Im aware that Communists tend to be Atheists but is there any room for Agnostics ?

[tradeunionsupporter]

Im aware that Communists tend to be Atheists but is there any room for Agnostics ? Did Karl Marx or Friedrich Engels ever say or write anything about Agnosticism ? Im aware that Communists are Materialists meaning they are Atheists but what about Agnostics I know many Agnostics can they be Marxists ?

[Demogorgon]

Yes, actually the religious can be communists too. I think it is pretty vital to support historical materialism which is incompatible with notions of God getting involved at every turn I think, but whatever you happen to believe beyond that is up to you.

As I've said before though, while I am an atheist and very convinced on the matter, the overriding point in my mind is that the existence or otherwise of a deity is utterly irrelevant. I can see no God in class struggle, which is what matters for the development of society. If there is a God elsewhere it is a matter of academic interest certainly, but not one that our politics need concern ourselves with.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Demogorgon is correct. Communists are not necessarily atheists. Take me, for example: I am a Christian.

Communists uphold historical materialism, which means that human history is driven by material forces. God(s) do not get involved in guiding history. There is no divine intervention in politics. All communists agree on this.

But just because God does not get involved in history or politics, that does not necessarily mean that He does not exist. So it is possible to be a religious communist, and it is possible for a communist to believe that God may get involved in the personal lives of individuals.

[mikelepore]

One important thing is to understand that, if you want to change the world, it takes human creative and organizational activity, not symbolic rituals. Religious people already realize that with respect to daily activities. A construction worker who is religious doesn't sit down and pray for the building materials to fly together my magic; you have to do it yourself. Just realize that the same principle applies to large social issues such as poverty and disease. The environment will change when people take effective actions to change it. In this context, we should condemn the stupidity of George Bush asking people to take time away from rescuing the drowning victims during Hurricane Katrina so that they could hold a "national day of prayer."

Another important lesson is that ruling class politics can hide behind religion. When certain religious speakers declare that God supports capitalism and socialism is a sin, as did Fulton Sheen in the 1950s, Billy Graham in the 1970s, and Jerry Falwell in the 1980s, we need to declare with a loud voice that they are not genuinely a religious movement - that they are a conservative political lobby hiding themselves behind the masquerade of religion.

If you're a communist who didn't commit either of the above errors, that's fine. I don't care where you believe the universe came from.

[The Essence Of Flame Is The Essence Of Change]

I think you guys are a bit off tbh.The problem communists have with religion is not that someone claims that God comes down on earth and interfere with the matters of the people (someone would be at least insane to state that today!) but rather that religion serves as ''an opium of the masses'' by exploiting some basic existential fears all humans have and absorbing them in it's grounds.As such there are two negatives.First that people become apathetic or irrelevant to class struggle, as they believe that by following certain moral codes they can claim a place in heaven and second that people are indoctrinated from a young age to worshipping something that has no proof of existence and that since religion is always controlled by the ruling class, the rulling class is able to hide it's principles inside the religion preaching.As so, these moral codes that various churches dogmatically preach and ask for their followers to adopt usually glorify order, authority and individualism, even subtly.

Personally, I am an agnostic-atheist and I respect one's decision to believe in God, but there is no placed for organised religion in a communist society.Keep your belief to yourself and to those who willingly decide to listen to it

[Die Rote Fahne]

Agnostic right here.

[Valeofruin]

Communists are Materialists.. which can be interpreted as Atheism or Agnosticism depending on who you ask.

Communists support science, and as such don't put down the possibility of a God, if the sky cracks open and God comes out we'll be first in line to apologize for our ignorance and worship him. Until then, as has been mentioned in this thread, Historical Materialism appears to be the law of the land.

I know a few communists who hate the term 'Agnostic', they view it as petty bourgeois fence riding. Then again I know some who hate the term Atheist as it brings to mind images of fat bearded Anarchists who live with their mom posting videos on youtube.

In general you can sum it up as, 'If God exists, then he is clearly not doing much to interfere in the world at this time, and hence is irrelevant, we have more immediate problems.'

[Bud Struggle]

But just because God does not get involved in history or politics, that does not necessarily mean that He does not exist. So it is possible to be a religious communist, and it is possible for a communist to believe that God may get involved in the personal lives of individuals.

