Religion From An Evolutionary Perspective

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307561024' post='2251369']
Atheism doesn't give people ideologies, it's just a word to describe a person who holds ideologies and beliefs about the world that do not include god. I live my life as if there were no god, which is why I'm an atheist. If I truly believed, then that would affect my life somehow.

Based on my knowledge I can't reject any version of god, since I'm agnostic, but doesn't mean that I believe or have doubts about any of them.
[/quote]

Atheism can and does shape ideologies or what people believe. People conform their ideologies to Atheism or any other ism's. Atheism shaped the ideologies of the Communists and other positive atheists who used their atheist beliefs to attack the Church. Their ideology was a product of positive atheism. The idea that man is an animal with no soul is a product or result of rejecting the existence of God. The justification for killing millions of people is based on the belief that morality does not exist and that man is just an animal. And that is a result of believing man has no soul that again leads back to Atheism.

It is simply not reasonable to accept that atheism (negitive or positive), agnosticism, or theism does not shape what people believe about existence, truth, morality etc. Because it does, whether or not God exists makes a difference and shapes what we believe about reality. You've shown yourself your agnosticism shapes what you believe about truth and morals and what you do not believe, and/or doubt about truth and morals.

Edited June 9, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307561277' post='2251372']
You are very good at talking but listening seems to be somewhat of a challenge
[/quote]He doesn't listen, does he?

"[i]Agnostic Atheism[/i]" simply does not imply doubt, it implies lack of knowledge and lack of belief in regards to theism. Typical theistic apologist to tell the atheist their not really an atheist.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307208678' post='2249909']The example of geocentrism.

[/quote]
Didn't see anybody answer this, but the Church is infallible only on matters of the Faith (including morality &c), not on other fields such as science. The Church cannot speak infallibly on things such as astronomy, leaving room for changed teaching there.

(For instance something you may or may not know (I'd bet on "may not" , but who knows?): the fact that our priests must remain celibate is a matter of discipline. If the Pope saw fit to allow priests to marry* effective tomorrow, that would be completely kosher and not mess with the whole infallibility thing at all.)



[i][size="1"]*Strictly speaking, priests would never be able to marry, but married men would be able to be ordained as priests. I omitted this above in the interest of being concise.[/size][/i]

[Socrates]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307559959' post='2251358']
I can't do that without sounding like a whiny persecuted self made victim (which I don't like).[/quote]
Well alrighty then . . .

[quote]Some of religious ideals go against my ideals and are in the public sphere, meaning that they influence political decision that in turn influence every private individual or at risk of doing do. The interference of religious doctrine (even if not yours specifically, but still Christian) in education which is a step backwards. The interference in scientific research too. Though ethics is necessary, sometimes they just don't seem right. The treatment of homosexuals and denying them rights which I feel do not infringe on the rights of others. It makes no moral sense, unless intrinsically wrong, which I and many others don't feel to be the case though the Church disagrees (I see it as mere opinion). I think that in a few years those rights will be achieved, though and society will change to accommodate them. [/quote]
Of course, as you've probably surmised, many of my deeply held beliefs regarding right and wrong are diametrically opposed to your ideals.
But people like myself who believe in "traditional" morality and the sanctity of human life have every right to act on, and vote according to, our conscience, and I will continue to challenge any attempts by the state to infringe on those rights.

There no reason why your ideals (whether you want to label them "atheistic," "humanist," or anything else) must be given priority over mine or anyone else's.

I don't want my tax money going funding the killing of innocent unborn children, nor funding research which involves deliberately killing innocent human life.
I don't want my tax money supporting the promotion of immoral behavior, and teaching it to young children as acceptable.

I believe at the very least as a Christian, I should have a right to not be forced to give my money to fund things contrary to my conscience and morally abhorrent, and I will not stop fighting for that right.

And if you have a government bypassing constitutional limits, and actively opposing any practices or decisions of the people it deems to be based on "religious" morality (even if it has nothing to do with the establishment of a state church, or even religion per se), you wind up with a totalitarian tyranny similar to that of Communist countries - which you say you oppose.


[quote]I think the greatest wrong is the propagation of ignorance, though not exclusive to religious groups.[/quote]
Who determines what is and isn't "ignorance"? The government?

[quote]If something that any religious group says about morality seems reasonable to me, I have no problem accepting it. I won't dismiss something I see to be a truth, or wisdom because it comes from a religious source. I just don't accept the whole bulk and certainly don't think that they come from an objective source.[/quote]
But I thought according to you there is no such thing as objective morality.


[quote]It's not the faith that leads people to murder, but people do use it as a justification (in my personal experience, in smaller scales. I've yet to come across someone who used it to justify killing someone without sounding crazy). It's more a question of numbers, if there are way many more people using the bible to justify what they do, then the bible is going to be more noticed as a source of justifying bad behaviour and so will spend more time under the spotlight of criticism, whether the religious like it or not. [/quote]
As I said, people can use always come up with justifications for anything (even if they are incredibly lame). The Bible doesn't cause people to kill or commit any other immoral acts, and put in context such" justifications" are shown to be absurd. The fact that people are looking for justification shows they probably actually know what they are doing is wrong - it's like someone looking for some legal loophole to justify otherwise criminal actions. As I said, an atheist doesn't need Biblical justifications to do anything - if he wants to do something morally abhorrent, he just does it.
There's certainly no evidence that getting rid of the Bible will make people more moral or less violent. Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were able to commit horrendous crimes without giving any scriptural justifications. Today, studies show a drastic decline in religious practice, and that the majority of Americans, including self-professed Christians, rarely or never read the Bible, nor attend Church services. However, there has certainly been no attendant decline in violence or immoral activity.


