4 ms·

I'm of the view that certain celebrity atheists or skeptics exist just to poison the well for the benefit of the billionaire class. Poison religions by forcing

I'm of the view that certain celebrity atheists or skeptics exist just to poison the well for the benefit of the billionaire class. Poison religions by forcing a bigger debate between atheism and religions than anyone would otherwise care about, and you can stunt class consciousness and worker solidarity. Take a wild guess where class consciousness blossomed most throughout history!

beaconstudios 6y ago
I'm more of the opinion that in circles where it's looked down upon to be religious, some of those instincts pop up in other areas. Very-atheist people end up worshipping at the altar of the science priests instead. Not everything is a bourgeois conspiracy to oppress the proletariat.
- wait_a_minute 6y ago
  Having been a very-atheist person in the past, I'd argue that the cult of personality of the new-atheist horsemen like Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, etc, was more of a draw than science itself. Because at the end of the day, science doesn't make claims that are relevant to any educated or experienced theist's worldview. I would have wanted science to be on my side because it'd justify hatred of people's religions, which is a really immature worldview in retrospect but definitely an outcome from immersing myself in new-atheist drivel. Whereas these days I fully accept the contention that science and religions really do coexist. Where the bourgeois and proletariat come into play, is when I look at the stark differences between someone like MLK and Kenneth Copeland. I'd not expect any MLK type to emerge from a theology like Kenneth Copeland's. And we know that the billionaire class does attempt to distort information on all kinds of things if those things are giving them immense power. I'm reminded of how they did that with climate change for 50 years and various nutritional debates over the years. And many other things. The intention being to poison the public discourse long enough that they can exploit more. Does this mean there was a concentrated effort to poison atheist v religion discussion as well? I've never been privy to conversations at that echelon of wealth so I can only point out that the results speak for themselves even if the results were never the goal. But personally if I hated humanity and wanted to keep my power to exploit, I'd do whatever it takes to make sure there's other interpretations of Christianity besides MLK's for example.
tisker 6y ago
I'm note sure if I have completely misunderstood your comment, but are you saying that scientists exist "just to poison the well for the benefit of the billionaire class"???
- wait_a_minute 6y ago
  No, not scientists. Scientists are wonderful. I'm particularly talking about celebrity scientists, especially those who ran with the new-atheist horsemen back in the 2000s and early 2010s when they were more popular. Thanks for the comment, I went ahead and edited the original one to be clearer about who I am talking about.
  - FooBarBizBazz 6y ago
    Also in fairness to Stephen Hawking and Neil deGrasse Tyson (I don't know about Bill Nye), I don't think they were adversarial toward religion. Certainly not like Dawkins.
    - wait_a_minute 6y ago
      Hawking I'm skeptical of for other reasons: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/18/private-jets-parties-and-eugenics-jeffrey-epsteins-bizarre-world-of-scientists https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/18/private-jets... I will not discuss his capabilities as a scientist since I'm not qualified to speak on hard physics at all - but this relationship between these people has me very skeptical of their truest intentions. But you're right that Stephen Hawking and Neil deGrasse Tyson were not in the same class as Richard Dawkins or Lawrence Krauss in particular. I'd include Sam Harris in this group too.
FooBarBizBazz 6y ago
This is hilarious and I love it. I'll put on a serious face: Marx would say that religion reduces the psychological pain of capitalist alienation, so it is bad, because it reduces the impetus for revolution. Whereas scientism would generally help to advance dialectical materialism -- the definition of good and bad in terms of material class interests. So your argument that religion helps class consciousness, while not without precedent (Christianity, notably from Quakers, helping to end slavery; certain parts of American Christianity in the Civil Rights movement; monotheism as a source of universalism more broadly...), is 180 degrees from Marx himself. Probably religion is better for building solidarity across classes than it is at cultivating one class' resentment of another. You get some voluntary redistribution instead of violent revolutionary redistribution. You get a kind of "we are all children of God" classless consciousness, instead of a class consciousness. And, in reality, I think you'll find billionaires of varying degrees of religiosity. But, nice post. [Edit: Later, I see that you are serious, and not just doing a highbrow kind of joking-around. Well -- then I think you'll see that I basically agree with your point. The only quibble is about the idea of "class consciousness" (or "race consciousness", or whatever "subgroup consciousness" is relevant). Religion creates something other than class consciousness. Rather than dividing people along existing sociological lines, it unifies across them. This isn't free: It can create new conflicts with those outside the religion. But when we consider fault lines of class or race, I would say that monotheism tends to unify rather than to divide. You could call this "solidarity", but not "class consciousness". It's a bigger solidarity than class.]
- wait_a_minute 6y ago
  Marx would say that religion is the opiate of the masses, but so would Jesus say that. In fact, Jesus predominately preached to religious leaders called Pharisees. Are you familiar with the common atheist adage "Jesus would have been a Marxist" or things to that effect? I'd argued it a lot in the past because it's funny and great for challenging capitalist Christians who believe in Supply Side Jesus (courtesy of Kenneth Copeland and Joel Olsteen and people like them). Well, I would flip that adage and say that "Marx was a follower of Jesus." They overlap enough that it's not uncommon to go on r/atheist and see people saying "Jesus would have been a Marxist" so I think it's fine to flip it this way. It's possible Marx was just targeting the Pharisees of his time. Or he liked what Jesus' had to say on matters of cooperation and economics enough to base a secular worldview on it. :) I don't see how serious study of history would lead one to think religions reduce the impetus for "revolution" or social improvements. The printing press was a revolution and it was primarily driven by the desire to mass-print Bibles so that the clergy couldn't just interpret reality for everyone. (Look up the Gutenberg Revolution). In any case, I'm not sure what the difference is between "we are all children of God" classless consciousness and the idea of "class consciousness." Because on Marx's worldview, things should trend towards a classless society. You may be interested in Acts 4:32-35 which is the economic model followed by the first church. 32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

beaconstudios 6y ago

I'm more of the opinion that in circles where it's looked down upon to be religious, some of those instincts pop up in other areas. Very-atheist people end up worshipping at the altar of the science priests instead. Not everything is a bourgeois conspiracy to oppress the proletariat.

