NationStates Jolt Archive

All righty, I am in hopes that the kind folks of NS will help me jog my mind and memory. I was thinking about these things and their similarities differences and how they all relate in different ways and what not.
Feel free to post your thoughts, but please please don’t turn this in to a massive debating flame fest.

Didn't Marx write the communist manifesto? And I think he advocated atheism.

That pretty much sums it up, but here's the obligatory "disclaimer for the incredibly stupid":

Communism includes atheism, but atheism does not include communism. It is the disbelief of God's existence and nothing more.

Umm...

Uhh...

Nope... too vague, there's not a single direction that the OP has urged me to move in.

Didn't Marx write the communist manifesto? And I think he advocated atheism.

That pretty much sums it up, but here's the obligatory "disclaimer for the incredibly stupid":

Communism includes atheism, but atheism does not include communism. It is the disbelief of God's existence and nothing more.

yah...but what is the conection.
I mean is athisum the foundation of communism? or is it just part of communisum,they go hand in hand but but can exist independantly of one another, i know that athisum can exist independantly of communisum, but can communisum exist with out athisum?

Umm...

Uhh...

Nope... too vague, there's not a single direction that the OP has urged me to move in.

:(
you have no thoughts on any of those things/ideas?
not nessisarly agreeing or dissagreeing but ideas?

yah...but what is the conection.
I mean is athisum the foundation of communism? or is it just part of communisum,they go hand in hand but but can exist independantly of one another, i know that athisum can exist independantly of communisum, but can communisum exist with out athisum?

When the manifesto was written most organised religion in Europe was fervently opposed to the empowerment of the masses, hence the Communist groups were largely formed of atheists. There were, of course, exceptions: the labour movement in Britain was driven by Methodists and Quakers. 'Communist' states such as the USSR or China tend to enforce atheism to encourage conformance and sometimes to create a personality cult around the leadership. True Communism or Socialism accept those of any religion or none; we believe in complete equality without discrimination based on creed, colour, gender, or sexual orientation.

Hope this helps,

An atheistic socialist.

yah...but what is the connection.
I mean is atheism the foundation of communism?
No, communism is primarily a kind of economics.

can communism exist with out atheism?
Well, I don't see why not - like I said, it's primarily economics, I think the rejection of religion was probably just something extra Marx decided to include.

All righty, I am in hopes that the kind folks of NS will help me jog my mind and memory.

It's that bit that I don't get. It's like you know the answer to this question, but can't remember it. Is that the case?

Well, I don't see why not - like I said, it's primarily economics, I think the rejection of religion was probably just something extra Marx decided to include.

Most religions, especially those dominant in Europe, use a ranking system which gives some people power over others without good reason. Marx disliked that.

:(
you have no thoughts on any of those things/ideas?
not nessisarly agreeing or dissagreeing but ideas?

Nah, sorry, maybe the thread will move in a direction that makes me want to contribute something later on...

atheism....It is the disbelief of God's existence and nothing more.

Well, not exactly. It's the belief in God's NON-existance, which is somewhat different than mere disbelief.

Atheism is in fact a belief...well not exactly belief system, but it is a belief nontheless.

Agnosticism, however, is more along the lines of disbelief.

Most religions, especially those dominant in Europe, use a ranking system which gives some people power over others without good reason. Marx disliked that.

That's probably what put him off religion to begin with, but then as (I assume) his mind searched for a rational rather than emotional justification, he would have seen religion as an outsider and come to the "opium of the people" conclusion.

Well, not exactly. It's the belief in God's NON-existance, which is somewhat different than mere disbelief.

Atheism is in fact a belief...well not exactly belief system, but it is a belief nontheless.

Agnosticism, however, is more along the lines of disbelief.

Some people split it into "strong" and "weak" atheism.

I'd say that it goes like this:

Strong atheists are willing to say that God does not exist, even though they know it is an unprovable theory.

Agnostics consider that God could or could not exist and often say that it cannot be known which is true.

Weak atheists are sort of like Agnostics that are very doubtful about God's existence but not willing to take the leap into saying that God does not exist.

Strong atheists are willing to say that God does not exist, even though they know it is an unprovable theory.

Why do you think it's an unprovable theory? (not a strong atheist but curious)

Why do you think it's an unprovable theory? (not a strong atheist but curious)

Because the nonexistence of a or more beings capable of changing or ingoring the rules of the universe can not be tested using the scientific method.

You can prove the existence of such beings by presenting them though.

Because the nonexistence of a or more beings capable of changing or ingoring the rules of the universe can not be proven using the scientific method.

You can prove the existence of such beings by presenting them though.

Do you accept the possibility of square-circles or married-bachelors?

Do you accept the possibility of square-circles
Sure. Just not in this universe.

or married-bachelors?
I know several of those. Bachelor has multiple meanings.

Some people split it into "strong" and "weak" atheism.

I'd say that it goes like this:

Strong atheists are willing to say that God does not exist, even though they know it is an unprovable theory.

Agnostics consider that God could or could not exist and often say that it cannot be known which is true.

Weak atheists are sort of like Agnostics that are very doubtful about God's existence but not willing to take the leap into saying that God does not exist.

Some greek for starters...

Atheism
a -> negation
theos -> god
When you define yourself atheist you are saying that no god exists.

Agnosticism
a -> negation
gnosis -> knowledge (gnosco -> I know)
When you define yourself agnostic you are saying that you do not know if god exists.

Hence no such thing as weak atheists can exist. On the other hand agnostics can either believe or not in a "greater power", it is his choice.

