ALL Abrahamic Religions Are Ridiculous

[Fulanito de Tal]

They are faith-based which means that you have to ignore personal empirical findings. They ask you to believe in a God with out any proof. WTF is a god anyway? Is it an all encompassing construct? That's ridiculous.

By looking at the history of organizations that sponsor these ideas, you can see that Abrahamic religions have been and continue to be falsified. GALILEO, galileo, GALILEO, galileo, GALILEO, figaro, magnificoooooo. Evolution, dinosaurs, germs, mental health...whatever. A bunch of shit. My girlfriend was told when she was young that she wasn't supposed to pray with her hands folded because her fingers would point to the ground and the devil. She should pray with her hands pressed together, fingers pointing to God in the sky. So, I'm thinking, if God is up, where to people in China point their fingers to?

As Lenin said, if you want to know the truth, figure out who's most likely to benefit from that incident. Who's benefiting from Abrahamic religions? My answer, their leaders. The pawns at are level are the ones getting screwed. We give tithe, go to war, get molested, and even blow ourselves up. Meanwhile, the leaders are chillaxing with their air condition and gold and working once a week and jacking off to the virgin Mary.

Here's a good quote: If the Pope believes that he's going to heaven when he dies, then why is he driving around in bullet-proof glass? - DL Hughley

So a BIG thumbs down and a fart noise to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Can I get an amen?

[Queercommie Girl]

Well, frankly all religions are ridiculous, just that some variants are worse and more reactionary than others.

Non-Abrahamic religions like Hinduism with its caste system, Buddhism with its Lamaism, and Confucianism with its apologism for the imperial state, are also very reactionary.

But then there are a few relatively progressive religions in the world too, such as Liberation Theology, certain schools of Confucian socialism, etc. I think political alliance with them is certainly possible, even though philosophically they are not compatible with Marxism and Historical Materialism.

[ken6346]

Hi! First post, but after visiting this forum and seeing this I thought it would be a good place to start. Just a bit of background, I'm Australian, I was Muslim until I was 14 when I converted to Christianity, and I've been agnostic and leaning towards Christianity since 17.


They are faith-based which means that you have to ignore personal empirical findings.
There are many thing that are faith-based. Because something is faith-based doesn't mean you have to ignore empirical findings. Take diffusion: how the hell can diffusing particles move randomly, bouncing off each other, but always end up moving to regions of alower concentration of particles? I have to base it on faith, because I can't see sub-microscopic particles such as atoms diffusing.


WTF is a god anyway?
"A" god or the Judeo-Christian concept of God? A god depends on the context, but the Judeo-Christian concept of God (which, strangely enough, is contradictory to the definition of God given in their own holy texts) is an omnipresent, omnipotent, a bunch of other omni-'s, all-loving, all-forgiving God. Keep in mind that the biblical conception of God is actually quite different to what the Christians say God is. For example: God is not without limits. And the doctrine of eternal hellfire is unbiblical. There's just two examples of the inconsistency of the scriptures with the beliefs of the Christians.


Evolution, dinosaurs, germs, mental health...whatever. A bunch of shit
If a Christian doesn't believe in evolution, the existence of dinosaurs more than 65 million years ago, and microorganisms, they're just stupid. It's unfair to take all Christians as being as ignorant as a very sizable but simply wrong portion of them.


So, I'm thinking, if God is up, where to people in China point their fingers to
Yep, strange isn't it! There's no such teaching in the bible. In fact, Christ said to pray without ceasing, so what does that mean? Pray in your head. He also condemned drawing attention to yourself when you prayed; your physical actions mean nothing in prayer, only your intent and thoughts.


My answer, their leaders
Depends on the denomination. Take the Quakers: they were and are an amazing bunch of people; they take the idea of Christian community to heart. There are no ministers in their services: they sit in silence until someone is "moved" to stand up and teach! There are some terrible hypocrisies in Christian and other Abrahamic groups and denominations - the RCC, in spite of the fact that some Catholics are lovely people and believe what they do only to please God - but they're not all like that. Not ALL of the groups are ridiculous in this respect.


If the Pope believes that he's going to heaven when he dies, then why is he driving around in bullet-proof glass? - DL Hughley
According to Catholic theology, he has a duty to fulfill; it's not in his best interests to die quite yet, being God's apparent representative on earth.

[Queercommie Girl]

There are many thing that are faith-based. Because something is faith-based doesn't mean you have to ignore empirical findings. Take diffusion: how the hell can diffusing particles move randomly, bouncing off each other, but always end up moving to regions of alower concentration of particles? I have to base it on faith, because I can't see sub-microscopic particles such as atoms diffusing.


This shows you have no understanding of Brownian motion. It's certainly not magic at all. You can't see molecules with your naked eyes but electron microscopes can certainly see them very vividly. Why do they always end up moving to regions of a lower concentration of particles? It's simple statistics. There is absolutely no faith involved.



"A" god or the Judeo-Christian concept of God? A god depends on the context, but the Judeo-Christian concept of God (which, strangely enough, is contradictory to the definition of God given in their own holy texts) is an omnipresent, omnipotent, a bunch of other omni-'s, all-loving, all-forgiving God. Keep in mind that the biblical conception of God is actually quite different to what the Christians say God is. For example: God is not without limits. And the doctrine of eternal hellfire is unbiblical. There's just two examples of the inconsistency of the scriptures with the beliefs of the Christians.


To be frank, the concept of God in orthodox theology is not really Abrahamic. The Jews of the Old Testament did not have such a developed understanding of God at all, judging by primary historical sources. The concept of God in orthodox theology is in fact a theological concept stolen from Greco-Roman rational philosophy by later Jews, Christians and Muslims. Objectively the exact definition of God in Catholicism for instance has more similarities with the idea of the Divine in Platonic philosophy than it does with the primitive theistic ideas of the Old Testament Jews.

There is also a philosophical integration of the conception of the divine by the religious cultures of India and China.

Objectively there is nothing really unique in the Abrahamic conception of God. Similar ideas are also found in Platonism, Hinduism and Confucianism. It's just that the Abrahamic religions being more faith-centric, have made their concept of God more egoistical and hence more strictly monotheistic.

[ken6346]

This shows you have no understanding of Brownian motion. It's certainly not magic at all. You can't see molecules with your naked eyes but electron microscopes can certainly see them very vividly. Why do they always end up moving to regions of a lower concentration of particles? It's simple statistics. There is absolutely no faith involved.
That's fair, but is to not understand the concepts and accept them due to apparently overwhelming evidence an act of faith? Obversely, I wouldn't be justified in rejecting it simply because I don't understand it - without knowledge, is there a reasonable position to take that doesn't involve an act of faith?



To be frank, the concept of God in orthodox theology is not really Abrahamic.
Orthodox meaning of the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches, or orthodox in a sense of being biblical? I'm not sure I get what you're referring to.

[ComradeMan]

Define "ridiculous" with logic and/or in terms of historical materialism.

[Queercommie Girl]

Orthodox meaning of the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches, or orthodox in a sense of being biblical? I'm not sure I get what you're referring to.


The orthodox conception of God is actually shared by most mainstream variants of all three abrahamic religions, not just Catholics or Eastern Orthodox Christians. That's not what I meant by "orthodox". I meant it in the sense of "mainstream Christian/Jewish/Islamic".

Of course there are still differences between the Abrahamic religions, e.g. Christians believe in the Trinity (most do at least), while Muslims and Jews don't.

My point is that the Abrahamic conception of God is not unique. Such a line is an example of cultural essentialism, which is a mistake. Similar ideas of the divine are also found in Confucianism, Platonism and Hinduism. Even Catholic Jesuits like Matteo Ricci believed that the God in Confucianism is exactly the same as the God in Catholicism.

[Bud Struggle]

They are faith-based which means that you have to ignore personal empirical findings.

You can say the same thing about Political Philosophies too. Lots of Revolutions--no REAL Communism just dictators and worker states. Lots of business opening up and elections but no Capitalist democracy.

Kings on the other hand seem to have delivered what they promised.

[Queercommie Girl]

That's fair, but is to not understand the concepts and accept them due to apparently overwhelming evidence an act of faith? Obversely, I wouldn't be justified in rejecting it simply because I don't understand it - without knowledge, is there a reasonable position to take that doesn't involve an act of faith?


Every human being always have some kind of "faith" in some things. In conventional terms it just means they believe in certain things, no more.

But there is a fundamental difference between "having faith" in this common sense general way and the kind of faith-centric theology that is explicitly promoted by Christianity and Islam.

[Queercommie Girl]

You can say the same thing about Political Philosophies too. Lots of Revolutions--no REAL Communism just dictators and worker states. Lots of business opening up and elections but no Capitalist democracy.


Communism is not something we believe, but it's something we fight for. That why it is empirical rather than metaphysical.

The fate of humanity is ultimately in our own hands. Potentially anything is possible. It's only a strategic question of how you go about achieving it.



Kings on the other hand seem to have delivered what they promised.
Like what?!

[ComradeMan]

Every human being always have some kind of "faith" in some things. In conventional terms it just means they believe in certain things, no more.

