Gramsci talked a lot about how communists should try to emulate the Catholic churches structural reach - we should be doing what the church does for the working class - provide community, provide a 3rd space, charity and outreach work, mass events, teaching and reading and such.
I think we can learn a lot from how religion organizes.
Im personally agnostic and respect most moderates religious beliefs, although I remain spectical I wouldn't shut someone out or refuse to work with anyone who was religious.
32
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ - 2w
I tend to view religion through a functionalist lens. Historically, religion served as a way to codify successful behaviors before we had the empirical tools to understand why those behaviors worked. Take the prohibition of pork in Abrahamic traditions for example. In the Bronze Age, there was no germ theory or concept of parasites like trichinosis. You could not explain to a population why eating undercooked pork might kill them, so the survival heuristic got wrapped in metaphysics. It became a rule not to eat it because it is forbidden by God rather than because of biology. It was an epistemological shortcut that encoded necessary knowledge into custom because the science was unavailable to explain the mechanism.
Beyond just physical survival, religion also serves a structural function by creating social cohesion. In feudal and capitalist structures, the economic engine does not inherently unite people. Capitalism in particular is fundamentally individualistic. It atomizes society by reducing the human experience to individual ambition and competition. The society risks fragmentation when the system atomizes people into isolated units. An external cohesive force becomes necessary to act as social glue for people to have a collective identity. Religion provides that superstructure by offering a common worldview and shared narrative that allows people to transcend the self. It acts as an artificial collective because the economic system refuses to provide a real one.
On the other hand, a socialist society does not require a crutch like religious to function. Socialism provides an inherent collective purpose that unites people toward a common goal. The idea of collective ownership and democratic control over the economy allows people to see themselves as part of a material whole. If a society is truly united by a common material goal, the external glue of religion becomes redundant. You no longer need a divine mandate to bind people together because the social relations of production are doing that work automatically. At the same time, material dialectics allow us to understand the world directly without needing to hide knowledge inside arcane traditions.
23
Anarcho-Bolshevik - 2w
The main reason that I go to church is so that I can socialize with others; most of my experiences with other suburbanites have been extremely negative, so I don’t seek them for social interaction anymore.
In contrast, the Presbyterians whom I know are much friendlier and more hospitable, but they are under the impression that I am a monotheist, albeit a pessimistic one who believes that G-d merely puts up with me and won’t answers my prayers because I’ll probably just get stuck in a very long waiting list. (My current waiting time is between ten to fifteen years.)
5
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ - 2w
Right, it's one of the few places left that are communal and aren't trying to monetize you.
6
Maeve - 2w
At least you have the presbys! I'm surrounded by southern Baptist and Baptist, the main difference being the skin tone of attendees. But I'll attend Baptist first, and they're good people, but most ignore the bigger rules (the big 10) in favor of the small ones, lol. I blame capitalism, epigenetics, memes (in the Dawkins/Blackmore sense) and multigenerational trauma.
A side note here, I've been reading up on Jung's troubled history, and I see why he's problemati; and I think he was onto something about the collective unconscious and religious archetypes because of memes, multigenerational trauma (religious and other abuse where religion excuses or justifies it, "spoil the rod, spare the child, etc," "wives obey your husbands," etc). So the opiate of the masses may need weaning, rather than sudden withdrawal, and that's doable. But I still don't want to live in a world where there are no Raphael's cherubs, Da Vinci's Vetruvian man, or Handle's Messiah. I think they can be explained easily by pointing out the primitive understanding of psychological archetypes, just as artwork and tales of the other myths, such as Medusa being punished for her own brutal rape, which wasn't her fault, but also ended up protecting her from other unscrupulous men who would have abused or conned her. But I also think that would go hard -in- hand with: but now we've mostly eliminated conditions that caused such behaviors, and have medicine, therapy, and supervision, or humane segregation for the mind that can not be successfully rehabilitated, otherwise.
3
Maeve - 2w
I've been thinking along those lines as well. I can go to local church but it gets wearisome after a minute. Also they're garrulous af.
5
darkernations - 2w
Crudely:
religious westerners of any colour: those other countries deserve to be bombed because they are the wrong religion
athiest westerners of any colour: those other countries deserve to be bombed because they are they are backwards due to religion
western secularism came from Islam (Ibn Rushd) and then re-appropriated by the west as one of its many masks of the dictatorship of capital
religion will sow the seeds of its own destruction and our first global contradiction is imperialism, and it is in anti-imperialism we find solidarity
having said that any communist party cannot be religious but a dictatorship against capital may not necessarily be "athiest"
dialectical materialism will lead towards athiesm but if you are religious it may not be in your lifetime, depending on your material conditions, and that's OK. Dialectical materialists are a spectrum (see all the folks Marx learned from and criticised to help formulate his DM)
the reaction of religion is a fine needle to thread when attempting to build solidarity and a vanguard when fighting imperialists
11
haui - 2w
Beautifully put imho.
I became an atheist before but i can see how the primary threat is and will always be imperialism and not religion. It is used by imperialists in all possible directions.
The more sinister point from an on the ground perspective is that religion can help people who struggle to survive but is also stripped of any anti imperialist sentiment, especially in the west.
I would like to learn more about its DM point of view. Do you have a recommendation what to read to get a good entrypoint to analyse the contradictions from a more theoretical point?
Dialectical materialism = a way of analysis that focuses on contradictions as engines driving change in a given direction to produce a deeper science. Dialetics allows us to understand relationships and materialism grounds it in reality. It is teleological, not positivist and is the enemy of idealism.
^That’s the quickest summary of DM I can think of so far and I wonder what I will change from that definition years into the future.
(You highlighted an important need for marxists to deeply understand theory and therefore I am revisiting what I have learned about DM starting with Stalin’s famous essay then dashthered’s essay then Losurdo’s book on Hegel and Freedom of the Moderns. Previously I started with Politzer’s Elementary Principles of Philosophy and then a bunch of Redsails.org articles. The latter two are really good resources but I want to try a fresh approach here)
But to better answer your question the authors/topics that came top of my head was Roland Boer, Samir Amin and liberation theology, so I did mini-research to make a reading list which I will be also adding to my own pile:
Roland Boer - Red Theology, on the Communist Christian Tradition
Samir Amin - A life looking forward
Liberation Theology - Gustavo Gutierrez
Religious Factor - Jose Carlos
(Addendum - I am an athiest myself but wanted to read around the topic you mentioned. I can't pinpoint sources for the opinions I have so chances it will become hopefully more refined with time)
14
haui - 2w
An absolute banger of an answer! This goes into my saved posts! Thank you very much, comrade! I always love to get educated by comrades. :)
10
darkernations - 2w
7
darkernations - 2w
I completely forgot the Indian experience, so here's some more to my pile:
DD Kosambi (polymath marxist historian): (1) Intro to study of indian history, (2) Myth and Reality
EMS - Mahatma and the Ism
KN Pannikkar - Against Lord and State
Western Hemisphere:
Du Bois - Souls of Black folk
CLR James - Black Jacobins (this one detailing the Haitian Revolution is going to be even more relevant given recent events)
Claudia Jones - End to the Neglect (this list is a good/bad example of the lack of inclusion of women - we should include more but on a quick search this is all I could find on the cross section of marxism and religion. There will be undoubtedly be way more)
Pan-africanists:
Cabral - Return to Source, and Weapon of Theory (that last title is awesome)
Walter Rodney - How Europe Underdeveloped Africa
5
Maeve - 2w
It's complicated, but if I had to boil it down to a few crystals:
Religion makes a good person good and a bad person bad.
*All people have good and bad urges, and most people find themselves wrestling with whatever they view as "bad" sometimes.
*Most people see the "bad" in everyone but ourselves and favorite people.
Believing in a literal deity isn't necessary to believe in the overarching message, good, bad, or indifference.
I can't go to any church within a reasonable distance because I'm not into people being unable to abide abortion or political assassination of our own corrupt leaders for any reason, but have no problem with genocide/invasion and regime change for commodities and real estate.
There are two UU churches in two different directions over an hour away. 😕
7
fire86743 - 2w
Pill me on the politics of Unitarian Universalism. How bad/good are they?
6
Maeve - 2w
Like any place of gathering, it depends on individual congregations. Most are just very liberal liberals or social Democrats, I imagine. But I really liked the ones I've visited, some more, some less.
I might dare to imagine some congregants in locations farther away may be actual socialist, maybe in other nation-states, but who knows?
They're pretty accepting of any beliefs, from atheist to neo/pagan, including Buddhist, Taoist, satanism (I doubt Laveyan; I doubt anything involving blood sacrifice, but who knows). I don't recall ever having a Eucharist, but it's been a couple of decades.
5
AlHouthi4President @lemmy.ml - 2w
Palestine would have been completely gobbled up if not for the principled anti-imperialist revolutionary liberation theology of the Islamic Revolution.
Communists saying that religion is always backwards just shows these "anti-imperialist" dont see us as human.
2
darkernations - 2w
Communists saying that religion is always backwards just shows these “anti-imperialist” dont see us as human.
Hopefully that's not what you took from what I said and my subsequent messages. (I didn't downvote you)
You are right - a lot of people come from parts of the world that if it weren't for Muslims there would have been no formal liberation as we know it from colonisers.
On the other hand, what you said could be flipped. One could argue some of those who are religious see a non-believer as less than human because they (the non-believer) deserve not to enter their heaven, and lead a godless (in their eyes) life on earth. Indeed the purge of socialism in the Global South was partly using this metric of equating communism with anti-theism; the Jakharta Method with the killing of half a million Indonesians being a famous example.
So if both religious and non-religious folks could see each other less than human then the common denominator here is not the religiousness, or lack of it, but some other material condition in play that leads to that view?
What you need to decide for yourself is those who see you less than human is what material conditions lead them to that awful conclusion eg their western chauvinism vs their self-claimed marxism?
6
AlHouthi4President @lemmy.ml - 2w
Hopefully that’s not what you took from what I said and my subsequent messages. (I didn’t downvote you)
No no. I replied because you're one of the few reasonable replies here.
I agree, the contradiction is imperialism and it will use whatever methods available to maintain itself.
7
darkernations - 2w
Apologies (and thank you)! I misunderstood what you said. I will leave my reply as is for those that are still lurking around.
6
AlHouthi4President @lemmy.ml - 2w
No problem and thank you for the conversation.
Don't get me wrong, lots of times religions have been used as a weapon, like in Indonesia as you said but we could really talk about so many.
But to use that and say all types of Islam are equally reactionary and to blanket criticize religion generally is just xenophobic chauvanism. People in the Lemmy version of this thread are saying pretty heinous things and theres still a lot of questionable posts in this lemmygrad one too.
The development of Resistance Islam as part of Khomeinist revolution in Islamic politics and thought is objectively good for all people on earth, Muslims and not Muslims. One cannot be Pro-Palestine and think such things about religious people and faiths generally. Thats my only point here.
4
darkernations - 2w
And to drive the point really home: the genocidal Israel is a secular project.
5
Pathfinder - 2w
I was raised in (and was devout about until age 27 or so) white evangelical Christianity in the US. From that, I struggled to view “religion” in a broad sense other than through that lens. I held on to a lot of anger and in some ways was an edgy internet atheist. Marxism helped me understand base and superstructure. It helped me understand how the religion I was raised in grew out of settler colonialism, white supremacy, and as a way to maintain the meager privileges that the bourgeoisie grant upon the reactionary, white working class. In other words, the specific material and historical circumstances of the time and place I lived, driven by a specific mode of production. And it was those things that I was really angry at (well, for the most part. Beliefs around eternal torment still bother me to this day). Also seeing how faith and religion has brought encouragement and hope to the people of Gaza also helped me approach the concept of religion with nuance.
