Atheists are Dangerous!

[Tom 1]

OK. I checked and you just said he has that idea. By that standard almost anyone can be condemned.

Condemned for what though? Someone might think that, not everyone sets up a public campaign to push their views on others.

 

[Tom 1]

An economic theory (in the non scientific sense) of class struggle?

That is obviously a big part of it, but not the whole story. The Hegelian group Marx was part of were essentially challenging everything, the whole kit and kaboodle of society at the time and what had led to it, everything about it, in a similar way to Neitzsche. It was the zeitgeist of that era, you could say, I think. Reading chronologically Marx appears to have become an atheist, then set his sights on developing his manifesto with Engels, and then das Kapital, with some other stages in between that. It's not so much Marx's personal atheism as the whole nature of the period and what people were considering in terms of radical changes in society. Those who stepped back a bit and took a more pragmatic approach, like workers associations in the UK, were ultimately more successful in achieving their aims.

 

[durangodawood]

Yes, but how would you have separated the two, at the time?....

Oh I dont deny that atheism was an important ideological component of state communism.

But atheism doesnt necessarily lead to state communism. Its not the driving center of the movement, just like Christianity wasnt the driving center of white slaver mentality in the USA, even though they were mainly Christian, and went so far as to promote biblical justifications for their actions.

 

[Cimorene]

Until I came to this site I only knew Dawkins because of his book The Selfish Gene which was thought highly of by one of my grad school profs.

The only atheists who have some influence in my life do so by the example they gave, not what they preach. The only 2 who even border on being well known are William T. Kirkpatrick and W. Kokorin. Neither of them could be considered hostile to Christianity.

The 1st video of Dawkins I saw was one that a Christian posted here of him arguing with a lady who is a creationist. It was presented like she'd owned him or something when the opposite was the case. Whatever anybody believed in it was hard to argue that he wasn't the one who stayed more composed & cogent. He was def more rational. He has a nice accent so I mean I was willing to watch videos of him bc of that, lol. I've never had any interest in reading his books but I mean I don't read books by Christians either really. This controversial rightwing prof at my school has talked about him some but he's such a blowhard & so annoying anybody he tries to attack ends up looking better.

Most atheists I know have been their whole lives but they're my age. They don't feel any need to defend it or whatever. They don't care what somebody like Dawkins says bc it's just not relevant to them.

 

[Tom 1]

But atheism doesnt necessarily lead to state communism.

Lol yes I don't think that atheism leads to the spontaneous generation of political theories. In Marx's Germany however the rejection of belief in God and everything that went with that was a key component in the development of ideas that led to Marxism and Communism.

 

[Cimorene]

Historically yes, also they aren't the only church with abuse issues. Maybe a Catholic will chip in here, it's a difficult task I think to weed out the good from the bad in the overall influence of the Catholic church. My view is that overall the influence of Christianity has been good, as in positive, constructive and life promoting, and Catholicism is an integral part of that.

Well yeah. We all know that the Catholic church isn't the only one with abuse issues. But the pedophilia abuse scandal has become indelibly linked to them.

Christianity has def had a ton of positive, constructive, life promising aspects. I would think most atheists would agree to that & acknowledge that Catholicism has played an important role too. BUT they'd also see the negative effects too. You have to have a broader look. It doesn't do anybody favours to only look at one aspect or the other.

I think he's worth reading, but a bit of a fanatic, albeit a closely self-controlled one. There are elements of a movement about atheism, you only need to watch the audience pans during a Dawkins debate to see how effective his particular brand of stirring up the masses is. Figures like Dawkins and Bart Erhman (who does actually really know what he is talking about) are like lamps in the dark for at least some atheists, which belies to some extent at least the idea that atheists are immune to the herding instinct.

k.

 

[durangodawood]

Lol yes I don't think that atheism leads to the spontaneous generation of political theories. In Marx's Germany however the rejection of belief in God and everything that went with that was a key component in the development of ideas that led to Marxism and Communism.

Yeah. That was but a prelude to a pretty good point I made.

