Atheism is the believe that something came out of nothing and we're all going nowhere

[edthecynic]

You have no idea what you are parroting.
If the system has zero energy, then zero work can be done. Work does not create energy.

Work can be done ON the system, Einstein. But putting this aside, the laws of physics breakdown at the singularity. Why in the world do you believe that the Laws of Thermodynamics apply at the singularity? After the singularity, you just can't get around the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Space/time and energy/matter had a beginning.

If you believe that, then why on earth would you believe that the second law must be in operation? You just admitted that your entire argument falls apart at the point of singularity.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

What part of it occurs during expansion do you not understand?

What part of, that tells us nothing of what happened prior to the expansion, do you not understand? You presume that the expansion was the 'beginning". Says who? What evidence do you have to support that presumption?

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that there had to be a beginning regardless of whether or not the last time it expanded was the first of the 13th.

No it doesn't. You have no understanding of the SLoT.

 

[Czernobog]

There are two things that drive atheists absolutely bonkers.

1. That militant atheism leads to communism

An erroneous claim you continue to make, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, based solely on the writings of one man's observations whose views were, themselves, clearly coloured by a personal agenda, not unlike your own.

2. The universe had a beginning

A quote that is both presumptuous, and incapable of being proven.



Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I'll make a couple of threads so I can keep throwing it in your face.

You can make as many threads as you like, and you can keep quoting the same biased source as many times as you like, that will not make your claim any more correct than it was the first 5,376 times you erroneously made it.

Biased source? You mean history and the communists?

I mean that Schlotzy guy. Your quotes from the actual communists indicate the exact opposite of what you claim - that communism demands an adherence to atheism, not that atheism leads to communism. So, again, you can keep making the claims all you like. Saying the same thing over, and over, using the same flawed source as your support, doesn't magically make your statement factually accurate. It may be a point of personal truth, but that is not the same thing as factually accurate.

 

[BreezeWood]

There are two things that drive atheists absolutely bonkers.

1. That militant atheism leads to communism

An erroneous claim you continue to make, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, based solely on the writings of one man's observations whose views were, themselves, clearly coloured by a personal agenda, not unlike your own.

2. The universe had a beginning

A quote that is both presumptuous, and incapable of being proven.



Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I'll make a couple of threads so I can keep throwing it in your face.

You can make as many threads as you like, and you can keep quoting the same biased source as many times as you like, that will not make your claim any more correct than it was the first 5,376 times you erroneously made it.

Biased source? You mean history and the communists?

.

Biased source? You mean history and the communists?

who are you to criticize communism when the christian church since the 4th century has similarly the most prolific record of oppression and persecution of any other institution ever present on planet Earth -

when you decide to rewrite your 4th century political agenda disguised as a religion people will be willing to take you seriously otherwise you are just blowing in the wind.

 

[ding]

Work can be done ON the system, Einstein. But putting this aside, the laws of physics breakdown at the singularity. Why in the world do you believe that the Laws of Thermodynamics apply at the singularity? After the singularity, you just can't get around the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Space/time and energy/matter had a beginning.

If you believe that, then why on earth would you believe that the second law must be in operation? You just admitted that your entire argument falls apart at the point of singularity.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

What part of it occurs during expansion do you not understand?

What part of, that tells us nothing of what happened prior to the expansion, do you not understand? You presume that the expansion was the 'beginning". Says who? What evidence do you have to support that presumption?

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that there had to be a beginning regardless of whether or not the last time it expanded was the first of the 13th.

No it doesn't. You have no understanding of the SLoT.

Yes it does tell us that. For every mass to energy transfer there is a loss of usable energy to the system. As time approaches infinity, usable energy approaches zero.

 

[ding]

Work can be done ON the system, Einstein.

Work is a force through a distance. If as you claim there was no energy, no work could be done ON the system. And none of your word games will create energy or do work.

Are you saying that work cannot be done on a closed system?

I'm saying energy must exist to do work, so a closed system must contain energy to do work. If your closed system has no energy, no work will be done. If your closed system has energy then work can be done. It doesn't matter if the system is closed or open, what matters is you need energy to do work.

No. That is incorrect. I can start with an empty cylinder (i.e. closed system with Q=0) and put gas into it. Compressing gas into an empty cylinder requires work (W).

