Atheism

[yobbos1]

Since I'm relatively new to all of this I would like to know how important atheism is to leftist revolutionaries. Historically and individually to the members here.

[Imposter Marxist]

Since I'm relatively new to all of this I would like to know how important atheism is to leftist revolutionaries. Historically and individually to the members here.

Generally, Revleft is made up of atheists. However, you will find a few christian anarchists, and christian libertarian socialists, and such, they do exist, and generally are accepted if they pursue a secular society. However, you'll find most Marxists turn away, dislike, or even oppose religion. This is because of the Marxist ideology of Materialism. Historicly, most communists of all kinds have been atheists. However, there are exceptions, such as the socialist leader Hugo Chavez.

Personally I am an anti-theist, which means I oppose all religions, as I view them as inherently harmful. However, I oppose islamaphobia, and things like that.

[NecroCommie]

Having pure faith that disregards evidence is inherently bad. It doesn't really matter what you have faith in.

That is ofcourse a materialist view, so while you can be a communist of some sorts while being religious, being a materialist and religious is somewhat self-defeating.

[Armchair War Criminal]

Actually, I think it's a bit misleading to cite "materialism" as a reason to be opposed to religion - the use of the term in "historical materialism" is distinct from the metaphysical position. The first means that history is produced primarily by economic factors, rather than cultural ones; the second means that only the physical world exists. Most Marxists are both, but only the first is an actual part of Marxism.

Acceptance of materialism in the former sense provides a strong reason, I think, not to elevate questions of religion to political principle. If you look at many prominent atheists, their viewpoint seems to be that if people's consciousness were different, if they didn't have the mysticism of the Bible or Koran clouding their minds, they'd be much more rational, compassionate, and so on. Historical materialism, by contrast, says that abstract beliefs are mostly just window dressing, that people act in their economic interests, and that their thought patterns are conditioned by their day-to-day life.

[Queercommie Girl]

Comrade Lenin on the importance of militant materialism for Marxists. A classic article.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/leni...922/mar/12.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/12.htm)

On the Significance of Militant Materialism

[ContrarianLemming]

Atheism doesn't really have an impact on most of our ideas, it's just a by product of materialism and an anti authoritarian questioning mind.

[Queercommie Girl]

Atheism doesn't really have an impact on most of our ideas, it's just a by product of materialism and an anti authoritarian questioning mind.

The idea that humans must submit to some kind of "spiritual higher power" is philosophically speaking fundamentally authoritarian.

It doesn't matter whether these "spiritual higher powers" are just a superstructural reflection of the oppressive ruling class in the religious sphere, objectively real alien powers from another dimension, or just a convenient over-simplified abstraction and personification of the "raw forces of nature", the fundamentally authoritarian nature of theism and religion remains unchanged.

Socialism is fundamentally about human self-emancipation. We should bow down to neither "celestial beings" nor oppressive rulers nor the raw forces of nature. We can transform both our socio-economic and technological reality through class struggle and advances in productivity.

[Queercommie Girl]

Actually, I think it's a bit misleading to cite "materialism" as a reason to be opposed to religion - the use of the term in "historical materialism" is distinct from the metaphysical position. The first means that history is produced primarily by economic factors, rather than cultural ones; the second means that only the physical world exists. Most Marxists are both, but only the first is an actual part of Marxism.

Acceptance of materialism in the former sense provides a strong reason, I think, not to elevate questions of religion to political principle. If you look at many prominent atheists, their viewpoint seems to be that if people's consciousness were different, if they didn't have the mysticism of the Bible or Koran clouding their minds, they'd be much more rational, compassionate, and so on. Historical materialism, by contrast, says that abstract beliefs are mostly just window dressing, that people act in their economic interests, and that their thought patterns are conditioned by their day-to-day life.

Materialism, even the type that is not historical materialism, is never metaphysical. Materialism is fundamentally scientific and empirical.

As for the question of "whether or not anything beyond the physical world exists", it depends on what you mean by the term "physical". Obviously given the size of the universe which we inhabit, there are certainly many things which science cannot yet explain. However, to suggest that there is some kind of absolute metaphysical barrier to the potential power of human understanding is a fundamentally ridiculous and reactionary position philosophically speaking.

It is true that Marxism focuses more on historical materialism rather than just "materialism in general". But you should see the organic link between these two types of "materialisms", they are not intrinsically distinct, but are linked, just as many elements of Marxist philosophy originated from bourgeois rational philosophy. Religions exist due to certain fundamental socio-economic conditions, and will carry on existing unless these conditions are changed. This is why direct anti-theism in the bourgeois sense is often unproductive.

