The God Fuse

[CapelDodger]

While there are clearly limits of propriety I think we can argue about what those limits are while moving forward.

Well put. While there are clearly limits, the limits themselves are not clear.

I'll wait on clarification, and in the meantime ignore them.

 

[joobz]

The statement was, in part, rhetorical. I'll grant you that.

1. You have not established your premises.
2. You have not established a causal relationship between the Soviets Atheism and any Jewish oppression.

Those are demonstrable. You might not like them. You might find them meaningless but they are correct nonetheless.

Here, let me retry:
1.) Atheism doesn't inherently mean tolerance for religions
Support for Premise: Hitchens and Dawkins recent publicity comments
2.) Intolerance for religous views is the heart of religious oppression:
Support for premise: Biblical and Quran scriptures which call for the killing of non-equal minded.
3.) Russian communism established an atheistic state.

Since atheism doesn't prevent intolerance, and the USSR was an atheist state, it was allowed to harbor intolerant views. It is this intolerance for religious views that is at the heart of religious oppression and permits athiesm to be used as a source of oppression.

 

[thaiboxerken]

This along with what I know from personal accounts from an atheist from Russia lead me to realize that atheism was allowing people to be treated as leser for thier beliefs.

I agree. Atheism allows people to be killed for their beliefs in the same way atheism allows for rugby players to carry guns onto the field to ensure victory. ATHEISM IS NOT A BELIEF SYSTEM.

Now show me how atheism wasn't a part of the oppression.

Simple. ATHEISM HAS NO DOGMA OR PHILOSOPHY. Atheism is simply the doubt of the claim "there is a god." Nothing more, nothing less.

And explain to me why you think athiesm is beyond corruption.

The same reason the non-belief that Santa exists is beyond corruption. It's just a doubt.

Any world outlook can be used in oppressive ways.

Atheism isn't a world outlook, it's just a doubt.

 

[joobz]

What?! This is one of the most absurd things posted, ever. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god. Anti-theism doesn't come from atheism, if anything, it comes from people getting fed up with the proponents of theism.

I was using hitchen's own admitted Terminology. You can't be anti-theist without being athiest.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Here, let me retry:
1.) Atheism doesn't inherently mean tolerance for religions
Support for Premise: Hitchens and Dawkins recent publicity comments

You don't even need Hitchens or Dawkins to show your premise is correct. Atheism doesn't mean tolerance for anything, neither does it mean intolerance for anything, atheism has nothing to do with tolerance. Atheism is just a lack of belief in deities.

2.) Intolerance for religous views is the heart of religious oppression:
Support for premise: Biblical and Quran scriptures which call for the killing of non-equal minded.

Correct.

3.) Russian communism established an atheistic state.

Ok.

Since atheism doesn't prevent intolerance, and the USSR was an atheist state, it was allowed to harbor intolerant views. It is this intolerance for religious views that is at the heart of religious oppression and permits athiesm to be used as a source of oppression.

Although your premise is correct, your conclusion doesn't follow. It really makes no sense at all. Atheism is just a doubt of the theist claim that there is a god, it cannot be used as a source of oppression any more the lack of belief in fairies can be.

 

[thaiboxerken]

You can't be anti-theist without being athiest.

Wrong. A person can very well believe in a god but hate that god and all of the religions and other believers associated with that god. Anti-theism doesn't come from atheism, it comes from opinions formed about theists and theism.

 

[The Atheist]

You can't be anti-theist without being athiest.

I think it's almost the other way around - you can't be an anti-theist without being theist.

An atheist is without god, an anti-theist is against god. How can an atheist be an anti-theist? No gods exist, what's to be against? Anti-religion is a different matter!

That, I'll gladly admit to, but if that's what you mean, then you're ascribing a meaning to "anti-theism" which it doesn't hold.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Anti-religion doesn't require a person to be atheist, though, as there are plenty of "spiritual" believers in a god that oppose religion.

 

[RandFan]

Here, let me retry:
1.) Atheism doesn't inherently mean tolerance for religions
Support for Premise: Hitchens and Dawkins recent publicity comments
2.) Intolerance for religous views is the heart of religious oppression:
Support for premise: Biblical and Quran scriptures which call for the killing of non-equal minded.
3.) Russian communism established an atheistic state.

Since atheism doesn't prevent intolerance, and the USSR was an atheist state, it was allowed to harbor intolerant views. It is this intolerance for religious views that is at the heart of religious oppression and permits athiesm to be used as a source of oppression.

Ok, let's look at the argument.

(1) atheism doesn't inherently mean intolerance either, anymore than the communist flag means tolerance or intolerance. Also, the communist flag can't prevent intolerance.
(2) assuming this is true we haven't yet established (1)
(3) This premise is true. The USSR also had a communist flag.
The communist flag doesn't prevent intolerance. The USSR had a communist flag. It was the intolerance fostered by the flag that was at the heart of religious oppression.

