Ask a Communist?

[Percivale]

Capitalism caters to responsibility and greed while socialism caters to concern for others and covetousness. Neither is automatically immoral because of that; its unavoidable that any system will benefit certain classes. Neither can be written off as unchristian; government should do what works best. Less coercion is always better, but the Bible is clear that governments have a right to collect taxes and use force; only an anarchist could criticize socialism consistently for using coercion, since it is a necessary part of all government.
In most areas capitalism works better, though healthcare works more efficiently when socialized.

 

[HARK!]

My question is, would it bother you, if someone used force to take what you've worked hard for; to give it to someone who isn't willing to work for it?

 

[Silmarien]

All right, but not every form of government posits that all material goods are the government's to distribute.

That would be communism, not socialism. Socialist states provide significant services to their citizens, but material goods are not state owned. I'm not sure how even a fully state controlled economy would qualify as theft, though. I do think there are significant problems with communism, both from a theological and a practical perspective, but equating it with theft seems simplistic.

You've misstated the issue. Christians are to respect legitimate authority, but that does not mean that the government or the form of the government has any Christian seal of approval!

You haven't provided a criticism of socialism that doesn't apply to every other government also. Obviously a Christian does not have to be a socialist, but I see no reason why the two things are not compatible. I don't have a problem with a Christian deciding that capitalism, despite its problems, works better, as long as they don't start idolizing it.

When you use vague wording like 'support the people' it is possible to make just about any action the government undertakes seem to be "for the people." Every monstrous action ordered by the Soviet government, for example, was considered to be for the people's own good--as defined by the government, that is.

Certainly. If you have an argument against economic safety nets, I'd be interested in hearing it.

Ouch. Communism's use of power is not an issue????? Wow. I guess we cannot reach any agreement on this matter.

Sorry, I was unclear. I was thinking about the ideal Marxist utopia, not historical communist states. The fact that power dynamics underly the redistribution of wealth in communism does not by itself make it any different than any other form of government. Power dynamics are always at play. Whatever economic criticisms can be leveled at them, socialist governments in Scandinavia do not seem to be oppressing their people.

I don't condone the governments of the Soviet Union or Cuba, and I think we have good reason to worry that communism does lead to totalitarianism. But you can't simplify that problem to "force is bad" and then use it as a weapon against socialism in general without committing yourself to anarchism.

 

[Shadow]

Are you familiar with the Young Hegelians?

Not intimately. But I know Marx was one of them and Ludwig Feuerbach was another.

Do you consider violence a legitimate tool for producing the desired social change? Why or why not?

I wouldn't rule it out. Its "necessary" to deal with people who are violent. Whilst non-violence may be based on good intentions, it is not always effective.

Whether violence is "legitimate" is a question I'd have much more difficulty in answering. Human beings are social animals and we are capable of empathy. Ignoring that is only possible if you are a psychopath and certainly the propensity of Communist regimes to use violence is not encouraging.

Do you believe that all of societal ills can ultimately be reduced to class struggle?

No. Communism will not solve every social problem overnight. Some will take much longer to change based on advances of science and technology and reaching a very high level of culture, education and economic output. Those things will not be changed by class struggle alone.

My sympathies lie with Christian socialism, since I view capitalism as idolatrous and rooted in greed. Secular utopianism makes me uncomfortable, though--people tend to lose their heads before it's over.

I can more than understand that. I am rather attached to my head.

Red, I can respect your willingness to stand up for your beliefs. In this country (USA), the Marxists insist upon being known as Democrats or Progressives and they won't stone you for using the word Liberal.

Even a reference to them as Socialists usually brings a furious denial or, worse, an explanation about how Socialism really means little more than that the government operates public schools or a postal system, etc.

Thanks. It is definitely not something that is easily discussed in respectable or polite conversation. I was a member of the Communist Party of Britain for a few months in 2015. I left because I had mixed feelings over it. One of the lasting consequences however is that I am not eligible to become a US citizen until at least ten years after leaving (so 2025).

Its almost a badge of honour really, but there are still laws in about a dozen US states that could in theory get you banned from working in state governments or education or deny you social security left over from the McCarthy era. They are on paper unconstitutional, but many states haven't repealed them. This includes California where Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed an attempt to repeal on of those laws back in 2008, and there have been more recent problems in the US over them as well.

