Category: 
Or maybe them damn Commie Atheists did!!
OK, since nobody has voted me off this Otherwhirld, I have returned to further explore the intersection of atheism and communism as a method of vilifying atheists and to explore what might be next.
Thanks for those who did visit and leave compliments. You do realize that you are only encouraging me, right? Ok, just checking.
One of the comments came from my blogfriend Infidel753. Despite our different ways of viewing the world, Infidel and I have explored each other’s blogs and discussed our differences in a very positive way.
This is exactly the sort of interchange and communication that I love and long for in the blog and the real worlds.
I am not here to judge you and I hope that you are not here to judge me. Curiosity is my thing – what makes you tick, I wonder. Why do you believe what you do? It is a fair question, I think. You can ask me anytime. I can’t promise answers that will satisfy, but I will always try to keep the conversation alive.
For some people the question puts them on the defense. I get that. Often times the question does not come out of curiosity nor does it contain respect. The question is often the preamble to the argument, the conversion pitch or the putdown.
Not from me – ok? I hope y’all ask me some good questions.
Anyway, Infidel sent me this link to a post he did in 2006 that relates to this topic.
One problem I see which plagues both the religious and the atheists is this… Very often I will read (notice I say often and not always) the premise that religion is the reason for wanton power grabs, evil deeds and death. Hold up, we will explore that as there is truth to it, but that is not where we are headed today.
The religious then drag out the canard of all canards – what about Communism
Ho hum - What about it? A look at the entire mess of war, killing, evil domination - again to be discussed in a future post – shows that pretty much the desire for domination plagues all systems and that generally results in all kinds of f*ckery.
In a case of sheer numbers and the power of propaganda, that sets the stage for the idea that atheism and communism are somehow related. After - there are, for good or ill, more who claim religion and let’s remember the world power structures depend on keeping the dominant players in place. Thus propaganda, as governments, those in power and those who believe in a system work to keep the masses in place.
All of which brings me to this… If you go read the link to Infidel, which I hope that you do, he presents a much better argument than I can about how atheism is an absence of belief.
Belief - in communism, religion, government - are all sadly and frequently abused as constructs to keep other people down.
In this country, somehow the notion of God (well probably for all time) is somehow a bet to be hedged against. Many choose to believe, to attend church, profess all kinds of things simply because they are afraid.
Now how stupid is that? (I may explore this sorry premise for belief in another post.)
Due to the weakness of this position and people’s fragile ego strength they are then forced to be defensive about it.
What better way to defend (please note as snark) one’s position than to put down the other side.
And in this country, after WWII what better way to defend that than equating atheism with communism?
So that presents the so-called dual evil. That is how polarized systems work. And they tend to work well because some part of human nature takes comfort in it. That means, each time we act out of defense, we carry the torch of that notion. It is sad and the results are tragic.
It is a totally ridiculous premise. It is inane. It is really stupid. And like many old behaviors, it just carries on. This brings to mind a post that I did awhile back that caused a major shitstorm of comments. If you are so inclined you can see that post here.
I - for one – dispute the idea that atheism is inherently evil and that it has any single thing to do with communism or any other so called evil thing.
This goes back to my earlier thought – where is the curiosity people?
May I present an idea for a forum that discusses ideas rather than defense of positions?
This may get me tossed from this spot, but my curiosity demands that the question gets asked.
Right now we may also be at the fringe of a shift of thought – now atheism does not stand alone in the American mind (such as it is) as the pure force of evil, but now Islam is added to the mix.
I wonder where this will lead. We can see the hateful spew of Hagee and others as they denounce Islam out loud.
Guess what kids – they denounce the Jews too, just more quietly so. They still need access to Israel for the (yawn) apocalypse. Hagee and others of his type get $$$$ galore from extreme Zionist types and vice versa.
Does this mean that one day, in the world of lesser of two evils that Americans might rather elect an atheist over a Muslim?
Why is it that we project out what we fear, dislike or don’t understand? Atheist today, Muslim too - those are allegedly evil in the mind of the mainstream. What will be next?
Actually, the problem is with all systems that claim to be above criticism. When the communists allowed criticism of the Soviet Union, it fell apart. The problem isn’t with ideologies itself- just ideologies that don’t reflect the real world. To insulate themselves such systems declared themselves above criticism or in a higher plane.