Joobz, I think it likely that you will respond somewhat viscerally to my rebuttal. I encourage you to avoid such. Think about it. There really is a point in there. We must be careful when constructing our arguments.

Some things to keep in mind. Jews were persecuted in Russia before communism (see pogroms). Jews have been persecuted throughout Europe and the Middle East as well as other areas. This persecution was not strictly based on religion. The problem is much more complex than that.

1. The Soviets established an atheistic state.
2. The soviets also established a communistic socioeconomic political system.
3. Atheism was not absolutely central to this system (communists can be theistic).
4. The Jews were theistic.
5. The Jews had a culture that was seen as counter-revolutionary.

It is reasonable to argue that what the Soviets objected to most was the cultural aspects of Judaism and not the fact that Jews believed in god. Further, forcing atheism on Jews is more likely a result of the ideology of communism rather than any dogma of atheism. Atheism has no such dogma. Communism does. So even if we assume that Jews were targeted for their theistic views, in the end the real culprit was the fanatical beliefs of a cult of personality which is more akin to religion and really has nothing to do with atheism.

Let me give you another example. Let's suppose that a tenant of Stalinism was collectivization (it was BTW). Can collectivization, as a concept, be blamed for the millions of deaths caused by forced collectivization? Or was the real culprit Stalin and his intent to make collectivization work?

Theism is different from atheism in that theism has dogma and relies on blind faith. Communism also has dogma and relies on blind faith. In the case of Communist China and the Soviet Union we have simply moved the dogma, blind faith and worship from a deity to an earth bound hero (see cult of peronality). Atheism simply can't be the root of a problem the way theism and ideology can.

There is an old anecdote where Cuban school children are told to put their heads down on their desks, cover their eyes and pray to god for candy. The teachers tell the students to open their eyes. They see that there is no candy. Again the students are told to put their heads down but this time pray to Castro for candy. A candy is then placed on the desk of each child. Proving that the hero Castro is far more capable than god.

There is nothing in atheism to replace god.

 

[joobz]

Wrong. A person can very well believe in a god but hate that god and all of the religions and other believers associated with that god. Anti-theism doesn't come from atheism, it comes from opinions formed about theists and theism.

good point. I didn't consider that option.

I retract that point. But I still do not see how atheism is not corruptable. I agree that it is the reference state. That it has no belief system. But then if you have someone who is both atheist and anti-theist arguing for aggression against religion, is that not an atheist derived oppression?

 

[CapelDodger]

As atheism was an extention of Russian culture.

Soviet culture. Not Russian. Russian religiosity is legendary.

I'll say again, when atheism becomes anti-theism.

This takes on meaning when theism is an active enemy, which was certainly the case before and after the Revolution. The Russian Orthodox Church always identified absolutely with the most primitive forces of privilege in society, and used its enormous influence in their favour. Even in defeat, it could not be expunged, even by Stalin. That was a step that could not be taken.

 

[CapelDodger]

Theism is different from atheism in that theism has dogma and relies on blind faith. Communism also has dogma and relies on blind faith. In the case of Communist China and the Soviet Union we have simply moved the dogma, blind faith and worship from a deity to an earth bound hero (see cult of peronality). Atheism simply can't be the root of a problem the way theism and ideology can.

The thing about Stalin as a deity, though, is that he died in the fifties and was pretty much pissed-on afterwards. Mao died somewhat later, but neither system collapsed with their passing nor survived as theocracies. Yet they did survive

There is an old anecdote where Cuban school children are told to put their heads down on their desks, cover their eyes and pray to god for candy. The teachers tell the students to open their eyes. They see that there is no candy. Again the students are told to put their heads down but this time pray to Castro for candy. A candy is then placed on the desk of each child. Proving that the hero Castro is far more capable than god.

You do realise that this is entirely made up by people that don't like Castro, don't you? And yet you still repeat it.

There is nothing in atheism to replace god.

God needs replacing like a cancer does.

 

[joobz]

(quoteing out of order)

Joobz, I think it likely that you will respond somewhat viscerally to my rebuttal. I encourage you to avoid such. Think about it. There really is a point in there. We must be careful when constructing our arguments.

I hope I never gave the impression that you'd expect such behavior from me.

Ok, let's look at the argument.

(1) atheism doesn't inherently mean intolerance either, anymore than the communist flag means tolerance or intolerance. Also, the communist flag can't prevent intolerance.
(2) assuming this is true we haven't yet established (1)
(3) This premise is true. The USSR also had a communist flag.
The communist flag doesn't prevent intolerance. The USSR had a communist flag. It was the intolerance fostered by the flag that was at the heart of religious oppression.

THis is a similar point that Taiboxerken was making earlier. This is true and I can see this line of reasoning. BUt I also never had anyone explain to me that they felt a moral superiority becuase of the russian flag. I have heard heard of people explain to me that thier atheist upbringing instilled them with a sense of superiority over those who would delude themselves with religion. I realize this is purely anecdotal and a poor counter to this.

