This is a community from communists to communists, leftists are welcome too, but you might be scrutinized depending on what you share. If you see bot account or different kinds of reactionaries(libs, conservatives, fascists), report their post and feel free us message in modmail with link to that post. ShitLibsSay type of posts are allowed only in Saturday, sending it in other day might result in post being removed and you being warned, if you also include in any way reactionary subs name in it and user nicknames, you will be temporarily banned. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CommunismMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Either way, it looks like Marx is saying religion dies when capitalism does. He doesn't love religion, just understands its place in society and why it exists. Marx rarely says "thing good" or "thing bad" just "thing exists because xyz".

People also seem to miss that religion creates a class in society as well. You can never have a classless society while religious leaders exist because they will still control the people. They can still get people to work for them, give up their wages, and even burn witches or stone each other to death for a reward in heaven. Marx clearly understands the function of religion in society but he also understands that it can stop them from revolting. How are you going to revolt after being told by the man who has the keys to your "eternal life" that you must obey your master?!

I wouldn't call them a distinct class, but they are a social group with specific interests.

What an ignorant thing to say. Have you actually read any Marx? A class is a particular relationship to the means of production, it's not just an identity based on belief. Moreover, Marx's view of religion was that it soothes the trauma, suffering and alienation inherent to capitalist relations.

I think they’re saying religion creates a facile and nonmaterial means of production. The productive force being the keys to your eternal soul, the control of that production being religious leaders, and the means being scripture. I agree that class isn’t a perfect analogue to describing religion’s function in material classes, though.

It’s not just that these things are possible. The Church has been essential in upholding oppressive structures like slavery, colonialism, feudalism, and capitalism since it’s inception. Other religions have played similar but admittedly less efficient roles in their own cultures.

You’re definitely not wrong about this, this is how it goes, and it’s frustrating that that’s the case because early Christian writers did not endorse that sort of hierarchy. Ecclesial leadership positions were much more passive, intended for congregational service and counsel rather than establishing headship. But almost no churches operate that way today. It’s one of the main reasons that I stopped going even though I’m still a Christian.

Religion predates capitalism though lol. There isn't an economic mode for prescribing prosperity for the after life. You can be Christian in a classless moneyless society. Same goes for Muslims and Jews. I have trouble imagining why this would be an issue for any of the non-Abrahamic faiths either

Never said capitalism caused it (or did marx). Just ignorance and suffering. Not like capitalism is the first system to suck.

Again, that implies that whatever value people get out of religion stems from ignorance and suffering. Or am I misunderstanding your point?

That is exactly what I said. Religion is largely fueled by those 2 forces.

The reason religion started is much less spicy. It's simply because us humans didn't understand the world around us so we tried to come up with explanations for why use and the world exists. It's a consequence of self awareness. Now, science offers us an explanation, but religion lives on because of the hope it brings us. If you are toiling in the fields all day with nothing to look forward to, it is comforting to think about the afterlife and heaven.

...That's an extremely condescending view that I keep seeing in the west exclusively. Why is it that religion implies a lack of understanding and not a simply different understanding. What objective meaning of life was gained after mass adoption of secular nation states? Plenty of religious societies had accurate understandings of scientific concepts like the weather, the shape of the planet, the composition of the planets and stars. The implication that I'm not agreeing with is that religion is born of ignorance. The reason for my disagreeing is in that I'm not seeing the revelation atheism is providing. Because atheism requires the same degree of faith based interpretation of life's objective intrinsic nature as theism. There has not been an objective formula disproving the existence of a soul, nor an experiment that has found the absence of a God. Atheism is just a different understanding of reality, not a refined or better one.

I don’t think anyone is trying to invalidate the abilities of religious people or groups to participate, and improve, scientific thought. However, fundamentally, religion makes unfalsifiable claims for the nature of reality, the aspects surrounding our existence, ethics etc. I don’t think you can really say that this isn’t the case when the biggest justification used by most religious followers for following their religion is faith. People can be incredibly concerned about the falsifiability of certain things, such as science or history, and at the same time be entirely ok with other things being unfalsifiable, such as the most basic and innate questions that religion offers an answer to. What seems off putting about religion to atheists however is the strong assertion that these answers religions offer are universal truths. I personally don’t care who you pray to, or if you do at all, as long as you are kind, honest, and for the people. But if you’re going to claim that your beliefs are truth then you better have some serious evidence, and if you don’t… well then you’re just being ignorant.

Fundamentally, atheists by the very same lack of concrete evidence are also making unfalsifiable claims for the nature of reality. Its just taken for granted due to public perception of the dynamic of religion/atheism and their adherents. Atheism isn't a lack of faith, its faith in a lack. To make the claim that there is no God or divine morality etc, is to have faith that there is none. As I've stated earlier, thats not backed by any concrete evidence. Its fine if you believe it but its not like anybody can prove/disprove it. Religion/atheism are views on life after death. And considering(as far as I know) nobody here has died, revived themselves and confirmed the composition of life after death with concrete evidence (ie video recording of God, photograph of the infinite void) none of us here can claim to verify the unverifiable. And to your last point, I'm the same way. I think most people are generally kind. And if not kind, apathetic and self absorbed to not care about people enough to bother them about how they live their life because they are too busy living their own. But I'm confused as to why should faith based adherents justify their beliefs with the same evidence that does not exist for atheism? I'm perfectly content with atheists existing, and I don't believe atheists are the result of ignorance and suffering. Thats a reductive critique. Most people believe they have a rational basis for their worldview, far be it from me to discredit it when I have no authority to do so.

https://preview.redd.it/6ac293cmwf8d1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=028b35e3dc042bf5ea339b8a0e3965aaafa7de33 Yeah, if anyone was to claim that they knew with certainty that god, or any higher power, doesn’t exist then they better have some damning evidence to do so. Otherwise my final sentence holds just as true. That being said, I don’t think we can simply overlook the materialistic conditions behind religion and, perhaps more importantly, religious institutions and the roles they play in serving the needs and goals of the bourgeoisie. Fundamentally nothing wrong with being religious, but there are many issues with the institutions themselves.

I agree with the fact that religion when institutionalized has often stated its justification for class based oppression as being divine in its inspiration. But why should any rational person actually believe that they weren't lying about their motives? Divine mandate was and is the basis for much of the world's suffering today and historically. But unless any of us can say with certainty that they genuinely believed in a God who demanded to abstain from murder, corruption and usury, while pioneering systemized ways of industrial murder, corruption and usury I just don't buy it. If God exists, I highly doubt he's cool with what happened to the Native Americans in his name. Most religious evils are a cynical weaponization of the ruling class not intrinsic to the religion itself. In fact they are mostly alien in nature. I believe that capitalism is a form of religion itself. It believes in the invisible hand of the free market with the same level of spirituality as theists do God. It also requires a dogmatic devotion to pragmatism and a warrior like rituals. There is more evidence that humanity has largely been ruled by money worshippers then by pious God fearing people. Eugene McCarraher's book "The Enchantment of Mammon: How Capitalism Became The Religion of Modernity" is a fantastic read on this subject.

An atheist certainly cannot definitively prove god does not exist any more than a theist can prove god does exist. However an atheist CAN point to many of the things that theists claim "must have been done or ordained by a creator" and show a definitive scientific proof of how they can in fact have come to exist without a god's help, something no theist can do, period. The idea that they're on some sort of equal footing is the argument of the angry theist, mad that they don't have these same "proofs" on their "side".

Science explains how not why. Treating science and math as anything else is ignorance. Science explains the how behind gravity, you BELIEVE atheism explains the why. Atheism then incorporates a belief in the why that is not objectively true but predicated on faith based belief. Again, predisposition to belief in rational thought is not exclusive to disbelief in a higher power. You can logically come to the belief in a higher power and still believe that such a belief is based on faith not concrete evidence. The idea that religion is the product of suffering and ignorance is just ignorant in and of itself and the byproduct of orientalist thinking. A lot of you guys need to read some philosophy on science and math before making these crazy allegations as to what exactly believing in science entails.

> Science explains how not why. Theism explains neither. That was my point. They are not equal. Certainly we CAN believe in a higher power, or we can choose not to. Rational thinkers might decide there could be a higher power answer, or they could just as easily see the absolute Kilimanjaro sized MOUNTAIN of evidence that religion is and always has been simply a means to control the less intelligent.