But there is a fundamental difference between "having faith" in this common sense general way and the kind of faith-centric theology that is explicitly promoted by Christianity and Islam.

Define common sense with logic and/or historical materialism- and ridiculous for that matter.

Appeals to common sense are a logical fallacy.

[Bud Struggle]

Communism is not something we believe, but it's something we fight for. That why it is empirical rather than metaphysical. No. You really have no certainty it will work. They may be some basic or (not so) unseen flaw in the human condition that makes Communism impossible. If you want to get to what you really know for certain--you know only you. I know only me.

There are pleny of systems of economic and politics out there. Who cares about that--the real question if we are going to be empirical -- what is best for me.

I see that as the real issue for materialism.


The fate of humanity is ultimately in our own hands. Potentially anything is possible. It's only a strategic question of how you go about achieving it. But why for "us." Why not just for "me?"


Like what?! They took everything and gave nothing. Exactly what one would expect.

[Queercommie Girl]

Appeals to common sense are a logical fallacy.


In terms of bourgeois logic perhaps, but not in terms of Historical Materialism. Historical Materialism believes that the ordinary masses are the real agents of historical change, and "common sense" - as in the common beliefs of ordinary people, are actually highly considered.

Everyone believes things, sometimes with good justification, sometimes without any. That's "faith" in common everyday terms. But only certain faith-centric religions would make a certain kind of "belief" the "life-and-death pivot" on which everything else depends on.

[Queercommie Girl]

No. You really have no certainty it will work.


No I don't. Marxism is never fatalism. It cannot predict the future with certainty.

In fact, we don't have absolute certainty in anything.



But why for "us." Why not just for "me?"


That's the difference between progressive collectivism and someone like you who subscribes to selfish ultra-individualistic ethics.

[RGacky3]

There are pleny of systems of economic and politics out there. Who cares about that--the real question if we are going to be empirical -- what is best for me.


Well when it comes to economc and political systems, whats best for meeee, is a monarchy system, with me and king, that cool with you guys?

Faith by definition is a personal thing between you and god, potlicial and economic systems are a social thing between people and other people.

[Bud Struggle]

No I don't. Marxism is never fatalism. It cannot predict the future with certainty.

In fact, we don't have absolute certainty in anything. No arguement there.


That's the difference between progressive collectivism and someone like you who subscribes to selfish ultra-individualistic ethics. And the reason you are a Communist--is because you are a Ghandi?

Why bother?

[Bud Struggle]

Well when it comes to economc and political systems, whats best for meeee, is a monarchy system, with me and king, that cool with you guys? I understand that. But if we are going to be MATERIALISTIC--why should I include you?


Faith by definition is a personal thing between you and god, potlicial and economic systems are a social thing between people and other people. You are compartmentalizing. Read Iseuls posts about the incompatability between faith in God and Communism in the Islam thread in Discrimination.

Really good stuff and to the point.

[Queercommie Girl]

I understand that. But if we are going to be MATERIALISTIC--why should I include you?


Historical Materialism in the Marxist sense has nothing to do with the common idea of "being materialist" in the sense of being selfishly individualistic. Historical Materialism does not in any way exclude the possibility of having an altruistic-style ethics.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Well, frankly all religions are ridiculous, just that some variants are worse and more reactionary than others.

Non-Abrahamic religions like Hinduism with its caste system, Buddhism with its Lamaism, and Confucianism with its apologism for the imperial state, are also very reactionary.

But then there are a few relatively progressive religions in the world too, such as Liberation Theology, certain schools of Confucian socialism, etc. I think political alliance with them is certainly possible, even though philosophically they are not compatible with Marxism and Historical Materialism.

This. Big time.

As said, all religions are reactionary both in theory (looking in the books of the abrahamitics and wuold make the SS look like vanilla) and practice (Here in the west budhism always gets away with being so humble because of its rules of dont hurting and so, when in practice it have played a very oppressing and violent role).

No religion can be said to be more reactionary/supressing/violent/evil/fascist/bad then the other one, since they dont make reactionary structures, or ideas frome it selfe, thats what the circumstances does (Materialism) and later on religions are used to justify poverty, war or any other crap, when all this is also done/justyfied in secular societys. Therefor are all this comparing on which one is worst just useless.

[Bud Struggle]

Historical Materialism in the Marxist sense has nothing to do with the common idea of "being materialist" in the sense of being selfishly individualistic. Historical Materialism does not in any way exclude the possibility of having an altruistic-style ethics.

I certainly understand that. But if we are going to be empericial--and MATERIALISTIC, why should YOU be a part in anything I DO.

If we get to the real bottom of materialistic--there is nothing but me.

