Religious commies, unite!

[PCommie]

This thread is here to unite the religious communists of this forum. The goal of this thread is to develop new ideology that allows ORGANIZED religion and communism to coexist. I ask that no anti-religious, Marxist sentiment be posted here, only the thoughts of Christians, Jews, Muslims, whoever will come forth. Atheist input is welcome ONLY if it is an idea on church/communism coexistance, NOT why religion is bad, please.

H&S forever,
-PC

[Glorious Union]

Eh, organised religion? Maybe, if it is organised in the sense of "Oh hai guys, lets get together and pray" and not in the sense of "Hey you! I'm the preisty-leader-guy and say you have to do this and that, hur hur hur."

I myself am religious, but I have no "preistly leaders" or anything of the like and I don't intend on finding any.

And on a side note, why did you only list monotheisms up there?

[PCommie]

I listed major religions. I welcome all, comrade, and thanks for contributing.

-PC

[Plagueround]

I think it's a bit dubious to assume in the first place that religion and communism cannot co-exist. Even Lenin had this to say on the subject (and believe me, I don't often quote people):


We must not only admit workers who preserve their belief in God into the Social-Democratic Party, but must deliberately set out to recruit them; we are absolutely opposed to giving the slightest offense to their religious convictions, but we recruit them in order to educate them in the spirit of our programme, and not in order to permit an active struggle against it.

However, what should not be tolerated is allowing religion to influence or alter communist ideology to suit and benefit the believers of a particular religion over the rest of the people. Therefore, I don't think any new ideology is needed. We simply need to be vigilant and objective in making sure neither religion or communism move to repress each other. Historically, this has resulted in clashes, but this is not suitable evidence to say that communism is and always will move forcefully against religion, and I would argue that the suppression of religion was almost always the result of religion moving against communism (for example, during the Spanish Revolution where the catholic church backed the fascists).

[Vanguard1917]

I think it's a bit dubious to assume in the first place that religion and communism cannot co-exist. Even Lenin had this to say on the subject (and believe me, I don't often quote people):

He also said that

'Marxism has always regarded all modern religions and churches, and each and every religious organisation, as instruments of bourgeois reaction that serve to defend exploitation and to befuddle the working class.'

and that

'Marxism is materialism. As such, it is as relentlessly hostile to religion as was the materialism of the eighteenth-century Encyclopaedists or the materialism of Feuerbach.'

I think that this sums up the Marxist attitude to religion perfectly:

'We must combat religion—that is the ABC of all materialism, and consequently of Marxism. But Marxism is not a materialism which has stopped at the ABC. Marxism goes further. It says: We must know how to combat religion, and in order to do so we must explain the source of faith and religion among the masses in a materialist way. The combating of religion cannot be confined to abstract ideological preaching, and it must not be reduced to such preaching. It must be linked up with the concrete practice of the class movement, which aims at eliminating the social roots of religion. Why does religion retain its hold on the backward sections of the town proletariat, on broad sections of the semi-proletariat, and on the mass of the peasantry? Because of the ignorance of the people, replies the bourgeois progressist, the radical or the bourgeois materialist. And so: “Down with religion and long live atheism; the dissemination of atheist views is our chief task!” The Marxist says that this is not true, that it is a superficial view, the view of narrow bourgeois uplifters. It does not explain the roots of religion profoundly enough; it explains them, not in a materialist but in an idealist way. In modern capitalist countries these roots are mainly social. The deepest root of religion today is the socially downtrodden condition of the working masses and their apparently complete helplessness in face of the blind forces of capitalism, which every day and every hour inflicts upon ordinary working people the most horrible suffering and the most savage torment, a thousand times more severe than those inflicted by extra-ordinary events, such as wars, earthquakes, etc. “Fear made the gods.” Fear of the blind force of capital—blind because it cannot be foreseen by the masses of the people—a force which at every step in the life of the proletarian and small proprietor threatens to inflict, and does inflict “sudden”, “unexpected”, “accidental” ruin, destruction, pauperism, prostitution, death from starvation—such is the root of modern religion which the materialist must bear in mind first and foremost, if he does not want to remain an infant-school materialist. No educational book can eradicate religion from the minds of masses who are crushed by capitalist hard labour, and who are at the mercy of the blind destructive forces of capitalism, until those masses themselves learn to fight this root of religion, fight the rule of capital in all its forms, in a united, organised, planned and conscious way.'
- Lenin

[Plagueround]

He also said that

- Lenin

I would say all of that is still quite consistent with what I was saying. I was simply saying I think Marxism will crush religion by logic, not by a boot.

[Random Precision]

Off-topic post trashed, and Joe can consider himself verbally warned for flaming. That said, PCommie, you don't have the right to restrict replies to those that you approve of.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Religion could just eventually dissolve once Communism is achived, but i'm leaving it as that...

Anyway, I have no problem with religion as long as it's kept secular. People can worship whatever they want in their own home. It's the preaching I don't like.

[Plagueround]

If Marxism could crush religion 'by logic' then religion would have been crushed in the 1800s. Clearly, the logic of something doesn't affect its existence, particularly something like religion which is a social phenomenon with all the implications that that bears...

Perhaps "by logic" is a simplistic way of putting it. However, if socialism becomes a dominant force in the world and brings along greater education and the like, it will impact the influence religion holds over people's mind.

[trivas7]

Perhaps "by logic" is a simplistic way of putting it. However, if socialism becomes a dominant force in the world and brings along greater education and the like, it will impact the influence religion holds over people's mind.
Agreed. Religion as a social force -- in the West at least -- fortunately continues to decline.

[MarxSchmarx]

I think we can exploit the religious belief of many to induce them to become serious leftists. Every religion is vaguely leftist, and especially nowadays that most organized religions have embraced leftists talking points like tolerance and helping the poor over fire and brimstone.

Put another way, religious views can open the mind to accept communism. And frankly I don't care too much if the person next to me during a picket or a demonstration wears a turban or a white collar. We all have our own personal reasons for joining the struggle.

[JimmyJazz]

I think Marxism will crush religion by logic, not by a boot.

In practice, the line between these can be blurry. The Bolshies, for instance, staged parades on religious holidays where they'd carry sacrilegious images and chant poems crudely making fun of religion. The response of the peasantry, according to one writer, was "dumb horror".

[mikelepore]

I was simply saying I think Marxism will crush religion by logic, not by a boot.

I don't see how logic can do it. There's no actual contradiction in the proposition that some invisible and otherwise undetectable thing exists, whether its a god or a unicorn. The most that logic and science can do against religion is make no reference to it, not use it as part of any explanation.

[Plagueround]

I'm not sure why people are still picking apart that one sentence after I took the time to clarify what I said (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1386626&postcount=9). It's like when people try to tear apart the LTV using the "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". One is more rhetoric and one is an in depth economic theory.

I would think that a sentence such as "Marxism will crush religion by logic, not by a boot" would be taken as more of a "propaganda phrase". Perhaps I've once again fallen pray to the "emoticon blues".

P.S. there is an intentional word misuse and play on word in this post. I am aware of it.

[benhur]

Religion isn't the problem. A person may believe in god, and yet believe in the common ownership of MoP. OTOH, an atheist might well believe in the private ownership of MoP. Who's going to be more inclined toward communism?

This is why I feel communists are not only wasting time, but antagonizing potential supporters with their obsession over religion.

[Coggeh]

Religion isn't the problem. A person may believe in god, and yet believe in the common ownership of MoP. OTOH, an atheist might well believe in the private ownership of MoP. Who's going to be more inclined toward communism?

This is why I feel communists are not only wasting time, but antagonizing potential supporters with their obsession over religion.
Aye your right . Communist organisations should be secular not athiest .

[Invincible Summer]

This thread is here to unite the religious communists of this forum. The goal of this thread is to develop new ideology that allows ORGANIZED religion and communism to coexist. I ask that no anti-religious, Marxist sentiment be posted here, only the thoughts of Christians, Jews, Muslims, whoever will come forth. Atheist input is welcome ONLY if it is an idea on church/communism coexistance, NOT why religion is bad, please.

H&S forever,
-PC

Why do you insist on perpetuating the absurd idea that only Marxists can be anti-religious?

[Kronos]

As a preliminary requirement, please review this lesson before posting in this thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fINh4SsOyBw

[Killfacer]

If god exists why aren't we all communists anyway? Surely he's omnipotent, so with a click of his fingers he could make us all commies...

[LOLseph Stalin]

If god exists why aren't we all communists anyway? Surely he's omnipotent, so with a click of his fingers he could make us all commies...

Technically he could, but even god hates Commies. ;)

[PCommie]

Lots to answer.


That said, PCommie, you don't have the right to restrict replies to those that you approve of.

I know I don't have the right, but I thought that out of deference to me and our religious comrades, our atheist comrades would kindly keep their views out of this thread as I asked. I would not push my religious views in an atheist thread, but apparantly "courtesy" does not exist here.


Religion isn't the problem. A person may believe in god, and yet believe in the common ownership of MoP. OTOH, an atheist might well believe in the private ownership of MoP. Who's going to be more inclined toward communism?

This is why I feel communists are not only wasting time, but antagonizing potential supporters with their obsession over religion.

I am inclined to agree, but not until I know what MoP is. ;)


If god exists why aren't we all communists anyway? Surely he's omnipotent, so with a click of his fingers he could make us all commies...

Well if you want to get into a theological debate fine. It doesn't work like that. God gave man freedom of will, which is where we screwed up in the first place by eating the damn fruit.

I'm here to advocate freedom of the church, not my personal beliefs, but if others want to start it, I don't have a problem responding with full-blown religious perspective.


Technically he could, but even god hates Commies. ;)

This statement is baseless. There are many passages in the Bible that advocate communist methods. Besides that, God hates nobody. You clearly do not understand Christianity, so please don't make unfounded and completly incorrect statements.

-PC

[Kappie]

This statement is baseless. There are many passages in the Bible that advocate communist methods. Besides that, God hates nobody. You clearly do not understand Christianity, so please don't make unfounded and completly incorrect statements.

-PCYou clearly haven't read enough of the Bible. Here are a couple of examples just off the top of my head, first from Malachi chapter 1:
I have loved you," says the LORD. "But you ask, 'How have you loved us?' "Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" the LORD says. "Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals."And another from ye olde Book of Proverbs

There are six things the LORD hates,
seven that are detestable to him:

haughty eyes,
a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood,

a heart that devises wicked schemes,
feet that are quick to rush into evil,

a false witness who pours out lies
and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.

[Glorious Union]

*Stuff from the bible


So, technicly, we are trying to be better than God by constructing communism? No wonder most of the religious hate us! :lol:

[Jazzratt]

If god exists why aren't we all communists anyway? Surely he's omnipotent, so with a click of his fingers he could make us all commies...

In before they wheel out the knackered old "free will" bollocks.

EDIT: Bugger, too late.

[PCommie]

You are referencing OT stuff. Again, the NT is God's new covenant with man. Second, Biblical language is different than modern language. "Hate" means "opposed to."

-PC

[Jazzratt]

You are referencing OT stuff. Again, the NT is God's new covenant with man. Second, Biblical language is different than modern language. "Hate" means "opposed to."

-PC

Really? Could you source the linguistic scholars that claim that?

[PCommie]

It's obvious. Look at the context. Look at the stuff about "God's undying love for man" and whatever. Christianity is not based on what the linguistic scholars think, it's based on how the Bible clears itself up.

-PC

[Jazzratt]

It's obvious. Look at the context. Look at the stuff about "God's undying love for man" and whatever. Christianity is not based on what the linguistic scholars think, it's based on how the Bible clears itself up.

-PC

You're making a linguistic point though, you are saying that in "biblical language" the word "hate" simply means opposition. What I would like to know is why, then, the word "hate" is chosen at all. Oh and while you're at it please explain why an entity described as having "undying love" for us can hate us too...


You can't just pull claims out of your arse.

[Rosa Provokateur]

If god exists why aren't we all communists anyway? Surely he's omnipotent, so with a click of his fingers he could make us all commies...
Because God's not a fascist, to make someone something against their will violates free-will which He gave us. The decision to do anything is left entirely up to the individual.

[Rosa Provokateur]

You're making a linguistic point though, you are saying that in "biblical language" the word "hate" simply means opposition. What I would like to know is why, then, the word "hate" is chosen at all. Oh and while you're at it please explain why an entity described as having "undying love" for us can hate us too...