wait_a_minute 6y ago
Having been a very-atheist person in the past, I'd argue that the cult of personality of the new-atheist horsemen like Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, etc, was more of a draw than science itself. Because at the end of the day, science doesn't make claims that are relevant to any educated or experienced theist's worldview. I would have wanted science to be on my side because it'd justify hatred of people's religions, which is a really immature worldview in retrospect but definitely an outcome from immersing myself in new-atheist drivel. Whereas these days I fully accept the contention that science and religions really do coexist. Where the bourgeois and proletariat come into play, is when I look at the stark differences between someone like MLK and Kenneth Copeland. I'd not expect any MLK type to emerge from a theology like Kenneth Copeland's. And we know that the billionaire class does attempt to distort information on all kinds of things if those things are giving them immense power. I'm reminded of how they did that with climate change for 50 years and various nutritional debates over the years. And many other things. The intention being to poison the public discourse long enough that they can exploit more. Does this mean there was a concentrated effort to poison atheist v religion discussion as well? I've never been privy to conversations at that echelon of wealth so I can only point out that the results speak for themselves even if the results were never the goal. But personally if I hated humanity and wanted to keep my power to exploit, I'd do whatever it takes to make sure there's other interpretations of Christianity besides MLK's for example.

tisker 6y ago

I'm note sure if I have completely misunderstood your comment, but are you saying that scientists exist "just to poison the well for the benefit of the billionaire class"???

wait_a_minute 6y ago
No, not scientists. Scientists are wonderful. I'm particularly talking about celebrity scientists, especially those who ran with the new-atheist horsemen back in the 2000s and early 2010s when they were more popular. Thanks for the comment, I went ahead and edited the original one to be clearer about who I am talking about.
- FooBarBizBazz 6y ago
  Also in fairness to Stephen Hawking and Neil deGrasse Tyson (I don't know about Bill Nye), I don't think they were adversarial toward religion. Certainly not like Dawkins.
  - wait_a_minute 6y ago
    Hawking I'm skeptical of for other reasons: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/18/private-jets-parties-and-eugenics-jeffrey-epsteins-bizarre-world-of-scientists https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/18/private-jets... I will not discuss his capabilities as a scientist since I'm not qualified to speak on hard physics at all - but this relationship between these people has me very skeptical of their truest intentions. But you're right that Stephen Hawking and Neil deGrasse Tyson were not in the same class as Richard Dawkins or Lawrence Krauss in particular. I'd include Sam Harris in this group too.

FooBarBizBazz 6y ago

This is hilarious and I love it. I'll put on a serious face: Marx would say that religion reduces the psychological pain of capitalist alienation, so it is bad, because it reduces the impetus for revolution. Whereas scientism would generally help to advance dialectical materialism -- the definition of good and bad in terms of material class interests. So your argument that religion helps class consciousness, while not without precedent (Christianity, notably from Quakers, helping to end slavery; certain parts of American Christianity in the Civil Rights movement; monotheism as a source of universalism more broadly...), is 180 degrees from Marx himself. Probably religion is better for building solidarity across classes than it is at cultivating one class' resentment of another. You get some voluntary redistribution instead of violent revolutionary redistribution. You get a kind of "we are all children of God" classless consciousness, instead of a class consciousness. And, in reality, I think you'll find billionaires of varying degrees of religiosity. But, nice post. [Edit: Later, I see that you are serious, and not just doing a highbrow kind of joking-around. Well -- then I think you'll see that I basically agree with your point. The only quibble is about the idea of "class consciousness" (or "race consciousness", or whatever "subgroup consciousness" is relevant). Religion creates something other than class consciousness. Rather than dividing people along existing sociological lines, it unifies across them. This isn't free: It can create new conflicts with those outside the religion. But when we consider fault lines of class or race, I would say that monotheism tends to unify rather than to divide. You could call this "solidarity", but not "class consciousness". It's a bigger solidarity than class.]

wait_a_minute 6y ago
Marx would say that religion is the opiate of the masses, but so would Jesus say that. In fact, Jesus predominately preached to religious leaders called Pharisees. Are you familiar with the common atheist adage "Jesus would have been a Marxist" or things to that effect? I'd argued it a lot in the past because it's funny and great for challenging capitalist Christians who believe in Supply Side Jesus (courtesy of Kenneth Copeland and Joel Olsteen and people like them). Well, I would flip that adage and say that "Marx was a follower of Jesus." They overlap enough that it's not uncommon to go on r/atheist and see people saying "Jesus would have been a Marxist" so I think it's fine to flip it this way. It's possible Marx was just targeting the Pharisees of his time. Or he liked what Jesus' had to say on matters of cooperation and economics enough to base a secular worldview on it. :) I don't see how serious study of history would lead one to think religions reduce the impetus for "revolution" or social improvements. The printing press was a revolution and it was primarily driven by the desire to mass-print Bibles so that the clergy couldn't just interpret reality for everyone. (Look up the Gutenberg Revolution). In any case, I'm not sure what the difference is between "we are all children of God" classless consciousness and the idea of "class consciousness." Because on Marx's worldview, things should trend towards a classless society. You may be interested in Acts 4:32-35 which is the economic model followed by the first church. 32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.