Can religion exist without class hierarchy?

[GracchusBabeuf]

From ancient times, we have seen that religions have constantly justified class hierarchy in the form of

Ruling clergy
Feudal lords
Capitalist class
Dictators
Etc

My question is: can religion exist without a class hierarchy or, on the other hand, does religion exist solely to justify class hierarchy?

If we remove class hierarchy and eliminate classes, will religion still exist?

[Dóchas]

why couldnt it? just because there isnt any priests etc. doenst mean that people will stop believing

[GracchusBabeuf]

why couldnt it? just because there isnt any priests etc. doenst mean that people will stop believing
I think that the reason people "believe" is because they been coerced into believing in god(s) by the clergy class in order to justify their (clergy's) own existence. The complete lack of scientific evidence for any god(s) goes to prove this. So I don't think religion can exist in a classless society where all classes (including the clerical class) have been eliminated.

[Dóchas]

but its not just the clergy who do this family and friends also do this so even if there is no church to go to they could still believe and worship together, minus church and clergy

[Decolonize The Left]

No.

Religion serves the purpose of providing meaning in regards to one's existence. Given that it is entirely arbitrary, unjustified, and contradictory, it is a weak form of meaning. It propagates itself through indoctrination and ignorance.

Within a classless society, I assume we have established some sort of communist economic system. If this is the case, then the ability to create meaning for one's life through material means is increased exponentially.

Basically, in a classless society, people won't have a need for religion.

- August

[Dóchas]

No.

Religion serves the purpose of providing meaning in regards to one's existence. Given that it is entirely arbitrary, unjustified, and contradictory, it is a weak form of meaning. It propagates itself through indoctrination and ignorance.

Within a classless society, I assume we have established some sort of communist economic system. If this is the case, then the ability to create meaning for one's life through material means is increased exponentially.

Basically, in a classless society, people won't have a need for religion.

- August

but for some that doesnt mean they wont want to have it

btw im not the biggest fan of religion im just trying to see it from its point of view

[LOLseph Stalin]

I don't think it could exist without a class hierarchy. Religion typically places the church officials above the common person. They would then use this power as a tool to control those below them. Of course the people would obet because the use of faith. In a Communist society there wouldn't be a need for this because people would no longer need an escape from the harsh realities of Capitalist life. If a poor person has nothing to look forward to in this life then it's natural they turn to religion to have hope for a better life after they die i.e- heaven.

[Decolonize The Left]

but for some that doesnt mean they wont want to have it

btw im not the biggest fan of religion im just trying to see it from its point of view

Consider that religion is, by definition, hierarchical and authoritative. "God" is the supreme authority and hence 'above' everyone else.

If society was classless, such a belief system could not be considered compatible with the social strata by any philosophical, rational, or logical, standard. For once you introduce god, then you introduce those who 'speak for god,' etc... and you've got hierarchy once again.

Also, regarding your first comment. Individuals "want" religion because of a massive gaping hole of meaning in their lives. They attempt to fill this hole with delusions about a man in the sky, or a spirit everywhere, or whatever. If society were to be classless, this hole of meaning could be easily filled with actual, tangible, material, actions - you know, living...

- August

[LOLseph Stalin]

Also, regarding your first comment. Individuals "want" religion because of a massive gaping hole of meaning in their lives. They attempt to fill this hole with delusions about a man in the sky, or a spirit everywhere, or whatever. If society were to be classless, this hole of meaning could be easily filled with actual, tangible, material, actions - you know, living...

Yep. Without a gap in your life there's no need to turn to these delusions. It's just silly illogical stuff. Like i'm so sure a virgin can get pregnant... ;)

[GracchusBabeuf]

but its not just the clergy who do this family and friends also do this so even if there is no church to go to they could still believe and worship together, minus church and clergyI think thats what most believers would ideally want. However in reality, there is always an intervening priest in any religion.

So if there is no clergy class, will the people still want to worship god(s)?

Also have there been any such movements to eliminate the clerical class (and NOT replacing it with another class) by believers of any religion? I would find such things few and far between, because such movements cannot outlast the general dogma in all religions: that there is/are god/s. Thus if people cannot understand why such god(s) should exist, they always look for answers from a priest or some such guy. If this class does not exist, it is likely that people will start to forget and disbelieve in their religions.

[Kronos]

Sure it can. Religion, the metaphysical beliefs themselves, have nothing to do with the material relations of people. It is only when those beliefs influence and dictate those relations such that certain people are responsible for certain roles, certain tasks. For example, a "priest" who did not have to work because he was licensed by God to sit around the chapel and eat cheese all day is allowed that privilege for the wrong reason- there is no God, so there is no permission from God to sit around the chapel all day and eat cheese.

It is these kinds of manipulations in ruling class politics which are not compatible with materialism/socialism.

People can believe all the nonsense they want....but when that nonsense affects the real material relations, we have a problem.

[ibn Bruce]

'The believers are as the teeth of a comb'

|||||||||||||||||||||||||


I wonder if the many assumptions made here are in ignorance of the role religion has played in so many class struggles throughout history? I mean the closest England ever came to a 'Socialist' state was a Christian Socialist one in I believe the 13th Century of our common era?

[commyrebel]

Have you people who say that religion wouldn't exists are wrong have you heard of unorganized religion were there's no hierarchy or even an actual church. When i was Christian i we met with other Christians were ever we could just to talk a praise. so it still could exists in a communist society

[LOLseph Stalin]

Have you people who say that religion wouldn't exists are wrong have you heard of unorganized religion were there's no hierarchy or even an actual church. When i was Christian i we met with other Christians were ever we could just to talk a praise. so it still could exists in a communist society


Perhaps you have overlooked the fact that most religions don't advocate equality. You can look at figures like Jesus and almost argue that they were Socialist(helping the poor, etc.), but even now religion fails to give rights and equality to minority groups such as homosexuals and woman being able to make choices concerning their body(abortion). Last time I checked Socialism was about equality for all.

[Vahanian]

Perhaps you have overlooked the fact that most religions don't advocate equality. You can look at figures like Jesus and almost argue that they were Socialist(helping the poor, etc.), but even now religion fails to give rights and equality to minority groups such as homosexuals and woman being able to make choices concerning their body(abortion). Last time I checked Socialism was about equality for all.

Your right, organized religion doesn't allow minority groups choices but thats organized religion not Jesus. Jesus supposedly if he existed would have granted them all rights. organized religion is way to politicized to be of any use, if religion could ever be considered useful

[LOLseph Stalin]

Your right, organized religion doesn't allow minority groups choices but thats organized religion not Jesus. Jesus supposedly if he existed would have granted them all rights. organized religion is way to politicized to be of any use, if religion could ever be considered useful

I agree. It's not really Jesus who is the problem, but organized religion. I say get rid of organized religion and if people must worship they can do it in the privacy of their own homes.

[ibn Bruce]

Last time I checked Socialism was about equality for all.
Except religious people?

[al8]

For people, against reactionaries. If people identify as reactionaries we are against them. We are not for people as they are, but of what they could be. It is not our job to identify with normal people, i.e to accept, encourage or aquiece to normalcy in the mainstream sense. But to identify with unnormal people (freaks, extremist, wierdos, utopians ect.), i.e to accept, encourage normalcy in the revolutionary sense only. The majority are not communists yet we make a devide, a necissary rift to battle that destiction out. And we are not afraid it will alienate or annoy people stuck in normalcy that we want them to change and adopt to our view, that can't be helped.

[Random Precision]

I wonder if the many assumptions made here are in ignorance of the role religion has played in so many class struggles throughout history? I mean the closest England ever came to a 'Socialist' state was a Christian Socialist one in I believe the 13th Century of our common era?

No idea what you're talking about. The English Civil War (17th century) was partially inspired by Puritanism. After the revolution theater performances were banned, etc. Certainly quite far away from socialism. Before that, there was the Peasants Revolt (14th century) which actually attacked the Church and religious hierarchy- demanded no more than one bishop for all of England, executed the Archbishop of Canterbury, etc.

As for the original question. I'll let my amigo Engels do the talking:

"The actual basis of the religious reflective activity therefore continues to exist, and with it the religious reflection itself... It is still true that man proposes and God (that is, the alien domination of the capitalist mode of production) disposes. Mere knowledge, even if it went much further and deeper than that of bourgeois economic science, is not enough to bring social forces under the domination of society. What is above all necessary for this, is a social act. And when this act has been accomplished, when society, by taking possession of all means of production and using them on a planned basis, has freed itself and all its members from the bondage in which they are now held by these means of production which they themselves have produced but which confront them as an irresistible alien force, when therefore man no longer merely proposes, but also disposes — only then will the last alien force which is still reflected in religion vanish; and with it will also vanish the religious reflection itself, for the simple reason that then there will be nothing left to reflect."

