Atheists against communism

[Curious11]

An imperfect mind is all we have. I suggest we use it. Blind acceptance of what appears to be a fairy tale is not using it wisely, especially when used to dictate aspects of others lives for reasons that seem all too arbitrary to come from a truly good God

 

[End_Timer]

Making the “Leap of Faith” will get you someplace, who knows how long
you’ll hafta wait for that evidence

 

[Pup7]

Damian:

The label of “atheist” has nothing to do with a governmental position or any world view. It is a single answer to a single question. That is all. Anything else about the person is a completely different topic to discuss. It’s like saying the jury members that find a defendant “not-guilty”, people are now able to know what political view or world view those jury members have. Sorry but those identities have nothing to do with each other. This is the stupidity that is still being taught from the pulpit. Not ignorance, but stupidity. The willful misinformation to your audience.

As an atheist, are you spending so much time in churches that you know what’s being taught from pulpits?



Seriously, I cannot remember a priest even mentioning communism in a homily, let alone make a connection that all atheists are communists. But I would never assume that I’ve heard what every priest is saying from every pulpit. That would just be silly.

Nor have I - from the Methodists, the Free Will Baptists, or the Catholics. Not in 45 years.

 

[Sarcelle]

Socialism is great if it were not for human nature.

 

[DominusEmpyreus]

Socialism is great if it were not for human nature.

So is capitalism were it not for human nature.

 

[Sarcelle]

True

10 characters

 

[HarryStotle]

An imperfect mind is all we have. I suggest we use it. Blind acceptance of what appears to be a fairy tale is not using it wisely, …

Yes, but it “appears to be a fairy tale” to your imperfect mind. Presumably such a mind wouldn’t be very reliable for telling the difference between a “fairy tale” and a reality tale. In fact, I’ve read some fairy tales that are much more meaningfully rich than much of what goes on in human reality in the current epoch which, I suppose, is the one responsible for forming much of your ideation of realty.

An imperfect mind is all we have. I suggest we use it. Blind acceptance of what appears to be a fairy tale is not using it wisely, especially when used to dictate aspects of others lives for reasons that seem all too arbitrary to come from a truly good God

Ah, now we get to the crux of the issue. The “imperfect mind” ploy was one big red herring to feign intellectual humility, all the while playing coy regarding your absolute certainty about what is “truly good.”

With such certainty about what is “truly good” who needs God to throw a wrench into the works, eh? Apparently, you already HAVE been personally contacted by “God” and that “God” is YOU. Ergo what need is there for God to reveal himself since he couldn’t measure up to your depiction of “truly good God” which you have already carved onto your own version of the tablets of stone.

So you possess an imperfect mind, but are perfectly confident that you possess the perfect conception of what is “truly good?”

Speaking of “all too arbitrary” it isn’t clear to me that “aspects of others’ lives” have ever been dictated “arbitrarily” by the Church. You merely need to read the CCC to see how meticulously worked out the reasoning is that the Church has constructed over the 2000 years of its existence.

It would seem far more “arbitrary” to dismiss all that as “blind acceptance” or as arbitrarily dictated. I am reasonably certain that the grounds you have for characterizing Church doctrine as “arbitrary” are far more arbitrary than the grounds for belief that the Church has explicated.

Given that pretty much all of Church doctrine is founded upon the teachings of Jesus – and I can’t think of any serious thinker since the time of Jesus who would characterize him as “arbitrary” – your posting rings just a little hollow.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Humans are just beginning to comprehend the intricate laws of physics and the complexity of genetic code.

And in this tiny grain of sand we have studied there has been no proof of God, but I’m pretty sure that, as we study more, we’ll be sure to exhume the corpse that God represents to us if new arrows are found that point in his direction, and CPR his self back to life in our hearts and, more importantly, our brains.

For someone who uses the moniker “curious” to represent him/herself you certainly demonstrate a deadly lack of curiosity and absolute presumption regarding what will be found in the future.

God save humankind from such certainty, coming as it does from imperfect human minds.

I would presume that believing your mind to be “imperfect” would leave a whole lot of room for uncertainty, but that is just me, I suppose.

 

[Curious11]

Yes, but it “appears to be a fairy tale” to your imperfect mind. Presumably such a mind wouldn’t be very reliable for telling the difference between a “fairy tale” and a reality tale

Why is my mind unreliable to tell the difference but yours isn’t? I say it’s a fairy tale but I can’t be trusted, you say it’s real and you can be trusted. If we’re both humans with imperfect minds, it follows that if my perceptions are not trustworthy, your aren’t either.

I am reasonably certain that the grounds you have for characterizing Church doctrine as “arbitrary” are far more arbitrary than the grounds for belief that the Church has explicated.

