Problems w/ Atheism

[KyivAndrew]

I’m not telling you that your god is objectively a “monster” – I’m telling you that I personally find his values monstrous and that I have a hard time conceiving of a normal, healthy person who considers some of these ideas just (particularly passing on blame to the descendents of a criminal – could you imagine your reaction if some earthly dictator did that? Punished the family of a criminal?)

I haven’t read all the posts on this particular thread but I’ll jump in on this one point and maybe try to reread the rest later.

On punishing descendants to the fourth generation you are speaking of God’s actions in the Old Testament. As Christians we see the Old Testament through the prism of Jesus Christ and His Fulfillment of the Law. In the Gospel of John, Chapter 9 (obviously New Testament) the disciples ask Christ whose sins caused the blind man to be born blind. Jesus answers authoritatively it is not the blind man’s sins nor his parents’ that are to blame for his blindness at all, but for the works of God to be manifest in him.

But I will defend God’s actions in the Old Testament using Jewish exegesis so that our Jewish brothers and sisters don’t think I believe God in the O.T. can’t be defended on Jewish grounds. The Jews kept commentaries on the Tanakh and refer to it quite often: the Targum for instance from 2nd Temple Judaism to the Middle Ages. On the passage in question of Exodus 20:5 (punishment unto fourth generations), the medieval Rabbi Rashi referred to the Targum (Onkelos) which stipulates that the fourth generation “of those who hate me” means specifically “when the sons continue to sin following their fathers as when they cling to their fathers’ deeds” [Sanhedrin 27b]. Already the most learned Jewish religious minds understood this to not to mean a blanket whimsical order of a capricious God but a statement of consequences if sin was to continue rampant.

You are quoting from the Torah here to turn God into a Monster and I am telling you it helps to read Biblical Commentary (Jewish, Christian) to understand what is being spoken of. It is the story of God and Israel in the beginning, a story to which the famous Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria applies hermeneutics on the assumption of a twofold meaning in the Bible, the literal and the allegorical, and from whom the Church Fathers also learned hermeneutics to a certain extent on the Bible.

God may appear as ruthless if you cherry pick quotes from the Bible without a full understanding of the bigger picture and what is being taught - and its allegorical nature at times. The Biblical God as Monster, however, is a common psychological theme among many atheists who play out their anger at God (father figure?), even though they deny Him simultaneously. As Chesterton said, if there was no God, there would be no atheists.

Just wanted to point that out and am not sure going through the same ground over and over again is necessarily productive.

We understand your monistic values: we are all just a bunch of atoms as I believe you said. So why get angry at other bunches of atoms who do not share your beliefs. Why should one care?

 

[KyivAndrew]

When I see a guy on the streets pushing someone, I might automatically think, “What a jerk!” I’m sure he sees the situation differently, but it’s irrelevant to the fact that I make a value judgment about his behavior.

It’s totally irrelevant that neither one of us is objectively “right” – I still feel the way I feel, and I would bet that a lot of people would agree with me.

Me: when I see a guy pushing someone on the streets I might automatically think “phone the cops” or help out if necessary and, not as you aver: oh, well, I think he’s a jerk but he is no more “objectively” right in pushing that someone around than I am for thinking him a jerk. Your own personal “values” tell you what to think.

Good thing you never became President of the USA during the Cold War. Can you imagine? Yes, I see the Soviet Union invading and enslaving that innocent little country Hungary; I hate it but, well, my “values” tell me one thing, the Soviets “value” another thing. Hmmm. Who can say who is “right”. Nobody in AntiT’s amoral world: it just turns into a brute power struggle between your values and the other side’s. You may not desire it, but your worldview basically works out in the end to “might makes right” for all intents and purposes.

 

[KyivAndrew]

Communism, especially Stalinism, was a horrible, brutal system, but it began as a response to real issues. Some of those issues involved the Church.
.

Well yes, and Stalinism’s (Communism’s) death toll into the tens of millions (Ukrainian genocide, Gulag, the Purges, the Arrests) is out of the entire ballpark altogether in comparing it to how many the czar (buttressed by Russian Orthodox Church) killed in the countries of the old Soviet Union. (I think Robert Conquest pins the number of 20,000 victims at the foot of the czars). This pales in comparison to the Communist Megadeaths. And I’m no fan of the czars.

And how exactly Gearhead would you as an atheist argue that Stalinism was a “brutal, horrible system” using Atheism. Are you like AntiTheist who does not believe in any morality? Or do you use some other godless form and measure of good and evil to make the ethical declaration that Stalinism was horrible and brutal. Horrible and brutal based on what exactly?

