Religion is not evil

[Lamuella]

Hagerty had been a Marxist before his ordination.

Emphasis, it should be added, not in the original.

 

[westprog]

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

You asserted this:

​

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

No wonder people are having trouble understanding you.

Either "good" means something specific and objective - in which case it's a cosmic abstraction - or it means something entirely subjective. Which I wrote in the first place.

 

[Akhenaten]

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

Geeze, you're bloody psychic. That's exactly who I was thinking of when I was looking for a response to this "atheistic belief system" weaselness.

 

[Lamuella]

Either "good" means something specific and objective - in which case it's a cosmic abstraction - or it means something entirely subjective. Which I wrote in the first place.

Nope, sorry, you're not dropping this one that easily.

You were using the "good as a cosmic abstraction" argument to jump on my comment about atheists being (as the british humanist association slogan puts it) good without god. When you realized you'd overextended, you tried to backpedal and claim you meant something different all along. It looks very silly.

 

[westprog]

Emphasis, it should be added, not in the original.

But entirely relevant to the discussion. It was the first sentence in the biography! How can that support your claim? Doesn't it at least imply that there was something of a conflict between being a priest and being a Marxist? Clearly he didn't abandon his political stance. Clearly he didn't abandon his economic views. Perhaps - maybe - the example you chose actually supports my claim that Marxism has a philosophical stance which includes atheism.

 

[westprog]

Geeze, you're bloody psychic. That's exactly who I was thinking of when I was looking for a response to this "atheistic belief system" weaselness.

Yet another diversion noted. Maybe you could make a complete list of "why I don't need to address Westprog's arguments".

 

[Akhenaten]

Either "good" means something specific and objective - in which case it's a cosmic abstraction - or it means something entirely subjective.

Balderdash.

Which I wrote in the first place.

Yes, I know. Saying it twice, however, just makes it balderdasher, or something.

 

[westprog]

Nope, sorry, you're not dropping this one that easily.

You were using the "good as a cosmic abstraction" argument to jump on my comment about atheists being (as the british humanist association slogan puts it) good without god. When you realized you'd overextended, you tried to backpedal and claim you meant something different all along. It looks very silly.

I wasn't dealing with the question of being good without god. I was dealing with the question of defining good without god. I gave two ways to do it. This is being addressed in the Hume vs. Harris thread, where a Third Way is being proposed. I don't accept that, but ymmv.

 

[Lamuella]

But entirely relevant to the discussion. It was the first sentence in the biography! How can that support your claim? Doesn't it at least imply that there was something of a conflict between being a priest and being a Marxist? Clearly he didn't abandon his political stance. Clearly he didn't abandon his economic views. Perhaps - maybe - the example you chose actually supports my claim that Marxism has a philosophical stance which includes atheism.

Where in that article does it say he abandoned his marxism at that point?

Your emphasis changes the meaning of the phrase.

You can't just declare victory every time someone shows you're wrong.

 

[Akhenaten]

Yet another diversion noted. Maybe you could make a complete list of "why I don't need to address Westprog's arguments".

1. Because he doesn't appear to have any.

 

[westprog]

Balderdash.

You don't really go in for the "making an argument" business, do you?

If you think that there is a possible meaning for "good" apart from an objective or subjective definition, then you should address the issue.

 

[Lamuella]

I wasn't dealing with the question of being good without god. I was dealing with the question of defining good without god. I gave two ways to do it. This is being addressed in the Hume vs. Harris thread, where a Third Way is being proposed. I don't accept that, but ymmv.

backpedalling even further. You didn't give two ways, you assumed one way. You played your trump card and it turned out to be the "rules of poker" one. Pack it up.

 

[Lamuella]

You don't really go in for the "making an argument" business, do you?

If you think that there is a possible meaning for "good" apart from an objective or subjective definition, then you should address the issue.

"objective" and "cosmic" are not synonyms.

It's possible for something to be an objective descriptor without requiring otherworldly powers or the invocation of an ideology or faith.

To pick an example, it is possible to define "altruism" in a way that is objective and not cosmic.

 

[Akhenaten]

Balderdash.

You don't really go in for the "making an argument" business, do you?

As the occasion demands. In this case, it doesn't.

If you think that there is a possible meaning for "good" apart from an objective or subjective definition, then you should address the issue.

My balderdash comment was directed squarely at you offering "cosmic abstraction" as one of the choices for a definition of 'good'.

 

[westprog]

Where in that article does it say he abandoned his marxism at that point?

Your emphasis changes the meaning of the phrase.

You can't just declare victory every time someone shows you're wrong.

You tried to give an example of someone who combined Marxism with Christianity, and failed to show that he actually did. Now you are demanding that I prove that he didn't. Can you tell what's wrong with this picture?

It seems absurd in a forum where people are assumed to be reasonably au fait with major historical facts to be producing evidence about the conflict between Marxist Communism and religion. It's like educating people about alphabetical order. The ABC of Communism referenced below.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.

Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism

communism is incompatible with religious faith

It's notable that even while the economic and political strands of Marxism are stretched out of all recognition, the anti-religious stance hangs on.

Are there some people who think they can reconcile Marxism and religion? I'm sure there are. The fact remains that Marxism as it has existed from its inception has been atheist in theory and very much in practice.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

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.

I see where you may have gone wrong. My argument is not that the behaviour of Muslims should be taken as an example of how religious believers behave. That's a separate discussion.

My argument is that religions should be judged on what they teach and promote and the behaviours they encourage. Note the direction here - what religion teaches to the religious.

Now, if your argument is that just because the Catholic Church teaches people that its wrong to be gay or wear a condom that doesn't mean Catholics all agree, then you are right. That doesn't mean the Catholic Church doesn't teach it. Equally there are Catholics who do terrible things like commit terrorist acts in Ireland and they are not the subject of this discussion because the Catholic Church doesn't teach people to commit terrorist acts.

Now if you want to compare that with atheism great. What does atheism teach to atheists?

If alternatively you want to get tied up in comparing the Chinese Communist Party with the Catholic Church go ahead. I can condemn them both. Mind you Communism has only had a few decades to sort itself out, the Catholic Church has had centuries.

The Pope knows he doesn't talk to God and yet he uses his position to peddle messages of hate, intolerance and provide dangerous advice that causes pain and suffering to people who trust him. Now what is the justification for that? Is it more justified if Communists behave badly too?

 

[westprog]

My balderdash comment was directed squarely at you offering "cosmic abstraction" as one of the choices for a definition of 'good'. You don't really think you're going to get away with pretending the choices were 'objective' and 'subjective' do you?

If "good" is an objective quality, then it's a cosmic abstraction. How else can it objectively exist?

I realise that when an atheist has a view of good and evil as being objectively true or false (and many atheists do) they might not think about this as being a quality of the cosmos. But if it's objectively true, then that's what it is.

If you subscribe to the subjective morality viewpoint, then of course this does not apply. Pick one or the other.

 

[jiggeryqua]

sure thing:

What a pity you wasted the opportunity to respond to the second point, but not having a snappy comeback probably put you off conceding the point.

I, on the other hand, freely admit that I was wrong - though I'm tempted to point out that you asked "where in the thread is [the quote] then?!" when all along you knew precisely where it was...but of course, it was arth who used it and you wanted him to show where else in the thread it had been said.

So yes, I was wrong - your deceit was not in the string of characters but in narrowing the goalposts. Arth said 'some people think X' and you demanded an example from this thread. Which would make some sense if you could realistically claim that nobody anywhere ever thought that.

As it was, Arth's example from the thread, which I also explained for you, says the equivalent of that string of characters. In a neat and tidy return to our starting point, that was the second point, the one you didn't respond to when you had the opportunity because it demonstrates that you were wrong...

 

[westprog]

Now if you want to compare that with atheism great. What does atheism teach to atheists?

If alternatively you want to get tied up in comparing the Chinese Communist Party with the Catholic Church go ahead. I can condemn them both. Mind you Communism has only had a few decades to sort itself out, the Catholic Church has had centuries.

It's either valid to compare religion as a whole with atheism as a whole, or to compare specific examples of religion with specific examples of atheism. What has been typically done is to compare specific tenets of specific religions with the non-tenets of atheism.

It's claimed that "atheism" is not a belief system. Nor is "religion".

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

You tried to give an example of someone who combined Marxism with Christianity, and failed to show that he actually did. Now you are demanding that I prove that he didn't. Can you tell what's wrong with this picture?

It seems absurd in a forum where people are assumed to be reasonably au fait with major historical facts to be producing evidence about the conflict between Marxist Communism and religion. It's like educating people about alphabetical order. The ABC of Communism referenced below.


It's notable that even while the economic and political strands of Marxism are stretched out of all recognition, the anti-religious stance hangs on.

Are there some people who think they can reconcile Marxism and religion? I'm sure there are. The fact remains that Marxism as it has existed from its inception has been atheist in theory and very much in practice.

For what it's worth I have met and conversed with Chinese Marxists who believe in god. Is your position that they aren't proper theists or that they aren't proper Marxists?

In any case your argument is unsound. Even if atheism is a fundamental tenet of Communism it doesn't follow that Communism is an atheistic belief system. An atheistic belief system would be one that arises from atheism.

Furthermore, simply because Atheism is a tenet of Communism it doesn't follow that Atheism carries the can for actions which follow from the other tenets. They merely happen to have occured together.

For example if someone happens to be a Mormon and a mass murderer it would be silly to argue that mass murder is a Mormonistic belief system and even more silly to argue that Mormonism is a murdereristic belief system. Now if page 1 of the book of Mormon said 'thou shalt commit mass murder' then you have the foundation of an argument that the murders were rooted in Mormonism.