Sure that might be ideal but we need to work within our reality of a deeply religious population. What you want must come from within the people of Iran themselves. Outside forces cannot change this.
Granted I am no expert on Iran and I know that religious affiliation and actual practice differ but I was under the impression that >90% of Iranians were Muslim. Even in the US, which I consider to be deeply religious despite its religious citizens not closely practicing their proclaimed religion, only about 70% of people claim to be Christian. Yeah, sure, they might not go to church everyday but they still remain a highly influential political force due to their identification with that religion. Would this not be the same in Iran? If not more so?
I can easily see how a Muslim person who isn’t religious would still call themselves Muslim even if they practice the same amount of religion as a lapsed Christian who no longer identifies that way.
A lot of Christians will also do this, plenty don’t attend church, read the bible, don’t really think about god existing or not and still label themselves as such. They are functionally agnostics/non religious imo
Iran is an explicit theocracy where people are defined as muslims by default and where irreligion/atheism is not a valid category in identification by the government.
Sure, but almost all of Mexico identifies as Catholic but church going is mostly reserved for special occasions like baptisms and the big religious holidays. You’ll see the crucifixes, the Jesus pictures and whatnot but it’s not like they’re on that annoying protestant bullshit.
I don’t think so either but given the circumstances I didn’t see many other options for an areligious authority. Another comrade has made me think it is more possible though
The hell do you mean hand waving? This is reality and we have to work with what actually exists in order to make things better. How else do you expect things to happen? Magic?
he’s not talking about religious oppression, he’s talking about not having religions at all, the protestors in Iran are not opposing religious oppression, they’re mossad agents and monarchists. My point is that if your reaction to anything happening in the middle east is “this because of religion” you’re a racist, just like if you said “this is because of judaism” when talking about the zionist entity you’d be an anti-semite.
Funny how this kind of NuAtheism “all religions must be abolished right now” stuff exclusively seems to focus on how Islam as a religion is especially bad and needs to be eradicated. I’m reminded of the liberal “Actually I hate both China and the US, two things can be true at once” thing.
As an atheist, I’d personally argue that a lack of belief in certain things constitutes a system of beliefs still, and that there are multiple sects of atheism with differing beliefs. For example, there’s New Atheism, which seems to be what’s on display here, and which I certainly hope I’ve managed to rid myself of.
In a vacuum you’re right, but the dialectical way of analyzing things is the opposite of just evaluating them on face value as if they existed in a vacuum. If you take a country that’s been through hell and back because of colonialism, who has been subject to a western collaborating fascist regime under the Shah, and were brought out of that period of nihilistic, proto-liberal subjugation by the Islamic Revolution, the negation of Islam must necessarily be a historical force that is similarly positive and brings a distinct form. The purely negative aspect of irreligiosity can’t be a force of history by itself, it only becomes one when combined with some other positive agenda in the context of Iranian society.
Now if I had to guess why a lot of us are viscerally skeptical and critical of such a thing is that atheism in West Asia is almost always associated to the West now that communism is much weaker in the region. Arab nationalism (obviously a bit outside of the Iranian context now) can be secular but it is very different from the form of Western-style atheism that sets Islam as its target.
I assume we agree that in general, a belief is defined as “an acceptance that a statement is true” and while on the surface atheism seems to be nearly the opposite - a claim that many statements are false - we can we can easily reword any such claim to instead be an acceptance of truth. I believe that it’s true that there is no higher power and that when I die there is no aspect of my own consciousness which will continue to exist.
There are additional beliefs that some atheists hold which make them insufferable, like the belief that atheism must be evangelized.
I believe that it’s true that there is no higher power and that when I die there is no aspect of my own consciousness which will continue to exist.
This can be used to make anything into a belief system, then.
I believe there are no invisible unicorns in the room with me right now.
In no way am i trying to say that people who happen to believe the invisible unicorns are wrong or bad in any way. Does that mean that my belief system is defined by this lack of belief?
The unity of opposites is a basic law of materialist dialectics. Mao’s On Contradiction is helpful for understanding how this works: a thing can not exist without its dialectical opposite and is also defined by its dialectical opposite.
