Suggestion to Wong...

[Skelron]

Ahh you want a Hardcore Theotician, how would a Palentolgist, involved in the finding of the Peking Man suit you?

You seem to be missing the point, which is that you are talking about anecdotal evidence rather than broad trends. You can't address that point by bringing up another anecdotal example.

Actually nothing I have ever heard on Tielhard de Chardin has ever pointed to his Science credatials being unusual among the Jesuit order, they are quite the normal, while he was a very clever man, reaching high honours and achievements, he stands out among Jesuit's not for his Science, but for his religos works. As a Scientist he is a good example of many Jesuit's as a Theolgian he was... unusual (banned from publishing his Theolgical works by the Jesuit's well banned is a little strong they asked him not, and he didn't after his death they where published. His most famous being the 'Phenonenom of man') Sort of several hours of searching to find a list of Jesuit achievements, (I did see a link to a list of their Nobel Prizes on an earlier search but can't find it again,) or an even longer search when all I have to go is 'Jesuit Order', I presented a person I came across three years ago, and whoose works have always stuck in my mind since then
Your entire sample size is 23 people? This proves my point for me.

How, 23 people is the largest Sample I can provide for people who obtained the Priest hood in the Jesuit order in 2001, as that is how many people achieved this. The only possible way for me to provide a larger group would be to go back many years, but they are no longer the same situation. (depending on how many years I go back, the generations would change. Tell me what you would see as a reasonable size for the sample) a Larger search for Jesuit priests would not in all likely hood do much good, as in any World wide organisation it will have different branches, (For Example a Science sections, Theological sections, Historical Sections) and so a search may just turn up one particualr area of expertse while a review of people entering the Order provides a more balenced cross section I feel.

Nope. I was saying that a scientific approach is incompatible with religion, and that there is a general inverse correlation between scientific approach and religious conviction. People who merely have a "belief" in science are simply replacing one god with another, rather than comprehending the method. Such people are very easily swayed to religion, if they ever left it in the first place.

[/Quote] sorry you are correct to pull me up on my use of the word belief, I did not mean to imply that science was a Religion... Or a Belief system... well actually why not I've been defending religion while you've been attacking it as unrational while science is rational, ((True)) but so does that mean Scientists are? I'll post a seperate post on this after this post.

that it happens that Stephen Harking knows very few traditionaly religous individuals is anyhow irrelavent.

Who said he knows very few religious individuals? He knows many religious people (like he. he married a Christian, which forcibly introduces you into a community of Christians), but not among his professional colleagues. That is the point I was making. In my own university class, I did not know anyone who believed in the authority of divine prophets or the accuracy of Christian myth.
[/Quote] Maybe I should have been clearer, but I assumed you would not nitpick, it was obvious in the context of what you wrote I think that I was responding to your post, that he knew very few Traditionlly religious individuals from his Elite top echeleon of science friends. Still however you have avoided saying Atheist, although much of my evidence is from my experiances in life as a Catholic, I have always been debating about religion in general which is not limited to Christianity, it is possible to be religious and not Christian, or Traditional you need to prove Atheist, so you far you havn't done this.
[

My study partner went to church sometimes. He said he went because it was a good place to pick up girls.

Which Church did he go too, I need to find it out, as in my entire life I've never found Church to be a place to pick up Girls, (and I need all the help I get in that department:lol:) I have found a lot of people very nervous in society at times, however, not to admit they go Church, and to come up with excuses for why they go. Do you still know talk to this Study Partner, does he no longer go to Church, assuming he has married since then?

My science-aware and religious acquaintances have a funny habit of not intersecting, and the demographics bear this trend out; the most devoutly religious parts of the United States have distinctly below-average education levels.

In what way do you mean devoutly religious? I don't want to seem like I'm on a high Horse, but how is devotly religous meassured, regular attendence at mass? being a member of a certain faith, to simply say devotly religious is too open ended I need to know by what you judge this before I can answer. (I'm not trying to be awkward but my first instinct was that you ment Bible-bashing Fundy Crazies, then I had my doubts, so I need to be sure before I can answer)

Perhaps I should have anticipated ths kind of loophole-finding retort, and used more careful language. OK, I will be more specific: he said that almost no scientists believe in a personal God. It is an unfortunate and typical symptom of the constant marketing campaign inherent to Christianity that many scientists' words have been twisted to make it appear as if they do.

