Secular Totalitarianism

[Dave Ellis]

As an Atheist bigot yourself your ignorance of the gospel of Jesus juxtaposed against what Christianity evolved into demonstrates your own double standard.

I've owned the misbehavior of my own kind but naturally your pride won't allow you to address the behavior of fellow atheist, or more accurately what happens when morality has no ultimate source and becomes a matter of opinion from one atheist to another.

I am not a bigot, I'm not labelling all Christians as one thing or the other. I have the intelligence to be aware that not all people of one demographic think, act or support the same things.

Your entire argument rests upon Atheism necessarily leading to communist totalitarianism which is utterly absurd.

Just because Pol Pot was an atheist does not mean I share anything else with him. Atheism is not a belief, it's the position taken by someone who has no belief in a god. By definition it can not inform your positions on anything else.

Christianity, or most other religions is not the same in that regard though. Theism is a positive belief, and to adhere to a theistic religion comes with a list of beliefs you should hold, and a list of things you should or should not do.

Religion does inform decisions, however how much it informs someone's decision depends mostly on how seriously they follow their religion. That's why you see fundamentalists trying to turn what the bible has to say into law, whereas more liberal Christians don't really care all that much about what the bible has to say.


As for your attacks on me, I am not at all ignorant of the gospels, in fact I know them well. However, what "Christianity has evolved into" is a meaningless statement.... there are tens of thousands of "Christianities", some of which believe wildly different things from the others. There is no one Christian religion, and there are very few things every sect believes in.

Likewise, who argued that morality has no ultimate source? I don't believe that at all, so again you are strawmanning my position.

 

[Colter]

I am not a bigot, I'm not labelling all Christians as one thing or the other. I have the intelligence to be aware that not all people of one demographic think, act or support the same things.

Your entire argument rests upon Atheism necessarily leading to communist totalitarianism which is utterly absurd.

Just because Pol Pot was an atheist does not mean I share anything else with him. Atheism is not a belief, it's the position taken by someone who has no belief in a god. By definition it can not inform your positions on anything else.

Christianity, or most other religions is not the same in that regard though. Theism is a positive belief, and to adhere to a theistic religion comes with a list of beliefs you should hold, and a list of things you should or should not do.

Religion does inform decisions, however how much it informs someone's decision depends mostly on how seriously they follow their religion. That's why you see fundamentalists trying to turn what the bible has to say into law, whereas more liberal Christians don't really care all that much about what the bible has to say.


As for your attacks on me, I am not at all ignorant of the gospels, in fact I know them well. However, what "Christianity has evolved into" is a meaningless statement.... there are tens of thousands of "Christianities", some of which believe wildly different things from the others. There is no one Christian religion, and there are very few things every sect believes in.

Likewise, who argued that morality has no ultimate source? I don't believe that at all, so again you are strawmanning my position.

What is the ultimate source of morality?

What is ultimate morality? Who upholds it? Where do I go to find it?

 

[durangodawood]

What is the ultimate source of morality?

What is ultimate morality? Who upholds it? Where do I go to find it?

1. The source of morality is the basic facts about what makes for good living, for the typical person.

2. Society upholds it through law, custom, family, education, and religion.

 

[Dave Ellis]

What is the ultimate source of morality?

What is ultimate morality? Who upholds it? Where do I go to find it?

Morality to have any reasonable definition depends on the well-being of a person, group of people or society for any given scenario.

Actions always have objective consequences. For example, if someone subjectively believes that drinking battery acid is positive for their health, they are wrong. The objective reality is drinking battery acid is very bad for you. Subjective opinions can be wrong, objective facts by definition are not wrong, they are facts.

What matters when it comes to calling an act moral or not is that objective well-being. Again, someone may have a subjective opinion that something that is actually positive for someone is actually harmful, however if the objective facts does not back their opinion, then they are wrong.

In short, anyone who argues in favour of a subjective moral system still must base their opinions off of objective reality. Because of that, if their opinions do not line up with objective reality, then that person is wrong. It's impossible to create a moral system without that backing in reality.