[Queercommie Girl]

If we get to the real bottom of materialistic--there is nothing but me.

Eh...are you sure? That sounds more like idealistic subjective existentialist and even solipisist philosophies.

Materialism, on the other hand, does not put one's own subjective viewpoint first, but clearly recognises that without the objective existence of society around the individual, the individual would not even have enough food to sustain his/her own subjective consciousness.

Which comes first, food which keeps you alive, or your subjective thoughts?

[Bud Struggle]

Eh...are you sure? That sounds more like idealistic subjective existentialist and even solipisist philosophies. Tosh.


Materialism, on the other hand, does not put one's own subjective viewpoint first, but clearly recognises that without the objective existence of society around the individual, the individual would not even have enough food to sustain his/her own subjective consciousness. The only objective existance I know comes from the rumbling in my belly--and the only question I have is how to fill that belly. The rest is just posing. You aren't answering the question about why I shouldn't take the world as is and conquer it as best I can. Why bother changing it for all people (my competitors for food) when I can do better by myself?


Which comes first, food which keeps you alive, or your subjective thoughts? Food, and you are the one theorizing--not me. See, the REAL Materialist are the Capitalists Robber Barons.

[RGacky3]

I understand that. But if we are going to be MATERIALISTIC--why should I include you?



I see, but applying materialism to ethics, as, I admit, some marxists do, is rediculous, OBVIOUSLY, political and economic thoeries involve ethics and is not purely materialistic, the materialistic part is just analysis of the system.


You are compartmentalizing. Read Iseuls posts about the incompatability between faith in God and Communism in the Islam thread in Discrimination.

Really good stuff and to the point.

Yeah, but its wrong, communism is a way to set up society and economics NOW, faith in god is completely seperate.

Hardline materialists that apply it to EVERYTHING are missing the point, its like trying to apply mathematics to art/music reviewing it just does'nt make sense.


Food, and you are the one theorizing--not me. See, the REAL Materialist are the Capitalists Robber Barons.

EXACTLY, which is trying to apply materialism to ethics makes no sense.

[Bud Struggle]

I see, but applying materialism to ethics, as, I admit, some marxists do, is rediculous, OBVIOUSLY, political and economic thoeries involve ethics and is not purely materialistic, the materialistic part is just analysis of the system.



Yeah, but its wrong, communism is a way to set up society and economics NOW, faith in god is completely seperate.

Hardline materialists that apply it to EVERYTHING are missing the point, its like trying to apply mathematics to art/music reviewing it just does'nt make sense.



EXACTLY, which is trying to apply materialism to ethics makes no sense.

Mostly all--agreed. Now explain that to Iseul.

Listen: logically you have to be a Materiaist to be a true Communist. But if you were a Materialist you could never logically be a Communist.

So there's something more--what is it? :)

[ComradeMan]

In terms of bourgeois logic perhaps, but not in terms of Historical Materialism. Historical Materialism believes that the ordinary masses are the real agents of historical change, and "common sense" - as in the common beliefs of ordinary people, are actually highly considered.

Everyone believes things, sometimes with good justification, sometimes without any. That's "faith" in common everyday terms. But only certain faith-centric religions would make a certain kind of "belief" the "life-and-death pivot" on which everything else depends on.

Not really- it's a logical fallacy. Define what the common beliefs are of ordinary people? This is all pretty mystic to me. Which beliefs are common? And what are "ordinary" people? And if they are beliefs they are not facts- so they shouldn't be used in a logical argument anyway.

[Queercommie Girl]

Not really- it's a logical fallacy. Define what the common beliefs are of ordinary people? This is all pretty mystic to me. Which beliefs are common? And what are "ordinary" people? And if they are beliefs they are not facts- so they shouldn't be used in a logical argument anyway.

What "logical fallacy"? Not everything in the real world has a clear-cut definition. The only "logical fallacy" here is the mystical faith-centric idea that everything in human existence somehow magically revolves around the "faith in particular version of God", and if someone consciously reject the gospel after they've heard it and completely understood it like I do, then they are definitely going to "hell", a place that no-one has ever being to and we have no empirical evidence for.

I have heard the fundamentalist/evangelical version of the Christian gospel many times, and indeed I know more about their ideas than many Christians. But I have made a choice to consciously and conclusively reject your God. Does that mean I will end up in your idea of "hell"?

Real Marxists integrate with the masses, it doesn't mean everything they do is right, but if one wants to change their views, then one needs to work with them, rather than impose doctrines from above like a bureaucrat.

