Hilter/Stalin/Mao/Marx & atheism?

[a-train]

I get it that you hate capitalism.  That's fine.  But when you make statements that are just plain dumb and 180 degrees off, expect to be called on it.  You're not allowed to make arguments based on crazy definitions that nobody but you accepts.

Wilson, the definition of Capitalism as the laissez faire market economy is not always used, especially in Europe.  I am a staunch advocate of free minds and free markets, an anarchocapitalist.  The cold war completely demolished the term "capitalism" and caused a lot of confusion that continues to this day.  Capitalism, state capitalism, socialism, and communism are all terms suffering from a great deal of redefinition and confusion.

Look at wikipedia's article on state capitalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

State capitalism could indeed be defined as "a system of state ownership of the means of production, collective farming, industrial manufacturing and centralized administrative planning."  This is why so many advocates of the market economy use more specific terms such as "laissez faire" or "free market".  Though Marx and Engels used the term "Capitalism" to describe market economies, it has been expanded back to its original meaning of simply owning and using capital.  With that, everyone is a capitalist.  

When Existentialist said: "The impetus for this [the ideological domination that crushed dissent and gave absolute power to an elite] was not atheism, it was capitalism at its most brutal."  He/she is referring to state capitalism, not the market economy.  But this is an impossible assertion to prove and it is irrelevant.  It is impossible to know the real impetus for what happened in Russia.  Did the leadership there think their actions would lead the people to the utopian communist economy?  Did they do it so they could live in splendor?  We don't know, and that is the point which we need to point out.

In medieval times it was constantly said: If only our king was a believer in this or a believer in that, the kingdom would be great!  It was the great discovery of the Enlightenment that no ruler, ruling class, or arbitrary bureau can direct the economy and bless the people at large, regardless of their beliefs as to how best to govern.  It is the equal freedom of all people, the acknowledgment of life, liberty, and property that will bring the greatest level of wealth and achievement to the greatest number of people.

[Wilson]

Wilson, the definition of Capitalism as the laissez faire market economy is not always used, especially in Europe.  I am a staunch advocate of free minds and free markets, an anarchocapitalist.  The cold war completely demolished the term "capitalism" and caused a lot of confusion that continues to this day.  Capitalism, state capitalism, socialism, and communism are all terms suffering from a great deal of redefinition and confusion.

Existentialist didn't use the term "state capitalism" until I called him on it.  Regardless, "capitalism" and "communism" have widely accepted meanings having to do with who controls the means of production.  To arbitrarily change those meanings so that everything is a variation on capitalism makes it impossible to intelligently discuss the issues.  And strikes me as a little goofy, to be honest.

[Stevil]

When you decide there's no god, all the responsibility for your actions falls on you alone.  A theist is more likely to think they are being guided by god - answering god's calling, or being shown by god the way ahead. I think an agnostic atheist is more likely to take a passive approach - their lives are governed by the awaiting of evidence.

I really do struggle to understand you Existentialist.
You often say things that are the total opposite to what I think. Not saying you are right or wrong but just completely opposite to me.

How can making all your own decisions be seen as passive?
I would have thought allowing yourself to be guided by god, answering god's calling would be passive. Sitting there waiting for instructions.

But to get back on topic, you seem to be adding additional attributes to god. Making an assumption that if people believe in god then they also believe that god is responsible for guiding and calling people. Is this what Mormon's believe, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Aztecs, Maoris, Aborigonies, Greeks, Zulus, Christians, Hindus...?

[Existentialist]

I'm really tired of these arguments, with you, Existentialist -- which, coincidentally, are the only arguments you seem to participate in on this site.

'These arguments'?  What arguments?  I'm arguing about the whether being an atheist or a theist is likely to cause someone to act differently.  That's on topic.  Some people are saying it will, some are saying it won't.  I say it will.  There's nothing wrong with at least arguing that is there?   And what's the coincidence?

