Sojourner553

But do you agree that Marxist communism is considered a philosophy (ideology) that is NOT based on a God authority figure?

True, not all atheists are/were communists, but all Marxist communists were basically atheists. Karl Marx was an avowed atheist. He modified Hegel's "dialectical materialism" to remove God and replace it with a secular source --(mystical yes, but based on a Godhead, no)

Marx was also an avowed elitist who sought total power to enforce his ideology: The masses were simply too ignorant, AND too pre-occupied with their day-to-day lives in earning a living, to be trusted with running a government. What was needed was an "enlightened minority" who would seize power on behalf of the working masses. Unlike a democracy where worker's rights could be weakened at a moment's notice through flip-flops in popular opinion, communism would be preserved eternally by this elite governmental body--whose only goal would be to improve society.

Actually as far as I know, Bertrand Russell never questioned whether Marxism was technically atheistic. Now he did claim that Marxism communism operated similar to a religion--because its members were REQUIRED to believe in a creed that believes some invisible force is moving civilization towards a progressive path over time. Thus, Marxist communists were, in effect, REPLACING the divine "God" of theology with a veneration and blind faith in the Party's leadership and direction.

Now, I think you must have encountered (as I have) atheists who were still mystical (ie believing in powerful external forces), even though they did not believe per se in them being directed by a “God”. Joseph Campbell was one famous example that quickly comes to mind. Napoleon was another. Therefore I don't think Russell was claiming to "redefine" what an atheist was (ie with no belief in ANY mystical-like force).


Voltaire once remarked that before he would debate, everyone must first define their terms.

Here are my definitions.

Everyone holds some philosophy whether they realize it or not: A philosophy is a view on the nature of the world PLUS an ethical or political doctrine as to the best way of living.

Philosophies may be categorized between those that are ideologies, and those which are not. Using Hannah Arendt's definition, an ideology is a philosophy that "claims to possess either the key to history, or the solution for all the 'riddles of the universe' or the intimate knowledge of the hidden universal law which are supposed to rule nature and man." Typically followers of an ideology (ideologues) are insistent that ONLY their belief system can solve the ultimate problems of the world/universe.

Many religions could qualify as an "ideology"-- since they believe in a powerful deity who can solve all the "riddles of the universe". (One important exception are deists--ie those who believe in a powerful deity, but not necessarily one that intervenes in the daily affairs of humans.)

Practically- speaking, only CONSERVATIVE groups view their LEADERS as having perfect and exclusive UNDERSTANDING of God's Will--which will lead mankind towards some utopia-like state if they can only gain absolute power. More moderate to liberal religious groups believe they worship a perfect God and follow His essential doctrines. Yet, they are more open-minded towards the possibility that they do not understand ALL of his "Will"-- and how this translates into daily living. Politically, this makes them more TOLERANT towards other groups who did not believe the same way that they do.

Ideologies may be based on atheistic systems! Russian Marxist communism was an ideology--because its members have claimed that there is an invisible force progressively moving civilization towards a workman's utopia. If an atheistic group believes their philosophy will solve all of mankind's problems (essentially a state of "utopia") -- then this group of atheists may be appropriately dubbed as "ideologues".

Again, the point is that BOTH religious and nonreligious adherents may be ideologues. A key mark of the ideologue is his/her INTOLERANCE towards all other points of view--because they believe that "their" FUNDAMENTAL outlook on the world will create a future heaven-like OR utopia existence--and that ALL others views will lead to a hell-like existence!



This is playing games with words and definitions. A number of variations could be employed: “Fundamentalism” describes a broad category of ideologies. “Communist” could be used as an adjective to further qualify which type of ideology.

Alternatively, “theist” or “atheist” could be used to further qualify whether the ideology: (1) follows a God authority (in the case of a theist) or (2) some other authority (the State, or an invisible force pushing all mankind towards a workman’s utopia, etc) not based on a Godlike authority.


