Dear Yuyutsu,

Thank You.

I don't have the answers to the
big questions in life. I'm still
on my own road to discovery. I find
that the more I learn - the more
I realise that there's even more to
learn. Each of us goes through
transitions and transformations.
The important thing is that we
acknowledge them and learn from them.

Someone asked
me once what made me the happiest. I couldn't
quantify it with possessions like a car or
property or something I could touch. It's the
spirit of the human being, which can fill me
with more joy than anything in the world.
I've met some amazing souls, including on this
Forum, and its their light that has filled me.

So, as I said earlier - Thank You Yuyutsu!

Extropian1,

"With respect, this is a misperception. If religion is absent then atheism by default is the condition that arises. Marxism is purely a political and economical system ....”

As I said atheism is simply the lack of theism so the fact that communism is a political and economical system doesn’t make a difference. Do you want me to spell out that because it is nothing more than the absence of theism it is not a political or economic system. As I said there are other possibilities (because there is no philosophical/political etc link between atheism and communism) than the historical ones. However historically Marxism has always been the one that has arisen.

I said: "But viewed scientifically it is the best guess as to what will happen if religion is eliminated whether by power or by unanimous agreement."

”I beg to differ. Atheism has no imperative to evangelise, so the rise to power of Maexism/Leninism could have no interest in intentionally spreading atheism…”

In any case that is what has happened to date when religion is absent so scientifically that would be the best guess as to what happens based on the small sample. It didn’t just happen in the USSR but in other places such as China and Cambodia. It isn’t obvious that Marxism lacks any interest in spreading atheism. I can think of two. One is that it has never got a foothold in a religious society. Two is the historical record. Every time theism falls communism moves in. It is no guarantee but it obviously doesn’t hurt.

Belly,

“I remain amused by the re shaping of God by followers in this thread.
it amuses me, an anti communist to see I as a non believer am branded by, lets be honest, Christian bigotry, one of that foolish and very bad anti worker movement.”

I seem to be the only Christian discussing communism so surely I am the subject of your charming “Christian bigotry” label. I cannot find any accusations in my posts that a non-believer is a communist. To the contrary on a few occasions where I have pointed out that communism has historically moved in where theism moved out I have pointed out there are other possibilities. Logically if there are other possible consequences of atheism then I am excluding any suggestion that atheists are inherently communist. This was further supported by my noting that atheism is simply the absence of theism. Thus my posts actually contradict your accusation. So where did that accusation of yours come from? As I said I couldn’t find any other Christians even discussing the topic.

During your characteristically casual skim of the posts did you notice my respose to your question as to what rules would apply in an atheist society. I am wondering if you have a view on it?

mjpb if today, think I said this, we heard proof no God existed, I would change little.
The Christian ten commandments are surely one of Foxys true works of art in the Bible?
I could not better it.
In truth most holly books have jewels just as impressive within them.
That day, we mankind would start to invent new Gods, more need to believe than not.
If I had a say it would be just one God for every human being in the world, Gods should unite not divide
I see reildgions as rules to live by invented by good men.
Within those books you can find reason to love and to hate to fight others or live with them without trouble.
True Christians, those content to follow their God not try to lead him, will feel sorry for me not anger that I no longer believe, am lost without fear of my death.

Foxy,
>>Many of us become seekers as we begin to question and search, etc.<<
May I join those who admire you, also for this beautifully expressed wisdom. Perhaps you will find relevant also this:

“It is understandable that one may seek but not find; it is understandable that one may deny. However, it is not understandable that one may find oneself under the imposition: you are forbidden to believe” (Karol Wojtyla - later JPII - Epiphany 1978).

mjpb,
>>atheism is simply the lack of theism<<
I think technically this is called passive atheism, a passivity that those who denigrate any religious faith do not display, and definitively not what I experienced myself:

I grew up in a Communist country of Eastern Europe. I was never politically active and dutifully learned and passed all my exams in Marx-Lenininism, Dialectical Materialism, Scientific Worldview or what they were called. I was sacked not for political reasons but because of my faith (c.f. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10176#165874).

Yes, there were people prosecuted for their politcal activities or views, however, thousands lost their jobs, were transferred to menial positions, not because they were politically active or what, but merely because they refused to publicly renounce their faith or wanted to give their Children a Christian education (e.g. First Holy Communion). Many were even jailed for similar non-political and non-criminal reasons (my uncle was sentenced to 10 years for working on the translation of a prayer book).

Denying or explaining away these facts harms not the victims - most of them already dead anyhow - but ourselves. As the saying goes, those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are bound to relive it.

So the claim that the prosecution of Christians in Communist countries was not done from the position of atheism (albeit not the “passive” version, the technical term for their position was “the scientific worldview”) but by the Communist system, somehow reminds me of the excuses for the Inquisition etc.: It was not us, Christians, who did it, it was the Devil who took possession of us.

George,

<<I think technically this is called passive atheism...>>

At least now you're narrowing down your attempts to associate atheism with Marxism to just 'explicit' atheism (as opposed to 'implicit' (or “passive”) atheism).

<<...a passivity that those who denigrate any religious faith do not display, and definitively not what I experienced myself:>>

Interesting that you only mentioned denigration. What about those who fairly criticise religious belief, and for good reasons? Or is all criticism of religion denigration?

Then there's those who aren't implicit atheists like babies are (since they are able to say "I don't believe in god") but still not passive. Are they denigrating too?

I suspect you’ve only used the term “denigrate” (a term seem to be very fond of) to make explicit atheism sound worse than it is in preparation for a second crack at the whole “Atheist values” argument in which you had failed to justify in the thread you linked to in your last post:

“We shall probably not live to see if other attempts to build a society based on atheist values...” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10176&page=0).

To which I successfully refuted... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10176#166101.

For the second or third time now, the Marxist regimes/countries of the 20th century were not ”atheist countries”, they did not have “athiest values” and they were not done “in the name of atheism” as there is nothing within atheism to support them - a simple fact that renders this totally beside the point...

<<Yes, there were people prosecuted for their politcal activities or views, however, thousands lost their jobs, were transferred to menial positions, not because they were politically active or what, but merely because they refused to publicly renounce their faith...>>

And this...

<<Denying or explaining away these facts harms not the victims - most of them already dead anyhow - but ourselves.>>

No one’s denying anything here, George. You are simply using your experience to push a tired old fallacious argument. It’s distasteful tactic and it certainly leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

It’s disappointing to see you didn’t learn anything from the last time we had this discussion.