The irony however is that most religious people actually believe in a subjective moral system. Any system which solely depends on rules handed down by a conscious entity by definition must be subjective. Christians largely don't believe in objective morals, they believe in gods subjective take on morality.


To answer your last questions, nobody "upholds" morality per se, morality is a description of sorts. Laws can be based on morality, and it's the laws that are upheld.

As for "ultimate" morality, or your question as to where you go to find it, you'll have to rephrase because I'm not sure what you're asking.

 

[Gene2memE]

* You are an Atheist, you have a bias towards a secular state of affairs where religion is marginalized in public discourse.

Again, religion isn't marginallised in a secular society, its just not given a special place of power, which you seem to think that it deserves, merely by its existence.

I think its comes down a fundamental misapprehension you hold. I don't know if I have the patience to disabuse you of your faulty notions. I suspect that the more I try, the greater intransigence I will encounter.

You obviously view the history of the last 300 years through the rose colored glasses of your own ideology. Atheist are so smugly accustomed to confessing the faults of religion that they haven't the time or honesty to consider the godless endeavors of totalitarian states.

Well, I do have formal training in both political history and economic history, so I know a little about the transformation of the world since the 17th century, and feel that the Church no longer controlling the keys to the kingdom is a good idea.

Totalitarian states can be religious, atheist or secular. The thing they have in common is totalitarianism.

I'm not avoiding criticizing communism, or the various crazy flavours of communism that grew up through the 19th and 20th centuries. I'm critiquing the notion that secularism is a precursor to totalitarianism.

So far, nothing ventured by you, either your own writing or that turgid piece of prose you keep quoting from, has done anything to actually establish that premise.

* Science has held the theory now for some time that life originated out of a "big bang" and subsequently evolved like a belief not a proven fact.

Hilariously wrong and irrelevant. Cosmological origins, abiogenesis and evolution are all separate fields. Each has been arrived as the the best theoretical frameworks explaining the available evidence

* The Atheistic Communist movements are what the OP is referencing not Mayberry USA.

Struggling to comprehend the relevance. The OP has no reference to either atheism or communism, beyond the mind-numbingly stupid phrase "atheistic science", so I feel you are drawing rather a long bow and then pointing it at completely the wrong target.

* The "spirit of truth" of Jesus the Christ has been working towards the very enlightenment that you speak of.

* The fundamental revelation that God the Father has a creator Son who incarnate as "the Son of man", has achieved "all power and authority in heaven and on earth" and now sits on high as sovereign Lord and God was not a common teaching 500 years before Christ inside or outside Judaism.

Nothing of which is relevant beyond the circle of believers. Even then, this "revelation" adds nothing to the actual grist of the mill of relationships between people, apart from creating another us-and-them in-group, out-group situation.

None of the core philosophical teachings in the New Testament - as distinct from the theological ones - were new or unique in the history of human thinking.

* A current example of the totalitarian Atheist state and it's horrors is North Korea. Another would be China with its adaptation of western style capitalistic practice into its Atheistic totalitarian state of organized slavery.

* See Pol Pot, he had a wonderful run at Godless totalitarian experimentation.

If we're just going to play the game, 'name a dictator that followed a particular belief set that I don't happen to like and who also committed atrocities', its not going to go well for you. If you are sure that you want to pursue this line of reasoning, then lets try to name the wars launched for the glory of God and wars launched for the glory of atheism.

 

[Colter]

Again, religion isn't marginallised in a secular society, its just not given a special place of power, which you seem to think that it deserves, merely by its existence.

I think its comes down a fundamental misapprehension you hold. I don't know if I have the patience to disabuse you of your faulty notions. I suspect that the more I try, the greater intransigence I will encounter.



Well, I do have formal training in both political history and economic history, so I know a little about the transformation of the world since the 17th century, and feel that the Church no longer controlling the keys to the kingdom is a good idea.

