RIP Christopher Hitchens

[AZGrizFan]

Why won't this thread die? Who keeps bumping it to the top?

[JoltinJoe]

What nonsense Pinker is. Always has been and always will be. He claims that we live in the most peaceful period in history, even though the worst atrocities in human history, resulting in the slaughter of tens of millions, have occurred within the lifetime of people living today. Yet he claims to have "documented" that the world has become more peaceful in modern times. Really? The facts so completely undermine his claims that it is baffling that anyone would take him seriously. But when you have an agenda, anything is possible. The secular humanist kool-aid stand is open for business.

Worse, the vast majority of these deaths occurred at the hands of governments which had formed on secular humanist principles. He simply ignores the "humanist" roots of these governments. Here is the flaw of the contemporary "secular humanist." Before you embrace humanism, you have to explain why those governments formed in its name devolved into the most efficient killing machines in the history of mankind. (Of course, if you address that question, you would have to acknowledge that we've experienced the most brutal and repressive period in human history within the past 90 years -- a period which not so coincidentally coincides with the rise of secular humanism as a system of moral philosophy).

Marxism wasn't, at its inception, a "humanist" movement? Who the hell is he trying to kid? Marx's earlier writings were no doubt humanistic, and these works were the inspiration for Lenin. It is "irrelevant" that communism was atheistic? You have to be pretty dim to buy into that line.

The enlightenment was a "humanist" movement? Not in the sense that Pinker uses the term. The Enlightenment was a natural law movement which stressed that each individual possessed natural, unalienable rights because they were imbued to him by his creator. Modern secular humanists don't believe in a creator.

The re-writing of history and moral philosophy continues unabated.

Secular humanism's great flaw is that is possesses no basis to command adherence to humanist principles as an objective ground for its moral outlook. Which means once a secular humanist government is formed, its loyalty to humanist principles is only as deep as the commitment to humanism of its current leadership.

Moreover, that modern secular humanists have to re-write history and distort prior philosophical movements, in order to claim a foundation in them, lays bare the dishonesty of its present advocates.

Again, you don't know **** about secular humanism. And like all apologist hacks, you try to deflect blame for creating the Hitlers and Stalins of the world.

And two, Pinker: established and respected writer for national publications versus Joltin Joe: Catholic apologist, whackjob message board poster with out of reach fantasies of being a respected writer for national publications.

Hey stupid, no one takes you seriously.

[kalm]

Why won't this thread die? Who keeps bumping it to the top?

bump

[AZGrizFan]

Why won't this thread die? Who keeps bumping it to the top?

bump

KNOCK IT OFF!!!!

[kalm]

bump

KNOCK IT OFF!!!!

[D1B]

Again, you don't know **** about secular humanism. And like all apologist hacks, you try to deflect blame for creating the Hitlers and Stalins of the world.

And two, Pinker: established and respected writer for national publications versus Joltin Joe: Catholic apologist, whackjob message board poster with out of reach fantasies of being a respected writer for national publications.

Hey stupid, no one takes you seriously.

2000 years and your pope finally acknowledges that treating women like shit is not very cool. Equality is not a religious principle, its a humanist principle.

Apologies

Pope John Paul II made many apologies. During his long reign as Pope, he apologized to Jews, Galileo, women, victims of the Inquisition, Muslims slaughtered by the Crusaders and almost everyone who had suffered at the hands of the Catholic Church through the years.[1] Even before he became the Pope, he was a prominent editor and supporter of initiatives like the Letter of Reconciliation of the Polish Bishops to the German Bishops from 1965. As Pope, he officially made public apologies for over 100 of these wrongdoings, including:

The conquest of Mesoamerica by Spain in the name of the Church

The legal process on the Italian scientist and philosopher Galileo Galilei, himself a devout Catholic, around 1633 (31 October 1992).

Catholics' involvement with the African slave trade (9 August 1993).

The Church Hierarchy's role in burnings at the stake and the religious wars that followed the Protestant Reformation (May 1995, in the Czech Republic).

The injustices committed against women, the violation of women's rights and for the historical denigration of women (10 July 1995, in a letter to "every woman").

