Is Communism Synonymous With Atheism?

[Sledge]

Glorious exposition, comrade.

 

[Brainache]

The atheists often blame the theists for the substantial loss of life due to religious wars. But the biggest massacre in the history of mankind was caused by the atheists, who do not believe in the existence of Supreme Being. That means Cain was an atheist, coz the existence of Supreme Being was a fact for him. In his lifetime, the world population comprised four people: Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel. When atheist Cain whacked his bro Abel, he effectively wiped out 25% of the world population.

Was Cain a communist apart from being an atheist?

Yes, he was. Communist regimes often boasted that education was free of charge under the system. The proof:

1. Eve ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge.
2. The Serpent didn't charge her anything for the education. (Genesis doesn't mention that he did.)
Therefore:
3. The Garden of Eden was a communist country.

But!
Are all folks living in the communist countries communists?

Let 'A' stand for Atheism and 'C' for Communism.
Since Abel's initial is 'A', Abel was an Atheist.
Since Cain's initial is 'C', Cain was a Communist.

From the above, we can safely conclude that atheism and communism are siblings prone to the fratricide. (See Stalin's purges of his own politburo.)

His Omniscience and Irreversible Wisdom God saw the commies coming and issued the "be advised" notice in Genesis. But since things that are prophesied cannot be changed, His Kind Warning was pretty much useless. It only proves that God's mind works mysterious ways, and if it does, then there must be God -- with all the implications in tow.

Well, I'm convinced. How can anyone argue with logic like that?

 

[qayak]

The atheists often blame the theists for the substantial loss of life due to religious wars. But the biggest massacre in the history of mankind was caused by the atheists, who do not believe in the existence of Supreme Being. That means Cain was an atheist, coz the existence of Supreme Being was a fact for him. In his lifetime, the world population comprised four people: Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel. When atheist Cain whacked his bro Abel, he effectively wiped out 25% of the world population.

Was Cain a communist apart from being an atheist?

Yes, he was. Communist regimes often boasted that education was free of charge under the system. The proof:

1. Eve ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge.
2. The Serpent didn't charge her anything for the education. (Genesis doesn't mention that he did.)
Therefore:
3. The Garden of Eden was a communist country.

But!
Are all folks living in the communist countries communists?

Let 'A' stand for Atheism and 'C' for Communism.
Since Abel's initial is 'A', Abel was an Atheist.
Since Cain's initial is 'C', Cain was a Communist.

From the above, we can safely conclude that atheism and communism are siblings prone to the fratricide. (See Stalin's purges of his own politburo.)

His Omniscience and Irreversible Wisdom God saw the commies coming and issued the "be advised" notice in Genesis. But since things that are prophesied cannot be changed, His Kind Warning was pretty much useless. It only proves that God's mind works mysterious ways, and if it does, then there must be God -- with all the implications in tow.

 

[Tarot_Is_A_Card_Game!]

From Bertrand Russell's 'History Of Western Philosophy'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73_8pT39rQc&feature=related

 

[Dave Rogers]

The atheists often blame the theists for the substantial loss of life due to religious wars. But the biggest massacre in the history of mankind was caused by the atheists, who do not believe in the existence of Supreme Being. That means Cain was an atheist, coz the existence of Supreme Being was a fact for him. In his lifetime, the world population comprised four people: Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel. When atheist Cain whacked his bro Abel, he effectively wiped out 25% of the world population.

That line of argument is what's commonly known as "bollocks".

Dave

 

[westprog]

Repeating a false premise does not make it true. Lower-c "communist" is NOT "commonly understood" to refer to Marxism. Nor is Marxism "commonly understood" to refer to the policies and practices of the Communist Party of the USSR.
Unless by "commonly understood" you mean "commonly mis-understood", in which case I would agree with you. And if we're talking about misunderstandings, then I think it's perfectly valid to explain why it's a mistaken premise.

Gah, if I have to use any more ironic scare quotes, my fingers are going to fall off.

I might have known that this would depart into an argument between The People's Front of Judea and The Judean People's Front. Since Foster Zygote has told us that Marx wasn't a Marxist, and since the CPU weren't Marxists, I wonder who actually is?

The idea that we should accept people as being Marxists just because they call themselves Marxists, and devote millions of words to explaining how their actions and beliefs are entirely compatible with Marxism is obviously too naive.

 

[HansMustermann]

I might have known that this would depart into an argument between The People's Front of Judea and The Judean People's Front. Since Foster Zygote has told us that Marx wasn't a Marxist, and since the CPU weren't Marxists, I wonder who actually is?

Very few people, actually, and most of them are on college campuses rather than in some Soviet

The idea that we should accept people as being Marxists just because they call themselves Marxists, and devote millions of words to explaining how their actions and beliefs are entirely compatible with Marxism is obviously too naive.

In the same way as believing that those who wear an Adam Smith tie actually profess the same beliefs as Adam Smith. Most are actually offended if you read to them the parts where he's ok with higher taxes for the rich, or for socialized healthcare and education, or actually explains why roads shouldn't be privatized, etc.