[ComradeMan]

@Iseul

What "logical fallacy"? Not everything in the real world has a clear-cut definition. The only "logical fallacy" here is the mystical faith-centric idea that everything in human existence somehow magically revolves around the "faith in particular version of God", and if someone consciously reject the gospel after they've heard it and completely understood it like I do, then they are definitely going to "hell", a place that no-one has ever being to and we have no empirical evidence for.

-You make bold statements about empiricism and materialism, despite the fact that even historical materialism is not without its detractors- you then talk about logic yet make numerous logical fallacies and sweeping generalisations.

-Why won't you use logic and/or historical materialism to back up your comments/assumptions?

-Faith is an existential argument... we've been through this before. Kierkegaard? Remember?

- It appears to me you have understood very little, but that's an argument for another thread.

I have heard the fundamentalist/evangelical version of the Christian gospel many times, and indeed I know more about their ideas than many Christians. But I have made a choice to consciously and conclusively reject your God. Does that mean I will end up in your idea of "hell"?

- You keep saying this. We keep telling you to stop basing your attacks on religion on what fundamentalist Christians (considered nutcased by most other Christians) say or do.

- How can you reject something that does not exist?

- What is hell in Christian/New Testament theology according to you then? I'd be most interested seeing as there are actually three possible definitions for it (only mentions 23 times)- badly translated from the original Greek & Hebrew/Aramaic- we have Hades, Tartarus and Gehenna. Which one do you mean? Those who die spiritually, i.e. apart from God are said to be in Gehenna which means in nothingness... The cloven hooves and pitch forks were a Medieval allegory/invention.

Real Marxists integrate with the masses, it doesn't mean everything they do is right, but if one wants to change their views, then one needs to work with them, rather than impose doctrines from above like a bureaucrat.

- Who is a real Marxist? You were telling Shariati that Muslims could not ever be real Marxists the other day? So who is a real Marxist in your books?

-For fucks sakes, it's a damn economic policy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

- You impose your militant anti-theism/atheism on people from above and you take a superior stance. Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical?

[Queercommie Girl]

@Iseul

What "logical fallacy"? Not everything in the real world has a clear-cut definition. The only "logical fallacy" here is the mystical faith-centric idea that everything in human existence somehow magically revolves around the "faith in particular version of God", and if someone consciously reject the gospel after they've heard it and completely understood it like I do, then they are definitely going to "hell", a place that no-one has ever being to and we have no empirical evidence for.

-You make bold statements about empiricism and materialism, despite the fact that even historical materialism is not without its detractors- you then talk about logic yet make numerous logical fallacies and sweeping generalisations.

-Why won't you use logic and/or historical materialism to back up your comments/assumptions?


Actually logic and empiricism are not the same thing. You are mistaken to use them interchangably. Historical Materialism is based more on empiricism than logic.

There is nothing to back up, because all I said was that everyone has "faith" in the common sensical sense of believing in something. This is such a basic statement that I trust anyone with an IQ level that is not sub-normal would automatically grasp.

The burden of proof is on your side to show that your faith-centrism actually has some kind of empirical or logical validity.



-Faith is an existential argument... we've been through this before. Kierkegaard? Remember?

- It appears to me you have understood very little, but that's an argument for another thread.


I might have "understood very little" because I simply don't accept the idealistic doctrine of existentialism. Mentioning the name of Kierkegaard means absolutely nothing to me because I reject his ideas as being idealistic.



I have heard the fundamentalist/evangelical version of the Christian gospel many times, and indeed I know more about their ideas than many Christians. But I have made a choice to consciously and conclusively reject your God. Does that mean I will end up in your idea of "hell"?

- You keep saying this. We keep telling you to stop basing your attacks on religion on what fundamentalist Christians (considered nutcased by most other Christians) say or do.


Who the fuck is "we"?

How do I know that you are not a fundamentalist/evangelical Christian? You never explicitly told me such a thing.



- How can you reject something that does not exist?

- What is hell in Christian/New Testament theology according to you then? I'd be most interested seeing as there are actually three possible definitions for it (only mentions 23 times)- badly translated from the original Greek & Hebrew/Aramaic- we have Hades, Tartarus and Gehenna. Which one do you mean? Those who die spiritually, i.e. apart from God are said to be in Gehenna which means in nothingness... The cloven hooves and pitch forks were a Medieval allegory/invention.


I don't really care, all I know is that whichever version of "hell" you are talking about, there is no empirical or logical justification for it.



Real Marxists integrate with the masses, it doesn't mean everything they do is right, but if one wants to change their views, then one needs to work with them, rather than impose doctrines from above like a bureaucrat.

- Who is a real Marxist? You were telling Shariati that Muslims could not ever be real Marxists the other day? So who is a real Marxist in your books?


Why don't you actually quote what I've said then?