You're trying to argue about definitions and such.

Well if you're tired of it, don't argue.  And I mean for your own sake.   It takes two to tango.  It's entirely voluntary.  Don't blame me for something you're doing yourself.  

He's just as non-existent as the interfering one.

Irrelevant, and unprovable.

Irrelevant?  That god doesn't exist?  Hardly.  
Unprovable - agreed.  I still say he doesn't exist.

If I thought either of those two existed, I'm sure I'd act differently.

First: that's just you.
Second: how?

I would be more inclined to be tolerant of hierarchical, authoritarian ideas and the notion that everyone should accept their station in life.  I can elaborate further if you want but it would form a long ideological argument and there would be a great deal of discussion about definitions.  

Besides which, both types of god exist in religion.

So?

So both types of god are based on religious ideas and can't be separated from their religious purposes.

Basically, when it's deism, or theism without religion attached.

Theism without the religion attached?  This sounds like a contradiction in terms to me.  I would be interested in what you mean by religion in that case.

the doctrine or belief in the existence of a God or gods
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Theism in the broadest sense is the belief in at least one deity. In a more specific sense, theism refers to a particular doctrine concerning the nature of a god and his relationship to the universe. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

So you found two definitions of theism (Princeton, Wiki) and one of religion in Wikipeda and all you've done is paste them.  I wasn't really just asking for a cut and paste from an encyclopaedia and no reference to the context of my question.  I can see getting to the bottom of this is going to take a while.  

I don't see how any of the definitions you supplied break the link between theism and religion.  The Princeton quote refers to a 'doctrine', even in the broadest sense the wiki quote refers to a 'belief'.  But as I've asked already, belief in what?  You say belief in a creator god who doesn't interfere.  But the creator god is a belief that is so rooted in religion that it can only be defined in terms of the doctrines of religion.  Thanks for taking the trouble to find your quotes but to be honest they don't address the fundamental problem I'm having with understanding your position - and I would be most grateful if you could refrain from replying that it is simple.  I can't see how what you've quoted supports your case.  You may want to add some more text to clarify this, just quoting wikipedia as if the quote can argue the case for you doesn't cut it.

Could you give me an example of theism without religion?  Or even deism without religion.

Theism: "I believe a God exists."
Deism: "I believe a God exists that has created the universe and then didn't do anything."

Well really I meant an actual, real-world example where it has been documented that belief in a god was being followed by real people successfully while having no religion to follow, but if you want to make up a couple of theoretical examples I can work with that.  The problem remains that you're talking about God - a concept which can only be understood in the context of religious ideas about creation, omnipotent power and hierarchical supremacy.  Take any of those religious ideas out of the equation and God is no longer God.  The idea of a god that created the universe and then didn't do anything comes from religion.  I find it difficult to see how anyone could come up with such an idea who had never been exposed to religious thinking.  I do see the theoretical distinction you are trying to draw, between god and religion, but it seems I only need to probe the ideas a little bit to realise that these theoretical boundaries collapse.

How exactly would you act differently if you had a belief that God existed, but didn't associate with any particular religion or ideology? How do you think that everybody else would act differently in their day-to-day lives if their belief in the existence of God changed overnight?

Hang on a minute there - I think you're asking me to put myself in a position that I'm arguing against.  The concept of god is inseparable from religious ideology.  If it doesn't have religious ideology associated with it, then it isn't a god.  

In answer to the opening post - Hitler, Stalin and Mao were products of Capitalism more than being products of atheism, I think it is to capitalism that we must look for the oppression that the ideologies that were unleashed in their time can be traced to.  If any of them were atheists, then it was a kind of atheism that drew heavily on the authoritarian, monotheistic traditions handed down from religious hierarchies of the past.  I don't see much evidence that Hitler was an atheist anyway.