[quote]You know what, never mind. I see this as another dead horse on the horizon.



That's your right. But do you understand why I see yours as subjective too?[/quote]
I thought as an atheist you saw [i]all[/i] morality as subjective.

The whole debate is over whether objective morality exists, period.

[quote]After a quick read it's interesting to note that within the Church the ones who actually wanted the abolition of slavery were non conforming believers. The Church spoke against the slave trade, but there's no reference to them actually wanting to abolish it in that period. Some Popes even had their slaves. [/quote]
Popes can sin like everybody else. Some Popes even held mistresses and fathered illegitimate children, but that didn't change the Church's teaching on marriage and sexual morality. (Though, as someone famously noted, the wonder is not that there have been immoral popes, but that there have been so few of them.)

I'm not sure what you mean by "non conforming believers." Slavery was abolished in Catholic countries long before it was in Protestant America.
And it should be noted that the abolitionists were religious Christians, not atheists or secularists.

[quote]Is objective morality unchanging?[/quote]
Yes.




[quote]Yes, because without more than an individual morality is meaningless. What would be the point of telling someone who has no contact and never comes into contact with another person that killing is wrong? Also, this person has had no upbringing in a cultural context which taught him that killing is wrong.

Supposing this person did come into contact with another, what reasons might he find to not kill? Or to kill?

I think it's a social construct. It's more complicated to pin down what some of the premises are and how much is nature/nurture.[/quote]
While as an atheist you'd disagree, but as a Christians, we believe individuals can sin against their own selves and God, as well as other persons.

But that aside, that "argument" is a silly one. While a person living in solitary confinement may not be able to commit murder of other immoral acts against another person, it would still be wrong for him to do so if he does come into contact with others.
Whether I personally have an opportunity to steal or not, stealing is still an immoral act.


[quote]I take the consequentialist approach to this. In the context of banning condom use, Christianity is not making things any better in Africa. In fact, it may be responsible for future colapse.[/quote]
The Church teaches chastity, which is far more effective than condoms. The last I checked, no one has ever died from chastity.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307599533' post='2251583']
Atheism can and does shape ideologies or what people believe. People conform their ideologies to Atheism or any other ism's. Atheism shaped the ideologies of the Communists and other positive atheists who used their atheist beliefs to attack the Church. Their ideology was a product of positive atheism. The idea that man is an animal with no soul is a product or result of rejecting the existence of God. The justification for killing millions of people is based on the belief that morality does not exist and that man is just an animal. And that is a result of believing man has no soul that again leads back to Atheism.

It is simply not reasonable to accept that atheism (negitive or positive), agnosticism, or theism does not shape what people believe about existence, truth, morality etc. Because it does, whether or not God exists makes a difference and shapes what we believe about reality. You've shown yourself your agnosticism shapes what you believe about truth and morals and what you do not believe, and/or doubt about truth and morals.
[/quote]

Atheism is not a structured ideology. There's nothing about it to keep it from accepting any idea from any ideology, except the belief in god(s) because then it wouldn't be called athiesm.

Within atheism you have everything from people who believe in aliens, ghosts, to an Buddhist athiestic approach where the existence of gods isn't denied, but is seen as irrelevant and unnecessary to their lives on Earth. You can't really accuratly apply the word 'atheist' with defined beliefs to a varied group of people as if they were all the same and saw things the same way.

Edited June 9, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1307600653' post='2251588']
Didn't see anybody answer this, but the Church is infallible only on matters of the Faith (including morality &c), not on other fields such as science. The Church cannot speak infallibly on things such as astronomy, leaving room for changed teaching there.

(For instance something you may or may not know (I'd bet on "may not" , but who knows?): the fact that our priests must remain celibate is a matter of discipline. If the Pope saw fit to allow priests to marry* effective tomorrow, that would be completely kosher and not mess with the whole infallibility thing at all.)



[i][size="1"]*Strictly speaking, priests would never be able to marry, but married men would be able to be ordained as priests. I omitted this above in the interest of being concise.[/size][/i]
[/quote]

Interesting. No, I didn't know that...

Edited June 9, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307648616' post='2251719']
Atheism is not a structured ideology. There's nothing about it to keep it from accepting any idea from any ideology.

Within atheism you have everything from people who believe in aliens, ghosts, to Buddhists you don't deny the existence of gods, but see that as irrelevant to their lives on Earth. You can't really accuratly apply the word 'atheist' with defined beliefs to a varied group of people as if they were all the same and saw things the same way.
[/quote]

Atheism certainly can be a well structured ideology, Communists and other positive atheists have proven that fact. There is something about Atheism that does keep it from accepting ideas from certain ideologies. Such as objective moral truth. Atheism can and is often a doctrine when it comes to the meaning of existence, the dignity of man and numerous other factors from love to evil. Because it denies the existence of objective truth and objective morality.

It may effect each individual different ways but it does shape and it does effect what people believe. In this way Atheism is a doctrine and is an ideology which differs from person to person (who is an actual atheist.) But agnosticism does effect agnostics in a similar manner.

Edited June 9, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1307641921' post='2251676']
Of course, as you've probably surmised, many of my deeply held beliefs regarding right and wrong are diametrically opposed to your ideals.
But people like myself who believe in "traditional" morality and the sanctity of human life have every right to act on, and vote according to, our conscience, and I will continue to challenge any attempts by the state to infringe on those rights.

There no reason why your ideals (whether you want to label them "atheistic," "humanist," or anything else) must be given priority over mine or anyone else's.