See my earlier point, none of this proves non religions person at the very most you prove they are not believers in one-God. If you can honestly say that he was saying they where Atheists come out and say it, if you can't admit it, I'm not trying to find a Loop hole, I am asking you to be honest, and straight forward. The words we use, and what we mean behind them when we say it are a key focus in Philosphy, they are important, if your evidence says Atheist then it means Atheist if it says something else however, no matter how you choose to read it, it may mean something else.

[Skelron]

Okay this may seem n obvious statement after all the Scientific method leads a person to being rational correct? but imagine this situation:-

A Scientist has spent his entire professional life of say 30 years studing under the remit of one Theory, he subscribs to it's belive in how the universe works. One day however he comes across a new Theory explanation for the universe that shatters his Paradigm, (and for the sake of argument we will say that the new Theory is not only well written and researched but is correct) in theory if the evidence matches up that Scientist should after careful anaylises, abandon his old Paradigmn in favour of the new one, that after all is the Rational and true to principle's of the Scientific method response is it not?


In Practice through history has shown us that this does not happen, a new Paradigmn takes years to be accepted, the older Scientists are unwilling to abandon the view of their science that they have been labouring under for many years. Why is this the case, because Humans are not machines, we do not abandon our life works simply because they become dis-proven rather we attempt to prove them right. A Paradigmn shift takes a new generation of scientists willing to question the old guard because that is what a new Generation invariably does, in order to make a name for themselves.

A Real life example of what I mean comes from a program I saw on the TV, I can not remember the details, I only remember the chronology of events, if people feel this is unfair or outside of good debating to include it I apoligise.
1.) Scientist notices something odd abot the placement of certain steller body they seem off somehow, and yet if he is correct about what he has seen the current Scientific theory's about the Universe, (Including such things as E=MC2) are called into doubt.
Now assuming he can present evidence a Rational Scientific approach would be to study this right? but this didn't occur, it took many years and in fact an accident I belive before it was looked into again. (I think they where looking at something else and just happened to notice the same thing he had many years ago) suddenly he's back out of the Scientific Wilderness, he may now have a point.
2.) After a good few more years an explanation is found for what this man witnissed that does not damage Phsyics and extends our knowladge of the universe, so thats good. The Point is through that because what he saw HAD to be impossible through the lens of the current knowladge available at the time, no one had been willing to examine his claims, despite being backed up with evidence, why because people assumed it was wrong because of our paradigmn.

What am I getting at? The Scientific Method as an ideal is Rational, Scientists as people are not, therefore the claim that a growth in Science understanding leads directly to a growth in Rationality and a lessoning of religious beliefs is flawed, you argue from the belief that because a Principle says something should be so, that people will act in that manner, you forget the Human part of the whole matter.

[Ai Phling Pu]

Quoted from Darth Wong:
Actually, it's complete and utter bullshit, and you should be ashamed of posting such nonsensical tripe on the Internet.

No one here has suggested that religious people be killed or persecuted. We are only pointing out that their belief system is irrational. It is impossible to equate this to a crusade or inquisition mentality unless you have the intellect of a squirrel.

If the original Inquisitioners and Crusaders had stopped at saying "I think you're wrong", they wouldn't have gone down in history as a crime against humanity

The only difference being the era. And what I'm seeing in the "religion-bashing" on this site is tantamount to persecution -- albeit a sort of "behind their backs" persecution.

And before anyone even brings it up, I am not Christian, nor do I tolerate religious fundamentalism of any kind... including Atheist or Agnostic fundamentalism.

[Gil Hamilton]

Originally posted by Ai Phling Pu:
The only difference being the era. And what I'm seeing in the "religion-bashing" on this site is tantamount to persecution -- albeit a sort of "behind their backs" persecution.

And before anyone even brings it up, I am not Christian, nor do I tolerate religious fundamentalism of any kind... including Atheist or Agnostic fundamentalism.

Both "Atheist Fundamentalism" is a meaningless concept and "Agnostic Fundamentalism" is an oxymorons. Look up Fundamentalism. Even using the second definition (the first specifically refers to the 20th Century Protestant movement), there is no such thing. Fundamentalism is a strict and literal adherance to a particular religion. Atheism is the disbelief in a diety. If you can strictly and literally not believe in a particular religion... well, huh. Basically, this is a meaningless concept, because it's impossible to not be literal about disbelief. If you weren't literal, that would make you an agnostic.
Agnostic Fundamentalism is even worse, because it means that you strictly and literally are not sure about a particular set of principles. Amazing.
Really, this doesn't sound like anything other than either really bad trolling. How about you Phling your Pu elsewhere?

[Iceberg]

Gil: "Fundamentalism" in some people's vocabulary means a strident, obnoxious adherence to a particular belief set, especially when it irritates the living fuck out of everybody around you.

[IDMR]

The only difference being the era. And what I'm seeing in the "religion-bashing" on this site is tantamount to persecution -- albeit a sort of "behind their backs" persecution.

Are you arguing, then, that disagreement is tentamount to persecution? And do look up the word in a creditable dictionary. Persecution behind one's back is a contradiction in terms.

And before anyone even brings it up, I am not Christian, nor do I tolerate religious fundamentalism of any kind... including Atheist or Agnostic fundamentalism.

We will presume that you intended the colloquial meaning of the term fundamentalism as Iceberg suggested. This is unfortunate, for albeit atheism and agnoticism can become an obssession, in most cases it is merely the most logical conclusion from available evidence. If you wish to elaborate upon the cosmology with other... less supported terms, the burden is upon you to convince us.

[User099]

Post edited. Now that the confusion has been cleared up, I am sure such inflammatory language is no longer necessary. - IDMR

[Galvatron]

Gil: "Fundamentalism" in some people's vocabulary means a strident, obnoxious adherence to a particular belief set, especially when it irritates the living fuck out of everybody around you.

So how does that apply to atheism, which has no "belief set?"

[Ai Phling Pu]

Exactly, Iceberg. Sure, overzealous practitioners of any religion are annoying, it goes without saying.

But since the existence of a "God" or "gods" can't be disproven any more than it can be proven (proving a negative being impossible and all), atheism is as much a "belief" as theism is, and the strident, obnoxious intellectual-bullying variety is just as much a form of "fundamentalism."

[Galvatron]

atheism is as much a "belief" as theism is, and the strident, obnoxious intellectual-bullying variety is just as much a form of "fundamentalism."

<groan>

I'll spare myself the effort of inventing a new rewording of the usual rebuttal for that lame argument and just paste a quoted, canned answer instead...

"The theist's definition, albeit a common enough one to make it into the dictionary; not surprising in a society filled with arrogant theists who think they know a priori what those who don't think as they do do and do not believe. Besides, would you trust a McCarthyite's definition of a communist, or a Nazi's decription of a Jew? Atheism is a description of non-belief, not a doctrine of disbelief. To say otherwise is to create a theistic strawman."
-Peter Walker

[Nick]

atheism is as much a "belief" as theism is, and the strident, obnoxious intellectual-bullying variety is just as much a form of "fundamentalism."

<groan>

I'll spare myself the effort of inventing a new rewording of the usual rebuttal for that lame argument and just paste a quoted, canned answer instead...

I'll try to come up with a new wording. . .

1. For some people, atheism IS a belief system just like any other. They haven't reasoned their way to it, they have accepted it on the authority of parents, teachers, peers, or whatever. In this context, it DOES make sense to talk about atheistic fundamentalism. ("You should believe in atheism because it is more rational!" "Why is it more rational?" "It just is!")