Anti-religion in general should not be raised to the level of political principle, since the freedom of belief is a basic democratic right and there are some religious socialists out there who would be alienated by a general anti-religion political position. But we must raise the critique of religions that inherently apologises for reactionary socio-economic structures like capitalism and feudalism and religions that are explicitly racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic to the level of political principle, just as we would raise the critique of these elements in secular traditions to the level of political principle. Socialists should never believe in something, religious or not, that defends capitalism and feudalism, since that makes one the class enemy of the working class, or believe in something that is racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic, since that would alienate many sections of the working class itself.

[Armchair War Criminal]

Materialism, even the type that is not historical materialism, is never metaphysical. Materialism is fundamentally scientific and empirical.I know there are multiple definitions of "metaphysical" floating around, so to be clear, I'm using the definition employed by contemporary analytic philosophers. "God doesn't exist" and "subjective experiences can be explained in terms of matter" are metaphysical positions


As for the question of "whether or not anything beyond the physical world exists", it depends on what you mean by the term "physical". Obviously given the size of the universe which we inhabit, there are certainly many things which science cannot yet explain. However, to suggest that there is some kind of absolute metaphysical barrier to the potential power of human understanding is a fundamentally ridiculous and reactionary position philosophically speaking.I'm not sure I understand you here. Could you clarify?


It is true that Marxism focuses more on historical materialism rather than just "materialism in general". But you should see the organic link between these two types of "materialisms", they are not intrinsically distinct, but are linked, just as many elements of Marxist philosophy originated from bourgeois rational philosophy. Religions exist due to certain fundamental socio-economic conditions, and will carry on existing unless these conditions are changed. This is why direct anti-theism in the bourgeois sense is often unproductive.Of course historical materialism gives an account of why people are religious, just as it gives an account of why they are non-religious. But a cultural explanation is no less materialist in the metaphysical sense; mores and ideologies are explainable in terms of atoms and quarks just as factories and wages are.


Anti-religion in general should not be raised to the level of political principle, since the freedom of belief is a basic democratic right and there are some religious socialists out there who would be alienated by a general anti-religion political position. But we must raise the critique of religions that inherently apologises for reactionary socio-economic structures like capitalism and feudalism and religions that are explicitly racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic to the level of political principle, just as we would raise the critique of these elements in secular traditions to the level of political principle. Socialists should never believe in something, religious or not, that defends capitalism and feudalism, since that makes one the class enemy of the working class, or believe in something that is racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic, since that would alienate many sections of the working class itself.I'd contest that a religion ever "intrinsically" implies any particular embodied social practice, but other than that, agreed.

[Victus Mortuum]

IMO:

Religion is inherently negative.
People must have the freedoms of personal thought and expression.
Religion is both a result of specific material conditions, which then reacts back on those material conditions.
Changing the material conditions will change religion, perhaps eliminate it 'naturally', you could say.

[Barry Lyndon]

I'm more of an anti-clericalist then an atheist per se(athough I follow no religion). I couldn't give a damn what people practice privately, as long as their not harming anyone else. What worries me is the economic and political power of religious institutions and clergy, whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu or Buddhist. They constitute an arm of the exploiting class and must be fought in any revolution. Dissident religious figures who support socialist ideas should be embraced as allies, such as advocates of Liberation Theology for instance.

In short, while I personally don't believe in God, what side of the class struggle you are on matters much more to me then personal metaphysical beliefs.

[Triple A]

I think religions should be banned as they bring nothing good to mankind

[mikelepore]

As I see it, atheism is important mainly because it is part of learning that in logic there are valid and invalid reasons for concluding that any statement is true. A statement is not known to be true because respected teachers have said so, or because the majority believe it, or because it would be a comfort if it were true, or because those who deny it get threatened with penalties. In this way, the logical thinking needed to reject the belief in mythological stories, and the logical thinking needed to reject the excuses for capitalism, are approximately the same mental process.

[Magón]

I'm an anti-theist, so that should give you a general sum of what I think of religions. Reasoning behind this, is I don't think there's any higher power pulling my strings, and wants me to give it a boost in Ego like all these religions do. (Christians are who I'm targeting for the most part since I'm more familiar with them in my own family.)

[Sosa]

I am not only and atheist but an anti-theist as well. However, I feel that we need allies like christian leftists to ultimately overthrow capiltalist imperialism. I strongly believe in freedom of religion, you can believe all the bullshit you want as long as you aren't imposing those beliefs on others and those beliefs do not inform political/social policy. The best antidote to religion is not banning it but educating people in logic and reason and eventually it'll die out and become mythology.

I personally feel that christian socialism/communism is contradictory because of religions authoritarian foundation. The judeo-christian god is the most bloodthirsty god in history. This is a god who can convict you of thought crime and you are to worship him for all eternity under penalty of eternal damnation. There is nothing leftist about the concept of a god like this

[iwwforever]

In a socialist society there is no need for religion or a belief in the afterlife.

