12 votes

Can you have Marxism without Atheism?

I think Dr. Lennox touches on the subject well. In this quick interview.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Marxism can't work unless all

Marxism can't work unless all persons think exactly alike....

Marxism can't be atheism.

Marxism can't be atheism. Marxism is a supreme belief in the state. The "state" becomes God....or in many cases, the leader of the state becomes god...

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

deacon's picture

would marxism

work if people believed in themselves first
and not in some unknown,unseen deity?
And what happens if it is found out that the gods
people believe in now,turns out to be an alien?
and not godly at all,just advanced

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

What would be stopping a

What would be stopping a highly advanced species far greater than our own from coming down to greet us presently or constantly communicating since the initial encounter? I can't think of any reasons why they wouldn't if they were in proximity unless they just didn't feel like doing so? The evidence isn't there to make such a claim.

You can not act like it doesn't work in reverse

Imagine a theocracy in this country. A bizarre set of policies would be pursued in favor of this agenda. The Roman Empire after 300AD would be a prime example.

Marx didn't think so.


Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

Each Christian sect claims to

Each Christian sect claims to be distinct and holds up their own doctrinal differences as essential. And each of them will persecute all the others on the basis of these "differences" whenever they can get political power. If the Christian Right could get power in this country they would persecute atheists just like the Marxists persecute theists whenever they can.

However, at root, all of them advocate the same things: altruism in ethics and a collectivist society. The gloss of theism is just a superficial rationalization for such moral perversity peculiar to the older sects.

The reason Marxism is so attractive to most people is that it appeals to the sick cultural tradition of the Aramaic religions which is thousands of years old.


"Collectivist society" - where do you get that? There was exactly one instance (in Acts, if I'm not mistaken) of "sharing everything," and that was because they knew the Romans were going to invade and burn everything anyway.

Maybe you missed the part about being a good steward of what you are given, perhaps? That very message implies property.

I fail to see what's wrong with altruism in ethics; charity and loving one's neighbor is generally regarded as a virtue by people with functioning consciences.

Tell me, outside of a few idiots, where is your evidence that this so-called "Christian right" would persecute atheists?

Regarding the various "Christian sects," the only ones I can think of with really major doctrinal differences are Catholics vs. Protestants in general. If you're attempting to include cults like Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses, you fail theology forever; Catholics and Protestants look identical to each other in comparison to those two heresies. If you're going to include them, you might as well throw in Islam as a "Christian sect" as well. Muslims believe in Jesus, too!

Marxism = Christianity

Of course you can have Marxism without atheism. Marxism without atheism is called Christianity. Marxism is just a heretical form of Christianity.

Some of the biggest statists on the planet

are religious......

religion mixed with politics is as ugly as corporatism mixed with politics.


Phxarcher87's picture

Maybe thats why i am so fond and thankful for Jesus

He came and destroyed the religious, remember it was the Religious elite who despised him and brought him before the Pontius Pilate....

James Madison




This would be illegal in China today.

It is a matter of public policy to further the Marxist and Atheist agenda.

Official government documents have been revealed and unveiled to state this.

It is no wonder why the persecutions there are so relentless and harsh.


Absolutely....But no examples either way.

The USA is close right now - and the most religious nation on earth. We are only a few steps away (getting rid of people like us is one step).

But, no one can be sure. There has never been a "Marxist" nation. There are communist nations, there are fascist nations (like the USA), there are socialist nations. But, there never has been a Marxist nation to examine.

It is true Marx believe that "religion" would act against the state. He was referring to organized religion, and specifically the Russian Catholic oligarchy. He did not think religious belief in and of itself went against his theoretical system. It is an outright lie to say that the USSR was an atheist nation, not even close. If you actually research the communist revolution in Russia, religious piety was celebrated as a driving force of the laborers. Religious slogans and "Doing God's Work" was used to bring people together against the Czar and the aristocracy. And the Russian people have been religious throughout. There is a large number of atheists/agnostics in Russia compared to nations like the USA, and that is a result of that history. So, I think you could claim some cause and effect, but they are not mutually exclusive.

Religion has always been used to advance political needs. It even happened here when the banksters funded the born-again megachurch movement to spread the Neoconservative/Trotsky philosophy.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

It depends...

...on what you mean by "Marxism." If you mean hardcore, "just as Marx wanted it" Marxism, then no, by definition it's atheist. On the other hand, it's not difficult to point you towards "Christians" with a Marxist viewpoint, if you're strictly referring to views of government and economics.

That said, real, hardcore Marxists and statists HATE religion of any kind, because it flat out states that there is a higher moral authority than the false deity known as the State. Even worse for them, if those who follow a religion actually think about it, it means that they are [religion] first, [nation] second. For a while the statists did a pretty good job co-opting religious language - see medieval Europe - but things like the printing press pulled the rug out from under their monopoly on information.

