What if Religion doesn't wither away but simply changes under Communism as it...

Connor Long
Connor Long

What if Religion doesn't wither away but simply changes under Communism as it did under capitalism?

Attached: i-updated-this-origi.jpg (120.87 KB, 682x722)

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.org/details/MarxismChristianitySymposium
archive.org/details/UrgencyMarxistChristianDialogue
archive.org/details/ChristianityTodayInTheUSSR
marxists.org/archive/lawrence/2001/human_nature.htm
pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/
pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-unaffiliated/
telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10776023/China-on-course-to-become-worlds-most-Christian-nation-within-15-years.html
masterrussian.com/russia/facts.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_the_Supreme_Being
history.stackexchange.com/questions/9248/how-educated-were-the-clergy-during-the-medieval-period.
census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2017/cb17-51.html
thedailybeast.com/study-teen-suicide-rates-down-after-gay-marriage-legalization

Cameron Wood
Cameron Wood

As Engels noted, "the only service that can still be rendered to God today is to make atheism a compulsory dogma and to surpass Bismarck's anticlerical Kulturkampf laws by prohibiting religion in general."

Religion was not banned in the USSR. Churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. existed, as did clergy and the publication of religious texts.

The struggle against religion is waged chiefly via debate. In the first two decades of the USSR anti-religious propaganda and even violence came about due to the fact that the Orthodox Church and most clergy of the other faiths were linked to Tsarism and local exploiting classes, and had resisted both soviet power and collectivization.

When churches were closed or torn down, this was supposed to be done with the consent of the local population. Yaroslavsky, head of the USSR's atheist organization in the 1920s-30s, criticized violations of this tenet.

As the CPSU pointed out, under socialism a new generation of clergy came into being that supported the socialist state even if they themselves were not Marxists. Both this clergy and ordinary believers were to be treated respectfully.

Do most communists see the erasure of religion as an objective these days anymore?

Yes, but obviously a long-term one, not something that can be accomplished via decrees.

How would communism realistically abolish religion?

By removing the material conditions that give rise to it and educating people. For example, "the real danger facing the churches in the GDR today is no longer a direct confrontation with the state. . . Numerous parishes have already dwindled down to a small handful of worshippers, if that. But since the church in the GDR—unlike that in the West—does not have the opportunity of compensating for its dwindling religious substance and attractiveness by social activities, it is hit all the harder by the process of secularization." (Sontheimer and Bleek, The Government and Politics of East Germany, 1975, p. 125.)

In other words the church no longer had the need to dispense charity to the destitute or carry out other societal functions. One's belief in religion was not tied to economic or cultural considerations. This obviously weakens the influence of religion.

There are three books I've scanned you might find of interest:

* archive.org/details/MarxismChristianitySymposium

* archive.org/details/UrgencyMarxistChristianDialogue

* archive.org/details/ChristianityTodayInTheUSSR

Landon Diaz
Landon Diaz

This is more likely to happen than for it to simply wither away.

Austin King
Austin King

The maker of this image forgot to add "enforcing private property laws"

Dylan Russell
Dylan Russell

religion as it is today, definitely needs to whither away. Most Christian places of worship in the U.S. are bastions of reactionary ideology. They also ameliorate the problems created by capitalism by setting up charities, so all the externalities that come with the economic system are offloaded onto them, and these religious organizations then benefit by either getting an opportunity proselytize, or advertise their "good works".
I really don't like organized religion and I think it's mind poison. That said, the Christ-coms are OK, because they at least try to curb that poison to benefit us.

Alexander Price
Alexander Price

But these material conditions and debates and such only go after religion in its current form and ones akin to Christianity

However religion have been apart of humanity forever what is to say that it won't simply take on new forms under communism as it did in ALL economic systems?

Kevin Thomas
Kevin Thomas

What "needs to happen" is different from what will happen

Adam Hill
Adam Hill

I don't see how leftism can continue without taking a more religious role.

Why would someone risk their life any die for a cause without believing in any sort of after life?
It seems that the more capitalism you get the more people ditch religion for a more materialist lifestyle

The USSR was more Christian than the capitalist EU is today

Attached: 1385923652883.jpg (418.8 KB, 900x585)

Brody Garcia
Brody Garcia

Why would someone risk their life any die for a cause without believing in any sort of after life?
idk, ask all the people in revolutions who did it and didn't believe in god

Brayden Myers
Brayden Myers

okay

praise jesus we aint slaves to profit no mo'

Jonathan Watson
Jonathan Watson

Is there a point you're trying to make?

Jacob Cox
Jacob Cox

It's already withering away under capitalism

Thomas Sanchez
Thomas Sanchez

Under communism we should aim to educate the population in philosophy, and through this build a secular-atheist form of spirituality based in an advanced form of dialectical materialism.

Dialectical materialism isn't anything like vulgar bourgeois materialism, which is in all ways the opposite of proper spirituality. It does know a spirituality, in that it loves all superstitious things that drive people to consume and work without reflection. It generates a kind of Western Buddhism, or "mindfulness," of which the purpose is to separate the individual from their history, and bring them fully into "the moment," an ideological construction embodying the expectations of capital. An enormous industry is built around such commodified spiritual experience. People look at spirituality as a way out of the bourgeois materialist logic, only to find themselves more deeply sucked into it.

Needless to say socialist spirituality will be very different. The first thing to note is that, whereas the mode of spirituality associated with class society is based in thought (e.g. meditation, idealist self-reflection), socialist spirituality makes the revolutionary step of instead asserting living labor (reproduction of oneself in the world, materialist self-reflection) to be the true locus of spirituality. To be spiritual is to create, to struggle. It is historical, trying to build upon a tradition and impose oneself on it. It is dialectical, always working to dealienate the laborer from his labor.

Proletarian spirituality should exist within a single space, no, be indistinguishable from proletarian art and science.

Jayden Allen
Jayden Allen

What if Religion doesn't wither away but simply changes under Communism as it did under capitalism?
Obviously we will do ceremonies, just without the magic thinking, people mostly go to churches and all that for the community function.

Liam Ross
Liam Ross

Under communism we should aim to educate the population in philosophy, and through this build a secular-atheist form of spirituality based in an advanced form of dialectical materialism.
Educated does not = atheist

Owen Lee
Owen Lee

Obviously we will do ceremonies, just without the magic thinking, people mostly go to churches and all that for the community function.
why

Carson Lewis
Carson Lewis

I don't see how leftism can continue without taking a more religious role.
Why religion is on the decline, in a century most people will be atheists.

Grayson Gonzalez
Grayson Gonzalez

Why religion is on the decline, in a century most people will be atheists.
atheism is on the decline though

Zachary Ramirez
Zachary Ramirez

atheism is on the decline though
humanity is on the decline though

Jeremiah Evans
Jeremiah Evans

its not

Hunter Foster
Hunter Foster

not OP but thank you, high quality post

Logan Davis
Logan Davis

No probs, we are already saw this in things like liberation theology, we can coexist with religion and work for the betterment of the society. I believe education will make people less religious though, just like we can see happening in the developed world now (not necessarily today, but in the last 10~20 years), and eventually religion will be replaced by more sophisticated forms of metaphysics and ethics (like dialectical materialism).

Julian Perry
Julian Perry

The USSR was more Christian than the capitalist EU is today

Capitalism is the grinding stone by which all inferior cultures are wiped away.

Mason Jenkins
Mason Jenkins

What if Religion doesn't wither away but simply changes under Communism as it did under capitalism?
Communism is just a religious concept. Why would a concept of religion destroy religion? lol

Gavin Rivera
Gavin Rivera

Found the boomer

Leo Foster
Leo Foster

Well if you don't do the ceremonies you'll probably leave a gap, and something else arises.

Ethan Baker
Ethan Baker

Religion should help people understand that the world whose creator is worthy of their worship is this one, instead of asserting that the creator of heaven is worthy of worship. For this world has merely improved greatly, and is not yet Heaven, but indeed has both that potential and much to love about it today.

Caleb Baker
Caleb Baker

Communism is a core human yearning, much like religion itself. However it is not a religion, especially in the way that Marx uses the term.

Colton Anderson
Colton Anderson

Here, have a boongish jape that leads nowhere:
Ewia abwohvt! Tio fzwupa! Owtyt pairz! Ner lelg eha!

Jason Russell
Jason Russell

these are magic words

Lucas Rivera
Lucas Rivera

There is nothing natural about communism. It goes directly against human nature

Connor Bennett
Connor Bennett

marxists.org/archive/lawrence/2001/human_nature.htm

Michael Flores
Michael Flores

Paying for worship is worse than paying for sex.
If my religious beliefs revolve around sex, then forcing me to pay for sex is a violation of my rights to free practice. That's two count violations in one package.

Carter Peterson
Carter Peterson

this is extremely relevant to the discussion at hand

Ryder Collins
Ryder Collins

It isn’t
Religion is a brainworm.

Attached: Growth-of-nones-1972-2016.png (43.98 KB, 1320x952)

Adam Butler
Adam Butler

Humans lived in communism for thousands of years. Communism is in your blood.

Carson Wright
Carson Wright

It does though. The more educated you get, the less practical implications religion ends up having. In the end God becomes a mere philosophical abstraction, standing at the head of a system functionally indistinguishable from atheism.

Brandon Martinez
Brandon Martinez

Yeah. Communism is about stealing and prostitution. Crony capitalism is just communism with cash as a distraction.

Samuel Kelly
Samuel Kelly

Primitive Communism and FALC will be very different. It’s like saying Nineteenth Century India is the same as San Fransisco because both are under the capitalist mode of production.

Henry Diaz
Henry Diaz

Then that's how it will be. At such a point it's not really a "danger" in any way, especially given its lack of institutional and financial power.

Alexander Rogers
Alexander Rogers

When Marx said "religion is the opium of the people", it was just a keen observation and not a value-judgement ("people are stupid to believe in this shit").

So maybe something else is replacing religion as opium. Think of video games, for example.

Owen Torres
Owen Torres

Religion in most modern countries would die within a generation if parents weren't allowed to indoctrinate their kids with religious ideology before they could think properly.

Bentley Cox
Bentley Cox

weren't allowed
How would you stop this? it goes a bit beyond personal intrusion on a citizen's life.

Dominic Bailey
Dominic Bailey

…By making it nearly in possible for other citizens to have their own personal life. Then you can charge citizens rent for exclusive rights to practice something other citizens are not allowed to. It's a loophole to intrude on citizens by making it appears as if they are intruding on you.

Wyatt Russell
Wyatt Russell

The only religions that would have to be actively suppressed in a socialist revolution would be
Evangelical Christianity
Catholicism
Wahabist Islam (and 90 percent of this could be destroyed simply by isolating Saudi Arabia)
Zionist Judaism and any Jewish sects sympathetic to Zionism
Hindu Nationalism
And maybe a few tiny groups that don't really cause problems but should be nipped in the bud just in,case like the modern KKK, black Israelites and so on.

Religion as such would wane significantly under socialism and anything left would be completely defanged by the time we got to full communism. Going full Hoxha would be a misstep in today's world particularly in the Western nations

Attached: download-(1).jpeg (158.57 KB, 1280x720)

Levi Edwards
Levi Edwards

Spooked af post.

Jace Young
Jace Young

It isn’t
Atheism is the fastest shrinking religion in the world. Atheism is in decline worldwide, with the number of atheists falling from 4.5% of the world's population in 1970 to 2.0% in 2010 and projected to drop to 1.8% by 2020,

Real surveys and statistics say atheism is on the decline worldwide. Sorry atheists but atheism is not on the rise nor is it winning. It's still the minority and a declining one at that.

The Pew Research Center's statistics show that atheism is expected to continue to decline all the way into 2050 with a continued growth of religion. Other research also shows a huge surge in growth for Christianity in China which is currently the world's most "atheist" nation because of the atheist communist government suppressing religion, the research suggests that China will soon become the world's most Christian nation within 15 years.

This is simply history repeating itself: Christianity prospered in Rome back in the ancient era when it was suppressed and it still grew in the militant atheist soviet Russia when it was suppressed there only a century ago with the majority of Russians today now also identifying as Christian. Just goes to show that atheist suppression of religion still doesn't stop religion.

Sources for the legion of whiny /Redditor/ fedoras that will no doubt show up it this thread:

pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/
pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-unaffiliated/
telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10776023/China-on-course-to-become-worlds-most-Christian-nation-within-15-years.html
masterrussian.com/russia/facts.htm

Ryan Baker
Ryan Baker

It does though. The more educated you get, the less practical implications religion ends up having. In the end God becomes a mere philosophical abstraction, standing at the head of a system functionally indistinguishable from atheism.
nope

Adrian Martinez
Adrian Martinez

It does though. The more educated you get, the less practical implications religion ends up having. In the end God becomes a mere philosophical abstraction, standing at the head of a system functionally indistinguishable from atheism.
thats just a trend that started around a few decades ago

Jason Lopez
Jason Lopez

tfw Being unironic Buddhist Socialist

Jayden Jenkins
Jayden Jenkins

buddhism is deeply esoteric

Attached: 1481148530495.jpg (113.1 KB, 1380x866)

John Mitchell
John Mitchell

and yet in the intellectual world apologists continue to suffer defeat after defeat while atheism continues to cement itself as the de facto normal position, and for some mysterious reason i find myself completely unthreatened by the opinions of the chinese masses ;^)
*tips*

Juan Garcia
Juan Garcia

Explain to me how the two positions differ then. When you cut down on all the superstitious bullshit all religions converge towards a single knowledge of truth.

Connor Harris
Connor Harris

Not that, But Maitreya Age trough the depiction in my country is really resemble something around Authoritarian Socialist world to LibSoc World, but with Buddhism Characteristic. Also Maitreya rebellion used to happened in my country before communism becomes a thing when lower class got oppressed.

Isaac Garcia
Isaac Garcia

and yet in the intellectual world apologists continue to suffer defeat after defeat while atheism continues to cement itself as the de facto normal position
but this isn't true in the slightest

Ryan Gonzalez
Ryan Gonzalez

Explain to me how the two positions differ then. When you cut down on all the superstitious bullshit all religions converge towards a single knowledge of truth.
What are you talking about? The abrahamic religions are widely different from native European, indo european faiths and different from that of the eastern tradition

Lucas Cook
Lucas Cook

how can anyone believe this? atheists are several orders of magnitude overly represented in academia, and while the debate on god isn't settled, i can personally inform you that your side is losing ;^)

Josiah Campbell
Josiah Campbell

how can anyone believe this? atheists are several orders of magnitude overly represented in academia, and while the debate on god isn't settled, i can personally inform you that your side is losing ;^)

see atheism is shrinking, fast
Atheism in academia is a trend that is dying out as well

Colton Wilson
Colton Wilson

with the number of atheists falling from 4.5% of the world's population in 1970 to 2.0% in 2010
Because of the colapse of the Eastern Block
2010 and projected to drop to 1.8% by 2020,
Because religious people in Africa have higher birthrates.

Michael Ortiz
Michael Ortiz

links don't support the claim that atheism in academia is declining, and there are arguments to be made against naive projections of demographic changes into the future, but to be honest i don't think i'll really care if it did. the source of my smugness lies in the knowledge that theists at large are unable to vindicate themselves against the basic charge of being unable to justify their beliefs, and i seem to be in good company thinking that, at least for the moment

Wyatt Smith
Wyatt Smith

Because of the colapse of the Eastern Block
is that supposed to be some sort of argument? when people aren't forced into atheism they usually don't go with it.

Because religious people in Africa have higher birthrates.
is this supposed counter anything?