BTW I'm agnostic :)

Why do you think it's an unprovable theory? (not a strong atheist but curious)

Well, technically, no-one ever proves a theory, they just fail to disprove it. Of course, there is a such thing as "proof" in the sense of logic, so I suppose if everyone agreed on a definition of God, and that definition could be found to contradict itself in some fashion, you could say that the statement of God's existence would be false.

And I am a strong atheist.

Hence no such thing as weak atheists can exist. On the other hand agnostics can either believe or not in a "greater power", it is his choice.

Words aren't actually defined by their etymology, but I do agree that the terms "weak atheist" and "strong atheist" are silly.

Sure. Just not in this universe.

I fail to see how a self-contradicting object could exist in any Universe; I am, however, not too hot on the current scientific views on multiple Universes so I'll have to bow out of this discussion.

I know several of those. Bachelor has multiple meanings.

Are you refering to a bachelor's degree? ;)

Well, technically, no-one ever proves a theory, they just fail to disprove it. Of course, there is a such thing as "proof" in the sense of logic, so I suppose if everyone agreed on a definition of God, and that definition could be found to contradict itself in some fashion, you could say that the statement of God's existence would be false.

And I am a strong atheist.

Technically theories can be proven or disproven mathematically, hence the scientist''s joke: "If you want proof try maths or alcohol". :)

Technically theories can be proven or disproven mathematically, hence the scientist''s joke: "If you want proof try maths or alcohol". :)

Yes, logic is a field of mathematics. That's what I meant.

Words aren't actually defined by their etymology, but I do agree that the terms "weak atheist" and "strong atheist" are silly.

Really? Why?

I am an Atheist - I don't believe in any gods. However, I don't KNOW there are NONE - so it would be foolish for me to claim it.

On the other hand, I know other Atheists that are SURE there are no gods.

Now, we obviously share part of the same belief, so we are both 'atheists'... but we also clearly divided over what our atheism 'means'.

This difference, is the difference between Weak and Strong (or Implicit versus Explicit) Atheism.

Why are Baptists called Baptists, but Methodists called Methodists, and Catholics called Catholics? They are all 'Theists'... indeed, they are all 'Christian'... but there are big divisions in what that MEANS to each.


I am an Implicit Atheist. My 'beliefs' are entirely failed by the definition of Explicit Atheism. I am also Agnostic - but that isn't about 'belief in God'... just whether one can ever KNOW for sure.

Words aren't actually defined by their etymology, ...snip...

Why? I understand that the semanthic meaning of a world may somehow vary, but not in such a great way to negate their original meaning. Also, semanthic variation is usually given by the misuse of a world given by ignorance of its ethymology.

The weak atheists were really silly :D

All righty, I am in hopes that the kind folks of NS will help me jog my mind and memory. I was thinking about these things and their similarities differences and how they all relate in different ways and what not.
Feel free to post your thoughts, but please please don’t turn this in to a massive debating flame fest.

They only relate where they relate.

Marx envisioned a form of communism that dispensed with religion.

Not all forms of communism are THIS 'Marxist' communism.

Communism isn't intrinsically 'atheistic'.

Atheism holds no intrinsic connection to communism, either.


I may have failed to answer how you wished, however... because these are not just 'my thoughts', they are absolute fact.

I am an Atheist - I don't believe in any gods. However, I don't KNOW there are NONE - so it would be foolish for me to claim it.
And I don't KNOW that there isn't a tiger sleeping in my kitchen, but I'm going to claim it without checking first.

And the reason I think they're silly is because a weak atheist is just an agnostic.

I am an Atheist - I don't believe in any gods. However, I don't KNOW there are NONE - so it would be foolish for me to claim it.

Really foolish since you are, by your own definition, an agnostic since you recognize that you don't know.
;)

Why? I understand that the semanthic meaning of a world may somehow vary, but not in such a great way to negate their original meaning. Also, semanthic variation is usually given by the misuse of a world given by ignorance of its ethymology.

The weak atheists were really silly :D

Some examples:

Portmanteaus, e.g. Homophobic - by etymology means fear of the same, by definition means fear of homosexuals and homosexuality.

And of course, there's slang.

Why? I understand that the semanthic meaning of a world may somehow vary, but not in such a great way to negate their original meaning. Also, semanthic variation is usually given by the misuse of a world given by ignorance of its ethymology.

The weak atheists were really silly :D

And yet people use phrases like 'anarchistic government'...

Semantic variation is something that just happens - words change their meanings as they are reapplied elsewhere, or as their original scope is found wanting.

Examples:

I have seen 'cupboards' that only held food.

I have encountered the word 'damage' in entirely secular usage.

I have seen the term 'minion' applied to large entities.

I have encountered 'toilets', where all the 'facilities' supplied for, was to empty bowels or bladder...

etc.

And I don't KNOW that there isn't a tiger sleeping in my kitchen, but I'm going to claim it without checking first.

And the reason I think they're silly is because a weak atheist is just an agnostic.

Not true. I know Implicit Atheists that believe there COULD be a way 'god' could prove he exists. Thus, those people do not 'believe' in 'gods', but think there could be a way to know for sure.

Clearly they are 'atheistic'. Just as clearly, they are not agnostic.


Implicit Atheism and Agnosticism often overlap, but do not 'define' one another.

Really foolish since you are, by your own definition, an agnostic since you recognize that you don't know.
;)

That isn't what agnostic means, though.

Agnostic means I don't really believe it is possible to know.

