I never understood the association atheism had with marxism.
Marxism is the materialist interpretation of history, and there is no actual material evidence of God. There is no reason to believe in God if you have no evidence that God exists and is actually the way religion posits it.
Ask any leftist today if they believe in some higher power they are bound to say yes
Do you have any statistics to back that up or are you just going to ignore the entire history of state atheism in past and present socialist countries?
The association atheism had with Marxism was because Marx was an atheist and associated atheism with himself.
This association was continued by Lenin who associated atheism with Marxism-Leninism by also being an atheist and associating atheism with himself.
Maoism has an association with atheism because... Drum roll, you guessed it, Mao was an atheist and associated atheism with himself.
This concludes my TED Talk on: Why Marxism Atheism?
If you want the longer version as to why the material conditions of Industrial Europe, the Tsarist Russian Empire, and pre-revolutionary China were such that atheism and Marxism became inextricably linked, you'll have to read the figures themselves for the answer!
Most atheism is not the "hard-atheism" of "God doesn't exist and I will not believe in God even if it is proven that God does exist." Most atheism is the "soft-atheism" of "There is no actual evidence for God existing, and I will not believe in God without evidence. If evidence comes forwards, I will believe in God, but until then, I will not." In fact, most atheism could be better described not as "disbelief in God" but rather as "skepticism in God".
But even then, I don't see how "hard-atheism" is any more of a reactionary view than any other religion ("hard-atheism" could be considered a religion due to its beliefs not being founded on factual evidence). If you would care to explain why that is so, I would gladly listen.
"soft-atheism" is just Agnostic, which is fine and probably what I am.
"Hard-atheism" has bred a pretty gross culture of debate bros that end up going pretty hard against religious groups to the point where it crosses the line into western cultural chauvinism.
I'd say it's reactionary because the movement mostly cropped up as a way to funnel anger toward Islamic people, instead of the philosophical stance which they claim.
It takes all the worst aspects of religions, blind faith in a concept and hatred towards certain groups, and removes any of the cultural depth and community so it also serves to alienate people that delve deeply into it, helping to create the aforementioned toxicity.
I'm specifically referring to anti-theists. That form of atheism. there's nothing wrong with agnosticism or atheism in general. Anti-religiosity is a different animal.
I'm also against large structured churches ala the Romana Catholics fwiw. I have an issue with any dogmatic approach that involves colonialism or some form of chauvinism as a default. The form of atheism I'm talking of is for sure western chauvinistic, the Catholics on the other hand were, historically, both colonialist and chauvinistic.
There's a large overlap between the atheists I'm talking about and libertarians/liberals so the no god but money bit is definitely apt.
Yep, right with you on it. Though it doesn't have to be Christianity. Atheism also works, but not within the western context that it brings up. It's cool to not want to be involved with religion, but the abolition of religion, and the cultures involved, is for sure a fash tactict.
Like look at the global south. Massive amounts of religious people there are comrades. If you come at leftism with the intent to abolish religion or whatever then you will not be successful.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Marxism is the materialist interpretation of history, and there is no actual material evidence of God. There is no reason to believe in God if you have no evidence that God exists and is actually the way religion posits it.
Do you have any statistics to back that up or are you just going to ignore the entire history of state atheism in past and present socialist countries?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
The association atheism had with Marxism was because Marx was an atheist and associated atheism with himself.
This association was continued by Lenin who associated atheism with Marxism-Leninism by also being an atheist and associating atheism with himself.
Maoism has an association with atheism because... Drum roll, you guessed it, Mao was an atheist and associated atheism with himself.
This concludes my TED Talk on: Why Marxism Atheism?
If you want the longer version as to why the material conditions of Industrial Europe, the Tsarist Russian Empire, and pre-revolutionary China were such that atheism and Marxism became inextricably linked, you'll have to read the figures themselves for the answer!
Atheism as its own dogma is definitely reactionary.
Most atheism is not the "hard-atheism" of "God doesn't exist and I will not believe in God even if it is proven that God does exist." Most atheism is the "soft-atheism" of "There is no actual evidence for God existing, and I will not believe in God without evidence. If evidence comes forwards, I will believe in God, but until then, I will not." In fact, most atheism could be better described not as "disbelief in God" but rather as "skepticism in God".
But even then, I don't see how "hard-atheism" is any more of a reactionary view than any other religion ("hard-atheism" could be considered a religion due to its beliefs not being founded on factual evidence). If you would care to explain why that is so, I would gladly listen.
"soft-atheism" is just Agnostic, which is fine and probably what I am.
"Hard-atheism" has bred a pretty gross culture of debate bros that end up going pretty hard against religious groups to the point where it crosses the line into western cultural chauvinism.
I'd say it's reactionary because the movement mostly cropped up as a way to funnel anger toward Islamic people, instead of the philosophical stance which they claim.
It takes all the worst aspects of religions, blind faith in a concept and hatred towards certain groups, and removes any of the cultural depth and community so it also serves to alienate people that delve deeply into it, helping to create the aforementioned toxicity.
deleted by creator
I'm specifically referring to anti-theists. That form of atheism. there's nothing wrong with agnosticism or atheism in general. Anti-religiosity is a different animal.
deleted by creator
I'd say it is when used as a tool to discredit non-western cultures, which is the form of atheism I am speaking about.
deleted by creator
I'm also against large structured churches ala the Romana Catholics fwiw. I have an issue with any dogmatic approach that involves colonialism or some form of chauvinism as a default. The form of atheism I'm talking of is for sure western chauvinistic, the Catholics on the other hand were, historically, both colonialist and chauvinistic.
There's a large overlap between the atheists I'm talking about and libertarians/liberals so the no god but money bit is definitely apt.
deleted by creator
Yep, right with you on it. Though it doesn't have to be Christianity. Atheism also works, but not within the western context that it brings up. It's cool to not want to be involved with religion, but the abolition of religion, and the cultures involved, is for sure a fash tactict.
Like look at the global south. Massive amounts of religious people there are comrades. If you come at leftism with the intent to abolish religion or whatever then you will not be successful.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
? Go check out some online atheist communities. I don't need to watch my wording, it's just the reality of those communities.
Dogmatic atheism is reactionary. Atheism itself is not.
deleted by creator
lmao it's not all of them but I really do know what you mean here
deleted by creator