Karl Marx's 200th Birthday

Let's read some debate-comments on religion and philosophy on the occasion of the 200th birthday of Karl Marx. A little bit about this, Karl will know about Marx, what a big gift can be on birthday!
Good to be said, the post was Kamrul Hasan Nokib's. He wrote-
"There is a limit to all conspiracies in the mindless and indecisive mind. All sciences have limitations in all philosophy. Despite the limitations of science, science nomenclature Despite the limitations of philosophy, philosophy is inherent. Despite religion's limitations, why do religions do not honor and obey? "

I commented-
"Religion afflicts people. Maybe that is why people do not want to believe it. And sanctions lure people to accomplish it.
On the other hand, science or philosophy does not point to people or prohibits people. These science or philosophies are used only when people are needed. "

Postdate's destination was-
"People need guidance on how human life can be used in the direction of the people. Therefore, the philosophy is forbidden. Giving the order. "

Then I said,
"Where does the directive mean no direct directive. The dog also gives directions.
Philosophy is like a lot of tutorials. People learn from here. Which can be done, which can not be done - he gets his initiation.
If you say that philosophy is forbidden by the law - then this philosophy of philosophy is borrowed from religion. On returning, religion actually prohibits the order, whose guidance is found in life philosophy. "

Nakib brother again question-
"Which religion did Marx take from his religion? Bertrand Russell took his philosophy from any religion? "

My answer is:
"Marxist philosophy is not strictly a subdivision of a defined philosophy, because this philosophy is a tropical form of diverse view.
Bertrand Russell is so. It is not possible to have any doctrine and philosophy secular in the world. Because you are crying and philosophical, it is going to match the religion of some five thousand religions of the world. "

The postmaster is innocent, you can understand that in his words:
"Marks and Russell have specifically borrowed some of their philosophy from any religion."

Do I go less? See my answer.
"Tomorrow's materialist philosophy has been borrowed from Hegel and Führer. Dialectical views have borrowed from Socrates and Plato. And borrowed socialism and communism from Russo. Although the person mentioned did not have any religious incarnation, Kal Marx was the leader of the thought. Now their history will be visible, but maybe the names of the elders will come out. In this way, it is not unusual for them to mix any religion with any religion.
Secondly, Bertrand Russell worked out of non-violent philosophy and worked on behalf of the nuclear emancipation. That too is in the interest of saving a large population. It does not specifically say that borrowing from Islam. Because non-violence philosophy has many faiths.
Finally, in the book 'Review of the history of Karl Marx' Dr., I would mention Hayat Mamud-
"I think religious texts are a part of the history of philosophy. The only difference is that it is claimed that the words of religion are direct to God, and philosophical people. If someone says that anyone's philosophy is applicable for all time, then deny history. "

This time I will almost certainly make a situation like that-
"I could not answer the question yet.

1. Russell's philosophy could not match any religion.
2. Marx's philosophy said, 'It is not unusual to associate with any religion'
3. If Hayat Mamud does not believe in the truth, then it is understood that part of philosophy is religion. Religion is not a philosophy.
4. So what will you do now "

So what can I say now, see-
"Religion is part of religion, or religion is part of religion - this is secondary subject. But the same blood of both is not a quarrel. Therefore, the words of religion are the people of God and philosophy, that is the main thing. "

In the face of Nakib Bhai, winning smile, this comment may have been done with the 'V' symbol-
"Then you have withdrawn your statement (philosophy to religion). This is a great sign. "

I could not agree with the water,
"I did not see any sign of creation of religion from my religion. I just said that, which part of it - it is not main, religion is the word of God and the people of philosophy - that's the main.
Now, let us begin with the words, God will forbid us. On the contrary, these initiatives are mere tutorials, not a command. "

After that, what Nakib Bhai could say, that's the point of view-
"The tutorial is a mere tutorial, it does not give any direction, it's your personal opinion. It is not self-evident. Not universal. Moreover, you have not given any logic. "

I pulled the end of the debate with a hitchhiker. This is a learning debate. There is no skirmish. So what is the right to decide who is the winner here?
Let's comment on the exact placements, copying the exacts, and so forth. But if you have any comments you can let them know.