E=Q+W

Once you put something into a CLOSED system it is no longer a CLOSED system!!!!!
You have no idea what you are saying!!!!!

I do know what am saying. Even what you posted in your post #128 agrees with me. See?

The first law of thermodynamics relates changes in internal energy to heat added to a system and the work done by a system. The first law is simply a conservation of energy equation:

The internal energy has the symbol U. Q is positive if heat is added to the system, and negative if heat is removed; W is positive if work is done by the system, and negative if work is done on the system.

The first law of thermodynamics

Closed system: The system of fixed mass across the boundary of which no mass transfer can take place is called as closed system. However, across the closed system the energy transfer may take place. An example is fluid being compressed by the piston in cylinder. (someone had to put the fluid in the cylinder, lol)

Types of Thermodynamic Systems and Important Terms Related to Thermodynamics – Part 1

A closed soda bottle is an example of a closed system. (Someone had to put the soda in the bottle, lol)

Thermodynamic systems

Work can be done on a closed system. That's how God did it.

Like I said, space/time and energy/matter had a beginning. It is the only way to not violate the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.

 

[ding]

I don't believe we are anywhere near heat death of the universe because the universe is not infinite acting. The universe had a beginning. You can google that and find many references to heat death of matter, jackhole. I don't find anything which supports the bullshit you are spouting.
Yes, we do need a quantum theory models and when those show that the universe had a beginning (which I already know because of the @nd Law of Thermodynamics) then you guys will latch onto some other far fetched bullshit explanation to avoid the inevitable debate on the 1st Cause. Until then I will amuse myself while you jacholes simultaneously worship and reject science to suit your godless agenda.

Well, what caused the 1st cause? And don't say the 1st cause had no cause because you then establish that there is no need for a cause. All you have done is redefine energy as the 1st cause/God.

The only known solution to the first cause is something that is eternal. Is consciousness energy?

Consciousness CONSUMES energy, so if the first cause is conscious then energy must have preexisted it.

How does consciousness consume energy? But sure, there must be a pre-existing source that put work into the system.

If a person is no longer consuming energy, they are no longer conscious, they are dead.

Who said anything about people? I asked you if consciousness consumed energy. I didn't ask you if people consumed energy.

 

[edthecynic]

Work is a force through a distance. If as you claim there was no energy, no work could be done ON the system. And none of your word games will create energy or do work.

Are you saying that work cannot be done on a closed system?

I'm saying energy must exist to do work, so a closed system must contain energy to do work. If your closed system has no energy, no work will be done. If your closed system has energy then work can be done. It doesn't matter if the system is closed or open, what matters is you need energy to do work.

No. That is incorrect. I can start with an empty cylinder (i.e. closed system with Q=0) and put gas into it. Compressing gas into an empty cylinder requires work (W).

E=Q+W

Once you put something into a CLOSED system it is no longer a CLOSED system!!!!!
You have no idea what you are saying!!!!!

I do know what am saying. Even what you posted in your post #128 agrees with me. See?

View attachment 112196

The first law of thermodynamics relates changes in internal energy to heat added to a system and the work done by a system. The first law is simply a conservation of energy equation:

The internal energy has the symbol U. Q is positive if heat is added to the system, and negative if heat is removed; W is positive if work is done by the system, and negative if work is done on the system.

The first law of thermodynamics

Closed system: The system of fixed mass across the boundary of which no mass transfer can take place is called as closed system. However, across the closed system the energy transfer may take place. An example is fluid being compressed by the piston in cylinder. (someone had to put the fluid in the cylinder, lol)

Types of Thermodynamic Systems and Important Terms Related to Thermodynamics – Part 1

A closed soda bottle is an example of a closed system. (Someone had to put the soda in the bottle, lol)

Thermodynamic systems

Work can be done on a closed system. That's how God did it.

Like I said, space/time and energy/matter had a beginning. It is the only way to not violate the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.

Work can be done IN a closed system, assuming there is usable energy IN the closed system. If a God/energy OUTSIDE a closed system does work ON the system then it is no longer a closed system.
You know nothing about any of the 4 Laws of Thermodynamics.

 

[edthecynic]

Well, what caused the 1st cause? And don't say the 1st cause had no cause because you then establish that there is no need for a cause. All you have done is redefine energy as the 1st cause/God.

The only known solution to the first cause is something that is eternal. Is consciousness energy?

Consciousness CONSUMES energy, so if the first cause is conscious then energy must have preexisted it.

How does consciousness consume energy? But sure, there must be a pre-existing source that put work into the system.

If a person is no longer consuming energy, they are no longer conscious, they are dead.

Who said anything about people? I asked you if consciousness consumed energy. I didn't ask you if people consumed energy.

People/living things have consciousness and need energy to live. A God is not a living physical thing and therefore has no consciousness.

 

[ding]

Are you saying that work cannot be done on a closed system?

I'm saying energy must exist to do work, so a closed system must contain energy to do work. If your closed system has no energy, no work will be done. If your closed system has energy then work can be done. It doesn't matter if the system is closed or open, what matters is you need energy to do work.

No. That is incorrect. I can start with an empty cylinder (i.e. closed system with Q=0) and put gas into it. Compressing gas into an empty cylinder requires work (W).

E=Q+W

Once you put something into a CLOSED system it is no longer a CLOSED system!!!!!
You have no idea what you are saying!!!!!

I do know what am saying. Even what you posted in your post #128 agrees with me. See?

View attachment 112196

The first law of thermodynamics relates changes in internal energy to heat added to a system and the work done by a system. The first law is simply a conservation of energy equation:

The internal energy has the symbol U. Q is positive if heat is added to the system, and negative if heat is removed; W is positive if work is done by the system, and negative if work is done on the system.

The first law of thermodynamics

Closed system: The system of fixed mass across the boundary of which no mass transfer can take place is called as closed system. However, across the closed system the energy transfer may take place. An example is fluid being compressed by the piston in cylinder. (someone had to put the fluid in the cylinder, lol)

Types of Thermodynamic Systems and Important Terms Related to Thermodynamics – Part 1

A closed soda bottle is an example of a closed system. (Someone had to put the soda in the bottle, lol)

Thermodynamic systems

Work can be done on a closed system. That's how God did it.

Like I said, space/time and energy/matter had a beginning. It is the only way to not violate the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.

Work can be done IN a closed system, assuming there is usable energy IN the closed system. If a God/energy OUTSIDE a closed system does work ON the system then it is no longer a closed system.
You know nothing about any of the 4 Laws of Thermodynamics.

Are you saying that work cannot be done on a closed system?

I'm saying energy must exist to do work, so a closed system must contain energy to do work. If your closed system has no energy, no work will be done. If your closed system has energy then work can be done. It doesn't matter if the system is closed or open, what matters is you need energy to do work.

No. That is incorrect. I can start with an empty cylinder (i.e. closed system with Q=0) and put gas into it. Compressing gas into an empty cylinder requires work (W).

E=Q+W

Once you put something into a CLOSED system it is no longer a CLOSED system!!!!!
You have no idea what you are saying!!!!!

I do know what am saying. Even what you posted in your post #128 agrees with me. See?

View attachment 112196

The first law of thermodynamics relates changes in internal energy to heat added to a system and the work done by a system. The first law is simply a conservation of energy equation:

The internal energy has the symbol U. Q is positive if heat is added to the system, and negative if heat is removed; W is positive if work is done by the system, and negative if work is done on the system.

The first law of thermodynamics

Closed system: The system of fixed mass across the boundary of which no mass transfer can take place is called as closed system. However, across the closed system the energy transfer may take place. An example is fluid being compressed by the piston in cylinder. (someone had to put the fluid in the cylinder, lol)

Types of Thermodynamic Systems and Important Terms Related to Thermodynamics – Part 1

A closed soda bottle is an example of a closed system. (Someone had to put the soda in the bottle, lol)

Thermodynamic systems

Work can be done on a closed system. That's how God did it.

Like I said, space/time and energy/matter had a beginning. It is the only way to not violate the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.

Work can be done IN a closed system, assuming there is usable energy IN the closed system. If a God/energy OUTSIDE a closed system does work ON the system then it is no longer a closed system.
You know nothing about any of the 4 Laws of Thermodynamics.

Wrong. YOU don't know what you are talking about and I will be more than happy to keep posting different sources to prove it.

