Discerning Movements of Social Atheism Box Set

By Erik Angus MacRae

This is the complete box set containing the four preliminary works of the author Erik Angus MacRae. Contained within are the four titles: Observational Commentaries on Social Atheism: Volume 1: How Social Atheism Dethroned Christianity and Seized Power in the West, and the Caustic Effects of Darwinian Theory in the World, Volume 2: Scientific Arguments Against Darwin and Documentation of the Bigotry of Atheist Scientists Against Creationists and Christian Scientists, Volume 3: Alarming History and Alarming Predictions: the Communist Manifesto and its Revolutions, and finally, a separate Quote-and-Reply critique of the Communist Manifesto that also contains a copy of the Manifesto itself for cross-reference titled Observational Critique and a Copy of the Communist Manifesto: Drastically Increase your Understanding of The Communist Literature A Few Hours of Reading.

The totality of the combined documents spans the whole recent history of Social Atheism represented for the most part in two distinct sects, Darwinism and Marxism which the author argues have been operating together as one Unified Atheism.
 

• Language: English
• Publisher: Erik Angus MacRae
• Release date: Sep 3, 2020
• ISBN: 9781393783770

Erik Angus MacRae

Born Erik MacRae to Richard Warren and Valerie MacRae, the author has spent his whole life in the region of Ontario, Canada and grew up in Scarborough. Growing with a troubled childhood, and uncertain of what to make of his future Erik would face numerous bouts of depression, anxiety and escapism in his life until becoming a Christian and gaining a more thorough understanding of the literature of the Holy Bible of Christianity which gave him a sense of meaning and purpose and ultimate destiny. Erik has been through multiple denominations of the Christian faith with exceedingly different doctrinal stances, first beginning his journey in a Baptist-Calvinist Church, where he learned the basics of Christ for about seven years. After this he would become involved on studies in the Hebrew Roots movement, but later defected to a more biblically-oriented messianic congregation. Finally, he would identify as non-denominational and serve in discussions with numerous Christians of all denominations. He is very zealous for defending the authority and legitimacy of the biblical text and its core dictates.   Throughout his informational journeys he has studied the work of the Minnesota pastor Daniel Joseph of Corner fringe Ministries closely for over 3 years and numerous topics pertaining to apologetics. Fancying himself an apologist at heart, Erik carries a great passion for “equipping the sheep” of the Christian faith through education to defend their Faith, and for aiding the non-Christian in understanding the complex and numerous evidences that point to the reality of God and His Person in the Father, Son, Holy Spirit and His Word as the Scripture of the Holy Bible. He has a deep interest in Christian philosophy, Biblical archaeology, and comparative studies, and for bridging denominational gaps through discussions of differences.

Book preview

FOREWORD

I was very concerned in writing and publishing this book. This topic is very vast, my own tendency toward aggression stemming from personal bias still very flagrant, and I was hoping to reach an atheistic community steeped in presuppositions of Darwinism and Marxism and in many cases (not all) carrying their own biases and at times innate distrust and unwillingness to hear unfavorable reviews of atheistic history. On the other hand, there are times that I must absolutely be harsh in my wordings, as a rebuke of love given to someone I care about. Communication between people with information gaps and individuals of differing personal conviction is a massive challenge, it becomes so very easy for my intent and goal to be misconstrued if it is read as a personal attack. It requires one to think about every word they write and say, and slow down life to gain control over their mouth... that is a very hard thing to do when you are working in a warehouse with very strict picking and packing quotas for most of your time in the day when you want to be doing other things, then coming home to write a book about a topic that is merely one of, probably, several hundred that are near to your heart and of grave concern, and also battling your own tendencies towards depression, despair, anger, and addictive behaviors. The stress is massive, and that pressure makes it hard to ensure that the first books I write will be of the ideal character- what I would have them be. I can only hope that somehow in my proofreading I will be able to catch all the needless aggression and skim it out, but also to include firm and harsh statements when it is needed and called for, timing and placement is everything... and also to provide more in-depth explanation where understanding is lacking in a spirit of patience, respect and empathy for the reader and general audience. With proofreading beginning with a mere 3-4 days of my deadlines coming up for publishing, may God help me to do the very best I can to reach the most possible.

One clear fact stands out: Darwinian evolution is an exhausting discussion to partake of. The sheer number of items the Darwinist cites as evidence for the theory is staggering, and there is probably no way for someone to go through all of them, or even 5% of them without a dedicated career to dealing with the topic such as that of Creation Ministries. The best someone of my caliber can do is find a few Goliath arguments, champions among the many thousands of others, and to take them down with the assistance of Yehovah the Almighty God of Abraham through Jesus the Great High Priest and Son of God and also with wonderful people like that of Creation Ministries International – strike the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered, this case ideologies and doctrines and arguments of some so-called evidence pictured as a shepherd. Find some of the best arguments, quote authorities with counterpoints, bring down the argument, and let the rest of the thousands of arguments of a lesser level fall to the wayside when the confidence in the champions are hurt. As mentioned earlier, I confess my own bias- I do not like atheism- I do not like Darwinism. However, I cannot put the evidence against it into the ground. When numbers[1] or informational presentations are not favorable to that narrative, that is not some fiction I am personally inventing to deceive anyone. That is the consequence of reality. There are numerous facts working against Darwinism, and all of societal atheism at this point[2]. It is my duty to point them out. It is a work of maturity if I can do it in a humble, non-self-exalting kind of way. May Yehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob see this book to the right hands through Jesus the Son of God Most High.

My first set of books: the observational commentaries series:

Naturally, as my first works to be generally published, there will be some formatting inconsistencies here and there. I am not excessively trained yet in the ways of ensuring spaces between dividers, etc. are perfectly consistent in a uniform rule. Also, I could not afford a full-time proofreader at the time for the totality of the documents, so I had to rely on having a single sample proofread by full-time proofreaders[3] to get a general sense of how to improve my formatting. This led to conversion from the Arial font to the Times New Roman, a 2.0 spacing, in attempt to become more consistent with the MLA format. It also led to having a higher view to critique of my own books- I have scanned them each over about 2-3 times not only for spelling errors, but for needless repetitions, which is in fact my worst habit as a writer, and I am actively working always to curb it. There are two types of repetition that can occur in non-fiction writing: The first is the detrimental kind that I have sought to delete in every place, which is rambling. The second is the methodology of the paraphrase.