Gabriel Hill
Gabriel Hill

links don't support the claim that atheism in academia is declining
the links show a global decline in atheism

atheism is academia is just a trend

but to be honest i don't think i'll really care if it did. the source of my smugness lies in the knowledge that theists at large are unable to vindicate themselves against the basic charge of being unable to justify their beliefs, and i seem to be in good company thinking that, at least for the moment
but this applies to atheists as well

Evan Cruz
Evan Cruz

communism is atheist in nature
something about god being the ultimate hire arch upsets communists

Hunter Cook
Hunter Cook

what sense does it make to call atheism in academia a trend, when the so called global decline of atheism is precisely also a trend?

but this applies to atheists as well
atheism doesn't make the sort of decisive metaphysical commitments that even the most moderate form of theism takes for granted, and its burdens of justification aren't symmetrical in the slightest.

Brayden Campbell
Brayden Campbell

what sense does it make to call atheism in academia a trend, when the so called global decline of atheism is precisely also a trend?
the fact of the global decline of atheism?
because atheist intellectualism is a fairly recent thing

atheism doesn't make the sort of decisive metaphysical commitments that even the most moderate form of theism takes for granted, and its burdens of justification aren't symmetrical in the slightest.
it does though

Carson Hughes
Carson Hughes

it does though
Your wrong. Athieism doesn’t believe in any sky god or whatever. Athieism is the rejection of those brainworms.

Jordan Powell
Jordan Powell

is this supposed counter anything?
The number of atheists isn't going down, they are merely growing slower than every religious population - which makes sense. Religion tells people to be fruitful and multiply, whereas atheism tends towards anti-natalism.

Ethan Wilson
Ethan Wilson

this is a copypasted Ismail post right?

Blake Gray
Blake Gray

Unironicaly atheist natalism is needed.

Christopher Torres
Christopher Torres

Either that or become better at convincing people.

Christian Butler
Christian Butler

because atheist intellectualism is a fairly recent thing
Intellectuals have always rejected the vulgar religious doctrines peddled to the masses. It is because religion nowadays shows itself to be entirely superstitious that intellectuals have become atheists.
Unlike people in any previous historical era, we are aware of the historical truth of religion, the fact that it is based on fairy tales whose evolution can be easily tracked if you possess the evidence. We also know that none of the creation narratives correspond to the evidence we find in the world. We know that what religion asserts to be moral in fact isn't moral at all, and only based in the prejudice of the people who invented the doctrine.
If religious institutions hadn't been so dogmatic, they might have reinvented the notion of God in a way amenable to these new discoveries. But dogmatism is the means through which religion exerts its power on people! It's the truth of religion. Therefore it was a matter of historical necessity that religion lost its favor among the intellectual classes.
Athieism is the rejection of those brainworms.
Which is equally well a metaphysical commitment.

Julian Ramirez
Julian Ramirez

Your wrong. Athieism doesn’t believe in any sky god or whatever. Athieism is the rejection of those brainworms.
Atheism rejects dogma X for their own dogmas

Bentley Scott
Bentley Scott

The number of atheists isn't going down, they are merely growing slower than every religious population - which makes sense. Religion tells people to be fruitful and multiply, whereas atheism tends towards anti-natalism.

Religious people breeding
Non religious people not breeding

As you can see the number of atheists is declining

Carson Cook
Carson Cook

Intellectuals have always rejected the vulgar religious doctrines peddled to the masses. It is because religion nowadays shows itself to be entirely superstitious that intellectuals have become atheists.
This is only true in Western countries though.

Unlike people in any previous historical era, we are aware of the historical truth of religion, the fact that it is based on fairy tales whose evolution can be easily tracked if you possess the evidence. We also know that none of the creation narratives correspond to the evidence we find in the world.
Arguing against the creation story pushed by mainline protestants does not = none of the creation narratives correspond to the evidence we find in the world.
The creation story fits quite well with real world evidence

We know that what religion asserts to be moral in fact isn't moral at all, and only based in the prejudice of the people who invented the doctrine.
no this is just an opinion

If religious institutions hadn't been so dogmatic, they might have reinvented the notion of God in a way amenable to these new discoveries. But dogmatism is the means through which religion exerts its power on people! It's the truth of religion. Therefore it was a matter of historical necessity that religion lost its favor among the intellectual classes.
But with atheism comes their own dogmas they've swapped one religion for another

Benjamin Collins
Benjamin Collins

Which is equally well a metaphysical commitment.
this only applies to strong atheism. your rely on an awful >y-you too to sustain yourself

Isaiah Robinson
Isaiah Robinson

The creation story fits quite well with real world evidence
Which creation story?
no this is just an opinion
You believe that homosexuality being fine is just an opinion?
But with atheism comes their own dogmas they've swapped one religion for another
Atheism doesn't have any dogmas. You're thinking about new atheist idiots, i.e. the majority of people willing to debate atheism online. They don't represent any philosophically sophisticated brand of atheism.
strong atheism vs. weak atheism bullshit
This is a narrative invented so lazy atheists can pretend they have no "burden of proof" or whatever. Pure sophistry. In the real world (outside of the online new atheist circlejerk) everyone who calls themselves "atheist" asserts the belief that god isn't real.
But even if we accept the weak vs. strong atheism distinction, you called atheism the "rejection of those brainworms," which isn't the same as the lack of commitment "weak atheists" are supposed to show.

Isaac Taylor
Isaac Taylor

Which creation story?
whichever one you're talking about

You believe that homosexuality being fine is just an opinion?
How is saying: "homosexuality is fine" anything more than a statement of opinion

Atheism doesn't have any dogmas. You're thinking about new atheist idiots,
no true scotsman
i.e. the majority of people willing to debate atheism online. They don't represent any philosophically sophisticated brand of atheism.
you just made that up. You have no data on what "the majority of people online" will do

Nolan Ortiz
Nolan Ortiz

i'm not the person who used "rejection of those brainworms", and i didn't claim atheists have no burden of proof. i claimed in a different post that they do have burden of proof, as anyone does, but that it's not a mirror image of the kind of burden of proof incurred by theists for making grandiose metaphysical claims, as the person i was replying to was implying. please don't put words in my mouth

the strong vs weak atheism distinction isn't a "narrative", nor is narrative a word for "categories i dislike", and you are factually wrong about the existence of actual weak atheists. i fully appreciate your distaste for disingenuous atheists who play stupid motte and bailey games, opportunistically shifting between strong and weak atheism to suit the moment, but it has been my experience that the "philosophically sophisticated brand of atheism" is characterized by a general reluctance to commit to any particular metaphysics. also, the strong vs weak atheist distinction doesn't mean confident vs fence sitter. a weak atheism is fully consistent with "strong" critiques of theist epistemology. you can call religious belief a brainworm without having to prove that god doesn't exist.

Jack Sanders
Jack Sanders

it's possible
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_the_Supreme_Being

Blake Smith
Blake Smith

whichever one you're talking about
I wasn't talking about any in particular, but let's take the genesis narrative. You might claim that there is some deep metaphorical meaning to it, and I won't stop you from doing so. It might be very valuable. But it's simply a fact that this deeper meaning was never the primary meaning associated to the text. Common people have always treated it as a matter of historical truth.
Further, if you choose to read it as a deep allegory of sorts, why still insist that this book is the one and only work of god? That shows incredible arrogance towards the other world religions. At that point, it would be better to embrace atheism as the truth of our world, and then approach all of the worlds religions as philosophies you can learn from.
How is saying: "homosexuality is fine" anything more than a statement of opinion
You're a moral relativist then? Is that the position you're taking?
no true scotsman
Not a no-true-scotsman at all. Did I ever claim that these idiots aren't "true" atheists? They are true atheist, absolute insufferable ones.
You have no data on what "the majority of people online" will do
I've been online enough to know what types jump on the opportunity to discuss religion. You don't need data on this. What? You're both religious and a vulgar positivist?
it has been my experience that the "philosophically sophisticated brand of atheism" is characterized by a general reluctance to commit to any particular metaphysics
Reluctance to commit to any specific metaphysics isn't the same as reluctance to make any metaphysical claims. "Weak atheism" is a useless synonym for agnosticism.
you can call religious belief a brainworm without having to prove that god doesn't exist.
If you call religious belief a brainworm, you must be able to provide a strong argument for disbelief in god. Otherwise your beliefs are just as arbitrary as those of religious people.
The idea that there is any difference between negative and positive beliefs is highly ideological. A lot of theistic arguments are dedicated to proving that theism is the standard mode of human cognition. You can play such games endlessly.

Juan Brown
Juan Brown

Seeing as most atheists who aren't already breeding are first worlders that is not a responsible idea.

Cameron Hall
Cameron Hall

"Weak atheism" is a useless synonym for agnosticism
it sure starts seeming like you're upset that there are sophisticated forms of atheism out there

If you call religious belief a brainworm, you must be able to provide a strong argument for disbelief in god.
that's not how it works. if i call religious belief a brainworm, i have to justify my belief that religious belief is a brainworm. this has nothing to do with the existence of god.

A lot of theistic arguments are dedicated to proving that theism is the standard mode of human cognition
and they all suck

Lincoln Williams
Lincoln Williams

i forgot to add that i made no distinction between negative and positive beliefs and i dare you to quote me saying otherwise

Jordan Wilson
Jordan Wilson

Can you name the dogmas atheists believe in?

Owen Morgan
Owen Morgan

This tends to end poorly. In Poland's case it just cemented the ussr in the role of the foreign oppressor. Cultural engineering tends to play out much difderently than how it is dreamt up in armchairs.

Jace King
Jace King

Can you name the dogmas atheists believe in?
God does not exist
Equality
Bourgeois democracy

Ian Sanchez
Ian Sanchez

these have nothing to do with atheism

Isaac Butler
Isaac Butler

I wasn't talking about any in particular, but let's take the genesis narrative. You might claim that there is some deep metaphorical meaning to it, and I won't stop you from doing so. It might be very valuable. But it's simply a fact that this deeper meaning was never the primary meaning associated to the text. Common people have always treated it as a matter of historical truth.
This is incorrect. Common people always treating it as a matter of historical truth is a recent development

" Now who is there, pray, possessed of understanding, that will regard the statement as appropriate, that the first day, and the second, and the third, in which also both evening and morning are mentioned, existed without sun, and moon, and stars—the first day even without a sky? And who is found so ignorant as to suppose that God, as if He had been a husbandman, planted trees in paradise, in Eden towards the east, and a tree of life in it, i.e., a visible and palpable tree of wood, so that anyone eating of it with bodily teeth should obtain life, and, eating again of another tree, should come to the knowledge of good and evil? No one, I think, can doubt that the statement that God walked in the afternoon in paradise, and that Adam lay hid under a tree, is related figuratively in Scripture, that some mystical meaning may be indicated by it" Origen on First Principles, Book 4, 16

Further, if you choose to read it as a deep allegory of sorts, why still insist that this book is the one and only work of god? That shows incredible arrogance towards the other world religions.
Well that is a problem of faith not any rational conclusion

At that point, it would be better to embrace atheism as the truth of our world, and then approach all of the worlds religions as philosophies you can learn from.
Why

You're a moral relativist then? Is that the position you're taking?
How about you answer the question? Why do you feel the need to assign ideology to this?

Not a no-true-scotsman at all. Did I ever claim that these idiots aren't "true" atheists? They are true atheist, absolute insufferable ones.
You're saying no true atheist has dogmas when they most certainly do but you just said that now.

I've been online enough to know what types jump on the opportunity to discuss religion. You don't need data on this. What? You're both religious and a vulgar positivist?
Yeah its atheists who jump at the opportunity the typical "I'm an atheist debate me"

Jayden Gonzalez
Jayden Gonzalez

Most atheists are just secular. Nu-atheists do actually have an ideology (it's basically western chauvinism combined with cringey enlightenment aesthetics.) Incidentally the new atheists are the ones who push atheist idpol and promote islamophobia alogside the evangelicals they used to obsess over during the bush years.

Attached: 1548941306141.png (41.86 KB, 374x520)

Isaiah Murphy
Isaiah Murphy

Most atheists are just secular. Nu-atheists do actually have an ideology (it's basically western chauvinism combined with cringey enlightenment aesthetics.) Incidentally the new atheists are the ones who push atheist idpol and promote islamophobia alogside the evangelicals they used to obsess
Most atheist replace christianity with Secular Humanism + cultural christian values when it convinces them

Brody Rivera
Brody Rivera

God does not exist
not a dogma
Equality
has nothing to do with Atheism
Bourgeois democracy
has nothing to do with Atheism

Nolan Bell
Nolan Bell

God does not exist
not a dogma
It is though.

Equality

has nothing to do with Atheism

2875166

Bourgeois democracy

has nothing to do with Atheism
see

Juan Sanchez
Juan Sanchez

Now who is there, pray, possessed of understanding, that will regard the statement as appropriate, that the first day, and the second, and the third, in which also both evening and morning are mentioned, existed without sun, and moon, and stars—the first day even without a sky?
And why should this author explain that he is speaking about those who are "possessed of understanding," when, as you propose, every christian already belongs to that group? He might as well not make this distinction at all. Except he does, and this indicates something, namely that my suggestion is true, and common people were always led to understand the scripture literally. Your quote confirms every suspicion I had. From the earliest moments of Christianity common people have been misled by scripture, while the elites hypocritically rationalized its nonsense by calling it "mystical." This ability to simultaneously know that scriptures are normally read literally
For common people, you'll find that the arguments proposed by this author don't appear as self-evident as he holds they are. Those educated in philosophy might have understood that the nature of a "day" consists in the turning of the sun around the earth, but what reason does a common slave have to think this? Someone like that might as well hear of the scripture and conclude, "So it must be that the distinction between night and day precedes the sun and the moon, so that the appearance of these objects follows from it being day or night, rather than the other way around." At first this appears to be as sensible an opinion as any other.
A philosopher, having reflected over these matters more thoroughly, and knowing about the laws governing the motions of the heavenly bodies, and being informed about the phenomena surrounding eclipses… they know better. With a slave, scripture is likely the highest education they've received in their lives.
Well that is a problem of faith not any rational conclusion
So it's entirely arbitrary? Is that what you're saying? There must be something that makes you accept one faith rather than another, some rationale behind it.
If not, the same problem persists. Why would you reject other religions when you are exposed to them? Isn't it better to take a bird's eye view over the two of them, and decide that they are two attempts to get at the same truth of the world?
To me, having faith in multiple religions at once is perfectly sensible once you accept that their meaning is mystical rather than literal. After all, who is to say that the mystical core of the religions isn't compatible, even if surface level readings suggest that they are contradictory. You just aren't comprehending them deeply enough.
Why
Because you've abandoned any naive notion of god and replaced it with a series of philosophical notions perfectly compatible with the materialist understanding of the world. At that point it's best to drop any pretense of religiosity and embrace atheism. It's just a pragmatic concern really. You know that most religious people believe in weird superstitions, why continue to associate with them?
How about you answer the question? Why do you feel the need to assign ideology to this?
"Homosexuality is okay" isn't just a statement of opinion because it has real ethical consequences. We know that homosexual behavior is something many people enjoy, and we know that it does no damage to our society. We also know that many who enjoy homosexual behavior have trouble enjoying any other type of sexuality, making it needlessly cruel to deprive them of it.
Everyone who engages in open conversation with gay people will see that punishing them for their natural desires is immoral. What faith you believe in is irrelevant to this. It's an objective fact just as it's an objective fact that humans and chimps share a common ancestor.
You're saying no true atheist has dogmas when they most certainly do but you just said that now.
I never said anything like that. All I claimed is that there are no dogmas implied by being atheist. Some true atheists have dogmas.

