• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Stephen Frys Beautiful words on a world without God

Daedalus

New member
Joined
May 16, 2010
Messages
185
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5
Yes they're ersatz religions, so what?

I was replying to the post by lark, where he says that Nazism was atheistic. Its not, as my above posts points out very clearly


That's largely speculation really. Given the basic nature of Medieval thinking and society, such mass slaughter would've been out of the question.

There is only so much killing one can do, given medieval weapons. Contrast that to the Bombing of Dresden, or the firebombing of Japan.


Furthermore, there is a HUGE difference between the intent behind the murders committed by Stalin/Mao (who were atheists) vis-a-vis the ones committed by religious crusades/jihads/inquisition/pogroms/terrorism etc etc

The difference is that in the religious wars people were targeted because of their religion/or lack of one. The mass murders by Stalin and Mao were not targeted at any specific religious/non religious denomination. They murdered indiscriminately, which can be seen as ethnic/cultural wars rather than an "atheist" war. When did anyone get killed because he was a 'religious" person by atheists? Mao and Stalin are no different from some deranged person who shoots people in the mall, albeit in a larger scale.

There is no evidence to associate atheism with the actions carried out by Mao and Stalin. Atheists don't have a "religious high command"/affiliation/branch or whatever....therefore individual actions by atheists are just that, actions of individuals. I didn't hear Stalin claiming that he is killing people in the name of "the universal church of atheism"..did you?


religions on the other hand, when engaging in wars, take the "Kill them all, God will know his own" attitude.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
There is only so much killing one can do, given medieval weapons. Contrast that to the Bombing of Dresden, or the firebombing of Japan.
That is true, but you still cannot deny the stark contrasts between Medieval and modern thinking.

Furthermore, there is a HUGE difference between the intent behind the murders committed by Stalin/Mao (who were atheists) vis-a-vis the ones committed by religious crusades/jihads/inquisition/pogroms/terrorism etc etc

The difference is that in the religious wars people were targeted because of their religion/or lack of one. The mass murders by Stalin and Mao were not targeted at any specific religious/non religious denomination. They murdered indiscriminately, which can be seen as ethnic/cultural wars rather than an "atheist" war.
To claim is to try to sophistically negate the role that anti-religious propaganda had in Communist regimes. It's not that hard to find examples of such.

image2gs9.jpg

"The black ravens are preparing a brigand attack on the USSR. Proletariat be ready!"

Then in one verse of this Red Army march makes open references to burning down churches and killing priests for the sake of building socialism:
[youtube="xeOLisuJ3s0"]Red Army is the strongest in the world[/youtube]

If you need to read more about this, check this link.

When did anyone get killed because he was a 'religious" person by atheists?

Here's a nice list for you, and this is just counting Orthodox Christians:
Russian Hieromartyrs, Martyrs and Confessors of the Communist Yoke - 146 lives
 

Take Five

Supreme Allied Commander
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
925
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
1w9
There is only so much killing one can do, given medieval weapons. Contrast that to the Bombing of Dresden, or the firebombing of Japan.

It's not just about the weapons available, but about the thinking of the times. Changes in methods of production, total warfare, and ideas like ethnic cleansing are later developments that change the scope of war. These developments make the grand slaughter possible, but putting into practice is the action of the person.

And with the communist repression of religion, it's not a gigantic step to say there was a Soviet war against religion. And don't forget it was the likes of Nietzsche and Marx that later inspired liberating forces of Nazis and Soviets--history's two biggest monsters.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
Mark Sandle notes the adoption of "militant atheism" as part of the Communist program in his Short history of Soviet socialism

It seems even Mikhail Gorbachev acknolwedged this:
As Mikhail Gorbachev aptly stated, the Soviet communist state carried out a comprehensive “war on religion.” 1 He lamented that the Bolsheviks, his predecessors, even after the civil war ended in the early 1920s, during a time of “peace,” had “continued to tear down churches, arrest clergymen, and destroy them. This was no longer understandable or justifiable. Atheism took rather savage forms in our country at that time.” 2

Special Exhibit | Global Museum on Communism

I mean really, there's simply too many resources on the issue.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
Here's another random gem of info:
"After the Communists had made belief in Marxism one of the requirements for any public office, and even for getting into a Russian university, this joke was popular in Moscow: A student is asked by a professor, "What is God?" "God," says the student, "is a mistaken idea of the capitalistic class; there is no God." "Very good," says the professor; "you pass." "Thank God." the student exclaims."
E.M. Halliday Russia in Revolution pg.124
 

Robopop

New member
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
692
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
There is no evidence to associate atheism with the actions carried out by Mao and Stalin. Atheists don't have a "religious high command"/affiliation/branch or whatever....therefore individual actions by atheists are just that, actions of individuals. I didn't hear Stalin claiming that he is killing people in the name of "the universal church of atheism"..did you?


There is no universal faith or beliefs atheist really share in common. Atheism is a negative position, it is a lack of belief and depending on the definition does not assert a position. The only thing atheist have in common is that they lack a belief in a supreme being. This is atheism in it's most general definition.
 

ajblaise

Minister of Propagandhi
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
7,914
MBTI Type
INTP
There is no universal faith or beliefs atheist really share in common. Atheism is a negative position, it is a lack of belief and depending on the definition does not assert a position. The only thing atheist have in common is that they lack a belief in a supreme being. This is atheism in it's most general definition.

That's true. But strong atheism, which represents a significant portion of self-described atheists, if not most, does outright deny God's existence. Weak atheism, or agnostic atheism, doesn't.
 

Robopop

New member
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
692
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
That's true. But strong atheism, which represents a significant portion of self-described atheists, if not most, does outright deny God's existence. Weak atheism, or agnostic atheism, doesn't.

I do tend to think that strong atheism is unreasonable because it makes the assertion that God does not exist without the proper evidence to prove this position. The only thing is, how do you prove a negative position, many people think this is impossible including me. So I think the more practical position to have would be to assert that God probably does not exist(even then, the probability of God's existence can vary greatly depending on the evidence or lack of). It would be like trying to prove that a green goblin on the other side of the universe does not exist. There's no practical way to show it does not exist right now and there's no evidence for it's existence either. The position I believe should be taken is to withhold belief until further evidence proves this assertion otherwise.(withholding is not the same as denying)

I don't get the perception that most atheist hold the strong atheist position, I think most of them are smart enough to avoid the nasty logical implications of such a position(I hope so). I seem to hear the practical atheist(agnostic atheism) position more often which is a more reasonable one compared to the extreme" God doesn't exist at all and I know it" position.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,192
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
It still has no appeal to me what so ever, although I've had major doubts more recently about my once certain religious convictions there is nothing beautiful or appealing what so ever about athiesm, it is not glorious, it is inglorious, it is a celebration of hopelessness and despair that others may be shaken and share in it too.

I didn't listen to the clip, but responding to this post:

I felt that way for awhile (after being steeped in conservative religion for much of my life), and then eventually existential thought all made sense to me and any depession associated with it went away, it actually took on a lot of depth and meaning to me that I've incorprated into my worldview.

So who knows where you might end up?

(Note: I'm best aligned as a Christian agnostic, not an atheist.)

It's not just about the weapons available, but about the thinking of the times. Changes in methods of production, total warfare, and ideas like ethnic cleansing are later developments that change the scope of war. These developments make the grand slaughter possible, but putting into practice is the action of the person.

And with the communist repression of religion, it's not a gigantic step to say there was a Soviet war against religion. And don't forget it was the likes of Nietzsche and Marx that later inspired liberating forces of Nazis and Soviets--history's two biggest monsters.

I'm not sure what abuses of particular philosophies of life have anything to do with what might actually be true... which is what I'm concerned about.
 

Take Five

Supreme Allied Commander
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
925
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
1w9
I'm not sure what abuses of particular philosophies of life have anything to do with what might actually be true... which is what I'm concerned about.