Any criticism of a belief system that would see it replaced with something else is supporting a belief system, even if that belief system is defined as the absence of one it necessarily entails some positive assertions. I think the reason there’s a conflict unfolding in this thread right now is that some of us think that the people of Iran (and any non-Western nation for that matter) shouldn’t be subject to the schedule set out by westerners about what part of their culture is supposed to be replaced with something else (even if this is purported to be replacement with the absence of a thing).
This is just not an actionable conclusion. It’s idealist. You think it matters at all that you’ve found the solution for a nation of people that are on a crossroads between maintaining sovereignty or submitting to Western imperialism by asserting that they should simply abandon a major piece of their cultural fabric, without serious study of the conditions present in said society?
Gonna start commenting on every news story of a man killing a woman and/or their children with “imagine believing in gender”
no religion at all would be better
Sure that might be ideal but we need to work within our reality of a deeply religious population. What you want must come from within the people of Iran themselves. Outside forces cannot change this.
deleted by creator
Granted I am no expert on Iran and I know that religious affiliation and actual practice differ but I was under the impression that >90% of Iranians were Muslim. Even in the US, which I consider to be deeply religious despite its religious citizens not closely practicing their proclaimed religion, only about 70% of people claim to be Christian. Yeah, sure, they might not go to church everyday but they still remain a highly influential political force due to their identification with that religion. Would this not be the same in Iran? If not more so?
deleted by creator
Thanks for taking the time to explain that, I was not aware.
A lot of Christians will also do this, plenty don’t attend church, read the bible, don’t really think about god existing or not and still label themselves as such. They are functionally agnostics/non religious imo
Iran is an explicit theocracy where people are defined as muslims by default and where irreligion/atheism is not a valid category in identification by the government.
Sure, but almost all of Mexico identifies as Catholic but church going is mostly reserved for special occasions like baptisms and the big religious holidays. You’ll see the crucifixes, the Jesus pictures and whatnot but it’s not like they’re on that annoying protestant bullshit.
I wish we had better options between a quasi-religious authoritarian oligarchy, and a pro-zionist fascist failson nepo baby
The fascist zionist would be authoritarian too, FWIW.
Is it even possible to have a non-authoritarian fascist?
deleted by creator
amazing
Evola’s weird take on European pseudo steppe nomad fascists?
There were left options but they were systematically oppressed in favor of the religious right during and after the revolution by imperialists.
authoritarian meaning what?
I don’t think microfiche was advocating regime change.
I don’t think so either but given the circumstances I didn’t see many other options for an areligious authority. Another comrade has made me think it is more possible though
You gotta build the world you want to see out of the world that actually exists. The future can’t exist without being born out of the present.
hand waving
The hell do you mean hand waving? This is reality and we have to work with what actually exists in order to make things better. How else do you expect things to happen? Magic?
Hegel is cringe, actually
Lmao and “no religion would be better” isn’t hand waving? How did you find your way here from /r/atheism
As opposed to just stating that any cultural problem can be solved if the stupid brown people just abandoned religion, which is Not Hand Waving.
Basic materialism
“It would be better if the backwards savages embraced my civilized superior belief system!”
I don’t think your actual point is “opposing religious oppression is racist” so could you clarify?
he’s not talking about religious oppression, he’s talking about not having religions at all, the protestors in Iran are not opposing religious oppression, they’re mossad agents and monarchists. My point is that if your reaction to anything happening in the middle east is “this because of religion” you’re a racist, just like if you said “this is because of judaism” when talking about the zionist entity you’d be an anti-semite.
Funny how this kind of NuAtheism “all religions must be abolished right now” stuff exclusively seems to focus on how Islam as a religion is especially bad and needs to be eradicated. I’m reminded of the liberal “Actually I hate both China and the US, two things can be true at once” thing.
I wanna see Reddit atheists apply “all religions must be abolished right now” to Judaism, an Abrahamic religion that worships the same god as Islam.
Okay yeah that’s fair. Thanks for clarifying!
I have no belief system.
Imagine thinking one sky god is better than another.