2. For others, atheism is NOT an authority-based faith. It is a matter of noting that the transcendent (i.e. matters legitimately within the purview of religion) is, by definition, unobservable. If an event is observable, then it becomes empircally measurable and falls into the domain of science. Any event which can be attributed to a supposed transcendent realm (God, karma, unnamed spirits, the forces of magic, whatever) can ALSO be attributed to an as-yet unidentified physical mechanism. In other words, confronted with the observable world, atheists note that it is entirely unnecessary to posit some nebulous, unobservable transcendental 'purpose to the Universe'.

Now, so long as religionists are happy to leave the observable realm to science, I don't have a problem with that. They think there is a transcendent realm (and most of them even have opinions about the rules it follows), and I don't think there is anything more than the world which we can observe. Any effect their transcendental realm has on the real world will be measurable and within the realm of science. If their transcendental realm has no actual effect, then it may as well not exist. Either way, it doesn't really matter to me. This form of belief is in fact almost entirely compatible with a scientific worldview - if the transcendental realm you believe in helps you cope with some of the stuff that science _doesn't_ have a good handle on yet, then belief is a _good_ thing. However, the only people I know who hold these sorts of belief are also quite willing to revise their beliefs in light of new scientific evidence - in other words, when they find a discrepancy between their beliefs and science, they go with the science. Only in those areas where science remains silent do their beliefs hold sway.

To forestall a potential criticism, I _don't_ believe we are even close to observing everything which can be observed (in fact, the observable universe is probably an inexhaustible well of sensation in its own right). However, just because we can't observe or don't understand the mechanism for some phenomenon at this point in time does NOT make that mechanism categorically unknowable! Now me, I'm quite comfortable with the idea of not knowing - it happens, so obviously there is some mechanism behind it. Other people seem to feel it necessary to attribute some higher purpose to things. If that makes them better able to cope with the universe, then it obviously works for them.

On the inverse correlation between scientific knowledge and religious belief:
Jesuits are generally very smart people, but I doubt you will find too many who claim that their faith is based on their reasoning abilities (the best mathematician I've ever met was a Jesuit - he was the Catholic chaplain at my university). However, to disprove an inverse-correlation it is NOT sufficient to provide a single counter example (saying Jesuits are both well-educated and religious, therefore the inverse correlation does not hold is NOT a valid argument!).

The argument has NEVER been advanced that religious belief and a scientific education are completely incompatible. You can produce as many anecdotal counter examples as you like of cases where a person with a scientific education has been irrational (either systematically, as in the case of a holding a particular belief, or incidentally, as in the case of refusing to accept incontrovertible evidence of a new theory), and all you will succeed in demonstrating is that _humans_ tend to be irrational. The fact remains that people with a scientific education will statistically be _less_ irrational than the general population.

It is an unfortunate truth that experimental mistakes, recording errors, poorly calibrated instruments, etc, are much more common than truly revolutionary observations. But yes, it is possible for scientists to fall victim to the fallacy which leads them to ignore evidence contradicting their theory. This may happen innocently (they genuinely believe they made an error), collaterally (they simply don't have time to pursue the discrepancy), unconsciously (they don't even notice what they are doing) or maliciously (they don't want to acknowledge their previous opinions may have been incorrect). Once again, the fact remains that scientists are _less_ likely to do these things than the general population.

On the 'lets swap the words science and religion' idea:
There's a hell of a difference between calling someone irrational for holding a particular belief system (i.e. the opinion of many atheists about believers), and hunting down and killing people for having different beliefs (i.e. the Crusades and the Inquisition).

[Mr Bean]

The argument has NEVER been advanced that religious belief and a scientific education are completely incompatible

No not that just that certain Religions and scientific education are incompatible

That may sound a little harse but to less the blow I won't name any examples of where going outside Established Doctrin will get you stoned to death, Or the crime of Hearsy used quite a bit when the Chruch was in power to get rid of people who questioned
I can of the top of my head think of five diffrent religions that have this problem of not allowing questioners. If you talk to thier "schollers" you'll get nothing but canned answears back

I can't think of any fluid way of ending this post so I'll just nod and hit submit

[Darth Wong]

Generally, I liked your post, Nick. Just a few nits:

For some people, atheism IS a belief system just like any other. They haven't reasoned their way to it, they have accepted it on the authority of parents, teachers, peers, or whatever. In this context, it DOES make sense to talk about atheistic fundamentalism. ("You should believe in atheism because it is more rational!" "Why is it more rational?" "It just is!")

Do you know any examples of this sort of atheist, or are you assuming that they probably exist? I find that self-declared atheists can usually explain themselves, if only because this society is so hostile to atheists that they must have learned to do this in order to defend their lack of belief against the prejudices of believers. It's not difficult to do so; atheism is more rational, since God is a redundant term. In my experience, self-declared atheists usually travel through this little journey of self-discovery before they have the courage to declare their lack of faith, rather than taking the easy way out and calling themselves "agnostics".

For others, atheism is NOT an authority-based faith. It is a matter of noting that the transcendent (i.e. matters legitimately within the purview of religion) is, by definition, unobservable.

Actually, Judeo-Christian religion is based on the Bible, which in turn spends all of its time discussing events which would be empirically observable and subject to rational analysis if they were repeated today. Unfortunately for the religion types, they are not repeated today ...

The notion that religion is intrinsically limited to unobservable realms is the fallback position of religion, after it lost its original purpose of explaining reality (to science). It is, in every sense of the word, an apologist's excuse, designed to shore up a belief system that, when taken literally, predicts a great variety of empirical and testable phenomena (all of which fail the test, hence the excuse).

Some religions are limited to the transcendental (particularly the newer ones, and Eastern ones). But Judeo-Christianity-Islam is most definitely not, unless you disregard most of their "scriptures".

This form of belief is in fact almost entirely compatible with a scientific worldview - if the transcendental realm you believe in helps you cope with some of the stuff that science _doesn't_ have a good handle on yet, then belief is a _good_ thing.

I think you're being overly charitable here. It's a "good thing" to get people to invent various superstitions and mythologies when confronted with an unsolved mystery rather than attempting to find a rational explanation? How is this good? Try telling that to Andrea Yates' children. She drowned them to save them from some of these "transcendent" phenomena she so therapeutically believed in.

However, the only people I know who hold these sorts of belief are also quite willing to revise their beliefs in light of new scientific evidence - in other words, when they find a discrepancy between their beliefs and science, they go with the science. Only in those areas where science remains silent do their beliefs hold sway.

I have found that such people are often highly amenable to pseudoscience, particularly of the creationist variety.

The argument has NEVER been advanced that religious belief and a scientific education are completely incompatible.

Not necessarily, but the combination is far more difficult than atheism and a scientific education. It is quite easy to show that religious faith demands illogical thought from the believer, and it is also quite easy to show that habitual illogical thought is not healthy for a scientist. Religious belief impedes scientific activities rather than helping in any way or even being neutral. Even in those who can successfully walk the line, they are subjecting themselves to a difficult balancing act which should ideally not be necessary.

There's a hell of a difference between calling someone irrational for holding a particular belief system (i.e. the opinion of many atheists about believers), and hunting down and killing people for having different beliefs (i.e. the Crusades and the Inquisition).

Couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, Christian apologists are fond of the imaginary persecution syndrome, whereby any form of criticism is instantly labelled a reverse witch hunt.

My biggest problem is the common belief that it's wrong to criticize someone's beliefs. Why is that wrong? It's wrong to make fun of someone's disability. It's wrong to discriminate based on race or sex. But why is it wrong to criticize someone's beliefs? Unlike disability, race, or sex, beliefs can be voluntarily changed, if one is willing to examine them rationally.

[Eleas]

"Do you know any examples of this sort of atheist, or are you assuming that they probably exist? I find that self-declared atheists can usually explain themselves, if only because this society is so hostile to atheists that they must have learned to do this in order to defend their lack of belief against the prejudices of believers."

