Poland needs to get its head out of its ass

[faethor]

@Cecilia,
I too basically agree with everything you said. I've seen Dawkins defend himself in that manner. Though by using the term 'evengelical' I comment more on his tatics. Often times his 'discussion' seem to be more akin to an attack. He doesn't attack the person but his presentation bears some resemblence to Evengelical religion. I think him to be noteably different in handling of this issue compared to Sagan or Neil deGrasse Tyson.

And I'm fine with Dawkins approach, it works for him, and some others need it too. Though it can be offsetting to others. However, there's no 1 tatic that works for all people. Sometimes people need to be hit along the head with a cod.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

If you believe there is no supreme diety, then it follow that there are only higher status humans.

And that is true, though some people try to gain status by claiming to be close personal friends of, or direct subordinates with authority granted by a supreme deity. Atheists don't take those kind of claims seriously which makes atheists dangerous to people who claim divine right as their source of authority and power (resulting in many historical atheist BBQs) and is also unsettling to people who gain a sense of self worth from the idea that a supreme deity "loves" them.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Reread the statement, Communists >> Atheists >> official religion = atheism

If a communist state is officially atheist then it doesn't have a state religion of atheism, it just has NO state religion. You can't MAKE a religion out of "no religion". The intent of Lenin was to replace religion with the ideology of communism. I can't drink all the beer from a beer bottle then declare that the air in the bottle is beer because it is occupying the space that used to be filled with beer (or rather, strictly speaking, I can say that but unfortunately just saying it won't make it true).

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

however once you have decided there is no higher deity, humans have a psychological need to fill the void

Not grown up humans.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Again atheism is the notion there is no god.

I have to disagree. Theism is the root word and the prefix 'a' just means 'not'. Theism is the belief that there is a god or gods - atheism is the lack of such a belief. It isn't necessary to be absolutely convinced that gods do not exist: it is only necessary to be not absolutely convinced that they do.

 

[redrumloa]

atheism is the lack of such a belief. It isn't necessary to be absolutely convinced that gods do not exist: it is only necessary to be not absolutely convinced that they do.

No, that would be agnostic.

 

[faethor]

Communists are atheists, there is no such thing as a "Christian Communist" the correct description is "Christian Socialist"

Traits of a Communist system is a subset of Socialism. Specifically Communial Socialism. Early Christian societies and Monks live(d) in a Communial Socialist system. The need to remove God is part of Lenin not Communism. I haven't read all his stuff but I'd recommend you read some Ernest Bloch. He can provide better detail than I can in my short description in a short thread.

They use an e-meter to "scientifically" improve themselves (dianetic$), there is no belief in any deity

Scientologists don't derive a dogma from a deity but they do conceive of a deity. LINK [/quote] While their 'god' may be different than your 'god' it is none-the-less a concept of a diety.http://www.scientology.org/faq/scientology-beliefs/what-is-the-concept-of-god-in-scientology.html

"No True Atheist"

This was in reference to Gaia worshippers. If one thinks that nature and they themselves are part of the god (Pantheism) that is clearly different than thinking no god exists in any manner (Atheism). Again the construct of a deity may be different but it is a deity.

Personality cults are not unique to atheism, its a basic human nature

Some men may be weak willed and follow the person it clearly is not a universal aspect of all humans. Hence I'd say is not basic human nature.

It makes a difference who is the object of the cult though. most are harmless, and the Jesus cult involves a strict moral code, but every Communist nation has used this basic human nature to maintain power

Certainly the leader of anything makes a difference. But, I'd argue the cult of Jesus isn't untouched by their own immoralities and deaths of fellow humans. View history - conquest of the Americas, Spanish Inquisition, Crusades, Ireland, Africa, to name a few.

Its the Judeo-Christrian God

Nope. There's a specific reason the Deist Jefferson and Madison used the term Creator and Nature's God. These were well read men. They knew of various deities, including Christian ones. Had they wanted to specifically call out the God of the Bible they would have used terms akin to that concept. There was a conscious choice made to not specifically call out the God of Abraham or God of the Bible or the Blessed Trinity, or anything used a specific term to a Judeo-Christian deity. Because they meant to create a nation for all peoples of all faiths they used words that any man could translate as their 'Creator' be that God or Vishnu or Zeus the contracts of this nations construction would apply equally to all faiths.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Being a scientist he will not make a statement that absolutely there is no god.