Totalitarian states can be religious, atheist or secular. The thing they have in common is totalitarianism.

I'm not avoiding criticizing communism, or the various crazy flavours of communism that grew up through the 19th and 20th centuries. I'm critiquing the notion that secularism is a precursor to totalitarianism.

So far, nothing ventured by you, either your own writing or that turgid piece of prose you keep quoting from, has done anything to actually establish that premise.



Hilariously wrong and irrelevant. Cosmological origins, abiogenesis and evolution are all separate fields. Each has been arrived as the the best theoretical frameworks explaining the available evidence



Struggling to comprehend the relevance. The OP has no reference to either atheism or communism, beyond the mind-numbingly stupid phrase "atheistic science", so I feel you are drawing rather a long bow and then pointing it at completely the wrong target.



Nothing of which is relevant beyond the circle of believers. Even then, this "revelation" adds nothing to the actual grist of the mill of relationships between people, apart from creating another us-and-them in-group, out-group situation.

None of the core philosophical teachings in the New Testament - as distinct from the theological ones - were new or unique in the history of human thinking.



If we're just going to play the game, 'name a dictator that followed a particular belief set that I don't happen to like and who also committed atrocities', its not going to go well for you. If you are sure that you want to pursue this line of reasoning, then lets try to name the wars launched for the glory of God and wars launched for the glory of atheism.

Adding smug and sententious condescension to your atheism doesn't make you any less confused by the topic. There is the secular, an innocuous term, and there is secular totalitarianism. The OP got under your skin as it speaks truth to something about you as evidenced by your increasingly acerbic responses.


.

 

[Gene2memE]

Adding smug and sententious condescension to your atheism doesn't make you any less confused by the topic. There is the secular, an innocuous term, and there is secular totalitarianism. The OP got under your skin as it speaks truth to something about you.

Interesting tactic.

Neither you, nor the work you've quoted, have established any case for 'secular totalitarianism', - or what it is, how it comes about, whether its a growing or diminishing trend - so you seem to be happier reverting to flippant dismissal and mischaracterisation of the counter-arguments.

What the OP speaks the "truth" about is that I don't like seeing the English language wilfully tortured into poor arguments, and having history ignored to such a degree is even more painful to me. To quote Goldenmane’s Third Rule of Public Discourse: "Bad ideas exist to be destroyed".

I wonder, do you agree with Ken Ham much? His painfully mis-applied arguments about 'secularists' seem to come from a similar direction.

Meanwhile, the rebuttals to the points raised remain there. Until something other than mere assertion is presented, I'll take it that the corrections stand.

The OP, and your follow-ups, certainly deserved far worse than smug condescension. I'd say you got off lightly.

Whether they're sententious or not, I'll leave up to you. I was deliberately pompous, if only for my own amusement, but I don't recall any moral pronouncements. Perhaps we could spend the afternoon swapping archaic pejoratives? It would certainly be a more worthwhile use of time than discussing the original proposition.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Adding smug and sententious condescension to your atheism doesn't make you any less confused by the topic. There is the secular, an innocuous term, and there is secular totalitarianism. The OP got under your skin as it speaks truth to something about you as evidenced by your increasingly acerbic responses.


.

On that note, I'm not sure if secular totalitarianism is even logically possible. It's an oxymoron.

How can you have a totalitarian system built around the state not showing favouritism to any particular religious view? It doesn't make sense.

 

[Colter]

The OP is saying that once the grasp of the totalitarian Christian church and it's values (an overbearing institution that asserted itself into every aspect of society) was broken, the void became filled by the presumptive values of secularist. Secularist are so busy eradicating the influence of the values of Christianity within western culture that unsuspecting citizens, even the secularists themselves, don't realize that they are in fact asserting their own values onto society.

The OP is speaking directly to the secular activist on this thread but you are pretending not to understand it or are too intellectually dishonest to aknowlege the truth of it. These same people who are claiming an inocent neutrality as harmless citizens of a tolerant, secular state, will show up on another forum thread and do battle against the very idea of God in the fashion of a grand inquisitor.