I think I explicitly said that while I am a firm materialist and I believe that Marxism is also completely materialist, I also think people should have the freedom of belief and religious socialists who are genuinely progressive and do not discriminate against other people should be allowed to join socialist and communist parties.

In fact I don't think Shariati himself would agree with your baseless accusations against me here at all. Why don't you ask him if you don't believe me.

Of course, I also have the right to my own beliefs, which is that Marxism is a completely materialist philosophy. I will not impose my views on anyone bureaucratically but only try to convince other people in an integrated manner.

You on the other hand, seem to suggest that as an atheist I don't even have the right to have my own beliefs, which is against the principle of socialist democracy. If religious people have the right of belief, atheists and anti-theists must have it too.



-For fucks sakes, it's a damn economic policy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


The fact that you are getting so "excited" here just shows that you don't really understand Marxism or the orthodox Marxist approach to religion.



You impose your militant anti-theism/atheism on people from above and you take a superior stance. Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical?


I'm doing no such thing at all, idiot. I have repeatedly stressed that people should have the freedom of belief as long as it's not reactionary (i.e. pro-capitalist) and discriminatory.

You on the other hand seem to be suggesting that I don't even have the right to be a militant materialist if I choose to be one. Where is democracy in your views?

[Revolution starts with U]

Actually Bud, empirically, can you pin down this "me" for "me?" (This is why I like the Rasta saying "I and I.") You say that it is the rumbling in your stomach, but that is only from the work of small, sometimes independant micro organisms. Are you 100k cells of bacteria, blood, etc?
Is it in your mind? What is "the mind?" Physically it cannot be found, yet. Isn't the mind, if it does exist just a product of nature and, more specifically nurture; which would mean you started by being given something, so can you own it?
If there were no one, nor nothing around, it was just "you" floating in space... would "you" matter?
The only "me" that exists is through the inter-subjective consciousness or life in an objective reality.
I and I invite you to stop fooling yourself :thumbup:

[RGacky3]

Listen: logically you have to be a Materiaist to be a true Communist.

No, logically you don't have to be a materialist, also materialist can mean many things from Maoists to people that just use it for specific purposes.

[ComradeMan]

@Iseul
Actually logic and empiricism are not the same thing. You are mistaken to use them interchangably. Historical Materialism is based more on empiricism than logic.

---- and/or---- duh! We could get into the whole debate of is logic empirical here... though.

There is nothing to back up, because all I said was that everyone has "faith" in the common sensical sense of believing in something. This is such a basic statement that I trust anyone with an IQ level that is not sub-normal would automatically grasp.

-common sensical sense of believing - :laugh:

Common sense or "rules of thumb" have no place in a logical debate. The are prone to vagueness and subjective interpretation. I would presume anyone with a grasp of logic slightly above the level of a snail would grasp it. But okay, with my subnormal level of IQ- please answer my questions.


What is ridiculous?
What is common sense?

The burden of proof is on your side to show that your faith-centrism actually has some kind of empirical or logical validity.

- No it isn't.
a) I am not preaching, I am not trying to convert people nor am I attacking epistemological arguments.
b) It is an existential argument based on personal faith- non-epistemological and purely subjective- to each his own.
c) Rosa would argue that your faith in historical materialism is without a firm base. Where is Rosa when you need her? :lol:
d) I am not claiming empiricity for faith.

I might have "understood very little" because I simply don't accept the idealistic doctrine of existentialism. Mentioning the name of Kierkegaard means absolutely nothing to me because I reject his ideas as being idealistic.

- That is an ignorant sort of response. I reject something before I know about it or read up on it. It's called prejudice, the same sort of thing that leads to racism...

Who the fuck is "we"?

How do I know that you are not a fundamentalist/evangelical Christian? You never explicitly told me such a thing.

- Well it should have been clear from my posts. But here goes- "I'm not"- the fact is that everytime you talk about religion you inevitably focus on fundamentalist Christians. This is like the caps who attack communism by singling out Ceaucescu etc.

I don't really care, all I know is that whichever version of "hell" you are talking about, there is no empirical or logical justification for it.

-If you don't know what something is or what is meant how can you say that there is no justification for it? Ever heard of a metaphor?

Why don't you actually quote what I've said then?

-Don't follow this one....

I think I explicitly said that while I am a firm materialist and I believe that Marxism is also completely materialist, I also think people should have the freedom of belief and religious socialists who are genuinely progressive and do not discriminate against other people should be allowed to join socialist and communist parties.

- If you believe something then you don't know it. You are using faith arguments, i.e. existentialism, to back up a materialistic argument that rejects such notions. Well done! :thumbup1:

In fact I don't think Shariati himself would agree with your baseless accusations against me here at all. Why don't you ask him if you don't believe me.