Instead of a life of meaningless consumption; filled with regrets, everyone will face their inevitable death knowing they have been a part of something worthwhile.

Religion will be seen as the worthless distraction, and waste of time, energy, and resources that it truly is.

[Revolution starts with U]

The question ultimately is; why is theism/atheism important at all? Ignosticism all the way baby :cool:
Even if God exists, He/She doesn't matter. It will have no effect on your life, so just be a good person and let the chips fall where they will. If God can't accept that a good person didn't believe, he's an asshole that needs overthrown.

[Sosa]

The question ultimately is; why is theism/atheism important at all? Ignosticism all the way baby :cool:
Even if God exists, He/She doesn't matter. It will have no effect on your life, so just be a good person and let the chips fall where they will. If God can't accept that a good person didn't believe, he's an asshole that needs overthrown.

I agree. Ignosticism is compatible with atheism. You can be an atheist and ignostic at the same time, they aren't mutually exclusive

[ZeroNowhere]

The question ultimately is; why is theism/atheism important at all? Ignosticism all the way baby :cool:
Even if God exists, He/She doesn't matter. It will have no effect on your life, so just be a good person and let the chips fall where they will. If God can't accept that a good person didn't believe, he's an asshole that needs overthrown.
Technically, you're an apatheist, not an ignostic. An ignostic would not say, "Even if God exists, He/She doesn't matter," as they would instead ask, "What is a God?" Of course, some ignostics would simply say that the statement that God exists is meaningless without asking the above question.

Anyhow, I generally take Marx's viewpoint: "We know that violent measures against religion are nonsense; but this is an opinion: as socialism grows, religion will disappear. Its disappearance must be done by social development, in which education must play a part."

[Sosa]

you can be ignostic and atheist. They are not mutually exclusive

[hatzel]

If God can't accept that a good person didn't believe, he's an asshole that needs overthrown.

"Someone whose spiritual root is good does not have to restrict himself. Whatever he does is good in God's eyes" - Rabbi Mordechai Yosef Leiner.

You know, just in case you for some reason wanted some Jewish teaching to back up that statement :laugh:

Also so that people will stop saying 'religion' when they actually mean traditional Christianity. I forgive people for confusing the two, though, thanks to the accident of upbringing in a Christian society :rolleyes:

[JosefStalinator]

What about liberation theology?

[Magón]

What about liberation theology?

That depends, because it's really no different than any other religion. They still believe in a higher power than themselves, and call it God, and give it a Man's body. (Far as I've ever known, this hasn't changed.) Under a Communist or Anarchist Society, the highest being around is yourself since you're the one making your own choices, and can't blame it on some higher power telling you to do something, when it was actually just you.

They'd like a Godly World, just like any other monotheist religion would.

[Queercommie Girl]

I'm not sure I understand you here. Could you clarify?


The idea that there exists a certain "realm" or a "collection of things" etc, such as God, spiritual beings etc, that are decided to be fundamentally outside the scope of enquiry by the scientific inductive method in an a priori manner. Essentially, it's the belief that there are certain things in the universe which science and the scientific method can never touch, no matter how advanced it becomes.

Such a position is totally ridiculous and reactionary because it hinders scientific progress in a metaphysical and philosophical manner.

This is why paganism is actually more progressive and scientific than monotheism, because although both believe in the "supernatural", pagans are more empirical and less dogmatic in their "exploration" of the "supernatural" realm. Historically many proto-scientific technological inventions in ancient times originated from pagans, such as alchemists in Europe and Daoists in China who invented gunpowder while trying to make the elixir of immortality.

I'd rather have religious people who try to examine "ghost stories" experimentally and empirically to determine whether or not they are true than to have idiotic fundamentalists who believe every single word in the bible is the literal "word of God" without any question. That is the difference between "empirical spiritualism" which is more progressive relatively speaking (though intrinsically still more reactionary than atheism and materialism) and "metaphysical spiritualism" which is more dogmatic and reactionary.

To put it another way, many religious people say "the things of God can never be understood by science". That's what I mean by an absolute metaphysical barrier. I fundamentally oppose any kind of philosophical position that puts an a priori "limit" to the potential of scientific understanding. The potential of science is in principle limitless.

[Queercommie Girl]

"Someone whose spiritual root is good does not have to restrict himself. Whatever he does is good in God's eyes" - Rabbi Mordechai Yosef Leiner.


Too bad Christian fundamentalists don't agree with you. In their eyes, an evil Christian is better than a good pagan. Their theology is based on faith and favourtism (i.e. "chosen" by God), rather than virtue and ethics.