In other words “you’re an atheist so your mind is imperfect, allow me to mansplain my religious convictions that are true because I’m not an atheist and hence my mind can be trusted”. All of that without ever feeling the need to prove yourself. The church’s claims are true because Jesus founded it and Jesus is to be trusted because the church says he should.

 

[Curious11]

You don’t get it. Uncertainty doesn’t mean God did it. You’re so busy trying to hammer God into my mind that you can’t even stop for a minute to consider the evidence. Whenever there’s a gap we can’t explain, you say God did it. And you appeal to uncertainty to claim with absolute certainty that God did it. If there’s uncertainty, there’s uncertainty, don’t try to fool me into thinking that “I don’t know what caused this” is the same as “Catholic claims about God MUST be true”.

You’re using uncertainty to attack atheism as invalid and support your absolutely certain claims.

 

[undead_rat]

Many Christians were members of the Communist Party until the Church made that membership an excommunicable offense. We ought to remember that some of the core values of communist theology come from the Bible: For instance; “From each according to his abilities, and to each according to his needs.”

 

[abucs]

I think a lot of atheists in the fullness of time have seen where anti-God politics has gone and they don’t like it.

God bless them.

 

[HarryStotle]

Why is my mind unreliable to tell the difference but yours isn’t? I say it’s a fairy tale but I can’t be trusted, you say it’s real and you can be trusted. If we’re both humans with imperfect minds, it follows that if my perceptions are not trustworthy, your aren’t either.

I think you missed the point of my post. What I was saying is that for someone who claims to have an imperfect mind you sure come across with a level of certainty regarding religion that isn’t warranted by your claims about your mind. I would expect a bit more circumspection on your part.

The reason I brought up your fairy tale point was that merely calling something a fairy tale doesn’t nullify its truth value. As I said, I’ve read fairy tales that are far more meaningful and significant regarding what they reveal than reality tales often are.

Ergo, merely asserting that a religion is a fairy tale doesn’t exactly tell anything important about the value of that religion.

I wasn’t attempting to imply that my mind is more competent than yours at determining what is or is not a fairy tale. Rather, that you seem to be making claims about religion (and fairy tales) that an imperfect mind would be unwise to make. But, hey, go ahead and think what you want.

You seem to have gotten defensive very quickly.

 

[HarryStotle]

In other words “you’re an atheist so your mind is imperfect, allow me to mansplain my religious convictions that are true because I’m not an atheist and hence my mind can be trusted”. All of that without ever feeling the need to prove yourself. The church’s claims are true because Jesus founded it and Jesus is to be trusted because the church says he should.

Actually, you are mischaracterizing my posts here. I fully acknowledge that my mind is imperfect, which is why I will defer to Jesus. His words and deeds are far more insightful and authoritative than I know mine have been or are. Ergo, when I compare his thinking to mine, his actions to mine, his consistency to mine, and his ground for making claims to mine, I will defer to what he said or did and try to gain insight that I would otherwise not have. That strategy has been far more fruitful than my going it alone relying solely on my imperfect mind.

You seem to be claiming that going it alone with your imperfect mind beats taking seriously the words and actions of Jesus, which you dismiss solely on the grounds that they are a “fairy-tale.” A determination for which you gave no justification.

So in the final analysis, as I see it, an imperfect mind PLUS the words and deeds of Jesus would seem to be a better arrangement than an imperfect mind going it alone. That would just seem a no-brainer, no?

Given, I mean, that you give no grounds for dismissing the words and deeds of Jesus beyond merely asserting they are a “fairy tale.” Any fool can see that an assertion like that doesn’t tell us anything of value.

Go ahead and mansplain (or is it womansplain?) away religion and subscribe to your “imperfect mind, love it or leave it” ideology. Just sayin’ atheists, of necessity, have only the counsel of their own imperfect minds as decided by willful determination, whereas theists have their imperfect minds but are, at least, open to listening and learning from a higher and, possibly, supreme mind. If you are closed to that possibility from the get-go then you shut off access to that mind and those thoughts from the start. Just seems an unwise strategy for ANY imperfect mind to follow. Then again, I suppose we shouldn’t expect imperfect minds to be ingenious ones in all instances, should we?

 

[Curious11]

Yeah I don’t see Christianity and communism as incompatible at all, to be honest.

Don’t take offense, but I suspect the church opposes communism for reasons other than theological: to protect its property, and also as a result of political pressures.

 

[Curious11]

Anti-God policies are bad indeed. The institutional militant church burning atheism of the USSR is absolutely disgusting to me. I think people ought to be able to worship whoever the heck they want, as long as they don’t break the law.

