Democratic Christian Communist Anarchism

[Democrat]

Is there a name for such a conglomeration? If there is, could you tell me?

[RebelDog]

the second word in that sentence negates the other three and vice-versa. They simply shouldn't be combined.

[Democrat]

the second word in that sentence negates the other three and vice-versa. They simply shouldn't be combined.

Not necissarily, as I am a christian, but it does not mean I base my poltical opinion around it. I am basically an Anarcho-Communist, but on a personal basis, I am a christian, although it never influences my political judgement.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

No. Communism is democratic so there is no need to say "democratic communism." Also, as far as identifying as a "Christian communist," I don't really see a need to do so. "Christian communist" might technically describe you but it is not a political tendency, in the same way that "French communist" does not describe a political tendency. Unless you suppose that "Christian communism" means converting everyone to Christianity or something, which is thoroughly un-communist.

[Misanthrope]

Democracy is communistic and anarchistic. Anarchism and communism differ in implementation of achieving communism. There is a member here that calls himself, an Catholic anarcho-communist.

whatever floats your boat I guess..

[RebelDog]

Not necissarily, as I am a christian, but it does not mean I base my poltical opinion around it. I am basically an Anarcho-Communist, but on a personal basis, I am a christian, although it never influences my political judgement.

If you never let it influence your political judgement then why bother? How are you 'Christian' if do not live by the teachings of the bible?

[kharacter]

I'll reiterate what has been said, given it's relevance - Democratic is a given, and Christian is not relevant to stating your political position.



whatever floats your boat I guess..
i agree with this, as long as it doesn't blind you

[RebelDog]

Christian is highly relevant. Saying you are a Christian means nothing if you do not live by its book and a quick and easy example of how christianity is in total opposition to anarchism is that the aforementioned book states one must respect ones master and do as he (sexist) says. That clearly is incompatable with any strand of anarchism. Christianity and anarchism are as much dialectical opposites as dialectical opposites can be.

[kharacter]

Christian is highly relevant. Saying you are a Christian means nothing if you do not live by its book and a quick and easy example of how christianity is in total opposition to anarchism is that the aforementioned book states one must respect ones master and do as he (sexist) says. That clearly is incompatable with any strand of anarchism. Christianity and anarchism are as much dialectical opposites as dialectical opposites can be.
ideologically, I agree with you completely, but give him a break. He says he doesn't live by the book. You say this doesn't qualify him as a Christian, but then it's evident that the problem is on the usage of a term. The belief is fantasy (which is as far as his religiousness goes) is irrational, but not incompatible communism.

I hope this doesn't sound aggressive to you, as I'd hate to anger a fellow anarchist communist.

[Blackscare]

Quick! Someone get the torches and pitch forks! There's a new user trying to ask questions and he's reached 2 posts without being scared off yet!


Someone be a dick about his religion even though he says it doesn't factor into his politics! Stat! And if he insists on saying that it really, really doesn't affect anything, then attack his belief in Christianity on those very grounds! Don't worry that it's totally irrelevant to politics at that point, irrelevant, off-topic dickery is one of the best ways to scare people away!


Oh, wait....

[RebelDog]

ideologically, I agree with you completely, but give him a break. He says he doesn't live by the book. You say this doesn't qualify him as a Christian, but then it's evident that the problem is on the usage of a term. The belief is fantasy (which is as far as his religiousness goes) is irrational, but not incompatible communism.

I hope this doesn't sound aggressive to you, as I'd hate to anger a fellow anarchist communist.

Im not angered at all and I am not seeking to condescend to the OP. It is my job as a rational human being to question why two completely opposing views can find a home in one human brain. One of three things will happen here. Either that brain will die holding these two opposing views or one of the opposing views will prevail, as a materialist I hope the materialist outlook will previal and the OP will ditch religion. It seems surplus to requirements already. There is no definition of Christianity unless it relates to the bible and thus if ye doth not live by it ye is not a Christian. Very simple for me.

[gorillafuck]

The "Democratic" is redundant.

[RebelDog]

The "Democratic" is redundant

Explain.

[RebelDog]

Quick! Someone get the torches and pitch forks! There's a new user trying to ask questions and he's reached 2 posts without being scared off yet!


Someone be a dick about his religion even though he says it doesn't factor into his politics! Stat! And if he insists on saying that it really, really doesn't affect anything, then attack his belief in Christianity on those very grounds! Don't worry that it's totally irrelevant to politics at that point, irrelevant, off-topic dickery is one of the best ways to scare people away!


Oh, wait....

Way off the mark.

[Blackscare]

Communism = stateless and classless society, meaning it is based around popular control of society rather than control by a ruling class.

How else could that happen without direct democracy?

[gorillafuck]

Explain.
Communism is democratic.

[RebelDog]

Communism is democratic.

So why could it be redundant?

[Blackscare]

Way off the mark.

Right, you're just nitpicking things that (once he's made it clear that it doesn't effect his politics) are totally irrelevant. It doesn't effect his politics, therefor it's none of your damn business (on this forum at least.)



Im not angered at all and I am not seeking to condescend to the OP. It is my job as a rational human being to question why two completely opposing views can find a home in one human brain. One of three things will happen here. Either that brain will die holding these two opposing views or one of the opposing views will prevail, as a materialist I hope the materialist outlook will previal and the OP will ditch religion. It seems surplus to requirements already. There is no definition of Christianity unless it relates to the bible and thus if ye doth not live by it ye is not a Christian. Very simple for me.

Reconcile your first sentence with the rest of that paragraph, please. I found the bolded bits to be particularly condescending.

I guess you're assuming that you, being the great rational human being illuminating the rest of humanity that you are, can tell him that it's impossible for him to reconcile his own beliefs even though the poor soul thinks he already has! I also think it's a bit simple and frankly, arrogant to claim to be able to define exactly what it means to be a Christian, regardless of the fact that most sects (or all) of Christianity don't follow every stricture imposed, because that would be fucking impossible. Also, you'd have to disregard the fact that there were many texts that existed in early Christianity that were suppressed and excluded from 'the' bible! The exact words of the 'bible' as we know it today are what makes a Christian then. Furthermore, there's no such thing as a Christian, apparently.

[spiltteeth]

You can be Christian and anarchist. Check out http://www.jesusradicals.com/ They are a pretty large Anarchist group.
Check out Jacques Ellul Anarchy and Christianity

And welcome!

[spiltteeth]

OR http://www.christarchy.com/profiles/blogs/early-christian-pacifism-and

[gorillafuck]

So why could it be redundant?
Because it's pointless to say "democratic anarchist-communist" if the ideology is inherently democratic.

I don't want to get into such a pointless debate, to be honest.

[Democrat]

Well, personally, I find Jesus to be a decentralized figure, and that his teachings of peace and equality are important, but that the church distorted much of the truth, after all, the councils took out whatever they thought of was too "unchristian." I really say christian because of the fact that christianity helped change my life, and made me a better person. I used to be the kind of person that was almost a leech on other people, but then I decided I wanted to be something more, and I turned to Anarchy, Communism, and Christianity.

I guess I shouldn'tve put the Democracy, or the Christianity in the title. I just thought it was important.

Personally, I'd support any communist, anarchist, or syndicalist, so long as they kept their promises, and did good, and made well their people's happiness. I am a die hard anarcho-communist, and I always will be, but I support all those who support the people.

[#FF0000]

I just want to throw this out there.

Anarchism is NOT DEMOCRATIC. Anarchists do NOT recognize the right of the majority to impose its will over the minority.

[cb9's_unity]

We should be fearful of Christain Anarcho-communism as it implies Christianity as part of the political ideology. However if your a anarcho-communist who happens to be a christian then I have no problems.

Also Jesus and the bible can't be used to justify any political system. The bible is just too contradictory. You could 'interpret' it to say anything you want. Of course you could also just read the bible and follow its line on homosexuality...

[Revy]

We should be fearful of Christain Anarcho-communism as it implies Christianity as part of the political ideology. However if your a anarcho-communist who happens to be a christian then I have no problems.

Also Jesus and the bible can't be used to justify any political system. The bible is just too contradictory. You could 'interpret' it to say anything you want. Of course you could also just read the bible and follow its line on homosexuality...

Yeah, the "Christian left" often quote the Bible to show how "liberating" it is, but willfilly ignoring all the heinous, brutal and totalitarian parts.

I think really, if someone wanted a "liberating" Christianity, they should get rid of the Bible altogether. But that would involve the idea that a faith belongs to its followers, and not some ancient book.

[The Feral Underclass]

Well, personally, I find Jesus to be a decentralized figure, and that his teachings of peace and equality are important

But that doesn't make him the son of god.


I am a die hard anarcho-communist, and I always will be

Anarchist communism is based on philosophical materialism and rationalism and thus a materialist conception of history. How do you square this with the belief in god?

[Holden Caulfield]

May I ask what kind of Christian you are. We have a Catholic Commuist on here which I find hilariously fucked up,

non-hierarchical society you say? yeah, well expect from the Pope who is appointed by the divine will of an apathetic, or at very least human hating, diety.

[Democrat]

I usually go to ELCA churches.

Personally, I believe democracy to be a moving system, where parties are formed, and once they are formed, and they evolve, that anarchy will eventually be mutually thought, encouraged, and achieved.

I personally am not materialistic. If I am alive, I am happy. I want anarcho-communism, simply, because I believe that we all have the right to work how long, how much, and when we want to. I believe that the gratification of actually doing something is much better than being paid to do something you may or may not like.

I believe communes may be the way to get anarchy's message across, but violent revolution is the preferable way.

A catholic cannot be an anarchist-its just impossible.

I respect everyone's beliefs, and I hope people can be civil enough to respect my religious beliefs. I don't care if you're hindu, muslim, jain, etc., I just don't care, but I do care if you respect me for my ideals, not my religion, even if my ideals be religiously inspired.

Not everything in the bible is authoritarian nor is it anarchic, but the person reading it can use it to improve him/herself, if they so choose, and can use the parts they find good, to move themselves in some political directions, if they so choose to.

[RebelDog]

I just want to throw this out there.

Anarchism is NOT DEMOCRATIC. Anarchists do NOT recognize the right of the majority to impose its will over the minority.

Why does that not make it democratic? It would be up to the decision making entities as to what way they reach a given decision, if that is best done by majority rule then that is their right. Other prevision should be made available for those who find themselves unable to repect the majority rule.

[The Feral Underclass]

I usually go to ELCA churches.

Personally, I believe democracy to be a moving system, where parties are formed, and once they are formed, and they evolve, that anarchy will eventually be mutually thought, encouraged, and achieved.

I personally am not materialistic. If I am alive, I am happy. I want anarcho-communism, simply, because I believe that we all have the right to work how long, how much, and when we want to. I believe that the gratification of actually doing something is much better than being paid to do something you may or may not like.

I believe communes may be the way to get anarchy's message across, but violent revolution is the preferable way.

A catholic cannot be an anarchist-its just impossible.

I respect everyone's beliefs, and I hope people can be civil enough to respect my religious beliefs. I don't care if you're hindu, muslim, jain, etc., I just don't care, but I do care if you respect me for my ideals, not my religion, even if my ideals be religiously inspired.

Not everything in the bible is authoritarian nor is it anarchic, but the person reading it can use it to improve him/herself, if they so choose, and can use the parts they find good, to move themselves in some political directions, if they so choose to.

You didn't answer my question.

[spiltteeth]

You didn't answer my question.


There's a good article I posted on Marxist materialism and religion in the opposing ideology section.

I'm a Marxist and Orthodox Christian

More than opium: Marxism and religion
It was published in the I.S. here's the link : http://www.isj.org.uk/?id=456

And a follow up to that article, The full story: on Marxism and religion
http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=560&issue=123

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm a Marxist and Orthodox Christian

What does it mean to be an "orthodox Christian"?


More than opium: Marxism and religion
It was published in the I.S. here's the link : http://www.isj.org.uk/?id=456 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.isj.org.uk/?id=456)

Written by an SWP leader in order to justify their political opportunism. Marxism and religion are irreconcilable except for political opportunists and the confused.

[Искра]

I personally am not materialistic. If I am alive, I am happy.

Do you know what's materialism on which The Anarchist Tension was referring?
Do you know what's philosophical materialism and why's that different from idealistic Christian approach?

[The Feral Underclass]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

[spiltteeth]

[QUOTE=The Anarchist Tension;1523783]What does it mean to be an "orthodox Christian"?


Here's a Wiki link :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Church

its the 2nd largest church in the world with 225-300 million members. The catholic church split from it in the 1500's

but basically its kinda like the catholic church except we have no pope, its more 'mystic' and less 'legalistic,' like instead of reading the bible as 'laws' etc from the very beginning, even before science, we've taken a more mystic approach, at the same time it really hasn't changed much, so its very traditional.

Incidently,there is a large CATHOLIC anarchist group : http://catholicanarchy.org/

I don't know how they justify it, although I do know people misunderstand how catholics use the word 'infallable' as it relates to the pope - hell, catholics have even voted popes out of office before! But I'm no expert on them.

I found out about them because they were reveiwing a book called A People’s History of Christianity: The Other Side of the Story
by Diana Butler Bass

There's actually ALOT of christian anarchist groups, even christian anarchist communes! They have their own mags and lit.

The 2 best I think are http://www.christarchy.com/
and http://www.jesusradicals.com/
I found out about

[Pogue]

Is there a name for such a conglomeration? If there is, could you tell me?

