make us smart enough to solve them eventually. What do they think when they realize that God is not there to make everything happen for a purpose they say oh the direction of Evolution means that everything happens for a reason. This is how i find how most Atheist think like. Many Atheist even consider Evolution as their God. So in my opinion the problem with modern Atheist thinking is extreme Dogmatism. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 19:13
Hardly anyone in politics. Which is why one doesn't trust what politicians claim.
Don't have to. It's enough that the source is biassed and unreliable.
One of whose major weapons was the claim to be scientific. I've never even suggested that Marxism and its descendants did not claim to be scientific. Also I never said they were not atheist. They obviously were. There's no reason you can't have an atheist religion. Atheism is just the opposite of theism, not of religion.
However, I don't claim that Dawkins is not a religious ideologue, whatever he says or even thinks. I don't really know enough about him to judge.
I don't understand that sentence. 'Blame from' means what?
Soviet Communism is a descendant of Marxism. 'Communism' is also the word Marx uses to describe the social structure that is the end point of his dialectic; the situation that results from the success of 'the revolution' and the subsequent 'withering away' of the State.
I don't know what 'Dawkinsism' is, though I an aware he is an outspoken advocate of atheism, and is against theistic religions. How he stands on non-theistic ones I don't know. I don't know what evolutionary biology has to do with any of this, except that it explains the appearance of intelligent design without needing to postulate an intelligent designer, though it is compatible with one.
No it wouldn't. It's not falsifiable because there is no date on it. All you can say is that global Communism hasn't arrived - yet. Of course I and possibly you believe it never will, but then I'm not a Marxist. Marxists don't accept it is falsified any more than Christians believe their eschatology is falsified because Christ hasn't returned - yet.
No it's not. This is really terribly trivial stuff.
The Marxist prediction of the Communist millenium, the Christian prediction of the second coming of Christ, the Jewish prediction of the coming of the
Messiah and the Islamic one of the final judgement are none of them empirically testable. If you think they are, then please tell me how you would propose an experiment that might falsify them. Lots of brilliant people have been trying to do that for a couple of centuries: maybe you can outdo them.
Then what use is the quotation?
That's because it was tested and falsified, for the first time in 1917 at the solar eclipse, but many times since. It was falsifiable, but Marxism and religious preachings in general aren't (Occasionally a religious group will stick a date on their predictions, like the Millerites did, but it's rare).
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 23:34
Why always the focus on evolution? Nor me nor any other atheist I know considers evolution 'their god'. For me placing evolution on such a high level would make as little sense as placing general relativity or plate tectonics on such a high level. To me it appears that it's religious people who are occupied with evolution; plate tectonics or general relativity don't contradict most religions, but evolution does. That's why evolution gets branded 'atheist'. ------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2007 at 02:46
|
Hi, Mixcoatl,
Evolution doesn't even contradict Christian thought. If one has the sense of interpreting the text in a symbolic manner, evolution flows with the creation story quite nicely. It is only when believers insists that the creation of life had to be exactly the way it is in the text that there is a problem. Interesting, in the U.S. many of the same people who insist on reading the creation story in a literal sense will tell you that Jesus commanding his followers to live nonviolently wasn't meant to be taken literally. ------------- |
Posted By: Beylerbeyi
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2007 at 02:51
|
I am a Marxist, and I know many other Marxists. We don't believe in the inevitable coming of the Communist society written about here. It is about time liberals should stop speaking for us.
Communism is an ideology, not a religion. Ideologies can be interpreted as secular religions, but that is an analogy.
Marx lived in the 19th century and he believed in his method of analysis and its predictive power, that's why he called it 'science'. It was not a wild claim at that time, given the level of science back then. Following his method to its logical conclusion he arrived at the results you mentioned.
Marxism, however, is primarily a critique of the capitalist society and also a program for change. It is not a body of prophecies or predictions. It is a vast discipline supported by a vast body of learning gathered in more than 100 years.
Soviet Communists, Maoists, European Social Democrats all descend from Marxism.
Now you got the introduction, I'll move on.
As yourself wrote above, Marx came to this conclusion by following his method of analysis, which he applied to human history.
Therefore, if you show the shortcomings of his method, or show that the historical data does not fit the model, you can come to the conclusion that his prediction is wrong.
That's what it is about, a prediction based on theory. If you think that it is a prophecy, like the Judeo-Christian ramblings, that is YOUR problem, not the Marxists'.
You speak of Soviet Marxism, but if Marxists were the believers in the Holy Texts of Marx you speak of, Soviet Union would not have existed in the first place, because Marx anticipated the revolution in developed states, with majority proletariat, not in backward Russia full of peasants.
Yet USSR was created, because Marx is only the beginning of Marxism, and not the end.
How about the claim that 'invisible hand' will regulate the markets? How about 'freedom' leading to prosperity worldwide? There is a proof stronger than the empirical-synthetical, and it is the mathematical-analytical. It is mathematically proven that in a market where access to information is not perfect (i.e. all real life markets) an outside force (i.e. state) can increase performance. Stiglitz got a Nobel for that proof. Empirical proof for this is also ample from the economic performance of various world economies.
Now, given this state of affairs, how come there are still people who keep preaching the virtues of the free market and sins of the state? How come these people are running countries' economies? International financial organisations? IMF keeps f**king up country after country and nothing changes. One market-fundamentalist (and I did not make this word up) goes and another comes, to worship at the altar of the Invisible Hand!
May the holy Market bless you liberals!
The point is for every Marxist who mistakenly thinks Marx's prediction is a prophecy, there are a thousand liberal market-worshippers in our world, who believe the free market will solve all problems, despite the vast amount of evidence to the contrary. Yet we keep hearing that they are the only 'scientific', 'rational' belief, while Communists are 'religious' like the Christians. This is because liberalism is the ideology of the rich, and our world is ruled by the rich.
Marxism is neither a religion nor a scientific theory. It is an ideology. Like all ideologies, it claimed to be scientific when it came around.
It is dumb to compare it to a religion, and even dumber to compare it to Newtonian physics. If you really spend your time testing its old claim of being scientific (which I, as a Marxist say is false), at least have the sense to compare it to a social science. ------------- |