The death of civilized discussion

Relax wrote:There is no such thing as protecting "everyone's" right. One person says they have the right to steal without government supervision. The other says stealing via government fiat is A-ok. Not everyone's "rights" are being protected.

And what is considered "evil?" Who decides that?

Personally, stealing from someone via the barrel of a government gun in order to give hand-outs to those who refuses to work, is evil. To both the recipient and those whom you decided to steal from.

I will only mention in passing that I dispute your assumption that anyone who gets any benefit from the government "refuses to work".

It seems you object to paying taxes that go to help others. How is this any different from the taxes of an Atheist going to provide public services used by churches, which pay no tax? Are we only to pay taxes for stuff we like? If you don't like the way taxes are spent, get involved politically and campaign to change it.

Relax wrote:Why Atheism is a religion. It is the religion of 51% as its arbiter of truth embodied by governance. A system of worship by the 51%. So, if 51% say stealing is good, then it is A-ok. If anyone has a different opinion than the 51% then they need to be quashed to "uphold" the morality of the 51%.

You seem hung up on this 51% idea, ignoring the existence of a Constitution and laws that both limit what that 51% can do and protect the other 49%. You also seem to believe that religion and government are synonymous. There are countries where that is true, and they pretty much all suck. The US system of government, which was considered radical at its birth, succeeded at least partly because it explicitly forbade mixing religion and the state.

Now, is Atheism a religion? To decide this we must first agree on a definition of "religion". I would argue that the defining characteristics of a religion, as opposed to other systems of belief, are:

1. Received "wisdom". A religion holds certain beliefs that originate from a revered source, such as legends or prophets. Received wisdom may be expounded upon and interpreted, but the source is never questioned. To suggest that Buddha or Allah or Jesus or Yahweh may have been wrong, merely human or a fictional legend (possibly built up around a real person) puts you outside the religion. A few religions do not have personified deities, but even those have holy books or sayings.

Atheism reject "recieved wisdom" in favor of things that can be physically verified.

2. Rituals. Birth, death coming-of-age and marriage rituals are as old as human society, and every religion has their own set. Some of these have become civil functions as well, because of their effects on property and inheritance, but other rituals such as bris or baptism are specific to certain faiths.

There are no ceremonies for becoming an Atheist. No Atheist-specific rituals, and no one to pray to.

3. Transcendence. Religions espouse the idea that there is "something more" than life as we experience it physically. It may take the form of life after death, reincarnation, or karma, but they all embody the idea that faith will influence your destiny in supernatural ways.

Transcendence, by definition, is outside the evidence-based cause and effect relationships that Atheists look for.

4. A Value System. Arising from the idea of transcendence is the need to place positive or negative values on behavior. Since this is also an element of law, there is some overlap between the legal and the "moral", or the illegal and the "immoral", and conflict can arise.

Everyone has a value system, whether it is "Me first and to hell with everybody else" or "An ye harm none, do as thou wilt". Issues arise when different groups value different things. There are two major religions that forbid you to eat a ham and cheese sandwich. Quite a few insist that women must be subservient to men. Atheists have value systems, too, based on maximizing the benefit to society as a whole through practical means.

So Atheism misses on three of the four, and I conclude that it is not a religion.

Imaginos1892, we have had this conversation before, but I'll try again. You said -
"You’re actually talking about “progressives”. Their defining feature is not that they are atheists, but that they are leftist statist control freaks. They have rejected faith in authoritarian religion and replaced it with faith in authoritarian government — for everybody else. They are always Right and anybody who disagrees with them is Wrong and Racist and Sexist and even (O the horror!) Conservative. You can’t argue with them when the very fact that you are arguing is proof that you are Wrong, and all those other things."

I'm pretty much an atheist (with a slight agnostic slant) and politically would generally be classed as a progressive (with right wing law and order values), but have no liking or preference for an authoritarian government.
As I (and others) have previously stated you are getting mixed up by confusing totalitarianism (usually hard right based) with socialism. That then is another whole discussion, as we see what we call socialism as a benign system to ensure that people are treated well and that has no conflict with democracy. Yet you see it as totalitarian communism (very different).

Have we ever seen a socialist state that did not turn into totalitarian communism? After a while, those who create value get tired of having it taken away and given to those that create nothing.

We are hard-wired by evolution to seek reward. If everybody is rewarded the same, whether they work or not, very few will choose to work. Very few will choose to work harder if there is no increased reward for it.

Those "progressives" condemn 'income inequality' as if it is some self-evident evil that must be destroyed to achieve their utopia. They are unable to understand that it is one of the greatest strengths of our society - the notion that you can work harder, acquire knowledge and skills, improve yourself, and make more money.

It's an imperfect system. There are far too many who get lots of money through favoritism and corruption instead of work and merit. But when you try to make it 'fair', when you give some people the power to decide that 'the rich' do not deserve what they have, and combine that with the government's power to take everything...it's a prescription for Hell On Earth.
-----------------
If a business tries something and it doesn't work, they either stop doing it or they will go broke. If the government tries something that doesn't work, they just keep shoveling our money into it forever.

Imaginos1892 wrote:Have we ever seen a socialist state that did not turn into totalitarian communism?

That would be most of the first world, depending on your definition of "socialist state." I don't think any of the notable communist states had a distinct socialist phase separate from a later totalitarian period.

Imaginos1892 wrote:Have we ever seen a socialist state that did not turn into totalitarian communism?

That question merely shows a staggering degree of ignorance.

There have been no "socialist" states.

And democratic states with more noticeable socialist leanings have not become "totalitarian communist" states. Democratic states with less noticeable socialist leanings, likewise.

Totalitarian states have turned into "totalitarian communist" states.

That´s simple facts.

For some classic examples:
Tsarist Russia -totalitarian, even severely so, spent a few months in chaos that might be arguable as having some sort of connection with socialism, but that´s ridiculously farfetched; before becoming totalitarian USSR.
No socialist state in between.

Cuba replaced a rightwing dictature with a neutral one, which after USA(prompted by the ousted Cuban establishment) rejected it, aligned itself to the USSR out of necessity.
No socialist state without the dictature there. What socialism happened in Cuba came well after the dictature part, Castro was serious in wanting to help his people, but he was also bound by sticking with USSR as well as keeping his own people happy enough to not have one MORE rebellion, or invasion attempt.

So tell us, where were there a democratic socialist state that turned totalitarian?
Please DO enlighten us, as you make such certain assertions about it, you should know them.

Some minor stuff:

Theism belief in a god. A-Theism belief that there is no god.

Gnosis: Greek for Knowledge (NOT belief) Gnosticism: religious belied declared heresy back in 3rd century CE. Agnostic- I do not know if there is a god or not (but I have not abandoned my search). Gnostic- Eurika! I may not have found that logical proof of the existence of god that will suffice for YOU, but I have found [something] that suffices for ME.

From Democracy in America: Some term called Social Mores (pronounced morays) not religion or the government is the basis of the moral system. Absolute [religion based] moral codes pretty much do not change, law is very conservative and changes glacially. Social mores shift with every generation and drive changes in social attitudes and the law struggles to catch up.

From Roman Catholicism: the holy sacrament of Matrimony, pretty much the civil contract of marriage, but with God and not the state as the enforcer of the contract.


Yes, I was born and raised Roman Catholic, But I've been in recover for nearly 50 years. Been down several religious rabbit-holes between then and now. Finally realized that I am a Pagan Gnostic. For me, yes there is a God, but IT is nothing like what I learned "god is" in the Baltimore Catechism.

From Through the Looking Glass: THE Cheshire Cat: "Words can mean whatever we wish them to." Alice: "I don't think that's quite true." Cheshire Cat: "Its just a matter of who's to be boss. Well, except for the vrbs. They're a bit picky about their meanings."

We keep playing with the meaning of words, the meaning of concepts, we are even, apparently even playing with history. Did, as Sarah Palin posited, Paul Revere embark on his midnight ride to notify the British troops to stand firm, keep the stiff upper lip and enjoy a spot of tea because the relief column was on its way?
Is it genocide to kill this particular tribe of Indians, or is it only genocide if we kill all Indians from Fort Duquense (or wherever you stuck the pin) to the mouth of the Columbia River.

What is up with the concept YOURS/not YOURS? if it is not YOURS and you take it it is theft. Doesn't really matter if those who claim it took it from someone else. Theft is theft. And thee is the British legl concept of possession is 9 points of the Law. Hypocrisy is the belief that your legal system only applies to you, therefore their prior possession is irrelevant. You have the right to kill them for the land.

Tenshinai wrote:

Imaginos1892 wrote:Have we ever seen a socialist state that did not turn into totalitarian communism?

That question merely shows a staggering degree of ignorance.

There have been no "socialist" states.

IIRC, there is one particular country that started as a socialist state founded by near-fundamentalist religious people who thought the country they left was too tolerant and which quickly decided that it wasn't working and switched to capitalism/democracy.
Of course, it also had to fight a war of independence and then a civil war. After which it got involved in shenaniganising other countries and fighting in a war on a completely different continent.

And what was this country, you may ask?

I'll let you lot figure it out.

Michael Everett wrote:
IIRC, there is one particular country that started as a socialist state founded by near-fundamentalist religious people who thought the country they left was too tolerant and which quickly decided that it wasn't working and switched to capitalism/democracy.
Of course, it also had to fight a war of independence and then a civil war. After which it got involved in shenaniganising other countries and fighting in a war on a completely different continent.

And what was this country, you may ask?

I'll let you lot figure it out.

[Jumps up and down waving arms] Oooh, oooh Mlar know!

Michael Everett wrote:IIRC, there is one particular country that started as a socialist state founded by near-fundamentalist religious people who thought the country they left was too tolerant and which quickly decided that it wasn't working and switched to capitalism/democracy.
Of course, it also had to fight a war of independence and then a civil war. After which it got involved in shenaniganising other countries and fighting in a war on a completely different continent.

And what was this country, you may ask?

I'll let you lot figure it out.

I think you´re equating "socialist" with partly or leaning socialist, because there´s barely any nations today that is zero part socialist, while there are none that are socialist.

And i very much doubt your suggested state STARTED as a socialist state. Unless of course your definition of "socialist" is veeeery screwy.

Tenshinai wrote:And i very much doubt your suggested state STARTED as a socialist state. Unless of course your definition of "socialist" is veeeery screwy.

Quite a lot does depend on the definition of Socialist, I will agree that.
However, since the first point of settlement was explicitly described as a Religion-based Commune and there is a large overlap between Commune and Socialist, the term just about fits. None of the posters from the country in question have complained about it, so there must be at least some accuracy to the application of the term.

And suggested state?
Oh, it's still going strong, despite recent... complications.
And yep, I think all of us who frequent this board have heard of it...