Its called anarcho-bullshitism.

[spiltteeth]

Its called anarcho-bullshitism.

Critic of Yoder and Elluel ? Or just fabulously ignorant?

[Pogue]

Critic of Yoder and Elluel ? Or just fabulously ignorant?

I am fabulously fabulous, and the only thing I am ignorant of is how to not be fabulous.

[Искра]

Throw a Christian to a lion,
and let's us move to a Zion...
Babylon calling down
And you got no mind of your own....
Yeah!

[Il Medico]

You certainly can have religious beliefs and be a communist/anarchist. You can not however 'live by the book', or in other words be a fundamentalist. To be a leftist and have a personal faith requires one to be a secularist. Anyone who implies that you can be a christian if your not a fundamentalist is an idiot. Same goes for those who say that because you have faith in a god, which they think is silly, you can't be a leftist. Just ignore these people, they're the left's equivalent of Pat Robertson.

[spiltteeth]

You certainly can have religious beliefs and be a communist/anarchist. You can not however 'live by the book', or in other words be a fundamentalist. To be a leftist and have a personal faith requires one to be a secularist. Anyone who implies that you can be a christian if your not a fundamentalist is an idiot. Same goes for those who say that because you have faith in a god, which they think is silly, you can't be a leftist. Just ignore these people, they're the left's equivalent of Pat Robertson.

I thinks thats a fair point.

[Il Medico]

What does it mean to be an "orthodox Christian"?

Greek Orthodox (or maybe Russian).

[Killfacer]

I fail to see the need to give it a name as such. Firstly labels amongst the left wing are complicated enough without throwing in more names. As long as you're religion does not interfere with your political beliefs and your adherance to anarcho-communism isn't effected by it then i don't see a problem.

Personally, although agaisnt all mainstream religion, i really think it's entirely up to you. Just don't try and make up labels mixing religions and politics, it's important to be secular.

[The Feral Underclass]

What does it mean to be an "orthodox Christian"?


Here's a Wiki link :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Church

its the 2nd largest church in the world with 225-300 million members. The catholic church split from it in the 1500's

but basically its kinda like the catholic church except we have no pope, its more 'mystic' and less 'legalistic,' like instead of reading the bible as 'laws' etc from the very beginning, even before science, we've taken a more mystic approach, at the same time it really hasn't changed much, so its very traditional.

Incidently,there is a large CATHOLIC anarchist group : http://catholicanarchy.org/

I don't know how they justify it, although I do know people misunderstand how catholics use the word 'infallable' as it relates to the pope - hell, catholics have even voted popes out of office before! But I'm no expert on them.

I found out about them because they were reveiwing a book called A People’s History of Christianity: The Other Side of the Story
by Diana Butler Bass

There's actually ALOT of christian anarchist groups, even christian anarchist communes! They have their own mags and lit.

The 2 best I think are http://www.christarchy.com/
and http://www.jesusradicals.com/
I found out about

Utter nonsense.

[Blackscare]

I can't believe there are idiots on the left that think that, along with coming to our side economically, the working class are all going to magically drop every backwards custom/superstition as well.

Have fun alienating potential radicals in order to satisfy some bullshit elitist urges you may have. I personally care more that people are in agreement with me over practical, concrete economic/political issues of the day than their positions on abstract bullshit that is removed from practical reality or usefulness.

This pointless nitpicking is up there on the list of reasons that the left fucking sucks today.

[kharacter]

I can't believe there are idiots on the left that think that, along with coming to our side economically, the working class are all going to magically drop every backwards custom/superstition as well.

Have fun alienating potential radicals in order to satisfy some bullshit elitist urges you may have. I personally care more that people are in agreement with me over practical, concrete economic/political issues of the day than their positions on abstract bullshit that is removed from practical reality or usefulness.

This pointless nitpicking is up there on the list of reasons that the left fucking sucks today.
I approve of your post completely, except, I don't think the left sucks :(

[Blackscare]

I didn't mean theoretically, I meant in practice (at least in the west, where it's been reduced to elitist intellectualism for the most part.)

[kharacter]

Well I did assume you meant in practice, but I guess I was being too optimistic on the matter, when I know the amount of arrogance there is in it. How unwelcoming people are to those who are interested but don't know much. I get sad thinking how many people we scared away.

[The Feral Underclass]

I can't believe there are idiots on the left that think that, along with coming to our side economically, the working class are all going to magically drop every backwards custom/superstition as well

Oh get off your high horse! :rolleyes:

I understand that it would be far more convenient for your argument if people opposing this religious/Marxism reconciliation nonsense were saying what you wanted them to be saying; it means you can get all self-righteous and tell us all how inclusive and wonderfully accepting you are, but no one has said anything remotely like what you're accusing of saying.

I mean, can you actually pin point a specific example where anyone made any such claim or asserted anything remotely like this...?


Have fun alienating potential radicals in order to satisfy some bullshit elitist urges you may have.

Since when has disagreeing with someone's opinion constituted elitism? I'm not going to make apologies to people because I think their views are nonsense and I don't appreciate the implication that my fellow workers need to be handled with kid gloves. I'm quite certain they can cope with being told I think they're wrong.

I'm so sick of people like you who see attacks on religious ideas as some form of mental abuse. It's utterly ridiculous to try and equate opposition to religious ideas as some calculated attempt to alienate people from being communists.

I've got news for you: articulating ideas means that you have to deal with the consequences of articulating them. You can't just say, "these are my ideas and you're not allowed to be mean about them". If you say something, be prepared to be told you're wrong. For fuck sake, grow up!


I personally care more that people are in agreement with me over practical, concrete economic/political issues of the day

Oh how fucking noble of you! I suppose we should all go back to the drawing board and try and work out where we went wrong? I didn't realise people like you owned the monopoly of working along side people with religious views.

It must feel so warm and fuzzy to know that you can be friends with everyone. Liberal bullshit! Religious belief and ideas are wrong, on a fundamental level. They are positively harmful to society and whether or not people who campaign for social and economic freedom has fuck all to do with the fact they're actually wrong.


their positions on abstract bullshit that is removed from practical reality or usefulness.

Actually, I contend that religious belief is not abstracted or removed from "practical reality". In fact, I think it's a big fucking issue that has to be tackled head on. So fucking deal with that!

[kharacter]

As I stated before, I completely disagree on being light with religion, but when it is as "innocent" as the OP's, it should be secondary to instilling political ideas. The religious criticisms should be light at first, to not shoo people away from the get-go and thus ensuring people do not take us all for insensitive assholes, which I'm certain you are not, and hope you'll agree I am not either. I'd also like to state that I did not find your comments particularly aggressive, but being the easily-hurt person I am, I know there are people out there who can hold grudges for something as light as a mildly-mean comment. These people, in addition, are often the same ones who later become devout supporters of what they believe in, so they are of particular interest for us.

[Blackscare]

You can't just say, "these are my ideas and you're not allowed to be mean about them". If you say something, be prepared to be told you're wrong. For fuck sake, grow up!

Ah, because I said that. :rolleyes:

My only point is that at this juncture in history, there's no reasonable hope that through arguing and showing the confused masses the light of TAT's reason we'll be able to destroy religion and capitalism all at once. I think it's a fundamentally STUPID tactic to make a major deal about people's religions at this moment. It's far more reasonable to think that people will be turned on to anti-capitalism en-masse before they give up on religion.

I know you think you're doing the work of the brave anarchist, fighting backwards ideas amongst the workers, but sadly you're just wasting time, alienating workers/fellow radicals, and making yourself look like a dick. Yes, I am against religion (contrary to your pathetic, butthurt negrep), but I'm also against poorly thought-out tactics that will get us nowhere. Not everyone is going to become the perfectly secular, cookie-cutter leftist that you seem to think they will. It'd be nice, but unfortunately some of us have to work within the confines of reality.


Go ahead, keep making big deals about things that don't directly affect people's politics. See how many people you win over. :rolleyes:


If you think being realistic makes me an apologist for reactionary ideas (although I never did such a thing), I frankly could give a shit less. If the resident leader of the unrealistic douchey anarchist tendency doesn't like me, no skin off my ass.

I never made myself out to be some noble inclusive liberal, as you (perhaps in your frustration?) painted me, I'm just practical.


The left is in shambles, and with all the sectarianism, etc that got us here, I don't think making anti-theism a major issue to the general public and other radicals is a smart idea. I'm a leftist primarily because of economics, I'm not about to jeopardize the expansion of leftist ideas for the sake of possibly converting a few people away from religion (out of the many that will simply write left-wing politics off when confronted about their personal beliefs.) One day it's something that should be focused on, but when we're in the weak position that we're in, trying to get average people to listen to us, it's just stupid to pile on superfluous shit that increases the likelihood of people writing us off.
But have fun feeling like some principled leftist warrior, if you think it's such a big goddamn (see what I did there?) deal. :)

[RHIZOMES]

So why could it be redundant?

It is pointless to mention it because it supposes the existence of an "undemocratic" communism. Anything undemocratic is not communism. Therefore redundant. It's like saying "A human who lives on earth". ALL humans live on Earth.

[RebelDog]

Whether a worker believes it is legitimate for the capitalist to own the means of production and wage slavery to exist, or the world was created in 6 days and is 6 thousand years old, it is up to their fellow human beings to point them toward a materialist understanding of reality and open their eyes. I don't think people are anarchists plus religious for long. It is a glaring contridiction. And if people want to cherry-pick verses from the bible and claim Christianity is this or that, then why bother? You'll get more from reading the first page of the communist manifesto than every last irrelevant page of the bible.

[Invariance]

There are, essentially, three meanings of 'communism' / 'communist', in my opinion.

1) A community society.
2) A communist; i.e. someone who is part of a broader movement which advocates revolutionary change into a communist society.
3) Specifically, the paradigm of Karl Marx and other thinkers, that is, historical materialism.

Whether religion exists in a communist society isn't a matter of opinion, it is a question of fact - and one which only the future will answer. So in this sense, it may or may not be compatible. Most Marxists, via their understanding of religion, tend to think that a society without class antagonisms will tend to make religion redundant or at least insignificant. The jury is still out on this one, however.

Whether someone can be a communist and a religious person is also a question of fact, and the answer is blatantly: yes. One can fully believe in a religion or any spiritual ideas and still be part of a communist movement which advocates a revolutionary ideology and the overthrow of capital. Atheism is not a prerequisite for advocating revolutionary change - as many of our religious comrades on this site demonstrate.

Whether someone can specifically support the ideas of Karl Marx and believe in a religion, in my opinion, is contradictory, but only so far as it concerns their religion. Marx's analysis of religion is essentially antithetical to a belief in it. Their analysis of capitalism might be correct, but they differ from Marx on the matter of religion. To what extent that is a fundamental rejection of historical materialism, or just a partial rejection, I don't know - it may depend on the individual and their specific religious beliefs.

I would say that Marxists approach religion with a materialistic and historical analysis; that, like all institutions and beliefs, they can serve, sometimes, a reactionary, sometimes, a revolutionary role. Religion today at least serves its purpose to divide workers. Atheism and secularism also plays this role when it comes from the viewpoint of Western nations arguing for imperialist intervention justified on the basis of defeating so-called theocratic governments. Or whether it comes from certain ruling factions, for instance, in Turkey, using secularism as an excuse to attack such and such a party. Or whether it comes from the French government as an excuse to discriminate against Muslims.

Atheism and secularism are no more immune from reaction than religious ideas.

[RebelDog]

Atheism is not a perquisite for advocating revolutionary change - as many of our religious comrades on this site demonstrate.For me, they demonstrate that their religion is part of the muck they still have to shake off. If someone is an anarchist and believes in simple basic tenets such as gender equality and the absense of rulers, then they are not taking their religion seriously.

[Invariance]

Maybe. We all have 'muck to shake off.' Denying that is denying that we have been born and continue to live in a society which harbors racist, sexist and all sorts of unfavorable views. You have yet to demonstrate that one cannot support the overthrow of capital and have a belief, for example, in magical dragons or unicorns. And I doubt you will, because whether you believe in unicorns is almost entirely irrelevant to whether you want to abolish capital.

But nor would you be taking religion seriously (sociologically speaking) if you think that it has only ever been based on its holy texts and is implacable and unchanging, and that when people dissent from such views they 'aren't taking their religion seriously.' That shows considerable ignorance of religious history (prior to Christianity being made a state religion, it was essentially quite decentralized - meetings were held in individual's houses, mutual support between members and so on).

The bible is full of contradictory views - which is to be expected when one considers the amount of people who wrote it and the span of time over which it was written. How can we reconcile a passage which says 'an eye for an eye' with a passage that says 'pray for your enemies and those that persecute you?' Jesus, ignoring the disputes about his existence which are irrelevant to this particular discussion, was a revisionist. So dangerously unorthodox that we are lead to believe that he was killed over his heresey. Was he not taking his religion seriously? When such and such a church allows for female bishops are they not taking their religion seriously? Religion then surely is more than what you consider its particular dogma.

Sorry, but it is entirely possible for someone to believe in gender equality, the 'absence of rulers', and still believe in a variety of a religion or spiritual ideas.

