What's the best book, doc or journal that disputes Christianity?

[RadioRaheem84]

Who is the best atheist out there to have disputed Christianity?

What is a good documentary to watch and if anyone can recommend some good books too, that would be nice?

[NGNM85]

Who is the best atheist out there to have disputed Christianity?

What is a good documentary to watch and if anyone can recommend some good books too, that would be nice?

I'm not entirely sure what you're looking for. The best book on the subject would probably be Dawkins' The God Delusion, you might also want to check out Bertrand Russel's Why I Am Not a Christian, and maybe Sam Harris' End of Faith. As for documentaries, there's one called The God Who Wasn't There, (I believe the whole thing can be viewed, for free, on YouTube.) that focuses entirely on disputing the existence of a 'historical Christ.' It shouldn't be especially difficult to find whatever it is that you are looking for. Most of the truth claims made by Christians, at least, pertaining to their religious convictions, range from obviously false, to highly suspect.

[Sputnik_1]

I quite like "The book your church doesn't want you to read" by t.c. leedom and maria murdy. Also, "Religulous" is quite a funny documentary on christianity.

[RadioRaheem84]

I am looking for a supposedly fine atheist named Michael Martin from Boston University.

Is he any good? I hear he is considering he was a former devout Christian.

[RadioRaheem84]

I used to be a Christian myself and I find a lot of the atheists out there really do a bad job of dispelling Christian myths because they do not understand the theology behind Christianity and how strong it is. They tend to easily pick at the more liberal churches and the Catholic churches because their watered-down theology is extremely easy to pick at when taking actual Biblical scripture into account.

What I am looking for is atheists to tackle the hard core Calvinist presuppositionalist Christians like Dominionists RJ Rushdoony or Gary North?

The "Evidentialist" Christians like what's found in that horrible book Case for Christ, are pretty easy to debate with as the evidence is not in their favor and nor should they be arguing for evidence considering their religion relies on faith.

[Zealot]

The Bible itself is the best book to dispute Christianity. For every verse you find to support one side there's another contradicting it.

[RadioRaheem84]

The Bible itself is the best book to dispute Christianity. For every verse you find to support one side there's another contradicting it.

That's a good way of looking at it. But I've heard Christian scholars, especially of the Calvinist stripe, explain the Bible as one flowing storyline before.

Trust me, read anything by Cornelius Van Til and the Christians who presuppose the Bible before the facts, rejecting evidentialist claims as the basis for their faith (which is the majority arrogant atheists deal with) and you will see why and how ironclad the Domionist movement is.

Michael Martin I hear though was part of the movement or was taught by one of their followers at one point, so he might be a good place to start.

My point is that a lot of atheists make TERRIBLE philosophers because they are so arrogantly persuaded that since science is on their side that that somehow makes a good case as any and that there is no need to debate philosophically.

[RadioRaheem84]

What I am trying to tell most of ya'll, is that growing up in a strict right wing Christian area of the United States, that the evidentialist, soft Gospel of the Catholics, Episcolpalians, Lutherans, whatever else is not the backbone of the right wing Christian movement.

While Hitchens and Dawkins were stupidly (and arrogantly) debating against the Archbishop or some doctrinally soft Cardinal, the majority of right wing Americans who are Christian get most of their hard core theology from these people:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics

It then trickles down to less philosophically heavy guys like Charles Colson, John MacCarthur, RC Sproul, etc.

Which are all household names in the right wing Christian households.

[Zealot]

I think it's pretty unfair to characterize those who debate soft "evidentialist" Christians as stupid and arrogant. The fact is I doubt that Presuppositionalists make up the majority of the Christian population, maybe strict right-wing and maybe the majority in your area, but in the grand scheme of things they would be a minority. It's also unfair to expect us to know the theology behind all 38,000 denominations of Christianity and its offshoots.

From reading the Wikipedia link you gave it seems there is little hope for these people. From what I understand, they presuppose the Bible to be true and dismiss any way that they could find neutral ground with non-Christians. Not only is this arrogant and detrimental for evangelism but this isn't even how Jesus and his later followers taught. Paul is reported to have "Preached the Gospel", problem being that the gospels, in fact the compiled Bible, didn't even exist at that time. Which just begs the question as to how he would have preached in those early years.

I doubt that this tactic of theirs would work on, say, a Muslim who would hold the same view about his book and probably appeals only to hardline Christians at which point you're "preaching to the converted". Yet, Jesus says preaching to the converted is essentially useless (duh). Even though the article says they "must present the truth regardless of whether anyone is actually persuaded by it", the circular logic just shows itself amply.

The Bible is true because we presuppose it is true.
If you don't accept it, it's because you're suppressing the truth.
You're suppressing the truth because you don't want to believe the Bible.

This isn't an ironclad theology, it's just how children argue on the playground.

[SHORAS]

Not sure what you mean by "disputed Christianity?"

I think this is a good short piece on communists attitude towards religion in general with some very clear quotes from Lenin.

http://en.internationalism.org/ir/110_religion.html

For communists on religion try Foundations of Christianity by Kautsky

Here's a review of something more recent:

http://londonbookclub.co.uk/?p=320

and a video by the author on the book:

http://communiststudents.org.uk/?p=1822

[RadioRaheem84]

I think it's pretty unfair to characterize those who debate soft "evidentialist" Christians as stupid and arrogant. The fact is I doubt that Presuppositionalists make up the majority of the Christian population, maybe strict right-wing and maybe the majority in your area, but in the grand scheme of things they would be a minority. It's also unfair to expect us to know the theology behind all 38,000 denominations of Christianity and its offshoots.

From reading the Wikipedia link you gave it seems there is little hope for these people. From what I understand, they presuppose the Bible to be true and dismiss any way that they could find neutral ground with non-Christians. Not only is this arrogant and detrimental for evangelism but this isn't even how Jesus and his later followers taught. Paul is reported to have "Preached the Gospel", problem being that the gospels, in fact the compiled Bible, didn't even exist at that time. Which just begs the question as to how he would have preached in those early years.

I doubt that this tactic of theirs would work on, say, a Muslim who would hold the same view about his book and probably appeals only to hardline Christians at which point you're "preaching to the converted". Yet, Jesus says preaching to the converted is essentially useless (duh). Even though the article says they "must present the truth regardless of whether anyone is actually persuaded by it", the circular logic just shows itself amply.

The Bible is true because we presuppose it is true.
If you don't accept it, it's because you're suppressing the truth.
You're suppressing the truth because you don't want to believe the Bible.

This isn't an ironclad theology, it's just how children argue on the playground.


Exporism, presuppositional dominionist theology is the backbone of radical right wing Christians in the States. What I am talking about is evangelical Christianity which has a big time following in the South and Midwest.