Ultimately religion can be a force for good or bad, it just depends on the material elements that underlie it in a specific context.
10
fire86743 - 2w
This place has a civil war over religion about every month lol.
9
amemorablename - 2w
What's your opinion on religion?
Largely irrelevant to what we get into here. At some point, I became conscious of how prominent western atheism gets used as another variation of racism and imperialism. So I try to look at the religions of colonized and imperialized peoples differently than I would the religions of the colonizer, for example. In other words, I say it is largely irrelevant because I'm not going to reject an anti-imperialist struggle because of its religiosity, but neither am I going to especially support it if it's not. Liberation comes first and the form of religion is also impacted by the rest of society and politics, so a colonial society is going to warp religious practice and beliefs toward something more sociopathic than a liberated communal society.
I arrived at atheism through growing up USian catholic and gradually coming to reject it, and that is mainly where my knowledgeable criticisms of religion are confined to (that and western christianity more generally). I have retained some of the pro-social components of the religious mindset of caring about what happens to others, but I reject the gross the limitations of its solutions and find that many of its adherents seem less than committed to its pro-social teachings. Typically, its solutions amount to charity and individual piousness, which is obviously nonsense in practice. The catholic church demonstrated how pathetic of a conception of morality that is with the sexual abuse scandals of its own priests. They have since adopted more strict measures in their organization to try to prevent a repeat, but as far as I know, they still tend to preach the same individualistic, charity-based nonsense. For all the christians in the west fantasize about being persecuted, they sure do a great job of toeing the status quo line rather than challenging it on a systemic level with their teachings.
But it was not a dissatisfaction with religion alone that led me to atheism. The whole christian conception of an "all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving" being is riddled with excuses in order to justify how a being like this simultaneously exists, yet also doesn't step in and stop atrocities from happening. The most common of these excuses is the "free will" argument that doing so would undermine people's "free will". But one human being senselessly murdering another also undermines that other human being's "free will", doesn't it? And human societies generally criminalize and prosecute murder. They also generally have emergency services that try to resuscitate and rescue people who are in danger, rather than leaving them to the "free will" of their choices. This conception of a god essentially makes god look less moral than even some of the most imperialist, capitalist societies; that it can intervene in an instant, effortlessly, to end enormous amounts of trauma, suffering, and neglect, and does not do so.
However, this is not how all religions view god and some of them have multiple gods, so that's why I emphasize that it is mainly a criticism of western christianity. I do not pretend to have studied most religions and so I try not to weigh in on them in this regard. And especially if they are a religion specific to colonized/imperialized peoples, I am extra wary of weighing in because doing so critically could easily take on the character of western Chauvinism and colonial racism.
9
RedCat - 2w
Don't get me wrong, I agree it is irrelevant. I'm just exploring the points of views from leftist atheists and theist out of curiosity.
7
amemorablename - 2w
And it can be interesting to learn such things. I phrased it as I did to emphasize that liberation comes first; not with intent to shut down curiosity or investigation.
7
Conselheiro - 2w
My username is a reference to a catholic communalist leader in Brazil, so you can guess lol. I can't speak for other religions, but the Catholic church has massive hegemony in Romance Language European and Latin American countries, as well as a lot of tenets that focus specifically on the plight of the poor, spurned and exploited. It also has a form of political organisation that has survived the test of time and deserves study.
So I see religion as a great tool, and the positivist and idealistic tendency to reject religion altogether as one of the biggest problems of communist movements in religious countries. The God that demands blood and condemns infidels can be the same Christ that washes the feet of the poor, feeds the hungry, lives among the abandoned. All it takes is molding the religion to the beliefs and hopes of the people, rather than abandon it to the reactionaries.
Besides that, religion is also part of culture. For all his atheism, Richard Dawkins is functionally a Christian. We can try to deny that part of our culture, but even in that we are engaging with it as a negation. I'd much rather engage with it dialectically and materialistically than pretend to replace it with "neutral" cultural values that are often actually just Western European.
That all said, ontologically I'm an atheist.
9
darkernations - 2w
the positivist and idealistic tendency to reject religion altogether as one of the biggest problems of communist movements in religious countries.
In fact a dialectical materialist should be not positivist and should be an anti-idealist.
That all said, ontologically I’m an atheist.
I am a philosophy layman (see my comment history); if you do get the time could you please explain what that sentence means (I thought I was getting to grips with ontology but reading material for this sort of stuff is not easily accessible)?
6
Conselheiro - 2w
if you do get the time could you please explain what that sentence means
Ontology is the study of being or existence, so that sentence is just a short way to say that, with regards to the "truthyness"of the beliefs of any religion, I don't believe them, nor do I believe in the existence of the supernatural. But believing would not significantly change my analysis.
8
darkernations - 2w
Thanks for explaining!
6
Cysio - 2w
Probably we will need to abolish at least organized religion, but not with the methods of Western Atheism and Western Secular Rationalism
6
xia @lemmy.sdf.org - 2w
"I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious." (Acts 17:22)
6
shomocommie - 2w
religion serves a purpose in society (opium of the masses). as material conditions improve, that purpose will fade away, taking religion with it.
A view related to apatheism, apathetic agnosticism claims that no amount of debate can prove or disprove the existence of one or more deities, and if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans; therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs.
6
Mzuark - 2w
I'm a big fan
5
BreadCrow - 2w
I believe in God so I obviously support religion as a concept and continued practice, but the church is extremely flawed and often used in service to the ruling class and must be given only the bare minimum of power. I think even if you think religion will fade as we build twords communism you can't ignore the huge influence it has and rejecting that will leave many of the victims of capital alienated. I don't think it's possible to build community and draw people to a better vision of our world without connection on every aspect of their lives. I think this discussion also often discounts specifically religious communist organizing that tends to be out of the sphere of focus.
5
Kras Mazov - 2w
I'm not a fan, my country is basically christian, even tho we are technically a secular state (I hope this is the correct term, the term in portuguese is estado laico). There's a pretty big evangelical/protestant lobby in the government and a bunch of billionaire pastors.
We even have a very widespread coloquial term for evangelicals/protestants, the word crente (something like believer in a very quick translation). Part of my family is catholic, part is evangelical (I'm pretty sure I'm the only atheist), but even tho the crentes are known for being annoying about their religion, my relatives are very chill and don't really bring it up unsolicited (at least I don't remember it happening), so I can't say I have had a bad interaction with crentes outside the internet, where they are very annoying, specially because a lot of them tend to just go to comment sections to preach and spread hate towards lgbt people out of nowhere.
There's also the very big problem of pedophile pastors here in Brasil.
::: spoiler CW: Pedophilia
Just recently I listened to an audio of a pastor talking to a child, I don't remember if her age comes up in the conversation, but I'm pretty sure she was very young, where the pastor is asking her to come to his house to abuse her, even saying that she should lie to her grandma about it saying that she is just going to the house of a friend from the church.
This shit made my stomach turn upside down the moment I started listening to the audio.
:::
I don't have much experience with people from other religions, mostly I know a couple of muslims, but I'm not against religion in the sense that it should be prohibited, because I think everyone should be free to have and exercise their own beliefs. I'm against it in the sense that it is used as a tool to control people, and I think it will mostly wither away when people's needs are met since religion serves as a way to socialize and feel part of a community for a lot of people. But I could be wrong on this, since socialist states like Cuba have a very big christian population.
I think the way China deals with religion is probably the way. You allow people to exercise their beliefs, to carry their religious texts and symbols, to have their temples and churches and religious places, but you don't allow for public preaching and the state has the last say in it, maintaining it under constant supervision.
4
Maeve - 2w
Just a side note about abusers: they will position themselves anywhere that gives some sense of authority over vulnerable populations, religious orgs, boys/girls clubs, police, government, nursing homes, politics, charities; and while some is intentional, some do it on some base, low-level, unconscious instinct, that is there is no prefrontal executive function going on there, rather just some amygdala level stuff. And the animal instinct people may be easier to rehab, in a better world.
3
小莱卡 - 2w
Each respective religion spoke the truth of it's time and place, now it's burden on society.
3
La Dame d'Azur - 2w
Religion is an integral part of the identity and culture of any human society; a natural byproduct of a community that arises from the specific social conditions attained by human civilization and also an inherent extension of our own imaginative capabilities, general curiosity, and longing for purpose.
On its own religion arises & develops naturally and, if left alone, is ultimately harmless in and of itself.
The worst examples of religion we think of all stem from a common source: the deliberate interference in religious practices & teachings by authorities seeking to weaponize faith as a method of public control. From here develops clericalism and dogma to further those aims through class warfare by the priestly class against the laity leading to inquisitions, crusades, excommunications, human sacrifice, witch trials, and similar atrocities to cement the clergy's temporal authority in the absence of actual divine anointment.
Anti-theism is an overreaction to this phenomenon in much the same way technophobia & primitivism is an overreaction to industrialization & technological advancement.
Atheism is a bourgeois invention that exploits the principles of rationalism to facilitate the further deconstruction of human culture, morality, and community - all of which interact directly with and are influenced religion - in order to further reduce people into simple workers & consumers by annihilating their humanity.
Secularism is a product of capitalism falsely advertised as a kind of neutrality but in fact simply enforces atheism as the default. Instead of dismantling theocracy it replaces it with corporations instead of churches, oligarchs in place of preachers, legalism instead of dogma, the state in place of god, prison in place of hell, wealth instead of paradise.
Religion is here to stay. It exists under socialism, will exist under communism, and will persist into whatever comes afterwards. It is as much a part of human culture as music, poetry, and other kinds of art.
0
小莱卡 - 2w
Religion is as natural and integral part of our society as serial killers are, they happen due to determinate conditions as you said but that does not make them a law of nature. At some point each respective religion spoke some truth of it's time but we are long past the point of looking at spiritualism for answers when we have proven through the advance of science that the world and it's laws are knowable, at this point it's frankly absurd to think otherwise.
Atheism is a bourgeois invention that exploits the principles of rationalism to facilitate the further deconstruction of human culture, morality, and community - all of which interact directly with and are influenced religion - in order to further reduce people into simple workers & consumers by annihilating their humanity.
Secularism is a product of capitalism falsely advertised as a kind of neutrality but in fact simply enforces atheism as the default. Instead of dismantling theocracy it replaces it with corporations instead of churches, oligarchs in place of preachers, legalism instead of dogma, the state in place of god, prison in place of hell, wealth instead of paradise.
Is this for real? This read like a copy pasta making fun of communists, are you not mixing things up? IT is the communists the ones that have been historically known for being the filthy godless enemies of religion, there is straight up propaganda comic strips called The godless communists. Bourgeois democracies are all secular in name only, they all enjoy the pacifying benefits of religion and make sure it is widely promoted among it's subjects.
Religion is here to stay. It exists under socialism, will exist under communism, and will persist into whatever comes afterwards. It is as much a part of human culture as music, poetry, and other kinds of art.
Ok so lets look at these part by part. First it feels like I JUST stopped playing wack-a-mole with to be a Communist you must be an atheist so this is new. Second, full discloser I have been both a Communist and an Athiest most of my life. With those dislcosers out of the way lets move onto the reply
Ok so religion is an "integral part of the identity and culture of any human society" I mean first I take issue with the notion that it is intigral. Lets look at all 5 AES nations, they are secular, religion plays no part in the running of the state, heck most nations run as secular, either defacto or dejure. "[religion is]a natural byproduct of a community that arises from the specific social conditions attained by human civilization" So was fudelism, capitalism, slavery, none of these where necessarily good nor things that we would argue are still esental. No part of that argument requires that Religion is something that is needed, just that it formed and it had a function. "also an inherent extension of our own imaginative capabilities, general curiosity, and longing for purpose." Ok use your creativity to solve problems, Use your curiosity to learn more, to expand your horizions and to learn more, and make your own purpose, life dose not give you a quest log that you can check off, and you do not need to have someone tell you.
"On its own religion arises & develops naturally and, if left alone, is ultimately harmless in and of itself." I know I came off harsh in that last paragraph, so let me say there is nothing inherently wrong with being religious. Your morals are yours and I care what you belive is right and wrong. I am not sure I would phrase it as "ultimately harmless" I also do not understand what you mean with "religion arises & develops naturally" I am not sure how to tell you this but all religions can be said to have done that. Humans as a part of nature are the only controlling force on religions, we are also, so far as we know the only part of nature that has religion, so you cannot say if it develops naturally, while leaving out anything that was done with religion, as you mentioned in your previous paragraph religion cannot be divorced from the social and cultural pressures it is in.
"The worst examples of religion we think of all stem from a common source: the deliberate interference in religious practices & teachings by authorities seeking to weaponize faith as a method of public control." First how is this not natural? this has been the development of religion and this sounds a little like special pleading that any and all issues have stemmed from this. "From here develops clericalism and dogma the ... and similar atrocities to cement the clergy’s temporal authority in the absence of actual divine anointment." Citation needed. Also you are arguing that there is a divine anointment, however you first need to show that clame to be something for someone who is not religious to take that seriously. Who did act with Devin anointment? John Brown? and are we saying that because we agree with his actions or are we saying that because there is something we know for certan.
"Anti-theism is an overreaction to this phenomenon in much the same way technophobia & primitivism is an overreaction to industrialization & technological advancement." Ok so I am going to say charitably when you say Anti-theism you are referring to people who are vehemently anti-religion, the folks who call every religion a cult. I say this because there is no good standard usage of terms, and anti-theist could refer to an athiest who found that word first or thought atheist was co-opted some how, or someone who BELIEVES there is no god instead of not believing there is a god. Yeah its a strong reaction, but also is it any more or less valid a stance than believing for certain there is a god.
"
"Atheism is a bourgeois invention that exploits the principles of rationalism to facilitate the further deconstruction of human culture" Citation needed agian please. Lets not forget that most of the early communists where super athiest, due in no small part due to the church and religions role in keeping the working class down, need I not remind you the "religion is the opied of the masses,morality, and community " quote. Are we going to say here, that the United States, a highly religious country with religious nationalism surging has a flurishing culture? That we have a strong sense of community, stronger than that of the PRC, or that the USA is more moral? Or what about the splits in religion to defend slavery. As my very catholic aunt likes to point out the bible never condems slavery, it just puts guide rails on it."all of which interact directly with and are influenced religion" There is a whole body of work on Secular morality, Religion when it is present can be a part of culture but culture exists outside of religion, and community, you are aware that there are none religious communities right? "in order to further reduce people into simple workers & consumers by annihilating their humanity." First please look up Secular Humanism I beg of you, second no that is capitalism that in effect reduces that, also agian are you teling me that it is more expected that the USA does not break people down to workers and consumers more so than the PRC? is that what you are telling me is expected?
"
"Secularism is a product of capitalism falsely advertised as a kind of neutrality but in fact simply enforces atheism" Secularism does not enforce athiesm, yes it requrest the state act without Religion, however if that where not to be the case what religion do you chose instead? How? "Instead of dismantling theocracy it replaces it with corporations instead of churches, oligarchs in place of preachers, legalism instead of dogma, the state in place of god, prison in place of hell, wealth instead of paradise." You are almost discribing liberalism, in the civil religion point of view that not everyone subscribes to. It also is not a theocracy, that word has a meaning.
"Religion is here to stay. It exists under socialism, will exist under communism." This is probably the only thing I can agree with in what you said, atleast in sentiment, Relgion is generaly a none issue, and so you can be religious, every AES state that exists and all that Former Socialist states enshrined the free practice of religion. Will it never die, I am not sure about that, I could see a world where it fades, as the need for it stops, or I could see just adherents fade, or I could see it continuing but to argue as you did that it is an Essential part i find is in great error. "It is as much a part of human culture as music, poetry, and other kinds of art." And yet religions with just as much prominence as what we have today have come and gone, there is no reason to think that what we have now is for some reason eternal
9
Sleepless One - 2w
On its own religion arises & develops naturally and, if left alone, is ultimately harmless in and of itself.
How does religion develop naturally and be left alone when it's inextricably tied to reality, especially when the only societies that have existed for the past several millennia were class societies?
Also, how do we reconcile materialism and the militant atheism that's been part of the foundation of ML parties with atheism being a bourgeois invention to flatten people into soulless automata?
I've been having a crisis of faith in dialectical materialism lately, especially the latter part. I've been an atheist for my entire adult life and all I have to show for it is empty comfort and self hatred. I've seen the downright miraculous transformations people have when they re-establish their relationship with God. It's indisputable proof that God exists, that He cares for us, and that the evangelists the reddit atheists would always argue with were right: only a fool says in his heart there is no God. Why should anyone treat the material as primary, let alone all that exists?
Update: Everything past the first two paragraphs was basically a mini-crashout. I've been having my bouts of intense rumination, irrationality, and hopelessness increasingly often. For the most part I've at least had the good sense not to post through it, but I made that mistake when I made this comment. I think I need to get away from social media (even the FOSS kind) for a pretty long time.
For what it's worth, regarding the "God" question, I find the idea of its existence to be ridiculous if I put in even the tiniest amount of thought about it, but the overwhelming majority of people I have to interact with in real life take it seriously. It gets to the point where I start thinking I must be the wrong one if so many people disagree with me, and the mental stress of trying to jam the square peg of society's belief into the triangular hole of my mind makes me desperately try to convince myself something is true even if I fundamentally cannot believe it.
8
La Dame d'Azur - 2w
These are genuinely good questions. I'm trapped at work for the next 8 hours but when I have more time I'll try to respond to them with the effort they deserve.
5
TankieReplyBot - 2w
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Sorry for the late response. Meant to get to this much earlier.
How does religion develop naturally and be left alone when it’s inextricably tied to reality, especially when the only societies that have existed for the past several millennia were class societies?
Classless societies have existed all throughout history and there is no evidence for a lack of religion in any of them. I'm not sure where you got the idea that a classless society has never existed before because that simply isn't the case. One of my personal favorite examples is also one of the earliest civilizations: the Indus Valley civilization. Despite extensive archaeology no evidence for a class system has been produced as of yet and everything currently points to a lack of stratification entirely, though there is evidence of religious rituals. It endured for several thousand years. Even if no class society had ever existed there doesn't necessarily mean that religion is tied specifically to the class system; that would be assuming correlation equals causation. It's also disproven by the modern incarnation of class societies which has been heavily moving away from religious-oriented cultures, oftentimes deliberately eroding faith over time. Where religion hasn't been totally removed from society it has been either weakened to the point of feebleness or coopted by capital for its own ends.
Also, how do we reconcile materialism and the militant atheism that’s been part of the foundation of ML parties with atheism being a bourgeois invention to flatten people into soulless automata?
That's the point of self-criticism: to find and analyze flaws and correct them.
Hakim states it best in his video on the mistakes of former socialism where he points out that while it was good and necessary to weaken the authority of clerical institutions that opposed socialism and worked with reactionary forces this didn't need to translate to the outright persecution of religion entirely and that by doing so the socialist state positioned itself as an enemy of all religious people - including deeply religious proles. Seeing as proles tend to be the most religious demographic by far it doesn't help our movement to be openly hostile to their personal, spiritual beliefs - particularly when this beliefs compliment our own materialist ideology rather than conflict with it. "Jesus was a socialist" might be a meme but the reality of Jesus and his teachings is that they are in fact quite compatible - complimentary, even - with a socialist system and there's no point in alienating Christian proles by telling them their religion is fake. Being spiritual is not the same as being anti-materialist. Most people in fact are quite materialist in their thinking and way of life, including incredibly religious people, and there's no benefit to them or us by creating unnecessary friction between our ideology and their religion when it doesn't need to exist.
I’ve been having a crisis of faith in dialectical materialism lately, especially the latter part. I’ve been an atheist for my entire adult life and all I have to show for it is empty comfort and self hatred. I’ve seen the downright miraculous transformations people have when they re-establish their relationship with God. It’s indisputable proof that God exists, that He cares for us, and that the evangelists the reddit atheists would always argue with were right: only a fool says in his heart there is no God. Why should anyone treat the material as primary, let alone all that exists?
I actually have a similar issue, being gnostic myself.
The way I see it: this life is only temporary. Whether there is or isn't something waiting for us afterwards I can find no reason not to make the material world we live in as enjoyable for ourselves as possible. If we're to exist here, in this place, for a certain amount of time we might as well make the best of it by living a life worth living and if whatever evil systems in this world are getting in the way of that then we should prioritize destroying them and replacing them with something better so that we can finally enjoy our time on this Earth.
1
Nocturne Dragonite - 2w
Also, how do we reconcile materialism and the militant atheism that’s been part of the foundation of ML parties with atheism being a bourgeois invention to flatten people into soulless automata?
Because it's not. Every single person at birth is atheist, you have to convince people to believe it. There's no evidence of a "soul".
I’ve seen the downright miraculous transformations people have when they re-establish their relationship with God. It’s indisputable proof that God exists
Unfortunately, this is exactly how all religion spreads: through testimony, not evidence. "I prayed and god did this thing for me/I felt better/felt his holy presence", people go through these "miraculous transformations", and that automatically means god exists, because I felt a thing and I read a book that said a thing.
Why should anyone treat the material as primary, let alone all that exists?
Because there's no evidence for it otherwise.
Yet, as far as I can tell, this is incompatible with Marxism-Leninism.
That's because it is. It's just idealism, with no basis in reality and MLs work in material reality. I don't understand people who try and shoehorn religion into MLism, it's just cope. I guess you can fit anything into religion if you ignore all the parts about god being a genocidal monster, controlling women, etc. but at that point why even bother with it anymore? Again, just cope.
only a fool says in his heart there is no God.
I'd say a fool is one who is ready and willing to believe in unfalsifiable claims with insufficient evidence.
1
darkernations - 2w
Secularism is a product of capitalism falsely advertised as a kind of neutrality
You may want to read around Ibn Rushd. Secularism has been reappropriated by capital in the West but is not bound by it. It has religious and non-religious flavours. If you would like me to expand on that then please let me know.
6
La Dame d'Azur - 2w
That's an interesting perspective. I would like to hear more about it.
2
darkernations - 2w
Ibn Rushd could be considered the father of secularism reappropriated by the West.
Essentially, during the Islamic Golden age (roughly 8-9th to 14th century) there was an apparent religious contradiction that most major institutional religions (including Abrahamic and Dharmic) had to square: the ongoing scientific/proto-scientific discoveries that developed technologies (and used to consolidate power) and the divine immutablity of scriptures (of which was used as justification for the concentration of power) reflecting feudal politico-economies.
Ibn Rushd, who was a deeply religious Islamic scholar, proposed a solution of what was perceived later in the west as a separation of "philosophy" (which back then, and even now with dialectical materialism, was science/proto-science) and religion. What he actually proposed was more explicitly dialectical than that; instead he explained there is a relationship between the two with one feeding the other to and fro, all under divine guidance, which as human beings we understand as the synthesis of the above two factors. And he grounded that in the scientific discoveries at that time (an early materialist approach). He would then propose if this contradicted the interpretation of the liturgical scriptures then it was the religious interpretation that was incorrect and in those parts a more allegorical or metaphorical understanding was the true revelation.
Most religions would consider blasphemy as the one of the worst sins, because if you did any sin but said it was done under the name of their deity then it was that much more worse. However, most religions had dialectic philosophers - interpretations of their faith which involved to better understand the divinity of their deity they needed to better understand their material world around them. How to discover science without being blasphemous was the philosphical fine line that gave birth to secularism. The degree that this discovery of science/proto-science was amplified, however, was filtered by the material constraints of the socio-politico-economic systems of those times.
Modern Western Secularism, accelerated afrer the so-called Enlightenment (which actually is a product of the dominant mode of production going from feudalism to capitalism; the material always comes before the idea), is often equated to state promotion of atheism where in reality it is a pseudo-neutrality with overwhelming preference of practice of domestic and foreign policy in favour of White Supremacist imperialist politics (with some parallels in how Constantinople repurposed Roman pagan gods for Catholic Saints) - in sharp contrast some of the Eastern approaches which is in more in-keeping with the religious neutrality (eg Mughal India or PRC especially post-Mao). The apparent communist purging of religion in the early stages of socialist development in the USSR and PRC was because those forms of religion held on to feudal and capitalist vestiges, and therefore the religious reaction often found themselves aligning with foreign powers against the dictatorship of the proleteriat.
Relgion often reflects the politico-economy. To use Catholicism as an example, contrast the catholicism in Cuba or liberation theology of South America with the catholcism of the USA, Germany and France. And in a similar vein "athiesm" also reflects socio-political economies - see for example the "secularism" of the West vs how it is practised in Cuba or China.
If you wanted one phrase that encapsulates the differences in secularism between the west and socialist countries it's this: dialectical materialism. Socialist countries are dialectical materialist in the approach where as the capitalist countries aren't just not dialectial materialist, they actviely promote anti-dialectical-materialism (though they don't use, or in most cases not even cognizant of, that vernacular).
Hope the above helped
5
La Dame d'Azur - 2w
Extremely interesting perspective, thank you. I have to admit it makes a lot of sense and is a very convincing argument.
Seriously, thank you for this.
3
darkernations - 2w
3
Nocturne Dragonite - 2w
Lmfao we're all born atheist, how tf can it be an invention of any kind????
4
La Dame d'Azur - 2w
How is someone "born" atheist?
2
☭ Comrade Pup Ivy 🇨🇺 - 2w
Athiesm is just a lack of belief on god, for any reason weather that be it an inability to belive or lack of knoledge of the consept of a god. Given a newborn baby, so far as we can tell does not believe on a god, it would be an athiest by default. We can agree no choice was made, that doesn't change that because the baby doesn't have a belief in a god it isnt a thiest so its an athiest. That is just how the word is defined, not a thiest
I will admit I find that it is an unhelpful point, however it does negate it being an invention of capital.
8
☭ Comrade Pup Ivy 🇨🇺 - 2w
The best way to discribe it is how an old friend and mentor said it "I dont like saying I am an athiest that doesn't say anything about me, all it says is I dont belive in a god, I prefer humanist, because that says something about me and what I belive"
5
La Dame d'Azur - 2w
Atheism is the rejection of theism; not the absence of it. Being an atheist isn't the same as being irreligious. Lacking any concept of religion an infant is brought into this world an agnostic; ignorant of religion and thus incapable of rejecting it.
Irreligion has always existed but atheism is a very modern idea that originates from modern conditions; specifically the weakening of theocratic authority to pave the way for a secular order that is more agreeable to bourgeois interests.
-4
☭ Comrade Pup Ivy 🇨🇺 - 2w
I am sorry but you are quite mistaken. Athism while it does incompas rejection of theism doesn't require that rejection, by its deffinition all it requires is a lack of belief in a god, no more. As you can tell that is a very wide spectrum, and doesn't answer very much about what a person is or isnt, all it says is they do not believe in a god.
Your going to have to specify your term here Irreligion is not I belive the common usage, there are athiestic religions (religions that do not belive in a god). Also need I remind you that the foundational work of marxism wasn't just done by athiests but by those who did have an oposition to religion "Religion is the opied of the masses" and is abke to keep them dosile and controlled for bourgeois intrests.
As I mentioned to you in my first reply, secularism isnt a bad thing, it is a position of not imposing apon people a religion, of you want a theocracy forst why, second of what religion and prove that one is both true and moral.
Lastly agnostic, as I am sure you know looking at your bio, is not a claim of belief but a claim of knowledge, you say you are gnostic, I assume by your argumenation a gnostic theist, and if I venture a little farther I would bet protistant Christian, though the last one is a stab in the dark with no real evidence. Your Gnostism is a claim of knolge. You can be an agnostic theist, dont know do belive, an agnostic athiest, dont know dont belive, or a Gnostic Athiest, do know (there is no god in this case) dont belive
They are brought into the world not beliving because they dont even know that is a consept to belive in, therefor they are a kind of agnostic athiest by pure deffiniton
3
La Dame d'Azur - 2w
I am sorry but you are quite mistaken. Athism while it does incompas rejection of theism doesn’t require that rejection, by its deffinition all it requires is a lack of belief in a god, no more. As you can tell that is a very wide spectrum, and doesn’t answer very much about what a person is or isnt, all it says is they do not believe in a god.
Maybe it's just me but I don't find that a useful definition for the word given how broad it is. In order to have a belief in something you have to have knowledge of it. Likewise for disbelief, since that is the rejection of belief.
Your going to have to specify your term here Irreligion is not I belive the common usage, there are athiestic religions (religions that do not belive in a god). Also need I remind you that the foundational work of marxism wasn’t just done by athiests but by those who did have an oposition to religion “Religion is the opied of the masses” and is abke to keep them dosile and controlled for bourgeois intrests.
"Irreligion" means to have no religion.
I believe you might be confusing terms here as "atheistic religion" isn't the correct terminology IIRC. That should be "non-theistic" religion, which refers to the absence of deities in a religion as that is the meaning of non-theistic. Atheism is the specific rejection of the existence of deities and I can't think of any religion that says "there are no gods" either outright or through implication, though there are many which don't have them as part of their general practice or belief.
I think you've also misunderstood Marx's critique of religion. Yes, he was opposed to it. But unless I missed something he never argued it made people docile or easily controllable. Even if he had this has been demonstrably disproven. Religion can be used to control masses but it can also be used to liberate or unite masses. This is why the Soviets revitalized the Orthodox faith during the German invasion; religion itself is not an inherently reactionary force. And again - unless I missed something, and you're free to correct me if I have - Marx didn't condemn religion for being a tool of bourgeois oppression but rather ascribed it as a coping mechanism for the oppressed. Specifically he compared it to opium because of the drug's medicinal properties combined with its addictiveness. His view was that religion was the reflection of a people's soul and that it was through religion they were able to stomach otherwise unbearable circumstances and because of this that it would gradually fade away under the conditions of socialism & communism as material conditions improved. I disagree with this personally, but that's another discussion altogether. Regardless pointing out that atheists contributed heavily to the development of Marxism is rather redundant. For one thing not all early Marxists were atheists; for another many early Marxists still held racist and patronizing views towards non-Europeans yet it would be wrong to say that Marxism is inherently racist, xenophobic, or white supremacist. Marxism has (mostly) moved beyond these views just as it has its previous views on queer people and women. Early Marxists did not have complete or even consistent views on a lot of topics and that is why the development of Marxist theory & analysis persist to this day.
As I mentioned to you in my first reply, secularism isnt a bad thing, it is a position of not imposing apon people a religion, of you want a theocracy forst why, second of what religion and prove that one is both true and moral.
I oppose theocracy, thank you very much.
My views of secularism aren't that it's an inherently bad thing but that it isn't the adequate solution to the problem. On the surface it appears - as you say - to be the refusal to impose a religion on anyone and that idea is one I can agree with in theory. In practice this has not been the case; what has occurred is either the preference for one religion over others with a veneer of neutrality or the persecution of all religions equally. I don't find either circumstance to be desirable. Secularism was conceived as an answer to the problem of theocracy but that problem did not always exist and is almost uniquely a consequence of Abrahamic religious traditions and their trend toward theocratic governance, something which originates with the development of Judaism from a polytheistic religion, to a monolatric religion, to finally a monotheist religion as the priests in the cult of Yahweh consolidated further power for themselves and dethroned the rest of the Israelite pantheon. My gripe with secularism is that it tries to solve an artificial problem with an artificial solution instead of combating the problem at the source: clericalism & dogma.
Lastly agnostic, as I am sure you know looking at your bio, is not a claim of belief but a claim of knowledge, you say you are gnostic, I assume by your argumenation a gnostic theist, and if I venture a little farther I would bet protistant Christian, though the last one is a stab in the dark with no real evidence. Your Gnostism is a claim of knolge. You can be an agnostic theist, dont know do belive, an agnostic athiest, dont know dont belive, or a Gnostic Athiest, do know (there is no god in this case) dont belive
I think you're interpreting "gnosticism" a little too literally. Gnosticism is about pursuing gnosis; not already possessing it. Achieving gnosis is the goal of the gnostic, just as achieving communism is the goal of the communist.
I don't consider myself to be a Christian anymore. I left behind that identity due to a combination of factors ranging from a hostility to my socialist beliefs, to my grappling with my gender identity, to disagreements in morality. Christians made it clear they would not welcome me because of these irreconcilable differences and that the best I could hope to receive was a very patronizing "love the sinner, hate the sin" attitude that I found to be even more insulting than outright hostility. I was not and still am not someone needing to be "fixed" or "saved" and my refusal to accept their constant gaslighting on this issue ultimately diminished my actual faith in the broader Christian theology. My current position on Christ is that he was an enlightened man but not a messiah of any kind and certainly not a divine figure.
They are brought into the world not beliving because they dont even know that is a consept to belive in, therefor they are a kind of agnostic athiest by pure deffiniton
See, I have to disagree with this simply because "agnostic atheist" is just a paradoxical term. Atheism does in fact require rejecting the belief in something and because of that you can't simultaneously be ignorant of something (agnostic) and rejecting it (atheist) at the same time. It's an oxymoronic term.
0
bunbun - 2w
Gnosticism is about pursuing gnosis; not already possessing it. Achieving gnosis is the goal of the gnostic, just as achieving communism is the goal of the communist.
What a banger line.
Fwiw I really appreciate the way in which you present your thoughts. I'm completely in agreement with your take on religion, as well as your understanding of Marx and his contemporaries regarding this issue, and also your use of terminology.
2
☭ Comrade Pup Ivy 🇨🇺 - 2w
Before I start my apollogies for formatting and lack of links, I am away from my computer.
I also want to offer that my DMs both here and on matrix are open, I have found that occasionally a public forum is not always the most condusive to a conversation like this.
On your first point, it is a very broad term, as I said earlier, it tells you essentially nothing about a person, and is only in any way a used term due to the drastic previlance of theists. Once agian I am a Humanist and that will tell you WAYYYYY more about me than me saying I am an athiest. Athiestism doesn't require a disbelief, just not having a belief.
Ok so you where using the standard deffinition. However athiestic religion is a term that is used. The one I know most about is the Satanic Temple, who expressly rejects the idea of the devine, and uses the term to discribe themselves, From what I have learned about budism, it too does not require divinity so would reach the deffinition of anthistic religion. United Church of Canada has found that to be a member, or even clurgy in the church you need not have any belief in a god or gods. To your point on athiesm agian, Athiesm makes no claim other than a lack of belief, it does not inharently exlude its possibility. Athiesm only says "I do not belive there is a god or gods" no rejection, as you seem to keep asserting.
Marx and early Marxist writers did both say that religion was used as a tool of capital, and kept the working class more dosile, some going so far as to say it in incompatible with marxism. Now I have argued that it isnt correct both here and on the GZD matrix, but that doesn't change that it precludes your idea thag athiesm is a tool or invention of the ruling class (also please note you cannot invent a lack of belief). Also every AES nation is secular, a notion you argued is incompatible with marxism.