I don't want my tax money going funding the killing of innocent unborn children, nor funding research which involves deliberately killing innocent human life.
I don't want my tax money supporting the promotion of immoral behavior, and teaching it to young children as acceptable.

I believe at the very least as a Christian, I should have a right to not be forced to give my money to fund things contrary to my conscience and morally abhorrent, and I will not stop fighting for that right.

And if you have a government bypassing constitutional limits, and actively opposing any practices or decisions of the people it deems to be based on "religious" morality (even if it has nothing to do with the establishment of a state church, or even religion per se), you wind up with a totalitarian tyranny similar to that of Communist countries - which you say you oppose.[/quote]


[quote]But I thought according to you there is no such thing as objective morality. [/quote]

Like I said, that's your right. I reject the claim that there are objective morals and oppose those who say that they know the true right and wrong, but will analyse for myself whether I think there is merit in each idea of people who follow what they call an objective moral framework.

IMO society is just that, groups of people trying to find a way to reach a common good and constantly bickering and fighting over what that common good is and how to reach it. It's way better to have bickering than a monopoly. These things just shouldn't be left in the hands of one group.


[quote]Who determines what is and isn't "ignorance"? The government?[/quote]

Pfft. You kidding me?


[quote]As I said, people can use always come up with justifications for anything (even if they are incredibly lame). The Bible doesn't cause people to kill or commit any other immoral acts, and put in context such" justifications" are shown to be absurd. The fact that people are looking for justification shows they probably actually know what they are doing is wrong - it's like someone looking for some legal loophole to justify otherwise criminal actions. As I said, an atheist doesn't need Biblical justifications to do anything - if he wants to do something morally abhorrent, he just does it.
There's certainly no evidence that getting rid of the Bible will make people more moral or less violent. Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were able to commit horrendous crimes without giving any scriptural justifications. Today, studies show a drastic decline in religious practice, and that the majority of Americans, including self-professed Christians, rarely or never read the Bible, nor attend Church services. However, there has certainly been no attendant decline in violence or immoral activity.[/quote]

True.

[quote]I thought as an atheist you saw [i]all[/i] morality as subjective.

The whole debate is over whether objective morality exists, period.[/quote]

Yes.


[quote]Popes can sin like everybody else. Some Popes even held mistresses and fathered illegitimate children, but that didn't change the Church's teaching on marriage and sexual morality. (Though, as someone famously noted, the wonder is not that there have been immoral popes, but that there have been so few of them.)

I'm not sure what you mean by "non conforming believers." Slavery was abolished in Catholic countries long before it was in Protestant America.[/quote]

Non conforming catholics, not protestants.

[quote]And it should be noted that the abolitionists were religious Christians, not atheists or secularists.[/quote]

Were there really any outspoken well known influential atheist/secularists at all in those days?


[quote]While as an atheist you'd disagree, but as a Christians, we believe individuals can sin against their own selves and God, as well as other persons.

But that aside, that "argument" is a silly one. While a person living in solitary confinement may not be able to commit murder of other immoral acts against another person, it would still be wrong for him to do so if he does come into contact with others.
Whether I personally have an opportunity to steal or not, stealing is still an immoral act.[/quote]

Why is it silly? I mean, how do you even know? I'm assuming that like the majority of other people living on the planet, you've never lived in complete solitude before having to learn how to get along with other people.

How do you know that what you hold as right and wrong weren't taught to you in part?

Think of it as a thought experiment. Imagine you lived isolated all your life (doesn't have to solitary confinement) stranded somewhere with no access to other human beings and came into contact somehow with one other person who had something that you wish you had yourself. You never heard of the church or read it's teachings.

If you're able to imagine yourself in this scenario, what would be the good reasons [i]not[/i] to steal that thing you wish you had?


[quote]The Church teaches chastity, which is far more effective than condoms. The last I checked, no one has ever died from chastity.[/quote]

Doesn't look like the Church's teachings are really working then.

In contrast, in the west, teaching sex education, informing about AIDS and other STDs, and the responsible use of condoms is at least keeping AIDS under control. In Africa the percentages of HIV positive people are staggeringly high. That's not going to come cheap.

Edited June 9, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307649619' post='2251725']
Atheism certainly can be a well structured ideology, Communists and other positive atheists have proven that fact. There is something about Atheism that does keep it from accepting ideas from certain ideologies. Such as objective moral truth. Atheism can and is often a doctrine when it comes to the meaning of existence, the dignity of man and numerous other factors from love to evil. Because it denies the existence of objective truth and objective morality.

It may effect each individual different ways but it does shape and it does effect what people believe. In this way Atheism is a doctrine and is an ideology which differs from person to person (who is an actual atheist.) But agnosticism does effect agnostics in a similar manner.
[/quote]

[i]Atheism[/i] is[i] not[/i] a structured ideology, it's just a word to describe a group of people with varied beliefs among themselves but without a belief in god or gods. Communism is not equal to atheism.

Sure, there are some things that logically follow, such as whatever belief which has god as a source is also rejected. An atheist wouldn't say that an objective morality exists and comes from god, but on the subject of morality, you have atheists who are everything from moral nihilists to those who accept a rigid non objective moral framework in much the same way that religious groups do, with their ideas of clearly defined right and wrongs, regardless of context.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307650477' post='2251732']
[i]Atheism[/i] is[i] not[/i] a structured ideology, it's just a word to describe a group of people with varied beliefs among themselves but without a belief in god or gods. Communism is not equal to atheism. [/quote]

Keep living the dream. You're opinions are not based in reality, I am sorry, the Communists were/are Atheists who did/do enforce the propaganda of Atheism. Without objective truth you cannot actually say with any absolute certitude that their atheism is not atheism or atheism is not their ideology.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307650477' post='2251732']Sure, there are some things that logically follow, such as whatever belief which has god as a source is also rejected. An atheist wouldn't say that an objective morality exists and comes from god, but on the subject of morality, you have atheists who are everything from moral nihilists to those who accept a rigid non objective moral framework in much the same way that religious groups do, with their ideas of clearly defined right and wrongs, regardless of context.
[/quote]

And without objective truth and objective morality all that is mere opinion changing from person to person.

