Religion is an integral part of the identity and culture of any human society; a natural byproduct of a community that arises from the specific social conditions attained by human civilization and also an inherent extension of our own imaginative capabilities, general curiosity, and longing for purpose.
On its own religion arises & develops naturally and, if left alone, is ultimately harmless in and of itself.
The worst examples of religion we think of all stem from a common source: the deliberate interference in religious practices & teachings by authorities seeking to weaponize faith as a method of public control. From here develops clericalism and dogma to further those aims through class warfare by the priestly class against the laity leading to inquisitions, crusades, excommunications, human sacrifice, witch trials, and similar atrocities to cement the clergy’s temporal authority in the absence of actual divine anointment.
Anti-theism is an overreaction to this phenomenon in much the same way technophobia & primitivism is an overreaction to industrialization & technological advancement.
Atheism is a bourgeois invention that exploits the principles of rationalism to facilitate the further deconstruction of human culture, morality, and community - all of which interact directly with and are influenced religion - in order to further reduce people into simple workers & consumers by annihilating their humanity.
Secularism is a product of capitalism falsely advertised as a kind of neutrality but in fact simply enforces atheism as the default. Instead of dismantling theocracy it replaces it with corporations instead of churches, oligarchs in place of preachers, legalism instead of dogma, the state in place of god, prison in place of hell, wealth instead of paradise.
Religion is here to stay. It exists under socialism, will exist under communism, and will persist into whatever comes afterwards. It is as much a part of human culture as music, poetry, and other kinds of art.
Religion is as natural and integral part of our society as serial killers are, they happen due to determinate conditions as you said but that does not make them a law of nature. At some point each respective religion spoke some truth of it’s time but we are long past the point of looking at spiritualism for answers when we have proven through the advance of science that the world and it’s laws are knowable, at this point it’s frankly absurd to think otherwise.
Atheism is a bourgeois invention that exploits the principles of rationalism to facilitate the further deconstruction of human culture, morality, and community - all of which interact directly with and are influenced religion - in order to further reduce people into simple workers & consumers by annihilating their humanity.
Secularism is a product of capitalism falsely advertised as a kind of neutrality but in fact simply enforces atheism as the default. Instead of dismantling theocracy it replaces it with corporations instead of churches, oligarchs in place of preachers, legalism instead of dogma, the state in place of god, prison in place of hell, wealth instead of paradise.
Is this for real? This read like a copy pasta making fun of communists, are you not mixing things up? IT is the communists the ones that have been historically known for being the filthy godless enemies of religion, there is straight up propaganda comic strips called The godless communists. Bourgeois democracies are all secular in name only, they all enjoy the pacifying benefits of religion and make sure it is widely promoted among it’s subjects.
Religion is here to stay. It exists under socialism, will exist under communism, and will persist into whatever comes afterwards. It is as much a part of human culture as music, poetry, and other kinds of art.
On its own religion arises & develops naturally and, if left alone, is ultimately harmless in and of itself.
How does religion develop naturally and be left alone when it’s inextricably tied to reality, especially when the only societies that have existed for the past several millennia were class societies?
Also, how do we reconcile materialism and the militant atheism that’s been part of the foundation of ML parties with atheism being a bourgeois invention to flatten people into soulless automata?
I’ve been having a crisis of faith in dialectical materialism lately, especially the latter part. I’ve been an atheist for my entire adult life and all I have to show for it is empty comfort and self hatred. I’ve seen the downright miraculous transformations people have when they re-establish their relationship with God. It’s indisputable proof that God exists, that He cares for us, and that the evangelists the reddit atheists would always argue with were right: only a fool says in his heart there is no God. Why should anyone treat the material as primary, let alone all that exists?
Update: Everything past the first two paragraphs was basically a mini-crashout. I’ve been having my bouts of intense rumination, irrationality, and hopelessness increasingly often. For the most part I’ve at least had the good sense not to post through it, but I made that mistake when I made this comment. I think I need to get away from social media (even the FOSS kind) for a pretty long time.
For what it’s worth, regarding the “God” question, I find the idea of its existence to be ridiculous if I put in even the tiniest amount of thought about it, but the overwhelming majority of people I have to interact with in real life take it seriously. It gets to the point where I start thinking I must be the wrong one if so many people disagree with me, and the mental stress of trying to jam the square peg of society’s belief into the triangular hole of my mind makes me desperately try to convince myself something is true even if I fundamentally cannot believe it.
These are genuinely good questions. I’m trapped at work for the next 8 hours but when I have more time I’ll try to respond to them with the effort they deserve.
Also, how do we reconcile materialism and the militant atheism that’s been part of the foundation of ML parties with atheism being a bourgeois invention to flatten people into soulless automata?
Because it’s not. Every single person at birth is atheist, you have to convince people to believe it. There’s no evidence of a “soul”.
I’ve seen the downright miraculous transformations people have when they re-establish their relationship with God. It’s indisputable proof that God exists
Unfortunately, this is exactly how all religion spreads: through testimony, not evidence. “I prayed and god did this thing for me/I felt better/felt his holy presence”, people go through these “miraculous transformations”, and that automatically means god exists, because I felt a thing and I read a book that said a thing.
Why should anyone treat the material as primary, let alone all that exists?
Because there’s no evidence for it otherwise.
Yet, as far as I can tell, this is incompatible with Marxism-Leninism.
That’s because it is. It’s just idealism, with no basis in reality and MLs work in material reality. I don’t understand people who try and shoehorn religion into MLism, it’s just cope. I guess you can fit anything into religion if you ignore all the parts about god being a genocidal monster, controlling women, etc. but at that point why even bother with it anymore? Again, just cope.
only a fool says in his heart there is no God.
I’d say a fool is one who is ready and willing to believe in unfalsifiable claims with insufficient evidence.
Sorry for the late response. Meant to get to this much earlier.
How does religion develop naturally and be left alone when it’s inextricably tied to reality, especially when the only societies that have existed for the past several millennia were class societies?
Classless societies have existed all throughout history and there is no evidence for a lack of religion in any of them. I’m not sure where you got the idea that a classless society has never existed before because that simply isn’t the case. One of my personal favorite examples is also one of the earliest civilizations: the Indus Valley civilization. Despite extensive archaeology no evidence for a class system has been produced as of yet and everything currently points to a lack of stratification entirely, though there is evidence of religious rituals. It endured for several thousand years. Even if no class society had ever existed there doesn’t necessarily mean that religion is tied specifically to the class system; that would be assuming correlation equals causation. It’s also disproven by the modern incarnation of class societies which has been heavily moving away from religious-oriented cultures, oftentimes deliberately eroding faith over time. Where religion hasn’t been totally removed from society it has been either weakened to the point of feebleness or coopted by capital for its own ends.
Also, how do we reconcile materialism and the militant atheism that’s been part of the foundation of ML parties with atheism being a bourgeois invention to flatten people into soulless automata?
That’s the point of self-criticism: to find and analyze flaws and correct them.
