The New Atheists: "Communists aren't atheists" and its wider social implications

[ImmortalFlame]

There is a whole thread dedicated to that: http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/atheist-terrorism.177991/#post-4335472

Again, I can't find any instance in this thread of anyone claiming that atheists "aren't capable of terrorism", just that atheism itself cannot be used as an ideological framework to justify terrorism.

I'm deeply reluctant to be drawn back into one of these discussions because of how bad my experience was in the past year. My views have "evolved" as a way to cope with the intensity of the disagreements.

I was reluctant to respond at first for this very reason, but it's one of those "I really feel the need to respond to these statements" kind of affairs. I hope responding to a post that is so old hasn't in any way presented an outdated view of your position.

The argument you have presented is based on asserting a definition of atheism as "lack of belief" or as you put it "atheism does not carry with it any inherent ideological framework from which to construct a position".

This is accurate.

There are much deeper issues at work here than a simple conflict over morals and definitions. There are very different kinds of atheism based on different methodologies and Epistemologies (understandings of knowledge and truth). Myself and @Augustus probably share a very different understanding of what atheism is to the rest of the forum, as we share a history of taking anti-theist and anti-religious positions. However, most people here would contend- as you do- that "atheism does not carry with it any inherent ideological framework".

The question is "who has the burden of proof?" and "what is proof" and this is where it breaks down:

The "weak atheists" who assert that atheism is "lack of belief" will take this discussion into the realm of linguistics, using the terminological make-up of atheism as a justification for their view. The problem with this view is that it is asserted as the "only" definition of atheism, as a pure and eternal meaning which is true at all places and at all times, thereby meaning that many members exclude any form of atheism that does not fit this definition. consequently, this is a highly selective view with a built in set of moral perscriptions about what atheism is and can be.

That is not any assertion I have ever seen made. Most atheists who assume the "lack of belief" definition regard it as the broadest definition of the term, not the only definition of the term. It is generally held as the default position because of the either/or nature of the belief dilemma, and defining atheism as an absence of belief sets up the dichotomy necessary for discussions of theism to take place; i.e: the debate should not be between the positions "God exists" and "God does not exist" with a large gap between, but between the positions "I believe God exists" and "I don't believe God exists", for the same reason that court cases are not determining guilt or innocence but guilty or not guilty.

The "strong atheists" will however look for the meaning of atheism based on it's philosophical and historical traditions.

Most strong atheists, at least on this forum, have the exact same broad definition of atheism. This is why they use the term "strong", to differentiate their position from the broader view.

It is a historical fact that Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were atheists. It is also a well established historical fact that the Marquis De Sade and Fredrich Nietzsche were atheists, who fundamentally challanged the moral nature of society because they rejected god's existence and therefore the ethics of a christian world. This method of defining atheism is a reflection of the materialist view that man created god; it follows that man also created words- and therefore their meaning must be sought in it's assocations and not just the abstract.

You haven't really provided the definition of atheism you are implying strong atheists use. I've rarely, if ever, seen strong atheists adopt a definition of atheism that necessary defined it along those historical lines.

I concede there is actually a third group of mystical and religious atheists (an existentialist is the best example), who use intitution as a means to gain "knowledge" of human experience and their atheism- but they are few and far between on RF (though I have dabbled occassionally). There were a handful of them amongst Communist ranks, known as the "god-builders" , but were disowned by the Marxist orthodoxy, which is why I know they exist.

I've had this discussion many times in the past year and my experience firmly establishes that "civil" debate is largely impossible on this subject because of how deep the differences are and how mutually blind each side is to the other position. this is really an "inter-atheist" holy war over what is the "true" atheism and I'm happy to "agree to disagree" and "co-exist" with other atheists on the forum. In practice discussing this subject is an invitation to open forum warfare in which one side tries to enforce their definition- and by implication their identity- on the other. simply because the "weak" atheists out number the "strong" atheists on the forum- they win. its actually really deeply hurtful when the mask of rationality slips and you realise that people are simply too disgusted to accept the "immorality" of your views as part of the club, nor are they willing to be honest about how intensely they dislike the "dark" side of atheism. instead they hide behind the definition and try to erase everything you believe from existence by refusing to recognise you even exist. it makes me pretty deeply angry and is one of the few subjects where I have "lost it" online. even as I'm writing this I am already simmering, so I'm just going to politely let you take the conversation from here and see where it goes.