Engels put it really well:

Herr Heinzen imagines communism is a certain doctrine which proceeds from a definite theoretical principle as its core and draws further conclusions from that. Herr Heinzen is very much mistaken. Communism is not a doctrine but a movement; it proceeds not from principles but from facts. The Communists do not base themselves on this or that philosophy as their point of departure but on the whole course of previous history and specifically its actual results in the civilised countries at the present time. Communism has followed from large-scale industry and its consequences, from the establishment of the world market, of the concomitant uninhibited competition, ever more violent and more universal trade crises, which have already become fully fledged crises of the world market, from the creation of the proletariat and the concentration of capital, from the ensuing class struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie. Communism, insofar as it is a theory, is the theoretical expression of the position of the proletariat in this struggle and the theoretical summation of the conditions for the liberation of the proletariat.

[spiltteeth]

Utter nonsense.

Thanks for the thoughtful response! You sure tackled this "head on."

Eerily similar to the unqualified disrespectful dogmatic emotion-tinged knee-jack responses of the fundamentalist's....

Well, here is my response sir : Utter sense!

Glad we've laid that to rest.

[Black Sheep]

Is there a name for such a conglomeration? If there is, could you tell me?
No because christianity and in general religion,theism and stupid superstitions & copper age irrational beliefs do not match with the revolutionary left.
It's as simple as that.

Instead of trying to make and mould an ideology set with all your "favorites" in it, try making one that makes sense.

What you like is irrelevant.What you feel about the absence of religion and theism in the revolutionary left is also irrelevant.You have to stick to what is real.

And even if you cant do that, dont mention christanity at all,consider it a feature irrelevant with your political ideology.
I.e., i like playing the guitar, but i dont call myself a guitarist communist.
Likewise, you like praying and talking to an imaginary friend.You dont have to specify it in your political ideology.

[The Feral Underclass]

Ah, because I said that. :rolleyes:

It's implicit in your diatribe. Why on earth would you get so defensive if you weren't assuming we were attacking individuals rather than their ideas?


My only point is that at this juncture in history, there's no reasonable hope that through arguing and showing the confused masses the light of TAT's reason we'll be able to destroy religion and capitalism all at once.

I mean, what even is that?


I think it's a fundamentally STUPID tactic to make a major deal about people's religions at this moment.

What is this "major deal" you keep referring to?


It's far more reasonable to think that people will be turned on to anti-capitalism en-masse before they give up on religion.

So? That doesn't mean religious ideas can't be attacked.


I know you think you're doing the work of the brave anarchist, fighting backwards ideas amongst the workers, but sadly you're just wasting time, alienating workers/fellow radicals, and making yourself look like a dick.

But this is where your argument falls short. You've just massively assumed, once again, that working class people are incapable of distinguishing genuine criticism of ideas from full frontal attack. Do you have some image of me, black-clad beating workers over the head until they stop believing in god?

Why is criticising religious ideas going to alienate people? You clearly have absolutely no idea how this works in practice and have created for yourself an image of anti-theism that just doesn't relate to reality.


Yes, I am against religion (contrary to your pathetic, butthurt negrep), but I'm also against poorly thought-out tactics that will get us nowhere.

What is this tactic you keep talking about?


Not everyone is going to become the perfectly secular, cookie-cutter leftist that you seem to think they will.

Can you show me where anyone has suggested this?


It'd be nice, but unfortunately some of us have to work within the confines of reality.

Clearly that's not you. Aside from the fact I have no idea what you're going on about, I can only assume how you've come to wind yourself up to such a point that you're painting us all with this sinister, anti-working class brush...Actually, on second thoughts, I have no idea how you've managed to formulate that opinion either...

I can't continue trying to understand your opinion until you've adequately explained to me where all this vitriol is actually coming from? From where have you developed your opinions and from what basis are you espousing them?

What is it you're actually defending and what is it you think is attacking what ever it is you're defending...? They're genuine questions...


Go ahead, keep making big deals about things that don't directly affect people's politics. See how many people you win over. :rolleyes:

But religion does affect peoples politics...


But have fun feeling like some principled leftist warrior, if you think it's such a big goddamn (see what I did there?) deal. :)

Leftist? Hardly! But sure, I'll carry on being a principled "warrior"...Someone has to...

[RebelDog]

Sorry, but it is entirely possible for someone to believe in gender equality, the 'absence of rulers', and still believe in a variety of a religion or spiritual ideas.

This thread is about the specific term 'Christian'. You and others are basically saying that this term is indefinable, and that people who label themselves Christian cherry-pick the parts of the bible that suits them and disregard other parts that do not. This renders the possibility of a worthwhile discussion impossible.

[spiltteeth]

It's implicit in your diatribe. Why on earth would you get so defensive if you weren't assuming we were attacking individuals rather than their ideas?



I mean, what even is that?



What is this "major deal" you keep referring to?



So? That doesn't mean religious ideas can't be attacked.



But this is where your argument falls short. You've just massively assumed, once again, that working class people are incapable of distinguishing genuine criticism of ideas from full frontal attack. Do you have some image of me, black-clad beating workers over the head until they stop believing in god?

Why is criticising religious ideas going to alienate people? You clearly have absolutely no idea how this works in practice and have created for yourself an image of anti-theism that just doesn't relate to reality.



What is this tactic you keep talking about?



Can you show me where anyone has suggested this?



Clearly that's not you. Aside from the fact I have no idea what you're going on about, I can only assume how you've come to wind yourself up to such a point that you're painting us all with this sinister, anti-working class brush...Actually, on second thoughts, I have no idea how you've managed to formulate that opinion either...

I can't continue trying to understand your opinion until you've adequately explained to me where all this vitriol is actually coming from? From where have you developed your opinions and from what basis are you espousing them?

What is it you're actually defending and what is it you think is attacking what ever it is you're defending...? They're genuine questions...



But religion does affect peoples politics...



Leftist? Hardly! But sure, I'll carry on being a principled "warrior"...Someone has to...


This is my favorite part : "that working class people are incapable of distinguishing genuine criticism of ideas from full frontal attack."

Yes, by responding 'utter nonsense' you've certainly engaged in genuine critisism...

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

This thread is about the specific term 'Christian'. You and others are basically saying that this term is indefinable, and that people who label themselves Christian cherry-pick the parts of the bible that suits them and disregard other parts that do not. This renders the possibility of a worthwhile discussion impossible.

But don't different Christian sects at least try to "cherry pick" the Bible in a somewhat semi-coherent way? There are contradictions within the Bible so it seems to me like all Christians interpret it in a way that certain parts overrule others. I would rather work with liberation theologians who "cherry pick" the Bible for pro-communism than atheists who put anti-theism ahead of the class struggle.

[Misanthrope]

You can be Christian and anarchist. Check out http://www.jesusradicals.com/ They are a pretty large Anarchist group.
Check out Jacques Ellul Anarchy and Christianity

And welcome!

Oh hey, a group that calls themselves anarchists.. so I guess they are anarchists!

http://www.bayareanationalanarchists.com/blog/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

Anarchism for everyone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:rolleyes: Any of you Christian pacifists want to explain to me how the state and capitalism will be abolished without the use of force?

[Искра]

Well, If you ask me you can be what ever you want... be Christian, be Catholic, be Orthodox and call yourself an anarchist, but still when revolution comes we will burn your churches, as comrades did in Spain.

[Red Scare]

Christianity is against the policies of Communism and Anarchism because it is about control and the imagined.

[Misanthrope]

I just want to throw this out there.

Anarchism is NOT DEMOCRATIC. Anarchists do NOT recognize the right of the majority to impose its will over the minority.

So I guess anarchists are not socialists then? Socialism is democratic control of the workplace.. Your statement is false. Many "anarcho"-capitalists oppose democracy but anarchists do not. Anarchists only oppose democracy when it is forced (state democracy) not when it is voluntary i.e communes, workplaces, ect.

[8bit]

I know I'm a little late to the game but...

Surprise: Communism was originally Christian

Originally, Communism was a term used to describe a community of Christians devoid of formal authority in which the basis for decisions is consensus. Aka, anarchy. One of the earliest consciously communist communities is the Diggers, who were also Christian. Later, the term was expanded to include all non-secular anarchist movements, and the term 'socialism' was invented to describe all secular anarchist movements, however, even at this point they were both idealistic and spontaneous.

It was Marx and Engels who turned communist/socialist idealism on its head with their concept of social materialism which stood in direct contrast to idealism. Thus, Marxism is incompatible with religion, as materialism is a subset of naturalism, however, this does not make religion incompatible with communism as a whole, as communism as a whole is not necessarily materialist. Anarchism, specifically the concept of spontaneous organization without prior social conditioning, is inherently idealistic.

So then, Democrat, you sound to me almost like a Christian Anarchist, except that you claim to support a democratic system?

In this case, you aren't exactly an anarchist, as anarchy is based around consensus, not oppression of the bourgeoisie.

If you truly do support pure democracy, and I'm sure it's safe to assume you support the control of production by said democracy, you sound more like a Christian Socialist than a Christian Anarchist, Christian Socialism being a non-Marxist adaptation of Marx' concept of Socialism. (Which can, of course, be either purely democratic or a very populist representative democracy.)


So I guess anarchists are not socialists then? Socialism is democratic control of the workplace.. Your statement is false. Many "anarcho"-capitalists oppose democracy but anarchists do not. Anarchists only oppose democracy when it is forced (state democracy) not when it is voluntary i.e communes, workplaces, ect.

Anarchy is not decision via majority, it is decision via consensus. While democratic votes can, and often will, be taken in an anarchist system, they are not the be-all end-all. Consensus via compromise and logical discussion to reach consensus is preferred to simple majority votes which oppress the minority.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't realize that had already been pointed out.

Yes, Anarchists oppose the concept of socialism. This opposition to socialism is one of the core concepts of anarchism.

[ZeroNowhere]

Well, If you ask me you can be what ever you want... be Christian, be Catholic, be Orthodox and call yourself an anarchist, but still when revolution comes we will burn your churches, as comrades did in Spain.Wait, what? Some churches are pretty sweet buildings, why the hell should we burn them down except for some symbolism which is really not worth the effort or the building, or pyromania, in which case I suppose what would be best would be setting you on fire instead. It's not like we desperately need the space they take up or anything, so I really do not see why we should go burning them down.

On the question of xian anarchism, I'm not entirely sure how it's compatible with any of the heaven-and-hell, or divine intervention stuff (whereas anarchism would be perfectly compatible with, say, deism), or, hell, the Adam and Eve story. Other than that, I suppose it could be acceptable, if a bit closer to, say, deism than mainstream xianity (which doesn't necessarily make it non-xian).

When it comes to 'communism', M+E, in the commie manifesto and such, referred to the utopians and such as 'socialist', and themselves as 'communist', largely in order to differentiate themselves from the other movements, but on other occasions referred to the utopian socialists (Fourier, Saint-Simon, Proudhon, etc) as 'utopian communists', using the term more loosely, for example in works not meant for publicity purposes. Also, when the utopian socialists died off, Engels began using the term 'socialism' to describe himself and Marx more often. So yeah, I'd say xian communism was possible.

[The Feral Underclass]

Yes, by responding 'utter nonsense' you've certainly engaged in genuine critisism...

I'm sorry, in the face of someone attempting to reconcile materialism and immaterialism I can't think of any other response more appropriate.

[Salabra]

I can't believe there are idiots on the left that think that, along with coming to our side economically, the working class are all going to magically drop every backwards custom/superstition as well.

And kowtowing to backward customs and superstitions is a dead-end on the road to nowhere.

[ZeroNowhere]

And kowtowing to backward customs and superstitions is a dead-end on the road to nowhere.
Well, let's be fair, the whole SPGB thing of not letting people in if they're religious is rather stupid, and there are alternatives other than 'kowtowing' to religious beliefs. To be honest, I don't really care a whole lot about people being religious, I only care when politics are hid behind the mask of religion, and such.

[Salabra]

If you think being realistic makes me an apologist for reactionary ideas (although I never did such a thing), I frankly could give a shit less. If the resident leader of the unrealistic douchey anarchist tendency doesn't like me, no skin off my ass.
But most of the left disagrees with you too - except the "douchey" (I won't call you out on sexism here) SWP.

...and there are alternatives other than 'kowtowing' to religious beliefs. To be honest, I don't really care a whole lot about people being religious, I only care when politics are hid behind the mask of religion, and such.
Yes, there are alternatives — like explaining calmly and rationally that materialism is incompatible with the belief in invisible friends and that “pie-in-the-sky-when-you-die” is not as good as “bread-on-the-table-right-now”, like pointing out that religion is a force for social and political reaction and a barrier to the full development of humanity, and like defending basic leftist positions on, for example, abortion, women’s rights and LGBT issues, not glossing over them or watering them down in order to recruit “potential radicals” within a given community, be it muslim, christian, jewish or galaxian orthodox.