Chapter 3a - The First Law - Closed Systems - Energy (updated 1/17/11)

Work (W)
In this course we consider three modes of work transfer across the boundary of a system, as shown in the following diagram:

In this course we are primarily concerned with Boundary Work due to compression or expansion of a system in a piston-cylinder device as shown above. In all cases we assume a perfect seal (no mass flow in or out of the system), no loss due to friction, and quasi-equilibrium processes in that for each incremental movement of the piston equilibrium conditions are maintained. By convention positive work is that done by the system on the surroundings, and negative work is that done by the surroundings on the system, Thus since negative work results in an increase in internal energy of the system, this explains the negative sign in the above energy equation.

 

[ding]

The only known solution to the first cause is something that is eternal. Is consciousness energy?

Consciousness CONSUMES energy, so if the first cause is conscious then energy must have preexisted it.

How does consciousness consume energy? But sure, there must be a pre-existing source that put work into the system.

If a person is no longer consuming energy, they are no longer conscious, they are dead.

Who said anything about people? I asked you if consciousness consumed energy. I didn't ask you if people consumed energy.

People/living things have consciousness and need energy to live. A God is not a living physical thing and therefore has no consciousness.

How do you know what God is?

“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.

The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science.

The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?

It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”

George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.

 

[ding]

Are you saying that work cannot be done on a closed system?

I'm saying energy must exist to do work, so a closed system must contain energy to do work. If your closed system has no energy, no work will be done. If your closed system has energy then work can be done. It doesn't matter if the system is closed or open, what matters is you need energy to do work.

No. That is incorrect. I can start with an empty cylinder (i.e. closed system with Q=0) and put gas into it. Compressing gas into an empty cylinder requires work (W).

E=Q+W

Once you put something into a CLOSED system it is no longer a CLOSED system!!!!!
You have no idea what you are saying!!!!!

I do know what am saying. Even what you posted in your post #128 agrees with me. See?

View attachment 112196

The first law of thermodynamics relates changes in internal energy to heat added to a system and the work done by a system. The first law is simply a conservation of energy equation:

The internal energy has the symbol U. Q is positive if heat is added to the system, and negative if heat is removed; W is positive if work is done by the system, and negative if work is done on the system.

The first law of thermodynamics

Closed system: The system of fixed mass across the boundary of which no mass transfer can take place is called as closed system. However, across the closed system the energy transfer may take place. An example is fluid being compressed by the piston in cylinder. (someone had to put the fluid in the cylinder, lol)

Types of Thermodynamic Systems and Important Terms Related to Thermodynamics – Part 1

A closed soda bottle is an example of a closed system. (Someone had to put the soda in the bottle, lol)

Thermodynamic systems

Work can be done on a closed system. That's how God did it.

Like I said, space/time and energy/matter had a beginning. It is the only way to not violate the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.

Work can be done IN a closed system, assuming there is usable energy IN the closed system. If a God/energy OUTSIDE a closed system does work ON the system then it is no longer a closed system.
You know nothing about any of the 4 Laws of Thermodynamics.

 

[ding]

There are two things that drive atheists absolutely bonkers.

1. That militant atheism leads to communism

An erroneous claim you continue to make, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, based solely on the writings of one man's observations whose views were, themselves, clearly coloured by a personal agenda, not unlike your own.

2. The universe had a beginning

A quote that is both presumptuous, and incapable of being proven.



Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I'll make a couple of threads so I can keep throwing it in your face.

You can make as many threads as you like, and you can keep quoting the same biased source as many times as you like, that will not make your claim any more correct than it was the first 5,376 times you erroneously made it.

Biased source? You mean history and the communists?

I mean that Schlotzy guy. Your quotes from the actual communists indicate the exact opposite of what you claim - that communism demands an adherence to atheism, not that atheism leads to communism. So, again, you can keep making the claims all you like. Saying the same thing over, and over, using the same flawed source as your support, doesn't magically make your statement factually accurate. It may be a point of personal truth, but that is not the same thing as factually accurate.

Keep denying that militant atheism leads to communism and I'll keep proving that militant atheism leads to communism. Fair enough?

From the University of Cambridge...