I understand this, but the problem does not come from any redefinition of atheism. Nor does it spring from "disgust". The problem arises from people taking personal definitions and asserting them as objective, or refusing to accept other definitions as being valid. If you define your atheism differently, fine, but your personal definition isn't a reflection on the general concept of atheism, and the broad definition of atheism is just as justified a definition as any other - it is only that, the broadest definition. There's no disgust, or "intense dislike" implied by that definition. Nobody is trying to force their identity on someone else by pointing out to those who have a narrow definition of atheism that atheism can be defined along broader lines. It is a simple fact about what the word intrinsically or necessarily implies vs. what personal definition of the term people adopt. For the most part, atheists I have debated with are more than happy to accept that "atheism" as a term has a very broad and generalized definition that incorporates "strong" atheism, "weak" atheism, gnostic/agnostic atheism, and even some forms of deism (dependant usually on a deist's definition of a deity). There really isn't all that much to get worked-up over along as you make any difference between a broader definition and your personal definition apparent.

 

[Laika]

@Laika, I am sorry to drag you back to this, but since the clarification will have to be made at some point:

apology accepted.

"Weak" and "strong" atheism, despite superficial emotional associations, are not traditionally differentiated by any measures of motivation or meaning.

Weak atheism is a simple absence of belief in God, while strong atheism is the claim that God does not exist. That is all there is to it.

Ideologies and doctrines that may include atheism either accidentally or as a design parameter of course exist, but they are not atheism proper.

Even my dear anti-theism is not atheism proper. Nor is post-theism. Nor is communism.

They aren't superfical emotional associations, but represents very complicated philosophical differences. saying "there is a lack of evidence for god" has no implications in itself. saying "I consciously and deliberately reject the existence of god" has huge implications, as you aren't just rejecting god- but also anything that has historically been cliamed to originate from god. In the case of Nietzsche, if "god is dead", any moral system originating from god is also dead. This is why it is necessary to have an "ubermensch" who would create a new morality. In the case of the Marquis De Sade, asserting that man is the source of morality (not god) and that pleasure is good leads to questions as to whether the enjoyment of inflicting pain on others is therefore "good". I've chosen these as examples which are not connected with communist ideology specifically to demonstrate that communism is not an exceptional as a "political" ideology but that the same problem emerges in strong atheism.

It's the difference between someone saying "I'm going to celebrate christmas but it's doesn't mean anything" and the "I'm not going to celebrate christmas because I'm not perpetuating a ridiculous superstition". If you like, one of them will be giving presents, the other will start burning down the christmas tree.

 

[LuisDantas]

saying "I consciously and deliberately reject the existence of god" has huge implications, as you aren't just rejecting god- but also anything that has historically been claimed to originate from god.

But... is that strong atheism? I don't think so.

It feels a lot more militant and aware of said implications than strong atheism proper ever could be.

In the case of Nietzsche, if "god is dead", any moral system originating from god is also dead. This is why it is necessary to have an "ubermensch" who would create a new morality.

Fair enough. But still a logical extension of strong atheism, as opposed to strong atheism proper.

In the case of the Marquis De Sade, asserting that man is the source of morality (not god) and that pleasure is good leads to questions as to whether the enjoyment of inflicting pain on others is therefore "good". I've chosen these as examples which are not connected with communist ideology specifically to demonstrate that communism is not an exceptional as a "political" ideology but that the same problem emerges in strong atheism.