Now - somehow - they've managed to regain an effective monopoly on information and have the mass media controlling low-info Christians with "Christianese" language.

Being a heavily religious, predominantly Christian nation

has not gotten in the way of the US becoming more and more Socialistic/Communistic.

What does one's view of the origin of the universe have to do with one's endorsement of freedom or its opposite, complete subjugation? Have not many of the world's worst tyrants been believers in God?

Tyrants can be either religious or not religious; since there is no correlation, there can be no cause and effect. This is a simple rule of logic. It matters little to my life what name you call the system that enslaves me. Communism, socialism, and fascism simply make us slaves to a nation state; before that we were serfs in city states; before that we were serfs in feudalism. Belief or disbelief in God has nothing to do with these systems successfully subjugating the majority for the benefit of the few.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

Where rights come from

While obviously tyranny comes in many forms, the concept of inalienable rights is fundamentally incompatible with atheism because in a universe with no God and no immortal soul, right and wrong cannot be anything more than opinion (relativism to one degree or another). In effect, you have whatever rights you can secure for yourself by force, or what others will secure for you (i.e. what rights the government of whatever flavor decides you can have).

If we are nothing more than biological machines, the idea of "inalienable rights" is nonsense, as those rights are trampled on routinely throughout history. The notion that our rights come from our Creator doesn't mean that they can't be taken away, but to identify that it is a sin to take them away.

"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him?" -Thomas Jefferson

If enough people don't agree on rights,

then we don't effectively have them.

It doesn't matter if you believe your rights came from a God or believe they are created by the logical minds of men. What matters is whether people believe they have rights and are willing and able to fight for rights. An atheist can endorse the same rights that a believer does, and fight just as hard to enforce them, so there is effectively no difference in what they value as far as the way we peacefully share residence on this planet.

Depending on which version of a supreme being your religion endorses, your God given rights will differ, so saying that man created rights are relative, hence subjective is not an argument for the superiority of God given rights, since they are subjective too. Muslims, for example, believe in a different set of rights, or lack thereof, than do Christians. Furthermore, what societies believe are God given rights change over time, just like rights that are created in the minds of men, both religious and atheistic.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

But, it has gotten in the way.

Had our Christian foundation been further debased more quickly than it has already been, we would be even farther on our way to complete marxist-socialism. Christian identity is anathema to Marxists. "There is ONLY loyalty to the State."

Answer: No

The Marxists must remove God and replace Him with the State. I think the man in video laid it out pretty well.

Everything is "permissible" in America today.


Then, they are not atheists if they have a religious belief in the State. So the answer is actually "yes". Putting the State as a moral overlord in place of a magic sky-daddy would only affect religious people. An atheist would not accept that axiom either.

Are there some atheists that have been conned by the media and are blazing liberals and believe in a strong government? Absolutely, I even know some. But, that is a different question. I know many that are Libertarian like myself, or at least a Classic Liberal, who are appalled by the nearly automatic turn-over of civil and human rights by Christians to both parties.

It is not the atheists asking for legislation over moral questions. That is the Christians, both Democrats and Republicans. It is the religious people who condone intervention and aggression into our lives, not the non-religious. The United States is the most religious nation on Earth, and over 90% of the religious are Christian. If there is something wrong then it is the religious people to blame for offering their nation up to the banksters and Trotskyites.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

Marxism is a religion.

Communist countries are the most religious countries in the world. Look at what the leaders are turned into. The absence of an ancient religion is only because they are trying to create a new one. You can't thank God for the crops if you are being told they are coming because of Stalin. The stories told about Kim Jong Il to his people are even more ludicrous than Jesus walking on water.

No train to Stockholm.

Marxism like any form of statism is incompatible with atheism

This is why marxists are so antithetical to Christianity, (and often vice versa) it is a competing religion and they know it.

A real atheist isn't looking to replace belief in one dogma that whose premises lack evidence with another dogma whose premises lack evidence lacks evidence.

This is why I have so little respect for someone like Dawkins. He's no atheist. The fact that he has such a mad on against Christianity tells me that, like Marxists, he's not really about not believing in a god, he's about replacing Christianity with his own religion.

There are two broad categories of religions. Ones that want to be the state, and ones that have evolved enough that they don't insist on being the state. Islam sadly does have a strong tendency currently to want to become the government. Christianity has for the most part evolved past it.

And of course any purely statist religion like marxism or democracy is the purest evil.

At least conventional religions have the courtesy of not being falsifiable. Statism depends on something demonstrably falsifiable, that some men have more natural rights than other men.

Is it worse to believe in a magic man in the sky that wishes you well or a magic man in DC that wishes you well? I certainly have an opinion.. at least the magic man in the sky is conceivably possible.

