I do not think atheism specifically caused communism. There have been plenty of Catholic priests, particularly in Latin American and South America who were very socialistic in their thinking so that broad area of ideology is not incompatible with religion.

I think religion was an impediment to the goal of advancing communism so that eliminating religion was seen by Marx as a necessary step in the advancement of his ideology. Specifically he called for violent implementation. The Christianity prevalent in his day would not have supported widespread violence for economic gain.

Yeah, I think Marx was just mad because God didn't answer his prayers or something, so he came up with all this anti religion stuff, making extremely influential contributions to philosophy and economics in the process, to cope with it. If you deny that, I think your logic is blocking you.

If you're an atheist, you're more predisposed to the idea that the world was not created for man, that it's not his job or divine destiny to conquer and rule it (which is the view held by all major modern religions, afaik). This could give you more leftist/"environmentalist" leanings. On the other hand, Ayn Rand was an atheist, and it's not like she gave a hoot about mother nature. Knowing her, she probably used the absence of God as justification for using and abusing the planet, ha.

Either way, I would think just the implications of atheism gives one at least some political guidance (you just can't always be sure in which direction!). Simply not believing in God makes the right's messages much less credible to me, since they're constantly touting those religious values or whatever they imagine them to be. Almost by default, this scenario pushes me to the left. Voila!

Absolutely, and I would even add that being an atheist makes it a lot easier to accept and execute such an ideology.

Atheism is certainly a better fit in many ideologies than is theism. The lesson Splendour had to learn here though was that it is not responsible for any of them.

emotions are not a reflection of reality.

There it is. By Splenda's own logic Christianity leads to murder.

Im more or a conservative. But i can kind of see your point.

Still i say being a follower of Jesus would give me more justification for being a communist.

It's not apparent to me because I think more comparatively than you do. In a logical linear fashion your mind plays connect the dots while I take all the surrounding circumstances into consideration.

RLK actually actually makes a point below worthy of my consideration because its observation based. Not just connect the dot based.

Did you know that Marx lived a terrribly destructive lifestyle.

A lot of atheists like to claim they use logic. Like your use of causality above.

But theists don't have to reason identically to atheists and alot of women don't think linearly to the degree that men do. We have a wider multitasking intelligence. We don't always go for pinpoint accuracy because we are mapping information widely that we draw conclusions from.

Logic is about pinpoint accuracy.

Biblical reasoning isn't necessarily about pinpoint accuracy though pointing out Marx was an atheist (unless he was under other spiritual influences) is very pinpoint if you ask me.

Biblical reasoning is based on the biblical heart (which includes the emotions, the mind, the conscience and the will). You can block your reasoning ability by emphasizing only your logic/mind and denying the other three: will, conscience and emotions but they all come into play into making good judgments about things. So as I said before under a comparative assessment atheism isn't fully absolved because its hard to say decisively to what degree Marx's atheism influenced the formation of his communist ideas. Its most likely an amalgam of ideas and I think its impossible to eliminate atheism from the mix any more than you can isolate any one idea in a person's head. People's thinking and opinions are always an amalgam of ideas. The difference between a theist and an atheist is we have a yardstick: the bible, by which we compare things.

If you don't think the emotions, will and conscience come into play in reasoning then I think you should start studying this topic.

You can't just continually put logic on a pedestal by itself. Even neuroscientists like Damasio say logic doesn't operate in the isolated fashion many people continually insist on in this forum. It may be a preferred pecking order on here but that doesn't mean its 100 percent foolproof.

Its interesting to see Splenda try to logically attack logic. Of course all her arguments read like the rantings of a schizophrenic droppings buzzwords left and right which combined are for the most part meaningless.

My favorite part. Follow this progression:

Clearly the comment about Marx fits into the flow of her comments there. Non Sequitor theater!

The fun thing about this thread is Splenda is basically admitting she's irrational. Since she can't use logic, she appeals to HER OWN EMOTION! Others are wrong because they try to use logic and connect the dots.

She mentions non-existent 'fluffy' things like "biblical heart".... another post where Splenda refers to what amounts to faith based reasoning.

Emotions, will and conscience trump reason!?!? Of course what she fails to realize is that all people have those. They just know when it applies. Splenda, on the other hand, would like to believe that if she 'feels' something is right that's actually more important then things like 'facts.'

Of course, to defeat splenda in her own playing field one merely has to point out that their emotions, conscience and will tell one that she's wrong and insane.

If you measure Splenda's posts with your emotion, will, conscience AND reason.... she's still wrong.

You lose. 20 million dead Russian Christians plus all the other dead ones under atheist regimes plus all the other dead groups of spiritual people is just too big a number to swallow. How's dat for facts?????