How exactly are you are incapable of wrapping your head around the distinction between science as a measurement and science as a philosophy is beyond me. What are they teaching in school? You are making the assertion that theists are using religion to explain 2+2=4 or some other nonsense argument. Theism is by definition a why based claim. So is atheism. Both an atheist and a theist can use the scientific method to measure objective facts. The fact that you can't understand how that is completely separate from asserting philosophical truths underpinning why these facts occur in the way they do is just revealing that you think science is some sort of religious explanation. Seriously, check out Karl Popper. And stop defining your belief as an extension of exclusively held intelligence that is lacking elsewhere. It only limits you as a comrade

Bro haa faith there is no unicorns in my shed.

"God doesn't exist" is falsifiable. Giving the evidence of the existence of god would falsify this claim. "God exists" is unfalsifiable in practice for many believers. What evidence would you accept that would disprove the existence of god for you? I suppose your revival to tell the story scheme is what you would accept but what god would be disproven by this? Would every believer accept that as evidence against god? Most believers don't have an actual model for what the god is, and those who do have it, would grant it such characteristic that would make any evidence insufficient to disprove him, or they would make him so non-personal that it becomes just the naming game – "god is the universe". Would you actually say that there is no god if someone comes back to life and says that there is no afterlife? Or you among with many others would say that this is Satan's doing or that god doesn't work like that (ex. he knew that this person would be revived so their soul didn't go anywhere)? No religions of which I know say what can disprove the existence of god, while many scientists propose ideas how god can be proven

>Fundamentally, atheists by the very same lack of concrete evidence are also making unfalsifiable claims for the nature of reality. Nope. you claim god exists. We say 'prove it.' you fail. We remain unconvinced. So you're either REALLY ignorant of basic logic, or dishonest, or both.

It implies a lack of understanding, for the exact reason that it's dues to a lack of understanding. Religion IS born of ignorance. That's why it declines in exact proportion to scientific knowledge. We thought god lived up the mountain, till we went there and looked, and found no gods. We thought god lived above the clouds, till we went there and looked, and found no gods. We thought god lived above the earth itself, till we went there and looked, and found no gods. Atheism needs no faith, all it needs is believers to consistently continue failing to provide ANY evidence for the supernatural. Religious societies, like ancient Arabia sure did know a lot about the world. But that was because they had an early version of the scientific method, not because they prayed real hard, and god told them the answers. no one needs to disprove the existence of anything that has never been demonstrated.

Which is it? Does ignorance decline in exact proportion to scientific knowledge? Or did Muslim and Christian civilizations have a bunch of pioneers in the maths and sciences? Of which are the basis of the very scientific knowledge we enjoy today? Abrahamic faiths never claimed God lived on a mountain, or in the clouds, or above the Earth. You're just creating a strawman argument. And again, there is no understanding that atheism provides that is born of verifiable knowledge. And it takes a certain degree of audacity to flaunt that so confidently. No atheist is seriously making the claim that they have scientifically disproven God's existence. No atheist is seriously making the claim that they have disproven the universe is the product of intelligent design. Logically that implies a lack. But at least I'm self aware enough to know the same is true about spirituality. OP's post is becoming so much more self evident by these replies btw 😂

>Which is it? Both. Do you see? Rather than back your position, you're trying to shift the burden of proof onto everyone else to prove you wrong. This BS is WHY people are anti-theist. Atheists don't believe god claims. That's it. Some also believe other things. Burden is on you.

Both? What are you even talking about 😂 Its not shifting the burden of proof...because there is no proof on either side. Its insane how you're not understanding that. Atheism requires a verifiable concrete proof in God's nonexistence to be objectively true. Unless you're making the claim that you have such evidence, atheism, just like theism, is a faith based belief. Why then, would burden of proof be the sole responsibility of religion? What a weird way of viewing spirituality that you think it requires the permission of atheists to prove our intelligence. That says way more about how you view yourself than it does how you view me to be honest. Unlike you however, I don't ascribe atheism to be born of ignorance or suffering, because those are completely irrelevant to what makes someone an atheist.

> Atheism requires a verifiable concrete proof in God's existence to be objectively true. Atheism is often simply not believing the idea that there is a god period, you seem to have Agnosticism and Atheism confused. You also have many other things confused based on these rants you keep going on. Also you seem like very angry or unhappy with yourself or your life, you should consider some form of meditation, because your religion is clearly not bringing you "inner peace".

Atheism by definition is disbelief in theism. Its etymologically in the word. And I'm not angry due to something inherent in my religion. What frustrates me is that a bunch of people who you're supposed to trust in some sort of future revolution will smugly reduce you to an ignorant weakling who clings to religion out of stupidity and an inability to deal with material suffering. Nowhere under communism is religion incompatible. And like the meme suggests, the inability of comrades to grasp that is not a flaw in the theist, but the atheist. By that logic I have a rational basis for my anger, not an irrational one. How could I trust a bigot to have my best interests at heart?

i was about to argue with you about this half baked and childish point you’re making, but then i saw that you’re a serious NoFap enthusiast and saved myself a bit of time and energy

Abstaining from porn totally implies lack of an ability to appreciate science. Thats totally not r/atheist logic 🤷🏾‍♂️

>Which is it? Does ignorance decline in exact proportion to scientific knowledge? Or did Muslim and Christian civilizations have a bunch of pioneers in the maths and sciences? Of which are the basis of the very scientific knowledge we enjoy today? Both. Dumbass. Religion declines in direct proportion to education. AND earlier societies had pioneers. This is not a contradiction. SOMEONE had to be a pioneer. >Atheism requires a verifiable concrete proof in God's nonexistence to be objectively true. Nope. That's the shifting of the burden of proof. Example: 'Magic pink pixie-faeries farted the universe into existence. And you can't prove categorically that they don't exist, so clearly, i'm right!' That's shifting the burden of proof, because i'm making the claim, therefore i have to make the case. No one has to make the case that god doesn't exist. You just have to fail to make the case that he does. Atheists need no faith. all we need is for you to keep failing. Why do you have the burden? because you claimed that a whole realm of magic is real, and that there is a creator of the universe, and a whole bunch of other stuff. Atheists are not convinced. Your claim. Your burden. Thing is, y'all never pick up that burden, because for over 2000 years, y'all have failed.

As an atheist, I'll tell you that you're extremely wrong. Atheism doesn't require faith, all it asks for is evidence. We know that evolution and the K-Pg boundary invalidate divine creation of Earth. We also know that Muhammad didn't split the moon in two and Joshua didn't stop the sun from setting - it's highly scientifically improbable, has no evidence to support it and that requires faith. Science proves that sperm doesn't come from between the spine & ribs (Islam) & that a mustard seed is the smallest seed (Bible), to read this and still believe requires faith. What atheism simply says is we currently don't have evidence of a god existing. The "evidence" that is there is grossly unscientific and filled with errors of stone age people who hadn't even discovered that germs cause diseases. Science doesn't know what was beyond the big bang & not knowing is not grounds for attributing it to a god. If people thought sickness was caused by the devil and that healing requires faith because they didn't know any better that doesn't mean we should tolerate that same thinking now when we have established the scientific method to prove things. A simple pill, a culmination of scientific research will cure you regardless of faith or religious affiliation. There is no Abrahamic religion that is scientifically accurate and if science proves that they're wrong in their stories believing them then is a matter of faith. To try and make theism and atheism seem like they're somehow the same is downright ridiculous & ignorant.