I'm thinking over that Nietzsche's ideas on destruction of Christian morality and the status of humans and underhumans, and Marx's idea of whole class-wide revolution influenced the two 20th C. evils. And that this influence, moreso than weapon technology, is what formed their evil actions. Thus the Christian powers of Medieval times would not have been in favor of such grand scale killing. Of course one could challenge me with the Allied bombing campaigns killing civilians, but I think the reasons behind the Evils and the Allies (excluding USSR, if you count that as part of the Allies) killing innocents are fundamentally and irreconcilably different, plus the scale killing is totally imbalanced.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,192
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I'm thinking over that Nietzsche's ideas on destruction of Christian morality and the status of humans and underhumans, and Marx's idea of whole class-wide revolution influenced the two 20th C. evils. And that this influence, moreso than weapon technology, is what formed their evil actions. Thus the Christian powers of Medieval times would not have been in favor of such grand scale killing. Of course one could challenge me with the Allied bombing campaigns killing civilians, but I think the reasons behind the Evils and the Allies (excluding USSR, if you count that as part of the Allies) killing innocents are fundamentally and irreconcilably different, plus the scale killing is totally imbalanced.


When I read your posts, I feel like you see half the picture: You read Nietzche but you don't quite understand him or value what he was trying to accomplish, you just see him (and others) filtered through your Christianized lens.

To understand this stuff, you gotta get out of your original framework and start from scratch. It took me about thirty years to do that, so it's not easy, but until then you're sort of stuck.

As for the destruction of Christian values, maybe you should read Kierkegaard first since he might provide a bridge for you; his philosophy was driven not only by some of the traumatic events of his life but also by actual flaws within the Church and faith he was acquainted with. The world we live in today was not the world they lived in, you need to get into their mindset and view the Church and faith they were reacting and framing themselves against. I think their rebellion and pushbacks against the Christian faith of that time were necessary and important.

To get back to my main point, you are still also hedging on outcome vs what is true. You're painting a picture of a philosophy you personally dislike and/or don't understand as having a worse inherent outcome than the philosophy you adhere to (which might or might not be true, honestly... a lot of what you claim to be Christianity is just spin especially in terms of which parts of the printed Bible are accepted vs rejected/ignored)...

... but in the end, again, none of it matters as to what is actually true. It doesn't matter what seems better or worse, does it? Or what you find morally repugnant vs acceptable? It only matters as to what is actually true. But you don't have a basis for that (as none of us do), so instead you make a decision based on your personal background and feelings on the matter, to the best of your ability. It's still just a choice on your part.
 

Take Five

Supreme Allied Commander
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
925
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
1w9
When I read your posts, I feel like you see half the picture: You read Nietzche but you don't quite understand him or value what he was trying to accomplish, you just see him (and others) filtered through your Christianized lens.

To understand this stuff, you gotta get out of your original framework and start from scratch. It took me about thirty years to do that, so it's not easy, but until then you're sort of stuck.

As for the destruction of Christian values, maybe you should read Kierkegaard first since he might provide a bridge for you; his philosophy was driven not only by some of the traumatic events of his life but also by actual flaws within the Church and faith he was acquainted with. The world we live in today was not the world they lived in, you need to get into their mindset and view the Church and faith they were reacting and framing themselves against. I think their rebellion and pushbacks against the Christian faith of that time were necessary and important.

To get back to my main point, you are still also hedging on outcome vs what is true. You're painting a picture of a philosophy you personally dislike and/or don't understand as having a worse inherent outcome than the philosophy you adhere to (which might or might not be true, honestly... a lot of what you claim to be Christianity is just spin especially in terms of which parts of the printed Bible are accepted vs rejected/ignored)...

... but in the end, again, none of it matters as to what is actually true. It doesn't matter what seems better or worse, does it? Or what you find morally repugnant vs acceptable? It only matters as to what is actually true. But you don't have a basis for that (as none of us do), so instead you make a decision based on your personal background and feelings on the matter, to the best of your ability. It's still just a choice on your part.

Indeed I do see with a Christianized lens, so naturally I judge things according what I already know. I am not concerned about this, all the moreso since everyone in this thread is using today to look at the past.