You're correct that they're literally just saying that they believe the Bible before the facts and that anything else is just deception. They are trying to "intellectualize" blind faith. This is very appealing to a lot of Christians and their over the top theology has influenced a lot of mainstream Evangelical Christian writers.

I used to work at a Christian bookstore called Lifeway Christian Store and the most popular authors among the "intellectually" curious were middle of the road theologians like John MaCarthur and RC Sproul .The "intellectually" serious were into Van Til and Greg Bahnsen.

The casual reader didn't really give a hoot one way or the other and tended to read evidentialist stuff by William L. Craig and Lee Strobel of the "case for Christ" fame.

RJ Rushdoony for instance was financially backed in the 70s by powerful industrialists.

[~Spectre]

Avoid everything by Sam Harris. Avoid most things by "NuAtheists".

[RadioRaheem84]

The presuppositional dominionist Christian Calvinist is about as a "minority" to the Evangelical right wing Christian movement as Von Mises, Rothbard and Von Hayek are to the modern conservative movement.

[Black_Rose]

What I am trying to tell most of ya'll, is that growing up in a strict right wing Christian area of the United States, that the evidentialist, soft Gospel of the Catholics, Episcolpalians, Lutherans, whatever else is not the backbone of the right wing Christian movement.

While Hitchens and Dawkins were stupidly (and arrogantly) debating against the Archbishop or some doctrinally soft Cardinal, the majority of right wing Americans who are Christian get most of their hard core theology from these people:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics

It then trickles down to less philosophically heavy guys like Charles Colson, John MacCarthur, RC Sproul, etc.

Which are all household names in the right wing Christian households.

Do you think it is possible to debate or "refute" presuppositional apologetics, since it is not open-ended, meaning that it this paradigm is not affected by external inputs such as scientific or historical data (as it disregards knowledge from other fields)? As an empiricist, I can conclude that the corpus of scientific knowledge has rendered the activity of an intelligent creator in the natural realm extraneous, and can be excised by Occam's razor.

Why doyou think your effort to refute presuppositional apologetics can be productive?

[RadioRaheem84]

I understand that it is nearly fruitless to debate such people, but we're talking about what exactly makes up the real theological defense for the evangelical Christian community when broken down.

Michael Martin, an atheist philosopher from Boston University has been doing a pretty good job so far. I've been checking out his work on Secular Web.

He is trying to point out that their position is not only irrational but not even moral from any standpoint.

Their argument is that everything has a philosophical presupposition, including science.

[RadioRaheem84]

I really do not see the point of atheists arguing with wishy-washy Christian theologians who explain nearly everything in the Bible as allegorical.

I think it's pointless unless they start trumping the Christians that stick to their Bible as if it's the literal truth. I wouldn't just brush them off as ultra-dogmatic know nothings, either.

Here we are seeing a strictly philosophical debate with fundamentalist (in the old sense) Christians and I want to see a challenge from atheists that is not just another demand for evidence.

Atheists should also be able to point out why Christianity is also a morally repugnant philosophical outlook, utterly irrational and bankrupt too.

I think the trouble is that a lot of atheists, especially the NU ones tend to just rely on the evidence (which is clearly on their side) but make horrible philosophical arguments.

[RadioRaheem84]

Why doyou think your effort to refute presuppositional apologetics can be productive?

Google Francis Schaeffer and see why such a refutation is needed. From there trace the steps of followers of many Dominionist, presuppositional, and Calvinist doctrine to the radical right wing movement that wants to dominate politics in the United States.

This group has not been tackled much yet it remains the primary backbone of "intellectual" Christian thought in this country.

[Black_Rose]

Google Francis Schaeffer and see why such a refutation is needed. From there trace the steps of followers of many Dominionist, presuppositional, and Calvinist doctrine to the radical right wing movement that wants to dominate politics in the United States.

This group has not been tackled much yet it remains the primary backbone of "intellectual" Christian thought in this country.

I apologize for my dismissive attitude towards this strain of Christian thought as I underestimated its dangers and intellectual allure among the conservative religiously inclined, but please note that you also share a similar attitude as you used scare quotes around "intellectual".

It sounds like presuppositionalism is the epistemological foundation of Dominionism and the Christian right. It starts with the presupposition that Bible is inerrant, and then they compare themselves skeptical agnostic/atheists who inherited the intellectual legacy of the Enlightenment rationalists and empiricists, by stating that their worldview requires presuppositions too, such as naturalism, and this biases their perception of the evidence and causes them to inaccurately dismiss supernatural intervention in human affairs (such as the Incarnation), God's grace, and Biblical morality. Furthermore, presuppositionalists believe that since they base their epistemology on the inerrant "Word of God", they believe their ideology and morality is superior and correct since their conclusions are ultimately derived from a redoubtable philosophical foundation (which is merely the circuitous assertion that the Bible is inerrant because the Bible says so. While, in contrast, secular-minded and humanistic individuals supposedly based their worldview on the tenuous, fallible, and mutable presuppositions, namely that of naturalism, empiricism, and rationality. A significant fact that makes presuppositionalist Christians particularly dangerous is the inherent righteousness of the philosophy, which is derived from its purported connection with divine will and wisdom of God; secularists tend to be more tolerant and respectful of others, as, although they embrace and trust the human faculties of reason and sense perception to comprehend the world and formulate morality, they understand that inaccuracy of human perception and observation and know that even rational agents can disagree, as they experience different environments and possess differing personalities and interests. This acknowledgement of human error (fallibilism) and lack of ultimate certitude should reasonably lead to the allowance of a diversity of various philosophical, scientific, and ethical views, hence humanism's tolerance of varying intellectual positions. The pernicious self-righteousness and certitude of presuppositionalism leads to intolerance and oppression.

Why not invoke Karl Popper's falsification principle as a way to "refute" presuppositionalism: just ask the question of what can potentially "falsify" presuppositionalism (in a historical, political, or theological context), or its tenets are plastic enough to accommodate anything.

[RadioRaheem84]

I'm gonna steal your post when arguing with these Christian extremists. :cool:

[RadioRaheem84]

but please note that you also share a similar attitude as you used scare quotes around "intellectual".


I just really do not see this movement as intellectual at all, but fundamentally trying to intellectualize blind faith dogma. What the average anti-intellectual who shuts their ears to any reason or science, these guys provide them a backbone in which to better articulate a rather moonbat position.

Anyone who was anyone in Christian Bible Studies and studied theology, knew of this movement and were drenched in it's self righteousness. Some I remember were dominionists and some were not, but the point is that their ideas have trickled down to mainstram Christianity in various forms.

From Francis Schaeffer to Rushdooney to Gary North they've influenced politicians like Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry. It's also big with the Calvinist Baptist and Presbyterian crowd.

The only atheist I know taking them on is Boston University's Michael Martin.

Everyone else I have to say are tackling people that the right wing Christian community doesn't really care about.

