Atheism, Marxism, and all that other stuff

[mack341]

I vehemently disagree with everything you have said here... they didn't do any of their crimes "in the name of atheism"..

I didn't say they did their crimes in the name of atheism so I don't know why that's in speech marks, I said it played a part "...did have something to do with the actions they took"

If you 'vehemently disagree' with everything I have said, it would've been helpful if you could have, you know, made some points rather than just posturing in a holier than thou fashion. It's a disservice to fair forum discussion/debate.

Lenin:

"Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism"

Under the doctrine of state atheism in the Soviet Union, there was a "government-sponsored program of forced conversion to atheism" conducted by Communists. Many priests were killed and imprisoned. Thousands of churches were closed, some turned into hospitals. In 1925 the government founded the League of Militant Atheists to intensify the persecution

League of Militant Atheists congress: [set up in soviet russia]

"called for the extermination of religion "at the tip of the bayonet."....It is our duty to destroy every religious world-concept... If the destruction of ten million human beings, as happened in the last war, should be necessary for the triumph of one definite class, then that must be done and it will be done"


These are just three passages I found in 5 minutes, so it sounds to me atheism played a big part in marxist soviet russia, so you can't just disentangle it and say it played no part in the actions of the communist party against religion, priests, believers etc...

I'm not saying all atheists are marxist but all marxists do believe in atheism, there is a difference.

I would comment on pol pot but you didn't pay me the courtesy of saying what you disagreed with on that either...

 

[VismundCygnus]

"Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism"

Im just gonna address this as I unfortunately dont have time for more of this interesting thread but my point earlier is essentially: Atheism is a part of Marxism, but there is no part in Atheism that is Marxism. This is similar to how Animal (and specifically their welfare) are a part of the political Veganism movement, but to understand animals you dont have take the Veganism movement into account.

 

[mack341]

Im just gonna address this as I unfortunately dont have time for more of this interesting thread but my point earlier is essentially: Atheism is a part of Marxism, but there is no part in Atheism that is Marxism. This is similar to how Animal (and specifically their welfare) are a part of the political Veganism movement, but to understand animals you dont have take the Veganism movement into account.

no worries Vismund, I had a bellyfull of marxism yesterday, so I'm happy to leave it here...

 

[trancemonkey]

I didn't say they did their crimes in the name of atheism so I don't know why that's in speech marks, I said it played a part "...did have something to do with the actions they took"

If you 'vehemently disagree' with everything I have said, it would've been helpful if you could have, you know, made some points rather than just posturing in a holier than thou fashion. It's a disservice to fair forum discussion/debate.

Lenin:

"Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific socialism"

Under the doctrine of state atheism in the Soviet Union, there was a "government-sponsored program of forced conversion to atheism" conducted by Communists. Many priests were killed and imprisoned. Thousands of churches were closed, some turned into hospitals. In 1925 the government founded the League of Militant Atheists to intensify the persecution

League of Militant Atheists congress: [set up in soviet russia]

"called for the extermination of religion "at the tip of the bayonet."....It is our duty to destroy every religious world-concept... If the destruction of ten million human beings, as happened in the last war, should be necessary for the triumph of one definite class, then that must be done and it will be done"


These are just three passages I found in 5 minutes, so it sounds to me atheism played a big part in marxist soviet russia, so you can't just disentangle it and say it played no part in the actions of the communist party against religion, priests, believers etc...

I'm not saying all atheists are marxist but all marxists do believe in atheism, there is a difference.

I would comment on pol pot but you didn't pay me the courtesy of saying what you disagreed with on that either...

Disagreeing with someone doesn't make me holier than thou - i think just saying "I don't agree with you" is a perfectly acceptable retort...

I think quoting any group that is "Militant" is hardly a fair representatioin, in the same way that militant Vegans, or militant Muslims, or whatever, are not exactly a fair representation of the group they purport to represent.

Religion has done, and continues to do, more harm in the world that any form of atheism has ever done. Your seeming attempt to discredit Christopher Hutchins (unless i misread it) was also unfair and uncalled for - i would say that Hutchins, whilst he desribed himself as a Marxist and Trotskyist, was hardly someone who was out to cause trouble - he was anti-religion, anti-oppression, anti- a lot of things, but i don't see how he had done anything wrong? Please correct me here if i misinterpreted what you meant...