[ZeroNowhere]

Yes, there are alternatives — like explaining calmly and rationally that materialism is incompatible with the belief in invisible friends and that “pie-in-the-sky-when-you-die” is not as good as “bread-on-the-table-right-now”, like pointing out that religion is a force for social and political reaction and a barrier to the full development of humanity, and like defending basic leftist positions on, for example, abortion, women’s rights and LGBT issues, not glossing over them or watering them down in order to recruit “potential radicals” within a given community, be it muslim, christian, jewish or galaxian orthodox.
Sure, if one wishes to. I just find it boring and pointless unless they wish to debate on the subject is all. Though yes, I don't have much interest in watering down objections to these things on the basis of gathering new recruits (*insert generic SWP joke*), or not offending people's (like James Connoly's, for example) religious sensibilities, or because apparently criticizing Islam puts you in with the forces of reaction or some crap. I would support debate on the subject within organizations and such, but am against, for example, banning people who are religious from entering, or setting being atheist as a party line or some such (I don't mind articles and such on it, so long as it is made clear that not everybody in the organization necessarily agrees with it). Other than that, religion is a force for social and political reaction... But so is science. Not everybody religious is reactionary, and not all interpretations of religion are forces for reaction, but some are. Not all scientists are reactionary, and not all scientific theories (or perhaps I should say 'hypotheses') are forces for reaction, but some are. The fact that something has the potential to be used as a force of reaction is not especially profound. For example, how does one convince somebody who views proper xianity as anti-capitalist (and, to be mean, they're not pacifists either) that their religion is a force of reaction? Well, it's quite easy, you don't. As for being a barrier to the full development of humanity... What does that mean? And, for that matter, I can't think of how somebody would argue something along those lines without assuming that religions are incorrect... But isn't that what you're trying to convince the person?


I won't call you out on sexism herePlease do not do that anywhere else either.

[spiltteeth]

I'm sorry, in the face of someone attempting to reconcile materialism and immaterialism I can't think of any other response more appropriate.

Hey, don't get me wrong, I actually think this is the most cogent argument you've offered thus far.
I gave links from a Marxist and non-Marxist perspective how they could be reconciled but heck, just say'n "Naw" is easier.

Like when fundies are presented with massive scientific evidence.
Like you they scratch their heads, furrow their cro-magnum brows in a vain attempt at understanding, and then instead of actually engaging with the data they say, "Naw."

For you, I agree. Your response was totally appropriate.

[spiltteeth]

Well, If you ask me you can be what ever you want... be Christian, be Catholic, be Orthodox and call yourself an anarchist, but still when revolution comes we will burn your churches, as comrades did in Spain.

So we will be comrades. We will fight shoulder to shoulder. We will be responsible for ech others lives. We will unite to fight for a better world....And then you'll burn down my church...hmmmm well OK!

[eyedrop]

Anarchism, specifically the concept of spontaneous organization without prior social conditioning, is inherently idealistic.


In this case, you aren't exactly an anarchist, as anarchy is based around consensus, not oppression of the bourgeoisie.



Anarchy is not decision via majority, it is decision via consensus. While democratic votes can, and often will, be taken in an anarchist system, they are not the be-all end-all. Consensus via compromise and logical discussion to reach consensus is preferred to simple majority votes which oppress the minority.
Yes, Anarchists oppose the concept of socialism. This opposition to socialism is one of the core concepts of anarchism.We anarchist sure need marxists to tell us what contemporary anarchism is about.

[The Feral Underclass]

I gave links from a Marxist and non-Marxist perspective how they could be reconciled but heck, just say'n "Naw" is easier.

And it's utter nonsense. Founded on unthinkably absurd premises.

It's always wonderful to see lunatics attempt to reconcile fundamentally antithetical views of the world in order to justify ideas they find convenient to their own lives. Actually, it's not wonderful, it's deeply tragic.

The whole basis of materialism is founded on a universal understanding of the world. You can't just pick and choose when it does or does not apply. If you try to make the argument that the world is verifiable based on the interaction and observation of objects, and then assert that - simultaneously - there are things that exist which are not verifiable through the interaction and observation of objects, then the whole basis of the understanding falls down, rendering it incoherent and pointless. You simply cannot have materialism and immaterialism at the same time.

"We set out from real, active men, and on the basis of their real life-process we demonstrate the development of the ideological reflexes and echoes of this life-process. The phantoms formed in the human brain are also, necessarily, sublimates of their material life-process, which is empirically verifiable and bound to material premises. Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the semblance of independence. They have no history, no development; but men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with this their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking. Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life." - Karl Marx, The German Ideology.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm

Your attempt to reconcile this fundamental Marxist tenet with the idea that there exists a god is not only grossly offensive to the ideas, it's decidedly incomprehensible on an intellectual and theoretical level. If you want to reject this assertion made by Marx that's fine, but then it is no longer Marxism nor materialism you're talking about.


Like you they scratch their heads, furrow their cro-magnum brows in a vain attempt at understanding, and then instead of actually engaging with the data they say, "Naw."What data? Give me a break!

[8bit]

We anarchist sure need marxists to tell us what contemporary anarchism is about.

No problem, bro.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Anarchist communism is based on philosophical materialism and rationalism and thus a materialist conception of history. How do you square this with the belief in god?
As a Christian and a communist (of the Marxist type), I can give you my answer: Philosophical materialism and rationalism are good approximations of reality in most cases, particularly when used for the interpretation of history and social interaction, even if I believe them to be fundamentally false.


It's always wonderful to see lunatics attempt to reconcile fundamentally antithetical views of the world in order to justify ideas they find convenient to their own lives. Actually, it's not wonderful, it's deeply tragic.

The whole basis of materialism is founded on a universal understanding of the world. You can't just pick and choose when it does or does not apply. If you try to make the argument that the world is verifiable based on the interaction and observation of objects, and then assert that - simultaneously - there are things that exist which are not verifiable through the interaction and observation of objects, then the whole basis of the understanding falls down, rendering it incoherent and pointless. You simply cannot have materialism and immaterialism at the same time.
TAT, you must surely be aware of the idea - common in physics and most sciences - that a theory can be a good approximation of reality in most situations even if it fails to describe reality in certain special cases.

For example, Newtonian physics is a very good approximation of reality as long as we are not dealing with intense gravity fields or relative velocities approaching the speed of light. You can use Newtonian physics to explain most phenomena that we observe in everyday life.

Similarly, I think materialism is a good approximation of reality, in the sense that we can use materialism to explain most phenomena that we observe in everyday life, and most events in human history. This does not mean that I have to think materialism is absolutely and completely true - just like I don't have to think Newtonian physics is true in order to calculate relative velocity using the Newtonian formula Vr = V1 + V2 instead of the more correct Einsteinian Vr = (V1 + V2)/sqrt(1 - V1*V2/c^2)

I am a Christian because I believe God is a factor in the universe. But just like relativistic time dilation, he is not a factor that influences most human interactions.

[The Feral Underclass]

It's hardly surprising that someone who believes in god is attempting to claim that materialism is an "approximation of reality". Of course you think it's an "approximation". If you didn't think that you wouldn't be able to qualify your belief in a non-existent historical character.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

The point is, the contradiction between Christianity and Marxism exists only on a very esoteric metaphysical level. You can be a Christian and have ideas about society that are for all intents and purposes indistinguishable from Marxism as long as no one asks you about metaphysics.

[The Feral Underclass]

The point is, the contradiction between Christianity and Marxism exists only on a very esoteric metaphysical level. You can be a Christian and have ideas about society that are for all intents and purposes indistinguishable from Marxism as long as no one asks you about metaphysics.

You mean if no one asks you to justify and qualify how you're a Marxist?

Sure, you can call yourself a Marxist and talk about wanting to change society etc etc, but when someone asks you how and why you think that or why and how this kind of change is possible, you're fucked.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

You mean if no one asks you to justify and qualify how you're a Marxist?

Sure, you can call yourself a Marxist and talk about wanting to change society etc etc, but when someone asks you how and why you think that or why and how this kind of change is possible, you're fucked.
No, when someone asks me those things I explain to them the Marxist conception of history, the notion of class struggle, modes of production and so on.

As you might expect, I have a good number of Christian friends. Many of them disagree with me about Marxism. But none of them has ever brought up the argument that Marxism is materialistic and they are idealists. I doubt they even know what philosophical materialism and idealism are all about. None of them has ever challenged the basic premise that history is made by people following their material interests.

This is why I said that the contradiction between Christianity and Marxist materialism is "esoteric". Most people do not know about it and will never notice its existence unless you point it out to them. And even then, they do not have any idealist conception of history to use against historical materialism. Christianity - and religion in general - says nothing at all about the driving forces of history. If material interests don't drive history, then what does? Religion has no answer to that question.

[The Feral Underclass]

No, when someone asks me those things I explain to them the Marxist conception of history, the notion of class struggle, modes of production and so on.

As you might expect, I have a good number of Christian friends. Many of them disagree with me about Marxism. But none of them has ever brought up the argument that Marxism is materialistic and they are idealists. I doubt they even know what philosophical materialism and idealism are all about. None of them has ever challenged the basic premise that history is made by people following their material interests.

This is why I said that the contradiction between Christianity and Marxist materialism is "esoteric". Most people do not know about it and will never notice its existence unless you point it out to them. And even then, they do not have any idealist conception of history to use against historical materialism. Christianity - and religion in general - says nothing at all about the driving forces of history.

If you're happy having beliefs that contradict each other, that's up to you. If you're comfortable having incoherent views then fine.

Nevertheless, Marxism and the belief in god are irreconcilable, except when people like you bastardise the ideas for your own individual needs.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

If you're happy having beliefs that contradict each other, that's up to you. If you're comfortable having incoherent views then fine.
They're not incoherent, just like using Newtonian physics for everyday situations while being aware of its flaws is not incoherent. What you really mean is that you think my beliefs are false. Fair enough.

But while we're on the topic of incoherent views, I think most atheist revolutionaries hold ethical views that are incompatible with their political views. Remind me again, what is your definition of "good" and how does communism fit that definition?


Nevertheless, Marxism and the belief in god are irreconcilable, except when people like you bastardise the ideas for your own individual needs.
Marxist political views and the belief in god are perfectly compatible. Marxist philosophical views and the belief in god may not be - but frankly, nobody cares about that except anti-theists and the Pope.

I want a communist society, and I don't give a damn what philosophy people use to justify it. I really don't think you should give a damn either. You know, "philosophers have only interpreted the world" and all that.

[The Feral Underclass]

They're not incoherent

I've adequately described how it's incoherent.


just like using Newtonian physics for everyday situations while being aware of its flaws is not incoherent.We're not talking about Newtonian physics, we're talking about the basis of understanding reality. To repeat, I am asserting to you that you cannot pick and choose when to apply a materialist understanding. Either the world is understood by the interaction and observation of objects, or it isn't. There's not a half ground, otherwise the whole basis of the understanding is rendered obsolete.


What you really mean is that you think my beliefs are false. Fair enough.Yes, your beliefs are false.


Remind me again, what is your definition of "good" and how does communism fit that definition?I don't have a definition of "good".


Marxist philosophical views and the belief in god may not be - but frankly, nobody caresBut they should. People should care about why they believe something. And in fact, this gets right down to the heart of the matter! I have come to be a class struggle revolutionary because of my understanding of reality, because I recognise we live in a world defined by materialism. How have you come to understand it? Did god tell you to be a communist?

Marxism proves what god is and why he doesn't exist and this is an incredibly important aspect of Marxism in terms of understanding the world, what we are within it and ultimately how and why we should create a communist society.


I want a communist society, and I don't give a damn what philosophy people use to justify it.Clearly not. But a communist society is based on philosophical materialism and reason, irrespective of whether you give a damn or not. It is the establishment of a society free from phantoms; where we understand what we are and why we exist, rejecting mysticism and superstition.

What you are doing is distorting that understanding and objective by rejecting fundamental aspects of the ideology to suit your own warped personal views.


I really don't think you should give a damn either.I want to establish a real communist society, based on reason, that rejects irrationality - that rejects phantoms and superstition and where we rid ourselves of all this mystical nonsense that has repressed our society and our 'minds' for millennia - That's communism.


You know, "philosophers have only interpreted the world" and all that.Yes, and the point, however, is to change it. Changing the world requires us to shake off our baggage. You're refusing to do that. Not only are you refusing to do it, you're recuperating the very ideas that suggest you need to and claiming them as your own; claiming they are compatible with your mysticism.

And they're not!

[spiltteeth]

And it's utter nonsense. Founded on unthinkably absurd premises.

It's always wonderful to see lunatics attempt to reconcile fundamentally antithetical views of the world in order to justify ideas they find convenient to their own lives. Actually, it's not wonderful, it's deeply tragic.

The whole basis of materialism is founded on a universal understanding of the world. You can't just pick and choose when it does or does not apply. If you try to make the argument that the world is verifiable based on the interaction and observation of objects, and then assert that - simultaneously - there are things that exist which are not verifiable through the interaction and observation of objects, then the whole basis of the understanding falls down, rendering it incoherent and pointless. You simply cannot have materialism and immaterialism at the same time.

"We set out from real, active men, and on the basis of their real life-process we demonstrate the development of the ideological reflexes and echoes of this life-process. The phantoms formed in the human brain are also, necessarily, sublimates of their material life-process, which is empirically verifiable and bound to material premises. Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the semblance of independence. They have no history, no development; but men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with this their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking. Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life." - Karl Marx, The German Ideology.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm

Your attempt to reconcile this fundamental Marxist tenet with the idea that there exists a god is not only grossly offensive to the ideas, it's decidedly incomprehensible on an intellectual and theoretical level. If you want to reject this assertion made by Marx that's fine, but then it is no longer Marxism nor materialism you're talking about.

What data? Give me a break!