Back to a previous point. How is rape always wrong? I don't believe you explained it. How is it always wrong? You cannot base it on individual opinion and you cannot base it on society. Those things are relative and some individuals and some societies believe what we think of as rape is just find and dandy. So please explain.

Edited June 9, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307650983' post='2251740']
Keep living the dream. You're opinions are not based in reality, I am sorry, the Communists were/are Atheists who did/do enforce the propaganda of Atheism. Without objective truth you cannot actually say with any absolute certitude that their atheism is not atheism or atheism is not their ideology. [/quote]

Seriously, I'm not going keep dwelling on this point. It's gotten tiring.

[quote]And without objective truth and objective morality all that is mere opinion changing from person to person.

Back to a previous point. How is rape always wrong? I don't believe you explained it. How is it always wrong? You cannot base it on individual opinion and you cannot base it on society. Those things are relative and some individuals and some societies believe what we think of as rape is just find and dandy. So please explain.[/quote]

It infringes on the personal liberty and it causes suffering. I seriously doubt even a rapist would want to be raped.

Now you tell me, why is rape always wrong?

[Mr.Cat]

Communism is a political, economic, social, and philosophical ideology... Atheism is a philosophical opinion.[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307651444' post='2251751']Seriously, I'm not going keep dwelling on this point. It's gotten tiring.[/quote]Yes, respectfully agreed.[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307651444' post='2251751']It infringes on the personal liberty and it causes suffering. I seriously doubt even a rapist would want to be raped.

Now you tell me, why is rape always wrong?[/quote]You must understand that knightofchrist thinks that atheism logically concludes in extreme nihilism, amoral behavior, communism, and no responsibility. He is immune to you.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307651444' post='2251751']
It infringes on the personal liberty and it causes suffering. I seriously doubt even a rapist would want to be raped.

Now you tell me, why is rape always wrong?
[/quote]

Personal liberty where does that come from? Who or what defines personal liberty? Have you yet defined what a person is outside what the law says a person is? Again if the law decides who and who is not a person, and what liberty is and who is afforded liberty, you just gave yet another subjective answer. If man is an animal why is it wrong to look at the immorality of rape as just a subjective construct of society? Many ape males will take their mates forcefully, but it isn't rape, many other animals will also, as well as kill other animals but it isn't murder. Why is man really that different when if he is just an animal he really isn't that different. Animals feel pain like humans but it is not immoral for one animal to harm another. It's nature.

Rape is always wrong because it is objectively immoral. It is objectively immoral because it is an offense against God and it is against the Liberty of human beings given to man by God. It is an offense against the image and likeness of God found in humans.

Edited June 9, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1307651459' post='2251754']
Communism is a political, economic, social, and philosophical ideology... Atheism is a philosophical opinion.[/quote]

This. Couldn't have said it better myself.

[quote]You must understand that knightofchrist thinks that atheism logically concludes in extreme nihilism, amoral behavior, communism, and no responsibility. He is immune to you.[/quote]

I've noticed. Now its up to the one who has the most stamina.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307652328' post='2251762']
Personal liberty where does that come from? Who or what defines personal liberty? Have you yet defined what a person is outside what the law says a person is? Again if the law decides who and who is not a person, and what liberty is and who is afforded liberty, you just gave yet another subjective answer. If man is an animal why is it wrong to look at the immorality of rape as just a subjective construct of society? Many ape males will take their mates forcefully, but it isn't rape, many other animals will also, as well as kill other animals but it isn't murder. Why is man really that different when if he is just an animal he really isn't that different. Animals feel pain like humans but it is not immoral for one animal to harm another. It's nature.[/quote]

Actually I see these things having to do more wisdom of the crowds than any authoritative statement about what is wrong or right.

[quote]Rape is always wrong because it is objectively immoral. It is objectively immoral because it is an offense against God and it is against the Liberty of human beings given to man by God. It is an offense against the image and likeness of God found in humans.
[/quote]

One question: what about the biblical story of the fall of Sodom?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307652957' post='2251767']
Actually I see these things having to do more wisdom of the crowds than any authoritative statement about what is wrong or right. [/quote]

That doesn't really answer anything I asked you. Is wisdom objective? [i]Wisdom of the crowds[/i] is again relative, one society's wisdom is another's nonsense. There are societies in the world today that actually punish woman for being raped and not the man or the man is punished less.


[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307652957' post='2251767']One question: what about the biblical story of the fall of Sodom?
[/quote]

What do you mean? The crowds that stood outside of Lot's demanding he release the three angels who had visited him so they could rape them?

Also I do not deny atheist have morals I only point out those morals are subjective, relative and have nothing but sand to stand on without the existence of God. Atheistic morals aren't really real they only seem to be real, their nice and they feel good, but without objective truth and objective morality those morals do not actually exist and they are not binding on anyone who does not wish to be bound by them. Lastly, atheism was the propaganda of communism this is an historical fact.

I will allow Lenin to explain,

[quote]It will be seen from the above that a journal that sets out to be a militant materialist organ must be primarily a militant organ, in the sense of unflinchingly exposing and indicting all modern "graduated flunkeys of clericalism", irrespective of whether they act as representatives of official science or as free lances calling themselves "democratic Left or ideologically socialist" publicists.