"Whereas Marx and Engels had assumed that religion would wither away of its own accord once the socio-economic conditions changed (see Radical Hegelianism), many Bolscheviks supposed that an aggressive antireligious struggle would nevertheless be necessary. Echoing Lenin, the Marxist philosopher Bucharin (1888-1938), for example, in his ABC of Communism (1919) stated unreservedly that religion and communism were in theory and practice irreconcilable.[1]The antireligious movement in the USSR seems to have lost much of its impetus by the early 1930s, and during the second world war the USSR closed the Association of Militant Atheists (1941) so as not to risk division among the people against the common German enemy.[2] However, in 1955/6 militant atheism in the USSR was once more actively promoted, with the establishment of a Chair for Scientific Atheism in Moscow in 1963.[3] This trend was also reflected in policies in the Eastern Bloc and China."

[1]↑ Georges Minois, Histoire de L'atheisme (La Fleche: Fayard, 1998), 520.
[2]↑ Ibid., 526.
[3]↑ Ibid.

Marxism - Investigating Atheism

 

[danielpalos]

a "smaller" middle class accomplishes the same thing. the "religious right" only happened due to a larger middle class.

 

[Czernobog]

An erroneous claim you continue to make, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, based solely on the writings of one man's observations whose views were, themselves, clearly coloured by a personal agenda, not unlike your own.

A quote that is both presumptuous, and incapable of being proven.



Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I'll make a couple of threads so I can keep throwing it in your face.

You can make as many threads as you like, and you can keep quoting the same biased source as many times as you like, that will not make your claim any more correct than it was the first 5,376 times you erroneously made it.

Biased source? You mean history and the communists?

I mean that Schlotzy guy. Your quotes from the actual communists indicate the exact opposite of what you claim - that communism demands an adherence to atheism, not that atheism leads to communism. So, again, you can keep making the claims all you like. Saying the same thing over, and over, using the same flawed source as your support, doesn't magically make your statement factually accurate. It may be a point of personal truth, but that is not the same thing as factually accurate.

Keep denying that militant atheism leads to communism and I'll keep proving that militant atheism leads to communism. Fair enough?

From the University of Cambridge...

"Whereas Marx and Engels had assumed that religion would wither away of its own accord once the socio-economic conditions changed (see Radical Hegelianism), many Bolscheviks supposed that an aggressive antireligious struggle would nevertheless be necessary. Echoing Lenin, the Marxist philosopher Bucharin (1888-1938), for example, in his ABC of Communism (1919) stated unreservedly that religion and communism were in theory and practice irreconcilable.[1]The antireligious movement in the USSR seems to have lost much of its impetus by the early 1930s, and during the second world war the USSR closed the Association of Militant Atheists (1941) so as not to risk division among the people against the common German enemy.[2] However, in 1955/6 militant atheism in the USSR was once more actively promoted, with the establishment of a Chair for Scientific Atheism in Moscow in 1963.[3] This trend was also reflected in policies in the Eastern Bloc and China."

[1]↑ Georges Minois, Histoire de L'atheisme (La Fleche: Fayard, 1998), 520.
[2]↑ Ibid., 526.
[3]↑ Ibid.

Marxism - Investigating Atheism

You get that the quote is again proving you wrong, correct? It wasn't atheism that led the Bolsheviks to communism. Rather, the Communist Bolsheviks believed that antireligious revolution would be necessary to eradicate the shackles of religion.

Again, the ideological shift came first.

Keep trying. You're adorable.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[BreezeWood]

Marxist philosopher Bucharin (1888-1938), for example, in his ABC of Communism (1919) stated unreservedly that religion and communism were in theory and practice irreconcilable.

times have changed ... religion is no longer the bullwork of support for monarchies they were during that time that was the threat being discussed.

secularism is the new wave proponent the age old intransigencies of base religions will be rallying against for fear of their growing irrelevance and displaced faith are becoming irreversible.

 

[ding]

I'll make a couple of threads so I can keep throwing it in your face.

You can make as many threads as you like, and you can keep quoting the same biased source as many times as you like, that will not make your claim any more correct than it was the first 5,376 times you erroneously made it.

Biased source? You mean history and the communists?

I mean that Schlotzy guy. Your quotes from the actual communists indicate the exact opposite of what you claim - that communism demands an adherence to atheism, not that atheism leads to communism. So, again, you can keep making the claims all you like. Saying the same thing over, and over, using the same flawed source as your support, doesn't magically make your statement factually accurate. It may be a point of personal truth, but that is not the same thing as factually accurate.