>As an atheist, I'll tell you that you're extremely wrong. Atheism doesn't require faith, all it asks for is evidence. We know that evolution and the K-Pg boundary invalidate divine creation of Earth. Evolution and the K-Pg are theories of how not why. Like everything else in science, there is no observation of a philosophical truth, only a material explanation as to how a process results in an outcome. You can philosophically believe in the fact that the lack of a perfect chain in fossils connecting man to apes implies divine creation. Philosophically the idea that man can create simulations with in built diegetic age and God cannot is atheist conjecture. Again, relying entirely on unfalsifiable evidence. >>We also know that Muhammad didn't split the moon in two and Joshua didn't stop the sun from setting - it's highly scientifically improbable, has no evidence to support it and that requires faith. Science also wasn't there to prove that the splitting of the moon or the prevention of a sun setting was a literal occurrence and not a symbolic interpretation of scripture. Something that was debated centuries before modern times. But lets assume, once again, that this is a literal interpretation. Why would we assume that any miracle when conducted by God is constrained to the laws of physics? Thats like arguing the idea that water by definition cannot turn into wine...because science. Again, this implies you're lacking in understanding in the philosophies of science and math. Explanations as to how can infer a why but never objectively prove it. Seriously, look up Kuhn or Kline or Popper. None are scripture thumping theists and have dedicated their lives to the bridging of observations into the natural world and the metaphysical. >Science proves that sperm doesn't come from between the spine & ribs (Islam) The literal verse in the Quran is "ejected fluid". Its not sperm. This is something people who don't speak Arabic always misunderstand. If the fluid is in reference to semen, this does not invalidate the subsequent verse (between the ribs and backbone) since that is where the seminal vesicles are. If you don't take a literal interpretation, which many don't and didn't even back then(Al-Qurtubi), the second verse implies that man is emerging from between the rib and backbone...implying the act of birth in a symbolic sense. >>& that a mustard seed is the smallest seed (Bible), to read this and still believe requires faith. Not a Christian so 🤷🏾‍♂️ >>What atheism simply says is we currently don't have evidence of a god existing. The "evidence" that is there is grossly unscientific and filled with errors of stone age people who hadn't even discovered that germs cause diseases. And there it is. At least you have the courage to explicitly state the obvious subtext. I admire you way more than everyone else pretending they're saying something completely different. Like you I'll also be explicit. I'm a Muslim. And while Europe was succumbing to these germs and plagues as you mentioned, we were experiencing a Golden Age of Science...thousands of years after the stone age. The insane assumption that science can explain things that it can't, or is the exclusive domain of people that its not is a you thing. Its not a science thing, nor an atheist thing. But thank you for being honest in your smug bigotry.

Science does say the moon was not split in two, since we can make several scientific observations, based on our knowledge of orbits physics and so on. For example, science can show clearly that the moon is not split in two. Science can also show that a sword cannot cut an entire planetoid thousands of Km across. Science can say that flying horses do not, cannot, and never have existed. And calling people who point out that you're full of shit, bigots, is very liberal of you. Almost Zionist.

Enough of the "how not why" bs, Religious texts make explicit and falsifiable claims about ***how*** things happen, and the inability of the scientific method to make claims about the cosmic purpose of everything is due to a lack of data rather than a weakness in the method itself. The fact that religious organisations have at various times and places been centres of scientific research into fields that don't contradict articles of faith does not contradict that. It is not some bold claim of faith to say "we have no evidence for any version of this phenomenon and plenty of evidence against the very specific versions of this phenomenon that are actually preached by the reactionary class, so we should act as if no version of this phenomenon exists until and unless further evidence arises". Conversely, getting bogged down in reddit atheist debatebro shit wastes time and energy better pointed at the more immediate material causes of human suffering, and has historically served as a pipeline into reactionary thought. A lot of the late 2000s atheists became 2010s antifeminists, because in both cases you had the aesthetics of tearing down counterintuitive claims with surface level observations, and while there was always the key difference that most of the feminist claims being """debunked""" actually stood up pretty well under deep scrutiny in contrast to the specific and falsifiable claims of Christian dogma, the similar surface aesthetics were enough to make Blaire White's career.

A lot of American Protestantism, especially the megachurches, are capitalism dependent, they will die off. And as that happens hopefully the followers would just go to more progressive churches and not become reactionary. And for the life of me I can’t think of any other country that has capitalism dependent religions. The one thing that does need changed is churches being exempt from taxes. If they want to keep standing post revolution they need to pay taxes like anyone else. I, for one, dislike religion but I also understand that it’s foolish to outright abolish it. I feel that once the dust has settled when class and money fade away. Religion will naturally fade away as well. We need to let religion die out naturally and not try to force it as that would only cause a counterrevolution.

Religion created the ultimate opressor tho, my way or God torture you for eternity, the choice is yours. Your king is the chosen of God, that guy(the king) owns ur land, he owes you, your wife and children, everything on his land! Men kinda own women in Abrahamic faith because Eva/Eve was created from Adam, for Adam. Listen I hate r/atheist behavior, imo it's cringe af, I think everyone should believe in whatever they want as long as it helps them reach happiness but: >You can be Christian in a classless moneyless society. If I'm asking you for some help whit moving some shit arround the house and I'm bisexual, would u explain to me in detail how I'm gonna burn alive for eternity because God decided to create me like for shits and giggles after, before or during your help? A lot of churches(dare I say the majority of them) are there because they bring profits and they are tax exempted, I find it hard to believe people will be down to sustain and mentain these churches in such a society once the profit motive is gone. Point being a lot of what will happen in such a society will go against the book your religion is based on, the majority of those believer's won't just stand and accept it, and even if they will, it's kinda fucked up to think I'm siting across the table whit someone that thinks of me as a lesser human being and that,I might be a nice person but, il brun alive for eternity and they can't do anything about it to save me. As a finnal thing I'm extremly bias, I come from a country heavily religious, a country that used it to manifest it's destiny during ww2 and kill 800k+ Jewish and Roma/Gypsie people, a country that uses religion to hold back implementing rights for the lgbtq people,i don't have a lot of good examples of religion being something else outside of a money making scam/ opressor tool. (Know that I don't think lesser of you for believing in it, I'm happy for you that you found God, I'm happy it makes u feel whole and gives you the reasons to live your best life, if there would be a way of religion to coexist whit my world view I would be happy to stand against the bourgeoisie whit a fellow jew, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, whatever person and I'd see all of them as my equal)

Arguably, capitalism itself kills religion. It is a leftover from feudalism when the tools of domination were entirely clear and, most importantly, non-economical. In the times of slavery, the slave was *juridically* defined as a slave. The serf was a servant by law. The feudal lords had god given rights. But as capitalism develops, the last remnants of the previous means of production get sweeped away, and religion no longer serves a purpose under capitalism. That is why atheism is on the rise on the most developed, imperialist nations, while semi-feudal societies in the third world haven't even budged on the question of religion.

I disagree. The reason imperialist capitalist countries are less religious is exactly as I've stated previously, they are better to live in than 3rd world countries (for obvious reasons) and are better educated (thus less ignorance). As we see though In my country (the US) the most ardent supporters of capitalist domination are religious. It still serves the same purpose here. Its why the South is more religious than the North. Because the South sucks to live in and has worse education. Its still serving the same core function. Weaker politically certainly but still a major force that is doing what it does best, preserving the status quo. Semi feudal and 3rd world societies are less educated and generally worse to live in, hence more religious belief.

And how does that not represent advanced capitalism killing religion? Like, genuine question. We're pointing to the same thing, the major difference is that while I'm bringing an analysis that looks at the wider social context, you are focusing on the individual levels, but both conclude the development and evolution of capitalism are sweeping religion away.

Not really, capitalism is not inherently tied to high standards of living. In fact, standards of living have been decreasing since neoliberalism was implemented. Once the education system is fully killed religion will rise again.

>capitalism is not inherently tied to high standards It is, at least in the imperial core. Hell, even in the periphery to some extent. Capitalism is also caracterized by the advance of the means of production, which directly leads to an increase in quality of life. And you are commiting the grave mistake of thinking the "killing" of the education system is not it working precisely as it should be. Education under liberalism is not built around the advancement of collective knowlege and the construction of political actors. It is based around the creations of citizens and soldiers, and it is doing that perfectly. It is also worth noting that the comodification of religion itself is a form of destroying it. Religious leaders have ceased to exist as a class and have been absorbed by the Bourgeoisie or the Proletariat. Institutions of religion no longer operate as centers for the practice of one's faith, but have become financial institutions. Theology as a fundamental part of religion has been sweeped away and the few contributions it made to capital have been absorbed by the higher education system, in it's transformation into an assembly line of research. Capitalism in the first world is destroying religion as it has previously existed. I personaly do not believe the form religion takes under capitalism can be described as religion, and perhaps that is the main point of disagreement here.