In the second place, such a journal must be a militant [b]atheist [/b]organ. We have departments, or at least state institutions, which are in charge of this work. But the work is being carried on with extreme apathy and very unsatisfactorily, and is apparently suffering from the general conditions of our truly Russian (even though Soviet) bureaucratic ways. It is therefore highly essential that in addition to the work of these state institutions, and in order to improve and infuse life into that work, a journal which sets out to propagandise militant materialism [color="#FF0000"][b]must carry on [u]untiring atheist propaganda[/u] and an [u]untiring atheist fight[/u].[/b][/color] -- V. I. Lenin, [url="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/12.htm"]On the Significance of Militant Materialism[/url][/quote]

...


[quote]Engels long ago advised the contemporary leaders of the proletariat to translate the militant atheist literature of the late eighteenth century for mass distribution among the people. We have not done this up to the present, to our shame be it said (this is one of the numerous proofs that it is much easier to seize power in a revolutionary epoch than to know how to use this power properly). Our apathy, inactivity and incompetence are sometimes excused on all sorts of "lofty" grounds, as, for example, that the old atheist literature of the eighteenth century is antiquated, unscientific, naive, etc. There is nothing worse than such pseudo-scientific sophistry, which serves as a screen either for pedantry or for a complete misunderstanding of Marxism. There is, of course, much that is unscientific and naive in the atheist writings of the eighteenth-century revolutionaries. But nobody prevents the publishers of these writings from abridging them and providing them with brief postscripts pointing out the progress made by mankind in the scientific criticism of religions since the end of the eighteenth century, mentioning the latest writings on the subject, and so forth. It would be the biggest and most grievous mistake a Marxist could make to think that the millions of the people (especially the peasants and artisans), who have been condemned by all modern society to darkness, ignorance and superstitions — can extricate themselves from this darkness only along the straight line of a purely Marxist education. These masses should be supplied with the most varied [b]atheist propaganda material, they should be made familiar with facts from the most diverse spheres of life, they should be approached in every possible way, so as to interest them, rouse them from their religious torpor, stir them front the most varied angles and by the most varied methods, and so forth.[/b]

[b]The keen, vivacious and talented writings of the old eighteenth-century atheists wittily and openly attacked the prevailing clericalism and will very often prove a thousand times more suitable for arousing people from their religious torpor than the dull and dry paraphrases of Marxism[/b], almost completely unillustrated by skillfully selected facts, which predominate in our literature and which (it is no use hiding the fact) frequently distort Marxism. We have translations of all the major works of Marx and Engels. [b]There are absolutely no grounds for fearing that the old atheism and old materialism will remain un-supplemented by the corrections introduced by Marx and Engels.[/b] The most important thing — and it is this that is most frequently overlooked by those of our Communists who are supposedly Marxists, but who in fact mutilate Marxism — [b]is to know how to awaken in the still undeveloped masses an intelligent attitude towards religious questions and an intelligent criticism of religions.[/b] -- V. I. Lenin, [url="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/12.htm"]On the Significance of Militant Materialism[/url][/quote]

...

[quote][i]Pod Znamenem Marksizma,[/i] which sets out to be an organ of militant materialism, should devote much of its space to atheist propaganda, to reviews of the literature on the subject and to correcting the immense shortcomings of our governmental work in this field. It is particularly important to utilise books and pamphlets which contain many concrete facts and comparisons showing how the class interests and class organisations of the modern bourgeoisie are connected with the organisations of religious institutions and religious propaganda. -- V. I. Lenin, [url="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/12.htm"]On the Significance of Militant Materialism[/url][/quote]

...

[quote]One would like to hope that a journal which sets out to be a militant materialist organ will provide our reading public with reviews of atheist literature, showing for which circle of readers any particular writing might be suitable and in what respect, and mentioning what literature has been published in our country (only decent translations should be given notice, and they are not so many), and what is still to be published. -- V. I. Lenin, [url="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/12.htm"]On the Significance of Militant Materialism[/url][/quote]

Edited June 9, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307661745' post='2251824']
That doesn't really answer anything I asked you. Is wisdom objective? [i]Wisdom of the crowds[/i] is again relative, one society's wisdom is another's nonsense. There are societies in the world today that actually punish woman for being raped and not the man or the man is punished less. [/quote]

Is religious wisdom objective? You would have to prove that before you dismiss all the other rigid moral frameworks as subjective.

The way I see it, in order for a system to be moral and society to be stable, there has to be certain premises. Do not murder, do not steal, the golden rule etc. They're the basis for any moral system, but these systems evolve as societies become more complex.

For example: like I told Socrates in an earlier post, what the Muslims are doing today looks very similar to some of the laws described in the Old Testament. Islamic societies are backward compared to ours. Yet Jews don't practice those moral laws that we see as barbarous today, even though it's in their scripture.


[quote]What do you mean? The crowds that stood outside of Lot's demanding he release the three angels who had visited him so they could rape them?[/quote]

Yes, particularly what Lot traded for them instead. Do you think it was a fair trade?

[quote]Also I do not deny atheist have morals I only point out those morals are subjective, relative and have nothing but sand to stand on without the existence of God. Atheistic morals aren't really real they only seem to be real, their nice and they feel good, but without objective truth and objective morality those morals do not actually exist and they are not binding on anyone who does not wish to be bound by them.[u] Lastly, atheism was the propaganda of communism this is an historical fact. [/u]

I will allow Lenin to explain,[/quote]


Let me rephrase that for you: [u]Communism propagated atheism. [/u]


I've highlighted the parts that I find to be significant as to the reasons why the communists wanted to implement atheism in [b][color="#006400"]green[/color][/b]:

***

It will be seen from the above that a journal that sets out to be a militant materialist organ must be primarily a militant organ, in the sense of unflinchingly exposing and indicting all modern "graduated flunkeys of [b][color="#006400"]clericalism[/color][/b]", irrespective of whether they act as representatives of official science or as free lances calling themselves "democratic Left or ideologically socialist" publicists.