[Dóchas]

I agree. It's not really Jesus who is the problem, but organized religion. I say get rid of organized religion and if people must worship they can do it in the privacy of their own homes.

thats what iv been saying, just because you take away the church and priests doesnt mean it wont continue to exist within the home and between family and friends although i can imagine over time people will stop practising it due to the lack of an incentive to keep them going ie. church every sunday or whatever holy day its on.

[GracchusBabeuf]

Except religious people?One could say the same about the bourgeois class. What about them? Will they have "equality"? No. There shall be no bourgeois class at all.

So for reactionary religious people who want to set up a clerical class system, caste system or whatever, the same applies. There shall be no such class hierarchy. This has to be one of the "checks and balances" kept by the proletarian democracy whenever such a thing forms.

[ibn Bruce]

What about religious people who don't believe in such a system? Will they still be restricted? It seems a lot of people on this forum think so. I think it is a bit rich to say the goal of socialism is equality when that is defined as 'equality for all those who agree with us'. It is fine if it is NOT defined as such, but with the way many people talk, I sometimes doubt that talk of equality goes further than their lips.

[GracchusBabeuf]

What might eventually happen is that capitalist, religious and other kinds of reactionaries team up and oppose the workers' revolution. All of them, even if they don't team up, will have to be defeated one way or the other.

My idea of a socialist society allows full freedom for everyone as long as that freedom does not impinge the freedom of others. So, if we allow "freedom" for capitalists to set up wage slavery or religious fanatics to set up a clerical hierarchy, that will not make any sense. Your freedom ends where my nose begins.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Except religious people?

If people want to be religious they can worship whatever the hell they want on one condition: It must be in the privacy of their own homes. No preaching! There's nothing I hate more than preachers, especially the ones who say that non-believers are going to burn in hell for being non-believers(I have heard this from personal experience).

[ibn Bruce]

If people want to be religious they can worship whatever the hell they want on one condition: It must be in the privacy of their own homes. No preaching! There's nothing I hate more than preachers, especially the ones who say that non-believers are going to burn in hell for being non-believers(I have heard this from personal experience).

Surely they have freedom of speech :P

[Dóchas]

Surely they have freedom of speech :P

ye we would be no better than the society will live in now if we didnt let them say what they want.

[EqualityandFreedom]

Without hierarchy religion (especially organised religion) could not exist however this doesn't unfortunately mean belief in supernatural nonsense will disappear.

[Vahanian]

Without hierarchy religion (especially organized religion) could not exist however this doesn't unfortunately mean belief in supernatural nonsense will disappear.

thats a good point, mans belief in the supernatural will probably not end because some people feel good for some reason at the idea that there is an invisible person in the sky watching us and caring about what we do

[Rebel_Serigan]

I believe that organized religion can not exist without a class system, the arguements are easy to pull up as well. Most religion creates a class system in its own ranks not to mension uses the economic classes are used as "poaching" grounds. They use the poor as a great tool for building useless and wasted support by granting the poor with "some magical place in th clouds where they will live happily ever after." as for belief in the supernatural, I do not see how this is a problem. I know some people tend to think that the supernatural is BS but to be honest all truely supernatural things are easily explained by real-hard science. Ghosts are just bioelectrical impulses left over from someone who has died in an extremely signal heavy environment (like being angry or sad, or something) hence why you can detect them with an EMF machine. See the supernatural is explainable, some try to say it is unreal or unexplainale simply because they don't want it to be.

[Decolonize The Left]

thats a good point, mans belief in the supernatural will probably not end because some people feel good for some reason at the idea that there is an invisible person in the sky watching us and caring about what we do

There is no "good reason" to believe in religion - ever. The only reason which is remotely reasonable is fear.

- August

[Vahanian]

There is no "good reason" to believe in religion - ever. The only reason which is remotely reasonable is fear.

- August


I wasn't saying that it was a good reason i was saying that some people feel better believing in that kind of crap.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Heck yeah it can: the Christian community in Acts, the New Monastic movement, this stuff proves that we can follow G-d without domination... if anything because domination is counter to G-d.

[Rosa Provokateur]

I believe that organized religion can not exist without a class system.

Organized religion maybe but whatabout un-organized? Modern examples show that it's possible and in my opinion, desirable.

[al8]

Surely they have freedom of speech :P

There should be no freedom of speach for reactionaries.

[ibn Bruce]

There should be no freedom of speach for reactionaries.At least you are honest.

So what is it that gives you a mandate to decide whom is and who is not, reactionary? Considering that the vast majority of the world, and indeed the vast majority of the working class, believe in some form of 'higher power', where does your democratic mandate exist to tell anyone else what to believe?


There is no "good reason" to believe in religion - ever. The only reason which is remotely reasonable is fear.What makes you make that assertion? I am yet to talk to a religious person who, when asked 'why do you believe in God' replies; 'fear'. Regardless, what is it that such a supposed fear produces? I know that 'fear not of humanity' is an Islamic doctrine that makes believers not submit to any system imposed by individuals.

Amina Wadud gave an interesting analogy. In any given interaction between people, Allah makes a horizontal or vertical plane, upon which She is always the highest point. As distance is not an attribute of God, and therefore such a 'highness' is absolute, it means that any interaction between two humans must be made equal:
......Allah

me.....you

or alternatively,


you

.........Allah

me

So in this case, the hierarchy that exists creates equality, not oppression.

Speaking of hierarchies, this is how I see it in your head:


Atheists


Theists

[Decolonize The Left]

What makes you make that assertion? I am yet to talk to a religious person who, when asked 'why do you believe in God' replies; 'fear'.

Of course not - religious individuals do not have reasons for their faith... that's why it's called "faith." Faith is, by definition, 'belief without reason/evidence.' (This is partly why it's so problematic.)

The reason why people have faith is indoctrination, conditioning, fear, guilt, etc...


Regardless, what is it that such a supposed fear produces? I know that 'fear not of humanity' is an Islamic doctrine that makes believers not submit to any system imposed by individuals.

The fear of which I speak is the fear of the unknown, fear of existence, an inability to cope with material reality, etc... Why else would you invent an imaginary being who is always watching you, always your friend, punishes those who don't think like you and don't like you, etc... it's like an all-powerful teddy bear.


Amina Wadud gave an interesting analogy. In any given interaction between people, Allah makes a horizontal or vertical plane, upon which She is always the highest point. As distance is not an attribute of God, and therefore such a 'highness' is absolute, it means that any interaction between two humans must be made equal:
......Allah

me.....you

or alternatively,


you

.........Allah

me

So in this case, the hierarchy that exists creates equality, not oppression.

Speaking of hierarchies, this is how I see it in your head:


Atheists


Theists

Well that's nice and slightly poetic, but "Allah" is an imaginary figure, so all that really means quite little...

- August

[ibn Bruce]

Of course not - religious individuals do not have reasons for their faith... that's why it's called "faith." Faith is, by definition, 'belief without reason/evidence.' (This is partly why it's so problematic.)

The reason why people have faith is indoctrination, conditioning, fear, guilt, etc...

To begin with, faith is not really used in the Islamic lexicon (the closest word being 'iman' but that does not really translate the same).

Secondly, which of those reasons describes me?


The fear of which I speak is the fear of the unknown, fear of existence, an inability to cope with material reality, etc... Why else would you invent an imaginary being who is always watching you, always your friend, punishes those who don't think like you and don't like you, etc... it's like an all-powerful teddy bear.

As my Sheikh said, 'God is not something you can put into your pocket and call your buddy'... if anything, Islamic 'faith' is defined by fear (taqwa) of God as much as it is by knowledge of rahma (mercy). I found Islam at a point in my life where I had LEFT the dangerous situation I was in. I had lived with the 'knowledge' that I would probably not live to see 21, was stabbed and shot at both, yet I scorned religion still.

This discourse of 'fear' defines religion as weakness, justifying the superiority complex of those who hold it. The religious are described as lacking agency, ignorant and unable to decide for themselves, there beliefs being defined by 'indoctrination'. This is a rhetoric of superiority, patronissing, dismissive and wholly arrogant.

It speaks of 'crutches' and 'blindfolds', ignorant of the power that taqwa can bring to an individual.

A brother I know was car jacked, had a gun shoved in the face of him and his wife both. The man demanded that they get out of the car. He looked the jacker straight in the eyes and told him 'I only fear God, what do you fear?'. The man was so shaken that he dropped the gun and ran. If this is the crutch that religion gives, no fear of creation, then I am happy with it.


Well that's nice and slightly poetic, but "Allah" is an imaginary figure, so all that really means quite little...

This was not a debate about whether Allah exists or not, it is about whether or not religion can exist in a classless society. To which I would hope that her point was entirely pertinent.

