Jesus was a Marxist

[Dualta]

In my experience, no one outside of Am*rica thinks in terms of 'atheism vs. religion'.

Well then, you have a very, very limited experience.

[mrswdk]

I've come across one English hipster (from the most hip part of London) who thought it was clever to call the Pope a pedophile. Other than that, everyone I've met has either been religious or indifferent, and perfectly accepting of the other group. There's none of the polarisation you see in Am*rican public debate.

[Dualta]

I've come across one English hipster (from the most hip part of London) who thought it was clever to call the Pope a pedophile. Other than that, everyone I've met has either been religious or indifferent, and perfectly accepting of the other group. There's none of the polarisation you see in Am*rican public debate.

The argument between atheists and religionists outside of the USA is ferocious. Christopher Hitchens (recently deceased), Salman Rushdie, Richard Dawkins, to name only three world renowned English atheists.

[thegreekdog]

Marx claimed that a society could only be called socialist when certain conditions were in place:

1. No government/state

2. No private property

3. No wage labour (classlessness)

It should also be pointed out that Marx believed that nation states and communism were mutually exclusive. He went as far to say that any nation state that tried to establish communism within its borders would become a warped entity. I don't think Jesus had a position on any of these things. He was also a fantasist, like other believers in imaginary, cloud-dwelling entities. Marx was a rationalist. He didn't buy into that nonsense.

To be fair, I'm not sure there's evidence suggesting that Jesus believed in entities living in clouds.

If he is quoted correctly (which is hardly likely anyway) he constantly referred to scripture in his teaching. Was he not also reported to be a practicing Jew for most of his life? That's all the evidence anyone should need that Jesus, if he even existed, was a religionist.

Oh, he was a religionist, but I can say with relatively certainty that he didn't believe that entities lived in clouds. I guess it's okay if you want to use the term "cloud-dwelling entities" to denigrate religion because it seems funny or whatever, but seems lazy and inaccurate. You don't seem like the kind of guy/girl who tends towards laziness or inaccuracy so I thought I'd point it out.

You knew all along exactly what I was saying. And I don't denigrate religion because it is funny to do so. I denigrate religion, and the religious, because religion is untrue and immoral and deserves denigration at every single opportunity. Were I in a position to do so, I would outlaw its teaching to children.

I did know all along what you were saying. How about that! So you fit into the "whatever" part of it. I do feel bad for you that you've had such a negative experience with religion that it would cause you to expend what appears to be excessive amounts of energy denigrating it. I suspect religion has no effect on you whatsoever, which makes me feel even worse for you. But hey, maybe I'm wrong and you have a reason to denigrate religion at every opportunity (apart from, you know, your opinion that it's immoral).

Just out of morbid curiousity, if teaching religion to children were outlawed, what would be the punishment? Further, why would you prohibit the teaching of religion to children but not prohibit the practice of religion?

[AndyDufresne]

--Andy

[thegreekdog]

I've come across one English hipster (from the most hip part of London) who thought it was clever to call the Pope a pedophile. Other than that, everyone I've met has either been religious or indifferent, and perfectly accepting of the other group. There's none of the polarisation you see in Am*rican public debate.

The argument between atheists and religionists outside of the USA is ferocious. Christopher Hitchens (recently deceased), Salman Rushdie, Richard Dawkins, to name only three world renowned English atheists.

C'mon mrswdk, that's where Dualta got his/her opinion that religion is immoral (from Hitchens). I mean, Hitchens was cool and all and seemed really smart, but his analysis was inherently flawed because he blamed religion for bad things as opposed to the people that practiced/led those religions. I think he also said something about how Soviet Russia under Stalin and Kim-Jong Il's oppressive regime, atheist though they were, were religious-based institutions.

[BigBallinStalin]

I've come across one English hipster (from the most hip part of London) who thought it was clever to call the Pope a pedophile. Other than that, everyone I've met has either been religious or indifferent, and perfectly accepting of the other group. There's none of the polarisation you see in Am*rican public debate.

The argument between atheists and religionists outside of the USA is ferocious. Christopher Hitchens (recently deceased), Salman Rushdie, Richard Dawkins, to name only three world renowned English atheists.

