Originally Posted by Thunderstick
Originally Posted by DBT
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
So of the Marxist theology that I cited which basic premises do you reject? I heard a lot of support for those philosophical sentiments but I have yet to hear a clear rejection of them. We are not talking about economics, only philosophy.

Do you reject these statements?
... which rules out the existence of any supernatural entity, or anything outside or "above" nature. There is, in fact, no need for any such explanation for life and the universe - least of all today.

The latest discoveries have finally exploded the nonsense of Creationism.

All religions which have existed hitherto were expressions of historical stages of development of individual peoples or groups of peoples.

Religion is the opium of the people.


Marxism goes well beyond question faith. Its manifesto is political and social ideology. It is a mistake to conflate the two. You are making a category error.


I am aware of the differences between you guys and Marxists on economics, politics, and socialism. Because of those difference you will never be true Marxists. I get that.

I'm speaking only about the philosophy of Marxism and its views on faith and religion.



I don't think you do. If you did, you wouldn't continue your attempts to paint us with the Marxist brush. That's the purpose of your Cherry Picking from a commentary on the Communist Manifesto.

Regardless of your dishonest tactic, let me try to answer you in the general.

I take issue with politicians who make overly sweeping statements such as "All Religions......", There are many religions, each of which must stand or fall on the merits of it's own claims as they stack up against the evidence. Unlike Marx, I don't limit the definition of religions to only those who make supernatural claims. The philosophies of Marxism and "Global Climate Change" are effectively religions, both with many claims not sufficiently in evidence.

Like wise, there are "Philosophical Christians" who don't believe in any of the supernatural claims of the Bible, but see it entirely as allegory which is just one example for which I don't feel the above statement adequately takes into account.

Like wise, I extend the same standard to the various philosophical schools. Each must stand on the merit of it's own claims as they stack up against the evidence, and it's not the proper place of government to dictate the belief system, be it religious or philosophical, of the governed.

As for your assertion that your Cherry Picked out of context quote regarding religion as the opiote of the masses being the conerstone of Marxism, considering how the work it appeared in A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, wasn't published until after Marx death, it's absurd on it's face.

Of course you've probably never read the quote in context, and have no idea what Marx was really saying.

Quote
The quotation, in context, reads as follows (emphasis added):

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.


In other words, as suffering declines, we should expect a natural decline in religion. I'm not sure that claims holding up to the test of time. Although the old religions maybe in decline, other, such as the religion of Global Climate Change as ascending.

The goal of the modern skeptic is to believe as many things that are true, and as few things that are untrue as possible, and each proposition must meet it's own burden of proof.

Consequently, for the majority of modern skeptics, they are not skeptics because they are atheist, they become atheist because they are skeptics, due to theistic claims failing to meet their burden of proof.

To me, the propositions of Marxism and Theism are separate and distinct, and one does not depend upon the other.

When you attempt to tie my position on Theism to Marxism, I see it as the moral and philosophical and tactical equivalent of the political left calling everyone who voted for Trump a Racist.

I haven't attempted to pin the sins of White Supremacist, the KKK and the Nazi's (yes, Hitler was Catholic) on you, so please stop pinning the sins of Stalin and Mao on me.

You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.

You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell