Atheism and religion

[Vince278]

Originally posted by molly bloom
It's all a load of papal bull.

I first came across that Papal letter while doing research on conspiracy theories this past week. That was why I was able to quote something that obscure so quickly.

[Terra Nullius]

omfg

papal encyclicals on-line!!





[IMG]C:\Data\My Pictures\ncd01498.gif[/IMG]

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by Xorbon
Are you calling the USSR a 'theocratic police state'?! They were a police state, but they were the opposite of theocratic. I wouldn't call a state that suppresses religion a theocratic state!

ok. just to spell it out.

faith is personal

religion is social

policy is governmental

a government which applies policy with the purpose of influencing religious practices within society, or a government which applies policy with the purpose of influencing an individual's professed beliefs (faith) is, in my view, theocratic.

historically, that makes the ussr theocratic.

in game-terms, it seems there is a slider with, maybe five positions from 'most-secular' to 'most-theocratic.' if i wanted to model the behaviour of the ussr, i would be setting my sliders for theo!

I've heard that before, and I don't buy it for a second. Communism is NOT a religion! Communism was all about removing religion from society altogether and making society atheist.

that's the whole point!

communism was all about applying policy to affect religious practice.

secularism is all about the separation of church and state. theocracy is about the identification of church and state. in making the claim that "there is no god," soviet communism abrogates the position of a religion within society.

to say "there is no god" is to make an ontological claim. it is making a statement about the nature of reality. by claiming authority over individual faith and societal practice, such a government claims for itself the position of a de-facto church.

it really doesn't matter if the state says: god exists, god doesn't exist or god wears fish-net stockings.

so was communism a religion?

the biggest problem we have here is in finding a suitable definition for religion. firstly, religion is a societal phenomenon and i'm no sociologist. however it seems to me that the statement "there is no god" is clearly stepping across the boundary into mysticism.

Could the difference be that religions are based on metaphysics, while ideas like Communism aren't? Religions seem to have one thing in common: they explain how the world works. Communism doesn't do that as far as I can tell.

exactly! religions are based on metaphysics. ergo, communism, in claiming authority to teach metaphysical principles such as the existence (or not) of god is acting as a de-facto religion.

some of herr nuclear's definitions are quite fun, though.

Religion is a belief in a supernatural entity/entities that is infinitely more powerful than a human, can control human destiny, and is/are the creator(s) of the universe.

umm, you mean like the jungian global sub-consious?

personally, i'm gonna go with this,..
a church is a body of people professing the same metaphysical beliefs, and enacting those beliefs through shared ritual or practice.

welcome to the communist church of apolyton.

[Datajack Franit]

Maybe it's not such a bad idea to put religion out of computer games

[Impaler[WrG]]

Acording to Fredrich Nietch their are 3 levels of Religions Sacrafice.

The first is the sacraficing of desirable things, from goats to captured slaves all the way to gods comandment for Josua to slay his first born. All fall under this catagory or MATERIAL sacrafices.

The second level is that of Sacraficing your WILL, to actualy live the "holy" life style prescribed by a religion and suplicate ones desires willingly. This goes beyond simply refraining from actions because of punishments, its the active desire to NOT desire what is forbiden.

The third and final stage is ware you sacrafice the only thing you have left, GOD HIMSELF. Thus to Neiche modern Athiesm represents the culmination or the Cristian Philosophy not its rejection. In reaching its culmination Cristianity leads to its own self negation just as all great ideas must.

[Nikolai]

If so, I'd say Nietche didn't understand the concept of religion properly.

[Terra Nullius]

@ sophist: sorry for the delay, i just thought i'd let this one sink into the pond for a bit.

Originally posted by sophist
Atheist and non-theist are two different things.

this statement is wrong.

history
ok, correct me if you feel the need. buddhism developed as the compassionate response of an ordinary man to the suffering he experienced himself and witnessed in others. religion was seen as a cause of that suffering. in other words, one of the main intentions in the development of buddhism was to provide an alternative to the religions of the time.

buddhism does not contain any such positivist assertion as "god does not exist." however, it does have a position in society as an alternative to established religion.

etymology
as m'lady points out, atheist and non-theist arguably mean the same thing from an etymological standpoint.

emptiness
there is no inherent existence. i don't know exactly where this fits into the cycle of buddhist teachings. in terms of logic, it'd take me some time to decide whether i'd classify this as a law, a statement or an assumption. for simplicity, i'll call it a tradition.

buddhist tradition states that existence is fundamentally empty. no thing inherently exists. a pen is not "really" a pen. a rock is not "really" a rock. when i say "this is a pen" i am merely using a conventionally-designated reality. we use these conventional realities for the sake of simplicity. it is easier to communicate day-to day affairs this way. if i want a pen, i can say " pass me that pen." you understand me and pass me the object i wanted.

