The Emergence of Global Interfaith

[wkycatfan_rivals376690]

I thought it was understood that Communism and atheism have a relationship, per Marx, Lenin, etc. Individuality is discouraged, reliance on the state is encouraged.

Also, some socialists point to the early church being socialist, having all things in common, etc. That, however, is aimed at the church, and individuals, rather than the government being the agent of such an arrangement.

 

[rudd1]

-I gracefully accept your surrender, dear sir.

 

[bkingUK]

I thought it was understood that Communism and atheism have a relationship, per Marx, Lenin, etc. Individuality is discouraged, reliance on the state is encouraged.

Also, some socialists point to the early church being socialist, having all things in common, etc. That, however, is aimed at the church, and individuals, rather than the government being the agent of such an arrangement.

Okay, I'm going to stop typing in this odd bulleted format.

Yes, the initial precepts of Marxism included such axioms as "religion is the opiate of the people."

But of course the cliche portion of this discussion I am taking umbrage with is the sophomoric interpretation that communist revolutions, often involving much more complex dynamics than religion, but also local socio-economic and locally political issues, can be simplified into an argument of atheism leading to such outcomes. This is neither here nor there in this argument, however, as we are reliant on more elementary comparisons that ignore such complexities.

Furthermore, I don't think the questions being asked are the right questions. I have a strong belief that in order to make good decisions, we must have an ultra-realistic view of the conditions that confront us as humans. In this manner, inserting the supernatural into interpretations of reality is a distraction, obfuscating truth. Thus, the question is not whether religion is good or evil. The question is if believing in <insert your deity here> is based in fact.

 

[Beatle Bum]

^I’m afraid you did dear sir insinuating a connection between atheism and communism.

This is sort of false dichotomy. Atheism, if it is associated with communism, could also be associated with capitalism. Communism and capitalism are not the only two forms of economic political structures. If atheism is associated with communism, that does not mean anything specific about any other forms of government.

 

[wkycatfan_rivals376690]

But of course the cliche portion of this discussion I am taking umbrage with is the sophomoric interpretation that communist revolutions, often involving much more complex dynamics than religion, but also local socio-economic and locally political issues, can be simplified into an argument of atheism leading to such outcomes. This is neither here nor there in this argument, however, as we are reliant on more elementary comparisons that ignore such complexities.

Agreed. It is more than religion for sure.

 

[Beatle Bum]

Okay, I'm going to stop typing in this odd bulleted format.

Yes, the initial precepts of Marxism included such axioms as "religion is the opiate of the people."

But of course the cliche portion of this discussion I am taking umbrage with is the sophomoric interpretation that communist revolutions, often involving much more complex dynamics than religion, but also local socio-economic and locally political issues, can be simplified into an argument of atheism leading to such outcomes. This is neither here nor there in this argument, however, as we are reliant on more elementary comparisons that ignore such complexities.

Furthermore, I don't think the questions being asked are the right questions. I have a strong belief that in order to make good decisions, we must have an ultra-realistic view of the conditions that confront us as humans. In this manner, inserting the supernatural into interpretations of reality is a distraction, obfuscating truth. Thus, the question is not whether religion is good or evil. The question is if believing in <insert your deity here> is based in fact.

Or, the question may be “is not believing in a deity based in evidence?” You find yourself at the same end of the stick you think you are placing others. Prove there is no god. Calling something truth does not make it so. It is actually your faith vs my faith.

 

[bkingUK]

This is sort of false dichotomy. Atheism, if it is associated with communism, could also be associated with capitalism. Communism and capitalism are not the only two forms of economic political structures. If atheism is associated with communism, that does not mean anything specific about any other forms of government.

You're not wrong that it's a false dichotomy. It was a trap. I was really more taking issue with communism even being brought into argument and trying to illustrate the silliness by showing that atheism, while being a property of communism, is not communism nor is it bound to communism.

 

[bkingUK]

Or, the question may be “is not believing in a deity based in evidence?” You find yourself at the same end of the stick you think you are placing others. Prove there is no god. Calling something truth does not make it so. It is actually your faith vs my faith.

Well, I think you'd lose that argument, but if that's what you believe, it's what you believe. Many counter points to what you're arguing. Which gods? Why is the God of your culture the correct deity? Could ask many more questions with answers that lack reason and logic.

 

[rudd1]

Okay, I'm going to stop typing in this odd bulleted format.

Yes, the initial precepts of Marxism included such axioms as "religion is the opiate of the people."

But of course the cliche portion of this discussion I am taking umbrage with is the sophomoric interpretation that communist revolutions, often involving much more complex dynamics than religion, but also local socio-economic and locally political issues, can be simplified into an argument of atheism leading to such outcomes. This is neither here nor there in this argument, however, as we are reliant on more elementary comparisons that ignore such complexities.

Furthermore, I don't think the questions being asked are the right questions. I have a strong belief that in order to make good decisions, we must have an ultra-realistic view of the conditions that confront us as humans. In this manner, inserting the supernatural into interpretations of reality is a distraction, obfuscating truth. Thus, the question is not whether religion is good or evil. The question is if believing in <insert your deity here> is based in fact.

-lmao. I was gonna let you off the hook...but you went and posted this word salad.

-sophomoric is attempting to characterize someone's argument as something it isn't. Show me where I stated there is an inherent connection betwixt religion and capitalism. You're tilting at windmills, young fella.

-keenly aware that there is much more to communist revolutionary activity than religion. Never made such a claim.

^I studied it in college (had a philosophy major and minors in poly science and religion...dad made me pursue an business degree as well, wise.)...and have since been a helluva shade tree historian ever since...focusing on communism/anti communist studies of the first half of the last century.

-my only claim is that the most prolific murderers of the last 100 or so years have been communists...therefore they were by doctrine atheist. It's simple.

^settled science. Not debatable. Simple does not = sophomoric. Simple is elegant.

 

[rudd1]

You're not wrong that it's a false dichotomy. It was a trap. I was really more taking issue with communism even being brought into argument and trying to illustrate the silliness by showing that atheism, while being a property of communism, is not communism nor is it bound to communism.

-so you were acting in bad faith...what a shock.

^****** trap, twas obvious. Also obvious: you're out of your depth here kid.

 

[bkingUK]

-lmao. I was gonna let you off the hook...but you went and posted this word salad.

-sophomoric is attempting to characterize someone's argument as something it isn't. Show me where I stated there is an inherent connection betwixt religion and capitalism. You're tilting at windmills, young fella.

-keenly aware that there is much more to communist revolutionary activity than religion. Never made such a claim.

^I studied it in college (had a philosophy major and minors in poly science and religion...dad made me pursue an business degree as well, wise.)...and have since been a helluva shade tree historian ever since...focusing on communism/anti communist studies of the first half of the last century.

-my only claim is that the most prolific murderers of the last 100 or so years have been communists...therefore they were by doctrine atheist. It's simple.

^settled science. Not debatable. Simple does not = sophomoric. Simple is elegant.

Okay, in college, I hope they taught you to write paragraphs, but I really don't have anything else to say about your arguments about religion and war, which I find to be pretty one dimensional. I try not to think in such over simplified terms. For instance, I am not convinced that many of the wars of history fought over religion were truly over religion, but people in power using religion to justify their reasoning. But again, that is the kind of complexity we ignore when the argument is based in gross simplification.

 

[Beatle Bum]

Well, I think you'd lose that argument, but if that's what you believe, it's what you believe. Many counter points to what you're arguing. Which gods? Why is the God of your culture the correct deity? Could ask many more questions with answers that lack reason and logic.

It’s not a counter. The belief in a god or creator is, as you know, not synonymous with the belief in Christianity. But, I know I would not lose that argument, because I know there is no evidence disproving a creator.

 

[bkingUK]

It’s not a counter. The belief in a god or creator is, as you know, not synonymous with the belief in Christianity. But, I know I would not lose that argument, because I know there is no evidence disproving a creator.

You are making a claim that there is a super powered deity or deities. Such beliefs require faith because facts do not support the beliefs. As such, there is no reason to disprove a creator, for other than dogma and myth, there is no evidence supporting a creator.

This would be like disproving that there is a race of one eyed lesbian aliens who reproduce asexually and live by eating acorns.

Could that race exist given sheer size of the universe? I mean, yeah, I guess, if that's what you want to hinge belief on.

 

[MegaBlue05]

So, like a rasslin’ faction of different space faries?

