All atheism states is that there is no God. There is no further interpretation beyond this aside from what you personally derive, not what atheism derives. Marxism and Communism work just fine even without atheism, look at almost any Asian communist nation.
Vietnam is led by an Atheist party, as with the PRC, the DPRNK.
Atheism states that there is no God, that is correct. I’m pointing to the Communist Manifesto that embeds the necessity of Atheism into its doctrine.
Lynx:
Atheism doesn’t answer these things. That’s the point, atheism doesn’t give you good or bad moral guidance, it gives none. As such, when aspects of morality are called into question, such as communists murdering Christians, why blame atheism when atheism doesn’t address these questions?
That’s the problem with Atheism, it doesn’t answer these things. If it tries to assert itself as superior (ie Dawkins, Hitchens et al) then we need to know these things.
The reason we look to the Communists and the murdering of Christians (from a state level at least) is because there is a correlation between the atheist and the murder:
Stalin, Mao ZeDong, Pol Pot and so forth.
lynx:
When you’re a communist and kill a Christian you’re doing so not out of an atheistic ideology, but a communist ideology. If you’re a Nazi, your hate fueled rampage is fueled by Nazism, not Christianity.
While atheism can have a number of ideologies attached or being subjective to atheism, Communism is a specific branch of atheist materialism. Atheist ideology alone isn’t associated with Communism, hence why I’m not arguing that all atheists are communists. But due to the binding nature of Atheistic Materialism and the principles it exerts in the Communist Manifesto, there is a clear defined link.
While I state this, I still assert that Atheism is associated with the ideology, because of its relationship.
lynx:
Toe-meigh-toe, toe-mah-toe, both were used as a tool in an ideology that at times had no problem murdering others that disagreed with them. How that tool was applied is irrelevant.
One was a tool
Positive Christianity, as explained was to unite the population under the state] another was specifically of the manifesto
which saw religion as a threat and must be eliminated], there is a distinct difference.
lynx:
Culturally, no. While the laws might have some Protestant background to them, my Hawaiian culture does not. To me, it seems pretty simple to see that by murdering someone I risk being in trouble with the law and becoming a societal outcast. What part of religion do I need to tell me this?
Why would you come into trouble with the law or become a social outcast? That’s partially the point, where does this idea come from?
lynx:
The fact that religion overlaps with culture/law does not mean that religion supplied the moral background for that cultural practice/law.
Religion tends to be the epicentre for culture, defining it.
lynx:
My parents were Christian to a degree, but i’ve never been influenced tremendously by those ideals. Even atheistic cultures know that is wrong to kill, steal, etc. This is due in part to what society agrees is acceptable.
Maybe you’ve absorbed Christian ideals due to your surroundings? The populous of the USSR (primarily an atheistic culture) didn’t mind the exploitation of Stalin’s fear and paranoia for personal benefits and gains [See Orlando Figes ‘The Whisperers’]. Again referencing the People’s Republic of China, we see problems with this moral assertion.
The problem with the USSR and the PRC is that they both originate from strongly former religious nations, which suggests an attempt to shake off the old (something that the neo-atheists seem to desire) and establish something new.
The latter poses moral relativism, and becomes quite problematic. What society can choose to be acceptable can deter from what is Morally Good. If morality is nothing more than what society chooses to be acceptable, then essentially, society will collapse. As you have earlier stressed that Atheism doesn’t answer these moral questions, then essentially atheistic societies are bound to fail.
lynx:
What religion does is it acts as the backbone of morality, not necessarily letting society define that morality for itself. If you don’t think morality can be derived or inherited outside of religion then you will never accept this argument and we should just move on.
Only by religion or what is written in our hearts. I guess we should just move on.
lynx:
You’re talking about apples and oranges. Raw atheism can only address one aspect of Christianity, not its entirety. The correct answer is that it depends on the moral background of the individual.
Not quite, Raw atheism is without any previous cultural inheritance, just atheism alone, no God and no absolute. Western Atheism derives from the Christian religion, these notions of helping one another and so forth (unless atheism can explain why we do such in a nihilistic and pointless world that is dominated in the terms of survival of the fittest) are inherited from said Christian religion.
The correct answer you said is which depends on the moral background of the individual: as you have stated that religion forms the backbone, then wouldn’t it be necessary to keep that religion?
The future can only be hypothetical to us, but considering that the United Kingdom saw a cultural revolution in the 1960s to oppose which is traditional, if an atheistic society were to do the same, and religion were not present, what authority does it have to say what is right and what is wrong?
If you say it is subjective and relativistic, then the problem emerges that morality doesn’t really exist.
Cont…
Well, given the public campaign we’ve waged against atheism for the past 2000 years, I guess it’s about time atheists did something!
If someone is looking to spread atheism at the end of a sword it’s because of some other ideology, not a non-belief.