Strong atheism may well enable several ideologies and moral considerations and block others, but in and of itself it is rather simple and inconsequential. It is far too simple to be capable of having many problems on its own.

Communism, it seems to me, is plagued mostly from its centralist, authoritarian tendencies. That it happened to be nominally atheistic as well was just an accidental, inconsequential circunstance with little meaning or significance.

As for DeSade, well, he was just morally misguided. He is not representative of either atheism (assuming he was atheist at all) nor of non-theistic moral systems, which are many and varied and overall more worthy than theistic ones.

It's the difference between someone saying "I'm going to celebrate christmas but it's doesn't mean anything" and the "I'm not going to celebrate christmas because I'm not perpetuating a ridiculous superstition". If you like, one of them will be giving presents, the other will start burning down the christmas tree.

Then it seems to me that you are bothered not so much with atheism or any of its most direct spin-offs but rather with extremism and the responsibility of motivation and ideology.

 

[Laika]

Again, I can't find any instance in this thread of anyone claiming that atheists "aren't capable of terrorism", just that atheism itself cannot be used as an ideological framework to justify terrorism.


I was reluctant to respond at first for this very reason, but it's one of those "I really feel the need to respond to these statements" kind of affairs. I hope responding to a post that is so old hasn't in any way presented an outdated view of your position.


This is accurate.


That is not any assertion I have ever seen made. Most atheists who assume the "lack of belief" definition regard it as the broadest definition of the term, not the only definition of the term. It is generally held as the default position because of the either/or nature of the belief dilemma, and defining atheism as an absence of belief sets up the dichotomy necessary for discussions of theism to take place; i.e: the debate should not be between the positions "God exists" and "God does not exist" with a large gap between, but between the positions "I believe God exists" and "I don't believe God exists", for the same reason that court cases are not determining guilt or innocence but guilty or not guilty.


Most strong atheists, at least on this forum, have the exact same broad definition of atheism. This is why they use the term "strong", to differentiate their position from the broader view.


You haven't really provided the definition of atheism you are implying strong atheists use. I've rarely, if ever, seen strong atheists adopt a definition of atheism that necessary defined it along those historical lines.


I understand this, but the problem does not come from any redefinition of atheism. Nor does it spring from "disgust". The problem arises from people taking personal definitions and asserting them as objective, or refusing to accept other definitions as being valid. If you define your atheism differently, fine, but your personal definition isn't a reflection on the general concept of atheism, and the broad definition of atheism is just as justified a definition as any other - it is only that, the broadest definition. There's no disgust, or "intense dislike" implied by that definition. Nobody is trying to force their identity on someone else by pointing out to those who have a narrow definition of atheism that atheism can be defined along broader lines. It is a simple fact about what the word intrinsically or necessarily implies vs. what personal definition of the term people adopt. For the most part, atheists I have debated with are more than happy to accept that "atheism" as a term has a very broad and generalized definition that incorporates "strong" atheism, "weak" atheism, gnostic/agnostic atheism, and even some forms of deism (dependant usually on a deist's definition of a deity). There really isn't all that much to get worked-up over along as you make any difference between a broader definition and your personal definition apparent.

Thanks for taking the time to reply,

If I'm looking for a definition of strong atheism, it is the conscious and deliberate rejection of the existence of god. there are variations, but in its clearest manifestations it is a "knowledge" cliam based on asserting that atheism (non-existence of god) is objectively true, regardless as to whether people accept that view or not. This is commonly assocation with philosophical materialism (and it may be the defining qualitity behind it but I'm not sure). The "scientific materialism" of the 19th century gave way to the "scientific atheism" of 20th century Communism [Note: Communists had a different definition of science which further complicates the issue.] Because of the magnitude of it's effects I would be cautious to apply a single definition to it, but this one will be adequate.