The inactivity and silence of many Catholics during the Holocaust (16 March 1998)

For the execution of Jan Hus in 1415 (18 December 1999 in Prague). When John Paul II visited Prague in 1990s, he requested experts in this matter "to define with greater clarity the position held by Jan Hus among the Church's reformers, and acknowledged that "independently of the theological convictions he defended, Hus cannot be denied integrity in his personal life and commitment to the nation's moral education." It was another step in building a bridge between Catholics and Protestants.

For the sins of Catholics throughout the ages for violating "the rights of ethnic groups and peoples, and [for showing] contempt for their cultures and religious traditions". (12 March 2000, during a public Mass of Pardons).

For the sins of the Crusader attack on Constantinople in 1204. (4 May 2001, to the Patriarch of Constantinople).

“An excuse is worse and more terrible than a lie, for an excuse is a lie guarded.” —Pope John Paul II

Wikipedia

Some objective source of truth!

[JoltinJoe]

What nonsense Pinker is. Always has been and always will be. He claims that we live in the most peaceful period in history, even though the worst atrocities in human history, resulting in the slaughter of tens of millions, have occurred within the lifetime of people living today. Yet he claims to have "documented" that the world has become more peaceful in modern times. Really? The facts so completely undermine his claims that it is baffling that anyone would take him seriously. But when you have an agenda, anything is possible. The secular humanist kool-aid stand is open for business.

Worse, the vast majority of these deaths occurred at the hands of governments which had formed on secular humanist principles. He simply ignores the "humanist" roots of these governments. Here is the flaw of the contemporary "secular humanist." Before you embrace humanism, you have to explain why those governments formed in its name devolved into the most efficient killing machines in the history of mankind. (Of course, if you address that question, you would have to acknowledge that we've experienced the most brutal and repressive period in human history within the past 90 years -- a period which not so coincidentally coincides with the rise of secular humanism as a system of moral philosophy).

Marxism wasn't, at its inception, a "humanist" movement? Who the hell is he trying to kid? Marx's earlier writings were no doubt humanistic, and these works were the inspiration for Lenin. It is "irrelevant" that communism was atheistic? You have to be pretty dim to buy into that line.

The enlightenment was a "humanist" movement? Not in the sense that Pinker uses the term. The Enlightenment was a natural law movement which stressed that each individual possessed natural, unalienable rights because they were imbued to him by his creator. Modern secular humanists don't believe in a creator.

The re-writing of history and moral philosophy continues unabated.

Secular humanism's great flaw is that is possesses no basis to command adherence to humanist principles as an objective ground for its moral outlook. Which means once a secular humanist government is formed, its loyalty to humanist principles is only as deep as the commitment to humanism of its current leadership.

Moreover, that modern secular humanists have to re-write history and distort prior philosophical movements, in order to claim a foundation in them, lays bare the dishonesty of its present advocates.

Jeez Joe, you make secular humanism sound as though it's some sort of dog whistle term for the religious right. Is secular humanism a movement to be feared?

Regarding the founders, enlightenment, and natural law, I get what you're saying but didn't the deists reject the supernatural? Can you not be a humanist and believe in a creator?

Regarding murderous dictators, was secular humanism a part of their founding documents?

(1) Yes, secular humanism is a movement to be feared, not so much because of its "humanism" but because of its denial of the source of objective truth. I am neither a member of the religious right nor am I right-ward thinking politically. Yet I do see how precepts essential to secular humanism can be easily twisted to create totalitarianism and inhuman consequences.

The secular humanist holds, as his first precept, that the source of human morality is not a creator which objectively defines what is right or wrong. The secular humanist holds, as his second precept, that human reason, experience, and knowledge is the source of right and wrong and, furthermore, that adherence to humanistic values result from application of human reason, experience, and knowledge. So far, so good.

The problem arises when a person like Stalin comes along and accepts the first precept of secular humanism (no objective source of right or wrong), but denies the second (human reason dictating adherence to humanist principles). Stalin instead substitutes adherence to the overall good of the state (as defined by the state) as the public morality. Predictably, then, dissent from the state is punished, sometimes with brutal zeal.

As noted, the Soviet constitution was a perfect articulation of secular humanism but in rather short time it produced the likes of Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev. And while Khruschchev and Brezhnev certainly were not Stalin, they were not humanists either.