Answer me truly, did you read the links I posted?
Because that is my position.
Would you like me to spoon feed it to you in 3 or 4 child-like simple sentences?
Your response to all that argument is "give me a break."
No, if you care to have a big boy debate you will need to learn the other's position.
Or, you can wear your ignorance as a cheap whore does her make-up, not to increase beauty but to hide ugliness; and you can lecture me on materialism all you wish, but my knowledge of whores is beyond reproach...

[The Feral Underclass]

Answer me truly, did you read the links I posted?
Because that is my position.
Would you like me to spoon feed it to you in 3 or 4 child-like simple sentences?
Your response to all that argument is "give me a break."
No, if you care to have a big boy debate you will need to learn the other's position.
Or, you can wear your ignorance as a cheap whore does her make-up, not to increase beauty but to hide ugliness; and you can lecture me on materialism all you wish, but my knowledge of whores is beyond reproach...

I read the ISO one you linked.

My position still stands. You cannot reconcile materialism and immaterialism for the reasons stated.

If you have a response to that, offer it. Otherwise fuck off!

[spiltteeth]

I read the ISO one you linked.

My position still stands. You cannot reconcile materialism and immaterialism for the reasons stated.

If you have a response to that, offer it. Otherwise fuck off!

Your definition is 'materialism' is comically flawed.

[The Feral Underclass]

Your definition is 'materialism' is comically flawed.

You mean the actual definition of it?

It'll come as no surprise to anyone reading this thread that a god-bothering mystic is claiming the definition of materialism is "flawed". Not really a surprise at all.

[kharacter]

Yes, Anarchists oppose the concept of socialism. This opposition to socialism is one of the core concepts of anarchism.

“We are convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality."
-Mikhail Alexandrovich Bakunin, father of anarcho-collectivism, whose ideas are still applauded by anarcho-communists and libertarian socialists

This covers all the leftist anarchists

EDIT: I mean no animosity against you, I would hate to become enemies just because you didn't know something about anarchism

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I've adequately described how it's incoherent.

We're not talking about Newtonian physics, we're talking about the basis of understanding reality. To repeat, I am asserting to you that you cannot pick and choose when to apply a materialist understanding.
And I am asking, why not?

What is wrong with the view that materialism may accurately describe some aspects of reality and (some form of) idealism may accurately describe others? Why must the basis of reality be either completely materialist or completely idealist?

These are not rhetorical questions. I truly do not understand why you insist that a single drop of idealism is enough to overturn the materialist worldview completely. It seems to me that you are unreasonably insisting on philosophical purity for purity's own sake.


Either the world is understood by the interaction and observation of objects, or it isn't. There's not a half ground, otherwise the whole basis of the understanding is rendered obsolete.
Sure there is a half ground: Some aspects of the world can be understood by the interaction and observation of objects, and others cannot. Why does this view overturn the whole basis of materialist understanding?

Or, to use a concrete example: Suppose I believe the universe was created by a deity. Why should this lead me to reject the idea that history is driven by material interests and class struggle? How is there any kind of connection at all between events that happened 15 billion years ago and the development of humanity over the past 10,000 years?

(obviously, Christians believe more than just the idea that God created the universe, but I'm using deism here as an example)


I don't have a definition of "good".
Very well, let me rephrase my question then: Why should we make an effort to bring about communism?


But they should. People should care about why they believe something. And in fact, this gets right down to the heart of the matter! I have come to be a class struggle revolutionary because of my understanding of reality, because I recognise we live in a world defined by materialism. How have you come to understand it? Did god tell you to be a communist?
God "told" me that inequality, injustice and oppression are evil. I then set out to discover why they exist. I found the Marxist explanation for their existence, and I was persuaded that it was the best explanation ever offered. So I decided to support the Marxist prescription for eliminating those evils.


Marxism proves what god is and why he doesn't exist and this is an incredibly important aspect of Marxism in terms of understanding the world, what we are within it and ultimately how and why we should create a communist society.
I'm sorry, but how exactly does Marxism prove anything about the existence or non-existence of god? I was under the impression that Marxism takes materialism as a premise, not as a theorem to be proved.

Marxism correctly explains the role of religion in class society. But the social role of an idea says nothing about the truth or falsity of that idea.


Clearly not. But a communist society is based on philosophical materialism and reason, irrespective of whether you give a damn or not.
No society is ever established on any kind of philosophy. Societies are not established on ideas; ideas are created to justify existing societies.

A communist society will be "based" on whatever ideas the members of that society choose to use in order to justify it.

An idea used by the working class to justify its actions in the class struggle does not necessarily have to be a true idea, you know. You may believe that religion is a lie, but there is no particular reason why we can't use lies in our fight.


I want to establish a real communist society, based on reason, that rejects irrationality - that rejects phantoms and superstition and where we rid ourselves of all this mystical nonsense that has repressed our society and our 'minds' for millennia - That's communism.
No. Communism is a society where we rid ourselves of the human ruling classes, of the physical, material oppression and exploitation that has kept us in chains since the dawn of civilization. Communism is not a new way of thinking. It is a new way of living, of working, producing and consuming. Communism is about what we do to each other, not about what we hold in our heads.


Yes, and the point, however, is to change it. Changing the world requires us to shake off our baggage. You're refusing to do that. Not only are you refusing to do it, you're recuperating the very ideas that suggest you need to and claiming them as your own; claiming they are compatible with your mysticism.

And they're not!
I am of the opinion that shaking off the baggage of "mysticism" is utterly impossible (never mind whether it's desirable or not). I see good reason to believe that although the dominant religions might change, people will always be religious. The material basis for religion will never disappear as long as human suffering and death continue to exist. Marx was correct in saying that suffering caused by class society provides a material basis for religious beliefs, but he failed to notice that the same is true of all suffering - including forms of suffering that would continue to exist under communism, such as emotional grief, the death of a loved one, disease, etc.

If you want a world without religion, you must first create a world without pain and death. Good luck with that.

Now, given that mysticism is invincible, I consider your struggle against it to be an enormous waste of time and effort. More importantly, I think your hostility towards religion robs us of millions of potential supporters.

[spiltteeth]

You mean the actual definition of it?

It'll come as no surprise to anyone reading this thread that a god-bothering mystic is claiming the definition of materialism is "flawed". Not really a surprise at all.

Apealing to the public...anyway, if it’s easier, you can say materialism and Christianity are incompatible at the esoteric level someone else has pointed out. You ask why it shouldn’t matter? Well, it’s already been explained that it would not impact ones Marxist understanding of historical analysis or science. One can even still come home and discuss the days events with their 12ft tall imaginary rabbit without social consequences. How do you explain all the great god-believing scientists? Here are a few:
Max PLANCK – Nobel Laureate in Physics
Erwin SCHROEDINGER – Nobel Laureate in Physics
Werner HEISENBERG – Nobel Laureate in Physics
Robert MILLIKAN – Nobel Laureate in Physics
Charles TOWNES – Nobel Laureate in Physics
Arthur SCHAWLOW – Nobel Laureate in Physics
William PHILLIPS – Nobel Laureate in Physics
William BRAGG – Nobel Laureate in Physics
Guglielmo MARCONI – Nobel Laureate in Physics
Arthur COMPTON – Nobel Laureate in Physics
Arno PENZIAS – Nobel Laureate in Physics
Nevill MOTT – Nobel Laureate in Physics
Isidor Isaac RABI – Nobel Laureate in Physics
Abdus SALAM – Nobel Laureate in Physics
Antony HEWISH – Nobel Laureate in Physics
Joseph H. TAYLOR, Jr. – Nobel Laureate in Physics
Alexis CARREL – Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
John ECCLES – Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
Joseph MURRAY – Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
Ernst CHAIN – Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
George WALD – Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
Ronald ROSS – Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
Derek BARTON – Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
Christian ANFINSEN – Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
Walter KOHN – Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
Richard SMALLEY – Nobel Laureate in Chemistry

Unless you are talking specifically those fundamentalist Christians who confuse modalities of knowledge and think Jesus rode a dinosaur. Then yes, those people ought to be ‘corrected,’ but as the above list makes clear, it is ignorance of how science functions instead of the belief in god.

And are you a materialist? You say we must have a rational society without superstition. So you do not believe in love? It is not predictable or rational, its effects are vaugly known in behavioral terms and a new theory comes out every 3 years. You do not decide who you will love nor is this possible to scientifically predict. Why are these neurotransmitters emitted with this person and not that one? Can we predict how these chemicals interact with consciousness are predict the thoughts generated? What is love? A psychosis? An obsession? You believe all science that utilizes irrational number sets equally in error? What about that vague metaphysical construct called ‘ego,’ do you believe in the Self?
Do you have morals or ethics? If so, what is the materialist basis for them? If not, why do you care about others? Do you live by your conscience that was produced by years of evolutionary psychology, in other words, on chance?

So, in the way you are using the word ‘materialist’ I haven’t ever met one, and doubt one exists.

[The Feral Underclass]

And I am asking, why not?

As I've said, it renders the understanding incoherent and obsolete.

If I first assert: "Reality is understood as the interaction and observation of objects"

And then make a second assertion claiming: "there is a reality which exists immaterially, which cannot be interacted and observed as an object"...

...you render the first assertion redundant. The second assertion nullifies the first. It "overrides" it.


What is wrong with the view that materialism may accurately describe some aspects of reality and (some form of) idealism may accurately describe others?
Because it's not true.


Why must the basis of reality be either completely materialistBecause it just is. I didn't decide it. I wasn't born and then said: "Reality is based on the interaction and observation of objects". This is the world. Welcome.


These are not rhetorical questions. I truly do not understand why you insist that a single drop of idealism is enough to overturn the materialist worldview completely.Because to insist that the world can be formulated both materially and immaterially creates philosophical pandemonium. It would be like asserting 2+2 = 4 and 5 at the same time. What are you left with then?


It seems to me that you are unreasonably insisting on philosophical purity for purity's own sake.Then you've not understood me.

It's not me, the individual insisting on the purity of reality, it's reality insisting on it's "own" purity. Otherwise, what is reality?


Or, to use a concrete example: Suppose I believe the universe was created by a deity. Why should this lead me to reject the idea that history is driven by material interests and class struggle?Because that's not what materialism is, exclusively.


How is there any kind of connection at all between events that happened 15 billion years ago and the development of humanity over the past 10,000 years?I've already answered this question in this thread.


Very well, let me rephrase my question then: Why should we make an effort to bring about communism?Because I don't want to be exploited or oppressed. Because I want to live freely without having to struggle for material goods in order to survive and because, objectively, society belongs to me and my fellow workers.


God "told" me that inequality, injustice and oppression are evil.God talks to you, does he?


I then set out to discover why they exist. I found the Marxist explanation for their existence, and I was persuaded that it was the best explanation ever offered. So I decided to support the Marxist prescription for eliminating those evils.So essentially you pick and chose what you want to believe.


I'm sorry, but how exactly does Marxism prove anything about the existence or non-existence of god?Read The German Ideology to start with.


I was under the impression that Marxism takes materialism as a premise, not as a theorem to be proved.We're talking about proving god doesn't exist, not proving that materialism exists. Materialism is reality. It's proven by the fact that things exist which are interacted and observed as objects and those that aren't, don't exist.


No society is ever established on any kind of philosophy. Societies are not established on ideas; ideas are created to justify existing societies.Reason and materialism are the basis of reality. If we reject the basis of reality, well, technically you're suffering from psychosis, but on a societal level we are founding a world based on illogicality and irrationality. How do we proceed from that? Badly, is the answer.


A communist society will be "based" on whatever ideas the members of that society choose to use in order to justify it.I will burn down your church and string up your preachers.


No. Communism is a society where we rid ourselves of the human ruling classes, of the physical, material oppression and exploitation that has kept us in chains since the dawn of civilization. Communism is not a new way of thinking. It is a new way of living, of working, producing and consuming. Communism is about what we do to each other, not about what we hold in our heads.OK, if you want to claim communism as your own, that's fine. But this conversation originally started out by arguing the irreconcilanle nature of Marxism and religion. I suppose I've been using the words interchangably, so I apologise for any confusion. But that's what I'm talking about really.

Sure you can recuperate the word communism and attach it to your love for your imaginary friends, but if we're going to get down to the nitty-gritty, Marxist stuff, you're wrong. Plainfully and unadultarly wrong.


I am of the opinion that shaking off the baggage of "mysticism" is utterly impossible (never mind whether it's desirable or not).There's a surprise.


If you want a world without religion, you must first create a world without pain and death. Good luck with that.Now we get to the crux of the matter and I'm glad we have.

God, religion, and the belief in them are tragically the buffer that protects us from pain and death. They are the magic pill that will relieve the anguish, paranoia, fear, pain and death that we all face as thinking, conceptualising animals.

Unfortunately, there is no god and all the misery and fear we have to contend with must be overcome through our own struggles, our own understandings and our own desire and ability to live our lives how we want to.

You can compound and mystify that process with all your superstitions and constructions of belief. You may even, momentarily, feel reprieve from the incomprehension of your own existence, but it will not alter the fact that, in the face of this unfathomable universe, we are insignificant; we are alone, we are destined to die and there is nothing you can do about it that will redeem this state of affairs.

Feel better, though. Sometimes I even envy people like you. But then I remember: I'm in control of my mind and in control of my own future and that nothing that happens will be a result of anything other than my own choices and my own decision to live and love and fight and die.


Now, given that mysticism is invincible, I consider your struggle against it to be an enormous waste of time and effort.Why would you think anythng else? Indeed, as someone who believes in mysticism, how could you think anything else?


More importantly, I think your hostility towards religion robs us of millions of potential supporters.I highly doubt that.

[The Feral Underclass]

Apealing to the public]

Well, clearly you're not going to listen


...anyway if it’s easier, you can say materialism and Christianity are incompatible at the esoteric level someone else has pointed out.

And that I have refuted.


You ask why it shouldn’t matter? Well, it’s already been explained that it would not impact ones Marxist understanding of historical analysis or science.Only up until the point you were asked to qualify that understanding.


One can even still come home and discuss the days events with their 12ft tall imaginary rabbit without social consequences.Are you seriously contending that there would be no consequence to society if people went home and talked to 12ft tall imaginary rabbits?

You really think there's nothing wrong with that? Most psychologists and mental health professionals would probably disagree.

Clearly if someone is talking to a 12ft imaginary rabbit, something has gone very wrong.


How do you explain all the great god-believing scientists?I don't need to explain it. Most of the world believes in some sort of god. They're doing what most people do. It's not a surprising turn of a events that 20 odd people believe in god.


And are you a materialist? You say we must have a rational society without superstition. So you do not believe in love?But it's universally accepted to be a neurological/chemical process in the brain, thus observed as an interacting object. Love is explainable as a process of the brain.


It is not predictable

You can probably, reasonably assume that most people will fall in love.


or rational

Other than the fact it's an evolutionary system designed to assist in procreation


You do not decide who you will love nor is this possible to scientifically predict.Well, you can assume that someone will fall in love. With who, no, that's largely due to the fact that there are 5,999,999,999 possibilities and you can't really predict the future...

...Well, you probably think we can...


Why are these neurotransmitters emitted with this person and not that one?I don't suppose it really matters once you've accepted that they are neurotransmitters (a verifiable object). You've just shown how love is actually a very 'material' thing.


Can we predict how these chemicals interact with consciousness are predict the thoughts generated?Materialism isn't based on "predictions". Of course we can't "predict" things that will happen in the future...

[Comrade Akai]

Communism in its fully-realized state is a form of anarchy, and also utilizes direct democracy. So you're just asking about being a Christian communist.

Go ahead, nobody's stopping ya.

[spiltteeth]

Well, clearly you're not going to listen



And that I have refuted.

Only up until the point you were asked to qualify that understanding.

Are you seriously contending that there would be no consequence to society if people went home and talked to 12ft tall imaginary rabbits?

You really think there's nothing wrong with that? Most psychologists and mental health professionals would probably disagree.

Clearly if someone is talking to a 12ft imaginary rabbit, something has gone very wrong.

I don't need to explain it. Most of the world believes in some sort of god. They're doing what most people do. It's not a surprising turn of a events that 20 odd people believe in god.

But it's universally accepted to be a neurological/chemical process in the brain, thus observed as an interacting object. Love is explainable as a process of the brain.



You can probably, reasonably assume that most people will fall in love.



Other than the fact it's an evolutionary system designed to assist in procreation

Well, you can assume that someone will fall in love. With who, no, that's largely due to the fact that there are 5,999,999,999 possibilities and you can't really predict the future...

...Well, you probably think we can...

I don't suppose it really matters once you've accepted that they are neurotransmitters (a verifiable object). You've just shown how love is actually a very 'material' thing.

Materialism isn't based on "predictions". Of course we can't "predict" things that will happen in the future...


"Are you seriously contending that there would be no consequence to society if people went home and talked to 12ft tall imaginary rabbits?

You really think there's nothing wrong with that? Most psychologists and mental health professionals would probably disagree."

It would be a problem if it was a psychosis, and only then because the thinking would impact how you view the rest of the world.
People believe in god are also psychotic? then how do you explain all those god-bearing scientists I've mentioned?

"Materialism isn't based on "predictions". Of course we can't "predict" things that will happen in the future..."

In Science we have a hypothesis and we can verify it by making predictions how objects will interact.
THIS is the problem : you do not even know how materialism or science functions.

Ah, I think we can predict the future and than you say 'we can predict people will fall in love...'
Love in not explainable by neurotransmitters, they involve them. How they interact with consciousness, behavior, and mate selection is very speculative at this time. And the thought processes do not occur at the rational level - you do not rationally choose who to love. It is a NON-RATIONAL process. And if you believe it is just a chemical reaction is this how you behave? With no ethical responsibility towards those you love? The only reason you 'love' them is a chemical reaction so whats the obligation?
please answer this. And :
What about that vague metaphysical construct called ‘ego,’ do you believe in the Self?
Do you have morals or ethics? If so, what is the materialist basis for them? If not, why do you care about others? Do you live by your conscience that was produced by years of evolutionary psychology, in other words, on chance?
These are also the irrational 'superstitions' not accounted by materialism in the way you are using the term. I ought to chide you to grow up and get rid of your silly ethics and conscious and your fidelity to some chemical reaction called love, shouldn't I?

[The Feral Underclass]

"Are you seriously contending that there would be no consequence to society if people went home and talked to 12ft tall imaginary rabbits?

You really think there's nothing wrong with that? Most psychologists and mental health professionals would probably disagree."

It would be a problem if it was a psychosis, and only then because the thinking would impact how you view the rest of the world.
People believe in god are also psychotic? then how do you explain all those god-bearing scientists I've mentioned?

"Materialism isn't based on "predictions". Of course we can't "predict" things that will happen in the future..."

In Science we have a hypothesis and we can verify it by making predictions how objects will interact.
THIS is the problem : you do not even know how materialism or science functions.

Ah, I think we can predict the future and than you say 'we can predict people will fall in love...'
Love in not explainable by neurotransmitters, they involve them. How they interact with consciousness, behavior, and mate selection is very speculative at this time. And the thought processes do not occur at the rational level - you do not rationally choose who to love. It is a NON-RATIONAL process. And if you believe it is just a chemical reaction is this how you behave? With no ethical responsibility towards those you love? The only reason you 'love' them is a chemical reaction so whats the obligation?
please answer this. And :
What about that vague metaphysical construct called ‘ego,’ do you believe in the Self?
Do you have morals or ethics? If so, what is the materialist basis for them? If not, why do you care about others? Do you live by your conscience that was produced by years of evolutionary psychology, in other words, on chance?
These are also the irrational 'superstitions' not accounted by materialism in the way you are using the term. I ought to chide you to grow up and get rid of your silly ethics and conscious and your fidelity to some chemical reaction called love, shouldn't I?



http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb224/dbarsne/straws.jpg

[The Feral Underclass]

Moved to religion.

[spiltteeth]

Oh colored straws!!!
Why did I not see it before!!

[The Feral Underclass]

Oh colored straws!!!
Why did I not see it before!!

You can't honestly expect me to keep responding to your trite repetition? No matter how much you word it differently, it's not going to be any truer.

[spiltteeth]

You can't honestly expect me to keep responding to your trite repetition? No matter how much you word it differently, it's not going to be any truer.

Well, you haven't responded even once. See? :

What about that vague metaphysical construct called ‘ego,’ do you believe in the Self?
Do you have morals or ethics? If so, what is the materialist basis for them? If not, why do you care about others? Do you live by your conscience that was produced by years of evolutionary psychology, in other words, on chance?
These are also the irrational 'superstitions' not accounted by materialism in the way you are using the term. I ought to chide you to grow up and get rid of your silly ethics and conscious and your fidelity to some chemical reaction called love, shouldn't I?

Word what differently? I think love DOES have a material explanation. BUT if you act as if love has an moral/ethical dimension then you are not a materialist. Their is an idealist dimension to your 'love.'

But i Guess only Christians have to explain themselves, not you. Not when you have a picture of straws!!!!

When the masses ask you what makes your superstitions true and their's false what will you do? Show them pretty straws?

This feeling your having now, its called getting owned.
Your welcome!

[The Feral Underclass]

Well, you haven't responded even once. See?

I have, several times.


What about that vague metaphysical construct called ‘ego,’ do you believe in the Self?What about it? The ID, Ego and Super-Ego are theoretical constructs of how the brain works. And in any case Freud has been widely discredited.


Do you have morals or ethics? If so, what is the materialist basis for them? If not, why do you care about others? Do you live by your conscience that was produced by years of evolutionary psychology, in other words, on chance?
These are also the irrational 'superstitions' not accounted by materialism in the way you are using the term.I'll repeat myself (and try and understand it):

"We set out from real, active men, and on the basis of their real life-process we demonstrate the development of the ideological reflexes and echoes of this life-process. The phantoms formed in the human brain are also, necessarily, sublimates of their material life-process, which is empirically verifiable and bound to material premises. Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the semblance of independence. They have no history, no development; but men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with this their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking. Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life." - Karl Marx, The German Ideology.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...logy/ch01a.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm)

As someone who claims to be a Marxist, I'm surprised you're having difficulty with this. Oh, that's right, you have no idea what you're talking about.


Word what differently? I think love DOES have a material explanation. BUT if you act as if love has an moral/ethical dimension then you are not a materialist. Their is an idealist dimension to your 'love.'How does one act as if love has a moral/ethical dimension? What does that even mean?


But i Guess only Christians have to explain themselves, not you. Not when you have a picture of straws!!!!I have explained myself, over and over again, but you seem to be failing at understanding what I'm saying, choosing instead to re-word what your argument and asking me the same questions.

It's called clutching at straws.


When the masses ask you what makes your superstitions true and their's false what will you do? I doubt the "masses" will ever ask me anything, but for those workers I do have contact with and for those fellow workers in my work place and community, I will argue the same thing.


This feeling your having now, its called getting owned.
Your welcome!:lol:

Try again.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Surprise: Communism was originally Christian

You're confusing communism with communitarianism.


How do you explain all the great god-believing scientists?

First of all, that's an argument from authority. Those scientists were great because they made discoveries verifiable with scientific methods, not because they were Christian. Secondly, the human mind has the ability to hold two mutually contradictory ideas at once - but this is not a vindication of both ideas.

[Revy]

I am curious what kind of God these Christian communists believe in.

I am not intolerant toward the idea of a Christian communist, it's just my views are biased by my strong atheism.

I have for some time been atheist not because of some "rationalist" position, you know, science tells me there's no evidence, so I have to subvert my will to that great altar of science. No! I am an atheist, at least an atheist in the sense that I reject the traditional version of God, because I just can't logically believe in a loving God watching over us. If God doesn't care, or willfully lets tragedies happen not only to good people but to people who believe in him, then what kind of God is he? Do you worship God only to preserve a place in heaven?

[Havet]

Christian is highly relevant. Saying you are a Christian means nothing if you do not live by its book and a quick and easy example of how christianity is in total opposition to anarchism is that the aforementioned book states one must respect ones master and do as he (sexist) says. That clearly is incompatable with any strand of anarchism. Christianity and anarchism are as much dialectical opposites as dialectical opposites can be.

I kid you not, there's a guy (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?action=profile;u=733) that calls himself a Christian Anarchist :D:laugh::laugh:

His thread (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=11164.0) about his oxymoron


Why would I say that Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer... Let me count the ways...

1. Most here believe that we have "inailenable rights" although most don't know why our rights
are inailenable. The old guys who founded this fiction called USA understood them to be so
because they believed we were CREATED with them (by a Creator). Remember the common
words that most believe in such "All men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain
inalienable rights, among them are..." Certainly if you cut out a belief in "the Creator" you gut
the authority for rights in the preceeding ideal. If you cut the Creator, where does the authority
for your creation of rights come from? Little green men? The Id? Do you simply believe they
are "just there"? Why?? If your rights come from a Creator who is of course great enough to
create you and your rights, then they are truly inailenable due to the fact that someone at least
as "great" as your "Creator" would be needed to destroy them. Certainly a mere man is not
as great as that which created him so a man would not be "great" enough to destroy what was
"created" by his "creator".

2. As Christians, the old guys who founded the fiction USA understood the Christian idea that all
men were sinners and none are "good" enough to be entrusted with "ruling" over any other men.
Therefore they tried a "new" idea never before tried in history. Was it a "republic"? No, Rome
was a republic as well as others. The "new" idea was "soverignty", another idea that came from
Christianity. All men are Kings and Princes in Christ, Paul said (or at least someone who we have
been led to believe was Paul). So the "experiment" was to put men in the rightful position as
"creator" of the fiction USA. As "creators", the fiction USA could have no authority over over
it's creators any more than we can have authority over God. No authority = anarchy.

3. The "experiment" has failed miserably as man (the rightful authority over the fiction USA)
has "forgotten" that each one is "over" his "servant" fiction USA and has allowed the fiction
to take on a form and power which is simulating a true entity (which it is not). Man has
neglected his own Creator which is the rightful authority over him and has forsaken his
stewardship of keeping the fiction USA in line.

4. Since the fiction USA is no longer within the authority of it's creator man, the fiction ceases
to exist. It is replaced by REAL MEN who are acting out as if they have some authority from
this "fiction" that allows them to use FORCE over their fellow man. These real men who use
force are violating the rights of their fellow man. Most are deceived into believing that the fiction
really exists and gives them some magical power over others.

5. Since they have no legitimate power, we are already living in anarchy, you just don't know it.

There's even a Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism) about it!

RUN FOR COVER QUICK!

http://www.turdbaby.com/images/Get%20to%20the%20Choppa.JPG

[spiltteeth]

[QUOTE=The Anarchist Tension;1529737]

I have, several times.

What about it? The ID, Ego and Super-Ego are theoretical constructs of how the brain works. And in any case Freud has been widely discredited.

I'll repeat myself (and try and understand it):

"We set out from real, active men, and on the basis of their real life-process we demonstrate the development of the ideological reflexes and echoes of this life-process. The phantoms formed in the human brain are also, necessarily, sublimates of their material life-process, which is empirically verifiable and bound to material premises. Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the semblance of independence. They have no history, no development; but men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with this their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking. Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life." - Karl Marx, The German Ideology.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...logy/ch01a.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm)

As someone who claims to be a Marxist, I'm surprised you're having difficulty with this. Oh, that's right, you have no idea what you're talking about.

How does one act as if love has a moral/ethical dimension? What does that even mean?

I have explained myself, over and over again, but you seem to be failing at understanding what I'm saying, choosing instead to re-word what your argument and asking me the same questions.

It's called clutching at straws.

I doubt the "masses" will ever ask me anything, but for those workers I do have contact with and for those fellow workers in my work place and community, I will argue the same thing.

:lol:

"What about it? The ID, Ego and Super-Ego are theoretical constructs of how the brain works. And in any case Freud has been widely discredited."

What about it? I asked (twice) if you believed in it, not what they were. Do you act as if you have a self, in other words, do you labor under this discredited theoretical construct?

"I'll repeat myself (and try and understand it):

"We set out from real, active men, and on the basis of their real life-process we demonstrate the development of the ideological reflexes and echoes of this life-process. The phantoms formed in the human brain are also, necessarily, sublimates of their material life-process, which is empirically verifiable and bound to material premises. Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the semblance of independence. They have no history, no development; but men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with this their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking. Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life." - Karl Marx, The German Ideology.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...logy/ch01a.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm)

As someone who claims to be a Marxist, I'm surprised you're having difficulty with this. Oh, that's right, you have no idea what you're talking about.

How does one act as if love has a moral/ethical dimension? What does that even mean?"

Well, if love is just a biochemical reaction then it would make little sense to add any kind of ethical obligation to a biochemical reaction, right?

"I have explained myself, over and over again, but you seem to be failing at understanding what I'm saying, choosing instead to re-word what your argument and asking me the same questions.

It's called clutching at straws.

I doubt the "masses" will ever ask me anything, but for those workers I do have contact with and for those fellow workers in my work place and community, I will argue the same thing."

:lol:

Try again.
Try again to ask you to account for your beliefs?
OK - you have'nt;t answered one single thing, in fact you've been repeating yourself. You say my Christian belief is incapapatable with materialism. Fine.
I say many of your beliefs are also incompatible, like your ethics.
You'll argue the same thing>? What thing?
I ask you - do you have ethics? You do not answer. I ask you -do you believe in the ego or a 'self'? You tell me what an 'ego' is. I ask you - do you attach any kind of moral obligations to love, instead of just seeing it as a biochemical process? You do not understand. Moral obligations like a promise you'll care for the person for the rest of your life -child or wife or mother. Surly you don't practice fidelity to a chemical process? I ask if you follow your conscience, that thing created over the years of evolution to deal with specific social conditions that no longer exists - you do not answer.
You see? You do not answer. Anything.
When the Masses ask how your beliefs jive with that Marxist quote above what will you say? You have no morality yes? You won't answer so...
You will say "straws.."?
Your life is built upon many anti-materialistic superstitions. You are no more a materialist then is a Christian. I've given you opportunities for you to answer or explain yourself and you won't or can't. Case closed.

And there does exist that breed of person whose mixture of arrogance and stupidity render them insensible to being owned but take it from a Superior mind, I have owned you. Want empirical evidence? You can not answer for yourself, merely post pretty straws and repeat your self...

[The Feral Underclass]

Try again to ask you to account for your beliefs? You haven't asked me to "account for" my believes. You've made some abstract argument about how ethics and morality are immaterial.


OK - you have'nt;t answered one single thing, in fact you've been repeating yourself. You say my Christian belief is incapapatable with materialism. Fine.
I say many of your beliefs are also incompatible, like your ethics.I have responded to this twice (quoting from a seminal Marxist text, so it seems unusual you don't know it considering you claim to be one). I'm sorry if you are unable to understand the passage I have quoted, but that is the answer to your questions.


I ask you - do you have ethics? You do not answer. I ask you -do you believe in the ego or a 'self'? You tell me what an 'ego' is. I ask you - do you attach any kind of moral obligations to love, instead of just seeing it as a biochemical process? You do not understand. Moral obligations like a promise you'll care for the person for the rest of your life -child or wife or mother. Surly you don't practice fidelity to a chemical process? I ask if you follow your conscience, that thing created over the years of evolution to deal with specific social conditions that no longer exists - you do not answer.
You see? You do not answer. Anything.This is absurd. I have obviously answered, you can read my answers in my replies.

The point is not whether I "believe" these things, it is understanding what those things are. This is the whole point I'm trying make. Just because you believe something doesn't make it so. What's necessary and important to understand is what those things are and how they exist.

Asking me if I have "ethics" or if I "attach any kind of moral obligations to love" is the wrong question. I don't really understand the point you're trying to make because we're talking about what materialism is and how it disproves the existence of god. Things like ethics and a "moral" attitude towards love are understood as the interaction and observation of objects (the brain, humans and the why in which humans have come to interact for a start). To believe that it is "wrong" to kill is because we empathise/feel guilty (all brain functions) and understand the negative aspects of committing to something like that (against other humans).

Realising that you don't want to kill someone or that you think it's "wrong" to do so is not at all, in any way, the same as asserting the existence of god: an immaterial entity which has absolutely no relation to objects, not in an interacting or observational sense nor in any grounding or foundation. There's no basis for god as there are to "ethics"; there's no ability to understand god in the same way you can understand ethics.

Your comparison is wholly inadequate in proving your point. Moreover, in terms of understanding the material nature of ethics and morality, you only have to read the passage I have provided twice for you.


When the Masses ask how your beliefs jive with that Marxist quote above what will you say? You have no morality yes? You won't answer so...
You will say "straws.."?I don't think I will ever be in a situation where the "masses" (whoever they are) will be collectively asking me anything. But as I have stated in my last post: "...for those workers I do have contact with and for those fellow workers in my work place and community, I will argue the same thing."

I don't see why that isn't an adequate answer.


Your life is built upon many anti-materialistic superstitions.Such as what? Thus far you've not actually been able to substantiate that claim, despite my leading response to you.


You are no more a materialist then is a Christian. I've given you opportunities for you to answer or explain yourself and you won't or can't. Case closed.I am failing to understand why it is you cannot see what I'm saying? It's as if you're pointedly refusing to understand me. If you really cannot see the points that I have consistently made then there is actually nothing more I can do or say.


And there does exist that breed of person whose mixture of arrogance and stupidity render them insensible to being owned but take it from a Superior mind, I have owned you. Want empirical evidence? You can not answer for yourself, merely post pretty straws and repeat your self...Still clutching at those straws I see.

If this is honestly what you think has happened in this thread, then OK. But I hope for others who are reading this thread, you will be able to see the coherency of my argument.

To recap:

Materialism is the basis of reality. The only 'things' that exist are objects, understood through their interaction and observation. Anything that cannot be understood through the interaction and observation of objects does not exist (i.e. god)

Ethics and morality do exist as proven, verifiable observations. They are the consequences of human interaction with the world (i.e. objects, or the processes of life). Karl Marx explains it a lot better than I do:

"We set out from real, active men, and on the basis of their real life-process we demonstrate the development of the ideological reflexes and echoes of this life-process. The phantoms formed in the human brain are also, necessarily, sublimates of their material life-process, which is empirically verifiable and bound to material premises. Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the semblance of independence. They have no history, no development; but men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with this their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking. Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life." - Karl Marx, The German Ideology.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...logy/ch01a.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm)

[spiltteeth]

You haven't asked me to "account for" my believes. You've made some abstract argument about how ethics and morality are immaterial.

I have responded to this twice (quoting from a seminal Marxist text, so it seems unusual you don't know it considering you claim to be one). I'm sorry if you are unable to understand the passage I have quoted, but that is the answer to your questions.

This is absurd. I have obviously answered, you can read my answers in my replies.

The point is not whether I "believe" these things, it is understanding what those things are. This is the whole point I'm trying make. Just because you believe something doesn't make it so. What's necessary and important to understand is what those things are and how they exist.

Asking me if I have "ethics" or if I "attach any kind of moral obligations to love" is the wrong question. I don't really understand the point you're trying to make because we're talking about what materialism is and how it disproves the existence of god. Things like ethics and a "moral" attitude to wards love are understood as the interaction and observation of objects (the brain, humans and the why in which humans have come to interact for a start). To believe that it is "wrong" to kill is because we empathise/feel guilty (all brain functions) and understand the negative aspects of committing to something like that (against other humans).

Realising that you don't want to kill someone or that you think it's "wrong" to do so is not at all, in any way, the same as asserting the existence of god: an immaterial entity which has absolutely no relation to objects, not in an interacting or observational sense nor in any grounding or foundation. There's no basis for god as there are to "ethics"; there's no ability to understand god in the same way you can understand ethics.

Your comparison is wholly inadequate in proving your point. Moreover, in terms of understanding the material nature of ethics and morality, you only have to read the passage I have provided twice for you.

I don't think I will ever be in a situation where the "masses" (whoever they are) will be collectively asking me anything. But as I have stated in my last post: "...for those workers I do have contact with and for those fellow workers in my work place and community, I will argue the same thing."

I don't see why that isn't an adequate answer.

Such as what? Thus far you've not actually been able to substantiate that claim, despite my leading response to you.

I am failing to understand why it is you cannot see what I'm saying? It's as if you're pointedly refusing to understand me. If you really cannot see the points that I have consistently made then there is actually nothing more I can do or say.

Still clutching at those straws I see.

If this is honestly what you think has happened in this thread, then OK. But I hope for others who are reading this thread, you will be able to see the coherency of my argument.

To recap:

Materialism is the basis of reality. The only 'things' that exist are objects, understood through their interaction and observation. Anything that cannot be understood through the interaction and observation of objects does not exist (i.e. god)

Ethics and morality do exist as proven, verifiable observations. They are the consequences of human interaction with the world (i.e. objects, or the processes of life). Karl Marx explains it a lot better than I do:

"We set out from real, active men, and on the basis of their real life-process we demonstrate the development of the ideological reflexes and echoes of this life-process. The phantoms formed in the human brain are also, necessarily, sublimates of their material life-process, which is empirically verifiable and bound to material premises. Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the semblance of independence. They have no history, no development; but men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with this their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking. Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life." - Karl Marx, The German Ideology.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...logy/ch01a.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm)


"You haven't asked me to "account for" my believes. You've made some abstract argument about how ethics and morality are immaterial."

Many ethics are justified by metaphysics, if you believe in some absolute morals,see Kant. I haven't made an argument.
I didn't ask? For the FOURTH time -and this time try to notice those rococo marks at the end of the sentences, they are question marls which indicate a question has been asked :
What about that vague metaphysical construct called ‘ego,’ do you believe in the Self?
Do you have morals or ethics? If so, what is the materialist basis for them? If not, why do you care about others? Do you live by your conscience that was produced by years of evolutionary psychology, in other words, on chance?
These are also the irrational 'superstitions' not accounted by materialism in the way you are using the term. I ought to chide you to grow up and get rid of your silly ethics and conscious and your fidelity to some chemical reaction called love, shouldn't I?





"I have responded to this twice (quoting from a seminal Marxist text, so it seems unusual you don't know it considering you claim to be one). I'm sorry if you are unable to understand the passage I have quoted, but that is the answer to your questions.

This is absurd. I have obviously answered, you can read my answers in my replies.

The point is not whether I "believe" these things, it is understanding what those things are. This is the whole point I'm trying make. Just because you believe something doesn't make it so. What's necessary and important to understand is what those things are and how they exist.

Asking me if I have "ethics" or if I "attach any kind of moral obligations to love" is the wrong question. I don't really understand the point you're trying to make because we're talking about what materialism is and how it disproves the existence of god. Things like ethics and a "moral" attitude towards love are understood as the interaction and observation of objects (the brain, humans and the why in which humans have come to interact for a start). To believe that it is "wrong" to kill is because we empathise/feel guilty (all brain functions) and understand the negative aspects of committing to something like that (against other humans).

Realising that you don't want to kill someone or that you think it's "wrong" to do so is not at all, in any way, the same as asserting the existence of god: an immaterial entity which has absolutely no relation to objects, not in an interacting or observational sense nor in any grounding or foundation. There's no basis for god as there are to "ethics"; there's no ability to understand god in the same way you can understand ethics.

Your comparison is wholly inadequate in proving your point. Moreover, in terms of understanding the material nature of ethics and morality, you only have to read the passage I have provided twice for you.

I don't think I will ever be in a situation where the "masses" (whoever they are) will be collectively asking me anything. But as I have stated in my last post: "...for those workers I do have contact with and for those fellow workers in my work place and community, I will argue the same thing."

I don't see why that isn't an adequate answer.

Such as what? Thus far you've not actually been able to substantiate that claim, despite my leading response to you.

I am failing to understand why it is you cannot see what I'm saying? It's as if you're pointedly refusing to understand me. If you really cannot see the points that I have consistently made then there is actually nothing more I can do or say.

