The Religion/Faith of Atheism

[Whitney]

Considering the "god with us" slogan used by the natzi party...i don't think they count as a secular philosophy.

There are plenty of religions that don't involve worship of a supernatural deity but none of those religions could rightly be called "secular"

Example of a religion formed around a real living (normal) person:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Jong-i ... ersonality

[Dagda]

Wrong choice of words on my part. A secular religion is somewhat a contradiction in terms. Anyway, my point stands-religion does not need a deity.

[

Communism is not an atheist religion. Communism is a political concept. Christians can be communist. Neither is Nazism an atheist religion as most Nazis were Christian - Catholic or Lutheran, mostly - it is also a political concept. Neither is evolution an atheist religion, it is a scientific theory supported by scientific facts. Nor is science a religion, it is a systematic investigation and categorization of reality through the use of the empirical method.

Religions are religions - you can't (well, you can say it, and you probably will, but it's incorrect to say) just say that every social structure or concept is a religion.

Why doe communism not qualify as a religion? As I have stated before they have a holy text/s that cannot be questioned; they build or maintain what amounts to shrines around their dead leaders; the living leaders are treated as infallible (even today the Chinese Communists try hard not to contradict the now discredited Mao); they have a strong belief in an event (socialist utopia) occurring without needing one iota of evidence; and they are hostile to competing religions (Christians, Jews etc). Perhaps it began as a political concept (and in some areas remains political) but in some cases I think it morphed into something else.

I admit that I know far more about Communism than Nazism, but one of the Christian Church’s first moves was to attach a lot of pagan symbolism to their religion so that pagans would feel comfortable in a Church. I think the Nazi Party was using a 20th Century version of this tactic. Be aware of confusing the believers with the religion; traditional religion faded as Nazi support rose-perhaps an indication that one could not easily exist alongside the other in the heart of man. In Nazi philosophy there was little room for the Christian God in a world dominated by the god-like super-man. Nazism was slowly phasing God out, pushing Him off the pedestal to be replaced with something else, for only when the god-head is gone can the god-man take His place. Nazism only had 12 years to achieve something it took Christianity five centuries, and Bolshevism five decades.

As for your comment about evolution, I don’t quite understand; who mentioned evolution?

I am not saying every social structure is a religion, but that when the traditional religions fail, new religions take their place. In the case of Russia in was Bolshevism; China had Maoism; India had Naxilism; the African slaves had the cargo cults. Most religions have political elements, but in the 19th and 20th  Centuries we began to see political parties with religious elements.

[pinkocommie]

Dagda -

I think where things become interesting is when we move away from the central point and move into specifics.

This was the first sentence you wrote when replying to this thread and I think at this point it's a good time to come back to it.  It's one thing to move from the central point and explore specifics, but once you take the specifics and make them central points, eradicating the original central point completely, your argument starts to sound like someone trying to make facts comply with a specific outcome.

My opinion is that if you have to re-define a term in order to make the term fit your position, you're not proving anything except that if the word meant something different, your point would be correct.  Purposefully ignoring parts of a definition is one way to change the definition.  If we accept Webster's definition of religion:


Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈli-jən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back â€" more at rely
Date: 13th century

1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

â€" re·li·gion·less adjective

- deity worship is specifically mentioned first and foremost.  The definition 'scrupulous conformity' is specifically noted as archaic and therefore not of use in this instance - an outdated definition does us no good.  

The last definition may be able to be applied in the way you're trying to apply it, but only if you apply the label of religion in a way that doesn't hold the same meaning in any way to religion in regard to theists.  Perhaps you can make a case that technically a belief structure such as communism is a religion, but in order for it to be considered a religion, it must be accepted that it's a religion in an entirely different way than most people think of religion, a completely non-theistic religiousness. Then, if it can be determined that communism is a belief rather than a political structure and if the subjective terms 'ardor' and 'faith' can be agreed upon to be applicable to those structures you might be able to argue your point.  All that after you've chosen to ignore the initial definition of the term which pertains to worship of a God.

Once you've spread a definition that thin in order to make it applicable, is it still a viable use of the term?  I personally don't think so.

[Whitney]

Why doe communism not qualify as a religion?

Because communism is a political philosophy; it doesn't center around worship of the supernatural and someone can decide communism is the idea social structure without using faith.

You are confusing communism with how some are practicing it and communism the philosophy.  Just because some communist countries may be religious and communist doesn't mean that communism is a religion.  By your logic I could claim that capitalism is a religion since so many right wing Christians have incorporated it into their life philosophy.  Just because someone may strongly support something doesn't mean it falls under the defnition of religion; we can't just bastardize words to suit whatever point we are trying to make.

We all know you don't have to believe in a god to follow a religion...if that had been your point we'd all be in agreement.