A statement may be repeated with slightly different wording, or in a more idiomatic form, or expounded upon. Where this occurs, it is always the intent of the author to make sure their words were not misconstrued or falling short of a critical concept they wished to convey. Most of the repetitions I have left which are hopefully not many are of a rewording/paraphrase nature. I make them when I feel a sort of state of panic in a hunch that an urgent concept will be overlooked by the reader in a very in one end the ear and out of the other kind of way.

The most important point is the goal and the mind behind the sequential presentation of quotations and documents of history and the like. We live in a society in the West that tends to receive only one narrative. The goal of these books is to counter-balance that narrative with the elements our public educators neglected to inform us of. These books are written very much in a sense of urgency as a response to the lack of education of our times in the history and recent developments of social atheism.

––––––––

Recent changes:

Unfortunately, when I first made the manuscript, it so happened that I was not at all familiar with the formatting rules of various vendors, and I had to change the name of the series due to the capitalization standards. For reference, anywhere in the text An observational commentary appears, if I have failed to edit it, is in reference to the exact same series. In the process I changed much of the naming in the title which was partly for the same reason, but also to give a clearer sense of both the subject matter and the tone of it.

GOD’S HEART FOR THE ATHEIST

As I was writing this book and drew increasingly near the publishing phase I became increasingly concerned that the atheist reader would feel targeted, in particular villainized, or even demonized. By in particular, I mean singled out. I wish to inform the reader coming from either an atheist or agnostic background that the purpose of this document was never to single you out. For sure there will be points in the three volume where my personal frustrations and anger comes out, on account of the one-sided narrative of our time and total suppression of some of the bloodiest parts of atheist history. I realized I was in danger of unintentionally pushing the atheist or agnostic far, far away from us, almost as if caricaturing them into this people group that was innately more evil and more sinful than any other human being. If I gave that sense I apologize, and let me be very clear in my words here: To me, social atheism is a very real problem, a very dangerous force and a very real evil, and for sure that is an opinion formed by an objective look at some very real evidence and occurrences of history. It is not simply an opinion of what I want to be true where a historical discourse with documented events that have really occurred are brought to the table. Also, since that history does exist and is recorded, it enables us somewhat, alongside atheistic tropes[i] viewed in the present represented in science fiction and the like to predict the future of organized atheism, a very bleak future indeed[ii].  [iii]However, the individual atheist or agnostic also remains to me, a human being made in the image of God, of intrinsic value and worth, a person who like me has a mind, a heart, a history and a future that is worthy of striving for.

Though the greater part of debate between the two may be prone to a level of personal hatred on account of forbearances and tolerances that we often grow weary of, the Word of Christ has declared all human-beings to be sub-par in our morality. For it is the confession of the Christian that there is not one normal human being on earth who is good of himself, and we were taught to follow that thinking by words Christ said for our example, No one is good, but God. – it seems to me the moment I take my eyes off my own inclination to evil and hatred and assume myself good, I would quickly prove the very opposite- I have desperate need of the forgiveness of my savior every single day.

In describing the relationship of the God of the Christian Bible and the atheist or agnostic those terms, atheist, agnostic become deceptive or redundant. It is not The relationship of the God of the Christian Bible and the atheist and agnostic but rather The relationship of the God of the Bible and the man or woman caught in sin. For actually, the self-professed Christian indulging himself in pornography in secret, for instance, or the Christian who seeks to daily sit in the seat of God in the hidden realm of his heart to fantasize about being the one who determines by the power of sword and bullet who lives and who dies, and the Christian who pretends they have no sin, no lawlessness or transgression- these are in the exact same boat as the self-professed atheist or agnostic, and no better[4]. Many of us have these problems. And every other human who broke a law of God, or denied His Will! The Bible therefore tells us we are all equally guilty before God, equally human, and in equal need of both saving and exposure to information that will aid that salvific process. The general root of all sin and alienation from God is defined in the Bible not as even all these, but hardness of heart- a calloused emotional disposition[5]. All humans are vulnerable to that.

I fundamentally disagree that the conclusions of creedal atheistic documents, and creedal Christian documents[6] are the same when followed through properly however. I do profess a belief that the Christians who do evil things, myself included when I do evil things, misrepresent Christ and the Bible and cause Him to be blasphemed to our own condemnation[7]. But the atheist who follows through with heinous acts- does he truly misrepresent the Communist Manifesto and Origin of Species and their conclusions[8]? I would say, there is a difference here, when it comes to the creedal documents and ideology. I would not say the painful events, spoken about in these three volumes in many places, the dark and bloody ones of history represent a misrepresentation of the Manifesto and Darwin’s Origins in any way- but rather a fulfillment of them. That then, is a critical difference.

Nevertheless, God’s heart towards the self-professed atheist or agnostic would be the exact same towards me if today I chose to indulge my own sinful nature. The picture of God in the Bible is like a man with a precious, beloved son or daughter – and that son or daughter has wandered off, and become lost in dark places. Or in another sense, the child was kidnapped and held at ransom and subjected to horrors by a most sinister band of men which band is a picture of the spirit of the world and of our modern age. The complicated part of the picture is that many years pass, and with enough abuse and seduction that sinister band is able to formulate God’s children into full-grown members of that band of kidnappers who do the exact same works. Thus, the identity of God’s children is stolen away, and buried under a bunch of foreign protocols and relationships with the captors.