America's obsession with rooting out communism is making a comeback

My question is where is communism working for the good of the people today?

There must be a better example than China?

M-Bob

That depends on whether you think Communism "working" should include a totalitarian system of government. Most people wouldn't and, coming from a liberal culture of free thought and free speech, I can understand why. However, many of these countries also have produced decent rates of economic growth, improved education and literacy and provide healthcare to the population and many other things that we simply take for granted in the west.

Communists movements also fought for the cause of women's rights in countries where liberal movements would have not been otherwise possible including Afghanistan where they really needed it. There are also things like the early success stories in the Space race with first dog, first man, first woman and first satellite in space that got the Americans worried enough to invest in a space program. They don't have a great record and the fact they are dictatorships comes with a huge amount of baggage, but there are a number of achievements in advancing the general welfare to their name.

 

[Shadow]

My question is, would it bother you, if someone used force to take what you've worked hard for; to give it to someone who isn't willing to work for it?

I am happy to pay some level of tax for public goods, but even Communists are selfish and look at their tax bill and feel discouraged. The main problem for me is that I am simply too poor to pay tax in the UK and its would be an uphill battle getting paid employment as I live in a rural area where jobs are sparse and I rely on public transport to get around. Both in terms of my own self-interest and the public welfare, it would be a lot better if I could be a productive member of society. I do some unpaid voluntary work as it gets me out of the house and stops the depression festering but as a graduate, serving customers over a till it is a pretty wasteful allocation of "human resources" however you look at it. That's not an uncommon problem now with large numbers of heavily indebted graduates leaving University and many of them not being able to get full-time paid jobs.

I'd mention that I have read Ayn Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness" and "Capitalism: An Unknown ideal" as that would appear to be the angle you are coming from. I'm not immune to arguments from the right and there are certainly good authors out there, but I've never been completely convinced by them either. Hayek's book are certainly some of the most thought-provoking and challenging of the ones I have read.

 

[HARK!]

I'd mention that I have read Ayn Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness" and "Capitalism: An Unknown ideal" as that would appear to be the angle you are coming from. I'm not immune to arguments from the right and there are certainly good authors out there, but I've never been completely convinced by them either. Hayek's book are certainly some of the most thought-provoking and challenging of the ones I have read.

I'm not coming from the Right.

I have a short video for you to watch. It succinctly demonstrates, what I perceive to be axioms, which help to lay the foundation of my understanding of how people can live in harmony.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="

" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Shadow]

I'm not coming from the Right.

I have a short video for you to watch. It succinctly demonstrates, what I perceive to be axioms, which help to lay the foundation of my understanding of how people can live in harmony.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="

" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Fair Enough. Self-ownership does make a great deal of sense and is an area where Communism is potentially quite dangerous. It is a very useful principle in that it defines where individual rights begin and social obligations end in a very clear way. However, the idea of unqualified and unconditional self-ownership may only exist in an Anarcho-Capitalist society where there is no taxation and no restrictions on personal liberty at all. It may be applicable to Anarchist Communism as well but your going to have to reconcile how people can be private property under a system of common ownership.

It also relies on treating people are wholly autonomous and independent based on the capacity of individual will to make decision, and so doesn't take in to account physical or mental states of dependency such as children, the elderly or the mentally and physically disabled. If society applied self-ownership in a consistent way, saying you have no obligation to one another but no right to social support, its a society that would be very ruthless. Worse still, it raises the whole issue of voluntary servitude and whether people can "chose" to surrender their liberty by giving others control over them are property rights. Rather than protect personal freedom it can provide a legal and moral basis for giving it up. So in practical terms, there are limitations to how you can use it.

 

[HARK!]

It also relies on treating people are wholly autonomous and independent based on the capacity of individual will to make decision, and so doesn't take in to account physical or mental states of dependency such as children, the elderly or the mentally and physically disabled. If society applied self-ownership in a consistent way, saying you have no obligation to one another but no right to social support, its a society that would be very ruthless.

If your perspective is that in a free society, that loved ones would be neglected; because the nature of man is fundamentally ruthless; then why would you surmise that leaving them in the care of a ruthless governing body, whom don't love them, nor even know them, somehow be to your loved ones' benefit?

