Religion is not evil

[ixolite]

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).

I must have lived in a different commie Poland then. The country was (and still is) staunchly catholic, packed churches, parades and all. Even pope John Paul II visited once, 1979, I believe.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

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".

Did you read my post?

It's either valid to compare the teachings of religion )which is what I am discussing) with the teachings of atheism or it isn't. As yet you have failed to identify a single teaching of Atheism, that's why you are left scrabbling around trying to draw false parallels.

 

[westprog]

"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.

Yes, it's possible to produce objective definitions of words. That's very different from whether a quality is itself objective. We can certainly provide an objective definition of good. Many definitions, in fact. That's a separate issue.

 

[westprog]

Did you read my post?

It's either valid to compare the teachings of religion )which is what I am discussing) with the teachings of atheism or it isn't. As yet you have failed to identify a single teaching of Atheism, that's why you are left scrabbling around trying to draw false parallels.

There are no teachings of religion. None. No more than there are teachings of atheism. There are teachings of particular religions, just as there are teachings of belief systems which happen to be atheistic.

 

[westprog]

I must have lived in a different commie Poland then. The country was (and still is) staunchly catholic, packed churches, parades and all. Even pope John Paul II visited once, 1979, I believe.

Yes, that's true. However, the communist government was hostile to religion. The tension between the two is one of the main reasons that the government was overthrown and communism in the West ceased to be.

The extent to which religion in various communist countries was suppressed varied, but suppressed it was, invariably. In Poland, the lid blew off. The Pope's visit was the trigger for that.

EDIT: You make a good point, however, about the difference between a country like Poland, ruled by an atheistic system but largely catholic, and somewhere where the population is largely atheist - like, AFAIAA, China.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

There are no teachings of religion. None. No more than there are teachings of atheism. There are teachings of particular religions, just as there are teachings of belief systems which happen to be atheistic.

Would you characterise Christianity, Islam or Judaism as belief systems which just happen to be religious?

 

[westprog]

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?

Don't ask me. Ask Marx. He said it.

If someone really wants to be considered a Marxist, and really wants to proclaim religious belief, then I can't stop them doing it. That they are disavowing elements of what Marx said is certainly true.

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.

Atheism "carries the can" only insofar as we can compare how people behave when they have religious belief, and when they don't.

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.

Yes, that's true. So we need to look at the Marxist equivalent of the Book of Mormon, and the Marxist equivalent of Joseph Smith (I think Marx fits here) and see what he said. And what he said was that atheism was an element of Marxism.

Incidentally, I don't claim that mass murder is part of Marxism - it's something that, as with Mountain Meadows, accompanied the execution of Marxist thought, but was not included in its doctrines.

 

[westprog]

Would you characterise Christianity, Islam or Judaism as belief systems which just happen to be religious?

I think they are religious. I also think that Marxism is atheistic. That's the significant point.

 

[westprog]

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.

Exactly how any belief system actually arises is difficult to determine. If we want to know what the philosophical basis of Marxism is, we can look at dialectical materialism - a philosophy which is fundamentally atheistic.

 

[Lamuella]

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.

Actually, I was on my way out of work and only had the chance to answer one thing. But feel free to continue making assumptions.

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.

or to put it another way, you didn't read the thread and still haven't read the thread.

Let's put the whole thing into context:

Arth: "Some people believe that religion can only be all harm, and it is this that I have a dispute with."
Me: "can you point me to an example in this thread of someone saying that "Religion can only be all harm"?"

As Arth was talking about this thread, it's entirely clear what Arth meant and what I meant in return.

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...

More assumptions.

First of all, my question was perfectly natural, as I wanted to know whether the "some people" Arth was talking about were in this thread or elsewhere.

Second of all, Arth's example wasn't very good, and neither was your answer. It wasn't the equivalent to the original claim. The original claim was someone saying religion can only be all harm. The quote Arth provided was someone saying the good religion occasionally did did nothing to counteract the harm it did. These are different things and not equivalent, no matter how loudly you claim they are.

 

[Lamuella]

Yes, it's possible to produce objective definitions of words. That's very different from whether a quality is itself objective. We can certainly provide an objective definition of good. Many definitions, in fact. That's a separate issue.

You've lost me.

It's possible to provide an objective definition of "good" that has no cosmic element... and yet someone claiming to be "a good person" is laying claim to a "cosmic abstraction"?

 

[westprog]

You've lost me.

It's possible to provide an objective definition of "good" that has no cosmic element... and yet someone claiming to be "a good person" is laying claim to a "cosmic abstraction"?

I specifically stated that if someone claims to be a good person solely according to a particular description of behaviour and no more than that, then that subjective definition has no cosmic implications. It does, however, mean that it is always open for someone else to provide an alternative definition.

If the claim is that the property of being a good person is some quality that has objective existence, then that abstraction must, inevitably, be a property of the cosmos.

We don't regard, say, a magnetic field as being something relies on definition. We think it's something that's objectively real in the universe, indepedently of how we feel about it. Whether or not one feels that good or evil exist in that sense is a philosophical choice to be made, but the choice has to be made.

 

[Akhenaten]

I specifically stated that if someone claims to be a good person solely according to a particular description of behaviour and no more than that, then that subjective definition has no cosmic implications. It does, however, mean that it is always open for someone else to provide an alternative definition.

If the claim is that the property of being a good person is some quality that has objective existence, then that abstraction must, inevitably, be a property of the cosmos.

We don't regard, say, a magnetic field as being something relies on definition. We think it's something that's objectively real in the universe, indepedently of how we feel about it. Whether or not one feels that good or evil exist in that sense is a philosophical choice to be made, but the choice has to be made.

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.