The question it comes down to is why "lack of belief" is an objective definition, and why "rejection of god's existence" is a subjective one. It is the effect of asserting that "lack of belief" is an objectively valid definition- which therefore becomes binding on all parties- that is the source of much of the conflict. why does one necessarily achieve the status of being objectively valid whilst the other is a personal or subjective preference.

That's where th nature of the differences kicks in.

 

[Laika]

As for DeSade, well, he was just morally misguided. He is not representative of either atheism (assuming he was atheist at all) nor of non-theistic moral systems, which are many and varied and overall more worthy than theistic ones.

I'm going to be selective and reply to this specific point as it hits on the problem. The question is how you make the leap from:

i) the Marquis De Sade is morally misguided

to...

ii) He is not representative of either atheism

iii) then challaging the very existence of De Sade as an atheist.

tell me why your definition is objectively valid that you can assert a moral criteria for defing what atheism is and is not- and I'm willing to bet you'll see where I'm coming from.

Then it seems to me that you are bothered not so much with atheism or any of its most direct spin-offs but rather with extremism and the responsibility of motivation and ideology.

Again, why can't atheism be extremist? can't you see that you are so trapped by the definition of "lack of belief" that you rule out any form of extremism as by definition impossible from atheism?

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm going to be selective and reply to this specific point as it hits on the problem. The question is how you make the leap from:

i) the Marquis De Sade is morally misguided

to...

ii) He is not representative of either atheism

iii) then challaging the very existence of De Sade as an atheist.

Not challenging. Wondering. I honestly have no idea of whether he was an atheist.

It is just not important to me. As soon as I realized that he is morally misguided, that was enough for my interest to wander elsewhere.

tell me why your definition is objectively valid

My definition for which concept?

that you can assert a moral criteria for defing what atheism is and is not

Atheism is quite unrelated to morality, mainly because it has no motivational elements and morality needs a lot of motivation.

However, if we are contrasting it directly with theism, atheism is still at an advantage. Theism is such a poor and misleading source of morality that it is actually worse than a "random" source would be.

- and I'm willing to bet you'll see where I'm coming from.

Sorry, you lost that bet.

I am neither quite able nor particularly willing to dig quite so deep as to make that guess.

I honestly have no idea of where you are coming from, mostly because I am focused on attempting to clarify the concepts and their actual implications.

Again, why can't atheism be extremist?

Because it has so little substance and so little motivational power.

An extremist ideology might happen to be atheistic, but it is almost by definition impossible for atheism to be a main element of an ideology. Even communism was more authoritarian and centralist than properly repressive of religion, and even that repression is better described as anti-religion than as atheistic or even anti-theistic.

Basically, it was repressive in nature, and nominally atheistic by historical accident of circunstance. Attempts to trace its authoritarian and repressive tendencies to atheism proper are doomed to fail - again, because atheism proper can only hold so much water. It has no motivational power, it is just a descriptive label for a very simple phylosophical stance with nearly no consequences.

can't you see that you are so trapped by the definition of "lack of belief" that you rule out any form of extremism as by definition impossible from atheism?

I think I have just clarified why such is not the case, but let's see if you agree.

 

[Augustus]

Atheism is quite unrelated to morality, mainly because it has no motivational elements and morality needs a lot of motivation.

Atheism doesn't exist in a vacuum as a nice concept unrelated to any other part of the wider world that we live in. Treating it as some kind of semantic monad is the major problem of your line of argument.

We live in a society created and shaped by historical and modern theisms, as such being an atheist carries potential philosophical consequences.

Remember this needs to be put into a broader context of atheism v theism, including contentions that atheism is superior to theism, as theism causes problems and atheism cannot as it is simply 'a lack of belief', a non-position, literally nothing.

This is not to argue that atheism necessarily leads to any particular philosophy or worldview, just that it can be a causative factor in harmful ideologies. It is to talk of some atheisms and atheists, not all.

When somebody rejects belief in god, this potentially causes them to evaluate the influence of god in the society in which they reside. It potentially leads to a rejection of theistic based morality as being based on a lie and thus invalid.