With all due respect, that is compartmentalizing God. Either he is omnipotent or he isn't. Either he cares about his creation or he doesn't. For God to care about the details and not about the whole seems to be missing something about what the nature of God (or at least a Christian God) really is.

Either God is there for us in all ways and all means or he isn't. But then again I don't think God owns a department store. You can pray to him for a sweater but I'm not sure he can give you one--I don't think he has a sack of sweaters somewhere. God can give only what he has--and that one think he has is love.

Nothing else. If you can get that, tap into God for that--then you can be a believer in any economic system--if you don't then athiesm is the way to go.

(Not preaching--just explaining my understanding of God.)

[The Red Next Door]

I am agnostic

[Kwisatz Haderach]

With all due respect, that is compartmentalizing God. Either he is omnipotent or he isn't. Either he cares about his creation or he doesn't. For God to care about the details and not about the whole seems to be missing something about what the nature of God (or at least a Christian God) really is.

Either God is there for us in all ways and all means or he isn't. But then again I don't think God owns a department store. You can pray to him for a sweater but I'm not sure he can give you one--I don't think he has a sack of sweaters somewhere. God can give only what he has--and that one think he has is love.

Nothing else. If you can get that, tap into God for that--then you can be a believer in any economic system--if you don't then athiesm is the way to go.
I did not say why God does not get involved in history or politics. I only said that he does not. Different Christians may have different opinions on the reason for this. Obviously, God does care about the big picture - but he might care about your need for a sweater too, yet that does not mean that he'll give you a sweater.

There are many good things in this world that God does not give us as free gifts. So we must struggle for them. I believe a good society is one of these things.

Fortunately, as you pointed out, love is not among those things.


I think you guys are a bit off tbh.The problem communists have with religion is not that someone claims that God comes down on earth and interfere with the matters of the people (someone would be at least insane to state that today!) but rather that religion serves as ''an opium of the masses'' by exploiting some basic existential fears all humans have and absorbing them in its grounds. As such there are two negatives. First that people become apathetic or irrelevant to class struggle, as they believe that by following certain moral codes they can claim a place in heaven and second that people are indoctrinated from a young age to worshipping something that has no proof of existence and that since religion is always controlled by the ruling class, the rulling class is able to hide it's principles inside the religion preaching. As so, these moral codes that various churches dogmatically preach and ask for their followers to adopt usually glorify order, authority and individualism, even subtly.
Yes, it is certainly true - and obvious! - that religion can be used in this way, and has been used in this way on many occasions. But religion is not always used in this way. Your claim that "religion is always controlled by the ruling class" is simply false. History is full of religiously motivated rebellions against the ruling class.

Religion is a many-edged sword. On the one hand, my belief in an afterlife could make me less likely to struggle for a better life here on Earth, as you said. But on the other hand, my religious belief in objective morality and justice is making me more likely to oppose injustice and exploitation here on Earth.

Or, to use another example: a person who believes in some doctrine of holy war may be a horrible reactionary, or she might say that class war is holy war.

[RedStarOverChina]

OK, there are Atheists and there are Theists. A theist is someone who does believe in a "supreme being", whereas an atheist does not believe in him/her/it.

If you are agnostic, then you do not believe in he/she/it. You're an atheist.

[MarxSchmarx]

I did not say why God does not get involved in history or politics. I only said that he does not. Different Christians may have different opinions on the reason for this. Obviously, God does care about the big picture - but he might care about your need for a sweater too, yet that does not mean that he'll give you a sweater.


Who are you to tell God what to do?
Put another way, how on earth could you possibly know all of this???

As regards the OP, I don't think the critiques of Marx etc... matter whether one is athiest or agnostic. And many if not all of the sociological/materialist criticisms of religion are shared.


OK, there are Atheists and there are Theists. A theist is someone who does believe in a "supreme being", whereas an atheist does not believe in him/her/it.

If you are agnostic, then you do not believe in he/she/it. You're an atheist.
The difference, as commonly understood, is that athiests categorically insist god cannot exist, whereas agnostics allow for the possibility that god exists.

[anticap]

... athiests categorically insist god cannot exist...

Not this atheist. That would be absurd. If I did that, then I'd have to categorically insist that cannot exist. And then I'd have to prove it. With only so many hours in a lifetime, I'm willing to entertain whatever fancies one may have -- for fun anyway -- rather than attempt to refute them all.