Jaxson Watson
Jaxson Watson

And why should this author explain that he is speaking about those who are "possessed of understanding," when, as you propose, every christian already belongs to that group? He might as well not make this distinction at all. Except he does, and this indicates something, namely that my suggestion is true, and common people were always led to understand the scripture literally. Your quote confirms every suspicion I had. From the earliest moments of Christianity common people have been misled by scripture, while the elites hypocritically rationalized its nonsense by calling it "mystical." This ability to simultaneously know that scriptures are normally read literally
No it does the opposite that is an earth church father describing how Genesis is not to be taken literally

This ability to simultaneously know that scriptures are normally read literally
It depends what part of it you're reading. The bible isn't a single book, it contains prayers stories, letters etc. Some are to be taken literally some aren't

For common people, you'll find that the arguments proposed by this author don't appear as self-evident as he holds they are. Those educated in philosophy might have understood that the nature of a "day" consists in the turning of the sun around the earth, but what reason does a common slave have to think this?
You're failing to realize the historical context of this.
A common slave isn't going to read the bible on his own. Protestants only excepted fairly recently. The common people are going to be taught this exactly in Church.

Someone like that might as well hear of the scripture and conclude, "So it must be that the distinction between night and day precedes the sun and the moon, so that the appearance of these objects follows from it being day or night, rather than the other way around." At first this appears to be as sensible an opinion as any other.
A philosopher, having reflected over these matters more thoroughly, and knowing about the laws governing the motions of the heavenly bodies, and being informed about the phenomena surrounding eclipses… they know better. With a slave, scripture is likely the highest education they've received in their lives.
But the early Church fathers weren't just philosophers that no one read. Their teachings we're taught in Church

So it's entirely arbitrary? Is that what you're saying? There must be something that makes you accept one faith rather than another, some rationale behind it.
The word your looking for is faith.

If not, the same problem persists. Why would you reject other religions when you are exposed to them? Isn't it better to take a bird's eye view over the two of them, and decide that they are two attempts to get at the same truth of the world?
this is answered on a case by case basis according to the person's already established religion.

To me, having faith in multiple religions at once is perfectly sensible once you accept that their meaning is mystical rather than literal. After all, who is to say that the mystical core of the religions isn't compatible, even if surface level readings suggest that they are contradictory. You just aren't comprehending them deeply enough.
ok? good for you? I don't see what this has to do with much.

Because you've abandoned any naive notion of god and replaced it with a series of philosophical notions perfectly compatible with the materialist understanding of the world.
Who has? You? Me? Atheism is more naive than the belief in god

At that point it's best to drop any pretense of religiosity and embrace atheism. It's just a pragmatic concern really. You know that most religious people believe in weird superstitions, why continue to associate with them?
How is swapping one religion for another any better? Atheism has its own superstitions

"Homosexuality is okay" isn't just a statement of opinion because it has real ethical consequences.
How are ethics anymore than a person's opinion on right and wrong?

We know that homosexual behavior is something many people enjoy,
Enjoying something doesn't = okay

and we know that it does no damage to our society.
this is not true.Even today homosexuals like to cause problems politically, the political side of homosexuality is so filled with IDpol it stifles any class struggle, not to mention the broken lives and STDs these people have.

We also know that many who enjoy homosexual behavior have trouble enjoying any other type of sexuality, making it needlessly cruel to deprive them of it.
When it is damaging to society muh pleasure isn't a good enough reason to continue it

I never said anything like that. All I claimed is that there are no dogmas implied by being atheist. Some true atheists have dogmas.
It doesn't need to be implied. Atheism has their own dogma's attached to them

Michael Long
Michael Long

Everyone who engages in open conversation with gay people will see that punishing them for their natural desires is immoral. What faith you believe in is irrelevant to this. It's an objective fact just as it's an objective fact that humans and chimps share a common ancestor.
how is this also not a statement of opinion

Evan Clark
Evan Clark

rekt

Nathan Jones
Nathan Jones

No it does the opposite that is an earth church father describing how Genesis is not to be taken literally
It's an early church father trying to comfort intellectuals who were questioning the doctrine.
The bible isn't a single book, it contains prayers stories, letters etc. Some are to be taken literally some aren't
Completely arbitrary. You will end up picking and choosing the parts you like and applying a mystical interpretation to the rest. I'm not saying this isn't worthwhile, it's a very interesting exercise in hermeneutics, but you shouldn't kid yourself about how the text functions socially. It makes use of this ambiguity to exert power over people.
A common slave isn't going to read the bible on his own. Protestants only excepted fairly recently. The common people are going to be taught this exactly in Church.
And the priest is going to teach them proper natural philosophy? Bullshit. You know very well how it works. The priest only adds a bunch of superstitious bullshit on top of what's already in the text.
Take hell as an example. Appears nowhere in the text, completely superstitious, transparently a scheme to reinforce social authority, and priests love it. Completely standard Christian doctrine at this point.
But the early Church fathers weren't just philosophers that no one read. Their teachings we're taught in Church
You're woefully idealistic about how well educated the average priest is, and how much they actually care about getting people to stop being superstitious. Superstition benefits them. In medieval Europe churches loved inventing dumb relics to attract pilgrims. These traditions persist to this day.
Atheism has its own superstitions
Name me an atheist superstition.
How are ethics anymore than a person's opinion on right and wrong?
How is physics anything more than a person's opinion on how the universe works? It's more because it can be either correct or wrong.
I don't see how you can be a Christian without believing God's moral commands to be "anymore than a person's opinion." You must be a godless atheist if you believe that, and I must be more of a Christian than you are. Interesting, that.
the political side of homosexuality is so filled with IDpol it stifles any class struggle, not to mention the broken lives and STDs these people have.
And you believe these things are innate consequences of homosexuality? Bullshit. There are plenty of homosexuals who live respectable lives.
When it is damaging to society muh pleasure isn't a good enough reason to continue it
And if it isn't damaging to society, depriving someone of basic sexual satisfaction is immoral.
Another example of the Christians doing this is celibacy among catholic priests. We know that this doctrine causes damage to society. These priests constantly make use of naive church goers (very often children) to meet their stifled urges.
Atheism has their own dogma's attached to them
Yet you fail to name a single dogma.

Ethan Wright
Ethan Wright

Literally the only difference is technology and the size of the communes.

Connor Lopez
Connor Lopez

It's an early church father trying to comfort intellectuals who were questioning the doctrine.
you just made that up.

Completely arbitrary. You will end up picking and choosing the parts you like and applying a mystical interpretation to the rest. I'm not saying this isn't worthwhile, it's a very interesting exercise in hermeneutics, but you shouldn't kid yourself about how the text functions socially. It makes use of this ambiguity to exert power over people.
Incorrect that is why you have Church authority as an unbroken connection to the past to help understand how it was traditionally understood. the pick and choose is an atheist meme inspired by Protestantism which is a recent occurrence within Christianity

And the priest is going to teach them proper natural philosophy? Bullshit. You know very well how it works. The priest only adds a bunch of superstitious bullshit on top of what's already in the text.
"superstitious bullshit " is completely arbitrary

Take hell as an example. Appears nowhere in the text, completely superstitious,
No superstition doesn't work like that.

You're woefully idealistic about how well educated the average priest is
Well they require a master's degree so the are incredibly more educated than the average person
and how much they actually care about getting people to stop being superstitious. Superstition benefits them. In medieval Europe churches loved inventing dumb relics to attract pilgrims. These traditions persist to this day.
How much a person cares about X thing isn't quantifiable

Name me an atheist superstition.
"there is no God"

How is physics anything more than a person's opinion on how the universe works? It's more because it can be either correct or wrong.
You still didn't answer the question

I don't see how you can be a Christian without believing God's moral commands to be "anymore than a person's opinion." You must be a godless atheist if you believe that, and I must be more of a Christian than you are. Interesting, that.
What are you even saying here?

And you believe these things are innate consequences of homosexuality? Bullshit. There are plenty of homosexuals who live respectable lives.
Well they absolutely are. Homosexuality has never been separated from consequences despite all the resources to do so.

And if it isn't damaging to society, depriving someone of basic sexual satisfaction is immoral.
irrelevant because homosex is damaging.

