Atheism and religion

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lebensraum

geez moll! tell me, do you and vmxa 1 get together every couple of years for a crotchety-old-bugger competition or what?

the whole theocracy definition is a good example. you can go ahead and turn yourself blue in the face citing all the most authoritative sources. but the moment i change paradigms, your whole argument goes up in smoke. we can argue the point as scholastics, post-moderns, taoists, animists and so on. every time you state something which is true in one context i only have to change context to show that your argument is a steaming pile of pou.*

but, if you feel the need to discuss it further, by all means start up a new thread. i'll come on over and see if i can't tear you a brand spanker.**

No, never met that poster.

I'd rather not indulge in adolescent antics and quasi-philosophical logorrhoea about what is a fairly simple subject- your lack of understanding about what a theocracy is, and how it works, and how it might be defined, with reference to the U.S.S.R. 's method of government and historical examples of theocracies.

If you are going to blether on irrelevantly at length (and you seem to want to...) then I'd much rather you precis and simply back up your definition of a theocracy with examples showing when and how what most people who have a passing interest in it believe to be a theocracy, changed into your version.

Using an incorrect, ill-defined analogy- communism=religion, simply isn't going to fly.


I'd start getting ready your sauce for the collected works of Dr. Johnson. He has a bit of sound advice for you, by the way:

"Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves, or we know where we can find information upon it."

Boswell's Life of Johnson

It appears, at least with regard to what a theocracy is, you fail on both counts.


* No dearie, you have to do a lot more than that.

** Is your favourite film 'The Ego Has Landed' ? Sounds like it should be...

[lajzar]

Why are you so fond of quoting Dr Johnson? A cynic might suppose you are hiding your own lack of knowledge behind great men.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lajzar
Why are you so fond of quoting Dr Johnson? A cynic might suppose you are hiding your own lack of knowledge behind great men.

If you are a cynic, suppose away, but cynics are familiar with disappointment.

A realist might understand I've read some of his works, and thus:

"...know a subject ourselves, or we know where we can find information upon it."

In any case, I paraphrased a reply of Johnson's concerning Bishop Berkeley's philosophy, so that makes one Johnsonian paraphrase and one direct quote in reply to a post of lebensraum's which used a quote from Johnson.

Which rather undermines your characterization of me as being 'so fond of quoting Johnson' .


If you're interested in Johnson I recommend his poems 'London' and 'The Vanity of Human Wishes' and his short prose work, 'Rasselas'.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by MxM

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.

Apparently you needed to dig further and remind yourself of what some words mean. Denying something is not the same as believing the opposite. Disbelief is similar, and only serves to clarify the stance of saying an atheist is simply a non-theist.

de·ni·al Audio pronunciation of "denial" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-nl)
n.

1. A refusal to comply with or satisfy a request.
2.
1. A refusal to grant the truth of a statement or allegation; a contradiction.
2. Law. The opposing by a defendant of an allegation of the plaintiff.
3.
1. A refusal to accept or believe something, such as a doctrine or belief.
2. Psychology. An unconscious defense mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings.
4. The act of disowning or disavowing; repudiation.
5. Abstinence; self-denial.

dis·be·lief Audio pronunciation of "disbelief" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dsb-lf)
n.

Refusal or reluctance to believe.

Now, the term "atheist" certainly allows for someone that repudiates the existence of god, but it doesn't necessitate that position.

[Drachasor]

I would say the Communism has a lot of things in common with religion. People here are focusing waaaay to much on merely the atheistic aspect of communism. Some even say communists are materialists, which really isn't true either.

The Communist Dialect is straight-out dogma, and this is especially true in Stalinist Russia where many, many anti-capitalistic and "communists will eventually rise up everywhere" beliefs were indoctrinated. Naturally the believers thought they were being rational and sensible (as almost all people are about their religion).

So, there are probably more similarities than differences between communism as used by Stalin (and other) and religion. This is especially true when one just considers the cultural and personal aspects (it acts much like a religion would).

-Drachasor

[Commy]

Religion is a belief in a moral order...it places all things in the universe in a specific order...in a way, it places you, other people, your leaders, God, and Nature all on a ladder, some being higher up on the ladder than others...

A doctrine is set by moral rules...what's right, what's wrong, etc...

