theyounghistorian77
New Member
Only in marxist ideology. Do you know what the difference is between Utopian and scientific socialism?
Now whilst Marxism is a socialist philosophy, Not all Socialists are Marxist (Especially Utopian Socialists, Marxism is claimed to be "Scientific Socialism".)
Another point. Marx did not even invent Socialism, Robert Owen is often claimed to be the first Socialist when in 1817 (Before Marx was even born) he founded the Cooperative society. In 1825, (When Karl Marx was only 7.) he tried a community experiment in America, It is often claimed to be the first true Socialist experiment. In relation to my first point here, Owen's Socialism, along with the early socialists before Marx and Engels, were Utopian. Another prominent Socialist in the time of Marx and Engels was Eugen Dà¼hring, whose brand of Socialism was intended to replace Marxism. Engels wrote a defense against Dà¼hring which you can read here.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... /index.htm
This extract below served as a critique of Utopian Socialism. (So even engels saw differences between Scientific and utopian)
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... /index.htm
Thirdly, Hitler's "Socialism" wasn't actualy Marxist He said so himself.
"Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not" - F L Carsten, The Rise of Fascism, 2nd ed p137
in short.
Hitler's Socialism involved God.
Marx's Socialism was Atheist
Hitler's Socialism was nationalist, and elitist (Clue is in the name. National socialist German workers party.)
Marx's Socialism was Internationalist and Classless
Fourth, Just because you have Marx as an influence doesn't make you Left Wing. Francis Fukuyama is instrumental in the Rise of Neo-Conservativism. He was very influential in setting up what has become known as the Regan Doctrine. But Without Marx, Where would he be? You can even find him here. On a Marxist Website. http://www.marxists.org/reference/subje ... kuyama.htm
So someone who openly said that jews ought to be slain when he said "We are at fault in not slaying them" does not qualify as calling for a genocide in your opinion? Is this by any chance related to your "problems" with israel?
As for George Bernard Shaw, He wasn't the first to call for genocide, nor was he the first to suggest Gas as a method. Churchill, remember him?
As for genocide the definition. I tend to use the UN one which says
...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
- Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II
And Martin luther, when he called for jews to be slain, fits the definition of calling for genocide. especialy (a) and (c)
It doesnt change the fact that Genocides have been called for and carried out, over 100's of years. The old testament and Koran is quite genocidal.
But this is an atheist who only lived until the early 50's. How does he apply to atheists today?
Sometimes your english is so bad, i do not know what you are trying to say.
But still, with regards to venomFangX.
.
Typical of you. You didnt answer my question. Are you fine with non-militant Atheists ie those who do not offend and lie? Yes or No. Simple question. I Want a simple answer.
Yes, but it was a pretty big factor.
But appealing to it doesnt validate an argument.
The key here is proving that he is the real son of god, and not some magician or fraudster. If you can do that, than i'll convert right away.
There is a difference between proving that a certain historical character existed and proving that the said character is the son of God. Cant you see that?
.
What about the contributions of the Ancient Greeks and Romans?
And what of Capatalism, Free markets, competition between states over technology and the notion of tolerance?
All of these are secular, and all have their part to play. Yes christians played their part, in the development but so did a multitude of other factors. Like i said, modern european culture and civilization is more than just religion.
That's because all i've been doing so far is asking questions. Prodding and poking your little theory. Because no-one else has, You havent bothered to have it peer-reviewed. So far. Things are not looking good for you. Can you defend your original arguments? No. Have you refuted my original and defined arguments. No.
And modern religion is attacking atheists.
like you then?
Like all those religious fundies who say that anyone who isnt them is Hellbound?
"I have known many christians - Poles, frenchmen, Spaniards - Who were strict Stalinists in the field of politics but who retained certain inner reservations, believing God would make corrections once the bloody sentences of the all mighties of History were carried out. They pushed their reasoning rather far. They argue that History develops according to immutiable laws that exist by the will of God; one of those laws is the class struggle; the 20th century marks the victory of the proletariat, which is led in its struggle by the communist party; Stalin, the leader of the communist party, fulfils the law of history, or in other words acts by the will of God, therfore one must obey him. Mankind can be renewed only on the russian pattern; that is why no christian can oppose the one - cruel, it is true - idea which will create a new kind of man over the entire planet. Such reasoning is often used by clerics who are party tools. "Christ is a new man. The new man is a soviet man. therfore Christ is a soviet man!" said Justinian Marina, the rumanian patriarch" - Czeslaw Milosz - The captive mind. 1953.
christians too are guilty of this. I hope you bear this in mind?
And this is why many of them do not want Iran to go nuclear, Given mahmoud ahmadinejad's desire to wipe israel off the map.
Religious fanaticals. Most atheists are okay with moderates such as DonExodus2 (who is christian as far as im aware)
And what is the reason for religious dictators like ahmadinejad?
atheists like to target those who wish to bring on "the end times". Is that what you're refering to?
Their own morality?
I cannot speak for every atheist. but morals generaly speaking are clearly not given by god or the bible.
I say that we have time to stop them, especially if you, you join me
I agree with you in your fight against communism. and i would like to join you if that is all you do. But the trouble is, you're picking the wrong targets in the process.
Oh and about that short post, i was clarifing my arguments if they havent been clear enough already.
But you have to still debunk all of them.
About the cold War going on, it is russia that sours relations, not on our side.
Oh and as to the venus project. Sounds li I'll make a seperate thread on it. open to all On the grounds that you clarify your points about the venus project in that thread. Okays? Sounds like warped communism to me. but those are the guys you should target, not the wider atheist community. Have you done a video about the venus project?
In fact, Why do you never go after genuine communists. Like this Idiot for example? http://www.youtube.com/user/KarlinPlaistow
You would have much more credibility with me if you did.
there's no point denying global warming. im sure that there are free market solutions to the problem as much as there are socialist ones.
But enough for tonight.