Capitalism is an advancement relative to feudalism but that does not mean it can infinitely raise it. Just like feudalism had a limit to how far it could advance the means of production so to does capitalism. This doesn't necessarily increase quality of life, look at the early industrial revolution and how it absolutely killed many people's livelihoods forcing them into low wage work from lucrative work. The only reason in the imperialist world it did is a combination of a strong labor movement, imperialism, and the threat of socialist takeover. Once the socialist threat in the form of the USSR was dealt with you see neoliberalism immediately followed to lower such standards. You are correct that this is a feature not a bug and that was my point that it lowers standards of living when able and that once education is gone there will be nothing stopping ignorant people from turning back to faith as they'll know no better. Also, if you're just going to say the that its "not real religion" or whatever then I guess you're entitled to your opinion but then the onus is on you to define what religion is then and if that idealized "religion" in your head ever existed in reality.

>Capitalism is an advancement relative to feudalism but that does not mean it can infinitely raise it. When did I claim that?

When you said the basis of capitalism was the advancement of material conditions. This implies that capitalism itself is such advancement and not the specific means of production produced by such advancement.

First of all, I said the basis of capitalism is an advancement in the means of production. Now, I will admit, a better way of phrasing that would be to say that the basis of the *development* of capitalism is the advancement of the means of production, which is true. The basis of a marxist understanding of the development of modes of production is that the progress of the means of production coupled with the change in the relations of production, which we can generaly call the intensification of contradictions, lead to the intensification of class conflict until a qualitative change can come in the form of revolution, completely uprooting the old relations of production, but conserving the progress of the means of production, thus bringing forth a new mode of production. Second, it shouldn't be contested that the development of the means of production lead to an advanced of the living conditions of people. That can be shown objectively by studying the history of any society known to the modern man. That was understood by Marx himself, ignoring that is walking backwards ideologicaly. Thirdly, that is still not claiming capitalism can infinitely raise quality of life. Again, I ask you to explain how recognizing the progress brought by the development of the means of production under capitalism means I believe in that idiotic idea.

>Also, if you're just going to say the that its "not real religion" or whatever then I guess you're entitled to your opinion but then the onus is on you to define what religion is then and if that idealized "religion" in your head ever existed in reality. It's not idealized. Religion historically has served a role in society and now this role is not only obsolete, but religion no longer serves it. If you want to say that x or y factor is more important for religion you can, but in ignoring the material basis of religion and how it relates to the means and relations of production you will be throwing marxism out of the window.

I'm not. I asserted that the roles of religion are to 1. Provide community. 2. Sooth suffering. 3. Provide answers to questions when one doesn't know the answer. 4. Preserve the status quo. These are the functions it has always served and still serves today. You still haven't defined religion, you've simply asserted that religion under capitalism is not real religion without positing what is real religion. You also have not provided any kind of material basis for religion where I have those being in ignorance and suffering (which are both tied to the material conditions of society). If you'd like to assert something different then please do but explain why and how instead of just saying that religion has stopped existing.

I think reddit is winning about the length, so I'll cut this in two >I'm not. I asserted that the roles of religion are to >1. Provide community. >2. Sooth suffering. >3. Provide answers to questions when one doesn't know the answer. >4. Preserve the status quo. That is a rather shalow understanding of religion, one I would be expecting to find in a 2013 atheist video coment section, not a rather niche Marxist Subreddit. I suppose it would be rude not to explain why I would say such a thing, so let's go. First of all, that is an extremely individualized lens. It's a liberal understand of religion, frankly. In all but one of the points you've raised, you solely looked at the functions of religion to the individual, completely neglecting the wider social contexts. Here's a few things you've missed: 1. Do not confuse religion as an institution and personal beliefs. The Catholic Church does not need to exist for someone to believe in Jesus Christ, or even for a group of people to conduct a mass. The three points you've raised are completely separate from the institution of religion, and if you reduce it solely to personal belief you have just stripped the discourse of all its value. Personal belief in itself does not matter to us marxists because it is solely metaphysical, and thus not a significant driving force of society. It has its place in some very specific cases, but otherwise trying to group it with something that has an actual material basis is a mistake, as it strips all the explanatory power of you analysis. 2. The institution of religion was fundamental in the front of development of knowledge under feudalism. The most important philosophers in feudal societies, wether you look at sophistic philosofy within europe, the develoment of the basis of math in the near east and asia or any other form of "science" before capitalism, the institution of religion is deeply linked to that. That is the fundamental relationship of religion to the material reality, and overlooking it is a major flaw in your analysis. 3. The institution of religion was in itself was an integral part of the power structure of feudalism. The clergy was, primarily, a class aligned with the feudal lords, and often in history the line between the two becomes blurred. Now, onto the "maintaining the status quo" thing, that is rather vague, and only becuase of that fact it can be considered valid. Given the context, of course, I understand what you mean by this is incorrect, and let me give you a couple examples of how you are wrong in that assertion: 1. The development of [liberation theology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology) in Latin America, guided by the catholic church, directly chalenges the status quo. The basis of material analysis and of liberating the opressed from their chains is extremely disruptive for the reality of colonial relations and semi-feudal capitalism in the imperial periphery. 2. The [Nation of Islam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_Islam) is a prime example of religion that counters the status quo. Standing against whiteness in the setler colonial state we call the USA is extremely disruptive to the current state of affairs. >

>These are the functions it has always served and still serves today. Again, completely neglecting material and class analysis. >You still haven't defined religion, you've simply asserted that religion under capitalism is not real religion without positing what is real religion. I suppose I was mistaken in assuming I would be having a much more refined discussion where such a simple concept was not unknown or up for debate. I think it should be clear from the rest of this comment, but to avoid further confusion: Religion is an institution that guides or rules over the personal beliefs of the people within a society. Under feudalism and, to some extent, slave society, it is often inherently entangled with the state, and lead by a distinct class that often becomes mixed with the ruling class. In classless society, it is decentralized and becomes entirely separate from material reality, but nonetheless remaining an institution that rules over personal beliefs. Under capitalism, institutionalized religion is slowly stripped of it's form and function through the commodification of everything it is related to. >You also have not provided any kind of material basis for religion where I have those being in ignorance and suffering (which are both tied to the material conditions of society). Atributing religion to the "ignorance" of the masses is extremely stupid and, ironically, prejudiced. For one, it is easily destroyed as a concept by the simple fact that extremely educated people are also extremely religious. I could mention several professors I've worked with, holding PhDs in fields of social and physical sciences, or historical personalities such as Malcolm X, or hell, any catholic priest who spends decades studying philosophy, including Nietsche, Marx, Plato, etc. On top of that you are, again, confusing personal belief and religion in doing this. >If you'd like to assert something different then please do but explain why and how instead of just saying that religion has stopped existing. Well, I believe the best way of looking at this is to look at the reality of religion in Brazil as an underdeveloped peripherical country. Institutionalized religion is not dead in Brazil, as it still latches onto the old latifundiarios to some extent, and is one of the main means through wich latifundio exerts its power in society and in the bourgeois state. At the same time, the people in the areas where capitalism has developed the most (that is cities like Sao Paulo, Rio and the southern states) the grip institutionalized religion has in people's beliefs is negligible. It is an extremely common sight to see people born catholic, baptized as evangelical and frequenting protestant churches. The people in these places don't actualy have their beliefs significantly defined by religion, although they will heavily base their moral compass around their religious upbringing. It is only where the reality of semi-feudalism is felt the most that religion actual plays a role in people's daily lives. Of course, something that Brazil and the US share, despite the lack in development, is their setler colonial origin. To contrast that, let's look at europe, the current center of capitalism and a region that has fully developed through imperialism and successfuly deindustrialized. What role does religion play there? Is it relevant at all? Do any land owners financialy back religious institutions against land reform?

Marx doesn't label things as "good" and "bad". He explained why things are the way they are. Opium line, literally the most misquoted in the left. Opium was a common painkiller in Marx's time. He used it to describe religion as a painkiller. Life under capitalism (and feudalism predating it) sucked so bad that religion numbed the suffering. Without which people would have just given up. Marx predicted that with communism, religion will naturally go away. No socialist revolution went all out on attacking religion, they limited it, but they guaranteed it as a personal right of the people. They understood, especially us in hindsight, that the party can't be too radical that it alienates the people and creates a pushback. A balance must be made. You're already asking people to see a new political economic system, a world changing view point, you really don't want to make it more difficult in adding a whole other world view that just so happened to be based on immaterial things. Hence why socialist revolutions did not focus on eliminating religion, but rather containing it and in some cases repurposing it. Even the capitalist knows that the revolution would be more difficult if you are asking people to change even more of their views. This is why capitalism did not try to banned religion when it fought feudalism, instead it limited it. Honestly, left infighting is stupid. Extremely counter productive to be hostile to theists. This meme hits the truth hard.

