Religion is not evil

[jiggeryqua]

And for the poets, bald isn't a hair colour. But atheism is a wig.

Hmm. Could you explain that? I'm sincere. What is that supposed to mean? Is it supposed to extend the original analogy? I'm assuming you weren't just trying to be cute.

I was, I'm afraid, mostly just riffing on 'cute'. That, and having another moment of weariness with a recent rash of soundbite arguments, the whole 'stamp collecting/hair colour' kneejerk use of necessarily flawed analogies in place of actual discussion. If you ('one', people who do, not necessarily you personally) are genuinely weary of responding to a common, recurring argument that you disagree with, then don't post anything (there is no obligation). But it mostly comes across as the voice of the mob, the chanting of slogans by the intellectually-challenged followers of notable thinkers. It seems to say 'I don't have to think, I can defend my choice by playing this cute card'. It reminds me of the (UK) racists factual equivalent: "There aint no black in the Union Jack".

There isn't any black in the British flag, it's true. But that has no bearing on immigration or integration or how a society should treat black people. Similarly, bald isn't a hair colour. Not-collecting-stamps isn't a hobby. But bald is as much a cranial condition as a full of head of any colour hair, not-collecting-stamps is a part of how everyone except philatelists passes their time. Neither statement actually tells us anything about atheism, although I'd venture to suggest they tell us something about the beliefs of the atheists who deploy them.

My apologies, on a better day I'd have improvised an extension of what was in fact a flippant remark...perhaps...erm...if 'bald' is an absence of 'hair colour/religious belief', then atheism is a wig which provides a woven structure of beliefs to ward off the discourteous cries of 'baldy!' from....no, I give up. It's been a long week...

 

[Lamuella]

Because that is a belief system which includes, as an essential element, atheism.

Tell that to Thomas J Haggerty: catholic priest, and one of the founders of Industrial Workers of the World.

 

[the PC apeman]

I was, I'm afraid, mostly just riffing on 'cute'. That, and having another moment of weariness with a recent rash of soundbite arguments, the whole 'stamp collecting/hair colour' kneejerk use of necessarily flawed analogies in place of actual discussion.

No problem. I was just on the lookout for something new. Thanks.

 

[Lamuella]

Or did you plan on insisting that nobody has posted the string of characters you invented and stuck quote marks round?

well, first of all, I didn't invent that particular string of characters.

Second of all, saying that the malevolent behaviour of a group is in no way counteracted by their good behaviour is not the same as saying there is no good behaviour.

 

[jiggeryqua]

Well that would just be a simple mistake - you are apparently dividing both sides of the equation by "2"; but you should be dividing by "-2" ... which gives you the result -2 = -2.

No, there was no division. It wasn't, in case this had slipped past you, a serious remark - and it certainly wasn't serious mathematics. It would be possible to claim that two things were equivalent if the same action upon them produced the same result. The claim wouldn't necessarily be valid, mathematically or otherwise. It would, however, be considerably more valid than a mathematical operation applied to words or ideas.

[Not that I want to drag the thread into the crazy world of maths, but why should I be dividing by -2 rather than 2?]

 

[jiggeryqua]

well, first of all, I didn't invent that particular string of characters.

Second of all, saying that the malevolent behaviour of a group is in no way counteracted by their good behaviour is not the same as saying there is no good behaviour.

No, you did. You responded to a lengthy and thoughtful argument with a misleading summary that you put in quote marks and challenged the arguer to show where that had been said.

ETA: If you didn't invent that string of characters, then please, you show us where it was said in the thread. Because your challenge gave the clear indication that you were pretty certain nobody else had said it, leaving us to conclude that you invented it. And then stuck quote marks on it...

Secondly, if the malevolent behaviour of a group is in no way counteracted then what you are left with is pure malevolence, malevolence as the only defining characteristic. Which is not the precise string of characters you invented and stuck quote marks on, but it stands for it.