Around the world today there are many many religions who worship many many Gods. A monotheist would believe in only one of them, and they would think that their God was THE God. The wouldn't believe in the hundreds of other Gods. As an athiest, i just believe in one less God than a Christian. I see the term God to mean "anything we don't understand" - which is why in the past there were Gods of fire, water, weather, etc... Of course, today we understand a lot more about the world - and religion has arguably failed to account for the changes - the bible clearly wasn't accurate in any way, but those bits that are now disproven are just passed off as "symbolic" rather than "factual", but 200 years ago they would have been "factual" and most certainly not symbolic. Also, people pick and choose parts of religion to suit themselves, which in itself is strange don't you think?

 

[goatwack]

Disagreeing with someone doesn't make me holier than thou - i think just saying "I don't agree with you" is a perfectly acceptable retort...

I think quoting any group that is "Militant" is hardly a fair representatioin, in the same way that militant Vegans, or militant Muslims, or whatever, are not exactly a fair representation of the group they purport to represent.

Religion has done, and continues to do, more harm in the world that any form of atheism has ever done. Your seeming attempt to discredit Christopher Hutchins (unless i misread it) was also unfair and uncalled for - i would say that Hutchins, whilst he desribed himself as a Marxist and Trotskyist, was hardly someone who was out to cause trouble - he was anti-religion, anti-oppression, anti- a lot of things, but i don't see how he had done anything wrong? Please correct me here if i misinterpreted what you meant...

Around the world today there are many many religions who worship many many Gods. A monotheist would believe in only one of them, and they would think that their God was THE God. The wouldn't believe in the hundreds of other Gods. As an athiest, i just believe in one less God than a Christian. I see the term God to mean "anything we don't understand" - which is why in the past there were Gods of fire, water, weather, etc... Of course, today we understand a lot more about the world - and religion has arguably failed to account for the changes - the bible clearly wasn't accurate in any way, but those bits that are now disproven are just passed off as "symbolic" rather than "factual", but 200 years ago they would have been "factual" and most certainly not symbolic. Also, people pick and choose parts of religion to suit themselves, which in itself is strange don't you think?

Which part of Jonah living inside a whale don't you believe?

 

[Playford7]

Disagreeing with someone doesn't make me holier than thou - i think just saying "I don't agree with you" is a perfectly acceptable retort...

I think quoting any group that is "Militant" is hardly a fair representatioin, in the same way that militant Vegans, or militant Muslims, or whatever, are not exactly a fair representation of the group they purport to represent.

Religion has done, and continues to do, more harm in the world that any form of atheism has ever done. Your seeming attempt to discredit Christopher Hutchins (unless i misread it) was also unfair and uncalled for - i would say that Hutchins, whilst he desribed himself as a Marxist and Trotskyist, was hardly someone who was out to cause trouble - he was anti-religion, anti-oppression, anti- a lot of things, but i don't see how he had done anything wrong? Please correct me here if i misinterpreted what you meant...

Around the world today there are many many religions who worship many many Gods. A monotheist would believe in only one of them, and they would think that their God was THE God. The wouldn't believe in the hundreds of other Gods. As an athiest, i just believe in one less God than a Christian. I see the term God to mean "anything we don't understand" - which is why in the past there were Gods of fire, water, weather, etc... Of course, today we understand a lot more about the world - and religion has arguably failed to account for the changes - the bible clearly wasn't accurate in any way, but those bits that are now disproven are just passed off as "symbolic" rather than "factual", but 200 years ago they would have been "factual" and most certainly not symbolic. Also, people pick and choose parts of religion to suit themselves, which in itself is strange don't you think?

Think you mean Christopher ‘hitchens’

 

[goatwack]

I'm not even sure Christopher Biggins would save this thread

 

[paul7388]

I'm not even sure Christpher Biggins would save this thread

Christopher Biggins might tho

 

[goatwack]

Christopher Biggins might tho

Goddam you Paul. Goddam you to hell!!

 

[paul7388]

Goddam you Paul. Goddam you to hell!!

I am also an Atheist so that is a kind of pointless comment or threat

 

[mack341]

Disagreeing with someone doesn't make me holier than thou - i think just saying "I don't agree with you" is a perfectly acceptable retort...