 

[AntiTheist]

On punishing descendants to the fourth generation you are speaking of God’s actions in the Old Testament.

I’m actually speaking of original sin, the idea that the blame of Adam and Eve’s offense is passed to every last one of their descendents.

The Biblical God as Monster, however, is a common psychological theme among many atheists who play out their anger at God (father figure?), even though they deny Him simultaneously. As Chesterton said, if there was no God, there would be no atheists.

Well, look. We can either discuss the character or not. The character is there, so it’s not surprising that people feel like discussing him. It’s silly to say that because someone discusses a character it means that said person believes in the character.

We understand your monistic values: we are all just a bunch of atoms as I believe you said. So why get angry at other bunches of atoms who do not share your beliefs. Why should one care?

Because I have values, value judgments that matter to me.

There’s no “should” about it – I happen to be someone who enjoys talking about this stuff. If I happened to be someone who enjoyed other things instead, I’d be doing those other things instead.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Well yes, and Stalinism’s (Communism’s) death toll into the tens of millions (Ukrainian genocide, Gulag, the Purges, the Arrests) is out of the entire ballpark altogether in comparing it to how many the czar (buttressed by Russian Orthodox Church) killed in the countries of the old Soviet Union. (I think Robert Conquest pins the number of 20,000 victims at the foot of the czars). This pales in comparison to the Communist Megadeaths. And I’m no fan of the czars.

And how exactly Gearhead would you as an atheist argue that Stalinism was a “brutal, horrible system” using Atheism. Are you like AntiTheist who does not believe in any morality? Or do you use some other godless form and measure of good and evil to make the ethical declaration that Stalinism was horrible and brutal. Horrible and brutal based on what exactly?

Can you prove Stalin’s atheism informed his evil actions? Statistically speaking the majority of criminals, rapists, pedophiles, murderers, etc. in this country are Christian. In fact atheists are perhaps the least represented group in our prisons (and I’m speaking proportionately). Should I think the religious are nothing more than a bunch of no good, murdering, rapists?

Stalin wanted to be a Catholic priest in his early years. Why shouldn’t I assume Catholicism informed his evil actions much more than his atheism could have?

 

[KyivAndrew]

Stalin wanted to be a Catholic priest in his early years. Why shouldn’t I assume Catholicism informed his evil actions much more than his atheism could have?

You shouldn’t assume Catholicism informed Stalin’s evil actions because, doh:banghead: Stalin attended a Russian Orthodox Seminary in Georgia. There were no Catholic seminaries in Tsarist controlled-Georgia. His mom wanted him to study for the Orthodox priesthood not Stalin. Stalin didn’t care for religion and used the seminary as a hotbed for revolutionary activity.

On what basis do you claim Stalin’s actions were evil? Many atheists would run from such a term because if evil exists, so does good. By what measuring stick do you measure evil? What you personally think is evil? Even atheists have to jump through hoops to define evil and good, many not agreeing if such terms are even applicable in a morally relativistic world.

In any event Yankee, it seems you answered that question from your perspective in another thread so I am not sure I could learn anymore of your position. You post on all these threads somehow.

 

[josie_L]

Can you prove Stalin’s atheism informed his evil actions? Statistically speaking the majority of criminals, rapists, pedophiles, murderers, etc. in this country are Christian. In fact atheists are perhaps the least represented group in our prisons (and I’m speaking proportionately). Should I think the religious are nothing more than a bunch of no good, murdering, rapists?

Statistically speaking, the thing that most criminals have in common is poverty, i.e., they were raised in low income families (many in single parent households).

p.s. The thing about communism (and those who choose to implement it) is that it is an atheistic philosophy (I am not saying atheism leads to communism however).

 

[gearhead]

p.s. The thing about communism (and those who choose to implement it) is that it is an atheistic philosophy (I am not saying atheism leads to communism however).

I disagree with that. Many long-standing communist groups are religiously based… for example, the Hutterites. Just because the large examples were “atheist” (though definitely not big on freethought or rejection of dogma) doesn’t mean that communism is inherently atheistic.

 

[AndrewJaffery]

I disagree with that. Many long-standing communist groups are religiously based… for example, the Hutterites. Just because the large examples were “atheist” (though definitely not big on freethought or rejection of dogma) doesn’t mean that communism is inherently atheistic.

Just to add to that, the only ever ACTUALLY successful communism were on Kibbutz’s, which were Jewish settlements. By succesful, I mean that they lasted without falling apart. They weren’t technically communist, but they did all the things communism did…or was supposed to do in theory.