When you think that much of the social order is based on a lie, this can act as a very large motivational factor. The desire for truth certainly motivates many people.

If you look at communist political philosophy, theism is often considered to be the biggest source of oppression and the biggest obstacle standing in the way of mankind's progress towards a socialist society.What some people have argued, is that this has nothing to do with atheism. Atheism has zero connection to militant anti-theism. It is irrelevant.

Something that I consider to be a very moderate and obvious view is that "atheism can sometimes be a causative factor in harmful ideologies". This says nothing about all atheists or all atheisms, just something about the specific atheists to whom it applies.

As a broader point, pretty much anything, including humanist secular democracy and human rights can be a causative factor in harmful ideologies (i.e. neo-conservatism), so saying something can be used in harmful ways is not in any way pejorative and shouldn't be treated as such.

The basic point though is simply that atheism potentially raises certain philosophical implications and can potentially form a significant part of a harmful worldview, when used in conjunction with other beliefs (as all worldviews are constructed from multiple beliefs anyway).

However, if we are contrasting it directly with theism, atheism is still at an advantage. Theism is such a poor and misleading source of morality that it is actually worse than a "random" source would be.

Hmmm, worse than a random source? The 20th C has a couple of pretty significant refutations of that as does pretty much all of human history.

Anyway, theistic morality is just human morality. Why would you expect them to do better next time rather than worse?

 

[LuisDantas]

Atheism doesn't exist in a vacuum as a nice concept unrelated to any other part of the wider world that we live in. Treating it as some kind of semantic monad is the major problem of your line of argument.

Nope. It is rather a reason to use other, more specific concepts.

(...)

Hmmm, worse than a random source? The 20th C has a couple of pretty significant refutations of that as does pretty much all of human history.

You are contradicting yourself. There is a reason why you are singling out the 20th century. It took that long for a regime that even claimed to be atheistic to be authoritarian.

Anyway, theistic morality is just human morality.

Hardly.

Why would you expect them to do better next time rather than worse?

Not sure who you are talking about, but in any case we all must strive to learn better.

 

[Laika]

Not challenging. Wondering. I honestly have no idea of whether he was an atheist.

fair enough. I do have a refernce if you are interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_in_the_Bedroom

It's not just wikipedia saying it either. I won't post a link to a PDF but here's a quote from the book itself. In fairness I've yet to read it in full as De Sade's reputation proceeds him and make me uncomfortable.

LE CHEVALIER — Dolmancé, my dear sister, has just turned thirty-six; he is tall, extremely
handsome, eyes very alive and very intelligent, but all the same there is some suspicion of hardness,
and a trace of wickedness in his features; he has the whitest teeth in the world, a shade of softness
about his figure and in his attitude, doubtless owing to his habit of taking on effeminate airs so often;
he is extremely elegant, has a pretty voice, many talents, and above all else an exceedingly
philosophic bent to his mind.

MADAME DE SAINT-ANGE — But I trust he does not believe in God!

LE CHEVALIER — Oh, perish the thought! He is the most notorious atheist, the most immoral
fellow... Oh, no; his is the most complete and thoroughgoing corruption, and he the most evil
individual, the greatest scoundrel in the world.

Basically, it [Communism] was repressive in nature, and nominally atheistic by historical accident of circunstance. Attempts to trace its authoritarian and repressive tendencies to atheism proper are doomed to fail - again, because atheism proper can only hold so much water. It has no motivational power, it is just a descriptive label for a very simple phylosophical stance with nearly no consequences.

To put it mildly, the above is extremely prejudical to any consideration the evidence. You are the first person on RF to be quite that blunt about it, but its been hinted at a great many times. I'm not sure whether to be appauled or reassured by it.

Sorry, you lost that bet.

I am neither quite able nor particularly willing to dig quite so deep as to make that guess.

