Of it's self Atheism makes a simple statement, a rejection of the belief in deities. There is nothing else here, no philosophy of life, of conduct, no political insight and no philosophy of economics. There is no statement, as to moral conduct, decorum, social interaction. There is no indication of Rights and obligations of,both citizen and government.
Under Marxism and too, Communism, Atheism is embraced by government and, as the theism's force themselves on the people,as history demonstrates.Does such an Atheistic government pick up the mantle of a godly omnipotence, and if so, is there a difference?

Atheism rejects the belief in god/s, not god/s as no Atheist possesses universal intelligence and it would be foolish to make such a claim. The exercise of reason however,give proper indication that a god/s do not exist. That one would reject a god, may allude to the premise that there may be a god to reject. A side thought.

Views: 1550

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I do not find Dawkins of any particular interest, so your association there is not impressive. To many labels is like to much frosting on the cake, not necessary, although I do understand the attempt to mitigate or explain a position.
I find Occam's principle works best. Personally, I prefer the identity of Sapien, as in reasoning being, discerning being, but most do not make that connection, as I do.


I do not find Dawkins of particular interest, which means that I do not find him or his writing, his exercises in academia interesting. This is pretty straight forward.
I don't think I ever mentioned, 'seven descriptors', or anything other than Dawkins himself. I, personally think that there should be around 134 descriptors, if not more. If we do this we can sit around and discuss nothing for a much longer period of time.
I appreciate your input, but we are not speaking the same language, which means that any positive outcome here is less than hopeful.


You sir are on a roll. :)

Are you trying to communicate your ideas?  Or just your superior attitude?

I don't think the Dawkins Scale is intended to offer anyone an identity. It just clarifies and simplifies the different possible positions on one issue. That being said, I'd favor a six-point Likert over Dawkins' seven-point; I think the Pure Agnostic position is unnecessary because it is untenable. How can anyone maintain a perfect 50/50 uncertainty for any length of time? Wouldn't the tiniest fragment of evidence or unexplained happenstance tip the balance one way or the other? In an odd-numbered Likert the middle position is a cop out, IMO.

Good point.

I am a very simple man who detests absolutes and too, positions that claim indecision, when reasonable evidence exists to make a rational decision.
I am not certain that gods do or do not exist, but based on the capacity to reason objectively, with respectable knowledge of science and the origins and practices of theistic belief; it is not reasonable to embrace a philosophy of fence sitting or demagoguery.
I am an Atheist due to the fact, that for me such a philosophy, is concurrent with all available evidence. With this no other apologetic or mitigation is necessary.
Dawkins scaled position is, "silly".Iam 98.7% Chimp, 60% dog and 10% tree.Now what?
I enjoyed the strength of Madylin Murray O'Hare, meet her several times and Ayn Rand. With these people there was a position.

But now I am reminded of Spinal Tap and their amp that goes up to 11. Some days I feel like an 11 on the Dawkins Scale.

Could you expand on democracy leads to socialism and socialism leads to marxism? I know famous people have said it but I've never seen this properly demonstrated.

America has been democratic for over 200 years and it is hardly a socialist country and not even close to marxist.

Canada and Scandanavia have been socialist for half a century and are hardly Marxist.

On the other hand most marxist states were never democratic nor socialist.

Indeed Kris. Thanks for the correction. By socialist I'm referring to the current "mixed system" which now that I think of it, was not the kind of socialism Stalin was refering to.

I think we are 100% capitalist with a 50% intrusion by the government. The government in social-welfare states intrudes in some way or another with almost every single transaction made and seriously shapes, restricts and encourages business behaviour in every sector and industry. Furthermore the redistribution of income even in a modest form severely undermines the spirit of Capitalism. 

I highly recommend reading the Icelandic sagas. In Njall's Saga written 1000 years ago, there is a major section that takes place in the sort of "democratic" Icelandic parliament (Althing). Furthermore the saga ends like a thriller that could compete with James Bond in a Mission Impossible scenario.

In the 60's and in Europe, young and eager to bring peace to the world; my sympathies were to a world united under the United Nations flag. That began to change however, as I began to research the,'road" quote and several others. Although this quote is attributed to Marx, it was, essentially, an extraction from his writings.The following quote is from Wikipedia, not the final word, but a starting point. It was the idea that democracy was a transitory step and only applied to the common or working man that moved me away from such governance, if one can apply that word to a totalitarian state.
"The democracy that Marxists aim to achieve is a workers' democracy also known as the dictatorship of the proletariat. This would consist of political power being held by the working class, the majority demographic of society, and state power wielded in their interests. Marxists also hold that a workers democracy (the dictatorship of the proletariat) is only a temporary and transitional form necessary prior to the establishment of a communist society."
The, "Socialism is the only road to Marxism" quote is mine, which I coined sometime in the 70's.
Everything is by degrees and America is, by degrees, becoming a socialist country. As the intrusion of government, for the common good,through such policies, programs and agencies, as the ACA,welfare, Federal control of education, EPA, FDA, NSA,Federal Reserve, taxation and so many others, the government begins to control all aspects of production, for the common good.
Everything is by degrees and a matter of semantics and definition. For Scandinavia and Canada limited forms of socialism may work, but, as we have seen in a couple of these countries huge debt, as we are seeing, is forcing a rethink of some of these policies.
With 315 million people,America is not Canada and with, arguably a 80 trillion dollar unfunded debt and a 18 trillion dollar looming debt, American solvency become problematic.
A little off point there.
The Founding Fathers had little respect for Democracy, but also saw the fallacy of any other form of government. Democracy is not the guardian of a fee society, thus a Constitutional Republic and The Bill of Rights. This too, is coming under threat with new definitions of speech and political correctness mandates of tolerance.
I believe I am running out of space. Will continue if you like. Sometimes I get a bit wordy, but I do enjoy the conversation and hopefully a positive conclusion.


I have asked this question on several different venues and have answered it myself. I had thought that myself was the best answer until I came across yours. If you do not mind I will incorporate your answer into my thinking and writing.
If a god is, but an abstraction; is there any real value in denying its existence? In that denial do you feed the assertion that it does exist?


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service