 

[Eudaimonist]

On that note, I'm not sure if secular totalitarianism is even logically possible. It's an oxymoron.

Look, it's really simple. In Colter's world:

Nothing good counts in favor of atheism/secularism. Everything bad counts against atheism/secularism.

Nothing bad counts against Christianity. Everything good counts in favor of Christianity.

But, no, there is no double-standard. Nope, nope.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dave Ellis]

The OP is saying that once the grasp of the totalitarian Christian church and it's values (an overbearing institution that asserted itself into every aspect of society) was broken, the void became filled by the presumptive values of secularist.

I agree that most civilized nations have moved away from theocracy towards a secular minded government.

Secularist are so busy eradicating the influence of the values of Christianity within western culture that unsuspecting citizens, even the secularists themselves, don't realize that they are in fact asserting their own values onto society.

That's ridiculous.

For example, what Christian value are you no longer legally allowed to believe in or follow anymore?

You are perfectly allowed to follow your religion as you see fit, what you are not allowed to do is force your religion down everyone else's throat. That is not the same as "eradicating the values of Christianity", that's simply giving Christianity equal footing with everyone else's religious views.

The OP is speaking directly to the secular activist on this thread but you are pretending not to understand it or are too intellectually dishonest to aknowlege the truth of it. These same people who are claiming an inocent neutrality as harmless citizens of a tolerant, secular state, will show up on another forum thread and do battle against the very idea of God in the fashion of a grand inquisitor.

Give me a break.

Grand Inquisitors didn't have open and free debates with the heretics... they punished them, if not killed them outright.

Are you saying you can't distinguish the fact that I can defend your right to hold your beliefs, however that doesn't stop me from questioning or challenging those same beliefs as in an open marketplace of ideas?

Are you saying the only way for us to be tolerant is to shut up and leave you alone? If that's the case, then you're simply wrong.

 

[Colter]

The Atheistic scientist is a scientist who has already made up his mind about the issue of God before all the facts are in thus forsaking the attitude of a true scientist. He then proceeds to use his biased approach to his so called science to prove and promote his atheistic, materialistic world view.


The same is true of the religious scientist who approaches the fields of science with the bias of the creation narratives from his religion.

​

.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The Atheistic scientist is a scientist who has already made up his mind about the issue of God before all the facts are in thus forsaking the attitude of a true scientist. He then proceeds to use his biased approach to his so called science to prove and promote his atheistic, materialistic world view.

Yeah, just like those scientists who have already made up their mind about the Super-Saiyan issue before all the facts are in.

Clearly, any scientist who uses his so called science to prove and promote a universe in which no Super Saiyans are thought to exist has forsaken the attitude of a true scientist. Scientists should never base their views only on the facts that are in, but on facts that aren't even known to be facts.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Colter]

Look, it's really simple. In Colter's world:

Nothing good counts in favor of atheism/secularism. Everything bad counts against atheism/secularism.

Nothing bad counts against Christianity. Everything good counts in favor of Christianity.

But, no, there is no double-standard. Nope, nope.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Mark your post is a direct omission of the OP itself, what you are saying about me is untrue, it's wishful thinking, perhaps an old slogan from your campaign rhetoric?

...."But mark you well! do not be quick to surrender the beneficent gains of the secular revolt from ecclesiastical totalitarianism. Western civilization today enjoys many liberties and satisfactions as a result of the secular revolt. The great mistake of secularism was this: In revolting against the almost total control of life by religious authority, and after attaining the liberation from such ecclesiastical tyranny, the secularists went on to institute a revolt against God himself, sometimes tacitly and sometimes openly.​

You are more in the camp of openly not tacitly.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Mark your post is a direct omission of the OP itself, what you are saying about me is untrue, it's wishful thinking, perhaps an old slogan from your campaign rhetoric?

It is completely true based on what you have said time after time.