Or in the same way as believing that those proclaiming themselves Christians actually exhibit anywhere near the same kinds of morals or behaviours advocated by, you know, the Christ.

Etc.

 

[fls]

I might have known that this would depart into an argument between The People's Front of Judea and The Judean People's Front. Since Foster Zygote has told us that Marx wasn't a Marxist, and since the CPU weren't Marxists, I wonder who actually is?

The idea that we should accept people as being Marxists just because they call themselves Marxists, and devote millions of words to explaining how their actions and beliefs are entirely compatible with Marxism is obviously too naive.

Let's look at it this way...

If someone believes in the abolishment of private property such that labour and the products of labour are owned communally, and that those opposing this move will require force to overcome, but they are indifferent to religious beliefs, would we still reasonably consider them a Marxist?

If someone believes that they shouldn't murder or steal from their neighbor, but they do not believe in God or the divinity of Christ, would we still reasonably consider them a Christian?

Linda

 

[westprog]

Let's look at it this way...

If someone believes in the abolishment of private property such that labour and the products of labour are owned communally, and that those opposing this move will require force to overcome, but they are indifferent to religious beliefs, would we still reasonably consider them a Marxist?

I think the best way to decide who should be called a Marxist is to look at the people who consider themselves followers of Marx, and what they believe. There are certainly plenty of leftist political activists with religious beliefs who accept a lot of Marx's ideas. Do they, in practice, consider themselves Marxists?

AFAIAA, the vast majority of people whose ideology springs from Marx do accept his full analysis, and the people who take some of his thought - on economics, or politics, or even history - don't regard themselves as Marxists because they don't accept the whole package.

Marx is a very influential thinker partly because he didn't just offer an analysis of part of life - he claimed to have the whole thing accurately described. That's why it's difficult to break some bits off. His ideas are deeply interrelated, and the dictatorship of the proletariat without dialectical materialism doesn't quite go.

If someone believes that they shouldn't murder or steal from their neighbor, but they do not believe in God or the divinity of Christ, would we still reasonably consider them a Christian?

Linda

Again, it's not a matter of fundamental principle - just nomenclature. If there were millions of atheist Christians out there, demanding the right to the name, one might say that "Christian" as a description is not necessarily tied to a belief in God. In practice, it is - which is what matters when it comes to words.

 

[Dragonrock]

Oh, all this time I had thought Epix was just an ignorant twit. Turns out he's just a troll. And I mean "troll" in the originally internet meaning, not in the "people who post stuff I don't like" meaning.

 

[westprog]

Oh, all this time I had thought Epix was just an ignorant twit. Turns out he's just a troll. And I mean "troll" in the originally internet meaning, not in the "people who post stuff I don't like" meaning.

Well, we could just ignore him and deal with the question on its merits. But probably that won't happen.

 

[Dragonrock]

I'm all for that, but is there anyone besides him who thinks that all atheists are communists and vice versa?

 

[westprog]

I'm all for that, but is there anyone besides him who thinks that all atheists are communists and vice versa?

No, and it seems he doesn't think that either. He's either trolling or crazy.

But there are other issues of interest.

 

[fls]

I think the best way to decide who should be called a Marxist is to look at the people who consider themselves followers of Marx, and what they believe. There are certainly plenty of leftist political activists with religious beliefs who accept a lot of Marx's ideas. Do they, in practice, consider themselves Marxists?

AFAIAA, the vast majority of people whose ideology springs from Marx do accept his full analysis, and the people who take some of his thought - on economics, or politics, or even history - don't regard themselves as Marxists because they don't accept the whole package.

Marx is a very influential thinker partly because he didn't just offer an analysis of part of life - he claimed to have the whole thing accurately described. That's why it's difficult to break some bits off. His ideas are deeply interrelated, and the dictatorship of the proletariat without dialectical materialism doesn't quite go.

So it is not sufficient for idealism to be excluded from the public form of a communist political/economic structure in order to be called Marxism, it must also be excluded from the private thoughts of individuals, else it is merely Communism? That is, only perfection in practice and thought can be held to be Marxism, which necessarily excludes God.

Again, it's not a matter of fundamental principle - just nomenclature. If there were millions of atheist Christians out there, demanding the right to the name, one might say that "Christian" as a description is not necessarily tied to a belief in God. In practice, it is - which is what matters when it comes to words.

But when it comes to Christianity, not only is your no-true-Marxist standard deemed unnecessary (not only is it unnecessary to follow the bulk of the Christianity package, but it apparently isn't necessary to follow any of the package in order to be considered a Christian), but any ordinary meaning of the word can be considered entirely malleable in practice.

Linda

 

[TubbaBlubba]

The atheists often blame the theists for the substantial loss of life due to religious wars. But the biggest massacre in the history of mankind was caused by the atheists, who do not believe in the existence of Supreme Being. That means Cain was an atheist, coz the existence of Supreme Being was a fact for him. In his lifetime, the world population comprised four people: Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel. When atheist Cain whacked his bro Abel, he effectively wiped out 25% of the world population.

Was Cain a communist apart from being an atheist?