I think Judaism is closer to Confucianism regarding this, in that both have a "virtue-based" or "moral-centric" theology rather than a "spiritual-centric" and "belief-based" one like Christianity. The Chinese saying "The God of Heaven has no favourites, the only criteria is virtue" is a fundamental doctrine of Chinese theology.

But ultimately from a Marxist perspective, although Judaism and Confucianism are more progressive than Christianity in this sense, both are still the product of class society. Which is why I support the May 4th movement in China that was against traditional Confucianism. I think a similar movement needs to take place in other traditional societies like Islamic cultures.

[Enirehtac]

I would view myself as a Buddhist but I don't rely on it as a faith but rather on the philosophy. However, if I had to choose a 'religion' on any form or questionnaire I would write Buddhist. Different Buddhists might view the 'religion' differently but what the Buddha taught was to find out things for yourself and base it on scientific evidence. Buddhists are atheist, but I don't want to go off topic here or start a whole new argument.

[Queercommie Girl]

My final words on this matter:

Marxism is not anti-theist in the bourgeois sense, but fundamentally Marxism is underpinned by materialism, rationalism and humanism, and is incompatible with superstition and theism. The most important philosophical reason is that socialism is fundamentally based on human self-emancipation, not bowing down or relying on some kind of "god".

As the Chinese version of the Internationale says:

There has never been a "saviour of the world",
Nor can we ever rely on "gods" and "emperors";
To save the future of humanity,
We can only rely on ourselves.

There has never been a "saviour of the world",
Nor can we ever rely on "gods" and "emperors";
To create happiness for humanity,
We can only rely on ourselves!

NO GODS NO MASTERS!!

LONG LIVE SOCIALISM!
LONG LIVE LOGIC AND RATIONALISM!
LONG LIVE HUMANISM!
LONG LIVE SCIENCE!
LONG LIVE PROLETARIAN DEMOCRACY! MAY IT PROSPER FOR TEN THOUSAND YEARS!

[Black Sheep]

the amount of atheism in this thread makes me happy.:)

[4 Leaf Clover]

It's important, cause to be a Marxist revolutionary , you have to accept materialism. To accept materialism , you must drop all religious claims about the purpose of matter and nature, and existence of human race.

[Black Sheep]

It's important, cause to be a Marxist revolutionary , you have to accept materialism. To accept materialism , you must drop all religious claims about the purpose of matter and nature, and existence of human race.
Not only that.Becoming a leftist revolutionary is a process of thought, shedding systemic propaganda and debunking status quo myths by sheer sceptical thinking.
Becoming an atheist is exactly the same thing.
I expect and i "demand", personally, for every revolutionary to be an atheist,if he/she wants to be honest to him/herself, and if he/she wants to find the truth in every field of their lives..

The reverse is a bit more tough.

[mikelepore]

It's important, cause to be a Marxist revolutionary , you have to accept materialism. To accept materialism , you must drop all religious claims about the purpose of matter and nature, and existence of human race.

You may be combining two things. Historical materialism (history is explained in terms of the changing tools and relations of production) and philosophical materialism (there is no immaterial spirit; the mind is a physical process of the brain) are two separate principles. Marx and Engels * also combined them, but they really are separate ideas.

----

* "An unbodily substance is the same absurdity as an unbodily body. Body, being, substance, are but different terms for the same reality. It is impossible to separate thought from matter that thinks." - Engels, 1892 introduction to _Socialism: Utopian and Scientific_.

[yobbos1]

I have been a very soft atheist historically to the extent that I occasionally have felt the need to apologize to God for not believing in him.:D
Never EVER have I had any use for religions of any kind but the nagging feeling that there is more to the universe than we can currently identify leaves the metaphorical door open just a sliver for me.
I have always had the feeling that the debate between believers and atheists, as interesting as they may be in principle, have almost always been sidetracked to a debate about the relative merits of religion vs atheism. In that sense I don't see how any sane person could side with a believer when faced with the persuasive arguments of a Hitchens or a Sam Harris. If that makes me an atheist so be it, I'll wear that badge with pride. If, in order to consider myself an atheist I must absolutely, firmly believe, with no room for doubt, that there is no creative force in the universe, no superior consciousness(es) then I'm not ready to go there yet.
Religion is absolute poison. No question.

[The Man]

Organized religion is authority, thats why we oppose it.

[electro_fan]

i do believe in god, but im not especially keen on organised religion, i used to be very religious and eventually got quite messed up because of it . however my religious views did certainly play a big part in getting me to be aware of various injustices, even if at the time i had some quite reactionary ideas

im really not keen on religions for many reasons though, but im not going to condemn someone just for believing in something

[Impulse97]

you can be agnostic and atheist. They are not mutually exclusive


Types of agnosticism

Agnosticism can be subdivided into several categories. Recently suggested variations include:
Agnostic atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism)Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic#cite_note-AtheismVsAgnosticism-14)

Agnostic theism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism)The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic#cite_note-AtheismVsAgnosticism-14)

Apathetic or Pragmatic agnosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism)The view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)][16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic#cite_note-15)

Ignosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism)The view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition is not coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism) view that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic#cite_note-16) A.J. Ayer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Ayer), Theodore Drange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Drange), and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "a deity exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against. An ignostic cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or a nontheist until a sufficient definition of theism is put forth.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic#cite_note-17)[not in citation given (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability)]

Strong agnosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_agnosticism) (also called "hard," "closed," "strict," or "permanent agnosticism")The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."

Weak agnosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_agnosticism) (also called "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal agnosticism")The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day when there is evidence we can find something out."Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic)

I'm a weak theist myself.:hammersickle::che::hammersickle:

[Lucretia]

Organized religion is authority, thats why we oppose it.

I think it's important to distinguish a personal belief in a deity and an institution of organized power premised on personal religious beliefs. I see the former as compatible with revolutionary socialism, if the political aspects of the personal belief are in line with socialism, while the second one is obviously not.

[Crimson Commissar]

I think it's important to distinguish a personal belief in a deity and an institution of organized power premised on personal religious beliefs. I see the former as compatible with revolutionary socialism, if the political aspects of the personal belief are in line with socialism, while the second one is obviously not.
An all-powerful deity is always authoritarian, regardless of what the political stance of that deity might be. It would be like having a benevolent dictator, who had the power to kill whoever he wanted but didn't choose to use it. Yeah he's doing the right thing, but why the fuck does he have that power in the first place, why does he deserve it? This is why if a deity exists, we need to do everything we can to make sure it does NOT try to interfere with our society.

[Lucretia]

An all-powerful deity is always authoritarian, regardless of what the political stance of that deity might be. It would be like having a benevolent dictator, who had the power to kill whoever he wanted but didn't choose to use it. Yeah he's doing the right thing, but why the fuck does he have that power in the first place, why does he deserve it? This is why if a deity exists, we need to do everything we can to make sure it does NOT try to interfere with our society.

But if the "all power deity" is not being imputed with authorities over areas of life that might conflict with the basic ideas of socialism, who cares? What if the deity is only being thought to dictate to its believers how many times a day to pray, when to take a bath, etc.? How is it in any way progressive to try to mandate such belief systems out of existence? That sounds quite authoritarian.

[Sensible Socialist]

An all-powerful deity is always authoritarian, regardless of what the political stance of that deity might be. It would be like having a benevolent dictator, who had the power to kill whoever he wanted but didn't choose to use it. Yeah he's doing the right thing, but why the fuck does he have that power in the first place, why does he deserve it? This is why if a deity exists, we need to do everything we can to make sure it does NOT try to interfere with our society.
Arguing the concept of a diety from a human perspective is ridiculous. Save your breath. Everyone debates "God" as if he/she/it would have human emotions and be able to function as a human would, although with extreme powers. There is no foundation for that, which is why the athiests who argue against a god because it is authoritarian have just as weak arguments as theists. There is a good chance a God could be very authoritarian. However, it would still exist as such. And because of that, you cannot deny there is a god because it would not fit your description of something you are opposed to on philosophical/political grounds.

That said, I'm an athiest, although I feel the our arguments are getting a bit weaker.

Those on the left, if they are religious, should evaluate their mental state and wonder why they, people who have the knowledge to see that capitalism is wrecking the world and know about alternate forms of governance, believe in an invisible sky man. Just my two cents.

[Impulse97]

Those on the left, if they are religious, should evaluate their mental state and wonder why they, people who have the knowledge to see that capitalism is wrecking the world and know about alternate forms of governance, believe in an invisible sky man. Just my two cents.


Frankly, I don't think it's that simple. While I do feel that organized religion is weak sauce and oppressive/regressive what proof do you have that there isn't some sort of high entity? Your statement in bold is rather condescending. You assume that all of us who believe that there might be a higher being believe in a pseudo christian 'god'. Or for that matter believe in one so fervently that we are somehow mentally defective? Some of us simply are looking for an explanation to something that science cannot yet explain. Can science answer the meaning of life? Or, how out of Octillionions of planets in the universe we are thus far the only know of one planet in which life forms have existed? What gives us our sentience? Why did we develop this and rocks didn't?

Can you answer those questions? Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no higher being of some sort? For that matter can you prove that one does exist? We can't! We can guess, and speculate, but no human yet nor science can yet prove these things.