I fear secular humanism because there are many writers today (Pinker among them) who continue to try to re-root this country's moral attitudes and outlook in secular humanism rather than natural law. So I will remind everyone, as loudly as I can, that our founders framed a government based on the enlightenment principles of natural law and the unalienable rights of the individual, which flow from the creator. I will not allow lazy or deceptive reasoning to co-opt the true humanism of the enlightenment into a "secular" humanism which fails to acknowledge the objective source of rights, and the concepts of right and wrong.

I believe we have previously discussed the difference between a government formed on natural law (in which the government may only govern with the consent of the governed) and a government formed on secular humanism concepts (in which the government is the people, collectively). In the latter form of government, the rights of the individual become secondary to the so-called "public good", or the interests of the people collectively. In the former, the rights of the individual are paramount to the so-called public good or the public interest. This distinction explains why human rights are so easily trampled by the centralized and collective government when that government falls into the hands of a secularist who is not a humanist.

(2) Can you be a humanist and believe in a deity? Of course. The Enlightenment writers were humanists who, for the most part, believed in a deity. Can you be a "secular humanist" and believe in a deity? No, not if you are using and understanding the term correctly.

(3) Regarding murderous dictators, was secular humanism a part of their founding documents? No, properly speaking, murderous dictators are not secular humanists. However, the most notorious murderous dictators of the 20th century universally accepted the first precept of secular humanism -- that there is no objective source which defines right or wrong.

[AZGrizFan]

Wow.

Do you two realize NOONE else is readingthis drivel?

QUIT BUMPING THIS THREAD!!!

[D1B]

Jeez Joe, you make secular humanism sound as though it's some sort of dog whistle term for the religious right. Is secular humanism a movement to be feared?

Regarding the founders, enlightenment, and natural law, I get what you're saying but didn't the deists reject the supernatural? Can you not be a humanist and believe in a creator?

Regarding murderous dictators, was secular humanism a part of their founding documents?

(1) Yes, secular humanism is a movement to be feared, not so much because of its "humanism" but because of its denial of the source of objective truth. I am neither a member of the religious right nor am I right-ward thinking politically. Yet I do see how precepts essential to secular humanism can be easily twisted to create totalitarianism and inhuman consequences.

The secular humanist holds, as his first precept, that the source of human morality is not a creator which objectively defines what is right or wrong. The secular humanist holds, as his second precept, that human reason, experience, and knowledge is the source of right and wrong and, furthermore, that adherence to humanistic values result from application of human reason, experience, and knowledge. So far, so good.

The problem arises when a person like Stalin comes along and accepts the first precept of secular humanism (no objective source of right or wrong), but denies the second (human reason dictating adherence to humanist principles). Stalin instead substitutes adherence to the overall good of the state (as defined by the state) as the public morality. Predictably, then, dissent from the state is punished, sometimes with brutal zeal.

As noted, the Soviet constitution was a perfect articulation of secular humanism but in rather short time it produced the likes of Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev. And while Khruschchev and Brezhnev certainly were not Stalin, they were not humanists either.

I fear secular humanism because there are many writers today (Pinker among them) who continue to try to re-root this country's moral attitudes and outlook in secular humanism rather than natural law. So I will remind everyone, as loudly as I can, that our founders framed a government based on the enlightenment principles of natural law and the unalienable rights of the individual, which flow from the creator. I will not allow lazy or deceptive reasoning to co-opt the true humanism of the enlightenment into a "secular" humanism which fails to acknowledge the objective source of rights, and the concepts of right and wrong.

(2) Can you be a humanist and believe in a deity? Of course. The Enlightenment writers were humanists who, for the most part, believed in a deity. Can you be a "secular humanist" and believe in a deity? No, not if you are using and understanding the term correctly.

(3) Regarding murderous dictators, was secular humanism a part of their founding documents? No, properly speaking, murderous dictators are not secular humanists. However, the most notorious murderous dictators of the 20th century universally accepted the first precept of secular humanism -- that there is no objective source which defines right or wrong.

Distilled:

If you don't believe in god, you're fucked.

[D1B]

The 1936 U.S.S.R. Constitution
"ARTICLE 124.- In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of antireligious propaganda is recognized for all citizens."

The 1977 U.S.S.R. Constitution
"Article 52. - Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited. In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church."

[JoltinJoe]

The 1936 U.S.S.R. Constitution
"ARTICLE 124.- In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of antireligious propaganda is recognized for all citizens."

The 1977 U.S.S.R. Constitution
"Article 52. - Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited. In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church."