While Nietzche, Marx, and Kierkegaard may or may not have had valid complaints about the Church, I think it's important to remember that regardless of that, N and M rejected God altogether, not just a Church and not just Christianity. Naturally as a Christian I am committed to judging that they went overboard. Important also is that rejection of God was not all they wrote about.

It seems like you are having a disagreement with my previous posts because I am arguing that atheism has led to more evil than belief. However, this was not the point of those posts. There I am more specifically talking about why the grand scale slaughters of the Nazis and Soviets, nor the bombing campaigns of the Allies, would not have happened in the Middle Ages. This is in reference to somebody claiming that the Inquisition and crusades would have destroyed Europe's population moreso than the atrocities of the Nazis and Soviets, if people in the Middle Ages had access to weapons technology of the mid 20th century. My position is that this would not have happened, due to temporal differences in the reasoning behind violence. This I think is within bounds of decision.

I do have an opinion on the matter of whether atheism has led to more evil than belief and God (you can guess my position on that). This on three levels: 1) violent atrocities, 2) economics, and 3) spirituality. Obviously a Christian must necessarily consider the evil done by atheists in the realm of spirituality and religion, although a secularist would not factor this into the amount of evil generated, if one has no belief in souls. Provable by violence and economics alone? Not likely by me because I don't have enough knowledge of all relevant details; however, I do think it is worth trying to find an answer.
 

Eye 'n' Teepee

New member
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
55
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
I think it's obvious that any sort of radical doctrine has the potential to be very dangerous, whether the doctrine be religious or in many cases political. Hitler's belief in the superiority of the German race was radical and illogical, for example, and disaster came of it. There are varying degrees of radicalism within religion and politics, of course, but even the "moderate" religious people are quite radical. If you believe that you're in a long-term relationship with an all-powerful space daddy who will, after you die, party with your ghost forever (thanks Bill Maher)...well, that is not a moderate view in my opinion.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
And so? You made a false claim, viz.:



I addressed this specifically. What the linked video is about is irrelevant to the truth value of your claim.

Its not a false claim, its my opinion, offered as a counter to the opinion of Fry expressed in the video.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
I was replying to the post by lark, where he says that Nazism was atheistic. Its not, as my above posts points out very clearly




There is only so much killing one can do, given medieval weapons. Contrast that to the Bombing of Dresden, or the firebombing of Japan.


Furthermore, there is a HUGE difference between the intent behind the murders committed by Stalin/Mao (who were atheists) vis-a-vis the ones committed by religious crusades/jihads/inquisition/pogroms/terrorism etc etc

The difference is that in the religious wars people were targeted because of their religion/or lack of one. The mass murders by Stalin and Mao were not targeted at any specific religious/non religious denomination. They murdered indiscriminately, which can be seen as ethnic/cultural wars rather than an "atheist" war. When did anyone get killed because he was a 'religious" person by atheists? Mao and Stalin are no different from some deranged person who shoots people in the mall, albeit in a larger scale.

There is no evidence to associate atheism with the actions carried out by Mao and Stalin. Atheists don't have a "religious high command"/affiliation/branch or whatever....therefore individual actions by atheists are just that, actions of individuals. I didn't hear Stalin claiming that he is killing people in the name of "the universal church of atheism"..did you?


religions on the other hand, when engaging in wars, take the "Kill them all, God will know his own" attitude.

I reckon that's a facetious argument, Stalin, Mao and others definitely did kill and persecute religious believers because they where religious believers and anathema to Marxism as they understood it.

If you want something that more closely resembles the "command structure" of a religious institution then I'd refer you to the Cult of Reason or Deists during the French Revolution, although not strictly atheistic they where fellow travellers.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
When I read your posts, I feel like you see half the picture: You read Nietzche but you don't quite understand him or value what he was trying to accomplish, you just see him (and others) filtered through your Christianized lens.

To understand this stuff, you gotta get out of your original framework and start from scratch. It took me about thirty years to do that, so it's not easy, but until then you're sort of stuck.

