Seems like some atheists do not recognise religion from faith

[matevz91]

What do you think? I think that they use religion to attack faith.

[Queercommie Girl]

The real question is, faith in what? I guess my religion is "humanism" since I have faith in humanity, particularly the working class which technically makes up the majority of the human population.

[matevz91]

Faith in a higher being, I mean.

[x371322]

If I understand you correctly, you're trying to say that faith and religion are not the same. To that I would say, so what? They both suck. Faith is belief without evidence... something every religion relies on. How else would they get all those gullible people to give them lots of money? ;)

[Queercommie Girl]

Faith in a higher being, I mean.

I believe any kind of faith like that is fundamentally wrong, because any kind of faith in something "higher than humanity" takes away from the faith in ourselves and makes humanity a little bit more like a "slave", but "although I don't agree with you, I support your rights to believe it", as long as your spiritual views are not reactionary or discriminatory.

Marxism (and this is especially evident if you read Marx's earlier writings) is ultimately about human self-emancipation, not humans slavishly serving and worshipping some "higher power", whether real or imaginary.

[Queercommie Girl]

If I understand you correctly, you're trying to say that faith and religion are not the same. To that I would say, so what? They both suck. Faith is belief without evidence... something every religion relies on. How else would they get all those gullible people to give them lots of money? ;)

I think it sucks primarily due to what the object of the faith is rather than "faith" itself.

I have "faith" in humanity which may not be technically strictly scientific, but it's still progressive IMO.

But any kind of "faith" in a "higher power", whether real or imaginary, basically makes slaves out of humanity. Think about it, the ruling class can easily use the concept of "higher powers" to justify their own rule.

"Rather than revere Heaven and sing hymns to it, why not understand and exploit it?" --- Xunzi, ancient Chinese materialist philosopher, 4th century BCE

[matevz91]

You know, most atheists base their non-belief in any higher being on combinatorics, but being a mathematician (and a programmer and a human) myself, I know that even the most unlikely things are equally likely in real life.

That does not disturb me that they do not believe. What disturbs me is your attitude:
"they both suck". You are one of those atheists, I see that from your statement ("How else would they get all those gullible people to give them lots of money?"). For you there is no difference.

You atheists will fight for your perception of world as will all other people. But do not use such bad methods!

World which relies on a God is no better than is a world that relies on nothing. Sail in between!!!

[matevz91]

And yes, extract postulates (axioms) from religion and you will see the faith. Because faith are those postulates. Everything else is religion. Faith is unexploitable and religion is not.

[Queercommie Girl]

You know, most atheists base their non-belief in any higher being on combinatorics, but being a mathematician (and a programmer and a human) myself, I know that even the most unlikely things are equally likely in real life.


Here is a question for you: even if some kind of "god" really exists, why do I have to worship it? What is it that compels me to worship it? Just because it's got more power than me? But surely that's just imperialist blackmail. If that's the only justification, then I think we should all bow down to US imperialism, because US imperialism is the most powerful force on Earth today. "Might makes right", I guess?

What if I decide to literally rebel against God and join Satan's camp? Why is that necessarily wrong? I don't understand.

Just because some force created us, why does that compel us to worship it? Sorry, but frankly, this kind of logic theists use simply does not follow at all, even if we assume your kind of god exists. I decide not to believe or follow god even if it exists, and it is in my right to do so. I don't fucking respond to "spiritual blackmail".

Suppose in the future humans create sentient AI, does that mean the AI must forever obey their human masters? Isn't that fucking slavery?



World which relies on a God is no better than is a world that relies on nothing. Sail in between!!!


Wrong. The world relies on humanity, particularly the working class, which is the fundamental agency of change in history.

[matevz91]

Here is a question for you: even if some kind of "god" really exists, why do I have to worship it? What is it that compels me to worship it?

We do not have to do it. Really, worshiping like going to church is part of religion. Even if it states in religious books that you should worship, you are not obligated. Oppositely, for example, angels in islam or christianity do not like to be worshiped (they reject it), but church still wants us to worship them: do you see the division?

Really, in the root we are on the same side. I believe in a God, but this god does not belong to any religion. I mix religions together, I do the unthinkable for "religious leaders", but still I believe this is also a right way.

No one urges you to worship. Just respect, please. I myself do not worship in normal means, because that is who I am. For me God is not a person, but also not just any form that created our Universe / Cosmos (set of universes) or even Creation (set of Cosmoses). I do not worship the "holy father", nor his church, but I worship the postulates of all religions, I also strive towards achieving a communist society.

See, we are on the same shore, just different perceive we the things. Do you agree, Iseul?

[Queercommie Girl]

We do not have to do it. Really, worshiping like going to church is part of religion. Even if it states in religious books that you should worship, you are not obligated. Oppositely, for example, angels in islam or christianity do not like to be worshiped (they reject it), but church still wants us to worship them: do you see the division?

Really, in the root we are on the same side. I believe in a God, but this god does not belong to any religion. I mix religions together, I do the unthinkable for "religious leaders", but still I believe this is also a right way.

No one urges you to worship. Just respect, please. I myself do not worship in normal means, because that is who I am. For me God is not a person, but also not just any form that created our Universe / Cosmos (set of universes) or even Creation (set of Cosmoses). I do not worship the "holy father", nor his church, but I worship the postulates of all religions, I also strive towards achieving a communist society.

See, we are on the same shore, just different perceive we the things. Do you agree, Iseul?

I don't oppose your freedom of belief obviously even though I don't agree with you. But what's the point of "respecting" this "illusory entity" which you can't even define clearly? Why not just combine the progressive and positive ethical principles from all the religious and spiritual traditions and just follow that? And just have some basic respect for nature and the environment? I don't believe in religion, but I believe in ethics. Socialist ethics is different from capitalist ethics, but we still need some kind of ethical principles.

But why "God"?

Marxists believe base determines structure. Ultimately, we only believe in things which directly or indirectly give us some kind of socio-economic benefits. Priests of the ruling class believe in religion to oppress the masses and acquire wealth and power by exploiting ordinary people this way; pagan alchemists believe in the spiritual realm to derive some kind of "spiritual power" for themselves, like the mages of fantasy novels or the ancient Chinese Daoist mystics searching for the elixir of immortality. These things I can understand, but why believe in something if it offers you no concrete socio-economic benefits?

[Nolan]

Faith that some supernatural being or force exists is religion in a loose sense, i.e. I believe in god(s)/spirits that control everything. Theological doctrine and organization are what make an organized religion like Islam or Christianity. Trying to divorce "faith" and "religion" is like trying to say light and photons are completely unrelated things.

[matevz91]

Light != photons :)

Light can be considered as a stream of particles (photons), or a wave. Therefore, this does not equal entirely. Here is where materialism fails, I am sorry. Metaphysics is alien to materialism, because there the matter is not so privileged anymore...

No those spirits do not control everything. If they would then everything would be ok. I am sorry, but we are on our own.

And yes, faith and religion are divorced from the beginning.

[matevz91]

Marxists believe base determines structure. Ultimately, we only believe in things which directly or indirectly give us some kind of socio-economic benefits. Priests of the ruling class believe in religion to oppress the masses and acquire wealth and power by exploiting ordinary people this way; pagan alchemists believe in the spiritual realm to derive some kind of "spiritual power" for themselves, like the mages of fantasy novels or the ancient Chinese Daoist mystics searching for the elixir of immortality. These things I can understand, but why believe in something if it offers you no concrete socio-economic benefits?

Do you think that we will not develop any further? Sorry, but having everything exactly defined is boring. Priests belong to religion and not to faith, because faith is personal. You just do not understand. Sorry

[x371322]

No those spirits do not control everything. If they would then everything would be ok. I am sorry, but we are on our own.

Then what's the damn point? If we're on our own anyway, then why even acknowledge these "all powerful" beings who don't do anything? They're worthless to us if we're just "on our own."

[BuddhaInBabylon]

Faith is one of those words that trips people up more than it serves a good purpose....
I agree that Atheism for the sake of being anti-"god" only to ease ones uncertainty on the issue is stupid. I have met a lot of people who say they don't belive in god but they believe in a higher being. Meeting these people always leaves me a little confused.....the word "god" i think is as harmful as the word "faith". One person says: "do you believe in god?" and another says "yeah i believe in god" but not once is there mention of WHICH god they are talking about, as if the singularity of the god experience were truly universal. Which is preposterous in light of the many thousands of religions all over the world.
People that feel as though their lives are empty without "faith" should truly examine what it is they are calling "faith." It is imperative not to throw words around indifferently. They are all we have sometimes...in particular when it comes to discussing things we cannot perceive with our senses....
I have faith in myself. In good faith, i will return the book i borrowed from the library, and i practice no faith to speak of. This word is dangerous i tell you.

[Magón]

Faith in a higher being, I mean.

That's only because most people who do believe in a higher being, use it as an excuse to be assholes. (Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Shia/Shiite/Kurd,etc. Problems, etc.)

[Imposter Marxist]

I think I dislike faith even more than religion.

[Queercommie Girl]

I agree that Atheism for the sake of being anti-"god" only to ease ones uncertainty on the issue is stupid.