Atheists CAN have fundamentalist ideologies too, which they will be willing to die for (or better yet) cause others to die to perpetuate their ideology.

I do agree atheists fundamentalist have one edge over their theist counterparts: They are unlikely to purposely destroy the earth, because they do not believe in another supernatural realm on which to build their “utopia”. However, in all other aspects, atheistic fundamentalists are fully capable of creating a political and social hell on earth.

Sojourner

Dr Rick

Hello, Sojourner;

While it would be technically correct to assert that "Non-Swedish fundamentalists flew jetliners into the World Trade Center", it is misleadingly incomplete in that it tells us nothing about what motivated them and implies that they acted because they weren't Swedes. It is more complete to say "Non-Swedish theist fundamentalists flew jetliners into the World Trade Center"; and still more accurate to simply say "Islamic fundamentalists flew jetliners into the World Trade Center".

Referring to someone as an "athiest fundamentalist" tells us that the person has no god-belief but does not give us any insight into what motivates them. The term "atheistic communist fundamentalist" is more complete but misleadingly verbose in that it implies that all these descriptive elements motivate the person. A lack of belief cannot motivate a person, and in this case, it is the belief in communism that is the motivator.

If one is motivated strongly by communism, refering to him as a "communist fundamentalist" is an accurate descriptive term; the term "athiest fundamentalist" is not.

Rick

brighid

Why is it that when addressing a specific issue, in these case the Inquisitions that we must also discuss other atrocities? Does communism have any actual relevance as to why and what happened during the times in question? Does atheism have anything to do with the root cause of the methods of torture and other “proper” procedures instituted to force a confession? Or are we discussing a very specific time frame, very specific conditions, under the control of very specific men, theologies and governments? Why must the accusation always rise that Protestants, Communists, Buddhists and Atheists have done the same or similar things? Isn’t communism an economic system and atheism a lack of belief in God? How are the TWO relevant to a discussion of THIS particular issue? It only serves to obfuscate and take away from the actual debate at hand.

How does anyone actually conclude that all of Christendom, including present day Christians and Catholics are being held accountable because we are discussing the horrors of the Crusades, Inquisitions, etc? Does Christendom have such a martyr complex that they are unable to look at this situation for what it was, what motivated it and how to prevent this from every happening again with the whole of Christendom without feeling personally attacked? Whose problem is that really? Especially since the same sorts of horrors are still occurring today, not only in Christian/Catholic led horrors but also by and large by other religiously motivated human indignities, tortures and murders?

I posted an emotional response to this thread because I found much of what was said in regard to the “history” of the Inquisitions and some of the personal conclusions drawn by Bede to be extremely offensive to my moral sensibilities. I will not apologize for that. I did not accuse the whole of Christendom (past and present) for having equal responsibility. I merely declared my disgust and the obvious. When I was a practicing Catholic, heavily involved with the Church my reaction was EXACTLY the same as it is now. I have never been able to warp my mind around such events, religiously motivated or otherwise. But I am more deeply disgusted when such atrocities are committed in the name of any God, but particularly in the name of THEE God. Allegedly possessed of THEE Truth, and a completely perfect deity leading the hand, thought and action of the Church through the mechanism of the Holy Spirit. Is that really uncalled for? Isn’t there to be a greater sense of moral outrage when the murderers are said to be led by the hand of their God?

When I hear a person say – Oh, it really wasn’t that bad – only tens of thousands were killed – my brain feels as if it is about to explode! ONLY tens of thousands? Good grief people … nothing, no amount of understanding can make this or any similar situation “not so bad.”

So, let us actually discuss, debate and challenge each other on the Inquisitions, Crusades, witch hunts, etc. ONLY and leave all the extraneous, irrelevant non-issues (such as communism and atheism) in another discussion that actually addresses the relevant issues.

All the Catholics and Protestants in the world aren’t be attacked by this or any other discussion regarding Catholic and Christian atrocities of antiquity. So onward Christian soldiers …

Brighid

Dr Rick

Brighid, I agree with everything you said in your post except this part.

