Socialism

[sean1]

I'd completely disagree that socialists and atheists are one and the same.

However socialism (which was around before Marx) is not opposed to religion.

A lot of people need to be convinced of the above. I heard Joe Higgins saying on the radio recently that he is an atheist and has "no time for organised religion."

That says to me that he has no respect for the churches in Ireland, in which over 3.5 million people go to every week. Mabye I am interpreting him wrong, but he should clarify himself more. I do think that a lot of people believe that socialists are anti-religion. They are doomed to fail if that is the case. It also says that they are weirdos, but maybe they could clarity this.

[smiffy]

A lot of people need to be convinced of the above. I heard Joe Higgins saying on the radio recently that he is an atheist and has "no time for organised religion."

That says to me that he has no respect for the churches in Ireland, in which over 3.5 million people go to every week. Mabye I am interpreting him wrong, but he should clarify himself more. I do think that a lot of people believe that socialists are anti-religion. They are doomed to fail if that is the case. It also says that they are weirdos, but maybe they could clarity this.

Perhaps they simply hold that it's those who irrationally believe, without any supporting evidence, in the existence of supernatural beings who might best be deemed 'weirdos'.

[sean1]

Perhaps they simply hold that it's those who irrationally believe, without any supporting evidence, in the existence of supernatural beings who might best be deemed 'weirdos'.

I don't believe in any supernatural beings, nor do I know any people who do, you weirdo.

[Worldbystorm]

Not sure what you mean?The social and co operative aspects of human experience might be said to be as intrinsic as individualism and competition are.The modern dominance of 'scientific' discourses which stress the individual eg psychology, don't just provide a "understanding of human nature' but also reflect the ideological dominance of individualism at this point in history. Don't think there is an essential 'human nature' but would agree Marx didn't quite account for its complexity.

Justin,

Modern scientifiic discourse is not the kind of babble you read in the Sunday Independent. Science, specifically evolutionary psychology, understands and explains very well the social and co-oprative aspects of human experience. It also understands and explains very well the biological bases of individualism and competition. What is most intereresting is the tension between the two and we are at a very exciting stage where very major breakthroughs are likely to be made in the very near future in this area of human knowledge.

You say: "The social and co-operative aspects of human experience might be said to be as intrinsic as individualism and competition". I agree with you there. Where I disagree with you is where you say "Don't think there is an essential 'human nature' ".

There is an essential human nature. At least for the purposes of our lifetimes. Human nature can change but only on an evolutionary timescale, which means millions of years. We need not concern ourselves with that when discussing contemporary politics.

That's an interesting critique, allied to the above.

Have you read Andre Gorz, the French post-Marxist?

[Indyjoe]

Im not a supporter of Joe Higgin's party, though he has done great work in highlighting some issues like the Gama workers. However if he has no time for organised religion thats his opinion, to which he is entitled. Ive no time for atheism, organised or not, but I respect people's right to hold that view. Socialism does not impact on a person's right to religion or belief, it is a structuring of society in such a way that the people, and not an elite, share the profits.

[sean1]

Im not a supporter of Joe Higgin's party, though he has done great work in highlighting some issues like the Gama workers. However if he has no time for organised religion thats his opinion, to which he is entitled. Ive no time for atheism, organised or not, but I respect people's right to hold that view. Socialism does not impact on a person's right to religion or belief, it is a structuring of society in such a way that the people, and not an elite, share the profits.

But the fact is that most, if not all, atheists have no time or respect for religion.

[Indyjoe]

But how many socialists do you know?
Just like any other part of society there socialists are made up of people with different religious beliefs. There are plenty of atheist socialists, and there are plenty of religious socialists. There are also plenty of what Brendan Behan calls 'day-time atheists' and agnostics.

[stringjack]

But the fact is that most, if not all, atheists have no time or respect for religion.

Did you mean to say 'socialists'?

[Fiacc]

Sean1 wrote:

Socialists genuinely believe, that because most -or all- of them are atheists- the rest of us will convert to secularism

I would not describe myself as a socialist but that strikes me as an utterly absurd statement. Firstly, I know many self-described socialists
who are catholics, protestants, jews and muslims. A large number of them are also agnsotics or atheists but I do not know a single one of those who are stupid enough to believe that the rest of us will convert to secularism as a result of their (the socialists') propaganda.

Why did you interject such a moronic comment into an otherwise intelligent and civilised debate?

[sean1]

No. From my experience most, if not all, socialists are atheist- strangely- anwyay.