Also, you can be a theist and a communist (see the Incans and Plato’s Republic for examples)- the reason modern communists where atheists was because the left in Europe swung towards atheism because religion in Europe became a bulwark of the Old Regime.
Samuel- thanks for your comment and your wise observations.
You make an excellent point about criticism. Nothing is above criticism in my mind and a lot of the sorry state of affairs in the world have to do with a lack of it… and a real lack of critical thinking.
I agree about theist and communists. I was simply being snarky in my title and so forth.
If one really examines early Christian communities, they will find what is really a socialist or communal system. I mean very early. Then you get to about 325 and Constantine has his big so-called “conversion” and basically there goes the neighborhood.
That however may be another post for another day.
Thanks for your comments! Now I am off to church. You don’t hear a lot of that around here - hee hee!
Great post. I’d like to see more exchange like this, honest and respectful questioning of other’s beliefs. I just read an editorial by Susan Jacoby, author of “The Age of American Unreason”, where she states that Americans are increasingly unwilling to listen to opposing viewpoints. I think large segments of the blog world reflect this–you find amen corners of right and left, belief or non-belief, all consisting of people reinforcing the opinions they already hold.
You know, it always struck me as strange that communist countries eschewed religion to the extent that they did; the basic precept of taking care of each other and making sure that nobody makes off with the gold while others are starving, is so inherently common to both Christian Society and the ideology of Communism.
Not that the reality of Communism was ever implemented in a Christ-like fashion. Too bad about that - it looked like a promising model, especially so because this Capitalist one isn’t working for an awful lot of people.
“Does this mean that one day, in the world of lesser of two evils that Americans might rather elect an atheist over a Muslim?”
Or Fundamentalist, or Catholic, or (shudder!) ME?
It seems to me that an intolerant stance is an inevitable consequence of dogmatic religion. If you truly believe that your own belief system is the only path to Heaven and that all those who do not follow it are doomed to Hell, then it follows that all rival religions (and atheism) are monstrously dangerous deceptions which are dooming millions of people to eternal torment, and it is thus actually quite logical to regard them as evil.
Violent hatred and intolerance are the natural default stance of Abrahamic religions. Think of the incredibly bloody warfare that once raged between Catholics and Protestants in Europe. The reason such wars no longer happen is, in my opinion, that very few people in the Western world really believe any more — not with the fervor and certainty that our ancestors had. Where such fervor and certaintly are still found, so are religious violence and intolerance — see the Islamic world.
The bigots of today deserve to be called to account for their intolerance, as you have done, but they are a remant of a way of thinking that lies mostly in the past, not a harbinger of the future.
Thanks for the link.
Such great comments - thank you all.
Bubs - Oh how true. The sad truth of today, usually due to wounded and crazy people with no ego strength (sadly - most of us at some level if we are honest) no one will even consider a discussion. I know; I used to be more like that at one point in time.
I am not sure what happened, but I can tell you that I do believe that it is related rather directly to my faith. My mind became more open and more curious.
Someone disagreeing with me does not diminish me; me disagreeing with someone diminishes no one.
The problem is the big smack down. I am right and you are wrong rhetorical. It is a most unpleasant form of mental masturbation IMO.
CR - what an interesting point you make. The problem with all systems - communism and religion alike, is when they are idolized and not lived.
That is why the Buddhists tend to be ahead of everyone on this count.
TFWY- Hah! Just watch it, you may find yourself nominated.
Infidel - Hello my friend. Well here goes the rub of interpretation. Violent hatred and intolerance are not the natural default stance of the Abrahamic religions.
Due to the aforementioned need to be right or wrong, due to fragile ego strengths, due most probably to the need for power and control, they have been reinterpreted as such.
Since that is the case however, your sentence is not that far from reality. There are many of us that live and work for it to be otherwise.
As for the future, I am hardly a cynic, but I don’t see anything - religious or otherwise - as a panacea for any of this.
Which is why I have adopted the idea and try to live that peace and understanding can only come from within me. In my version, it is guided by my faith, in another’s it may be guided otherwise.
However, staking any claim into a system or belief or even an absence of belief to be the path, does not make any sense to me.