[RadioRaheem84]

Avoid everything by Sam Harris. Avoid most things by "NuAtheists".

It should be noted that Christopher Hitchens did an interview with WORLD Magazine, a nationalist right wing rag that casually supports dominionism, Calvinism and presuppositional apologetics.

Hitchens was tolerated as a man who combatted Islamo-Fascism and helped Western Civ through his relentless attack on the left for their anti-War on Terror stance.

The very backbone of right wing Christian intellectual literature and Hitchens grants a favorable interview with them, only mildly chatting about his "anti-theism".

This shows just how serious a guy like him was about tackling religion.

I can't speak for the rest of the NUatheists but I wouldn't doubt their disdain for religion has more to do with their championing of Western Civ over the "invading horde of moors" (clash of civilizations mentality).

[Revolution starts with U]

I was thoroughly dissapointed by The God Who Wasn't There. There was nothing in it I hadn't seen before (basically it was a remake of the first part of the original Zeitgeist).

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I used to be a Christian myself and I find a lot of the atheists out there really do a bad job of dispelling Christian myths because they do not understand the theology behind Christianity and how strong it is.

Why should they? Theology is a field of "knowledge" without a subject that anyone can reasonably determine.


They tend to easily pick at the more liberal churches and the Catholic churches because their watered-down theology is extremely easy to pick at when taking actual Biblical scripture into account.

Really? I've seen plenty of criticism in the opposite direction - that outspoken atheists go for the "easy targets" of the religious fundamentalists, as opposed to the more "sophisticated" religion of the moderates.


What I am looking for is atheists to tackle the hard core Calvinist presuppositionalist Christians like Dominionists RJ Rushdoony or Gary North?

Presuppositionalism (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Presuppositionalism) is obvious garbage, the clue is in the name. The arguments of its proponents assume beforehand that the Christian god exists, therefore presuppositionalism is not an attempt at discovering the facts of the matter, but is instead a logical game where the presuppositionalist uses whatever logical and rhetorical goals they can in order to "win souls to Christ". Unfortunately for the Xians, since religious fanaticism appears to have a strong dulling effect on creativity and originality, this typically manifests in the same old arguments being recycled again and again by presuppositionalists, with the attendant annoyance for all reasonable people within earshot.

[RadioRaheem84]

Good ol' Noxion coming in here to defend the NUatheist movement's attempts to dislodge wishy washy cardinals and liberal theologians who gladly concede to everything being allegorical to appear more relevant even before the debate begins.

Next they attack the obvious religious fundies like Jerry Falwell or Hagee which offer nothing but obvious shrill.

If it's such an easy bs routine by Christians (and I believe it is) then it would be the perfect place for many of the NUatheists to start.

I really like the approach Michael Martin of BU has taken to really address this group because he too has realized that much of the REAL right wing Christian dogma out there is centered around this movement, not Falwell, not liberal Episcopalians and Archbishops or obvious Catholic blowhards like that one guy that is always defending the Church on CNN.

My point wasn't too say that presuppositionalism has a leg to stand on, quite the contrary, it's that regardless of how arrogantly you want to brush it aside as such, it's still the untouched intellectual backbone of the major dominionist movement in the United States.

My own personal thoughts about it is that some of these NUatheists make lousy philosophers and would proly have their head spin with all the nonsense a presup dominionist would dish out. He would have to rely on the self evident lunacy of the movement to persuade people away from it.

[Princess Luna]

The age of reason, by Thomas Paine. Its funny how Theocrats like Glenn Beck love Thomas Paine so much, when he completely opposed organized religion and supported taxing the wealthy to aid the poor, elderly, and disabled. However Paine was a Deist not a Atheist, so the Age of Reason doesn't attack the concept of a god, instead it goes after the inconsistencies in Christianity and to a much less extent Islam and Judaism.

[RadioRaheem84]

Mark Steel has a must see lecture about Paine! And yes I agree, Beck is a moron.

[RadioRaheem84]

Why should they? Theology is a field of "knowledge" without a subject that anyone can reasonably determine.I agree but it's frustrating to me how the NuAtheists really go after people the hardcore "intellectual base" of Christians really do not care about. They do not care about Dawkins having a go at the Catholic Church or Hitchens chiding Falwell.

When it comes to the right wing non-charismatic, less controversial (as in less shrill), but still politically active dominonist thinking Christian, those people are dispensable.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

My point wasn't too say that presuppositionalism has a leg to stand on, quite the contrary, it's that regardless of how arrogantly you want to brush it aside as such, it's still the untouched intellectual backbone of the major dominionist movement in the United States.

What is there to say, beyond that presuppotionalism is an obvious rhetorical ploy? I think it's a bit much to describe it as the "intellectual backbone" of anything.


My own personal thoughts about it is that some of these NUatheists make lousy philosophers and would proly have their head spin with all the nonsense a presup dominionist would dish out. He would have to rely on the self evident lunacy of the movement to persuade people away from it.

Well, here's a few attempts (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/index.html#presup) by Michael Martin to address the topic that I found within a few seconds' Googling.


I agree but it's frustrating to me how the NuAtheists really go after people the hardcore "intellectual base" of Christians really do not care about. They do not care about Dawkins having a go at the Catholic Church or Hitchens chiding Falwell.

When it comes to the right wing non-charismatic, less controversial (as in less shrill), but still politically active dominonist thinking Christian, those people are dispensable.

I think you are building a strawman here, as I've seen plenty of "New Atheists" criticise people other than the Catholic Church or prominent Protestants.

[RadioRaheem84]

What is there to say, beyond that presuppotionalism is an obvious rhetorical ploy? I think it's a bit much to describe it as the "intellectual backbone" of anything. Nox, it's clear you have not been reading this thread much as throughout it I've been using intellectual in quotes. I never thought of it as intellectual but as the supposed "intellectual" backbone of the dominionist movement. Brush it off all you want, it is a pretty big deal in the right wing movement, far more than evidentialism.


Well, here's a few attempts (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/index.html#presup) by Michael Martin to address the topic that I found within a few seconds' Googling.Never thought of Martin as NuAtheist but I've been praising his work throughout this thread!


I think you are building a strawman here, as I've seen plenty of "New Atheists" criticise people other than the Catholic Church or prominent Protestants.I haven't, perhaps you can show me otherwise. I'm talking about Dennett, Hawkins, Harris and Hitchens (RIP).

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Nox, it's clear you have not been reading this thread much as throughout it I've been using intellectual in quotes. I never thought of it as intellectual but as the supposed "intellectual" backbone of the dominionist movement. Brush it off all you want, it is a pretty big deal in the right wing movement, far more than evidentialism.

