Ok so lets look at these part by part. First it feels like I JUST stopped playing wack-a-mole with to be a Communist you must be an atheist so this is new. Second, full discloser I have been both a Communist and an Athiest most of my life. With those dislcosers out of the way lets move onto the reply
Ok so religion is an “integral part of the identity and culture of any human society” I mean first I take issue with the notion that it is intigral. Lets look at all 5 AES nations, they are secular, religion plays no part in the running of the state, heck most nations run as secular, either defacto or dejure. “[religion is]a natural byproduct of a community that arises from the specific social conditions attained by human civilization” So was fudelism, capitalism, slavery, none of these where necessarily good nor things that we would argue are still esental. No part of that argument requires that Religion is something that is needed, just that it formed and it had a function. “also an inherent extension of our own imaginative capabilities, general curiosity, and longing for purpose.” Ok use your creativity to solve problems, Use your curiosity to learn more, to expand your horizions and to learn more, and make your own purpose, life dose not give you a quest log that you can check off, and you do not need to have someone tell you.
“On its own religion arises & develops naturally and, if left alone, is ultimately harmless in and of itself.” I know I came off harsh in that last paragraph, so let me say there is nothing inherently wrong with being religious. Your morals are yours and I care what you belive is right and wrong. I am not sure I would phrase it as “ultimately harmless” I also do not understand what you mean with “religion arises & develops naturally” I am not sure how to tell you this but all religions can be said to have done that. Humans as a part of nature are the only controlling force on religions, we are also, so far as we know the only part of nature that has religion, so you cannot say if it develops naturally, while leaving out anything that was done with religion, as you mentioned in your previous paragraph religion cannot be divorced from the social and cultural pressures it is in.
“The worst examples of religion we think of all stem from a common source: the deliberate interference in religious practices & teachings by authorities seeking to weaponize faith as a method of public control.” First how is this not natural? this has been the development of religion and this sounds a little like special pleading that any and all issues have stemmed from this. “From here develops clericalism and dogma the … and similar atrocities to cement the clergy’s temporal authority in the absence of actual divine anointment.” Citation needed. Also you are arguing that there is a divine anointment, however you first need to show that clame to be something for someone who is not religious to take that seriously. Who did act with Devin anointment? John Brown? and are we saying that because we agree with his actions or are we saying that because there is something we know for certan.
“Anti-theism is an overreaction to this phenomenon in much the same way technophobia & primitivism is an overreaction to industrialization & technological advancement.” Ok so I am going to say charitably when you say Anti-theism you are referring to people who are vehemently anti-religion, the folks who call every religion a cult. I say this because there is no good standard usage of terms, and anti-theist could refer to an athiest who found that word first or thought atheist was co-opted some how, or someone who BELIEVES there is no god instead of not believing there is a god. Yeah its a strong reaction, but also is it any more or less valid a stance than believing for certain there is a god.
"
“Atheism is a bourgeois invention that exploits the principles of rationalism to facilitate the further deconstruction of human culture” Citation needed agian please. Lets not forget that most of the early communists where super athiest, due in no small part due to the church and religions role in keeping the working class down, need I not remind you the "religion is the opied of the masses,morality, and community " quote. Are we going to say here, that the United States, a highly religious country with religious nationalism surging has a flurishing culture? That we have a strong sense of community, stronger than that of the PRC, or that the USA is more moral? Or what about the splits in religion to defend slavery. As my very catholic aunt likes to point out the bible never condems slavery, it just puts guide rails on it.“all of which interact directly with and are influenced religion” There is a whole body of work on Secular morality, Religion when it is present can be a part of culture but culture exists outside of religion, and community, you are aware that there are none religious communities right? “in order to further reduce people into simple workers & consumers by annihilating their humanity.” First please look up Secular Humanism I beg of you, second no that is capitalism that in effect reduces that, also agian are you teling me that it is more expected that the USA does not break people down to workers and consumers more so than the PRC? is that what you are telling me is expected?
"
“Secularism is a product of capitalism falsely advertised as a kind of neutrality but in fact simply enforces atheism” Secularism does not enforce athiesm, yes it requrest the state act without Religion, however if that where not to be the case what religion do you chose instead? How? “Instead of dismantling theocracy it replaces it with corporations instead of churches, oligarchs in place of preachers, legalism instead of dogma, the state in place of god, prison in place of hell, wealth instead of paradise.” You are almost discribing liberalism, in the civil religion point of view that not everyone subscribes to. It also is not a theocracy, that word has a meaning.