I am glad to hear ypu oppose theocracy, however you have consistantly railed aganst the idea of secularism, including that it is opression of religious people, it is not, and that it is inharently a tool of the capitalist class, agian its not, please see how every AES nation is secular, even cuba who is ~96% roman Catholic, and Fedel Castro said that he would say he is Christian, none of that precluded a secular state.
I feel your view that theocracy is unique to Abrahamic religions, is Western centric, there have been theocracies in asia, from none abrahamic religions that have the same or similar issues. The issues with theocracy are not unique to monotheism, and in many ways come down to running a state, or or organization through a religion.
Asside from my gripe that secularism, even in practice in many places on the planet do not require or posess opression of religion or religious, and your fraiming in many ways are akin to saying that republicanism (not having a monarchy) is bad because in the United States not only does it represent the people as the idea says, but the united states harms its people more than Denmark or Communist Grenada, both being monarchies. Or that the idea of Democracy is bad because there is a better corilation between the will of the people and the choices of the government in Qatar is better than that of the United states.
For your last point you keep referring?to athiesim as a rejection and agian it very much does not require that, it isn't even disbelief it is a lack of belief. Once you understand that, once you understand that there is very little that makes athiests a group other than we are for one reason or another, not theists, this willake more sense. Lots of confusion is stemming from, your using the word wrong
1
Nocturne Dragonite - 2w
When you are born, you have no beliefs nor belief systems, they have to be taught to you.
5
La Dame d'Azur - 2w
That is agnosticism, not atheism.
-5
☭ Comrade Pup Ivy 🇨🇺 - 2w
Agnosticism and Gnosticism are claims of knowing your belief not the belief, a baby would be an agnostic (doesn't know if a god exists) athiest (doesn't belive a god exists) sure its meaningless at this point because the baby doesn't even know about the conspt of a god to be able to belive or disbelive, no information of this baby has been shared this is by default because ot doesn't know enough to change either state
4
La Dame d'Azur - 2w
Right, which is my point: we're all born agnostic as we haven't been exposed to the concept of religion yet and thus cannot make the decision to believe (theism) or disbelieve (atheism).
0
☭ Comrade Pup Ivy 🇨🇺 - 2w
It would be agnostic athiest, no knowledge of if god exists AND you lack a belief in god.
As I have said many many times athieism isnt a disbilef its a lack of one. A baby does not belive in a god or gods SO BY DEFFINITION they must be an athiest. If someone grew up their whole life never hearing about the idea of a god or gods, and lacks a belief in god they are still an athiest, because thats the deffinition, a lack of a belief in god or gods.
Agnostism and Gnostism are not matters in that discussion.
0
Nocturne Dragonite - 2w
Wrong. Agnosticism has to do with knowledge. Atheism has to do with belief.
3
La Dame d'Azur - 2w
Yes, exactly my point. An infant has no knowledge of religion or religious concepts. They don't disbelieve (atheism) because they have no understanding of the concept and until they've been exposed to the concept they can't reject it. There is a difference between knowingly rejecting something and not knowing about it in the first place.
0
Nocturne Dragonite - 2w
Once again, atheism isn't "disbelief" it's the "lack of belief", they're two different things. You have to be convinced that there is any sort of deity. Atheism is also the default position, because it doesn't make any claims, whereas theism makes a positive claim.
1
queermunist she/her - 2w
I'm with you, actually.
It's dialectical. Atheism and theism are contradictions, each contains its opposite, so in order for someone to be an atheist they have to define their beliefs in contradiction to theism.
3
Maeve - 2w
A- without
Theist believing in a deity
3
La Dame d'Azur - 2w
Belief requires knowledge. You can't disbelieve something if you've never been exposed to the concept.
0
Maeve - 2w
I offer you can't believe without having exposure to the concept. What meaning does red, blue, green hold for someone born blind without hope for vision?
3
La Dame d'Azur - 2w
That's what I'm saying though? Without exposure to the concept you can't believe or disbelieve in it. Ergo no one can be "born" an atheist as they haven't been exposed to the concept of theism yet and thus cannot believe or disbelieve it until they do.
1
Maeve - 2w
I'm saying there's no G-d belief because there's nothing to believe. After introduction, there is something to consider.
WilliamA in asklemmygrad
What's your opinion on religion?
Gramsci talked a lot about how communists should try to emulate the Catholic churches structural reach - we should be doing what the church does for the working class - provide community, provide a 3rd space, charity and outreach work, mass events, teaching and reading and such.
I think we can learn a lot from how religion organizes.
Im personally agnostic and respect most moderates religious beliefs, although I remain spectical I wouldn't shut someone out or refuse to work with anyone who was religious.
I tend to view religion through a functionalist lens. Historically, religion served as a way to codify successful behaviors before we had the empirical tools to understand why those behaviors worked. Take the prohibition of pork in Abrahamic traditions for example. In the Bronze Age, there was no germ theory or concept of parasites like trichinosis. You could not explain to a population why eating undercooked pork might kill them, so the survival heuristic got wrapped in metaphysics. It became a rule not to eat it because it is forbidden by God rather than because of biology. It was an epistemological shortcut that encoded necessary knowledge into custom because the science was unavailable to explain the mechanism.
Beyond just physical survival, religion also serves a structural function by creating social cohesion. In feudal and capitalist structures, the economic engine does not inherently unite people. Capitalism in particular is fundamentally individualistic. It atomizes society by reducing the human experience to individual ambition and competition. The society risks fragmentation when the system atomizes people into isolated units. An external cohesive force becomes necessary to act as social glue for people to have a collective identity. Religion provides that superstructure by offering a common worldview and shared narrative that allows people to transcend the self. It acts as an artificial collective because the economic system refuses to provide a real one.
On the other hand, a socialist society does not require a crutch like religious to function. Socialism provides an inherent collective purpose that unites people toward a common goal. The idea of collective ownership and democratic control over the economy allows people to see themselves as part of a material whole. If a society is truly united by a common material goal, the external glue of religion becomes redundant. You no longer need a divine mandate to bind people together because the social relations of production are doing that work automatically. At the same time, material dialectics allow us to understand the world directly without needing to hide knowledge inside arcane traditions.
The main reason that I go to church is so that I can socialize with others; most of my experiences with other suburbanites have been extremely negative, so I don’t seek them for social interaction anymore.
In contrast, the Presbyterians whom I know are much friendlier and more hospitable, but they are under the impression that I am a monotheist, albeit a pessimistic one who believes that G-d merely puts up with me and won’t answers my prayers because I’ll probably just get stuck in a very long waiting list. (My current waiting time is between ten to fifteen years.)
Right, it's one of the few places left that are communal and aren't trying to monetize you.
At least you have the presbys! I'm surrounded by southern Baptist and Baptist, the main difference being the skin tone of attendees. But I'll attend Baptist first, and they're good people, but most ignore the bigger rules (the big 10) in favor of the small ones, lol. I blame capitalism, epigenetics, memes (in the Dawkins/Blackmore sense) and multigenerational trauma.
A side note here, I've been reading up on Jung's troubled history, and I see why he's problemati; and I think he was onto something about the collective unconscious and religious archetypes because of memes, multigenerational trauma (religious and other abuse where religion excuses or justifies it, "spoil the rod, spare the child, etc," "wives obey your husbands," etc). So the opiate of the masses may need weaning, rather than sudden withdrawal, and that's doable. But I still don't want to live in a world where there are no Raphael's cherubs, Da Vinci's Vetruvian man, or Handle's Messiah. I think they can be explained easily by pointing out the primitive understanding of psychological archetypes, just as artwork and tales of the other myths, such as Medusa being punished for her own brutal rape, which wasn't her fault, but also ended up protecting her from other unscrupulous men who would have abused or conned her. But I also think that would go hard -in- hand with: but now we've mostly eliminated conditions that caused such behaviors, and have medicine, therapy, and supervision, or humane segregation for the mind that can not be successfully rehabilitated, otherwise.
I've been thinking along those lines as well. I can go to local church but it gets wearisome after a minute. Also they're garrulous af.
Crudely:
Beautifully put imho.
I became an atheist before but i can see how the primary threat is and will always be imperialism and not religion. It is used by imperialists in all possible directions.
The more sinister point from an on the ground perspective is that religion can help people who struggle to survive but is also stripped of any anti imperialist sentiment, especially in the west.
I would like to learn more about its DM point of view. Do you have a recommendation what to read to get a good entrypoint to analyse the contradictions from a more theoretical point?
Thank you, I am "re-learning" DM myself:
https://lemmygrad.ml/post/9855623/7353553
But to better answer your question the authors/topics that came top of my head was Roland Boer, Samir Amin and liberation theology, so I did mini-research to make a reading list which I will be also adding to my own pile:
(Addendum - I am an athiest myself but wanted to read around the topic you mentioned. I can't pinpoint sources for the opinions I have so chances it will become hopefully more refined with time)
An absolute banger of an answer! This goes into my saved posts! Thank you very much, comrade! I always love to get educated by comrades. :)
I completely forgot the Indian experience, so here's some more to my pile:
Western Hemisphere:
Pan-africanists:
It's complicated, but if I had to boil it down to a few crystals:
Religion makes a good person good and a bad person bad.
*All people have good and bad urges, and most people find themselves wrestling with whatever they view as "bad" sometimes. *Most people see the "bad" in everyone but ourselves and favorite people.
Believing in a literal deity isn't necessary to believe in the overarching message, good, bad, or indifference.
I can't go to any church within a reasonable distance because I'm not into people being unable to abide abortion or political assassination of our own corrupt leaders for any reason, but have no problem with genocide/invasion and regime change for commodities and real estate.
There are two UU churches in two different directions over an hour away. 😕
Pill me on the politics of Unitarian Universalism. How bad/good are they?
Like any place of gathering, it depends on individual congregations. Most are just very liberal liberals or social Democrats, I imagine. But I really liked the ones I've visited, some more, some less.
https://www.uua.org/beliefs/what-we-believe/principles
I might dare to imagine some congregants in locations farther away may be actual socialist, maybe in other nation-states, but who knows?
They're pretty accepting of any beliefs, from atheist to neo/pagan, including Buddhist, Taoist, satanism (I doubt Laveyan; I doubt anything involving blood sacrifice, but who knows). I don't recall ever having a Eucharist, but it's been a couple of decades.
Palestine would have been completely gobbled up if not for the principled anti-imperialist revolutionary liberation theology of the Islamic Revolution.
Communists saying that religion is always backwards just shows these "anti-imperialist" dont see us as human.
Hopefully that's not what you took from what I said and my subsequent messages. (I didn't downvote you)
You are right - a lot of people come from parts of the world that if it weren't for Muslims there would have been no formal liberation as we know it from colonisers.
On the other hand, what you said could be flipped. One could argue some of those who are religious see a non-believer as less than human because they (the non-believer) deserve not to enter their heaven, and lead a godless (in their eyes) life on earth. Indeed the purge of socialism in the Global South was partly using this metric of equating communism with anti-theism; the Jakharta Method with the killing of half a million Indonesians being a famous example.
So if both religious and non-religious folks could see each other less than human then the common denominator here is not the religiousness, or lack of it, but some other material condition in play that leads to that view?
What you need to decide for yourself is those who see you less than human is what material conditions lead them to that awful conclusion eg their western chauvinism vs their self-claimed marxism?
No no. I replied because you're one of the few reasonable replies here.
I agree, the contradiction is imperialism and it will use whatever methods available to maintain itself.
Apologies (and thank you)! I misunderstood what you said. I will leave my reply as is for those that are still lurking around.
No problem and thank you for the conversation.