[iMo]

Yes
Both Islam and Christianity can go on a classless society, that is because both religions is beliving that one human is equal to an other human. but of course when we talk about Hindusim where there is classes, there it would be huge difference.:cool:
BTW im a beliving Muslim, and a not-fullblood communist.:laugh:

[mikelepore]

"Can religion exist in a classless society?" Yes. Religion isn't generated by the class division of society. Religion is generated by the fact that some people talk themselves into believing, or trying to believe and pretending to believe, whatever suggestion seems comforting to them. Human beings are the only animals that know that they have to die, and this conflicts with the instinct for survival that all animals have. This conflict makes people feel fear and seek a resolution. As soon as they learn about the hypothesis that death is not an ending, but a trip to another world, where a spirit goes after departing from the material body, some percentage of the people are immediately comforted by that suggestion. They also teach that story to their children to provide a quick and easy answer to difficult questions: "Grandma went to a happy place called heaven." The holding onto a package of easy answers is addictive. There's nothing in this process that will end due to the construction of a classless society. There will be quantitative differences, probably a smaller percentage of the people being driven to take comfort in mythological stories. Since this difference has to be quantitative, the answer has to be yes, religion will exist.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Surely they have freedom of speech :P

There should be limited freedom of speech for these people. I don't want to hear their false fairy tale fantasy crap.

[ibn Bruce]

There should be limited freedom of speech for these people. I don't want to hear their false fairy tale fantasy crap.

Can we limit your freedom of speech too? We do after all have the democratic mandate (being the vast majority of the world's population) and we don't particularly want to hear to your false, fairy tale atheistic rantings :cool:

[Kronos]

Jesus thinks you're a jerk.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQcE2dq3YD0

[Kronos]

I'll tell you why anthropomorphic monotheism/polytheism will never be compatible with human ethical principles and practices.

As long as people believe there is an agency (god) that distributes rewards and punishments to people, while those same people are engaged in ethical relations, and those ethical relations produce some amount of conflict (and they will), whatever the consequences pertaining to the results regarding the actions of those people involved in the conflict must be understood as ordained by that agency. In this case, people must inevitably reduce themselves to fatalists (submitting all responsibility and consequence to god's will) or they will forever battle with the sense of being cheated by god.

It would be impossible for two people engaged in a conflict to conclude that a disadvantage experienced by one of them, at the expense of the advantage of the other, was arbitrary and contingent- they would have to accept that somehow god had determined that the one should suffer while the other did not. If at the same time, the offended cannot comprehend why he deserved the disadvantage...he would become frustrated and confused.

You would have a world full of passive stoic cowards or madmen. There is absolutely no way the idea of this kind of god would "work" in the very real material relations of human beings.

This kind of scenario is analogous to two brothers fighting because mommy said one could have a piece of cake while the other could not.

Fagettaboutit.

It'll never work.

[Raúl Duke]

being the vast majority of the world's population

Be aware that the population of the religious is declining...

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/paul07/paul07_index.html

Nothing more, you can all continue on with your discussion.

One thing: There are religion without a material hierarchy (no priest) and those who even have no supernatural (i.e. god, etc)-natural/man hierarchy. However, even out of these a hierarchy can possibly sometimes spontaneously arise.

[ibn Bruce]

I'll tell you why anthropomorphic monotheism/polytheism will never be compatible with human ethical principles and practices.

As long as people believe there is an agency (god) that distributes rewards and punishments to people, while those same people are engaged in ethical relations, and those ethical relations produce some amount of conflict (and they will), whatever the consequences pertaining to the results regarding the actions of those people involved in the conflict must be understood as ordained by that agency. In this case, people must inevitably reduce themselves to fatalists (submitting all responsibility and consequence to god's will) or they will forever battle with the sense of being cheated by god.

It would be impossible for two people engaged in a conflict to conclude that a disadvantage experienced by one of them, at the expense of the advantage of the other, was arbitrary and contingent- they would have to accept that somehow god had determined that the one should suffer while the other did not. If at the same time, the offended cannot comprehend why he deserved the disadvantage...he would become frustrated and confused.

You would have a world full of passive stoic cowards or madmen. There is absolutely no way the idea of this kind of god would "work" in the very real material relations of human beings.

This kind of scenario is analogous to two brothers fighting because mommy said one could have a piece of cake while the other could not.

Fagettaboutit.

It'll never work.

Scientific reasoning also has a strong argument AGAINST freedom of choice/agency. It is something I personally struggle with, understanding Islamic thought to describe personal agency but finding it problematic to believe in it.

Regardless, whether or not one believes in personal agency does not negate a need to struggle or desire for it. The fact of the matter is that religious people are not (on the whole) a bunch of stoic cowards or madmen.

[Decolonize The Left]

To begin with, faith is not really used in the Islamic lexicon (the closest word being 'iman' but that does not really translate the same).

Secondly, which of those reasons describes me?

To address your first sentence, whether or not the word "faith" pops up in a book is irrelevant - all religion is based upon faith. Likewise, Nazis may never actually mention 'reactionary,' but it doesn't mean they aren't such.

As for your question, probably all of them to a certain degree. If you attend any sort of worship temple/church/mosque then you certainly undergo a period of indoctrination/conditioning whereby you must repeat sentences ad-nauseum. Psychology has taught us that fear is the primary source of religious belief, so I'm sure that factors in somehow.

Let me ask you this: why else turn to a system of belief totally and completely lacking in evidence and reason?


As my Sheikh said, 'God is not something you can put into your pocket and call your buddy'... if anything, Islamic 'faith' is defined by fear (taqwa) of God as much as it is by knowledge of rahma (mercy). I found Islam at a point in my life where I had LEFT the dangerous situation I was in. I had lived with the 'knowledge' that I would probably not live to see 21, was stabbed and shot at both, yet I scorned religion still.

Ok...


This discourse of 'fear' defines religion as weakness, justifying the superiority complex of those who hold it. The religious are described as lacking agency, ignorant and unable to decide for themselves, there beliefs being defined by 'indoctrination'. This is a rhetoric of superiority, patronissing, dismissive and wholly arrogant.

It may be construed as such, and over such a stale medium as the internet it may appear so, and many people may maintain these attitudes - but what I speak of is a simple analysis of religion.

Belief without reason/evidence must have some sort of cause. Since that cause cannot be rational thought, it must be something else. Given that fear, indoctrination, conditioning, etc... are historically the most common ways to suppress rational thought, this analysis makes the most sense.


It speaks of 'crutches' and 'blindfolds', ignorant of the power that taqwa can bring to an individual.

Religion is a crutch. It is a crutch for existential anxiety.


A brother I know was car jacked, had a gun shoved in the face of him and his wife both. The man demanded that they get out of the car. He looked the jacker straight in the eyes and told him 'I only fear God, what do you fear?'. The man was so shaken that he dropped the gun and ran. If this is the crutch that religion gives, no fear of creation, then I am happy with it.

No, this individual has merely substituted fear of god for fear of death. This is exactly what I mean. Instead of addressing his fear, understanding it, and working through it, he just throws the 'wrath of god' as a bigger, more dangerous, fear.

It's totally insane - literally.


This was not a debate about whether Allah exists or not, it is about whether or not religion can exist in a classless society. To which I would hope that her point was entirely pertinent.

Yes, but when you start throwing fairy tales into a simple discussion, it is pertinent to note that these are mere fairy tales.

- August

[Kronos]

The fact of the matter is that religious people are not (on the whole) a bunch of stoic cowards or madmen.

Maybe not, but they will always be a paranoid, suspicious and anxious bunch. There is something dangerously peculiar in the thought that there might be an intelligent being who hides out of sight, with a personality, who has moral preferences and who is also capable of reprimanding people.

Freud called religious belief "infantile helplessness" and "regression into primary narcissism".

This is compatible and complementary to Feuerbach's ideas regarding religious belief.

So, for me, despite the fact that atheism has remained, and will always remain unscathed by theology, the implications of this kind of belief, as they pertain to human psychology, are enough to convince me that I wouldn't want to believe in God even if he did exist.

I prefer atheism. I don't like to stress out. I'm easy like Sunday morning.

[ibn Bruce]

Maybe not, but they will always be a paranoid, suspicious and anxious bunch. There is something dangerously peculiar in the thought that there might be an intelligent being who hides out of sight, with a personality, who has moral preferences and who is also capable of reprimanding people.
There is something dangerously arrogant about people who characterise everyone else 'paranoid, suspicious and anxious', especially when it seems atheists are the most anxious in trying to ram their point home.


Freud called religious belief "infantile helplessness" and "regression into primary narcissism".

Freud's contributions to Psychology were in making it popular.. and that is about it.



So, for me, despite the fact that atheism has remained, and will always remain unscathed by theology, the implications of this kind of belief, as they pertain to human psychology, are enough to convince me that I wouldn't want to believe in God even if he did exist.


Unscathed by theology, but not by dogma.



Atheists base their arguments, naturally, upon the idea that God does not exist. Because of this, their explanations of religious belief are based upon this fact, seeing the calm and fearlessness that it can bring about in people as purely an example of a 'crutch', rather than the peace found in truth.

Without religion, faced with death, I did not fear it. I have never read anything conclusively linking religious faith to fear, nor have I read anything indicating that there is a primal fear in all of us of death. I guess I missed that Psych class? Someone is free to enlighten me with the conclusive, peer reviewed proof (that they DEMAND for everything) of such an assertion.