 

[Shadow]

If your perspective is that in a free society, that loved ones would be neglected; because the nature of man is fundamentally ruthless; then why would you surmise that leaving them in the care of a ruthless governing body, whom don't love them, nor even know them, somehow be to your loved ones' benefit?

There isn't a good answer for that one and it is something I have thought about for many years. At some stage, government means violence. If you are dealing with criminals or with an invading army, violence is going to be necessary to ensure that the state stays in control. It is impossible to have a government which is completely non-violent. Ruthlessness will come in to its eventually.

However, there are large areas of government activity that are not obviously violent. Building and maintaining Roads being one example. Maintaining Sewage Systems, collecting Garbage at the end of the drive way, providing street lights, paying for public parks, delivering the mail, etc. you could still argue these are the result of "theft" by taxation, but its an argument that is hard to sustain outside of a very abstract understanding of property. The advantages of public ownership are that in these areas, you can co-ordinate activities on a national level and deliver people services which they need. It may not be particularly unpleasant, but your bin man or your post man still gets paid so there are material incentives at work other than the threat of force. Whatever may be the individual intentions of a person, even if you paid people maintaining sewers a lot because of how bad the job is, the ultimate outcome is overwhelmingly good at it stops the spread of disease or fowl smelling waste. You don't have to be a saint to think that being able to flush the toilet is a good idea.

Where Libertarians have a point is on how the state running everything means that it could take the methods of dealing with criminal violence and applies it to everything. The power of the state can become totally arbitrary as it invades every part of people's lives. This is certainly a possibility, such as with the Khmer Rouge which is probably the most extreme Communist dictatorship to date, but you also have comparatively more liberal examples. If you were to walk down the street of China, Cuba or Vietnam today, you are not going to be arrested for walking in a "suspicious" or "counter-revolutionary" manner.

The truth is there are a number of positions which Communists can take in the same way Liberals or Conservatives can debate the size and scope of the government. There is no one "right" answer and different circumstances can merit difference responses. In War Time, your obviously going to support much greater government intervention with conscription even if this wouldn't make a huge amount of sense with peace-time concerns about individual rights. For Communists, some are at the extreme end of the spectrum thinking violence is good for pretty much everything, whereas others think it has limited value. You have ethical considerations and the fact that threatening to shoot someone doesn't necessarily make them work faster, harder or solve problems if they don't have the right kind of tools. I'm prefer the latter lot really but there are definitely dangers of having very powerful governments.

 

[Francis Drake]

Capitalism caters to responsibility and greed while socialism caters to concern for others and covetousness. Neither is automatically immoral because of that; its unavoidable that any system will benefit certain classes. Neither can be written off as unchristian; government should do what works best. Less coercion is always better, but the Bible is clear that governments have a right to collect taxes and use force; only an anarchist could criticize socialism consistently for using coercion, since it is a necessary part of all government.
In most areas capitalism works better, though healthcare works more efficiently when socialized.

The society that the Lord set up under the Law of Moses was essentially capitalist!
It did however have certain caveats built in to prevent abuse.
ie. Nobody could mortgage the family land inheritance forever. It always returned after 50 years. Had it been obeyed, that would prevent what we know in Britain as the "landed gentry" taking over huge swathes of the country and effectively owning the serf classes under them.

 

[Chesterton]

Not intimately. But I know Marx was one of them and Ludwig Feuerbach was another.

The reason I ask is because you're a communist and an atheist. Often, atheists will say there's no relation between those two things. I was surprised at one point in life to learn that communism did not start out as a political/economic system, but rather as a revolt against religion. So I'd like to ask how your atheism and your communism inform each other, if they do.

 

[FireDragon76]

There are genuine Marxists in the United States, and some of them actually will stone you for using the word liberal. The left is far from some big, happy family--divisions run deep. Those who identify with fullblown communist ideology are usually not shy about it.

Indeed, Communism/Marxism are distinct from liberal values. Communists tend to deride liberalism.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think that @Francis Drake is completely off with his analysis. For one thing, government always involves force, whether it be democratic or autocratic, communist or capitalist. The threat of force is an inescapable aspect of what it means to be governed, and Paul tells us in Romans 13:1-7 that Christians are supposed to respect legitimate authority and pay their taxes. So I don't think that this particular criticism of socialism stands up.