Not really sure how this refutes anything I said. Actually, it supports everything I said.

[D1B]

"It is possible, therefore, for the state to have emancipated itself from religion even if the overwhelming majority is still religious. And the overwhelming majority does not cease to be religious through being religious in private.... The emancipation of the state from religion is not the emancipation of the real man from religion."
--Karl Marx (Bruno Bauer, The Jewish Question, Braunschweig, 1843)

*Still can't find a single source where Karl Marx advocates atheism or admits to being an atheist.

I'll keep looking, Joe.

[andy7171]

"It is possible, therefore, for the state to have emancipated itself from religion even if the overwhelming majority is still religious. And the overwhelming majority does not cease to be religious through being religious in private.... The emancipation of the state from religion is not the emancipation of the real man from religion."
--Karl Marx (Bruno Bauer, The Jewish Question, Braunschweig, 1843)

*Still can't find a single source where Karl Marx advocates atheism or admits to being an atheist.

I'll keep looking, Joe.

JFC I just googled Karl Marx atheist...

Marx was an atheist from his childhood and remained such for the whole of the rest of his life.

His atheism was not only practical but also theoretical. His theoretical atheism is due primarily to philosophical reasons and only secondarily to historical, social and political reasons.

Already in his thesis for the doctorate Marx proclaims in no uncertain terms that "in the country of reason" the existence of God cannot have any meaning. "Take paper money to a country in which this use of paper money is not known, and everyone will laugh at your subjective representation. Go with your gods to a country in which other gods are worshipped, and you will be shown that you are the victim of fancies and abstractions. And rightly. Anyone who had brought a migrant god to the ancient Greeks, would have found the proof of the non-existence of this god, because it did not exist for the Greeks. What is the case in a certain country for certain foreign gods, takes place for god in general in the country of reason: it is an area in which his existence ceases" (K. Marx, Frammento dell'appendice della dissertazione dottorale, in A. Sabetti, Sulla fondazione del materialismo storico, Florence 1962, p. 415).

Marx's theoretical atheism is the consequence of three postulates: 1) metaphysical or dialectical materialism which considers matter as the supreme and unique cause of everything;

2) historical materialism, according to which the economic factor is the principal and decisive factor, and the economic structure is the carrying structure of all the other structures that compose society;

3) absolute humanism, which sets man at the summit of the cosmos: man is the supreme being.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/ATHEMARX.HTM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[JoltinJoe]

"It is possible, therefore, for the state to have emancipated itself from religion even if the overwhelming majority is still religious. And the overwhelming majority does not cease to be religious through being religious in private.... The emancipation of the state from religion is not the emancipation of the real man from religion."
--Karl Marx (Bruno Bauer, The Jewish Question, Braunschweig, 1843)

*Still can't find a single source where Karl Marx advocates atheism or admits to being an atheist.

I'll keep looking, Joe.

Just wow. You think Marx was not an atheist.

Since you'll "keep looking," here's a hint. Read Marx. Really, why don't you actually read something we're talking about, rather than do your typical internet search. His atheism is transparent ...

Now, I'm done with you. You're just a boob. If you can come here and try to deny that Marx was an atheist, it just proves that discussing these issues with you is a complete waste of time.

[D1B]

The 1936 U.S.S.R. Constitution
"ARTICLE 124.- In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of antireligious propaganda is recognized for all citizens."

The 1977 U.S.S.R. Constitution
"Article 52. - Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited. In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church."

Not really sure how this refutes anything I said. Actually, it supports everything I said.

Just find it interesting that Stalin had no problem with religion or a creator. Looks like the USSR didn't promote state atheism in their constitution. Looks like communism really doesn't deny belief in a creator.

Again, Joe, atheism has nothing to do with who Stalin was or what his regime did. He was a psychopath who wreaked havoc on a helpless peasant nation conditioned by religion to acquiesce to authority and view their czars as divine. They could not defend themselves because their faith was in jesus/ghosts and not reason. Stalins, pope benedicts, Hitlers, Cardinal Laws and other criminals do not happen in free thinking society.

Your assertion that all hell breaks loose once god and an objective source of morality is abandoned is pure apologist bullshit and you know it. The greatest crimes in the history of humanity were born from the cesspool that is roman catholicism and christianity, all sanctioned by god, your objective source of morality. Your only source of information about your god, the bible, is filled with evil and immorality, much of which is perpetrated by YOUR GOD. History books are replete with theological arguments and justifications for atrocities, pogroms, crusades, inquisitions, genocides.

