• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

atheism and morality

Audie

Veteran Member
I'll just shoot straight here... no facetiousness, sarcasm, rhetoricals, etc.

Are you of the opinion that "godless communism" can be pinned on "atheism?" And specifically within the confines of this thread, do you believe that any deaths that we might count as victims of "godless communism" can be also attributed to "atheism?"

Not other than that commies tend to be or claim atheism.

So a soldier choosing to fight for communism is at least
in some degree fighting for freedom from religious oppression.

In that small degree I could find common cause with them.
But then I have not experienced religious oppression.


I have family members who were displaced, and
far worse, by Mao. I've no enthusiasm for communism
or Imperialism-my family has suffered under both.
 
Last edited:

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
An impossible to achieve ideal vs an evil system that also
cannot exist. Goodness.
Granted, our reach exceeds our grasp, but abandoning our idealism on the grounds of impracticality just maintains the status quo. it impedes humanistic progress.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Granted, our reach exceeds our grasp, but abandoning our idealism on the grounds of impracticality just maintains the status quo. it impedes humanistic progress.

I was objecting to setting up two hypothetical -
impossible up in opposition as if that meant something.

As for idealism, sure, try to make things better.
How will you make things how much better for who?
Laws, regulations, social programs, free stuff,
forbid skirts, teach only creationism, implement
"no child left behind"?

Misguided idealism, failure to consider unintended
consequences can be disasterous. As can be
"cargo cult" social programs with all the window
dressing of good, and no substance.

Idealistic social engineers have brought far worse
devastation to the world than any amount of any
kind of capitalism.

As actual practical force for good, I will take
capitalism any day over "idealists".
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I think we need to consider the basic tenets of communism/socialism before declaring it irreparably evil just because a couple of tyrannic, authoritarian states pretended to be pro social. Wouldn't most people prefer to live under a compassionate system dedicated to human rights and happiness, rather than a heartless, dog-eat-dog, sink or swim, capitalism?

Here's what we know:

Communistic states have repeatedly degenerated into brutal authoritarian regimes and cults of personality, the liberal socialist states seem to have the highest happiness index scores, and regulated capitalism is a powerful engine for innovation, efficiency, and industry.

So, a mix of regulated capitalism and socialism seems optimal.

In my opinion, capitalism doesn't make people greedy. Greedy people come to capitalism, some with no conscience. They now characterize America's Republican party and define Congress and the White House, and America is returning to deregulated capitalism, which is a monster that leads to bank bailouts, the concentration of wealth, pollution of the land, air and water, gutting the middle class and the social safety net, unsafe workplaces, etc..

Did you see this from Carson, Trump Move to Hurt People in Public Housing by Tripling Their Rent ? Capitalism isn't responsible. This is indicative of the moral failure of a nation.

"Tenants generally pay 30 percent of their adjusted income toward rent or a public housing agency minimum rent — which is capped at $50 a month for the poorest families. The administration’s proposal sets the family monthly rent contribution at 35 percent of gross income, or 35 percent of their earnings working 15 hours a week at the federal minimum wage. Under the proposal, the cap for the poorest families would rise to about $150 a month — three times higher than the current minimum. About 712,000 households would see their rents rise to the new monthly minimum of $150, HUD officials said.

"Housing advocates criticized the proposal as “cruel hypocrisy,” coming on the heels of tax breaks to wealthy Americans and corporations. And that is precisely what it is. They moved heaven and earth to make sure that the richest Americans got a massive tax cut, sold on the lie that it would boost the economy and pay for itself, now they’re using the lack of tax revenue that they created to justify cruel cuts in housing assistance for the poorest Americans."​
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Apparently some people think atheism is a defining feature of communist systems, or, perhaps, vice-versa

Atheism seems to be stuck onto Communism in an ad hoc manner. There is no reason apparent to me why the entire philosophy can't include god, churches, and religions. Religious communes like the Jonestown in Guyana and the Branch Davidians would be a perfect example.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Atheism seems to be stuck onto Communism in an ad hoc manner. There is no reason apparent to me why the entire philosophy can't include god, churches, and religions. Religious communes like the Jonestown in Guyana and the Branch Davidians would be a perfect example.
A better example, I think, would be the Hutterite religious communities, which hold all things in common, including goods, property and financial assets. Their communities are almost textbook communist, yet deeply religious.
 