You can't just pull claims out of your arse.

In my opinion, God is incapable of hate. 1John says that God is love so how can love hate? It cant. Why would God hate what He created? He wouldnt. He might be opposed to something but would never hate, I hold the translators responsible; they've historically put in words that werent there, like "homosexual" in 1Corinthians.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

In my opinion, God is incapable of hate. 1John says that God is love so how can love hate? It cant.

O RLY? (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/nt_list.html)

no, not RLY (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html)

Yeah, that's a whole load of love right there. :rolleyes:

1John also says " Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him."

Certainly no love is encouraged for the environment that we live in, it seems.


Why would God hate what He created? He wouldnt. He might be opposed to something but would never hate, I hold the translators responsible; they've historically put in words that werent there, like "homosexual" in 1Corinthians.So if they could put in stuff like that (ignoring for the moment the fact that homosexual behaviour is punishable by OT law so any condemnation of homosexuals is entirely within the character of the Bible), who knows what other stuff they put in? How do you tell the real "word of God" from the fake? How do you know that Jesus' teachings were not simply made up from wholecloth?

In short, why the fuck do you pay attention to a book that has been repeatedly demonstrated to be totally unreliable?

[Kronos]

Christianity is not based on what the linguistic scholars think, it's based on how the Bible clears itself up.

Unfortunately for Christians, there are more atheists that agree on points in the bible that are blatantly false or pure nonsense than there are theists who agree on what various points in the bible actually mean, literally, metaphorically, and historically.

In short, the biblical scholars can hardly agree on anything.....while atheists the world over rarely disagree.

There is a critical point to be made here: there are far more renowned atheists in the world than theists. You don't find many logicians, mathematicians, physicists, or modern day philosophers who aren't atheists. When you find a theist, he's either a professor at a religious academy, an evangelist, or an average dude. The majority of intellectuals worth their weight in salt are atheists. This has to suggest that, well, religion is stupid...or else the smart dudes would be theists. No?

Contrary to what you want to believe, the text and narratives in the bible are riddled with obscurity. So the issue is not "well, theists simply have faith, that's all". The point I am making is that the bible is so packed with nonsense that you can't even have faith in it....because one cannot be sure exactly what they are having faith in.

[Rosa Provokateur]

O RLY? (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/nt_list.html)

no, not RLY (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html)

Yeah, that's a whole load of love right there. :rolleyes:

1John also says " Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him."

Certainly no love is encouraged for the environment that we live in, it seems.

So if they could put in stuff like that (ignoring for the moment the fact that homosexual behaviour is punishable by OT law so any condemnation of homosexuals is entirely within the character of the Bible), who knows what other stuff they put in? How do you tell the real "word of God" from the fake? How do you know that Jesus' teachings were not simply made up from wholecloth?

In short, why the fuck do you pay attention to a book that has been repeatedly demonstrated to be totally unreliable?

You quote the King James Version, I dont take that argument seriously. The KJV is littered with mistakes and mis-interpretations and while many find it helpful, I dont recommend it.

That 1John piece you referred to means the world as in society or main-stream culture; if we fall in love with and become enthralled with the culture at large then we begin to copy it's habits which is contrary to what Jesus taught. We are to be "holy", set apart and different from society... not conforming to it.

With the NT we look at the languages it was written in; primarily Greek with some Aramaic and Hebrew. We then look at the text in context to the time, place, location, and any other factors such as political environment etc. Based off of that we interpret the text into English with the goal of understandability, private and public readability, and conveyance of original meaning. No translation is perfect but these are the standards most translators including NIV, NLT, the Message, etc. try to work by.

Because I believe it to be true and it's done nothing but benefit me, I see no purpose or good argument to abandon and disregard beneficial truth.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You quote the King James Version, I dont take that argument seriously. The KJV is littered with mistakes and mis-interpretations and while many find it helpful, I dont recommend it.

Another Christian would hold to the KJV over any other version; why should I believe you over any other?


That 1John piece you referred to means the world as in society or main-stream culture; if we fall in love with and become enthralled with the culture at large then we begin to copy it's habits which is contrary to what Jesus taught. We are to be "holy", set apart and different from society... not conforming to it.Firstly, there is the problem that the mainstream culture at the time the passage was written was considerably different to mainstream culture of today, which varies by geographical location. Surely you can't reject out of hand all the cultures of today on the basis of advice given by someone who has been dead for centuries?

Secondly, there is the elitist notion that Christians must somehow be "seperate" in the first place. Why?


With the NT we look at the languages it was written in; primarily Greek with some Aramaic and Hebrew. We then look at the text in context to the time, place, location, and any other factors such as political environment etc. Based off of that we interpret the text into English with the goal of understandability, private and public readability, and conveyance of original meaning. No translation is perfect but these are the standards most translators including NIV, NLT, the Message, etc. try to work by.Very good if biblical scholarship interests you, but otherwise how is it relevant? You cannot deny that the KJV is the basis for many a Christian's faith.


Because I believe it to be true and it's done nothing but benefit me, I see no purpose or good argument to abandon and disregard beneficial truth.How exactly has it benefitted you?

[PCommie]

In short, why the fuck do you pay attention to a book that has been repeatedly demonstrated to be totally unreliable?

Has it really? Please prove the Bible "unreliable" as you say. To start with, it can't be unreliable unless you have faith in it, which you obviously don't. Second, in courts of law, eyewitness testimony is considered good. The Bible is an eyewitness testimony to God. Anyone who rejects it, therefor, must not be as much of an intellectual analytical person as they'd like to believe.

Third, define unreliable? There are endless accounts of people being saved in impossible situations. There are accounts of people dying, SEEING JESUS (modern day people, not old geezers from 2,000+ years ago, people NOW), and coming back to life, again, eyewitness testimonial that you deny. Explain how the universe originated. I know the theory is that it was the size of an atom, there was an explosion, and stuff started happening, but this holds two problems:

1) Where did the atomic-size universe come from? Magic? Even if magic existed, it didn't yet!

2) In our universe, explosions are pretty big, but I have yet to see an explosion that massive. Think about it. If the universe was the size of an atom, then became such a HUGE size, that was one hell of an explosion. Show me one such explosion that scientists have recorded. There is none. I conclude that the size of explosions are relative to the size of their environment, thus, it was impossible.

These problems are pretty major to that theory.


The majority of intellectuals worth their weight in salt are atheists. This has to suggest that, well, religion is stupid...or else the smart dudes would be theists. No?

Well damn, maybe that's why the verse on not loving this world so much.

Last, why the debate? What threat is it to atheists if there are churches? Just DONT GO. Or are you so afraid of us that you must abolish us? Exactly what is it about churches that you so despise?

-PC

[Kappie]

Has it really? Please prove the Bible "unreliable" as you say. To start with, it can't be unreliable unless you have faith in it, which you obviously don't. Second, in courts of law, eyewitness testimony is considered good. The Bible is an eyewitness testimony to God. Anyone who rejects it, therefor, must not be as much of an intellectual analytical person as they'd like to believe.

Third, define unreliable? There are endless accounts of people being saved in impossible situations. There are accounts of people dying, SEEING JESUS (modern day people, not old geezers from 2,000+ years ago, people NOW), and coming back to life, again, eyewitness testimonial that you deny.Unreliable means that it cannot be relied upon. Eyewitness testimony is, regardless of what you say, notoriously unreliable. While it is considered valid in a court of law, typically said court will first establish the reliability of the witness.

The Bible, insofar as it claims to bear truth (which you claim it does) thus must be shown to be reliable in order for anyone to accept said truth (unless they accept it solely on faith, and then said reliability doesn't matter one whit.) The Bible shows itself to be an unreliable source in a number of ways, not the least of which is its own inability to remain internally consistent. Even looking just at the New Testament it is unable to remain consistent in what it says, and Christian apologists have spent seeming eons trying to rationalize these inconsistencies.

To say that all eyewitness testimony is equally valid is simply ludicrous, you certainly do not apply this sort of thinking to other people. Otherwise you would believe "eyewitness" testimony which says they have seen Elvis back from the dead. You would believe the "eyewitness" testimony of the Quran and every other religion in existence. People have mystical and even near death experiences every day which would suggest spiritual realities which differ from those of Christianity, and yet you do not claim that these experiences show that reality is different from what you experience, and there is no reason that you should because the fact of the matter is such experiences are in no way reliable for defining reality.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Kappie already dealt with the whole "evdience" thing, but I wanted to say this:


Explain how the universe originated. I know the theory is that it was the size of an atom, there was an explosion, and stuff started happening, but this holds two problems:

It's obvious that you know nothing about current scientific understanding of the universe. Please hit up Wikipedia, or even better, read a good book on the subject. Your local library should be able to help.


1) Where did the atomic-size universe come from? Magic? Even if magic existed, it didn't yet!This is why I recommend you read up on the subject, because as written your question does not make sense. There was no "before" the Big Bang because spacetime terminates at the singularity of the Big Bang. There was no space or time for anything to exist in "before". You might as well ask "what's north of the North Pole?"


2) In our universe, explosions are pretty big, but I have yet to see an explosion that massive. Think about it. If the universe was the size of an atom, then became such a HUGE size, that was one hell of an explosion. Show me one such explosion that scientists have recorded. There is none. I conclude that the size of explosions are relative to the size of their environment, thus, it was impossible.The Big Bang wasn't an explosion. The name is a misnomer that was originally applied to the theory by it's detractors. It's actually space expanding.


These problems are pretty major to that theory.Those problems are nonexistant. The first question is based on misunderstanding, and the second an outright misconception.


Well damn, maybe that's why the verse on not loving this world so much.Sounds like it's an exhortation not to listen to those pesky people who actually give a damn.


Last, why the debate? What threat is it to atheists if there are churches? Just DONT GO. Or are you so afraid of us that you must abolish us?Unfortunately, history has demonstrated that churches don't keep to themselves.


Exactly what is it about churches that you so despise?

-PCTheir malign influence on the intellectual vigor of civilisation, for one.

[Kronos]

Last, why the debate? What threat is it to atheists if there are churches? Just DONT GO. Or are you so afraid of us that you must abolish us? Exactly what is it about churches that you so despise?


Three reasons. First, I think there is greater virtue and principle in the skeptical attitude and the scientific method for gaining knowledge. I don't know about you, but I like to be right. I don't like to guess about shit.

Second, churches provide illegitimate jobs for charlatans and sophists. I don't like fact that some guy is getting paid to wear a robe and read parables out of that book.

Third, religion is generally counter revolutionary. Of course, there are branches of religious communists, but the majority of the working classes do not entertain revolutionary sentiments, while their religion works only to confuse them more and keep them complacent.

Atheists tend to be more responsible, since they don't believe that "everything is in god's hands". They also tend to have bigger balls....which should be a requirement for revolutionaries.

[Jazzratt]

Has it really? Please prove the Bible "unreliable" as you say.

I Kings 7:23-26: an unreliable account of the value of Pi. Modern mathematics based on such a principle would be fucked. Before you come back with any of the standard bible thumper responses read this (http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/pseudosc/pibible.htm).


Leviticus chapter 11 is full of this shit, but 11:19 and 11:23 are great examples: bats are birds and insects have 4 legs. Modern biology wept.


To start with, it can't be unreliable unless you have faith in it, which you obviously don't.

It's unreliable faith or not. It's full of false claims and contradiction.


Second, in courts of law, eyewitness testimony is considered good. The Bible is an eyewitness testimony to God. Anyone who rejects it, therefor, must not be as much of an intellectual analytical person as they'd like to believe.

Eyewitness testimony still has to be verified as being the testimony of people who actually saw the event (I couldn't be an eyewitness in the case of Joseph Fritzl for example because I've never even been to Austria) and eyewitness testiomony cannot form the entire basis for a case (if I claimed I saw someone shoot someone when all other evidence indicates there wasn't even a gun at the murder scene my evidence would be thrown out). So you must do three things:

1) Prove the "eyewitness" reliable.
2) Prove they were even there.
3) Have some other evidence corrobarating their story.


Third, define unreliable?

In this case? Containing falsehood and contradiction.


There are endless accounts of people being saved in impossible situations.
to
Where are these "endless" accounts? I've heard one or two intersting stories of survival by luck or being hard as nails but not "endless" ones and the "impossibility" of survival has been questionable. Also, if your god is capable of saving people from impossible situations why do millions of people die of AIDS every year? Why do yet more die from curable illness?


