Imagine a world without Organized Ath...

Imagine a world without Organized Atheism

There are 14 comments on the Free Republic story from Jun 23, 2014, titled Imagine a world without Organized Atheism. In it, Free Republic reports that:

Scores of millions killed in cold blood, and all because of ... the inability to accept God's world, or the drive to prove just how fallen it really is.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Free Republic.

Since: Sep 10

Earth

#2 Jun 28, 2014
More roboblogger bullshi+. The shi+bag who programs it isn't fit to live.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#3 Jun 29, 2014
Any and every organization that is not specifically a theist organization, is then by default an atheist organization.

The "a" in atheist means not as in "not theist". Imagine that!

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#4 Jun 29, 2014
Has there ever been any other world? Only recently have atheists organized in groups and with only limited success, garnering only tiny memberships even as society itself is becoming significantly less religious. Last year's Harris poll found that only 74% of the American public believes in God, making nonbelievers one of the largest minority populations in the country, yet the total membership of atheist organizations remains statistically insignificant, far less than 1% of the general population.

Admittedly, other organizations, even governments, have included secularism in their ideology even to the point of discouraging religious activity, but always as a secondary principle at best. None of them would have fallen apart, changed their overall agendas, or conducted their policies differently without secular planks in their platforms. None of their leaders have been driven more by atheism than by a lust for power and other agendas. None of their memberships have even been predominantly atheist.

This includes the communist parties that gained power in the course of the 20th century. This does not include the Nazi Party of prewar Germany, which was clearly and overtly Christian, whatever Hitler's private views may have been.

In my view, the greater challenge is to imagine a world without organized religion.
Thinking

Sturminster Newton, UK

#5 Jun 29, 2014
What is organised Atheism?

North Korea is massively religious.

Imagine being required to believe in these sort of miracles without proof? You might as well be dollarsbill.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asi...
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#6 Jul 1, 2014
Religion is one of the three main causes of human conflict, the other two being nationalism and ideology. Try having a war without them.

There are no such things as gods or fairies.
Religion = superstition
Amused

Lowell, MA

#7 Jul 2, 2014
The original Freeper article conflates communism with atheism, and treats the two as if they were the same thing. All Marxist communists are atheists. Not all communists are Marxists. The early christians were also communists, and history is replete with small communist movements well before Marx. Marxist communists, however, comprise only a small percentage of all atheists. They are not representative of all atheists.

Marxists are not merely atheists. Their atheism is only an incidental part of their larger ideology. They hold a set of beliefs entirely apart from disbelief in the existence of deities about the nature of profit and the relationship of capital and labor in creating value, the existence of class struggle, and the necessity of revolution. These beliefs, far more than disbelief in deities, shapes their world view and provides the justification for violence against their perceived enemies.

In other words, the violence is the result of beliefs, not the result of disbelief. Communism, like religion and nationalism, is a set of beliefs that provide justification for oppressive, violent and even genocidal actions. What we need to make the world a better place is not more belief, but more skepticism about beliefs, especially beliefs about "us" vs. "them", regardless of the razor used to divide the world into "us" and "them".
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#8 Jul 2, 2014
Negative judge icons show we've rattled someone's cage but they cannot contradict a word we write.

Religionists have nothing but superstition and dogma.

Theology = mythology

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#9 Jul 3, 2014
Amused's point rings true to me, especially that the atheism within Marxism is incidental. It is driven by political necessity rather than any real ideological outlook, i.e., that religion interferes with Marxist goals to be tolerated. Marxists don't really concern themselves with theological questions except as they disrupt Marxist policy and compete for the hearts/minds and commitment of the people.

I doubt that most western nonbelievers are communists or any more socialistic than is the general public. I think that elective governments tend to be inherently socialistic in that one of their key mandates is to promote the general welfare. How that plays out in any given country depends on the dominant culture, but western democracies tend to build social infrastructures that ensure basic minimum standards of living for their citizens and are thus at least minimally socialistic. But since those infrastructures tend to develop within capitalistic economies, they are not communistic in the Marxist sense of the word.

So in western democratic nations, I see no link between atheism and communism or any other repressive ideology.
Thinking

Poole, UK

#10 Jul 3, 2014
Most Cuban communists are christians, whereas I'm a non-believer of either ideology.
NightSerf wrote:
Amused's point rings true to me, especially that the atheism within Marxism is incidental. It is driven by political necessity rather than any real ideological outlook, i.e., that religion interferes with Marxist goals to be tolerated. Marxists don't really concern themselves with theological questions except as they disrupt Marxist policy and compete for the hearts/minds and commitment of the people.
I doubt that most western nonbelievers are communists or any more socialistic than is the general public. I think that elective governments tend to be inherently socialistic in that one of their key mandates is to promote the general welfare. How that plays out in any given country depends on the dominant culture, but western democracies tend to build social infrastructures that ensure basic minimum standards of living for their citizens and are thus at least minimally socialistic. But since those infrastructures tend to develop within capitalistic economies, they are not communistic in the Marxist sense of the word.
So in western democratic nations, I see no link between atheism and communism or any other repressive ideology.
Amused

