Hilter/Stalin/Mao/Marx & atheism?

[Davin]

You mean extra ideas like there being just one God, that it's a supreme being, that it created everything and that it rules everything?

No. To me, that's just adding more to the definition of God.

Please could you explain what the definition of God was before these things were added to it? What is this 'stripped-down' God? I don't understand. Really.

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.

[Stevil]

I can tell you this; that most assurely they will not behave the same way.

Can we assume that the believer will be looking forward to death, an escape from pain, dispair, misery, evil etc and move on to the much more fulfilling afterlife? For the believer, suicide would be the perfect answer, a direct and immediate route to eternal happiness rather than waste another moment on earth.
Whereas the atheist can be assumed to want to make the most of their time on earth.

The thing is, most believers will probably see life as a gift from god, so the pain, despair and misery is part of life and to throw it away would be a sin against god.  Whereas the atheist might realise that life is purposeless and therefore there is no point in living, he is a terrible waste of resources, and would be the most likely to kill himself.  Or someone else.

This logic does not make sense. For a theist, the eternal afterlife would likely be a greater gift than the momentary real life, you know, the one with the pain and misery. I mean, come on, lets get past the appertiser and move onto the main course already.

With regards to atheist, who says that life lacks purpose? having a belief in a god does not give life a purpose. What would the purpose be? The purpose to life is having a belief in god?  Ho hum, the afterlife gets one right next to the almighty greatness herself. This would be like being put on hold. "Sorry, god is busy right now, your soul is important to her so please wait, you are 499,645,234th in the queue". Well the best way to jump to the front of the line would be to self terminate, or take up some high risk hobbies and occupations. Waiting is so overrated.

[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?

Please could you explain what the definition of God was before these things were added to it?

I don't know. Nothing, basically.

Agreed.

What is this 'stripped-down' God?

A deistic god, basically.

By which you mean what?  A god who created the universe and then didn't interfere?  He's just as non-existent as the interfering one.  If I thought either of those two existed, I'm sure I'd act differently.  Besides which, both types of god exist in religion.

I don't understand.  Really.

It's really quite simple

Thank you.  That really clears it up for everyone.

At what point isn't it an ideology?

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

What possible concept of god is there that doesn't draw on an ideology? Supremacy, authoritarianism, creationism, monotheism - these things define god in its most stripped-down version.

Just because they have some of those things in their definition of God doesn't make them an ideology.

Well ok, if you want to play it like that.  I don't see it that way, I think they're all drawn from religious ideology.  

Personally I would summarise my position as this: I think that god is a supernatural being who created the universe.  If you, like me, think that this god doesn't exist in reality, and he only exists in people's imaginations, I think you will act completely differently from someone who thinks that he does exist.  Infact I also think you will act differently from someone who isn't sure whether god exists or not.  I think it's inevitable that if you discard the belief in god, you by necessity discard a load of religious ideas with it.

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.

[Stevil]

I think that god is a supernatural being who created the universe.  If you, like me, think that this god doesn't exist in reality, and he only exists in people's imaginations, I think you will act completely differently from someone who thinks that he does exist.

Most people are concerned with the future rather than the past, especially with regards to what happend 14 billion years ago.
When people make their daily life's decisions e.g. whether to have Yum Cha for lunch or eat some fish and chips by the beach or stay at home and have some sandwiches I seriously doubt they think about whether the big bang 14 billion years ago was a natural event or whether it was created by an intelligent designer. Seriously what difference does it make with regards to the creation of the universe on what decisions most people make in their lives?

[Recusant]

We (muslims) never found religion depressing or against science.

Apparently some Muslims do.

I have been looking at that site for 5 minutes and I can't see how it shows that some muslims found religion depressing.

Fair enough.  "Harun Yahya" does not find religion depressing.

Actually I was referring to the fact that Adnan Oktar ("Harun Yahya's" actual name) is against science; specifically he denies that evolution ever occurred, based on his religious belief.  I found an old thread started by Squid about this charlatan, and have posted a quote from his website.  If you care to discuss it, you can join me there.  No need to derail this thread.

[Wilson]

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.

That's a really tortured attempt to distance Stalin and Mao from atheism.  They were atheists; they behaved badly; get over it.  Capitalism was to blame for their actions?  Montheistic religion was to blame for their actions?  Good grief.  We atheists are supposed to rely on logic; let's try to maintain that tradition.

[hackenslash]

We atheists are supposed to rely on logic;

Several things wrong with this. Firstly, this erroneously treats 'we atheists' as some sort of homogeneous grouping, which is not accurate. Atheists are extremely diverse, and in reality, the atheism is largely incidental. Secondly, there is no requirement for atheists to be logical. There are many routes to atheism, and not all of them involve reason.