 

[Speedwell]

The 1st video of Dawkins I saw was one that a Christian posted here of him arguing with a lady who is a creationist. It was presented like she'd owned him or something when the opposite was the case. Whatever anybody believed in it was hard to argue that he wasn't the one who stayed more composed & cogent. He was def more rational.

And suffering through that kind of thing repeatedly is pretty much how he formed his idea of what religion is.

 

[Tom 1]

Yeah. That was but a prelude to a pretty good point I made.

But a prelude eh.

Maybe you got the wrong end of the stick. The discussion was about what would a society based in an atheistic political philosophy look like - what precendent is there for that - communisim is a precendent. I don't really want to go off on another tangent. The ins and outs of how people have used and still use the bible to justify doing bad things to other people would be a tangent, and I'm not finished with the other discussion yet.

To avoid wasting any time, yes people who believe in the bible have done many terrible things and I'm sure they will again.

 

[Tom 1]

And suffering through that kind of thing repeatedly is pretty much how he formed his idea of what religion is.

He does pick his fights though, or rather his easy victories. He rarely talks to anyone who makes any sense, and doesn't bother to engage meaningfully when he does. There are other atheist thinkers and writers who do a far better job, without all of the grandstanding, strawmen and general ignorance about the things he claims to be arguing against.

 

[Ophiolite]

To avoid wasting any time, yes people who believe in the bible have done many terrible things and I'm sure they will again.

And would you therefore reciprocate and accept that the many terrible things done in the name of Communism do not necessarily reflect the fundamentals beliefs of communism? If so, we can make progress.

 

[Tom 1]

And would you therefore reciprocate and accept that the many terrible things done in the name of Communism do not necessarily reflect the fundamentals beliefs of communism? If so, we can make progress.

I suppose it would depend whose beliefs, or how defined. Che Guevara for example knew and accepted early on that the making of a new world, as conceived at the time, would mean a great deal of killing. Mao accepted that too. Lenin and Trotsky, and others involved, saw establishing a reign of terror, through the unrestrained massacre of 10s of thousands of assorted confused refugees and peasants, as essential to the success of the revolution. You can’t divide the theory from the people, it is a theory devised by people. Violence is the arbiter of human history, and they recognised that.
It’s hard to see how it could have played out any other way. The basic logic defeats itself - there are underlying assumptions that can’t be challenged, or the whole thing falls apart. To put it simply (but accurately) revolution has established the means of building a workers paradise, as it is for their own benefit everyone must logically be happy to work for that, there will be no crime as everyone has what they need and everything is shared by the people, the party can not be wrong because the party is the people’s party and the people cannot be wrong, and so on, therefore anyone who does not work for the people or who questions the will of the ‘people’, or who doesn’t understand that those other people don’t actually have it better, despite appearances, must be insane, and has to be re-educated. If you really give it some thought, those kind of ideas are inevitable in the practice of communism, and it doesn’t survive contact with reality very long.
The two are different cases. Communism necessarily leads to what it leads to. You might disagree, but I think it is self-evident that the overall affect of Christianity on the world has been far more positive than the affect of communism.

 

[Ophiolite]

I suppose it would depend whose beliefs, or how defined. Che Guevara for example knew and accepted early on that the making of a new world, as conceived at the time, would mean a great deal of killing. Mao accepted that too. Lenin and Trotsky, and others involved, saw establishing a reign of terror, through the unrestrained massacre of 10s of thousands of assorted confused refugees and peasants, as essential to the success of the revolution. You can’t divide the theory from the people, it is a theory devised by people. Violence is the arbiter of human history, and they recognised that.

I stopped reading here. While not always agreeing with you in your posts that I have read in several threads I have generally thought your argument was plausible. Here, however, you appear to be talking codswallop. There is nothing in Marxist theory, absolutely, undeniably, irrevocably, incontestably nothing that calls for wholesale slaughter.

If we are going to play that game there is a wealth of material in the OT that is not so readily dismissed. Now I don't think that material is relevant to meaning of Christianity today (and arguably, ever), but if you insist upon the nonsense you spake above then I'm done with any further discussion with you on this thread, for your argument is both ludicrous and offensive.

Mao and Lenin, whatever they started out as, became dictators and behaved in the manner of most dictators, answering to their inner demons and using external political ideologies as tools, not truths. (My background on Trotsky and Che is insufficient to comment. As a student in the 60s I never even had the T-shirt.)