Does Sweden count in favor of secularism? No. Does the Soviet Union under communism count against secularism? Yes. Does the Spanish Inquisition count against Christianity? No. Does whatever good you find in Christian nations count in favor of Christianity? Yes.

You aren't fooling anyone with your double-standards.

You are more in the camp of openly not tacitly.

Calling you out on your bigotry has nothing to do with rebelling against God, unless you are confusing yourself for God.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dave Ellis]

The Atheistic scientist is a scientist who has already made up his mind about the issue of God before all the facts are in thus forsaking the attitude of a true scientist. He then proceeds to use his biased approach to his so called science to prove and promote his atheistic, materialistic world view.


The same is true of the religious scientist who approaches the fields of science with the bias of the creation narratives from his religion.

Again, you're employing a double standard.

The Atheistic scientist has no evidence for a god, so they proceed to do their work as if one wasn't there. If evidence for a god presents itself, then they will deal with that evidence as it arises, and start accepting the idea of a god if the evidence is conclusive.

The religious scientist also has no evidence for a god, but decides to ignore that fact and dishonestly assert that one exists anyway. From there, they work off a presupposed conclusion and try to find justifications for that. That is not science.

Science works by gathering as much evidence as possible, and basing our answers off what the evidence shows. If you start with the answer and try to find the evidence to back your case, whatever you are doing, is not science.

 

[Colter]

Yeah, just like those scientists who have already made up their mind about the Super-Saiyan issue before all the facts are in.

Clearly, any scientist who uses his so called science to prove and promote a universe in which no Super Saiyans are thought to exist has forsaken the attitude of a true scientist. Scientists should never base their views only on the facts that are in, but on facts that aren't even known to be facts.


eudaimonia,

Mark

sigh........straw-man, Super Saiyan worship or religion did not shape Western culture as we know it, belief in Super Saiyan has not been a dominant reality.

Faith in God within the religions of mankind is a fact.

The totalitarian medieval Christian church of Europe is a fact of history.

The renaissance, the age of enlightenment, the secular revolt against the influence of the Christian Church, all are historical facts.

A movement that counters belief in any God is a fact.




.

 

[Colter]

Again, you're employing a double standard.

The Atheistic scientist has no evidence for a god, so they proceed to do their work as if one wasn't there. If evidence for a god presents itself, then they will deal with that evidence as it arises, and start accepting the idea of a god if the evidence is conclusive.

The religious scientist also has no evidence for a god, but decides to ignore that fact and dishonestly assert that one exists anyway. From there, they work off a presupposed conclusion and try to find justifications for that. That is not science.

Science works by gathering as much evidence as possible, and basing our answers off what the evidence shows. If you start with the answer and try to find the evidence to back your case, whatever you are doing, is not science.

Exactly! the emboldened part is the point I am making. Dawkins has already made the final conclusion about our experience with God and has now launched a campaign to discredit religion rather than sticking with science.

In both of the examples I provided the Atheistic scientist and the religious scientist have wondered out of their fields of science. Neither one can continue to claim to be true scientist in the matters of the existence of God or the science of evolution, they have become philosophers.

 

[Colter]

It is completely true based on what you have said time after time.

Does Sweden count in favor of secularism? No. Does the Soviet Union under communism count against secularism? Yes. Does the Spanish Inquisition count against Christianity? No. Does whatever good you find in Christian nations count in favor of Christianity? Yes.

You aren't fooling anyone with your double-standards.



Calling you out on your bigotry has nothing to do with rebelling against God, unless you are confusing yourself for God.


eudaimonia,

Mark

You are hearing a double standard, you simply are not crediting what is being said. You are not being an honest debater.

The institutionalized Christian Church has been evil in a number of circumstances throughout it's history.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The institutionalized Christian Church has been evil in a number of circumstances throughout it's history.

So has institutionalized communism. But you don't count the Christian Church against Christianity, and you count communism against secularism.


eudaimonia,

Mark