 

[rudd1]

Okay, in college, I hope they taught you to write paragraphs, but I really don't have anything else to say about your arguments about religion and war, which I find to be pretty one dimensional. I try not to think in such over simplified terms. For instance, I am not convinced that many of the wars of history fought over religion were truly over religion, but people in power using religion to justify their reasoning. But again, that is the kind of complexity we ignore when the argument is based in gross simplification.

-it's a message board, not my senior thesis. That's weak, man.

-100% agree with you on religion/wars.

-I too believe in nuance...that said "complexity" is often used when in actuality what is happening is obfuscation and ponderousness.

^brevity is best on a message board, imo.

-atheism is a core tenant of Marxism. There are offshoots...different schools of thought of course. But at its core (as practiced by the folks I've mentioned in this thread) they're inseparable.

^not everything needs to be parsed to the n'th degree. Truth is often simple.

 

[Beatle Bum]

You are making a claim that there is a super powered deity or deities. Such beliefs require faith because facts do not support the beliefs. As such, there is no reason to disprove a creator, for other than dogma and myth, there is no evidence supporting a creator.

This would be like disproving that there is a race of one eyed lesbian aliens who reproduce asexually and live by eating acorns.

Could that race exist given sheer size of the universe? I mean, yeah, I guess, if that's what you want to hinge belief on.

You are claiming there is no god. Such a belief requires faith, because you cannot prove the proposition and as many facts support the existence of a Creator as you think support the position that He does not exist. But, if you can prove God does not exist, I am happy to entertain your attempts.

 

[bkingUK]

You are claiming there is no god. Such a belief requires faith, because you cannot prove the proposition and as many facts support the existence of a Creator as you think support the position that He does not exist. But, if you can prove God does not exist, I am happy to entertain your attempts.

You can’t prove a negative. You know this. Ultimately you fall back to a god of gaps argument where because humans don’t understand everything that god exists there. And you can run with that. But then that also means your god becomes increasingly smaller as humans understand more.

 

[Beatle Bum]

You can’t prove a negative. You know this. Ultimately you fall back to a god of gaps argument where because humans don’t understand everything that god exists there. And you can run with that. But then that also means your god becomes increasingly smaller as humans understand more.

I don’t do anything of the sort. Science supports the idea of design, rather than the idea that life is random and that the propensity toward chaos and entropy was suspended by some unknown circumstance or condition for life to begin. Life, as far as science can tell, is improbable in the universe. The scientific conditions for life, any life as the most simple form of life we know is very complex by scientific standards, are specific. Placement of the moon, sun, ratio of elements, etc. must be precise for our life to exist. DNA for life is not random and is highly complex. The more you look at the conditions for life the more impossible it seems for life to exist without a guiding design and hand. That appears to be your faith. As an author once wrote, “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist.”

 

[bkingUK]

I don’t do anything of the sort. Science supports the idea of design, rather than the idea that life is random and that the propensity toward chaos and entropy was suspended by some unknown circumstance or condition for life to begin. Life, as far as science can tell, is improbable in the universe. The scientific conditions for life, any life as the most simple form of life we know is very complex by scientific standards, are specific. Placement of the moon, sun, ratio of elements, etc. must be precise for our life to exist. DNA for life is not random and is highly complex. The more you look at the conditions for life the more impossible it seems for life to exist without a guiding design and hand. That appears to be your faith. As an author once wrote, “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist.”

This is all conjecture. Our sample size of life consists of 8 planets and analysis on even the closest planets is minuscule.

But if history is an indicator, life is likely not as unique as you suggest. The earth was also thought to be the center of the universe. Turns out this planet is a speck of a seemingly infinite universe. The odds of life being unique are extremely low.

But again, as stated, you’re then predicated on a god of gaps. You can only make this argument because that’s the extent of human knowledge. So, you can make any assertion in the gaps.

 

[Beatle Bum]

This is all conjecture. Our sample size of life consists of 8 planets and analysis on even the closest planets is minuscule.

But if history is an indicator, life is likely not as unique as you suggest. The earth was also thought to be the center of the universe. Turns out this planet is a speck of a seemingly infinite universe. The odds of life being unique are extremely low.