Marx was just an old bloke who passed his time in the British Library.  He offered a number of insights into the workings of capitalism that nobody had previously documented.  A lot of oppression has been associated with him unfairly.  He was an atheist, but not all people who say they are marxists really are marxists.

I don't see that atheism has any history of causing oppression, even in the times of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Marx.

Agreed.

Good.

Even the concept of the afterlife not existing within a theistic model seems rather inconsistent.  Afterlives and religion seem to be fairly universal.  And anyway, this whole argument stemmed from iSok's example of Person A who was told in the example that God exists and there is an afterlife, an idea that is intrinsic to islam, christianity and judaeism as well as a lot of other religions.  He was hardly arguing something that only a minority of religious believers accept.

Thanks anyway for taking the time and trouble to reply, LS.  These things are far from simple and it does take a while to compare another person's thinking with your own.

[Existentialist]

It's really not very tortured at all.  It's a sound historical analysis.  The development of the Soviet tyranny from about 1924 to 1955 was all about the development of a particularly ruthless type of state capitalism.  The survival of this type of capitalism depended on ideological domination that crushed dissent and gave absolute power to an elite.  The impetus for this was not atheism, it was capitalism at its most brutal.

From Wikipedia: "Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit; decisions regarding supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are made by private actors in the free market; profit is distributed to owners who invest in businesses, and wages are paid to workers employed by businesses and companies."

Also from Wikipedia: "state capitalism is usually defined in this sense: as a social system combining capitalism â€" the wage system of producing and appropriating surplus value in a commodity economy â€" with ownership or control by a state. By that definition, a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single giant corporation. Fredrick Engels, in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, states that the final stage of capitalism would consist of ownership over production and communication by the (bourgeoisie) state."

I said state capitalism, not capitalism.  

Also from Wikipedia: "The economy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was based on a system of state ownership of the means of production, collective farming, industrial manufacturing and centralized administrative planning. The economy was characterised by state control of investment, public ownership of industrial assets, and during the last 20 years of its existence, pervasive corruption and socioeconomic stagnation."

It is a common analysis that the Russian economy was state-controlled, the Western economy was private, therefore the USSR was communist, the west capitalist.  My analysis is that the Russian economy was a variation of capitalism.  State capitalism, in fact.  This is an ideological argument.  Wikipedia isn't going to settle it one way or another.

I get it that you hate capitalism.  That's fine.  

No it's not "fine", Wilson, because actually I don't hate capitalism, you got that wrong I'm afraid.

But when you make statements that are just plain dumb and 180 degrees off, expect to be called on it.  You're not allowed to make arguments based on crazy definitions that nobody but you accepts.

See Wikipedia.  My definitions are ok.  I take it you hate freedom of speech.

[Existentialist]

Saying someone is a theist means they believe in a god or gods, even those who believe in a god or gods have a varied view of things like an afterlife. Reincarnation is not the same kind of afterlife that Christians speak of, because instead of going to heaven or hell, they're just coming back here. Deists are theists in that they believe in a god or gods but several that I've talked with don't believe in an afterlife and even more that I've talked with don't think people will have to explain themselves after death. So saying that one is a theist only implies that they believe in a god or gods, not necessarily anything else like an afterlife or being held accountable for their actions in life. This I think is the contention with saying that a belief in being held accountable for their actions is an addition to merely being a theist.

Most theists believe in the afterlife.  That's really the common usage of theism.  Besides, iSok confirmed that common understanding explicitly in his "Person A" example.  I entirely agree with iSok's example.  Nobody since he posted it has come up with a criticism of it that stands up to scrutiny, and I am very happy that if someone is a theist, that fact will in itself cause them to behave quite differently from an atheist.

[Existentialist]

Wilson, the definition of Capitalism as the laissez faire market economy is not always used, especially in Europe.  I am a staunch advocate of free minds and free markets, an anarchocapitalist.  The cold war completely demolished the term "capitalism" and caused a lot of confusion that continues to this day.  Capitalism, state capitalism, socialism, and communism are all terms suffering from a great deal of redefinition and confusion.

