Socialism leads to Atheism?

[stu]

Quote from fundjunkie:
It would be helpful if you would take the time to read what I say rather than seeing what you want to see.

You will see that I said, paraphrasing, that socialism does not "require" faith. In that sense it is faithless. I don't think I'll need to say any more though I suspect I may have to.

Problem in directly addressing my query as indicated by your response probably comes about because I am reading and reading in context what you said. Apparently though you'd now rather I "interpret".

You critisized others for not understanding the very subject of socialism yet you seem to be doing something very similar.

Quote from fundjunkie:
But in America the term has been warped, for political reasons, to mean things that it is not.

Agreed. That's why I'm querying your attachment to socialism and faithlessness.

Your suggestion is that I interpret your confirmation that "Socialism is indeed faithless", into meaning "Socialism doesn't require faith".
That lends itself to your own and in my view correct contention, that in America the term has been warped.

The fact is socialism often has not been faithless and indeed significantly has required faith.
How can you hope to understand the very meaning of socialism for which you have vilified others for not doing, unless you have acknowledged that yourself?

You may as well say government is faithless or democracy is faithless to say socialism is faithless, and of course non actually require faith.
But often faith is made paramount and conditional and is in that respect required for socialism to come about.

My view is your statement doesn't help the understanding of socialism or its actual direct relation and often dependency on faith and not faithlessness, or how socialism has historically been brought heavily to bear , through faith, as a requirement, especially Christian faiths. Effects of which continue to this day.

All powerful God. All powerful state. Too often considered as the legitimate and necessary aspirations for grounding socialist political theory and economic frameworks.

 

[Mav88]

Nitro, everyone worships a higher power. For some, it's money. For some it's God. For others it's government. It seems to me that most atheists have a tremendous respect for government and the power they hold and the reliance on that government to be their keeper. Others do no rely on government but rather their faith.

I am an atheist, I do worship anything. Worship has a definite meaning and I do not fit into it. I do not like gov't either, I like the ideas of other atheists like Tom Paine and Thomas Jefferson who wanted to keep gov't in check.

You have made a false dichotomy, that I must either worship gov't or faith. There are many liberals that also worship both and one look at history shows the terrible governments in the name of religion. You don't even need to look back, look today at the Islamic states to see how well religion and gov't mix.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

The <strike>protestant reformation</strike> growth of the modern secular state ... was the main contribution to the founding of the US.

Roman Catholic Church tied Church and State together. Ultimate socialism where everyone jointly and severally belonged to God and State.

16th century religious infighting ends with a Reformation. Who's surprised religious socialism is so unbearable?
So they bring in some secularism, to deal with religious state control.

They called themselves Protestants, but could just as well have called themselves, say, Libertarians, achieving one extra freedom while they were at it. Not enslaving thought to an imaginary sky tyrant.

Freedom came despite religion not because of it.

I would not expect you to review history properly.

After all you are the person... who states Jesus was not a historical figure even though he is mentioned in at least one undisputed passage in Josepheus.

You deny dictionaries have a right to define atheism contrary to your preferred definition.
You deny that Christianity should be defined as those who believe in the the trinity because you prefer your definition

You deny that our current universe looks designed to many scientists because you prefer to pretend there is no need to conclude there may be a Creator.

You seem to deny that noble prize winners conclude there is no known pathway from non life to life.

 

[nitro]

Quote from jem:

...
You seem to deny that noble prize winners conclude there is no known pathway from non life to life.

That is a question that is not meant for the 21st century. We don't even understand how to model atoms more complicated than a hydrogen atom (it gets incredibly complicated once you start adding electrons)!

Quarks and Gluons + Higgs -> Physics -> Atoms -> Chemistry -> Biology-> Consciousness->?Religion. We know this is true, but we are really fuzzy on even the arrow from Physics to Chemistry!

We know that these fields exist and scientists have had many victories in each over the millenia, but really only have a cursory understanding of Physics let alone Biology!

One thing that you guys don't understand (or refuse to admit) is that science tries to explain from the bottom up, and religion from the top down. They will only intersect (somewhere in the middle) once science is able to speak on much much MUCH higher planes of discourse (perhaps even less precise, a completely new kind of science!). This endless debate doesn't get anyone anywhere and probably won't for a thousand years...