But again, as stated, you’re then predicated on a god of gaps. You can only make this argument because that’s the extent of human knowledge. So, you can make any assertion in the gaps.

If you want to see conjecture, read your post. If history is an indicator? Uh, yeah. You must know that scientists have projected the expectations for life beyond our universe. Right? So, if your argument is “we just don’t know enough to know what we don’t know,” you are engaging in the very argument you anticipated from me. The “life just happened, but science is not advanced yet to explain how that stuff occurs,” That is the god of gaps. Congrats.

 

[bkingUK]

If you want to see conjecture, read your post. If history is an indicator? Uh, yeah. You must know that scientists have projected the expectations for life beyond our universe. Right? So, if your argument is “we just don’t know enough to know what we don’t know,” you are engaging in the very argument you anticipated from me. The “life just happened, but science is not advanced yet to explain how that stuff occurs,” That is the god of gaps.

Think this is where you misunderstanding of atheism lies. It’s okay to admit that humans don’t understand things. The difference is that because we don’t understand, you say “that’s god” and where I say “no, it just means we don’t know and this is where we use the human brain to figure it out.”

 

[Beatle Bum]

Think this is where you misunderstanding of atheism lies. It’s okay to admit that humans don’t understand things. The difference is that because we don’t understand, you say “that’s god” and where I say “no, it just means we don’t know and this is where we use the human brain to figure it out.”

I was an agnostic, sometimes an atheist. I was fine not knowing. I was fine challenging believers of the Bible. But, you think you have atheism figured out and I just don’t understand. You want me to be something of your own creation so you can understand me, while you understand so very little.

And, here we are back where we started. You with your faith you cannot prove and me with mine. The difference is, I was once like you. Now, I am not.

 

[CastleRubric]

Nazi Germany = Protestant/Catholic

Not an expression of protestant faith to go so overboard with demonizing Jews though

Our faith is established on a very Jewish foundation

Nazis were national socialist workers party - and the conditions of post ww1 and the racial /human husbandry teachings of Margaret Sanger , Aldous Huxley and other westerners— probably had more to do with the development of nazism as a fanatical movement

 

[CastleRubric]

-nope.

-random: I have a few friends that consider themselves christian and communist(really sweet folks btw).

^that said: Marxism (by a "textbook" standard* )is by definition atheist/secular.

*the standard followed by the soviets, maoists, pol pot et al....you know, the guys that killed all those folks.

-there is an undeniable/inherent requirement of atheism in communism. Read the manifesto.

^pointing that out is in no way making any claim on a relationship betwixt religion and capitalism. I beleive You are confused.

P.s. not all atheists are murderous communists...not trying to demean anyone. Just pointing out that the most efficient/prolific murderers in the last 100 or so years were *by definition* atheist.

Fkking excellent post Ruddy

Marxs “dialectical materialism” is the philosophy that underpins hos/Engels brand of socialism

and -
yep - it starts with the insistence that there is no spiritual/immaterial reality AND demands the destruction of institutions of faith +’the family

 

[Deeeefense]

So possibly the MOST overlooked and under reported initiative of the Trump Administration had to have been the creation of the Abraham Accords

I think the establishment of diplomatic relations between Israel and Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Sudan and Morocco was very significant but wasn't mentioned much by the administration for some reason as you point out. Also KSA is getting closer to pulling the trigger. I think this is very significant and great news for the possibility of continued peace in that region.

 

[CastleRubric]

I think the establishment of diplomatic relations between Israel and Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Sudan and Morocco was very significant but wasn't mentioned much by the administration for some reason. Also KSA is getting closer to pulling the trigger. I think this is very significant and great news for the possibility of continued peace in that region.

it’s certainly remarkable -

if you read the abraham accords - its high level language that claims to offer something for everyone - better access to commercial market’s and technology developments....and “shared religious spaces “

that last bit has prompted a renewed zeal fm orthodox jews for space on temple mount and - of course- a renewed push for a third jewish temple


which TECHNICALLY- is already being built with the united religions movement- that ecumenical site will include a new jewish temple

which really IS historically fascinating- irrespective of ppls beliefs / politics


take care y’all
and ...shalom!

 

[jlynn323]

Too bad Eddie didn't live to see this

 

[HymanKaplan_rivals48997]

I wrote my senior thesis entirely in dactylic meter.