I dunno. That would seem to make ritual tantamount to ethics. According to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (OHCAC), for example, we ought to partake of or participate in the Sacraments. But I doubt it would consider doing so to be a matter of ethics. — Ciceronianus

As a comparison, in Orthodox Judaism, there are 613 commandments, each of which is a moral imparitive, with no distinction being drawn between the ritualistic and the ethical. All are the law of God and so must be followed.

With modernity, new branches of Judaism formed, most generally referred to as Conservative and Reform, both at least partially on this question as to how to seperate the purely ethical from the ritual. If that distinction could not be drawn, then no theological justification could be reached for why only certain of the moral tenants should be adhered to.

This seems to be @Banno's response, which is how such a distinction can ultimately be drawn, and it remains a challenge for the non-orthodox versions of beliefs systems, but without making them more palatable, they hold more limited appeal.

I don't see how to understand that in a coherent fashion. What is ethics if not what one ought do? — Banno

Well, OHCAC says I should "drink the wine and chew the wafer" (as Tom Lehrer sang in his magnificent song The Vatican Rag, which you should listen to if you haven't already), which is to say participate in the Eucharist. Now, am I acting ethically when I do so? What is it that's "good" about the drinking and the chewing? What if I merely chewed? Am I being "bad" if I do neither? What if I skip drinking and chewing a few times? Am I unethical? I think not. One doesn't drink and chew because it's good to do so, but that it shows one's devotion to and belief in OHCAC and Jesus.

Roughly, yes. But I think there are broader issues, concerning the supposed applicability of rules to all possible situations. No sooner is a rule stated than it is possible to find a situation in which it is not applicable, or in which it's application would be a travesty.

And that, still speaking generally, is the root error of deontology.

And orthodoxy.

Atheism has no ideology. Thats why you always have to mention communism and marxism etc along with the atheism. Atheism alone has no edicts, no rules, no goals…its merely a position on theism. — DingoJones

It can have an ideology, which might include the supression of theism. By the same token, it's not necessary for a theist to subscribe to a particular ideology.

Agreed, but that immorality wouldnt have atheism as its source. — DingoJones

Yes, the source would be atheism.

We are talking about atheism, not communism.
Also, Im not saying they just happened to be atheist.
Listen:
Im saying that atheism is not the reason for their immorality. Atheism is not a ethical system, nor a system of belief of any kind. Again, this is why you must attach your criticisms of atheism to communism. — DingoJones

You're acting like you're making a point that isn't heard. The criticisms go both ways. I'm not talking about Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or Hindu. I'm talking about theism. It's just as possible to distill out the simple statement "I believe there is a God" as it is to distill out "I do not believe there is a God" and deny anything negative from either of those distilled out statements. But, if the question is whether a theistic belief has done harm, the answer is yes, just as the question of whether an atheistic belief system has done harm is also yes.

Must atheism be bad? No. Are certain iterations of it bad. Yes.

there are 613 commandments, — Hanover

Jesus Christ! Oh. Sorry.

I'm not sure what would be moral about...well, I don't know what all those commandments are, so you have me at a disadvantage. Does one of them have to do about not eating unclean animals (I'm not trying to be funny or sarcastic). If so, how would refraining from doing so be moral?

What if I merely chewed? Am I being "bad" if I do neither? What if I skip drinking and chewing a few times? Am I unethical? I think not. — Ciceronianus

It's not so much what you might think that is at issue here, as what Cardinal Pell might have said. And i take it that he would have preferred that everyone partake of the sacraments, as appropriate, according to the catechism. That is, and here we can return to my theme, he wanted everyone to do as he does.

So, is that all there is? Intolerance on both sides, which flares up whenever someone claims there is or is not a God? — Ciceronianus

Psychological insecurity which presents as intolerance maybe. In mixed and relatively open societies, I'd hypothesize that most atheists have an inner theist trying to get out and most theists have an inner atheist trying to get out. In argumentative situations then, these inner aliens are fed by opposing interlocutors with predictably unpleasant results.

Atheism has no ideology. Thats why you always have to mention communism and marxism etc along with the atheism. Atheism alone has no edicts, no rules, no goals…its merely a position on theism. — DingoJones

If atheism consisted merely in a lack of theism; I wonder where the motivation to argue for it would derive.

It seems to me that atheism would in many cases consist merely in lack of theism, and it seems likely that we don't get any argument coming from those people; we probably don't hear their voices, just as we don't hear from probably the vast majority of theists, who just live and let live.

There seems to be no doubt that in many cases atheism is actually anti-theism; and in those cases it would certainly count as an ideology. Likewise theism may or may not be anti-atheism.

On both sides, I would argue, we find the ideologues; one side arguing that everyone ought to believe in God and the other side arguing that everyone ought not believe in God.

So, is that all there is? Intolerance on both sides, which flares up whenever someone claims there is or is not a God? — Ciceronianus

I think the problem is what those claims/beliefs may lead to. If someone's worldview is predicated on a magic man who intervenes in life, then they will make life choices which reflect that thinking. Claims about god generally include concomitant claims. In some instances - that children should be beaten and that women are property and gays should be in jail or executed. Claims about where atheism leads often involve a denigration of the moral positions held by an old book. Subsidiary claims may include that atheists endorse GLBTIQ and women's rights and environmental concerns and science education which are against the truth and God's will. The god/atheism debate seems to be about the frames and worldviews that stem from belief.

Somehow the issue slid from whether women should have bodily autonomy to whether one should chew on a wafer.

Must atheism be bad? No. Are certain iterations of it bad. Yes. — Hanover

Clumsy thinking still. Communism, for example, is not an iteration of atheism in the way e.g. Judaism is an iteration of theism. Theism is a broader category containing all religions, such that they can be considered subcategories or iterations of it--or "theistic belief systems" in a proper sense. Atheism is an element of communist ideology. There is no sense in which communism is a subcategory of atheism or an iteration of it. And to call it an "atheistic belief system" is misleading because it suggests that this element is the primary ideological force behind it when its not as it's a socioeconomic theory. I'm not going to deny communist ideologies have inflicted harm on religious believers in pursuance of encouraging atheism as part of their projects. But your approach to this is illogical and your reasoning is faulty.

Yes, that is something to chew over...

I'm not sure what would be moral about...well, I don't know what all those commandments are, so you have me at a disadvantage. Does one of them have to do about not eating unclean animals (I'm not trying to be funny or sarcastic). If so, how would refraining from doing so be moral? — Ciceronianus

It's 613 minus those related to acts performed at the temple (since it was destroyed) mostly related to animal sacrifice.

All would be moral commandments. No distinctions is made related to the performamce of God's law.

This is probably in part why Christians creatively found a way to do away with the law of the OT, but, even there it required some creativity.

This is probably in part why Christians creatively found a way to do away with the law of the OT, but, even there it required some creativity. — Hanover

And why some Jews hand a string around their neighbourhood. Again with the failure of deontology.

Marxism, if not all forms of communism, is certainly fundamentally atheistic, in that it posits that the prime mover in human affairs is not God, but control of the means of production. The attempt to realize its aims, to put control of the means and enjoyment of the fruits of production back into the hands of the actual producers, cannot tolerate an "opiate" such as theism that would confuse and distract the people from claiming their rightful heritage.

Communism, for example, is not an iteration of atheism in the way e.g. Judaism is an iteration of theism. — Baden

True...

But I think I'd say this has more to do with the way we use words. I think the implicit claim, at least, is that since there have never been atheist wars atheism seems a lot more respectable in that way, at least. However, given some iterations of the Marxist project (I'll parenthetically mention Liberation Theology, with special mention to the Latin American variety) -- while I understand that most atheists of the New Atheist variety (like me, and others, at least in a time-bound category sense, if not ideologically) are very much opposed to that and are motivated by calls for religious freedom, I think it's still worth noting if we're making claims about atheism and theism in the broad sense -- atheism won't shield someone from declaring war. Hitchens, in particular, with his statements on Muslims, came to mind for me as an example of New Atheists not being quite tolerant.

Atheism is an element of communist ideology. There is no sense in which communism is a subcategory of atheism or an iteration of it. And to call it an "atheistic belief system" is misleading because it suggests that this element is the primary ideological force behind it when its not as it's a socioeconomic theory. I'm not going to deny communist ideologies have inflicted harm on religious believers in pursuance of encouraging atheism as part of their projects. But your approach to this is illogical and your reasoning is faulty. — Baden

Nicely put. And the harm communist parties inflict on religions (and most alternative value systems) is largely a product of the totalitarian approach that would allow no competition to the dominant ideology, much as the Catholic church expunged pagan faiths and alternate doctrines in history.

You've just described a socioeconomic theory that doesn't require God. Hence if you read Capital, you'll find it's 99.9% socioeconomics and almost zero percent theism vs atheism.

If atheism consisted merely in a lack of theism; I wonder where the motivation to argue for it would derive.

It seems to me that atheism would in many cases consist merely in lack of theism, and it seems likely that we don't get any argument coming from those people; we probably don't hear their voices. — Janus

The motivation is self defense. When theism wants to teach creationism in schools or prevent gay people from getting married then we must argue.
If theists didn’t do those things, people wouldnt have nearly the same reasons to argue.
When a theist uses their theism as a basis for things that effect other people, I think its perfectly reasonable to ask them to justify the theism. Thats where most of the arguments begin.