As for the destruction of Christian values, maybe you should read Kierkegaard first since he might provide a bridge for you; his philosophy was driven not only by some of the traumatic events of his life but also by actual flaws within the Church and faith he was acquainted with. The world we live in today was not the world they lived in, you need to get into their mindset and view the Church and faith they were reacting and framing themselves against. I think their rebellion and pushbacks against the Christian faith of that time were necessary and important.

To get back to my main point, you are still also hedging on outcome vs what is true. You're painting a picture of a philosophy you personally dislike and/or don't understand as having a worse inherent outcome than the philosophy you adhere to (which might or might not be true, honestly... a lot of what you claim to be Christianity is just spin especially in terms of which parts of the printed Bible are accepted vs rejected/ignored)...

... but in the end, again, none of it matters as to what is actually true. It doesn't matter what seems better or worse, does it? Or what you find morally repugnant vs acceptable? It only matters as to what is actually true. But you don't have a basis for that (as none of us do), so instead you make a decision based on your personal background and feelings on the matter, to the best of your ability. It's still just a choice on your part.

The problem with this type of argument Jenn is that you're as liable to be interpreting things, including the post you've cited, through your own biased filters or blinkers too, just as you suggest Take Five is.

I'm not offering an opinion as to who is correct in this instance, just hghlighting that aspect of communication theory.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,192
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
The problem with this type of argument Jenn is that you're as liable to be interpreting things, including the post you've cited, through your own biased filters or blinkers too, just as you suggest Take Five is.

Um... read this exchange again:

1. Someone insists they know what "ultimate reality" is.

2. I say "Since you have no way to make such a declaration, here are some other views that you can look at that run counter to what you're saying, and then you can be more well-rounded." I did not say a particular view was ultimately correct, I was saying, "You're not considering <THIS> and it would help color what you are thinking, since you're claiming you already know the truth. It helped me in my continuing journey to try to understand life."

3. You wander in and say, "You have no clue what ultimate reality is, either, you're just as biased as everyone else." :doh:

Well, YEAH. I am biased, I never said I wasn't! I'm human, just like you. My point was that NONE of us can speak definitively, so everything we believe is a CHOICE and not "compelled" by some impossible-to-have sense of ultimate reality. And that our choices still do not define reality!

If I've read enough of your posts, I'd figure that's something you would approve of -- that we don't get to define reality. It is what it is, it's outside of us, and I get really tired of people claiming they know what it is... especially when I see they haven't even looked at various aspects of the topic under discussion.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Um... read this exchange again:

1. Someone insists they know what "ultimate reality" is.

2. I say "Since you have no way to make such a declaration, here are some other views that you can look at that run counter to what you're saying, and then you can be more well-rounded." I did not say a particular view was ultimately correct, I was saying, "You're not considering <THIS> and it would help color what you are thinking, since you're claiming you already know the truth. It helped me in my continuing journey to try to understand life."

3. You wander in and say, "You have no clue what ultimate reality is, either, you're just as biased as everyone else." :doh:

Well, YEAH. I am biased, I never said I wasn't! I'm human, just like you. My point was that NONE of us can speak definitively, so everything we believe is a CHOICE and not "compelled" by some impossible-to-have sense of ultimate reality. And that our choices still do not define reality!

If I've read enough of your posts, I'd figure that's something you would approve of -- that we don't get to define reality. It is what it is, it's outside of us, and I get really tired of people claiming they know what it is... especially when I see they haven't even looked at various aspects of the topic under discussion.

You sound a bit miffed, defensive even, like when you randomly gave me feedback that I'm judgemental all the time (if nothing else then I'm true to type but that's not something I necessarily agree with).

I read all the posts, how would I convey to you that I had, as you put it, "looked at various aspects of the topi under discussion"? Enter the thread with a simple "Why, I agree whole heartedly with Jennifer +1 there" perhaps?

I'm being facetious of course but I notice a trend in responses to me, I want to assure you there's nothing personal, I'm not trying to upcast or upstage or anything else, its just a basic flaw with reasoning that others simply misunderstand because they are filtering whatever through whatever values that they can response with yeah, exactly the converse is true and that's all I was saying.
 
Top