Sorry to intrued, and all…

 

[srferdave]

Just to add to that, the only ever ACTUALLY successful communism were on Kibbutz’s, which were Jewish settlements. By succesful, I mean that they lasted without falling apart. They weren’t technically communist, but they did all the things communism did…or was supposed to do in theory.

Sorry to intrued, and all…

You guys are getting into this idea that communism in and of itself is evil. Communism in and of itself is not evil. If the communism is strictly political it is not necessarily evil. I am completely against communism as in the majority of the cases I believe the leaders of a communist society instill evil actions into the politics. I also don’t agree with the economical aspects of it.

I think when it comes to communism there are some connections to atheism. As some previous posters were trying to point out with Stalin as he was atheist and communist.

To say that all communist societies throughout time are evil is not necessarily true however.

 

[josie_L]

I disagree with that. Many long-standing communist groups are religiously based… for example, the Hutterites. Just because the large examples were “atheist” (though definitely not big on freethought or rejection of dogma) doesn’t mean that communism is inherently atheistic.

When you say communist groups do you mean as it was described by Karl Marx (political ideology)?

 

[josie_L]

You guys are getting into this idea that communism in and of itself is evil. Communism in and of itself is not evil. If the communism is strictly political it is not necessarily evil. I am completely against communism as in the majority of the cases I believe the leaders of a communist society instill evil actions into the politics. I also don’t agree with the economical aspects of it.

I think when it comes to communism there are some connections to atheism. As some previous posters were trying to point out with Stalin as he was atheist and communist.

To say that all communist societies throughout time are evil is not necessarily true however.

But communism as an ideology does infringe on our freedoms. And it’s not that communism is connected to atheism because Stalin was an atheist but rather because it was an ideology that was hostile to religious thought and traditional institutions (the reason this is so is because Karl Marx himself created it to be this way). In a way it was to replace the old with something new and more “enlightened”. I’m sure Karl Marx believed he was creating a utopia of sorts (don’t all political/social ideologists believe this) when he wrote “Das Kapital”.

 

[gearhead]

When you say communist groups do you mean as it was described by Karl Marx (political ideology)?

When I say “communist groups”, I mean communism, pure and simple: an egalitarian system where property is owned communally instead of individually and the workers control the means of production.

Marxism is a subset of communism. However, I’d say that the brand of communism that was practiced under dictators like Stalin wasn’t Marxism either.

 

[gearhead]

But communism as an ideology does infringe on our freedoms. And it’s not that communism is connected to atheism because Stalin was an atheist but rather because it was an ideology that was hostile to religious thought and traditional institutions (the reason this is so is because Karl Marx himself created it to be this way).

Marx created Marxism, but he sure didn’t create communism. For example, here’s one expression of communism from nearly two thousand years before Karl Marx was born:

32And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them.

33And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all.

34For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales

35and lay them at the apostles’ feet, and they would be distributed to each as any had need.

 

[srferdave]

But communism as an ideology does infringe on our freedoms. And it’s not that communism is connected to atheism because Stalin was an atheist but rather because it was an ideology that was hostile to religious thought and traditional institutions (the reason this is so is because Karl Marx himself created it to be this way). In a way it was to replace the old with something new and more “enlightened”. I’m sure Karl Marx believed he was creating a utopia of sorts (don’t all political/social ideologists believe this) when he wrote “Das Kapital”.

Yes I agree with you completely. I was trying argue the fact that the poster said there was once a successful communist group. If it was strictly political and did not infringe on ones freedom of beliefs than it is not necessarily evil. I thought conversation here was about the relation between communism and evil. and how it is so many times goes hand and hand with atheism.

 

[srferdave]

Marx created Marxism, but he sure didn’t create communism. For example, here’s one expression of communism from nearly two thousand years before Karl Marx was born:

This about charity. Not communism.

 

[gearhead]

This about charity. Not communism.

They aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. The passage paints communism in a charitable light, certainly, but it’s still talking about things like getting rid of the concept of individual ownership of property.

 

[srferdave]

They aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. The passage paints communism in a charitable light, certainly, but it’s still talking about things like getting rid of the concept of individual ownership of property.

The congregation willingly handed over there goods. It was not taken from them as it is with communism.

 

[gearhead]

The congregation willingly handed over there goods. It was not taken from them as it is with communism.

Tell that to Ananais and Sapphira.

Anyhow, are you saying that voluntary communism isn’t communism? Why would that be?

 

[srferdave]

Tell that to Ananais and Sapphira.

Anyhow, are you saying that voluntary communism isn’t communism? Why would that be?

That would be a another conversation in itself. And I don’t think its necessary to determine that because i think both of us can agree that voluntary communism is very very very unlikely. and is not worth a discussion in this thread.