 

[HarryStotle]

Many Christians were members of the Communist Party until the Church made that membership an excommunicable offense. We ought to remember that some of the core values of communist theology come from the Bible: For instance; “From each according to his abilities, and to each according to his needs.”

It isn’t clear to me that communism has a “theology.” Nevertheless, I think your point may add some insight into why communism has become synonymous with atheism. I.e., that communists generally have been atheists, not that atheists generally have been communists.

It is true that “From each according to his abilities, and to each according to his needs,” seems to have been characteristic of the early Church, but how was that general outlook different from communism?

It might be observed that communism is a political ideology, one that seeks to impose “From each according to his abilities, and to each according to his needs,” upon citizens by decree of the law. The early Church was entirely voluntary which, I suppose, changes the very nature of the belief for each .

Where does atheism come in?

Suppose an atheist were to subscribe to “From each according to his abilities, and to each according to his needs,” as the most important moral principle. Further suppose that atheist has political interest in bringing about the most moral society they can imagine. Given a lack of belief in the supreme being, the atheist’s only recourse to realizing his ideal of utopia on earth would be by political fiat.

A theist, on the other hand, with a more sober and realistic understanding of human nature and sin, knows better than to think human beings will subscribe to “From each according to his abilities, and to each according to his needs” freely and the likelihood of making that ideal a reality without the application of a great deal of political force being imposed (along with many deaths and lots of suffering) is basically zero. Given the theist’s understanding of human nature and sin, the theist will patiently leave the bringing about the kingdom of heaven on earth to the grace of God and the true conversion of sinners, not to political regimes and brute force.

Humanitarian atheists with a strong predilection to the realization of the idea of utopia will necessarily rely upon the only means left to them – politics – to embody what they have decided is their supreme principle, “From each according to his abilities, and to each according to his needs.” They will then turn to political activism and, frustrated by their incapacity to change hearts, will ramp up the use of force to impose that principle by any means necessary – BAMN (if you get the reference.) Full throttled communism, here we come.

Or, put another way: idealism + atheism = communism

 

[Curious11]

Rather, that you seem to be making claims about religion (and fairy tales) that an imperfect mind would be unwise to make. But, hey, go ahead and think what you want.

Are you telling me with a straight face that 2 makes more sense than 1?

1. There’s this book called the Bible but there doesn’t seem to be any evidence that proves its claims. For example, I can’t find evidence Jesus truly did the miracles people claim or that the Israelites ever spent 40 years in the desert, or that God has communicated with us in a manner that leaves no doubt. So I guess I’ll just treat this book like Cinderella, it’s a nice fairytale, until I can find grounds to even hypothesize its authenticity.
2. My mind is imperfect, so I’ll take the Bible at complete face value because the church, an institution which incidentally gets its authority from the claim that the Bible is true, says so.

 

[Curious11]

So in the final analysis, as I see it, an imperfect mind PLUS the words and deeds of Jesus would seem to be a better arrangement than an imperfect mind going it alone. That would just seem a no-brainer, no?

You’re just as alone as I am with your imperfect mind on this. Because to count Jesus as being on your side you first need to prove Jesus is who the church claims, which you and all theists ever have failed to do. In order for HarryStotle’s mind+Jesus to be truly larger than Curious11’s mind you need to have a good case for believing Jesus is God, otherwise it’s like 2+0, it’s still 2, no matter how many 0 you add.

 

[HarryStotle]

An imperfect mind is all we have. I suggest we use it. Blind acceptance of what appears to be a fairy tale is not using it wisely, especially when used to dictate aspects of others lives for reasons that seem all too arbitrary to come from a truly good God

There is still something inconsistent (and possibly dishonest) about this claim of yours to have an “imperfect mind.”

To claim something – anything – is imperfect is to have the perfect exemplar of that thing at hand to compare it to. X is an imperfect example of a mind because this (Y) is what a perfect mind would be like.

So what exemplar of a mind, precisely, do you have within you by which to claim your mind is imperfect in comparison?

Essentially, you must be implicitly claiming to have access to a perfect mind in order to claim that your mind is imperfect in comparison.

Where, precisely, is that exemplar to be found? Or are you just making it up to lend some appearance of humility?

You see the theist Christian can point to the Holy Spirit residing within them (the light that enlightens every human person) as that exemplar, but an atheist has no such recourse.

Ergo, your “imperfect mind” claim is either unsustainable (by you) since in order to know you have an imperfect mind you would have to simultaneously have access to a perfect mind to which to contrast and compare yours to arrive at the “imperfect” determination, or you are just engaging in some groundless rhetorical but disingenuous self-deprecation.

So which is it?

Are you surreptitiously stowing a perfect mind in the gestalt of your psychology and merely offering a pretense of imperfection to appear humble or is your “imperfect mind” claim just an empty and false one?