But only in the same way that I can say that I cannot absolutely prove that there is no giant rabbit standing behind me.

There are atheists who really are bugged by this view because they would like him to be more definite about there being "no god(s)", but I find their attitude , well, silly.

The problem is that not closing the infinitesimal gap is very 'thin end of the wedge' and offers "faint hope", (the most compelling flavour of hope that there is).
We can say much more certainly what kind of gods DON'T exist. For example, if the theory of a god requires that He made the earth 6000 years ago and made all of the animals and plants at that time by magic and created the first man in a magical garden then all the evidence indicates that that god does not exist.
If a certain god flooded the earth a few thousand years ago then evidence indicates that that god does not exist.
Literal bible god - evidence indicates, doesn't exist.

That's why science is viewed with such horror by literalists - it literally proves that their god doesn't exist - and that they are entirely wrong about the universe and that there isn't a great big sky daddy looking after them and that death isn't really real. That's a big shock and a lot to deal with and will make you very defensive.

Non-literalist are OK with having god retreat a step every time an alternative better explanation is discovered and they can keep a wishy-washy airy-fairy god in the back of their minds without having to examine the idea too much but currently the kind of gods that could exist (given the room left by the evidence) are not really the kind of gods most people would be terribly interested in.

 

[faethor]

And that is true, though some people try to gain status by claiming to be close personal friends of, or direct subordinates with authority granted by a supreme deity. Atheists don't take those kind of claims seriously which makes atheists dangerous to people who claim divine right as their source of authority and power (resulting in many historical atheist BBQs) and is also unsettling to people who gain a sense of self worth from the idea that a supreme deity "loves" them.

I don't know if our terms disagree. More so that mine was a 1 sentence short hand version.

 

[faethor]

But only in the same way that I can say that I cannot absolutely prove that there is no giant rabbit standing behind me.

Probably another conversation but I can't prove anyone (probably even me) has consciousness. Especially here online you all might as well be bots.

The problem is that not closing the infinitesimal gap is very 'thin end of the wedge' and offers "faint hope", (the most compelling flavour of hope that there is).

This isn't exactly what you said. But, I think this graph is a good commentary and can be extended to the case that he 'just doesn't frickin exist'.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

[quote="faethor, post: 60107, member: 32"] Communism doesn't necessarily lead to Atheists. Christian Communists are the easy example. They exist Philosophically and existed as societies. For example: Ceclia cited Monks.

"Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes" -Karl Marx translated as: "religion is the opiate of the masses"
[/quote]
By which he means that religion relieves the pain of the masses (but not the injury). The premise is that without religion as a social control mechanism to mask the suffering of the masses they would be compelled to act in a way such as to fix the problem of their lowly condition by action - just what the ruling classes don't want.

Communists are atheists, there is no such thing as a "Christian Communist" the correct description is "Christian Socialist"

Because Christian Communists are not true Christians, right?

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

No, that would be agnostic.

Agnostic is what atheist call themselves when they don't want to be burned at the stake.

Agnostic is just not gnostic and gnostic is knowing. Atheist is just not theist. You can be both, or either or neither. Agnostic is often used to mean agnostic on the existence of a god but you can be agnostic on other issues too. You can be an agnostic theist, i.e. you believe that there IS a god and you also believe that it impossible to "know" if there is a god but you have faith in the sense that you believe despite having no reason to believe. You can be atheist and agnostic in that you don't believe in god but you cannot prove that there is no god. You can be theist and not agnostic because you know there is a god and you can be atheist an not agnostic because anything as fundamental to the universe and of such power and will should be so entirely obvious to detect and prove that the complete failure to have even the slightest demonstrable scrap of pro-god evidence at this point is as compelling proof of non-existence.
But agnostic is not the same as atheist.