It's that bit that I don't get. It's like you know the answer to this question, but can't remember it. Is that the case?
sort of, i know what i think. i was just thinking the systems over, thinking it out and sort of got stuck. i just wanted to see what other peoples ideas were, and see if i could get my thoughts unstuck...


ok, theres a few point i'd like to through in

Atheist-
a- with out, denotes negitive as in not having
theist(theios)- God

so an atheist is one who does not beleve in god or his existance.



Agnostic
a- with out, denotes negitive as in not having
Gnos- knowledge

so an agnostic is one who has no "knowledge" of god, meaning no belief in God but it does not nessisarly mean that they beileve that God does not exist. they think that God might exist but they are not sure, but even if he does exist they do not believe.

yah...but what is the conection.
I mean is athisum the foundation of communism? or is it just part of communisum,they go hand in hand but but can exist independantly of one another, i know that athisum can exist independantly of communisum, but can communisum exist with out athisum?

I know of a lot of people who are both Communist AND Christian. Here in Italy they're dubbed (by opposers) as "Cattocomunisti" (Cathocommies). Think of the Theology of Liberation in South America.

Communism is a theory about politics, society and economy, not about personal spirituality. Of course, a Communist wouldn't accept a state religion, but that is a totally different thing - a state religion is an instrument of political power.

Moreover, it is difficult to imagine the rise of communistic ideals without a christian cultural basis. Take that thing about the rich passing through the gates of heaven. Or the early christianism as religion of the oppressed (like slaves).

Atheism is just the belief in the non-existance of any god.

sort of, i know what i think. i was just thinking the systems over, thinking it out and sort of got stuck. i just wanted to see what other peoples ideas were, and see if i could get my thoughts unstuck...


ok, theres a few point i'd like to through in

Atheist-
a- with out, denotes negitive as in not having
theist(theios)- God

so an atheist is one who does not beleve in god or his existance.



Agnostic
a- with out, denotes negitive as in not having
Gnos- knowledge

so an agnostic is one who has no "knowledge" of god, meaning no belief in God but it does not nessisarly mean that they beileve that God does not exist. they think that God might exist but they are not sure, but even if he does exist they do not believe.

No - 'theism' isn't god, it is the BELIEF in god. An atheist hasn't a BELIEF in God. Some believe there IS NO GOD, some just don't accept the story that there are any gods. A 'lack of belief' is not the logical identity of a 'belief of lack'.

As for agnostics - there are Agnostic Atheists and Agnostic Theists. All 'Agnostic' means, is that you are unable to KNOW, it doesn't define what you BELIEVE.

Communism is a theory about politics, society and economy, not about personal spirituality. Of course, a Communist wouldn't accept a state religion, but that is a totally different thing - a state religion is an instrument of political power.


You were doing quite well to start with... but there are a couple of errors here.

1) Communism is not about politics. You could have a communist democracy or a communist disctatorship with equal ease. Some communist PARTIES link the platform to a political ideal, but that isn't the communism part of the equation - that is the party. Communism is economic model.


Moreover, it is difficult to imagine the rise of communistic ideals without a christian cultural basis. Take that thing about the rich passing through the gates of heaven. Or the early christianism as religion of the oppressed (like slaves).


Christianity is not the only social or religious pressure that has ever existed to argue for the equal treatment of people, for the shedding of exces wealth from the rich, or the religion of oppression.

Indeed, looking at the last 2000 years of Christian history, it has been the church that has been one of the most powerful forces in the continuation OF those hardships and inequalities.


Atheism is just the belief in the non-existance of any god.

No - it still isn't. It can be a belief in a lack of gods, or it can just be a lack of belief.

Some examples:

Portmanteaus, e.g. Homophobic - by etymology means fear of the same, by definition means fear of homosexuals and homosexuality.

And of course, there's slang.

Point taken, but u could still have manipulated that ethimologyc explaination a little better and have a meaning that is closer to the definition.

And yet people use phrases like 'anarchistic government'...

Semantic variation is something that just happens - words change their meanings as they are reapplied elsewhere, or as their original scope is found wanting.

Examples:

I have seen 'cupboards' that only held food.

I have encountered the word 'damage' in entirely secular usage.

I have seen the term 'minion' applied to large entities.

I have encountered 'toilets', where all the 'facilities' supplied for, was to empty bowels or bladder...

etc.

People tend to be ignorant of their language... Expecially journalists. :(
Luckly this doesn't take any value from ethimological analisys of a world.

On the other hand, I know other Atheists that are SURE there are no gods.

How can anyone claim to be certain that there is no God? As far as I'm concerned, it's impossible to prove. There's always a little uncertainty, however sure one may feel.

How can anyone claim to be certain that there is no God? As far as I'm concerned, it's impossible to prove. There's always a little uncertainty, however sure one may feel.
How can anyone claim to be certain that there is a God? As far as I'm concerned, it's impossible to prove. There's always a little uncertainty, however sure one may feel.

Then BELIEF kicks in...

How can anyone claim to be certain that there is a God? As far as I'm concerned, it's impossible to prove. There's always a little uncertainty, however sure one may feel.

Then BELIEF kicks in...

I agree with you. But belief doesn't convince me. Although I believe there is no God, I don't claim to know it for certain. :)

Jewish...
Yes like many heads of the Russian Komunist Party...
It maybe explain the speed the Russians wanted to liberate and destroy the "death" camps. And to destroy most of these camps too.

Moise is the first Unionist in History. He claimed a free day weekly for his people. Religion was only to hide he was Komunist... I think Jesus too was a guy who said that power for the poor was a future, People dictature?
He was not a goy.