Indeed. I won't worship God even if it exists, so "uncertainty" in his existence or non-existence is not a problem for me.

Actually here Buddhist philosophy offers some wisdom, not that I am a Buddhist of course (I recognise the deeply reactionary nature of Tibetan Lamaism for example), but Buddha teaches that humans should never worship the devas (gods) at all, even if they exist in the most concrete materialistic sense.

To put it basically, only slaves worship other people or beings. Marxism believes in the self-emancipation of humanity.

WORSHIP NO-ONE, PERIOD.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Light != photons :)

Light can be considered as a stream of particles (photons), or a wave. Therefore, this does not equal entirely. Here is where materialism fails, I am sorry.

In a word: Bollocks.

The wave-particle duality of photons in no way invalidates materialism. Photons are predictable entities with well-known qualities, even if they are counter-intuitive.


And yes, faith and religion are divorced from the beginning.

Again, bollocks. Religion has no evidence, so it takes faith to believe in it.

[Red Poplar]

I personally don't understand why many atheists try to convince believers that they're the ones who are right. Croats are 90% Catholic, the rest are atheists, we respect them and their choices, that's why our country is secular and religious education is voluntary. However, when I speak to some of those atheists, they often try to convince me that God doesn't exist. Even on this forum I found some anti-theist groups, while if we believers founded an anti-atheist group, we would probably be labelled as discriminatory.


Here is a question for you: even if some kind of "god" really exists, why do I have to worship it? What is it that compels me to worship it? Just because it's got more power than me? But surely that's just imperialist blackmail. If that's the only justification, then I think we should all bow down to US imperialism, because US imperialism is the most powerful force on Earth today. "Might makes right", I guess?

You have no obligation to worship Him. As we Christians believe, God gave us the free will to choose whether we want to be His followers. I don't find it difficult to worship God, since I believe that He gave me an eternal life and he doesn't ask for much in return. It's not slavery - again according to our religion, we'll be able to speak to God face to face, like two equal beings.


What if I decide to literally rebel against God and join Satan's camp? Why is that necessarily wrong? I don't understand.

Satan is deceitful and untrustworthy, he can give you only pain and suffering, since that's what he enjoys doing.


Just because some force created us, why does that compel us to worship it? Sorry, but frankly, this kind of logic theists use simply does not follow at all, even if we assume your kind of god exists. I decide not to believe or follow god even if it exists, and it is in my right to do so. I don't fucking respond to "spiritual blackmail".

Nobody's forcing you.


The world relies on humanity, particularly the working class, which is the fundamental agency of change in history.

Some people say that Jesus was the first Communist, because he believed that humans could create a heaven on Earth. It doesn't have much to do with afterlife, it's a different world, where hierarchy is determined by our deeds done during the current life. Everyone has a chance to live eternally, if you lived a honourable life on Earth. I know you don't believe in what I'm telling you, it's your right, but I think that spirituality comes when you broaden your views.

[communard71]

Regnum hominis. I so envy people 150 years from now who won't even have these conversations.

[Queercommie Girl]

I personally don't understand why many atheists try to convince believers that they're the ones who are right. Croats are 90% Catholic, the rest are atheists, we respect them and their choices, that's why our country is secular and religious education is voluntary. However, when I speak to some of those atheists, they often try to convince me that God doesn't exist. Even on this forum I found some anti-theist groups, while if we believers founded an anti-atheist group, we would probably be labelled as discriminatory.


This is a discussion forum which means people are free to put forward their own views and disagree with one another. I don't think anyone is forcing you to become an atheist. I think genuine Marxism believes in social justice and the maximisation of democratic rights as long as these are not discriminatory or reactionary, and this would include the freedom of belief. As the saying goes: "I don't agree with you, but I support your rights to have these beliefs".

However, I'm also free to make criticisms of religion in general. I don't oppose religions as long as they are not reactionary or discriminatory. Sometimes I may appear to be quite anti-religion, but in those cases I'm only attacking reactionary manifestations of religions and those who endorse such things.



As for the US imperialism... the US didn't gift me with my life, did it?
If I literally create an artificial intelligence and gift it with life and sentience, I would not want it to worship me, but to emancipate itself and become independent. Therefore I also think if there is a God, it would also want such a thing for me, rather than making me worship it. This is one reason why I do not worship God.



Satan is deceitful and untrustworthy, he can give you only pain and suffering, since that's what he enjoys doing.
That's what your dogmas tell you.

I believe in humanistic ethics. I'm always aligned with the side of "justice, freedom, goodness" etc against the side of "tyranny, autocracy, evil" etc. I do take ethics quite seriously, but socialist ones rather than feudal or capitalist ones.

However, the issue here is how do you prove that what you call God is always aligned with "goodness" and Satan with "evil"? It seems to me that you have no empirical way of doing so, other than simply idealistically define God as the "personification" of goodness and Satan as the "personification" of evil.

If we judge this matter by looking at human history empirically, then I'm afraid I have to say, to repeat the words of a famous atheist thinker, far more people in human history have been murdered in the name of God than in the name of Satan.



Nobody's forcing you.
I don't mean that anyone is forcing me literally, only that at the abstract level there is no philosophical necessity or compulsion to worship God.



Some people say that Jesus was the first Communist, because he believed that humans could create a heaven on Earth. It doesn't have much to do with afterlife, it's a different world, where hierarchy is determined by our deeds done during the current life. Everyone has a chance to live eternally, if you lived a honourable life on Earth. I know you don't believe in what I'm telling you, it's your right, but I think that spirituality comes when you broaden your views.
Jesus said some good things but they've all being said before by other people like Socrates or Confucius. Objectively it is impossible to just paint Jesus as some kind of "proto-socialist" figure, because his theological teachings far outweigh his social teachings.

I support your democratic rights to believe in anything as long as it's not discriminatory or reactionary, but that doesn't mean I will cease to disagree with you.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I personally don't understand why many atheists try to convince believers that they're the ones who are right.

Because religious faith has a privileged status in society that it does not merit.


Croats are 90% Catholic, the rest are atheists, we respect them and their choices, that's why our country is secular and religious education is voluntary. However, when I speak to some of those atheists, they often try to convince me that God doesn't exist. Even on this forum I found some anti-theist groups, while if we believers founded an anti-atheist group, we would probably be labelled as discriminatory.

And you don't think the history of anti-theism vs anti-atheism has anything to do with it?


You have no obligation to worship Him.

In theory. In practice, you get yelled at a lot for not believing, and plenty of believers are willing to take matters into their own hands if it seems that God is being a little slow on the smiting front.

[Red Poplar]

However, I'm also free to make criticisms of religion in general. I don't oppose religions as long as they are not reactionary or discriminatory. Sometimes I may appear to be quite anti-religion, but in those cases I'm only attacking reactionary manifestations of religions and those who endorse such things.

Fair enough. I sometimes disagree with the Catholic Church as well, in many of its policies which I consider reactionary (opposition to birth control, premarital sex etc.). Religious fanatics aren't the type of people I like to hang out with.



That's what your dogmas tell you.

I believe in humanistic ethics. I'm always aligned with the side of "justice, freedom, goodness" etc against the side of "tyranny, autocracy, evil" etc. I do take ethics quite seriously, but socialist ones rather than feudal or capitalist ones.

However, the issue here is how do you prove that what you call God is always aligned with "goodness" and Satan with "evil"? It seems to me that you have no empirical way of doing so, other than simply idealistically define God as the "personification" of goodness and Satan as the "personification" of evil.

Not exactly. The evilness of Satan has been proven. You've heard of obsession with evil spirits, exorcism, many people who went insane after dealing with Satanism. Many psychiatrists and experts on mental health agree and cooperate with exorcists in such delicate situations. It's all well explained in the book written by an exorcist named Jeanguenin. Science and medicine simply can not explain the obsession with evil, while the procedure of exorcism can successfully cure a person from evil.



If we judge this matter by looking at human history empirically, then I'm afraid I have to say, to repeat the words of a famous atheist thinker, far more people in human history have been murdered in the name of God than in the name of Satan.


That famous thinker doesn't understand the concept of religion. God gave us free will - that's why there is evil on Earth, that's why there are wars, massacres etc. Crusades, Inquisitions and similar things he obviously meant with his statement, were performed by humans, not God. Humans lead the Church, and humans are imperfect and they spoil things. It's just like saying that Communism is bad because Stalin killed millions of people. Not much sense in that, right?



I don't mean that anyone is forcing me literally, only that at the abstract level there is no philosophical necessity or compulsion to worship God.

That's your democratic right. The existence of God hasn't been proven, but His non-existence hasn't been proven either, so there are many opinions on that.



Jesus said some good things but they've all being said before by other people like Socrates or Confucius. Objectively it is impossible to just paint Jesus as some kind of "proto-socialist" figure, because his theological teachings far outweighed his social teachings.

I support your democratic rights to believe in anything as long as it's not discriminatory or reactionary, but that doesn't mean I will cease to disagree with you.

Fine. As a libertarian socialist, I believe that opinion is a right. The State should provide an unbiased view on philosophy and rely on scientific methods, while the religious education should be a matter of individual. As long as it isn't discriminatory or reactionary, as you say.