Samantha Rinne

Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
A better example, I think, would be the Hutterite religious communities, which hold all things in common, including goods, property and financial assets. Their communities are almost textbook communist, yet deeply religious.

The essential difference between communism and something like that, however, is that communism always has a warped belief that it is okay to mandate sharing.

They had an object lesson in why communism fails, as shown by a bar tab deal.

A few guys go into a bar, after work. They are different salary workers but they hang out together. Here's how it goes.

Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59. 
So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20." Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. 

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a100% saving).
The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).
The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).
The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).
The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).
And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving). 
Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free. 

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!" 
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a £1 too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!" 

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" 

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. 

The next week the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important - they didn't have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill! 

"But but, in a REAL communism they would all make the same," you say. No. They all get forced to make the same.

Many communisms wound up being a bloodbath. Take a wild guess why. People didn't want to lose their money.

A situation like the Hutterites have works because it operates on pooled resources, not on forced sharing. As in, they are not paying their earnings, they are simply sharing their wealth alike.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Let's not forget the Marxist creed which is atheistic and wishes to outlaw religion.


Are atheists marxists / communists?
No? Then your statement is irrelevant.


Hi, I'm an atheist. I'm also a humanist who loves secular democray and capitalism and a free market.


Let's not forget why totalitarian regimes like communism like we see in North Korea don't like religions.

The likes of Kim Jung Un don't want their subjects to be worshipping somebody else then him.
 

Samantha Rinne

Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
Are atheists marxists / communists?
No? Then your statement is irrelevant.


Hi, I'm an atheist. I'm also a humanist who loves secular democray and capitalism and a free market.

Let's not forget why totalitarian regimes like communism like we see in North Korea don't like religions.

The likes of Kim Jung Un don't want their subjects to be worshipping somebody else then him.

Yes, some atheists do believe in capitalism and prosperity. It's a correlation, not a law.

Atheists governments on the other hand tend towards oppression, for the exact reason you mentioned. When you're an atheist, you can potentially live for yourself, do your own thing and still recognize what seems like a good thing. When you also rule others, things like wanting to be the supreme authority in their life get in the way.
 

Remté

Active Member
.
The likes of Kim Jung Un don't want their subjects to be worshipping somebody else then him.
A religious atmosphere would not be convenient with all the moral, ethical and sociological obligations that come with it.

I have noticed severe moral decay in both atheists and theists.
 

JChnsc19

Member
It's not atheism that is illegal but pronouncing it.

I don't believe atheists don't believe in God.

A man with God within him is morally more correct while a man with no God in him is always corrupt.

If a person says he does not believe in a God I take him to be such a fool he could not possibly be left to judge the coming days with his profound nasal intuition.
Which god?
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
I think we need to consider the basic tenets of communism/socialism before declaring it irreparably evil just because a couple of tyrannic, authoritarian states pretended to be pro social.

Wouldn't most people prefer to live under a compassionate system dedicated to human rights and happiness, rather than a heartless, dog-eat-dog, sink or swim, capitalism?

Well, when I think of capitalism, I mostly assess that I'll be part of the 1%.
And now you're suggesting I share the hard-earned millions I just daydreamed into my theoretical bank account with the unwashed masses? Really? How would I explain the to my uber hot imaginary supermodel girlfriend?

She'll take my future NBA star son (Boston, of course) and my daughter who will one day cure cancer (and turn a tidy profit in doing so) and probably not leave me more than a couple of mansions and a Porsche.

All I can say is 'Back off, man...'
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Yes, some atheists do believe in capitalism and prosperity. It's a correlation, not a law.

It's not even a correlation.
One has literally no connection at all with the other.

It's like trying to draw a relationship between political preference and having a mustache.

Perhaps think about all the "public militant atheist" figures you know of today: Dawkins, Krauss, Shermer, Matt Dilahunty, Dennet, Sam Harris, The Hitch, etc etc etc.