Yes, he was. Communist regimes often boasted that education was free of charge under the system. The proof:

1. Eve ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge.
2. The Serpent didn't charge her anything for the education. (Genesis doesn't mention that he did.)
Therefore:
3. The Garden of Eden was a communist country.

But!
Are all folks living in the communist countries communists?

Let 'A' stand for Atheism and 'C' for Communism.
Since Abel's initial is 'A', Abel was an Atheist.
Since Cain's initial is 'C', Cain was a Communist.

From the above, we can safely conclude that atheism and communism are siblings prone to the fratricide. (See Stalin's purges of his own politburo.)

His Omniscience and Irreversible Wisdom God saw the commies coming and issued the "be advised" notice in Genesis. But since things that are prophesied cannot be changed, His Kind Warning was pretty much useless. It only proves that God's mind works mysterious ways, and if it does, then there must be God -- with all the implications in tow.

Thank you, epix. I can now safely relax knowing that you are merely a rather poor troll.

 

[epix]

LOL. That species reminds me the famous God/Archangel Michael discussion taking place in the beginning of the 19th century. It concerned the application of the formal logic based on the theism/atheism opposites.

The general premise was sitting on the notion of God the Creator that Theism runs on. With the advent of Atheism, this alternative needed it's own creator. That was pretty much settled by the evolution mechanism that replaced God. The problem is that this alternative is profoundly illogical; it is not the answer to the fundamental comparison:

THEISM is to GOD as ATHEISM is to ?

Since Theism and Atheism are opposites, then there must be an opposite to God that will replace the question mark. Since "evolution" describes a process, and "god" is a being or living thing, both terms belong to different domains.

The only formally correct conclusion of the comparison turned out to be this:

THEISM is to GOD as ATHEISM is to DOG.

The problem was that the correct formality was sort of detached from the reality, so God needed some realistic support for the atheism_dog conclusion. And so he summoned Archangel Michael to review His Divine Proposition . . .



Look, Darwin will not be some armchair philosopher attempting to change things around; he will be a scientist working under the observation/conclusion scenario. He needs to get his butt out of England to observe. So he will sail to Galapagos Islands aboard the HMS Beagle.

Why Beagle? There are other dogs to consider.

Well, this breed describes the evolution the best: you have species called "Eagle" then you radiate its sex cells adding 'B' to its genetic make-up and Eagle evolves into Beagle.

Okay. But what about the other dog -- that Bulldog? That looks like a case of interspecies breeding to me, not the evolution.

Oh, no. Here is the context:

Thomas Henry Huxley (4 May 1825 – 29 June 1895) was an English biologist, known as "Darwin's Bulldog" for his advocacy of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

See, Huxley will be the one to fend off the claims that the evolution of species is a bunch of bull.

Aha. Well . . . Okay, I think that you can cause that. But what about the pope of the 21st century atheism?

Dawkins is an atheist, secular humanist, sceptic, rationalist and supporter of the Brights movement. He has been referred to in the media as "Darwin's Rottweiler",

Rottweiler? No. You need to change that. Atheism should be regarded as a well-organized kennel . . .

Michael, stop ordering me around. How many times I told you not to?

And I told you many times not to take random choices. You go around trumpeting your omniscience, but in fact you can't tell things apart and then you take random choices. Btw, why do you wasting your time on justifying' THEISM is to GOD as ATHEISM is to DOG' when your creation will never notice that anyway, coz you screwed its genetic make up and your speaking miracle can't think straight. To Your image, to Your likeness, right?

That's enough! You don't speak to me like that!

(A swarm of expletives obscured the sun and caused darkness in the Heavens; the little angels went LMAO causing Virgin Mary to change her tampon . . . Another day in the Paradise.)

 

[Sledge]

Take more water with it.

 

[TexMachina]

I'm an atheist that despises communism. I am often disgusted with communism apologists that to me are very near synonymous with religion apologists. Any dogma taken to extremes becomes a lie hiding it's roots from those it oppresses. Soviets considered the Russian Orthodox Church and all other religions competition for control over the free will of the people. That is the true reason they oppressed the religious in their realm.

 

[epix]

Take more water with it.

So He did -- in His futile attempt to show the Evolutionists that without His intervention, Darwin couldn't possibly notice anything: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/09/mohler_giberson_and_the_genesi037791.html

The central issue at hand isn't whether or not Darwin embarked upon the Beagle "in search of evolution" but whether or not his mental attitude was prepared for it and what the nature of his attitude really was.

His Irreversible Wisdom and Profound Understanding God goes again for the opposite-based comparison THEISM is to GOD as ATHEISM is to DOG through

The central issue at hand isn't whether or not Darwin embarked upon the Beagle "in search of evolution" but whether or not his mental attitude was prepared for it and what the nature of his attitude really was.

but to no avail, coz Darwin couldn't possibly bark upon the beagle, only the opposite can be the truth.


It didn't come up well out of the oven, did it? LOL. Just blame it on the evolution.

And so He did buying Darwin a round-trip ticket to Galapagos Islands.

 

[Drewbot]

Is this Communist cat an Atheist?

The men I’ve sent to death weigh heavily on my mind; but this burden is but a fist of straw compared to the strain of the republic.