"in essence"

to suggest that clear thinking will cause a rejection of religion in favor of communism.

The "opiate" refers to the manner in which the ruling classes use religion to pacify people. It doesn't say a thing about the existence or nonexistence of a god.

There is no doubt Marx was a materialist, specifically a dialectical materialist, and he seems to be using the term atheism in that sense. But he puts the notion of theism in the same artificial category as "family, state, law, morality, science, art, etc." That is, concepts that flow from the existence - and control - of private property. Frankly, under that analysis, atheism as an ideology could be as bourgeois as the rest of it.

I think that, to Marx, the concept, let alone existence, of a god, was irrelevant. What is at the core of his political philosophy is materialism. From there he moved on to the control of the matter as private property and a whole array of ideologies, including theism, that helped those who controlled the property to retain control of the property.

I wonder what he would think about the current discussions over atheism.

Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.
Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right

the mirror image of the Republicans here.

No one ever has.

That's one of the notable things about religion - it's staying power and permeation.

Universal primary, then secondary schooling are less than one century old in rich countries.

It takes about 6 generations for populations to let go of traditional values.

Except in places where primary schooling remains sketchy (Central Africa, Indian subcontinent incl. Pak & Bengladesh)

one should expect to see massive departures from religion next century.

Earlier if WWIII is caused by religion this century.

Or, at least one of the minor OT prophets.

You, a stickler for syntax precision, such a looseness of language..

Tsk, tsk..

A speculation is "the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence."

There is evidence religion recedes where education levels increase.

Ergo my pronostic is better than just speculative.

A theory without firm evidence.

A speculation has no evidenciary support.

My prognosis on the ultimate decline of religion has the support of evidence, i.e.

religion recedes in countries with rising levels of education and freedom of expression.

Wishful thinking is not prognosis.

1- You attribute me the wish to see religion wane and disappear. It is a wrong supposition.
Should this disparition happen, it will take place in the course of the next 1,2,3 centuries.
I cannot wish for anything in that time frame as I won't see it or benefit from it.

2- But my prognosis was based on demonstrable causalities, hence was not a mere speculation.

3- is 'horseshit' a word that has its place in a civil discussion?
Even if we are discussing religion which, I myself, could be tempted to compare to manure?

2 refers to trends not causalities.

3 depends on the conversation.

2 refers to a trend correlation = element of proof of causality

3 depends on the conversation => I had mentioned 'civil', which is what I thought we had.

Do correct me if I was mistaken in my assumption this conversation should be civil.

2 An element of proof of causality is not causality.

3 There are many uncivil conversations in which horseshit is not mentioned. Nevertheless, they are uncivil as well as supercilious.

2- I never claimed 100% causality. IQ growth in populations is another cause religion wanes.

3- Supercilious? Pot, kettle calling on line 3.

2 You claimed causality, with no limitation.

3 See 1.

2- No. That's the problem with 'philosophers', you focus on words, playing and twisting

3 and beyond- I feel you prefer to play with words than discuss meant meanings

(which you probably would be able to discern and address with minimal effort)

2 I'm sorry you are wary of words. Logophobia is treatable.

3 See 2.

2- Acute logophilia degenerates into autistic logomachy

3- see my 3, last post

2 PDD is not the stuff of lame jokes.

3 Thank God.

This exchange of snarky one-liners is going nowhere.

fyi, from the start, I just mirrored your attitude of focusing on words, because any earnest attitude was bound to smash on your word syllabus wall.

If you care to discuss meanings without playing on syntaxic subttleties, I'll be game.

Over & out until a subject of substance.

But so be it.

I mean, you asked about my Church, may I know yours?

That was the original biblical meaning.

But we tend to call the early saints by the title saint.

Read everyday who the RCC 'saint of the day' is/was.

Between the frauds (levitation, sun disappearing for 3 days,..), the individuals who were suffering treatable psychological ailments (St Rosa de Lima and all the others inflicting wounds on themselves), missionaries killed when trying to gain market share in new lands, those which are so fictitious even the official RCC sites says should be reviewed, those which are clear case of nepotism (St Augustine's mum),

it's rare and refreshing to note when there's a person who could be deemed vaguely 'saint'
Kolbe in the German concentration camps is a good example.
Mother Theresa is a disastrous example. Padre Pio a likely fraud.
To take some XXth century examples.

The 10'000 saints are such a dubious lot, how can you buy it wholesale?


(no such problem in Pastafarianism: there's only one saint, me, and it's obvious I deserve it)

And you won't read to see if your belief is solidly grounded?

How can you believe in 10'000 'saints' when their bios are so full of holes?

And how can you believe these folks deserve to be 'saints' without ever having checked?

Be reasonable:

Join us in Pastafarianism, the demonstrably good religion.

Enjoy your night.

I'll try again.

can't have the ruling elite owing allegiance to anything other than the CCP, might interfere with pogroms and suppression of human rights. The concept that one is answerable to a higher authority doesn't sit well with those who intend to commit acts of wrongdoing on a large scale.

Party control of the populace is king.

While religion is also a method of control it would appear at times to be at cross purposes to the aims of those in the CCP and thus a potential enemy of the state.

Best to disallow rulers serving two masters.

Those crafty old CCP members.

exhibiting the same intolerance for believers that some theistic fundamentalists exhibit toward non-theistic believers?

From the link:
"Our churches are still the targets of atheist persecution, for example, the forced demolition of crosses," Liu said, adding that the party seems determined to step up controls on religious practice in China."

My take:
Forced demolition of crosses? Is that how atheists behave when they seize power? Also according to the article, only 10% of Chinese are Party members. So the 10% minority are imposing their atheistic faith on the other 90% of Chinese? Why is this not a source of concern for freedom loving people everywhere?

But even with all their attacks on faith, faith does not die. Faith is obviously growing in China or it would not be "attracting serious concern", to quote the article.
Could this be the leading edge of a wave of "non-believer to believer" activity that might totally transform the world and bring the atheists back to faith?

Remember that the light of the sun illuminates the East before it arrives in the West.

There are no rules, tenets, claims etc to fundamentally adhere to. Atheism is silent on anything beyond non belief. Hope this helps. I doubt anything will cause atheists to believe in religious fairy tales.

"atheistic-type fundamentalists". An important distinction. But what is your response to the rest of my post regarding intolerance exhibited by declared atheists?

to subgroups within certain kinds of groups.

Saying things like "believe in religious fairy tales" might be an example of certain tenets of a certain subgroup of atheism.

Agnosticism is really the only "religion" that has no rules, tenets, claims, etc.

This is not a declaration against the religious motivated by religion, but instead a declaration against religion motivated by a particular interpretation of a socioeconomic theory. This is not how atheists act when they take power--this is how the Chinese Communist Part acts. Were their interpretation of Marx different, they would not be motivated to suppress that which they believe is detrimental to their society in that particular manner.

For instance, I am (in a rather vague sense) a Trotskyist, and my interpretation of communism leads me to the conclusion that to force such a change on a people would be extremely harmful to the abolition of class society. I am still an antitheist in a similar manner as Marx was--I very much identify with this statement of his:

His use of the phrase "opium of the people" was a reference to religion being used by the capitalists as a distraction from what the capitalists were doing.

And I have read numerous posts here describing religion, or religious belief, as the inspiration for all types of misogynistic, racist, and generally bad behavior. Apparently that same simplistic, reductionistic logic cannot be applied to atheism?

Literally that simple.

Makes it easy for those who would presume to declare what rules apply, and what logic applies.