I challenge you to find one atrocity where the justification is "atheism", you fucking dunce.

Listen, Dostoyevsky was a depressed, beaten down anti-semite christian with a serious gambling addiction who, like most of the religious of his day in czarist Russia, held an extremely bleak worldview. During his time on earth, the prospect of an authentic secular society guided by humanist principles and values was never entertained and never existed. It still doesn't.

You, and your theological leaders who profit from you, have it backwards. We can only reach our potential as species when we slough off the dominating myth of human history and accept that man is responsible for his own destiny.

[D1B]

"It is possible, therefore, for the state to have emancipated itself from religion even if the overwhelming majority is still religious. And the overwhelming majority does not cease to be religious through being religious in private.... The emancipation of the state from religion is not the emancipation of the real man from religion."
--Karl Marx (Bruno Bauer, The Jewish Question, Braunschweig, 1843)

*Still can't find a single source where Karl Marx advocates atheism or admits to being an atheist.

I'll keep looking, Joe.

Just wow. You think Marx was not an atheist.

Since you'll "keep looking," here's a hint. Read Marx. Really, why don't you actually read something we're talking about, rather than do your typical internet search. His atheism is transparent ...

Now, I'm done with you. You're just a boob. If you can come here and try to deny that Marx was an atheist, it just proves that discussing these issues with you is a complete waste of time.

You find it, genius Joe. I've tried and I've read Marx.

Here's your challenge: Find an essay or article (by Marx, asshole, not Father Murphy) where Marx admits to being an atheist, writes specifically about atheism being a philosophy, political or belief system.

I'll be waiting.

[JoltinJoe]

Just wow. You think Marx was not an atheist.

Since you'll "keep looking," here's a hint. Read Marx. Really, why don't you actually read something we're talking about, rather than do your typical internet search. His atheism is transparent ...

Now, I'm done with you. You're just a boob. If you can come here and try to deny that Marx was an atheist, it just proves that discussing these issues with you is a complete waste of time.

You find it, genius Joe. I've tried and I've read Marx.

Here's your challenge: Find an essay or article (by Marx, *******, not Father Murphy) where Marx admits to being an atheist, writes specifically about atheism being a philosophy, political or belief system.

I'll be waiting.

There isn't any credible source which would deny Marx's atheism (defined as a lack of a belief in a deity). Marx did not believe in a deity. In fact, Marx went beyond being an atheist, as it was his conception that, in the coming socialist state, the need for atheism as a negation of God would be an anachronism, since the coming socialist state would provide the central values necessary for the ordered society, i.e, there would be no need in this socialist state to describe the negation of God.

Here is a defining quotation from Marx's Critique of Hagel's Philosophy of Right:

“Since the real existence of man and nature has become evident in practice, through sense experience, because man has thus become evident for man as the being of nature, and nature for man as the being of man, the question about an alien being, about a being above nature and man – a question which implies admission of the unreality of nature and of man – has become impossible in practice. Atheism, as a negation of God, has no longer any meaning, and postulates the existence of man through this negation; but socialism as socialism no longer stands in any need of such a mediation.”

There is no doubt Marx is denying the existence of God in this quotation. That he saw "atheism" as a term wedded to a society in which order was centered around the concept of God does nothing to negate his denial of a deity. What is transparent is that, in the coming Socialist state, the people will have no belief in God.

[Seahawks08]

The typical canards based on some gross historical distortions.

First, nice word there with canards. Kudos for that.

Second, your dead wrong lol.

a) The Spanish Inquisition is self explanatory if you know what it was. If you don't, then here:
http://www.thenagain.info/webchron/west ... inqui.html

b) I actually researched the history of science in college, so I know a little about what happened there. To put it mildly, science lost 1500 years between Aristotle and Copernicus because scientists were afraid to think differently. Yes, minor advancements were made, but nothing like what happened AFTER religion was thrown out.

[andy7171]

The Catholic Church and the Pope attempted to intervene in the bloody Spanish Inquisition but were unable to wrench the extremely useful political tool from the hands of the Spanish rulers.

[Seahawks08]

I am not targeting the Catholic Church in any of this. Just religion as a whole.