“Religion is here to stay. It exists under socialism, will exist under communism.” This is probably the only thing I can agree with in what you said, atleast in sentiment, Relgion is generaly a none issue, and so you can be religious, every AES state that exists and all that Former Socialist states enshrined the free practice of religion. Will it never die, I am not sure about that, I could see a world where it fades, as the need for it stops, or I could see just adherents fade, or I could see it continuing but to argue as you did that it is an Essential part i find is in great error. “It is as much a part of human culture as music, poetry, and other kinds of art.” And yet religions with just as much prominence as what we have today have come and gone, there is no reason to think that what we have now is for some reason eternal
Ok so lets look at these part by part. First it feels like I JUST stopped playing wack-a-mole with to be a Communist you must be an atheist so this is new. Second, full discloser I have been both a Communist and an Athiest most of my life. With those dislcosers out of the way lets move onto the reply
Ok so religion is an “integral part of the identity and culture of any human society” I mean first I take issue with the notion that it is intigral. Lets look at all 5 AES nations, they are secular, religion plays no part in the running of the state, heck most nations run as secular, either defacto or dejure. “[religion is]a natural byproduct of a community that arises from the specific social conditions attained by human civilization” So was fudelism, capitalism, slavery, none of these where necessarily good nor things that we would argue are still esental. No part of that argument requires that Religion is something that is needed, just that it formed and it had a function. “also an inherent extension of our own imaginative capabilities, general curiosity, and longing for purpose.” Ok use your creativity to solve problems, Use your curiosity to learn more, to expand your horizions and to learn more, and make your own purpose, life dose not give you a quest log that you can check off, and you do not need to have someone tell you.
“On its own religion arises & develops naturally and, if left alone, is ultimately harmless in and of itself.” I know I came off harsh in that last paragraph, so let me say there is nothing inherently wrong with being religious. Your morals are yours and I care what you belive is right and wrong. I am not sure I would phrase it as “ultimately harmless” I also do not understand what you mean with “religion arises & develops naturally” I am not sure how to tell you this but all religions can be said to have done that. Humans as a part of nature are the only controlling force on religions, we are also, so far as we know the only part of nature that has religion, so you cannot say if it develops naturally, while leaving out anything that was done with religion, as you mentioned in your previous paragraph religion cannot be divorced from the social and cultural pressures it is in.
“The worst examples of religion we think of all stem from a common source: the deliberate interference in religious practices & teachings by authorities seeking to weaponize faith as a method of public control.” First how is this not natural? this has been the development of religion and this sounds a little like special pleading that any and all issues have stemmed from this. “From here develops clericalism and dogma the … and similar atrocities to cement the clergy’s temporal authority in the absence of actual divine anointment.” Citation needed. Also you are arguing that there is a divine anointment, however you first need to show that clame to be something for someone who is not religious to take that seriously. Who did act with Devin anointment? John Brown? and are we saying that because we agree with his actions or are we saying that because there is something we know for certan.
“Anti-theism is an overreaction to this phenomenon in much the same way technophobia & primitivism is an overreaction to industrialization & technological advancement.” Ok so I am going to say charitably when you say Anti-theism you are referring to people who are vehemently anti-religion, the folks who call every religion a cult. I say this because there is no good standard usage of terms, and anti-theist could refer to an athiest who found that word first or thought atheist was co-opted some how, or someone who BELIEVES there is no god instead of not believing there is a god. Yeah its a strong reaction, but also is it any more or less valid a stance than believing for certain there is a god. " “Atheism is a bourgeois invention that exploits the principles of rationalism to facilitate the further deconstruction of human culture” Citation needed agian please. Lets not forget that most of the early communists where super athiest, due in no small part due to the church and religions role in keeping the working class down, need I not remind you the "religion is the opied of the masses,morality, and community " quote. Are we going to say here, that the United States, a highly religious country with religious nationalism surging has a flurishing culture? That we have a strong sense of community, stronger than that of the PRC, or that the USA is more moral? Or what about the splits in religion to defend slavery. As my very catholic aunt likes to point out the bible never condems slavery, it just puts guide rails on it.“all of which interact directly with and are influenced religion” There is a whole body of work on Secular morality, Religion when it is present can be a part of culture but culture exists outside of religion, and community, you are aware that there are none religious communities right? “in order to further reduce people into simple workers & consumers by annihilating their humanity.” First please look up Secular Humanism I beg of you, second no that is capitalism that in effect reduces that, also agian are you teling me that it is more expected that the USA does not break people down to workers and consumers more so than the PRC? is that what you are telling me is expected? " “Secularism is a product of capitalism falsely advertised as a kind of neutrality but in fact simply enforces atheism” Secularism does not enforce athiesm, yes it requrest the state act without Religion, however if that where not to be the case what religion do you chose instead? How? “Instead of dismantling theocracy it replaces it with corporations instead of churches, oligarchs in place of preachers, legalism instead of dogma, the state in place of god, prison in place of hell, wealth instead of paradise.” You are almost discribing liberalism, in the civil religion point of view that not everyone subscribes to. It also is not a theocracy, that word has a meaning.
“Religion is here to stay. It exists under socialism, will exist under communism.” This is probably the only thing I can agree with in what you said, atleast in sentiment, Relgion is generaly a none issue, and so you can be religious, every AES state that exists and all that Former Socialist states enshrined the free practice of religion. Will it never die, I am not sure about that, I could see a world where it fades, as the need for it stops, or I could see just adherents fade, or I could see it continuing but to argue as you did that it is an Essential part i find is in great error. “It is as much a part of human culture as music, poetry, and other kinds of art.” And yet religions with just as much prominence as what we have today have come and gone, there is no reason to think that what we have now is for some reason eternal