I think quoting any group that is "Militant" is hardly a fair representatioin, in the same way that militant Vegans, or militant Muslims, or whatever, are not exactly a fair representation of the group they purport to represent.

Religion has done, and continues to do, more harm in the world that any form of atheism has ever done. Your seeming attempt to discredit Christopher Hutchins (unless i misread it) was also unfair and uncalled for - i would say that Hutchins, whilst he desribed himself as a Marxist and Trotskyist, was hardly someone who was out to cause trouble - he was anti-religion, anti-oppression, anti- a lot of things, but i don't see how he had done anything wrong? Please correct me here if i misinterpreted what you meant...

Around the world today there are many many religions who worship many many Gods. A monotheist would believe in only one of them, and they would think that their God was THE God. The wouldn't believe in the hundreds of other Gods. As an athiest, i just believe in one less God than a Christian. I see the term God to mean "anything we don't understand" - which is why in the past there were Gods of fire, water, weather, etc... Of course, today we understand a lot more about the world - and religion has arguably failed to account for the changes - the bible clearly wasn't accurate in any way, but those bits that are now disproven are just passed off as "symbolic" rather than "factual", but 200 years ago they would have been "factual" and most certainly not symbolic. Also, people pick and choose parts of religion to suit themselves, which in itself is strange don't you think?

You should have followed your own advice then and just said 'I don't agree with you', adding 'vehemently' [ which means in a forceful, passionate, or intense manner; with great feeling] was done to make out I'd written something evil or immoral that needed the highest degree of opposition, that's the reason why I said you were being holier than thou.

And you were vehemently opposing something I hadn't actually said, they murdered the people in the name of marxism, which has a fundamental belief in atheism, it plays a part in their thinking as marxists and so did have 'something' to do with their actions.

David shush was quoting hitchens laying more of the blame at the russian church for what happened when stalin took over:

"...Had this Christian machine not been in place, then it is more than likely Stalin wouldn’t have had the vehicle he needed to succeed in causing so much suffering in the name of his godless religion, Communism"

The gist of my reply was well he would, it better suited his political creed [marxism] to lay blame elsewhere, there's nothing in that that warrants vehement opposition, I haven't said anything immoral or evil. His own brother Peter Hitchens disagreed with him over a lot.
In fact I'm wondering if you did read what I said as you keep calling him 'Hutchins'

The other writer Davidshush quoted [when I looked it up] was michael sherlock, who has unabashedly called himself a 'militant atheist' and argues for some of the tactics that the 'league of militant atheists' used, the non violent tactics before they turned violent, ridiculing religion and believers is one of these tactics. I can find his article on it, its on the internet. [it could be argued that violence is not just physical, it can be psychological, so ridiculing someone for their beliefs may not in fact be 'non violent' or 'peaceful']

I'm not an advocate of all the bible teaching, and the white bearded man stuff etc.., atheism and the arguments for and against are complex. I personally believe in a creative force or creator, it's beyond man's knowledge really, you can't know God. If the atheists believe everything happened by accident, just like some sort of chemical reaction but with no deliberate reason behind it, then that's their belief. They're are totally free to think that way, I don't agree with imposing religion or atheism on anyone, people should be able to make up their own minds up.

The marxists though did want to impose atheism on everyone, and I feel reading some of the things the militant atheists say there is a bit of that in them, they're not just happy to be atheists themselves they want to 'convert' people to their way of thinking, broadly speaking the media's influence is in that direction too, so they have a powerful platform to get their views across unchallenged.

David imo was going down the route of ridicule by bringing in beliefs in fairies etc..

Edit: Also, what did I say about pol pot that you [vehemently] disagreed with?

 

[Playford7]

Anyone read any of David Irving’s work as we are currently on about ‘David’s

 

[mack341]

Playford you've got an interest in military matters, what do you make of the defence secretary just getting the chop?

 

[Playford7]

Playford you've got an interest in military matters, what do you make of the defence secretary just getting the chop?

Ahh the right honourable gavin William Williamson ‘mp’
Well he was caught left right and and banged to rights .
And made a example of from the weakest government we Ever had.
His predecessor is a almost feminist in disguise, her views are public.
We are when in war or conflict privy to certain information that’s never even mentioned upon, I don’t see this having massive rammifocations, storm in a tea cup of you will.
He will be finished politically however and rightly so, Leaks happen all the time. Most not public knowledge unless agenda driven
.

