Commie Pope attacked unfettered capitalism as "a new tyranny",

Pages

Just as a note, there are in fact atrocities that have been committed in the name of atheism.

Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union (Wikipedia)

It's true that there was a lot of other stuff going on here, but in the Soviet Union as well as other communist states, there was a lot of anti-religious persecution over the years—particularly early-on—founded on opposition to religion as "the opiate of the masses". Atheism was seen as a superior non-superstitious ideology, and openly religious people were discriminated against—and, as happened far too often under the kind of ideological fervor that was supported by these regimes, there was certainly violence.

While this doesn't measure up to the long history of religiously motivated violence in the world, explicitly atheistic policies in states also don't have much history. The little history that they do have is less than stellar.

(And note: No, I'm not trying to say that all violence in these states is attributable to atheism. They had plenty enough to go around for unrelated reasons. But there was certainly violence and other persecution done explicitly based on the idea that atheism is more rational and superior to religion and that religion should therefore be stamped out.)

HYPATIAN. THIS DERAIL WAS FINALLY WINDING DOWN. STAHP.

I wanna go back to that pope = sockpuppet thing Blood-River said that I glossed over because I think it's probably spot on.

Whoops!

Hypatian wrote:

Whoops!

I was kiddin', Hyp.

Hypatian wrote:

While this doesn't measure up to the long history of religiously motivated violence in the world, explicitly atheistic policies in states also don't have much history. The little history that they do have is less than stellar.

Except that, as pointed out previously, those persecutions have more to do with making worship of the state the new "religion". Eliminating competing religions and all that.

Interesting thing about the "Opiate of the masses" quote that is so often used, or rather I should say mis-used. When read in context within the Communist Manifesto, it takes on a very different meaning. It's not about oppression, but rather solace.

EDIT: The pertinent point about the "atrocity olympics" that so many seem to love to indulge in is that Atheism isn't the same sort of thing as Theism. Most religions (all that I'm aware of) include moral codes as part of their package. Atheism does not. You can be an incredibly ethical Atheist or a serial killer Atheist.

This is why I think the whole "Christianity is responsible for more deaths than Atheism!" is a pointless discussion. It's comparing apples to oranges. You'd be far better off comparing Christianity to something, like, say Humanism. If you're going to compare ethical frameworks, it's probably a good idea for both of the frameworks involved to HAVE ethical prescriptions as part of their main body.

Most religions (all that I'm aware of) include moral codes as part of their package. Atheism does not. You can be an incredibly ethical Atheist or a serial killer Atheist.

So... you can't be a serial killer thiest? Or... you're just a moral serial killer if you're doing it as a thiest?

Demosthenes wrote:

So... you can't be a serial killer thiest? Or... you're just a moral serial killer if you're doing it as a thiest?

I'm saying Atheism has nothing to do with moral codes. Being an Atheist is just a stance about the question of the existence of Gods.

Valmorian wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

So... you can't be a serial killer thiest? Or... you're just a moral serial killer if you're doing it as a thiest?

I'm saying Atheism has nothing to do with moral codes. Being an Atheist is just a stance about the question of the existence of Gods.

So is being a Thiest. Being a thiest of any particular faith is not a guarantee that you will follow the moral code of your faith.

Valmorian wrote:

This is why I think the whole "Christianity is responsible for more deaths than Atheism!" is a pointless discussion. It's comparing apples to oranges. You'd be far better off comparing Christianity to something, like, say Humanism. If you're going to compare ethical frameworks, it's probably a good idea for both of the frameworks involved to HAVE ethical prescriptions as part of their main body.

Isn't that sort of the point? That it could be argued that various religions are responsible for negative things, but that atheism itself is not? Very few people commit crimes because they're atheists, precisely because there isn't a moral framework associated with atheism.

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/extremists

Atheism and Theism may both be stances about believing in a higher authority, but the second one tends to also come with institutions which commit atrocities in the name of their interpretation of that authority (and are almost solely defined by their interpretation of that authority), whereas the prior doesn't. It is just a stance.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:

Isn't that sort of the point? That it could be argued that various religions are responsible for negative things, but that atheism itself is not? Very few people commit crimes because they're atheists, precisely because there isn't a moral framework associated with atheism.

Sure, but when people couch it that way (Religion vs. Atheism) then they're playing with a stacked deck. Comparing an ethical system with a stance on a single question is pointless. Very few people commit crimes because they have no belief in all SORTS of things.

Demosthenes wrote:

So is being a Thiest. Being a thiest of any particular faith is not a guarantee that you will follow the moral code of your faith.

This is absolutely true, but almost all religions I am aware of are steeped in moral codes. There is no moral code associated with Atheism at all.

Demosthenes wrote:
Valmorian wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

So... you can't be a serial killer thiest? Or... you're just a moral serial killer if you're doing it as a thiest?

I'm saying Atheism has nothing to do with moral codes. Being an Atheist is just a stance about the question of the existence of Gods.

So is being a Thiest. Being a thiest of any particular faith is not a guarantee that you will follow the moral code of your faith.

That's it. When someone says, "I'm a Christian" what does that mean from the standpoint of their moral code? I think it could mean damn near anything. Given history it sure has. Examples from other religions are easy to find as well.

When I say, "I'm a disciple of Christ." you can bank on what moral code I do my best to follow. It's so simple I could put it in three words, but sometimes... man it's difficult.

Demosthenes wrote:
Valmorian wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

So... you can't be a serial killer thiest? Or... you're just a moral serial killer if you're doing it as a thiest?

I'm saying Atheism has nothing to do with moral codes. Being an Atheist is just a stance about the question of the existence of Gods.

So is being a Thiest. Being a thiest of any particular faith is not a guarantee that you will follow the moral code of your faith.

Since it seems to be understood in your post that theism comes packaged with a moral code, I'll clarify that what Valmorian is trying to say is that atheism does not, by default. That's why a lot of atheists also subscribe to secular humanism or transhumanism or a relatively new one, Atheism+. Or more than one of these, as long as they're compatible.

Well, Seth.

We tried.

Decoupling the concept of moral code from theism seems like a far more useful and realistic way to view others. Spiritual belief does not imply any set morality. To think so seems a bit naive and judgemental to me.

LouZiffer wrote:

Decoupling the concept of moral code from theism seems like a far more useful and realistic way to view others. Spiritual belief does not imply any set morality. To think so seems a bit naive and judgemental to me.

Eh, in North America at least, the concept of Religion and Moral Codes are so tightly intertwined that there are quite a few people that assume that without belief in God you CANNOT be moral.

EDIT: In addition, it's important to note that moral code for a great number of theists is derived from their religion (or so they claim, at any rate).

Valmorian wrote:
LouZiffer wrote:

Decoupling the concept of moral code from theism seems like a far more useful and realistic way to view others. Spiritual belief does not imply any set morality. To think so seems a bit naive and judgemental to me.

Eh, in North America at least, the concept of Religion and Moral Codes are so tightly intertwined that there are quite a few people that assume that without belief in God you CANNOT be moral.

EDIT: In addition, it's important to note that moral code for a great number of theists is derived from their religion (or so they claim, at any rate).

To me folks like that are among the naive, judgemental thinkers I'm referring to. It's drop-dead easy to find people of the same religion on opposite sides of a moral issue. Some of them may even point at the same snippet of religious text to explain their opposing sides!

Edit: By the way, I do get what you're saying. Yes... I've run across quite a few folks who wonder how atheists know right from wrong without God. It's sort of like wondering how someone can breathe without a pair of flip-flops. The two aren't related. I've discussed these same things with friends on the theist side of things.

Bloo Driver wrote:

Well, Seth.

We tried.

I even called you blood river.

Valmorian wrote:

Except that, as pointed out previously, those persecutions have more to do with making worship of the state the new "religion". Eliminating competing religions and all that.

Unfortunately, this sounds a lot like the good ol' "no true Scotsman" problem people have been brewing about. It is unreasonable to make this argument about atheists acting in the name of atheism but not [em]really[/em] doing it for atheism but to dismiss similar arguments about Christians acting in the name of Christendom but not [em]really[/em] doing it, etc. If NTS holds for the one, it holds for the other.

Valmorian wrote:

Interesting thing about the "Opiate of the masses" quote that is so often used, or rather I should say mis-used. When read in context within the Communist Manifesto, it takes on a very different meaning. It's not about oppression, but rather solace.

Er. No.

Marx wrote:

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.