While religion is shit why should someone who feels that there might be some other unknown force affecting our universe which may be sentient, get lumped in with the Tea Party bible fuckers?:hammersickle::che::hammersickle:

[The American]

I'm an agnostic. I'm not an atheist, I'm not a theist.
You can't prove god exists, you can't prove god doesn't, so it's irrelevant and a waste of time to debate religion

[Sensible Socialist]

Frankly, I don't think it's that simple. While I do feel that organized religion is weak sauce and oppressive/regressive what proof do you have that there isn't some sort of high entity?
You can't prove that something doesn't exist. The burden of proof is not on me to disprove something which you (not specifically) claim to be true. I'm tired of people asking me to disprove something they refuse to prove themselves.


Or for that matter believe in one so fervently that we are somehow mentally defective?
When someone hears voices, they're usually given drugs to stop it. If you call those voices "God," you are competant. I don't see the logic in that.


Some of us simply are looking for an explanation to something that science cannot yet explain. Can science answer the meaning of life? Or, how out of Octillionions of planets in the universe we are thus far the only know of one planet in which life forms have existed? What gives us our sentience? Why did we develop this and rocks didn't?
I'm no scientist, but many of those questions can be answered by science. As for the meaning of life, that is not a scientific question. You may as well as what is the meaning of a ham sandwhich.


Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no higher being of some sort?
I don't have to prove something does not exist. If people say something exists, prove it. Until they do, I won't believe in it.


For that matter can you prove that one does exist? We can't! We can guess, and speculate, but no human yet nor science can yet prove these things.
So lets go around and make up stories as to why this happens, instead of realizing we don't know it yet, so maybe we should either invest more in the sciences or just stop thinking about it.


While religion is shit why should someone who feels that there might be some other unknown force affecting our universe which may be sentient, get lumped in with the Tea Party bible fuckers?:hammersickle::che::hammersickle:
When it comes to mental state, anyone who believes in a higher power is a bit on the defective side. Would you say someone who thinks there is a pink rabbit living in their attic is of sane mind? How about someone who thinks a gremlin roams through their yard? Anything imaginary results in being called a "wacko" or a "loon," but why does the 'God' label make it fine and dandy?

[Impulse97]

I'm no scientist, but many of those questions can be answered by science. As for the meaning of life, that is not a scientific question. You may as well as what is the meaning of a ham sandwhich.

Then why debate anything if we cannot debate our own existence? Are you so in love with science that as of yet cannot explain most our existence? Lets just shoot all the philosophers and burn all their books while we're at it. Wondering and pondering is now deemed reactionary.


So lets go around and make up stories as to why this happens, instead of realizing we don't know it yet, so maybe we should either invest more in the sciences or just stop thinking about it.

Why and take all the fun out of thinking? Outlaw imaginations and turn us into robots? We don't know alot of things. We don't need organized religion to boss us around with tales of some supreme overlord but, what of a force in general? How else are we to explain the unexplainable but, by guesses and thinking. Logic and science can and will explain alot about our world but, until we know for dead certain why not have a little fun and say 'what if?'.



When it comes to mental state, anyone who believes in a higher power is a bit on the defective side. Would you say someone who thinks there is a pink rabbit living in their attic is of sane mind? How about someone who thinks a gremlin roams through their yard? Anything imaginary results in being called a "wacko" or a "loon," but why does the 'God' label make it fine and dandy?

Your comparing two different things. We can and have proven that rabbits aren't pink and attics aren't their preferred habitat. We have not yet proven or dis-proven the existence or nonexistence of a deity of some sort.:hammersickle::che::hammersickle:

[Widerstand]

Lets just shoot all the philosophers and burn all their books while we're at it.

Actually no, but let's disregard them.

[revolution inaction]

I'm an agnostic. I'm not an atheist, I'm not a theist.
You can't prove god exists, you can't prove god doesn't, so it's irrelevant and a waste of time to debate religion
i don't need to prove god doesn't exist, that is impossible, is just don't believe it does, therefore i am an an atheist.
Agnosticism is just a failure to understand statistics, just because something cant be PROVED to exist or not doesn't mean that either option is of comparable probability.

[The American]

So once you get some scientific evidence that god does exist or not exist but until then its a toss up

[mikelepore]

You can't prove that something doesn't exist.

You're right about that. In fact, there are an infinite number of things that could be given names and yet they don't exist. It would lead to an absurd conclusion if the burden were on the skeptic, because not only would have to prove nonexistence, which is impossible, as you said, but also you would also have to prove the nonexistence of an infinite number of things. You would have to prove that there is no Boogie Man, they you would have to prove that there is no Mickey Mouse, then you would have to prove that there is no Tinker Bell the Fairy, etc. You could never make a dent in an infinitely long list of fictitious names. Therefore the requirement to prove nonexistence cannot be a reasonable one. The only logical conclusion is that existence is what requires proof, not nonexistence.