Lowell, MA

#11 Jul 3, 2014
NightSerf wrote:
... I think that elective governments tend to be inherently socialistic in that one of their key mandates is to promote the general welfare. How that plays out in any given country depends on the dominant culture, but western democracies tend to build social infrastructures that ensure basic minimum standards of living for their citizens and are thus at least minimally socialistic. But since those infrastructures tend to develop within capitalistic economies, they are not communistic in the Marxist sense of the word.
So in western democratic nations, I see no link between atheism and communism or any other repressive ideology.
I think the "safety net" aspects of modern capitalistic states is more of a reflection of enlightened self interest on the part of the wealthy. You may have seen Nick Hanaur's comments to his fellow billionaires that "the pitchforks are coming" if the wealth disparities between the uber rich and the general population are not moderated. Same point, more colorfully made. The motivation is not Marxist in the sense of being motivated by concern for the working class, albeit perhaps it acknowledges the Marxist idea of class warfare as a possibility when those on the bottom don't see another way of assuring a decent living for themselves and their children.

The end stage of capitalism is monopoly. Competition leads to winners and losers. The winners consolidate their gains, and become more powerful and wealthy. Eventually, they reach the point where they seem unassailable. Wealth brings with it political power. The Koch Bros. and George Soros are both examples of that. This is actually anti-democratic. As Louis Brandeis observed, "We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."

At a few points in American History, we have had to take action to reign in the tendency to monopoly, or to build a safety net to keep the pitchforks in the shed. Teddy Roosevelt and the "trust busters" broke up the robber baron's monopolistic cartels, and put in place anti-trust laws to keep competition alive. The New Deal established key safety net components like social security, which were expanded in Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society".

Most European democracies have also alloyed capitalism with socialist elements, like single payer health insurance, again, to keep capitalism and its innovation alive, while curbing the excesses of its tendency to form monopoly. There also seems to be some cultural aspect, as well. As far as I know, no European democracy caps CEO pay at some ration to worker salaries, yet European companies do not give their CEO's the extravagant compensation packages that are more and more the norm in the US.

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#12 Jul 3, 2014
1000 Years of Carnage & Barbarity in the name of Christ http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/1000years.ht...

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#13 Jul 3, 2014
Christianity is a Egyptian Myth - Horus=Jesus, Isis=Mary, Osiris=God, Amun=Amen, Apophis=Devil

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#14 Jul 3, 2014
Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
I think the "safety net" aspects of modern capitalistic states is more of a reflection of enlightened self interest on the part of the wealthy. You may have seen Nick Hanaur's comments to his fellow billionaires that "the pitchforks are coming" if the wealth disparities between the uber rich and the general population are not moderated. Same point, more colorfully made. The motivation is not Marxist in the sense of being motivated by concern for the working class, albeit perhaps it acknowledges the Marxist idea of class warfare as a possibility when those on the bottom don't see another way of assuring a decent living for themselves and their children.
The end stage of capitalism is monopoly. Competition leads to winners and losers. The winners consolidate their gains, and become more powerful and wealthy. Eventually, they reach the point where they seem unassailable. Wealth brings with it political power. The Koch Bros. and George Soros are both examples of that. This is actually anti-democratic. As Louis Brandeis observed, "We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
At a few points in American History, we have had to take action to reign in the tendency to monopoly, or to build a safety net to keep the pitchforks in the shed. Teddy Roosevelt and the "trust busters" broke up the robber baron's monopolistic cartels, and put in place anti-trust laws to keep competition alive. The New Deal established key safety net components like social security, which were expanded in Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society".
Most European democracies have also alloyed capitalism with socialist elements, like single payer health insurance, again, to keep capitalism and its innovation alive, while curbing the excesses of its tendency to form monopoly. There also seems to be some cultural aspect, as well. As far as I know, no European democracy caps CEO pay at some ration to worker salaries, yet European companies do not give their CEO's the extravagant compensation packages that are more and more the norm in the US.
I love it when the responses to my posts are at least as thought-provoking as my own. Thanks for this one.
Thinking

Poole, UK

#15 Jul 3, 2014
Take your pretentiousness car and park it in the up yourself lot!

Love from England.
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
I love it when the responses to my posts are at least as thought-provoking as my own. Thanks for this one.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 27 min Uncle Sam 7
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 30 min Chimney1 48,488
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 5 hr Into The Night 23,491
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) Sat ChristineM 21,863
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Sat Eagle 12 258,039
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Sat Eagle 12 4,907
Why you need to make sure you are saved before ... Fri Scaritual 14
More from around the web