We have so many problems that have gone unaddressed in this country.
From poverty, to the uninsured and under insured, hunger and homelessness. The model of capitalism (the true religion of America) has failed to find solutions to these problems and often wind up sweeping them under the national carpet.
Just this past Friday in USA Today, I read the USDA has a tiny 24 day supply of wheat in surplus. Farmers are selling everything they grow into the market and the Federal government isn’t stockpiling wheat. Food prices have risen 45% in a scant 9 months.
Maybe what we need isn’t communism but socialism? FDR’s critics and I have read he had many, was often accused of being a socialist. But he also led the country out of the depression. This was no small task.
It is simply unconscionable to me that we have people going hungry in this nation.
Actually the problem for communism is that it is impossible. Econ teachers like to bash it, but they tend to true. For example how do you motivate people without money and how do you predict and plan the entire economy (look at the stock market to see how insanely hard it is)?
So once they seized power and had the neagive results come in, they had to options- admit they where wrong or slowly copy of capitalism and crack down on dissent. Given that these people where revolutionaries and had spent decades coming to power, the first on wasn’t really an option. Oh, it was possible… but no one in such a situation would ever choose it.
Religion by contrast is just vague enough to work. It covers reality and doesn’t cover it at the same time. Some religions excell at this- in Christianity bad stuff happens because people are fallen, so it is to be expected. Or you can blame demons… basically magical thinking, which is unfalsible.
The communists problem was they claimed to represent reason… and then realized that their system couldn’t be supported by that. The only way to fix the problem would be to crush dissent.
Look at the communist countries now. You have three- Cuba, North Korea and China. Cuba is the closest to working- but it is still rather poor and has a large prison population, rationing, corruption. It is fertile and has a nice climate which has helped. North Korea is a disaster. It has a huge military, but its economy is one of the worlds worst. China is communist in name only. Religion is okay if it promotes “social harmony”, education and health benefits are being cut, and the environment and working conditions are being slashed in the name of profit and progress. It has a high degree of corruption, inequality, political unrest… I mean China has more of the problems of capitalism than anyone else! Sort of ironic.
Samuel - thanks for the comment. Communism is entirely a flawed system to this point. I am not sure that I agree about the money/motivation part, there are however many other agreed upon issues.
I will challenge one thing that you say, which is not reflective of Catholic theology, despite years of bad teaching - “in Christianity bad stuff happens because people are fallen, so it is to be expected. Or you can blame demons… basically magical thinking, which is unfalsible.
Bad things to do not happen because people are fallen. I can only comment on RC theology, as I that is what I am.
I think that the kind of theology which upholds the fallen/the punished is the theology of power and control.
Having said all this, I do say that one of my concerns about posting here was that I would get the old magical thinking thing.
Why is it necessary to say that? I am eternally curious about that.
Others should feel free to weigh in.
The motivation part is that without money and being paid (aka personally benefiting from work) there is no reason to work. Obviously some people work without these motivations, but these people would be working under capitalism so you have to deal with less people being motivated.
By magical thinking I was referring to thinking in such a way so that your beliefs were unfalsifiable. All beliefs should be able to deal with new evidence. Otherwise they don’t reflect reality.
Why? It is an idea from science (well, technically science appropriated it). The reason it is important is because if your ideas are unfalsifiable than there is no way to convince you. If that is impossible than reason, conversation and the like are impossible. As you can imagine this is a problem when people hold beliefs that are… less than benign.
Samuel - clearly you know that was me appearing as anonymous. Commander, not sure why my name and info won’t hold here.
Anyway, I hear what you are saying and I am a religious person who does not denounce science.
That said, provable is not my gig. Clearly. Does that mean that all people of my ilk are not benign? Some religious people are and some are not.
As for the problem that you pose, I do not see much evidence that people who are not religious are free from issues.
The ability to prove things does not seem to have much influence over people’s power grabs and cruelty.
I do not even pretend to understand why Macintosh computers and browsers that presumably work on them don’t always work on things like this. However, I have noted that the only persons with accounts here that have trouble with login persistence (the “technical term” for what you’re experiencing) happen to be on Macintosh systems. I seriously don’t know what the bug is there.