There are accounts of people dying, SEEING JESUS (modern day people, not old geezers from 2,000+ years ago, people NOW), and coming back to life, again, eyewitness testimonial that you deny.

Well, yes. Most people who suffer near-death expriences are losing oxygen to the brain causing all kinds of hallucinations - believing their testiomony is like taking the testimony of someone who was tripping absolute balls on acid to be 100% kosher.


Explain how the universe originated.

I don't know, that doesn't mean I'm going to believe a wizard in the sky did it. Prior to arabic astronomy everyone simply accepted a geocentric solar system; does that mean that they were right because no one else could tell them how the solar system is actually arranged (it's heliocentric, in case you were homeschooled).


I know the theory is that it was the size of an atom,

Several degrees of magnitude smaller than that.


there was an explosion, and stuff started happening,

No. As NoXion said, that's a misnomer and a false assumption.


but this holds two problems:

1) Where did the atomic-size universe come from? Magic? Even if magic existed, it didn't yet!

Talking absolte origins is pointless as it involves trying to talk about "time before time" which is roughly analogous to "north of the north pole".


2) In our universe, explosions are pretty big, but I have yet to see an explosion that massive. Think about it. If the universe was the size of an atom, then became such a HUGE size, that was one hell of an explosion. Show me one such explosion that scientists have recorded. There is none. I conclude that the size of explosions are relative to the size of their environment, thus, it was impossible.

Not an explosion. Do the research before you fail physics forever.


These problems are pretty major to that theory.

In your head, perhaps.


Last, why the debate? What threat is it to atheists if there are churches? Just DONT GO. Or are you so afraid of us that you must abolish us? Exactly what is it about churches that you so despise?

You're wrong, that's why there is a debate. You are making incorrect assertions about the universe and telling them to other people, we feel we have to stop you doing this. Like correcting people who get "your" and "you're" wrong, only with larger implications. Oh that and because your lot can't stop haranguing us and blowing up people who worship different sky wizards.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Another Christian would hold to the KJV over any other version; why should I believe you over any other?

Firstly, there is the problem that the mainstream culture at the time the passage was written was considerably different to mainstream culture of today, which varies by geographical location. Surely you can't reject out of hand all the cultures of today on the basis of advice given by someone who has been dead for centuries?

Secondly, there is the elitist notion that Christians must somehow be "seperate" in the first place. Why?

Very good if biblical scholarship interests you, but otherwise how is it relevant? You cannot deny that the KJV is the basis for many a Christian's faith.

How exactly has it benefitted you?
That's up to you who you believe.

Point taken.

It's what makes up the culture, the way the world is being run; war to solve problems, exploitation in order to profit, we want to separate ourselves from it and build a better way of life.

Point taken.

I see reason to oppose military and a divine calling to establish justice. Without my faith I would've felt no reason to be against violence; it pulled me out of the neo-Nazi scene and brought me to terms with my sexuality. My faith has done nothing to harm me and I see no reason to reject what I know to be true.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Three reasons. First, I think there is greater virtue and principle in the skeptical attitude and the scientific method for gaining knowledge. I don't know about you, but I like to be right. I don't like to guess about shit.

Second, churches provide illegitimate jobs for charlatans and sophists. I don't like fact that some guy is getting paid to wear a robe and read parables out of that book.

Third, religion is generally counter revolutionary. Of course, there are branches of religious communists, but the majority of the working classes do not entertain revolutionary sentiments, while their religion works only to confuse them more and keep them complacent.

Atheists tend to be more responsible, since they don't believe that "everything is in god's hands". They also tend to have bigger balls....which should be a requirement for revolutionaries.

First point I can respect.

Second point is out of context; I know ministers who've prevented suicides, organized local work-projects, used the church to serve the community. They're guaranteed no pay-check but rely on the generous donations given in tithes. There are preachers who are crooks, I cant deny that but it doesnt un-justify the good works many havedone.

Third point differs on situation; Cesar Chavez, MLK, Mother Jones, all exemplify that the church is capable of amazing things. If given power the church will corrupt but so does everything and I oppose giving the church power as I oppose power in general.

I dont know; take balls to reamin non-violent in the face of agression or to love those that want you dead.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That's up to you who you believe.

If you want people to take you seriously, you have to at least provide some sort of reason for them to do so.


It's what makes up the culture, the way the world is being run; war to solve problems, exploitation in order to profit, we want to separate ourselves from it and build a better way of life.Why not try actually getting off your holy asses and doing something about it? I'm not talking about charity - I'm talking about actually attempting to change the world for the better so that there's no need for charity.

Actually, I know why views such as yours have been insignificant historically speaking - because religion is too good a tool for those seeking earthly power (or wanting to reinforce it) to pass it up, and the sort of people who seek/reinforce earthly power are not the type to change the world for the better.


I see reason to oppose military and a divine calling to establish justice. Without my faith I would've felt no reason to be against violence; it pulled me out of the neo-Nazi scene and brought me to terms with my sexuality.That's something that you yourself concluded out of the Bible. Other people have read the Bible and come to vastly different conclusions. Doesn't that tell you something really, really important?


My faith has done nothing to harm me and I see no reason to reject what I know to be true.You don't "know" it to be true, because "knowing" implies knowledge, and how can you have knowledge that something is true when there is fuck-all evidence to support it? You can't. Instead, what you have is faith. It hasn't harmed you (yet!) because you've yet to face a choice between holding on to your faith and facing reality. Some stranger on a message board you can most likely easily brush off, but I wonder what it would take to challenge your faith? Because it seems inherently unfalsifiable - if good things happen to you, then you have your Lord's favour. If bad things happen to you, then He is testing you. Why? God works in mysterious ways.

That's not the outlook of someone who wants to engage with the world, to find out more about it and change it for the better.


Second point is out of context; I know ministers who've prevented suicides, organized local work-projects, used the church to serve the community. They're guaranteed no pay-check but rely on the generous donations given in tithes. There are preachers who are crooks, I cant deny that but it doesnt un-justify the good works many havedone.The whole foundations of the clergy is based on a falsehood, a house of theological cards. Why not just become a charity worker? Why the need for some kind of cosmic validation of one's works? Worse, a cosmic validation that has fuck-all evidence behind it and has historically been a negative force? Wouldn't a person truely interested in charity want to disassociate themselves from that as far as possible?

Because the fact of the matter is that being a member of the clergy is more than about charity, and in fact is hardly mandatory apart from symbolic acts and meaningless platitudes paying tribute to the idea.


Third point differs on situation; Cesar Chavez, MLK, Mother Jones, all exemplify that the church is capable of amazing things. If given power the church will corrupt but so does everything and I oppose giving the church power as I oppose power in general.Cesar Chavez wasn't a clergyman and his Wiki entry barely mentions religion - he might as well have been an atheist. Mother Jones was born to a Catholic, but otherwise religion seemed to feature little in her life.

MLK was of course a clergyman - but again, it seems mostly incidental - not surprising considering the Biblical justifications for oppression used at the time.

Not to mention the fact that modern issues are completely irrelevant to a centuries-old tome.


I dont know; take balls to reamin non-violent in the face of agression or to love those that want you dead. Remaining non-violent, depending on circumstances, can be incredibly stupid, since it just makes the aggressor's job that much easier. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you would not defend yourself with deadly force if you were attacked by someone determined to kill you?

As for loving those that want you dead... Why? This isn't a fucking Saturday morning cartoon, where the "power of friendship" can overcome all - this real life, where people like you can be torn to pieces.

[PCommie]

And we dare call capitalism oppressionist?


This is why I recommend you read up on the subject, because as written your question does not make sense. There was no "before" the Big Bang because spacetime terminates at the singularity of the Big Bang. There was no space or time for anything to exist in "before". You might as well ask "what's north of the North Pole?"

So you can't explain it. I fail to see how time or anything at all began without some kind of intervention.


The Big Bang wasn't an explosion. The name is a misnomer that was originally applied to the theory by it's detractors. It's actually space expanding.

That's nice. I'm afraid I don't know of any natural anomaly that so ridiculously rapidly accelerates the expansion of space.


Unfortunately, history has demonstrated that churches don't keep to themselves.

So don't listen to them.


Unfortunately, history has demonstrated that churches don't keep to themselves.

Do you expect a civilization that is, what, ~8,000+ years old to know perfect calculations like Pi? Come on, you can do better than that.


Leviticus chapter 11 is full of this shit, but 11:19 and 11:23 are great examples: bats are birds and insects have 4 legs. Modern biology wept.

That verse says nothing about bats being birds, it is a simple list. Even if it were, could evolution not explain it? And as for four-legged bugs, I really don't know what the Bible meant, but basing an argument against faith because of a few (possible) errors is quite funny, actually.


It's unreliable faith or not. It's full of false claims and contradiction.

See, people keep saying this, without examples backing them. It must, therefor, be a desperate attempt to cling to your atheist "beliefs" when in fact you know they are undefendable.


I don't know, that doesn't mean I'm going to believe a wizard in the sky did it. Prior to arabic astronomy everyone simply accepted a geocentric solar system; does that mean that they were right because no one else could tell them how the solar system is actually arranged (it's heliocentric, in case you were homeschooled).

You don't know. You admit that atheism or religion could both be valid explanations, yet you fight against one because you disbelieve it. That is a ridiculous standpoint. Oh, and for your information, I was homeschooled for a time, by my mother, and I'll thank you to leave personal slander the hell out of this, because you've basically just called me and my mom idiots.


No. As NoXion said, that's a misnomer and a false assumption.

Well damn, that theory hold less water than I thought, then.


Talking absolte origins is pointless as it involves trying to talk about "time before time" which is roughly analogous to "north of the north pole".

Time before time? Dear Lord (and yeah, I mean that Christianly), and you call my theories fucked? Any scientist will tell you that time is what causes things to happen. If time did not even exist yet, then the theory is a circle, because nothing could have caused anything to happen to create ANYTHING. And you say my theories are based on faith and baseless arguments? Not near as much as yours. Come back when you have something definite, o faithful atheist.


You're wrong, that's why there is a debate. You are making incorrect assertions about the universe and telling them to other people, we feel we have to stop you doing this. Like correcting people who get "your" and "you're" wrong, only with larger implications. Oh that and because your lot can't stop haranguing us and blowing up people who worship different sky wizards.

Fuck you. If I want to write "your" instead of "you're," I'll damn well do it. You can suggest I'm wrong, point me to a dictionary, but you have no right to force it on me.


You are making incorrect assertions about the universe and telling them to other people, we feel we have to stop you doing this.

Problem: I feel you theories are wrong. I'm in the majority as a believer. Maybe we'd all like to tell you what to believe, and stop you spreading your incorrect atheist views about the actual origins of this universe.


I see reason to oppose military and a divine calling to establish justice. Without my faith I would've felt no reason to be against violence; it pulled me out of the neo-Nazi scene and brought me to terms with my sexuality. My faith has done nothing to harm me and I see no reason to reject what I know to be true.

If this is the kind of effects religion has, maybe the law should require everyone to believe in it, what do you think about that?

H&S forever,
-PC

[Kappie]

So you can't explain it. I fail to see how time or anything at all began without some kind of intervention.How could there be intervention in the beginning of time? If there was no time, there was no entity present who could think to himself "I think I'm gonna intervene and make me some time here," because such thoughts, such actions, require time in which to operate. This is foolishness.


That's nice. I'm afraid I don't know of any natural anomaly that so ridiculously rapidly accelerates the expansion of space.Ever heard of the Big Bang?


That verse says nothing about bats being birds, it is a simple list. Even if it were, could evolution not explain it? And as for four-legged bugs, I really don't know what the Bible meant, but basing an argument against faith because of a few (possible) errors is quite funny, actually.How could evolution explain that bats are birds? Bats have a completely different evolutionary path than birds, they are not related in any way whatsoever, their ability of flight evolved completely independently of each other.

As for basing an argument against faith in a supposedly omniscient God for making errors, what could possibly make more sense? If I told you that I was an omnipotent, omnipresent omniscient entity and that you should worship me and devote your life to me but then could not even get basic facts such as the number of legs which an insect has straight, do you think it would be funny to not put your faith in me for that reason? I think it would be funny if you did put your faith in me despite my errors.


See, people keep saying this, without examples backing them. It must, therefor, be a desperate attempt to cling to your atheist "beliefs" when in fact you know they are undefendable.You want examples? How about the claim just discussed, that insects have four legs? Or that the Earth revolves around the Sun, or any other myriad examples?