Existentialist didn't use the term "state capitalism" until I called him on it.  Regardless, "capitalism" and "communism" have widely accepted meanings having to do with who controls the means of production.  To arbitrarily change those meanings so that everything is a variation on capitalism makes it impossible to intelligently discuss the issues.  And strikes me as a little goofy, to be honest.

No, not 'regardless'.  You didn't 'call' me on "state capitalism", you disagreed with me about capitalism so I introduced you to the concept of State Capitalism to help your understanding.  Please revisit the conversation and refresh your memory as I think it has become inaccurate.  I do not think that in the Soviet economy the workers ever controlled the means of production, except perhaps for a few months in 1917.  A state-controlled economy is not necessarily a proletariat-controlled economy, so use of the term 'communism' to describe them is problematic.  These debates are being held at a very advanced level among socialists around the world, if you care to look at them.  You may need to spend a little less time relying on Wikipedia, though, and I assure you they are for from being 'arbitrary' as you allege.  I have to ask myself who is really being goofy here.

[a-train]

Wilson, the definition of Capitalism as the laissez faire market economy is not always used, especially in Europe.  I am a staunch advocate of free minds and free markets, an anarchocapitalist.  The cold war completely demolished the term "capitalism" and caused a lot of confusion that continues to this day.  Capitalism, state capitalism, socialism, and communism are all terms suffering from a great deal of redefinition and confusion.

Existentialist didn't use the term "state capitalism" until I called him on it.  Regardless, "capitalism" and "communism" have widely accepted meanings having to do with who controls the means of production.  To arbitrarily change those meanings so that everything is a variation on capitalism makes it impossible to intelligently discuss the issues.  And strikes me as a little goofy, to be honest.

Oh and it is.  It is ridiculous.  But its not Existentialist's fault, this mangling of definitions started a century ago.  I've seen too many conversations go awry simply because of it.

In the U.S., "capitalism" takes its definition from 18th century economic writings (the same definition used by Marx).  In Europe, capitalism refers to a social system dividing the owners of capital (capitalists) and those that don't own capital (workers).  While Marx would have agreed that such class division would be the effect of free-market capitalism, he did not define capitalism as that division as do many Europeans today.

The proper term "Mercantilism" is used (and appropriately) to describe the protectionist national economic planning of the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries in western Europe. Europe never fully embraced the free-market capitalism adopted in the United States.  Europe slowly drifted out of Mercantilism moving toward free-markets and free trade, but kept much of the mercantilist apparatus.  This is partly why socialism grew there in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Many of the American Framers even argued for American mercantilism.  In some ways they were able to get mercantilist policies in place (protectionist measures, the bank of the United States).  Alexander Hamilton was one such Framer.  But Americans still defined capitalism as a free market system.

The rise of anti-capitalism was as rapid as was capitalism and one of the main strategies of anti-capitalism has always been to redefine capitalism.  This spilled into the U.S. in the late 19th Century and really gained footing in the 20th.  With that, many Americans now think that GM's near failure and subsequent bailout is another example of capitalism.  Whereas, using the classical definition, that would be an example of something very different than capitalism.

So, we all have to be careful to define these terms when we talk about them or all sorts of confusion will result.  Unfortunate.

-a-train

[Existentialist]

When Existentialist said: "The impetus for this [the ideological domination that crushed dissent and gave absolute power to an elite] was not atheism, it was capitalism at its most brutal."  He/she is referring to state capitalism, not the market economy.  

Thanks for helping me explain other things to Wilson, but on this I wasn't really referring solely to state capitalism.  I think the Soviet system and Chinese communism were brought into existence, and maintained, by the failings of capitalism.  State capitalism was the result - another oppressive variation on the capitalist theme.  