Hakim states it best in his video on the mistakes of former socialism where he points out that while it was good and necessary to weaken the authority of clerical institutions that opposed socialism and worked with reactionary forces this didn’t need to translate to the outright persecution of religion entirely and that by doing so the socialist state positioned itself as an enemy of all religious people - including deeply religious proles. Seeing as proles tend to be the most religious demographic by far it doesn’t help our movement to be openly hostile to their personal, spiritual beliefs - particularly when this beliefs compliment our own materialist ideology rather than conflict with it. “Jesus was a socialist” might be a meme but the reality of Jesus and his teachings is that they are in fact quite compatible - complimentary, even - with a socialist system and there’s no point in alienating Christian proles by telling them their religion is fake. Being spiritual is not the same as being anti-materialist. Most people in fact are quite materialist in their thinking and way of life, including incredibly religious people, and there’s no benefit to them or us by creating unnecessary friction between our ideology and their religion when it doesn’t need to exist.
I’ve been having a crisis of faith in dialectical materialism lately, especially the latter part. I’ve been an atheist for my entire adult life and all I have to show for it is empty comfort and self hatred. I’ve seen the downright miraculous transformations people have when they re-establish their relationship with God. It’s indisputable proof that God exists, that He cares for us, and that the evangelists the reddit atheists would always argue with were right: only a fool says in his heart there is no God. Why should anyone treat the material as primary, let alone all that exists?
I actually have a similar issue, being gnostic myself.
The way I see it: this life is only temporary. Whether there is or isn’t something waiting for us afterwards I can find no reason not to make the material world we live in as enjoyable for ourselves as possible. If we’re to exist here, in this place, for a certain amount of time we might as well make the best of it by living a life worth living and if whatever evil systems in this world are getting in the way of that then we should prioritize destroying them and replacing them with something better so that we can finally enjoy our time on this Earth.
Secularism is a product of capitalism falsely advertised as a kind of neutrality
You may want to read around Ibn Rushd. Secularism has been reappropriated by capital in the West but is not bound by it. It has religious and non-religious flavours. If you would like me to expand on that then please let me know.
Ibn Rushd could be considered the father of secularism reappropriated by the West.
Essentially, during the Islamic Golden age (roughly 8-9th to 14th century) there was an apparent religious contradiction that most major institutional religions (including Abrahamic and Dharmic) had to square: the ongoing scientific/proto-scientific discoveries that developed technologies (and used to consolidate power) and the divine immutablity of scriptures (of which was used as justification for the concentration of power) reflecting feudal politico-economies.
Ibn Rushd, who was a deeply religious Islamic scholar, proposed a solution of what was perceived later in the west as a separation of “philosophy” (which back then, and even now with dialectical materialism, was science/proto-science) and religion. What he actually proposed was more explicitly dialectical than that; instead he explained there is a relationship between the two with one feeding the other to and fro, all under divine guidance, which as human beings we understand as the synthesis of the above two factors. And he grounded that in the scientific discoveries at that time (an early materialist approach). He would then propose if this contradicted the interpretation of the liturgical scriptures then it was the religious interpretation that was incorrect and in those parts a more allegorical or metaphorical understanding was the true revelation.
Most religions would consider blasphemy as the one of the worst sins, because if you did any sin but said it was done under the name of their deity then it was that much more worse. However, most religions had dialectic philosophers - interpretations of their faith which involved to better understand the divinity of their deity they needed to better understand their material world around them. How to discover science without being blasphemous was the philosphical fine line that gave birth to secularism. The degree that this discovery of science/proto-science was amplified, however, was filtered by the material constraints of the socio-politico-economic systems of those times.
Modern Western Secularism, accelerated afrer the so-called Enlightenment (which actually is a product of the dominant mode of production going from feudalism to capitalism; the material always comes before the idea), is often equated to state promotion of atheism where in reality it is a pseudo-neutrality with overwhelming preference of practice of domestic and foreign policy in favour of White Supremacist imperialist politics (with some parallels in how Constantinople repurposed Roman pagan gods for Catholic Saints) - in sharp contrast some of the Eastern approaches which is in more in-keeping with the religious neutrality (eg Mughal India or PRC especially post-Mao). The apparent communist purging of religion in the early stages of socialist development in the USSR and PRC was because those forms of religion held on to feudal and capitalist vestiges, and therefore the religious reaction often found themselves aligning with foreign powers against the dictatorship of the proleteriat.
Relgion often reflects the politico-economy. To use Catholicism as an example, contrast the catholicism in Cuba or liberation theology of South America with the catholcism of the USA, Germany and France. And in a similar vein “athiesm” also reflects socio-political economies - see for example the “secularism” of the West vs how it is practised in Cuba or China.
If you wanted one phrase that encapsulates the differences in secularism between the west and socialist countries it’s this: dialectical materialism. Socialist countries are dialectical materialist in the approach where as the capitalist countries aren’t just not dialectial materialist, they actviely promote anti-dialectical-materialism (though they don’t use, or in most cases not even cognizant of, that vernacular).
Ok so lets look at these part by part. First it feels like I JUST stopped playing wack-a-mole with to be a Communist you must be an atheist so this is new. Second, full discloser I have been both a Communist and an Athiest most of my life. With those dislcosers out of the way lets move onto the reply
Ok so religion is an “integral part of the identity and culture of any human society” I mean first I take issue with the notion that it is intigral. Lets look at all 5 AES nations, they are secular, religion plays no part in the running of the state, heck most nations run as secular, either defacto or dejure. “[religion is]a natural byproduct of a community that arises from the specific social conditions attained by human civilization” So was fudelism, capitalism, slavery, none of these where necessarily good nor things that we would argue are still esental. No part of that argument requires that Religion is something that is needed, just that it formed and it had a function. “also an inherent extension of our own imaginative capabilities, general curiosity, and longing for purpose.” Ok use your creativity to solve problems, Use your curiosity to learn more, to expand your horizions and to learn more, and make your own purpose, life dose not give you a quest log that you can check off, and you do not need to have someone tell you.
“On its own religion arises & develops naturally and, if left alone, is ultimately harmless in and of itself.” I know I came off harsh in that last paragraph, so let me say there is nothing inherently wrong with being religious. Your morals are yours and I care what you belive is right and wrong. I am not sure I would phrase it as “ultimately harmless” I also do not understand what you mean with “religion arises & develops naturally” I am not sure how to tell you this but all religions can be said to have done that. Humans as a part of nature are the only controlling force on religions, we are also, so far as we know the only part of nature that has religion, so you cannot say if it develops naturally, while leaving out anything that was done with religion, as you mentioned in your previous paragraph religion cannot be divorced from the social and cultural pressures it is in.
“The worst examples of religion we think of all stem from a common source: the deliberate interference in religious practices & teachings by authorities seeking to weaponize faith as a method of public control.” First how is this not natural? this has been the development of religion and this sounds a little like special pleading that any and all issues have stemmed from this. “From here develops clericalism and dogma the … and similar atrocities to cement the clergy’s temporal authority in the absence of actual divine anointment.” Citation needed. Also you are arguing that there is a divine anointment, however you first need to show that clame to be something for someone who is not religious to take that seriously. Who did act with Devin anointment? John Brown? and are we saying that because we agree with his actions or are we saying that because there is something we know for certan.