As for inconsistencies, how about Jesus's last words on the cross? Every Gospel has a different account of that. For that matter, on what day was Jesus Christ crucified? The Synoptics say he was crucified on Good Friday (as do most modern believers) but the Gospel of John says he was crucified the day before, on Thursday.

Or how about that good old story of Noah, in which Noah and his family were instructed to bring two of every animal on the ark, but told in a different version to bring 7 pairs of every clean animal on the ark so they could eat them and only 2 of the unclean, contradicting the story that only 2 of each kind were to be brought on board as well as contradicting common sense as the laws of "clean and unclean animals" had not been given to man by God yet, and wouldn't be for thousands of years according to the Bible! And then, after they have spent 40 days on the ark supposedly eating the flesh of this "clean meat" (or not, depending on which version of the story you buy into), they are then told by God that they are now allowed to eat meat, something that had been originally forbidden to them since the Garden of Eden! The Bible is full of such contradictions, inconsistencies and false claims. If you would like to find out more about them, I recommend that you go out and read the millions upon millions of pages of text which have been crafted by Christian apologists over the past two millennia trying their hardest to rationalize why all of these obvious false claims and inconsistencies are not really false claims and inconsistencies.

[Atrus]

I am religious. I enjoy discussing my beliefs, my ideas and my interpretations. I even enjoy them being challenged. For all these reasons, I am 100% AGAINST organised religion. It is another form of control from one person onto another. It is a naturally hierachal idea, and has no place in a leftist society, in whatever form. I am all for people meeting up and discussing what they think, reading whatever religious texts and discussing. I think this is a very healthy thing to have in society, but it must be discussed in such a way that no one's opinion is more important, no one is right, and no one can tell others what to think.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So you can't explain it.

I just did. I explained why your question does not make sense.


I fail to see how time or anything at all began without some kind of intervention.Just because you can't imagine it, doesn't mean it ain't so. I can't imagine being dead, yet people die every day.


That's nice. I'm afraid I don't know of any natural anomaly that so ridiculously rapidly accelerates the expansion of space.Another argument from ignorance. Why don't you try finding out?


So don't listen to them.I already live a pleasantly godless life. Other people do listen, however, since they've been taught from birth that religion is something to be respected (in spite of the fact that it's done absolutely nothing to earn such respect).


Do you expect a civilization that is, what, ~8,000+ years old to know perfect calculations like Pi? Come on, you can do better than that.You know you can actually measure Pi with a length of rope or string? If you do so, you will notice that it is noticeably larger than 3. The Egyptians in the 26th century BCE knew that Pi was greater than three.


See, people keep saying this, without examples backing them. It must, therefor, be a desperate attempt to cling to your atheist "beliefs" when in fact you know they are undefendable.Scientific inaccuracies in the Bible (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html)

Absurdities in the Bible (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm)

Contradictions in the Bible (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html)

Plenty of examples there.


You don't know. You admit that atheism or religion could both be valid explanations, yet you fight against one because you disbelieve it.Considering the lack of evidence, atheism is easily the more rational choice.


That is a ridiculous standpoint. Oh, and for your information, I was homeschooled for a time, by my mother, and I'll thank you to leave personal slander the hell out of this, because you've basically just called me and my mom idiots.Actually no, he called you uneducated. Which, going by your statements and questions regarding the Big Bang, appears to be true. The bright side however is that you can choose to do something about that.


Well damn, that theory hold less water than I thought, then.A theory is wrong because of a misconception generated by a misleading label applied by the theory's detractors? No. Just no.


Time before time? Dear Lord (and yeah, I mean that Christianly), and you call my theories fucked? Any scientist will tell you that time is what causes things to happen. If time did not even exist yet, then the theory is a circle,That is a completely unsubstantiated assertion on your part.


because nothing could have caused anything to happen to create ANYTHING.I'm sorry but you lost me here.


And you say my theories are based on faith and baseless arguments? Not near as much as yours. Come back when you have something definite, o faithful atheist.Evidence for the Big Bang (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html)


Fuck you. If I want to write "your" instead of "you're," I'll damn well do it. You can suggest I'm wrong, point me to a dictionary, but you have no right to force it on me.He's not forcing you to do anything. Just don't expect to be taken seriously when you're talking about grammar or the Big Bang.


Problem: I feel you theories are wrong. I'm in the majority as a believer.Feelings are not good enough, and appeals to popularity are a fallacy for a good reason.


Maybe we'd all like to tell you what to believe, and stop you spreading your incorrect atheist views about the actual origins of this universe.Until recently historically speaking, that was exactly what you were doing.


If this is the kind of effects religion has, maybe the law should require everyone to believe in it, what do you think about that?Again, we've already experienced that. It's called the Dark Ages. :thumbdown:

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

It's natual in communism anything otherwise is fascism

[PCommie]

You don't "know" it to be true, because "knowing" implies knowledge, and how can you have knowledge that something is true when there is fuck-all evidence to support it? You can't. Instead, what you have is faith.

And what have you, atheist? Your views cannot be decisively proven either. The fact is, neither side has the right to force their views on the other, because neither side can decisively prove their point.


Because it seems inherently unfalsifiable - if good things happen to you, then you have your Lord's favour. If bad things happen to you, then He is testing you. Why? God works in mysterious ways.

Why should God test people? He knows the future. Your faith is also inherently unfalsifiable: Anything that contradicts it is ridiculous either because it cannot be decisively proven, or because it is being accepted on faith, which atheist theories meet as well as religious theories.


That's something that you yourself concluded out of the Bible. Other people have read the Bible and come to vastly different conclusions. Doesn't that tell you something really, really important?

Yeah, it really does. It tells me those people were missing the point and we need an organized church to establish a unity for all Christians to believe in, to avoid radical groups and violent splits. This church must be, therfor, based purely on the Bible, only preaching what is decisively said in the Bible (The Church of Christ, Communist?).


Wouldn't a person truely interested in charity want to disassociate themselves from that as far as possible?

This argument is your own, and has no real basis.


Not to mention the fact that modern issues are completely irrelevant to a centuries-old tome.

Is that right? So capitalism is a problem for us, but in the olden days, it was all-right?


Remaining non-violent, depending on circumstances, can be incredibly stupid, since it just makes the aggressor's job that much easier. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you would not defend yourself with deadly force if you were attacked by someone determined to kill you?

Sin breeds sin. It is bad to kill, but necessary in some situaitons. That's part of the point of the Second Coming, eliminating all evil. Did it not occur to you why there has never been a completely sinless person since Jesus Christ? It is because, because of other sinners, we are forced to sin.


As for loving those that want you dead... Why? This isn't a fucking Saturday morning cartoon, where the "power of friendship" can overcome all - this real life, where people like you can be torn to pieces.

Unfortunately, I must agree. Certain things are necessary.


I dont know; take balls to reamin non-violent in the face of agression or to love those that want you dead.

I'm afraid I'm not a saint, comrade. I want nothing more than to slay every last bourgeoise in the world, and I would defend myself if attacked. I don't think it is a very great sin to do the latter, the first I'm sure is, but I can only hope I will be forgiven, because when it's time for a revolution, I will shed as much bourgeoise blood as I can before mine is shed. What was it they said before Desert Storm? "Forgive us, Lord, for we are not going to show any mercy."


How could there be intervention in the beginning of time? If there was no time, there was no entity present who could think to himself "I think I'm gonna intervene and make me some time here," because such thoughts, such actions, require time in which to operate. This is foolishness

Your theory is foolish, comrade, not mine. A being such as God would exist outside time, thus, he could start it for us. Is it so hard to believe that there is some sort of being which exists on another dimensional plain that has the power to manipulate this universe? I'm not trying to scientifically explain God, I don't need to, but if there is one it'd be interesting to know, but is it really that difficult to consider?


Considering the lack of evidence, atheism is easily the more rational choice.

I have already taken down that argument once, and refuse to post that massive rationale again. Suffice it to say, atheism lacks evidence also. I find it easier to believe that a being capable of manipulating time and matter created this universe, than time and matter somehow started themselves. "Matter can neither be CREATED nor destroyed." This is a scientific principal based on material observations. It proves that there had to be an outside force which started the universe.


That is a completely unsubstantiated assertion on your part.

So is that on yours.


Feelings are not good enough, and appeals to popularity are a fallacy for a good reason.

In your opinion. I will decide what is good for me. If I don't hurt anyone, what is wrong with me living a life that makes me happy? Isn't that communism's objective?

These lunatic, authoritarian arguments are typical of those who are unsure of themselves. You feel that every other person must believe what you believe, a ridiculous, un-communistic standpoint.

H&S forever,
-PC

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

NoXion is going to slaughter you when he sees that.

[PCommie]

I don't give a damn about NoXion, Joe. It's been my obersvation that there are more atheists on the internet than in the real world, and I am not worried about narrow-minded people like him. When communism is established, the religious folk will not allow people like him to drive religion out.

-PC

[Coggeh]

Yeah, it really does. It tells me those people were missing the point and we need an organized church to establish a unity for all Christians to believe in, to avoid radical groups and violent splits. This church must be, therfor, based purely on the Bible, only preaching what is decisively said in the Bible (The Church of Christ, Communist?).
Theirs loads of stuff in a bible which communists cannot even take seriously let alone believe in um . If you believe in the bible 100% you must think homosexuals are sinners ? aye ?

[Demogorgon]

So you can't explain it. I fail to see how time or anything at all began without some kind of intervention.

There is a problem with this. Presuming that God did create the Universe or provided the "intervention" needed to begin it, that still did not happen "before". Time is an aspect of the Universe, in the same way space is, indeed they are inseparable. So quite regardless of the existence of God or not, time began with the beginning of the Universe and from the perspective of anything within the universe there is nothing before that point, there is not even a before.

That does not mean that a God couldn't have begun the process of the Universe forming, it just means that to say that was the reason brings us no further forward than to say it wasn't the reason. The cause of the Universe, insofar as such a thing is meaningful, is completely beyond the extent of our knowledge. Consequently to say that you believe God was behind it isn't really to say anything at all.

Now, should there be some other reason to be sure (or at least confident) of there being a God, you could then say with some validity that in all probability said God did create the Universe, because it is the most likely candidate we know of, but as the existence of God is an open question to say the least, we cannot make any presumption in its favour when it comes to the origin of the Universe.

That is not to say of course that it is any more foolish to speculate on God as being the cause of the Universe than it is to suggest anything else. The question has some academic interest, but in practical terms it is completely pointless.

[Demogorgon]

Theirs loads of stuff in a bible which communists cannot even take seriously let alone believe in um . If you believe in the bible 100% you must think homosexuals are sinners ? aye ?
To be fair, if you believe in the Bible, everybody is a sinner. Indeed in Christian terms, the Levitical laws laid down in the Covenant of Moses are not there to provide a set of rules to live by but rather as a lesson that we are incapable of perfectly following rules. Further, by dying on the Cross, Christ saved us from that and fulfilled the covenant with Moses so they do not apply anymore.

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of good lines of attack against the Bible, particularly if somebody says it should be taken literally, but the question of homosexuality does not convince me. A proper reading of the Bible is no better than ambiguous on the subject and indeed there are several points where it seems to explicitly endorse it.

[PCommie]

Demogorgon, I thank you for being an open-minded individual. I am just saying that something had to start the universe. If time began with the beginning of the universe, something had to start it. Something with power beyong our knowledge, because matter can create itself, and yet, matter must have been created. I am not discounting atheist ideology completely, I just do not believe in it personally. I am saying that until one theory can be proven over the other, neither must be forced on anyone. Thank you, comrade.

-PC

[Demogorgon]

How often do you see heterosexuals do that?

Ever been on an aeroplane or a slightly seedy pub? ;)

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I don't give a damn about NoXion, Joe. It's been my obersvation that there are more atheists on the internet than in the real world,

The united states is not the entire world.

[Demogorgon]

Demogorgon, I thank you for being an open-minded individual. I am just saying that something had to start the universe. If time began with the beginning of the universe, something had to start it. Something with power beyong our knowledge, because matter can create itself, and yet, matter must have been created. I am not discounting atheist ideology completely, I just do not believe in it personally. I am saying that until one theory can be proven over the other, neither must be forced on anyone. Thank you, comrade.

-PC
How about the end of the Universe being the cause of its start?