But this is an impossible assertion to prove and it is irrelevant.  It is impossible to know the real impetus for what happened in Russia.  Did the leadership there think their actions would lead the people to the utopian communist economy?  Did they do it so they could live in splendor?  We don't know, and that is the point which we need to point out.

Hmm well I'm half with you on that.  It is pretty much impossible to know what happened before our time, but we can build models of what happened, and what the impetus was, based on all sorts of things.  I accept the caveat that any model may be incorrect, nevertheless it is possible to attach one's analysis to a chosen model even if the concrete, hard-and-fast, conclusive proof of a historical fact isn't there, if it's consistent with These decisions about the credence we give to different historical analyses are the kinds of decisions that atheist, agnostics and theists tend to make differently because of their stance on the existence of god.

In medieval times it was constantly said: If only our king was a believer in this or a believer in that, the kingdom would be great!  It was the great discovery of the Enlightenment that no ruler, ruling class, or arbitrary bureau can direct the economy and bless the people at large, regardless of their beliefs as to how best to govern.  It is the equal freedom of all people, the acknowledgment of life, liberty, and property that will bring the greatest level of wealth and achievement to the greatest number of people.

Property?  Wealth?  Greatest number?  We can't really co-opt the Enlightenment into that analysis, I think.  Social democracy possibly, laissez-faire economics conceivably, but Enlightenment?  Not really.

[Existentialist]

Oh and it is.  It is ridiculous.  But its not Existentialist's fault, this mangling of definitions started a century ago.  I've seen too many conversations go awry simply because of it.

In the U.S., "capitalism" takes its definition from 18th century economic writings (the same definition used by Marx).  In Europe, capitalism refers to a social system dividing the owners of capital (capitalists) and those that don't own capital (workers).  While Marx would have agreed that such class division would be the effect of free-market capitalism, he did not define capitalism as that division as do many Europeans today.

The proper term "Mercantilism" is used (and appropriately) to describe the protectionist national economic planning of the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries in western Europe. Europe never fully embraced the free-market capitalism adopted in the United States.  Europe slowly drifted out of Mercantilism moving toward free-markets and free trade, but kept much of the mercantilist apparatus.  This is partly why socialism grew there in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Many of the American Framers even argued for American mercantilism.  In some ways they were able to get mercantilist policies in place (protectionist measures, the bank of the United States).  Alexander Hamilton was one such Framer.  But Americans still defined capitalism as a free market system.

The rise of anti-capitalism was as rapid as was capitalism and one of the main strategies of anti-capitalism has always been to redefine capitalism.  This spilled into the U.S. in the late 19th Century and really gained footing in the 20th.  With that, many Americans now think that GM's near failure and subsequent bailout is another example of capitalism.  Whereas, using the classical definition, that would be an example of something very different than capitalism.

So, we all have to be careful to define these terms when we talk about them or all sorts of confusion will result.  Unfortunate.

-a-train

All new to me.  What's the difference between what the Americans call capitalism and what the Europeans call capitalism?  I don't quite get it.

[Existentialist]

When you decide there's no god, all the responsibility for your actions falls on you alone.  A theist is more likely to think they are being guided by god - answering god's calling, or being shown by god the way ahead. I think an agnostic atheist is more likely to take a passive approach - their lives are governed by the awaiting of evidence.

I really do struggle to understand you Existentialist.
You often say things that are the total opposite to what I think. Not saying you are right or wrong but just completely opposite to me.

Thanks.  That is a compliment.

How can making all your own decisions be seen as passive?
I would have thought allowing yourself to be guided by god, answering god's calling would be passive. Sitting there waiting for instructions.

'Agnostic' atheists sit there waiting for evidence.  Just as bad in my view as sitting there waiting for instructions.  I agree, making all your own decisions is not passive. Agnostic atheists should make their minds up.