“Anti-theism is an overreaction to this phenomenon in much the same way technophobia & primitivism is an overreaction to industrialization & technological advancement.” Ok so I am going to say charitably when you say Anti-theism you are referring to people who are vehemently anti-religion, the folks who call every religion a cult. I say this because there is no good standard usage of terms, and anti-theist could refer to an athiest who found that word first or thought atheist was co-opted some how, or someone who BELIEVES there is no god instead of not believing there is a god. Yeah its a strong reaction, but also is it any more or less valid a stance than believing for certain there is a god.
"
“Atheism is a bourgeois invention that exploits the principles of rationalism to facilitate the further deconstruction of human culture” Citation needed agian please. Lets not forget that most of the early communists where super athiest, due in no small part due to the church and religions role in keeping the working class down, need I not remind you the "religion is the opied of the masses,morality, and community " quote. Are we going to say here, that the United States, a highly religious country with religious nationalism surging has a flurishing culture? That we have a strong sense of community, stronger than that of the PRC, or that the USA is more moral? Or what about the splits in religion to defend slavery. As my very catholic aunt likes to point out the bible never condems slavery, it just puts guide rails on it.“all of which interact directly with and are influenced religion” There is a whole body of work on Secular morality, Religion when it is present can be a part of culture but culture exists outside of religion, and community, you are aware that there are none religious communities right? “in order to further reduce people into simple workers & consumers by annihilating their humanity.” First please look up Secular Humanism I beg of you, second no that is capitalism that in effect reduces that, also agian are you teling me that it is more expected that the USA does not break people down to workers and consumers more so than the PRC? is that what you are telling me is expected?
"
“Secularism is a product of capitalism falsely advertised as a kind of neutrality but in fact simply enforces atheism” Secularism does not enforce athiesm, yes it requrest the state act without Religion, however if that where not to be the case what religion do you chose instead? How? “Instead of dismantling theocracy it replaces it with corporations instead of churches, oligarchs in place of preachers, legalism instead of dogma, the state in place of god, prison in place of hell, wealth instead of paradise.” You are almost discribing liberalism, in the civil religion point of view that not everyone subscribes to. It also is not a theocracy, that word has a meaning.
“Religion is here to stay. It exists under socialism, will exist under communism.” This is probably the only thing I can agree with in what you said, atleast in sentiment, Relgion is generaly a none issue, and so you can be religious, every AES state that exists and all that Former Socialist states enshrined the free practice of religion. Will it never die, I am not sure about that, I could see a world where it fades, as the need for it stops, or I could see just adherents fade, or I could see it continuing but to argue as you did that it is an Essential part i find is in great error. “It is as much a part of human culture as music, poetry, and other kinds of art.” And yet religions with just as much prominence as what we have today have come and gone, there is no reason to think that what we have now is for some reason eternal
Athiesm is just a lack of belief on god, for any reason weather that be it an inability to belive or lack of knoledge of the consept of a god. Given a newborn baby, so far as we can tell does not believe on a god, it would be an athiest by default. We can agree no choice was made, that doesn’t change that because the baby doesn’t have a belief in a god it isnt a thiest so its an athiest. That is just how the word is defined, not a thiest
I will admit I find that it is an unhelpful point, however it does negate it being an invention of capital.
The best way to discribe it is how an old friend and mentor said it “I dont like saying I am an athiest that doesn’t say anything about me, all it says is I dont belive in a god, I prefer humanist, because that says something about me and what I belive”
Atheism is the rejection of theism; not the absence of it. Being an atheist isn’t the same as being irreligious. Lacking any concept of religion an infant is brought into this world an agnostic; ignorant of religion and thus incapable of rejecting it.
Irreligion has always existed but atheism is a very modern idea that originates from modern conditions; specifically the weakening of theocratic authority to pave the way for a secular order that is more agreeable to bourgeois interests.
I am sorry but you are quite mistaken. Athism while it does incompas rejection of theism doesn’t require that rejection, by its deffinition all it requires is a lack of belief in a god, no more. As you can tell that is a very wide spectrum, and doesn’t answer very much about what a person is or isnt, all it says is they do not believe in a god.
Your going to have to specify your term here Irreligion is not I belive the common usage, there are athiestic religions (religions that do not belive in a god). Also need I remind you that the foundational work of marxism wasn’t just done by athiests but by those who did have an oposition to religion “Religion is the opied of the masses” and is abke to keep them dosile and controlled for bourgeois intrests.
As I mentioned to you in my first reply, secularism isnt a bad thing, it is a position of not imposing apon people a religion, of you want a theocracy forst why, second of what religion and prove that one is both true and moral.
Lastly agnostic, as I am sure you know looking at your bio, is not a claim of belief but a claim of knowledge, you say you are gnostic, I assume by your argumenation a gnostic theist, and if I venture a little farther I would bet protistant Christian, though the last one is a stab in the dark with no real evidence. Your Gnostism is a claim of knolge. You can be an agnostic theist, dont know do belive, an agnostic athiest, dont know dont belive, or a Gnostic Athiest, do know (there is no god in this case) dont belive
They are brought into the world not beliving because they dont even know that is a consept to belive in, therefor they are a kind of agnostic athiest by pure deffiniton
I am sorry but you are quite mistaken. Athism while it does incompas rejection of theism doesn’t require that rejection, by its deffinition all it requires is a lack of belief in a god, no more. As you can tell that is a very wide spectrum, and doesn’t answer very much about what a person is or isnt, all it says is they do not believe in a god.
Maybe it’s just me but I don’t find that a useful definition for the word given how broad it is. In order to have a belief in something you have to have knowledge of it. Likewise for disbelief, since that is the rejection of belief.
Your going to have to specify your term here Irreligion is not I belive the common usage, there are athiestic religions (religions that do not belive in a god). Also need I remind you that the foundational work of marxism wasn’t just done by athiests but by those who did have an oposition to religion “Religion is the opied of the masses” and is abke to keep them dosile and controlled for bourgeois intrests.
“Irreligion” means to have no religion.
I believe you might be confusing terms here as “atheistic religion” isn’t the correct terminology IIRC. That should be “non-theistic” religion, which refers to the absence of deities in a religion as that is the meaning of non-theistic. Atheism is the specific rejection of the existence of deities and I can’t think of any religion that says “there are no gods” either outright or through implication, though there are many which don’t have them as part of their general practice or belief.
I think you’ve also misunderstood Marx’s critique of religion. Yes, he was opposed to it. But unless I missed something he never argued it made people docile or easily controllable. Even if he had this has been demonstrably disproven. Religion can be used to control masses but it can also be used to liberate or unite masses. This is why the Soviets revitalized the Orthodox faith during the German invasion; religion itself is not an inherently reactionary force. And again - unless I missed something, and you’re free to correct me if I have - Marx didn’t condemn religion for being a tool of bourgeois oppression but rather ascribed it as a coping mechanism for the oppressed. Specifically he compared it to opium because of the drug’s medicinal properties combined with its addictiveness. His view was that religion was the reflection of a people’s soul and that it was through religion they were able to stomach otherwise unbearable circumstances and because of this that it would gradually fade away under the conditions of socialism & communism as material conditions improved. I disagree with this personally, but that’s another discussion altogether. Regardless pointing out that atheists contributed heavily to the development of Marxism is rather redundant. For one thing not all early Marxists were atheists; for another many early Marxists still held racist and patronizing views towards non-Europeans yet it would be wrong to say that Marxism is inherently racist, xenophobic, or white supremacist. Marxism has (mostly) moved beyond these views just as it has its previous views on queer people and women. Early Marxists did not have complete or even consistent views on a lot of topics and that is why the development of Marxist theory & analysis persist to this day.