Hang on, are these the same Dominionists that you have a go at Dawkins et al for not addressing? The same kind of "New Atheist" that writes up posts like these (http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/08/08/michele-bachmann-dominionist/) on the Dominionist underpinnings of presidential candidates? Posts like this (http://coffeelovingskeptic.com/?p=665) hardly indicate a lack of concern over Christian Dominionism by the "New Atheist" crowd.


Never thought of Martin as NuAtheist but I've been praising his work throughout this thread!

What's "new" about the "New Atheists"? The only really new thing that I can see is that they have a younger audience.


I haven't, perhaps you can show me otherwise. I'm talking about Dennett, Hawkins, Harris and Hitchens (RIP).

Well for Dawkins, he mentions "Dominion Theology" on p.358 of The God Delusion, with reference to a letter received from an American colleague, as a rebuttal to those who accused him of interviewing "only fundamentalists" (such as Ted Haggard) for his documentary The Root Of All Evil?

Now, Dominionism may be more popular than it was at the time of The God Delusion being published, but you can hardly accuse Dawkins of being unaware of the problem. The issue here as I see it is that explicit Dominionism is but one strain of fundamentalist Christianity, and that atheists themselves disagree as to priorities.

[RadioRaheem84]

Presuppositionalism has influenced the dominionist movement. Dawkins has not addressed or tackled presuppositnalism though or presup Christians.

If Dawkins was actually worried, as he indicates in his post, he would tackle their theology.

Dominionism is but one strain, but it's the most radical strain there is and yet it's the least controversial and shrill, which is why it's remained under the radar.

Mentioning the movement but not the philosophical backbone of it, is like when liberals mention the right wing conservative movement but never mention it's ideological predecessors in the Chicago School, Austrian, etc.

Dawkins is more of the type that would endlessly debate Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, and not Thomas Sowell or Milton Friedman (had he still lived), by comparison.

I think it has to do with the fact that Dawkins is a scientist not a philosopher (for dame sure not a philosopher, he's awful) and thinks that presup is probably self evidently stupid.

[RadioRaheem84]

Now, Dominionism may be more popular than it was at the time of The God Delusion being publishedDominionism took off in the 70s. The presuppositional movement took off then with writers like Rushdoony, Gary North and Greg Bahnsen literally changing the Christian extremist landscape.

I don't even know what the big deal is with you dismissing them anyways, Nox.

Here we have a group that doesn't shy away from actually taking every word in the Bible literally and has a defense for nearly everything in it. And while it's a silly defense, it's not reduced to anything allegorical. There is no compromise here.

It doesn't make any sense why this movement should be left alone or brushed off in favor of dancing around with idiot charlatans like Falwell or the Archbishop of whatever who is literally at this point a mere ceremonial figure for decaying old Churches?

For most evangelical born again believers, which number plenty in the States, there is the issue of being "saved". Then after that there is the issue of being "discipled". At that stage people begin to choose their theology; Calvinism vs. Armenianism. Evidentalism/Classical vs. Presuppositionalism.

For any Christians with "fire in their belly" as it's referred, studying the latter (presup Calvinism) is another thing entirely. Far less shrill but far more dangerous in the end, offering the worst level of belief coupled with a sense of self righteous arrogance that their way needs to be codified in law.

In sum, here we have a group of far more influential, more powerful, more taken seriously and probably more financially backed than the shrill fundamentalist tv evangelists or the wishy washy liberal theologians which no one outside of maybe Unitarian churches cares about in the States.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Presuppositionalism has influenced the dominionist movement. Dawkins has not addressed or tackled presuppositnalism though or presup Christians.

Why should he single them out in particular? If Dominionism is as influential among US Christian fundies as you imply, then by criticising them, Dawkins by extension criticises Dominionism. If, however, Dominionism is but one current among many, then why should Dawkins single them out?


If Dawkins was actually worried, as he indicates in his post, he would tackle their theology.

Why? Theology is bullpats and I thought you agreed. Dawkins is more concerned with things like the pushing of creationism in schools, which creates a friendly environment not just for Dominionism but for other strains of Christian fundamentalism also.

One criticism of the "New Atheists" that I have seen is that they are "idealist". Wouldn't addressing theological nitty-gritties that (let's be honest) nobody but theologians and clergy really care about simply play into that criticism?


Dominionism is but one strain, but it's the most radical strain there is and yet it's the least controversial and shrill, which is why it's remained under the radar.

Except for things like the blog post I linked to, written by popular "New Atheist" blogger PZ Myers, that illustrates the Dominionist background of an aspiring US presidential candidate.

Hang around atheist blogs long enough and you'll see Dominionism mentioned. Just because Dawkins doesn't draw enough attention to them enough for your liking (considering all the other fundie-inspired crap in the US, let alone the entire world, I'm not surprised), doesn't mean that the "New Atheists" aren't aware of Dominionism.


Mentioning the movement but not the philosophical backbone of it, is like when liberals mention the right wing conservative movement but never mention it's ideological predecessors in the Chicago School, Austrian, etc.

I don't think presuppositionalism is even that sophisticated. It's more along the lines of "Allah is the one true God and Muhammad is His Prophet" - it's an affirmation of faith rather than some ideological principle or attempt to discover truth (after all, why try to discover the truth when one thinks they already have all the answers?).


Dawkins is more of the type that would endlessly debate Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, and not Thomas Sowell or Milton Friedman (had he still lived), by comparison.

Well, someone needs to publicly counter idiocy from the likes of Limbaugh, Beck et al. Why not Dawkins?


I think it has to do with the fact that Dawkins is a scientist not a philosopher (for dame sure not a philosopher, he's awful) and thinks that presup is probably self evidently stupid.

More's the pity for philosophers then, if that is how you think they should be using their time. Don't they have enough pointless distractions already?


Dominionism took off in the 70s. The presuppositional movement took off then with writers like Rushdoony, Gary North and Greg Bahnsen literally changing the Christian extremist landscape.

I don't even know what the big deal is with you dismissing them anyways, Nox.

Here we have a group that doesn't shy away from actually taking every word in the Bible literally and has a defense for nearly everything in it. And while it's a silly defense, it's not reduced to anything allegorical. There is no compromise here.

That sort of thing isn't limited to Dominionists.


It doesn't make any sense why this movement should be left alone or brushed off in favor of dancing around with idiot charlatans like Falwell or the Archbishop of whatever who is literally at this point a mere ceremonial figure for decaying old Churches?

For most evangelical born again believers, which number plenty in the States, there is the issue of being "saved". Then after that there is the issue of being "discipled". At that stage people begin to choose their theology; Calvinism vs. Armenianism. Evidentalism/Classical vs. Presuppositionalism.

In the end though, it results in the same crap; creationism in science classes and abstinence-only sex education that has shown in studies to actually increase STDs and unwanted pregnancies. That is the kind of thing that the "New Atheists" go after in my experience, and why the hell shouldn't they?