I'm tired of people asking me to disprove something they refuse to prove themselves.

Hitchens worded that concept nicely when he said: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

[Rooster]

Does it really matter if a socialist believes in a god(s)? Where does it say in any religious text that "thou shalt not believe in surplus value"? I think religion isn't as important today in western social struggles as it was within the last century or two.



When it comes to mental state, anyone who believes in a higher power is a bit on the defective side. Would you say someone who thinks there is a pink rabbit living in their attic is of sane mind? How about someone who thinks a gremlin roams through their yard? Anything imaginary results in being called a "wacko" or a "loon," but why does the 'God' label make it fine and dandy?

There's a qualitative difference between God and a pink rabbit. If I was fighting along side someone who I had to trust, I'd rather they believed in a God than a pink rabbit. I don't think just laughing in their faces is going to solve anything either.

[Sensible Socialist]

Then why debate anything if we cannot debate our own existence? Are you so in love with science that as of yet cannot explain most our existence? Lets just shoot all the philosophers and burn all their books while we're at it. Wondering and pondering is now deemed reactionary.
That's a delicious word salad you have right there. But sir, I believe you brought me the wrong order. I was hoping to be served a response with substance. I'll try and tackle what I think you meant. People can debate religion all they want, I have no problem with that. It's almost always futile, but I do it on occasion. However, it's imperative that everyone recognize it as futile. In other words, it is impossible to win a religious debate. I don't know why you mentioned philosophers, so I can't responid to that.

Go ahead and wonder, but if you are sure there is a God, and proclaim there is one without any proof, I would ask that you be examined, just as I would if someone claimed there was a sparkled hippo sitting on my roof.



Why and take all the fun out of thinking? Outlaw imaginations and turn us into robots?
That's far from the point and I resent you painting me as some sort of authoritarian borish blowhard.


We don't know alot of things. We don't need organized religion to boss us around with tales of some supreme overlord but, what of a force in general? How else are we to explain the unexplainable but, by guesses and thinking.
You shouldn't have to explain what has not be discovered. Are people not reasonable enough to let things be, and realize that (for the time being) something is not known?


Logic and science can and will explain alot about our world but, until we know for dead certain why not have a little fun and say 'what if?'.
But being religious is not saying "what if." It is saying, for certain, what exists and what doesn't, without any proof. That is not logical whatsoever, ergo, I find it detrimental to the the whole human race.



Your comparing two different things. We can and have proven that rabbits aren't pink and attics aren't their preferred habitat. We have not yet proven or dis-proven the existence or nonexistence of a deity of some sort.:hammersickle::che::hammersickle:
Fine. Some man put the rabbit there. You can't disprove that. How is that any different than claiming there is a god?

@mikelepore: Great Hitchens quote. Thanks for that one.

[Impulse97]

But being religious is not saying "what if." It is saying, for certain, what exists and what doesn't, without any proof. That is not logical whatsoever, ergo, I find it detrimental to the the whole human race.

If you are religious then yes, but I'm not religious. I won't say there isn't a god and if there is one I don't claim to know what it is. I merely don't like saying outright that there isn't a god when we have no proof.

Now if you want to subscribe to a religion, whatever that may be, fine I won't stop you, leftist or otherwise. Even those who are a bit overzealous are fine with me provided they don't shove it down my throat. Now I ask, why is the far left so goddamn (pardon the pun) taken with shoving their atheism down others throats? It's just as annoying as those Zionist fucks handing out bibles.:hammersickle::che::hammersickle:

[hatzel]

When it comes to mental state, anyone who believes in a higher power is a bit on the defective side.

I consider this a counter-revolutionary statement (though not necessarily reactionary). For one reason and one reason only. Let's take Estonia as our example, as Estonia is widely held to be one of the least religious countries on the face of the Earth. 16% of Estonians believe there is a god. 54% believe there is some sort of spirit or life force (which we might argue also constitutes 'a higher power'). 26% believe there is no god, spirit or life force. Across the EU as a whole, over half believe in a god, and a quarter more believe in some sort of spirit or life force. Only 18% have no such beliefs.

Any socialist who disregards 4/5 of a population as 'mentally defective' is hardly promoting the widespread adoption of socialist opinions. Instead, they're being terribly condescending. I would class this as a textbook example of the so-called 'superiority complex'.