This belief is maybe founded upon their own fear? That deep inside insecurity that maybe their denial is folly. The religious people I know, those deeply within their din, are all wonderful people. Their faith gives them 'adab' (manners) and some degree of 'rahma' (mercy). The hardcore Atheists I know however are insecure, belligerent and rude. Those that are not are often agnostic or apathetic. There appears sometimes an arrogance in the manifestation of Atheist dogma, a deep condescending superiority... I know that was how I felt as an Atheist.

However that is all beside the point and off the topic at hand. We were talking about Hierarchy.

[Decolonize The Left]

Atheists base their arguments, naturally, upon the idea that God does not exist. Because of this, their explanations of religious belief are based upon this fact, seeing the calm and fearlessness that it can bring about in people as purely an example of a 'crutch', rather than the peace found in truth.

Well, this demonstrates your abysmal knowledge of atheism.

Atheists base their arguments on material reality. What can be proven through the scientific method is true. Atheists base their arguments, at least intelligent atheists do, on two things:
1) Reason. No proof that god exists. No evidence that god exists. No reason to believe that god exists.
2) History. Almost all previous beliefs in supernatural deities have either been proven false, or abandoned. Why is yours any different?


Without religion, faced with death, I did not fear it. I have never read anything conclusively linking religious faith to fear, nor have I read anything indicating that there is a primal fear in all of us of death. I guess I missed that Psych class? Someone is free to enlighten me with the conclusive, peer reviewed proof (that they DEMAND for everything) of such an assertion.

For starters, check out Ernest Becker's work The Denial of Death. Quite interesting.


This belief is maybe founded upon their own fear? That deep inside insecurity that maybe their denial is folly. The religious people I know, those deeply within their din, are all wonderful people. Their faith gives them 'adab' (manners) and some degree of 'rahma' (mercy). The hardcore Atheists I know however are insecure, belligerent and rude. Those that are not are often agnostic or apathetic. There appears sometimes an arrogance in the manifestation of Atheist dogma, a deep condescending superiority... I know that was how I felt as an Atheist.

This isn't a logical argument. You are merely claiming that you see some things in some people, and others in other people, and hence one belief system is totally false and the other is true.

Atheism is simple: no proof, no evidence - no belief.
Theism is insane: no proof, no evidence - belief.

Why not believe in magical monkeys hiding in the walls? Volcanoes of ice cream? Unicorns with squid tentacles that attack bison in the milky way?

All as equally valid, from a logical standpoint, as religion....

- August

[GracchusBabeuf]

However that is all beside the point and off the topic at hand. We were talking about Hierarchy. Well, you had derailed the thread claiming socialists would not grant "equality" for religious people. So, do you think religion can exist without class hierarchy? Do a separate class of priests or whatever you call them need to to exist in order for religion to exist? Most people here, including me, think not.

[Kronos]

This belief is maybe founded upon their own fear? That deep inside insecurity that maybe their denial is folly.

None of the arguments for the existence of gods have ever been even slightly rational or convincing, so people certainly don't believe in gods for those reasons.

Rather, belief in gods is more like a subtle neurosis, a psychological condition which remains into adulthood. The "god" idea is a symbolism of the authoritarian parent figure- the one who protects, awards, punishes, etc. This notion becomes rooted in the psyche during the formative years of childhood. Into adulthood, the crude intellectual belief in god is nothing but an expression of the original emotions experienced during childhood...except the idea takes refuge in a more advanced language. This is what prevents the adult from maturing properly- the misuse of language and/or utilization of nonsensical terms in the mediation of religious discourse.


Freud's contributions to Psychology were in making it popular.. and that is about it.

Freud did exhibit a kind of intellectual fetish for psychology....much of his theory is untestable hypothesis that is not empirically valid. Ironically, though, I think much of Freud's psychoanalytical theory is more valid today than at the time he established it.....but we have to grant the fact that it remains more philosophical than scientific. I think a crucial component for better understanding Freud's ideas is the work of Lacan. In light of Lacan, in the post-industrial age of media advertisement and commodity fetishism, the ideological (what Marxists call "false consciousness") is expressed through these mediums. Because of this, new forms of obsession, depression, infatuation, and hysteria are present, I think, which, in a way, showcases many of Freud's theories. In other words, Freud was a bit posthumous.

If you imagine that the human being is basically a pathetic, agonizing creature which is at every point in its life trying to compensate for some kind of feeling of deprivation, lack, impotence, and powerlessness, and then suppose that capitalism/consumerism is the political/economic system that best accomodates a species in those conditions, everything begins to make sense suddenly. The best way to express our perverse desires and tolerate our inhibitions is through the free-market democratic system. A good analogy would be a cage of monkeys- just lock them up in the cage, give them complete freedom, and watch them through feces at each other.

There really isn't much more you can do with the human species as it is. Instead, there needs to be a radical change in the human being first, not the political system. I don't know about where you live, but where I live, if somebody snapped their fingers and poof.....we were socialists....we would be in far worse conditions than we were in before the change. The human being had been memetically engineered to be a dip-shit by industrial society.

[Kappie]

From ancient times, we have seen that religions have constantly justified class hierarchy in the form of

Ruling clergy
Feudal lords
Capitalist class
Dictators
Etc

My question is: can religion exist without a class hierarchy or, on the other hand, does religion exist solely to justify class hierarchy?

If we remove class hierarchy and eliminate classes, will religion still exist?

In order to remove class hierarchy and eliminate classes, you would first have to eliminate religion, particularly the major Revelatory religions, i.e. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, which are inherently hierarchical classist systems (i.e. God is at the top, Prophet speaks for God, priests speak for Prophet and so on).

Mystical, self-experience based spiritualities may be able to survive, as people are most likely always going to fantasize about the effects of "supernatural entities" in their lives/the world, however without any sort of hierarchy or class structure, there will be no way in which such systems can achieve or maintain any sort of uniformity of thought or ideology, hence they will not be religion in the sense of an organized entity.

[ibn Bruce]

Reason. No proof that god exists. No evidence that god exists. No reason to believe that god exists.

There is also no proof that anything beyond your perception exists, do you then deny that I do? It is ironic that many Atheists claim reason as a driving force, while simultaneously not taking reason to its logical absolute. If one is going to claim a sceptical position, one cannot use Empiricism to prove anything, as one must consistantly apply such scepticism, including to ones own reality. With the knowledge that all perception is subjective, no individual is capable of arguing anything based upon what they individually observe.


History. Almost all previous beliefs in supernatural deities have either been proven false, or abandoned. Why is yours any different?

Following every revelation is entropy, it makes sense. A Messenger comes, monotheism gets dilluted to polytheism, the law is abandoned and eventually the religions now based on confused assumptions collapse.


This isn't a logical argument. You are merely claiming that you see some things in some people, and others in other people, and hence one belief system is totally false and the other is true.

That was not really what I was trying to get across, merely that one should begin to look at belief systems according to what they give to their followers.


Atheism is simple: no proof, no evidence - no belief.
No Proof of objective reality, yet believe that one can 'prove' things using said objective reality, sounds insane to me.


Theism is insane: no proof, no evidence - belief.

Considering the Islamic understanding of God, all existance is 'proof'. God is a paradigm, like quarks in science, without empirical proof but taken to exist because it explains many things. Science is full of paradigms like that.

Cause and effect is the basis of all things in this Universe, but it is logical that this cycle of cause and effect cannot exist eternally, therefore there must be something that is not 'caused' but is also a cause. That is the thing we call God.


Why not believe in magical monkeys hiding in the walls? Volcanoes of ice cream? Unicorns with squid tentacles that attack bison in the milky way?

I wish I did, magic monkeys and icecream volcanoes rock! However they are not an explanation for a question not answered by science.


Well, you had derailed the thread claiming socialists would not grant "equality" for religious people. So, do you think religion can exist without class hierarchy? Do a separate class of priests or whatever you call them need to to exist in order for religion to exist? Most people here, including me, think not.

Yes, religion can exist without a class heirarchy. The question was in response to someone else, claiming that the aim of socialism was equality, a claim which I do not believe is consistent with the actions of many on this forum (not saying that it does not mean that socialism does not have that aim, merely that those claiming it can be hypocritical).



If you imagine that the human being is basically a pathetic, agonizing creature which is at every point in its life trying to compensate for some kind of feeling of deprivation, lack, impotence, and powerlessness, and then suppose that capitalism/consumerism is the political/economic system that best accomodates a species in those conditions, everything begins to make sense suddenly. The best way to express our perverse desires and tolerate our inhibitions is through the free-market democratic system. A good analogy would be a cage of monkeys- just lock them up in the cage, give them complete freedom, and watch them through feces at each other.

I don't imagine 'the human being' as such, I guess that is why Freud appeals to you and not me. You are right, Freud was a philosopher, not a psychologist, his ideas are not verifiable, therefore they cannot be trusted as 'science'.