[Broletariat]

"Yes, our first ancestors, our Adams and our Eves, were, if not gorillas, very near
relatives of gorillas, omnivorous, intelligent and ferocious beasts, endowed in a
higher degree than the animals of another species with two precious faculties-the
power to think and the desire to rebel.

These faculties, combining their progressive action in history, represent the essential
factor, the negative power in the positive development of human animality, and
create consequently all that constitutes humanity in man.
The Bible, which is a very interesting and here and there very profound book when
considered as one of the oldest surviving manifestations of human wisdom and fancy,
expresses this truth very naively in its myth of original sin. Jehovah, who of all the
good gods adored by men was certainly the most jealous, the most vain, the most
ferocious, the most unjust, the most bloodthirsty, the most despotic, and the most
hostile to human dignity and liberty-Jehovah had just created Adam and Eve, to
satisfy we know not what caprice; no doubt to while away his time, which must
weigh heavy on his hands in his eternal egoistic solitude, or that he might have some
new slaves. He generously placed at their disposal the whole earth, with all its fruits
and animals, and set but a single limit to this complete enjoyment. He expressly
forbade them from touching the fruit of the tree of knowledge. He wished, therefore,
that man, destitute of all understanding of himself, should remain an eternal beast,
ever on all-fours before the eternal God, his creator and his master. But here steps in
Satan, the eternal rebel, the first freethinker and the emancipator of worlds. He makes
man ashamed of his bestial ignorance and obedience; he emancipates him, stamps
upon his brow the seal of liberty and humanity, in urging him to disobey and eat of
the fruit of knowledge.

We know what followed. The good God, whose foresight, which is one of the divine
faculties, should have warned him of what would happen, flew into a terrible and
ridiculous rage; he cursed Satan, man, and the world created by himself, striking
himself so to speak in his own creation, as children do when they get angry; and, not
content with smiting our ancestors themselves, he cursed them in all the generations
to come, innocent of the crime committed by their forefathers. Our Catholic and
Protestant theologians look upon that as very profound and very just, precisely
because it is monstrously iniquitous and absurd. Then, remembering that he was not
only a God of vengeance and wrath, but also a God of love, after having tormented
the existence of a few milliards of poor human beings and condemned them to an
eternal hell, he took pity on the rest, and, to save them and reconcile his eternal and
divine love with his eternal and divine anger, always greedy for victims and blood, he
sent into the world, as an expiatory victim, his only son, that he might be killed by
men. That is called the mystery of the Redemption, the basis of all the Christian
religions. Still, if the divine Savior had saved the human world! But no; in the
paradise promised by Christ, as we know, such being the formal announcement, the
elect will number very few. The rest, the immense majority of the generations present
and to come, will burn eternally in hell. In the meantime, to console us, God, ever
just, ever good, hands over the earth to the government of the Napoleon Thirds, of the
William Firsts, of the Ferdinands of Austria, and of the Alexanders of all the Russias.

Such are the absurd tales that are told and the monstrous doctrines that are taught, in
the full light of the nineteenth century, in all the public schools of Europe, at the
express command of the government. They call this civilizing the people! Is it not
plain that all these governments are systematic poisoners, interested stupefies of the
masses?"

-Bakunin God and The State

[Raúl Duke]

Seems like some atheists do not recognise religion from faith

I doubt it, and if so; so what/who cares.

Religion/faith both suck.


What do you think? I think that they use religion to attack faith.

:rolleyes:

I've seen so many argument for atheism and/or arguments against religion so that's not the only way, if it even is a way, for them to "attack" faith.

In fact, atheists in general are against religious faith and have pointed out the childish fallacy (there's no evidence of any kind) of using pure religious faith as an argument for anything; so, usually it's the "other way around" in that they use "faith to attack religion" by pointing out the fallacy of faith, something that virtually all major religions rest on.

[Magón]

You have no obligation to worship Him. As we Christians believe, God gave us the free will to choose whether we want to be His followers. I don't find it difficult to worship God, since I believe that He gave me an eternal life and he doesn't ask for much in return. It's not slavery - again according to our religion, we'll be able to speak to God face to face, like two equal beings. As for the US imperialism... the US didn't gift me with my life, did it?

But you see, there lays the problem. You have only two choices: Either worship him, or don't. One of which has the outcome that you're granted "eternal damnation", and the other "peaceful bliss".

Obviously to those who are afraid of what might happen to them afterwards, when they do die, they're not going to take the "eternal damnation" side, for the "peaceful bliss" side of things. It's like playing Russian Roulette with an automatic pistol. This invisible man's got you by the balls so to speak.

WHY CAN'T THERE BE A THIRD OR FOURTH CHOICE EVEN! (I'm not actually yelling, I'm just capping it for irony.)

[Queercommie Girl]

Not exactly. The evilness of Satan has been proven. You've heard of obsession with evil spirits, exorcism, many people who went insane after dealing with Satanism. Many psychiatrists and experts on mental health agree and cooperate with exorcists in such delicate situations. It's all well explained in the book written by an exorcist named Jeanguenin. Science and medicine simply can not explain the obsession with evil, while the procedure of exorcism can successfully cure a person from evil.


I disagree with this on three levels:

1) As a scientific socialist, I believe this is superstitious non-sense, and I do not for one second believe that the vast majority of secular psychological professionals would ever endorse such opinions;

2) If most of these "evidence" are produced by Christians or people who closely associate with Christians, then even if we take such "spiritual evidence" seriously it is still extremely biased; To conduct a serious empirical study on this matter would obviously require evidence from many other religious and pagan sources as well, and certainly not just view everything through a Christian paradigm. Even empirical spiritual studies must follow the scientific method, as pagans believe;

3) (see below)



That famous thinker doesn't understand the concept of religion. God gave us free will - that's why there is evil on Earth, that's why there are wars, massacres etc. Crusades, Inquisitions and similar things he obviously meant with his statement, were performed by humans, not God. Humans lead the Church, and humans are imperfect and they spoil things. It's just like saying that Communism is bad because Stalin killed millions of people. Not much sense in that, right?


In principle the same thing can also be said about Satan. Christians demonise Satan as the "personification" of evil, but actually there are a few serious Satanist religions who hold the deity of Lucifer/Satan in a rather different light. Someone who became mad following Satan is not due to Satan's fault intrinsically in this view, no more than mad believers of God (yes there are many, like those who believe they are the younger brother of Jesus or something) or those mass murderers who killed people in the name of God is fundamentally due to God's fault. Objectively one cannot just take the Christian view on this matter, but must consider the views of other religions, pagans and indeed Satanists themselves.

For fundamentalists, the gods of other religions are literally demonic and satanic. I've heard this many times from fundamentalist Christians. They say Allah and the Hindu gods etc are all demonic forces trying to turn people away from Christ. Protestant fundamentalists even consider the Catholic Church as the Great Satan. So objectively "god" and "satan" are largely in the eyes of the beholder: just as many ethical issues on earth are relative, so in religious matters, what is "godly" for one tradition is "demonic" for another. (Just like in socialism what is "progressive" for one tendency is "reactionary" for another, like say LGBT rights)

Your views here show that you have been deeply affected by relatively fundamentalist variants of the Christian religion, which is not good.



Fine. As a libertarian socialist, I believe that opinion is a right. The State should provide an unbiased view on philosophy and rely on scientific methods, while the religious education should be a matter of individual. As long as it isn't discriminatory or reactionary, as you say.


I cannot really accept any religion that discriminates against women, ethnic minorities, LGBT people and people of other religions. When Christian fundamentalists literally say that Indian Hindu or Chinese Daoist gods are really demonic forces, this is indeed a form of cultural racism and is not acceptable.

[Red Poplar]

-

[mikelepore]

As soon as people believe in a higher power, the belief almost immediately becomes hyper-specific. What kind of house of worship does this higher power want us to construct, and how is it to be decorated? What day of the week does it want us to attend this house of worship, and what kind of clothing does it want us to wear when we go there? What list of another hundred rules does it command? What method of torture will it use to punish us if we don't obey these rules? This development occurs in almost every case. An Einstein or a Hawking can use the word "God" to mean some unknowable source of cosmic order, but most other people cannot.

We hear some people say "I don't adhere to organized religion" or "I'm spiritual but not religious." That usually lasts five minutes. By tomorrow most of them will be bowing down to incense burners and chanting verses to bring good luck. More than likely, they will also be knocking on our doors to instruct us in what kind of political and economic system God want us to live under.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Atheists attack religion...so what? Atheist are all going to hell, no matter how much good they do...makes sense to me:lol:

Stephen Hawking said it; if god exists, it does not and cannot break the laws of physics, etc.

[Red Poplar]

-

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

God doesn't want anything like that from you. He only wants obedience, which isn't actually obedience, because he'll give you anything you want in return.

Not according to the Bible, which is supposedly the word of God himself.

Of course, one can could say that the Bible isn't the exact words of God. But if that's the case, what reason have we to take your word for it? You can't prove you've been to Heaven or spoken with God.

All of which pre-supposes that God exists in the first place, a proposition for which there is no evidence.


