Monday, April 20, 2015
Lenin on the suppression of religion
"Religion is the opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism
When it comes to stating what Marxist ideology holds, I don't think that any of us can gainsay Lenin. However, wrt to the content of the statement, it strikes me as woefully simplistic - not entirely wrong but holding an extremely narrow and limited perspective.
jdhuey,
Like most Atheists, Lenin was indeed woefully simplistic in his ideas, regarding everything from an extremely narrow perspective. How poverty stricken was his point of view, that everything in human experience was forever attributable to economic forces! Then note how today's atheists are forever (in an eerily similar manner) attributing all of art, philosophy, science, culture, human relations, sexual attraction, altruism, morality, love itself, you name it... to genes, or natural selection, or survival of the fittest, the "laws of physics", or some other equally simplistic explanation.
Blessed Martyrs of Eastern Europe, Pray for us!
But it's not simplistic to attribute everything to Mr. Wonderful.
"But it's not simplistic to attribute everything to Mr. Wonderful."
Oh, the irony of all things religious.
So, you attribute everything to matter, and then you call theistic explanation simplistic? Last I checked, simplicity was a virtue in explanation. Or maybe we can flush Ockham's razor down the toilet for good.
Victor,
You are perfectly aware of the difference between 'simplistic' and 'simplicity', so why did you mix them up?
If God really exists and is an omnipotent being, then it is logical, not simplistic, to attribute everything to him.
If God doesn't exist, then it is logical, not simplistic to think that the things came to be without his involvement. Come to think of it, it's logical in any case.
So even if God exists, we shouldn't believe in God?
"So even if God exists, we shouldn't believe in God?"
No. What I said was that even if God exists, it makes logical sense to accept materialism. When you get down to evidence, and what conclusions can be drawn from what you know, there is no other reasonable choice. You can talk about the argument from reason and other similar attempts to refute materialism, but they always rest on an anti-materialistic assumption, and so they merely beg the question. That's not valid logic.
If God really exists and is an omnipotent being, then it is logical, not simplistic, to attribute everything to him.
Since God was invented to be the source of everything then if He really exists then it makes sense that everything should be attributed to him. That would be his designated role.
Or ... we could invent another omnipotent god that wasn't responsible or involved with the Universe. It just happened when he wasn't paying attention.
Or... we could invent another omnipotent god that inadvertently created the Universe in a cosmic fart.
If any of those gods really existed then logic can not tell you which one it is. It is a matter of fact not of logic.
When religionists mention the existence of God in argument, why is their argument always predicated on 'If'?
Victor engages in it all the time. To me it's a clear signal of normative wishlisting, "The world would be a better place if God existed". One needs only to complete a very cursory comparative religion exercise to appreciate the extent of the conjurations of gods possible. Humanity has myriads of gods coming out its ears. Add them all to jdhuey's list. How does logic extract the one true and only god?
The concept of god is simply a projection of a folkloric theory of mind.
Excellent article HERE on anti-theist violence against believers, both in the 20th Century and ongoing today - with no comparable violence in the other direction.
Jezu ufam tobie!
"Excellent article HERE on anti-theist violence against believers, both in the 20th Century and ongoing today - with no comparable violence in the other direction."
Sure. It's yet another example of the poor, persecuted Christian - being tossed to the lions by the evil atheists bent on destroying the world as they force everyone to abandon their beliefs and their freedom.
Did I get the stereotype right, or do I need to beef up the part about how good and innocent the all-suffering Christians are?
Post a Comment