however, the true nature of the pen is that it does not exist as such. there is no core reality underlying the object.

existence
in classical philosophy, things really do exist. a duck is a duck.

it is possible to make mistakes. i might think it's a duck when it's really a goose. but the possibility of a mistaken perception does not contradict the underlying reality that "something exists." by observing the object, i can get a better understanding of what exactly it is which exists.

more precisely, classical philosophy supposes that things possess a [i]possibility[/] (or potential) and an act of existence. a painting has the possibility of existing. if the painter takes a canvas and paints, then it comes to posses the act of existence. if a thing possesses the character of being a painting and the act of being a painting then, in classical philosophy, it really is a painting.

i am not an animalist
the statement "i am an atheist" is strongly derivative of the classical understanding of being.

before anything else, this statement says "i am."

i would suggest that those who use this term are, in general, referring to a system of thought based on classical principles. in effect, they are saying: i assert that things really exist. i assert that god possesses the possiblity of existence. i further assert that god does not possess the act of existence.

nb. (to say "god possesses the possibility of existence" does not mean "it is possible that god actually exists." for example: flying pigs possess the possibility of existence, but apolyton possesses the possibility and the [i]act[i/] of existence. in other words, the concept(or nature) of god is logically consistent with the possibility of actual existence.)

epistemology
buddhist philosophy considers phenomena in terms of their gross reality, subtle reality and extremely subtle reality.

the abscence of inherent existence is considered (i think) as part of the extremely subtle character of existence. a buddhist can train his mind to 'see' the world as having no inherent existence. but this view is not useful in day-today life. so, like a pair of spectacles, this view can be put aside when it is not helpful. the best analogy i can think of is of a doctor or a scientist. such a person is trained to see and understand the world in a particular way. this training is like putting on a pair of spectacles. a trained doctor or scientist uses these spectacles as a way to see the world in order to get a particular job done. once the job is done, you can take off your glasses, there is no need for them.

to put it simply, buddhism has a certain inherent flexibility. i put on one pair of spectacles and i see that god does not exist. i put on a different pair of spectacles and i see that god could, possibly exist. the difference is in the spectacles.

or to put it another way, it would be impossible to describe an object without also considering the observer and the medium of observation. buddhists generally seem to have a good understanding of this and hesitate to make statements such as "xyz really is ..."

is there any such thing as non-theism?
so you can see where i'm going with this.

if nothing really exists, then god could not really exist. buddhism does not make the (atheist) assumption that "god does not exist." however, traditional buddhist logic is not consistent with the idea that god possesses the possibility of existence.

it seems to me that people (especially europeans?!) are using the term 'atheism' to refer to a derivative of classical philosophy. whereas the idea behind 'non-theism' is intended to suggest a non-classical system. i agree that 'atheism' and 'non-theism' are probably not the same thing, however i still find the term "non-theist" to be inadequately defined.

a final word

the four noble truths
the basic assumptions of buddhism are
i. existence is characterised by suffering
ii. the cause of suffering is attachment
iii. it is possible to eliminate suffering
iv. the methods and teachings of the buddha are an effective means of eliminating suffering

so, umm, no god.

buddhism makes no explicit assumptions about the existence or otherwise of god. however, starting from these first principles, can buddhism offer any answer to the question "does god exist?"

well, i had a word to a wise old buddhist in the shower the other day, and this is what he said

if god exists, so be it.
if god does not exist, so be it.
undue attachment to the question
will lead to suffering

HICCUP [IMG]C:\DATA\My Pictures\symbol.JPG[/IMG] lebensraum 2005

[MxM]

Originally posted by Xorbon


I was referring to how religions try to explain why the world (and/or universe) is the way it is (without using science). The concepts that communism deals (like materialism, class divisions, economics, etc.) with are way narrower than what I meant. For example, communism doesn't explain where trees came from. Maybe I picked the wrong word to explain what I meant?

It seems that I still can't quite understand you. The materialism includes evolution theory, which answers your question about trees.

[MxM]

Originally posted by lebensraum
@ sophist: sorry for the delay, i just thought i'd let this one sink into the pond for a bit.

Originally posted by sophist


Atheist and non-theist are two different things. The above, afaik, neither affirm nor deny the existence of the divine.

this statement is wrong.

...snip...

lebensraum,

You had a very good post, but the question is of definitions, and not about budism. From dictionary.com:

a·the·ism
n.

1.
a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2.
Godlessness; immorality.

Which shows that atheism is denial in god existence, as oppose to non-theism.