In the second place, such a journal must be a militant [b]atheist [/b]organ. We have departments, or at least state institutions, which are in charge of this work. But the work is being carried on with extreme apathy and very unsatisfactorily, and is apparently suffering from the general conditions of our truly Russian (even though Soviet) bureaucratic ways. It is therefore highly essential that in addition to the work of these state institutions, and in order to improve and infuse life into that work, a journal which sets out to propagandise militant materialism [b]must carry on untiring atheist propaganda and an untiring atheist fight.[/b] -- V. I. Lenin, [url="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/12.htm"]On the Significance of Militant Materialism[/url]

***

Engels long ago advised the contemporary leaders of the [b][color="#006400"]proletariat [/color][/b]to translate the militant atheist literature of the late eighteenth century for mass distribution among the people. We have not done this up to the present, to our shame be it said (this is one of the numerous proofs that it is much easier to[b][color="#006400"] seize power in a revolutionary epoch[/color][/b] [b][color="#006400"]than to know how to use this power properly).[/color][/b] Our apathy, inactivity and incompetence are sometimes excused on all sorts of "lofty" grounds, as, for example, that the old atheist literature of the eighteenth century is antiquated, unscientific, naive, etc. There is nothing worse than such pseudo-scientific sophistry, which serves as a screen either for pedantry or for a complete misunderstanding of Marxism. There is, of course, much that is unscientific and naive in the atheist writings of the eighteenth-century [b][color="#006400"]revolutionaries[/color][/b]. But nobody prevents the publishers of these writings from abridging them and providing them with brief postscripts pointing out the progress made by mankind in the scientific criticism of religions since the end of the eighteenth century, mentioning the latest writings on the subject, and so forth. It would be the biggest and most grievous mistake a Marxist could make to think that the millions of the[b][color="#006400"][u] people (especially the peasants and artisans),[/u] who have been condemned by all modern society to darkness, ignorance and superstitions — can extricate themselves from this darkness only along the straight line of a purely Marxist education. [/color][/b] These masses should be supplied with the most varied [b]atheist propaganda material, they should be made familiar with facts from the most diverse spheres of life, they should be approached in every possible way, so as to interest them, rouse them from their religious torpor, stir them front the most varied angles and by the most varied methods, and so forth.[/b]

[b]The keen, vivacious and talented writings of the old eighteenth-century atheists wittily and [color="#006400"]openly attacked the prevailing clericalism [/color]and will very often prove a thousand times more suitable for arousing people from their religious torpor than the dull and dry paraphrases of Marxism[/b], almost completely unillustrated by skillfully selected facts, which predominate in our literature and which (it is no use hiding the fact) frequently distort Marxism. We have translations of all the major works of Marx and Engels. [b]There are absolutely no grounds for fearing that the old atheism and old materialism will remain un-supplemented by the corrections introduced by Marx and Engels.[/b] The most important thing — and it is this that is most frequently overlooked by those of our Communists who are supposedly Marxists, but who in fact mutilate Marxism — [b][color="#006400"]is to know how to awaken in the still undeveloped masses an intelligent attitude towards religious questions and an intelligent criticism of religions[/color].[/b] -- V. I. Lenin, [url="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/12.htm"]On the Significance of Militant Materialism[/url]

***

[i]Pod Znamenem Marksizma,[/i] which sets out to be an organ of militant materialism, should devote much of its space to atheist propaganda, to reviews of the literature on the subject and to correcting the immense shortcomings of our governmental work in this field. [size="4"][color="#006400"][u][b]It is particularly important to utilise books and pamphlets which contain many concrete facts and comparisons showing how the class interests and class organisations of the modern bourgeoisie are connected with the organisations of religious institutions and religious propaganda.[/b][/u][/color] [/size]-- V. I. Lenin, [url="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/12.htm"]On the Significance of Militant Materialism[/url]
***

Anyone who paid any attention in high school history knows that Russia prior to the Russian Revolution was basically feudal, and that societal structure was based on three parts: the clergy, the nobility and the people (the rest). The clergy validated the nobility and both maintained societal order.

The revolution disposed of the Czar and his heir, it makes perfect sense to see why it would dispose of the clergy as well.

As for Stalin, Mao tse Tung and other atheist dictators with personality cults that revolved around them, atheism is perfect because it offers no competition.

Edited June 10, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307680234' post='2251901']
Is religious wisdom objective? You would have to prove that before you dismiss all the other rigid moral frameworks as subjective.

The way I see it, in order for a system to be moral and society to be stable, there has to be certain premises. Do not murder, do not steal, the golden rule etc. They're the basis for any moral system, but these systems evolve as societies become more complex.[/quote]

This is still not even close to an actual answer to my questions to you. Could you do that please? Yes, religious wisdom does have objectivity to put it simply because the buck stops with God. If wisdom is left up to man it is going to change from man to man, society to society, that's relative, not objective.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307680234' post='2251901']For example: like I told Socrates in an earlier post, what the Muslims are doing today looks very similar to some of the laws described in the Old Testament. Islamic societies are backward compared to ours. Yet Jews don't practice those moral laws that we see as barbarous today, even though it's in their scripture. [/quote]

I missed this conversion with you and Soc, but Christ put an end to things like stoning.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307680234' post='2251901']Yes, particularly what Lot traded for them instead. Do you think it was a fair trade?[/quote]

There was no trade at all. The three angels did not allow the trade. Lot had his offer refused by the angelic beings.