C'mon mrswdk, that's where Dualta got his/her opinion that religion is immoral (from Hitchens). I mean, Hitchens was cool and all and seemed really smart, but his analysis was inherently flawed because he blamed religion for bad things as opposed to the people that practiced/led those religions. I think he also said something about how Soviet Russia under Stalin and Kim-Jong Il's oppressive regime, atheist though they were, were religious-based institutions.

And Islam is the primary mover in terrorism, of course. It has little to do with the rational decision-making on part of government-esque organizations for expanding power and increasing revenue. Sam Harris and Dawkins' adherence to the unscientific has discouraged me from reading their books.

[chang50]

Atheism is not merely an absence of belief in a deity, by the way. It is the belief that there is certainly no deity.

Simply untrue,if theism is belief in the existence of deities (a)theism is the opposite.Unless you hold that theism is the certainty deities exist,and you exclude everyone who believes but has had doubts which is an awful lot of believers and is patently absurd.Theism and atheism deal with belief not knowledge,as has been covered ad nauseam in this forum.
Either you are ignorant of this or you are trolling,I can't decide.

[chang50]

In my experience, no one outside of Am*rica thinks in terms of 'atheism vs. religion'.

Well then, you have a very, very limited experience.

And it's a false dichotomy anyway,the opposite of atheism is theism,and the opposite of religion is irreligion or non-religion.It is possible to have a religion that does not require belief in the existence of deities.

[Dualta]

It is possible to have a religion that does not require belief in the existence of deities.

Name one.

[chang50]

It is possible to have a religion that does not require belief in the existence of deities.

Name one.

Theravada Buddhism,Jainism,Confucianism,Taoism..etc.

[Dualta]

It is possible to have a religion that does not require belief in the existence of deities.

Name one.

Theravada Buddhism,Jainism,Confucianism,Taoism..etc.

Many wouldn't call any of those religions. For many, a central tenet of a religion is that it posits a creation myth and a deity or deities.

[AndyDufresne]

It is possible to have a religion that does not require belief in the existence of deities.

Name one.

Theravada Buddhism,Jainism,Confucianism,Taoism..etc.

Many wouldn't call any of those religions. For many, a central tenet of a religion is that it posits a creation myth and a deity or deities.

Eh.


--Andy

[chang50]

It is possible to have a religion that does not require belief in the existence of deities.

Name one.

Theravada Buddhism,Jainism,Confucianism,Taoism..etc.

Many wouldn't call any of those religions. For many, a central tenet of a religion is that it posits a creation myth and a deity or deities.

The adherents mostly consider themselves religious,including my wife,and the Buddhist monks I see in the morning seeking alms.Of course one can argue they are philosophies but that is not a widespread view in my experience.

[mrswdk]

Buddhism is a religion, but unfortunately for your argument all the Buddhist temples I've been to are places where people go to pray to the Buddhas for help (with family illnesses, money worries etc.), suggesting that Buddhists do, indeed, believe in deities. Confucianism is not a religion. It is the philosophy of Confucius.

[mrswdk]

It's called agnosticism, chang. The belief that neither the existence nor non-existence of a god can be completely proven. Atheism is the belief that there is, 100% undeniably, no god.

[mrswdk]

The argument between atheists and religionists outside of the USA is ferocious. Christopher Hitchens (recently deceased), Salman Rushdie, Richard Dawkins, to name only three world renowned English atheists.

They are famous for their trolling, but that doesn't mean that many/any British people really give a shit about their arguments or feel the need to debate the existence of god.

Of course, maybe the vast majority of people in the US don't care either, but it doesn't seem that way.

[Dukasaur]

It's called agnosticism, chang. The belief that neither the existence nor non-existence of a god can be completely proven. Atheism is the belief that there is, 100% undeniably, no god.

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any specific deity. What you are painting as "atheism" is only one small subset of atheism -- "positive" or "strong" atheism posits that God absolutely does not exist, but many other variants of atheism exist. Atheist credos can be as weak as "there probably is a God, but I choose not to accept Him." Between the strong extreme and the weak extreme are many possible nuanced positions, some of which overlap with agnosticism and some which do not.

Agnosticism simply means "lack of knowledge." It is an acceptance of our own limitations to know or comprehend God, and says nothing about his existence or nonexistence. Thus, one can be both agnostic and atheist at the same time, but one can also be either of those without being both. Saying "I see no evidence of a God" can imply "I see no evidence of a God, and my eyes are pretty damn good, so I'm pretty confident he's not there" (atheist without being agnostic) or it can imply "I see no evidence of a God, but I know that my mortal eyes are inadequate to such a lofty task as seeing His glory" (agnostic without being atheist) or it can imply "I see no evidence of a God, and while I'm probably unequal to the task, the burden of proof rests with those who claim that they do see such evidence" (both atheist and agnostic.)

As noted elsewhere in this thread, many religions including Jainism, some variants of Buddhism, some variants of Hinduism, and many others, do not have a deity. (Two of the six original Vedas, for instance, explicitly rejected the existence of a deity.) Most traditional/tribal/pagan religions posit supernatural beings that are in their own way constrained and limited as mortals are, and therefore cannot be called deities in the sense that most "modern" religions use the word.

Oh, and Jesus was not a Marxist, although he was a communist in the broad sense (believed in the universal sharing of wealth based on need, and rejected the hoarding of wealth to a degree greater than one's need). Marxism is a very specific subset of communism, characterized primarily by the interpretation of history through dialectic materialism. Jesus' philosophy was not dialectic, and it most definitely was not materialistic.

[mrswdk]

My understanding was that it's like a kind of slidey scale: atheism -- agnostic atheism -- agnostic theism -- theist. An agnostic atheist, for example, is someone who's sitting on the 'agnosticism' fence but thinks that the most likely scenario is that there is no god.

I'm kinda tired though.

[thegreekdog]

It is possible to have a religion that does not require belief in the existence of deities.

Name one.

Theravada Buddhism,Jainism,Confucianism,Taoism..etc.

Many wouldn't call any of those religions. For many, a central tenet of a religion is that it posits a creation myth and a deity or deities.

The adherents mostly consider themselves religious,including my wife,and the Buddhist monks I see in the morning seeking alms.Of course one can argue they are philosophies but that is not a widespread view in my experience.

Hitchens would probably argue that they were religions even if you considered them philosophies. If I understand him correctly, anyone not acting rationally was acting religiously. What he has ignored (in my opinion as someone not an expert in these types of things) is that people can be members of a religion and act rationally and those rational acts cause pain, suffering, immorality, etc. In my opinion, rational acts of self-interest(not religion or philosophy or nationalism or pick your poison) have caused more harm than anything else.

Now, he has an on-the-surface point, I guess, that people who act rationally can get others to act irrationally in the name of an idea or religion. The United States can rally Mericans to invade Iraq under the ausipces of whatever and dress it up as nationalism. But I like to think that while I disagreed with that invasion, it was probably in my own self-interest to not act against it in any meaningful way. As another example, while the First Crusade was dressed up in religion and religious fervor was used to get people signed up, a lot of those people were acting rationally (second sons, peopel without skills, the poor) - they had good reasons to go find new opportunities somewhere else.

[chang50]

Buddhism is a religion, but unfortunately for your argument all the Buddhist temples I've been to are places where people go to pray to the Buddhas for help (with family illnesses, money worries etc.), suggesting that Buddhists do, indeed, believe in deities. Confucianism is not a religion. It is the philosophy of Confucius.

Why do you continually post about things you know nothing about?Of course Buddhists pray,but not to a god.Surely you cannot think the Buddha is regarded as a deity when all his life he taught he was not?
In the internet age it's so very easy to google Buddhist prayer and read all about it instead of posting nonesense like 'people go to pray to the Buddhas"(whoever they are).
The jury is out about whether Confucianism is a religion or a philosophy.

[chang50]

My understanding was that it's like a kind of slidey scale: atheism -- agnostic atheism -- agnostic theism -- theist. An agnostic atheist, for example, is someone who's sitting on the 'agnosticism' fence but thinks that the most likely scenario is that there is no god.

