Hilter/Stalin/Mao/Marx & atheism?

[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.

Well, that is what I just explained.  Mainstream America sees capitalism as free markets, Mainstream Europe sees capitalism as the division of two classes: capitalists and workers.  One is an economic definition, the other is a social definition.  Certainly these are generalizations.  Some Americans may define capitalism as a social system, I know many Europeans who use the economic definition.  But the mainstream ideas are generally as I described and America has moved more toward the European view in the last few decades.

-a-train

[Existentialist]

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.

Well, that is what I just explained.  Mainstream America sees capitalism as free markets, Mainstream Europe sees capitalism as the division of two classes: capitalists and workers.  One is an economic definition, the other is a social definition.  Certainly these are generalizations.  Some Americans may define capitalism as a social system, I know many Europeans who use the economic definition.  But the mainstream ideas are generally as I described and America has moved more toward the European view in the last few decades.
-a-train

Well if you have sources for that I'd be more interested but these two transatlantic views of capitalism you have described are fairly compatible with each other and I haven't really seen the distinction you make being used much.  I thought most commentators on both sides of the Atlantic have a fairly incomplete understanding of what Capitalism is and what its roots are.

On the Enlightenment you said,

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.

The Enlightenment may have coincided with the early political changes that led to the rise in capitalism, but to co-opt "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" as a discovery of the Enlightenment is like robbing your grandmother.  Leave the Enlightenment to do its knitting.  It helped people learn a lot of things, but it isn't the manifestation of our individual beliefs.

[Stevil]

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'.

This is news to me, please elaborate? How do I go about my life as if there is a god? Oh, by the way please also show me how this also allows me to be different to all believers at the same time.

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

It seems that in a lot of countries Atheists are in the minority, probably I am too (actually I am proud to be a lover of heavy metal music, this clearly puts me in the minority). It would be incorrect to assume that minority groups have something wrong with their intelligence level.

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

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

I didn't want to assume that you were the only one.

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.

This is pure spin. Please define what the difference is between an Atheist and all believers and how that impacts the atheists ability to behave in the same way as any and all of the believers.

[Existentialist]

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.

'Absence of belief' is maybe a shorthand way of describing one type of atheism, but to simply leave it at that without acknowledging that the atheist has arrived at this 'absence' only after a process of thought and serious consideration of the issues is to understate what it is.  It's the experience of the process that leads to the differing behaviour, not the vacuum, void or 'absence' in this theoretical atheist's head.  

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

Nope, now you've lost me.  The default what?  I'm an atheist.  I have a belief.  I have a belief that there isn't a god.  I've arrived at that position through a lot of mental energy.  Calling it an 'absence of belief in god' is a total inaccuracy, never mind a default.  My belief has affected my political beliefs, my view of secularism, my views of other people's rights.  And whatever type of atheism atheists hold, I'd have thought most of them would resist the notion that their stance on the existence of god is defined by a mere 'absence', whether it's of belief or anything else.  It suggests they've given no thought to it.  The result in terms of the belief fails to acknowledge the intellectual process that led up to it.

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

Oh brilliant, there go my logic circuits again.  Another intelligence failure on my part I suppose.  What you've set up is the logic of a contrivance, the contrivance being the 'absence of belief' which is unattached to any thought process, any ideological or religious influence, it's a manifestation of pure intellect totally unconnected to the real world you live in.  Your logic works on that level, but like the stripped-down god, it has no connection to reality and I find it rather unbelievable.

[a-train]

Well if you have sources for that I'd be more interested but these two transatlantic views of capitalism you have described are fairly compatible with each other and I haven't really seen the distinction you make being used much.  I thought most commentators on both sides of the Atlantic have a fairly incomplete understanding of what Capitalism is and what its roots are.

The Cambridge Dictionary says http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/capitalism:

capitalism noun /ˈkæp.ɪ.təl.ɪ.zəm//-t ̬əl-/
: an economic, political and social system based on private ownership of property, business and industry, and directed towards making the greatest possible profits for successful organizations and people

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary says http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism:

cap·i·tal·ism noun \ˈka-pə-tə-ˌliz-əm, ˈkap-tə-, British also kə-ˈpi-tə-\
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Notice the omission of the term "free market" and the inclusion of the terms "political and social" in the British dictionary.  Notice also that the American dictionary says that capitalism means that "the distribution of goods [..] are determined mainly by competition in a free market", while the British dictionary says capitalism is "directed towards making the greatest possible profits for successful organizations and people."  I am not saying that either of these definitions are right or wrong, only that they are slightly different and the crux of that difference is economic versus social.