As I mentioned to you in my first reply, secularism isnt a bad thing, it is a position of not imposing apon people a religion, of you want a theocracy forst why, second of what religion and prove that one is both true and moral.
I oppose theocracy, thank you very much.
My views of secularism aren’t that it’s an inherently bad thing but that it isn’t the adequate solution to the problem. On the surface it appears - as you say - to be the refusal to impose a religion on anyone and that idea is one I can agree with in theory. In practice this has not been the case; what has occurred is either the preference for one religion over others with a veneer of neutrality or the persecution of all religions equally. I don’t find either circumstance to be desirable. Secularism was conceived as an answer to the problem of theocracy but that problem did not always exist and is almost uniquely a consequence of Abrahamic religious traditions and their trend toward theocratic governance, something which originates with the development of Judaism from a polytheistic religion, to a monolatric religion, to finally a monotheist religion as the priests in the cult of Yahweh consolidated further power for themselves and dethroned the rest of the Israelite pantheon. My gripe with secularism is that it tries to solve an artificial problem with an artificial solution instead of combating the problem at the source: clericalism & dogma.
Lastly agnostic, as I am sure you know looking at your bio, is not a claim of belief but a claim of knowledge, you say you are gnostic, I assume by your argumenation a gnostic theist, and if I venture a little farther I would bet protistant Christian, though the last one is a stab in the dark with no real evidence. Your Gnostism is a claim of knolge. You can be an agnostic theist, dont know do belive, an agnostic athiest, dont know dont belive, or a Gnostic Athiest, do know (there is no god in this case) dont belive
I think you’re interpreting “gnosticism” a little too literally. Gnosticism is about pursuing gnosis; not already possessing it. Achieving gnosis is the goal of the gnostic, just as achieving communism is the goal of the communist.
I don’t consider myself to be a Christian anymore. I left behind that identity due to a combination of factors ranging from a hostility to my socialist beliefs, to my grappling with my gender identity, to disagreements in morality. Christians made it clear they would not welcome me because of these irreconcilable differences and that the best I could hope to receive was a very patronizing “love the sinner, hate the sin” attitude that I found to be even more insulting than outright hostility. I was not and still am not someone needing to be “fixed” or “saved” and my refusal to accept their constant gaslighting on this issue ultimately diminished my actual faith in the broader Christian theology. My current position on Christ is that he was an enlightened man but not a messiah of any kind and certainly not a divine figure.
They are brought into the world not beliving because they dont even know that is a consept to belive in, therefor they are a kind of agnostic athiest by pure deffiniton
See, I have to disagree with this simply because “agnostic atheist” is just a paradoxical term. Atheism does in fact require rejecting the belief in something and because of that you can’t simultaneously be ignorant of something (agnostic) and rejecting it (atheist) at the same time. It’s an oxymoronic term.
Gnosticism is about pursuing gnosis; not already possessing it. Achieving gnosis is the goal of the gnostic, just as achieving communism is the goal of the communist.
What a banger line.
Fwiw I really appreciate the way in which you present your thoughts. I’m completely in agreement with your take on religion, as well as your understanding of Marx and his contemporaries regarding this issue, and also your use of terminology.
Before I start my apollogies for formatting and lack of links, I am away from my computer.
I also want to offer that my DMs both here and on matrix are open, I have found that occasionally a public forum is not always the most condusive to a conversation like this.
On your first point, it is a very broad term, as I said earlier, it tells you essentially nothing about a person, and is only in any way a used term due to the drastic previlance of theists. Once agian I am a Humanist and that will tell you WAYYYYY more about me than me saying I am an athiest. Athiestism doesn’t require a disbelief, just not having a belief.
Ok so you where using the standard deffinition. However athiestic religion is a term that is used. The one I know most about is the Satanic Temple, who expressly rejects the idea of the devine, and uses the term to discribe themselves, From what I have learned about budism, it too does not require divinity so would reach the deffinition of anthistic religion. United Church of Canada has found that to be a member, or even clurgy in the church you need not have any belief in a god or gods. To your point on athiesm agian, Athiesm makes no claim other than a lack of belief, it does not inharently exlude its possibility. Athiesm only says “I do not belive there is a god or gods” no rejection, as you seem to keep asserting.
Marx and early Marxist writers did both say that religion was used as a tool of capital, and kept the working class more dosile, some going so far as to say it in incompatible with marxism. Now I have argued that it isnt correct both here and on the GZD matrix, but that doesn’t change that it precludes your idea thag athiesm is a tool or invention of the ruling class (also please note you cannot invent a lack of belief). Also every AES nation is secular, a notion you argued is incompatible with marxism.
I am glad to hear ypu oppose theocracy, however you have consistantly railed aganst the idea of secularism, including that it is opression of religious people, it is not, and that it is inharently a tool of the capitalist class, agian its not, please see how every AES nation is secular, even cuba who is ~96% roman Catholic, and Fedel Castro said that he would say he is Christian, none of that precluded a secular state.
I feel your view that theocracy is unique to Abrahamic religions, is Western centric, there have been theocracies in asia, from none abrahamic religions that have the same or similar issues. The issues with theocracy are not unique to monotheism, and in many ways come down to running a state, or or organization through a religion.
Asside from my gripe that secularism, even in practice in many places on the planet do not require or posess opression of religion or religious, and your fraiming in many ways are akin to saying that republicanism (not having a monarchy) is bad because in the United States not only does it represent the people as the idea says, but the united states harms its people more than Denmark or Communist Grenada, both being monarchies. Or that the idea of Democracy is bad because there is a better corilation between the will of the people and the choices of the government in Qatar is better than that of the United states.
For your last point you keep referring?to athiesim as a rejection and agian it very much does not require that, it isn’t even disbelief it is a lack of belief. Once you understand that, once you understand that there is very little that makes athiests a group other than we are for one reason or another, not theists, this willake more sense. Lots of confusion is stemming from, your using the word wrong
Agnosticism and Gnosticism are claims of knowing your belief not the belief, a baby would be an agnostic (doesn’t know if a god exists) athiest (doesn’t belive a god exists) sure its meaningless at this point because the baby doesn’t even know about the conspt of a god to be able to belive or disbelive, no information of this baby has been shared this is by default because ot doesn’t know enough to change either state
Right, which is my point: we’re all born agnostic as we haven’t been exposed to the concept of religion yet and thus cannot make the decision to believe (theism) or disbelieve (atheism).
It would be agnostic athiest, no knowledge of if god exists AND you lack a belief in god.
