Bomb attacks on Brussels airport

[Snowhobbit]

But can you see the ambigious it is, considering yourself to be an atheist is having an ideoligy yourself in the end as it's basicly making a point out of it. You don't have to be anti-religious to not be religious, and that is where it sometimes goes wrong as people who insist on being atheists can be just as evangelitically minded, and I see that as an act of hostility

No I'm sorry, I cannot see how someone saying "I do not believe in what you believe" is by definition evangelical or hostile. I'm not sure how you define hostility to be honest...

[Fragony]

No I'm sorry, I cannot see how someone saying "I do not believe in what you believe" is by definition evangelical or hostile. I'm not sure how you define hostility to be honest...

I am bad at making a point because it's never anything more than something that doesn'seem to be quit right to me. Calling yourself an atheist has this duality of both acknoweligment and rejection, making it an ideoligy of it's own. There is an ambigiouty to that imho, why take something serious that you don't? I can not shake the feeling that there is a certain need to rediculise people who are religious. I redicule them as well but why are we doing that really, it's no competition

[Brenus]

"an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group" I don't know who found this definition, but this can apply to every hobby... Ahhh, perhaps in figurative way, "I swim, this is my religion" kind of...

"But if you claim to be an atheist marxist you should be more aware of the works by those who grounded and further shaped the ideologies in question (namely Lenin)" So many of them, but no thank you. I like to have my own analyse. And the 2 are separated, I am atheist, I am Marxist in how to analyse facts, I am not a atheist Marxist or a Marxist atheist, as you choose. I was atheist much earlier than to be Marxist... And I don't share all Marx's point of view... Too dated, too many mistakes, I choose to like how he analysed.

"Calling yourself an atheist has this duality of both acknoweligment and rejection, making it an ideoligy of it's own" No. Calling myself an atheist is just telling I don't believe in God(s). Period. No ideology in this, just a simple fact. I don't believe in God(s).

[Gilrandir]

"an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group" I don't know who found this definition, but this can apply to every hobby... Ahhh, perhaps in figurative way, "I swim, this is my religion" kind of...

This is what I've been trying to say.

"But if you claim to be an atheist marxist you should be more aware of the works by those who grounded and further shaped the ideologies in question (namely Lenin)" So many of them, but no thank you.

Lenin is not just one of them. To my mind, if you want to understand better the ways things worked in the USSR in the sphere of ideology (and not only), it is highly advisable to read some Lenin.

And I don't share all Marx's point of view... Too dated, too many mistakes, I choose to like how he analysed.

Then you can't claim to be a marxist. Analysing is the way of working with facts, not the system of views/ideology that marxism is. It is like calling someone a Christian because he likes the metaphors Christ used in his speeches.

[Fragony]

Marxism is a believe in an invetable outcome, facts don't really matter as they are nothing but an indication of what might happen later. That's a rather radical thought for historians who insist there is nothing to learn from history, or predict

[Brenus]

"not the system of views/ideology that marxism is" Hmm, not sure you read Marx, or you understand Marx.

"This is what I've been trying to say." Perhaps, but it not what the author you quote was saying, as he refers few times to religious vocabulary...

"To my mind, if you want to understand better the ways things worked in the USSR in the sphere of ideology (and not only), it is highly advisable to read some Lenin." Probably, but I was never really interested in the exercise. Facts are better, apparently, the USSR constitution was one of the best, was just not applied. So, speeches and books.... In my mind, Lenin was the guy who opened the door to Stalin (and Trotsky was not better). The Soviets killed the Revolution... But this is not based on knowledge, more on feelings backed-up by history of the Russian Revolution at university...

What you have to understand is, as French, we have our own socialist and anarchist thinkers and theoreticians. We don't really so heavily on others experience, and Marx stays what he was, a theorist who first explored history to try to explain how societies work. In it in this term I am a Marxist. Go from the fact and try to explain others facts. This help in order to understand deep movements in and of history. Of course, Marx being a man of the XIX century, was not aware of some facts, as sociology, demography and anthropology can now deliver. He was convinced the revolution would come from industrialised countries when in fact, both successful revolutions came from 2 countries deep in peasantry and politically unaware, Russia and China.

[Gilrandir]

"not the system of views/ideology that marxism is" Hmm, not sure you read Marx, or you understand Marx.

I read some, but more saw it related or interpreted by Lenin.

"This is what I've been trying to say." Perhaps, but it not what the author you quote was saying, as he refers few times to religious vocabulary...

Once you broach a metaphor you may expand it. This is what the author did trying to explain the idelogy in the USSR.

In it in this term I am a Marxist. Go from the fact and try to explain others facts. This help in order to understand deep movements in and of history.

Taking a fact and trying to explain other facts by referring to it is called logics. You can apply it without being a marxist.