Speaking as somebody who expends a great deal of effort in trying to spread knowledge and respect of socialism in religious communities, I can say that statements such as this are strongly counter-productive. You can spend a thousand years explaining the virtues of socialism to a religious individual, and giving them any number of texts explaining socialist interpretations of their religion, pointing out how one needn't abandon their religion to embrace socialism, but nine times out of ten it will boil down to 'but they think they're better than us, and they want to smash up our churches and kill our learned men and forbid us from celebrating our festivals'. No amount of Tolstoy will ever be able to overcome statements like 'the religious are mentally defective'...

There's a world of difference between personal atheism and outright dissing of religious people. The former doesn't inhibit the already tiresome work of socialists in religious communities.

[ed miliband]

^^ For sure, but it's also the kind of thing that somebody who has read three-quarters of a Richard Dawkins book says when trying to prove just how militantly atheist they are.

[Raúl Duke]

So once you get some scientific evidence that god does exist or not exist but until then its a toss up

First, that's not how science/etc works. You do not prove the non-existence of things with evidence (how can you? The concept of evidence depends on existent things/event/etc); non-existance of something is deduced a priori based on the fact that there's no a posteriori evidence for such things. For example, I rationalize that since there's no empirical evidence for god/gods/supernatural than they most likely do not exist. Think of it as the atheist theory/hypothesis; the (to me) most rational one at the moment, yet it doesn't mean that it will always true/correct, it's falsifiable (i.e. can be proven wrong) when/if convincing empirical evidence for "god/supernatural/something like it" is presented. When the theists present convincing evidence, than I'm wiling to change my mind/"working conclusion."

I'm not betting in changing my mind any time soon (although it's always a possibility) considering the long track-record of failure for theists to prove their gods (and how, in our increasing knowledge of the natural world, we have been able to prove certain religions wrong in some matters. For example, the creation of the world and the origin of species being the most notable and contentious ones) existence/validity.

Second, agnosticism is an epistemological position. theism and atheism are theological ones. Most atheists are actually weak agnostic (as in weak agnosticism) atheists. You are probably a strong agnostic (as in strong agnosticism) atheist. Agnosticism isn't, strictly speaking, a theological position.

[NecroCommie]

Why should we be tolerant of harmful ideas? Promoting the idea that faith is good is extremely harmful for all progress, not just political progress.

And I don't need to prove that god does not exist. In the empirical method, if something cannot be proven to exist then we must consider it nonexistant by standard. Otherwise we would also have to be agnostic about fairies and bigfoots. (which we are obviously not)

[yobbos1]

Why should we be tolerant of harmful ideas? Promoting the idea that faith is good is extremely harmful for all progress, not just political progress.

And I don't need to prove that god does not exist. In the empirical method, if something cannot be proven to exist then we must consider it nonexistant by standard. Otherwise we would also have to be agnostic about fairies and bigfoots. (which we are obviously not)
I'd just like to point out that we have more empirical evidence of Bigfoot at hand than we do of God. As for fairies well, the evidence there is about on par with the evidence supporting an invisible man in the sky who watches everything we do.
I think that as a species we need to grow up and do away with the anthropomorphic notion of a supreme being and all the trappings that come with it. This should not preclude us from further investigation into the genuine mysteries of existence however.

[Sensible Socialist]

I consider this a counter-revolutionary statement (though not necessarily reactionary). For one reason and one reason only. Let's take Estonia as our example, as Estonia is widely held to be one of the least religious countries on the face of the Earth. 16% of Estonians believe there is a god. 54% believe there is some sort of spirit or life force (which we might argue also constitutes 'a higher power'). 26% believe there is no god, spirit or life force. Across the EU as a whole, over half believe in a god, and a quarter more believe in some sort of spirit or life force. Only 18% have no such beliefs.

Any socialist who disregards 4/5 of a population as 'mentally defective' is hardly promoting the widespread adoption of socialist opinions. Instead, they're being terribly condescending. I would class this as a textbook example of the so-called 'superiority complex'.

Speaking as somebody who expends a great deal of effort in trying to spread knowledge and respect of socialism in religious communities, I can say that statements such as this are strongly counter-productive. You can spend a thousand years explaining the virtues of socialism to a religious individual, and giving them any number of texts explaining socialist interpretations of their religion, pointing out how one needn't abandon their religion to embrace socialism, but nine times out of ten it will boil down to 'but they think they're better than us, and they want to smash up our churches and kill our learned men and forbid us from celebrating our festivals'. No amount of Tolstoy will ever be able to overcome statements like 'the religious are mentally defective'...

There's a world of difference between personal atheism and outright dissing of religious people. The former doesn't inhibit the already tiresome work of socialists in religious communities.
I'm not dissing religious people. If someone truly believed fairies were following him, I'd actually feel bad. Laughing at someones issues, mentally, is obscene and cruel. But we must acknowledge them.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me the difference between hearing voices (and thus labeled insane and giving meds) and hearing the voice of God (and thus being labeled a "morally right" person).