I am not saying that that should be taken as the reason, the question is meaningless as I say, but there are plenty of theoretical "causes" to choose from.

I should add incidentally that I strongly believe in freedom of religion and holding contrary views to me here is certainly no crime.

[PCommie]

How about the end of the Universe being the cause of its start?

Possibly, but riddled with problems: What caused the universe to end? If matter has disappeared, what re-ignited it?


Ever been on an aeroplane or a slightly seedy pub? ;)

LOL. Naw. I don't know, I'm not trying to force my views on anyone, I just kind of strike back when I get stepped on. ;)


I should add incidentally that I strongly believe in freedom of religion and holding contrary views to me here is certainly no crime.

Organized religion? It seems to me that if the church is not given any legal power it's no real harm to anyone.

-PC

[Coggeh]

Demogorgon, I thank you for being an open-minded individual. I am just saying that something had to start the universe. If time began with the beginning of the universe, something had to start it. Something with power beyong our knowledge, because matter can create itself, and yet, matter must have been created. I am not discounting atheist ideology completely, I just do not believe in it personally. I am saying that until one theory can be proven over the other, neither must be forced on anyone. Thank you, comrade.

-PC
Athiest ideology ?

You can't defend something just because one can't prove that it doesn't exist as your propagated the idea in the first place . Its up to you to prove it right not for us to prove it wrong .

On the question of organised religions , why would you like their to be organised religions in the first place ? what's so good about the hierarchy of the catholic church ? whats so good that I'm forced to pray every damn day and listen to that Angeles bell just because i want an education ?

[PCommie]

You can't defend something just because one can't prove that it doesn't exist as your propagated the idea in the first place . Its up to you to prove it right not for us to prove it wrong .

True. All I ask is that atheism not be forced on me either.


On the question of organised religions , why would you like their to be organised religions in the first place ? what's so good about the hierarchy of the catholic church ? whats so good that I'm forced to pray every damn day and listen to that Angeles bell just because i want an education ?

So, don't go to a Catholic school? As a note, I don't agree with Catholic doctrine, since much of it is made up, and not Biblically based.

-PC

[Kassad]

So... let me get this straight. Let's reject physical oppression, exploitation, submission and blind acceptance and embrace spiritual oppression, manipulation, surrealism and a total and utter rejection of facts, primary sources, logic and human evolutionary progress.

Sounds like a real fucking plan.

[PCommie]

No one's telling you to embrace it, Kassad. I'm calling for the right, while the anti-theists call for a law against it. Which seems freer?

-PC

[Demogorgon]

Possibly, but riddled with problems: What caused the universe to end? If matter has disappeared, what re-ignited it?

I don't want to get into this too deeply because it is pure speculation, but it is thought likely that after expanding to a certain point, it will begin to contract again until it collapses in on itself. That provides the singularity needed for the Universe to begin. It isn't about the Universe beginning again, it is about time being looped.

[Kassad]

No one's telling you to embrace it, Kassad. I'm calling for the right, while the anti-theists call for a law against it. Which seems freer?

-PC

Is the entire world really that black and white to you? Are the anti-theists calling for a ban on religion as a whole or a ban on organized hierarchy that promotes bourgeoisie manipulation through the submission of responsibility and will? Of course, your surrealist fantasies about Jesus Christ and other religious deities aside, you're aware that no one wants to put a gun to your head and tell you you're banned from practicing whatever the fuck it is you want to practice, but it's a matter of church. The Church is a hierarchy; no different than the bourgeoisie hierarchy created in the class system. The religious are told to blindly submit their will to God and praise him, while workers are told to blindly submit to the wealth-based system of tyrranical exploitation. They sound quite similar to me.

So stop playing this little pity party game. No one wants to outlaw your religion, we just want you to stop exploiting women through patriarchal practices and children through manipulating their malleable minds at incredibly young ages so they will submit to your religious philosophy. That's child abuse no matter how you try to paint it, but I don't expect anything less from a tiny oligarchy which people totally submit to; rejecting the material existence of humanity and the consciousness of love, as opposed to fear. Religions are obsolete for this reason, as your religion exploits fear instead of promoting love. You are just as responsible as the bourgeoisie for this type of manipulative practice.

[PCommie]

Kassad, just don't involve yourself. You'll not tell us when we can start educating our OWN CHILDREN. Family will never be communal property, and if communism is really like this, then hell, maybe capitalism's better? I don't really believe that, but I'll not stand for your oppressionist system.

-PC

[Kassad]

Oppressive system? Is this the kind of stuff your preachers spew at mass? "Yea, and Father Mangini defecated on the altar and used it as a spread for the communion crackers; the people did praise the Lord." Honestly, man. These guys could convince you of anything if they can convince you that a man was conceived without intercourse, was born, preached and performed miracles, was crucified and rose again. What's next? Will they declare bubblegum a sin? Tune in next week.

Your philosophical manipulation is disgusting. It's raising a child to submit before he can properly comprehend the system he is accepting. That is what capitalism does to children and those it exploits for labor value. It's the equivalent of telling my child that there's an invisible wombat in the sky who forgives him all his sins and that he should murder the infidels who question the mighty wombat. It's truly sick what you attempt to rationalize.

[Bitter Ashes]

I'm somewhat lost for words PCommie...
I've read your original post and I know I'm not respecting it with this post and I apoligise for that because I am about to speak about why I disagree with ORGANISED religion (not religous beliefs or other "thought crimes")
The reason I'm going to do this is simply because I dont believe it grants you immunitity from bieng challenged on some of these opinions you've expressed in this thread.
If I'm understanding right, you've got these unnatural homophobic opinions. Homophobia does not occur just by itself, as proved by the peaceful co-existance before the days of Constantine and Muhammed. It's logicial to assume then that your homophobia stems not from what you've decieded yourself, but as merely a reaction of what your priests/vicars/mullahs have ordered you to think.
I'm sure that you also believe that anyone who is part of your religion who comes out should be informed that they will be sent to hell for an eternity of pain and smoke and suffering. They will probably believe you too, so what organised religion is actualy doing is saying "You will behave as we command or you will be sorry". That's called racketeering.
It's also worth pointing out that these religous leaders are not elected by thier congregations, but in fact by a board above them. They are leaders and they do give commands. Priests and Mullahs may only be the managers/supervisors of the religion, but above them lies the bourgeois like the Bishops and Cardinals who live off the labour those below them and make these threats of pain and misery upon anyone who dares challenge them.
Supporting the Pope of Dalai Lama or whatever is actualy WORSE than supporting Bill Gates or Richard Branson. At least those two only command people what to do. The religous leaders command people what to think as well.
I'm not even going to attempt to challenge your homophobic views unless you can accept that, as I firmly believe that while you delegate the responsibility for your morality upon others, there is no hope for you to be reasoned or debated with on a logical scale. The reason for that is purely because, I can sit here and give you all the reasons in the world why I think you're wrong and you will be unwilling to submit a single reason why you disagree. All you will be able to delegate the accountability to the church and point out that they disagree and you will believe whatever they say.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

And what have you, atheist? Your views cannot be decisively proven either.

But they can be disproven. Simply provide evidence for god, any god, and atheism is refuted.


The fact is, neither side has the right to force their views on the other, because neither side can decisively prove their point.Actually, yes they can. The ones making a positive assertion, in other words the god-botherers, can in theory prove their point by providing evidence for their god. They have the burden of proof, but they have consistently failed to uphold it, in fact they seem to like attempting to shift it on the atheists as you have just done.


Why should God test people? He knows the future.That didn't stop him testing Job.


Your faith is also inherently unfalsifiable: Anything that contradicts it is ridiculous either because it cannot be decisively proven, or because it is being accepted on faith, which atheist theories meet as well as religious theories.Faith is not evidence. In fact, faith is the acceptance and/or confidence in a claim as truth without evidence.


Yeah, it really does. It tells me those people were missing the point and we need an organized church to establish a unity for all Christians to believe in, to avoid radical groups and violent splits.That's been done before. Didn't go very well, did it? It is the mark of insanity to do the same things over and over again expecting different results.


This church must be, therfor, based purely on the Bible, only preaching what is decisively said in the Bible (The Church of Christ, Communist?).Does that include bringing back stoning for adulterers? Parents killing children who talk back? Killing people for engaging in homosexual acts?


This argument is your own, and has no real basis.It's a valid question. There's more to being a member of the clergy than acts of charity, there's a whole load of other baggage that comes along with it. Surely if charity was the main thing for an individual, they'd become an aid worker, not a clergyman?

If not, what is gained by appending a pile of pious lies to one's works?


Is that right? So capitalism is a problem for us, but in the olden days, it was all-right?In Biblical times, capitalism didn't exist.


Sin breeds sin. It is bad to kill, but necessary in some situaitons. That's part of the point of the Second Coming, eliminating all evil. Did it not occur to you why there has never been a completely sinless person since Jesus Christ? It is because, because of other sinners, we are forced to sin.I'm an atheist - "sin" is a Christian concept of no relevance to how I conduct my life. Similar situation with the Second Coming. Try to keep that in mind when talking to me.

There are various reasons why "evil" exists. I consider the term to be unhelpful at best and counter-productive at worst. Why? Because it's too broad. What may be "evil" according to one morality system may be "good" in another.

As for Jesus being sinless, are you aware that not all Christians agree with you on that?


I'm afraid I'm not a saint, comrade. I want nothing more than to slay every last bourgeoise in the world, and I would defend myself if attacked.Ah, some good old-fashioned Biblical smiting in the tradition of Joshua! Whatever happened to that old standby of civilisation, the court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court)?


I don't think it is a very great sin to do the latter, the first I'm sure is, but I can only hope I will be forgiven, because when it's time for a revolution, I will shed as much bourgeoise blood as I can before mine is shed.Revolution is about the working class gaining power, not initiating a bloodbath.


What was it they said before Desert Storm? "Forgive us, Lord, for we are not going to show any mercy."Proof that religion does nothing to improve behaviour.


Your theory is foolish, comrade, not mine. A being such as God would exist outside time, thus, he could start it for us.Nonsense. How can something exist "outside of time"? Time is a part of existance.

Is it so hard to believe that there is some sort of being which exists on another dimensional plain that has the power to manipulate this universe? Yes, because there is no evidence. Is it so hard to believe there is a teapot orbiting the Sun between Earth and Mars?

Also, what created the being and the place in which it resides?


I'm not trying to scientifically explain God, I don't need to, but if there is one it'd be interesting to know, but is it really that difficult to consider?If you're not being scientific, why are you attacking a scientific theory?

I have considered it. I rejected it due to lack of evidence.


I have already taken down that argument once, and refuse to post that massive rationale again.No you haven't. You could end this debate right now by posting evidence, yet you have not done so.

Show us evidence of your god, and I'll reconsider my position.


Suffice it to say, atheism lacks evidence also.It doesn't need any. Unlike theism. I don't need evidence to not believe in a giant psychic spider living in the core of Mars. Same thing with gods.


I find it easier to believe that a being capable of manipulating time and matter created this universe, than time and matter somehow started themselves.Firstly, you're arguing from personal incredulity again. Just because you've been conditioned to believe in a creator doesn't make it so.

Secondly, how can a being exist without time, matter, or energy (of which the universe is considered the totality of such)? You say you can't get something from nothing, but your idea of a creator comes up against the exact same problem! The important difference being, however, that the Big Bang has evidence for it, and your creator does not.


"Matter can neither be CREATED nor destroyed." This is a scientific principal based on material observations. It proves that there had to be an outside force which started the universe.Matter was created and destroyed early in the universe's history.

Baryogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryogenesis)


So is that on yours.No, actually. There is no evidence that the universe is cyclical, and the Big Bang does not require the universe to be so.


In your opinion. I will decide what is good for me.Just because you decide something to be good for you, doesn't mean it is. Smoking is bad for you, there is plenty of evidence for that, and you simply deciding it's good for you won't change that one iota.


If I don't hurt anyone, what is wrong with me living a life that makes me happy? Isn't that communism's objective?I dispute the assertion that religious belief doesn't hurt anyone. There is plenty of evidence otherwise - the horrific historical track record of believers as well as their current behaviour is an example of that.


These lunatic, authoritarian arguments are typical of those who are unsure of themselves. You feel that every other person must believe what you believe, a ridiculous, un-communistic standpoint.How can I make everyone else believe what I believe if I'm unsure of those beliefs myself? :lol:

If we're going to play "armchair psychologist", the fact that you feel threatened by my words despite me not making any threats to your person indicates that it is you who is unsure in your belief.