Jewish people are smart, they invented great things, even Komunism.

People tend to be ignorant of their language... Expecially journalists. :(
Luckly this doesn't take any value from ethimological analisys of a world.

It doesn't 'take any value' away from etymological analysis, no... but one must bear in mind that the etymology of a word does not define it - it only shows where the word came from.

Example - Minion started as an affectionate term, and comes from the French (mignon), meaning something small. Does that mean that 'minion' can only be used to describe something small? Not at all - the etymology and the definition are now so different that etymology is actually contradictory, most of the time.

You were doing quite well to start with... but there are a couple of errors here.

1) Communism is not about politics. You could have a communist democracy or a communist disctatorship with equal ease. Some communist PARTIES link the platform to a political ideal, but that isn't the communism part of the equation - that is the party. Communism is economic model.

Christianity is not the only social or religious pressure that has ever existed to argue for the equal treatment of people, for the shedding of exces wealth from the rich, or the religion of oppression.

Indeed, looking at the last 2000 years of Christian history, it has been the church that has been one of the most powerful forces in the continuation OF those hardships and inequalities.



No - it still isn't. It can be a belief in a lack of gods, or it can just be a lack of belief.

1.Quoting Marx, "we call communism the [political] movement that wants to abolish that [the power of bourgoisie]" (maybe not a perfect quotation in english, but I know that in italian). Communism uses the economy to shift the social power balance towards the working class - and ultimately to prevent the bourgoisie from getting the political power via its economical power.
Of course, any serious political view cannot ignore economics - things as production and welfare are the backbone of society.
Trust a Commie like me to know that, buddy. Economy and politics are the very same thing.

2.No, Christianism is not the only religion that advocated the rights of the oppressed. Yet it was the ONLY religion that did that in the right place (world-dominating Europe) and in the right time (French revolution-industrialization), with a lot of philosophers around.

3.Thou shalt not think that the Church only doeth the bidding of thy Lord, lest the Wrath of God be falling on thee. (Am I biblical enough?) Jesus' message is one thing, the Pope's doing is another, and not necessarily one wholly includes the other.

I agree with you. But belief doesn't convince me. Although I believe there is no God, I don't claim to know it for certain. :)

I have no PROOF of the existance of god(s). So I do not KNOW if there's any.
I think that the god(s) idea is quite irrational and futile, so I allow myself to BELIEVE (without a proof) that there is no god at all.

No - 'theism' isn't god, it is the BELIEF in god.

Correct--if we go with a definition of theism that is perhaps most popular.


An atheist hasn't a BELIEF in God. Some believe there IS NO GOD, some just don't accept the story that there are any gods. A 'lack of belief' is not the logical identity of a 'belief of lack'.

What is the difference between the lack of belief in God and the belief in the lack of God? Sure, there is a difference in perspective, perhaps, but is there really any practical difference, assuming that such a belief (or lack thereof) would affect an individual's decision making process. I suspect that there isn't much difference between these two points, thus the term 'atheist' adequately covers both a lack of belief in God and the belief in the lack of God--and that neither of these positions is the same as that for an agnostic.



As for agnostics - there are Agnostic Atheists and Agnostic Theists. All 'Agnostic' means, is that you are unable to KNOW, it doesn't define what you BELIEVE.

Except that the term 'agnostic' usually means that one holds the position that there may or may not be a God but that there is now way to have that knowledge (similar to what you said in an earlier post).

Thus, if you go by the popular definition of 'agnostic', it generally means the above.

On the other hand, how is one to know what is the correct definition of a term? by knowing the opinion of the majority?

Just like the term 'Christian', which used to mean 'a follower of Christ', now means to some as 'someone who has been born in a 'Christian' family'.

I hold a different definition of Christian (based on the Bible), but I readily recognise that it isn't the most popular one.

The question is, who gets to decide which definitions are the right ones for each 'ism? The believers, or the non-believers? Or just the majority?

It doesn't 'take any value' away from etymological analysis, no... but one must bear in mind that the etymology of a word does not define it - it only shows where the word came from.

Example - Minion started as an affectionate term, and comes from the French (mignon), meaning something small. Does that mean that 'minion' can only be used to describe something small? Not at all - the etymology and the definition are now so different that etymology is actually contradictory, most of the time.

About the minion question, yes, even in english it retains its original meaning. If Titus Caius is my minion, he is my SUBordinate - he has a LOWER power, a LOWER social ranking and so on.

Just like the term 'Christian', which used to mean 'a follower of Christ', now means to some as 'someone who has been born in a 'Christian' family'.


So, you mean that by the current english definition of christian, St.Peter, St.Paul, St.Ambrose and St.Augustin weren't christians?

Oh my nihil.

1.Quoting Marx, "we call communism the [political] movement that wants to abolish that [the power of bourgoisie]" (maybe not a perfect quotation in english, but I know that in italian). Communism uses the economy to shift the social power balance towards the working class - and ultimately to prevent the bourgoisie from getting the political power via its economical power.
Of course, any serious political view cannot ignore economics - things as production and welfare are the backbone of society.
Trust a Commie like me to know that, buddy. Economy and politics are the very same thing.



Not all 'communism' is 'Marxism'. Communism and capitalism, in pure terms, are economic models, not political. You can BUILD a 'political' movement AROUND either of them, but that doesn't redefine what they are.


2.No, Christianism is not the only religion that advocated the rights of the oppressed. Yet it was the ONLY religion that did that in the right place (world-dominating Europe) and in the right time (French revolution-industrialization), with a lot of philosophers around.