It is true from the standpoint of economists that most people around the world have a bad definition of capitalism.  The economic and social definitions of the term are at odds.  Many who take up the economic definition do not believe that a bifurcation of the society respectively into two classes (capitalists and workers) is implicit or even necessary.  It is there that much of the trouble begins.  Those looking to end classism and taking up the social definition will be inclined to be opposed to capitalism.  Those who take up the economic definition may very well want to end classism, but rather see capitalism as a system compatible with that end, many find it the only economic system compatible with that end.

The Enlightenment may have coincided with the early political changes that led to the rise in capitalism, but to co-opt "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" as a discovery of the Enlightenment is like robbing your grandmother.  Leave the Enlightenment to do its knitting.  It helped people learn a lot of things, but it isn't the manifestation of our individual beliefs.

Certainly there are those who would not find it a "discovery".  Conservatives definitely didn't, they thought it all confusion and ridiculous.  But oh well, I am convinced and I call it a "discovery" and take the massive explosion of wealth and prosperity under the western liberal governments as my evidence.

-a-train

[Existentialist]

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'.

This is news to me, please elaborate? How do I go about my life as if there is a god? Oh, by the way please also show me how this also allows me to be different to all believers at the same time.

Religion is profoundly tied up with the nature of capitalism.  To function in a capitalist society - to pay due respect to work hierarchies, ideological beliefs at work and in education, to conduct relationships and manage property and economic relationships - we all have to have some allegiance to the capitalist work ethic, the legitimacy of hierarchies, and acknowledge various abstract belief systems and social norms.  This conditioning affects us all, and is heavily influenced by authoritarian religious ideas and religious ways of relating to each other.  I would not confidently say I am completely de-conditioned from that even as an atheist.  But if you feel you are de-conditioned then go ahead, you will probably achieve great things in the capitalist world on that basis.

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

It seems that in a lot of countries Atheists are in the minority, probably I am too (actually I am proud to be a lover of heavy metal music, this clearly puts me in the minority). It would be incorrect to assume that minority groups have something wrong with their intelligence level.

Well done.  In quoting this you deleted your comment that led to me saying that.  Well recovered!

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

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

I didn't want to assume that you were the only one.

Why would it matter if I were?

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.

This is pure spin. Please define what the difference is between an Atheist and all believers and how that impacts the atheists ability to behave in the same way as any and all of the believers.

Well, in a nutshell, the atheist doesn't believe in god, and believers do.  The atheist is determines that he makes his own decisions, the believer thinks he's doing the right thing according to the ideology he has developed in relation to god.  It therefore depends on the ideology, morality, doctrine and attitude to sin of the theist's religion, but it seems so obvious to me that these things will cause the theist to behave very differently when faced with the same decisions as the atheist.

[Stevil]

Religion is profoundly tied up with the nature of capitalism.  To function in a capitalist society - to pay due respect to work hierarchies, ideological beliefs at work and in education, to conduct relationships and manage property and economic relationships - we all have to have some allegiance to the capitalist work ethic, the legitimacy of hierarchies, and acknowledge various abstract belief systems and social norms.  This conditioning affects us all, and is heavily influenced by authoritarian religious ideas and religious ways of relating to each other.  I would not confidently say I am completely de-conditioned from that even as an atheist.  But if you feel you are de-conditioned then go ahead, you will probably achieve great things in the capitalist world on that basis.

Sorry, I still don't understand. What in particular is the impact of belief in god? It isn't hierarchies, I'm sure hierarchies exist even with animals that don't know of the existence of beliefs.

Well done.  In quoting this you deleted your comment that led to me saying that.  Well recovered!

Huh, no intent to mislead or recover here. I simply delete stuff to reduce the size of my response posts.

I didn't want to assume that you were the only one.

Why would it matter if I were?

It wouldn't matter, I just didn't want to assume

It therefore depends on the ideology, morality, doctrine and attitude to sin of the theist's religion

Yes, in a nutshell. We are trying to work out what the commonality is between all believers so that we then can workout what the difference is between atheists and all believers. It is hard to do because there are many, many differences between the believers. So we strip the god concept down. In the end we are simply left with a belief in god with regard to the creation of universe event or a non belief in god with regard to the creation of the universe event. In most people's cases that event in history does not impact their decisions.

[hackenslash]

Brace yourselves, I'm going in:

'Absence of belief' is maybe a shorthand way of describing one type of atheism, but to simply leave it at that without acknowledging that the atheist has arrived at this 'absence' only after a process of thought and serious consideration of the issues is to understate what it is.  It's the experience of the process that leads to the differing behaviour, not the vacuum, void or 'absence' in this theoretical atheist's head.  