Theists prefer to conflate atheism with so-called "strong atheism," in an attempt to back non-believers into the above corner, and thereby discourage them from adopting the atheist label and giving it further credence. Atheists like myself know better: atheism is nothing more than a cosmic "pshaw."

This is doubly dastardly on the theists' part, since they themselves cannot make the opposite claim. A theist can only affirm his belief in a deity, he can't affirm the existence of one. He might pretend to do so, but when he's asked to provide evidence, he balks, and says instead that he "knows" his deity exists because he has a "personal relationship" with it. Thus his existence affirmation melts in our hand, and he's left us with only an empty statement that is essentially no different from an affirmation of belief, since his "personal deity" is, by definition, of no use to us.

Given that a theist is someone who merely believes in a deity, an atheist, being the antithesis of a theist, is someone who merely disbelieves. There are certainly many brash atheists who, in the heat of passion while tilting at windmills, certainly do make many bold claims; but they are as foolish as their equally-certain opponents. We require special labels for these fools: "strong atheists" on the one hand; and, well, I'll withhold my favorite label for the other.


... whereas agnostics allow for the [I]possibility that god exists.

So do atheists. We just think it's really, really unlikely.

Agnostic does not mean "fence-sitter"; it relates, in this sense, to what we can know about the so-called "supernatural," not what we believe about it. An agnostic could be a believer or a non-believer. A believer without any confidence that such knowledge is attainable is an "agnostic theist"; a non-believer without such confidence is an "agnostic atheist."

An atheist who believes that any phenomenon is potentially explainable would not be an agnostic. Since pretty much everything that we now understand was at one time not understood, and given the blithering idiocy of theistic beliefs, simple "atheism" would seem the most reasonable position.

[Note: since you did not define "god" in your post, I assumed you meant the character from Judeo-Christian-Islamic mythology known variously as "Yahweh," "Jehovah," "Allah," etc. Not that it was pertinent to my reply, but it's something to keep in mind when having these discussions: what does one mean by "god"? The answer shouldn't simply be taken for granted. When someone uses that word, we're entitled to insist that they define it very strictly before we continue, given the many hundreds and thousands of gods (http://www.godchecker.com/) that have sprung from the fertile imagination of our most imaginative species of ape.]

[MarxSchmarx]

... athiests categorically insist god cannot exist... Not this atheist. That would be absurd. If I did that, then I'd have to categorically insist that cannot exist. And then I'd have to prove it. With only so many hours in a lifetime, I'm willing to entertain whatever fancies one may have -- for fun anyway -- rather than attempt to refute them all.


Two points. I would posit that (1) you are not an athieist, but rather an agnost. And you have just demonstrated how (2) "athieism" in the sense of a categorical denial of god's existence, is a logically untenable position, because one cannot prove that something does not exist, for the reasons you state.


Theists prefer to conflate atheism with so-called "strong atheism," in an attempt to back non-believers into the above corner, and thereby discourage them from adopting the atheist label and giving it further credence. Atheists like myself know better: atheism is nothing more than a cosmic "pshaw."

This is doubly dastardly on the theists' part, since they themselves cannot make the opposite claim. A theist can only affirm his belief in a deity, he can't affirm the existence of one. He might pretend to do so, but when he's asked to provide evidence, he balks, and says instead that he "knows" his deity exists because he has a "personal relationship" with it. Thus his existence affirmation melts in our hand, and he's left us with only an empty statement that is essentially no different from an affirmation of belief, since his "personal deity" is, by definition, of no use to us.

Given that a theist is someone who merely believes in a deity, an atheist, being the antithesis of a theist, is someone who merely disbelieves. There are certainly many brash atheists who, in the heat of passion while tilting at windmills, certainly do make many bold claims; but they are as foolish as their equally-certain opponents. We require special labels for these fools: "strong atheists" on the one hand; and, well, I'll withhold my favorite label for the other.



Which is precisely what the term "agnostic" is for. On some level it is a semantic discussion, but the way I described the terms are more or less the way they are popularly understood in th English speaking world.



... whereas agnostics allow for the [I]possibility that god exists.
So do atheists. We just think it's really, really unlikely.

Agnostic does not mean "fence-sitter"; it relates, in this sense, to what we can know about the so-called "supernatural," not what we believe about it. An agnostic could be a believer or a non-believer. A believer without any confidence that such knowledge is attainable is an "agnostic theist"; a non-believer without such confidence is an "agnostic atheist."