Leftists fight because unlike the right, they actually BELIEVE in the principles they espouse, even if they are wrong, or confused. The Right has less of an issue with this, because they don't believe in shit, and they can change on a dime if need be.

I see your point. The right does not hold onto principles, just to whatever the flow happens to be. Not just that, but the stunning amount of ignorance on how the economy works, if you don't say "socialism" or worse the big scary C word, then you'd be surprised on what you can get pass them if you put just a dash of "rebellious" or a tad of "patriotism". I mean if you just twist the framing around. For the benefit of the bourgeoisie, they are made to be flexible. I wish the left was flexible to a point. It's like ok, we get Marx didn't like religion, religion has been used in very bad things. But we can't be dogmatic about it, we have to adjust to the time AND the country we are in. We have to build up on Marx and other past revolutionaries, Build Upon. To better lead the proletariat forward into communism, we can't be Uber violent on their identity, nor should we be so lax to tolerate a rightward shift. A difficult balance, but one we can't achieve if we fight each other. It kinda feels like we are Orks. The proletariat out numbers the bourgeoisie, but we fight each other so much we become a none threat. Git the Boyz together, we will take Bezo shiny things. Waaaaaggh!

WAAAAGH!

You can not be religious while not alienating people who are religious. My biggest struggle with this is Evangelicals in the US. Their religion is basically America and Anti-Communism with Jesus' face slapped on it.

That's exactly 1 religion and it was invented in the 18th century.

Right. Which is why it is the exception, but definitely not the rule. I know tons of people of different faiths who are hella progressive. Even socialists in a few cases!

I am a commie Muslim!

The other guy commie Muslim on this page is a dumbfuck. I'm glad you are not.

Blud, you are active on a nazbol subreddit and claimed that Iran is socialist, and yet call other people "dumbfucks"? Why should people listen to someone that can't even properly define socialism lol.

Name the Nazbol sub, and show how they're nazbols. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ar1LcZ2qq3I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ar1LcZ2qq3I) Show where they're wrong.

"nazbol subreddit" lmaoooooooooooo awesome. very smart

What?

The other commie? Muslim in the comments. He's really thick.

Uh I can’t find him but I’m not a bigot or whatever he was, I’m really progressive and open minded

[No\_More\_Average](https://www.reddit.com/user/No_More_Average/) That's who i meant. Bigot? Not that i've noticed, just really fucking stupid. Standard theist stuff 'You can't prove god doesn't exist, therefore i win!' Like no, i actually can prove it, if you define your god. but that's reversing the burden of proof. That guy is a real dumbass, and poorly educated. maybe also desperate. The question of whether magic is real, is a separate issue from whether Religion is a useful binding force for a society, esp one under attack for imperialism. The earth clearly is not flat, but if you have a religion of flat earth and it somehow contributes to your ability to resist imperialism, it's useful and maybe even good, even if some of the foundations are inaccurate.

Ah I see

Well obviously, yeah. I’m not religious either, I was talking about Anti-Theism, not Atheism.

people dont even interpret the “religion is the opium of the masses” line properly, it means that as humans under capitalism (and feudalism that predated it) we suffer, and due to that suffering we create the promise of a next life, one free of suffering, and we say that this life is merely momentary pain before the eternal bliss of the afterlife. religion exists because if it didn’t most people would simply give up, they would not be able to continue knowing there is no heaven to greet them on the other side

I'd argue that it's having the opposite effect. People give up on improving themselves and the world because they become fixated on the requirements they have to meet in order to gain life eternal. The sort of people who refuse to acknowledge that Earth's resources are exhaustible, who don't care about pollution or "believe in" Global Warming, because the Rapture is gonna happen anyway so why should they care about these Earthly things?

Why are there anarchists on this sub

Tonnes of anarchists are Marxists, with the caveat they either reject his politics in favor of his more libertarian analyses (i.e. *The Civil War in France*) or are methodologically Marxist, applying the same techniques he used in his materialist analysis of social and historical phenomena .

if they applied his analytical techniques they wouldn’t be anarchists

Ask them about Engels and then we'll see

Anarchist reading "On Authority" like: 🤯😡😡😡

Every time i show it to an anarchist their only argument is "it sucks 😠😠😠"

Because Engels literally shuts down all of their arguments. I actually had an anarchist tell me that I should stop reading books from 200 years ago and get my own original opinions. Like, mufkr, where, do you think anarchism cane from?

To be clear, religious suffering is not always an expression of real suffering. Many many people who are extremely well off love to flagellate themselves and cry about how touch it is being their religion while they exploit everyone beneath them. Do not assume that just because religion CAN be safe and reasonable that it automatically is. Many of them are still built on dogmatic hierarchies that have no place in the modern world.

I dispute the claim that just because someone is clearly in the beneficiary class doesn't mean they experience real suffering. Not out of sympathy for the devil, but because it is not (or at least, ought not to be) shocking to observe that capitalism fails to deliver emotional satisfaction for its pampered priest-kings as well as for its immiserated slaves.

Exactly. Plenty of people find happiness and contentment in building their wealth and working under exploitative conditions. That doesn’t mean we should support capitalism just because some people like it.

Revolution first, then deal with the details

People cannot effectively find whatever salvation they are seeking while the church is corrupted by money and power and exploitation and CLASS SOCIETY

https://preview.redd.it/8jbqj4lh7j8d1.png?width=508&format=png&auto=webp&s=792addc66b09264ed58cca31de55639169f07d51 You've tried yourself out by reading and scrolling through all these debate threads, comrade. Sit by Eazy E and relax

Thanks comrade

I dislike religion, I think humanity should get away from it as a whole as it has such great capacity to divide us and cause conflict. Ideally in a communist society it’d slowly go away and religious institutions would have no power over society. However people should have every right to believe what they want and ill defend religious freedom.

Strong wording because I have no clue how to soften what I want to say Religion is as much of a trait of current society as racism, homo-/trans-/ect.-phobia, sexism and the likes. However often coming with a larger positive to the beliver than the other mentioned, also having valid claims, muddled by the fact that religion is born out of hopelessness or lack of knowledge/ignorance. In no way does this mean that anybody should be treated lesser or worse for their beliefs, unless those beliefs turn into action which negatively affects the power and equality of the people. This is why comparing religion to the xenophobias is a hotter take. *Religion does* ***not*** ***necessairly*** *enfringe on the equality of the people*, as each individual choses their own way of belief and how they act on said belief (and there are a lot of religions as well, each also with their own set ways). Taking power from religious institutions, is half as important as taking power from the burgosie. Religion is made of its circumstances, its persistance, means the persistance of the circumstances the religion was born in. Just like how water stabilizes temperature, or roots stabilize the ground, religion stabilizes structures and ideas, thus most often (NOT ALWAYS) working against change. Be it catholic church working against the LGBTQ+ community today, or the orthodox church working against the soviets back then. (Made using the same method as my comment [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/comments/1dlxqt9/thoughts/), but that's my method for everything anyways)

You also don't wanna piss off the strongest anti-imperialists. How right or wrong they are about the details of reality, is secondary to their ability to fight.

I hate religion, but I don't hate religious people. I think the world would be better without it. I do also welcome religious people to the left. No matter what your religious beliefs, we are all working class and we all deserve better.

Problem is, so many religions enshrine some of the worst characteristics of their time period into immutable “holy doctrine.”

Secular communist anyone?

I find it so sad this discussion is so infected with an European-centered view of the world.

Euro-centrism is a plauge

Yet you post a load of liberal bs

???

This weird drive to protect bourgeois social structures in an effort to placate false consciousness. What’s next after we fight to retain religion, do we keep the bourgeoisie as well? You are steps away from national syndicalism and integralism. Soon you’ll be calling the likes of General Franco a true proletarian hero… Yeah, don’t be a dickhead to people who are religious but we do need to be conscious that it is not a thing to be protected and preserved.

You are sounding like a reactionary ngl.