Another example of the Christians doing this is celibacy among catholic priests. We know that this doctrine causes damage to society.
The benefits of a celibate clergy outway the bad.

These priests constantly make use of naive church goers (very often children) to meet their stifled urges.
This is just a meme. Children in public school have much higher rates of abuse

Yet you fail to name a single dogma.
See above

Oliver Garcia
Oliver Garcia

you just made that up.
Just as you made your interpretation of that statement up. We have an equal amount of knowledge about his intentions.
Incorrect that is why you have Church authority as an unbroken connection to the past to help understand how it was traditionally understood.
Weak excuse the church came up with to keep people sucking the pope's cock.
the pick and choose is an atheist meme inspired by Protestantism which is a recent occurrence within Christianity
Early Christians had much more diversity in their beliefs than protestants do today. Catholicism is also a later invention, mostly due to power struggles within the Roman Empire.
"superstitious bullshit " is completely arbitrary
What's arbitrary about shedding misunderstandings of god? Again, you're a poor Christian.
Well they require a master's degree so the are incredibly more educated than the average person
Having a master's degree doesn't mean you are "incredibly more educated than the average person." It means you made it through college. Congratulations.
And to use your own words, this is a recent occurrence in Christianity. Historically common pastors weren't all that educated. history.stackexchange.com/questions/9248/how-educated-were-the-clergy-during-the-medieval-period.
How much a person cares about X thing isn't quantifiable
Material interests aren't quantifiable?
"there is no God"
That's not a superstition, that's just the meaning of the word "atheist." And you gotta be careful with the words here. When an atheist says "god doesn't exist," he doesn't mean that your deep Thomistic conception of God doesn't exist, he's talking about the bearded man in the sky ordinary Christians believe in. That's hardly a superstition. Really, you agree with him on the matter.
Which is why I would stress that atheism is a rhetorical move more than anything. If led by a honest inquiry into truth, different religious perspectives will converge in their beliefs.
You still didn't answer the question
You want an explanation of where moral truth comes from? It's a result of people's interest in maintaining a mutually beneficial community, as well as simply the experience of empathy, which can be quite profound.
What are you even saying here?
You're asking me how any moral belief can have objective truth. If you don't understand how this works, you can't be a Christian, because the idea that moral truth is objective is fundamental to Christianity. In comparison I'm a great Christian.
Homosexuality has never been separated from consequences despite all the resources to do so.
Bullshit. Plenty of people have lived respectable lives while being homosexuals. Homosexuality does no damage by itself. It does do damage when it gets stigmatized, and comes to adopt the moral degradation common to all people who are rejected by society. You know who is to blame for this depravity? Surprise! It's Christianity!
Even now when homosexuality is somewhat accepted, their culture still stems from the time when it wasn't. You cannot expect it to suddenly change, just as you cannot expect gypsies to suddenly change when their way of life gets accepted. They won't just stop showing the marks of oppression in a day. It's always a slow and painful process.
The benefits of a celibate clergy outway the bad.
Explain those benefits to me. How is it not just pointless asceticism, a magic trick that impressed ancient Romans?
This is just a meme. Children in public school have much higher rates of abuse
There are also a lot more public school employees than priests, and these public school employees will obviously be interacting with children much more often. That's a really dumb statistic to look at.

Landon Perez
Landon Perez

We have an equal amount of knowledge about his intentions
okay, like what "evidence" is there to suppose that those were Origen's intentions. Ginjeet, please, I know you've never even read him. .

Elijah White
Elijah White

Also
he's talking about the bearded man in the sky ordinary Christians believe in
If all atheism means is the negation and rejection of the imaginary of folk religion, it is utterly worthless.
he doesn't mean that your deep Thomistic conception of God doesn't exist
actually, he does, otherwise, his atheism isn't even worth being paid attention to, and even historically, what you say is just wrong with regards to atheism. No serious Christian thinker buys into the popular ideas of God, where he possesses a Zeus-like ontology. When we talk about God, we are talking about Being.

I also don't get why you place so much emphasis on what the common Christian believes. The common man is just stupid period. What did you expect? For example, you have a very shallow view of christianity, its history and theology that it isn't even worth engaging with.

Charles Morris
Charles Morris

It's bound to be a very long process, just like building full communism. Iirc correctly Stalin thought everybody would have to be in school for several hours everyday after decreasing work hours to where that's possible for full communism to be achieved. Same likely goes for the end of religion.

Cameron Rogers
Cameron Rogers

the "end of religion" theories are just all dumb.

Luis Hill
Luis Hill

If all atheism means is the negation and rejection of the imaginary of folk religion, it is utterly worthless.
Not if you're trying to fight that folk religion. Atheists aren't looking for some deep spiritual experience. If that's what you're judging it on of course it's worthless. It's like judging the theory of evolution on its ability to design a spacecraft.
even historically, what you say is just wrong with regards to atheism
What complaints have atheists historically made about Christianity? Has their shtick been a deep critique of Thomas Aquinas's theory of pure actuality? No. Absolutely not. Atheism has always been primarily directed towards the nonsensical things people come to believe through revelation, which are endless.
No serious Christian thinker buys into the popular ideas of God, where he possesses a Zeus-like ontology.
That's a no true scottsman fallacy if I've ever seen one. Those popular ideas of God are very much part of the Christian tradition.
I also don't get why you place so much emphasis on what the common Christian believes. The common man is just stupid period
That's incredibly elitist. The truth of a belief is how it functions in the real world.
you have a very shallow view of christianity, its history and theology that it isn't even worth engaging with.
I agree! My assertion is that Christianity, its history and theology are shallow, and that reading it as if it were deep will simply mislead us. You are entirely free to read it as if it were deep, to go on a deep spiritual-philosophical journey using the works of medieval theologians. What I don't understand is why you would identify this with the mainstream Christian tradition. People have always done such philosophy, whether they're Christian or not. Reading Christianity as if it were deep seems like a very big "as if", one borne more out of stubbornness to part with your Christian identity than actual practical concerns.

Nevertheless, I want to remind you that our differences probably aren't all that great (except on homosexuality, which is a problem). All I'm arguing is a minor point on which identity to assume. You're free to identify as a Christian if you want, it doesn't matter all that much to me.
But in my view the role Christianity has played historically, and continues to play to this day, is enough to warrant an explicit rejection. Then you can go on to approach the same deep spiritual truths externally, from a secular-materialist point of view. To this end you'll even read Christian thinkers, look at what they have to say about absolute being, just as Christians go back to pagan thinkers for their insights on these matters. You'll even read the bible.
In essence we're trying to do very much the same thing. That's what I want to stress.

Adrian Stewart
Adrian Stewart

Just as you made your interpretation of that statement up. We have an equal amount of knowledge about his intentions.
No thats not how church teachings works sorry you're wrong.

Weak excuse the church came up with to keep people sucking the pope's cock.
not an argument.

Early Christians had much more diversity in their beliefs than protestants do today. Catholicism is also a later invention, mostly due to power struggles within the Roman Empire.
The catholic church was the early church

What's arbitrary about shedding misunderstandings of god? Again, you're a poor Christian.
You're just calling this superstitious is completely arbitrary

Having a master's degree doesn't mean you are "incredibly more educated than the average person." It means you made it through college. Congratulations.

Considering only 1/3 of all Americans have a BA or higher yes they are.
census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2017/cb17-51.html

And to use your own words, this is a recent occurrence in Christianity. Historically common pastors weren't all that educated. history.stackexchange.com/questions/9248/how-educated-were-the-clergy-during-the-medieval-period.
<College doesn't make you educated!!1
<stackexchange
not an argument.

Material interests aren't quantifiable?
"caring" is not quantifiable

What metric are you using to measure this?
That's not a superstition, that's just the meaning of the word "atheist."
exactly its a superstition.