Now, a Christian should probably not be taking advantage of government benefits, but I'm not sure why it would be legitimate for the state to use taxes to finance a war but not to support its people. I think communism is un-Christian in that it involves a too rosy picture of what we can achieve through our own efforts, but I don't think the government's use of power is itself an issue.

The major flaw I see in communism is that it views humanity in materialistic terms with no spiritual dimension. Otherwise, I think there is alot that Marxism has contributed to modern theological discourse, mostly by being a foil for purely spiritualizing theologies.

 

[Albion]

Capitalism caters to responsibility and greed while socialism caters to concern for others and covetousness.

That's the Socialist's way of describing the difference. The proponent of free enterprise can say it the other way with just as much credibility. Capitalism reflects the innate right of people to be free while Socialism works on the principle that the government owns all property and can treat the people any way it chooses.

 

[Albion]

That would be communism, not socialism. Socialist states provide significant services to their citizens, but material goods are not state owned.

If you have almost unlimited ability to assign goods and services, reassign them, confiscate and commandeer them, etc. it amounts to state ownership (except perhaps in name).

 

[Albion]

Thanks. It is definitely not something that is easily discussed in respectable or polite conversation.

I know.

I should also say that I regret that the thread you started took off in a different direction; and to the extent that I was part of that happening, I apologize.

 

[Shadow]

I know.

I should also say that I regret that the thread you started took off in a different direction; and to the extent that I was part of that happening, I apologize.

No worries. I have done this on a couple of forums before and its always got people talking. Its good to see and I can get to know people better.

The reason I ask is because you're a communist and an atheist. Often, atheists will say there's no relation between those two things. I was surprised at one point in life to learn that communism did not start out as a political/economic system, but rather as a revolt against religion. So I'd like to ask how your atheism and your communism inform each other, if they do.

For me, Atheism and Communism are synonymous with one another. I am on another forum and have found that most atheists will assume that Atheism is "lack of belief" and therefore that atheism is treated in isolation. This is the completely opposite of my experience and it was actually a shock to debate people downplaying the relationship between Communism and Atheism. Atheism is the positive rejection of the existence of god and seeking to build a "new religion" in its place. So- weirdly- I actually get on with religious people better than atheists because its such a all-embracing experience that affects your personality, how you feel, what you think and have you behave. In terms of its behaviour and "inner" experience, it is completely accurate to describe Communism as a Religion or even a Cult. there is just no god in it. Its an atheistic religion that places man, rather than god, at the centre of the world.

I know Atheism can be defined in many ways but if I were to say what it means for me, it is the belief that "there is no god: Man created God". Ludwig Feuerbach would say that humans project themselves on to nature and call it "god". So rather than having "no religion", my experience of Atheism is intensely religious- It is man's pursuit of becoming "God-like" in terms of being able to know or control as much as humanly possible and alter it in our interest. To want to know and control everything is essentially the basic idea behind Communism. If you know everything and control everything you can build a "new heaven and a new earth".

Of course, wanting to "play god" is a terrible idea, but when I started out I was just a kid. I liked history and science and I was fascinated by the idea of science fiction and time travel. Studying Marxist ideas sort of gave me a process to imagine what it would be like to travel in to the future and eventually evolved in to a desire to know everything. That was more my ambition, and Communism promised that you could use "Science" (or more accurately "Scientific Materialism") to understand everything. Its a huge and very addictive buzz. It was only much, much later that I started to realise that desire for knowledge may also mean a desire for power given that "knowledge is power". That side of it is much darker, but it can be useful because trying to get you know yourself better and wanting the power to change things means you focus a lot of self-improvement.

I have wanted to give up Communism because obviously some of the things they did were genuinely horrific, but in practice I couldn't do that without also ceasing to be an atheist (or my particular kind of atheism). Being Active on Christian Forums may help me think through my atheism enough either to reject it (and therefore Communism), or else built it on more solid foundations.

its worth mentioning that there is definitely a connection between atheism, communism and the fact I have depression. There is the potential for an intense nihilism in all this and it is something I struggle with. Nietzsche's philosophy is extremely complicated, but it does describe the trauma of not having a god and having to build beliefs from scratch very well. Losing the sense that man has some kind of "divine protection", the good guys don't win simply because they are good and there is no cosmic propensity for natural justice is pretty traumatic when you realise all the horrors that are lurking out there. It's all very Darwinian, but i try not to think about it because its hard. At the same time, this is also a tool kit to get you to solve problems and get you out of depression.

 

[Francis Drake]

Whether violence is "legitimate" is a question I'd have much more difficulty in answering. Human beings are social animals and we are capable of empathy. Ignoring that is only possible if you are a psychopath and certainly the propensity of Communist regimes to use violence is not encouraging.

Communism caused more slaughter in the 20thC than any other single cause of man made death.
The institutional rejection of a creator God means that man as an individual has no value, other than as a productive unit. Therefore losing a few million here or there for the sake of a social experiment didn't matter.
Even if an individual communist might have a sympathetic heart, historic facts demonstrate that they are soon eliminated as unwanted pollution to the communist ideal.

The worst part of that slaughter is that virtually all of it has been of their own citizenship.

During the 20thC, 94million died in Soviet Russia, China, Afghanistan, and North Korea.
In comparison 28million died under the jackboot of Fascism.
Ooops, there we go again, Fascism, yet another branch of Socialism!
Its a complete fabrication that Hitler was an extreme right wing nutcase, he was the leader of The National Socialist German Workers Party, commonly called the Nazis.

ie. That evil socialist tyrant, Adolph Hitler, led the socialist workers of Germany!
He went to war against another lot of socialist workers, under another evil socialist tyrant called Stalin.
They deserve a shared grave.

Thanks. It is definitely not something that is easily discussed in respectable or polite conversation. I was a member of the Communist Party of Britain for a few months in 2015. I left because I had mixed feelings over it. One of the lasting consequences however is that I am not eligible to become a US citizen until at least ten years after leaving (so 2025).

Its almost a badge of honour really, but there are still laws in about a dozen US states that could in theory get you banned from working in state governments or education or deny you social security left over from the McCarthy era. They are on paper unconstitutional, but many states haven't repealed them. This includes California where Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed an attempt to repeal on of those laws back in 2008, and there have been more recent problems in the US over them as well.

Speaking as a Brit, I love freedom of speech, particularly as enshrined in the US constitution.
However, there is one freedom of speech that must be rejected, and that is the freedom to ban freedom of speech. And Communism has a track record of killing off all dissenting voices. Once communism gets power, it will never relinquish it, no matter how much a failure it makes of government.
Fact.- Every single Communist government is and has been an abject failure.
For the reason that Communism always makes every alternative illegal, I would make communism illegal.

That depends on whether you think Communism "working" should include a totalitarian system of government. Most people wouldn't and, coming from a liberal culture of free thought and free speech, I can understand why. However, many of these countries also have produced decent rates of economic growth, improved education and literacy and provide healthcare to the population and many other things that we simply take for granted in the west.

Ask the multi millions of dead whether their lives were improved by Communism.
All the world's worst famines were in Communist countries! China twice, Soviet Russia and North Korea.

Communists movements also fought for the cause of women's rights in countries where liberal movements would have not been otherwise possible including Afghanistan where they really needed it. There are also things like the early success stories in the Space race with first dog, first man, first woman and first satellite in space that got the Americans worried enough to invest in a space program. They don't have a great record and the fact they are dictatorships comes with a huge amount of baggage, but there are a number of achievements in advancing the general welfare to their name.

Stacked against the free world, the achievements of Communism pale into insignificance.

Reading some of your posts Red, I suspect I am a generation or two older than you. In my teens in the 70s, I was trying to tune my crappy Medium Wave transistor radio into Radio Luxembourg for some music, and as always, it entailed a close scrutiny of the airwaves.
For you Yanks, UK radio was BBC only, if ever there was a bad example of state control, that was it. Consequently most youngsters tuned into Radio Luxembourg if they could find it, and then later on various Pirate Radio stations broadcasting from ships anchored just outside the maritime limit.
As an aside, eventually the BBC had no choice but to cave in to the demand for alternative suppliers of radio. A great example of why state monopoly is wrong.
Anyway, as I turned the dial, I hit on a strange talk programme I had never heard before, and was quite intrigued.
It took me a few minutes to realise what it was, the speaker was extolling the virtues of Russia under the communist system. He then started to read a long list all the inventions that the Russian Soviets had made.
These so called inventions included flight (Wilbur and Orville Wright) Penicillin (1928, Sir Alexander Fleming), the jet engine (Frank Whittle), and a host of other fabrications. I was amazed at the deception, that they seriously thought they could pull the wool over the eyes of the English speaking world.

 

[Chesterton]

For me, Atheism and Communism are synonymous with one another.

[snip]

Thank you for the thoughtful and well-written response. I generally agree with all of that. In fact, over the years I've made a couple of those same points here on CF and I usually get booed and jeered by atheists who either haven't thought it out as well as you, or are less intellectually honest than you. I wish you the best with whatever you may decide in the future.

 

[Shadow]

Communism caused more slaughter in the 20thC than any other single cause of man made death.
The institutional rejection of a creator God means that man as an individual has no value, other than as a productive unit. Therefore losing a few million here or there for the sake of a social experiment didn't matter.
Even if an individual communist might have a sympathetic heart, historic facts demonstrate that they are soon eliminated as unwanted pollution to the communist ideal.

The worst part of that slaughter is that virtually all of it has been of their own citizenship.

During the 20thC, 94million died in Soviet Russia, China, Afghanistan, and North Korea.
In comparison 28million died under the jackboot of Fascism.
Ooops, there we go again, Fascism, yet another branch of Socialism!
Its a complete fabrication that Hitler was an extreme right wing nutcase, he was the leader of The National Socialist German Workers Party, commonly called the Nazis.

ie. That evil socialist tyrant, Adolph Hitler, led the socialist workers of Germany!
He went to war against another lot of socialist workers, under another evil socialist tyrant called Stalin.
They deserve a shared grave.


Speaking as a Brit, I love freedom of speech, particularly as enshrined in the US constitution.
However, there is one freedom of speech that must be rejected, and that is the freedom to ban freedom of speech. And Communism has a track record of killing off all dissenting voices. Once communism gets power, it will never relinquish it, no matter how much a failure it makes of government.
Fact.- Every single Communist government is and has been an abject failure.
For the reason that Communism always makes every alternative illegal, I would make communism illegal.

Ask the multi millions of dead whether their lives were improved by Communism.
All the world's worst famines were in Communist countries! China twice, Soviet Russia and North Korea.

Stacked against the free world, the achievements of Communism pale into insignificance.

Reading some of your posts Red, I suspect I am a generation or two older than you. In my teens in the 70s, I was trying to tune my crappy Medium Wave transistor radio into Radio Luxembourg for some music, and as always, it entailed a close scrutiny of the airwaves.
For you Yanks, UK radio was BBC only, if ever there was a bad example of state control, that was it. Consequently most youngsters tuned into Radio Luxembourg if they could find it, and then later on various Pirate Radio stations broadcasting from ships anchored just outside the maritime limit.
As an aside, eventually the BBC had no choice but to cave in to the demand for alternative suppliers of radio. A great example of why state monopoly is wrong.
Anyway, as I turned the dial, I hit on a strange talk programme I had never heard before, and was quite intrigued.
It took me a few minutes to realise what it was, the speaker was extolling the virtues of Russia under the communist system. He then started to read a long list all the inventions that the Russian Soviets had made.
These so called inventions included flight (Wilbur and Orville Wright) Penicillin (1928, Sir Alexander Fleming), the jet engine (Frank Whittle), and a host of other fabrications. I was amazed at the deception, that they seriously thought they could pull the wool over the eyes of the English speaking world.

Having read about Communist atrocities, I am more than comfortable admitting I am in a position of intellectual and moral bankruptcy. My pride in my own intellect led me down a dark path and I was wrong, even if I don't know exactly how. I am very aware of the fact Communism killed people. But recognising that doesn't offer a solution to the problem that human beings chose to do it and that it represents a part (or at least a capacity) within our nature that we have to take responsibility for. Communism is evil and it is an evil that I chose to be part of, even if only in a small way. I want to take responsibility for it, but I don't know how.

[snip]

Thank you for the thoughtful and well-written response. I generally agree with all of that. In fact, over the years I've made a couple of those same points here on CF and I usually get booed and jeered by atheists who either haven't thought it out as well as you, or are less intellectually honest than you. I wish you the best with whatever you may decide in the future.

Thanks. I think it is simply they are a different type of atheist, but the irony is my version of atheism- with its materialism, nihilism, communism and heady-dose of blasphemy- is more what Christians and religious people expect. I sincerely hope I find a healthy way to get out of it.