As I have said many many times athieism isnt a disbilef its a lack of one. A baby does not belive in a god or gods SO BY DEFFINITION they must be an athiest. If someone grew up their whole life never hearing about the idea of a god or gods, and lacks a belief in god they are still an athiest, because thats the deffinition, a lack of a belief in god or gods.
Agnostism and Gnostism are not matters in that discussion.
Yes, exactly my point. An infant has no knowledge of religion or religious concepts. They don’t disbelieve (atheism) because they have no understanding of the concept and until they’ve been exposed to the concept they can’t reject it. There is a difference between knowingly rejecting something and not knowing about it in the first place.
Once again, atheism isn’t “disbelief” it’s the “lack of belief”, they’re two different things. You have to be convinced that there is any sort of deity. Atheism is also the default position, because it doesn’t make any claims, whereas theism makes a positive claim.
I offer you can’t believe without having exposure to the concept. What meaning does red, blue, green hold for someone born blind without hope for vision?
That’s what I’m saying though? Without exposure to the concept you can’t believe or disbelieve in it. Ergo no one can be “born” an atheist as they haven’t been exposed to the concept of theism yet and thus cannot believe or disbelieve it until they do.
It’s dialectical. Atheism and theism are contradictions, each contains its opposite, so in order for someone to be an atheist they have to define their beliefs in contradiction to theism.
Religion is an integral part of the identity and culture of any human society; a natural byproduct of a community that arises from the specific social conditions attained by human civilization and also an inherent extension of our own imaginative capabilities, general curiosity, and longing for purpose.
On its own religion arises & develops naturally and, if left alone, is ultimately harmless in and of itself.
The worst examples of religion we think of all stem from a common source: the deliberate interference in religious practices & teachings by authorities seeking to weaponize faith as a method of public control. From here develops clericalism and dogma to further those aims through class warfare by the priestly class against the laity leading to inquisitions, crusades, excommunications, human sacrifice, witch trials, and similar atrocities to cement the clergy’s temporal authority in the absence of actual divine anointment.
Anti-theism is an overreaction to this phenomenon in much the same way technophobia & primitivism is an overreaction to industrialization & technological advancement.
Atheism is a bourgeois invention that exploits the principles of rationalism to facilitate the further deconstruction of human culture, morality, and community - all of which interact directly with and are influenced religion - in order to further reduce people into simple workers & consumers by annihilating their humanity.
Secularism is a product of capitalism falsely advertised as a kind of neutrality but in fact simply enforces atheism as the default. Instead of dismantling theocracy it replaces it with corporations instead of churches, oligarchs in place of preachers, legalism instead of dogma, the state in place of god, prison in place of hell, wealth instead of paradise.
Religion is here to stay. It exists under socialism, will exist under communism, and will persist into whatever comes afterwards. It is as much a part of human culture as music, poetry, and other kinds of art.
Religion is as natural and integral part of our society as serial killers are, they happen due to determinate conditions as you said but that does not make them a law of nature. At some point each respective religion spoke some truth of it’s time but we are long past the point of looking at spiritualism for answers when we have proven through the advance of science that the world and it’s laws are knowable, at this point it’s frankly absurd to think otherwise.
Is this for real? This read like a copy pasta making fun of communists, are you not mixing things up? IT is the communists the ones that have been historically known for being the filthy godless enemies of religion, there is straight up propaganda comic strips called The godless communists. Bourgeois democracies are all secular in name only, they all enjoy the pacifying benefits of religion and make sure it is widely promoted among it’s subjects.
https://redsails.org/on-the-question-of-religion/
How does religion develop naturally and be left alone when it’s inextricably tied to reality, especially when the only societies that have existed for the past several millennia were class societies?
Also, how do we reconcile materialism and the militant atheism that’s been part of the foundation of ML parties with atheism being a bourgeois invention to flatten people into soulless automata?
I’ve been having a crisis of faith in dialectical materialism lately, especially the latter part. I’ve been an atheist for my entire adult life and all I have to show for it is empty comfort and self hatred. I’ve seen the downright miraculous transformations people have when they re-establish their relationship with God. It’s indisputable proof that God exists, that He cares for us, and that the evangelists the reddit atheists would always argue with were right: only a fool says in his heart there is no God. Why should anyone treat the material as primary, let alone all that exists?Yet, as far as I can tell, this is incompatible with Marxism-Leninism. Even people who are both religious and committed MLs, like Lady Izdihar, offer explanations that try to reconcile the two that aren’t convincing to me.Update: Everything past the first two paragraphs was basically a mini-crashout. I’ve been having my bouts of intense rumination, irrationality, and hopelessness increasingly often. For the most part I’ve at least had the good sense not to post through it, but I made that mistake when I made this comment. I think I need to get away from social media (even the FOSS kind) for a pretty long time.
For what it’s worth, regarding the “God” question, I find the idea of its existence to be ridiculous if I put in even the tiniest amount of thought about it, but the overwhelming majority of people I have to interact with in real life take it seriously. It gets to the point where I start thinking I must be the wrong one if so many people disagree with me, and the mental stress of trying to jam the square peg of society’s belief into the triangular hole of my mind makes me desperately try to convince myself something is true even if I fundamentally cannot believe it.
These are genuinely good questions. I’m trapped at work for the next 8 hours but when I have more time I’ll try to respond to them with the effort they deserve.
Because it’s not. Every single person at birth is atheist, you have to convince people to believe it. There’s no evidence of a “soul”.
Unfortunately, this is exactly how all religion spreads: through testimony, not evidence. “I prayed and god did this thing for me/I felt better/felt his holy presence”, people go through these “miraculous transformations”, and that automatically means god exists, because I felt a thing and I read a book that said a thing.
Because there’s no evidence for it otherwise.
That’s because it is. It’s just idealism, with no basis in reality and MLs work in material reality. I don’t understand people who try and shoehorn religion into MLism, it’s just cope. I guess you can fit anything into religion if you ignore all the parts about god being a genocidal monster, controlling women, etc. but at that point why even bother with it anymore? Again, just cope.
I’d say a fool is one who is ready and willing to believe in unfalsifiable claims with insufficient evidence.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Sorry for the late response. Meant to get to this much earlier.
Classless societies have existed all throughout history and there is no evidence for a lack of religion in any of them. I’m not sure where you got the idea that a classless society has never existed before because that simply isn’t the case. One of my personal favorite examples is also one of the earliest civilizations: the Indus Valley civilization. Despite extensive archaeology no evidence for a class system has been produced as of yet and everything currently points to a lack of stratification entirely, though there is evidence of religious rituals. It endured for several thousand years. Even if no class society had ever existed there doesn’t necessarily mean that religion is tied specifically to the class system; that would be assuming correlation equals causation. It’s also disproven by the modern incarnation of class societies which has been heavily moving away from religious-oriented cultures, oftentimes deliberately eroding faith over time. Where religion hasn’t been totally removed from society it has been either weakened to the point of feebleness or coopted by capital for its own ends.
That’s the point of self-criticism: to find and analyze flaws and correct them.