For any Christians with "fire in their belly" as it's referred, studying the latter (presup Calvinism) is another thing entirely. Far less shrill but far more dangerous in the end, offering the worst level of belief coupled with a sense of self righteous arrogance that their way needs to be codified in law.

Again, Dominionists are hardly alone among fundies for wanting their beliefs enacted into law - in fact it is a common misconception that the US was founded as a Christian nation.


In sum, here we have a group of far more influential, more powerful, more taken seriously and probably more financially backed than the shrill fundamentalist tv evangelists or the wishy washy liberal theologians which no one outside of maybe Unitarian churches cares about in the States.

As I have pointed out, whatever Dawkins has or hasn't said on the subject, it's a problem the "New Atheists" are aware of. Especially if someone of a Dominionist background aspires to presidential candidacy.

[RadioRaheem84]

Dominionism is the movement, presuppositional apologetics is the ideology/theology or philosophy behind it. Attacking dominionism when it engages in the public sphere isn't exactly attacking presuppositonal apologetics no more than attacking the Tea Party Movement is an attack on libertarianism or the Chicago School.

Like liberals who focus on single issue things, these new atheists focus on keeping the public sphere secular, which is a good thing, but it's about as useful as relying too much on how stupidly self evident their claims are.

Regardless of the facts which are in our favor by the truckloads, people will still try to rationalize what the heart wants; they want God to be true and the presup movements provides that for them regardless of how ridiculous it is.

Dawkins and the New atheist crowd might be relying too much on thinking that this is solely a matter of reason.

Hitchens came the closest of the four "horsemen" to philosophically tackling the religion as being not only morally bankrupt but utterly despicable but even he displayed sophomoric philosophy and his disdain for it showed more in spiteful color.

I still contend that Michael Martin of BU has been doing the best job so far.

[SVeach94]

The stereotypical choice is The God Delusion, though I've read God is Not Great and feel that the late, great Hitch makes a compelling case.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Dominionism is the movement, presuppositional apologetics is the ideology/theology or philosophy behind it. Attacking dominionism when it engages in the public sphere isn't exactly attacking presuppositonal apologetics no more than attacking the Tea Party Movement is an attack on libertarianism or the Chicago School.

Like liberals who focus on single issue things, these new atheists focus on keeping the public sphere secular, which is a good thing, but it's about as useful as relying too much on how stupidly self evident their claims are.

Considering the state of education in the US, I think repeating "stupidly self-evident claims" is doing a public service.


Regardless of the facts which are in our favor by the truckloads, people will still try to rationalize what the heart wants; they want God to be true and the presup movements provides that for them regardless of how ridiculous it is.

And just what the hell do you think a load of bum-scratching, navel-gazing philosophers have to offer in that department? The vast majority of people are bored to tears by philosobabble. Oh sure, there is interesting stuff if you know how and where to look, but most people don't and aren't inclined to learn, thanks to crap education and an anti-intellectual culture.


Dawkins and the New atheist crowd might be relying too much on thinking that this is solely a matter of reason.

If not just reason, then what else? Rhetoric? "New Atheists" already make use of that. Propaganda? They've put up plenty of billboards. Practice? Atheist organisations are competent in collecting funds and warm bodies to get things done.


Hitchens came the closest of the four "horsemen" to philosophically tackling the religion as being not only morally bankrupt but utterly despicable but even he displayed sophomoric philosophy and his disdain for it showed more in spiteful color.

I notice you throw around this "sophomoric philosophy" canard a lot, but what in the actual fuck does that mean at the end of the day?


I still contend that Michael Martin of BU has been doing the best job so far.

It depends on what you define as a "good job", doesn't it? I think the "New Atheists" have done much to spread awareness of atheism as a realistic alternative to having religion. The most masterful philosophical argument against presuppositionalism is useless if the vast majority of religious people (who are also the majority of people, at least in the US) think atheists are amoral monsters of some kind, because that means that only people who agree with the author in the first place are likely to read it.

Books like The God Delusion are intended for a general audience, which is almost always unfamiliar with philosophy. Since it became a bestseller, I'd consider that a success.

[RadioRaheem84]

I notice you throw around this "sophomoric philosophy" canard a lot, but what in the actual fuck does that mean at the end of the day?


I am under the impression that you think Hitch made some masterful arguments against Christianity? I am not talking about witty jabs here.

It's not a fucking canard, Nox. I am how deep is your level of ass kissing to these New Atheists. Sometimes you sound more like an extreme liberal than anything else.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I am under the impression that you think Hitch made some masterful arguments against Christianity? I am not talking about witty jabs here.

I'm not familiar with Hitchens' work in particular, but you seemed to be implying that was not limited to Hitchens.

I'm more familiar with Dawkins and Dennett.


It's not a fucking canard, Nox.

Then fucking show me, Raheem, don't just tell me. the internet is huge and search engines are hit-and-miss.


I am how deep is your level of ass kissing to these New Atheists. Sometimes you sound more like an extreme liberal than anything else.

Whereas my impression is that you're stamping your feet because the "New Atheists" don't do their thing the way you like.

As for "extreme liberal", I'm not familiar with that ideology.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

What's the best book, doc or journal that disputes Christianity?

The Bible.

[RadioRaheem84]

I'm not familiar with Hitchens' work in particular, but you seemed to be implying that was not limited to Hitchens.

I'm more familiar with Dawkins and Dennett.



Dennett is the strongest of the four (with the exception of his ridiculous "brights" idea). Dawkins is fairly good. I enjoy his work. I just think that he has made a campaign out of ridiculing Christians because of their lack of appreciation of scientific fact.

As Philip Johnson (one of the most odious of the evidentialist clan) puts it, it's a matter of differing philosophical outlooks.

Hitchens and Harris to me are just blowhards that offer nothing constructive.



Then fucking show me, Raheem, don't just tell me. the internet is huge and search engines are hit-and-miss.



You have never once heard him at one of his debates with Dinesh D'Souza? Saying the cult of personality around Stalin could be deemed a religion therefore Stalinist Russia was not an atheist regime, literally taking D'Souza's argument to the contrary at face value. I mean do you really need examples knowing the guy's rhetoric?



Whereas my impression is that you're stamping your feet because the "New Atheists" don't do their thing the way you like.



No, more like they're not as constructive as they would like to think they are or for that matter relevant.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Bertrand Russell was an actual philosopher/atheist. Which seems to be p. thin on the ground. But he was also a proponent of Free Trade and anti-imperialism so do the footwork from there.

the best part of trying to engage philosophically w/atheists is that they always go back to trying to disprove that they need to have any sort of systemic reasoning behind non-belief. their non-belief becomes like a religion.

i'd say the best thing you could do is just read the new testament and proceed.

[dodger]

I've written a short book on the subject...if I may show off my intellectual wares on Revleft.(No infraction advertising perlease) :blushing:

"When yerz dead, yer dead".