I'm kinda tired though.

Maybe you are tired because you are in way over your head?

Your understanding is superficial at best,why don't you read some books or articles first before posting definitive statements that are demonstrably incorrect.Start with the difference between belief and knowledge and which terms relate to which.

[Phatscotty]

Why are american people so religious, hate so much commies; but yet they worship the king of commies?

Jesus was bout it bout it when it came to class warfare. And even though he said teach a man to fish instead of just giving him fish.....he was j/k'ing

[Metsfanmax]

It's called agnosticism, chang. The belief that neither the existence nor non-existence of a god can be completely proven. Atheism is the belief that there is, 100% undeniably, no god.

If you think atheism or agnosticism can be defined in one sentence, you haven't read enough internet debates.

[betiko]

You think you are so smart because you are an atheist? By chosing atheism you are crossing a gap too. You are just chosing the religion that it's the cool one now, science/technology/cynicism.

Are you referring to me?

To Nietzsche..

How can maintaining the default position,a lack of belief in the existence of deities,be construed as thinking you are smart.It's where every single person begins their life.The choice,if there is one,is to believe in a deity,unless you know of a newborn who has magically acquired such a belief in its mother's womb?

Althouhg I get what your point is (sort of), it doesn't strictly follow. I perceive that atheists, as they say they are atheists, are saying also "I'm so smart you know". I'm answering you what I think your question was, the second part I can't connect it to be honest, but I'm willing to answer you in that to if you elaborate.

Also, you will have to unfoe me, you are kind of old for holding grudge over a game chat that wasn't even rude.

In what sense is disbelief in the existence of anything 'smart'?Or are deities a seperate category from all other things that there is insufficient evidence for to the disbeliever?
I'll put it another way..if atheism was positively forwarding another explaination for what deities claim to explain,that would be 'smart.'But it doesn't have any explainations,its nothing more than disbelief..

Disbelief in the existence of something that someone has claimed exists, but has not proven exists, is the rational position. Atheism, in terms of the Judeo-Christian god is demonstrably rational with J. S. Mill's argument The Problem of Evil. God cannot both be all good and all powerful at the same time, while evil exists. According to Christians, god created absolutely everything, so on the basis of that assertion we can conclude that god also created evil, but that's where Christians disagree. They say god didn't create evil, that man does that through free will. But it doesn't tally, does it, because god created everything, did it not? So we can safely and soundly conclude that the Christian god does not exist, at least as they understand god to be. Now, to say that there is no creator being of any shape or form, can also be considered irrational, because we just don't know. We can believe there is none, but belief and knowledge are two different things. Therefore, agnosticism is arguably the most rational position to take on the creator being argument. In a nutshell, we can prove that the Christian god does not exist, but we can't prove that god, in the wider sense of a creator being, doesn't exist. Even Stephen Hawking is on record as saying that, through reasoned scientific endeavor, one day, humans will be able to look inside the mind of god.

I find this point of view and I would strongly agree. If there is a superior being responsible of anything out there, he is way greater and powerfull than the christian god. I don't know, if we scale it on a human being the deity... ; the entire universe we live in would probably not even be the size of an electron. So thinking anything on this planet was crafted by this deity, or anything that happens on this planet is something IT actually cares of is delusional in my sense. I believe that if there is something we are way too insignificant to even imagine how big and powerful this thing is, as all our references are biaised due to the physics we depend on that make us very limited creatures.
Do I believe in afterlife? I don't know, I would just hope that we access a higher level of understanding and conscience if it's the case. Hopefully this is all like a russian doll thing and our life on earth is the smallest doll.

Why couldn't you use our own imagination, wy would you have to follow the deliriums of other people that are 2000 years old to explain the unexplainable?

Stephen Hawkins goes through his own deliriums with a scientific approach. Doesn't mean anything he theorises is true; but it is damn interesting and it is much more likely that what the bible would teach you.
We will never get answers in our lifetime. Religions are there to make you feel better about it. Isn't it more interesting to ask yourself funny questions rather than relying on this fake piece of mind you get from religions?