Propaganda

Is this even remotely true?

It isn't.

Evolution does not necessitate atheism. It just describes how biology on earth changed and makes no reference to the existence of God.

Atheism does not necessitate humanism because humanism is a narrow set of ideals extolling humanity when others, like nihilism, would have equal worth.

The use of "Socialism" as a negative universally is retarded, because unless you're an-cap, you believe in some of socialism. However, if this means excessively socialist economies, then no, it doesn't necessitate from humanism, which does not make judgements on the intricacies of economies.

"Socialism" does not lead to Communism, in fact, it's usually the opposite. Communism came to power in feudal states which hated Socialism, while Western states used Socialist methods to stop Communists from being popular, particularly Britain.

I wonder if whoever made this has ever heard of Objectivists.

No. Not a single one of those steps is necessarily true. It could be true, but nothing guarantees that evolution will lead to anything, much less a (loss of a) religious or ideological position

lol no, looks like something Rick Warren could've written.

/pol/ really is running out of memes isn't it?

>communsim

>A scientific theory caused the Soviet Union

The Communist manifesto was even written before Darwin's Origin of Species.

Have you ever seen marx and darwin in the same room ?

Really makes you think.

Lel, no. Not even historically. Socialism owes more to Jews (or antisemitism from incompetent monarchs, specifically) infinitely more than they owe to Darwin. If anything, the historical process looks like this:
>Evolution --> Entrenched mysticism (reacting to the theory of evolution, as a death-knell to the "great chain of being") --> Racism --> Eugenics --> Fascism

>unless you're an-cap, you believe in some of socialism
>"Socialism" does not lead to Communism, in fact, it's usually the opposite. Communism came to power in feudal states which hated Socialism, while Western states used Socialist methods to stop Communists from being popular, particularly Britain.
>it's a "libertarian interprets any form of authoritarianism as socialism" episode

"Socialism" is the phase preceding the ideal utopia of communism. It's called "scientific socialism", not "scientific communism", because communism hasn't been achieved (or tried). Nazism is not "socialism". Socialism has been tried, repeatedly, and it's specifically the popular ownership of the means of production, NOT "government interference on the economy". If your means of production are privately owned, you are not socialist. Let this be a note to other memelords in this thread.

> It's called "scientific socialism", not "scientific communism"
Both terms exist, user.

>"Socialism" is the phase preceding the ideal utopia of communism

Yes in theory, but it could be argued that socialism also prevents higher communism.

Nah, I went from atheism to fascism.

Not really. You can be capitalistic as fuck and be an atheist.

Actually, it kind of requires it. The Bible explicitly forbids usury which is the cornerstone of modern capitalism.

Only the Orthodox feel like following those rules those.

>Humanism evolves from Atheism

This is insanely retarded holy shit.

I'm not sure the person who made that image knows what a single one of those things are besides 'le bad evil godless'.

Atheism predates the theory of evolution, and so does humanism. Communists themselves can't even agree on what socialism is, whether it's a 'stepping stone' to communism or a synonym.

Humanism is a hold over from Christian morality. In fact, socialism is deeply Christian in its ethics as well.

This.

Honestly there's a reason early Nazis referred to Christianity as the 'Bolshevism of the ancient world'.

Marxist historical materialism is little but a secular eschatology.

>the oppressed proletariat will break their chains and take control
>the meek shall inherit the earth

>The victory of the proletariat and communism is inevitable, and all oppression and hierarchy will be done away with
>Christ will return to reign in glory forever and ever, and all evil and pain will be destroyed


Just have faith.

People who think Christianity and Socialism are fundamentally different should read some critiques of both belief systems by 19th century social darwinists who mocked them both for egalitarianism, compassion for the weak, and a desire to radically restructure the world and society.

This implies humanism is a bad thing.

well believing in something that is incorrect is in itself bad

Could you explain what you mean by this

Humanism as a concept is a flawed and incorrect way to view the world and humans, by believing in it you add weight to human action and human life that can be detrimental

I can see how my former post could be confusing as I stated my opinion as fact, though that seems to be par for the course on Veeky Forums

>atheism precedes humanism
>a concept forged in the rennesaince is an effect of systhematic atheism during the middle ages


FUCK OFF
U
C
K

O
F
F

>humanism - n - an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.

I got what you were trying to convey, you just didn't explain how it's incorrect. I meant more by explaining:
>Humanism as a concept is a flawed and incorrect way to view the world and humans
Why and how?

>slavery is bad
slavery only became immoral when it became economically enviable

>Humanism will lead people to adopt a system of government that has consistently been a net negative for humans

ah sorry I see what you are asking now

When I use the word humanism I use it to mean the belief that humans and human actions are higher and greater than animalistic actions and free of instinctual motives. Humanism is the basis of most religions and zealotry. By elevating humans and their actions you give a base line of credibility to any insane leader that they can then build upon i.e. we are the chosen people, god made us better, we don't need to feel bad for our actions because we are higher than them. Also I have yet to see an instance when humans do not act without self interest. Which isn't inherently antagonistic to humanism but certainly hurts the argument.

>scientific theory
>religious theory
>philosophical theory
>political theory
>political theory
This is retarded.

As a communist I hope it's true. But I don't think a belief in communism is any kind of natural end point of ideology.

No. It's slippery slope strawman 101.

Kill 5 birds with one stone. Find a handful of ideologies/perspectives/theories you don't like and claim that they are inevitable gateways into each other. Use this as a cheap rhetorical talking point that rallies dummies and results in much share.