Keep denying that militant atheism leads to communism and I'll keep proving that militant atheism leads to communism. Fair enough?

From the University of Cambridge...

"Whereas Marx and Engels had assumed that religion would wither away of its own accord once the socio-economic conditions changed (see Radical Hegelianism), many Bolscheviks supposed that an aggressive antireligious struggle would nevertheless be necessary. Echoing Lenin, the Marxist philosopher Bucharin (1888-1938), for example, in his ABC of Communism (1919) stated unreservedly that religion and communism were in theory and practice irreconcilable.[1]The antireligious movement in the USSR seems to have lost much of its impetus by the early 1930s, and during the second world war the USSR closed the Association of Militant Atheists (1941) so as not to risk division among the people against the common German enemy.[2] However, in 1955/6 militant atheism in the USSR was once more actively promoted, with the establishment of a Chair for Scientific Atheism in Moscow in 1963.[3] This trend was also reflected in policies in the Eastern Bloc and China."

[1]↑ Georges Minois, Histoire de L'atheisme (La Fleche: Fayard, 1998), 520.
[2]↑ Ibid., 526.
[3]↑ Ibid.

Marxism - Investigating Atheism

You get that the quote is again proving you wrong, correct? It wasn't atheism that led the Bolsheviks to communism. Rather, the Communist Bolsheviks believed that antireligious revolution would be necessary to eradicate the shackles of religion.

Again, the ideological shift came first.

Keep trying. You're adorable.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No, I don't get that at all. I get that there has never been a communist state that was not an atheistic state. I get that there has never been a atheistic state that has never been hostile to religion. Cambridge University understood this but then again their assessment was objective and not clouded by bias like your is.

 

[ding]

I'll make a couple of threads so I can keep throwing it in your face.

You can make as many threads as you like, and you can keep quoting the same biased source as many times as you like, that will not make your claim any more correct than it was the first 5,376 times you erroneously made it.

Biased source? You mean history and the communists?

I mean that Schlotzy guy. Your quotes from the actual communists indicate the exact opposite of what you claim - that communism demands an adherence to atheism, not that atheism leads to communism. So, again, you can keep making the claims all you like. Saying the same thing over, and over, using the same flawed source as your support, doesn't magically make your statement factually accurate. It may be a point of personal truth, but that is not the same thing as factually accurate.

Keep denying that militant atheism leads to communism and I'll keep proving that militant atheism leads to communism. Fair enough?

From the University of Cambridge...

"Whereas Marx and Engels had assumed that religion would wither away of its own accord once the socio-economic conditions changed (see Radical Hegelianism), many Bolscheviks supposed that an aggressive antireligious struggle would nevertheless be necessary. Echoing Lenin, the Marxist philosopher Bucharin (1888-1938), for example, in his ABC of Communism (1919) stated unreservedly that religion and communism were in theory and practice irreconcilable.[1]The antireligious movement in the USSR seems to have lost much of its impetus by the early 1930s, and during the second world war the USSR closed the Association of Militant Atheists (1941) so as not to risk division among the people against the common German enemy.[2] However, in 1955/6 militant atheism in the USSR was once more actively promoted, with the establishment of a Chair for Scientific Atheism in Moscow in 1963.[3] This trend was also reflected in policies in the Eastern Bloc and China."

[1]↑ Georges Minois, Histoire de L'atheisme (La Fleche: Fayard, 1998), 520.
[2]↑ Ibid., 526.
[3]↑ Ibid.

Marxism - Investigating Atheism

You get that the quote is again proving you wrong, correct? It wasn't atheism that led the Bolsheviks to communism. Rather, the Communist Bolsheviks believed that antireligious revolution would be necessary to eradicate the shackles of religion.

Again, the ideological shift came first.

Keep trying. You're adorable.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

'New Atheism'
Over the past couple of years there has been an unexpected revival of strident atheism of a sort not seen in Europe or America for over half a century. Despite the claims of historians that that the old days of militant atheism are over and the previously sharp distinction between atheist and believer can be expected to be effaced still further in the postmodern climate of general relativism and indifferentism, [1]

[1]↑ See, for example, Georges Minois, Histoire de L'atheisme (La Fleche: Fayard, 1998).