 

[Tom 1]

There is nothing in Marxist theory, absolutely, undeniably, irrevocably, incontestably nothing that calls for wholesale slaughter.

I'm not saying there is. How would communism have been implemented without that? That's the more important question, a theory is just a theory. I'm not demonising communism, or anyone involved in it, that is just what happened, and there are obvious reasons why. How might it have been otherwise?

 

[Ophiolite]

I'm not saying there is. How would communism have been implemented without that? That's the more important question, a theory is just a theory. I'm not demonising communism, or anyone involved in it, that is just what happened, and there are obvious reason why. How might it have been otherwise?

Earlier I asked this:

And would you therefore reciprocate and accept that the many terrible things done in the name of Communism do not necessarily reflect the fundamentals beliefs of communism?

Your response read as a thorough, unequivocal denial that such was the case.

 

[Tom 1]

If we are going to play that game there is a wealth of material in the OT that is not so readily dismissed. Now I don't think that material is relevant to meaning of Christianity today (and arguably, ever), but if you insist upon the nonsense you spake above then I'm done with any further discussion with you on this thread, for your argument is both ludicrous and offensive.

I'm not aware of a single culture or political practice or any other human movement that has established itself in power in any way without a serious amount of violence somewhere along the line. Those are jsut historical realities. How is that offensive? And to who?

 

[Ophiolite]

I'm not aware of a single culture or political practice or any other human movement that has established itself in power in any way without a serious amount of violence somewhere along the line. Those are jsut historical realities. How is that offensive? And to who?

Your argument through this thread has been (or certainly appears to be) that such violence is a central characteristic of any atheistic society/political philosophy. As a corollary you have asserted (or certainly appeared to assert) that this was not at the heart of a Christian society.

I agree with the latter point. I disagree strongly with the former. You ask who your position offends, it offends me, because it is in my nature to find flawed ideas offensive.

 

[Tom 1]

Earlier I asked this:


Your response read as a thorough, unequivocal denial that such was the case.

I just don't see the point in the question. Sure, communist theory might say don't kill people, I don't know. I'm more interested in how things actually happen.
Political systems that evolve gradually generally have a better track record for long term survival and effectiveness. Revolutions, as has been seen over and over, are extremely violent in the execution and the, often very long, aftermath. I suppose the velvet revolution could be seen as a half-way point, but that was to adopt an already established political method.
I had a colleague in the UK who believed that a very socialist/communist model could be established in the UK through a democractic vote, however I couldn't see any way of taking his ideas (apparently quite stock ones) as realistic, even within the UK. His ideas about dealing with other powers were pretty fantastical, in my view. In that scenario, where people voted in a communist govt, then you'd have no revolution. I'm not sure how you'd deal with people who didn't want to share their resources however.

 

[Tom 1]

Your argument through this thread has been (or certainly appears to be) that such violence is a central characteristic of any atheistic society/political philosophy. As a corollary you have asserted (or certainly appeared to assert) that this was not at the heart of a Christian society.

I agree with the latter point. I disagree strongly with the former. You ask who your position offends, it offends me, because it is in my nature to find flawed ideas offensive.

No, my argument is that it has been, and I think that has been pretty clearly demonstrated. Reality trumps theory, I believe. I'm not aware of any counter-example. That doesn't mean that an atheistic society would necessarily be violent, but the precedent so far is very negative. For me what is most interesting is why that is, which is worth discussing at length. I don't see how or why anyone would take offense at the citing of historical events.

 

[Ophiolite]

No, my argument is that it has been, and I think that has been pretty clearly demonstrated. Reality trumps theory, I believe. I'm not aware of any counter-example. That doesn't mean that an atheistic society would necessarily be violent, but the precedent so far is very negative. For me what is most interesting is why that is, which is worth discussing at length. I don't see how or why anyone would take offense at the citing of historical events.

I am taking offence at your flawed interpretation of historical events. Everything you are saying of atheistic society can be equally applied to religious societies. Indeed there are far more examples of violence and evil in the latter since there have been more such societies.