That's the content....I'm looking for a title, any of you bright things on here got any ideas for a snappy hook or title? I thought it might make a good holiday or plane journey read. This debate has been going on in England for 700 yrs, it still has legs, it seems.
Below is an outline of a communist speech at South Place Ethical Society, Conway Hall,2006. Originally a religious debating society ....they finally decided there was no God but blessed Londoners with a space with wonderful acoustics.

http://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=conway%20hall&source=web&cd=8&sqi=2&ved=0CFYQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSouth_P lace_Ethical_Society&ei=nw_2TviDN4zPrQfRw6XxDw&usg=AFQjCNHoLao1NAf9pparW-amyhvc8CrOQA


The British version of the Communist anthem the Internationale is unique. The original French simply says "Make a clean sweep of the past", and so, more or less, do other versions. The fight against superstition, against unreason, is more deeply rooted in Britain and its history than in any other country.

We see examples of superstitions all around us, most of it harmless. But a lot is far from harmless, linked to an attack on industry and science.

Many of the world's finest scientists were people with religious belief – Galileo, Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, for example. But like all proper scientists they didn't let their beliefs get in the way of their science, and they didn't let religion stop them.

Religion is an organised, structured hierarchy that seeks control. Given free rein, religions want to control everything: what you read, what you say, when and what you eat and drink; and they want even more to control your children.

Look what happened to John Wycliffe, who committed the unpardonable sin of translating the Bible into English, the language of the people, so that they could read it and have it read to them. He said that the Bible, rather than the Church, was the sole authority on what was right and what was wrong. Worse, he did it during the period of intense class antagonism that followed on from the Black Death and culminated in the Peasants' Revolt of 1381.

A year after the suppression of the revolt, the Church declared his theories heretical, leading to a ban on his translated Bible – which had been hand copied by an army of Oxford scholars, 16 copies, an extraordinary venture of organised resistance to orthodoxy.

Wycliffe died in 1384, but the Church gnawed and fretted over his influence. In 1428, with the Archbishop of Canterbury looking on, his bones were exhumed, then burnt, then thrown into a river.

The next translator of the Bible into English, William Tyndale, wisely did it from the Continent, but paid with his life anyway in Belgium, after he had translated the New Testament into glorious English, the St James version. But change was in the air.

When Henry VIII came to the throne in 1509, the Catholic Church held a central place in the governance of England, with bishops chosen by the Pope, its own courts, control of the entire education system, such as it was, and occupying the centre of much legal and social life, especially in the countryside.

By the end of the 1500s, a lot had changed. The monasteries were swept away, and along with them swathes of corruption and vice. The church was no longer ruled from a foreign country. Public schools were set up to be outside the control of the monasteries, hence public. And a Bible in English meant that now you didn't have to know Latin in order to read it – and criticise it.

Five hundred years ago, we dealt with our own home grown mullahs. By the way, what's so wrong with Islamophobia? Hating people for their religion is wrong, but what's wrong about hating a religion, or all religions? What's wrong with hating an idea? It's not atheists who go round stoning people or burning them at the stake.

Church attendance
Where are we 500 years after Henry VIII? We started the 21st century with a census which, for the first time, required people to state what their religion was. 71.6% of the population describe themselves as Christian. The next largest section is "No religion" 15.5% , 7.3% refused to answer, 2.7% said they were Muslim, 1% Hindu, 0.6% Sikh, 0.5% Jewish.

A major opinion poll in 2000, however, found two-thirds people between 18 and 24 said they had no religious affiliation – and all of them would, by law, have been subjected to a "daily act of worship" at school – introduced by the Thatcher government and maintained by this one. A 2004 poll found that 44% of UK citizens believe in God, while 35% don't – presumably the rest are not sure.

The disparity between the census and the poll data has been put down to what's called "cultural Christianity", whereby many who don't believe in God still identify with the religion they were brought up in. Britain is one of the least religious countries in the world. An avowed atheist can be elected to union posts, a council, or parliament. Nobody cares.

We also started the century with an attempt to outlaw criticism of religion. So why, given our past and our present, are religions and superstition making a comeback? Why have we just had an education secretary who belongs to Opus Dei and a prime minister who prays with George Bush?

The superstition that religion is somehow nice needs to be laid to rest. Just a glance at the Bible or the Koran reveals grisly calls for slaughter and oppression of women.

Consider the opposite of religion – science. The development of trade and industry that led to the industrial revolution changed thought to a staggering degree, and in turn was changed by thought. It couldn't be anything other. In feudal agriculture, success or failure was often in the hands of inanimate forces – climate, pests, disease. But when you are making a wheel, or a barrel, or a sword, rational thought is in control. That combination of industry and rational thought equalled a unique contribution to science in the 17th century.

Britain's first great scientist was Francis Bacon, born in 1561, ten years after the law about compulsory church attendance. Bacon invented scientific observation. It had two parts: first, the mind must be freed of superstition and prejudice, the idols, he called them. Then the constructive side: record what's there, to what degree, and what isn't. Bacon became Lord Chancellor. Compare this with Italy, where around the same time Galileo was forced to recant his scientific observation and spend the last ten years of his life under house arrest.

Back to Britain. In the 17th century British science really took off: Newton, Robert Hooke, Robert Boyle – all of them described scientific laws that are still used today. And the British scientists started to get organised. At first informally, and then, in 1660, a dozen of them got together after a lecture by Christopher Wren and formed the Royal Society. Five years later they started the Philosophical Transactions, now the world's oldest scientific journal in continuous publi-cation. The Royal Society is still a powerful voice against superstition.

The materialist tradition in Britain was strong by then, and grew stronger with the Industrial Revolution.


Image of witchcraft – swap a few things around and it's not too far from the green fundamentalist view of science! Lunar Society
The best example of the link between science and industry is the think tank of the industrial revolution, the Birmingham Lunar society. In the 1770s, Erasmus Darwin helped set up this social club for the great scientists and industrialists of the day. The society met at full moon, supposedly so that they could find their way home afterwards. They called themselves lunatics, but they were far from mad.

Members of the society included Joseph Priestley (the discoverer of oxygen and inventor of the indiarubber eraser and carbonated water), Matthew Boulton ("the creator of Birmingham") and a number of other eminent inventors and engineers.

In Britain today, our scientific heritage, our way of looking at the world, is under threat from four distinct but often allied fronts. The religious bigots, who seek to run our education system and mould the minds of our children; the straight anti-science bigots, green fundamentalists and the animal rights extremists, who think that science is evil and progress is bad; the anti-medicine freaks, who are so anti-vaccine that they have caused a measles epidemic in Britain and, finally, from deindustrialisation.

Education is a vital area for the churches. They believe that they can control how people think, which is an illusion. They know that they can force people into church by tying admissions criteria to church attendance. And there are so many different churches, sects, mosques, synagogues, all trying to use the education system to get their claws into the country's children. Blair and Kelly have encouraged this, through the new sponsored academies.