I do agree that attempts to distance these people from atheism is a bit silly, but so is any attempt to paint their actions as being resultant from their atheism. Their actions stem from blind adherence to doctrinal imperatives, which is very akin to religion. Indeed, religion is merely a subset of this very principle, albeit the largest.

[Existentialist]

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.

That's a really tortured attempt to distance Stalin and Mao from atheism.  They were atheists; they behaved badly; get over it.  Capitalism was to blame for their actions?  Montheistic religion was to blame for their actions?  Good grief.  We atheists are supposed to rely on logic; let's try to maintain that tradition.

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.

As I said earlier, I don't know much about the religious history of China.  But I do know that before the late 1940's China had been the subject of some pretty persistent imperialist competition by foreign powers, and it was as much pushed and pulled by the needs of capitalism as any other country.  The rise of the Chinese communists was partly a nationalistic reaction to this but once they were in power, they set about building their own version of state capitalism ruthlessly and without mercy.  It is difficult to imagine how any kind of atheist-based philosophy could even be talked about in such an ideological environment.  The impetus was undoubtedly capitalist in nature, and capitalism closely embraces any cult-like ideology that suits it, whether it be monotheistic religion or the ideology of the great leader.

[Existentialist]

Most people are concerned with the future rather than the past, especially with regards to what happend 14 billion years ago.
When people make their daily life's decisions e.g. whether to have Yum Cha for lunch or eat some fish and chips by the beach or stay at home and have some sandwiches I seriously doubt they think about whether the big bang 14 billion years ago was a natural event or whether it was created by an intelligent designer. Seriously what difference does it make with regards to the creation of the universe on what decisions most people make in their lives?

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.

[iSok]

My biology teacher on high school had a PhD in Psychobiology.

He told me a lot about these experiments on two groups.
What I remember is that he told me, that no matter how insignifant a certain
variabele is, it will always influent the subject. So that's why I believe that
even if you believe in God and not in an after life it will affect you.

But I can't proof it by showing results of an experiment.
I'll rest my case till I've proven it.

[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.

[a-train]

We can't fall into the same trap the theists are in.

They consider the mind of Hitler, Mao, Marx, and the minds of all of mankind as one would consider a computer program or a chemical compound.

They ask: If that program or compound is exposed to x, what is the effect?

This question is based on the assumption that if the effect is good, then x is good or "right".  If the effect is bad, then x is bad or "wrong".

They assume that if the effect of a given idea on a human mind is good, then the idea is right.  If the effect of that idea is bad, then the idea is wrong.  And how do they define good and bad?  Arbitrarily.

What a mess.

A child doing good because he/she believes Santa will bring gifts is no evidence of the existence of Santa.

The truth and knowledge of it do not automatically bring about any action.  Man volitionally interprets facts and acts on his own.

-a-train

[LegendarySandwich]

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.

Please could you explain what the definition of God was before these things were added to it?

I don't know. Nothing, basically.

Agreed.

What is this 'stripped-down' God?

A deistic god, basically.

By which you mean what?  A god who created the universe and then didn't interfere?

Pretty much.

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

Irrelevant, and unprovable.

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

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

Besides which, both types of god exist in religion.

So?

I don't understand.  Really.

It's really quite simple

Thank you.  That really clears it up for everyone

It was a joke.

At what point isn't it an ideology?

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

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."

What possible concept of god is there that doesn't draw on an ideology? Supremacy, authoritarianism, creationism, monotheism - these things define god in its most stripped-down version.

Just because they have some of those things in their definition of God doesn't make them an ideology.

Well ok, if you want to play it like that.  I don't see it that way, I think they're all drawn from religious ideology.  

Personally I would summarise my position as this: I think that god is a supernatural being who created the universe.  If you, like me, think that this god doesn't exist in reality, and he only exists in people's imaginations, I think you will act completely differently from someone who thinks that he does exist.  Infact I also think you will act differently from someone who isn't sure whether god exists or not.  I think it's inevitable that if you discard the belief in god, you by necessity discard a load of religious ideas with it.

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?

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.

[Wilson]

I do agree that attempts to distance these people from atheism is a bit silly, but so is any attempt to paint their actions as being resultant from their atheism. Their actions stem from blind adherence to doctrinal imperatives, which is very akin to religion. Indeed, religion is merely a subset of this very principle, albeit the largest.

I agree with your statement that the actions of Stalin and Mao are not resultant from their atheism, and that is the argument we should make, not that 2+2=5.

[Wilson]

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: "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."

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.