There seems to be no doubt that in many cases atheism is actually antitheism; and in those cases it would certainly count as an ideology. — Janus

I agree, I think antitheism is what most people are criticizing when they criticize atheism. I don’t know if antitheism is an ideology, but its at least a position on theism which goes beyond the simple binary stance on theism that atheism is.

On both sides, I would argue, we find the ideologues; one side arguing that everyone ought to believe in God and the other side arguing that everyone ought not believe in God. — Janus

I don’t think you need to be an ideologue to argue against theism, as mentioned above theists give you plenty of reason to argue without the need to be an ideologue.

33 chapters of Capital.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/index-l.htm

How many about atheism? None.

It all gave me the impression that this wasnt a discussion for you. It seemed like you were annoyed and sorta fucking with the source of your annoyance. If you were actually interested in a good discussion you would have listened better, or so I imagined. — DingoJones

I feel strongly about my points because I am angered by the level of disrespect that religious beliefs are shown here on the forum. As I tried to show in my posts, I think it is not justified. At the same time, I think my arguments were reasonable and civil. I intended that they be responsive to your points. I'll try a bit harder next time.

Heh. OK. I am using "Marxism" broadly. Same with "atheism" with respect to states.

Maybe it's the assertion that I'm OK with, but a causal link I'm not? But I'd probably assert that with both -- a/theism.

Sure, but it's a socioeconomic theory that does not merely not require God, but one which cannot tolerate God, since "religion is the opiate of the masses", and the masses must be awakened from their slumber.

The motivation is self defense. When theism wants to teach creationism in schools or prevent gay people from getting married then we must argue. — DingoJones

Right, but there are no doubt many theists that agree that the state should not have policy dictated by religion, and this doesn't happen much nowadays in the West in any case.

I don’t know if antitheism is an ideology — DingoJones

I think it is because it proclaims that humanity would be better off without theism.

I don’t think you need to be an ideologue to argue against theism, as mentioned above theists give you plenty of reason to argue without the need to be an ideologue. — DingoJones

Yes, in a context like this forum where people are here to express their views, and should be prepared to have them critiqued, I agree that those arguing on either side are not necessarily ideologues.

But if those on either side are heavily invested in the idea that humanity would be better off with or without God, then those people would count as ideologues.

Clumsy thinking still. Communism, for example, is not an iteration of atheism in the way e.g. Judaism is an iteration of theism. Theism is a broader category containing all religions, such that they can be considered subcategories or iterations of it--or "theistic belief systems" in a proper sense. Atheism is an element of communist ideology. There is no sense in which communism is a subcategory of atheism or an iteration of it. — Baden

:100:

There has been militant anti-theism, for sure. And awful crimes have been committed against religious believers. But there seems to be some very confused thinking going on around the nature of atheism and communism and what an ideology is and isn't.

Yeah, fair.

I'm pretty sure we're all confused at the moment. :D

I'm guessing we're using general terms in close enough ways that there's a sense of sense, but different ways that there is confusion.

Sure, but it's a socioeconomic theory that does not merely not require God, but one which cannot tolerate God, since "religion is the opiate of the masses", and the masses must be awakened from their slumber. — Janus

See, this is why I wanted to mention Liberation Theology.

I grant that orthodox Marxism, which I think Marxism-Leninism is the canonical case of (with an incredible amount of records to boot), is atheistic. But I want people to know there really are other variants.

While there's certainly a kind of architectonic to Marxism, the commitment to science has actually managed to make developments in its theories. Mostly as adapted to localities.

Sure, but it's a socioeconomic theory that does not merely not require God, but one which cannot tolerate God, since "religion is the opiate of the masses", and the masses must be awakened from their slumber. — Janus

Yes, as I said, that is an element of Marxist theory. One that he spends a tiny proportion of his writings on and that one line is all many people know of Marx, which is a pity.

I grant that orthodox Marxism, which I think Marxism-Leninism is the canonical case of (with an incredible amount of records to boot), is atheistic. But I want people to know there really are other variants. — Moliere

:eyes: :up:

Thats why I referred to it as your pet false equivalence. It was clear the issue sticks in your craw. I realize you dont think its false of course but when I made comments like “in service of your false equivalence” I meant it to allude to your passion for this issue. Its obviously important to you.
I believe you, so apologize for chalking it up to a bit of trolling (which btw, doesnt really offend me). I’ve made a note to myself so that I too will try harder in our next exchange.

That seems fair to me.