Therefore I wouldn't have a problem with having Him as master. The Heaven looks the way you want it to look like. Your human dignity isn't in question, because you may speak to God face to face whenever you want.

You have no way of supporting these ludicrous claims.


Incorrect. An atheist who did good deeds during his life will have an opportunity to be reconciled.

There's nothing to reconcile. An atheist acts according to their conscience.


So, if he thinks science is so powerful, and he is a renowned scientist, then why can't he cure his neuro-muscular dystrophy? Why doesn't his 'science' work now? :tt2:

Because he's a fucking physicist, not a neurologist, for a start. :rolleyes:

In any case, more qualified people are currently working on the problem. Science, unlike religion, doesn't claim to know everything. Otherwise it would stop!


I mean, if you won't recognize that there are things human intelligence can't understand, then you're backward and close-minded.

Just because there may be some things that a baseline human intelligence cannot comprehend, does not mean that the myths of a bunch of Bronze Age barbarians are true.


If a higher force doesn't exist, then our existence is just an accident in the world of physics and biology. And since we're talking about human dignity, it seems more dignified to me to be created by the model of a higher being (which Christianity teaches) than to be a consequence of the laws of physics.

It doesn't matter what you think is more dignified, the evidence speaks otherwise.


Why do we die? What causes life in the first place? What happens after death? I'm still waiting for scientific evidence. Until then, I'll stick to my "backward superstition", thank you.

Science has studied ageing and death, and it seems to be a natural consequence of thermodynamics - the processes that prevent the body from breaking down are themselves suceptible to breaking down.

There's a whole field devoted to establishing the cause of life as we know it - Abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis). No mention of the magic man in the sky there.

As for death, that is a well-understood process. Activity ceases in the neural tissues and cardiovascular system, with consciousness ceasing as a result, and from then on the body begins to break down, as it is no longer fighting against entropy or against being eaten by organisms.

[Nolan]

Stephen Hawking also said, "There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works."

Right. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif

So, if he thinks science is so powerful, and he is a renowned scientist, then why can't he cure his neuro-muscular dystrophy? Why doesn't his 'science' work now?

Because unlike your fantastical illusions, science is limited by our knowledge. We only know what has been researched. Why won't god cure anyone if he is so powerful and benevolent?


I mean, if you won't recognize that there are things human intelligence can't understand, then you're backward and close-minded. If a higher force doesn't exist, then our existence is just an accident in the world of physics and biology.

We are atheists precisely because there are things humans don't understand. We don't pretend to know the intricacies of the universe from stone age texts that should never be thought of outside of a mythology context. Theists like to talk trash otherwise, but you presume so much more than atheists.

What exactly is an "accident"? Humanity doesn't need a sky daddy to give it purpose. It can do that itself.


And since we're talking about human dignity, it seems more dignified to me to be created by the model of a higher being (which Christianity teaches) than to be a consequence of the laws of physics.

That's just your nonsensical opinion.


Why do we die? What causes life in the first place? What happens after death? I'm still waiting for scientific evidence. Until then, I'll stick to my "backward superstition", thank you.

Alright, well why do you believe what you do? You believe it because you've been taught to. Because other people do, and because you don't care to look critically at these beliefs.

[Raúl Duke]

So, if he thinks science is so powerful, and he is a renowned scientist, then why can't he cure his neuro-muscular dystrophy? Why doesn't his 'science' work now?

*facepalm*

That must be one of the MOST stupidest things I ever heard in a while.

For starters, that's not an argument for anything and second the comparison is a strawman.

We've even done studies that religion has done little beyond "positive thinking" in terms of health while with science humanity has come up with vaccines, brain surgery, robotic prosthetics, etc. So science has done A LOT for us in terms of health and medicine, including in our understanding of diseases and disorders. The issue is, Science is made by people and we're not perfect...we don't have the cure for everything (yet). Who knows? Maybe he'll live to see the day where we will have a cure or something for that neurological disorder.

Meanwhile, virtually non-existent "benevolent" god has done nothing to rid of us from disease and solve the human starvation issue.

[Magón]

Well, that's your point of view. You see it as being held by the balls, I don't. I worship God voluntarily, not because I'm afraid of anything. I see Him as a big support in my life, despite being supported and loved by my family, God is something else. It's like a fourth dimension of life to me, without Him I would find this life meaningless, because it would be followed by nothing. But again, I don't believe in Him because I fear the absence of afterlife, He's managed to convince me many times that He exists. If I didn't believe in God, I would simply live my life as if He didn't exist, without any fear which I would then find irrational.

There ain't another choice, unfortunately. However, it would take some massive, non-regretted offense to cause God to give up on you.

No see, you missed my point. He might have given you "free will", but that free will is like playing Russian Roulette. I'm not sure you know what Russian Roulette is, but it's a game played between two or more people, with a revolver and a single bullet. The people spin the cylinder, pulling the hammer back and pulling the trigger until one of them blows their brains out all over the place. That's what God's "free will" is like. He gives you the gun, the bullet, and it's your life spending the time pulling the trigger to either hell or salvation.

Which is complete bullshit anyway since most/if not all Christian Religions are Capitalist and Bourgeois in tendencies and actions.

[#FF0000]

So, if he thinks science is so powerful, and he is a renowned scientist, then why can't he cure his neuro-muscular dystrophy? Why doesn't his 'science' work now?

I mean, if you won't recognize that there are things human intelligence can't understand, then you're backward and close-minded. If a higher force doesn't exist, then our existence is just an accident in the world of physics and biology. And since we're talking about human dignity, it seems more dignified to me to be created by the model of a higher being (which Christianity teaches) than to be a consequence of the laws of physics.

Why do we die? What causes life in the first place? What happens after death? I'm still waiting for scientific evidence. Until then, I'll stick to my "backward superstition", thank you.

First off, science doesn't claim to have all of the answers.

Second, science is a method, not a belief system.

Third, science has done a lot more for the ill than God ever has.

But hey, I'm willing to change my mind. All I have to see is God heal one, single, amputee.

[Red Poplar]

-

[x371322]

Secondly, Christian religions are actually socialist in themselves, they oppose capitalism and burgeoisie, which is clear according to the following quote:

"…I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Matthew 19:24.

"Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me." Matthew 19:21-22

Yep, Christianity is socialist. Because all that slavery, female oppression, genocide, blind obedience to an invisible man, and eternal damnation, just speaks for the bastion of Socialism that is the Christian religion... whatever guy.

You can't take a few choice quotes from the bible and proclaim christianity to be "socialist." Have you bothered to read the rest of that wretched book? Here's some other Jesus quotes for ya. Damn that guy was such a socialist.


So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.Rev. 2:22-23


Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.Mat. 10:34-39

[mikelepore]

God doesn't want anything like that from you. He only wants obedience, which isn't actually obedience, because he'll give you anything you want in return. Therefore I wouldn't have a problem with having Him as master. The Heaven looks the way you want it to look like. Your human dignity isn't in question, because you may speak to God face to face whenever you want.

No problem. I'll give God my complete obedience and loyalty -- as soon as he makes his existence known by communicating with me unambiguously, as he allegedly did for Abraham and Moses.

But until then, the evidence for the existence of God is of the same magnitude as the evidence for the existence of Tinker Bell the fairy, that is, somebody told me a story.

[#FF0000]

As for amputation, He doesn't intervene in that way at all since it would be too obvious.

Too obvious for the guy who brought a bunch of plagues upon Egypt, spoke to people through burning foliage, destroyed the city of Sodom and turned a lady into salt, and flooded the entire fucking world?

You sure?

[Invincible Summer]

You can't take a few choice quotes from the bible and proclaim christianity to be "socialist." Have you bothered to read the rest of that wretched book?
Ironically, you're picking quotes out of context to support the malevolence of Christianity (which I'm not exactly denying, just pointing it out).


Here's some other Jesus quotes for ya. Damn that guy was such a socialist.

Rev. 2:22-23
1) Revelations isn't Jesus talking, I'm pretty sure.
2) The "she" is referring to Jezebel, which can be seen as simply a reference to (subjective) immorality.

There can also be a feminist reading of the Jezebel character, but that's an aside.



Mat. 10:34-39
What a needy fucker

[Klaatu]

I think that this whole "higher being" thing is a tool used by capitalists (and, of course, others) in order to perpetuate the myth that there are beings, and humans, that are somehow "higher" and/or "better" than the little ol' average man. :confused:

[Klaatu]

"God spoke to people through burning foliage" (obviously a conflagrating marijuana plant) :rolleyes:

[x371322]

Ironically, you're picking quotes out of context to support the malevolence of Christianity (which I'm not exactly denying, just pointing it out).

Yep. ;) I don't deny that.



1) Revelations isn't Jesus talking, I'm pretty sure.

Well, I'm pretty sure that the red letters are supposed to be the words of Jesus. There are plenty of red letters in Revelations, in the bible I have anyway (that verse included).


What a needy fucker

Haha. No doubt.

