I hear a lot of people talk about how we need to look at religion from a materialist lens and that religion is incomparable with socialism. But I think we need to seperate the two. Religion is about the metaphysical so it's hard to look at it from a materialist lens. While politics deals with materialist matters, so it's necessary to view it with a materialist lens. And it's not like atheism is fully materialist either, with 'nothing after death', and 'universe starting without a god' being metaphysical explanations as well. And humans are naturally spiritual and to deny that, makes it harder for socialism to be accepted by people. But of course that doesn't mean we should tolerate the reactionary aspects of religion. We should combat it whenever necessary.

What's your opinion?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 19 points 3 years ago (1 child)

with 'nothing after death', and 'universe starting without a god' being metaphysical explanations as well.

Uh, no? This is such a weird, confused argument. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god, which is the natural, intuitive stance to hold in the world we live in where there is no evidence of any gods. No "metaphysical explanations" required. Show me evidence of a god and I'll change my view, just like with everything else.

And humans are naturally spiritual

I mock people who bring up "human nature" arguments in any other circumstance, I don't know why it would be different here. You're not "naturally spiritual" you've been indoctrinated into a system of beliefs by people motivated by their material interests.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] -5 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    But there's also no proof that god doesn't exist, so the actual materialist thing to do is to be agnostic

    But humans ARE naturally spiritual, spirituality literally goes back tens of thousands of years, and maybe even longer. And this was before hierarchy existed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    there's also no proof that god doesn't exist

    that's not how proof works.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    But we are talking about the beginning of the universe, something that we don't understand yet. So in that way the existence of god, and god not existing are both metaphysical explanations

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I don't see how an event that took place billions of years ago has any bearing on human politics. Or why a gap in knowledge is the same as belief in divinity in your eyes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 years ago (2 children)

    I also don't believe that it has any bearing on politics. Thats my point. I believe spirituality and politics are two different domains.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Can you try to name one religion that hasn’t influenced politics?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    The point is religion doesn't have to influence politics

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Suppose you’re genuinely a religious person without ulterior motives. If you believe at minimum that killing random citizens is wrong, shouldn’t you speak out against murder committed by your government? If you do, isn’t that getting into politics?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 5 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    My point is that politics should remain secular. But that doesn't mean that ideas inspired by religion aren't allowed in politics, as long as they're not reactionary and have secular argumentation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago

    That’s a nice ideal. I certainly wouldn’t have any problems with religious comrades who think like that.

    I would add that it needs to be in good faith. If a religious person were to argue against abortion, but proceed to oppose policies that make abortions a necessity, then you’re a hypocrite.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    something that we don’t understand yet

    Are you saying your god is only as powerful as the gaps in human knowledge?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I'm not saying that, I don't believe in a god of the gaps. I'm just saying we don't know what's out there

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    we don’t know what’s out there

    I’ve come to believe that it’s extremely unlikely that it’s the Christian god though, and that even if it were, it sounds like the abusive dictator that the West accuses North Korea of being.

    As an aside, do you also think it’s equally likely to be every one of the other ~10,000 gods humans have invented?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] -1 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child)

    Well I don't necessarily believe in a god, but if there's a god, it's probably a monotheistic god, which is what most religious people believe. The case for polytheistic gods existing, who are the majority of the gods in your argument is pretty weak

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    it’s probably a monotheistic god

    Are you a deist then? There’s no practical difference between that and atheism IMHO. What real difference does it make if it turned out a time-traveling Pokémon created the universe if it just relaxes on another planet and demands nothing of anyone or anything?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    You're right, it doesn't make a difference in that case.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 years ago

    Here’s a quote attributed to Marcus Aurelius:

    “Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    But there's also no proof that god doesn't exist, so the actual materialist thing to do is to be agnostic

    Atheists are "agnostic". No one is saying "I'm certain god doesn't exist", we're saying "there's no evidence that one exists".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    In that case christians who are open to the idea of being wrong are also agnostic. You could use agnostic as an adjective to atheism, but I believe agnostic, as a noun, is the way to be truly materialist

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    christians who are open to the idea of being wrong

    Do those exist?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Not all of them, but some do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I feel like doubt is contrary to the whole idea of 'faith' but I'm not religious so what do I know.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments