Can Agnostics be Communists or can only Atheists be Communists I ask this question as

[tradeunionsupporter]

Can Agnostics be Communists or can only Atheists be Communists I ask this question as an Agnostic ?

[Walt]

No agnostics allowed in my club!!! :laugh:

[Nolan]

I'm agnostic. Ignostic to be precise.

[#FF0000]

Anyone can be a communist, really, though I think religious beliefs sort of don't mesh with Marxism, since it's based on materialism.

But people believe contradictory things all the time so whatever.

[pastradamus]

Anyone can be a communist regardless of Religious beliefs. Provided you religious beliefs dont invade you political beliefs. For example, Communism/Socialism believes in a secular society (seperation of church and state).

[Raúl Duke]

agnostics and atheists can be communists and they can be Marxists.

[NGNM85]

It's possible you just might be misunderstanding Atheism as the distinction between these terms is often misunderstood. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in the existance of god, namely because no such evidence exists.

[praxis1966]

It's possible you just might be misunderstanding Atheism as the distinction between these terms is often misunderstood. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in the existance of god, namely because no such evidence exists.

A good number of atheists that I've talked to will admit that it's impossible to disprove the existence of god, but that the probability of god existing is so infinitesimally small that it's possible to say for all intents and purposes that there is no such thing. I'd agree with that reasoning, but the problem I have is a linguistic one. I identify as an agnostic because by definition the term serves the dual purpose of both doubting seriously the existence of a god (or gods) as well as admitting the impossibility of proving a negative. Now perhaps a third term is needed, as I'm well acquainted with the kind of agnostic who actually believes that the likelihood of the existence of a god or gods is about 50/50.

Anyway, it's not that I don't see any conflict with belief and revolutionary politics (the issue of abortion is a prime example of how class consciousness can stop at religion). On the other hand, I also hate the kind of ethnocentric (as revolutionaries from the third world are oftentimes believers) value judgment inherently involved in telling someone that something they see as an integral part of their culture is wrong. Also, in my estimation, there is a certain pragmatic problem with alienating exactly the kind of people we as revolutionaries are supposed to be working for. In other words, we claim to be fighting for the liberation of ethnic minorities (in the case of the first world) who are more often than not believers in god.

Nevermind that to say that religion is always harmful is just an ill informed opinion considering the contributions of progressive religious people like Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, Archbishop Oscar Romero, and Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

[Adi Shankara]

If you look at second- and third-generation Muslim immigrants in developed countries, you'll find that liberalism (the dominant ideology in advanced capitalist societies) is far, far more common than in, say, Saudi Arabia or Indonesia.

Indonesia, like Turkey or Lebanon, is bi-polarized secular (okay, maybe not Turkey , but they're all at least secular states in my opinion), and in certain cases in Indonesia, the nation is only quasi-Islamic.

for example, Insulting Muhammed in public would probably create a public outrage, as would any opposition to Islam...yet the same people decrying the slander of their prophet's name probably eat pork, have pre-marital sex (the average Indonesian has 2 sex partners before the age of 21, I read in an issue of Newsweek a few years back) and believe in the traditional deities of Indonesia's past (they even have a seperate term for such followers, Abangan, and in some instances, Kejawen).

Yet from what I hear, Indonesia is religious, but it isn't as prude as the rest of the Muslim world. prostitution is common, many Indonesian supermodels have become famous home and abroad, and drug use/alcohol is quite common as well.

Btw, I know my reply is mostly irrelevant, I just thought it's interesting to regard Indonesia's social complexities.

[praxis1966]

How is it ethnocentric if one is also against Christianity? I would say that Christianity is a pretty integral part of Euro-American culture. The important thing to remember is that $superstition is wrong.

Yeah, but you have to remember that you're also a product of the culture of the first world which, whether you like it or not, has influenced your thinking in one way or another. To judge another culture's mores, which religion is a part of given that membership of one faith over another is as much if not more culturally derived than anything else, based on a first world perspective does require an ethnocentric value judgment. Anyhow, join an activist group sometime. You'll find out pretty quickly that making lack of belief a precondition to being a revolutionary is a real good way of running people out of your organization who would otherwise make great allies.




Personally, I take what I consider to be a materialist stance on this. I don't think that religion plays any great part in people's behaviour; rather, people take on the values of the society they grew up in, and, if necessary, adapt and interpret the doctrines of their religion to suit. If you look at second- and third-generation Muslim immigrants in developed countries, you'll find that liberalism (the dominant ideology in advanced capitalist societies) is far, far more common than in, say, Saudi Arabia or Indonesia.