Bottom line though, there's really not enough evidence to show the teachings of Jesus to be at all Socialistic, or vice versa. He says one thing here, and another there, much like the rest of the bible. For every verse we can use to show he was left wing, there are plenty more to show otherwise. And ultimately, using the bible to prove anything about anything, proves pointless. I guess it all comes down to personal interpretation.

[Klaatu]

For every verse we can use to show he was left wing, there are plenty more to show otherwise. And ultimately, using the bible to prove anything about anything, proves pointless. I guess it all comes down to personal interpretation.

We can't really use the Bible to prove anything at all. And yes, there can be any amount of interpretation. My guess is that Jesus took a dim view of capitalism/exploitation, in that he lost his cool and destroyed the business that was going on within the temple. And he advocated dropping material belongings (give possessions to the poor) and follow him. He was some Communist, wasn't he. Either that, or he was just some sort of dope-smoking hippie? (with all due respect, of course)

[Invincible Summer]

We can't really use the Bible to prove anything at all. And yes, there can be any amount of interpretation. My guess is that Jesus took a dim view of capitalism/exploitation, in that he lost his cool and destroyed the business that was going on within the temple. And he advocated dropping material belongings (give possessions to the poor) and follow him. He was some Communist, wasn't he. Either that, or he was just some sort of dope-smoking hippie? (with all due respect, of course)

I think he was just pissed that people were doing business at a temple. Kind of like "Hey man.. that's just... wrong!" not "Hey I hate capitalists!"

[Red Poplar]

No problem. I'll give God my complete obedience and loyalty -- as soon as he makes his existence known by communicating with me unambiguously, as he allegedly did for Abraham and Moses.

But until then, the evidence for the existence of God is of the same magnitude as the evidence for the existence of Tinker Bell the fairy, that is, somebody told me a story.


Too obvious for the guy who brought a bunch of plagues upon Egypt, spoke to people through burning foliage, destroyed the city of Sodom and turned a lady into salt, and flooded the entire fucking world?

You sure?


Guys... get your facts straight before you start discussing a topic you don't understand. What you said happened in the Old Testament (before Jesus's birth), and situation was then much different than it is today, because people then didn't have a saviour, didn't have a Church, and didn't have the Bible. So, God had to intervene in order to make people believe, since there weren't any other sources. Nowadays, we have the three things I mentioned, so He doesn't need to be that direct. Mind that there were people who denied His existence even when He was explicit. I suggest this article:

http://www.gotquestions.org/God-hidden.html



I think that this whole "higher being" thing is a tool used by capitalists (and, of course, others) in order to perpetuate the myth that there are beings, and humans, that are somehow "higher" and/or "better" than the little ol' average man. :confused:

Typical brainwashed Marxist thinking. Christianity has been around for 2,000 years, while it took until the first industrial revolution for capitalism to be founded.

[Invincible Summer]

Guys... get your facts straight before you start discussing a topic you don't understand. What you said happened in the Old Testament (before Jesus's birth), and situation was then much different than it is today, because people then didn't have a saviour, didn't have a Church, and didn't have the Bible. So, God had to intervene in order to make people believe, since there weren't any other sources. Nowadays, we have the three things I mentioned, so He doesn't need to be that direct. Mind that there were people who denied His existence even when He was explicit. I suggest this article:

http://www.gotquestions.org/God-hidden.html


Basically, it says:
1) that we have the Bible now, which is objectively the "Word of God," and thus perfect, so we don't need to prove anything in it. This is basically God's pre-recorded message to the mortal realm so he doesn't have to bother actually talking to us.

What a lazy bastard, considering he is supposed to be omnipresent and omnipotent.

2) The Holy Spirit is within us to guide us, so God doesn't have to. It's like a holy GPS that we use to find a friend's house becase they didn't actually wanthave to spend the time to guide us to his house.

3) Even though it doesn't seem like God does anything, don't worry. He's the "Sovereign Lord of Creation." That kind of title means don't ask questions.


Typical Christian answers that require any non-believer to make an enormous leap of faith logically just to even try to understand any of it.


Typical brainwashed Marxist thinking. Christianity has been around for 2,000 years, while it took until the first industrial revolution for capitalism to be founded.
Religions have been used as a form of social control before capitalism.

[Red Poplar]

Basically, it says:
1) that we have the Bible now, which is objectively the "Word of God," and thus perfect, so we don't need to prove anything in it. This is basically God's pre-recorded message to the mortal realm so he doesn't have to bother actually talking to us.

What a lazy bastard, considering he is supposed to be omnipresent and omnipotent.

The Bible should be perfect, but we have to mind that it's been very much modified and translated during these centuries, which explains some contradictions within it.

He is omnipresent. It's just that His presence isn't that obvious, so you can't communicate with Him directly (until ressurection). We do it by other methods, such as prayers, sacraments etc.



2) The Holy Spirit is within us to guide us, so God doesn't have to. It's like a holy GPS that we use to find a friend's house becase they didn't actually wanthave to spend the time to guide us to his house.

Not quite. Someone needs to teach you to use the GPS, or you need to read the manual. The same goes with Christianity, we need to learn to find the Holy Spirit within us, that's what religious education and the Bible are for. It's a path different and specific for everyone.



3) Even though it doesn't seem like God does anything, don't worry. He's the "Sovereign Lord of Creation." That kind of title means don't ask questions.

Again, it doesn't seem to you. It does seem to me, and other believers.



Typical Christian answers that require any non-believer to make an enormous leap of faith logically just to even try to understand any of it.

Sorry, mate, but I can't explain it any clearer. Maybe some other Christian could do it better, I'm not among the most religious believers. :)



Religions have been used as a form of social control before capitalism.

Well, Communism is also a form of social control. In the same way religions insist on God's existence, Communists insist on His non-existence. Most of Communist regimes tried to stop people from going to churches and practising their religions, so what's the difference? All regimes have wanted to enforce their opinions and beliefs, which is wrong and counter-productive, that's why I advocate freedom of religion, and/or the absence of it. Communists don't, and that's one of the main reasons why I'm not a Communist.

[Queercommie Girl]

No problem. I'll give God my complete obedience and loyalty -- as soon as he makes his existence known by communicating with me unambiguously, as he allegedly did for Abraham and Moses.


Why would you do that? I wouldn't bow down to God even if that happens. Because empirically speaking all that would prove is that there is some kind of "spiritual force" that is intelligent, sentient and powerful which we do not yet understand is telling us to obey it. But what if it's just some alien propaganda made by beings from a different dimension who are trying to take over Earth?

Why worship someone just because he is more powerful than you?

Worship no-one, under any circumstance, period. That is the true communist philosophical stance. Stay faithful to human self-emancipation always, even if Earth really is being invaded by an alien force.

[Queercommie Girl]

Ironically, you're picking quotes out of context to support the malevolence of Christianity (which I'm not exactly denying, just pointing it out).


Perhaps, and I'm not anti-Christian in general, but it is a fact that historically speaking far more people have been murdered in the name of God than in the name of Satan.

Empirical ethical philosophy would tend to judge an ideology not by what it says on paper, but primarily by its practical implications.

[Red Poplar]

-

[Queercommie Girl]

Then how would science explain that a person occupied by the evil spirit can demonstrate power several times bigger than of a normal human? During the process of exorcism, a thin and weak woman outpowered four grown-up men who were holding her. After the process, she didn't remember a thing, and all her problems and symptoms (which resemble the symptoms of mental illnesses, it's just that medicine didn't help) disappeared. I suggest checking literature on this topic, despite being written by a priest, it's relatively unbiased and it recognizes the contribution of science.


There are several issues here which are not all the same.

Firstly, do I metaphysically deny the potential possibility that some kind of malevolent "supernatural" (in the sense that it is not yet understood by science, not that it cannot in the future be, because there cannot exist a metaphysical barrier to scientific understanding) intelligence causing harm to humans in such a way?

Actually I don't. Despite such a possibility being extremely unlikely, it is not completely zero. For instance, it is highly likely that humans are not the only form of intelligence in the universe. It is also likely that there are other dimensions outside of our current universe, which might also have intelligent life in them. What you call "demonic spirits" could objectively be malevolent alien forces from these other places that are present on Earth. I reject the vast majority of the current UFO literature as being unscientific, but I don't reject such things in principle completely.

I think most alien intelligences that are more developed than humans would not be malevolent, as Marxist historical materialism would tend to predict. These aliens probably have already entered a communist society of some kind. In other words, in your religious language, I think there are far more angels than demons out there. But there are "bad apples" everywhere. Even in a generally good society there could still be a few bad individuals, like criminals etc. I believe that if such things you describe are indeed objectively real, then it is mostly likely that they are caused by a few stray individuals from such generally good alien societies.

The main problem I have with the Christian notion of demons etc isn't primarily on this level, but the fact that in psychological matters it is never completely objective since the human subjective factor is intrinsically involved. Therefore it is difficult to present an objective picture of these kinds of things, because people are very prone to social manipulation. In a fundamentalist religious culture where the gods of other religions are literally considered as demons or where gay people are considered to be inhabited by demonic spirits and require exorcism, people could literally be convinced that these things must be the literal truth, even though objectively it is just a form of reactionary social conditioning. I'm sure you are progressive enough to realise that even if we assume that in principle we cannot rule to the existence of "demonic spirits" or "malevolent alien forces" (which basically might be the same thing), it is clearly wrong to assume that people of other religions or gay people are "demonic". But in the social context of intense fundamentalist religious fervour, seemingly "objective" evidence may exist for these kinds of claims.

I've read for example accounts written by Protestant fundamentalists stating that they have exorcised the demons from gay people and thereby "cured" them of their homosexuality. What is your view on these kinds of "evidences"?



I wouldn't agree with that, I ain't a Christian fundamentalist. In fact, I oppose many of their views, especially regarding other religions which I respect. I find Islam very similar to Christianity, because both come down to the belief in God, besides we have even some dogmatic elements in common. I have no reason to consider such religions Satanic.
And you would have a different view of religions like Hinduism, Buddhism or Daoism just because they are not "monotheistic"?

In fact, even the serious Satanic religion known as La Veyanism isn't what Catholics like you would normally associate with the "demonic":

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

LaVeyan Satanism, often referred to simply as Satanism among most adherents, was founded in 1966 by Anton LaVey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_LaVey). Its teachings are based on individualism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism), self-control, and "eye for an eye (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_an_eye)" morality, drawing influences from the rituals and ceremonies of occultist Aleister Crowley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleister_Crowley), and the philosophies of Friedrich Nietzsche (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche) and Ayn Rand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand). Employing Crowley's terminology, its adherents define Satanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism) as a "Left-Hand Path (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-Hand_Path_and_Right-Hand_Path)" religion and philosophy, rejecting traditional "Right-Hand Path" religions such as Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity) and Wicca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca) for their perceived denial of life and, as in Christianity, emphasis on abstinence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstinence). Unlike Theistic Satanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_Satanism), LaVeyan Satanism does not involve the literal worship of any being other than the self,[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaVeyan_Satanism#cite_note-0) but rather uses "Satan" as a symbol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol) of carnality and earthly values, of man's inherent nature, in what it calls 'ritual psychodramas'.

They don't seem to be particularly "evil" in any conventional sense. They just believe in revenge, attacking one's enemies, and enjoying life.

So while some Satanists may indeed be evil in the ethical sense, many Satanists aren't objectively evil at all and it is somewhat discriminatory to be against them so much. Not that I am a Satanist or a sympathiser of Satanism myself, apart from occasionally using "Satanic words" to attack religious fundamentalists, or use them as a joke.



Again, it's about Christian fundamentalists. They are a minority among believers, while actually they are mostly hypocritical, since they don't obey the rules they invented themselves. Christianity in itself doesn't discriminate people:

- Women are humans, just like men, and God sees all humans as equal. I admit that the Catholic Church adjusted some of the rules so they can become women's masters, which is the cause of the subordinated position of women in the CC's hierarchy. It has nothing to do with God.
- I've never heard of Christianity discriminating ethnic minorities. According to the Bible, it was God who created nations himself. He doesn't divide his people.
- Since we believe God created all humans in the way they are, the same goes for LGBT people. Their preferences are a part of their unique personality, while the backward homophobes who pretend they are discriminating other people in God's name aren't true believers. Because one of the major policies of Christianity is "Love your close ones like you love yourself."
- Cultural racism was invented in the medieval era by corrupt popes who wanted to seize the treasuries of Jerusalem and other centres of the Middle East by calling crusades. Killing and violence are not a part of the true Christian mentality.
Yet the Catholic Church in the Vatican even today still officially disagrees with rights for LGBT people and still endorses "traditional gender norms" for men and women, not to mention their anti-abortion stances etc.

Just asking, what is your view of transgenderism?

I still disagree with you on many things of course, but relatively speaking I have more tolerance for a relatively progressive Catholic like you who agrees with social equality for all people, is inclusive with respect to other religions, and is willing to assess and analyse "spiritual matters" from a more scientific angle.

I think modern Catholicism is often better than Protestantism in this sense because it is more inclusive, more scholarly and cares more about the poor. Not like those Protestant fundamentalist supporters of Big Business and their exclusive theological bullshit based solely on "emotion". Not to mention protestants are the WASPS (white anglo-saxon protestants) who are the highest racial caste in the US, not like Catholics who are the Irish, Eastern Europeans and Hispanic peoples that are of a "lower caste" and more oppressed generally.

[Queercommie Girl]

...which would mean that Communism is evil, because it resulted in 65,000,000 deaths in China, 20,000,000 in Soviet Union, and many more millions throughout the world, purges, deportations, famines, repression, genocide etc. Fine, if that suits you. You're a Communist, not me. :D

Yes, I've never denied that certain forms of communism are literally evil.

For me it's not a problem, because communism is not a religion one has "blind faith" in.

The practices of Pol Pot put to shame the worst of the really evil and demonic "Satanic cults" or even Hitler.

As Mao Zedong himself once said: revisionism is often worse than real capitalism. I do however think that a lot of the bad things that happened during the Maoist era in China were due to the actions of revisionist bureaucrats in the party rather than Mao himself.

Translate Mao's saying here to Christianity one gets the line: reactionary Christianity is often worse than real Satanism.

[Crimson Commissar]

I find it absolutely SICKENING that people think that we should worship God even if he exists. I am an Atheist not only because I find religion to be stupid and senseless, but because it is viciously authoritarian aswell. God is the ultimate dictator, he is what all fascist leaders would aspire to be. If he exists, his rule would be unquestioned, no one would dare to stand against his dark, brutal regime. He would rule over all humanity with an iron fist, damning ANYONE who even THOUGHT of disobeying him to eternal torture in hell. God is not merciful, or peaceful. If he exists, he would be a dictator like none other in our history. And if he really does exist, I will gladly rebel against him. He would do nothing good for humanity. If you're going to believe in god, fine. While I do find it quite a ridiculous idea, it's your right as a free man or woman to believe what you want. But for fuck sake, do not worship him. Do not obey him. If he exists, he is the enemy. If you truly believe there is a god that created us, stand against him. He would be a greater threat to the freedom of humanity than any capitalist, any fascist, any nazi could ever dream of being.

[Red Poplar]

I've read for example accounts written by Protestant fundamentalists stating that they have exorcised the demons from gay people and thereby "cured" them of their homosexuality. What is your view on these kinds of "evidences"?

I don't know much about Protestantism... Anyway I don't hold anything against homosexuals, and I don't see anything wrong with that (some Catholics would disagree with me on that), but I stick to the following syllogism:

God created humans.
Gay people are humans.
------------------------
God created gay people.

Therefore, if gay people are born that way, it means that God created them in that way, so He shouldn't hold anything against them. Secondly, if it were true that gay people are sick, again God wouldn't hold anything against them, because people can't be blamed for their diseases and conditions.



And you would have a different view of religions like Hinduism, Buddhism or Daoism just because they are not "monotheistic"?

No, I'm fine with them.



They don't seem to be particularly "evil" in any conventional sense. They just believe in revenge, attacking one's enemies, and enjoying life.

So while some Satanists may indeed be evil in the ethical sense, many Satanists aren't objectively evil at all and it is somewhat discriminatory to be against them so much. Not that I am a Satanist or a sympathiser of Satanism myself, apart from occasionally using "Satanic words" to attack religious fundamentalists, or use them as a joke.


Satanism is dangerous. It's been proven so in many occasions, with people who "experimented" with that religion had serious consequences, such as the obsession with the evil spirits we discussed. So, it was often directly affiliated with Satanism, actually its consequence.



Yet the Catholic Church in the Vatican even today still officially disagrees with rights for LGBT people and still endorses "traditional gender norms" for men and women, not to mention their anti-abortion stances etc.

Just asking, what is your view of transgenderism?


I'm fine with it, as long as it doesn't affect my lifestyle. The CC is a little "slow" when it comes down to social changes, they've always been that way. The fact that I'm a member of the CC by baptism doesn't mean that I agree with all of their policies. There are many ways in which you can interpret Christianity. I don't see anything wrong in birth control, premarital sex, transgenderism, I'm only not prone to abortion when it isn't necessary, and I tend to be more pro-life than pro-choice.



I still disagree with you on many things of course, but relatively speaking I have more tolerance for a relatively progressive Catholic like you who agrees with social equality for all people, is inclusive with respect to other religions, and is willing to assess and analyse "spiritual matters" from a more scientific angle.

Well, we can't help disagreeing on many things if our views on creation are so different. But still, I believe we can find a common language. I'm always willing to consider the scientific point of view, science and religion don't necessarily have to collide. I've just started reading a book by the American geneticist Francis Collins, "The Language of God", his views seem interesting, since he believes that religion and science could work in harmony:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Language_of_God:_A_Scientist_Presents_Evidence _for_Belief



I think modern Catholicism is often better than Protestantism in this sense because it is more inclusive, more scholarly and cares more about the poor. Not like those Protestant fundamentalist supporters of Big Business and their exclusive theological bullshit based solely on "emotion". Not to mention protestants are the WASPS (white anglo-saxon protestants) who are the highest racial caste in the US, not like Catholics who are the Irish, Eastern Europeans and Hispanic peoples that are of a "lower caste" and more oppressed generally.


