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
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