[Dagda]

The dictionary? The famous line ‘I wandered lonely as a cloud’ would have made no sense to a medieval man. Wandering or to wander was to walk with a wand. As you can see the similarities between Wordsworth walking with a wand and clouds is rather thin on the ground. Of course, by the time of the famous poet the meaning of ‘wandered’ had changed, and so the poem made sense. My point is that words and their meanings change over time, and various editions of the dictionary reflect the meaning of the word at the time they were written, not to lay down the laws of reality. My definition of religion would be ‘a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardour and faith’. But not that alone; a religion is a predator which must devour any other religion it comes in contact with (in the space of the believers mind if no-where else) in order to feed its growth. When these two come together, we have a religion. Do not quote the dictionary at me like it is a scientific text; it does not transcend beyond the limited understanding of the culture that they appeared, and in philosophical terms is a rather poor source.

Why doe communism not qualify as a religion?

Because communism is a political philosophy; it doesn't center around worship of the supernatural and someone can decide communism is the idea social structure without using faith.

You are confusing communism with how some are practicing it and communism the philosophy. Just because some communist countries may be religious and communist doesn't mean that communism is a religion. By your logic I could claim that capitalism is a religion since so many right wing Christians have incorporated it into their life philosophy. Just because someone may strongly support something doesn't mean it falls under the defnition of religion; we can't just bastardize words to suit whatever point we are trying to make.

We all know you don't have to believe in a god to follow a religion...if that had been your point we'd all be in agreement.

The supporters of Bolshevism did not just ‘strongly support’ their cause, they believed in it with a devotion which knew no bounds. As I said, in the last century we saw political ideals develop religious dimensions. They are called political religions because they incorporate the political and the religious. I have provided evidence of what I consider the religious nature of Bolshevism/Maoism, and I do not think that evidence can be interpreted as mere political philosophy.

My logic does not entail that capitalism is a religion, just that it can be a religion. Any life philosophy has the potential of becoming religious in nature if the right circumstances present themselves.

I fear that we are going round in circles. When I as why you consider Maoism not to be a religion you declare it is because it is a political philosophy. I say it is both, but what is your response? I have provided evidence, but can do no more. Unless you would like to provide some reason that Bolshevism cannot be a religion, then I can take it no further.

Atheists demand evidence for everything (as they should), but once I have provided evidence for something that disagrees with your own philosophy, you do not criticise the evidence (e.g. this does not show religious devotion, but instead the perfectly logical...) but instead make a declaration grounded in nothing more that the cultural prejudice of the day.

[BadPoison]

One's passion about a particular set of beliefs or philosophies could be compared to being religious (depending on the level and type of passion - especially when one is acting more closed-minded about the topic.)
When I say "He is crazy in love" I do not wish to impart that he is "mentally deranged; demented; insane" - more that some attributes of the "mentally deranged" could also be attributed to his love. Much is the same when stating one's commitment to communism (or any set of ideas) is religious.
It's a matter of language.

[Whitney]

I have decided that the word "Christian" now means baby killer.  I know the definition says otherwise but dictionaries just indicate common usage and might be outdated.  

[Tanker]

Dagada I think you may be confusing fanatasism with religion. One does not require the other. Otherwise trekkie fanatics would be clasified as a religion. many relious folks are fanatacal about thier religions but it's not a requirement.

[Dagda]

I have decided that the word "Christian" now means baby killer.  I know the definition says otherwise but dictionaries just indicate common usage and might be outdated.  

#


Now that is just being silly. I provided evidence for why I considered Bolshevism to be a political religion, and why I thought the dictionary was not an infallible, timeless scripture, but you are just mocking me. How illogical.

 

Dagada I think you may be confusing fanatasism with religion. One does not require the other. Otherwise trekkie fanatics would be clasified as a religion. many relious folks are fanatacal about thier religions but it's not a requirement.

No I am not. Think about it. You say that Communism can’t be a religion because it is a political philosophy. Why does this prevent it being a religion?

[kelltrill]

No I am not. Think about it. You say that Communism can’t be a religion because it is a political philosophy. Why does this prevent it being a religion?

Because it's a political philosophy.

No one is saying that the dictionary encompasses all the sociological connotations of everything in the known world, but you can't just expand the definition of something to suit your argument.

/facepalm

[curiosityandthecat]

Now that is just being silly. I provided evidence for why I considered Bolshevism to be a political religion, and why I thought the dictionary was not an infallible, timeless scripture, but you are just mocking me. How illogical.

Great. Another Christian who seems to think atheists are all Vulcans.  

[Dagda]

No I am not. Think about it. You say that Communism can’t be a religion because it is a political philosophy. Why does this prevent it being a religion?

Because it's a political philosophy.

No one is saying that the dictionary encompasses all the sociological connotations of everything in the known world, but you can't just expand the definition of something to suit your argument.