Utter bollocks. Firstly, we've gone over why absence of belief is the only rigorous definition of atheism that exists several times now, and you still haven't grasped it. It isn't a shorthand way of describing atheism, it is the only definition that fulfills the criteria of being both sufficient and necessary, which is what any robust definition of anything must fulfill in order for the definition to be useful. It is not necessary for an atheist to have arrived at their atheism through a process of thought, only that they don't have an active belief in a deity. Atheism is not an intellectual position, although it can be arrived at through application of the intellect. All that it takes to fulfill the sufficient and necessary conditions, which MUST be the criteria for any definition of anything, is an absence of active belief in the existence of a deity. It takes no thought, and no process, to lack an active belief in a deity. It is the default position.

Nope, now you've lost me.

That happens a lot with people who can't keep up, despite having been schooled on rigorous definitions repeatedly by several people citing numerous sources, so it doesn't surprise me in the least.

The default what?  I'm an atheist.  I have a belief.  I have a belief that there isn't a god.

Which is, of course, fine. The only thing is that you are carrying features which are superfluous to a rigorous definition of atheism. Your active belief in the non-existence of any deity is extraneous to the necessary and sufficient conditions inherent in atheism. Just because your position can be described as atheism does not mean that your position is definitive of atheism. It simply isn't, and you have been schooled on this, and why this is the case, repeatedly. I am an atheist, and I have no such active belief, not least because I am an empiricist, and I reject categorical assertions such as yours unless there is sufficient evidence to justfy such a position. You are asserting that your definition of atheism is applicable to the full set, when it simply isn't. Moreover, you are implying this in the face of atheists who are telling you, and citing accepted definitions, that they do not fit your definition. Given that, and given an accepted definition that DOES apply to the full set of all atheists, your contention is non-rigorous, unrobust, and frankly dishonest. When you have been schooled, the best approach is to actually learn. Further, your active belief in the non-existence of a deity is only marginally better supported than the theists' active belief in the existence of a deity.

I've arrived at that position through a lot of mental energy.

Again, great, if that works for you. The only thing is that your definition does not apply to the full set of all atheists. Many dictionaries and other sources far more robust than your blind assertion accept the definition generally accepted, not just on this forum, but among atheists in general.

Calling it an 'absence of belief in god' is a total inaccuracy, never mind a default.

Utter guff. It is accurate, because it is the only common ground that is shared by ALL atheists. Any definition that does not encompass the whole set is unrobust BY DEFINITION, and should therefore be discarded, or at least be considered a subset. You are, as somebody who carries an active belief that no deities exist, a subset of all atheists, the majority of which simply don't have an active belief that a deity exists.

I won't cite dictionary definitions here that support my position, because they have already been provided, and yet you have continued to re-assert that your is the only one that has any value. You're wrong, as many here and elsewhere will attest to.

My belief has affected my political beliefs, my view of secularism, my views of other people's rights.

Yours has, yes, because yours is an active belief in the non-existence of a deity. Other atheists, and in fact the largest portion of the set, are not so afflicted. They simply have no active belief in a deity and recognise that the categorical claims of others with regard to the existence of a deity (including yours) have no place in deciding policy, because that's what secularism means.

And whatever type of atheism atheists hold, I'd have thought most of them would resist the notion that their stance on the existence of god is defined by a mere 'absence', whether it's of belief or anything else.

What you would have thought is of no consequence, and utterly irrelevant. In any event, I know many thousands of atheists, and very few of them would identify with your definition. Put simply, you are wrong.

It suggests they've given no thought to it.

Quite the opposite, in most cases. They've given it a great deal of thought, and have concuded that, while they have no active belief in the existence of a deity, andf are thus atheists, they recognise that the question is probably unanswerable. For myself, I think that, if any interventionist deity does exist, then knowledge is possible, which is why I describe myself as a gnostic atheist. Not because I know, but because I think that knowledge is possible.

 

The result in terms of the belief fails to acknowledge the intellectual process that led up to it.

You're assuming that atheism requires an intellectual process, which is why you are struggling with the fact that atheism is the default position. Perhaps you should extend your education in this regard.

Oh brilliant, there go my logic circuits again.  Another intelligence failure on my part I suppose.

Quite possibly, although I will not comment. More likely its a failure of understanding, which is quite common in those whose understanding is rooted in erroneous definitions.

What you've set up is the logic of a contrivance, the contrivance being the 'absence of belief' which is unattached to any thought process, any ideological or religious influence, it's a manifestation of pure intellect totally unconnected to the real world you live in.

On the contrary. It's a manifestation of actually understanding what the bloody word means, and what constitutes a rigorous definition. It isn't difficult. There is nothing contrived about it. Indeed, if you spoke to a significant number of people who actually arrived at their atheism through rigorous intellectual processes, the majority would agree with me, because your position is intellecyially only a step away from the reidiculous belief that a deity exists. Closing the door to the possibility that an entity that we wouold recognise as a deity exists is as intellectually bankrupt as the converse position, because it rules out the possibility of falsifiying evidence. As an empiricist, I can never do that, because discarding any falsifiable hypothesis is unscientific.