 

[metalman]

If a communist state is officially atheist then it doesn't have a state religion of atheism, it just has NO state religion. You can't MAKE a religion out of "no religion". The intent of Lenin was to replace religion with the ideology of communism.

If "State atheism" is the official policy of a government, and it suppresses other religions beliefs
then it is "religiously" enforcing atheistism
If Communism was ment to replace religion, then Communism is also a religion

 

[faethor]

Agnostic is what atheist call themselves when they don't want to be burned at the stake.

I'd say that's highly true. Many 'atheists' claim agnosticism as a safe zone. If you don't want to discuss it, or more properly verbally abused, say agnostic. The connotation of Atheism for a long, long time has had a strongly negative meaning to many. I know I've even posted here the polls after 9/11 where people fear atheists more than Islam. It's wrong and it's perpetuated by the lack of understanding of many. I contend Metalman's use is a good example of how many don't get it. Atheism doesn't mean I'm turning Commie and will eat your children.

Actually I think it's more brave to be an Atheist. It means we have 1 chance to get it right and leave our mark in this world. We don't get to 'be saved' by simply feeling bad and asking for forgiveness. We always must own up to our actions and only we can make them right.

A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. -- Albert Einstein

 

[metalman]

Not grown up humans.

a/k/a Obama voters

 

[Glaucus]

Agnostic is what atheist call themselves when they don't want to be burned at the stake.

Agnostic is just not gnostic and gnostic is knowing.

Ya, gnosis is the Greek work for knowledge. Like you said before, in Greek, putting an "a" at the start of the word means "not". So agnostic means no-knowledge, which basically means, you just don't know. When talking about deities, agnostics essentially take no real position as to the existence of a god because they just don't know. However, that's not really all that different from atheist as atheists just, as you pointed out, don't believe in a god - although not necessarily that there is no god. One could be agnostic about space aliens, and at the same time have no belief in aliens. And really, that's not unreasonable as there's no reason to believe in something you don't know anything about. In fact, believing one way or another about aliens would be considered more irrational than simply admitting you just don't know.

The important part to all this is the "a". Many English words have their roots in ancient Greek, especially in medicine and science, but also theology. So just like anemia means "without blood", atheist means "without god". Any attempt to tie a moral code to atheists or any other unifying characteristic is either disingenuous or just stupid.

 

[cecilia]

Lawrence O'Donnell belabors the point at the end...but he's correct about Gervais

 

[metalman]

"Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes"

--Karl Marx translated as: "religion is the opiate of the masses"

By which he means that religion relieves the pain of the masses (but not the injury). The premise is that without religion as a social control mechanism to mask the suffering of the masses they would be compelled to act in a way such as to fix the problem of their lowly condition by action - just what the ruling classes don't want.

Because Christian Communists are not true Christians, right?

"Christian Communalists" is the correct description of the Christian communes

Christian Communalism works if the members all take a vow of poverty

Liberation Theology is interpreting the bible using Marxist ideology, the teaching is a lot more about Marx than Jesus

 

[metalman]

. Atheism doesn't mean I'm turning Commie and will eat your children.

Depends on evolution, and environmental opportunities

Jeffrey Dahmer wasn't a communist
Rev Jim Jones was a communist but never ate children
Marquis de Sade wasn't a communist, and never ate children

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

"Christian Communalists" is the correct description of the Christian communes

So the Christian Communists are not calling themselves by the correct name?

Christian Communalism works if the members all take a vow of poverty

"Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need." [Acts 4:32-5]

and the vow of poverty is ...

The solemn vow of poverty

The solemn vow by common law has the following special characteristics: it extends to all property and rights; it renders one incapable of possessing property, and therefore of transferring it; it makes all gifts or legacies which a religious receives, as well as the fruits of his own work, the property of the monastery; and in case property is inherited, the monastery succeeds in place of the professed religious, in accordance with the maxim: Quicquid monachus acquirit monasterio acquirit.

So you give all your stuff to the monastery and all property is held in common by the monastery and so is the fruit of your labour which also belongs to the monastery and is then divided up among the monks. This is totally different from communism because the monks pray a lot.