And you gotta be careful with the words here. When an atheist says "god doesn't exist," he doesn't mean that your deep Thomistic conception of God doesn't exist, he's talking about the bearded man in the sky ordinary Christians believe in. That's hardly a superstition. Really, you agree with him on the matter.
this is getting into No true scotsman territory

You want an explanation of where moral truth comes from? It's a result of people's interest in maintaining a mutually beneficial community, as well as simply the experience of empathy, which can be quite profound.
Lol you replaced god with community.

You're asking me how any moral belief can have objective truth. If you don't understand how this works, you can't be a Christian, because the idea that moral truth is objective is fundamental to Christianity. In comparison I'm a great Christian.
thats not how objective mortality works though

Bullshit. Plenty of people have lived respectable lives while being homosexuals
anecdotes, irrelevant. I'm sure plenty of bourgeois live respectable lives

Homosexuality does no damage by itsel
it does I already listed the damaging consequences

It does do damage when it gets stigmatized
stigmatizing is a good thing it reduces the rate of homosexuality and thus reduces its effect.

and comes to adopt the moral degradation common to all people who are rejected by society. You know who is to
blame for this depravity? Surprise! It's Christianity!
Good

Even now when homosexuality is somewhat accepted
gay suicide rate hasn't changed? haha

their culture still stems from the time when it wasn't. You cannot expect it to suddenly change, just as you cannot expect gypsies to suddenly change when their way of life gets accepted.

They won't just stop showing the marks of oppression in a day. It's always a slow and painful process.
No the consequences are inseparable, homosexuality is a danger to the working class. Any proletariat revolution will properly defend their community.
Stalin did nothing wrong.

Explain those benefits to me. How is it not just pointless asceticism, a magic trick that impressed ancient Romans?
Well you can start with the stoics.

There are also a lot more public school employees than priests, and these public school employees will obviously be interacting with children much more often. That's a really dumb statistic to look at.
No you just don't like that you're muh pedo priests is just a meme

Josiah Ross
Josiah Ross

Not if you're trying to fight that folk religion
except theology already attacks it, it supersedes those naive popular views. So I guess atheism, again, is totally worthless and umambitious if all it really means is "lol, there's no man in floating around in the sky" because that isn't what God is to begin with. God isn't a being and the question of God is not a question of empirical one but one of metaphysics.
Atheists aren't looking for some deep spiritual experience
don't give a shit about "spiritual experience". Don't see how it's even relevant here.
That's a no true scottsman fallacy if I've ever seen one. Those popular ideas of God are very much part of the Christian tradition.
It isn't, because I'm not saying that they "aren't really Christian" They're just wrong, and every read Christian knows it.
That's incredibly elitist.
Don't care. It's just true. People don't have time to study and reflect, and even if they did, they might just not give a shit. I hate this stupid faith leftists have in the people.
My assertion is that Christianity, its history and theology are shallow
lol, okay
Nevertheless, I want to remind you that our differences probably aren't all that great
i'm not the other stupid person you were talking to, and yes, our differences are great.
I have no idea why you keep mentioning "le deep spiritual experiences". I have no idea what that even is or I don't give a shit. It sounds like a bunch of new age discourse. That isn't even what Christianity is about.

Lincoln Allen
Lincoln Allen

religion is shit and religious people are soft minded and weak willed

Mason Collins
Mason Collins

not an argument.
The point I'm making is that you can justify anything this way. "You have to listen to the tradition and I am the person who represents it." No fuck you. The tradition is full of all kinds of bullshit. People can think for themselves. You're only trying to assert your own authority.
The catholic church was the early church
Lol, no it wasn't. Catholicism has no resemblance to, let's say, Gnosticism.
Considering only 1/3 of all Americans have a BA or higher yes they are.
9.3% of Americans have a masters degree. It isn't a mark of high intelligence.
"caring" is not quantifiable
What? You're saying that people don't care about maintaining the authority of their institutions. That's stupid as fuck.
What metric are you using to measure this?
I'm not measuring it. I'm arguing what would be reasonable to expect.
exactly its a superstition.
No, it's a conclusion people have come to.
this is getting into No true scotsman territory
Fine. You'll probably be able to find some atheist who has done this. But it certainly isn't the bulk of the atheist tradition. Most atheists begin by rejecting the common beliefs peddled by Christian institutions. They aren't talking about your weird theological stuff.
Lol you replaced god with community.
No I haven't. Your community is an actual material thing you can go interact with. In fact, you won't survive if you don't do that. Morality emerges out of that necessity.
anecdotes, irrelevant. I'm sure plenty of bourgeois live respectable lives
Yeah. Of course plenty of bourgeois people live respectable lives. Marxism isn't opposed to the lives bourgeois people lead. It's about the structural implications of the existence of social classes.
it does I already listed the damaging consequences
They're the result of stigmatization by the church.
stigmatizing is a good thing it reduces the rate of homosexuality and thus reduces its effect.
It does neither.
gay suicide rate hasn't changed? haha
It has though. thedailybeast.com/study-teen-suicide-rates-down-after-gay-marriage-legalization
Well you can start with the stoics.
You desperately need to read some Nietzsche.
Except theology already attacks it, it supersedes those naive popular views.
It turns out atheism and theology are in perfect agreement. I already suspected as much, since theologians are often very interesting people.
So I guess atheism, again, is totally worthless and umambitious if all it really means is "lol, there's no man in floating around in the sky"
Then theology is worthless and meaningless as well, isn't it?
But the difference between atheism and theology is how they go about the problem. Theology has been ineffective, more functioning as a justification of the common beliefs than a refutation of them. If someone doubts what's commonly accepted among Christians, a theologian can come in and explain how actually Origen explained that it isn't at all what you were taught it is in Sunday school but actually this deep metaphysical allegory to get them to shut up. Every good Christian then nods their head as if they knew this all along, and go on to peddle the same vague superstitions they always did.
The difference is really that theology begins by assuming the common superstitions to be true, and when it turns out they aren't, it finds a better explanation for the text. Atheism works in the other direction, starting by assuming that the common stories are false, and then reading the text to find by what interpretation it could be salvageable.
But ultimately it comes down to the same thing. That's what I've been saying all along.
because that isn't what God is to begin with.
It is to many people. You confirmed that in the previous sentence.
They're just wrong, and every read Christian knows it.
Every read Christian "knows" it because they know their identity depends on it. It isn't knowledge, it's baseless faith.
People don't have time to study and reflect, and even if they did, they might just not give a shit.
So it's fine to have them believe in stupid shit then?
I hate this stupid faith leftists have in the people.
Leftists don't believe the people aren't stupid. They obviously are. But we aren't fine with that. We want people to educate and liberate themselves. You seem fine with having them stay an ignorant and complacent herd.
I have no idea why you keep mentioning "le deep spiritual experiences". I have no idea what that even is or I don't give a shit. It sounds like a bunch of new age discourse.
Fuck off. If Christianity isn't about maintaining a spiritual relationship with Being it isn't about anything. I'm not talking about new age spirit journeys or whatever bullshit you're imagining. If that's what you want you should just do a lot of drugs. No, the kind of spiritual journey I'd propose is one of rigorous philosophical work.

Tyler Kelly
Tyler Kelly

The point I'm making is that you can justify anything this way. "You have to listen to the tradition and I am the person who represents it."
But this is also incorrect. No one person represents the tradition. A tradition is a repeated event

No fuck you. The tradition is full of all kinds of bullshit. People can think for themselves. You're only trying to assert your own authority.
this is just teenage angst

Lol, no it wasn't. Catholicism has no resemblance to, let's say, Gnosticism.
Yes it was. small cults are irrelevant in the whole of Christianity

9.3% of Americans have a masters degree. It isn't a mark of high intelligence.
You can't argue with the statistics you already agree with.
You just admitted they are incredibly more educated than the average person.

What? You're saying that people don't care about maintaining the authority of their institutions. That's stupid as fuck.
No I'm saying "caring" is not quantifiable.

No, it's a conclusion people have come to.
yeah a superstitious one.