Current Controversies - Investigating Atheism

 

[Czernobog]

You can make as many threads as you like, and you can keep quoting the same biased source as many times as you like, that will not make your claim any more correct than it was the first 5,376 times you erroneously made it.

Biased source? You mean history and the communists?

I mean that Schlotzy guy. Your quotes from the actual communists indicate the exact opposite of what you claim - that communism demands an adherence to atheism, not that atheism leads to communism. So, again, you can keep making the claims all you like. Saying the same thing over, and over, using the same flawed source as your support, doesn't magically make your statement factually accurate. It may be a point of personal truth, but that is not the same thing as factually accurate.

Keep denying that militant atheism leads to communism and I'll keep proving that militant atheism leads to communism. Fair enough?

From the University of Cambridge...

"Whereas Marx and Engels had assumed that religion would wither away of its own accord once the socio-economic conditions changed (see Radical Hegelianism), many Bolscheviks supposed that an aggressive antireligious struggle would nevertheless be necessary. Echoing Lenin, the Marxist philosopher Bucharin (1888-1938), for example, in his ABC of Communism (1919) stated unreservedly that religion and communism were in theory and practice irreconcilable.[1]The antireligious movement in the USSR seems to have lost much of its impetus by the early 1930s, and during the second world war the USSR closed the Association of Militant Atheists (1941) so as not to risk division among the people against the common German enemy.[2] However, in 1955/6 militant atheism in the USSR was once more actively promoted, with the establishment of a Chair for Scientific Atheism in Moscow in 1963.[3] This trend was also reflected in policies in the Eastern Bloc and China."

[1]↑ Georges Minois, Histoire de L'atheisme (La Fleche: Fayard, 1998), 520.
[2]↑ Ibid., 526.
[3]↑ Ibid.

Marxism - Investigating Atheism

You get that the quote is again proving you wrong, correct? It wasn't atheism that led the Bolsheviks to communism. Rather, the Communist Bolsheviks believed that antireligious revolution would be necessary to eradicate the shackles of religion.

Again, the ideological shift came first.

Keep trying. You're adorable.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No, I don't get that at all. I get that there has never been a communist state that was not an atheistic state.

I never said otherwise. However, you keep trying to go further than that, and insist that the latter caused the former. None of your sources, except the Shotsky guy, who had his own agenda, have confirmed your claim.

I get that there has never been a atheistic state that has never been hostile to religion.

Really? The Netherlands has not been particularly hostile to religion. Further, that wasn't your claim. Your claim is that atheism inexorably precipitates totalitarianism in general, Communism, in particular.

Cambridge University understood this but then again their assessment was objective and not clouded by bias like your is.

The Cambridge piece is not saying what you claim it says. Either you did not understand what you read, or you are intentionally attempting to misrepresent what you presented to further your agenda; I don't know which.

 

[ding]

Biased source? You mean history and the communists?

I mean that Schlotzy guy. Your quotes from the actual communists indicate the exact opposite of what you claim - that communism demands an adherence to atheism, not that atheism leads to communism. So, again, you can keep making the claims all you like. Saying the same thing over, and over, using the same flawed source as your support, doesn't magically make your statement factually accurate. It may be a point of personal truth, but that is not the same thing as factually accurate.

Keep denying that militant atheism leads to communism and I'll keep proving that militant atheism leads to communism. Fair enough?

From the University of Cambridge...

"Whereas Marx and Engels had assumed that religion would wither away of its own accord once the socio-economic conditions changed (see Radical Hegelianism), many Bolscheviks supposed that an aggressive antireligious struggle would nevertheless be necessary. Echoing Lenin, the Marxist philosopher Bucharin (1888-1938), for example, in his ABC of Communism (1919) stated unreservedly that religion and communism were in theory and practice irreconcilable.[1]The antireligious movement in the USSR seems to have lost much of its impetus by the early 1930s, and during the second world war the USSR closed the Association of Militant Atheists (1941) so as not to risk division among the people against the common German enemy.[2] However, in 1955/6 militant atheism in the USSR was once more actively promoted, with the establishment of a Chair for Scientific Atheism in Moscow in 1963.[3] This trend was also reflected in policies in the Eastern Bloc and China."

[1]↑ Georges Minois, Histoire de L'atheisme (La Fleche: Fayard, 1998), 520.
[2]↑ Ibid., 526.
[3]↑ Ibid.

Marxism - Investigating Atheism

You get that the quote is again proving you wrong, correct? It wasn't atheism that led the Bolsheviks to communism. Rather, the Communist Bolsheviks believed that antireligious revolution would be necessary to eradicate the shackles of religion.

Again, the ideological shift came first.

Keep trying. You're adorable.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No, I don't get that at all. I get that there has never been a communist state that was not an atheistic state.

I never said otherwise. However, you keep trying to go further than that, and insist that the latter caused the former. None of your sources, except the Shotsky guy, who had his own agenda, have confirmed your claim.

I get that there has never been a atheistic state that has never been hostile to religion.

Really? The Netherlands has not been particularly hostile to religion. Further, that wasn't your claim. Your claim is that atheism inexorably precipitates totalitarianism in general, Communism, in particular.

Cambridge University understood this but then again their assessment was objective and not clouded by bias like your is.

The Cambridge piece is not saying what you claim it says. Either you did not understand what you read, or you are intentionally attempting to misrepresent what you presented to further your agenda; I don't know which.

"Communism begins from the outset with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism." Karl Marx

Private Property and Communism, Marx, 1844

 

[BreezeWood]

I mean that Schlotzy guy. Your quotes from the actual communists indicate the exact opposite of what you claim - that communism demands an adherence to atheism, not that atheism leads to communism. So, again, you can keep making the claims all you like. Saying the same thing over, and over, using the same flawed source as your support, doesn't magically make your statement factually accurate. It may be a point of personal truth, but that is not the same thing as factually accurate.

Keep denying that militant atheism leads to communism and I'll keep proving that militant atheism leads to communism. Fair enough?

From the University of Cambridge...

"Whereas Marx and Engels had assumed that religion would wither away of its own accord once the socio-economic conditions changed (see Radical Hegelianism), many Bolscheviks supposed that an aggressive antireligious struggle would nevertheless be necessary. Echoing Lenin, the Marxist philosopher Bucharin (1888-1938), for example, in his ABC of Communism (1919) stated unreservedly that religion and communism were in theory and practice irreconcilable.[1]The antireligious movement in the USSR seems to have lost much of its impetus by the early 1930s, and during the second world war the USSR closed the Association of Militant Atheists (1941) so as not to risk division among the people against the common German enemy.[2] However, in 1955/6 militant atheism in the USSR was once more actively promoted, with the establishment of a Chair for Scientific Atheism in Moscow in 1963.[3] This trend was also reflected in policies in the Eastern Bloc and China."

[1]↑ Georges Minois, Histoire de L'atheisme (La Fleche: Fayard, 1998), 520.
[2]↑ Ibid., 526.
[3]↑ Ibid.

Marxism - Investigating Atheism

You get that the quote is again proving you wrong, correct? It wasn't atheism that led the Bolsheviks to communism. Rather, the Communist Bolsheviks believed that antireligious revolution would be necessary to eradicate the shackles of religion.

Again, the ideological shift came first.

Keep trying. You're adorable.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No, I don't get that at all. I get that there has never been a communist state that was not an atheistic state.

I never said otherwise. However, you keep trying to go further than that, and insist that the latter caused the former. None of your sources, except the Shotsky guy, who had his own agenda, have confirmed your claim.

I get that there has never been a atheistic state that has never been hostile to religion.

Really? The Netherlands has not been particularly hostile to religion. Further, that wasn't your claim. Your claim is that atheism inexorably precipitates totalitarianism in general, Communism, in particular.

Cambridge University understood this but then again their assessment was objective and not clouded by bias like your is.

The Cambridge piece is not saying what you claim it says. Either you did not understand what you read, or you are intentionally attempting to misrepresent what you presented to further your agenda; I don't know which.

"Communism begins from the outset with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism." Karl Marx

Private Property and Communism, Marx, 1844

.

"Communism begins from the outset with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism." Karl Marx

.

how about working for the State Dept. ... which is worse atheism or communism, old joe maybe hadn't caught on to the connection back then at least not for a persons livelihood. to bad for him.