The great split between Catholic and Protestant was of enormous significance in the liberation of thought that took place from the 16th century on. However, the Bible itself became a new form of dogmatism – for those who held that it represented the only truth. That negative aspect has never gone away and it is there in the Bible belt of the US, where Protestant fundamentalists are waging their war against science.

That same fundamentalism has found an echo in the fringe remnants of Protestantism in Britain, and in the cults imported from Africa – like the one that nearly killed the 8-year-old girl from Angola who was thought to be a witch. It has found an echo also in Islam, when in February some Muslim medical students at Guy's Hospital circulated leaflets dismissing Darwin's theories as false. You have to hope they don't end up as your doctor.

Anti-science
One of the saddest aspects of this anti-science drive is that Britain has fewer aspiring scientists. In the six years leading up to December 2004, 79 science and engineering departments were closed. Just a day after Newcastle was named "city of science" by Gordon Brown, its university said it was closing its pure physics course. Sussex University is trying to close its famous chemistry department in a move being opposed by its students and academics internal and external.

But the universities are under pressure. Science is expensive, and the pool of potential scientists is drying up alarmingly. Last year the Royal Society gave evidence to the government that A level entries in 2004 were, relative to 1991, 16% lower in Chemistry, and 22% lower in Mathematics and 34% down for Physics. In January the Royal Society of Chemistry warned of the threat to Scottish science due to a lack of chemistry teachers.

Part of the anti-science movement is not related to religion, at least, not formally: the green fundamentalists who think progress is a bad thing. They have fanned out into quasi-sect-like bodies that attack any kind of vaccine. Vaccines have eliminated smallpox from the world, and are about to eliminate polio. How can that be a bad thing?

They also attack GM crops with a quasi religious mania, matched only by the Animal Liberation Front. In their attack they feed off ignorance. Eating GM crops means eating DNA! Well, it does, of course. You eat genes every time you eat a carrot, organic or GM. Or anything that once had life.

There are huge commercial interests behind GM, but given that rural women in sub-Saharan Africa spend 80 per cent of their waking lives weeding, perhaps crops manipulated to be resistant to pesticides might not, in principle, be a bad idea. The problem with the green fundamentalists is that to them all progress is bad. Most of them don't listen, and don't debate. Yet they have tremendous power. Look at what happened to Shell when it tried to dispose of a disused oil platform, Brent Spar, in the north-east Atlantic in 1995. It got crucified.

And then it turned out that Greenpeace had got its figures wrong, claiming there were 5,500 tonnes of oil still in the platform. Shell said there were 50 tonnes, and no one believed them. An independent survey proved the real figure was between 75 and 100 tonnes, or less than 2% of the Greenpeace estimate.

But Shell was forced by worldwide boycotts into an alternative disposal that was far more environmentally hazardous than its original plan.

Many of the green fundamentalists persist in their opposition to nuclear power, saying instead that "alternative energy sources" will do the trick, which is patently nonsense. Even the green guru and founder of the Gaia movement, James Lovelock, recognises this. Patrick Moore, the American, not the astronomer but one of the founders of Greenpeace, told a US congressional subcommittee in April last year: "Some of the features of this environmental extremism are: environmental extremists tend to be anti-human. Humans are characterised as a cancer on the earth."

Chemicals
Anything chemical is bad, we are told, although we ourselves are built on chemicals. When Rachel Carson wrote her classic book Silent Spring in 1962, it led to a worldwide ban on DDT, despite the lack of evidence then or since that DDT properly applied was damaging human or bird health. Yet the worldwide ban on it has led to the unnecessary death, from malaria, of at least a million children in India alone.

The fourth and final attack – perhaps the most significant – on our scientific heritage and our tradition of rational thought is from the deindustrialisation of Britain.

One of the great capitalist superstitions is the idea that the City "creates wealth". It doesn't create anything. It lives off wealth created elsewhere.

Are we changing from a nation that made its living through making things, through interaction with material reality, to a nation that makes its living through financial wheeler-dealing, where fortunes are made from speculation and futures, money out of crops that have never been sown, ores that have never been mined? From a nation that needed science and rationalism to survive and grow to one whose economy is sinking, and which will drag us back to superstition?

As communists, we call on people to see life as it really is, not clouded by superstition. Reclaim our heritage. Away with all your superstitions!

[black magick hustla]

the best part of trying to engage philosophically w/atheists is that they always go back to trying to disprove that they need to have any sort of systemic reasoning behind non-belief. their non-belief becomes like a religion.


not true. on the contrary, there is no reason to believe in god at all. i always found that the reason why people believe in god, especially the more sophisticated believers, is that they find something teleological in the universe. however the universe suprisingly doesnt care about them

[Franz Fanonipants]

however the universe suprisingly doesnt care about themironically, i agree entirely.

[Black_Rose]

not true. on the contrary, there is no reason to believe in god at all. i always found that the reason why people believe in god, especially the more sophisticated believers, is that they find something teleological in the universe. however the universe suprisingly doesnt care about them


Hmm... I now think the teleological argument had little to do with why people believe in God. I thought that most people believed because religion is thoroughly ensconced in many social and cultural institutions, and that most people are not introspective enough to question religion and this indirectly promotes its uninhibited propagation.

[Franz Fanonipants]

nope, i'm p. introspective and i am a full on nicean creed brainwashed crazy so...

[RadioRaheem84]

nope, i'm p. introspective and i am a full on nicean creed brainwashed crazy so...

Franz, how do you reconcile belief with Marxism/Materialism? Honest question.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Franz, how do you reconcile belief with Marxism/Materialism? Honest question.

It's fair bro. God has nothing to do w/the material world, which is to say that although I DO believe in the existence of an authentic Christ, miracles, etc., I also know that for the most part you can't see God's hand in the world. Instead, material determinism dictates the reality I can perceive. When it comes to issues of the soul, whatever, that's shit I can't perceive.

Following from that, I agree with Marx. My ideas about God, my religious positions on sin, etc. are all culturally/materially constructed as a response to the upside down world. But that to me, and this is a totally personal conviction that is in the end probably illogical, does not dampen my faith. I believe because I know that even in the weak snippets that we come up with to justify our existence based on mat'l experience there's something else that's mysterious and bigger than my own perceptions.

[Decolonize The Left]

Nietzche's The Antichrist (http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/19322). Pretty much the best critique of Christianity you can find.
Emma Goldman offers a simple essay on the topic in The Philosophy of Atheism (http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/goldman.htm).
Bertrand Russell takes on the whole thing in this lecture Why I Am Not A Christian (http://users.drew.edu/%7Ejlenz/whynot.html).

I'm not sure if that's what you're looking for, but there you go.