Don't get me wrong, lots of times religions have been used as a weapon, like in Indonesia as you said but we could really talk about so many.
But to use that and say all types of Islam are equally reactionary and to blanket criticize religion generally is just xenophobic chauvanism. People in the Lemmy version of this thread are saying pretty heinous things and theres still a lot of questionable posts in this lemmygrad one too.
The development of Resistance Islam as part of Khomeinist revolution in Islamic politics and thought is objectively good for all people on earth, Muslims and not Muslims. One cannot be Pro-Palestine and think such things about religious people and faiths generally. Thats my only point here.
And to drive the point really home: the genocidal Israel is a secular project.
I was raised in (and was devout about until age 27 or so) white evangelical Christianity in the US. From that, I struggled to view “religion” in a broad sense other than through that lens. I held on to a lot of anger and in some ways was an edgy internet atheist. Marxism helped me understand base and superstructure. It helped me understand how the religion I was raised in grew out of settler colonialism, white supremacy, and as a way to maintain the meager privileges that the bourgeoisie grant upon the reactionary, white working class. In other words, the specific material and historical circumstances of the time and place I lived, driven by a specific mode of production. And it was those things that I was really angry at (well, for the most part. Beliefs around eternal torment still bother me to this day). Also seeing how faith and religion has brought encouragement and hope to the people of Gaza also helped me approach the concept of religion with nuance.
Ultimately religion can be a force for good or bad, it just depends on the material elements that underlie it in a specific context.
This place has a civil war over religion about every month lol.
Largely irrelevant to what we get into here. At some point, I became conscious of how prominent western atheism gets used as another variation of racism and imperialism. So I try to look at the religions of colonized and imperialized peoples differently than I would the religions of the colonizer, for example. In other words, I say it is largely irrelevant because I'm not going to reject an anti-imperialist struggle because of its religiosity, but neither am I going to especially support it if it's not. Liberation comes first and the form of religion is also impacted by the rest of society and politics, so a colonial society is going to warp religious practice and beliefs toward something more sociopathic than a liberated communal society.
I arrived at atheism through growing up USian catholic and gradually coming to reject it, and that is mainly where my knowledgeable criticisms of religion are confined to (that and western christianity more generally). I have retained some of the pro-social components of the religious mindset of caring about what happens to others, but I reject the gross the limitations of its solutions and find that many of its adherents seem less than committed to its pro-social teachings. Typically, its solutions amount to charity and individual piousness, which is obviously nonsense in practice. The catholic church demonstrated how pathetic of a conception of morality that is with the sexual abuse scandals of its own priests. They have since adopted more strict measures in their organization to try to prevent a repeat, but as far as I know, they still tend to preach the same individualistic, charity-based nonsense. For all the christians in the west fantasize about being persecuted, they sure do a great job of toeing the status quo line rather than challenging it on a systemic level with their teachings.
But it was not a dissatisfaction with religion alone that led me to atheism. The whole christian conception of an "all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving" being is riddled with excuses in order to justify how a being like this simultaneously exists, yet also doesn't step in and stop atrocities from happening. The most common of these excuses is the "free will" argument that doing so would undermine people's "free will". But one human being senselessly murdering another also undermines that other human being's "free will", doesn't it? And human societies generally criminalize and prosecute murder. They also generally have emergency services that try to resuscitate and rescue people who are in danger, rather than leaving them to the "free will" of their choices. This conception of a god essentially makes god look less moral than even some of the most imperialist, capitalist societies; that it can intervene in an instant, effortlessly, to end enormous amounts of trauma, suffering, and neglect, and does not do so.
However, this is not how all religions view god and some of them have multiple gods, so that's why I emphasize that it is mainly a criticism of western christianity. I do not pretend to have studied most religions and so I try not to weigh in on them in this regard. And especially if they are a religion specific to colonized/imperialized peoples, I am extra wary of weighing in because doing so critically could easily take on the character of western Chauvinism and colonial racism.
Don't get me wrong, I agree it is irrelevant. I'm just exploring the points of views from leftist atheists and theist out of curiosity.
And it can be interesting to learn such things. I phrased it as I did to emphasize that liberation comes first; not with intent to shut down curiosity or investigation.
My username is a reference to a catholic communalist leader in Brazil, so you can guess lol. I can't speak for other religions, but the Catholic church has massive hegemony in Romance Language European and Latin American countries, as well as a lot of tenets that focus specifically on the plight of the poor, spurned and exploited. It also has a form of political organisation that has survived the test of time and deserves study.
So I see religion as a great tool, and the positivist and idealistic tendency to reject religion altogether as one of the biggest problems of communist movements in religious countries. The God that demands blood and condemns infidels can be the same Christ that washes the feet of the poor, feeds the hungry, lives among the abandoned. All it takes is molding the religion to the beliefs and hopes of the people, rather than abandon it to the reactionaries.
Besides that, religion is also part of culture. For all his atheism, Richard Dawkins is functionally a Christian. We can try to deny that part of our culture, but even in that we are engaging with it as a negation. I'd much rather engage with it dialectically and materialistically than pretend to replace it with "neutral" cultural values that are often actually just Western European.
That all said, ontologically I'm an atheist.
In fact a dialectical materialist should be not positivist and should be an anti-idealist.
I am a philosophy layman (see my comment history); if you do get the time could you please explain what that sentence means (I thought I was getting to grips with ontology but reading material for this sort of stuff is not easily accessible)?
Ontology is the study of being or existence, so that sentence is just a short way to say that, with regards to the "truthyness"of the beliefs of any religion, I don't believe them, nor do I believe in the existence of the supernatural. But believing would not significantly change my analysis.
Thanks for explaining!
Probably we will need to abolish at least organized religion, but not with the methods of Western Atheism and Western Secular Rationalism
"I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious." (Acts 17:22)
religion serves a purpose in society (opium of the masses). as material conditions improve, that purpose will fade away, taking religion with it.
personally, im an agnostic apatheist. from wikipedia:
I'm a big fan
I believe in God so I obviously support religion as a concept and continued practice, but the church is extremely flawed and often used in service to the ruling class and must be given only the bare minimum of power. I think even if you think religion will fade as we build twords communism you can't ignore the huge influence it has and rejecting that will leave many of the victims of capital alienated. I don't think it's possible to build community and draw people to a better vision of our world without connection on every aspect of their lives. I think this discussion also often discounts specifically religious communist organizing that tends to be out of the sphere of focus.
I'm not a fan, my country is basically christian, even tho we are technically a secular state (I hope this is the correct term, the term in portuguese is estado laico). There's a pretty big evangelical/protestant lobby in the government and a bunch of billionaire pastors.
We even have a very widespread coloquial term for evangelicals/protestants, the word crente (something like believer in a very quick translation). Part of my family is catholic, part is evangelical (I'm pretty sure I'm the only atheist), but even tho the crentes are known for being annoying about their religion, my relatives are very chill and don't really bring it up unsolicited (at least I don't remember it happening), so I can't say I have had a bad interaction with crentes outside the internet, where they are very annoying, specially because a lot of them tend to just go to comment sections to preach and spread hate towards lgbt people out of nowhere.
There's also the very big problem of pedophile pastors here in Brasil.
::: spoiler CW: Pedophilia Just recently I listened to an audio of a pastor talking to a child, I don't remember if her age comes up in the conversation, but I'm pretty sure she was very young, where the pastor is asking her to come to his house to abuse her, even saying that she should lie to her grandma about it saying that she is just going to the house of a friend from the church.
This shit made my stomach turn upside down the moment I started listening to the audio. :::
I don't have much experience with people from other religions, mostly I know a couple of muslims, but I'm not against religion in the sense that it should be prohibited, because I think everyone should be free to have and exercise their own beliefs. I'm against it in the sense that it is used as a tool to control people, and I think it will mostly wither away when people's needs are met since religion serves as a way to socialize and feel part of a community for a lot of people. But I could be wrong on this, since socialist states like Cuba have a very big christian population.
I think the way China deals with religion is probably the way. You allow people to exercise their beliefs, to carry their religious texts and symbols, to have their temples and churches and religious places, but you don't allow for public preaching and the state has the last say in it, maintaining it under constant supervision.
Just a side note about abusers: they will position themselves anywhere that gives some sense of authority over vulnerable populations, religious orgs, boys/girls clubs, police, government, nursing homes, politics, charities; and while some is intentional, some do it on some base, low-level, unconscious instinct, that is there is no prefrontal executive function going on there, rather just some amygdala level stuff. And the animal instinct people may be easier to rehab, in a better world.
Each respective religion spoke the truth of it's time and place, now it's burden on society.
Religion is an integral part of the identity and culture of any human society; a natural byproduct of a community that arises from the specific social conditions attained by human civilization and also an inherent extension of our own imaginative capabilities, general curiosity, and longing for purpose.
On its own religion arises & develops naturally and, if left alone, is ultimately harmless in and of itself.
The worst examples of religion we think of all stem from a common source: the deliberate interference in religious practices & teachings by authorities seeking to weaponize faith as a method of public control. From here develops clericalism and dogma to further those aims through class warfare by the priestly class against the laity leading to inquisitions, crusades, excommunications, human sacrifice, witch trials, and similar atrocities to cement the clergy's temporal authority in the absence of actual divine anointment.
Anti-theism is an overreaction to this phenomenon in much the same way technophobia & primitivism is an overreaction to industrialization & technological advancement.
Atheism is a bourgeois invention that exploits the principles of rationalism to facilitate the further deconstruction of human culture, morality, and community - all of which interact directly with and are influenced religion - in order to further reduce people into simple workers & consumers by annihilating their humanity.
Secularism is a product of capitalism falsely advertised as a kind of neutrality but in fact simply enforces atheism as the default. Instead of dismantling theocracy it replaces it with corporations instead of churches, oligarchs in place of preachers, legalism instead of dogma, the state in place of god, prison in place of hell, wealth instead of paradise.
Religion is here to stay. It exists under socialism, will exist under communism, and will persist into whatever comes afterwards. It is as much a part of human culture as music, poetry, and other kinds of art.
Religion is as natural and integral part of our society as serial killers are, they happen due to determinate conditions as you said but that does not make them a law of nature. At some point each respective religion spoke some truth of it's time but we are long past the point of looking at spiritualism for answers when we have proven through the advance of science that the world and it's laws are knowable, at this point it's frankly absurd to think otherwise.
Is this for real? This read like a copy pasta making fun of communists, are you not mixing things up? IT is the communists the ones that have been historically known for being the filthy godless enemies of religion, there is straight up propaganda comic strips called The godless communists. Bourgeois democracies are all secular in name only, they all enjoy the pacifying benefits of religion and make sure it is widely promoted among it's subjects.
https://redsails.org/on-the-question-of-religion/
Ok so lets look at these part by part. First it feels like I JUST stopped playing wack-a-mole with to be a Communist you must be an atheist so this is new. Second, full discloser I have been both a Communist and an Athiest most of my life. With those dislcosers out of the way lets move onto the reply
Ok so religion is an "integral part of the identity and culture of any human society" I mean first I take issue with the notion that it is intigral. Lets look at all 5 AES nations, they are secular, religion plays no part in the running of the state, heck most nations run as secular, either defacto or dejure. "[religion is]a natural byproduct of a community that arises from the specific social conditions attained by human civilization" So was fudelism, capitalism, slavery, none of these where necessarily good nor things that we would argue are still esental. No part of that argument requires that Religion is something that is needed, just that it formed and it had a function. "also an inherent extension of our own imaginative capabilities, general curiosity, and longing for purpose." Ok use your creativity to solve problems, Use your curiosity to learn more, to expand your horizions and to learn more, and make your own purpose, life dose not give you a quest log that you can check off, and you do not need to have someone tell you.