God faces then the challenge- His child whom He loves has become both a victim and abuser, simultaneously. His heart is on one side torn into pieces – He has been in agony from the separation from his beloved children, His creations whom He deeply loves. On another side, His own children have been working on account of deception to advance some of the most heinous acts and systems that causes them to endlessly abuse and degrade one another and to overexaggerate their own individual importance to the detriment of the equally beloved people around them, and He absolutely cannot allow those actions and systems to continue to remain. The sorrow, the pain, the anguish of the heart of God is then, unfathomable. But His love is manifested in this: When the spirit of the world, holding his children hostage demanded a ransom in the cost of blood, God’s love determined that He would deliver even His Unique Begotten Son to carve a path to receive back His children[9]. God’s heart towards all humans is the same. He does not see one human or people group as superior to another in terms of genealogy[10].

His love also of granting the freedom to choose, the very thing that differentiates us from a mindless robot with no choices still determined that only those willing could be saved[11]. And the value of the sacrifice of the perfect Son of God determined that the cost of returning to Him would be very high for the repenting soul- for a profession to become a follower of Christ is to die to the world, and the love of it, and the popularity, and fame, and public acceptance, to be hated, to be despised by people who were once your best friends and to understand the guarantee that you will face hardship and persecution and great sufferings and torments, and often not even in the moment understand why you are suffering, but only learn later.[12]

What I the author of this book offer you the reader in this work is not necessarily then a condemnation, for I am no better than you[13]. Neither however do I offer you a false comfort to say that you are safe to remain the way you are. Nor do I offer you a deception that pain and suffering does not await you regardless of whatever choice you make in life[14], I do not believe that at all. What I offer you is truth, and a lot of information that has been withheld from you by the public-school systems of our day. The reason for charging for a book is merely the cost of the time invested in the research, and to free up more time to clarify other topics and find a way to bring the various messages I need to relay to the peoples in an efficient and speedy way. But I suppose charging for a book then also depicts the fact that Truth is precious, it is a treasure and it has value. I determined therefore to strive to put a low fee on these books, to make them more easily purchasable.[15] Nevertheless, let the atheist or agnostic reader know for certain that if anywhere my words hurt you personally, it is not my intent to make any of the information here a matter of personal accusation. There are moments where I accuse the system of atheism – that is not a private or personal accusation, but a corporate one on which most of my personal anger gets directed - at the system, not at the person. What personal anger remains left, when it does get directed to an actual individual and spark for example, aggressive and condemning texts, it will be found more on the heads of the movement. For example, Marx, Darwin, Lenin and men like that, and those who hear all the information like this yet retain a completely stubborn disposition. In the very least for someone who identifies as an atheist or agnostic who probably has never even heard some of the information in this book, it is unfair for me to be personally angry with them. Other times, anger or annoyance is aroused because of the diverse stumbling blocks that have been placed in Christian to Atheist discussions, the sheer number of things at work that are never spoken about openly by educated professors, for instance.

If my words have hurt your heart any point however, know that it may be a good thing- there is a biblical expression which speaks to this saying, Faithful are the wounds of a friend but the seductive kisses of an enemy are deceitful (Proverbs 27:6) and what it is saying is that a true friend will not aid you in overestimating yourself and your own goodness. That does not mean they will break you down with a brutal self-serving criticism but gracefully, as one caring for you, they will seek to inform you of your own weaknesses you may not wish to confront or admit to. They look after your best interests and they speak up about your private problems because they know it will hurt both you and others, as the proverb goes hurt people hurt people.. By contrast, the enemy in that text referred to are those called your friends and your friendship circle who never once in graceful way speak to you about your personal flaws or their own. They are those who always espouse, You’re doing great!, We are right on track, everything is fine when it is not true. They are by external appearances a friend, and they may truly believe it in their own heart. But they are functionally an enemy by hindering your personal maturation and development into a more noble character. For the one who brings up the weaknesses of another though – ideally, they must do it in as graceful and compassionate and humble a way as possible. Brutal put-downs are only fitting for those who are so proud of heart, the only way to snap them out of the delusion of the sense they have of their own greatness and moral perfection is with a public humiliation.

Of course, not all readers will be atheists or agnostics. My word to the reader is this: Regardless of your background, may Yehovah the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob have compassion upon you and bless you, and turn His face towards you and seek You, and may you seek Him if only you would hear His Voice of Words and Commands, through the healing Word of Jesus Messiah the Son of the Most High.

CHAPTER 1: THE SWITCH OF THE WESTERN NATIONS FROM CHRISTIANITY TO ATHEISM: HOW IT CAME TO PASS

Background:

The case of the recent religious history of the West is an interesting one. (When one says West, we tend to think of the sense of the United States of America but naturally this includes of course, nations like Britain, and most of Europe in its varying people groups and countries.) It is certain that it was the Christian religions and world-views that held such power for so long in the West- from about the fourth century A.D. towards the eighteenth and nineteenth century before they finally tapered down to a place of minimal influence. With that respect, the phenomenon of mass societal atheism in the West truly is a recent development. Before we cover the rise of societal atheism we must speak to the rise of the phenomenon of Christianity before it.

––––––––

CHANGES IN THE FORM OF CHRISTIANITY

With regard to the onset of Christianity as a religion with influence and power in the West (notwithstanding the countless sects, variations, heretical groups and pseudo-Christian cults) it is clear that it was not first so much popularized in the farther reaches of the West as it was rather popular first among even the Africans[16], and the Persians[17] reaching them before the Westerners; and indeed, those churches, for example that had been stationed in Middle-eastern regions such as the Persian locales, outskirts of Israel, Syria, etc. for a long time up until about the sixth century retained a very unique identity apart from the Western churches in the ways of retaining of many practices scorned by the Romans; The Passover service according to the Biblical inscription of dating and times[18] and general ceremony as a memorial feast of Jesus, holdings of service on the Sabbath day, that is Saturday, retaining of the law dividing between clean and unclean animals to determine what was edible of meats, matters such as these were more popularized in the Eastern Church, up until about the sixth and seventh century[19] [20]while the Western church clearly had a very different form. After that period however, the pressures of the more successful and generally received Western Christianity began to have by means of both peer pressure, threats of war, sectarian violence, or trade embargos the power to conform the East to the Western standard and the Eastern church began to lose its unique disposition. Such history is well documented among the post apostolic church fathers of Christendom, and also among the libraries of the Syrian churches.[21] That history is intriguing because we see that Christianity was scarcely monolithic – there was already a sort of grand division and further denominations. How could a Christianity so divided among itself take control of the West?