Hakim states it best in his video on the mistakes of former socialism where he points out that while it was good and necessary to weaken the authority of clerical institutions that opposed socialism and worked with reactionary forces this didn’t need to translate to the outright persecution of religion entirely and that by doing so the socialist state positioned itself as an enemy of all religious people - including deeply religious proles. Seeing as proles tend to be the most religious demographic by far it doesn’t help our movement to be openly hostile to their personal, spiritual beliefs - particularly when this beliefs compliment our own materialist ideology rather than conflict with it. “Jesus was a socialist” might be a meme but the reality of Jesus and his teachings is that they are in fact quite compatible - complimentary, even - with a socialist system and there’s no point in alienating Christian proles by telling them their religion is fake. Being spiritual is not the same as being anti-materialist. Most people in fact are quite materialist in their thinking and way of life, including incredibly religious people, and there’s no benefit to them or us by creating unnecessary friction between our ideology and their religion when it doesn’t need to exist.
I actually have a similar issue, being gnostic myself.
The way I see it: this life is only temporary. Whether there is or isn’t something waiting for us afterwards I can find no reason not to make the material world we live in as enjoyable for ourselves as possible. If we’re to exist here, in this place, for a certain amount of time we might as well make the best of it by living a life worth living and if whatever evil systems in this world are getting in the way of that then we should prioritize destroying them and replacing them with something better so that we can finally enjoy our time on this Earth.
You may want to read around Ibn Rushd. Secularism has been reappropriated by capital in the West but is not bound by it. It has religious and non-religious flavours. If you would like me to expand on that then please let me know.
That’s an interesting perspective. I would like to hear more about it.
Ibn Rushd could be considered the father of secularism reappropriated by the West.
Essentially, during the Islamic Golden age (roughly 8-9th to 14th century) there was an apparent religious contradiction that most major institutional religions (including Abrahamic and Dharmic) had to square: the ongoing scientific/proto-scientific discoveries that developed technologies (and used to consolidate power) and the divine immutablity of scriptures (of which was used as justification for the concentration of power) reflecting feudal politico-economies.
Ibn Rushd, who was a deeply religious Islamic scholar, proposed a solution of what was perceived later in the west as a separation of “philosophy” (which back then, and even now with dialectical materialism, was science/proto-science) and religion. What he actually proposed was more explicitly dialectical than that; instead he explained there is a relationship between the two with one feeding the other to and fro, all under divine guidance, which as human beings we understand as the synthesis of the above two factors. And he grounded that in the scientific discoveries at that time (an early materialist approach). He would then propose if this contradicted the interpretation of the liturgical scriptures then it was the religious interpretation that was incorrect and in those parts a more allegorical or metaphorical understanding was the true revelation.
Most religions would consider blasphemy as the one of the worst sins, because if you did any sin but said it was done under the name of their deity then it was that much more worse. However, most religions had dialectic philosophers - interpretations of their faith which involved to better understand the divinity of their deity they needed to better understand their material world around them. How to discover science without being blasphemous was the philosphical fine line that gave birth to secularism. The degree that this discovery of science/proto-science was amplified, however, was filtered by the material constraints of the socio-politico-economic systems of those times.
Modern Western Secularism, accelerated afrer the so-called Enlightenment (which actually is a product of the dominant mode of production going from feudalism to capitalism; the material always comes before the idea), is often equated to state promotion of atheism where in reality it is a pseudo-neutrality with overwhelming preference of practice of domestic and foreign policy in favour of White Supremacist imperialist politics (with some parallels in how Constantinople repurposed Roman pagan gods for Catholic Saints) - in sharp contrast some of the Eastern approaches which is in more in-keeping with the religious neutrality (eg Mughal India or PRC especially post-Mao). The apparent communist purging of religion in the early stages of socialist development in the USSR and PRC was because those forms of religion held on to feudal and capitalist vestiges, and therefore the religious reaction often found themselves aligning with foreign powers against the dictatorship of the proleteriat.
Relgion often reflects the politico-economy. To use Catholicism as an example, contrast the catholicism in Cuba or liberation theology of South America with the catholcism of the USA, Germany and France. And in a similar vein “athiesm” also reflects socio-political economies - see for example the “secularism” of the West vs how it is practised in Cuba or China.
If you wanted one phrase that encapsulates the differences in secularism between the west and socialist countries it’s this: dialectical materialism. Socialist countries are dialectical materialist in the approach where as the capitalist countries aren’t just not dialectial materialist, they actviely promote anti-dialectical-materialism (though they don’t use, or in most cases not even cognizant of, that vernacular).
Hope the above helped
Extremely interesting perspective, thank you. I have to admit it makes a lot of sense and is a very convincing argument.
Seriously, thank you for this.
Ok so lets look at these part by part. First it feels like I JUST stopped playing wack-a-mole with to be a Communist you must be an atheist so this is new. Second, full discloser I have been both a Communist and an Athiest most of my life. With those dislcosers out of the way lets move onto the reply
Ok so religion is an “integral part of the identity and culture of any human society” I mean first I take issue with the notion that it is intigral. Lets look at all 5 AES nations, they are secular, religion plays no part in the running of the state, heck most nations run as secular, either defacto or dejure. “[religion is]a natural byproduct of a community that arises from the specific social conditions attained by human civilization” So was fudelism, capitalism, slavery, none of these where necessarily good nor things that we would argue are still esental. No part of that argument requires that Religion is something that is needed, just that it formed and it had a function. “also an inherent extension of our own imaginative capabilities, general curiosity, and longing for purpose.” Ok use your creativity to solve problems, Use your curiosity to learn more, to expand your horizions and to learn more, and make your own purpose, life dose not give you a quest log that you can check off, and you do not need to have someone tell you.
“On its own religion arises & develops naturally and, if left alone, is ultimately harmless in and of itself.” I know I came off harsh in that last paragraph, so let me say there is nothing inherently wrong with being religious. Your morals are yours and I care what you belive is right and wrong. I am not sure I would phrase it as “ultimately harmless” I also do not understand what you mean with “religion arises & develops naturally” I am not sure how to tell you this but all religions can be said to have done that. Humans as a part of nature are the only controlling force on religions, we are also, so far as we know the only part of nature that has religion, so you cannot say if it develops naturally, while leaving out anything that was done with religion, as you mentioned in your previous paragraph religion cannot be divorced from the social and cultural pressures it is in.
“The worst examples of religion we think of all stem from a common source: the deliberate interference in religious practices & teachings by authorities seeking to weaponize faith as a method of public control.” First how is this not natural? this has been the development of religion and this sounds a little like special pleading that any and all issues have stemmed from this. “From here develops clericalism and dogma the … and similar atrocities to cement the clergy’s temporal authority in the absence of actual divine anointment.” Citation needed. Also you are arguing that there is a divine anointment, however you first need to show that clame to be something for someone who is not religious to take that seriously. Who did act with Devin anointment? John Brown? and are we saying that because we agree with his actions or are we saying that because there is something we know for certan.