By "this", I assume you mean the American or Canadian society. Personally, I meet less than one outspoken (i.e. belligerent) Christian a year where I live (in Europe, for those who did not know). Given such unremarkable opposition, I doubt a normal person would need to learn to justify his or her belief. After all, very few people here are Catholic or Protestant, so it would be a non-issue.

[David]

Anyone who doesn't know Sweden is in Europe probably shouldn't be posting.

[IDMR]

Anyone who doesn't know Sweden is in Europe probably shouldn't be posting.

I fear that it is more difficult to limit access of the internet to beings of at least rudimentary intelligent then one might have wished...

[David]

Would anarchistbunny be in that category?

[lgot]

Do you know any examples of this sort of atheist, or are you assuming that they probably exist? I find that self-declared atheists can usually explain themselves, if only because this society is so hostile to atheists that they must have learned to do this in order to defend their lack of belief against the prejudices of believers. It's not difficult to do so; atheism is more rational, since God is a redundant term. In my experience, self-declared atheists usually travel through this little journey of self-discovery before they have the courage to declare their lack of faith, rather than taking the easy way out and calling themselves "agnostics".

I actually do...
It is usual under the rule of the pseudo-comunism of Soviet Union where they blindly followed the version of Marx's ideals , where religion was forbidden, to create atheism like that. People just had to be...
Also, that was very comum in the XIX century, when the atheism got his bigger popularity to some to claim to be atheists to try to follow a philosophy that was raising then with the success of Marx and Darwin (short like the Victorian society did with spiritism also), with no more reason to be part of elite.
Also, the die hard Comunists from this century are all atheists even if they have not knowledge of why Marx was against the institutional church or the alienation caused for blind belief.
And its very commum to see people who start university to claim to be atheist with no reason but to let clear "religion will not be in the way of their scientific carrer".
I know you are well aware that some people will just exchange a myth for another. Its in human nature this need for icons and sometimes the atheism lost his philosophical power due that human's reaction.

[Eleas]

"Anyone who doesn't know Sweden is in Europe probably shouldn't be posting."

*grin* David, do you have any IDEA of how many people think Sweden = Switzerland?

[LordShaithis]

Is it any surprise that the Trektards who come here to fight also turn out to be morons in departments not related to SF?

The only difference being the era.

That and the LACK OF KILLING, moron.

And what I'm seeing in the "religion-bashing" on this site is tantamount to persecution -- albeit a sort of "behind their backs" persecution.

So let me get this straight, shithead: You actually think OPINIONS given on a PRIVATELY OWNED MESSAGE BOARD can constitute persecution EVER? Fuck you, halfwit.

[AdmiralKanos]

It is usual under the rule of the pseudo-comunism of Soviet Union where they blindly followed the version of Marx's ideals , where religion was forbidden, to create atheism like that.

I'm no Marxist, but Marx said that religion would inevitably fall as people became enlightened (mind you, his predictive accuracy was pretty damned questionable, but that's an issue for another thread). He did not say that religion should be forbidden. Religion was forbidden by the Communists because the communists were promoting a religion of their own; they wanted the people to worship the Party instead of their gods.

People just had to be... Also, that was very comum in the XIX century, when the atheism got his bigger popularity to some to claim to be atheists to try to follow a philosophy that was raising then with the success of Marx and Darwin (short like the Victorian society did with spiritism also), with no more reason to be part of elite.

Atheism has nothing to do with Marxist philosophy, and Darwin is not a philosophy; it is a scientific theory.

Also, the die hard Comunists from this century are all atheists even if they have not knowledge of why Marx was against the institutional church or the alienation caused for blind belief.

Great observation, Igot. Did you also know that all the die-hard Communists from this century were homo sapiens? I guess that means homo sapiens are all communists, right?

Communism is a special case; yes, they're technically atheists, but communism merely exchanged one god for another. I don't see why communists should be used as examples from which to discuss atheism in general.

And its very commum to see people who start university to claim to be atheist with no reason but to let clear "religion will not be in the way of their scientific carrer". I know you are well aware that some people will just exchange a myth for another. Its in human nature this need for icons and sometimes the atheism lost his philosophical power due that human's reaction.