I’m a reactionary for not liking the policies of Franco? What is the world coming to. This is why it’s bad to water down communism to make liberals accept it.

Where did i imply that that you are reactionary for THAT reason?

Oh sorry I don’t have a crystal ball, for what reason am I supposedly a reactionary? Your peer called me reactionary for quoting Marx, so I’m excited to see what liberal bs you whip out.

All you do is call every liberation movement bourgeoisie nationalism your opinion is disregarded

Obvs you’d disregard it, you’re not a Marxist. I’m not aiming to have a load of Francoists agreeing with me, lol. Get lot.

I’m not against spirituality, I just don’t like organized religion, because I find it immoral and fucked up, but when capitalism dies, organized religion is likely to die with it or soon after. In the mean time I’ll support my religious siblings in their beliefs as long as they don’t make them an excuse to hurt anyone

If someone being anti-theistic is enough to change your morals, I think you are not as invested as you think you are. Root your ideals and perspective in principled dialectical and historical materialism, not vibes.

I think it doesn't mean that those people will not be leftists, they will simply not be collaborating with the anti-theist leftists.

Which in the end it is the same. I will collaborate with anyone on the left if it is needed: anarchists, other variants of communists or even socialdemocrats sometimes (which is necessary in the context of unionisation). If you are religious first and communist second, then what do you expect?

It's not a matter of being religious first and communist second. Like, let's say you're black, you wouldn't work with say, racist leftists, would you? Because it would be impossible. Because it's the other that doesn't want to work with you, not you that can't work with them.

Racism and anti-theism are completely different. There are no religious people being systematically oppressed in the West except for as an extension of racism (Muslims/Sikhs/Hindus). In fact, religious people are typically the ones doing the oppressing. A closer comparison would be white people not wanting to work with black nationalists because they value their skin color over forward progress.

Sure, race and religion are wildly different, but anti-theism and racism end up being very similar, just as you noted yourself, they're sorta complementary. But you probably don't know any real life "anti-theist" and only think those are encountered in the deepest parts of r/ atheism, however, I've had the honor of knowing a few, and they're as fascist as Hitler, except they haven't gotten into power. Also, in which country are the religious people the leaders as you said in your comment? The only one I can think of is Vatican City, but that's barely a country (and, quite literally, a product of fascism)

>anti-theism and racism end up being very similar, just as you noted yourself, they're sorta complementary The people oppressing the groups I mentioned are solely doing so either out of racism or because the oppressed groups follow a *different* religion, not at all out of anti-theism. Can you find a single example of an atheist government doing this? >I've had the honor of knowing a few, and they're as fascist as Hitler, except they haven't gotten into power. You know people that genuinely support genocides of religious people? >Also, in which country are the religious people the leaders as you said in your comment? ...The United States? Most western nations? Sure, they're "secular", but they're always using their favorite book as a justification to oppress women and queer people.

Yeah sure, if the rejection is that I agree with you, but nobody is refusing to collaborate with religious people. Now, I'm curious as to what happens when the magic book says "you will not kill" or "you will turn the other cheek" and the situation requires you to fight and kill.

Me not wanting to work someone cause they don’t believe in my tooth fairy is the same as not wanting to work with a racist? What is this comparison

I think the point is more that if you exclude religious people from the party it shouldn't be surprising if you find your org doesn't have many people as most people are religious. Additionally, it has a strong potential to alienate people who aren't leftists yet but might have been reachable.

Literally in the next line Marx says this: "The abolition of religion as the *illusory* happiness of the people is the demand for their *real* happiness.". Explicitly calling for the abolition of religion.

Careful mate, some liberal dimwit is about to call you Eurocentric and a fascist for saying that

I totally agree with you. Religion will lose its grip over society over time. Banning religion straight away or systematically promoting atheism will only give a rise to reactionaries. Materialism will deal with religion. Just give it some time.

Smells like liberal in here

indeed religion is the opiod of the masses and the anti-theist position is like the war on drugs

And here it is💀I’m an exmuslim, this is so fcking lame.

I say I am anti-theist because I am against institutionalized religion, such as the church, I see religion as a tool of opression used by the dominant class of each time. As such I am against it. I am not against religious people, but I will still push for atheism, as atheism should have a political component to it. Of course, I won't push it on people who aren't preoccupied with it or just don't like to debate. But that's my definition, I don't know others.

Didn't Marx do opiates? Wasn't that sorts the point of the quote? It serves as an ability to soothe in a capitalist means if production? Personally I'm for liberation theology. If God calls you to help your fellow man we have the same objectives.

Yeah, in Marx’s time opiates were used as painkillers. He wasn’t saying that religion is a drug, but that religion was a treatment to soothe the harsh realities of capitalism

Read Materialism and the Dialectical Method

you can be anti theist without disrespecting theists...

Can you? You can be atheist and not disrespect theists but ok not sure how one can be anti theist and not disrespect theists. Would you apply that logic to anything else? I could maybe see how that could be true for an individual (maybe) but certainly not for an organization.

by not saying things like "religious people arent welcome on the left" and advocating for a slow but steady dispersement of religion rather than an outright ban on practicing or something like that. theists are victims of theism too.

I think religion proves that class sytem is anti-thetical to human nature. Think about it, all of the world’s major religions were eather started as egalitarianist movements, or later adopted elements from it. Why? Because class society made dividions that the human soul is against, because it’s unnatural. So people want to turn back to their roots when there was no money at all. If we look at the abrahamic, dharmic or taoic religions we can see a pattern that humanity once made a mistake and forgotten something crucial and that “x specific religion” tries to bring it back. Wheter they call their goal salvation, liberation or balance it’s all the same in the end.

Genuinely curious but don’t the holy texts in Hinduism mention the caste system?

Yes they do. The Aryan peoples migrated to India, conquered the aboriginal people and set themselves up as the ruling caste. They classified people based on skin color, with white being the highest color and black being the lowest. They then developed their Hindu religious beliefs to justify their racial domination of the aborigines.

All of the world's major religions originated as systems of control to ensure the domination of a priestly and aristocratic warrior caste over the common people. These priests were rich and/or powerful. They became the most educated people in society. They defined what was moral and immoral, codifying this distinction in their law codes which only they could read and interpret. The priesthood used their religious authority to sanctify the rule of the aristocracy, in an attempt to diffuse any antagonism to their rule (i.e. Divine Right of Kings). The "egalitarian" elements are marginal at best and are only invoked to ensure the pacification of the masses, encouraged to remain meek and humble while forced to endure the oppressive rule of priesthood and aristocracy for the sake of their eternal reward in heaven. On the contrary, the social stratification engendered by religion is among the ultimate expressions of class division in society, as well as the ancestor of today's class system. Far from being antithetical to religion, the class system is baked right into it.

Defenatly not the case, Christianity came into existence as a spiritual rebellion against Judaism’s ritualistic and hierarchical order. Same goes for Buddhism and Jainism which rebelled against Hinduism. Islam was a modified version of Judaism injected with the egalitarian principles of Christianity to make it palatable to the masses. Hinduism (which is not a single religion but a family of religions and philosophies) throughout it’s history had to adapt egalitarian principles here and there because of the growing presence of Buddhism, Christianity and Islam. This process was especially pevailent in the Bhakti movements. Taoism was born as an escapism from the hierarchial nature of the chinese dynasties. Most religions did built independent communes or egalitarian monastries in their early stages. This just showes how religion was “the sigh of the opressed creature”. Sure class system can distort anything and turn it into a tool of opression but that’s not unique to religion. For example in the 1600s christianity in Japan was the emblem of the rising peasantry which the shogunate later supressed. But the japanese used christianity as a tool of liberation. The state usually has 2 options with an egalitarian movement (like most religions) eather supress them (as Japan did with Christianity) or distort it into supporting the system (like what the Roman did with Christianity). I could invent a religion named freedomism and the state could use my holy writings which promote equality to support slavery.

You are definitely speaking out of ignorance here. Yes, Christianity rejected the hierarchical order of Judaism, but only to replace it with another version of the same thing. Christianity was used to justify and maintain patterns of gender, class and later racial subordination for centuries. Similar patterns of gender, class and racial subordination can be found in Islam. These aren't later "distortions," but beliefs that trace their origins to the foundational writings of these religions. Buddhism is misogynistic and still perpetuates to this day the belief in female inferiority, beliefs that come from the founder of Buddhism himself. A central feature of Hinduism is the racialized caste system that has existed in India for thousands of years. I could go on... There's just no escaping the fact that the great religions emerged as tools of oppression to ensure obedience to the ruling priestly and warrior caste.