 

[Lamuella]

ETA: If you didn't invent that string of characters, then please, you show us where it was said in the thread.

sure thing:

Of course it does! We have no disagreement here. Religious charities are capable of both harm and good. I've been saying this all along, but some people seem to have trouble with the idea. Some people believe that religion can only be all harm, and it is this that I have a dispute with.

 

[westprog]

I think the above makes a mistake about the use of the word “system” -

- organised religion offers a “belief system”, because it provides a physical framework of church buildings, appointed preachers, supposedly divine religious “rule” books, and a variety of instructional practices (preaching & evangelising etc.).

That is a “system” of religious belief which (a)uses a variety of methods to draw new members into it’s faith (inc. dire warnings of hell and the wroth of God for non-believers), and (b) attempts to insist that existing members observe various practices of the faith (attending a church, praying, donating money etc.).

By contrast - whilst it’s true that most, if not all, atheists do actively believe there is no God (which is a “belief“, though unlike religion it‘s a rational belief supported by most if not all known science), it is however, not a “system” of belief deliberately presented and organised as a way of life.

IOW - unlike religion, atheism, is not a systematic way of living ones life (or dictating the way in which others should live).

That's interesting, in that your response, while accurate enough, had very little to do with the post of mine that was quoted.

It seems that no matter how often I write "atheism is not itself a belief or system of belief" people respond by saying "no, you're wrong, atheism is not itself a belief or a system of belief".

What I am saying is that atheism can be a component of something that is a system of belief. And as a corollary to that, obviously not all atheists necessarily subscribe to that system of belief - but some do.

 

[Resume]

It seems that no matter how often I write "atheism is not itself a belief or system of belief" people respond by saying "no, you're wrong, atheism is not itself a belief or a system of belief".

Except for post #353 where you use the term atheistic belief system. Twice.

 

[westprog]

OK, without going any further then we can see a problem with your argument.

Communism does not include, as a necessary element, the non-existence of god and therefore, by your definition, is not an atheistic belief system.

Communism is a political and economic ideology which does not require any view on the existence of God.

That's precisely why I very specifically identified Marxist Communism. Marx wasn't just an economist and political thinker - he was a philosopher, and he very explicitly, very clearly identified atheism as an essential element of communism.

That's why in the USSR, Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Romania, Albania, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea and Cuba the leadership of the party and country are all atheist, and the country operates a policy hostile to religion.

Is it possible to have socialist politicians who aren't atheists? Of course it is. The British Labour party was described as owing more to Methodism than Marx. Is an atheist necessarily a Marxist? That would be an absurd thing to claim. It's like saying that if someone is religious, they have to be a Muslim.

However, if the behaviour of Muslims is to be taken as an example of how religious believers behave, then it follows that the behaviour of communists is to be taken as an example of how atheists behave. If we are to be wary of what happens to atheists if religious people have influence in politics, then we are entitled to be wary of the opposite thing happening.

There seem to be a lot of people who cannot accept this. Fair enough, but I wish they'd argue against the point I'm actually making.

(It's been pointed out that there are non-Marxist communists. Yes, that may be. They aren't the people I'm talking about).

 

[Akhenaten]

That's interesting, in that your response, while accurate enough, had very little to do with the post of mine that was quoted.

Apart from directly addressing it, you mean?

It seems that no matter how often I write "atheism is not itself a belief or system of belief" people respond by saying "no, you're wrong, atheism is not itself a belief or a system of belief".

Well, either everyone else is having problems with their reading for comprehension or you're not expressing yourself very well.

Given that you keep talking about "atheistic belief systems" I think I'll have a quid on the latter.

What I am saying is that atheism can be a component of something that is a system of belief. And as a corollary to that, obviously not all atheists necessarily subscribe to that system of belief - but some do.

I'd ask for an example, but since you keep insisting that communism is a belief system there doesn't seem to be much point.

 

[Akhenaten]

<stuff>

There seem to be a lot of people who cannot accept this. Fair enough, but I wish they'd argue against the point I'm actually making.