There are numerous theories why Christianity took off so well with the Western peoples compared to say, certain places in the far east, such as China, or India. One such an example may be found in the books of Paul B. Skousen- in his reading of history he describes the Anglo-Saxons as having practiced Israelite law for centuries, with reference to Deist Thomas Jefferson’s commentary of the Saxons, which reads Has not every restitution of the ancient Saxon laws had happy effects? Is it not better now that we return at once into that happy system of our ancestors, the wisest and most perfect yet devised by the wit of man, as it stood before the eighth century? (After that time, corruption crept in.)  Well, if they had a high view of Israelite law and high Israelite influence before the onset of Christianity in the locale, certainly a mass conversion becomes a simple matter – the peoples would be more prepared to receive it, and then further still pending success of the first nation-group of the West receiving it the popularization process would see to the rest in a sort of natural order. However, an alternative interpretation in a case of Anglo-Saxon habits toward Israelite law is that Christianity became accepted and popularized among them. I do not profess in-depth expertise in this particular point of history, namely the Saxons, but the belief of Skousen and of Jefferson is interesting and worthy of more research.

Of course, this same Jefferson is heralded one of the founding fathers of the United States in many respects.  Despite these commentaries, and the high plausibility that Saxons implemented Israelite law, it is a matter of debate and study to determine just how Christian these Saxons were with regards to deities before or after Christianity, whether pantheons were held in an amalgamated system with these laws or not-  but it should suffice to say that the Saxons did not always practice them. We know that the Western cultures were, before Christianity’s arrival, engulfed and steeped in paganisms – polytheistic pantheons with consequentially questionable moral reasoning systems and other issues. In the future, when time allows, I would investigate the Anglo-Saxon angle more.

However, there is more. As pointed prior in the differences between the Western and the Eastern church in the first 500, and possibly 600 years of the onset of Christianity we can see some interesting phenomena. The Christianity of the West had largely taken on a different form to survive the pressure of Roman and Graeco-Roman culture. After all, hostilities towards anything with an appearance Jewish in the West after the first century were extremely heated on account of numerous Jewish revolts that to the Romans seemed an unprecedented betrayal, a continual source of societal weakening inspiring global loss of face, something not appreciated under the pressures of competition with the Eastern empires not yet absorbed, especially Persia as a competitor and force of pressure. Tassels, worship on the Sabbath day (On Saturday) not dedicated to Roman deities (i.e. Saturn), but to the Abrahamic God YHVH, laws of separation- refusal of the consumption of swine or shellfish, the circumcision of infant boys, the performance of the Passover, Pentecost, Tabernacles festivals- were great identifiers of an increasingly villainized and demonized Jewish race. For the Western Church, there is much evidence that it likely initially practiced these[22]. [iv]

To the Romans however, namely both those holding to ancient Graeco-Roman customs and pantheons and the more modern worship of the emperor with zealousness, how were they to discern between a Christian professing Jesus as Messiah who practiced those Jewish Matters of old and "the detestable Jewish crowd"[23], the scourge of the Romans? The Romans had suffered enough Jewish revolts, they would no longer tolerate much semblances of Jewish religiosity or any Christian sect that looked like it. Thus, toward the latter end of the first century, persecution of those types of things increased.

Even the Judeo-Christian Holy Bible reports in the New Testament, already of numerous armed revolts by the Orthodox Jewish community of Roman occupied Israel,[24] continuing from the earliest control of Jerusalem up all the way to 60 A.D, even before the events with the destruction of the Jewish temple by Titus-  Self-proclaimed Messiahs leading the charge were common-place. Of those revolts, some were more pronounced in impact and the major revolts that stand out include one in which the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem was suffered, and finally the Bar Kokbha revolt after it. At this point, Jews and anything Jewish were certainly despised. Every other religious group seemed a peaceable assimilation for the Romans, but this one in particular had become a continual thorn of frustration and weakening, a continual challenging of Roman authority and national hegemony.

The Romans of course, having far less interest and investigation among the general populace, and even many of the aristocrats and elites would not of known much of the difference between a Pharisaical Jew and a Christian who chose to honor the Sabbath and the Passover memorial so when harassment, assault and death became directed at the Jewish crowd, Christians who chose to retain practices also would by nature become targets of the Romans for persecution. Therefore, it was only natural as a survival mechanism that the new generation of converts from Gentile and Roman culture living in Roman vestiges of power would begin to change form, justified under traditions and quotations of Church fathers, especially after the original Jewish Christian leadership had been scattered by numerous persecutions from all sides, thus practices resembling Jewish identity markers were forsaken, and new practices were substituted.

By adopting a new form- Sunday, instead of Saturday- and using the Pauline epistles to jettison those laws deemed cumbersome entirely – matters like tassels, food laws, Old Testament stylized Passover ceremonies it would come to pass in the West that Christianity took on a more palatable form, something more easy for the Gentile convert to grasp. We could liken this to mutation and genetic reshuffling. Just as DNA portions are dropped off by bacteria to make the invading body untraceable to the antibody markers that target them for destruction in the human defense system, similarly Christianity became unrecognizable to the untrained Roman persecutors. (By no means am I saying that in an insulting tone, I would not say Christianity is at all a virus.)

However, this was not the only feature of a new Western Christianity. Rather, many of these converts from the Graeco-Roman world especially esteemed and powerful Graeco-Roman church fathers had familiarity with a concept held sacred among the Romans and the Greeks alike: extensive knowledge of the Greek philosophers of old. Often amalgamating, where possible Greek philosophy as part of their Western Christian culture. [25](Which tend to not blend particularly well with doctrines of the Bible), they finally assumed a form that to the Romans was distinctly not Jewish, but finally identified it, Christian consistently... a separate people group from the Jews. Persecution was slowing down for this reason.