[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307680234' post='2251901']Let me rephrase that for you: [u]Communism propagated atheism. [/u][/quote]

Again allow me to repeat the correct phrase, Atheism, Positive Atheism, Atheism that is Militant. Deny it till you're blue in the face it changes nothing.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307680234' post='2251901']I've highlighted the parts that I find to be significant as to the reasons why the communists wanted to implement atheism in [b][color="#006400"]green[/color][/b]:

Anyone who paid any attention in high school history knows that Russia prior to the Russian Revolution was basically feudal, and that societal structure was based on three parts: the clergy, the nobility and the people (the rest). The clergy validated the nobility and both maintained societal order.

The revolution disposed of the Czar and his heir, it makes perfect sense to see why it would dispose of the clergy as well.

As for Stalin, Mao tse Tung and other atheist dictators with personality cults that revolved around them, atheism is perfect because it offers no competition.
[/quote]

You're simply grasping at straws trying to escape reality. How and why they wanted to implement atheism, was shaped and formed by atheism. Their fight was Atheism their belief was Atheism. They wanted to get rid of the Czar because he received his power from God, they wanted to be rid of the Church because she got her power from God. They were Atheists and the enforced positive atheism. They used anarchy and chaos to implement positive atheism. Stalin, Mao tse Tung and other Atheists dictators were devote or hard core atheists. They made Atheism the central part of their ideological inspiration and they enforced it with an iron fist.

They believed that since there is no God, man's worth is not measured by his priceless soul, but his worth to society based on [i]intelligence[/i], and his form which I'm sorry to say in a way you have in common with them. You deem that the unborn are not persons because they lack [i]intelligence and human form. [/i]The positive atheists simply expanded on that to include those who believed in God, and people other races based on their view of evolution, they did not have complete human form. They believe the would be truth of Dostoyevsky that "If God is not, everything is permitted."

Interesting related and short read: [b][size="2"][url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0132.htm"]Why Peter Singer makes the New Atheists nervous[/url][/size][/b]

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307686026' post='2251928']
This is still not even close to an actual answer to my questions to you. Could you do that please? Yes, religious wisdom does have objectivity to put it simply because the buck stops with God. If wisdom is left up to man it is going to change from man to man, society to society, that's relative, not objective.[/quote]


[quote]Personal liberty where does that come from? Who or what defines personal liberty? Have you yet defined what a person is outside what the law says a person is? Again if the law decides who and who is not a person, and what liberty is and who is afforded liberty, you just gave yet another subjective answer. If man is an animal why is it wrong to look at the immorality of rape as just a subjective construct of society? Many ape males will take their mates forcefully, but it isn't rape, many other animals will also, as well as kill other animals but it isn't murder. Why is man really that different when if he is just an animal he really isn't that different. Animals feel pain like humans but it is not immoral for one animal to harm another. It's nature.[/quote]

The law just officialises and fiscalises, it doesn't apply anything that is contrary in some form against a group of people. Morality is a [i]complicated[/i] subject, and to every question there is more than one angle making it subject to many more approaches to moral questions that simply what a Church says. Things are judged on their own merits, not because they come from some authoritative source with claims to objective morality (anyone can claim that, in fact, many groups do).

Man is an animal (biological fact) but morality is a social construct that extends within a species. Other animals as far as we know do not have the cognitive capacity to come to that concept, but that still means that social animals don't cooperate to levels of sophistication that are similar to smaller tribes of people. Animals also can't collectively reason using (sometimes) precise language which is important for higher levels of cooperation. They also don't live in cities and complex global societies, which cause an escalation in complications between differences of interests.


[quote]I missed this conversion with you and Soc, but Christ put an end to things like stoning. [/quote]

Yes, so he said. But I was talking about the Jews then and today, who don't follow Christ but still don't put into practice the punishments which we would see as barbarous. Do you see any Jews killing adulterous women?

[quote]There was no trade at all. The three angels did not allow the trade. Lot had his offer refused by the angelic beings.[/quote]

But what do you think of Lot? A righteous man?

[quote]Again allow me to repeat the correct phrase, Atheism, Positive Atheism, Atheism that is Militant. Deny it till you're blue in the face it changes nothing.[/quote]

Atheism (militant, positive, whatever you want to call it) is not communism.

Seriously man, I'm telling you, as an atheist, that there's nothing in militant atheism that leads to communism. You have to look at the historical context in that case. Atheism is just a lack of belief in god, but for a whole country to socially engineer itself like that there are way bigger motives.

Most militant atheists I know are secularists, which is incompatible with atheistic communism. Militant, I said.


[quote]You're simply grasping at straws trying to escape reality. How and why they wanted to implement atheism, was shaped and formed by atheism. Their fight was Atheism their belief was Atheism. They wanted to get rid of the Czar because he received his power from God, they wanted to be rid of the Church because she got her power from God. They were Atheists and the enforced positive atheism. They used anarchy and chaos to implement positive atheism. Stalin, Mao tse Tung and other Atheists dictators were devote or hard core atheists. They made Atheism the central part of their ideological inspiration and they enforced it with an iron fist. [/quote]

No, so far I see my point of view as a more cohesive picture, because it makes no sense to fight against something that you don't believe in, as you seem to think when you said that they opposed the Czar (and later bourgeoisie) and the clergy because they got their power from god. That's a purely theistic line of thinking and since they were not theists, it's nonsensical to want to apply it to them.