Some things to keep in mind. Jews were persecuted in Russia before communism (see pogroms). Jews have been persecuted throughout Europe and the Middle East as well as other areas. This persecution was not strictly based on religion. The problem is much more complex than that.

That I understand but it wasn't just jews that were persecuted. THe Russian orthodox church was also oppressed(lands claimed) for the good of the state. How do we seperate religion and political means?

1. The Soviets established an atheistic state.
2. The soviets also established a communistic socioeconomic political system.
3. Atheism was not absolutely central to this system (communists can be theistic).
4. The Jews were theistic.
5. The Jews had a culture that was seen as counter-revolutionary.

It is reasonable to argue that what the Soviets objected to most was the cultural aspects of Judaism and not the fact that Jews believed in god. Further, forcing atheism on Jews is more likely a result of the ideology of communism rather than any dogma of atheism. Atheism has no such dogma. Communism does. So even if we assume that Jews were targeted for their theistic views, in the end the real culprit was the fanatical beliefs of a cult of personality which is more akin to religion and really has nothing to do with atheism.

Let me give you another example. Let's suppose that a tenant of Stalinism was collectivization (it was BTW). Can collectivization, as a concept, be blamed for the millions of deaths caused by forced collectivization? Or was the real culprit Stalin and his intent to make collectivization work?

Theism is different from atheism in that theism has dogma and relies on blind faith. Communism also has dogma and relies on blind faith. In the case of Communist China and the Soviet Union we have simply moved the dogma, blind faith and worship from a deity to an earth bound hero (see cult of peronality). Atheism simply can't be the root of a problem the way theism and ideology can.

There is an old anecdote where Cuban school children are told to put their heads down on their desks, cover their eyes and pray to god for candy. The teachers tell the students to open their eyes. They see that there is no candy. Again the students are told to put their heads down but this time pray to Castro for candy. A candy is then placed on the desk of each child. Proving that the hero Castro is far more capable than god.

There is nothing in atheism to replace god.

But the fact that atheism doesn't replace god doesn't mean it can't enable the establishment of an alternate power system. Your examples demonstrate this. How is this different from a king being given power by god?

 

[RandFan]

The thing about Stalin as a deity, though, is that he died in the fifties and was pretty much pissed-on afterwards. Mao died somewhat later, but neither system collapsed with their passing nor survived as theocracies. Yet they did survive

I never said that they were deities. I said they were earth bound heros. I've referenced over and over again cult of personality.

You do realise that this is entirely made up by people that don't like Castro, don't you? And yet you still repeat it.

No. I didn't know it was false. If I knew it was false I wouldn't repeat it. I'm looking at snopes and other sources but I can't find anything on it yet. Do you have a source?

God needs replacing like a cancer does.

Agreed.

 

[joobz]

Soviet culture. Not Russian. Russian religiosity is legendary.

My mistake. That was my meaning.

 

[joobz]

I think it's almost the other way around - you can't be an anti-theist without being theist.

An atheist is without god, an anti-theist is against god. How can an atheist be an anti-theist? No gods exist, what's to be against? Anti-religion is a different matter!

That, I'll gladly admit to, but if that's what you mean, then you're ascribing a meaning to "anti-theism" which it doesn't hold.

I'm using anti-theism in the same way Hitchens was using it, to mean anti-religion. I'm not one to hold semantic grudges, so if everyone perfers anti-religion, then I'll use that one. Otherwise if people adopt Hitchens' usage, I'll use that one instead.

BTW: that's one creepy smilie

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

I don't think it's wrong to the people who died, but rather those who are in mourning.

The only people who'd mourn Fawell are just as bigoted, backward, and evil and he was.

Why should we give a frack about how they feel?

 

[David Swidler]

The only people who'd mourn Fawell are just as bigoted, backward, and evil and he was.

Why should we give a frack about how they feel?

OK, so let's turn it around:

The only people who don't mourn Falwell are immoral, anti-family, anti-American hellbound Sodomites.

Why should we give a frack how they feel?

Mark, your post succinctly demonstrates the point David Wong is making.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

\
Mark, your post succinctly demonstrates the point David Wong is making.

Nice Tu quoque.

You, David Wong, and joobz, can hold hands and cry along with the rest of the red-neck, white-trash, ku-kluxing, Christards at Fawell's funeral if you want to.

I've got better things to do with my life.

 

[David Swidler]

Nice Tu quoque.

You, David Wong, and joobz, can hold hands and cry along with the rest of the red-neck, white-trash, ku-kluxing, Christards at Fawell's funeral if you want to.

I've got better things to do with my life.

Such as make patently untrue generalizations about people with whom you disagree, apparently. I think I've seen that somewhere before in this thread.