Through these Christianity, as a word definition in the West had changed also according to the Roman perspective. If you were a Christian, you would practice this new form, and refrain from Jewish associations and appearances in accordance with commandments of the Church leaders and fathers in the second and third centuries.

Thus, it was these- a reduced sense of Jewishness – a reduced sense of the Holy and inapproachable Old Testament God YHVH who would cause people who carelessly and disrespectfully approached to burst in flames[26], and the knowledge of the philosophers of ancient Greece which paved a way for acceptance into Western norms.

Consider; amongst so many of the West, of those steeped in pagan culture, this common ground held great influence- the Greek philosophers. Greece’s influence on all Western culture was far greater and far more defined than in the east, where it did not penetrate as effectively past Syria as the Greek culture, or rather the Grecian empire might have wanted for cause of great competition with hostile eastern traditions. But here in the West were numerous pagan cultures associated with the same characters, also familiar with the same Greek polytheistic theological literature on some level. There was a shared ground to dialogue from, and to share mutual respect. Because also the Greek culture through philosophy introduced such a view and value to learning, even of foreign cultures in general, holding themselves civilized intellects, discussion with these Westernized Christians was less prone to aggression and riot and violence. That is not to say these did not occur- certainly, they did but not on a scale strong enough to hinder Christianity’s expansion outright, for it is evident much of the pressure against Christianity would ultimately come from other divisions of Christianity as pertains for example the popularization of the Biblical literature in the local languages and the later battles between Catholicism and Protestantism. We had many in-fights of Christendom over that issue.

Regardless, these Christians were not only familiar with the philosophers of Greece, they practiced a form of law that was easier to ingraft oneself to for the foreigner- not offending too much of their ingrained culture with matters such as heavy rules for the consumption of meats, nor did they necessitate due to their theological stance and interpretation of the epistles of Paul much lengthy study on those texts. One could not only become a Christian, but a Christian quickly.

––––––––

THE STATUS QUO FOR MOST OF THE CENTURIES

Naturally, during these times, the general narrative was Christianity absorbing pagans by conversion. Later, the rise of the religion of Islam and numerous offenses begun first by the Muslims, then met with retaliation- much war between Christianity and Islam occurred. Judaism as a separate and third entity had in general tapered down greatly, only  fighting in defense of scattered camps such as in Arabia when provoked because ever since the destruction of the temple and of Bar Kokbha they never again retained enough military might to be considered a super-power as regards a theocracy or theologically inspired military power, or identifiable independent nation with a recognized landmass and forces to defend it. (In those days at least, not speaking to a future revival for the purpose of this document.)

With Judaism completely short of the power it wielded in the first century, and an even farther cry from the earlier Israelite Yahwistic religion when Israel retained the reputation of kings like David or Solomon, being out of the military scene, the focus shifted to Christianity and internal conflicts of it, and holy wars between Christianity and Islam. If anything, the Jews were a persecuted minority group.

At this time atheism was not a factor.[27] Evolution, some have said, existed as a philosophical concept somewhat but was poorly defined. Charles Darwin and Karl Marx were centuries from being born. Atheists of all peoples were scorned and laughed at, whether by the Christian, or the Muslim, or the pagan cultist alike. In whatever form total atheism existed, it was a rare and obscure minority- typically Greeks extending out of a sort of philosophical morphing, deviating somewhat from the quotations of their ancestors with a view to Hedonism for the sake of indulgence- even many of the pagans shunned it as immoral and unintelligent in those times. We know this because pagans regarded abandonment of the gods as not pious and an act endangering society to the kindling of the wrath of the gods.

Concepts that the earth and the universe existed in millions or more of years, and a gradual process of development to change one species into something completely different over time was for a very long time unheard of – the closest dating system offered would possibly be a several tens-of-thousands date by cause of either Egyptian or Greek traditions of chronology in the reigns of kings which traditions were not overly popular amongst Sola Scriptura Protestants. Government that totally abolishes private ownership was classically scorned anywhere Judeo-Christian narratives took popularity, so no pre-Communistic form of socialism could reach the level of influence of modern Communism.

With the popularization of these Christian religions came the gradual influence of the Holy Christian Bible, the sacred texts, and the influence of much of the laws implemented therein.  After Rome became an official sponsor of its form of Christianity[28], it came to be the Status Quo and remained such for a very long time from the time of Emperor Constantine (Fourth Century), to about the seventeenth century would generally entail battles for power, land, and prestige between Christianities (plural intended), Islamic religion, and pockets of generic polytheistic pagan religions.

––––––––

THE SWITCH FROM CHRISTIANITY TO ATHEISM

So, what changed? How did we get from there, to here, sequentially speaking? How did we get from Christianity in the West fighting Islam of the East to a world filled with so much atheism and materialism?

Well the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries brought great revivals in the West on a major level of ancient philosophies and debates of philosophies. For one must remember, though the Christian Community of the West had preserved the writings of those philosophers[29], especially Greek and Latin elements of Christendom. Christian or Catholic usage (however we define those terms) of the Greek philosophers was not non-existent- they were always present, they were not the mainstay of the faith by any means, either. For certain, none of the Greek philosophers’ hymns dedicated to Zeus or Ares for instance were being sung. Recitations were of Latin liturgy, ceremonial re-quotation of Biblical texts paraphrased with added affirmations of statements of belief and oaths to perform certain duties, though sometimes mingled among other things. For sure, Plato and Aristotle were not being memorized through song in the church, not even the Catholics do this, or have they done this.