Saying this, I did see many times the use of atheism in "non-theism" sense, which is probably because there is no word which describe just that.

So in the broader sense sometimes you can say that this is the same thing.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lebensraum

historically, that makes the ussr theocratic.

No, it doesn't.


A theocracy or theocratic state is entirely different, even allowing for the cult of personality built up around Stalin.

God (or gods) is the supreme ruler: on earth the priesthood or pope or imam or caliph rule for him, or occasionally, a priest-king may combine secular and divine powers.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MxM
a·the·ism
n.

1.
a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2.
Godlessness; immorality.

Which shows that atheism is denial in god existence, as oppose to non-theism.

Saying this, I did see many times the use of atheism in "non-theism" sense, which is probably because there is no word which describe just that.

So in the broader sense sometimes you can say that this is the same thing.

I'll help you out here:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist.htm

-Atheism can involve the positive assertion that there is no deity.
-Atheism can be the absence of a belief that there is a deity.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm

Etymology: Atheist originated in two Greek roots: "A" which means "without" or "not" and "Theos" which means "deity"

-A person who is without a belief in any deity. This definition would mainly include those who are simply unaware of the existence of any deity. It would also include a person who is either too young or who lacks the mental ability to conceive of a deity. In contrast to this, most Muslims believe that all babies are Muslim at birth, and only later in life may accept the teachings of another religion.

-A person who totally rejects the existence of any deity. Some may keep this belief to themselves; others may assert this belief to others.

The article then goes on to point out that dictionary definitions are contradictory.

But it's a matter of basic logic. If you believe in god(s), you're a theist. If you don't believe in god(s), whether actively denying them or passively not believing, you're a non-theist. "Atheist" means, literally, "Non-theist," so it fully covers both the active and passive disbeliefs.

[Xorbon]

lebensraum: here's a definition of theocracy according to the Collins dictionary:   government by a deity or by a priesthood

By this definition, the USSR was not theocratic. Ancient Egypt and modern Iran both fit this definition well. If you have some other definition of theocracy, then I suppose we're just arguing semantics and we won't likely ever agree.

MxM say:
It seems that I still can't quite understand you. The materialism includes evolution theory, which answers your question about trees.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that religion seems to try to answer broader questions than communism and similar philosophies do. Materialism does come from evolution, but communism doesn't attempt to answer the question: "Where do trees come from?" Besides, that question was only an example. "Why does the sun move across the sky?" would be another example. I don't think you'll find answers to these questions in Marx's 'Communist Manifesto'.

[MxM]

Originally posted by Xorbon
I guess what I'm trying to say is that religion seems to try to answer broader questions than communism and similar philosophies do. Materialism does come from evolution, but communism doesn't attempt to answer the question: "Where do trees come from?" Besides, that question was only an example. "Why does the sun move across the sky?" would be another example. I don't think you'll find answers to these questions in Marx's 'Communist Manifesto'.

I still do not understand what do you mean. Materialism comes with (based on, includes) a bunch of sciences, such as physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy and so on. You question about the sun is answered in physics/astronomy. The only major thing that science can't explain (yet) is how and why the Big Bang was created. We just lack enough knowledge about the time before the BB, (though time may not exist before it, and thus "before" is not a valid term), but most of the other questions about how the world is working is answered in the sciences, on which materialism is based.

[Xorbon]

Yes, materialism (and other aspects of communism) is based on sciences and philosophy. But, what I'm saying is that materialism (etc.) is only a small part of science/philosophy. It's like chickens are fowl, but not all fowl are chickens. Materialism comes from the sciences, but not all science deals with materialism. For instance, you could argue that materialism is based on biology (we evolved to gather and keep objects), but knowing all there is to know about materialism doesn't help when discussing other aspects of biology.



What I was originally trying to say was that religions came about in attempt to explain the world (and universe) around us. Communism only deals with a few relatively small aspects of the world. Basically, religion answers broad questions; communism deals with sociology, economics, and touches on a few other sciences, but doesn't really answer much of anything. Religion vs. communism. Broad vs. narrow focus.

I don't know. Never mind. I give up. I'm no sociologist, philosopher, or theologian.

[MxM]

I kind of see what you mean.

Communism as political theory is much narrower than religion. This is probably what you wanted to say.

However for the game (do we still remember which game? ) communism is an ideology, and as an ideology it is very broad, as broad as religion.

My concern with Civ IV is that all religions are very old, and thus they will be "researched" in the first half of the game, meanwhile the modern days have seen appearance of new ideologies, which are not included into the game. It would be nice if something like communism, fascism, Islamic fundamentalism or even secularism where included into the game as modern ideologies (or religions from the game point of view). That would make the game end much less boring and more dynamic.