If we centre the argument on Europe of the last few hundred years... then, yes, Christianity was an influence. But, that doesn't mean that is the only time a 'communist' model has existed, or will exist... nor does it define all the possible permutations of communism in relation to society.

I don't agree that Christianity necessarily birthed communism, at all. The Marxist version of communism was as much a rebellion against the power of the church as it was against the idle rich.

So, you mean that by the current english definition of christian, St.Peter, St.Paul, St.Ambrose and St.Augustin weren't christians?

Oh my nihil.

That's a good point, although I never said that the popular definition of Christianity excludes converts.

(I sort of took it for granted that that was quite obvious. Was I wrong?)

Correct--if we go with a definition of theism that is perhaps most popular.

What is the difference between the lack of belief in God and the belief in the lack of God? Sure, there is a difference in perspective, perhaps, but is there really any practical difference, assuming that such a belief (or lack thereof) would affect an individual's decision making process. I suspect that there isn't much difference between these two points, thus the term 'atheist' adequately covers both a lack of belief in God and the belief in the lack of God--and that neither of these positions is the same as that for an agnostic.

Except that the term 'agnostic' usually means that one holds the position that there may or may not be a God but that there is now way to have that knowledge (similar to what you said in an earlier post).

Thus, if you go by the popular definition of 'agnostic', it generally means the above.

On the other hand, how is one to know what is the correct definition of a term? by knowing the opinion of the majority?

Just like the term 'Christian', which used to mean 'a follower of Christ', now means to some as 'someone who has been born in a 'Christian' family'.

I hold a different definition of Christian (based on the Bible), but I readily recognise that it isn't the most popular one.

The question is, who gets to decide which definitions are the right ones for each 'ism? The believers, or the non-believers? Or just the majority?

Words will be defined in a number of ways, depending on agendas.

I claim the right to define Atheism, to represent my position... my 'agenda' in this matter is largely to illustrate how other people using the term misrepresent MY belief model.

Example: I often encounter: "Atheism is a belief in NO gods... as such, it is a belief, and the same as any other religion".

Is this true for me?

No - my rejection of religions has been nothing to do with asserting that there can be no gods, only a rejection of each version I have been presented, when it failed to be convincing.

So - I chose to embrace the term 'Implicit Atheism'... because it identifies me as a non-beliver, but it also explains the NATURE of that.

I personally consider the EXPLICIT version of Atheism as flawed as any of the 'religious' models. I'm a skeptic, I'm not claiming to KNOW anything.

Of course, others will tend to define Atheism to meet their own agendas. Which is why it is important for me to reinforce what MY 'atheism' is... because otherwise I'll be pigeonholed based on the prejudices of others.

You talk of common use of the term 'agnostic'... and you are right, most people use it to describe 'skeptical atheism'... but it isn't accurate. Coomon use changes the language, but it cannot obliterate other meaning IF the other meaning is still used. And, neither should it be allowed to.

Most anarchists, for example, have no interest in blowing stuff up... despite the way the media uses the word.

Another example would be that horrible abortion of a term 'Islamofascism'... which COMPLETELY misses the point of 'fascism' in it's push to create a term that implies danger. Fascism is fierecly territorial, and operates from a central point outwards, a regimented heirarchy of interconnected units.

The world wide spread of 'terror' cells that share a belief, but no central structure, that operate independently, and that do not care about borders, makes the COMMON use of the word ridiculous, in terms of what it MEANS.


As a final thought - I agree with your definition of 'Christian'... but, you must realise that even most Christians don't embrace it. And, I don't just mean those who use the term for environment... I mean, those where I live, who argue that there are a specific list of specific beliefs one MUST have (about virgin birth, crucifixion, resurrection, godlike nature, etc) that make on 'Christian'.

About the minion question, yes, even in english it retains its original meaning. If Titus Caius is my minion, he is my SUBordinate - he has a LOWER power, a LOWER social ranking and so on.

But, etymologically, 'Titus Caius' must be definitively small... If this Titus fellow is 'big' (which is a nebulous term), then 'minion' becomes etymologically inappropriate. 'Mignon' refers to the size, not the rank or power.

(I believe it is also sometimes used to denote something that is 'cute'... you might be able to argue that 'minion' is used in an etymologically appropriate way, if this Titus fellow is notably 'cute').

Not all 'communism' is 'Marxism'. Communism and capitalism, in pure terms, are economic models, not political. You can BUILD a 'political' movement AROUND either of them, but that doesn't redefine what they are.



If we centre the argument on Europe of the last few hundred years... then, yes, Christianity was an influence. But, that doesn't mean that is the only time a 'communist' model has existed, or will exist... nor does it define all the possible permutations of communism in relation to society.

I don't agree that Christianity necessarily birthed communism, at all. The Marxist version of communism was as much a rebellion against the power of the church as it was against the idle rich.

1.Show me a communist pre-marxist system. Oh, and Proudhon's utopic socialism doesn't count.
Communism has a meaning only in industrialized societies. And again, read Marx for the definition of communism - and don't tell me it's an unreliable source.

2.Of course the argument is centered on Europe. That because a) European culture is the only world-spread culture b) Communism is an European idea c)industrialization is an European invention

3.I didn't say that christianism leads necessarily to communism. I said that christianism created a favourable cultural background for Marx to develop communism.

