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
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.
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.
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
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
I’m not sure I follow?
🤷
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.