"On its own religion arises & develops naturally and, if left alone, is ultimately harmless in and of itself." I know I came off harsh in that last paragraph, so let me say there is nothing inherently wrong with being religious. Your morals are yours and I care what you belive is right and wrong. I am not sure I would phrase it as "ultimately harmless" I also do not understand what you mean with "religion arises & develops naturally" I am not sure how to tell you this but all religions can be said to have done that. Humans as a part of nature are the only controlling force on religions, we are also, so far as we know the only part of nature that has religion, so you cannot say if it develops naturally, while leaving out anything that was done with religion, as you mentioned in your previous paragraph religion cannot be divorced from the social and cultural pressures it is in.
"The worst examples of religion we think of all stem from a common source: the deliberate interference in religious practices & teachings by authorities seeking to weaponize faith as a method of public control." First how is this not natural? this has been the development of religion and this sounds a little like special pleading that any and all issues have stemmed from this. "From here develops clericalism and dogma the ... and similar atrocities to cement the clergy’s temporal authority in the absence of actual divine anointment." Citation needed. Also you are arguing that there is a divine anointment, however you first need to show that clame to be something for someone who is not religious to take that seriously. Who did act with Devin anointment? John Brown? and are we saying that because we agree with his actions or are we saying that because there is something we know for certan.
"Anti-theism is an overreaction to this phenomenon in much the same way technophobia & primitivism is an overreaction to industrialization & technological advancement." Ok so I am going to say charitably when you say Anti-theism you are referring to people who are vehemently anti-religion, the folks who call every religion a cult. I say this because there is no good standard usage of terms, and anti-theist could refer to an athiest who found that word first or thought atheist was co-opted some how, or someone who BELIEVES there is no god instead of not believing there is a god. Yeah its a strong reaction, but also is it any more or less valid a stance than believing for certain there is a god. " "Atheism is a bourgeois invention that exploits the principles of rationalism to facilitate the further deconstruction of human culture" Citation needed agian please. Lets not forget that most of the early communists where super athiest, due in no small part due to the church and religions role in keeping the working class down, need I not remind you the "religion is the opied of the masses,morality, and community " quote. Are we going to say here, that the United States, a highly religious country with religious nationalism surging has a flurishing culture? That we have a strong sense of community, stronger than that of the PRC, or that the USA is more moral? Or what about the splits in religion to defend slavery. As my very catholic aunt likes to point out the bible never condems slavery, it just puts guide rails on it."all of which interact directly with and are influenced religion" There is a whole body of work on Secular morality, Religion when it is present can be a part of culture but culture exists outside of religion, and community, you are aware that there are none religious communities right? "in order to further reduce people into simple workers & consumers by annihilating their humanity." First please look up Secular Humanism I beg of you, second no that is capitalism that in effect reduces that, also agian are you teling me that it is more expected that the USA does not break people down to workers and consumers more so than the PRC? is that what you are telling me is expected? " "Secularism is a product of capitalism falsely advertised as a kind of neutrality but in fact simply enforces atheism" Secularism does not enforce athiesm, yes it requrest the state act without Religion, however if that where not to be the case what religion do you chose instead? How? "Instead of dismantling theocracy it replaces it with corporations instead of churches, oligarchs in place of preachers, legalism instead of dogma, the state in place of god, prison in place of hell, wealth instead of paradise." You are almost discribing liberalism, in the civil religion point of view that not everyone subscribes to. It also is not a theocracy, that word has a meaning.
"Religion is here to stay. It exists under socialism, will exist under communism." This is probably the only thing I can agree with in what you said, atleast in sentiment, Relgion is generaly a none issue, and so you can be religious, every AES state that exists and all that Former Socialist states enshrined the free practice of religion. Will it never die, I am not sure about that, I could see a world where it fades, as the need for it stops, or I could see just adherents fade, or I could see it continuing but to argue as you did that it is an Essential part i find is in great error. "It is as much a part of human culture as music, poetry, and other kinds of art." And yet religions with just as much prominence as what we have today have come and gone, there is no reason to think that what we have now is for some reason eternal
How does religion develop naturally and be left alone when it's inextricably tied to reality, especially when the only societies that have existed for the past several millennia were class societies?
Also, how do we reconcile materialism and the militant atheism that's been part of the foundation of ML parties with atheism being a bourgeois invention to flatten people into soulless automata?
I've been having a crisis of faith in dialectical materialism lately, especially the latter part. I've been an atheist for my entire adult life and all I have to show for it is empty comfort and self hatred. I've seen the downright miraculous transformations people have when they re-establish their relationship with God. It's indisputable proof that God exists, that He cares for us, and that the evangelists the reddit atheists would always argue with were right: only a fool says in his heart there is no God. Why should anyone treat the material as primary, let alone all that exists?Yet, as far as I can tell, this is incompatible with Marxism-Leninism. Even people who are both religious and committed MLs, like Lady Izdihar, offer explanations that try to reconcile the two that aren't convincing to me.Update: Everything past the first two paragraphs was basically a mini-crashout. I've been having my bouts of intense rumination, irrationality, and hopelessness increasingly often. For the most part I've at least had the good sense not to post through it, but I made that mistake when I made this comment. I think I need to get away from social media (even the FOSS kind) for a pretty long time.
For what it's worth, regarding the "God" question, I find the idea of its existence to be ridiculous if I put in even the tiniest amount of thought about it, but the overwhelming majority of people I have to interact with in real life take it seriously. It gets to the point where I start thinking I must be the wrong one if so many people disagree with me, and the mental stress of trying to jam the square peg of society's belief into the triangular hole of my mind makes me desperately try to convince myself something is true even if I fundamentally cannot believe it.
These are genuinely good questions. I'm trapped at work for the next 8 hours but when I have more time I'll try to respond to them with the effort they deserve.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Sorry for the late response. Meant to get to this much earlier.
Classless societies have existed all throughout history and there is no evidence for a lack of religion in any of them. I'm not sure where you got the idea that a classless society has never existed before because that simply isn't the case. One of my personal favorite examples is also one of the earliest civilizations: the Indus Valley civilization. Despite extensive archaeology no evidence for a class system has been produced as of yet and everything currently points to a lack of stratification entirely, though there is evidence of religious rituals. It endured for several thousand years. Even if no class society had ever existed there doesn't necessarily mean that religion is tied specifically to the class system; that would be assuming correlation equals causation. It's also disproven by the modern incarnation of class societies which has been heavily moving away from religious-oriented cultures, oftentimes deliberately eroding faith over time. Where religion hasn't been totally removed from society it has been either weakened to the point of feebleness or coopted by capital for its own ends.
That's the point of self-criticism: to find and analyze flaws and correct them.
Hakim states it best in his video on the mistakes of former socialism where he points out that while it was good and necessary to weaken the authority of clerical institutions that opposed socialism and worked with reactionary forces this didn't need to translate to the outright persecution of religion entirely and that by doing so the socialist state positioned itself as an enemy of all religious people - including deeply religious proles. Seeing as proles tend to be the most religious demographic by far it doesn't help our movement to be openly hostile to their personal, spiritual beliefs - particularly when this beliefs compliment our own materialist ideology rather than conflict with it. "Jesus was a socialist" might be a meme but the reality of Jesus and his teachings is that they are in fact quite compatible - complimentary, even - with a socialist system and there's no point in alienating Christian proles by telling them their religion is fake. Being spiritual is not the same as being anti-materialist. Most people in fact are quite materialist in their thinking and way of life, including incredibly religious people, and there's no benefit to them or us by creating unnecessary friction between our ideology and their religion when it doesn't need to exist.
I actually have a similar issue, being gnostic myself.
The way I see it: this life is only temporary. Whether there is or isn't something waiting for us afterwards I can find no reason not to make the material world we live in as enjoyable for ourselves as possible. If we're to exist here, in this place, for a certain amount of time we might as well make the best of it by living a life worth living and if whatever evil systems in this world are getting in the way of that then we should prioritize destroying them and replacing them with something better so that we can finally enjoy our time on this Earth.
Because it's not. Every single person at birth is atheist, you have to convince people to believe it. There's no evidence of a "soul".
Unfortunately, this is exactly how all religion spreads: through testimony, not evidence. "I prayed and god did this thing for me/I felt better/felt his holy presence", people go through these "miraculous transformations", and that automatically means god exists, because I felt a thing and I read a book that said a thing.
Because there's no evidence for it otherwise.
That's because it is. It's just idealism, with no basis in reality and MLs work in material reality. I don't understand people who try and shoehorn religion into MLism, it's just cope. I guess you can fit anything into religion if you ignore all the parts about god being a genocidal monster, controlling women, etc. but at that point why even bother with it anymore? Again, just cope.
I'd say a fool is one who is ready and willing to believe in unfalsifiable claims with insufficient evidence.
You may want to read around Ibn Rushd. Secularism has been reappropriated by capital in the West but is not bound by it. It has religious and non-religious flavours. If you would like me to expand on that then please let me know.
That's an interesting perspective. I would like to hear more about it.
Ibn Rushd could be considered the father of secularism reappropriated by the West.
Essentially, during the Islamic Golden age (roughly 8-9th to 14th century) there was an apparent religious contradiction that most major institutional religions (including Abrahamic and Dharmic) had to square: the ongoing scientific/proto-scientific discoveries that developed technologies (and used to consolidate power) and the divine immutablity of scriptures (of which was used as justification for the concentration of power) reflecting feudal politico-economies.
Ibn Rushd, who was a deeply religious Islamic scholar, proposed a solution of what was perceived later in the west as a separation of "philosophy" (which back then, and even now with dialectical materialism, was science/proto-science) and religion. What he actually proposed was more explicitly dialectical than that; instead he explained there is a relationship between the two with one feeding the other to and fro, all under divine guidance, which as human beings we understand as the synthesis of the above two factors. And he grounded that in the scientific discoveries at that time (an early materialist approach). He would then propose if this contradicted the interpretation of the liturgical scriptures then it was the religious interpretation that was incorrect and in those parts a more allegorical or metaphorical understanding was the true revelation.
Most religions would consider blasphemy as the one of the worst sins, because if you did any sin but said it was done under the name of their deity then it was that much more worse. However, most religions had dialectic philosophers - interpretations of their faith which involved to better understand the divinity of their deity they needed to better understand their material world around them. How to discover science without being blasphemous was the philosphical fine line that gave birth to secularism. The degree that this discovery of science/proto-science was amplified, however, was filtered by the material constraints of the socio-politico-economic systems of those times.
Modern Western Secularism, accelerated afrer the so-called Enlightenment (which actually is a product of the dominant mode of production going from feudalism to capitalism; the material always comes before the idea), is often equated to state promotion of atheism where in reality it is a pseudo-neutrality with overwhelming preference of practice of domestic and foreign policy in favour of White Supremacist imperialist politics (with some parallels in how Constantinople repurposed Roman pagan gods for Catholic Saints) - in sharp contrast some of the Eastern approaches which is in more in-keeping with the religious neutrality (eg Mughal India or PRC especially post-Mao). The apparent communist purging of religion in the early stages of socialist development in the USSR and PRC was because those forms of religion held on to feudal and capitalist vestiges, and therefore the religious reaction often found themselves aligning with foreign powers against the dictatorship of the proleteriat.
Relgion often reflects the politico-economy. To use Catholicism as an example, contrast the catholicism in Cuba or liberation theology of South America with the catholcism of the USA, Germany and France. And in a similar vein "athiesm" also reflects socio-political economies - see for example the "secularism" of the West vs how it is practised in Cuba or China.
If you wanted one phrase that encapsulates the differences in secularism between the west and socialist countries it's this: dialectical materialism. Socialist countries are dialectical materialist in the approach where as the capitalist countries aren't just not dialectial materialist, they actviely promote anti-dialectical-materialism (though they don't use, or in most cases not even cognizant of, that vernacular).