"Stalin, Mao tse Tung and other Atheists dictators were devote or hard core atheists. "

I'm assuming they devoutly worshipped...nothing?

When, in your worldview gods don't exist in the first place, you don't fight a religion because it's power comes from god. That would be like fighting the cult of scientology because they get their power from Xenu or the aliens that were fleeing him or whatever. You fight it because you don't like the effect it has on your life, and in the case of the USSR, Russian Revolution and transition from feudalism.

[quote]They believed that since there is no God, man's worth is not measured by his priceless soul, but his worth to society based on [i]intelligence[/i], and his form which I'm sorry to say in a way you have in common with them. You deem that the unborn are not persons because they lack [i]intelligence and human form. [/i]The positive atheists simply expanded on that to include those who believed in God, and people other races based on their view of evolution, they did not have complete human form. They believe the would be truth of Dostoyevsky that "If God is not, everything is permitted."

Interesting related and short read: [b][size="2"][url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0132.htm"]Why Peter Singer makes the New Atheists nervous[/url][/size][/b]
[/quote]

"If God is not, everything is permitted." You can have anybody from any religion say that...

And that article you posted was written by [b]Dinesh D'Souza[/b] who is viewed by the atheist community at large as a illiterate on what atheism is, and with good reason. As for Singer, his views are singular, and certainly not humanistic, so I reject those too.

I don't know how good his apologetics are though, but he looks to be second class, right up there with Ken Hovind.

Edited June 10, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307688532' post='2251934']
The law just officialises and fiscalises, it doesn't apply anything that is contrary in some form against a group of people. Morality is a [i]complicated[/i] subject, and to every question there is more than one angle making it subject to many more approaches to moral questions that simply what a Church says. Things are judged on their own merits, not because they come from some authoritative source with claims to objective morality (anyone can claim that, in fact, many groups do).

Man is an animal (biological fact) but morality is a social construct that extends within a species. Other animals as far as we know do not have the cognitive capacity to come to that concept, but that still means that social animals don't cooperate to levels of sophistication that are similar to smaller tribes of people. Animals also can't collectively reason using (sometimes) precise language which is important for higher levels of cooperation. They also don't live in cities and complex global societies, which cause an escalation in complications between differences of interests. [/quote]

I'm sorry but these are just more relativistic answers. None are actual reasons why rape is [u]always[/u] (absolute) wrong. Without God all that is left to judge the merits is man. Certain individuals or societies will say it is wrong, others will say it's ok. If God does not exist then each individual or society is the judge of the merits of morality.

So either back up your objective absolute claim with something absolute and objective or take back your absolute claim.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307688532' post='2251934']Yes, so he said. But I was talking about the Jews then and today, who don't follow Christ but still don't put into practice the punishments which we would see as barbarous. Do you see any Jews killing adulterous women? [/quote]

Again with man (humans) as the highest authority killing adulterous women in one society is true and good for that society because that is the truth of that society. That society judges the merits of morality.


[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307688532' post='2251934']But what do you think of Lot? A righteous man? [/quote]

Righteous man does not equal prefect man. Plus do remember he had a crazy mob outside of his house a crazy mob he knew was homosexual (sodomites) and attempted to quell the mob by offering his two virgin daughters suspecting that because the mod were homosexuals they would refuse his daughters, they did refuse his daughters, and again the angelic beings refused Lot's request too.


[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307688532' post='2251934']Atheism (militant, positive, whatever you want to call it) is not communism.

Seriously man, I'm telling you, as an atheist, that there's nothing in militant atheism that leads to communism. You have to look at the historical context in that case. Atheism is just a lack of belief in god, but for a whole country to socially engineer itself like that there are way bigger motives.

Most militant atheists I know are secularists, which is incompatible with atheistic communism. Militant, I said. [/quote]

Not all positive atheism is Communism, but many forms of communism are positive atheism. They would tell you as atheists, that there is much in militant atheism that leads to communism. For goodness sakes they come right out and say atheism is their fight their purpose their doctrine. You're simply in denial.


[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307688532' post='2251934']No, so far I see my point of view as a more cohesive picture, because it makes no sense to fight against something that you don't believe in, as you seem to think when you said that they opposed the Czar (and later bourgeoisie) and the clergy because they got their power from god. That's a purely theistic line of thinking. [/quote]

More relative opinion, they had a different opinion. They believed their fight was for atheism in the name of atheism. They viewed belief in God as a decease a infection on society, a mental disorder and positive atheism was the cure.



[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307688532' post='2251934']I'm assuming they devoutly worshipped...nothing?[/quote]

If you don't like devote use hard core. In the end they were atheists and their policies where positive atheism.


[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307688532' post='2251934']"If God is not, everything is permitted." You can have anybody from any religion say that...[/quote]

So what? Without God there's no objective truth no objective morality all there is is relative opinion, so someone can say without God everything is permitted. All you have to object to that opinion is just more opinion.


[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307688532' post='2251934']And that article you posted was written by [b]Dinesh D'Souza[/b] who is viewed by the atheist community at large as a illiterate on what atheism is, and with good reason. As for Singer, his views are singular, and certainly not humanistic, so I reject those too. [/quote]

Too bad you reject objective truth then all that might actually matter, doesn't matter what the atheist community views him as it's just their opinion verses his opinion.


[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307688532' post='2251934']I don't know how good his apologetics are though, but he looks to be second class, right up there with Ken Hovind.
[/quote]

Again oh so sorry but with no objective truth his opinions are just as equal as anyone else.

Edited June 10, 2011 by KnightofChrist