An atheist who believes that any phenomenon is potentially explainable would not be an agnostic. Since pretty much everything that we now understand was at one time not understood, and given the blithering idiocy of theistic beliefs, simple "atheism" would seem the most reasonable position.

Claims of knowledge are ultimately reducible to claims of belief. As such, what you are describing seems to be shades of agnosticism.

Again, this is a matter of semantics. I would posit that for better or worse, popular culture has conflated "athieists" with people who insist that god does not exist, and that because this position is logically untenable, and because of th slight of hand the thieists use that you pointed out, one gets more mleage out of calling oneself an agnostic than an athieist.



[Note: since you did not define "god" in your post, I assumed you meant the character from Judeo-Christian-Islamic mythology known variously as "Yahweh," "Jehovah," "Allah," etc. Not that it was pertinent to my reply, but it's something to keep in mind when having these discussions: what does one mean by "god"? The answer shouldn't simply be taken for granted. When someone uses that word, we're entitled to insist that they define it very strictly before we continue, given the many hundreds and thousands of gods (http://www.godchecker.com/) that have sprung from the fertile imagination of our most imaginative species of ape.]

Yeah that is more or less correct. I would also include Ganesh and Tengri and Zeus and all the rest of them.

[Autodidakt]

From The Essence of Flame is the Essence of Change

The problem communists have with religion is not that someone claims that God comes down on earth and interfere with the matters of the people (someone would be at least insane to state that today!) but rather that religion serves as ''an opium of the masses'' by exploiting some basic existential fears all humans have and absorbing them in it's grounds.As such there are two negatives.First that people become apathetic or irrelevant to class struggle, as they believe that by following certain moral codes they can claim a place in heaven and second that people are indoctrinated from a young age to worshipping something that has no proof of existence and that since religion is always controlled by the ruling class, the rulling class is able to hide it's principles inside the religion preaching.As so, these moral codes that various churches dogmatically preach and ask for their followers to adopt usually glorify order, authority and individualism, even subtly.

We're discussing if it is possible to believe in a god and still be a Leftist. I think we also need to understand that there is a difference between god and religion. Religion is the systematic normalisation of a collection of beliefs about our own existence and the distribution of that collection of beliefs to other people in order to build a religious community. The religious community is then used to give people a security about their collection of beliefs. They believe that if more people believe the same way they do, it's more likely they're right. Religion is simply a system of gaining psychological security. Leftists have no reason to combat religion, it will disappear on its own as people become more certain and secure of themselves in a Leftist society.

When it comes down to believing in a god and being a Leftist, I don't think it matters. Gods are different and one god that exists and created the universe, but does not intervene ever is still a god, albeit a god that has no effect on anything other than the beginning of the universe (deism). I would say, though, that belief in a god that consciously intervenes in everyday life for the purpose of changing society, would probably be very hard for a real Leftist to have.

As for me, I'm an agnostic. I believe in the following simple phrase--is there a god or isn't there? How the fuck should I know? :)

[anticap]

Two points. ...

Thank you for the reply, but I reject your semantic rejection. :)

By your same logic, we ought not be calling ourselves socialists/communists/Marxists/anarchists, which have become popularly understood to define misery, tyranny, genocide, terrorism, etc. A minority knows what they really mean, just as a minority knows what atheism and agnosticism mean.

[graffic]

I am agnostic right now. The think I don't like about religion and religious belief is that it tends to divert people away from the important things like class struggle. You can spend hours debating with believers and non-believers, theists and atheists and still feel as confused as you did before you started.

Politics is usually best without an emphasis on God, like the term "freedom of religion", whatever that means.

I like the comment made to the media on the issue of religion by The Director of Communications and Strategy for Labour prime minister Tony Blair; Alistair Campbell, he simply said to a journalist "We don't do God, mate"

[MarxSchmarx]

Thank you for the reply, but I reject your semantic rejection. :)

By your same logic, we ought not be calling ourselves socialists/communists/Marxists/anarchists, which have become popularly understood to define misery, tyranny, genocide, terrorism, etc. A minority knows what they really mean, just as a minority knows what atheism and agnosticism mean.

Some things I think are negotiable (like what one's views on a fictional character), others are not. In politics the stakes are too high.

But touche, you have a point.