 

[jem]

Quote from nitro:

That is a question that is not meant for the 21st century. We don't even understand how to model atoms more complicated than a hydrogen atom (it gets incredibly complicated once you start adding electrons)!

Quarks and Gluons + Higgs -> Physics -> Atoms -> Chemistry -> Biology-> Consciousness->?Religion.

We know that these fields exist and scientists have had many victories in each over the millenia, but really only have a cursory understanding of Physics let alone Biology!

One thing that you guys don't understand is that science tries to explain from the bottom up, and religion from the top down. They will only intersect (somewhere in the middle) once science is able to speak on much much MUCH higher planes of discourse (perhaps even less precise!). This endless debate doesn't get anyone anywhere and probably won't for a thousand years...

very good point...

but during my research and my proving Stu was wrong when he stated De Duve was on his side.
I learned that not only do nobel prize winners state we currently have no pathway to life...

but some top scientists in the field now say there was not enough time on the earth for non life to evolve into life.

Other scientist including the one who "discovered" DNA suggested the idea of pan spermia in a peer reviewed paper (which reads a bit tongue in cheek) because he realized there is no way life evolved from non life on earth.

 

[nitro]

Quote from jem:

very good point...

but during my research and my proving Stu was wrong when he stated De Duve was on his side.
I learned that not only do nobel prize winners state we currently have no pathway to life...

but some top scientists in the field now say there was not enough time on the earth for non life to evolve into life.

Other scientist including the one who "discovered" DNA suggested the idea of pan spermia in a peer reviewed paper (which reads a bit tongue in cheek) because he realized there is no way life evolved from non life on earth.

This is as close as science gets to what you guys are talking about, and most scientists think guys like these are crackpots (I don't). Note that you need conciousness to think about God, at least we have never seen a non-human contemplate God (I wonder if mentally disabled people are religious?). Therefore Religion, God, whatever, arises from consciousness, and I claim they are intimately connected, i.e., God and Consciousness come into existence together. (but do love hate jealousy etc?) He never says it, but one gets the feeling that this consciousness must preexist, and that in fact it must be "God." God = Conciousness. That is why man (really any consciousness) is created in "Gods image." This is all very non scientific, but one sees how turning definitions upside down helps in resolving paradoxes...

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/s42mrdhKwRA?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/s42mrdhKwRA?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

Notice he uses the term, "downward causation", which is the opposite of science, at least modern reductionist science.

 

[stu]

Religion is an explanation of how not to understand.

 

[soldsoldsold]

Quote from stu:

Religion is an explanation of how not to understand.

I've never seen a more concise summary of religion!

 

[Mav88]

That is a question that is not meant for the 21st century. We don't even understand how to model atoms more complicated than a hydrogen atom (it gets incredibly complicated once you start adding electrons)!

nitro, yes we do know how to model them and it works quite well. Density Functional Theory in fact models quite complicated organics with many nuclei. It's numerical, but it works.

Here's the problem: What you meant was 'closed form solution' does not exist, but since you are desperate to extroplate any little bit of scientific uncertainty to the conclusion that your own version of a god exists, then you take huge liberties with the little knowledge you have. I would also stop listening to quacks and try and find the better voices of the mainstream.

Assuming though that even if your statement is correct, you take it as some sort of evidence for your point of view. Fallacy of the HUGE excluded middle.

Exe: "Some scientists question... {fill in the blank with your favorite coclusion}, therefore MY religion is correct." is not logically true

 

[Mav88]

well we had a decent discussion about socialism and atheism, oh well.

I will say though to fund that socialism is not rigorously defined, it probably can't be. Risk pooling can be an outcome of socialism, however if everyone is allowed into the risk pool then the turds start floating. Good teams cut people.

We are also tossing around the term atheism loosley. Atheism is a rather strong term for people who claim that any sort of deity does not exist.

Deism means belief in any sort of higher intelligence, or a creating agent. Theism is that, plus the intelligence is a personal god, that is it cares when you take a dump or give money to the church or gives you eternal life. Theism is most of the worlds religions. You can be a deist and not believe in life after death for instance. Abraham Lincoln was a deist, not a theist or Christian as an example.

I am not really an atheist, but I am positive that theism is wrong.