Still clutching at those straws I see.

If this is honestly what you think has happened in this thread, then OK. But I hope for others who are reading this thread, you will be able to see the coherency of my argument.

To recap:

Materialism is the basis of reality. The only 'things' that exist are objects, understood through their interaction and observation. Anything that cannot be understood through the interaction and observation of objects does not exist (i.e. god)

Ethics and morality do exist as proven, verifiable observations. They are the consequences of human interaction with the world (i.e. objects, or the processes of life). Karl Marx explains it a lot better than I do:

"We set out from real, active men, and on the basis of their real life-process we demonstrate the development of the ideological reflexes and echoes of this life-process. The phantoms formed in the human brain are also, necessarily, sublimates of their material life-process, which is empirically verifiable and bound to material premises. Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the semblance of independence. They have no history, no development; but men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with this their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking. Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life." - Karl Marx, The German Ideology.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...logy/ch01a.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm)[/QUOTE]"

First MATERIALISM CANNOT DISPROVE A NEGATIVE - so we've cleared that up right? Can't use materialism to 'disprove' god or Santa clause.
Your wrong.

So.....do you have ETHICS?

Like this - "To believe that it is "wrong" to kill is because we empathise/feel guilty (all brain functions) and understand the negative aspects of committing to something like that (against other humans)."

So if you don't feel guilt its all "right" to kill, correct?


Here you say you've already answered. I can't find the answers, so just take 2 seconds and paste them to each question :

1)Do you have ethics? If so, what are they how do you justify them?
2)Do you live by your conscience?
3) Do you believe in the Self or Ego?

Thanks.

Now my argument,

As someone else has already asked, why can't you have a materialist basis for analyzing history, class structure, the sociological moral CONSEQUENCES of SOCIAL -not individual - morality, and then have a Christian belief in a God, just like one applies Newtonian physics to this and not that. Now you could, but your answer was that then you would not be a materialist. So we must have a materialist understanding of everything. Else you hang 'my' preachers, and not because of the oppressive sociologically/historically created power structures of their religion, because not all religions have such structures, but because they hold a non-materialist belief.
Now, one cannot with intellectual honesty compare the belief in god with the belief in ethics as being the same . They are not. But, I bring up ethics because many people -Kantains etc- have not adopted the same dominant morality that sociological/historical forces have created. They have their own individual morality. IF you have a morality NOT because that is just what everyone else believes or because your dad conditioned you to believe that way and have matured to another level of morality -there are several - THEN when you get right down to individual morality, as many have pointed out, it usually ultimately has its core in some metaphysical a priori posit.

So you hang the preachers for their superstitious belief. And then next to them you will, presumably since I can't seem to get much out of you, hang those psychologists who believe in the ego, and next to them you will hang those people who have an idealist belief in love (you probably know under Mao China tried to restructure the family) then next to them anyone who has a metaphysical basis for their ethics -or hold them in some kind of absolute (ie it's always wrong to kill someone just for fun etc or most of the living philosophers) then you will hang the theorists, the philosophers...etc

I'm arguing that you do not need a materialist belief in EVERYTHING to have a correct materialist analysis of ethics, history, and society.(See all those God bearing scientists I've posted -they have a non-materialist beleif and yet the science is solid)
I'll admit, the many religions function sociologically it does warp their analysis of these things, but not because of their belief in god, rather their belief in say...the idea that god intervenes in history or something like that. And this does not go for all religions. AND this is diff from just having a non-materialist belief -like those scientists who beleive in god.
SO 1) if you do have an idealist idea -belief in god- it means you are not a materialist in the strict meaning of the world, it DOES NOT follow that your historical/Marxist analysis will be contaminated based SOLELY and a non-materialist belief.

And 2) Many, many, many people, including many on this forum and possibly yourself depending on the basis of your ethics and your attitude to love and your conscience etc, will have to be hanged. MY second point is that this is overwhelmingly the great majority of people, if that is how you are judging them, by the quote above, since most, except for as very small minority, have at least one non-materialist belief, if you explore it.

[The Feral Underclass]

First MATERIALISM CANNOT DISPROVE A NEGATIVE - so we've cleared that up right? Can't use materialism to 'disprove' god or Santa clause.
Your wrong.

Materialism is the basis of reality. The only 'things' that exist are objects, understood through their interaction and observation. Anything that cannot be understood through the interaction and observation of objects does not exist (i.e. god and santa).

Materialism disproves the existence of god and santa because they are not verifiable through the interaction and observation as them as objects.


1)Do you have ethics? If so, what are they how do you justify them?I suppose you can call them ethics. I'm a communist. I believe in the liberation of the working class. I believe that you should not commit to negative actions if they are not necessary.


2)Do you live by your conscience?I don't think we really know what "conscience" is. I live by my politics and attempt to live positively towards other people.


3) Do you believe in the Self or Ego?I don't know enough about the theories to know whether I "believe" in them or not.


why can't you have a materialist basis for analyzing history, class structure, the sociological moral CONSEQUENCES of SOCIAL -not individual - morality, and then have a Christian belief in a God just like one applies Newtonian physics to this and not that. Now you could, but your answer was that then you would not be a materialist.That wasn't my answer at all.

What I actually said was, it is all fine and well to believe in god and accept historical materialism, until you are asked to qualify that belief. Then you would find it impossible to justify because the concept of historical materialism is founded on an understanding of philosophical materialism. In order to be a philosophical materialist you have to reject idealism i.e. the belief that there exists things not verifiable through the interaction and observation of objects. Do you understand?

So, whether you believe in historical materialism or not, on a fundamental level you cannot reconcile that view with your belief in god. Only on a superficial one.


So you hang the preachers for their superstitious belief. And then next to them you will...hang those psychologists who believe in the ego, and next to them you will hang those people who have an idealist belief in love (you probably know under Mao China tried to restructure the family) then next to them anyone who has a metaphysical basis for their ethics -or hold them in some kind of absolute (ie it's always wrong to kill someone just for fun etc or most of the living philosophers) then you will hang the theorists, the philosophers...etcAs I have stated, repeatedly, opposing religion and religious belief is done so on the basis that the belief is not founded in any materialist analysis. God, the holy spirit etc are not verifiable by the interaction and observation of objects. They are immaterial, thus do not exist, as the only things to exist are objects.

The theory of the "ego" (if it's true) and the fact of love are based on and verifiable by the interaction and observation of objects. They are not immaterial. The process of love, the idea of morality and the theory of the "ego" are all based on objects. They are all founded in a materialist view of the world i.e. that they are the products of our life-process, our interaction and observation of the world as an object.

I cannot make it any more clearer!


since I can't seem to get much out of youI am getting incredibly pissed off by your attitude! You are being dishonest about this discussion and I am beginning to think you are purposefully refusing to pay attention to my arguments in order to provoke me i.e. trolling. I cannot believe that someone can be this ignorant to the repeated points I have made to you. You're being unfair and it's not acceptable!

Engage with the ideas or stop posting.

[spiltteeth]

Materialism is the basis of reality. The only 'things' that exist are objects, understood through their interaction and observation. Anything that cannot be understood through the interaction and observation of objects does not exist (i.e. god and santa).

Materialism disproves the existence of god and santa because they are not verifiable through the interaction and observation as them as objects.

I suppose you can call them ethics. I'm a communist. I believe in the liberation of the working class. I believe that you should not commit to negative actions if they are not necessary.

I don't think we really know what "conscience" is. I live by my politics and attempt to live positively towards other people.

I don't know enough about the theories to know whether I "believe" in them or not.

That wasn't my answer at all.

What I actually said was, it is all fine and well to believe in god and accept historical materialism, until you are asked to qualify that belief. Then you would find it impossible to justify because the concept of historical materialism is founded on an understanding of philosophical materialism. In order to be a philosophical materialist you have to reject idealism i.e. the belief that there exists things not verifiable through the interaction and observation of objects. Do you understand?

So, whether you believe in historical materialism or not, on a fundamental level you cannot reconcile that view with your belief in god. Only on a superficial one.

As I have stated, repeatedly, opposing religion and religious belief is done so on the basis that the belief is not founded in any materialist analysis. God, the holy spirit etc are not verifiable by the interaction and observation of objects. They are immaterial, thus do not exist, as the only things to exist are objects.

The theory of the "ego" (if it's true) and the fact of love are based on and verifiable by the interaction and observation of objects. They are not immaterial. The process of love, the idea of morality and the theory of the "ego" are all based on objects. They are all founded in a materialist view of the world i.e. that they are the products of our life-process, our interaction and observation of the world as an object.

I cannot make it any more clearer!

I am getting incredibly pissed off by your attitude! You are being dishonest about this discussion and I am beginning to think you are purposefully refusing to pay attention to my arguments in order to provoke me i.e. trolling. I cannot believe that someone can be this ignorant to the repeated points I have made to you. You're being unfair and it's not acceptable!

Engage with the ideas or stop posting.

"Materialism is the basis of reality. The only 'things' that exist are objects, understood through their interaction and observation. Anything that cannot be understood through the interaction and observation of objects does not exist (i.e. god and santa).

Materialism disproves the existence of god and santa because they are not verifiable through the interaction and observation as them as objects."

You cannot prove a negative, you can only say there is zero evidence that god or santa exists.
Gravity is not verifiable through interaction and observation of subatomic particles. That's why people keep bringing up how Newtonian physics does not apply to quantum data. A photon is either a wave or a particle depending on whether it is being observed or not. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle sates these things can never by predicted, a hypothesis has been stated that other dimensions - 7-14 depending on who you ask- exist to explain this phenomenon.
Point is things we didn't know existed yesterday we now 'know' exist today. Maybe tomorrow god or Santa will roll in front of the Hubble.
You cannot prove the nonexistence of a thing, nor disprove the existence of a thing, merely say whether the facts support its existence or not.
The best you can say is that theres no proof for god or santa.

"I suppose you can call them ethics. I'm a communist. I believe in the liberation of the working class. I believe that you should not commit to negative actions if they are not necessary.

I don't think we really know what "conscience" is. I live by my politics and attempt to live positively towards other people.

I don't know enough about the theories to know whether I "believe" in them or not."

Those are all superstitions. Just like religion, as your quote shows, is a consequence of social forces so are morals and ethics. If a kid thinks masturbating is 'wrong' and feels guilty because a priest or a parent told him it was wrong has no basis in materialism, it can be explained by materialism as just a societal taboo.
So we ought to, as you say, shake off these superstitions.
But if you want to keep morals, or religion/belief in god, you have to justify them.
So, if you want to get rid of religion/belief in god -for reasons other than their oppressive nature- then for the same reasons you would also have to get rid of those social constructs called 'right' and 'wrong.'
Now many great minds have twisted their brains trying to get around this and ultimately they always have to a)reject all morality or b) state an a priori metaphysical something to justify them.


"That wasn't my answer at all.

What I actually said was, it is all fine and well to believe in god and accept historical materialism, until you are asked to qualify that belief. Then you would find it impossible to justify because the concept of historical materialism is founded on an understanding of philosophical materialism. In order to be a philosophical materialist you have to reject idealism i.e. the belief that there exists things not verifiable through the interaction and observation of objects. Do you understand?"

I apologize if I misunderstood you or misrepresented your thoughts. The belief in god is indeed unjustifiable. I agree with you.
My point is that, for the same reasons, so are morals.

"So, whether you believe in historical materialism or not, on a fundamental level you cannot reconcile that view with your belief in god. Only on a superficial one."

That is true. Although once again, I also think you cannot reconcile morals with historical materialism except for those morals rooted in it, which is specifically a Stirner like egoism.
So if you want to kill a person, or a child, there is nothing wrong with it. You may -or may not-feel guilt, you may be jailed, but it can never be said to be wrong.
Also, all concerns of justice would have to be materialistically based, which people have argued over how to do that for awhile, really I know too little to comment on what such a justice would look like, it might be great.

"As I have stated, repeatedly, opposing religion and religious belief is done so on the basis that the belief is not founded in any materialist analysis. God, the holy spirit etc are not verifiable by the interaction and observation of objects. They are immaterial, thus do not exist, as the only things to exist are objects."

You are right. They can not said to exist today. Although in the future who knows science is constantly revealing more and more of reality -even other universes!

"The theory of the "ego" (if it's true) and the fact of love are based on and verifiable by the interaction and observation of objects. They are not immaterial. The process of love, the idea of morality and the theory of the "ego" are all based on objects. They are all founded in a materialist view of the world i.e. that they are the products of our life-process, our interaction and observation of the world as an object.

I cannot make it any more clearer!

I am getting incredibly pissed off by your attitude! You are being dishonest about this discussion and I am beginning to think you are purposefully refusing to pay attention to my arguments in order to provoke me i.e. trolling. I cannot believe that someone can be this ignorant to the repeated points I have made to you. You're being unfair and it's not acceptable!"

I'll try to be clear - my belief in god has no materialist base.
But I don't think the beliefs you stated above do either, your ethics.
Also, I think most people, even atheist scientists, justify there actions and base behaviors on things that also don't exist, except as -from a materialistic perspective -false social constructs like religion, ie morals etc.

So, even if you think it desirable, it would be hypocritical to say such superstitions as the belief in god ought to be rooted out, and not such superstitions as 'right' and 'wrong' except as defined in rationalist utilitarian ways, which I suspect many would find morally repulsive.