YAWN. YAWN.
Aren't you guys finished with this yet? There's no flesh on the bone.
Someone begin another thread.

socratease

Graham,
I agree with much of what you are saying, however I think one should distinguish between Marxism (an abstract theory) and Marx-Leninism as practiced in the Soviet Union and its satellites for many decades. Since I have already outed myself (on another thread) as having grown up in Stalinist Czechoslovakia, with compulsory “scientific world-view classes” instead of RE so - in distinction to your adversaries here, who, I think, are at most “armchair Marxists” - I have had practical experience with the atheist underpinnings of Marx-Leninism:

When the peasants took to their scythes to defend their parish priest (taken by police as a “Vatican spy” or on some similar accusation) they saw in the new officials first of all atheists, not Marxists or what. Of course, many people rejected Marx-Leninism for reasons only marginally related to religion, however many others, not only peasants, saw (and suffered from) the new political system as primarily atheist and only secondarily as based on an ideology incompatible with any decent Western world-view, theist or atheist.

As a child and adolescent I was happy to regurgitate to my Marxist teachers their doctrines and slogans to get through my studies; I was only scared of having to proclaim in front of the class that I did not believe in God (as a 12 years old I actually did once, and I was thankful to my father who explained to me why I should not feel guilty).

I was spared of this later, because the comrades made the mistake of rewarding the country’s first three (I think) in the Mathematical Olympiad with admission to a university of their choice without entry exams, which also meant without ideological/political scrutiny (next year the rewards were only financial). So I managed to get my degree, even a position at my university after graduation, until they found out about my Catholic background. I was sacked because as one who was “burdened by religion” (or whatever the proper translation) I was not allowed to be in contact with young people.

GrahamY

I freely acknowledge there are many wonderful Christian people (but I suspect it is not their religion that makes them so). People who accept others of diverse religious beliefs, such as Buddhism which has no god and people like, yours truly, who hold no religious beliefs at all.

I agree with Bushbasher - you have not shown the slightest respect to posters who have provided courteous, articulate and reasonable posts in response to your claims that atheism is NOT the FOUNDATION for Marxism as AJ Philips and DavidF have both clearly demonstrated. Care to refute their arguments? I think not.

However,now I notice you are doing a sleight of hand vis a vis socialists - because the character of Jesus was so obviously in favour of the masses?

<<< Socialism is not Marxism. Christian socialists are not Marxists. >>>

You got the first part correct, but there is no reason to assume that there are no Christian socialist/Marxists. However that may appear to you, that state of being is no more oxymoronic than fascist Christians - suggest you do some research, here's a hint: Dorothee Solle.

Again, I ask you why, in the face of demonstrable evidence do you wish to paint ALL atheists with the one brush? A brush smeared in aspersions and outright lies?

>> however many others, not only peasants, saw (and suffered from) the new political system as primarily atheist

they may have SEEN the system as primarily atheist, but that doesn't make it true; the fact that they see it may have as much to do with their religiousness than their tyrants' atheism.

their belief doesn't mean they in fact SUFFERED because the system was primarily atheist. in fact they didn't. in fact, there is no such thing as a "primarily atheist" system.

let's take another example. plenty of people, not just peasants, see (and claim they suffer from) the world banking system as primarily jewish. it doesn't make it true, and we don't treat such belief as anything but disgusting, antisemitic paranoia.

george, you post is a red herring, most of it very red (pun sort of intended). graham's job is to go from the definition of atheism to a system of belief. he can't do it, and in its place he obfuscates and smears. don't help him.

Graham you speak about humanism as if it is a bad thing. There are Christian and non-theist humanists all striving to achieve the same humanitarian goals.

I liken the Marx argument to a claim that George Bush's Republican Party is part of a greater Christian movement, which could be arguable on Bush's own claim that God advised him to invade Iraq and that it would be almost impossible for an atheist to be elected to the US Congress let alone selected for candidacy for President.

Writers who claim that atheism was a religion under Marxism forget religion requires a belief in a supreme or supernatural being. Atheism is a feature of Marxism, one part of a highly political movement of which many Christians subscribe to (without obviously taking on Marx's atheistic or opiate of the people viewpoint).

I tend to agree with Severin that the good in people comes from within, if some people gain help to express the good through their religion they are harnessing something that already lies within. If it didn't religion could not hope to harness it.

Goodness knows no boundaries, neither does evil, but these attributes, I believe, exist regardless of one's religiosity. Is it too out of the square to believe that a good Christian would be good even if they were an atheist.

As one poster said previously, we do tend to pick the bones on these conversations repeating much of what has been said before with most of us acknowleding the freedoms of belief as well as the freedom of speech.


(PS: I have always like the Quakers)

Graham, let's have a closer look at the point you make here.

>>Someone earlier on suggested that Atheism is the default position. In fact, religion is the default position - you find very few natural Atheists in the history of the world until after the Enlightenment. That's because you needed the Enlightenment and the scientific revoultion to provide the philosophical tools. Which underlines the fact that it is a belief system. It depends on a particular theory of how the world operates to be viable.<<

Ignore for a moment the crop of organized religions that have sprung up over the past few thousand years, and take your mind back to a time when communication between individuals was quite poor. Primitive sounds, primitive "writing" and "reading".

Despite this, there is a fair body of evidence that suggests these folk were "religious".

http://studyingsocieties.wikispaces.com/Early+Human+Cave+Paintings+and+Religion

http://www.philipcoppens.com/cavepaintings.html

Which would support the part of your theory that suggests that a belief in (a) higher power(s) has been part of mankind since its existence.

However, the Enlightenment came with increased communication, as well as broader and deeper education.

It could be argued that the same tools that allowed us to understand that the sun does not revolve around the earth, also develop the understanding that the concept of gods is something that we have created for ourselves.

The understanding that the earth is no longer the central point in the universe is now the "default" position. In the same way, our new perceptions of the value of religion in our society allow us to start from the "no god" premise, while accepting that religion is still required by some. And quite possibly, always will be.

But the new "enlightened" default position in the twentyfirst century could quite justifiably be described as atheist, depite the tens of thousands of years in which the existence of gods was taken for granted.