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?
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.
that’s not how proof works.
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
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.
I also don’t believe that it has any bearing on politics. Thats my point. I believe spirituality and politics are two different domains.
deleted by creator
I’m saying it doesn’t have to be.
Can you try to name one religion that hasn’t influenced politics?
The point is religion doesn’t have to influence politics
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?
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.
Are you saying your god is only as powerful as the gaps in human knowledge?
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
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?
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
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?
You’re right, it doesn’t make a difference in that case.
deleted by creator
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
deleted by creator
Not all of them, but some do.
deleted by creator
Faith doesn’t necessarily mean blind faith
That depends on what your religion is and what your questions are IMHO