[Rosa Provokateur]

If you want people to take you seriously, you have to at least provide some sort of reason for them to do so.

Why not try actually getting off your holy asses and doing something about it? I'm not talking about charity - I'm talking about actually attempting to change the world for the better so that there's no need for charity.

Actually, I know why views such as yours have been insignificant historically speaking - because religion is too good a tool for those seeking earthly power (or wanting to reinforce it) to pass it up, and the sort of people who seek/reinforce earthly power are not the type to change the world for the better.

That's something that you yourself concluded out of the Bible. Other people have read the Bible and come to vastly different conclusions. Doesn't that tell you something really, really important?

You don't "know" it to be true, because "knowing" implies knowledge, and how can you have knowledge that something is true when there is fuck-all evidence to support it? You can't. Instead, what you have is faith. It hasn't harmed you (yet!) because you've yet to face a choice between holding on to your faith and facing reality. Some stranger on a message board you can most likely easily brush off, but I wonder what it would take to challenge your faith? Because it seems inherently unfalsifiable - if good things happen to you, then you have your Lord's favour. If bad things happen to you, then He is testing you. Why? God works in mysterious ways.

That's not the outlook of someone who wants to engage with the world, to find out more about it and change it for the better.

The whole foundations of the clergy is based on a falsehood, a house of theological cards. Why not just become a charity worker? Why the need for some kind of cosmic validation of one's works? Worse, a cosmic validation that has fuck-all evidence behind it and has historically been a negative force? Wouldn't a person truely interested in charity want to disassociate themselves from that as far as possible?

Because the fact of the matter is that being a member of the clergy is more than about charity, and in fact is hardly mandatory apart from symbolic acts and meaningless platitudes paying tribute to the idea.

Cesar Chavez wasn't a clergyman and his Wiki entry barely mentions religion - he might as well have been an atheist. Mother Jones was born to a Catholic, but otherwise religion seemed to feature little in her life.

MLK was of course a clergyman - but again, it seems mostly incidental - not surprising considering the Biblical justifications for oppression used at the time.

Not to mention the fact that modern issues are completely irrelevant to a centuries-old tome.

Remaining non-violent, depending on circumstances, can be incredibly stupid, since it just makes the aggressor's job that much easier. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you would not defend yourself with deadly force if you were attacked by someone determined to kill you?

As for loving those that want you dead... Why? This isn't a fucking Saturday morning cartoon, where the "power of friendship" can overcome all - this real life, where people like you can be torn to pieces.

I dont want people to take me seriously; I want to tell them my beliefs and if they agree then fine, if not then that's fine too. I only advocate, it's what I advocate that I want people to take under consideration.

We do that too; Salvation Army, Red Cross, Christian Peacemaker Teams, Ekklesia Project, etc. The problem is that many people see power as the best means of making change and whenever the church gets into power, it's always for the worse.

Agreed; religion is a problem as is power and I'm against both. I dont want christians in power anymore than I want Nazis in power, once any faction gains power it will eventually abuse that power and to prevent abuse we must abolish power.

No two people think exactly alike?

What do you mean I've yet to face reality? I've faced more reality than most people my age could imagine: I never met my parents but I know my birth-father is in prison on a life-sentence for murdering an infant left in his custody, one of his own; my sister, who was adopted from my birth-parents a year after I was, was raped by my adoptive-father and after being separated by CPS we were re-united to learn that he committed suicide; my youngest sister and my brother (twins) were born with cerebal palsy and are un-able to walk which means I've been taking care of them since I can remember and I'll be forced to live at home through college; life can be shit so me and reality are very familiar with each-other. Despite all this, I still believe in God and have no reason not to.

That's not YOUR outlook, MY outlook is theist and aims for social-justice; who has the authority to say that theism and justice are automatically at-odds?

God wants us to be charity workers; that's what Jesus talked about, it's what the Apostles were doing in Acts, it's what She intended when She instructed the Israelites to carry out the jubilee. True faith results in charity work of some-sort just like catepillars result into butterflys.

Fuck the clergy, bless the members, but fuck the clergy. I dont believe in clergy and my church doesnt practice it; all members have a hand in teaching and all decisions are made democratically. Even if working for God isnt mandatory, so what! That's what makes it beutiful.

Quotes by Cesar Chavez:
We don't know how God chooses martyrs. We do know that they give us the most precious gift they possess — their very lives.

This is the beginning of a social movement in fact and not in pronouncements. We seek our basic, God-given rights as human beings. Because we have suffered — and are not afraid to suffer — in order to survive, we are ready to give up everything, even our lives, in our fight for social justice. We shall do it without violence because that is our destiny.

We seek, and have, the support of the Church in what we do. At the head of the pilgrimage we carry La virgen de la Guadalupe because she is ours, all ours, Patroness of the Mexican people. We also carry the Sacred Cross and the Star of David because we are not sectarians, and because we ask the help and prayers of all religions.

When we refer to the Church we should define the word a little. We mean the whole Church, the Church as an ecumenical body spread around the world, and not just its particular form in a parish in a local community. The Church we are talking about is a tremendously powerful institution in our society, and in the world. That Church is one form of the Presence of God on Earth, and so naturally it is powerful. It is powerful by definition. It is a powerful moral and spiritual force which cannot be ignored by any movement.

We should be prepared to come to the defense of that priest, rabbi, minister, or layman of the Church, who out of commitment to truth and justice gets into a tight place with his pastor or bishop. It behooves us to stand with that man and help him see his trial through. It is our duty to see to it that his rights of conscience are respected and that no bishop, pastor or other higher body takes that God-given, human right away.

What do we want the Church to do? We don't ask for more cathedrals. We don't ask for bigger churches of fine gifts. We ask for its presence with us, beside us, as Christ among us. We ask the Church to sacrifice with the people for social change, for justice, and for love of brother. We don't ask for words. We ask for deeds. We don't ask for paternalism. We ask for servanthood.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cesar_Chavez

Incidental how? He never went in as anything other than a preacher and when asked to serve his community, he did so as the church is supposed to.

I would do my best not to.

"We are not advocating violence. We want to love our enemies. I want you to love our enemies. Be good to them. This is what we live by. We must meet hate with love." --Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Oh, and another thing:


I don't give a damn about NoXion, Joe. It's been my obersvation that there are more atheists on the internet than in the real world, and I am not worried about narrow-minded people like him.

I'm so narrow-minded. So much so that instead of writing off religious believers like you as hopeless cases, I actually engage with them and attempt to convince them through reason and argument. I'm so narrow-minded that I place evidence-based enquiry above my personal feelings with regards to material reality. It would be fantastic if there really was a powerful being that genuinely cared about humanity, but that is simply not the case.


When communism is established, the religious folk will not allow people like him to drive religion out.You speak of communism being established as if it were as sure as the sun rising tomorrow. That is an outlook which is at best futile and at worst dangerous. It's a question of "if" not "when".

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I dont want people to take me seriously; I want to tell them my beliefs and if they agree then fine, if not then that's fine too. I only advocate, it's what I advocate that I want people to take under consideration.

Why should people take what you say under consideration? You selectively follow the second-hand teachings of a man who's very existance is under question.


We do that too; Salvation Army, Red Cross, Christian Peacemaker Teams, Ekklesia Project, etc. The problem is that many people see power as the best means of making change and whenever the church gets into power, it's always for the worse.You missed my point. It is entirely possible to be good and charitable without reference to any kind of religion - so why tack it on?


Agreed; religion is a problem as is power and I'm against both. I dont want christians in power anymore than I want Nazis in power, once any faction gains power it will eventually abuse that power and to prevent abuse we must abolish power.If you're against religion, why are you a Christian?


No two people think exactly alike?No, it proves that the Bible is obfuscatory and contradictory enough to serve almost anyone's purposes, making it useless.


What do you mean I've yet to face reality? I've faced more reality than most people my age could imagine: I never met my parents but I know my birth-father is in prison on a life-sentence for murdering an infant left in his custody, one of his own; my sister, who was adopted from my birth-parents a year after I was, was raped by my adoptive-father and after being separated by CPS we were re-united to learn that he committed suicide; my youngest sister and my brother (twins) were born with cerebal palsy and are un-able to walk which means I've been taking care of them since I can remember and I'll be forced to live at home through college; life can be shit so me and reality are very familiar with each-other. Despite all this, I still believe in God and have no reason not to.What did you do to deserve all that? Nothing. Yet apparently, God knew all about this in advance, and has the power to change it, yet He does nothing.

Even if you believe in Him, I fail to see how you could "love" such a vile creature.


That's not YOUR outlook, MY outlook is theist and aims for social-justice; who has the authority to say that theism and justice are automatically at-odds?Anybody with a lick of common sense. What kind of just, loving god would create an unjust, uncaring universe?


God wants us to be charity workers; that's what Jesus talked about, it's what the Apostles were doing in Acts, it's what She intended when She instructed the Israelites to carry out the jubilee. True faith results in charity work of some-sort just like catepillars result into butterflys."God told me to do it" is not a good justification for anything. In fact, I would say those that do good things without asking are better than those who do because some Cosmic Nanny nagged them to do it.

Considering that "She" is the same god who gave Joshua free reign to commit atrocities and massacres, I'd think everyone would be better off ignoring whatever "She" has to say.


Fuck the clergy, bless the members, but fuck the clergy. I dont believe in clergy and my church doesnt practice it; all members have a hand in teaching and all decisions are made democratically. Even if working for God isnt mandatory, so what! That's what makes it beutiful.The clergy are a symptom of a deeper malaise, which your "all-in" method does nothing to combat.


Quotes by Cesar Chavez:And "the Church" as defined by Mr Chavez did... absolutely nothing. Thanks guys!


Incidental how? He never went in as anything other than a preacher and when asked to serve his community, he did so as the church is supposed to.So? People remember MLK for his activism, not the fact he was a clergyman. He could have been a car mechanic and he still would have been lauded for what he did.


I would do my best not to.Not to what? Kill him? When you're fighting for your very life, there's no time for such niceties.


He has a good point that sex has gotten out of hand in the gay community but it's getting out of hand with straight kids too.

Define "out of hand".

[Rosa Provokateur]

You speak of communism being established as if it were as sure as the sun rising tomorrow. That is an outlook which is at best futile and at worst dangerous. It's a question of "if" not "when".

Idealism is healthy, dont be so hard on him.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Idealism is healthy, dont be so hard on him.

I most strongly disagree. It's one thing to have an optimistic disposition, but taking the communist hypothesis as a certainty is an entirely different beast.

[Kassad]

He has a good point that sex has gotten out of hand in the gay community but it's getting out of hand with straight kids too. Screw it, times like these that Will & Grace comes in handy lol.

What are you, some fucking fascist or something? When did you or anyone else become the universal decider on what is or is not too much sex in today's society? Just because other people's definition of sex isn't the same as yours doesn't mean that anyone can make a judgment on sexual acts, spare the rare chance that it is depriving someone of their rights. At what point are people having too much sex? Honestly, you christians are mind-boggling sometimes. I mean, the Church is right. People should stop having sex unless they are open to reproducing. It's not like orphans are still starving in underfunded orphanages.

[Random Precision]

I've trashed the off-topic diversion between Comrade Joe and PCommie, and given the former a warning point for flaming.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Why should people take what you say under consideration? You selectively follow the second-hand teachings of a man who's very existance is under question.

You missed my point. It is entirely possible to be good and charitable without reference to any kind of religion - so why tack it on?

If you're against religion, why are you a Christian?

No, it proves that the Bible is obfuscatory and contradictory enough to serve almost anyone's purposes, making it useless.

What did you do to deserve all that? Nothing. Yet apparently, God knew all about this in advance, and has the power to change it, yet He does nothing.

Even if you believe in Him, I fail to see how you could "love" such a vile creature.

Anybody with a lick of common sense. What kind of just, loving god would create an unjust, uncaring universe?

"God told me to do it" is not a good justification for anything. In fact, I would say those that do good things without asking are better than those who do because some Cosmic Nanny nagged them to do it.

Considering that "She" is the same god who gave Joshua free reign to commit atrocities and massacres, I'd think everyone would be better off ignoring whatever "She" has to say.

The clergy are a symptom of a deeper malaise, which your "all-in" method does nothing to combat.

