Why is theism seen as positive and atheism as negative?

[Lume]

With regard to the communist world wide movement, it was who (thier own countrymen) was killed and the number killed (85-100 million) in the given time span (about 70 years) that was appalling. Hard to find a similar experience in human history. It seems the more dedicated a government is to eliminating God, the easier it is for them to eliminate people.

Actually, the figure 60-100 million is based purely on Robert Conquest's "speculated projections" regarding birth rates that fell short during civil wars, famines, droughts, etc. These are imaginary people that died, not real people.

And since Mao and Stalin doubled the average lifespan of their citizens, I take communism as quite a good mark for what atheists/materialists have to offer. Not to mention giving women the right to vote, destroying the tradition of footbinding, giving people the right to divorce, helping bring an end to prostitution, striking down anti-homosexual laws, etc., etc.

Since you brought it up.

 

[sd01g]

If the logical conclusion of atheism is X, then X is a requirement of atheism.

I'll accept that it's the logical conclusion of materialism, but you said you were talking about atheism, not materialism. If you want to use the materialistic hypothesis as proof of your claim, then you're going to have to prove that materialism is the logical conclusion of atheism.

You're going to have a hard time, because counterexamples abound. Solipsism is a good one.

Atheism, materialism, naturalism, and solipsism are beliefs or views held by people/philosophers. It is difficult to determine if the beliefs or views held by any given individual are the results of logical conclusions. If you do not believe that the natural world exists ONLY of matter/energy that is constantly moving and changing locations, then the assertion that atheism reduces to materialism is meaningless.

 

[AsianSensationK]

Not all theists limit themselves to empiricism and rationalism as sources of evidence. But even if we do, we have things like the fact lightning is evidence of Thor.

Fabulous.

Hey, if it's something you experience, I can't argue with it. I find my own philosophy the same way sometimes.

 

[sd01g]

Actually, the figure 60-100 million is based purely on Robert Conquest's "speculated projections" regarding birth rates that fell short during civil wars, famines, droughts, etc. These are imaginary people that died, not real people.

And since Mao and Stalin doubled the average lifespan of their citizens, I take communism as quite a good mark for what atheists/materialists have to offer. Not to mention giving women the right to vote, destroying the tradition of footbinding, giving people the right to divorce, helping bring an end to prostitution, striking down anti-homosexual laws, etc., etc.

Since you brought it up.

Have you read the 'Black Book of Communism' by Stephand Courtois et al.?
The 85-100 million figures are based on much more than "speculated projections". If the end justifies even atrocious means, then how many people should we eliminate to help solve the global warming problem?

 

[Lume]

Have you read the 'Black Book of Communism' by Stephand Courtois et al.?
The 85-100 million figures are based on much more than "speculated projections". If the end justifies even atrocious means, then how many people should we eliminate to help solve the global warming problem?

That book is just an opportunistic money-machine. They constantly ram figures down your throat, but never give a side-by-side comparison with capitalism's death toll. Courtois inflated the figures to arrive at 100 million as the total death toll. In the chapter on China for instance, decimal points were misplaced that inflated the figures of people who died during the cultural revolution by at least a factor of ten.

Besides, blaming famines on communists is about as close to childishness as you can come in academia. The death toll for capitalism reaches 100 million from starvation alone, every 8 to 12 years. When is the last time you heard someone crying that capitalists have been murdering 100 million people every decade??

The simple fact is, Stalin and Mao doubled the life expectancies of the people. And in fact, the life expectancy under Russia now for the typical male is lower than it was 60 years ago under Stalin! Sixty years of capitalism has lowered the life expectancies. So if you really want to complain about an economic/political system that's killing its people, you know where to point your finger.

 

[sd01g]

That book is just an opportunistic money-machine. They constantly ram figures down your throat, but never give a side-by-side comparison with capitalism's death toll. Courtois inflated the figures to arrive at 100 million as the total death toll. In the chapter on China for instance, decimal points were misplaced that inflated the figures of people who died during the cultural revolution by at least a factor of ten.

Besides, blaming famines on communists is about as close to childishness as you can come in academia. The death toll for capitalism reaches 100 million from starvation alone, every 8 to 12 years. When is the last time you heard someone crying that capitalists have been murdering 100 million people every decade??

The simple fact is, Stalin and Mao doubled the life expectancies of the people. And in fact, the life expectancy under Russia now for the typical male is lower than it was 60 years ago under Stalin! Sixty years of capitalism has lowered the life expectancies. So if you really want to complain about an economic/political system that's killing its people, you know where to point your finger.

I suspect that you did not read the book. It would be interesting to hear your views on the famines in North Korea, which you will probably blame on the capitalists not sending enough food to the North Korean people. I wonder if you have any figures on how many people drowned trying to get to Cuba from the USA? The atrocities inflicted by the communists in Cambodia are some of the most barbaric since humanity became civilized. What the communists did to East Germany was a true tragedy that thankfully has ended.

China is in the process of changing from a communist economic system to a capitalistic system because the communist economic system is truly pathetic.
Communism has been and continues to be a blight on humanity.

 

[Evo]

This is getting WAY off topic. Atheism does not equal communism.