“Anti-theism is an overreaction to this phenomenon in much the same way technophobia & primitivism is an overreaction to industrialization & technological advancement.” Ok so I am going to say charitably when you say Anti-theism you are referring to people who are vehemently anti-religion, the folks who call every religion a cult. I say this because there is no good standard usage of terms, and anti-theist could refer to an athiest who found that word first or thought atheist was co-opted some how, or someone who BELIEVES there is no god instead of not believing there is a god. Yeah its a strong reaction, but also is it any more or less valid a stance than believing for certain there is a god. " “Atheism is a bourgeois invention that exploits the principles of rationalism to facilitate the further deconstruction of human culture” Citation needed agian please. Lets not forget that most of the early communists where super athiest, due in no small part due to the church and religions role in keeping the working class down, need I not remind you the "religion is the opied of the masses,morality, and community " quote. Are we going to say here, that the United States, a highly religious country with religious nationalism surging has a flurishing culture? That we have a strong sense of community, stronger than that of the PRC, or that the USA is more moral? Or what about the splits in religion to defend slavery. As my very catholic aunt likes to point out the bible never condems slavery, it just puts guide rails on it.“all of which interact directly with and are influenced religion” There is a whole body of work on Secular morality, Religion when it is present can be a part of culture but culture exists outside of religion, and community, you are aware that there are none religious communities right? “in order to further reduce people into simple workers & consumers by annihilating their humanity.” First please look up Secular Humanism I beg of you, second no that is capitalism that in effect reduces that, also agian are you teling me that it is more expected that the USA does not break people down to workers and consumers more so than the PRC? is that what you are telling me is expected? " “Secularism is a product of capitalism falsely advertised as a kind of neutrality but in fact simply enforces atheism” Secularism does not enforce athiesm, yes it requrest the state act without Religion, however if that where not to be the case what religion do you chose instead? How? “Instead of dismantling theocracy it replaces it with corporations instead of churches, oligarchs in place of preachers, legalism instead of dogma, the state in place of god, prison in place of hell, wealth instead of paradise.” You are almost discribing liberalism, in the civil religion point of view that not everyone subscribes to. It also is not a theocracy, that word has a meaning.
“Religion is here to stay. It exists under socialism, will exist under communism.” This is probably the only thing I can agree with in what you said, atleast in sentiment, Relgion is generaly a none issue, and so you can be religious, every AES state that exists and all that Former Socialist states enshrined the free practice of religion. Will it never die, I am not sure about that, I could see a world where it fades, as the need for it stops, or I could see just adherents fade, or I could see it continuing but to argue as you did that it is an Essential part i find is in great error. “It is as much a part of human culture as music, poetry, and other kinds of art.” And yet religions with just as much prominence as what we have today have come and gone, there is no reason to think that what we have now is for some reason eternal
Lmfao we’re all born atheist, how tf can it be an invention of any kind???
How is someone “born” atheist?
Athiesm is just a lack of belief on god, for any reason weather that be it an inability to belive or lack of knoledge of the consept of a god. Given a newborn baby, so far as we can tell does not believe on a god, it would be an athiest by default. We can agree no choice was made, that doesn’t change that because the baby doesn’t have a belief in a god it isnt a thiest so its an athiest. That is just how the word is defined, not a thiest
I will admit I find that it is an unhelpful point, however it does negate it being an invention of capital.
The best way to discribe it is how an old friend and mentor said it “I dont like saying I am an athiest that doesn’t say anything about me, all it says is I dont belive in a god, I prefer humanist, because that says something about me and what I belive”
Atheism is the rejection of theism; not the absence of it. Being an atheist isn’t the same as being irreligious. Lacking any concept of religion an infant is brought into this world an agnostic; ignorant of religion and thus incapable of rejecting it.
Irreligion has always existed but atheism is a very modern idea that originates from modern conditions; specifically the weakening of theocratic authority to pave the way for a secular order that is more agreeable to bourgeois interests.
I am sorry but you are quite mistaken. Athism while it does incompas rejection of theism doesn’t require that rejection, by its deffinition all it requires is a lack of belief in a god, no more. As you can tell that is a very wide spectrum, and doesn’t answer very much about what a person is or isnt, all it says is they do not believe in a god.
Your going to have to specify your term here Irreligion is not I belive the common usage, there are athiestic religions (religions that do not belive in a god). Also need I remind you that the foundational work of marxism wasn’t just done by athiests but by those who did have an oposition to religion “Religion is the opied of the masses” and is abke to keep them dosile and controlled for bourgeois intrests.
As I mentioned to you in my first reply, secularism isnt a bad thing, it is a position of not imposing apon people a religion, of you want a theocracy forst why, second of what religion and prove that one is both true and moral.
Lastly agnostic, as I am sure you know looking at your bio, is not a claim of belief but a claim of knowledge, you say you are gnostic, I assume by your argumenation a gnostic theist, and if I venture a little farther I would bet protistant Christian, though the last one is a stab in the dark with no real evidence. Your Gnostism is a claim of knolge. You can be an agnostic theist, dont know do belive, an agnostic athiest, dont know dont belive, or a Gnostic Athiest, do know (there is no god in this case) dont belive
They are brought into the world not beliving because they dont even know that is a consept to belive in, therefor they are a kind of agnostic athiest by pure deffiniton
Maybe it’s just me but I don’t find that a useful definition for the word given how broad it is. In order to have a belief in something you have to have knowledge of it. Likewise for disbelief, since that is the rejection of belief.
“Irreligion” means to have no religion.
I believe you might be confusing terms here as “atheistic religion” isn’t the correct terminology IIRC. That should be “non-theistic” religion, which refers to the absence of deities in a religion as that is the meaning of non-theistic. Atheism is the specific rejection of the existence of deities and I can’t think of any religion that says “there are no gods” either outright or through implication, though there are many which don’t have them as part of their general practice or belief.
I think you’ve also misunderstood Marx’s critique of religion. Yes, he was opposed to it. But unless I missed something he never argued it made people docile or easily controllable. Even if he had this has been demonstrably disproven. Religion can be used to control masses but it can also be used to liberate or unite masses. This is why the Soviets revitalized the Orthodox faith during the German invasion; religion itself is not an inherently reactionary force. And again - unless I missed something, and you’re free to correct me if I have - Marx didn’t condemn religion for being a tool of bourgeois oppression but rather ascribed it as a coping mechanism for the oppressed. Specifically he compared it to opium because of the drug’s medicinal properties combined with its addictiveness. His view was that religion was the reflection of a people’s soul and that it was through religion they were able to stomach otherwise unbearable circumstances and because of this that it would gradually fade away under the conditions of socialism & communism as material conditions improved. I disagree with this personally, but that’s another discussion altogether. Regardless pointing out that atheists contributed heavily to the development of Marxism is rather redundant. For one thing not all early Marxists were atheists; for another many early Marxists still held racist and patronizing views towards non-Europeans yet it would be wrong to say that Marxism is inherently racist, xenophobic, or white supremacist. Marxism has (mostly) moved beyond these views just as it has its previous views on queer people and women. Early Marxists did not have complete or even consistent views on a lot of topics and that is why the development of Marxist theory & analysis persist to this day.
I oppose theocracy, thank you very much.