Communism is a political system...in its most simplest form, communism is when all "property" is owned by the government, which in turn, distributes goods to the people as it sees fit...a political system is how the people communicate and manage themselves (or are managed)...

While religions and political systems and moral doctrines can embrace each other, they are very different things, and do not necessarily go hand in hand...

Communism does not necessarily imply atheism, but most people in the society will embrace a doctrine that promotes serving for the common good...it also does not imply an oppressive dictatorship, even though many actual communes have...

[Xorbon]

I thought communism (at least Marxist communism) was supposed to imply atheism. It's only in practice that many communist countries allow limited degrees of worship. I think Karl Marx called religion "the opiate of the masses" or some-such.

[LordShiva]

Everyone please stop quoting dictionary definitions of the terms under discussion. It does absolutely nothing for your arguments.

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by Xorbon
I thought communism (at least Marxist communism) was supposed to imply atheism. It's only in practice that many communist countries allow limited degrees of worship. I think Karl Marx called religion "the opiate of the masses" or some-such.

Some kids of Communism does. In fact, as Soviet Communism is the most known, one often think of it as that. But both Lenin and Stalin got their share of the nearest one comes to godhoodstatus in the SU. That does not mean they saw it like any religious feelings involved, but the similarities are there. Now, North Korea's worshipping of their "Great" Leader, that is a true religious worship, if not a traditional religion.

[Kuciwalker]

We have a number of Christian commies on this site. Jon Miller, Kidicious, and mindseye come to mind.

[Commy]

Originally posted by LordShiva
Everyone please stop quoting dictionary definitions of the terms under discussion. It does absolutely nothing for your arguments.

Very wrong. Since people here can't seem to agree on any definitions, it is good for us all to use the original, most simplistic form, which, coincidentally, is in the dictionary...

What you and others that feel this way fail to realize is that there is no other way for us all to relate to one definition, because culture/stereotypes/philosophy/personal experience prevents this...

But of course, I suppose you have a better method of defining "the terms in our discussion"...terms have only one meaning, and you can't change that...

[MxM]

Originally posted by Commy
Religion is a belief in a moral order...it places all things in the universe in a specific order...in a way, it places you, other people, your leaders, God, and Nature all on a ladder, some being higher up on the ladder than others...

A doctrine is set by moral rules...what's right, what's wrong, etc...

Communism is a political system...in its most simplest form, communism is when all "property" is owned by the government, which in turn, distributes goods to the people as it sees fit...a political system is how the people communicate and manage themselves (or are managed)...

While religions and political systems and moral doctrines can embrace each other, they are very different things, and do not necessarily go hand in hand...

Communism does not necessarily imply atheism, but most people in the society will embrace a doctrine that promotes serving for the common good...it also does not imply an oppressive dictatorship, even though many actual communes have...

Communism as a political system is of cause different from religion. But it is also an ideology, and while political system could accept religion, the communist ideology does not accept any religion.

In some since church is on the same level as communist political system, and religion is on the same level as communism ideology.

[Terra Nullius]

@commy & shiv.

terms have only one meaning, and you can't change that...

i disagree with you there comrade.

language
in the study of language, a definition may be considered as 'right' or 'wrong.' such decisions are based on usage and etymology. if a given definition cannot be justified in these terms, it is insufficient and can be fairly categorised as 'wrong,' or at least inaccurate.

on the other hand, if the definition of a given term accurately describes its meaning as it is commonly understood and used, then that definition can be fairly categorised as 'right.'

if this discussion were confined to the subject matter of 'language,' that would be the end of it. problem is; the subject matter of this discussion ranges across the fields of theology, philosophy, history, politics, comparative religion and language.

hierarchy
now, in classical, scholastic, modern, buddhist, taoist and even absurdist scools of thought, logic (which is a branch of philosophy) precedes language.

to give a classical interpretation, language is able to inform and illuminate logic. however, the study of language is, in all things, subservient to the study of logic. it's conclusions are secondary to the conclusions of logic. its scope and methods are subject to the conclusions of logic.

while it is appropriate for logic to make arguments which affirm or deny the findings of language. language is totally incapable of judging the arguments of logic. such judgements are simply not within its scope.

logic governs language.

i think it would be fair to say that in the basic logic of all the above philosophies, terms have no meaning until they are defined. once they are defined, they may be used in accordance with that definition to construct an argument.

in logic, a definition may be logically consistent or not. it may be useful or not. there is no such thing as a right or correct definition.

a definition is merely a tool which allows us to construct a meaningful argument.

nb. this argument probably does not apply to hinduism or certain post-modern philosophies.