However, if you login to the site, and then comment, it remembers you, as exemplified in the comment attributed to FranIAm above? Did you choose the “remember me” option when you login? Hit me via email. I don’t want to derail this topic, which I turn to now.
—
I asked FranIAm to post here because part of male-ness is that I over-simplify things by preference. That’s why the majority of my posts are pix with a few words. Because at the root of it all, these issues really are that simple. FranIAm provides a level of lucidity I am incapable of supplying. That’s why I’ve been jonesin’ for other bloggers here the whole damn time.
What FranIAm’s post represent to me is the fundamental problem I have with organizational, institutionalized religion in the first place. She breaks the mold of it, that is. That mold is designed to generate and perpetuate a sense of “individualism” that is actively devoid of imagination and free will. FranIAm stands in a very small category of “religious” people I respect and will gratefully honor until the sands of time run out and the days of our lives becomes a forgotten form of measurement, because while respectful of her upbringing and the teachings of her religious mentors, she has retained steadfast control over her critical thinking skills in other areas.
Samuel, having grown up in a highly religious household, and having run a household devoid of religion for the better part of 15 years, allow me to apply my miniscule and inherently myopic experience as thus: Throughout this incarnation, I have witnessed, first-hand, some of the most atrocious acts possible as committed by preacher’s kids and others who wear the “Christian” name. They viewed these acts as “Getting away with something”, a tacet acknowledgment that if their Gawd is really all-knowing and all-seeing, He typically chooses to do nothing about their tomfoolery. Conversely, I have born witness as a juror to an act of the most casual disregard, disrespect, and disengenuineness, which was perpetrated by a self-described Atheist.Actually, a series of premeditated actions with the most callous disregard for human life, community, and even self-respect short of murder.
Which is better? In my mind, neither. It doesn’t take a religious label to be good or bad. It likewise doesn’t require a label of non-belief. Many scientific theories are currently unfalsible (string theory would be one) because adequate methods of measurement an analysis have yet to be contrived. Are scientists who currently investigate and promote string theory guilty of magical thinking?
Reason has nothing to do with morality. However a person without reason can be firmly convinced they are the good guy even as they do bad things.
Theism and athesim are irrelevant to morality. Being one or the other DOES NOT make you more moral. Neither are immune to hate power grabs and the like because NEITHER are about morality.
Atheism is merely a lack of belief in God. Why is that important? Because there is no rational reason to believe. Look through the internet if you doubt me- there are rebuttals and proofs against god. So the only grounds for belief is faith. With faith you can believe anything. You can believe homosexuals are evil, the jews are secretly controling the world… anything.
For example lets take Hitler. Is Hitler evil? Yes. But Hitler believed he was a good guy! And that is the problem with people being able to believe how they like- the communists are another good example of this. When peoples beliefs are completely detached from reality… terrible things happen.
How do moderates fit in? Simple. They value faith. And as long as faith is valued you can’t criticize people who act in its name.
String theory has been attacked on that grounds, yes. I do believe that even if it is true it is useless. However, I have heard that some people are attempting to turn it into a real theory (make predicitons).
With faith you can believe anything. You can believe homosexuals are evil, the jews are secretly controling the world… anything.
This is the fundamental problem with faith, to my mind. Fran as an individual is certainly a fine person, and I have known others like her, but the fact remains that the concept of faith is pernicious and dangerous.
The problem is that once we accept that a certain category of ideas (religious ones) are to be somehow exempted from the standard of testability by evidence and are to be believed even if the evidence does not support them or actually refutes them, then there is no logical basis for refusing to extend the same privilege to other ideas. If you believe in the existence of God despite the lack of evidence for it and considerable evidence against it, and if you further actually demand that others respect this belief, then why should someone else not believe that “the Jews” are a malevolent conspiracy which must be fought by extreme measures? Why not believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that all our moral problems stem from a woman being persuaded to eat an apple by a talking snake? Why not believe that prayer alone can cure your dying child, rendering a trip to the hospital unnecessary? To say that all available evidence is against these propositions will avail us nothing — not if we have already decided that, in the case of the existence of God and other core theological concepts, that standard is somehow nullified.