It's not about oppression, you're right. But what it [em]is[/em] about is that religion is something undesirable that should be abolished. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I thought that Marx objected to religion because it oppressed people, I didn't say anything like that.

Hypatian wrote:

It's not about oppression, you're right. But what it [em]is[/em] about is that religion is something undesirable that should be abolished. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I thought that Marx objected to religion because it oppressed people, I didn't say anything like that.

When I read the Communist Manifesto, that's not what I got from it. It seemed to me that he was stating Religion is the solace that is required because of the oppression of the people by the Bourgeois. When the classless society comes to fruition, Religion would be unnecessary.

LouZiffer wrote:

. Yes... I've run across quite a few folks who wonder how atheists know right from wrong without God. It's sort of like wondering how someone can breathe without a pair of flip-flops. The two aren't related. I've discussed these same things with friends on the theist side of things. :)

I agree, but it's nigh-impossible to criticize the moral code of a Religion without having someone say "Atheists are just as bad, or worse!". I don't think I've ever seen a discussion about religiously based morality that DIDN'T go into that territory.

Valmorian wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

It's not about oppression, you're right. But what it [em]is[/em] about is that religion is something undesirable that should be abolished. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I thought that Marx objected to religion because it oppressed people, I didn't say anything like that.

When I read the Communist Manifesto, that's not what I got from it. It seemed to me that he was stating Religion is the solace that is required because of the oppression of the people by the Bourgeois. When the classless society comes to fruition, Religion would be unnecessary.

True, there's that going on, as well. You can read a bit of both attitudes into it. It's pretty clear that the anti-religion attitudes adopted by early Communist states were founded on some mix of those ideas, anyway--it doesn't make a huge difference whether they were based more on "we don't need religion any more because we have succeeded" or "we need to abolish religion because we have come far enough that its illusion of happiness is holding us back". It's also difficult to discern the difference between "these religious organizations are a threat because they provide an alternative to the state" and "these religious organizations are a threat because their traditions are grounded in classism."

Anyway, that's all I wanted to say. Sorry for the more derail.

Valmorian wrote:

When I read the Communist Manifesto, that's not what I got from it. It seemed to me that he was stating Religion is the solace that is required because of the oppression of the people by the Bourgeois. When the classless society comes to fruition, Religion would be unnecessary.

While that is partly Marx's view, he also regarded religion as a tool of oppression. One effective enough for Stalin to bring back when he needed it.

Hypatian wrote:
Valmorian wrote:

Except that, as pointed out previously, those persecutions have more to do with making worship of the state the new "religion". Eliminating competing religions and all that.

Unfortunately, this sounds a lot like the good ol' "no true Scotsman" problem people have been brewing about. It is unreasonable to make this argument about atheists acting in the name of atheism but not [em]really[/em] doing it for atheism but to dismiss similar arguments about Christians acting in the name of Christendom but not [em]really[/em] doing it, etc. If NTS holds for the one, it holds for the other.

I'm afraid that doesn't really hold up. Atheism is a binary. Do you believe in a god? -> Yes -> Not an atheist. Do you believe in a god? -> No - > An atheist.

Any positions held outside of that are not atheism. Were they acting in the "name" of atheism? How do you act in the name of a single position on a single issue? It sounds like No True Scotsman, but you see where it's pulled out of that territory here:

Wikipedia wrote:

The Soviet regime was ostensibly committed to the complete annihilation of religious institutions and ideas.

This is not an atheist ideal. This is antitheism.

Wikipedia wrote:

Militant atheism was central to the ideology of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and a high priority of all Soviet leaders.

There is nothing militant about atheism on its own. This is qualifying atheism with an idealistic addition.

Wikipedia wrote:

Convinced atheists were considered to be more virtuous individuals than those of religious belief.

There is no virtue in a single position on a single issue. Once again, this is an idealistic supplementation.

In a move the is likely to knock the earth off its orbit from pure irony, I just heard a Fox Nuisance commentator emphasize the importance of the separation of church and state when discussing the new pope's liberalism.

Paleocon wrote:

In a move the is likely to knock the earth off its orbit from pure irony, I just heard a Fox Nuisance commentator emphasize the importance of the separation of church and state when discussing the new pope's liberalism.

That's because the Catholic Church is the wrong kind of church for the Fox News crowd. They like evangelical protestantism, which views the Catholic Church more as a cult.

Way off the rails.

Pages