Again, if it seems (and it most certainly does) that people are having difficulty figuring out what your point is then you need to consider that it might not be the readers who have the problem.

The fact is, your point seems to shift and evolve in response to the replies you get, so it really does seem that the solution lies with you. Put the damn goalposts down, in other words.

(It's been pointed out that there are non-Marxist communists. Yes, that may be. They aren't the people I'm talking about).

It would at least have saved a bit of confusion if you'd been this specific to start with.

 

[Trent Wray]

Okay, how is this: I think the confusion about the "atheist belief system" thing still hinges on god either being real, or not, to the respective person's POV. So if they are real in your eyes, then atheists "have to have a system" because "god" is still the common thread that ties them together, they are just "against god". If you recognize there are no gods, then you have no belief system, because there is "nothing" there to tie you together. How can the absence of a thing tie you together if it's not there ?

When I tried out being a more cookie cutter believer for a time, I still hated going to a church. And whenever anyone would ask me if I was a believer, or start some conversation about such things .... if they were a believer, I would invariably get the "what church do you go to ?" question. When I told them "none" ... I got the look, the whole, "well .... why not ? Don't you need to be part of a body ? "

I realized this was the "pack" mentality to a degree. In their eyes, I was claiming to be a wolf, and wolves belong to a pack. Like them. A system, with a goal, whatever. And I was a "lone wolf" ... claiming to be out there on my own. In their eyes, at best, I was "one of those believers" .... one that thought I could get by on my own in the world without needing a pack to guide me, protect me, tell me what to do, please the Wolf God, etc. At worst, I wasn't even recognized as a believer ... I wasn't even considered a wolf at all. Completely shunned. Only True Wolves belonged to packs. Lone wolfs were something else, but not recognized by the believers.

I think that a believer views the atheist, at best, as a lone wolf .... at worst, a lone anti-wolf.

Now, when they see a group of lone wolves standing together, talking about things, joining together because of their lone wolfness or whatever you'd want to call it ... they see it as a pack. A system. And that pack must have a purpose.

What they have a hard time grasping, is that it's not a pack. Just because a bunch of lone wolves gathers together and share something in common, doesn't make them a pack, or the equivalent of a "church body", with a system of rules, and beliefs. It's not easily comprehended, because to them, you are still "wolves" and you are either forming a pack based on shunning packs, or you "really and truly deep down wish you were part of our pack,", etc and so forth.

Now, in that analogy, I think if you replace "wolf" with "werewolf" .... and atheist with "awerewolf" .... you are getting closer to what is really taking place. The believer thinks that werewolves are real, the atheist doesn't. So not only is there not a "werewolf" pack, with a werewolf system of lone werewolfs and grouped together werewolves .... there is no such thing as werewolves. Being labeled a nonwerewolf is redundant ... of course you aren't a werewolf, there are no such things as werewolves. How can you have a system of it ? At the very most, the system is a system of one simple thing: there are no werewolves. Stop.

So again, the believer is still basing their POV around the "fact" that gods are real. That hinge. And this is why they can't comprehend the "no need to go further" concept. Atheists are lone werewolves, or groups of packed together enemy werewolves. Even if an atheist wanted to get together a system of atheist beliefs, and this and that ... it can't even revolve around atheism. It would be misleading. Because it would involve having at it's core something that isn't even there.

For any who choose to respond, does this analogy work at all ?

 

[westprog]

How many more times do we have to argue around this Atheism = Communism nonsense on this forum?

Since nobody on this thread has claimed that Atheism = Communism, I don't think it needs to be argued at all.

Yes, so your statement was false. If you want to examine whether religion has an effect on peoples' behaviour then you can look at the religious and the irreligious in the same country and see the difference. There's no need to try to compare European Christians (for example) with an East Asian totalitarian Communist regime (for example) because there is a perfectly good comparison to make with Europeans of no religion.

How very convenient. This leaves aside the obvious point that there have been plenty of European communist regimes, and that they operate in practice in a very similar manner to the East Asian regimes.