Hope the above helped
Extremely interesting perspective, thank you. I have to admit it makes a lot of sense and is a very convincing argument.
Seriously, thank you for this.
Lmfao we're all born atheist, how tf can it be an invention of any kind????
How is someone "born" atheist?
Athiesm is just a lack of belief on god, for any reason weather that be it an inability to belive or lack of knoledge of the consept of a god. Given a newborn baby, so far as we can tell does not believe on a god, it would be an athiest by default. We can agree no choice was made, that doesn't change that because the baby doesn't have a belief in a god it isnt a thiest so its an athiest. That is just how the word is defined, not a thiest
I will admit I find that it is an unhelpful point, however it does negate it being an invention of capital.
The best way to discribe it is how an old friend and mentor said it "I dont like saying I am an athiest that doesn't say anything about me, all it says is I dont belive in a god, I prefer humanist, because that says something about me and what I belive"
Atheism is the rejection of theism; not the absence of it. Being an atheist isn't the same as being irreligious. Lacking any concept of religion an infant is brought into this world an agnostic; ignorant of religion and thus incapable of rejecting it.
Irreligion has always existed but atheism is a very modern idea that originates from modern conditions; specifically the weakening of theocratic authority to pave the way for a secular order that is more agreeable to bourgeois interests.
I am sorry but you are quite mistaken. Athism while it does incompas rejection of theism doesn't require that rejection, by its deffinition all it requires is a lack of belief in a god, no more. As you can tell that is a very wide spectrum, and doesn't answer very much about what a person is or isnt, all it says is they do not believe in a god.
Your going to have to specify your term here Irreligion is not I belive the common usage, there are athiestic religions (religions that do not belive in a god). Also need I remind you that the foundational work of marxism wasn't just done by athiests but by those who did have an oposition to religion "Religion is the opied of the masses" and is abke to keep them dosile and controlled for bourgeois intrests.
As I mentioned to you in my first reply, secularism isnt a bad thing, it is a position of not imposing apon people a religion, of you want a theocracy forst why, second of what religion and prove that one is both true and moral.
Lastly agnostic, as I am sure you know looking at your bio, is not a claim of belief but a claim of knowledge, you say you are gnostic, I assume by your argumenation a gnostic theist, and if I venture a little farther I would bet protistant Christian, though the last one is a stab in the dark with no real evidence. Your Gnostism is a claim of knolge. You can be an agnostic theist, dont know do belive, an agnostic athiest, dont know dont belive, or a Gnostic Athiest, do know (there is no god in this case) dont belive
They are brought into the world not beliving because they dont even know that is a consept to belive in, therefor they are a kind of agnostic athiest by pure deffiniton
Maybe it's just me but I don't find that a useful definition for the word given how broad it is. In order to have a belief in something you have to have knowledge of it. Likewise for disbelief, since that is the rejection of belief.
"Irreligion" means to have no religion.
I believe you might be confusing terms here as "atheistic religion" isn't the correct terminology IIRC. That should be "non-theistic" religion, which refers to the absence of deities in a religion as that is the meaning of non-theistic. Atheism is the specific rejection of the existence of deities and I can't think of any religion that says "there are no gods" either outright or through implication, though there are many which don't have them as part of their general practice or belief.
I think you've also misunderstood Marx's critique of religion. Yes, he was opposed to it. But unless I missed something he never argued it made people docile or easily controllable. Even if he had this has been demonstrably disproven. Religion can be used to control masses but it can also be used to liberate or unite masses. This is why the Soviets revitalized the Orthodox faith during the German invasion; religion itself is not an inherently reactionary force. And again - unless I missed something, and you're free to correct me if I have - Marx didn't condemn religion for being a tool of bourgeois oppression but rather ascribed it as a coping mechanism for the oppressed. Specifically he compared it to opium because of the drug's medicinal properties combined with its addictiveness. His view was that religion was the reflection of a people's soul and that it was through religion they were able to stomach otherwise unbearable circumstances and because of this that it would gradually fade away under the conditions of socialism & communism as material conditions improved. I disagree with this personally, but that's another discussion altogether. Regardless pointing out that atheists contributed heavily to the development of Marxism is rather redundant. For one thing not all early Marxists were atheists; for another many early Marxists still held racist and patronizing views towards non-Europeans yet it would be wrong to say that Marxism is inherently racist, xenophobic, or white supremacist. Marxism has (mostly) moved beyond these views just as it has its previous views on queer people and women. Early Marxists did not have complete or even consistent views on a lot of topics and that is why the development of Marxist theory & analysis persist to this day.
I oppose theocracy, thank you very much.
My views of secularism aren't that it's an inherently bad thing but that it isn't the adequate solution to the problem. On the surface it appears - as you say - to be the refusal to impose a religion on anyone and that idea is one I can agree with in theory. In practice this has not been the case; what has occurred is either the preference for one religion over others with a veneer of neutrality or the persecution of all religions equally. I don't find either circumstance to be desirable. Secularism was conceived as an answer to the problem of theocracy but that problem did not always exist and is almost uniquely a consequence of Abrahamic religious traditions and their trend toward theocratic governance, something which originates with the development of Judaism from a polytheistic religion, to a monolatric religion, to finally a monotheist religion as the priests in the cult of Yahweh consolidated further power for themselves and dethroned the rest of the Israelite pantheon. My gripe with secularism is that it tries to solve an artificial problem with an artificial solution instead of combating the problem at the source: clericalism & dogma.
I think you're interpreting "gnosticism" a little too literally. Gnosticism is about pursuing gnosis; not already possessing it. Achieving gnosis is the goal of the gnostic, just as achieving communism is the goal of the communist.
I don't consider myself to be a Christian anymore. I left behind that identity due to a combination of factors ranging from a hostility to my socialist beliefs, to my grappling with my gender identity, to disagreements in morality. Christians made it clear they would not welcome me because of these irreconcilable differences and that the best I could hope to receive was a very patronizing "love the sinner, hate the sin" attitude that I found to be even more insulting than outright hostility. I was not and still am not someone needing to be "fixed" or "saved" and my refusal to accept their constant gaslighting on this issue ultimately diminished my actual faith in the broader Christian theology. My current position on Christ is that he was an enlightened man but not a messiah of any kind and certainly not a divine figure.
See, I have to disagree with this simply because "agnostic atheist" is just a paradoxical term. Atheism does in fact require rejecting the belief in something and because of that you can't simultaneously be ignorant of something (agnostic) and rejecting it (atheist) at the same time. It's an oxymoronic term.
What a banger line.
Fwiw I really appreciate the way in which you present your thoughts. I'm completely in agreement with your take on religion, as well as your understanding of Marx and his contemporaries regarding this issue, and also your use of terminology.
Before I start my apollogies for formatting and lack of links, I am away from my computer.
I also want to offer that my DMs both here and on matrix are open, I have found that occasionally a public forum is not always the most condusive to a conversation like this.
On your first point, it is a very broad term, as I said earlier, it tells you essentially nothing about a person, and is only in any way a used term due to the drastic previlance of theists. Once agian I am a Humanist and that will tell you WAYYYYY more about me than me saying I am an athiest. Athiestism doesn't require a disbelief, just not having a belief.
Ok so you where using the standard deffinition. However athiestic religion is a term that is used. The one I know most about is the Satanic Temple, who expressly rejects the idea of the devine, and uses the term to discribe themselves, From what I have learned about budism, it too does not require divinity so would reach the deffinition of anthistic religion. United Church of Canada has found that to be a member, or even clurgy in the church you need not have any belief in a god or gods. To your point on athiesm agian, Athiesm makes no claim other than a lack of belief, it does not inharently exlude its possibility. Athiesm only says "I do not belive there is a god or gods" no rejection, as you seem to keep asserting.
Marx and early Marxist writers did both say that religion was used as a tool of capital, and kept the working class more dosile, some going so far as to say it in incompatible with marxism. Now I have argued that it isnt correct both here and on the GZD matrix, but that doesn't change that it precludes your idea thag athiesm is a tool or invention of the ruling class (also please note you cannot invent a lack of belief). Also every AES nation is secular, a notion you argued is incompatible with marxism.
I am glad to hear ypu oppose theocracy, however you have consistantly railed aganst the idea of secularism, including that it is opression of religious people, it is not, and that it is inharently a tool of the capitalist class, agian its not, please see how every AES nation is secular, even cuba who is ~96% roman Catholic, and Fedel Castro said that he would say he is Christian, none of that precluded a secular state.
I feel your view that theocracy is unique to Abrahamic religions, is Western centric, there have been theocracies in asia, from none abrahamic religions that have the same or similar issues. The issues with theocracy are not unique to monotheism, and in many ways come down to running a state, or or organization through a religion.
Asside from my gripe that secularism, even in practice in many places on the planet do not require or posess opression of religion or religious, and your fraiming in many ways are akin to saying that republicanism (not having a monarchy) is bad because in the United States not only does it represent the people as the idea says, but the united states harms its people more than Denmark or Communist Grenada, both being monarchies. Or that the idea of Democracy is bad because there is a better corilation between the will of the people and the choices of the government in Qatar is better than that of the United states.
For your last point you keep referring?to athiesim as a rejection and agian it very much does not require that, it isn't even disbelief it is a lack of belief. Once you understand that, once you understand that there is very little that makes athiests a group other than we are for one reason or another, not theists, this willake more sense. Lots of confusion is stemming from, your using the word wrong
When you are born, you have no beliefs nor belief systems, they have to be taught to you.
That is agnosticism, not atheism.
Agnosticism and Gnosticism are claims of knowing your belief not the belief, a baby would be an agnostic (doesn't know if a god exists) athiest (doesn't belive a god exists) sure its meaningless at this point because the baby doesn't even know about the conspt of a god to be able to belive or disbelive, no information of this baby has been shared this is by default because ot doesn't know enough to change either state
Right, which is my point: we're all born agnostic as we haven't been exposed to the concept of religion yet and thus cannot make the decision to believe (theism) or disbelieve (atheism).
It would be agnostic athiest, no knowledge of if god exists AND you lack a belief in god.
As I have said many many times athieism isnt a disbilef its a lack of one. A baby does not belive in a god or gods SO BY DEFFINITION they must be an athiest. If someone grew up their whole life never hearing about the idea of a god or gods, and lacks a belief in god they are still an athiest, because thats the deffinition, a lack of a belief in god or gods.
Agnostism and Gnostism are not matters in that discussion.
Wrong. Agnosticism has to do with knowledge. Atheism has to do with belief.
Yes, exactly my point. An infant has no knowledge of religion or religious concepts. They don't disbelieve (atheism) because they have no understanding of the concept and until they've been exposed to the concept they can't reject it. There is a difference between knowingly rejecting something and not knowing about it in the first place.
Once again, atheism isn't "disbelief" it's the "lack of belief", they're two different things. You have to be convinced that there is any sort of deity. Atheism is also the default position, because it doesn't make any claims, whereas theism makes a positive claim.
I'm with you, actually.
It's dialectical. Atheism and theism are contradictions, each contains its opposite, so in order for someone to be an atheist they have to define their beliefs in contradiction to theism.
A- without Theist believing in a deity
Belief requires knowledge. You can't disbelieve something if you've never been exposed to the concept.
I offer you can't believe without having exposure to the concept. What meaning does red, blue, green hold for someone born blind without hope for vision?
That's what I'm saying though? Without exposure to the concept you can't believe or disbelieve in it. Ergo no one can be "born" an atheist as they haven't been exposed to the concept of theism yet and thus cannot believe or disbelieve it until they do.
I'm saying there's no G-d belief because there's nothing to believe. After introduction, there is something to consider.