3.Still you think Christianism and Church are the same things. You are ultimately wrong.
Examples to confutate your belief:
1-what did Christ say about loving other people, and not to do them what you wouldn't wish them to do you? How does that fit with the Papacy executing people, or the military chaplains chanting "Te Deum" after slaughtering foes?
2-what did Christ do with the merchants in the temple, and how does it fit with the HUGE market around christian faith (holy water for sale, symbols for sale etc) that the churches use to exploit?
The power of the Church is the very same thing of the power of rich people.

That's a good point, although I never said that the popular definition of Christianity excludes converts.

(I sort of took it for granted that that was quite obvious. Was I wrong?)

Not obvious to a non-native english speaker. Thank you for explaining.

But, etymologically, 'Titus Caius' must be definitively small... If this Titus fellow is 'big' (which is a nebulous term), then 'minion' becomes etymologically inappropriate. 'Mignon' refers to the size, not the rank or power.

(I believe it is also sometimes used to denote something that is 'cute'... you might be able to argue that 'minion' is used in an etymologically appropriate way, if this Titus fellow is notably 'cute').

You're missing the point. This is linked to the minister\magister question in latin. A minister is someone with smaller power, a magister is someone with greater knowledge (or even a power, see english master). Since a minister is a minister, and a magister is a teacher... :confused:

About being cute, you can use "little one" as an expression of love... actually my dad calls me "little one" even now that I'm 190 cm tall, and 30 years old.

1.Show me a communist pre-marxist system. Oh, and Proudhon's utopic socialism doesn't count.
Communism has a meaning only in industrialized societies. And again, read Marx for the definition of communism - and don't tell me it's an unreliable source.


I wouldn't have offered Proudhon, anyway... but I deny your authority to decide what 'does and does not' count.

Communism does not have "meaning only in industrialized societies" at all. This isn't just misguided, it is an absolute error. The effects are most NOTICABLE in industrialised societies, perhaps, where the 'means of production' are so productive, so individually 'valuable', and so centralised, but communism as a PRINCIPLE applies just as well on farmland where all the farmers share the land and share the asses that till it.

Which, of course, could suggest a pre-marxist communist structure - the post-Norman 'common' land use in rural England. Unless I miss my history, this 'proto-communism' thrived up until the Acts of Inclosure, in... what, the 1600's?


2.Of course the argument is centered on Europe. That because a) European culture is the only world-spread culture b) Communism is an European idea c)industrialization is an European invention


a) I gues sit depends on what you mean by 'European culture', and when you chose to make the argument. Today, 'English-speaking-cultures' dominate, as they have done for a few hundred years... but two or three thousand years ago, the dominant cultures would have considered most of Europe to be unworth the value of emptying their bladders on.

b) Marxism might be a European idea... but, only in as much as Marx might have been European...

c) Again - it depends on what you mean. I'd say the 'invention' of industry began with things like the Chinese invention of gunpowder, or the primitive electrical batteries the Egyptians built...


3.I didn't say that christianism leads necessarily to communism. I said that christianism created a favourable cultural background for Marx to develop communism.


If, by favourable, you mean "an oppressive regime which was easy to rebel against", then, maybe yes.


3.Still you think Christianism and Church are the same things. You are ultimately wrong.
Examples to confutate your belief....

The power of the Church is the very same thing of the power of rich people.

You - I do not think that Christianity and 'the Church' are the same thing. But, often, they act like it.

You're missing the point. This is linked to the minister\magister question in latin. A minister is someone with smaller power, a magister is someone with greater knowledge (or even a power, see english master). Since a minister is a minister, and a magister is a teacher... :confused:

About being cute, you can use "little one" as an expression of love... actually my dad calls me "little one" even now that I'm 190 cm tall, and 30 years old.

This is the way 'mignon' WAS largely used, until it entered english... it basically equated to 'darling', but, etymologically, means 'small'. The same thing we are talking about - the meaning and the etymology do not always match.

You raise another such issue, of course, when you illustrate the latin origins... the persons in a modern church or government structure with the MOST power, are often called 'ministers'... etymoligcally making a nonsense of the title.

Words will be defined in a number of ways, depending on agendas.

I claim the right to define Atheism, to represent my position... my 'agenda' in this matter is largely to illustrate how other people using the term misrepresent MY belief model.

But if we have everyone doing the same thing, we might end up with several definitions of each 'ism, which is quite tiresome. Wait a minute.....there are several definitions of each 'ism!! That's because, like you, people prefer to keep their own definitions of the terms that they hold most dear, regardless of the 'development' it takes in popular culture. There might be some merit in just upgrading the choice of words that you use to define your particular belief. Thus, in twenty years time, if you stick to your current set of beliefs, you could be using an entirely different term (although that is perhaps an exaggeration--just to prove a point).


Example: I often encounter: "Atheism is a belief in NO gods... as such, it is a belief, and the same as any other religion".

Is this true for me?

No - my rejection of religions has been nothing to do with asserting that there can be no gods, only a rejection of each version I have been presented, when it failed to be convincing.

Thus, by your own admission, your belief is that of the gods that have been presented to you, none exist. Which is to say that so long as a god is presented to you, you will reject it, because you will not be convinced by anything that requires faith--and if it doesn't require faith, then it probably isn't a god. Thus, it seems like you have carefully curtailed the definition of your belief to prevent it from sounding like 'explicit atheism', but when boiled down is virtually the same thing.


So - I chose to embrace the term 'Implicit Atheism'... because it identifies me as a non-beliver, but it also explains the NATURE of that.


But only superficially, it seems, unless you are prepared to accept a god on the basis of faith, not on material evidence.



