One other point I forgot to mention is that there is a difference between ‘anti-religious’ and ‘atheist’.

To confuse the two by reminiscing on all the anti-religious actions of a Marxist regime and then subtly attempt to associate those actions with atheism or to imply that they were doing what they did in the name of atheism is slack.

The Marxist regimes of the 20th century set up establishments of atheism by outlawing religion, but again, they anti-religious societies - not atheist societies as there is nothing within atheism to support them.

<<So the claim that the prosecution of Christians in Communist countries was not done from the position of atheism but by the Communist system...>>

I may have been too quick to claim that you had learned nothing from our last discussion, George, since it is now “from the position of atheism” rather than ‘in the name of atheism”, or “based on atheist values”.

So are you saying that communists took the “logical” step of:
“I don’t believe in god”

To:
“The working class must therefore seize political power internationally through a social revolution to expropriate the capitalist classes around the world and place the productive capacities of society into collective ownership”?

Because that’s what it sounds like you’re implying.

If Marxists did what they did from the position of atheism and not communism, then what aspects and tenets of atheism did they derive their communist ideas from? How did they logically go from one to the other?

<<...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.>>

Bad analogy.

Remember, you can’t just equate atheism with theism as they are not just two equally opposing views. Theists are the ones making the claim, and atheism is simply the response to that claim.

Big difference there - and one that renders your entire argument on this topic absurd to say the very least.

Dear George,

Thank You so much for your kind words.
And for sharing.

I'd also like to share something with you.

Five kilometers south of the small
town of Meskuiciai, near the hamlet
of Jurgaiciai, in Lithuania, is
"Kryziu Kalnas," (Hill of Crosses).

The almost perfectly round hill, flanked
on three sides by lowlands is completely
covered with wooden crosses. In 1900
there were about 130, and by 1938, over
400. Today, there are hundreds of thousands
of them. The crosses were built by the sick
and unfortunate making a pilgrimage to the
hill, especially on the Feast of Corpus Christi.
According to folk tradition, the first crosses
appeared after 1831 and 1863 uprisings, built
in memory of those exiled and killed.

After World War II the crosses were built by
Lithuanians returning from Siberia. In 1961,
the Soviet administration had the crosses
destroyed. They bulldozed them and burned them.
The next day the crosses appeared back on the
hill. Re-erected by young people.
This battle with the Soviet administration
continued for many years.
Today the "Hill of Crosses," is
known to every Lithuanian, and is a sacred shrine.

Self-actualized people are hard to manipulate,
difficult to control.

Since there has been some difficulty for some in understanding the significance of the fact that theists are the ones who are making the claim and that atheism is simply a response to that claim, I’ll run with the claim that Marxism is the result of atheism for a moment and posit that religion is therefore to blame for Marxism since without religion, we wouldn’t have atheists responding to it by adopting the position that no gods exist (and then taking that next “logical” step of concluding that therefore the working class must therefore seize political power internationally through a social revolution to expropriate the capitalist classes around the world and place the productive capacities of society into collective ownership).

Sheesh! Is there anything bad that religion can’t do?

Belly,

I think your approach would be sound. If that were to happen I hope your view gains ascendency.

There is an analogy with the Christian idea that everyone is a child of God and should be respected as such albeit sounding more utilitarian. I have always been fond of the Buddhist scripture (since I identified as a Buddhist to now: "As long as we concentrate on others faults we deprive ourselves of the light that shines in varying degrees from everyone."

"If I had a say it would be just one God for every human being in the world, Gods should unite not divide"

I don't believe it is the Gods doing the dividing. I believe it is the people. Even when people arguably have the same God there is division.

"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."

I only feel anger for you when you don't read posts properly. I also have mixed feelings about your situation. When you did believe in God weren't you in a group that let a kid suffer for a couple of days instead of getting treatment? That doesn't sound like an ideal group to belong to. I'd love you to join a more mainstream Christian Church but where you have been so far it is hard to ascertain whether you have moved in a positive or negative direction. Belief in God is big so you'd think that that trumps anything but ... the poor kid! God can give us faith if we accept it but He gave us reason and we should use it.

George,

"... those who denigrate any religious faith do not display, and definitively not what I experienced myself"

I hear you. However in this country I have experienced predominantly passive atheism. Interestingly the head of the atheists foundation (society?) was in here supporting bus stickers vilifying religious belief and talking about the atheist "philosophy". I call that secular fundamentalism. I think Pericles is an example of someone who is more of a passive atheist abeit not necessarily a passive person.

"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 ..."

Again I hear you. Your experience is testimony to the folly of asserting a rigid dichotomy. You talked the talk as regards the political philosophy but got done over by the atheist powers that be. There is a difference between the dictionary definition type of an atheist and atheists who are hostile toward Christianity. However both claim the label. Are the hostile group imposters or are they legitimately atheists? This points to something else which isn't easy to articulate but does hover in the background.

Quite often those who are the first to hide behind the dictionary definition to distance themselves from atrocities in atheist societies seem to be the atheists actively hostile toward religion. They seem to want it both ways. They often claim that there is no belief system with atheism because there is no defined fundamentals. However even in Christianity there seems to be disagreement on what the fundamentals are between denominations. Then you get the bumper sticker atheist who claim the stickers are on behalf of all atheists because atheists share a philosophy.

Actually mjpb, if you scroll up a bit, you’ll see that I’ve already addressed George’s post and put this arguments into perspective. So unfortunately your last response was in vein.

Incidentally though, why do atheists (I presume you were talking about ‘explicit’ atheists specifically here) need to hide behind dictionary definitions?

If dictionary definitions are ever used, it’s only to clear up any deliberate obfuscation and blurring of issues to further a false claim. Quite similar to the false claim that yourself and George have made actually.