My views of secularism aren’t that it’s an inherently bad thing but that it isn’t the adequate solution to the problem. On the surface it appears - as you say - to be the refusal to impose a religion on anyone and that idea is one I can agree with in theory. In practice this has not been the case; what has occurred is either the preference for one religion over others with a veneer of neutrality or the persecution of all religions equally. I don’t find either circumstance to be desirable. Secularism was conceived as an answer to the problem of theocracy but that problem did not always exist and is almost uniquely a consequence of Abrahamic religious traditions and their trend toward theocratic governance, something which originates with the development of Judaism from a polytheistic religion, to a monolatric religion, to finally a monotheist religion as the priests in the cult of Yahweh consolidated further power for themselves and dethroned the rest of the Israelite pantheon. My gripe with secularism is that it tries to solve an artificial problem with an artificial solution instead of combating the problem at the source: clericalism & dogma.
I think you’re interpreting “gnosticism” a little too literally. Gnosticism is about pursuing gnosis; not already possessing it. Achieving gnosis is the goal of the gnostic, just as achieving communism is the goal of the communist.
I don’t consider myself to be a Christian anymore. I left behind that identity due to a combination of factors ranging from a hostility to my socialist beliefs, to my grappling with my gender identity, to disagreements in morality. Christians made it clear they would not welcome me because of these irreconcilable differences and that the best I could hope to receive was a very patronizing “love the sinner, hate the sin” attitude that I found to be even more insulting than outright hostility. I was not and still am not someone needing to be “fixed” or “saved” and my refusal to accept their constant gaslighting on this issue ultimately diminished my actual faith in the broader Christian theology. My current position on Christ is that he was an enlightened man but not a messiah of any kind and certainly not a divine figure.
See, I have to disagree with this simply because “agnostic atheist” is just a paradoxical term. Atheism does in fact require rejecting the belief in something and because of that you can’t simultaneously be ignorant of something (agnostic) and rejecting it (atheist) at the same time. It’s an oxymoronic term.
What a banger line.
Fwiw I really appreciate the way in which you present your thoughts. I’m completely in agreement with your take on religion, as well as your understanding of Marx and his contemporaries regarding this issue, and also your use of terminology.
Before I start my apollogies for formatting and lack of links, I am away from my computer.
I also want to offer that my DMs both here and on matrix are open, I have found that occasionally a public forum is not always the most condusive to a conversation like this.
On your first point, it is a very broad term, as I said earlier, it tells you essentially nothing about a person, and is only in any way a used term due to the drastic previlance of theists. Once agian I am a Humanist and that will tell you WAYYYYY more about me than me saying I am an athiest. Athiestism doesn’t require a disbelief, just not having a belief.
Ok so you where using the standard deffinition. However athiestic religion is a term that is used. The one I know most about is the Satanic Temple, who expressly rejects the idea of the devine, and uses the term to discribe themselves, From what I have learned about budism, it too does not require divinity so would reach the deffinition of anthistic religion. United Church of Canada has found that to be a member, or even clurgy in the church you need not have any belief in a god or gods. To your point on athiesm agian, Athiesm makes no claim other than a lack of belief, it does not inharently exlude its possibility. Athiesm only says “I do not belive there is a god or gods” no rejection, as you seem to keep asserting.
Marx and early Marxist writers did both say that religion was used as a tool of capital, and kept the working class more dosile, some going so far as to say it in incompatible with marxism. Now I have argued that it isnt correct both here and on the GZD matrix, but that doesn’t change that it precludes your idea thag athiesm is a tool or invention of the ruling class (also please note you cannot invent a lack of belief). Also every AES nation is secular, a notion you argued is incompatible with marxism.
I am glad to hear ypu oppose theocracy, however you have consistantly railed aganst the idea of secularism, including that it is opression of religious people, it is not, and that it is inharently a tool of the capitalist class, agian its not, please see how every AES nation is secular, even cuba who is ~96% roman Catholic, and Fedel Castro said that he would say he is Christian, none of that precluded a secular state.
I feel your view that theocracy is unique to Abrahamic religions, is Western centric, there have been theocracies in asia, from none abrahamic religions that have the same or similar issues. The issues with theocracy are not unique to monotheism, and in many ways come down to running a state, or or organization through a religion.
Asside from my gripe that secularism, even in practice in many places on the planet do not require or posess opression of religion or religious, and your fraiming in many ways are akin to saying that republicanism (not having a monarchy) is bad because in the United States not only does it represent the people as the idea says, but the united states harms its people more than Denmark or Communist Grenada, both being monarchies. Or that the idea of Democracy is bad because there is a better corilation between the will of the people and the choices of the government in Qatar is better than that of the United states.
For your last point you keep referring?to athiesim as a rejection and agian it very much does not require that, it isn’t even disbelief it is a lack of belief. Once you understand that, once you understand that there is very little that makes athiests a group other than we are for one reason or another, not theists, this willake more sense. Lots of confusion is stemming from, your using the word wrong
When you are born, you have no beliefs nor belief systems, they have to be taught to you.
That is agnosticism, not atheism.
Agnosticism and Gnosticism are claims of knowing your belief not the belief, a baby would be an agnostic (doesn’t know if a god exists) athiest (doesn’t belive a god exists) sure its meaningless at this point because the baby doesn’t even know about the conspt of a god to be able to belive or disbelive, no information of this baby has been shared this is by default because ot doesn’t know enough to change either state
Right, which is my point: we’re all born agnostic as we haven’t been exposed to the concept of religion yet and thus cannot make the decision to believe (theism) or disbelieve (atheism).
It would be agnostic athiest, no knowledge of if god exists AND you lack a belief in god.
As I have said many many times athieism isnt a disbilef its a lack of one. A baby does not belive in a god or gods SO BY DEFFINITION they must be an athiest. If someone grew up their whole life never hearing about the idea of a god or gods, and lacks a belief in god they are still an athiest, because thats the deffinition, a lack of a belief in god or gods.
Agnostism and Gnostism are not matters in that discussion.
Wrong. Agnosticism has to do with knowledge. Atheism has to do with belief.
Yes, exactly my point. An infant has no knowledge of religion or religious concepts. They don’t disbelieve (atheism) because they have no understanding of the concept and until they’ve been exposed to the concept they can’t reject it. There is a difference between knowingly rejecting something and not knowing about it in the first place.
Once again, atheism isn’t “disbelief” it’s the “lack of belief”, they’re two different things. You have to be convinced that there is any sort of deity. Atheism is also the default position, because it doesn’t make any claims, whereas theism makes a positive claim.
A- without Theist believing in a deity
Belief requires knowledge. You can’t disbelieve something if you’ve never been exposed to the concept.
I offer you can’t believe without having exposure to the concept. What meaning does red, blue, green hold for someone born blind without hope for vision?
That’s what I’m saying though? Without exposure to the concept you can’t believe or disbelieve in it. Ergo no one can be “born” an atheist as they haven’t been exposed to the concept of theism yet and thus cannot believe or disbelieve it until they do.
I’m saying there’s no G-d belief because there’s nothing to believe. After introduction, there is something to consider.
I’m not sure I follow?
I’m with you, actually.
It’s dialectical. Atheism and theism are contradictions, each contains its opposite, so in order for someone to be an atheist they have to define their beliefs in contradiction to theism.