In order to remove class hierarchy and eliminate classes, you would first have to eliminate religion, particularly the major Revelatory religions, i.e. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, which are inherently hierarchical classist systems (i.e. God is at the top, Prophet speaks for God, priests speak for Prophet and so on).

How does one 'eliminate religion'? Does hierarchy neccesitate class?

[GracchusBabeuf]

Yes, religion can exist without a class heirarchy.Ok. But what if believers forgot to believe one day. If there were no priests around to remind them of the wrath of God, do you think those "believers" will believe again. If so, why?

[ibn Bruce]

Ok. But what if believers forgot to believe one day. If there were no priests around to remind them of the wrath of God, do you think those "believers" will believe again. If so, why?

I don't have a priest around to 'remind me of the wrath of God'. I converted not based on fear of God's wrath if I did not. I converted through my own logic and enquiry. Only in the last week before I became Muslim did I talk to a Sheikh, and the role of a Sheikh is not the same as the role of a priest.

Sheikh's are not conduits for God or the Prophet sws, they are simply people who know the source material. If someone has a question about the Sha'riah, they can go to a Sheikh for clarification, if they don't like the answer, they can go to another Sheikh. We are encouraged to follow a single school of juridicial reasoning, but otherwise there is no 'heirarchy of Sheikhs' as there is in Catholocism (speaking for Sunni Islam, the Shia-t-Ali are different).

[Kronos]

Atheism is simple: no proof, no evidence - no belief.

No Proof of objective reality, yet believe that one can 'prove' things using said objective reality, sounds insane to me.Ah, but even if you (as an idealist) tried to play the radical empiricism card as Berkeley did, you would still have to concede an objective reality existed...regardless of whether or not it was all "in your mind".

You could even push a complete skeptical position, such as Descartes, and propose that you could never have certainty about anything other than "doubt", but in this case, you are implying an objective reality which you can doubt....and the position collapses into itself.

Really man, comparing atheistic skepticism to metaphysical skepticism is hardly worthwhile. Atheism is by default not a position...rather, it is a counterpoint to the empty position of theism. A true atheist would never say "God does not exist", since that would mean that the term god meant anything at all. A true atheist would answer, when asked the question "do you believe in god" with "I don't understand the question".

[PCommie]

There should be limited freedom of speech for these people. I don't want to hear their false fairy tale fantasy crap.

What gives you the right to determine what others can and cannot listen to? Nobody's forcing you to listen. Turn off your TV, don't go to church.

The fact is, organized religion is a personal choice. Nobody has mentioned that most church's doctrines preach how you should live, and if we all lived by them it would be a better world. I've yet to see a church advocate capitalism. It also interests me how people can judge organized religion without ever seeing how it would behave in a true communist society. I find it fascinating.

Also, there is more evidence for religion than against. Take Christianity (my religion):

What we have: Eyewitness accounts of Jesus Christ (The Bible, and people who have DIED, seen him, and been returned to life in hospitals. There are endless stories of that).

What atheists have: "It is ridiculous to believe there's a man in the sky watching us." Nice inference. Unfortunately, you're out-scienced.

By the way, if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still NATIVE Africans AND native AFRICAN monkeys? People are our supposed ancestors?

-PC

[Woland]

^ ^ ^ Eugh. This is why I doubt that the number of religious people is falling; they might even call themselves atheists though they will believe the same or different superstitious crap.

By the way, humans did not evolve from monkeys. Monkeys and humans have the same hominid ancestors.


By the way, if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still NATIVE Africans

What the fuck?

[PCommie]

Thank you, Woland, for taking my statement out of context and trying to make me sound like a rascist. The original quote was:


By the way, if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still NATIVE Africans AND native AFRICAN monkeys?

I am saying that there are people native to Africa, and monkeys native to Africa, so if we are evolved from them, why are there still NATIVE AFRICAN MONKEYS in Africa, and I'll thank you to keep me in context from now on.

-PC

[GracchusBabeuf]

I don't have a priest around to 'remind me of the wrath of God'.But do you think the level of servitude toward an invisible being that you claim to have reached can be reached by everyone of their own accord?


Sheikh's are not conduits for God or the Prophet sws, they are simply people who know the source material. If someone has a question about the Sha'riah, they can go to a Sheikh for clarification, if they don't like the answer, they can go to another Sheikh. We are encouraged to follow a single school of juridicial reasoning, but otherwise there is no 'heirarchy of Sheikhs' as there is in Catholocism (speaking for Sunni Islam, the Shia-t-Ali are different).
So you are bringing up a strawman (that of hierarchy among sheiks) and at the same time justifying hierarchy. The hierarchy talked of here is believers < sheiks.

If there were no such things as sheiks, there wouldn't be any believers either. From the perspective of the believer, there is not much difference if an "intercessory" person calls themselves sheiks, mullahs, priests or grand wizards or whatever. If there is no such class division, there is no incentive for people of the non-priest class to believe the crap.

[ibn Bruce]

You could even push a complete skeptical position, such as Descartes, and propose that you could never have certainty about anything other than "doubt", but in this case, you are implying an objective reality which you can doubt....and the position collapses into itself.

No, it doesn't. One can deny the existance of an objective reality without by doing so confirming its existance. I personally believe there is an objective reality, but I do not base my position upon implied access to it. An empiricist approach to metaphysical questions does just that.


Really man, comparing atheistic skepticism to metaphysical skepticism is hardly worthwhile. Atheism is by default not a position...rather, it is a counterpoint to the empty position of theism. A true atheist would never say "God does not exist", since that would mean that the term god meant anything at all. A true atheist would answer, when asked the question "do you believe in god" with "I don't understand the question".

It is funny then that that is not listed as a response in the 'do you believe' thread. One cannot say that the term God 'means nothing at all', as it obviously does, though what exactly it means to each individual differs. For some the word represents a delusion, to some a Man, and to some something that 'having no comprehension of, is comprehension'. An Atheist may to themselves place no heed in the term or what it means, but when they are in an oppositional position, attempting to prove or assert things, it becomes neccesary to engage.

A recent trend in Atheists is to couch themselves as the upholders of 'science', that to believe in God is not scientifically valid. This implies that such a thing was a scientific question. It also shows a profound ignorance of the history of even Western philosophical thought. The question is in itself beyond our perception (unless we are talking about the more anthropomorphic religions) and thus can only be answered through reason rather than empiricism.


But do you think the level of servitude toward an invisible being that you claim to have reached can be reached by everyone of their own accord?
A rejection of all attribution to that other in God will result in a state of Islam, Sheikh or no Sheikh.


So you are bringing up a strawman (that of hierarchy among sheiks) and at the same time justifying hierarchy. The hierarchy talked of here is believers < sheiks.
This hierarchy is that of patients < doctors, students < teachers, which I doubt greatly that anyone here plans to erase. Hierarchy, as the question seems to be implying, has connotations of some kind of coercive power.

In some religions, the believer can speak or confess to God only through a priest. In Islam, this is not needed. The purpose of Sheikhs is only to preserve and transmit the law, and this law comes in various forms. Sheikh means 'teacher', not priest. A Sheikh teaches Arabic, teaches jurisprudence, they do not teach Iman (a state of devotion), one can only find Iman and Islam through their own personal devotion and dedication. A Sheikh's position is contingent on 'ijma' (consensus) and without it their rulings mean nothing and no one would follow them.



If you got cut, would you go to a medical textbook and self teach? Or rather would you go to a doctor, someone who knew that medical textbook? You would go to a doctor.

Similarly, if you wanted to, you could read that textbook and maybe learn medicine. Then you would be a doctor. That is how a Sheikh is, not 'appointed', but learned. If that constitutes hierarchy, then fine, Islam needs such things.

[Jazzratt]

I am saying that there are people native to Africa, and monkeys native to Africa, so if we are evolved from them, why are there still NATIVE AFRICAN MONKEYS in Africa, and I'll thank you to keep me in context from now on.

-PC

Your post rests on the false assumption we evolved from monkeys and that anyone is positing that, as woland pointed out:


By the way, humans did not evolve from monkeys. Monkeys and humans have the same hominid ancestors.The answer to your asinine question should be obvious.

[PCommie]

If you got cut, would you go to a medical textbook and self teach? Or rather would you go to a doctor, someone who knew that medical textbook? You would go to a doctor.

Heh, no, I'd get the textbook, buddy. I stay away from borugeoise medicine as much as possible. ;)

Jazzrat, whatever. Let me show you a rationale:

FOR EVOLUTION:

Assuming there is no God, and skipping the problems of universe creation, we will skip directly the creation of planet Earth:

1) Space dust is pulled into an orbit around this stupid nuclear ball. It takes a long time to compress into a planet. The planet is at the PERFECT distance from the sun to sustain human-type life.

2) An atmosphere forms. By sheer coincidence, it is perfectly breathable. But that's the least argument here, since we may well have adapted to a different atmosphere.

