Quote
“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 referenced Marxism because their philosophical starting point is essentially atheistic materialism. The starting point of atheistic materialism is essential to Marxism for it allows for the development of any type of political, economic, sociological, and moral system that they would choose to promote. They cannot build Marxism from a Christian world view, but they can from an atheistic materialistic world view. From atheism they can create their own morality. My point was Marxism cannot philosophically develop from my point of view, but they can from yours. Furthermore, neither you nor a Marxist can build their philosophy from the principles embedded in the Declaration which include creation theism and Christian moral absolutes. Though this does not make you a Marxist it does point out that your philosophical starting point is closer to Marxism than it is to the Theism of our founders.
I don’t see anything dishonest or disingenuous in pointing this out. The Christian world view stop Marxism cold, while materialistic atheism allows it to develop.

Quote
“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"


I agree.

Quote
“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.”
I agree.

“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.”
I agree except in the case of morals. A constitution and laws are always based on morality. If there is no moral expectation regarding theft, murder, greed, bearing false witness the law will also be unclear, or inadequate, or constantly in flux, or always being challenged on moral grounds. Our founders differentiated between morals and religion—they held to moral absolutes and freedom of religion. I concur. Atheistic societies typically become tyrannical in order to keep law and order end to enforce the state morality. Theism offers the right to challenge any law that does not morally cohere with the moral foundation.

“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.
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.”


So, while I did not quote it in the context of Karl Marx per se, I did quote it in context from an official webpage of Marxist Liberation theology. I posted the link in my first posting. It was not out of context from that Marxist Liberation theology webpage. In the context that I selected, I did not cherry pick it out of context.

However, I will note that in “every case” where an alleged contradiction was noted between scriptures it was a definite and deliberate cherry picking with little regard for context, logic, or common sense. In fact, this approach was defended as all we need to do is make dictionary comparisons between words and note their discrepancies. It wasn’t even recognized that words can have radically different meanings in different contexts. Thank you for reinforcing the point that context is essential to any credible comparative analysis.

Quote
“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.”


I understand your point and believe it’s a good interpretation of Marx. What I quoted was how typical Marxists chose to understand and apply the Marxist concept to their Liberation Theology. You issue would be with those Marxists and their understanding of Karl Marx. That webpage is quite consistent with how Marxist governments have under stood and applied it. They simply reduce it to say with the opiate of religion removed, people can achieve their highest state of paradise on earth.

Quote
“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.”


Burden of proof by what standard? Anyone can reject most anything by saying there is not enough proof to meet my standard of evidence. Some skeptics said we should have manuscripts from the Biblical era to be credible. This statement overlooks that manuscripts of that era could not even last to the present age without being in modern museum conditioning or in a dry desert location with minimal human handling. Others say the evidence is too old and we cannot cross examine the eye witnesses, so we cannot verify anything. Others say God should have introduced the gospel right after the fall—which would move the evidence even further from the original. So, the skeptics on this thread cannot agree on what standard of evidence is required. When I see this fragmented and contradictory approach I realize it’s not about having enough evidence, it’s about finding a way to dismiss the evidence as it relates tot he Bible. Perhaps in other areas skeptics are more objective in their reasoning.

Quote

“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.”


I have not called you a Marxist. I have only pointed out that the philosophical starting point of Marxism is atheistic materialism—which allows them to proceed to Marxism. There is a clear tie from this starting point to the atrocities of Mao and Stalin. My starting point with theism and moral absolutes does not allow for any type of Marxist development.

Neither Hitler nor the White Supremacists can make any logical comparison between their philosophy and that of Jesus whether they call themselves Christians or not. Most Christians would agree with me.

It’s interesting that you want no link to the atrocities of atheistic societies but you have often tried to tie my beliefs to the “Christian perpetrated atrocities.” But there is no tie between those atrocities and the teachings of Christ—even though the perpetrators claimed the Christian faith.


Last edited by Thunderstick; 07/18/19.