But now in this time period, called A time of enlightenment, things were slightly different - names like Plato, Aristotle, Socrates were being increasingly reviewed in the world of scholarship and considered equals with Moses of the Red Sea Crossing and Jesus of Nazareth, their words were estimated to be of equivalent value. (17th century onwards in particular). The ancient Greek philosophers when held as an equal or greater authority alongside the Bible whom the Western Christians had previously received as friends became their own enemies, and punished them. That text, the Holy Bible which many men died to bring into popular local languages of the Westerners[30] became drastically less authoritative and less valuable to the West, less binding in the minds and hearts of the people, not so much for cause of a total disdain or sudden societal reversal, but a gradual decline on account of an increasing trust in human intellect in a sense of independence from education in The Word of God. Before the Bible was seen as the very fountain of all wisdom and learning, especially with the Protestants in the earlier part[31] but now, human intellect was seen capable of greatness independent of this fountain.

There was a new fountain of wisdom available in the eyes of men, to them of that century... and that fountain existed in the hearts and minds of men. This was falling in line with an increasing amount of human discovery of methods of semi automation and development of new technologies that had quickly sprouted through the systemization of the scientific method... especially complex gear and pulley systems and scientific advancement in general. As confidence in the internal human potential increased, watchfulness over the explicit implications of the Biblical texts decreased, their extreme warnings in the New Testament about deceptive and hollow philosophies according to the traditions of men[32] which had prior kept people very wary of works such as Plato and Aristotle or at least cautious in their handling as regards any adaptation of them as a personal creed- but these scriptures began to hold less power now. (Not just the laws of the Bible, but also the narrative – historical descriptions such as the Genesis history.) As production from semi-automation increased food production and made for new workshops and hobbies and, perhaps, a societal boredom of Christian passion took over... people wanted something new in line with the pace of society and the majority, and with these factors the acceptance of Deists[33] and other Almost Christian but not Christian intellectual groups and cults increased. Where before they might have been at risk of a death sentence as a heretic, they certainly enjoyed more freedom of expression in this time. Among the intellectuals, deists were heralded in as allies and friends in the pursuit of science and knowledge, though if it came to a religious debate certainly many would (and did) frankly label the deists heretics or infidels.(Though mere words, in most cases of the larger and more modern cities not followed by the guillotine or mob clubbing as would be expected prior though in rural townships that lifestyle remained dangerous.)[34] Social ostracization from popular Christian function was seen to be the replacement for the more brutal punishments of old.[35]

It was in this environment of a reduction of the authority of the Bible and a high view toward Greek philosophy, especially in the late seventeenth and in the eighteenth century, where it came to pass that alien(that is, completely foreign to the West) human-exalting and God-diminishing philosophy consequently increased drastically. I studied a few of these briefly when I sought to understand the history behind Charles Darwin and the Young Hegelians better (I wanted to know what environment and personal experiences might have inspired him toward his conclusions). The character of the debates of the philosophies of the eighteenth century and early nineteenth century were very clear to me- Those individuals who held positions of bitterness against Judeo-Christian concepts of God (For example, men like Ludwig Feuerbach),  regarding  the existence of evils and sufferings and the questions of their presence, God’s moral law(and always, the moral law of Judeo-Christianity has the tendency to be the particularly hated point, the hedonists calling it bondage, a hindrance to true freedom) and general ethics always had a common factor- namely a philosophical belief and conviction in the goodness and completeness of man in the realm of his own mind or at least his own ability to come to such, of the ability of man to stand as a moral picture for excellence, apart from God. [36]

Thus, increasingly popular philosophies reflecting independence and separation of man from God, boasting in man’s ability to judge his own matters. I am not referring purely to writings of ancient Greek philosophers and pagan intellectual poets- on the contrary, we had a new batch of independent English and German philosophers. God the Almighty was at first acknowledged by them[v], but increasingly considered an outside observer or some kind of grand scientist with no emotional investment in humanity- humanity being likened to an experiment in which God either would not or could not interfere directly, not answer prayers and watch on as corpses piled in wars and tragedies and plagues destroyed human life without any empathy, without a broken heart in calloused indifference. It would be after this initial phase of deist philosophy that God would afterward cease to be in the picture in any form out-right. Certainly, many were fighting these philosophies, but not with great success. In this environment, the popularization  and re-visitation of those pre-Christian philosophers and their anti-biblical concepts of morality, law and social order was easy enough- and naturally, some began to revisit ancient forms of Socialism, especially retrieving the ancient works of Plato, those writings of the philosopher kings and such – which would make a base for the formation of Communism, but first the socialisms that preceded it, such as those coming from Revolutionary France and the like. Probably all these were rooted in those ancient philosophers.

It is in this environment of philosophies of men, and re-visitations of ancient Greek philosophers that Darwin and Karl Marx would ultimately emerge successfully, though in the case of Marx more with reference to French Revolutionary writings of a most obviously atheistic nature and flavor who preceded him, who was obviously of greater outright aggression and ferocity than Darwin.

Regardless, the character of the age is well-pictured by commentaries on Spinoza’s influence in philosophy at the time: for instance, Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel of whom so many associated massive influence in German philosophy(Directly relevant to Karl Marx and Ernst Haeckel, Charles Darwin’s key supporter- also Darwin himself becoming accepted and celebrated in Germany)- this Wilhelm is reported of saying of Spinoza: "The fact is that Spinoza is made a testing point in modern philosophy, so that it may really be said. ‘You are either a Spinozist or not a philosopher at all.’  Also, French philosopher Gilles Deleuze named Spinoza Prince of philosophers

Spinoza’s beliefs can be characterized this way: The denial of immortality of the human soul as a person – rejection of the providential God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob in terms of interest in personal relationship, and claims that the laws of Moses were neither literally given by God, nor binding on Jews. Spinoza apparently believed something of a concept of absorption, that a man’s individuality would not follow him into eternity, but rather he would be absorbed either into nature or God’s oneness. "No personal immortality concept exists with Spinoza[37]". For the trained Christian, they will understand how much in conflict that was with the Bible and it should help them to categorize that era easier. In fact, in earlier times, men with beliefs like that, probably would have been executed. But for the atheist, less informed on Christian doctrines, know for certain Spinoza was a massive deviation from ecclesial Christian tradition in the very least, though truthfully his origin was more found with the Jewish people who bore the same reaction – the synagogues branding this Spinoza a heretic and a blasphemer. That popularity of Spinoza in philosophy and his acceptance and even celebration demonstrates just how far popular circles of scholarship in England and Germany had gone from the Bible culture. Humanity of the West had irrevocably changed according to the types of friendships they were willing to entertain.