Atheists governments on the other hand tend towards oppression

Every secular govnerment is in effect an atheist government, since all of them completely ignore religions in their policies. It's literally in their constitution.

, for the exact reason you mentioned

I did not mention such nonsense at all.
What I actually said was that the cruelty of countries like north korea comes from totalitarian communism.

Do you know what the people of North Korea are expected to believe about Kim Jung's family and Kim himself? Perhaps you should look it up. Doesn't sound very atheistic to me. They are essentially seen as gods.

Communism is essentially a state religion.

If you really believe that "being skeptical of theistic claims", is the problem in countries like north korea or soviet russia, then I don't know what to tell you.....................


When you're an atheist, you can potentially live for yourself, do your own thing and still recognize what seems like a good thing. When you also rule others, things like wanting to be the supreme authority in their life get in the way.

Right, because theocracies are not at all totalitarian regimes and are such wonderfull places where you can live in freedom peace and propserity :rolleyes:



(that was sarcasm, in case you didn't notice..... )
 
Last edited:

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
A religious atmosphere would not be convenient with all the moral, ethical and sociological obligations that come with it.

I absolutely agree.

After all, who would want to live in a nation where slavery is permissable?

I have noticed severe moral decay in both atheists and theists.

If you say so.
I have noticed the exact opposite.

Blacks no longer need to sit on a seperate bench, nore do they have to use seperate bathrooms.
Women today can vote, work and are allowed to do everything a male is allowed to do.
Slavery is no longer allowed.
Domestic violence is no longer tolerated.
Even animals have rights today.
Being gay is no longer illegal.
Etc etc.


I'ld say morals and ethics have never been as high as they are today in free humanistic secular democracies.

Perhaps you would like to return to a time where the above is reversed, but I certainly don't.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Well, when I think of capitalism, I mostly assess that I'll be part of the 1%.
And now you're suggesting I share the hard-earned millions I just daydreamed into my theoretical bank account with the unwashed masses? Really? How would I explain the to my uber hot imaginary supermodel girlfriend?

She'll take my future NBA star son (Boston, of course) and my daughter who will one day cure cancer (and turn a tidy profit in doing so) and probably not leave me more than a couple of mansions and a Porsche.

All I can say is 'Back off, man...'

As long as you pay fair taxes, I'ld say: enjoy your wealth.
The problem at the moment though, is that the tax system isn't fair.

I want to see a tax system that is fair, expressed in %

Like for example "everybody pays 20%"
If you earn 1000 bucks a month, you pay 200.
If you earn 10k, you pay 2k.
If you earn 1 million, you pay 200k.
If you earn 1 billion, you pay 200 million.

But the fact is that the opposite is happening. Procentually, the poor pay more then the rich. The rich also have the means to move their wealth overseas spread it out over multiple "holdings" etc to the point that it becomes almost impossible to find out who owns what and thereby they avoid paying the taxes they are due.


In that sense, capitalism is in need of some serious reform.


It's ok to judge capitalism from the perspective of the 1%.
But perhaps also evaluate what it looks like from the perspective of the other 99%
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
As long as you pay fair taxes, I'ld say: enjoy your wealth.
The problem at the moment though, is that the tax system isn't fair.

I want to see a tax system that is fair, expressed in %

Like for example "everybody pays 20%"
If you earn 1000 bucks a month, you pay 200.
If you earn 10k, you pay 2k.
If you earn 1 million, you pay 200k.
If you earn 1 billion, you pay 200 million.

But the fact is that the opposite is happening. Procentually, the poor pay more then the rich. The rich also have the means to move their wealth overseas spread it out over multiple "holdings" etc to the point that it becomes almost impossible to find out who owns what and thereby they avoid paying the taxes they are due.


In that sense, capitalism is in need of some serious reform.


It's ok to judge capitalism from the perspective of the 1%.
But perhaps also evaluate what it looks like from the perspective of the other 99%

Sorry, I know it's hard to tell on the internet. My tongue was firmly lodged in my cheek whilst posting that.

Not sure we've chatted before, welcome to RF!!
 
Top