That's correct, the Protestants have their special work ethic which is more bourgeois, and indirectly led to capitalism, while Catholicism sticks to helping the poor, thus having more in common with socialism.

[Nolan]

Ye cast pearls before a swine, RevLeft.

[Invincible Summer]

The Bible should be perfect, but we have to mind that it's been very much modified and translated during these centuries, which explains some contradictions within it.

Yes, fair enough.

However, if it's really just like playing a game of telephone then then why still say it is the Word of God? Since we cannot verify what God actually wants people to know, and acknowledge that it has been filtered through human understanding and thousands of translations, then it seems sort of fallacious to claim that it is still God's word.

If I have a recipe for chocolate cake and give it to a friend, and she changes it around to suit her own tastes, is it still "my" recipe? No.




He is omnipresent. It's just that His presence isn't that obvious, so you can't communicate with Him directly (until ressurection). We do it by other methods, such as prayers, sacraments etc.
But why is it not obvious? Why would god just decide "Fuck it... you call me... I might not answer though."




Not quite. Someone needs to teach you to use the GPS, or you need to read the manual. The same goes with Christianity, we need to learn to find the Holy Spirit within us, that's what religious education and the Bible are for. It's a path different and specific for everyone.
It was a bad analogy I realize. I can understand this concept of 'finding the holy spirit,' as I see it akin to the Buddhist concept of understanding and realizing the truth of the Dharma.





Again, it doesn't seem to you. It does seem to me, and other believers.

I'm just paraphrasing what the link said. That page actually said that it may not seem like God is doing anything.

How, pray tell, is it apparent to you that God is working everyday? Why would he only make it apparent to believers and not everyone? Surely if he is benevolent and wants everyone to be in heaven, he would at least try to convince people that he's cool.

I know we are supposed to be created with "free will," but that still doesn't explain why god just wouldn't attempt to do anything. We have the free will to follow him or not, if he was to exist. It's almost assuming that if god was to show his face, everyone would automatically be like "OMG" and not be able to resist following God.

Sort of an arrogant attitude.




Well, Communism is also a form of social control. In the same way religions insist on God's existence, Communists insist on His non-existence. Most of Communist regimes tried to stop people from going to churches and practising their religions, so what's the difference? All regimes have wanted to enforce their opinions and beliefs, which is wrong and counter-productive, that's why I advocate freedom of religion, and/or the absence of it. Communists don't, and that's one of the main reasons why I'm not a Communist.

I don't dispute that communism is a form of social control. I'm just making the point that religion has been used to oppress even before capitalism.

[#FF0000]

That's correct, the Protestants have their special work ethic which is more bourgeois, and indirectly led to capitalism, while Catholicism sticks to helping the poor, thus having more in common with socialism.

I'd say their history of discommunicating preachers who go Red-tinted and providing moral and material support to Fascists sort of divorces them from socialism I think.

[Red Poplar]

Yes, fair enough.

However, if it's really just like playing a game of telephone then then why still say it is the Word of God? Since we cannot verify what God actually wants people to know, and acknowledge that it has been filtered through human understanding and thousands of translations, then it seems sort of fallacious to claim that it is still God's word.

If I have a recipe for chocolate cake and give it to a friend, and she changes it around to suit her own tastes, is it still "my" recipe? No.


Good point, I must admit... What we can verify are the Ten Commandments, which are the most direct word of God known to us, according to them we can determine what it means to live the Christian way. In Catholicism they are sorted this way, simplified:

1) God is one and only
2) Don't swear God's name
3) Keep Sabbath holy (it's Sunday in Catholicism)
4) Honour your parents
5) Don't kill
6) Don't commit adultery, rape etc.
7) Don't steal
8) Don't make false statements
9) Don't take another's wife/husband
10) Don't crave for other people's possessions

There are a few other rules, but these are the basics. I think we'll agree that they are a good ethical foundation for all of us (except 1-3 for atheists, that is).



I can understand this concept of 'finding the holy spirit,' as I see it akin to the Buddhist concept of understanding and realizing the truth of the Dharma.

:thumbup1:



How, pray tell, is it apparent to you that God is working everyday? Why would he only make it apparent to believers and not everyone? Surely if he is benevolent and wants everyone to be in heaven, he would at least try to convince people that he's cool.

I know we are supposed to be created with "free will," but that still doesn't explain why god just wouldn't attempt to do anything. We have the free will to follow him or not, if he was to exist. It's almost assuming that if god was to show his face, everyone would automatically be like "OMG" and not be able to resist following God.


He can make it apparent to everyone who wants to perceive Him. I may not be the right person to explain proselytism (I think it's the correct English word), since I've been raised in this way and I gradually got the perception of God. There are some people, however, who were raised as atheists and converted themselves to Christianity, I'll mention Francis Collins PhD again, who is an advocate of a theistic evolution. I guess everyone has his/her own spiritual path.



I'd say their history of discommunicating preachers who go Red-tinted and providing moral and material support to Fascists sort of divorces them from socialism I think.

You're so stubborn, dammit! :mad:

Who are "they"? Priests? Popes? I've explained for at least a dozen times why policies of the very top of the Catholic Church don't resemble Christianity as a religion. Christianity is not Vatican, Christianity includes all the believers - 2,200,000,000 of them.

[#FF0000]

I was talking about the Catholic church specifically.

tbh I really don't care about religion or what religion someone follows. It bothers me when people try to act like their religious beliefs are rational in any way whatsoever, though.

[Red Poplar]

I was talking about the Catholic church specifically.

Well, you quoted my statement which said "Catholicism", by which I meant our ethical policies and mentality. If solidarity and helping the poor and anyone in need isn't socialist, then what is? I already said, equating the command of the Catholic Church with Christianity is like equating Stalin's purges with Communism.


tbh I really don't care about religion or what religion someone follows. It bothers me when people try to act like their religious beliefs are rational in any way whatsoever, though.

You claim that you don't care, yet you still have to point out your tendentiousness, and it's not the first time you're doing it. We've already discussed this, I have no intention of repeating myself. Talking to you is like talking to a wall really, Iseul and Invincible Summer provided some valid arguments and are the only reason why I'm still debating on this thread.

“The greatest ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about”

[Queercommie Girl]

Satanism is dangerous. It's been proven so in many occasions, with people who "experimented" with that religion had serious consequences, such as the obsession with the evil spirits we discussed. So, it was often directly affiliated with Satanism, actually its consequence.


Fair enough with your other points so far.

On this --- I believe in the Maoist-derived idea that "reactionary Christianity can be even worse than real Satanism", just like revisionist socialism can be even worse than real capitalism.

There is nothing really evil with Satanic beliefs such as La Veyanism. You seem to be just fixated with particular words like "God" and "Satan". That's idealism. Words by themselves have no concrete power.

While I don't completely deny that there might indeed be really "demonic cults" out there, belief systems such as La Veyanism aren't such ones at all. (By the way, did you know that the deity Satan was originally derived from the pagan ancient Egyptian god Set?)

I judge religions not by their names but by their implications. Just like I don't judge political tendencies by what they claim on paper. Even if there are really objectively "angelic" and "demonic" forces out there, they are not fundamentally attached to any concrete "names" on earth. There might be literally demonic forces operating behind some Christians, and literally angelic forces operating behind some Satanists. (Perhaps demonic influences are to blame to some extent for the reactionary attitudes of some Christians, for instance ;))

[Crimson Commissar]

Well, you quoted my statement which said "Catholicism", by which I meant our ethical policies and mentality. If solidarity and helping the poor and anyone in need isn't socialist, then what is? I already said, equating the command of the Catholic Church with Christianity is like equating Stalin's purges with Communism.
Of course, those parts of christianity are indeed socialist. But what about the others? Complete obedience to god? Sounds like fascism to me. God sending non-believers to hell? Doesn't that sound similar to fascists, or any other dictators for that matter, murdering all those who disagree with their regime? Sure, you can take these parts out of your religion. But there's not much point, is there? It's like being a Communist and then saying you don't agree with having a socialist economy. You've taken a core aspect of the idea out of it. By now it's a completely different thing entirely.

[Klaatu]

Has anyone read Joseph Campbell? "The Power of Myth" is an enlightening book (also a PBS TV documentary.)

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

[Rousedruminations]

all religions are based on the same ridiculous imagination, that make man a weak, imbecile animal; a furious bigot and fanatic; or a miserable hypocrite; - Robert Owen.


If God did not exist it would be necessary to invent him - Volataire

It seems to me that in a painful world which needs a form of escapism those ferverently religious often have a profound imagination which supplies their illusorary view that god (S) could exist.

As we are all different what happens to those who lack an active imagination ? what is it that they end up falling on ? What occurs to those who rely on their strong reasoning capabilities (not their weak imagination), science and humanism to explain life ? would they look to atheism ?.. Is it their fault, that not having a strong enough imagination to have faith, condems them to an eternal burning of fire.."hell" ?

Since it isn't their fault for being unimaginative enough to have faith, i guess a ' just ' and ' righteous' god would punish them by condeming them to an imaginative " hell " for those who are immoral ( those that do not follow gods laws) ? I'm sure an injustice of this kind would bring about an indignation to those who are deeply religious ? So folk who are of a different kind (not as imaginative to have faith) deserve to rott in hell ? hmm.