 

[goatwack]

Guess that leaves just one candidate to fill the position

 

[mack341]

Ahh the right honourable gavin William Williamson ‘mp’
Well he was caught left right and and banged to rights .
And made a example of from the weakest government we Ever had.
His predecessor is a almost feminist in disguise, her views are public.
We are when in war or conflict privy to certain information that’s never even mentioned upon, I don’t see this having massive rammifocations, storm in a tea cup of you will.
He will be finished politically however and rightly so, Leaks happen all the time. Most not public knowledge unless agenda driven
.

he always seemed a bit wet behind the ears to be a defence secretary, I guess he was against the huawei 5g deal and so leaked the info, not often someone gets sacked like this... we live in interesting times especially on the EU front and their plan to have an EU army, Tony blair wants us to be aligned into this 'defence force' so I guess one way or another it will slowly happen.

 

[mack341]

Is there anything about the new defence minister you think the troops will admire




I think on the contrary the ramifications could be quite massive

[Sorry folks that's my sid james impression over with ]

 

[goatwack]

Is there anything about the new defence minister you think the troops will admire

View attachment 108374

I could think of a couple of reasons

 

[Playford7]

he always seemed a bit wet behind the ears to be a defence secretary, I guess he was against the huawei 5g deal and so leaked the info, not often someone gets sacked like this... we live in interesting times especially on the EU front and their plan to have an EU army, Tony blair wants us to be aligned into this 'defence force' so I guess one way or another it will slowly happen.

Hopefully we will be out by then..
I doubt it tho

 

[Playford7]

I could think of a couple of reasons

Yep bad hair and a naggy school teacher bad coffee breath

 

[trancemonkey]

Think you mean Christopher ‘hitchens’

Oops... spelling fail

 

[DavidShush]

You should have followed your own advice then and just said 'I don't agree with you', adding 'vehemently' [ which means in a forceful, passionate, or intense manner; with great feeling] was done to make out I'd written something evil or immoral that needed the highest degree of opposition, that's the reason why I said you were being holier than thou.

And you were vehemently opposing something I hadn't actually said, they murdered the people in the name of marxism, which has a fundamental belief in atheism, it plays a part in their thinking as marxists and so did have 'something' to do with their actions.

David shush was quoting hitchens laying more of the blame at the russian church for what happened when stalin took over:

"...Had this Christian machine not been in place, then it is more than likely Stalin wouldn’t have had the vehicle he needed to succeed in causing so much suffering in the name of his godless religion, Communism"

The gist of my reply was well he would, it better suited his political creed [marxism] to lay blame elsewhere, there's nothing in that that warrants vehement opposition, I haven't said anything immoral or evil. His own brother Peter Hitchens disagreed with him over a lot.
In fact I'm wondering if you did read what I said as you keep calling him 'Hutchins'

The other writer Davidshush quoted [when I looked it up] was michael sherlock, who has unabashedly called himself a 'militant atheist' and argues for some of the tactics that the 'league of militant atheists' used, the non violent tactics before they turned violent, ridiculing religion and believers is one of these tactics. I can find his article on it, its on the internet. [it could be argued that violence is not just physical, it can be psychological, so ridiculing someone for their beliefs may not in fact be 'non violent' or 'peaceful']

I'm not an advocate of all the bible teaching, and the white bearded man stuff etc.., atheism and the arguments for and against are complex. I personally believe in a creative force or creator, it's beyond man's knowledge really, you can't know God. If the atheists believe everything happened by accident, just like some sort of chemical reaction but with no deliberate reason behind it, then that's their belief. They're are totally free to think that way, I don't agree with imposing religion or atheism on anyone, people should be able to make up their own minds up.

The marxists though did want to impose atheism on everyone, and I feel reading some of the things the militant atheists say there is a bit of that in them, they're not just happy to be atheists themselves they want to 'convert' people to their way of thinking, broadly speaking the media's influence is in that direction too, so they have a powerful platform to get their views across unchallenged.

David imo was going down the route of ridicule by bringing in beliefs in fairies etc..

Edit: Also, what did I say about pol pot that you [vehemently] disagreed with?

Belief in atheism? Belief in not believing a claim isn't a belief like not collecting stamps is a hobby. You seem to want to tell atheists what atheism is so you can argue against a straw man. If you don't believe in gravity then you may try to jump from a window, but you would first have to believe that you would fly. You need an active belief to do something stupid like that.