Fine. You'll probably be able to find some atheist who has done this. But it certainly isn't the bulk of the atheist tradition.
<"You have to listen to the tradition and I am the person who represents it."
lol you own'd yourself

Most atheists begin by rejecting the common beliefs peddled by Christian institutions. They aren't talking about your weird theological stuff.
Most atheists begin by following edgy memes

No I haven't. Your community is an actual material thing you can go interact with. In fact, you won't survive if you don't do that. Morality emerges out of that necessity.
You just described christian morality and then said it comes from the community

They're the result of stigmatization by the church.
yet they still persist in the post christian world. funny.

It does neither.
it does. See the USSR

It has though. thedailybeast.com/study-teen-suicide-rates-down-after-gay-marriage-legalization
Teens can't even get married how credible is this.
Prove this is causation not correlation

You desperately need to read some Nietzsche.
lol that nerd

Andrew Morris
Andrew Morris

No one person represents the tradition. A tradition is a repeated event
Someone has to decide what constitutes repetition, impose it on changing conditions.
Also, I think "ritual" is a better word for what you're describing here. A tradition doesn't need to be an event.
this is just teenage angst
Are you in support of traditional medicine as well? If your son gets sick, do you poke holes in him to let the excess blood flow out?
Yes it was. small cults are irrelevant in the whole of Christianity
These traditions were just as significant as what would eventually become Catholicism.
If small cults are irrelevant to the whole of Christianity, I guess that Jesus Christ and his disciples are irrelevant to it as well. It's a dumb claim.
You just admitted they are incredibly more educated than the average person.
If you pick a random person out of a crowd, you have a chance of one in ten that they have a master's degree. This isn't "incredibly more educated," it's somewhat more educated at most. That said, I don't think going to college has much to do with your general level of education, sorry. Being educated has more to do with seeking out and retaining information yourself than with passing through institutions. There are plenty of ignorant assholes with master's degrees.
No I'm saying "caring" is not quantifiable.
I don't care whether caring is quantifiable.
yeah a superstitious one.
How is it any more superstitious than believing God does exist? It doesn't imply anything supernatural.
lol you own'd yourself
Don't get what you're even trying to say. I'm not ascribing any authority over the atheist tradition to anyone, just telling you what the average atheist is reacting to.
Most atheists begin by following edgy memes
Maybe in the US. Here in Europe most atheists begin by being raised in an atheist household. My paternal grandmother started it in my family by refusing to buy the bullshit the nuns at school tried to sell her.
It's normal here. The majority of kids at my school were atheist. We even had an atheist class to go to when other kids had their religious studies, but it certainly wasn't called "atheist class." The word "atheism" was barely mentioned at all. It was just understood that we didn't believe in God.
The cringiest shit I came in contact with was the association the class had with my country's secular-humanist movement, who had this thing going where they imitated religious traditions. They had things like a secular alternative to first communion called "spring festival", to give parents an excuse to give presents to their kids. It was all very artificial. My family steered clear of any of that stuff. I've always perceived it as very bourgeois.
You just described christian morality and then said it comes from the community
Christians don't get to claim ownership over morality, sorry. It does emerge from community. You live in a community, you gotta live by certain rules. You'll also want to live by certain rules out of your innate sense of empathy.
I've always found the idea that morality comes from god pretty disgusting. You're only moral because daddy god told you to be? Is it all just about gaining eternal life? A horrible thought.
Teens can't even get married how credible is this.
Teens can get married – in a few years, when they're no longer teens.
Prove this is causation not correlation
I claimed nothing about causation. You claimed that better gay rights weren't correlated with lower gay suicide rates. They are.
lol that nerd
A nerd with exceptional knowledge of philology. He knew all about religious texts and how they function.

Zachary Rodriguez
Zachary Rodriguez

Quite interesting how first world countries are atheist but also insanely reactionary and imperialist. Certainly does make on ponder regarding the relationship between reaction and religion.

Camden Brooks
Camden Brooks

first world countries are atheist
Well, except for one western country. Obviously this country is also the most progressive and anti-imperialist.

Attached: 1494724997179.jpg (546.07 KB, 979x832)
Attached: DLWSBfjWsAAE3nY.jpeg (193.36 KB, 1192x1200)

Wyatt Thomas
Wyatt Thomas

ThAt WaSN"t ReAL ChrIStIaniTy

Attached: ashari-salafis-normal-people-mutazila-maturidi-ibadi-murjiah-bidah-karramiyyah-1122388.png (76 KB, 500x300)

Tyler Jones
Tyler Jones

Atheism is declining because the material conditions that give rise to religion are re-emerging, ie, that the world is getting far more shitty very quickly. This phenemoneon, however coincides with the growth of the proletariat as an independent social force and will give rise to the group that will end the material conditions which give rise to religion, thereby eliminating it entirely.

Owen Barnes
Owen Barnes

First world countries are the most socially liberal, and in effect, the least reactionary on average. If you think a typical third world military dictatorship is less reactionary than a first world liberal democracy your an idiot.

Carson Wood
Carson Wood

Someone has to decide what constitutes repetition, impose it on changing conditions.
Traditions happen organically no one sits down and says "this is going to be a tradition now"

Also, I think "ritual" is a better word for what you're describing here. A tradition doesn't need to be an event
semantics

Are you in support of traditional medicine as well? If your son gets sick, do you poke holes in him to let the excess blood flow out?
You actually like modern hospitals?
Oh well you can thank the catholic church for that one.

These traditions were just as significant as what would eventually become Catholicism.
source?

If small cults are irrelevant to the whole of Christianity, I guess that Jesus Christ and his disciples are irrelevant to it as well. It's a dumb claim.
lol you're just mad here.

If you pick a random person out of a crowd, you have a chance of one in ten that they have a master's degree. This isn't "incredibly more educated,"
And if you pick a random person out of a crowd you have a 9 in 10 chance they do not have a masters degree
You keep proving me right.

This isn't "incredibly more educated," it's somewhat more educated at most. That said, I don't think going to college has much to do with your general level of education, sorry. Being educated has more to do with seeking out and retaining information yourself than with passing through institutions. There are plenty of ignorant assholes with master's degrees.
Your opinion on the university system is irrelevant. My point was that priests are much more educated than than the average person and you keep throwing stats proving me right.

I don't care whether caring is quantifiable.
ok well you lose on that point then bud.

How is it any more superstitious than believing God does exist? It doesn't imply anything supernatural.
I never said it was more.

Don't get what you're even trying to say. I'm not ascribing any authority over the atheist tradition to anyone, just telling you what the average atheist is reacting to.
You were getting all buttmad at tradition than start talking about atheist tradition

Maybe in the US. Here in Europe most atheists begin by being raised in an atheist household. My paternal grandmother started it in my family by refusing to buy the bullshit the nuns at school tried to sell her. It's normal here. The majority of kids at my school were atheist. We even had an atheist class to go to when other kids had their religious studies, but it certainly wasn't called "atheist class." The word "atheism" was barely mentioned at all. It was just understood that we didn't believe in God.
nice anecdote. That really only happens in Western Europe

The cringiest shit I came in contact with was the association the class had with my country's secular-humanist movement, who had this thing going where they imitated religious traditions. They had things like a secular alternative to first communion called "spring festival", to give parents an excuse to give presents to their kids. It was all very artificial. My family steered clear of any of that stuff. I've always perceived it as very bourgeois.
this is modern atheism

Teens can get married – in a few years, when they're no longer teens.
when they're no longer teens.

I claimed nothing about causation. You claimed that better gay rights weren't correlated with lower gay suicide rates. They are.
prove it then

A nerd with exceptional knowledge of philology. He knew all about religious texts and how they function.
You just replaced theology with nihilism.

Bentley Mitchell
Bentley Mitchell

The world is better than it ever has before

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Confirm your age

This website may contain content of an adult nature. If you are under the age of 18, if such content offends you or if it is illegal to view such content in your community, please EXIT.

Enter Exit

About Privacy

We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners.

Accept Exit