And "the Church" as defined by Mr Chavez did... absolutely nothing. Thanks guys!

So? People remember MLK for his activism, not the fact he was a clergyman. He could have been a car mechanic and he still would have been lauded for what he did.

Not to what? Kill him? When you're fighting for your very life, there's no time for such niceties.



Define "out of hand".

Because the teachings are good regardless of whether Jesus existed.

People who are charitable and have a faith see it as important to do so, to honor God and serve mankind in Her name.

I'm a Christian because I believe in God and the teachings of Jesus Christ; I oppose religion, it hurts the church and damages the faith.

Point taken.

I prefer Her not to alter people's free-will. It was all terrible but had it not happened, I wouldnt be who I am today and probably not give a damn for politics at all.

I love Her because She's not responsible, people are.

She just created the universe, people made it unjust and uncaring.

It doesnt matter why good is committed so long as it gets done.

I can sympathize with that.

So what do you suggest?

Thats what happens when the church gets power. He got the congregational support and thats what matters, without them you have no church.

But it was his faith that got him active.

I never take life, even at the risk of losing my own.

Doing it in the bathroom stalls for one lol.

[Jazzratt]

I've trashed the off-topic diversion between Comrade Joe and PCommie, and given the former a warning point for flaming.

I'm sorry to drag this off topic but but you did what?

Looking at comrade joe's posts shows that he wasn't flaming excessively or, indeed, without good reason. Not only that but the way you trashed things basically implies that this type of shit:


I suppose so, if they act on it. If you want to get on hmosexuals, fine, let me give you my story on their practices: I go up the the bathroom door in TacoBell. Some guy desperately screams, "Just a minute, just a minute!!" I let him alone. About 15 minutes later, two very guilty looking guys walk out of there. My mom says they do that type thing a lot. How often do you see heterosexuals do that? Point taken? Maybe if we did everything the Bible said, the world would be a little nicer. *shrug*

is A-OK.

In short the warning point was utterly unwarranted.

[Jazzratt]

Because the teachings are good regardless of whether Jesus existed.

Then why involve Christ at all?


I prefer Her not to alter people's free-will. It was all terrible but had it not happened, I wouldnt be who I am today and probably not give a damn for politics at all.

Being born with cerebral palsy is not an exercise of free will, as were a number of the other unfortunate events you mentioned. If god was willing to help people you wouldn't need to be political.


I love Her because She's not responsible, people are.

She just created the universe, people made it unjust and uncaring.

http://internationalrivers.org/files/images/Sichuan%20earthquake.jpgPeople are responsible for this? People made the decision to move the tectonic plates in such a way that this place was absolutely demolished in an earthquake?

http://www.geographyalltheway.com/ib_geography/ib_population/imagesetc/aids_virus.gif
Which humans are responsible for this? Unless you're one hell of a nutjob conspiracy theorist who believes humans manufactured AIDS you would have to say that no one is responsible for its existance? Where, then, is the justice? The care?

In a world where people can be killed, maimed and harmed by a massive number of things that have little to do with their choices I don't think you can call them solely responsible for its uncaring and unjust nature. However if the world and everything in it (every mosquito that infects people with malaria, every hideous virus, every breathtaking site of natural beauty, every foul disease, every cute little kitten and so on (and on and on)) was created by a god its uncaring and unjust nature must have been designed by that god. Laying the blame squarely at its feet.


I never take life, even at the risk of losing my own.

That's deeply silly.


Doing it in the bathroom stalls for one lol.

Cottaging is anonymous and seperate from daily life. It is easier to keep secret from those around you than sex at home (for example if you are married and do not wish your beard to find out) and rises out of a desire on the part of a stigmatised group not to be identified rather than "teh gays can't keep their dicks to themselves, lol". I could make a few related comments based on people I know but I doubt they'd thank me for revealing how much/little sex I think they're getting :lol:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Because the teachings are good regardless of whether Jesus existed.

Doesn't that make the whole "Christianity" thing irrelevant? Good advice stands on its own merit.


People who are charitable and have a faith see it as important to do so, to honor God and serve mankind in Her name.But why is faith important? Why isn't just doing good enough? After all, you're doing all the hard work, why big up that no-good cosmic layabout?


I'm a Christian because I believe in God and the teachings of Jesus Christ; I oppose religion, it hurts the church and damages the faith.Christianity is a religion. You are a Christian. That makes you a part of the problem.


I prefer Her not to alter people's free-will. It was all terrible but had it not happened, I wouldnt be who I am today and probably not give a damn for politics at all.Yes, you would have been a different person. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Surely God in all His omniscience and omnipotence could set things up right? You don't have to be brutalised yourself to oppose brutality - if anything, brutal conditions create brutal people.


I love Her because She's not responsible, people are.People are responsible for cerebral palsy?


She just created the universe, people made it unjust and uncaring.People are responsible for earthquakes and tsunamis?


It doesnt matter why good is committed so long as it gets done.I disagree. I think a genuine desire to do good out of enlightened self-interest is a much better approach. I don't want to live in a society where everyone is at each other's throats, so I work to avoid that.


I can sympathize with that.

Can you appreciate that even if it was proven to me that God did exist, I would not worship him? Jazzratt put the point across for me very well - a god that created this universe is a vile shitbag of truly cosmic proportions.


So what do you suggest?Why, become an atheist of course. But you and I both know it's not that simple. I've been trying my best to convince you and others I have engaged with, and intend to carry on doing so in the hope of some kind of success, but ultimately the decision rests with yourself.


Thats what happens when the church gets power. He got the congregational support and thats what matters, without them you have no church.What he achieve? Reforms. Well and good, but hardly threatening the system. No wonder he's had streets named after him.


But it was his faith that got him active.His interpretation of the Christian faith, yes. But that's a shaky foundation.


I never take life, even at the risk of losing my own.You should value your life, it's the only one you'll ever get.


Doing it in the bathroom stalls for one lol.It takes all sorts I guess. But it's not like they're fucking openly in the street.

[Post-Something]

Thank God we have people like NoXion.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Doesn't that make the whole "Christianity" thing irrelevant? Good advice stands on its own merit.

But why is faith important? Why isn't just doing good enough? After all, you're doing all the hard work, why big up that no-good cosmic layabout?

Christianity is a religion. You are a Christian. That makes you a part of the problem.

Yes, you would have been a different person. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Surely God in all His omniscience and omnipotence could set things up right? You don't have to be brutalised yourself to oppose brutality - if anything, brutal conditions create brutal people.


I disagree. I think a genuine desire to do good out of enlightened self-interest is a much better approach. I don't want to live in a society where everyone is at each other's throats, so I work to avoid that.



Can you appreciate that even if it was proven to me that God did exist, I would not worship him? Jazzratt put the point across for me very well - a god that created this universe is a vile shitbag of truly cosmic proportions.

Why, become an atheist of course. But you and I both know it's not that simple. I've been trying my best to convince you and others I have engaged with, and intend to carry on doing so in the hope of some kind of success, but ultimately the decision rests with yourself.

What he achieve? Reforms. Well and good, but hardly threatening the system. No wonder he's had streets named after him.

His interpretation of the Christian faith, yes. But that's a shaky foundation.

You should value your life, it's the only one you'll ever get.

It takes all sorts I guess. But it's not like they're fucking openly in the street.

Good point.

The answer differs according to the person.

True, but I dont follow Christianity. I follow Jesus. The only reason I call myself Christian is it's an easy desriptor.

Possible but I dont think Her hand is in every single event.

Point taken.

That's your choice and I leave you to it.

Thankyou for giving me the option.

At the time he was considered a major threat; we need MORE Cesar Chavez's.

Whatever gets them moving.

I do but I cant bring myself to end another life.

True lol.

[Random Precision]

I'm sorry to drag this off topic but but you did what?

Looking at comrade joe's posts shows that he wasn't flaming excessively or, indeed, without good reason. Not only that but the way you trashed things basically implies that this type of shit:

is A-OK.

In short the warning point was utterly unwarranted.

I gave PCommie an infraction for that comment as well. Although I did forget to trash it, which has now been remedied.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I've trashed the off-topic diversion between Comrade Joe and PCommie, and given the former a warning point for flaming.

I fail to see where in this post you gave PCommie a warning point

[Random Precision]

I fail to see where in this post you gave PCommie a warning point

His original comment about gay men, which I've now trashed.

[Coggeh]

Kassad, just don't involve yourself. You'll not tell us when we can start educating our OWN CHILDREN. Family will never be communal property, and if communism is really like this, then hell, maybe capitalism's better? I don't really believe that, but I'll not stand for your oppressionist system.

-PC
Actually ,family is all well and good but society as a whole has the collective responsibility too . Even to a degree in capitalism . My taxes (I'm speaking figuratively lol) are used to pay for social workers & carers to help children from homes with "problems" . Why do we do this ? because even after the raping of the communal instinct of people we still share a common goal for the well being of all in the community ,despite religious family orientated dogma .

Is it ok for parents to teach (indoctrinate) their kids with say racism , to teach them that whites are above people of other races ? or maybe to indoctrinate them with even marxism . I don't want my child (again , figuratively) to be schooled into a certain thought just because I believe it by doing this your harming their skills for independant learning and thought .

Childrens minds don't operate the same as Adults its like a sponge if you will .They do not test the words of their parents , which can be a good thing e.g "don't walk off that cliff you'll die" a child doesn't understand much as to why , but none the less doesn't test it(usually) .

Parents can tell children just about anything and have them believe it without question . This is ultimatly postive I believe as when we further develop we can understand and use logic ourselves.

But it becomes harmful when its complete indoctrination of say a certain personal belief .Religion... politics .. music taste basically your full personal characteristics should be a completely independant developed part of who you are . Not a replica of your parents .

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The answer differs according to the person.

But are the answers any good? I say no.


True, but I dont follow Christianity. I follow Jesus. The only reason I call myself Christian is it's an easy desriptor.Christian, noun: An individual who seeks to live his or her life according to the principles and values taught by Jesus Christ.

According to the above definition, you are in fact a Christian, the label isn't some kind of shorthand.


Possible but I dont think Her hand is in every single event.How can you tell?


At the time he was considered a major threat; we need MORE Cesar Chavez's.Are you serious?! He got the support of Robert F Kennedy. He seems to have been a reformist, not a revolutionary.


Whatever gets them moving.Motivations are important. It's entirely possible to do the right thing for the wrong reasons; the faulty initial premise can have adverse effects on methodology and praxis.


I do but I cant bring myself to end another life.Why not?

[Rosa Provokateur]

Christian, noun: An individual who seeks to live his or her life according to the principles and values taught by Jesus Christ.

According to the above definition, you are in fact a Christian, the label isn't some kind of shorthand.

How can you tell?

Are you serious?! He got the support of Robert F Kennedy. He seems to have been a reformist, not a revolutionary.

Motivations are important. It's entirely possible to do the right thing for the wrong reasons; the faulty initial premise can have adverse effects on methodology and praxis.

Why not?
Okay, I'm a Christian; but like the definition says, that only means I seek to live like Jesus. I dont think Christianity is the answer or can save people, thats God's job.

Well I see no reason She'd control every little rain-storm or which way the wind blows. I do believe in divine intervention but Her methods change and I dont think destruction is something She uses anymore.

Reform is the cousin of revolution.

What is praxis?

[Black Sheep]

This thread is here to unite the religious communists of this forum.
Uniting the religious commies, is equivalent to uniting the brown-haired ones, the ones who like chocolate milk and not regular,the ones who believe in unicorns and flying teapots, etc


The goal of this thread is to develop new ideology that allows ORGANIZED religion and communism to coexist.
Develop a new ideology that allows organized paranoia + logical fallacies and the emancipation of the working class with the use of logic +collective interest to coexist?
Cool story bro.Reminds me of the ideology that the free market and the well-being of the working class can coexist.


I ask that no anti-religious, Marxist sentiment be posted here, only the thoughts of Christians, Jews, Muslims, whoever will come forth.
Request denied.Allow me to interfere with your faithfull lobby and try to make you come to your senses.


Atheist input is welcome ONLY if it is an idea on church/communism coexistance, NOT why religion is bad, please.
I think i ll pass and enter the realm of not-welcomeness.

[PCommie]

First, I want to apologize for the comment about gays. It was not intended offensively but I did not think about how it could be taken, and looking back, no, it wasn't in good taste. So, I apologise.


Is it ok for parents to teach (indoctrinate) their kids with say racism , to teach them that whites are above people of other races ? or maybe to indoctrinate them with even marxism .

So you want parents to keep their beliefs to themselves from their children? If beliefs were not passed down, we'd have no real point from where to start. I am going to invoke Dialectical Materialism, despite the controversy, to say that if everything works in opposition, then the opposing beliefs of different people are the spark of change and development. Arguments here and plain fact have caused me to reconsider my position on organized religion. I suppose it could be a tool for oppression or other purposes. When one cow in a herd is sick, you have to shoot them all. I suppose the only way is to rid ourselves of it. I am also reconsidering my position on beliefs at all, frankly, so this should prove that opposite belief is the engine of development.


Not a replica of your parents .

LOL. My parents taught me their beliefs well, and I am no replica. Not hardly. Your argument is unsubstantiated, since change is natural. You do not spend all your time with your parents, and outside influences cause change in you. Call it "social evolution."


I do but I cant bring myself to end another life.

Again, this is one area where I either have to call myself a sinner or oppose religious indoctrination. Either way, someone attacks me, I'm going to fight back with all my strength, which unfortunately isn't much, and if the opportunity comes by to deliver a blow that would stop them, but also kill them, you better believe I'd do it. My life or theirs, sorry, mine wins.


I do believe in divine intervention but Her methods change and I dont think destruction is something She uses anymore.

In all fairness, GA, that is a VERY shaky thing to say. For one, if God changes, how do we know how much of the Bible has changed? I can't put into words well my first point, but a second thing to say is, does it make it right in the first place? I honestly have to consider what some of these folks like NoXion are saying, because they make their point better than a Case knife. It is arguable to an extent, but then arguments become re-do's of what has already been said, or even exact replicas. Jesus was not even an apology, he was a forgiving.

Most Christians haven't read the whole Bible, I sure haven't read it all, and these stories of destruction, which we are then "forgiven" for, do sound a bit... questionable, to me.



Request denied.Allow me to interfere with your faithfull lobby and try to make you come to your senses.

Lol. Come on in, comrade, this thread fell off what I started it as LONG ago. ;)

-PC

[Rosa Provokateur]

First, I want to apologize for the comment about gays. It was not intended offensively but I did not think about how it could be taken, and looking back, no, it wasn't in good taste. So, I apologise.

In all fairness, GA, that is a VERY shaky thing to say. For one, if God changes, how do we know how much of the Bible has changed? I can't put into words well my first point, but a second thing to say is, does it make it right in the first place? I honestly have to consider what some of these folks like NoXion are saying, because they make their point better than a Case knife. It is arguable to an extent, but then arguments become re-do's of what has already been said, or even exact replicas. Jesus was not even an apology, he was a forgiving.

Most Christians haven't read the whole Bible, I sure haven't read it all, and these stories of destruction, which we are then "forgiven" for, do sound a bit... questionable, to me.






-PC

Don't mention it, you're hearts in the right place:)

God doesnt change but Her methods do; as mankind changes, She adapts methodology to keep in contact. She wants to be intimate with us and is willing to do whatever necessary to make relationship. There are things in the Bible I'm at odds with Her doing but I trust Her and when the day comes, I'll ask Her why.

Reading the whole Bible isnt important, what matters is learning it from all possible perspectives and applying to your life what you feel God has called you to do.

[PCommie]

Forget it, GA, they're right. If this thread isn't enough, the sticky one "What does the Bible say about women?" seals it by the end of the first page.


God doesnt change but Her methods do; as mankind changes, She adapts methodology to keep in contact. She wants to be intimate with us and is willing to do whatever necessary to make relationship. There are things in the Bible I'm at odds with Her doing but I trust Her and when the day comes, I'll ask Her why.

Perhaps, but when God does not keep his own commandments ("Thou shalt not kill"?) I can't believe it, not in the face of these reasonable arguments anyway.

You'll ask him why, will you? Know what you'll hear? "Mysterious ways. Trust me," and that's assuming the existence of God. I've constantly claimed to be open-minded here. Well, if that's true, I can't very well keep re-writing used arguments to try and combat people who bring fresh ones every time, can I? Fresh ones that make sense.

That's it, then. God and religion have been bulldozed. It will take me time to truly believe it, but being open-minded as a communist must be, it is necessary. If it's any consolation, I had trouble getting myself to type this, GA.

H&S forever,
-PC

[Post-Something]

I went through the exact same thing as you PCommie. I think a lot more people need to be as clear headed as that and analyse arguments based on the facts. Respect for being able to see through it :)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

@ PCommie:

I'm finding it difficult to find something appropriate to say - it's not often that I see minds changed by internet debate, but damn it feels good when it does happen. I would like to think that my efforts at argumentation had something to do with it in this instance. Even if I didn't, I'm genuinely pleased at your conclusion.


That's it, then. God and religion have been bulldozed. It will take me time to truly believe it, but being open-minded as a communist must be, it is necessary. If it's any consolation, I had trouble getting myself to type this, GA.

I think it is somewhat unfortunate that I can only appreciate how you feel on an intellectual level - I take it you were raised in a religious environment?

If there's any piece of advice that I think would suit you, it would be this: don't ever hesitate to ask questions of anyone, and never accept any answers thus given on authority alone.

[ibn Bruce]

The majority of intellectuals worth their weight in salt are atheists.
Isaac Newton, Niels Bohr, Louis Pasteur, Galileo, Antoine Laurent Lavoisier, Johannes Kepler, Nicolaus Copernicus, James Clerk Maxwell, Werner Heisenberg, Linus Pauling, Erwin Schrodinger, Andreas Vesalius, Max Born, Enrico Fermi, Abdus Salam, Ibn Rushd, Muhammad ibn Musa Khwarizmi... etc. etc. etc.


Actually, I know why views such as yours have been insignificant historically speaking - because religion is too good a tool for those seeking earthly power (or wanting to reinforce it) to pass it up, and the sort of people who seek/reinforce earthly power are not the type to change the world for the better.
It can broadly be posited that that religious action and adherance directly increases proportional to the amount of access the majority has to power. Thus in a dictatorship, religious action, adherence and then resistance rises.

While my Christian brothers and sisters may find it unpalatable, most religions have in one way or another been behind many of the uprisings and resistance to established norms throughout history. To say that religion is either inherently conservative or reactionary is to be ignorant of history.


Priests and Mullahs may only be the managers/supervisors of the religion, but above them lies the bourgeois like the Bishops and Cardinals who live off the labour those below them and make these threats of pain and misery upon anyone who dares challenge them. In terms of Mullahs (not a term we use, but I asume you refer to the Ulema -scholars), who is above them? Considering that in Sunni Islam there is no hierarchy.


I'm so narrow-minded. So much so that instead of writing off religious believers like you as hopeless cases, I actually engage with them and attempt to convince them through reason and argument. I'm so narrow-minded that I place evidence-based enquiry above my personal feelings with regards to material reality. It would be fantastic if there really was a powerful being that genuinely cared about humanity, but that is simply not the case.

I find many of my arguments go unanswered with you. Also reason and empricism are two conflicting concepts. If you are taking an 'evidence based approach' then you are not applying reason, as reason is broadly defined as the excercise of thought/logic outside of an experimental setting. Without 'reason' we would have no Quarks, as they cannot be proven to exist but science decides to believe in them because they make theoretical sense. In this way it is not needed that we can prove them through experimentation/observation (yet) it is simply good enough that they explain things well.

Thus reason can provide belief in God, without evidence, as reason (logically) can stand on its own, without empiricism. Of course this does not mean that 'proof' exists, however as the question is about reason, not about evidence, it is not required.

Similarly if one is to argue anything ONLY based upon empiricism, without reason at all, they fall up against the problems faced by Cartesian subjectivity, in a sense there is no objective, empirical proof for anything beyond individual perception, with any argument for objectivity therefore needing to be based upon reason rather than empiricism. You will never find answers if you do not understand what you ask.


I most strongly disagree. It's one thing to have an optimistic disposition, but taking the communist hypothesis as a certainty is an entirely different beast.

Belief in progress as a constant is automatically both idealist and extremely optimistic.



But it becomes harmful when its complete indoctrination of say a certain personal belief .Religion... politics .. music taste basically your full personal characteristics should be a completely independant developed part of who you are . Not a replica of your parents .
I am yet to meet any replicas. Just as I am yet to meet someone who still has a relationship with their parents who's personal characteristics have no relation to them. You give kids too little credit, they are not blank slates that have their parents will imparted upon them completely, any atheist who was born in a religious family is evidence for that.


Just a few points..

[Decolonize The Left]

It can broadly be posited that that religious action and adherance directly increases proportional to the amount of access the majority has to power. Thus in a dictatorship, religious action, adherence and then resistance rises.

While my Christian brothers and sisters may find it unpalatable, most religions have in one way or another been behind many of the uprisings and resistance to established norms throughout history. To say that religion is either inherently conservative or reactionary is to be ignorant of history.

I disagree. Religion, that is a system of beliefs which centers around the belief in the existence of an all-powerful deity, is rooted in dogma - dogma which stems from some sort of text or another.

I cannot think of one, currently practiced, religion which is not based upon a 'sacred text.' If the text is sacred, and cannot easily be altered, and must be observed... sounds reactionary to me. What about you?

Contrast this worship of a book with the domain of science, which is constantly changing and altering it's system of beliefs based upon reason and evidence, and you see a system which is progressive, and another which is reactionary.

- August

[Coggeh]

LOL. My parents taught me their beliefs well, and I am no replica. Not hardly. Your argument is unsubstantiated, since change is natural. You do not spend all your time with your parents, and outside influences cause change in you. Call it "social evolution."
-PC
Are you seriously telling me that people here in Ireland would have all grew up to be Catholics if they were born Atheist . ? :rolleyes:

[Commiebastard'92]

Can we please get back to PCommie's original purpose of this thread? While this debate is needed it can be done on a thread dedicated to it. I as a walking semi-contradiction (commie/catholic) would love to have a serious disscussion with my fellow non athiests.please let it be used as such

[Commiebastard'92]

soory I posted this in the wrong place.It refer's to the uniting religious leftists thread.

[JFMLenin]

Religious commie reporting for duty! I see no reason why religion and communism cannot exist together. Organized dogmatic fascism, such as what stems from the Vatican, is different; that I do not believe is right nor do I believe it works.

[CheFighter777]

So what do most of you all believe in?

[Pirate Utopian]

So what do most of you all believe in?
Cant speak for everyone but in my case nothing.

[CheFighter777]

Cant speak for everyone but in my case nothing.

So whats the purpose of your life then if you don't believe in anything?

[Pirate Utopian]

So whats the purpose of your life then if you don't believe in anything?
I was talking in the context of supernatural shite.

[CheFighter777]

I was talking in the context of supernatural shite.

Ok, so does that mean you don't have a purpose for your life?

Like, what do you think is the meaning of life?

[Pirate Utopian]

Like, I think there is no definite meaning of life, but it's up to anyone to fill in their own meaning.

[Decolonize The Left]

Ok, so does that mean you don't have a purpose for your life?

Life purpose is determined by the individual. Atheists determine their life purpose according to whatever their drive may be..


Like, what do you think is the meaning of life?

There is no "meaning of life." The biological purpose of life is reproduction. The individual, existential, meaning of life is determined by the individual.

- August

[HEAD ICE]

I attempted to sign up, just to find out that I already did!

I guess I would fit in on the topic of this thread - I am a Tolstoyist.

[Demogorgon]

Ok, so does that mean you don't have a purpose for your life?

Like, what do you think is the meaning of life?
This is nonsensical because believing in God isn't going to give you a purpose in life in of itself anyway, nor will it tell you the meaning of life in the way I think you mean it.

I don't buy into the hippy "we create our own meaning" stuff as that is really just feel good rubbish. The truth is our lives are based on the circumstances around us and how we attempt to find fulfillment in these circumstances while also carrying out our basic biological drives. And into this you can add all the more complicated stuff about how we fit into the class system should you wish.

All of this is the case regardless of whether you believe in God or not. Indeed, it is the case whether God exists or not.

As for the "meaning of life", what do you even mean by it? What it is? What its purpose is? Where it came from? Why it is there? You can superficially answer some of these questions by saying God is behind life, but it doesn't really give much of an answer.

Still, when you ask the wrong questions, you get the wrong answers.