/facepalm

I am not expanding the definition. A religion is something in which a person must take a leap of faith to arrive at a conclusion which the evidence alone could not reach (Bolshevism has this is abundance). A religion is also an organisation with dogma etc (Russian Communist Party was clearly dogmatic and had clear social structure). They have a leader of some sort who tends the flock (Stalin/Lenin etc). They tend to proscribe other religious beliefs as heretical (again the Bolshevists were merciless in their dealings with any other religion). They also tend to have some kind of aim for mankind (yes the Bolshevists had a grand plan). Sacred places are not a requirement, but are a good indication of a religion (was not the burial places of Lenin and Stalin treated with much the same reverence as any shrine?) The Bolsheviks tick almost all the boxes when it comes to a religion. As I have already stated although Bolshevism began as a political philosophy, it became something more.

Oh, before I forget, when I ask why political philosophy and religion are mutely exclusive, declaring that it is just so ‘because it is a political philosophy’ is not really a proper answer.

Now that is just being silly. I provided evidence for why I considered Bolshevism to be a political religion, and why I thought the dictionary was not an infallible, timeless scripture, but you are just mocking me. How illogical.

Great. Another Christian who seems to think atheists are all Vulcans.

Great, someone else who thinks that anyone who talks about logic is a Trekkie. The study of logic is a legitimate philosophical concern, and as we are having a philosophical discussion...

[Whitney]

I think this thread is getting close to needing some shampoo  

[kelltrill]

This argument is becoming circular.

The standard (i.e accepted) definition of religion is that it fundamentally entails a belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. A religion traditionally offers answers to important spiritual questions and offer ways to define that which we cannot explain. That is how a religion comes about, from existential uncertainty. Communism is a political philosophy because it does not fulfil these basic requirements. At the very most we can say that Communism is like religion, even a lot like, because it has characteristic traits of dogma and religious-like organisation. To say, however, that it is a religion (to follow the definition you laid down in your previous post) would mean that any number of things would fall into that category.
Take a seminar for rape survivors, for instance. I know it’s a sensitive issue but it is a convenient example.

A religion is something in which a person must take a leap of faith to arrive at a conclusion which the evidence alone could not reach

Surviving betrayal and sexual assault takes a leap of faith in many things, including the people around you. This is especially true if the rapist was a friend or family member. There is a book titled Surviving Betrayal Requires a Leap of Faith by Cynthia Wall to support this approach.

A religion is also an organisation with dogma etc (Russian Communist Party was clearly dogmatic and had clear social structure).

If it is a convention it is an organised gathering or coming together of people with a shared interest or history. People who attend these seminars regularly make it part of their social structure, and draw support from each other and a shared morality.

They have a leader of some sort who tends the flock (Stalin/Lenin etc).

Carrie Shelver in SA organises marches, protests and 1in9 campaigns for "women who speak out." She is the local leader of the organisation and events manager. If she wants people to meet at a certain place at a certain time, they will.

They tend to proscribe other religious beliefs as heretical (again the Bolshevists were merciless in their dealings with any other religion).

This is based on the premise that Communism was a religion. However, it is well known that conventions designed to help people overcome a certain thing (like rape, addiction, or alcoholism) are anti the methods used by other similar organisations. This is human nature and is not only found amongst religions. Everyone likes to think that their way is the right way.

They also tend to have some kind of aim for mankind (yes the Bolshevists had a grand plan).

The 1in9 campaign especially strives for a world where women are no longer sexually abused and where domestic violence is a thing of the past, resulting in a more durable, peaceful world. This is their fundamental ideal.

Sacred places are not a requirement, but are a good indication of a religion (was not the burial places of Lenin and Stalin treated with much the same reverence as any shrine?)

There are many places where women have been raped which are treated with reverence and respect and where symbols are erected to mark the event, with the woman’s permission, as a sign of solidarity and an ongoing commitment to seek justice.

I am not, however, saying that a political philosophy and a religion are two ideas which cannot become entangled. That would be to deny the basic fact that Bolshevik Jews existed. All I am saying is that religion is a touchy subject, and has been for the whole of human history. Therefore, I reckon it is safe to say that the category of "religion" has not been arbitrarily decided on, nor has the separate category of "political philosophy."

[elliebean]

Some thoughts:

1. If communism, or any other political or economic philosophy meets the criteria to be called a religion, so does capitalism.

    a. I'm thoroughly convinced it doesn't.

    b. I am thoroughly convinced it doesn't matter.

2. Any reference to "the" dictionary implies agreement between all dictionaries.

   a. there is no "the" dictionary.

    b. Webster's has always had a christian bias. Before consulting it for definitions of things like "religion", it might be useful to look up its definition of words like "atheism":

atheism
One entry found.

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈā-thÄ"-ËŒi-zÉ™m\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546

1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism


Hmm...not even a mention of any really accurate definition by most atheists' standards. At least they seem to have upgraded it a bit from "denial of the existence of God".

3. Even if communism or anything else is an atheistic religion    that fact alone would tell us absolutely nothing at all about atheism itself. In fact nothing tells us anything at all about atheism escept this: a (no) + theos (god) + ism (belief) = no belief in god.