Drop the communism rant and return to the topic.

 

[heusdens]

We should find the minimum requirements for 'god'. This is maybe best done by asking an atheist what it is (in the most simplified form) that he specifically rules out.

This is the other way around. I would argue the other way around, what is there unsatisfactory or missing in the natural explenation of the world, that any kind of deity would be needed in the first place.

Take the idea that a brainless/bodyless* mind(consciousness) was a causal factor in the origin of our spacetime universe.

Is that a theistic idea?

Supposedly, yes.

 

[heusdens]

Reducing humans to a arrangement of atoms is not a requirement of atheism, it is the logical conclusion of all atheism when atheism means there is no deity, no God. This leaves only the natural world which is composed of atoms and subatomic particles.

I don't think this kind of reductionist thinking is a consequence of an atheist or materialist point of view.
The fact that a human body consists of living cells which are organically and functionally very complex, and living cells consists of organic molecules which are organically and functionally complex, does not mean that you can reduce a human to nothing more then the atoms these molecules are made of, because this just ignores the very complex way in which these atoms, molecules and cells function.

 

[heusdens]

The major defect in atheism is that it reduces a person to no more than a collection of atoms which has no purpose and no value. We need the concept of God to give us rights, purpose, and value. The atheistic values (or lack of values) of the communistic systems of the past made it easy to justify killing 100 Million people. After all, they were only rearranging atoms.

A materialist or atheist worldvision does not reduce the human being to a collection of atoms, this is simply non-sensical.

Is the chip in your PC also equal to a bunch of sand?

What matters is the way the matter is organized. Materialism does recognize the importance of that aspect.

Further your statement is not making much sense, you drop an arbitrary and made-up figure.

Do you recognize that after the fall of communism countries like russia face a sharp decline of life expectancy?

Have you considerd that the healt situation of the average Cuban citizin is much better then countries with a comparable level of economic development, and this is due to communism?

 

[ray b]

hitler was a toltalitarian christian
many kings and emporers were also
and killed a lot too
toltalitarian is the key evil not atheism or communism

and I would also claim communism is a belief without a god
and very different from a true atheism

 

[heusdens]

and I would also claim communism is a belief without a god
and very different from a true atheism

What is "true atheism"? I don't think there is such a thing as "true atheism", since atheism is just a collection of different worldviews, with only point of view in common that they don't acknowledge the existence of any god.

Further, I don't see the point of calling communism a belief, since a belief is something you have to take on face value, while communism is to be regarded as a scientific point of view, and that society, and nature show signs of progressive development.

Communism is not in conflict with science.

 

[sd01g]

I don't think this kind of reductionist thinking is a consequence of an atheist or materialist point of view.
The fact that a human body consists of living cells which are organically and functionally very complex, and living cells consists of organic molecules which are organically and functionally complex, does not mean that you can reduce a human to nothing more then the atoms these molecules are made of, because this just ignores the very complex way in which these atoms, molecules and cells function.

If one were to remove all the atoms from a life form, what would be left of that life form?

 

[ray b]

What is "true atheism"? I don't think there is such a thing as "true atheism", since atheism is just a collection of different worldviews, with only point of view in common that they don't acknowledge the existence of any god.

Further, I don't see the point of calling communism a belief, since a belief is something you have to take on face value, while communism is to be regarded as a scientific point of view, and that society, and nature show signs of progressive development.

Communism is not in conflict with science.

communism as the russian and china goverments use it tryed to rule that
atheism was the state religion or lack of one and the people were required to believe in communism's ideals in place of the former religion' ideals

a true atheism is each person desiding for themselfs that there is no god goddess ect not state imposed and taught belief that the commies tryed
and does not subject the atheist to an other set of values
just what the person sees as just and fair and correct

 

[heusdens]

If one were to remove all the atoms from a life form, what would be left of that life form?

Nothing. Only a bunch of atoms.

But the point is that a living organism is not the same as the atoms it is made of.
If you think that is the case, please stop buying a very expensive processor for your computer, but use sand instead, after all they are the same atoms as the processor is made of.

The point is that a reductionist point of view does not acknowledge the material complexicity and organisation form of matter. Which is of importance of course.

 

[sd01g]

Nothing. Only a bunch of atoms.

But the point is that a living organism is not the same as the atoms it is made of.
If you think that is the case, please stop buying a very expensive processor for your computer, but use sand instead, after all they are the same atoms as the processor is made of.

The point is that a reductionist point of view does not acknowledge the material complexicity and organisation form of matter. Which is of importance of course.

Would you agree that a computer is nothing more than a complex arrangement of atoms that processes a flow of electrons? (you have to plug it into make it work). Simply stated: No atoms, no electrons-no computer.
About the software? Ask yourself: Where does the software go when the hard drive is formatted?

A human being is a complex arrangement of atoms that processes electochemical energy. Note: None of the philosophers like, Descartes, Kant, or Hegel, who lived before Maxwell (1831-1879) had a clue about electricity.

Simply stated: No atoms, no electrons-no humans. Ask yourself: What happens to the SELF when the brain is 'formatted' (death)?

 

[Evo]

Sorry, this thread is going nowhere.