With so much less conviction as to the authority of the Judeo-Christian texts, Genesis to Revelation, it is only natural that the concept of atheism was becoming increasingly sustainable in the West. It was becoming possible, gradually, to be an atheist and be recognized as a scholar and celebrated rather than mocked, protected rather than threatened with death, and to call the Bible a myth and remain unscathed. Thus, the advance of atheism was through gradualness, and not sudden takeover. That is the key point.

However, atheism was still somewhat risky in many places, even in the West... acceptance was not monolithic. That atheism at first took on an Oppressed atheism form[38] in regards for example, sexual expression and blasphemy and some others – in general. The atheist still had to fear offending the Christians, the West was Christian enough to kill them if they were found guilty for example of homosexuality or bestiality in the very least, or drawing offensive pictures of Jesus or speaking curses of His name. In places where atheists were protected by law, there was no guarantee they would not be lynched by a populace ignoring the law in a burst of rage against their teachings. But they could exist if they were cautious of offense risks. Thus, Darwin and Marx could be intellectually borne. But for a long time, Judeo-Christianity still held such power, influence in all realms, especially the scientific community arguably having truly been the founders of the scientific community to begin with as is evidenced in historical research.

––––––––

The Two Elements Atheism Needed to Rise to Influence from A Suppressed Position

As atheism combatted and reacted with a general Christian worldview, according to human nature there was a need then of two elements for it to succeed in coming to a higher level of influence , and these two elements are these: the first point, to have an alternative explanation of human origins and origin of the universe and a methodology powerful enough to convince even learned Christians to support and adopt it, in order to remove God from a position of authority and the Bible from a stance of reliability as pertains the natural world. – Darwin’s efforts, but not his only as we see later

The second point needed for the success of atheism is a concept of government, rule and law, morality and societal control pertaining to an atheistic narrative and worldview; an end- kingdom goal to substitute for New Jerusalem descending from Heaven- hence, Marx and the Communist Manifesto rules and its promise of Utopia and other discussions of Little Icaria, etc..

In the coming chapters we will describe these two forces in greater detail, and flesh out their consequences.

CHAPTER 2: THE HISTORY OF DARWIN, THE HISTORY OF KARL MARX AND THE RELATIONSHIP OF DARWINIAN EVOLUTION AND COMMUNISM AND HOW THEY FUNCTION TOGETHER AS A SINGLE ENTITY OF ORGANIZED ATHEISM

History of Charles Darwin

One of the foremost means of advancement of societal atheism was, without a doubt, On the Origin of Species, the theory of evolution of species by means of natural selection advanced by Charles Darwin. It is critical that we cover some history on this man, therefore. Biography.com contains some general history on Darwin[39] which I will quote verbatim:

According to biography.com,[40] :

"Charles Robert Darwin was a British naturalist and biologist known for his theory of evolution and his understanding of the process of natural selection. In 1831, he embarked on a five-year voyage around the world on the HMS Beagle, during which time his studies of various plants and an led him to formulate his theories. In 1859, he published his landmark book, On the Origin of Species. 

Early Life

Charles Darwin was born on February 12, 1809, in the tiny merchant town of Shrewsbury, England. A child of wealth and privilege who loved to explore nature, Darwin was the second youngest of six kids. 

Darwin came from a long line of scientists: His father, Dr. R.W. Darwin, was a medical doctor, and his grandfather, Dr. Erasmus Darwin, was a renowned botanist. Darwin’s mother, Susanna, died when he was only eight years old.

Education

In October 1825, at age 16, Darwin enrolled at University of Edinburgh along with his brother Erasmus. Two years later, he became a student at Christ's College in Cambridge.

His father hoped he would follow in his footsteps and become a medical doctor, but the sight of blood made Darwin queasy. His father suggested he study to become a parson instead, but Darwin was far more inclined to study natural history."

"While Darwin was at Christ's College, botany professor John Stevens Henslow became his mentor. After Darwin graduated Christ's College with a bachelor of arts degree in 1831, Henslow recommended him for a naturalist’s position aboard the HMS Beagle.

The ship, commanded by Captain Robert FitzRoy, was to take a five-year survey trip around the world. The voyage would prove the opportunity of a lifetime for the budding young naturalist.

On December 27, 1831, the HMS Beagle launched its voyage around the world with Darwin aboard. Over the course of the trip, Darwin collected a variety of natural specimens, including birds, plants and fossils.

Darwin In the Galapagos

Through hands-on research and experimentation, he had the unique opportunity to closely observe principles of botany, geology and zoology. The Pacific Islands and Galapagos Archipelago were of particular interest to Darwin, as was South America.

Upon his return to England in 1836, Darwin began to write up his findings in the Journal of Researches, published as part of Captain FitzRoy's larger narrative and later edited into the Zoology of the Voyage of the Beagle.

The trip had a monumental effect on Darwin’s view of natural history. He began to develop a revolutionary theory about the origin of living beings that ran contrary to the popular view of other naturalists at the time.

Theory of Evolution

Darwin’s theory of evolution declared that species survived through a process called natural selection, where those that successfully adapted or evolved to meet the changing requirements of their natural habitat thrived and reproduced, while those species that failed to evolve and reproduce died off. 

Through his observations and studies of birds, plants and fossils, Darwin noticed similarities among species all over the globe, along with variations based on specific locations, leading him to believe that the species we know today had gradually evolved from common ancestors. 

Darwin’s theory of evolution and the process of natural selection later became known simply as Darwinism.

At the time, other naturalists believed that all species either came into being at the start of the world or were created over the course of natural history. In either case, they believed species remained much the same throughout time.