I suggest you start reading up on the emotions relation to rational logic. Since you can't do logic without them. Since you can't take my word or links for it that emotions are a rational component you only have 10 or 20 major philosophers theories to read before you tackle the modern day neuroscientists like Damasio. Oh and don't forget that Toronto professor ...the one who wrote the book on the rationality of emotions...I forget his name...oh yes DeSousa or DeSouza....something like that....durka over in SMP probably could give you a summary on his work and bring you into the 21st century.

again, proving my point and deorum's earlier... what you said above has NOTHING to do with the subject of your inability to reason.

This is nothing new: you can't follow a conversation. Your posts read like non-sequitor theater. Listing dead people has nothing to do with my comments reinforcing my observation that your conversations read like one with a schizophrenic.

why do I have to read up when I've already addressed the problems with emotions which you just ignore? I've studied psychology and am not a stranger to emotions. Your posts on the matter show your usual ignorance and follows your pattern of believing what you want to believe while ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

Just about every time anyone looks into one of your sources it becomes clear that you have misunderstood it. No amount of research will lead anyone to see what you're saying. It'll only reinforce that you have major comprehension problems.

The fact that your first response to my post was to list that 20 million people were killed is proof enough that you lack comprehension skills and the ability to process things rationally.

Great summary. I love her usage of "connect the dot thinking" as if its a bad thing. She can't quite grasp how it is a good thing, since she has demonstrated time and time again she is incapable of such thinking.

The problem though is that her arguments are littered with logical fallacies. From a brief skim I can see Hasty Generalization, Appeal to Authority, Non-Sequitur, Ad hominem....Im sure our local logician could point out more.

Heres my fav of the whole post. Why not lump all theists into one big group that believes in Jesus and the Bible. Quite arrogant if you ask me.

there was a period where she used to simply try to post arguments. But all her arguments were consistantly trashed as being completely illogical. Then she tried to say that she was using "woman's logic" which was different then men's logic but just as valid (if not superior).

Then for awhile she tried to justify her arguments by saying she was superiour to everyone because of her SPIRITUAL IQ which trumped actual intelligence.

Now she just attacks reason. Its to her benefit that she's irrational!

since logic is a detriment her using logical fallacies is irrelevent!

She also likes to attack people for generalizing but has no issue constantly generalizing that SHE represents all theists and any attack on HER POSTS are an attack on all theism. And she stereotypes both constantly.


On the one hand I feel it necessary and fun to attack her posts because they're so littered with hogwash and seeing how she'll respond to any critique is almost like a game... you know her response won't be sensible but its interesting to see just how out there it will be.

That being said, it reminds me of Real Housewifes of New York (My wife makes me watch it!!)... there was a period where they were all fighting with this one wife who was clearly a little unhinged. One of the housewifes came to the realization that she was crazy and felt guilty about attacking a crazy person. I sometimes get that notion of guilt... are we attacking a crazy person? Then again, Splenda would be offended by the notion that she is crazy. If she's not crazy then its not wrong.... dilemma.

Gl with learning self control.

God teachs it in the bible. Maybe you shouldn't have taken the detour away from it...just my 2 cents...you're going to follow your "logic" anyway (Just don't forget you do have an emotional bias too you just submerged it and pretend it isn't there because you want a "rational" appearance...but you're more emotional than I am...oh well I'm sure your emotional chums will play along.)

Basically its her buzzword flavour of the month. She hears some crackpot affirming her beliefs and boom here we are.

I know the dilemma all too well. 98% of the time I just read her responses and chuckle to myself...but some days I can't restrain myself.

The problem is I know its an endless game, you will never make headway. She will not admit wrong...ever, to any atheist. It would be going against God if she did. So we are stuck here with two options, either ignore her completely, or engage her, which results in the massive trainwrecks that occur in every thread she enters.

"Oh we atheist are so rationally superior that's why so many atheist posters threads are appeals to emotion"....

And why do so many atheists engage in mockery?

"Why because its so rational to act like an immoral douchebag. There's not a shred of emotion in self permitting immoral douchebaggery."

Who are you quoting?

Another strawman.

Oh I'm just interpreting atheists actions for them.

They speak louder than words sometimes.

Just thought I'd put'em in word format.

How's that for a soul read?

Checked out a rize or MelchyBeau appeal to emotion thread lately O' rational man?

You put them in quotes.

Shhh...it was a soul read...You really didn't know how much your silly emotions were controlling you did you?

silly emotions r u

Thank God.

Oh

This is an internet forum, everrything is in words.

If by soul you mean mind and body, bad. If not, I have no clue what you're talking about.

Great Non-Sequitur. What does another thread have to do with this one? Are they using logical fallacies to attempt to undermine logic in those threads too? I must have missed that.