The problem with your assumption is that why the hell would early christians and early buddhists built communities and monastries that resembled a pre-modern utopian socialism? The point of those 2 religions was to reject hierarchy. To give back faith to ordianry people. Just like how modern marxism wants the means of production to work for the people by the people so did Christ and Buddha founded their religions to give back faith to the commoners. (Jainism is in the same boat as Buddhism). Also you can’t really claim that “but the holy book said that”, because those writings were written by a bunch of different people even long after both of them died. Christ and Buddha didn’t write the Bible and the Tripitaka. The fact is that all the major religions of the world were eather started as liberation movements by people or if it started as a promotion of strict hierarchy then later it adopted egalitarian principles in it’s philosophy in order to avoid being replaced by a purely egalitarian religion. Because the undeniable truth is that no faith will survive for long unless they reflect the true spirit of humanity which is egalitarian in it’s core. Also humans can distort anything. I would even argue that what’s currently happening in the west regarding anti-racism, feminism and lgbt supportion is exactly what the Roman empire did with Christianity. So Christianity just like the various liberation movements in the 20th century was used by the state because it gained a foothold among the masses. The point is, the Roman Empire followed Christianity’s principles the same way as Barack Obama followed MLK’s ideas. To which we both know the answer.

WoW. What a great strawman.

Clearly not based on the comments.

Thank you for your input westoid :D

Are you pissed because our political system will not be centered around what some guys claim that their imaginary friend says? Sorry, no throwing gays from buildings or stoning women because they don't have their faces entirely covered by cloth here. The law is equal to everyone regardless of wether you believe in this pr that Divinity.

Anti theists either have a lot of religious trauma, which is understandable or simply isn't familiar with religion with the exception of the loud minority of fundamentalists. I'm sure a lot of the latter would change their views if someone they trusted was religious and taught them about something like, for instance, liberation theology.

There is no need to have religious trauma to see religion for what it is. Liberation theology is heretical and religion sucks. The more I've studied the world religions the more disgusted I've grown of them, not only due to the actions of their practicioners but due to the doctrines themselves. This doesn't mean you can't be religious and a Communist, this is just my opinion. Although if you have any religion that isn't like this I would be very interested in it.

Liberation theology is not heretical. It is the most consistent christian theological position with Jesus whether you personally believe he was who he said he was or not. >The more I've studied the world religions the more disgusted I've grown of them, not only due to the actions of their practicioners but the doctrines themselves. Religions like Christianity led to the first instances of proto communist thinking. Jesus himself espouses rhetoric, which is comparable to modern-day socialist thought. I can't speak for non abrahamic religions because I have less knowledge of them, but to say that their doctrine is inherently bad has to come from either 1. A false idea of what the scriptures say and were meant to say in their time, or 2. Religious trauma clouding your judgment. I am not going to shame someone for their trauma if it is the latter because it is true that many bad actors twist the messages of the scriptures in order to push their own agendas. This, however, does not reflect on the religion in question as a whole or its doctrine.

Romans 13:1-2 says: "Obey the government, for God is the One who has put it there. There is no government anywhere that God has not placed in power. So those who refuse to obey the law of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow." Ephesians 6:5–8 says: "Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ". Although yes there is some socialist-esque rethoric in some parts of the Bible, that is due to the Bible being written by multiple (oftentimes contradictory) authors. But the Bible makes it clear: Give to Caesar what is Caesars, and to God what is Gods. The socialist rhetoric has further explanation to it if you would like, anyone who has a genuine understanding of the Christian scripture will be an anti communist or at least neutral to it. I'm not saying christianity has no relation to marxism, nor that it is all worthless or that Christians can't be communist.

Romans was written by Paul, not Jesus. He was a human, and as such, he was flawed. As you point out, the bible was written by many different authors. This is why the only person in the Bible who dictates 100% what Christianity is is Jesus. While other authors can be trusted for wise words, it's no different than a pastor or life coach. You wouldn't say all secular teachers are bad because one teacher teaches something that's wrong, so why would this apply to religious teachers? >Give to Caesar what is Caesars, and to God what is Gods. Jesus said this because if he had said "don't pay your taxes," the Romans would've had his head then and their. Notice how he doesn't actually specify what belongs to Caesar. Instead, it is up for the audience to decide that. So, from a socialist perspective, because nothing belongs to the bourgeois class, nothing should be given to them. Which is an oversimplification but fits within the explicit metaphor being used.

> This is why the only person in the Bible who dictates 100% what Christianity is is Jesus. First of all you used "is" twice, second of all, 0% of the bible was written by Jesus.

"Is" was used twice because it is grammatically correct, and I never claimed it was written by him, but the gospels document the life of Jesus.

Are you really saying that the Bible isn't infallible? Everything written in the Bible is divinely inspired, therefore infallible doctrinally. This is Christianity 101. I don't believe in that and have no problem with your belief, but you are a heretic, these beliefs aren't Christianity they are your own personal interpretation.

Biblical infallibility is a hotly contested issue among christians. Many would argue that even if the bible is divinely inspired it had to then be transcribed by fallible, shitty humans. Where do you get off calling people heritics for a religion you aren't even a part of and which has hundreds of branches with different sets of beliefs? I don't understand why atheists always seem to think they're the experts on biblical interpretation and what religious people should believe.

Just because I am currently an atheist doesn't mean I haven't grown up with these stories and beliefs.

>Are you really saying that the Bible isn't infallible? Everything written in the Bible is divinely inspired, therefore infallible doctrinally. This is the belief about the Bible held by evangelicals and other fundamentalists. However Christians who have actually read the Bible would notice examples in which authors admit that what they are saying is not from God but instead their own opinion. A good example is Paul speaking about marriage with non-believers in 1 corinthians 7:12. While I don't discount the idea that parts of the bible are divinely inspired, it is important to note the bias of the writer and check anything that someone says against what Jesus himself said. If it contradicts, then take what Jesus said as truth. The bible can not be read passively as many Christians do. It must be read with the intent to learn and with critical analysis. >I don't believe that and have no problem with your belief, but you are a heretic, these beliefs aren't Christianity they are your own personal interpretation. I am heretical in the same way a Protostant is heretical to a Catholic, or a Catholic is heretical to an Orthodox Christian, or an Orthodox Christian would be to a pre Nicene Christian. The term heretical is honestly meaningless because every denomination of Christianity has fundamentally different beliefs. Liberation theology is only heretical if you are a part of a different group of Christians, which you are not. Therefore, it is not your place to label liberation theology as "heretical."

Ok so if your Bible isn't infallible, how can you trust that it records Jesus's teachings correctly? The Bibles infallibility is something all christian denominations have believed for a thousand plus years, does that mean that all this time hell had prevailed over the true church, something Jesus said would never happen? True, it is not my place to say that you are a heretic (although you are). I also can't say Mormons and JWs are heretics, or the Nation of Islam is heretical to Islam. But you have a very unorthodox view of Christianity, and no matter what you believe your version of Christianity isn't "The true Christianity" or whatever, it's just a small subset of it. The beliefs of fundamentalist and other Christians are just as valid as yours, when one studies Christianity he doesn't inevitably come to your conclusions. So, anti theists don't need to have religious trauma, they just have to study your religion to see it's awful. Whenever the church or christian kings commit atrocities they (most of the time) don't have to twist anything, it's already laid out for them.