But to get back on topic, you seem to be adding additional attributes to god. Making an assumption that if people believe in god then they also believe that god is responsible for guiding and calling people. Is this what Mormon's believe, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Aztecs, Maoris, Aborigonies, Greeks, Zulus, Christians, Hindus...?

Well, I did say 'more likely'.  I wasn't proposing it as an absolute fact.  You often hear people say things like 'I answered God's calling'.  It stems from the idea of a benign, creationist, ruling god doesn't it?

We keep coming back to this stripped-down god.  I'd never realised before that god was such a stripper.  How much can he take off before he has no clothes?  

He's got to have some clothes surely, otherwise it's just indecent.

[hackenslash]

I agree any variable will influence the subject, on that basis even two atheists who hold exactly the same position on the existence of god will act differently.  But I also think that whether a person is an atheist or a theist will cause them to think about things in a particular way.  So given a questionnaire put to 50 atheists and 50 theists, the atheists' results will tend to congregate around one set of ideas, the theists around another set.  It depends on the questions and of course, I can't prove it either, any more than others can prove it won't make any difference at all.  Proof is a bit superfluous when we're discussing our opinions anyway.

The question there becomes 'which is the affected view?'

In reality, while it could be said that a worldview without theism will be different from one that includes theism, it cannot necessarily be said that there is a causal relationship between lack of belief and that worldview. Belief in a deity, especially one that includes religion (because religion is not the same as belief, and is a qualitatively different thing), will most certainly affect your worldview, but the absence of it? I suggest that this is nonsense. The results will be different, but only one of them could actually be said to be necessarily affected.

Now, while my atheism most definitely doesn't affect my worldview, my worldview is most definitely affected by my strong opinion that the beliefs of others should not impinge on the world and the society in which I and my children live, but that view is not a function of my lack of belief, but of other facets of my political make-up, mostly in the form of recognising that the people who hold those beliefs are not justified in dictating to me how I should live my life, and should have no influence on the legislative and political systems in said society. This is merely a political view, and is not actually tempered by my lack of theistic belief. Indeed, there are many believers who recognise that religion should not be an undue influence on social and economic policy. This principle is known as secularism, which is not equivalent to atheism.

Absence of belief is the default, so no effect can be inferred from it, or at least, it can't if you have any grasp of basic logic.

[Stevil]

'Agnostic' atheists sit there waiting for evidence.  Just as bad in my view as sitting there waiting for instructions.  I agree, making all your own decisions is not passive. Agnostic atheists should make their minds up.

This is an incorrect assumption. Actually Agnostic Atheists go about their lives as if there is no god however as with many other theories of "interest" they keep their eyes open with regards to new information, facts or proof and at such time then reassess the validity of certain open theories. In my opinion theists and strong atheists pretend to go around with their eyes shut. However in reality if some conclusive proof pops up they will likely open their eyes.

We keep coming back to this stripped-down god.

Most definitely. It is evident to me that most people participating in this thread understand this point well. For those that don't I will attempt to make this more clear.
The statement made by iSok was "Most certainly someone will behave different. Wether you believe in God or not."
So here we are trying to put a common denominator onto the God creature so that we can understand what is different between being an Atheist and the people that have a common belief with regards to a common God. Because the faiths are different we need to strip down the God concept into its common denominator. You could offer an alternative to this problem.

[Existentialist]

'Agnostic' atheists sit there waiting for evidence.  Just as bad in my view as sitting there waiting for instructions.  I agree, making all your own decisions is not passive. Agnostic atheists should make their minds up.

This is an incorrect assumption. Actually Agnostic Atheists go about their lives as if there is no god however as with many other theories of "interest" they keep their eyes open with regards to new information, facts or proof and at such time then reassess the validity of certain open theories. In my opinion theists and strong atheists pretend to go around with their eyes shut. However in reality if some conclusive proof pops up they will likely open their eyes.