Origin of Species

In 1858, after years of scientific investigation, Darwin publicly introduced his revolutionary theory of evolution in a letter read at a meeting of the Linnean Society. On November 24, 1859, he published a detailed explanation of his theory in his best-known work, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. "

––––––––

SUMMATIVE EXPLANATION OF DARWIN’S DOCTRINE

Essentially, the bulk of Darwin’s teaching is that species evolve (Change entire base types, for example a dog in that belief could become a bird) through the mechanism of natural selection over a long period of time. (Natural selection is best defined as adaptation. For example, if a bird species is taken from a frigid land to more humid climate with a different type of seed, it’s feather texture, colors and beak-form represented in its offspring begin to change in response to the pressures of the environment.)

––––––––

HISTORY OF KARL MARX, CO-AUTHOR OF THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO AND ARGUABLY THE MOST PRESTIGIOUS FACE OF COMMUNISM IN HISTORY

Without a doubt, Karl Marx who is largely responsible for the development of Communism is alongside Darwin and a few others- Charles Lyell, Julius Wellhausen, and probably Sigmund Freud, as one of the foremost advancers of societal atheism in all history. We will speak of Marx’s Communism more in following volumes of the series, however at this time we cover a brief background that we may explain the connection of Darwinism and Marxism early on in this document, since one of the most important features of this three-volume series is the belief that Darwin and Marx are understood together as one atheism, as a composite unity.

According to a document from Standford[41] written in 2003:

"Karl Marx is best known not as a philosopher but a revolutionary, whose works inspired the foundation of many communist regimes in the twentieth century. It is hard to think of many who have had as much influence in the creation of the modern world. Trained as a philosopher, Marx turned away from philosophy in his mid-twenties, towards economics and politics. However, in addition to his overtly philosophical early work, his later writings have many points of contact with contemporary philosophical debates, especially in the philosophy of history and the social sciences, and in moral and political philosophy. Historical materialism- Marx’s theory of history- is centered around the idea that societies rise and fall as they further and then impede the development of human productive power. Marx sees the historical process as proceeding through a necessary series of modes of production, characterized by class struggle, culminating in communism. Marx’s economic analysis of capitalism is based on his version[42] of the labour theory of value, and includes the analysis of capitalist profit as the extraction of surplus value from the exploited proletariat. The analysis of history and economics come together in Marx’s prediction of the inevitable economic breakdown of capitalism, to be replaced by communism. However, Marx refused to speculate in detail about the nature of communism, arguing that it would arise through historical processes and was not the realization of a pre-determined moral ideal."

Marx was born in Trier, in the German Rhineland in 1818. Although his family was Jewish, they converted to Christianity so that his father could pursue his career as a lawyer in the face of Prussia’s anti-Jewish laws. A precocious schoolchild, Marx studied law in Bonn and Berlin, and then wrote a PhD thesis in philosophy, comparing the views of Democritus and Epicurus. On completion of his doctorate in 1841 Marx hoped for an academic job, but he had already fallen in with too radical a group of thinkers and there was no real prospect. Turning to journalism, Marx rapidly became involved in political and social issues, and soon found himself having to consider communist theory. Of his many early writings, four in particular stand out. Contribution to a Critique of Hegel’s philosophy of Right, Introduction, and On the Jewish Question, were both written in 1843 and published in the Deutsch-Franzosische Jahrbucher. The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, written in Paris 1844, and the Theses on Feuerbach" of 1845, remained unpublished in Marx’s lifetime.

The German ideology co-written with Engels in 1845, was also unpublished but this is where we see Marx beginning to develop his theory of history. The Communist Manifesto is perhaps Marx’s most widely read work, even if it is not the best guide to his thought. This was again jointly written with Engels and published with a great sense of excitement as Marx returned to Germany from exile to take part in the revolution of 1848. With the failure of the revolution Marx moved to London where he remained for the rest of his life. He now concentrated on the study of economics, producing, in 1859, his Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy. This is largely remembered for its Preface, in which Marx sketches out what he calls the guiding principles of his thought, on which many interpretations of historical materialism are based. Marx’s main economic work is, of course, Capital (Volume 1) published in 1867, although Volume 3, edited by Engels, and published posthumously in 1894, contains much of interest. Finally, the late pamphlet: Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875) is an important source for Marx’s reflections on the nature and organization of communist society.

The works so far mentioned amount only to a small fragment of Marx’s opus, which will eventually run to around 100 large volumes when his collected works are completed. However, the items selected above are the most important core from the point of view of Marx’s connection with philosophy, although other works, such as the 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon (1852), are often regarded as equally important in assessing Marx’s analysis of concrete political events."

"The intellectual climate within which the young Marx worked was dominated by the influence of Hegel, and reaction to Hegel by a group known as the Young Hegelians, who rejected what the regarded as the conservative implications of Hegel’s work. The most significant of these thinkers was Ludwig Feuerbach, who attempted to transform Hegel’s metaphysics, and, thereby, provided a critique of Hegel’s doctrine of religion and the state. A large portion of the philosophical content of Marx’s works written in the early 1840s is a record of his struggle to define his own position in reaction to that of Hegel and Feuerbach and those of the other Young Hegelians.

In this text [On the Jewish Question] Marx begins to make clear the distance between himself and his radical liberal colleagues among the Young Hegelians; in particular Bruno Bauer. Bauer had recently written against Jewish emancipation, from an atheist perspective, arguing that the religion of both Jews and Christians was a barrier to emancipation. In responding to Bauer, Marx makes one of the most enduring arguments from his early writings, by means of introducing a distinction between political emancipation – essentially the grant of liberal rights and liberties – and human emancipation. Marx’s reply to Bauer is that political emancipation is perfectly compatible with the continued existence of religion, as the contemporary example of the United States demonstrates. However, pushing matters deeper, in an argument reinvented by innumerable critics of liberalism, Marx argues that not only is political emancipation insufficient to bring about human emancipation, it is in some sense also a barrier. Liberal rights and ideas of justice are premised on the idea that each of us needs protection from other human beings who are a threat to our liberty and security. Therefore, liberal rights are rights of separation, designed to protect us from such perceived