Actually, I find that this is extremely uncommon, at least in my country. Very few people will declare their atheism, as opposed to taking the easy way out and calling themselves "agnostics".

[Skelron]

Is it any surprise that the Trektards who come here to fight also turn out to be morons in departments not related to SF?

The only difference being the era.

That and the LACK OF KILLING, moron.

I think that's rather the point he's trying to make, (while I may not agree with his view on the situation I can understand what he means) That in the modern era, rather than kill someone as a sign of persecuation we are far more likely to exclude them, or to make them feel in some way inferior. A kind of Social persecution rather than a rush out and kill/torture someone.

And what I'm seeing in the "religion-bashing" on this site is tantamount to persecution -- albeit a sort of "behind their backs" persecution.

So let me get this straight, shithead: You actually think OPINIONS given on a PRIVATELY OWNED MESSAGE BOARD can constitute persecution EVER? Fuck you, halfwit.

Okay I'm thinking thats a little Over the top, so far this debate has been mild and a pleasure to take part in, with few insults thrown, and no screaming that I can recall, please don't make it descend into the realms of, well what your dragging it down too. I have always felt nervous debating Religion, but up till now this board has kept itself above what has made me feel that way, your taking us there and that would be a pity.

[David]

"Anyone who doesn't know Sweden is in Europe probably shouldn't be posting."

*grin* David, do you have any IDEA of how many people think Sweden = Switzerland?

I just know that in Sweden people are taxed to death to provide a perfect welfare system, while Switzerland has all the banks and no military.

[lgot]

I'm no Marxist, but Marx said that religion would inevitably fall as people became enlightened (mind you, his predictive accuracy was pretty damned questionable, but that's an issue for another thread). He did not say that religion should be forbidden. Religion was forbidden by the Communists because the communists were promoting a religion of their own; they wanted the people to worship the Party instead of their gods.

I am sorry if the way I wrote lead to wrong conclusions, what I meant was they follewed the Marx's ideals in places like Soviet Union where the religion was forbidden. Not that Marx said - well he sometimes attacked it as a secular power over the mass - that religion was forbidden.

Atheism has nothing to do with Marxist philosophy, and Darwin is not a philosophy; it is a scientific theory.

Well, I do not see where I said that Darwin is not a philosophy (he was neither a scientific theory , but a person), or anything like this:

"to try to follow a philosophy that was raising then with the success of Marx and Darwin"

That was what I have said. Seems like I talked about a philosophy that raised with the success of those men.
But mind you, science follow philosophical principles. There is something called Darwinism that was not exactly a scientific teory, but the ideas related to darwin that many people followed. There is something called Evolution, which is not a scientific teory, but a principle that many people followed and follow even without knowing it. And Marxism have a lot to with atheism popularity in the XIX century, Since it defends many of Marx ideas, which include the atheism, since like you said, a enlightened person like him would not follow religion. Marx made atheism be fashionable to those with interest to be like him.

Communism is a special case; yes, they're technically atheists, but communism merely exchanged one god for another. I don't see why communists should be used as examples from which to discuss atheism in general.

Even with my gross generalization about all communists being atheists you seems to be losing the track of my answer.
The poster Nick claimed:
"For some people, atheism IS a belief system just like any other. They haven't reasoned their way to it, they have accepted it on the authority of parents, teachers, peers, or whatever."
and Darth Wong asked of example of such atheism.
Seems like the Communist are exactly example of this, even more when you claim they exanged one god for another, which was exactly what seemed Nick wanted to argue.

Actually, I find that this is extremely uncommon, at least in my country. Very few people will declare their atheism, as opposed to taking the easy way out and calling themselves "agnostics".

Perhaps its more commom the agnostics option, but I have seen ,2,3 students claiming the atheism (even because, somehow I think some of those wont remember the agnostic option). Its not something uncommom that happens each century and take me out surprise. I am not claiming that a majority do such things.

[David]

Hey Igot, Admiral Kanos = Darth Wong. Check out his essay on Communism in the Federation.


Here http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Ess ... rxism.html