[Revolution starts with U]

The question is, why do no atheists get possessed by demons?
Why is exorcism more than just a christian phenomena? Why do other methods than provoking "the lord Jesus Christ" also expell so-called demons?
I tend to think people make it up in their head. Maybe the demons are real, but it's not God per se that expells them.



1) God is one and only

Does this mean he is seperate from the universe? Is he like a singularity somewhere inside of it? Does he live on a planet, or another plane? What does this "one and only" mean?

2) Don't swear God's name
Well, that will be easy. No one knows God's name. It is expressed as a 4 letter combination because to know one's name (in ancient tradition) is to have power over them, and noone can have power over God. This is irrelevant

3) Keep Sabbath holy (it's Sunday in Catholicism)

Disregarding that as a gross perversion of the word "sabbath," which is seven in Hebrew... Also disregarding God says keep the sabbath holy because it is the day he rested, and so shall you rest.
Should we legislate no one work on sunday? I'm all for a day of rest, but what is to be done with those that don't?

4) Honour your parents

And if you're Hitler's son? Why should anyone just honor their parents outright? I honor mine, because they are honorable. I see no reason anyone should honor a dishonorable being.

5) Don't kill

I want to be down with this one, but if I see someone getting killed/raped in front of me, I may just have to kill someone, for example.

6) Don't commit adultery, rape etc.

Got it, first good rule.

7) Don't steal

Ok, sounds good. How do we define "stealing?" Is it "stealing" for workers to sit-in strike at an owners property? Is anyone trading in an American market trading in "stolen" goods (we have it because of the forced displacement of native people)? Was Robin Hood a "theif?" Who defines this law?

8) Don't make false statements

Definitely, this is a solid law.

9) Don't take another's wife/husband

Ok.. seems arbitrary, but I agree. Idk, what if they're widowed tho? This just seems really minor to be on the most imporant list.


10) Don't crave for other people's possessions

Hmm... John has an apple, I have a steak. We trade. Did I "crave" his apple? In theory this is solid, don't be jealous. In practice, it leads back into what is "craving" or "stealing?" And why did you seperate craving from stealing, do people steal what they don't crave?

[Red Poplar]

The question is, why do no atheists get possessed by demons?
Why is exorcism more than just a christian phenomena? Why do other methods than provoking "the lord Jesus Christ" also expell so-called demons?
I tend to think people make it up in their head. Maybe the demons are real, but it's not God per se that expells them.

It sometimes occurs that atheists get obsessed by demons, although more rarely than Christians. The explanation from a Christian point of view is that Satan assumes atheists will rot in hell anyway so he doesn't bother trying to possess them, since he'll possess them later. It doesn't have to be so though.


Now, as for the Commandments, I wrote them here in my own words, so I'll explain them more throughly:



Does this mean he is seperate from the universe? Is he like a singularity somewhere inside of it? Does he live on a planet, or another plane? What does this "one and only" mean?

"One and only" means that you shouldn't worship any other God beside Him - in other words, you have to be a monotheist.


Well, that will be easy. No one knows God's name. It is expressed as a 4 letter combination because to know one's name (in ancient tradition) is to have power over them, and noone can have power over God. This is irrelevant

In Christianity it's about intention. It doesn't matter if you don't know His name, if you swear at Him personally, it's offensive.


Disregarding that as a gross perversion of the word "sabbath," which is seven in Hebrew... Also disregarding God says keep the sabbath holy because it is the day he rested, and so shall you rest.
Should we legislate no one work on sunday? I'm all for a day of rest, but what is to be done with those that don't?

A Christian isn't forbidden from working on Sundays, he is only encouraged to attend a Sunday mass, or if he can't, then pray at least. Personally I think that the point of the Christian "6+1" working week is to make sure that everyone has a day rest per week, to spend some time with himself and his spirituality. Well, we can't all rest in the same day, our society would collapse.


And if you're Hitler's son? Why should anyone just honor their parents outright? I honor mine, because they are honorable. I see no reason anyone should honor a dishonorable being.

The rule is about parents in general. If your parents aren't honorable and/or disrespect you, you're not expected to be loyal to them unconditionally.


I want to be down with this one, but if I see someone getting killed/raped in front of me, I may just have to kill someone, for example.

Again, it's about intention and responsibility, so if you defend yourself from an armed attacker, and kill him in selfdefense, it won't count as a sin. The rule "don't kill", also means "protect life", so there are situations in which a kill can be justified, for the sake of other innocent lives.


Got it, first good rule.

Second, actually. ;)


Ok, sounds good. How do we define "stealing?" Is it "stealing" for workers to sit-in strike at an owners property? Is anyone trading in an American market trading in "stolen" goods (we have it because of the forced displacement of native people)? Was Robin Hood a "theif?" Who defines this law?

This rule is probably the broadest of all, that's correct. It depends on every specific situation, according to other moral rules and the remaining Commandments. Basically, it means you shouldn't be comfortable with stealing other people's possessions, especially if they earned them fairly.


Definitely, this is a solid law.

:thumbup1:


Ok.. seems arbitrary, but I agree. Idk, what if they're widowed tho? This just seems really minor to be on the most imporant list.

The Christian marriage ends when the first partner dies, so widows count as singles. :)


Hmm... John has an apple, I have a steak. We trade. Did I "crave" his apple? In theory this is solid, don't be jealous. In practice, it leads back into what is "craving" or "stealing?" And why did you seperate craving from stealing, do people steal what they don't crave?

Yes, these two rules are related. It's about jealousy and obsession with others' possessions, which lead to bad relations and fights with those people. If you're only willing to trade or buy someone's possession, it's not "craving", the main things that should be avoided here are vanity and envy.

[Invincible Summer]

The question is, why do no atheists get possessed by demons?

I think they would find alt explanations for their "possession."



I want to be down with this one, but if I see someone getting killed/raped in front of me, I may just have to kill someone, for example.Seeing as how there's a lot of people killing each other in the Bible, I think doing things in defense (or at least having God's blessing ;)) makes killing legit... but it's more like a "Try not to" sort of thing.



Ok, sounds good. How do we define "stealing?" Is it "stealing" for workers to sit-in strike at an owners property? Is anyone trading in an American market trading in "stolen" goods (we have it because of the forced displacement of native people)? Was Robin Hood a "theif?" Who defines this law?You have to keep in mind these commandments were written before capitalism, so any attempt to find the "true" application of "Thou shalt not steal" to the modern age will be fraught with problems. As you can see here, "stealing" seems to just apply to whatever "theft" is under the law.

So probably "yes" to sit-in strikes, Robin Hood, etc being illegal, but "no" to capitalists. Not because the commandment/god is inherently anti-Communist, but because the commandment is so vague that it is subjective to interpretation. Obviously a communist interpretation would say otherwise. Yay for subjectivity!



Ok.. seems arbitrary, but I agree. Idk, what if they're widowed tho? This just seems really minor to be on the most imporant list.It says someone's husband/wife. If you're a widow/widower, you are no longer "someone's wife/husband." I think it's pretty clear.



Hmm... John has an apple, I have a steak. We trade. Did I "crave" his apple? In theory this is solid, don't be jealous. In practice, it leads back into what is "craving" or "stealing?" And why did you seperate craving from stealing, do people steal what they don't crave?Yeah, i would interpret this to be "do not be jealous/envious" as well.

But I think the reason why it can be separate is because craving/jealousy/envy does not necessarily lead to one stealing. It does, however, lead to one feeling miserable because you want what you don't have. From a Buddhist perspective, craving something is a form of self-delusion that things are not impermanent, and will lead to further dissatisfaction and internal anguish in the long run. So I think it's a good precept.

[Queercommie Girl]

The question is, why do no atheists get possessed by demons?
Why is exorcism more than just a christian phenomena? Why do other methods than provoking "the lord Jesus Christ" also expell so-called demons?
I tend to think people make it up in their head. Maybe the demons are real, but it's not God per se that expells them.


Atheists don't get possessed by demons, but sometimes a few might get abducted by aliens. :thumbup1:

I don't think we should metaphysically completely deny such "supernatural" things. Of course, in the vast majority of cases, these are most definitely fake, but the probability of such things is not absolutely zero.

But how you interpret such things (whether "demons" or "malevolent aliens") depend on your philosophical world-view.

From a materialist perspective, humans are most certainly not the only form of intelligence in existence. Most aliens probably aren't malevolent, since if they are more developed than humans, then Marxist historical materialism would predict that they would already have reached some kind of socialism or communism. (Indeed, if aliens were malevolent in general, then as the physicist Fermi pointed out, on purely statistical grounds Earth would very likely to have been conquered and colonised already) But there are "bad apples" in any kind of society, even those that are 1000 years more advanced than the most developed forms of communism humanity can currently imagine.

So this is obviously just speculation, but from a scientific and materialist perspective the most likely objective explanation for "demons", if they were real in any concrete sense, is some kind of stray malevolent alien intelligence who are probably "criminals" or something similar in the quasi-communist societies they originated from.