I honestly have no idea of where you are coming from, mostly because I am focused on attempting to clarify the concepts and their actual implications.

My problem is that, whenever this debate takes place the advocates for "lack of belief" shoot down any example which contradicts that view and any example which suggests even remotely that atheism could have moral implications or is part of a justification for immorality. somehow the burden of proof is shifted, and then individual instances are shot down each in turn, so that the definition can continue to exist inspite of evidence which acts as counter-examples. itsjust that when you're dealing with communism, the "accident" involves an ideology and system of government that covered one third's of the worlds population in the middle of the 20th century. thats a "big" accident to say the least.

For the sake of being civil, I suggest we "agree to differ" and let this go.

 

[LuisDantas]

To put it mildly, the above is extremely prejudical to any consideration the evidence. You are the first person on RF to be quite that blunt about it, but its been hinted at a great many times. I'm not sure whether to be appauled or reassured by it.

Maybe you can point me towards some elaboration of how, where or why you disagree then?

My problem is that, whenever this debate takes place the advocates for "lack of belief" shoot down any example which contradicts that view and any example which suggests even remotely that atheism could have moral implications or is part of a justification for immorality.

I don't know whether I am such an advocate myself - I certainly do not oppose anti-theism nor strong theism - but I do agree with the claim. It is almost self-evident even.

somehow the burden of proof is shifted,

Not shifted. Pointed out.

and then individual instances are shot down each in turn, so that the definition can continue to exist inspite of evidence which acts as counter-examples. its just that when you're dealing with communism, the "accident" involves an ideology and system of government that covered one third's of the worlds population in the middle of the 20th century.

Communism was never that popular.

thats a "big" accident to say the least.

The ideology was not accidental, not in the least. That it happened to be atheistic, that was very much accidental and even incomplete.

For the sake of being civil, I suggest we "agree to differ" and let this go.

If you would rather.

 

[Augustus]

Nope. It is rather a reason to use other, more specific concepts.

But that would require these 'other more specific concepts' in an atomistic manner. You seem to want to treat things outwith a broader context, rather than within one.

You are contradicting yourself. There is a reason why you are singling out the 20th century. It took that long for a regime that even claimed to be atheistic to be authoritarian.

I could have mentioned examples from the French Revolution (not all of its anti-theism was atheistic, but there are clear examples).

Regimes that specifically cite atheism as part of their ideology have a worse record than those that cite theism on average (not that there is a large sample).

Hardly.

So it is not from god and it is not from humans either?

Not sure who you are talking about, but in any case we all must strive to learn better.

Your argument is not that it is possible to create a superior morality with no recourse to god, but that theistic morality is 'worse than random'. You have chosen to present this as an article of faith rather than a reasoned position though.

 

[LuisDantas]

But that would require these 'other more specific concepts' in an atomistic manner. You seem to want to treat things outwith a broader context, rather than within one.

Concepts should be used where they fit properly, indeed.

I could have mentioned examples from the French Revolution (not all of its anti-theism was atheistic, but there are clear examples).

Kudos for finding something clear in such a confused and confusing period, then.

Regimes that specifically cite atheism as part of their ideology have a worse record than those that cite theism on average (not that there is a large sample).

Do they though? I doubt it. Even if that was established, one would still have to consider that correlation and causation are different things.

So it is not from god and it is not from humans either?

Nope. Morality is an entirely human activity.

Your argument is not that it is possible to create a superior morality with no recourse to god,

On the contrary. It is possible, necessary and perhaps unavoidable to do exactly that.

but that theistic morality is 'worse than random'.

That, too, is true.

But third-partying the moral responsibility to a hypothetical deity that is unavoidably both highly personal and presented as universally constant we end up poisoning ourselves quite badly.

You have chosen to present this as an article of faith rather than a reasoned position though.

No, I have not bothered to try to convince you. Not quite the same thing.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In otherwords, to avoid the association with ..., the very definition of atheism has been changed to exclude the possibility of ...