Imo, these acts are equally repugnant regardless of the underlying ideology. You are otherwise absolutely right: that other ideologies may compel people to committ atrocities does not mitigate the one that inspired the Inquisitions, nor do attempts to blame atheism for other terrible deeds change the religious motivations behind them.

Rick

brighid

I understand your position … they are equally repugnant. How (un)biased of you ... you evil atheist


I suppose it might be some sort of superiority complex held over by all my years in the Catholic Church and they deeply ingrained idea that because of being a “Catholic” I was somehow morally superior to everyone else, including other Christians because of the Holy Spirit leading the One True Church … and blah, blah, blah, …God is Love, Perfect, All Knowing … and blah, blah, blah … so I expect that an Institution that invests so much in the idea that they are the ONLY Church possessed of the whole truth and directly guided by the Spirit of their Perfect Deity might be able to rise itself above the moral standard of all those not possessed of such favor … sorry … am I ranting today? It might have been the nearly 200 lb TV that found a resting place on my ankle this weekend … but … nah …

Brighid

Amos

Good idea Brighid and let's hope that this brings some comfort to your resentment and bitterness against the Catholic church that hurts you a lot more than it does all the other Catholics put together (in case you wondered about this). Btw, how's your foot?

Before we can discuss witches a definition should be given to that which at one time transformed humans into witches. Some will argue that they never existed because they just can't see how people fly through midheaven on brooms or even brew up their crafty recipes in large stewpots in the darkness of night.

Let me suggest to you that these are graphic images of metaphors that describe a reality. This same reality is recognized here at the secular web and is heavily defended in "Secular Lifestyle and Support." There is also a library devoted to testimonies about people who at one time were born again bible fanatics that crashed and are now flaunting their dirty laundry for everyone to see. You will also recognize that there are many such movements at work in the USA and they all try to help people who are now trying to leave such extremely oppressive situations. Many books are written on this by ex preachers such as Barker and many others. As a side note, have you noticed that blondegoddess is already concerned about the custody of her children while she has never yet mentionned the word divorce. I find this tragic and I hope to be wrong here.

Now that we have identified the effect of witchcraft we can soon identify those who where at one time called witches. We can also see why we ourselves here in this BB do not suffer a witch to live as witch and would like to see all of them crash into some safe haven where they will find relief from their mental anguish and pain.

For clarity I will explain the flying broom image. This was the handle whereon witches soared through midheaven. Midheaven is between heaven and earth which is equal to the saved/sinner complex that tears 'saved sinners' apart. The broom image is the recipe for salvation and the brushwood are the daily scriptures burned to keep them soaring through midheaven. Their verbiage is found in Rev.14:6-12 in case you wish to read about it and the word 'midheaven' is found in verse 6.

. . . And the different recipies of salvation that are brewed up in the stewpot during the darkness of night. These are all variants of sola scriptura salvation that have been conjured up by the angel of light (Lucifer) to help further their cause which has since become known as the Great Commision but was never to spread beyond the mind of the person involved. In other words, we must transform our own 'world' and not the world around us.

The stake image is just where born again people will suffer and burn with the desire for atonement but since God was never part of this plan their voice will not be heard and therefore they will perish nonetheless. Spontaneous combustion is the true picture here.

According to me this is the only relevant issue and if I transport the image presented here to the time of the Reformation you migth even agree that not even one witch shall be suffered to live and nobody has ever suggested that a which should be suffered to die. So please, before you drag in your own perversion let's clarify and be sure that we are talking about the same thing.

brighid

Oh, I wouldn't say I am bitter against the Church as much as I am deeply disgusted that such things have happened and I become morally outraged whenever I see them. Unfortunately, the present day Church seems to create new things to be morally outraged about.

The foot is fine. Thankfully just some scraped skin and a bruise. It feels better today.