3) Since the Earth went from space dust to a lava ball to a piece of rock, a comet would have to crash on the planet. This comet is carrying prokaryotic microbes from heaven-knows-where in the galaxy.

4) Humans are the only beings who are "sentient" on Earth. Consequently, these prokaryotes must have had some special qualities. Damn special. We are now suggesting "cosmic super-germs." Damn.

5) These things, over many, many eons, miraculously develop into beings with all kinds of advanced bodies and methods of internal homeostasis, the whole gene expression thing. DNA changes, eukaryotes develop, everything changes.

Now, the Christian theory:

1) A being, some kind of eternal being, creates a universe, planets, and everything on them. Problems? None, because he's omnipotent, and can simply do it.

I know someone will find a way to argue with me, but I find the Christian concept MUCH more plausible, and dropping your bias, looking at these two theoires as if you had never heard of God or anything before, you will know if your hearts that what I'm saying is true.

H&S forever,
-PC

[Kappie]

FOR EVOLUTION:

Assuming there is no God, and skipping the problems of universe creation, we will skip directly the creation of planet Earth:

1) Space dust is pulled into an orbit around this stupid nuclear ball. It takes a long time to compress into a planet. The planet is at the PERFECT distance from the sun to sustain human-type life.And of course, a practically infinite number of other planets, 8 of them in our own solar system (Pluto is a planet, God dammit), form as well, which are not the "PERFECT" distance from the sun to contain human-type life. Does it really seem so strange that one of these infinite number of planets happens to be able to bear life as we know it?


2) An atmosphere forms. By sheer coincidence, it is perfectly breathable. But that's the least argument here, since we may well have adapted to a different atmosphere. And, in fact, life exists without air, look at all the life under water. In fact, life is so versatile that scientists have discovered life which lives in environments (such as miles down in the ocean) where it was previously assumed that it would be impossible for life to exist. Go figure.


3) Since the Earth went from space dust to a lava ball to a piece of rock, a comet would have to crash on the planet. This comet is carrying prokaryotic microbes from heaven-knows-where in the galaxy.Why, exactly, would the prokaryotic microbes have had to come from a comet exactly? Most scientists do not hold to such a theory, and believe that they developed right here on Earth, and potential ways they may have initially formed have been studied successfully through experimentation, although certainly there is still much to discover on how prokaryotes and life in general first originated.


4) Humans are the only beings who are "sentient" on Earth. Consequently, these prokaryotes must have had some special qualities. Damn special. We are now suggesting "cosmic super-germs." Damn.And Duck-billed platypuses are the only mammals that lay eggs. Doesn't make them "cosmic super-germs." By the way, do you understand the meaning of the word "cosmic"?


5) These things, over many, many eons, miraculously develop into beings with all kinds of advanced bodies and methods of internal homeostasis, the whole gene expression thing. DNA changes, eukaryotes develop, everything changes.The more things change, the more they stay the same...


Now, the Christian theory:

1) A being, some kind of eternal being, creates a universe, planets, and everything on them. Problems? None, because he's omnipotent, and can simply do it.Where, exactly, did this cosmic "some kind of eternal" omnipotent superbeing come from? Why trade a mystical magic man in the sky for whom no evidence exists for an explanation which, as amazing and incredible as it is, is based upon observable and verifiable scientific laws?


I know someone will find a way to argue with me, but I find the Christian concept MUCH more plausible, and dropping your bias, looking at these two theories as if you had never heard of God or anything before, you will know if your hearts that what I'm saying is true.No, most people wouldn't. For the most part, people tend to side with a story which bears closest resemblance to their conception of reality. A person who had never heard of God before, who knew nothing of spiritualism or mysticism or the supernatural or any of that, would typically tend towards naturalistic explanations. For example, if I happened to bump into you on the street and you asked me how I got there, you would believe the idea that I had driven or walked there more plausible than the idea that "some sort of eternal" omnipotent superbeing had teleported me to that exact spot at that exact time, because people moving about by walking or driving does not violate any of your sense of understanding of how the world operates.

[Decolonize The Left]

There is also no proof that anything beyond your perception exists, do you then deny that I do?

No, there's plenty of proof that things beyond our perception exist - namely, the perceptions of others. That is how the scientific method functions in it's third phase: test repeatedly through observation in such a manner that any independent observer can do the same.


It is ironic that many Atheists claim reason as a driving force, while simultaneously not taking reason to its logical absolute. If one is going to claim a sceptical position, one cannot use Empiricism to prove anything, as one must consistantly apply such scepticism, including to ones own reality. With the knowledge that all perception is subjective, no individual is capable of arguing anything based upon what they individually observe.

Perhaps you are confused about the meaning of skepticism?

What you speak of here is called "Cartesian skepticism," and it is the belief that one can doubt anything (including one's perceptions) except 'to be.' Cartesian skepticism has long since been debunked as a fairly pointless exercise, for in order to doubt one must already be 'a self,' and in order to be a self one must be a person - hence one must have a material existence. If one has a material existence, one necessarily exists within something else, namely, the universe.

Basically, Cartesian skepticism falls into it's own pit of reductive absurdity for it uses the senses, and the brain, to claim that these may not exist. It's quite foolish really.


Following every revelation is entropy, it makes sense. A Messenger comes, monotheism gets dilluted to polytheism, the law is abandoned and eventually the religions now based on confused assumptions collapse.

You have already posited the existence of a supreme being, hence this claim falls to my earlier critique.


That was not really what I was trying to get across, merely that one should begin to look at belief systems according to what they give to their followers.

But this is nonsensical. Ex: Nazism gave great support to its followers - made them feel very special. Does this mean it's great?


No Proof of objective reality, yet believe that one can 'prove' things using said objective reality, sounds insane to me.

"Proof" exists within objective reality for it is the confirmation of something existing - given that "objective reality" is existence, one cannot "prove" anything outside of objective reality.


Considering the Islamic understanding of God, all existance is 'proof'. God is a paradigm, like quarks in science, without empirical proof but taken to exist because it explains many things. Science is full of paradigms like that.

What, exactly, does "god explain?" And how is this explanation considered to be reasonable in any sense?


Cause and effect is the basis of all things in this Universe, but it is logical that this cycle of cause and effect cannot exist eternally, therefore there must be something that is not 'caused' but is also a cause. That is the thing we call God.

The 'eternal cause' argument has also long-since been debunked as a pathetic attempt to shove the existence of god into that which hasn't been explained scientifically.

Here's why it's a bunch of nonsense:
1) The relationship of cause and effect may not be absolute.
2) The relationship of cause and effect cannot be simplified into 'one cause = one effect.'
3) There is no reason to believe there was 'an initial cause.'

As for 3, perhaps you have heard of the theory of the universe expanding (as it is doing now) until the total gravity of all objects in the universe surpasses a boundary causing the universe to contract back upon itself into a 'reverse big bang?' Theoretically, this universe could then re-expand in another big bang thereby creating a new universe.

Which is more plausible? A simple theory based upon physics, or a theory which posits without justification the existence of a supreme being making the universe expand?


I wish I did, magic monkeys and icecream volcanoes rock! However they are not an explanation for a question not answered by science.

But they are equally as valid as the explanation of god. Neither make rational sense and neither have justification.

- August

[ibn Bruce]

No, there's plenty of proof that things beyond our perception exist - namely, the perceptions of others. That is how the scientific method functions in it's third phase: test repeatedly through observation in such a manner that any independent observer can do the same.

How is it that the perceptions of others, which is something you PERCIEVE is proof of your own perception?


Perhaps you are confused about the meaning of skepticism?

What you speak of here is called "Cartesian skepticism," and it is the belief that one can doubt anything (including one's perceptions) except 'to be.' Cartesian skepticism has long since been debunked as a fairly pointless exercise, for in order to doubt one must already be 'a self,' and in order to be a self one must be a person - hence one must have a material existence. If one has a material existence, one necessarily exists within something else, namely, the universe.

Basically, Cartesian skepticism falls into it's own pit of reductive absurdity for it uses the senses, and the brain, to claim that these may not exist. It's quite foolish really.


Its funny, most of the people I know, that have studied philosophy have come to the conclusion that Descartes conclusion was innevitable, and not really disprovable. However they make assumptions, paradigms, about existance in order to create other hypotheses about such things.


But this is nonsensical. Ex: Nazism gave great support to its followers - made them feel very special. Does this mean it's great?
Having had family who grew up on both sides of the Third Reich (oppressed and oppressors), neither got much out of it. I don't even think Hitler was happy, and he definately wasn't a good person to the people around him!


"Proof" exists within objective reality for it is the confirmation of something existing - given that "objective reality" is existence, one cannot "prove" anything outside of objective reality.
Objective reality is not your existance, or my existance, it is taken to be something that somehow exists outside of both. A reality with which we interact and see different sides of. Thus for one to make a claim about 'objective reality' based upon their own perception, is insane, because they only see their side.

It is like the 5 blind men and the elephant, one 'sees' a snake, another a tree and so on and so forth.


What, exactly, does "god explain?" And how is this explanation considered to be reasonable in any sense?
God explains the original source of existance. If cause and effect defines this universe, and it is also illogical to say that everything always existed, then there logically must be something which 'caused' the beginning... yet that thing must similarly not be bound by the laws of 'cause and effect' in order to not be subject to the same issues.


As for 3, perhaps you have heard of the theory of the universe expanding (as it is doing now) until the total gravity of all objects in the universe surpasses a boundary causing the universe to contract back upon itself into a 'reverse big bang?' Theoretically, this universe could then re-expand in another big bang thereby creating a new universe.

Indeed, which is a theory, as we do not know whether the force of this expansion is absolute (and therefore continuing) or if it is not, in which case the universe will collapse into the 'Big Crunch'. These things are not proven, and even if they were they do not adequately explain the source issue.

You say 'may not be absolute', assert that cause and effect cannot be simplified to one cause and one effect (which I do not do) and finally say that 'there is no reason to believe that there was an initial cause'. These are not resounding arguments, as even if the expand collapse process, string theory or multiverse are true (I am very partial to multiverse theory myself) there still needs to be a starting point for it all. Energy does not materialise of its own accord EVER.

It is probable that the same amount of energy is in this universe, the same amount of matter and anti-matter, as there was at the Big Bang. If this is not true, and energy is fed into this universe through other universes etc. then there still needs to be an originating point. You have not debunked this. And it has not been debunked, despite your assertion.

In terms of plausability, I have no problem as a Muslim with the Big Bang, or even (I was talking to my Sheikh about this the other night) theories of the Multiverse (one interpretation of a verse in the Qu'ran is 'Lord of the Universes', plural). I take them as scientifically good explanations, however I do not take them as metaphysical ones.

[Jazzratt]

1) Space dust is pulled into an orbit around this stupid nuclear ball. It takes a long time to compress into a planet. The planet is at the PERFECT distance from the sun to sustain human-type life.

Yes, and?


2) An atmosphere forms. By sheer coincidence, it is perfectly breathable. But that's the least argument here, since we may well have adapted to a different atmosphere.

Yes, and?


3) Since the Earth went from space dust to a lava ball to a piece of rock, a comet would have to crash on the planet. This comet is carrying prokaryotic microbes from heaven-knows-where in the galaxy.

LOLWUT? Who makes this claim?


4) Humans are the only beings who are "sentient" on Earth. Consequently, these prokaryotes must have had some special qualities. Damn special. We are now suggesting "cosmic super-germs." Damn.

No, you're the one positing cosmic super germs. Are you high? You shouldn't be trying to argue your (insane) point while high.


5) These things, over many, many eons, miraculously develop into beings with all kinds of advanced bodies and methods of internal homeostasis, the whole gene expression thing. DNA changes, eukaryotes develop, everything changes.

You paid some sort of attention in biology lessons. Your "magic germs from space" theory is a fairly unique one though. (There is a hypothesis that we were hit by a chunk of mars containing martian proto-life, perhaps that's what your trying to get at?)


Now, the Christian theory:

Goddidit, I bet that's the theory. It's the same one you lot used to describe why we stay on the ground, why we get diseases and so on.


1) A being, some kind of eternal being, creates a universe, planets, and everything on them. Problems? None, because he's omnipotent, and can simply do it.

I was right. Problems? Where did this eternal being come from, why did it make everything, where is it now, why did it put every possible effort into making it look like it didn't make everything, why do things evolve?


I know someone will find a way to argue with me, but I find the Christian concept MUCH more plausible, and dropping your bias, looking at these two theoires as if you had never heard of God or anything before, you will know if your hearts that what I'm saying is true.

In my heart I know that you must have eaten a whole mess of paint chips as a kid. Goddamn.

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

OF COURSE IT WILL



I like big letters.But any way it will just not the harmful parts of them.

[JFMLenin]

A belief in God, higher power, or whatever will still exist because belief can still exist without what I would call organized dogmatic fascism (one of my favorite terms, as I am sure you can tell). There are plenty of people who would say they believe without being religious, I would be one of them. I call myself a Muslim, because I think they get the core tenets of belief down better than most other religions, but I'm more of a non-doctrinaire believer in God. But, regardless, belief will still exist even without dogma or doctrine or a clergy class, it will be better than what it is now, that's for sure.

[Decolonize The Left]

First, my apologies for neglecting your response.


How is it that the perceptions of others, which is something you PERCIEVE is proof of your own perception?

It isn't - it is the collective perceptions, available to any independent observer, which is proof.


Its funny, most of the people I know, that have studied philosophy have come to the conclusion that Descartes conclusion was innevitable, and not really disprovable. However they make assumptions, paradigms, about existance in order to create other hypotheses about such things.

Descartes' conclusion was absurd. It's totally pointless and fruitless.


Having had family who grew up on both sides of the Third Reich (oppressed and oppressors), neither got much out of it. I don't even think Hitler was happy, and he definately wasn't a good person to the people around him!

Your personal stories are irrelevant to your original claim:

That was not really what I was trying to get across, merely that one should begin to look at belief systems according to what they give to their followers.

Such a claim is terribly flawed as "what they give to their followers" is far too relative to be of any use to this discussion.


Objective reality is not your existance, or my existance, it is taken to be something that somehow exists outside of both. A reality with which we interact and see different sides of. Thus for one to make a claim about 'objective reality' based upon their own perception, is insane, because they only see their side.

It is like the 5 blind men and the elephant, one 'sees' a snake, another a tree and so on and so forth.

What each of them "sees" is their perception, a piece of what we call "reality." We deduce that there is an elephant, because there are non-blind people observing the blind people touching the elephant...


God explains the original source of existance. If cause and effect defines this universe, and it is also illogical to say that everything always existed, then there logically must be something which 'caused' the beginning... yet that thing must similarly not be bound by the laws of 'cause and effect' in order to not be subject to the same issues.

You have assumed:
a) Cause and effect is a finite, determinable, relationship.
b) Cause and effect is a linear, singular, sequence of events.
c) The supposed sequence of cause and effect actually started somewhere/time.

None of these assumptions is completely justified and hence your claim that god started it all is unjustified as well. It's also ridiculous - just because we don't know what happened doesn't mean god did it.

You sound like the pagans who thought the stars were gods. They aren't. They're balls of hydrogen. But they didn't know that... so is the 'original cause' god? You don't know, but you assume it is because it gives you comfort.


Indeed, which is a theory, as we do not know whether the force of this expansion is absolute (and therefore continuing) or if it is not, in which case the universe will collapse into the 'Big Crunch'. These things are not proven, and even if they were they do not adequately explain the source issue.

They might not explain the source issue entirely, but they allow us far more reason to determine the source rather than absolute blind unjustified belief in a deity.


You say 'may not be absolute', assert that cause and effect cannot be simplified to one cause and one effect (which I do not do) and finally say that 'there is no reason to believe that there was an initial cause'. These are not resounding arguments, as even if the expand collapse process, string theory or multiverse are true (I am very partial to multiverse theory myself) there still needs to be a starting point for it all. Energy does not materialise of its own accord EVER.

No. But it can be recycled.


It is probable that the same amount of energy is in this universe, the same amount of matter and anti-matter, as there was at the Big Bang. If this is not true, and energy is fed into this universe through other universes etc. then there still needs to be an originating point. You have not debunked this. And it has not been debunked, despite your assertion.

All this is irrelevant to the possibility of there not being an 'original cause.'


In terms of plausability, I have no problem as a Muslim with the Big Bang, or even (I was talking to my Sheikh about this the other night) theories of the Multiverse (one interpretation of a verse in the Qu'ran is 'Lord of the Universes', plural). I take them as scientifically good explanations, however I do not take them as metaphysical ones.

Fine. But you are positing without justification, and unnecessarily the existence of god. You seem to be well-educated, and hence you should understand that unnecessary additions to any theory only weaken the theory. Positing god does nothing but weaken any theory for it is entirely absurd.

- August

[Patchd]

From ancient times, we have seen that religions have constantly justified class hierarchy in the form of

Ruling clergy
Feudal lords
Capitalist class
Dictators
Etc

My question is: can religion exist without a class hierarchy or, on the other hand, does religion exist solely to justify class hierarchy?

If we remove class hierarchy and eliminate classes, will religion still exist?

Also, at the same time, some religions/religious denominations have condemned them. Remember that religions aren't a homogeneous group, there are many different denominations in all main religions, some are extremely Conservative, others are largely Liberal, or even Communalist.

The same goes for politics. Let's take Communism for example, some 'Communists' have condoned and upheld privilege, dictatorships, oppression and exploitation, while other 'Communists' have condemned these things.

Organised religion, I believe, is mutually exclusive to post-revolutionary, classless society, mainly because Organised religion is based on hierarchy, privilege, and individual authority. If we are to abolish all forms of hierarchy, then religion should not be exempt. Can religion coexist in a classless society? Yes, if it isn't in the form of authoritative churches and sects, as long as priests and imams, and other figures of religious representation are reclaimed in their traditional sense, of just a person within a community, mandated by those in the community, to pretty much chair prayer sessions, meetings or give religious advice, rather than spiritual or material authority.

Religious freedom to the point where it does not contradict a liberated society.


Now, the Christian theory:

1) A being, some kind of eternal being, creates a universe, planets, and everything on them. Problems? None, because he's omnipotent, and can simply do it.

As Jazzratt has already mentioned, where did this being come from? How was it so meticulously designed? Surely if everything must come from somewhere, where then did this magical God of yours come from? Your logic simply does not follow.

In addition, may I point you to another problem with Christianity. The Bible dictates that God is all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing. If that is the case, why then are some parts of the world deprived of food and water? Why then do volcanoes erupt destroying lands and killing people, and tidal waves flooding large areas of the world burying people in the process? This all-loving God of yours must surely want to end this suffering of ours, and seeing as, even as you admitted it, he is all-powerful, why then does he not stop it?

This is a blatant contradiction in the nature of your God, either, he is a right bastard and is responsible for all the suffering in the world, or is powerful enough to be able to stop it but simply does not want to, in which case, even if he did exist, he does not warrant our worship of him, or he is not all-powerful, in which case, the claim that he can simply make himself come into existence, or that he can do almost anything (including the creation of the universe) goes completely out the window because if he is not powerful enough to stop famine, stop diseases and so forth, then how can he be powerful enough to create or even destroy worlds?

[h0m0revolutionary]

Religious freedom to the point where it does not contradict a liberated society.


I agree to an extent, but I hold that religion is not a productive force and to be blunt, i dont think it can be. Therefore I dont think it's sufficient to just state that religious belief is ok, as long as it isn't organised..

I think religion in and of itself is something we should be fighting against, I don't need to plaster this wall with examples of homophobia, misogyny etc to proove this point

Religion isn't just incompatible with communism when it becomes organised. To suggest this is to allege that when religion becomes something other than an individual quest for salvation it becomes distorted; that religion is fine - but evolves into something worrisome when a number religious people congregate under a banner.

I think is misguided, i think religion, organised, innate, orthodox, liberal or otherwise is a problem for us. A very simple look at some of the very basic teachings of some of the largest religions shows religion quite clearly to be a conservative force. Seeing as we do not favour the staus quo (radical I know https://acod.info/images/smilies/biggrin.gif).. then religion is a problem for us, for example:

- Monotheism especially teaches that the world is created by God an omnipotent and benevolent being, change therefore is blasphemy as it goes against the creations of the lord.
- Even if the above isn't true of all religions, the majority of religions hold praise for the afterlife, so why bother changing existing society when you can seek salvation in heaven? when you're reborn? When [insert prophet/saint here] returns...?

There are a number of other ways, but you get the point.

That isn't to say I support the state or any other governing body regulating the private realm in such matters. The example of Soviet Russia dissuades me on that front, where state sponsored atheist campaigns spilt the blood of thousands of people and mobilised a great number of people against the Communist cause. But this doesn't mean promotion of atheism is counter-productive, rather that inconsistent anti-theism is hypocritical. Soviet expansionist ambitions for the Middle East (Iran and Afghanistan namely) for example lead them to maintain great relations with the Islamic denominations within the Union, similarly after years of anti-Semitism the Jewish community within Russia enjoyed good relations with the Bolshevik Party (for some time anyhows..), simultaneously the Russian State was funding groups such as the League of the Godless (later League of the Militant Godless), were pillaging the Russian Orthodox Church, burning their buildings, looting their gold reserves and show-trialling their church heirarchs.

The example of Spain too shows that the looting of the churches is a completely necessary tactic for us, when all funding from elsewhere is cut off and counter-revolutionary forces muster. At this point religious people will have an innate battle, so they side with their religion, their believe in God and their church, or do they battle for human freedom and liberation?

Religion and communism isn't compatible tere will always be a point where people begin to question which cause they believe in more. Furthermore to assume only organised religion is problematic to our values and beliefs is something i'd question..

[Revy]

I think that more "alternative" forms of spirituality may be more popular, less focused on "worship" and more focused on the idea that one can "commune" with "forces" or a non-sentient "Universal Spirit". Many of these people could also see themselves as atheists since their belief system would not be compatible with the traditional definition of theism.

I think as time goes on, people will eventually grow weary of the "Sky Daddy" belief system, which is obviously not working out well for anyone, and realize that if something exists, it's not here to help us, and it doesn't even care about us one way or the other.

[x359594]

...If we remove class hierarchy and eliminate classes, will religion still exist?

Since religion partakes of the irrational (or non-rational) I think we must assume that it will continue to exist in some form or other even in a classless society. We can't expect the irrational to disappear because social arrangements have changed.

[Patchd]

I agree to an extent, but I hold that religion is not a productive force and to be blunt, i dont think it can be. Therefore I dont think it's sufficient to just state that religious belief is ok, as long as it isn't organised..

I think religion in and of itself is something we should be fighting against, I don't need to plaster this wall with examples of homophobia, misogyny etc to proove this point

I agree, but when it isn't organised in a dangerous manner, then it should not be fought against with force, but rather, logic. I would not like to live in a society where I am not allowed to 'think' a certain way, one reason why I'd rather live in Britain than North Korea for example.

Again, if certain religions, denominations or practices contradicts liberated society, as I stated in my last post, then it should be abolished. Homophobia, sexism, ageism, racism and so forth, contradict a liberated society. We can't stop people holding those views, but what we can stop is their right to represent those views publicly. Many people will use the argument against religion that religion stems from a common lowest denominator belief, and I agree with that sentiment. However, what a lot of people take to be the lowest common denominator of religion, let's take Christianity for example, is the bible, the whole bible and nothing but the bible!

Now, that's unfair, simply because religion has advanced to the stage where not everything in the bible is taken literally, or even agreed with by some Christians. A Christian friend of mine for example, does not believe in the omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence of God, yet, he is still a Christian because of his belief in Jesus being the embodiment of God in human form, as well as complying with a number of Jesus' teachings, in fact he's an Anarcho-Syndicalist because of his religious beliefs. Religion is no longer a single lined doctrine, where every word has to be taken literally, just as Marxism doesn't rely on Marxists taking every single word of Marx literally. I still think religious belief is irrational, but there are still too many misconceptions about it, especially within the revolutionary left.


- Monotheism especially teaches that the world is created by God an omnipotent and benevolent being, change therefore is blasphemy as it goes against the creations of the lord.
- Even if the above isn't true of all religions, the majority of religions hold praise for the afterlife, so why bother changing existing society when you can seek salvation in heaven? when you're reborn? When [insert prophet/saint here] returns...?

Yes, but we're talking about a society free from class hierarchy here.

In addition:

- Your first premise is wrong, change isn't seen as blasphemous for many monotheists, including many Conservative monotheists. For many monotheists, change is simply seen as another process in God's plans. So, for many, change isn't shunned, but welcomed, or accepted.

- On your second point, despite many people holding religious views and beliefs in an afterlife of some sort, it does not abolish their want for a decent material life. Obviously there are some nutjobs out there who go out of their way to make themselves suffer by becoming hermits, or monks (or vegans ;) :D :blushing: ), but the majority of people want to be able to have food on the table, have a roof over their head, not have long working hours. If your second point was true, I would then like to see you explain why charities exist.


The example of Spain too shows that the looting of the churches is a completely necessary tactic for us, when all funding from elsewhere is cut off and counter-revolutionary forces muster. At this point religious people will have an innate battle, so they side with their religion, their believe in God and their church, or do they battle for human freedom and liberation?

Oh fuck the church. That Christian Anarcho-Syndicalist mate of mine even condoned it, for the same reasons as you suggested, as well as for his dislike/distrust for Organised religion. One of his arguments too was, if the militias were fighting for an egalitarian, communalist society, then the Church was obliged to give up their resources for the benefit of human kind. That is the primary purpose of the church, to serve God, and it was his (religious) belief that the way to serve God was to serve "his Children": us, humanity. So not all religious beliefs are reactionary.

[Comrade Anarchist]

the whole idea of most religions is that there is something above us that is greater than us so it creates a hierarchie which undermines a classless society.

[Patchd]

the whole idea of most religions is that there is something above us that is greater than us so it creates a hierarchie which undermines a classless society.

Yes, but if an individual chooses to remain in that mindset, who are you to force them to lose it? Yes, theism enforces the idea of hierarchy, but it doesn't necessarily mean that that expression of hierarchy will be transferred to reality. Like I've mentioned before, some Christians, especially the liberal, socialist or anarchist ones, tend to see God as the one occupying the top spot on the hierarchy pyramid, yet, every other human being is equal before him.