I personally consider the EXPLICIT version of Atheism as flawed as any of the 'religious' models. I'm a skeptic, I'm not claiming to KNOW anything.


I'm not convinced that you are a skeptic, otherwise I would see you being skeptical of your own beliefs, and of your own opinions and governing assumptions (e.g. the criteria of what it takes for a god to convince you). You do seem to KNOW that you are not convinced.......how do you know that, might I ask?



Of course, others will tend to define Atheism to meet their own agendas. Which is why it is important for me to reinforce what MY 'atheism' is... because otherwise I'll be pigeonholed based on the prejudices of others.


Na, na, Grave, you needn't worry about the pigeonholing. For one thing, that will happen regardless of how well you defend your definition of Atheism, or even because of it. Secondly, what is more important, the belief, or the definition of the term that you prefer to label your belief as? I suggest that the belief is infinitely more important, because that is the thing that is in your control. What others think of you really isn't (well, in my experience anyway). Thirdly, people who are overly worried about being pigeonholed are heading for burnout.


You talk of common use of the term 'agnostic'... and you are right, most people use it to describe 'skeptical atheism'... but it isn't accurate. Coomon use changes the language, but it cannot obliterate other meaning IF the other meaning is still used. And, neither should it be allowed to.


You don't agree with my definition of the term 'agnostic'? Then what is yours? That might be interesting, considering that neither of us consider ourselves agnostic.


Most anarchists, for example, have no interest in blowing stuff up... despite the way the media uses the word.

Another example would be that horrible abortion of a term 'Islamofascism'... which COMPLETELY misses the point of 'fascism' in it's push to create a term that implies danger. Fascism is fierecly territorial, and operates from a central point outwards, a regimented heirarchy of interconnected units.

The world wide spread of 'terror' cells that share a belief, but no central structure, that operate independently, and that do not care about borders, makes the COMMON use of the word ridiculous, in terms of what it MEANS.


I can see that the media (or rather the forces behind the media) is a huge influence on the development of our language, and I often am annoyed by some developments (like the ones you have pointed out above). There doesn't seem to be a good way to prevent this, though. It seems as though the direction our language takes is in the hands of half-educated journalists. Still, this is far from the worst thing that is happening in our world.


As a final thought - I agree with your definition of 'Christian'... but, you must realise that even most Christians don't embrace it. And, I don't just mean those who use the term for environment... I mean, those where I live, who argue that there are a specific list of specific beliefs one MUST have (about virgin birth, crucifixion, resurrection, godlike nature, etc) that make on 'Christian'.

Well, it depends on what you mean by 'most Christians', but yeah, of course I realise this. And that is probably why they keep coming up with new terms, like spirit-filled Christian, born again Christian, etc. etc.--all attempts to communicate the original meaning of the term. Once upon a time, a born again Christian was a good thing (e.g. for someone who gave up an old life of reckless violence and devoted his life to helping others in the same position) when the term 'Christian' was being used for anything that was related to the 'Christian' cultural baggage. Nowadays, born-again can also easily mean someone who is just extra-ordinarily ambitious, and not necessarily in a nice way.

Incidentally, after spending some months with the southern Baptists (is that the bunch to whom you refer?) I came to the conclusion that it (the community in Texas with which I was going to church with) could just as easily be a culture about a set of beliefs that one must hold in order to be a Christian--but easily have missed a genuine belief in the Christ. For I perceive that a confession of belief (no matter how good that confession sounds) does not equate to a genuine belief. I saw that they hold a great emphasis on holding the correct belief, but little or none on the living reality of those beliefs. So that while they preached that it is hypocrisy to give a nice seat to the rich and floor to the poor, they sort of did that very thing themselves, and didn't seem to realise it. But not being American, I did have some trouble trying to figure out the difference between culture and Christianity, so I guess I should be a little careful with my criticisms.

It doesn't 'take any value' away from etymological analysis, no... but one must bear in mind that the etymology of a word does not define it - it only shows where the word came from.

Example - Minion started as an affectionate term, and comes from the French (mignon), meaning something small. Does that mean that 'minion' can only be used to describe something small? Not at all - the etymology and the definition are now so different that etymology is actually contradictory, most of the time.

Minion comes from french mignon that comes from the latin minor.
Minor means LESSER, SMALLER, INFERIOR (in age).
U botched this example, because my minion Titus Caius is lesser than me!

No - 'theism' isn't god, it is the BELIEF in god. An atheist hasn't a BELIEF in God. Some believe there IS NO GOD, some just don't accept the story that there are any gods. A 'lack of belief' is not the logical identity of a 'belief of lack'.

As for agnostics - there are Agnostic Atheists and Agnostic Theists. All 'Agnostic' means, is that you are unable to KNOW, it doesn't define what you BELIEVE.

your right i should have said "theios"

All righty...
Feel free to post your thoughts, but please please don’t turn this in to a massive debating flame fest.

Wishful thinking. ;)



Anywho.


Atheist personally.

The morbidly bitter type. If god exists, i'll kick him in his hypothetical nuts.

REASONS.
The usual stuff. lack of proof ect.
Plus the whole, if we dump children in a woods they'll start worshipping everything and claiming "IT MAKES THE MOON MOVE AND THE SUN RISE GODDAMMIT!" when we all know a giant beetle pushes it across the sky.

Minion comes from french mignon that comes from the latin minor.
Minor means LESSER, SMALLER, INFERIOR (in age).
U botched this example, because my minion Titus Caius is lesser than me!

But, 'minor' is the ROOT of the etymology... not the path.

Minion derives NOT direct from minor, but from a french word derived from minor... with all the attendant baggage that brings with it.