To a certain extent that may be true, but again you're exhibiting typically first world snobbery. Do you know what people hear when you mention the benefit of Muslims moving to the first world? First world culture is superior to that of the third world and the reaction is to get offended. Besides, if you're going to sit there and tell me that Islam had no great effect on the thinking of Malcolm X or Christianity had no amount of real influence on MLK or Oscar Romero, I'm going to look you dead in the face and call you crazy.

[Raúl Duke]

something they see as an integral part of their culture is wrong.Umm, we are not supposed to be cultural relativists. Religion does not equal culture

Plus I'm slightly offended, I'm from Puerto Rico which is very superstitious and religious and yet I'm an atheist and I still see those ideas as rubbish (although I don't go out of my way to tell people that). Are you saying I'm not a part of or raised in a Latin-American culture because I'm not Catholic? Are you saying that to be consider a part of that culture you must accept every facet, including religion?

Using your "don't offend cultural sensibility" perspective than I guess we shouldn't be against female genital mutilation, stoning of adulterers, etc since these are widely-held facets of some cultures. All because they're widely held does not mean we must pander to it.

The issue is that as members of the working class and the left, we should mostly focus on issues that relates to the working class. That means we don't have (unless you want) to present ourselves as "against religion" (in fact, IRL, I doubt organizations present themselves in public this way; whether or not their membership excludes or not the religious) since we are not exactly an atheist/anti-theist organization but we have to make clear that we are secularist and that we will be against reactionary practices no matter if it's a "widely held facet" of a culture or part of a widely-believed religion.

[Pawn Power]

I know a bunch of them. The appear to exist, regardless of one's view on the matter.

[praxis1966]

Umm, we are not supposed to be cultural relativists. Religion does not equal culture

That's not what I'm arguing, not really. I'm arguing for a more pragmatic approach and against the idea that you have any kind of right to tell me what I'm "supposed to be."


Plus I'm slightly offended, I'm from Puerto Rico which is very superstitious and religious and yet I'm an atheist and I still see those ideas as rubbish (although I don't go out of my way to tell people that). Are you saying I'm not a part of or raised in a Latin-American culture because I'm not Catholic?

No. I'm saying that a person's likelihood to participate in one religion over another is largely derived from what culture they are a member of. In Latin America, that religion is likely to be Catholicism or Santeria. On the Arabian Peninsula it's likely to be Muslim. In the rural US, it's likely to be some form of Protestantism. So there's no denying that what religion you are, or are not, has everything to do with the culture you're born into. There's also no denying that if a person comes from the rural parts of a country like the US or a third world country that (s)he is more likely to be religious; it's just a statistical fact. Therefore, it only follows logically that taking a rabid anti-theist stance is going to put people from these areas off (frankly, I'm of the mind that if the radical left in the US were to stop being so vociferous about it's position on religion it might actually be able to achieve some semblance of a degree of working class unity; the way the right in this country has always referred to us is as "godless commies" and I personally think it's the godless part that scares the shit out of the uninformed more than the commie part). I'm not saying you can't "deprogram" yourself from the part of the culture that includes that religion; you're obviously living proof that it's possible to do so.


Are you saying that to be consider a part of that culture you must accept every facet, including religion?

No.


Using your "don't offend cultural sensibility" perspective than I guess we shouldn't be against female genital mutilation, stoning of adulterers, etc since these are widely-held facets of some cultures. All because they're widely held does not mean we must pander to it.

No, those examples are reducto ad absurdums of my argument. I'd never argue in favor of accepting the parts of any religion which violate the human rights of another person. However, I do think it's possible to simultaneously be religious and a good revolutionary. My own brother is proof of that.


The issue is that as members of the working class and the left, we should mostly focus on issues that relates to the working class. That means we don't have (unless you want) to present ourselves as "against religion" (in fact, IRL, I doubt organizations present themselves in public this way; whether or not their membership excludes or not the religious) since we are not exactly an atheist/anti-theist organization but we have to make clear that we are secularist and that we will be against reactionary practices no matter if it's a "widely held facet" of a culture or part of a widely-believed religion.

Right, I'd agree with this part of your argument pretty completely. I was trying to argue that while I do see organized religion as antithetical to working class liberation, I don't have any problem with people who want to believe in a god or gods as long as they can internally reconcile that with what we as revolutionary leftists want. Basically, the logical conclusion of what I was trying to say (and judging by your answer I may not have been very effective at conveying) was that I think it would behoove us on the left not to make opposition to religion such a central part of our arguments. To do otherwise, if you want to make a materialist argument, is actually to ignore the material reality that we're going to be alienating people who would otherwise be quite good allies in the struggle.

[NGNM85]

A good number of atheists that I've talked to will admit that it's impossible to disprove the existence of god, but that the probability of god existing is so infinitesimally small that it's possible to say for all intents and purposes that there is no such thing. I'd agree with that reasoning, but the problem I have is a linguistic one. I identify as an agnostic because by definition the term serves the dual purpose of both doubting seriously the existence of a god (or gods) as well as admitting the impossibility of proving a negative. Now perhaps a third term is needed, as I'm well acquainted with the kind of agnostic who actually believes that the likelihood of the existence of a god or gods is about 50/50.