Atheism is just the lack of belief in a higher power i wouldn’t say it’s a belief system in and of itself
As an atheist, I’d personally argue that a lack of belief in certain things constitutes a system of beliefs still, and that there are multiple sects of atheism with differing beliefs. For example, there’s New Atheism, which seems to be what’s on display here, and which I certainly hope I’ve managed to rid myself of.
Trying to connect someone to Richard Dawkins because they espoused a preference against theocracy is embarrassing.
Dawkins is certainly a prominent new atheist but the parallel I see is not with him specifically but the belief that atheism must be evangelized.
When they espouse that preference in a way completely indistinguishable from reddit atheism it’s hard not to make that connection
I’m not being intentionally difficult or pedantic when I ask this: how can the lack of belief be the same as belief?
Being insufferable isn’t a separate sect of non belief
In a vacuum you’re right, but the dialectical way of analyzing things is the opposite of just evaluating them on face value as if they existed in a vacuum. If you take a country that’s been through hell and back because of colonialism, who has been subject to a western collaborating fascist regime under the Shah, and were brought out of that period of nihilistic, proto-liberal subjugation by the Islamic Revolution, the negation of Islam must necessarily be a historical force that is similarly positive and brings a distinct form. The purely negative aspect of irreligiosity can’t be a force of history by itself, it only becomes one when combined with some other positive agenda in the context of Iranian society.
Now if I had to guess why a lot of us are viscerally skeptical and critical of such a thing is that atheism in West Asia is almost always associated to the West now that communism is much weaker in the region. Arab nationalism (obviously a bit outside of the Iranian context now) can be secular but it is very different from the form of Western-style atheism that sets Islam as its target.
Trying to have a discussion removed from the context of the thread was a bit silly, that’s on me.
I don’t claim to have any informed opinion on religion in Iran or basically any country and will shut the fuck up
I’m not taking it that way!
I assume we agree that in general, a belief is defined as “an acceptance that a statement is true” and while on the surface atheism seems to be nearly the opposite - a claim that many statements are false - we can we can easily reword any such claim to instead be an acceptance of truth. I believe that it’s true that there is no higher power and that when I die there is no aspect of my own consciousness which will continue to exist.
There are additional beliefs that some atheists hold which make them insufferable, like the belief that atheism must be evangelized.
This can be used to make anything into a belief system, then.
I believe there are no invisible unicorns in the room with me right now.
In no way am i trying to say that people who happen to believe the invisible unicorns are wrong or bad in any way. Does that mean that my belief system is defined by this lack of belief?
I guess you could say these things are unified by their internal oppositions - like some kind of unity of opposites.
I think I agree, but I also feel like you’re saying something that’s going over my head.
The unity of opposites is a basic law of materialist dialectics. Mao’s On Contradiction is helpful for understanding how this works: a thing can not exist without its dialectical opposite and is also defined by its dialectical opposite.
You can’t negate something with nothing, something will always replace it.
I don’t understand what you mean, sorry
Any criticism of a belief system that would see it replaced with something else is supporting a belief system, even if that belief system is defined as the absence of one it necessarily entails some positive assertions. I think the reason there’s a conflict unfolding in this thread right now is that some of us think that the people of Iran (and any non-Western nation for that matter) shouldn’t be subject to the schedule set out by westerners about what part of their culture is supposed to be replaced with something else (even if this is purported to be replacement with the absence of a thing).
I can’t think of one positive assertion that necessarily emerges from the lack of belief in a god or gods.
Just to be clear I’m not framing belief as a negative thing nor as something the requires replacement
they don’t believe in zero as a mathematical concept
I don’t think that’s the case and I’d prefer if you didn’t use this discussion as a springboard to make jabs
I’m not talking about replacing someone’s religious beliefs fwiw.
I don’t believe you is not a belief system
Agreed, that’s a conclusion someone reaches as a result of their beliefs.
Clearly.
This is just not an actionable conclusion. It’s idealist. You think it matters at all that you’ve found the solution for a nation of people that are on a crossroads between maintaining sovereignty or submitting to Western imperialism by asserting that they should simply abandon a major piece of their cultural fabric, without serious study of the conditions present in said society?
Gonna start commenting on every news story of a man killing a woman and/or their children with “imagine believing in gender”
Blocked!
Okay
That society was no angel.