Etymology is not as simple as just looking at the FIRST link in the 'chain'.

Simple - Marx preached the support of atheism alongside communism because religion causes a class system in itself (that humans are more divine than animals) - the dissolution of the class system from all subjects is what Marx was trying to do.

But if we have everyone doing the same thing, we might end up with several definitions of each 'ism, which is quite tiresome. Wait a minute.....there are several definitions of each 'ism!! That's because, like you, people prefer to keep their own definitions of the terms that they hold most dear, regardless of the 'development' it takes in popular culture. There might be some merit in just upgrading the choice of words that you use to define your particular belief. Thus, in twenty years time, if you stick to your current set of beliefs, you could be using an entirely different term (although that is perhaps an exaggeration--just to prove a point).


You are absolutely correct - indeed, most of our language has been formed by just the kind of pressure you describe.

We do it ourselves, on an almost daily basis... almost on a throwaway basis, but it is how we find our palce in the world.

Such-and-such is a Republican. Yes, but he's not rightwing about it. Indeed, he's a moderate. Maybe it's because he's a Unitarian...

etc.

Such-and-such has been finessed, without any conscious process.


Thus, by your own admission, your belief is that of the gods that have been presented to you, none exist. Which is to say that so long as a god is presented to you, you will reject it, because you will not be convinced by anything that requires faith--and if it doesn't require faith, then it probably isn't a god. Thus, it seems like you have carefully curtailed the definition of your belief to prevent it from sounding like 'explicit atheism', but when boiled down is virtually the same thing.



No - by my own admission, I haven't seen a good enough reason to believe any of the gods presented to me DO exist. That is actually quite a different platform to believing they DON'T exist.

Is it possible someone could present me an argument that might convince me? I honestly don't know - as you say, if I can use logic on it, most would say 'it' can't be god.

But I don't KNOW I couldn't be convinced... which is why I consider myself Agnostic-leaning, but maybe not TRULY Agnostic.

It might be possible to argue that I have constructed my perspective to avoid the pitfalls of being labelled 'Explicit Atheist'... except that I was 'skeptical' rather than 'sure' LONG before I knew there WERE different 'atheisms'.


But only superficially, it seems, unless you are prepared to accept a god on the basis of faith, not on material evidence.


And, maybe one day that argument WILL be made, and WILL convince me. I can't think what it could be, but I'd no more actively deny it's possibility, than I would say there could never be any gods.


I'm not convinced that you are a skeptic, otherwise I would see you being skeptical of your own beliefs, and of your own opinions and governing assumptions (e.g. the criteria of what it takes for a god to convince you). You do seem to KNOW that you are not convinced.......how do you know that, might I ask?


Curious. Even I don't KNOW what it would take for a god to convince me. How skeptical do you want me to be?

How do I know I'm not convinced? By comparison, mainly - I was a Christian, and I use that as my 'convinced' state. Compared to that, I am 'not convinced'.


Na, na, Grave, you needn't worry about the pigeonholing. For one thing, that will happen regardless of how well you defend your definition of Atheism, or even because of it. Secondly, what is more important, the belief, or the definition of the term that you prefer to label your belief as? I suggest that the belief is infinitely more important, because that is the thing that is in your control. What others think of you really isn't (well, in my experience anyway). Thirdly, people who are overly worried about being pigeonholed are heading for burnout.


I don't know what is more important, the belief of the perception. Being 'perceived' as a godless heathen doesn't worry me, but I don't like the idea that I am going to be tarred with the same brush as some other person or group, just because they ALSO were atheists.. .even if every other aspect of our ideologies differed.

As for my belief... I don't know how to answer... I find it hard to determine what belief I have. I often wonder if I have any real beliefs at all. I have a lot of doubts.


You don't agree with my definition of the term 'agnostic'? Then what is yours? That might be interesting, considering that neither of us consider ourselves agnostic.


An Agnostic is someone who considers it is not possible to KNOW for sure, if there is a god.

Which is why I don't consider myself truly agnostic... I really don't know if I COULD know. Maybe that makes me.... some kind of Implicit Agnostic?


I can see that the media (or rather the forces behind the media) is a huge influence on the development of our language, and I often am annoyed by some developments (like the ones you have pointed out above). There doesn't seem to be a good way to prevent this, though. It seems as though the direction our language takes is in the hands of half-educated journalists. Still, this is far from the worst thing that is happening in our world.


Far from the worst thing, but far from the best, also. It makes Joe Average a tool of propaganda, because he peddles someone else's inaccurate message, without even being aware of what he does.


Incidentally, after spending some months with the southern Baptists (is that the bunch to whom you refer?) I came to the conclusion that it (the community in Texas with which I was going to church with) could just as easily be a culture about a set of beliefs that one must hold in order to be a Christian--but easily have missed a genuine belief in the Christ. For I perceive that a confession of belief (no matter how good that confession sounds) does not equate to a genuine belief. I saw that they hold a great emphasis on holding the correct belief, but little or none on the living reality of those beliefs. So that while they preached that it is hypocrisy to give a nice seat to the rich and floor to the poor, they sort of did that very thing themselves, and didn't seem to realise it. But not being American, I did have some trouble trying to figure out the difference between culture and Christianity, so I guess I should be a little careful with my criticisms.

Southern Baptists are the company I keep. I have seen a LOT of that hypocrisy you speak of... and I mean, a lot. As a godless heathen, I find it bizarre to be the most Christian-ACTING person I know, in an area where there are almost as many churches as houses.