AJ Philips,

From your initial post I don't think we will have a meeting of the minds. You sound pretty determined. But I'll respond.

You say that we don't have a sample available of humanity building a different set of rules to live by because no society has unanimously agreed that god does not exist and then decided to build a different set of rules based on this realisation.

But we do have societies where everyone was encouraged by the power brokers to believe that God does not exist. Indeed in the Soviet Union an estimated 21 million Christians were killed. They are atheist societies irrespective of whether it was forced upon people or they unanimously agreed that God does not exist and everyone amicably decided to take a different approach to rules. To date it has always been a Marxist type approach I believe.

"The ideologies and most of the rules of the above ... were not a result of rejecting religion."

Are you saying that they are consistent with religous values? They are excluded by religion and arise when it is absent. There may be other possible results but that has been the result to date.

"For this tired old argument to be true, you’d have to explain how one logically goes from:
“I don’t believe in god”

To:
“The working class must therefore seize political power ...”"

Ethical values are not given from above and handed down to us. Therefore we do not have to follow traditional values and are free to work out our own system. Lets create a society by using an objective standard to formulate ethics. If we look at history there appears to be economic imperatives driving human action and institutions. If humans are motivated by economic considerations then good must be equating the human economic situation. Given the current uneven distribution and economic imperatives being the primary motivator those who have more will never agree. What is needed is a revolution.

Is that reasonably logical?

CONT

"Communism is not the result of atheism (or the lack of religion) as there is nothing within atheism to support it."

With respect I think you have it the wrong way around. It is not that atheism shares a common philosophy it is just that atheism doesn't stop it. Atheism is merely the absence of religion so it is pointless looking to it as some type of philosophy to support anything. But it is a lack of religion and if religion is not there something needs to move in to replace its perspective. To date Marxism has stepped up to the plate. That doesn't mean nothing else will. But viewed scientifically it is the best guess as to what will happen if religion is eliminated whether by power or by unanimous agreement.

Dear ALGOREisRICH,

"our divine nature:", "our?"

Well, can you imagine anything else existing but God?

"does you knowing limited information about me fetter me ?"

As feeble humans this is quite common. We tend to behave in such ways that are consistent with what we believe that others think about us.

In the deepest sense, of course, I cannot fetter you. The most I can do without your humane cooperation is to delude myself about you.

"Limited information between a Creator and the created is an understandable situation"

Of course, but we were discussing God, not a mere creator.

"the idea of a personal Creator"

If such a being existed, it logically follows that it would:
1) not be God
2) only be able to create the PERSON which I call "me", not myself.

As such, I find it less interesting and less awesome.

"who self revealed to His creation"

Again, this is possible with ordinary creators, but as for God, how can it be possible, since only limited objects can be revealed to our limited senses and mind.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"

Any action makes an actor. Any application of force produces an opposing force in the opposite direction (Newton). The act of creation, besides its obvious product (the created), also makes the creator a creator.

It is like saying that before a certain date, God was not a creator (at least not of this particular universe), but afterwards He was - but God is not subject to time, He cannot be affected, so be careful not to mix up expressions of great love, submission and awe with physical phenomenae (as lovers did through all ages and will always continue to do despite countless warnings by philosophers such as myself).

"That's also part of His self revelation"

For those who have ears to hear and eyes to see, everything is His revelation, for there is nothing else besides Him. If you want to experience Spirit, turn within, but if you want to learn about the world, turn to science.

Part 2
"But it is a lack of religion and if religion is not there something needs to move in to replace its perspective. To date Marxism has stepped up to the plate."

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 that became associated with atheism because theism already had been entrenched with aristocracy, power, wealth and privilege for centuries. The proletariat [for want of a better word], was cast in atheism's mold before they were aware of it by the two great forces that opposed their struggle for a share of that power and wealth.

"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. M/L's sole purpose was usurping entrenched power, wealth and privilege. That movement was M/L's alone and in Russia that power was vested in the Orthodox Church and the aristocracy/royalty. Both were crushed by ruthless violent political overthrow.

Religion had chosen early for itself to be part of and remain part of what eventually became an anachronistic corrupt social system. It was not overthrown because of it being intrinsically christian.

mjpb 28/05 10:12:44am P7 writes;
Part 1
"With respect I think you have it the wrong way around. It is not that atheism shares a common philosophy it is just that atheism doesn't stop it [communism]."

With equal respect, neither does religious faith. It may oppose communism, just as atheism may. An understanding of how and why theism and atheism/heresies occupied their places in societies and politics in past ages is fundamental to understanding their places in today's societies and political structures.

"Atheism is merely the absence of religion so it is pointless looking to it as some type of philosophy to support anything."

Neither has atheism ever had a rallying cry, a banner or flag, an escutcheon or shield, a motto or a body of admonitions. It has never been a cause that led armies into battle or to call men to the barricades. If anything, its creed and standard is the Golden Rule and if it has a philosophy it comprises the few concepts that developed therefrom which lubricate the wheels of social intercourse. Reciprocity is its core.

A great number from all backgrounds believe in no God.
Most of them live by standards set out in the holly book of their birth.
And some who claim belief are n fact telling lies they in private do not believe.
Some always will need that straw, some would sit down and invent another God as soon as any Revelation was made.
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.