Believing in honorable politicians on the other hand, believing that power can ever possibly not corrupt, and trusting your life and the lives of your family to them is the basest form of superstition.

Are you making an agruement for deism?

As a Modern Deist. I do believe in...or at least hope for a "God"
what I do not do is insist on one.

I liked your observations. to me it seemed like a search for the definition of the word "God"

what I cannot see is how atheism is possible. it makes the presumption that proving a negative is already a fact.

this leads many people to ignore human spirituality.
and as a result, pursue...



You are confused

Atheism is not making a presumption that a negative has been proven. That is impossible.

That would be like me asking you to prove that the yellow gremlin that lives in my pocket and teaches me right from wrong doesn't exist. You can't do it.

Atheism is very simple. And... everyone is an atheist in reality (how many Zeus-worshipers do you know?) That might not apply to a deist, that is an interesting question. But, an atheist simply doesn't believe in a deity. It is not a philosophy, not a world-view, not an absolute.

Also, an atheist doesn't "ignore" human spirituality. Spirituality is a construct you have created. There are no more reasons to believe in spirituality than to believe in Thor. It has nothing to do with being "vain", I don't think I am any better or different than anyone else. (OK, maybe McCain voters...)

If being "spiritual" makes you feel good about yourself, have at it. But, don't assume you have some knowledge that an atheist hasn't been presented with before. Trust me...I've heard it all.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

I think we merely have a conflict of definitions

In modern terms I think you would be a negative atheist. Before Atheism split into 2 schools, it doesn't sound like you would be considered an athiest, but more an ignostic perhaps. They argue that if something is unable to be proven or disproven, it cannot be meaningfully cognitized.

Going back to the Greek, you are absolutely correct. For a bit of irony, the Hellenists would call the Christians atheists.

I AM is all that is. Everything else is malleable.

We are at odds with definitions, but fixable

Actually, I am what is known as a Positive Atheist, loosely on the Indian philosopher Gora, who worked with Ghandi. I hold that truthfulness and individual integrity to be the highest virtues. I have no wish to "de-convert" anyone, and I do not promote atheism. I will defend my lack of beliefs, however, and stand up to the many, many, many, many misconceptions and lies told about the non-religious, such as the subject of this post. Thus, it is a "positive" position.

Did you mean "agnostic"? Agnostics would be called "Negative Atheists". For our definition disparity, a "Gnostic" means a person "with knowledge" - more specifically knowledge of becoming a 'Christ'. There were Gnostic religions, and still are some in the Middle East. Paul in the Bible was the main teacher for the Nazarenes, the largest group. Therefore, an "agnostic" is one "without knowledge". It is not about proof, as you note, but an agnostic does not have evidence for either position so they do not make a decision. I usually prefer to this as a "weak" atheism.

We can discuss the terms for "infidel" and how they relate in the Bible and Koran. But, I think most importantly, I base my thoughts on the default position of every human being. Everyone is born and atheist. It is only through teachings from parents and community that children gain a god-belief. That is why 99.9% of Christians were children of Christians or taught to be Christian and 99.9% of Muslims are children of Muslims, and so on. There are some conversions later in life, but pretty rare.

I appreciate the inquiry.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

Ignostics are slightly different than agnostics.

Agnostics usually believe that the question "Does God Exist?" cannot be evaluated because there is not enough information. Ignostics object to the premise of the question as an "unfalisifiable claim" cannot even be properly thought about. These are modern interpretations where gnosis refers to "spritual knowledge" without connection to the Gnostics or Coptics. Some have used the terms "Agtheist" and "Igtheist" instead.

As far as "positive" atheism, that is the first time I've heard it used in that way, although I did find that there are others that do the same. I was speaking about the two schools thought that came about in the 90's:

In the most recent definition, negative would mean someone that does not accept the validity of the concept of God, whereas positive would mean someone that accepts a concept of God and denies it. Negative atheists tend to be much more openminded so the application of the terms in this context is counter-intuitive.

Unfortunately that page alone gives 3 different valid meanings for "positive atheist."

To make things worse, the definition of "agnostic" on the Dawkins scale is completely wrong IMHO. Stating that there is not enough information to evaluate is NOT the same as 50/50 chance that God exists. These waters are extremely muddy and communication is extremely difficult. The terms need to be definied before they can be discussed because of the wide range of meaning that people attach to these words.

I AM is all that is. Everything else is malleable.

That is where Deism comes in to play.

Deism simply acknowledges that we humans WANT to believe in a "God"
we humans have created all sorts of "gods" in every culture and throughout history.
that much is self evident. it is a part of our nature apparently.

so how do we deal with that in a positive manner?

that is the beauty of natural law and Liberty. Deism promotes discussion. and open discussion promotes peace.

positive open discussion is why I chose deism.