- August

[Black_Rose]

It's fair bro. God has nothing to do w/the material world, which is to say that although I DO believe in the existence of an authentic Christ, miracles, etc., I also know that for the most part you can't see God's hand in the world. Instead, material determinism dictates the reality I can perceive. When it comes to issues of the soul, whatever, that's shit I can't perceive.

Following from that, I agree with Marx. My ideas about God, my religious positions on sin, etc. are all culturally/materially constructed as a response to the upside down world. But that to me, and this is a totally personal conviction that is in the end probably illogical, does not dampen my faith. I believe because I know that even in the weak snippets that we come up with to justify our existence based on mat'l experience there's something else that's mysterious and bigger than my own perceptions.

Ooo... a Tertullian: "I believe because it is absurd"


I respect your religious views, and I am not merely saying this as a general expression of religious tolerance, since I do not respect the views of conservative Christians.

I think that if I became a Catholic, I would harbor similar views to yours, but perhaps I would not be a revolutionary (although I would still be a leftist) because I realize the transient nature of the material world in contrast with the prospect of eternal life with Christ the King, thus focus my attention on the City of God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_God_%28book%29) (and humble obedience to him* in this temporal realm) would, at least partially, displace my interest worldly political affairs. Unlike many conservative Christians, I probably would exhibit mercy and concern to the economically disenfranchised, and respect the views of sincere and earnest unbelievers not in communion with him.

*I choose to use the lower case personal pronoun because I'm a secular woman, this is a secular political forum, and I outsource this rule by invoking Wikipedia's policy of using the lower case when referring to the person(s) of the Abrahamic deity.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I have a good friend who's a lapsed Baptist that claims that position. I respect it a lot, the recognition of the transience of the world is important.

At the same time, fuck that. Friends of mine from high school died from heroin, violence, and endemic poverty. As an internally colonized person in the US, I know that shit happened because of capitalism and imperialism. I want it to stop.

[Elysian]

Franz, how do you reconcile belief with Marxism/Materialism? Honest question.

I know it wasnt asked of me, but out of curiosity ... Must one be a materialist in order to be an anarchist? What are the other prerequisites to become anarchist?

[RadioRaheem84]

I believe because I know that even in the weak snippets that we come up with to justify our existence based on mat'l experience there's something else that's mysterious and bigger than my own perceptions.

This is the thing that keeps from being a full blown atheist.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I know it wasnt asked of me, but out of curiosity ... Must one be a materialist in order to be an anarchist? What are the other prerequisites to become anarchist?

you have to accept a materialist view of history and causation to be a marxist. i think anarchism is far more accepting of idealism.

at the same time, it also makes anarchists way more anti-religion because they can believe in a 'war of ideas' beyond class struggle.

[Franz Fanonipants]

This is the thing that keeps from being a full blown atheist.

yeah bro. i mean the only way to know for sure is to die. but you know.

[Black_Rose]

I have a good friend who's a lapsed Baptist that claims that position. I respect it a lot, the recognition of the transience of the world is important.

At the same time, fuck that. Friends of mine from high school died from heroin, violence, and endemic poverty. As an internally colonized person in the US, I know that shit happened because of capitalism and imperialism. I want it to stop.
Is your friend currently a Christian?

[Franz Fanonipants]

Is your friend currently a Christian?

yeah, but he's "down on church and up on Jesus."

[Black_Rose]

yeah, but he's "down on church and up on Jesus."
I don't know what he will get from the arbitrage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergence_trade) of long Jesus, short Church positions.

[NGNM85]

Franz, how do you reconcile belief with Marxism/Materialism? Honest question.

He can't, because it's impossible.

[Franz Fanonipants]

He can't, because it's impossible.

that's rich coming from a liberal

[NGNM85]

I know it wasnt asked of me, but out of curiosity ... Must one be a materialist in order to be an anarchist? What are the other prerequisites to become anarchist?

Anarchism is a metaphysically materialist philosophy. As for the fundamentals of Anarchism, I'd first consult this; http://infoshop.org/page/AnAnarchistFAQ

If you have any further questions; you can PM myself, or any of the other Anarchists on the forum. You could also check out the Anarchist usergroups, and any of the myriad threads devoted to the subject.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Anarchism is a metaphysically materialist philosophy.

snrrk

[NGNM85]

that's rich coming from a liberal

When are you going to say something intelligent?

[Franz Fanonipants]

When are you going to say something intelligent?

around the time that you realize you're a second-class citizen on this forum because you're terrible

[NGNM85]

around the time that you realize you're a second-class citizen on this forum because you're terrible

The only members I’ve had serious problems with, or rather, that have a serious problem with me, is a small coterie of about four, or five users, including yourself, that appear to be obsessed with me, for some reason, but that’s all it is. This is just infantile, high-school nonsense. Back to the subject at hand…

[Franz Fanonipants]

The only members I’ve had serious problems with, or rather, that have a serious problem with me, is a small coterie of about four, or five users, including yourself, that appear to be obsessed with me, for some reason, but that’s all it is. This is just infantile, high-school nonsense. Back to the subject at hand…

i'm not obsessed w/you at all bro. i find you entertaining, but tbh you trouble my thoughts about 0 times a day.

e: black magick hustla otoh i am obsessed with

[RadioRaheem84]

LOL. I was just going to post; how does he reconcile his liberal idealism with materialism? :lol:

[Franz Fanonipants]

LOL. I was just going to post; how does he reconcile his liberal idealism with materialism? :lol:

he's an anarchist

[NGNM85]

LOL. I was just going to post; how does he reconcile his liberal idealism with materialism? :lol:

I'm a metaphysical materialist, meaning I believe in a material universe, a universe of things. I don't subscribe to historical materialism, or dialectical materialism.

[Ostrinski]

i'm a metaphysical materialist,http://d37nnnqwv9amwr.cloudfront.net/entries/icons/original/000/005/545/OpoQQ.jpg
a what

[NGNM85]

a what

From Google Answers;

'In philosophy, materialism is that form of physicalism which holds
that the only thing that can truly be said to exist is matter; that
fundamentally, all things are composed of material and all phenomena
are the result of material interactions. Science uses a working
assumption, sometimes known as methodological naturalism, that
observable events in nature are explained only by natural causes
without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural.
As a theory, materialism belongs to the class of monist ontology. As
such, it is different from ontological theories based on dualism or
pluralism. In terms of singular explanations of the phenomenal
reality, materialism stands in sharp contrast to idealism.


Metaphysical naturalism is any worldview in which nature is all there
is and all things supernatural (which stipulatively includes as well
as spirits and souls, non-natural values, and universals as they are
commonly conceived) do not exist. It is often simply referred to as
naturalism, and occasionally as philosophical naturalism or
ontological naturalism, though all those terms have other meanings as
well, with naturalism often referring to methodological naturalism.'