[/nimoy

emotion
my other concern here is that many of the terms likely to be involved in this discussion rate pretty high on the emotional register. people can get quite hot under the collar about the precise definition of 'religion,' 'belief,' 'faith' and so on. how will we carry on when the game comes out and we start treading on each other's toes with trash talk in the middle of a heated pbem?

the reason i am trying so hard to make a fool of myself with molly is precisely this. it is an appeal to us all to set aside our pet terms. if my definition disagreees with yours, fine! let it be. if my definition is logically consistent and comprehensible, that is all that is required.

as you can all see from my (ongoing - i promise! ) argument with the moll; i fully understand molly's definition. molly fully understands my definition.

that, in itself demonstrates that both definitions satisfy the demands of logic.

[Addled Platypus]

I would like to take to the time to say thank you to all the posters for giving me such a great education

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lebensraum


as you can all see from my (ongoing - i promise! ) argument with the moll; i fully understand molly's definition. molly fully understands my definition.

that, in itself demonstrates that both definitions satisfy the demands of logic.

Unfortunately it also demonstrates that you have chosen to define theocracy in a way that no one else has, and have demonstrated an unwillingness to flesh out your definition with any detailed analysis of an example of a theocracy from the present or past and how it foreshadows or copies the system of government in the Soviet Union, either immediately post October Revolution or under Stalin.

Usage and etymology are indeed excellent tools- and yet you have opted to ignore the etymology of theocracy (and perhaps the most important part of the noun) and have neglected to show how, by similar usage, anyone other than you has also determined that theocracy = communism, either of the Marxist-Leninist Internationalist kind, or the Stalinist Statist kind.

In Johnson's 'English Dictionary' of 1755 for instance, attention is paid to different senses of a word, and there is a copious use of quotations to support the definition given. Although even Johnson can be humorously idiosyncratic when giving the definition of a lexicographer.

From someone who lived under a theocracy:

"....the Fundamentall Law of the land is the PERFECTION of Reason, consisting of Lawfull and Reasonable Customes, received and approved of by the People: and of old Constitutions, and modern Acts of Parliament, made by the Estates of the Kingdome. But such only as are agreeable to the law Eternall and Naturall and not contrary to the Word of God."

John Lilburne, 'London's Liberty in Chains Discovered' 1648

In Scotland:

"...discipline was given as one of the three notes of the Church in the Scottish Kirk's 'Confession of Faith' in 1560..."

" To discipline must all the estates withi this realm be subject, as well as as rulers as they that are ruled: yea, and the preachers themselves, as well as the poorest within the Kirk."

'The First Book of Discipline'

Christopher Hill: Society and Puritanism in Pre-Revolutionary England

In New England:

"Separatism had direct political implications, especially where the franchise was dependent on church membership, as was so often the case in emigre congregations in the Netherlands and New England. For full church membership was not automatically given to all members of the community, but only to those who satisfied the existing congregation of their godliness. On the 'Mayflower' the Church covenant was devised as a means of excluding unruly servants from the vote, and from the earliest days in Massachusetts church government was controlled by a small minority."

E.S. Morgan 'The Puritan Family', Boston 1944

The clergy...strove by means of church discipline, enforced in the most inquisitorial manner, to bring a whole population under the yoke of moral law... they were to feel the compulsion of a never-resting, never-abiding power, which pried into their lives and called them to account for their deeds as no lay government, however arbitrary, could venture to do."

Gardiner, 'History of England & History of the Great Civil War', 1901

It's all very well to talk about and compare the structure of the relative political systems in Communist Russia and past and present theocracies, but to do so without reference to the most important part of what made and makes a theocracy, is simply to ignore presence of the Divine Bull crashing about in the china shop.

i do not consider belief in god to be a prerequisite to theocratic government. as far as the ussr is concerned, you could have shot me down from the start with historical citations. i know only the vaguest generalisations about soviet history.

lebensraum


Indeed...