Why Marxists are poor atheists

Post Reply New Topic

One of the ideas of atheism is to promote a freedom from dogmatism, and truly listening to and regarding sciences properly.

The problem with Marxism is that it has traditionally been very much of a dogma. Marx has essentially been a prophet, and the entire Marxian system has shown great similarities to Augustinian Christianity as shown by Bertrand Russell in his noted book on the history of philosophy. This contradicts the ideal of the atheist movement to be a non-prophet movement. As it stands, Marxism seems to clearly undermine the very values that the atheist movement wishes to instill, and this prevents Marxism from properly being considered the best representatives of atheism.

Even further, Marxism is not only not scientific as its proponents claim. (it is not scientific partially for having an unfalsifiable prediction) It is also anti-scientific in that Marxism rejects basic philosophical developments in economics, philosophical developments selected for their ability to make sense of the world and the reduction of absurd entities, all to promote a bizarre platform that has long been considered economic nonsense. Is Marxism really a science, or just a rejection of the way things are today? I think clearly the latter, and that has even been seen by others, such as Nobel Laureate Robert Fogel, who remembers the paucity of predictive ability from the Marxists during his own time with them:

"But as Marxists' predictions of severe unemployment failed to materialize, he began to question if they understood capitalism at all. "They couldn't even get a business cycle forecast right. They were Johnny One Note," Fogel says, referring to a 1937 show tune. "The one note was, 'It's going to get terrible.' And if it didn't get terrible, they didn't have an answer.""
http://cornellalumnimagazine.com/index. ... view&id=82

Because of this, if you were thinking about voting DentArthurDent, rethink your response. Instead, go with a more intellectually disciplined choice. Go with Awesomelyglorious for your source of STRIDENT rejection of God.
(This message has been paid for by the commission to awesomize Awesomelyglorious)

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 01 Jun 2010, 11:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

party politics are very much like religions, and therefore incompatible with real atheism.

it requires a "religious mind" to firmly believe that ONE system of rule will cover ALL the world for ALL time. which is the mindset of most political people.

Even worse, it takes a "religious mind" to even think that such a thing is inevitable to happen by any analysis. There isn't that omniscient view by which we can see the future, but rather the point is for man to dedicate himself to building the best future he can.

So, where does one have to go to find good atheists?

I haven't completely read Karl Marx' manifesto, but from the parts I have read it sounds like he's a time traveling former Wal-Mart employee from the future.

Good atheists? Define the word "good". Probably England though. Or France.

Scandinavia only has bad atheists, since they seem to be permanently pissed at the world (as does North Korea).

Just keep on going the direction you are currently going and speed up to 10,000 years per second. You should find a few after about a two minutes travel.

If he is a time traveller, probably he is the future iamnotaparakeet

Atheism is nothing more and nothing less than the lack of a belief in a god or goddess. One can be atheistic towards Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster; one can also be atheistic towards all deities. One can be a "strong" ("positive") atheist: "I believe such-and-such god does not exist." One can also be a "weak" ("negative") atheist: "I do not believe such-and-such god exists." Such positions say nothing about a person's view on other questions, where reason and an open mind may or may not enter the picture. Indeed, a common criticism launched by agnostics against atheists is that atheists are as dogmatic in their disbelief as theists are in their . Some atheists are considered particularly dogmatic in their approach to atheism by many (e.g., a view some hold of Richard Dawkins).

I prefer the term nonreligious to avoid people's presumptions.

Yes, Marxists tend to be dogmatic.

Really....so their dogma is freedom from dogma?

The absolute statement on a deity is pretty dogmatic too (and is way too colored by other popular religions' conceptions of what a deity must be).

There is exactly one idea of atheism: that one may not believe in the existence of gods.

Not so. The position of atheism is that there is not sufficient empirical proof for the existence of God, god or the gods. It is purely a negative position with regard to the evidence available.

ruveyn

I'm not sure what you're reading in my statement, but that's more or less what I'm trying to say. One difference I would have with your interpretation is that an atheist may not even demand empirical evidence; the necessary and sufficient condition is that they do not believe in the existence of gods.

One might state "dogma" for the ironies, but "idea" avoids the connotations and is more honest to the real issue.

The god hypothesis would explain certain phenomena, however there is no empirical evidence to support the hypothesis. The concept of a creative intelligent force or energy that preceded the matter we know about is not in itself absurd. However there is no evidence to indicate that this is the case. I can understand why some people wish god exists

ruveyn

How would you know that?! Nah, even if I were him I wouldn't go now after how a few European nations went crazy with Marxism.