I have to be off (on my broomstick no less ) and will take some time to read and or respond to your post further. Maybe Amos you can come up with some proof that these sorts of witches exist, have said powers, etc. so theist and atheist alike can agree on their actual existence and therefore have a more fruitful debate!

Brighid

Amos

Sorry for giving you that opportunity. Why must I always add feul to fire. Wretched me.Their powers today are not different that they ever were. But look at the effect it has on "born again-spirit filled" people and compare their deconversion with the deconversion of a cold Catholic or a cold protestant (eg. United), and see the difference between them. Of course you don't know because you have never been 'on fire' for the Lord but at best worked (and worked hard with all respect) for the church and the church alone-- even if this was done to seek favor with God and men. Notice that my beef is not against protestans per se, but against the holy rolling born again movement. I am reluctant to include all charismatics because some of them do deserve some respect. However, they too are stuck in a rut and will sooner or later discover this for themselves.

I don't want to add that I know 'them' and know them well but from what I see around me there is good reason to believe that I am correct. In fact, let those who work in mental institutions add their point of view and you will find that witchcraft as I describe it will land many people under their care.

Sojourner553

Because posters got off topic by making GLOBAL statements about Christianity as evil by nature.

But don’t take it from me, here is Peter Kirby

I’ll give you a few examples from this post to refresh your memory:


*per Amergin
Both of us are only scraping the surface of the evils inflicted by those who worship the Christian God.


*Per Dr. Rick
The history of religion, including Christianity, is one of cruelty and oppression…
As in the past, Christianity and all of religion to this day inflicts terror and war on the hapless people caught in the grasp of superstition and hate.

*Per Dr. Rick:
Christianity has caused suffering and death for millions and millions of people…
It is a source of suffering and death.

*Per NOGO:
So what if someone killed a doctor for performing abortions
So what if Ben Laden decided that God wants him to punish us infidels.
So what if the crusades were misguided.
So what if even today many Christians still have such demons inside them.
Religion is not responsible for all this.


The point being when others got off the specifics of the post to rant generalities, the whole post descended to the level of a food fight. That is when Peter and 99Percent kicked the post off the Biblical Criticism and Archeology section!!!!!!!!

So why are you REALLY acting so surprised???


As usual you are playing petty games with words!

The connotation in which I was speaking was regarding the GENERAL categorization of PHILOSOPHIES/IDEOLOGIES . ** You switched the topic to specific EVENTS or individuals. **

When discussing individuals, the curious observer would indeed want to know as MUCH SPECIFICS AS POSSIBLE.


I would argue your examples stopped short on this. Why?

*“Islamic fundamentalist”? Why not Saudi Arabian fundamentalists or Al Qaeda fundamentalists ??

* “communist fundamentalists”? What country? Exactly what kind of communist? (Remember this is supposed to tell us as close as possible the “motive of the person.”)

A communist could refer to Stalinism or Maoism – even to Israeli kibbutzim (communal) living!!! Which is why just the term "communist" is much too vague.


Back to the main point: you dishonestly changed the venue from a general discussion of ideologue categories to one on specific individuals (which would merit a different discussion).

Now if you maintain there is only ONE general categorization system that EVERYONE MUST follow...

Then I will tell you, you are sounding a lot like Bede!!!

HELLO...

Sojourner

beyelzu

sojourner,

i think that many atheists naturally attack christianity cuz we are so tired of christians stating all the wonderful things that christianity has given the world. like anytime someone who is christian does something good it is for christian reasons. so we point out that often people do bad things in the name of religion. also, living in a christian society, i think that most people come to atheism through reason, and if that is so they are not dogmatic. i veiw dogma to be the opposite of reason. now i realize that some communist countries were technically atheist but they were also dogmatic. which is not a trait that i find in atheists here on these forums. most atheists here prize themselves on their reason. and you only have to watch most of the fairly pitiful attempts of xians using strawmen and logical fallacies left and right to see a marked difference in styles of arguments. perhaps because many of us have been asked from when we first announced our atheism,"why dont you believe in god" now few christians are asked why they do believe in god.