Provided they are comparable then it might be a start. Of course as mentioned above you need to do this because we can simply compare the religious and the non-religious within a given society and see the difference without introducing other confounding factors.

So for example, when my country looks to introduce same-sex marriage legislation we see objections come from the Catholic Church and Islamic groups but none from secular organisations.

Now to revisit a previous point, there is absolutely no need for the Catholic Church to oppose gay marriage. It doesn't have to be a part of their religion but they choose it to be so. Now rather than try to distract from that point why don't you address it?

Yes, we could restrict the conversation to why the Catholic church has objected to same-sex marriage, and use that as a reason to show that religion has a harmful effect on society. We could ignore what happens when an explicitly atheist regime takes control of a country, and see what happens then, with respect to this precise topic. Obviously, if we were to do this, and find that no countries which subscribe to Marxism - and which, by definition, have an atheistic viewpoint - have so far legalised same-sex marriage. Most of them only very recently decriminalised homosexuality. We would also find that the majority of countries which have legalised same-sex marriage are in fact Catholic.

When I say that they are Catholic, I don't mean that they have rule by bishops. I mean that the Catholics in the population are in a majority. There are no countries ruled by the Catholic Church except for Vatican City). Naturally this influences policy. Should the minority population, atheists in particular, be fearful of this majority, and the influence of the Pope on their lives? The evidence is that on this particular issue - not one that I raised, but rather one that was presented to me as a challenge - that if you are a gay atheist, you should seek out a Catholic country to get married in.

 

[Resume]

Westprog:

Either most of us are as thick as curbstones or you're not communicating very well.

Maybe it's time to regroup.

 

[westprog]

Only if my definition of "good" is a cosmic abstraction. My definition of "good" has nothing whatsoever to do with the cosmos.

If it's a subjective definition, that's also OK. But it has the limitations of any subjective definition - i.e. someone else might have another definition of his own.

 

[westprog]

Tell that to Thomas J Haggerty: catholic priest, and one of the founders of Industrial Workers of the World.

Hagerty had been a Marxist before his ordination.

There have been plenty of Christians who've struggled to reconcile religion and Marxism. It's generally not possible.

 

[Akhenaten]

Only if my definition of "good" is a cosmic abstraction. My definition of "good" has nothing whatsoever to do with the cosmos.

If it's a subjective definition, that's also OK. But it has the limitations of any subjective definition - i.e. someone else might have another definition of his own.

That response has nothing to do with the post you've quoted.

You asserted this:

You said you were "a good person". If you think that means anything, then you are subscribing to a cosmic abstraction.

And when that assertion was refuted you simply switched to talking about subjective definitions as though the cosmic abstraction nonsense had never been mentioned.

No wonder people are having trouble understanding you.

 

[Lamuella]

That's precisely why I very specifically identified Marxist Communism. Marx wasn't just an economist and political thinker - he was a philosopher, and he very explicitly, very clearly identified atheism as an essential element of communism.

Not all Marxists agreed with him on this. Ernst Bloch, to pick one example, saw no contradiction between christianity and marxism.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

It surprises me that you haven't pointed out the similarities between westprog's rhetoric and rramjet's, Pharaoh.

Both rely on couching the debate in extremely specific yet easily misunderstood terms that they redefine to suit themselves (in this case, atheistic belief systems which are neither atheism nor religious belief system. Talk amongst yerselves).

Then they use their split-hair sharp tools to build an argument using the easily misunderstood interpretations of their terms (that atheism == communism).

Finally, they loudly denounce anyone they don't want to answer on the basis that we're just not understanding or deliberately misinterpreting what they're getting at (I never said it explicitly, just implied it repeatedly!).

Repeat as needed until thread is done.


In his latest salvo, westprog introduces the notion that although Atheist nations require a political philosophy which must be exclusively atheist, Catholic nations can qualify with a simple majority of the population. Imagine the confusion when he starts comparing the two! Why, page 50 here we come!