It's not really an assumption, more an observation.  It would stand to reason that if your view of the world was one that required a high level of evidence regarding all judgements, then procrastination is a risk.  Often what I see is agnostic atheists being very compartmentalised in their thinking, using limited evidence from one aspect of life to make their minds up, and simply not able to cope with conflicting evidence.  The Wikipedia references are a basic level of the problem.  They'll quote a paragraph at you to prove that something is 'correct' and be completely unable to cope with a conflicting paragraph from the same publication without getting angry or dismissive.  This seems to come up in every single thread here.  I think it's because, in demanding the highest standard of evidence (eg proof of the non-existence of god) before making their minds up and saying firmly that he doesn't exist, they have to face the problem that adequate evidence does not exist to make their minds up about most big decisions, like how to vote or whether to support a particular political rebel.  So rather than face the problem that evidence is incomplete, contradictory and usually unhelpful, they tend to home in on what is concrete in order to reduce their anxiety that life is confusing and there is no real truth about anything.  Homing in on the concrete is what leads to compartmentalising and the selective use of partial evidence.  

And no, I don't really observe that Agnostic Atheists go about their lives as if there is no god.  I don't even believe that atheists who assert firmly that there is no god do that.  Religious ideas are so bound up with the doctrines of capitalism that it would be impossible to function at all in a capitalist system if someone led their life 'as if there is no god'.  

It may not be a comfortable position to be in, but at least I acknowledge the profound religious conditioning I have and we all have experienced.  To just throw it off like it never happened doesn't strike me as realistic.  

We keep coming back to this stripped-down god.

Most definitely. It is evident to me that most people participating in this thread understand this point well.

Oh great.  I am in a minority.  There must be something wrong with my intelligence level then.  

For those that don't I will attempt to make this more clear.

How generous.  Let's all gather round.  All one of us.  

The statement made by iSok was "Most certainly someone will behave different. Wether you believe in God or not."
So here we are trying to put a common denominator onto the God creature so that we can understand what is different between being an Atheist and the people that have a common belief with regards to a common God. Because the faiths are different we need to strip down the God concept into its common denominator. You could offer an alternative to this problem.

I think in the context of iSok's statement I know what is meant by God.  The challenge seems to be to come up with a concept of a god that makes so little impact on an atheist that he behaves in exactly the same way as a theist, in order to fulfil the idea that it would make no difference whether he was an atheist or a theist.  Sorry, it can't be done.

[a-train]

Thanks for helping me explain other things to Wilson, but on this I wasn't really referring solely to state capitalism.  I think the Soviet system and Chinese communism were brought into existence, and maintained, by the failings of capitalism.  State capitalism was the result - another oppressive variation on the capitalist theme.

And this common view defines the failure of capitalism as the bankruptcy or failure of some firm or industry.  Whereas the classical economists and modern pro-capitalist economists see industry failure or bankruptcy as a necessary process within capitalism.  In fact, it is a sign that capitalism is working, not failing.  Marx thought, and he was right, that as major firms went into failure they would go to government for help or government would automatically assume the position of saving the firm on any number of grounds.  The firm or industry would then be either nationalized, taken under government control, or subsidized in some way by government.  He thought this would inevitably lead to socialism (government ownership).  Pro-capitalist economists see the failure of industries and businesses as a necessary process in the re-allocation of capital within the economy.

Property?  Wealth?  Greatest number?  We can't really co-opt the Enlightenment into that analysis, I think.  Social democracy possibly, laissez-faire economics conceivably, but Enlightenment?  Not really.

I guess I am not sure what you are saying here.  Clearly the most material outcome of the Enlightenment was the Atlantic Revolutions and the rejection of the "Divine Right of Kings" and mercantilism.  Capitalism (free markets) was the economic system advocated by much of the Enlightenment thinkers and that is why it replaced the mercantilist states and/or colonies during the revolutions, especially that of the American Revolution.  It is absolutely certain that the rise of capitalism in the west was directly attributed to the Enlightenment.

-a-train