[CAA Flagship]

[andy7171]

I am not targeting the Catholic Church in any of this. Just religion as a whole.

So just what religion was suppressing science between @400BC(Aristotle) and @400AD when Christianity was deemed legal? That's roughly half of your 1500 years of scientific loss. A 400 year chuck of which the Christians were being fed to the lions.

[JoltinJoe]

The typical canards based on some gross historical distortions.

First, nice word there with canards. Kudos for that.

Second, your dead wrong lol.

a) The Spanish Inquisition is self explanatory if you know what it was. If you don't, then here:
http://www.thenagain.info/webchron/west ... inqui.html

b) I actually researched the history of science in college, so I know a little about what happened there. To put it mildly, science lost 1500 years between Aristotle and Copernicus because scientists were afraid to think differently. Yes, minor advancements were made, but nothing like what happened AFTER religion was thrown out.

The Spanish Inquisition was under the jurisdiction of the Spanish crown and was imposed over the objection of the pope. However, it has become quite common to confuse other and all inquisitions with the Spanish Inquisition. In most cases, in fact, church inquisitions resulted from the fear that civil authorities were imposing cruel and excessive penalties, tortures, and even death for "heresy." So the church acted to take control in order to provide the accused with meaningful judicial process and to safeguard the accused from cruel and excessive penalties. The case of Galileo is actually a great example of this. Galileo's house arrest was actually a protection afforded by influential church leaders. Galileo was permitted him to continue his studies and his writings -- while church leaders advised civil authorities that Galileo had been punished by house arrest. Galileo remained a Catholic in good standing until the date of his death and he never renounced his faith.

It is also a myth that the study of science was slowed by the Catholic Church. While the civil authorities of the Middle Ages had no use for science, the study of science was promoted and protected by the great Catholic and Jesuit universities throughout Europe. Virtually every scientist of these times era was the product of a Catholic university, and the Jesuit universities in particular were instrumental in preserving and advancing the scientific method.

Going further, almost all the Enlightenment philosophers were products of the European Catholic/Jesuit universities and, in time, the Jesuits became seen by monarchs to be menaces to the point that the European monarchs sought to have the Jesuit order suppressed.

So much of what is typically believed about the Catholic Church throughout history is the product of Protestant revisionism and anti-Catholic prejudice (a prejudice which remains prevalent and indeed fashionable in America today).

[andy7171]

The Muslins were all to science back then when they werent invadng.

[D1B]

You find it, genius Joe. I've tried and I've read Marx.

Here's your challenge: Find an essay or article (by Marx, *******, not Father Murphy) where Marx admits to being an atheist, writes specifically about atheism being a philosophy, political or belief system.

I'll be waiting.

There isn't any credible source which would deny Marx's atheism (defined as a lack of a belief in a deity). Marx did not believe in a deity. In fact, Marx went beyond being an atheist, as it was his conception that, in the coming socialist state, the need for atheism as a negation of God would be an anachronism, since the coming socialist state would provide the central values necessary for the ordered society, i.e, there would be no need in this socialist state to describe the negation of God.

Here is a defining quotation from Marx's Critique of Hagel's Philosophy of Right:

“Since the real existence of man and nature has become evident in practice, through sense experience, because man has thus become evident for man as the being of nature, and nature for man as the being of man, the question about an alien being, about a being above nature and man – a question which implies admission of the unreality of nature and of man – has become impossible in practice. Atheism, as a negation of God, has no longer any meaning, and postulates the existence of man through this negation; but socialism as socialism no longer stands in any need of such a mediation.”

There is no doubt Marx is denying the existence of God in this quotation. That he saw "atheism" as a term wedded to a society in which order was centered around the concept of God does nothing to negate his denial of a deity. What is transparent is that, in the coming Socialist state, the people will have no belief in God.

I don't think so. He's actually saying here that atheism is unnecessary.

Ultimately for Marx, atheism does no good simply attacking religion and not addressing the conditions that give rise to it. By attacking religion, atheism was also attacking the way ("opiate") the oppressed masses dealt with suffering.
Again, atheism is counter-productive.

Yes Marx held that at some point in the future man's religious emancipation would come about through political emancipation, but in no way did he say "people will have no belief in God". If you ever cracked a book of his, you'll discover that that he says religion will become purely a "private matter."

Strike one, Joe.