QFT


Westprog, if you're going to replace perfectly serviceable phrases such as 'objective reality' with rubbish like 'cosmic abstraction' and describe communism (although you really mean a narrowly-defined and totally unworkable version of theoretical marxism) as 'an atheistic belief system' then you really have no right to be casting aspersions about the ability of people to understand what the hell you're nattering about.

 

[westprog]

QFT


Westprog, if you're going to replace perfectly serviceable phrases such as 'objective reality' with rubbish like 'cosmic abstraction'

Yes, when I mean two different things, I tend to use different words. That may seem extravagant, but it avoids confusion. Well, it attempts it, but it takes two.

If you don't understand the argument, then say so, rather than constantly going back three or four posts to complain about it.

and describe communism (although you really mean a narrowly-defined and totally unworkable version of theoretical marxism) as 'an atheistic belief system' then you really have no right to be casting aspersions about the ability of people to understand what the hell you're nattering about.

Yes, that narrowly defined and totally unworkable system that apart from being responsible for running the lives of a billion or so people, is entirely irrelevant.

Had it occurred to you that if it wasn't a flawed system, I might not have brought it up as an example of a flawed system? That's fairly restrictive - I've to choose a flawless system, and point out the flaws in it.

We might make more progress if you were to cease the endless commentary about my own personal shortcomings, and engage with the arguments. Or you could just randomly intersperse "Rubbish" and "Nonsense" through my posts. Whatever.

 

[Lamuella]

If the claim is that the property of being a good person is some quality that has objective existence, then that abstraction must, inevitably, be a property of the cosmos.

Would you say that being altruistic is a quality that has objective existence?

 

[Akhenaten]

Yes, when I mean two different things, I tend to use different words. That may seem extravagant, but it avoids confusion.

Apparently not.

Well, it attempts it, but it takes two.

No. It takes one, and you're it.

You might want to pretend to yourself that I'm the one with the problem here but the non-cosmic reality is that you're the one that's continually being asked to explain what he's talking about and repeatedly expressing frustration with people not understanding his arguments.

As I said earlier, Not My Problem.

If you don't understand the argument, then say so, rather than constantly going back three or four posts to complain about it.

The barrier to understanding your argument(s) isn't my lack of comprehensive faculties, and I am saying so.

I have no idea what you mean by "going back three or four posts to complain about it". Do you mean that you'd prefer any complaints I have to be posted immediately after the post of yours with which I want to take issue?

You'll have to have a word with the other posters about that, I'm afraid.

Yes, that narrowly defined and totally unworkable system that apart from being responsible for running the lives of a billion or so people, is entirely irrelevant.

Why bring it up then?

Had it occurred to you that if it wasn't a flawed system, I might not have brought it up as an example of a flawed system? That's fairly restrictive - I've to choose a flawless system, and point out the flaws in it.

The main thing that occurs to me is that describing communism as an atheistic belief system is wrong, regardless of its flaws.

We might make more progress if you were to cease the endless commentary about my own personal shortcomings, and engage with the arguments.

We might, if that was actually happening. As it is, I think we'll need a Plan 'B'.

Or you could just randomly intersperse "Rubbish" and "Nonsense" through my posts. Whatever.

You forgot "drivel" and "balderdash". And there's still "twaddle", "piffle" and "codswallop" to come, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.

 

[westprog]

Apparently not.





No. It takes one, and you're it.

You might want to pretend to yourself that I'm the one with the problem here but the non-cosmic reality is that you're the one that's continually being asked to explain what he's talking about and repeatedly expressing frustration with people not understanding his arguments.

As I said earlier, Not My Problem.





The barrier to understanding your argument(s) isn't my lack of comprehensive faculties, and I am saying so.

I have no idea what you mean by "going back three or four posts to complain about it". Do you mean that you'd prefer any complaints I have to be posted immediately after the post of yours with which I want to take issue?

You'll have to have a word with the other posters about that, I'm afraid.





Why bring it up then?





The main thing that occurs to me is that describing communism as an atheistic belief system is wrong, regardless of its flaws.





We might, if that was actually happening. As it is, I think we'll need a Plan 'B'.





You forgot "drivel" and "balderdash". And there's still "twaddle", "piffle" and "codswallop" to come, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.

I'm trying to find an actual argument in this post, which is quite lengthy - and I don't see one. There's assertion, there's expletive, there's self-justification - just no arguments. That might be why nobody asks you to explain yourself. There's nothing to explain.

I've given you a detailed, annotated, referenced explanation of why communism can be considered an atheist belief system. Your response, above - in the only part of the post which even approaches an argument - is "describing communism as an atheistic belief system is wrong".

Well, that's clear enough. Why anyone should find it convincing I don't see. I've pointed out in detail the ways in which communism is a philosophical as well as a political and economic system. I've pointed out the precise philosophical link to atheism. I've given direct quotes from Marx and Lenin. Your substantive response, apart from the above, has been a reference to a priest who was a Marxist, though you failed to establish that he was both at the same time.

I wouldn't rely on the popular vote for your strategy of argument. People generally find the arguments most convincing when they reinforce somebody's own opinions. If you've converted anyone then you should be pleased with yourself.

 

[westprog]

Would you say that being altruistic is a quality that has objective existence?

I think it's possible to define the word in order that certain acts can be considered as being more or less altruistic.

 

[Legend]

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 ?

I find it quite riling, to be honest. In other words, I like it. I think you're pretty much spot on regarding the origin of the idea that there must be an "atheist belief system".

My only issue is that it does indeed remind me of Twilight.

 

[westprog]

I find it quite riling, to be honest. In other words, I like it. I think you're pretty much spot on regarding the origin of the idea that there must be an "atheist belief system".

Is there someone claiming this?