ComradeRemus: It strikes me as odd to describe statism as a religion. Are we all clear on the actual meaning of the word religion?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zt9QCAUPPeYQuq Balam: No, we're not. Even Chomsky is kind of playing with the very loose term of "religion" that Hitchens and Harris use. I mean, these are the same ignoramuses that call Marxism, or at least offshoots of it like Maoism, religions despite being atheistic ideologies that oppose religions. One wonders why is it that their own atheistic ideologies don't count as religions as well.
Richard Fennimore: You appear not to know what the term religion means. There is nothing loose about the term. It’s pretty straight forward really. A religion is a system of faith (belief without evidence) and worship of a superhuman controlling power, normally in the form of a personal God (theism). I hate to break it to you pal, but atheism is simply a rejection of theism, so it cannot be defined as either an ideology or a religion.
Michael Gregory: I agree completely with Quq Balam. I think the problem is the definition of religion is stretched so thin (by Harris and Hitchens before Chomsky) that it is perfectly reasonable to say that about Harris. Harris, Hitchens, Bill Maher and others sided with the U.S. against the Soviets during the Cold War and China, North Korea and others today. China, North Korea are atheist and the former Soviet Union was atheist and America is largely Christian. When the Soviet Union fell the Imperialists not only waged an ideological offensive against Communism but also atheism as the Soviet Union was very much a bastion of world atheism. The common thread between this and sided with the U.S. against Muslim countries IS NOT secular values but an allegiance to U.S. Imperialism. Rather than own that fact they come with this convoluted argument that Communism is a religion. Chomsky really is just using their own line of reasoning against them.
Richard Fennimore: Japan, the Czech Republic, France, Australia, and Iceland are all majority atheist countries too. This has nothing at all to do with whether they are communist, socialist, or capitalist. Your comments are complete babble. No coherent argument in there anywhere.
ComradeRemus: +Michael Gregory I've heard hitchens talk, and I don't think he ever called communism a religion. He just insisted that the USSR manipulated the eastern orthadox church and employed aspects of religion to help control the citizenry.
Richard Fennimore: +ComradeRemus You are correct sir. While Hitchens did jokingly refer to North Korea’s former supreme leader Kim Il-sung and his son Kim Jong-il as “one short of a trinity” (i.e. “the father, the son, and the ??” - because the North Korean people worshipped them as if they were Gods), neither he nor any of the other "new atheists" have ever referred to communism as a religion.
Michael Gregory: Richard Fennimore, you seemed to have dodged all of my points. As for the countries you have listed, not all countries have been affected equally. Religion is very much on the rise of the U.S. One place that has been most affected is the Middle East. The Middle East used to b largely secular nationalists and Communists, now it is largely Islamic fundamentalist. ComradeRemus I watch Bill Maher's show on regular basis and he HAS so unless Hitchens was in fundamental disagreement with Maher then my point still stands. They a both part of the "New Atheist" movement and their views are virtually identical.
Michael Gregory: The fact is capitalism relies on religion to provide artificial happiness for the oppressed when preaching unquestioning obedience to authority. Religion itself is caused by deprivation and capitalism inevitably breeds poverty and oppression. As longer as the social conditions exist for religion exist, it will prop up now matter how many times it is debunked ideologically. Harris, Hitchens and Co.'s support is almost exclusively amoung well to do able-bodied, neuorotypical, white men precisely because it provides NOTHING for the oppressed. Most atheist who are female, non-white, poor and disabled hate Maher, Richard Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens.
Richard Fennimore: Michael Gregory, I didn’t dodge your points, I ignored them. There is a big difference. I am sorry sir, but with as much respect as I can muster, there is no other way to say that it’s impossible to have an intelligent conversation when your arguments are nothing but babble and drivel. I rest my case.
ComradeRemus: Michael your only comment towards me was to say that you heard Bill Maher say something, and it follows that Christopher Hitchens has to have believed it as well. Did you really think through that poppycock before you shit it out of your keyboard?
They managed to dodge really all of my points but still managed to pat themselves on that back. Perhaps someone should explain to these erudite Ivy League frat boys that in order to rest one's case one must first make a case and defend that case. Interesting how I point out most female, non-white and disabled hate them and that they have nothing to offer such people and they reply that it is "impossible" to "have an intelligent conversation with me". Perhaps they find it "impossible" to "have and intelligent conversation" with women, non-whites and disabled. Nothing racist, misogynist or ablest about that. Since they are unwilling to actually answer me, lets just say I won by forfeit. They really strike as similar to Donald Trump and George W. Bush in that they manage to imbeciles but also see themselves as they smartest guys in the room.
No comments:
Post a Comment