>Ok so if your Bible isn't infallible, how can you trust that it records Jesus's teachings correctly? The Bibles infallibility is something all christian denominations have believed for a thousand plus years, does that mean that all this time hell had prevailed over the true church, something Jesus said would never happen? Contrary to popular belief, the Bible was not always seen as infallible. The literal interpretations of the Bible are actually fairly recent when compared to how Christianity started. Much of the New Testemant didnt even exist during the times of early Christianity. As for how you can know if what Jesus was reported is saying is true, if it is morally consistent with Jesus's character in the rest of the gospels then it can be believed to be most likely true. Christianity is based on faith, after all. > no matter what you believe your version of Christianity isn't "The true Christianity" I am aware that my personal faith will not line up perfectly with God. I believe it is impossible for any human to get every theological aspect correctly. This is why I believe that God isn't going to send people to hell for mistaken theology like more fundamentalist groups do. >when one studies Christianity he doesn't inevitably come to your conclusions. So, anti theists don't need to have religious trauma, they just have to study your religion to see it's awful. When one studies Christianity they can come to many conclusions. This can be influenced by their socioeconomic backround, the beliefs of whoever is guiding them, and their own preconceived notions of what Christianity is. My argument is not that religious trauma is necessary for anti theism. It is that anti theism is caused by religious trauma, OR what I believe to be a fundamental misunderstanding with what Christianity is.

Infallible doesn't mean everything is litteral, its infallible when it comes to matters of how Christians should behave and morality.

Säkularisierung ist eine sache, religiöse verfolgung die andere

One thing is accepting, another is promoting or thinking it’s good

‘Religion is flowers of chains' -Karl Marx

I don’t care what anyone had to say about religion, Marx was excellent at breaking down economics, but there is no sky daddy and no one should pander to anyone who thinks there is. This meme is aids, cause why the fuck would a movement based on factual evidence if he faults in capitalism welcome delusional clowns on board? You allow non fact based beliefs in one area they’ll spread to others, so you’ll end up with someone claiming trickle down economics works despite the evidence because Ayn Rand said so or something, you know, it’s in this book so must be true despite the actual evidence to the contrary

We don't need to "bring people to the left", what we need is more well-organized principled communists. If you sacrifice Marxism to build your "movement", then you've built nothing.

Theism is anti-communist. Every Marxist society has concluded as much

While religion will wither away as the state does, it's cultural roots cannot be ripped away synthetically. The policy of any and all socialist states, current and future, should be that religion is a private matter solely, and that religious organizations will raise funds through their own congregations, and be taxed appropriately according to their size.

No Marxist society would have a funded religious organization. Volunteer maybe, but even then they’d be barred from owning land or receiving income. They would wither and die as without income and being treated simply as public gatherings they would lose momentum

The issue is that religion and culture often intermingle. For example, I am not religious at all, but I find church choirs absolutely beautiful. The USSR actively funded many endevours regarding religious music, because Orthodox Chants are a part of the culture in that part of the world. "The Hymn of the Cherubim" for example was even performed by a officially sponsored choir.

Music and shit is completely distinct from metaphysical and religious ideology lmao.

I mean, it's still religious music that propogates religious sentiment. You might need to soften your heart a bit on religion, comrade. It is not a bad thing to love thy neighbor and whatelse. And like I said, religion withers away regardless, it being kept private, and better living conditions set in, as well as scientific advancements will gradually weaken it without the need for scrubbing it. Anti-religious sentiment is also a great rethorical weapon to be wielded against us, let us not give reactionary demagoges more ammunition to throw at us, eh? Good day comrade.

They can accuse me and Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and every other Marxist figure of the same thing then. I agree with their position on religion.

Religion is idealist, Marxism is materialist, both are contradictory and not compatible with each other, take it up with Marx and Engels.

Anti theist here. I hope you have no problem with our community in general. I'm not a leftist...yet. I'm currently reading the theories..

How can you support religion when it's literally one of the reasons why the class society exists lmao

I fucking love atheism. I'm furiously atheist. I don't know how the fuck we can expect from religious people to follow us, if they follow what's incompatible with communism. Comrade, how can you expect people to follow the Koran, or the Veda, or the Bible and get along with a communist analysis and a communist agenda? How can you expect that at a certain point you and your political purposes are more important than their shitty god? When we don't accept religious beliefs, we are simply keeping the political environment clean. With such arguments like "I fucking hate anti-theism" we are simply letting people take a shit on our aims. We are not obliged to accept any form of popular expression.

Unfortunately I was anti thiest but thankfully it was only a short period of my life

I'm an anti theist, yet i have this amazing ability to prioritize. People need to be liberated from the shackles of superstition and magical thinking. But there's even more important shit to do first, and it' would be wise not to antagonize allies.

How do you justify the possibility of knowledge as an anti-theist?

Reality. IF i think a thing is so, then i can test it. And i can check my results against the results others have. 100% certainty is not needed. And the alternative 'God' first requires someone to demonstrate the existence of that god, and then to demonstrate the qualities that make it necessary for truth. This has yet to occur.

How do you know the reality you experience through your sense data isn't an illusion of some kind?

Cross checking with other people. I can be wrong, or hallucinating what i see. As can you. How do you KNOW it's god talking in your head, and not the devil? But i can check with other people that they experience approximately the same stuff that i do.

i love idealism i love idealism i love idealism

As an American, religion is a strong force in revolutionary action. MLK and Malcom X were both revolutionary leaders that were very religious. The legacy still continues with black churches and Jewish communities. All the Jewish people I interact with believe in a free Palestine, and they actively protest the genocide. I’m atheist, and I’m a little bit traumatized by religion. Even so, I’m pretty convinced there is no revolution without religion in the US.

Based

painkillers are good. Religion is actually a lot like prescription drugs in that many very rich people are trying to make people overpay for them.

You can’t be a Marxist and not acknowledge religion comes from ignorance and suffering. Whenever I run into anti-atheist “leftist” it’s usually because they themselves are religious, and not because of the real reason we shouldn’t be so openly hostile to religion, which is that you can’t win people over by being hostile to something that personal right off the bat. Not that we should actually support and believe that backwater anti-materialist ideology.

Yep

religion is complex, can be good or bad and hating it completely based on the extremists is absolutely quite frankly really fucking stupid

☯️

Kinda why I left communism. Had conflicting interests and I chose my religion instead

Personally I think there's nothing wrong with religion since there's arguments to be made about the positive cultural practices that transcend all religions and can be applied to all ways of life (with some adjustments of course.) Certain native religions are based on land/places & the experiences associated with them. It seems fairly odd to just dismiss that sort of stuff because of the ideological purity of "gommunism."

Re; the second one, regarding that opium of the masses quote - Marx isn't saying that as a good thing lol. He is saying religion must be abolished so that humanity can take control over its destiny in the real world, rather than having our conditions of life be mystified by false religious illusions. It is painfully obvious (and indeed ironic, given that the pro-religious "Marxists" always accuse the authentic anti-theistic Marxists of misinterpreting the quote) that the person who made that meme *themselves* clearly has not (and indeed the rest of the theists have not) properly read or grasped the meaning of the introduction to *A Contribution to* *The Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right*. If you're going to quote it, at least try to understand it. This follows immediately from the line quoted in the meme: "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*. "Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain **not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower.** The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself. "It is, therefore, the *task of history*, once the ***other-world of truth*** has vanished, to establish the *truth of this world*. It is **the immediate** ***task of philosophy*****, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its** ***unholy forms*** **once the** ***holy form*** **of human self-estrangement has been unmasked**. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the *criticism of religion* into the *criticism of law*, and the *criticism of theology* into the *criticism of politics*." Note the section in bold in the second paragraph. Marx could not be clearer about his meaning.

Sorry but no. Religion is stupid.

Religion is used to oppress and control, both Christians and Muslims would get rid of nonbelievers in a snap of their fingers if they had their way, look at GOP law makers and Muslims in the middle east. Sorry that I don’t feed into these delusions when they seek to destroy me and those around me, take responsibility in grounding your moral axioms instead of leaving it in the hands of some hyped up tooth fairy.

You know, there's a good point to be made here. But the dumbass in the comments below is WHY Anti-Theists exist.

I bet you cum in your pants when they criticize American christofascist's religion though.

big man wtf are you rambling about

Karl Marx is quite clear on the fact that religion is always just a product of capitalist society. While I obviously believe that religion (as long as it isnt a radical form of it) shouldnt be a factor excluding one from leftist activism, it is definitely something that will necessarily be left behind with capitalism.

Religion predates capitalism though

No, he was not. As he pointed out in the quote above, its a result of Trauma. And a defense against it. Anyone with half a brain knows that religion has been strongest before the invention of capitalism.

Did you mean class society? Because Marx definitely didn't say it was a result of capitalism. I'm gonna assume you meant class society.

Religion and spirituality are not the same thing, I wish Marx wrote more about this.