Your logic works on that level,

No. Logic works on that level. I have no logic of my own, and this crass statement demonstrates that you don't actually know what you're talking about, as if your previous 'discourse' on this matter has demonstrated all too readily.

but like the stripped-down god, it has no connection to reality and I find it rather unbelievable.

Well, again, what you believe is of no consequence and, frankly, of little interest. This might change if you can apply a little rigour in your discourse.

[Sophus]

He tossed out Hitler

...Not an atheist. Napoleón, however, was.

Was he? My understanding was Napoleón was critical of religion but did in fact believe in God.

[Existentialist]

Utter bollocks... you still haven't grasped it... despite having been schooled... you have been schooled on this... dishonest... you have been schooled... the best approach is to actually learn... your blind assertion... Utter guff... Other atheists are not so afflicted... that you would have thought is of no consequence, and utterly irrelevant...  perhaps you should extend your education... failure of understanding... what the bloody word means... It isn't difficult... your position is intellectually only a step away from the ridiculous belief ...intellectually bankrupt ...crass statement ...you don't know what you're talking about... what you believe is of no consequence ... and of little interest

No I can't place the character.  Is it Flashman, the bully from Tom Brown's Schooldays?

[hackenslash]

Nope. It's the character 'you got your arse kicked' from HAF.

No intention of deaing with the evisceration of your nonsense then?

[Existentialist]

Utter bollocks... you still haven't grasped it... despite having been schooled... you have been schooled on this... dishonest... you have been schooled... the best approach is to actually learn... your blind assertion... Utter guff... Other atheists are not so afflicted... that you would have thought is of no consequence, and utterly irrelevant...  perhaps you should extend your education... failure of understanding... what the bloody word means... It isn't difficult... your position is intellectually only a step away from the ridiculous belief ...intellectually bankrupt ...crass statement ...you don't know what you're talking about... what you believe is of no consequence ... and of little interest

Nope. It's the character 'you got your arse kicked' from HAF.

No intention of deaing with the evisceration of your nonsense then?

In view of this and your previous foul comment to me in another thread, I think you're on the wrong website for the type of relationship you're looking for.  Anyone who thinks a member of this forum must compulsorily participate to the masochistic side of the type of relationship you seem to be looking for has missed the point of why people are asked to show civility.  It's not the first time in your case.  I can assure you this is the last comment I will be posting to you in this thread.   Goodbye.

[Existentialist]

The Enlightenment may have coincided with the early political changes that led to the rise in capitalism, but to co-opt "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" as a discovery of the Enlightenment is like robbing your grandmother.  Leave the Enlightenment to do its knitting.  It helped people learn a lot of things, but it isn't the manifestation of our individual beliefs.

Certainly there are those who would not find it a "discovery".  Conservatives definitely didn't, they thought it all confusion and ridiculous.  But oh well, I am convinced and I call it a "discovery" and take the massive explosion of wealth and prosperity under the western liberal governments as my evidence.

I take the massive poverty and oppression under western liberal governments as counter-evidence.  I think you're interpreting the Enlightenment in a way that distorts its meaning.  The Enlightenment certainly made political discourse and philosophical discussion possible, but "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" is not an Enlightenment 'discovery'.  I would say the Enlightenment made that kind of thinking possible, but it also made communist and socialist ideology possible.  It was multi-faceted in that sense, not just a slogan for the merits of capitalism.

[a-train]

The Enlightenment may have coincided with the early political changes that led to the rise in capitalism, but to co-opt "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" as a discovery of the Enlightenment is like robbing your grandmother.  Leave the Enlightenment to do its knitting.  It helped people learn a lot of things, but it isn't the manifestation of our individual beliefs.

Certainly there are those who would not find it a "discovery".  Conservatives definitely didn't, they thought it all confusion and ridiculous.  But oh well, I am convinced and I call it a "discovery" and take the massive explosion of wealth and prosperity under the western liberal governments as my evidence.

I take the massive poverty and oppression under western liberal governments as counter-evidence.  I think you're interpreting the Enlightenment in a way that distorts its meaning.  The Enlightenment certainly made political discourse and philosophical discussion possible, but "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" is not an Enlightenment 'discovery'.  I would say the Enlightenment made that kind of thinking possible, but it also made communist and socialist ideology possible.  It was multi-faceted in that sense, not just a slogan for the merits of capitalism.

Only communism and socialism came a century later and were not directly advocated nor attempted by participants in the Enlightenment.

-a-train

[Existentialist]

Only communism and socialism came a century later and were not directly advocated nor attempted by participants in the Enlightenment.
-a-train

I didn't say that communism and socialism were invented by Enlightenment participants.  I said the Enlightenment made it possible to develop socialist thinking, just like it made it possible to develop pro-capitalist thinking.