By the way: order your “Imagine No Religion” t-shirts here.
Posted on 08/30/2009 11:51:23 AM PDT by MarianoApologeticus
Why is it that atheists so vehemently deny that there is a correlation between atheism and Communism?
It is that they are simply unaware of history as recent as that of the 20th century: the most secular and bloodiest century in human history? Have they really not read texts as basic to the issue as the “Communist Manifesto” the “ABC of Communism” Karl Marx’s dialectical materialism or any other statements at all written by founding Communists and Regime leaders?
Is it that one of their favorite talking points is that “religion” is discredited by the evil done in its name and that since atheism, in this case as a premise for Communism, has taken millions upon millions of lives this same argument could be turned around on them?
It is that they bequeath upon themselves the dogmatheist authority to excommunicate those who define atheism alternatively and did use it as a premise upon which to establish Communism?
Is it that they think that merely defining atheism as “a lack of belief in god(s)” gives atheism leave of all of the evil done in its name and with it as its premise? [note that the atheist website evilbible.com states that those atheists who define atheism a “a lack of…” are a few morons” who are “so damn stupid” for doing so]
That they discredit themselves for denying the correlation is certain, but why do they insist on doing so?
In this regard there are some good points made by Conservapedia at this excellent article about atheism.
There is also some information on the topic at this link and at this link.
Atheists believe there is no such thing as a god, at least, not the ones as portrayed by current religions. Think Ayn Rand.
Communists, on the other hand, believe THEY are God.
By far, the Communist movement (which is atheist) has murdered more people than any religious war.
At least radical Islam has a belief structure (perverted as it is). What is the Communist belief structure? Worship the State and what “it” says. Of course, the “it” are groups of hateful people that want to control other people.
Obama, Hillary, Barney Frank, etc. All would love to get rid of the Republic and replace it with a Communist government. With them, ACORN, La Raza, the Unions in charge.
Don’t be fooled! They hate freedom.
By the way: order your “Imagine No Religion” t-shirts here.
To a Communist, government is god.
To a Fundamentalist, god is government.
Or, look at it this way. How do you answer the question "Without religion, or anything grounded in religion, explain why murder is wrong."
Of course there is a correlation . For the same reason you see the progressives embrace islam. The common denominator is the disdain for Christianity . It’s there, it’s real and we better put a halt to it before a tipping point is reached. The progressives (commies) own the media (thank God less now than in the past),the educational system, the right to work freely in half the states. They control more than half the populace (in our urban areas).The end game is total control, but it is done in the guise of : the children. the snail darters, the polar bears, diversity, labor just to name a few. Let us really try to help all of our neighbors and acquaintances understand the truth. D’ont wast your time on the left wing lost.
Nonsense.
The principle of reciprocity is older than any religion.
Natural selection which has driven human beings to adopt the social-animal model, requires for the survival of society, for its members to recognise that things like murder, theft, lying and adultery are potent agents of destruction of the very social organisation that has brought humans all this success, as a species.
Murder destroys social organisation, which, in turn, destroys the individual. It is very much within the interests of the individual to ensure that his membership within the social grouping is not compromised, as he derives a large portion of his guarantee to a successful life, to the society he belongs to. Destroy one, and the destruction of the other follows.
No religion is needed to justify the condemnation of murder.
I know several atheists who are vehement free-market proponents. It would be unfair to characterize them as Communists. Communists are hypocrites when it comes to religion - they sympathize with Islam. Non-Communist atheists are fair in this respect - they just want separation of church and state and are not supporters of Islam.
Communism on the other hand want to take my stuff and break my spirit.
“I know several atheists who are vehement free-market proponents.”
I’m one of them. There is no correlation between communism and atheism. And there were people who didn’t believe in a god long before anyone even heard or Marx.
Atheism isn’t an ideology in and of itself (although as an Objectivist I obviously have one). All it means is that one doesn’t believe in a god, not what one does believe in.
With tremendous weirdness, socialist-communism in many ways tries to duplicate the Book of Genesis, but with “man” in the place of God.
While the names have been changed, the emphasis is that, by giving up on the knowledge of good and evil, “man” will return to the Garden of Eden, or, as they call it, the “State of Nature”.
And though few true believers are aware of their own philosophical roots, the impulse is the same. This is why there is such determination for environmentalism, that eventually the world will be remade so that man is no longer “unnatural”, but like any other animal—and subject to the same rules as animals.
That is one of the reasons socialist-communism embraced the mood of anti-industrialism, shunning the need for and use of things like machines, at least by *most* people. And this is the irony. Because they grasp that most people should be treated like animals, this automatically makes them so elite, that they should be above that.
In communist eastern Europe, they tried ever so much to put this into practice, denying every joy and thing of beauty to the people, unless it was to the service of the elite and the state. The common man does not need beauty, or music, or even color other than gray, because he does not appreciate it like the elite does.
But even this is not enough for the more hardcore of the socialist-communists. They seek the complete destruction of civilization, and the death of the vast majority of people, because there are just too many of the masses to be controlled. From Bela Kuhn, and his “Caravan of Death”, to Pol Pot, and his “Killing Fields”, they seek to exterminate all who have ever experienced what should be forbidden to them. Things like education, money, seeing glasses, machines, all must be cleansed by murder.
The more weak-willing of this lot just “wish” that somehow, all these “excess” people would just die, so that the world would be a “nicer” place. At least from their point of view. And the remainder would be so much easier to rule.
There is nothing good, pure or wise in socialist-communism. It begins with a hatred of God, and both extreme Narcissism and a combined neurosis of both inferiority and superiority. It is a fantasy idealism, a profane temple built with human bodies and mortared with slime of human blood.
It has no morality or ethos, shunning both, and no honor or respect for anyone or anything. It elevates the lowest and most base in men as its ideals of behavior, thrills with the idea of debasing purity and virtue, it cowers before, and curses the strong and heroic.
Socialist-communism is a foul thing, deserving of no respect or remembrance other than it should be denounced, and its tenets forgotten except as a warning to others. Its followers are lost souls.
And why would any human think that? There are many human societies in which murder, theft, lying and adultery were/are acceptable practices. If we assume that all humans are equally evolved as a species, then it stands to claim that the earthly incentives you infer don't serve as a disincentive for unsocial behavior.
Every religion uses some form of extra-worldly punishment to justify morality. The Jewish, Christian and Muslim traditions use eternal punishment in Hell as a punishment for breaking their rules. Eastern traditions rely more on karma to achieve the same purpose.
Any society that thinks otherwise will have time destroy it. It's the natural order of things that arises out of the fact that humans who are able to harness the skills of other humans, and vice-versa, i.e., social organisation, will succeed over solitary individuals.
The glue that holds such societies together, and allows it to function, is a set of basic rules that most of society will agree to- morals and ethics.
There are many human societies in which murder, theft, lying and adultery were/are acceptable practices.
Name some.
Also include details on how well they have fared.
If we assume that all humans are equally evolved as a species, then it stands to claim that the earthly incentives you infer don't serve as a disincentive for unsocial behavior.
No one assumes that all humans are equally evolved. Differences in lifespan, generations that have undergone tremendous selection pressures (eg., famine, plagues, etc.) and other factors determine how far a species has evolved.
Societies don't have a choice. Those that encourage chaotic murder and mayhem, within them, will perish, and you will stop hearing about them, leaving those that adhered to order, to take their place.
Every religion uses some form of extra-worldly punishment to justify morality. The Jewish, Christian and Muslim traditions use eternal punishment in Hell as a punishment for breaking their rules. Eastern traditions rely more on karma to achieve the same purpose.
Jews technically don't believe in a Hell, but that's for another day. If you are making the argument that societies can flourish by following whatever faith they want as long as certain prerequisites are catered to, then you are also implying that no religion is uniquely true, and therefore, the reason for the success of such societies is not the religion, but rather a common effect that is shared among religions, as diverse as they may be.
Because that correlation flies in the face of a two millenia history of communistic Christian sects formed on the basis of following Acts chapts 2 and 4
I am sure we can agree that humans evolved from lower animals. We also know that in every animal society that exists, the only rule that applies is essentially, kill or be killed. If being nice to one another is the best way of doing things, then why do we not see this behavior in animals other than ourselves? And how can we say that as humans who have evolved from animal societies in which kill or be killed was always the prevailing rule, that accepting what amounts to a contrary ideal is the next logical step in that evolution?
Name some
China and the old USSR come to mind. While the USSR may not exist today, the Russian government still subscribes to the notion that difficult people can be dispensed with with no moral consequence. China still ensures that people who do not agree with how the country is run also disappear.
No one assumes that all humans are equally evolved.
Perhaps that is true, but why is it that many different kinds of people who try hard in say, this country, still have the equal potential to succeed?
Those that encourage chaotic murder and mayhem, within them, will perish, and you will stop hearing about them, leaving those that adhered to order, to take their place.
Nope, those societies simply would not have evolved past the way lower order animals today operate. Those animal societies still persist, but they have not grown intellectually the way humans have.
Jews technically don't believe in a Hell, but that's for another day.
Point, but like other faiths, there are penalties for breaking the rules set out for what good behavior is from a Jewish perspective.
If you are making the argument that societies can flourish by following whatever faith they want as long as certain prerequisites are catered to ...
I am not. I am simply arguing that morality in any society is descended from religion, whatever it may be. If we compare Muslim and Judeo-Christian societies, both have radically different ideas of what constitutes moral behavior, but those rules still are descended from faith.
Marked to note that a reply hasn’t been provided for your last comment, yet.
Religion was mankind's first attempt at philosophy. It was a poor attempt, but granted, it was very influential.
Since discussion of morality is philosophical in nature, religion did play an early role, and a continued role for people who still heed to ancient texts. But religion isn't solely needed for morality; its a small archaic subset of ancient and modern philosophy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.