My my - what a discussion we have going here. While I love it and do not want to shirk away, I am left wondering where this can go. That said, pardon the religious metaphor, but think ….where angels fear to tread. That is me.
While I am grateful to have the respect of Commander Other and Infidel (sorry Samuel, we aren not yet acquainted enough to have established this) and they have mine in return, I must say that we will hit points at which we must agree to disagree.
One of the issues that I have with the whole God/atheism divide is that it is simply too easy for each side to reduce the other to a smallness that serves no one.
In fact I have written not one but two posts (here and here should you wish to read) that relate to this divide.
It does not serve me or my faith to marginalize anyone. That said, I am likely to want to marginalize Hagee or others of that nature. Honestly - that just wants to make me tear my hair out.
Yet I am continually amazed at the cool dismissal of all people of faith by some in the atheist camp. I have said this before and do not want to beat a dead horse. You don’t want to believe in it - then do not. Please.
What does proof prove? I believe in science, my faith not only allows for but demands that I seek with curiosity. I am sorry if a million and one losers feel otherwise. But what we can prove today and what we will be able to prove tomorrow are very different things. And who knows what we will prove?
Honestly- call me whatever you want, but as a self-defined seeker, one with a healthy and active intellect and the aforementioned (thanks CO) critical thinking skills, I am always in love with the questions as much and if not more so than the answers.
As an aside, one of my religious blogger friends actually has a post up about String theory as it relates to the Gospel of John today. Go figure.
OK, kids - have a good night.
Yet I am continually amazed at the cool dismissal of all people of faith by some in the atheist camp.
I don’t dismiss people of faith. I dismiss faith — and I condemn it as evil and dangerous.
And I’ve given here what I consider to be solid, rational reasons for doing so.
With all due respect I ask you to acknowledge the distinction — and address the argument.
Infidel - I stand corrected. I may do many things but I will not deny when I have mis-spoken, as I have here and I apologize.
That said, the condemnation of all faith as evil and dangerous, just strikes me as extreme.
Yes, I am aware that there are many so-called religious types who condemn atheists as evil and dangerous, but for good or ill, as a Catholic they think the same of me.
Having said all this- and I am not shirking away, I am about to go out of town for a few days and will not be able to reply more fully.
What I will do is to work on this as a post.
Fair enough? I hope so- it is what I am doing and all that I can do given time constraints at this moment.
Fran — while I stand by the substance of my comment, the tone in which I wrote it was arrogant and rude, and I apologize for that.
All I can add is to say that, paraphrasing John Barth, what someone believes is less important than why he believes it. I don’t merely assert that faith is evil and dangerous, I give my reasons for believing that — and it’s the reasons which are the core of my point.
ah. something i have “believed” for a long time, indeed, something in which i myself have “faith”, is that there is no God. for, just as there is no proof there is a God, there is likewise no proof that there isn’t one. what many of us atheists fail to realize is that define it however we may, couch it in whatever terms we like, spin it however we desire, the exercise of, and conformance to, any worldview requires a form of faith. even if it’s just the faith in the veracity of one’s presumably intellectually superior position.
i never lose site of that, and i recommend that my fellow atheists keep it in mind as well. there is no scientific evidence for the lack of spirituality; we simply have faith that spirituality is errant because there is no scientific evidence for its existence. neither “side” of the issue can prove, or disprove, the other.
Gee. (pardon moi - le pun!) I wish I had said that.
I certainly am not about proving God. Simply not provable. One may call me many things- dogmatic doctrinaire is not among them!!
Interestingly enough, after the earlier comment exchange, i went off to daily mass. A woman there was attempting to lure me into a conversation before the service started. Her point was that we had to go out with the armor of God sort of thing, converting both the Protestant and the pagan alike.
Suddenly I found myself praying to sweet baby Jeebus to deliver me into a room filled with people like you Commander, Infidel, Spartacus and others!
And imagine… My prayer was NOT answered! Harumph!!!
(BTW I simply smiled and shook my head a few times and then told her that I wanted to pray, so she shut up and moved on.)
OK, speaking of STFU, I am off to another town for 3 days.
Ciao kids.
Very well written and who does your froodles. I am most decidedly an agnostic with humanist buddhist leanings. Is there a religion in that? I agree with you Fran on ix naying the ogma day.