Most agnostics tend to fit into that category, though. Moreover, to seriously consider a possibility, there must be some evidence that said conclusion is correct, the which essentially boils down to the 'argument from existence', which is hardly persuasive. I don't think there are virtually any Atheists who would attempt to declare that they know for a fact there is no god, but that isn't the issue. I like the term 'Atheist' because it's clear and concise and
leaves a little less space for misinterpretation.



Anyway, it's not that I don't see any conflict with belief and revolutionary politics (the issue of abortion is a prime example of how class consciousness can stop at religion). On the other hand, I also hate the kind of ethnocentric (as revolutionaries from the third world are oftentimes believers) value judgment inherently involved in telling someone that something they see as an integral part of their culture is wrong. Also, in my estimation, there is a certain pragmatic problem with alienating exactly the kind of people we as revolutionaries are supposed to be working for. In other words, we claim to be fighting for the liberation of ethnic minorities (in the case of the first world) who are more often than not believers in god.

I disagree. I think we're absolutely qualified to judge. I think the way the Taliban treat women is fucking barbaric, just as it was a hundred years ago, and I have no problems with making that determination.

Yes, it's possible that we should be working with religious moderates to try and reach commonalities, to build bridges to work towards a common goal. However, I am only interested in religious moderation as it is useful to acheiving a world without religion. This dogma is literally incompatible with civilization, we're going to have to deal with it one way or another.



Nevermind that to say that religion is always harmful is just an ill informed opinion considering the contributions of progressive religious people like Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, Archbishop Oscar Romero, and Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

See, I don't buy that at all. Believing in an omnipotent creator is not essential to believe in human rights and justice, to want to make a better world, or to fight oppression. I argue that these men were motivated not by their belief in the supernatural, but by their ethics and inclinations. I don't think any of that comes directly from the texts, themselves. Who has ever read "Thou Shalt Not Kill" with surprise? If religion disappeared overnight, theres' no reason to believe charity, humility, or any other virtue would disappear with them. I think people will always value those qualities. However, I think there'd be a lot less honor killings, terrorist martyrs, etc. Those aren't natural behaviors.

[tradeunionsupporter]

I am an Agnostic in the sense that I can never know if there's a God.

[Ovi]

I am elf agnostic in the sense that I can never know if elves exist. Now seriously, I'm an atheist because I believe irrational beliefs are the one in need of proof, not the lack of them. And yes, one can believe in magic fairies, elves and gods and call himself a communist; it's not like the supreme anarchist communist soviet will retract the communist badge from you.

[tradeunionsupporter]

I don't think we can know if there is a God or not ever.

[Sentinel]

The burden of proof in a debate lies on those who make the positive claim, -- ie, in this case, those who claim that God does exist have to prove it. And as they can't do that, while science keeps contradicting the holy books more and more, the rational and reasonable thing to do is to assume that he doesn't.

But yeah, agnostics can be communists in my opinion -- as long as they remain hard core secularists, and advocates of science.

But they clearly won't win the 'Golden Occam's Razor' at the Rational Thinking Awards. :blushing:

[L.A.P.]

There is such a thing as Christian Communism but religion for the most part doesn't mix well with Marxism

[hatzel]

Let's not forget Jewish communism, either :thumbup1:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

However, I do think it's possible to simultaneously be religious and a good revolutionary. My own brother is proof of that.

I think it would be more correct to say that your brother is evidence that humans are capable of holding mutually incompatible beliefs.


Right, I'd agree with this part of your argument pretty completely. I was trying to argue that while I do see organized religion as antithetical to working class liberation, I don't have any problem with people who want to believe in a god or gods as long as they can internally reconcile that with what we as revolutionary leftists want.

If a theist keeps their beliefs in the privacy of their own head, who would know or care?

The problem is, religious beliefs that do not leave the confines of a single skull won't spread. It's the ones that are aggressively proslytised that do, and that's a problem for the simple fact that religion is wrong on different levels.


Basically, the logical conclusion of what I was trying to say (and judging by your answer I may not have been very effective at conveying) was that I think it would behoove us on the left not to make opposition to religion such a central part of our arguments. To do otherwise, if you want to make a materialist argument, is actually to ignore the material reality that we're going to be alienating people who would otherwise be quite good allies in the struggle.

This seems tantamount to arguing that religious believers are incapable of being swayed from their positions (they can be) or that the working class as a whole is incapable of being sufficiently radicalised enough that the majority abandon or actively reject religious belief, which is doubtful in light of the existence of working-class atheists the world over.