I'm shocked!

 

[Augustus]

Concepts should be used where they fit properly, indeed.

But we shouldn't pretend they appeared out of thin air or the pages of a dictionary.

Do they though? I doubt it. Even if that was established, one would still have to consider that correlation and causation are different things.

This again reveals your flawed line of thinking. You view things like communism as nominally atheist, as if it is just some kind of happy coincidence.

When jihadis cite god in justification for atrocities anti-thiests tell us we have to take them at their word god was the number one reason for their actions.

When communists cite atheism as essential to communism, a fundamental tenet, then the same people often say shouldn't take them at their word, actually they meant something different.

Nope. Morality is an entirely human activity.

That's what I said. Why did you disagree?

That, too, is true.

But third-partying the moral responsibility to a hypothetical deity that is unavoidably both highly personal and presented as universally constant we end up poisoning ourselves quite badly.

Only if you have a myopic 'upside' focus on what could be better, while ignoring the 'downside' about what could be worse.

Anyway, you seem to underestimate the flexibility of religious morality and its potential for change.

 

[Laika]

Maybe you can point me towards some elaboration of how, where or why you disagree then?

I'll leave you with this. it should give you a flavour of what Communism's approach to religion is and its relationship with atheism. Lenin's style was deliberately rather abrasive to incite an emotional reaction from the reader, but its pretty short so give it a chance. If all you take from it is that there is a "bigger picture" to be found I'll be happy.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm

otherwise, I'm calling a truce.

 

[LuisDantas]

That's what I said. Why did you disagree?

You said something else entirely, and I disagreed because I saw no sense in it.

Only if you have a myopic 'upside' focus on what could be better, while ignoring the 'downside' about what could be worse.

Anyway, you seem to underestimate the flexibility of religious morality and its potential for change.

Nope. I just don't like to give theism a free pass from the responsibility it imposes on itself.

 

[ArtieE]

They aren't superfical emotional associations, but represents very complicated philosophical differences.

No they don't. A child might say "I believe God doesn't exist" because he just repeats what he's heard his daddy say and the child may know nothing about philosophy or gods.

saying "there is a lack of evidence for god" has no implications in itself. saying "I consciously and deliberately reject the existence of god" has huge implications,

An atheist says that he doesn't believe gods exist. There are no implications.

as you aren't just rejecting god- but also anything that has historically been cliamed to originate from god.

And why in the world would a strong atheist reject for example that murder is wrong just because the Bible and God says it is?

In the case of Nietzsche, if "god is dead", any moral system originating from god is also dead.

Why? "Oh, God has died? Great! Then finally I can start going around murdering people!"

It's the difference between someone saying "I'm going to celebrate christmas but it's doesn't mean anything" and the "I'm not going to celebrate christmas because I'm not perpetuating a ridiculous superstition". If you like, one of them will be giving presents, the other will start burning down the christmas tree.

Nonsense. That is the difference between an atheist and an anti-theist.

 

[ArtieE]

But... is that strong atheism? I don't think so.

It isn't. It's anti-theism. Laika simply doesn't appear to understand the difference between atheism and anti-theism.

 

[ArtieE]

Again, why can't atheism be extremist?

Because atheism is just the absence of belief in the existence of gods (weak atheism) or the absence of belief in the existence of gods PLUS the active belief that gods don't exist. (Strong atheism). Atheism doesn't automatically lead to anti-theism, and anti-theism doesn't automatically lead to extremist behavior.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'll leave you with this. it should give you a flavour of what Communism's approach to religion is and its relationship with atheism. Lenin's style was deliberately rather abrasive to incite an emotional reaction from the reader, but its pretty short so give it a chance. If all you take from it is that there is a "bigger picture" to be found I'll be happy.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm

otherwise, I'm calling a truce.

Not all communism is Marxism. There's quite a bit of religious communism out there.

For instance: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/hutterites/