You seem to be using a lot of straw men as atheists only agree on one thing, that god claims have failed to meet there burden of proof. Anything extra an atheist thinks or believes stems from other factors.

Reason behind life? How about we give our reasons when/if we discover them? Seems pretty reasonable to me. You were told about god, you seem to be using that as a reason. Some people require a bit more evidence before dedicating our lives to something that is "beyond mans knowledge".

You are free to reply as atheists are free to respond to god claims. Trying to shoehorn marxism into atheism seems like a massive leap to me. It'd be like assuming Catholics must all encourage the abuse of kids.

If beliefs are being asserted as any kind of evidence/guide to life which are demonstrably incorrect or untrue, then ridicule could be an option against them. Not against the person, but against the beliefs.

 

[trancemonkey]

Belief in atheism? Belief in not believing a claim isn't a belief like not collecting stamps is a hobby. You seem to want to tell atheists what atheism is so you can argue against a straw man. If you don't believe in gravity then you may try to jump from a window, but you would first have to believe that you would fly. You need an active belief to do something stupid like that.

You seem to be using a lot of straw men as atheists only agree on one thing, that god claims have failed to meet there burden of proof. Anything extra an atheist thinks or believes stems from other factors.

Reason behind life? How about we give our reasons when/if we discover them? Seems pretty reasonable to me. You were told about god, you seem to be using that as a reason. Some people require a bit more evidence before dedicating our lives to something that is "beyond mans knowledge".

You are free to reply as atheists are free to respond to god claims. Trying to shoehorn marxism into atheism seems like a massive leap to me. It'd be like assuming Catholics must all encourage the abuse of kids.

If beliefs are being asserted as any kind of evidence/guide to life which are demonstrably incorrect or untrue, then ridicule could be an option against them. Not against the person, but against the beliefs.

A retort worthy of a clap... good answer Sir.

 

[mack341]

Belief in atheism? Belief in not believing a claim isn't a belief like not collecting stamps is a hobby. You seem to want to tell atheists what atheism is so you can argue against a straw man. If you don't believe in gravity then you may try to jump from a window, but you would first have to believe that you would fly. You need an active belief to do something stupid like that.

You seem to be using a lot of straw men as atheists only agree on one thing, that god claims have failed to meet there burden of proof. Anything extra an atheist thinks or believes stems from other factors.

Reason behind life? How about we give our reasons when/if we discover them? Seems pretty reasonable to me. You were told about god, you seem to be using that as a reason. Some people require a bit more evidence before dedicating our lives to something that is "beyond mans knowledge".

You are free to reply as atheists are free to respond to god claims. Trying to shoehorn marxism into atheism seems like a massive leap to me. It'd be like assuming Catholics must all encourage the abuse of kids.

If beliefs are being asserted as any kind of evidence/guide to life which are demonstrably incorrect or untrue, then ridicule could be an option against them. Not against the person, but against the beliefs.

This a twenty day old post of mine David you've left it a bit long, I can't remember the gist of everything that far back and I'm not going to reread it, as it involved a lot of brain ache at the time..it was something to do with free will that's how the discussion started.

The communists were atheists, they had no qualms or worries about any consequences from a god for their actions. They killed a lot of orthodox christian believers and priests etc.. and what I was saying was they wouldn't have done this if they'd been orthodox christians themselves, so 'their' version of atheism [not yours] played a part in the whole tragedy.
As I understand it atheism is a core part of marxism but marxism is not a core part of atheism, that's the nub of it.

The michael sherlock fella you quoted is on record of proclaiming himself proud to be a militant atheist and wanting to promote atheist thinking using militant methods etc..correct me if I'm wrong on that.

Neither militant religion nor atheism appeal to me; and you can't demonstrate god's existence or non existence, it's a mystery. I prefer 'creator' rather than god which conjures up the image of a man with a white beard etc...

In your post you've shoe horned in 2 claims of me using straw men, imagery of trying to fly by jumping out of a window, saying that would be a stupid belief and abuse and the catholic church. All this to make a round about attack on religion through word placement etc..., atheism will never appeal to everybody, I think you have to accept this.

 

[mack341]

A retort worthy of a clap... good answer Sir.