-Why don't you answer the point now? Who are you to dictate who is and who isn't a real Marxist. You said quite explicitly that a Muslim could not be a Marxist.

Of course, I also have the right to my own beliefs, which is that Marxism is a completely materialist philosophy. I will not impose my views on anyone bureaucratically but only try to convince other people in an integrated manner.

- Fair enough.

You on the other hand, seem to suggest that as an atheist I don't even have the right to have my own beliefs, which is against the principle of socialist democracy. If religious people have the right of belief, atheists and anti-theists must have it too.

-Never said that and never will. We can debate something though can't we?
-Atheists reject the notion of belief- it's not empirical.

The fact that you are getting so "excited" here just shows that you don't really understand Marxism or the orthodox Marxist approach to religion.

-Not excited at all- clever use of circumstancial ad hominems though. What is the orthodox marxist approach to religion? I didn't know there were orthodox marxists- lol- Love the way you subconsciously choose typically religious terminology to describe your anti-religion stance.

I'm doing no such thing at all, idiot. I have repeatedly stressed that people should have the freedom of belief as long as it's not reactionary (i.e. pro-capitalist) and discriminatory.

-People are free to believe what they want so long as it's in line with what you think. That's fascism. (idiot).

You on the other hand seem to be suggesting that I don't even have the right to be a militant materialist if I choose to be one. Where is democracy in your views?

-Of course you do. You were the one talking about burning down churches- I'd never burn down anything- where is the democracy in your views?

[Queercommie Girl]

---- and/or---- duh! We could get into the whole debate of is logic empirical here... though.


It's you who is confusing the two, not me.



-common sensical sense of believing - :laugh:

Common sense or "rules of thumb" have no place in a logical debate. The are prone to vagueness and subjective interpretation. I would presume anyone with a grasp of logic slightly above the level of a snail would grasp it. But okay, with my subnormal level of IQ- please answer my questions.
I said the fact that people always believe in certain things and this is "faith" in the conventional sense is just common sense. How can you be so hopelessly ultra-pedantic to want a 3 page logical proof for a simple statement such as this?



What is ridiculous?
The religious notion that God really exists and that people would be "punished" simply for believing in the "wrong" things is logically and empirically pretty ridiculous.



What is common sense?"Common sense" is simple direct knowledge ordinary people accumulate in their daily lives based on direct empirical experience, without complex rational processing. Religious beliefs largely don't fall into this category because let's be frank, it's not everyday that you just randomly bump into an angel or a demon while you walk down the road.



b) It is an existential argument based on personal faith- non-epistemological and purely subjective- to each his own.
On the one hand you preach pedantic logic, on the other hand you rely on subjective existentialist non-epistemological arguments such as this, how is this not contradictory? I guess "everything else must be strictly logical for you except your faith in God" right?



Rosa would argue that your faith in historical materialism is without a firm base. Where is Rosa when you need her?
You don't know what you are talking about. Rosa is against dialectical materialism not historical materialism. Dialectical materialism without empirical history is just an useless abstract logical game.



I am not claiming empiricity for faith.
Which is illogical from a materialist perspective since all knowledge must ultimately have empirical sources to back them up.



That is an ignorant sort of response. I reject something before I know about it or read up on it. It's called prejudice, the same sort of thing that leads to racism...
Mao did advise that sometimes reactionary knowledge is something to be avoided, but actually I do know the arguments of existentialism. It is on this basis that I reject it for being illogical and un-materialistic.

You are talking crap if you think someone who simply rejects any kind of religious arguments is the same as someone who is racist. It just shows that you are biased against atheists and materialists.



Well it should have been clear from my posts. But here goes- "I'm not"- the fact is that everytime you talk about religion you inevitably focus on fundamentalist Christians. This is like the caps who attack communism by singling out Ceaucescu etc.
Blame the fundamentalists for that, don't blame me. Because they seem to be the most vocal elements within the Christian camp these days, and they have more objective influence than you seem to think.

I know people who have been literally traumatised by religious fundamentalism. You tell me, who is to blame for that?

Advice: clean up your own house first, before blaming others. If more progressive Christians actually take up an actively anti-fundamentalist position rather than implicitly and indirectly defending them sometimes, then I will ally with progressive Christians more.



If you don't know what something is or what is meant how can you say that there is no justification for it? Ever heard of a metaphor?
I can understand "heaven" and "hell" as metaphors since I'm not an ethical nihilist.

But otherwise, there is no empirical evidence for any kind of "heaven" or "hell", period. And I don't have time to spend years going into religious texts, I have too many other things to do.



Don't follow this one....
You made a groundless accusation against me. I'm asking you to back it up.



If you believe something then you don't know it. You are using faith arguments, i.e. existentialism, to back up a materialistic argument that rejects such notions. Well done!
I'm using the word "believe" in the conventional sense. Any other word would do.

Faith like yours is backed up by existentialism. Materialism is backed up by empiricism. That's the difference. But just because something is proven by empirical evidence doesn't mean I can't actually say that I actually "believe" in it. Where did you learn your English?



Why don't you answer the point now? Who are you to dictate who is and who isn't a real Marxist. You said quite explicitly that a Muslim could not be a Marxist.
No I didn't say that. I said we must have a secular society in which scientific philosophies must take precedence over religious philosophies, and Marxism is philosophically not compatible with idealistic philosophies like religions. I never said Muslims etc can't be Marxists in the political sense.

Seriously, don't put words into my mouth.



Atheists reject the notion of belief- it's not empirical.
No. We only reject notions of belief that are not based on empirical evidence.



Not excited at all- clever use of circumstancial ad hominems though. What is the orthodox marxist approach to religion? I didn't know there were orthodox marxists- lol- Love the way you subconsciously choose typically religious terminology to describe your anti-religion stance.
Who says "orthodox" is an exclusive religious term, though?

If you knew the Marxist approach to religion, you would not have accused me so baselessly in the first place.



People are free to believe what they want so long as it's in line with what you think. That's fascism. (idiot).
Why don't I lay it out for you in detail then:

I believe religious people only have the right of belief insofar as:

1) Their belief is not pro-capitalist, pro-feudal, or pro-slavery;

2) Their belief is not racist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic.

This is indeed what I think, but it is hardly a personal stance at all. How can any genuinely progressive socialist disagree with this?

So what are you saying then, that it is all right to be pro-capitalist and pro-imperialist, it is all right to be racist, sexist, homophobic/transphobic etc? If you really believe religious freedom should actually include these things, I suggest you take off your Che avatar, you don't deserve to be called a socialist.

I am very firmly against capitalism and imperialism, against racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia. How is this "fascist" in anyway? Are you seriously out of your mind? Why should religions have the right and power to discriminate and exploit other people? What kind of "freedom" is that?



Of course you do. You were the one talking about burning down churches- I'd never burn down anything- where is the democracy in your views?Democracy is not universal. Burning down the churches of religions that are explicitly pro-capitalist and pro-imperialist is not wrong at all.

Why would someone like you who claims to be a socialist defend anyone who is explicitly pro-capitalist/pro-imperialist? Just because they are your fellow religious people?

I hope you are not taking the side of "Conquer or Die". The fact of the matter is that he is a borderline transphobe who harassed me before. He said he would "murder me in cold blood" just because I said religions should not be pro-capitalist or discriminate against anyone. He accuses me for being "effete" just because I'm a trans-girl. In fact if you read his profile here on revleft he actually admits that he was restricted for something that is related to transphobia. So unless you are also a transphobe or a homophobe and sexist who believes that men should never change their sex to become women or wear traditionally women's clothing, then I really suggest you do not defend a reactionary idiot such as him. Just because both of you happen to be "religious" doesn't mean anything at all.

You might not be a religious fundamentalist, but "Conquer or Die" to some extent is. He once suggested that there is nothing wrong with the fundamentalist Christian doctrine of "the majority of humanity going to hell".

If you don't want me to misunderstand you and take you for a religious fundamentalist, there is a very simple way to do it. Don't take their side and draw a line between yourself and religious fundamentalists. If you claim to be a non-fundamentalist but actually defend the position of religious fundamentalists, then you cannot blame me for not trusting you.

[ComradeMan]

Stop acting like you invented Marxism or in some way represent Marxism all over the place.

You use terms that are subjective and try to feign objectivity, your arguments are filled with logical fallacies and you cannot define the terms you apply.

You are the weakest link... goodbye.:laugh:

[Queercommie Girl]

Stop acting like you invented Marxism or in some way represent Marxism all over the place.

You use terms that are subjective and try to feign objectivity, your arguments are filled with logical fallacies and you cannot define the terms you apply.

You are the weakest link... goodbye.:laugh:

You are just avoiding the debate now because you have ran out of arguments.

Forget about all the useless logical debate about common sense, frankly I don't really care about that.

My central point is simply that I am against religions that are fundamentalist, or religions that are pro-capitalist/pro-imperialist, or religions that are racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic. Show me how is this basic progressive socialist position "filled with logical fallacies".

Or are you just biased against me because I'm transgendered? That would be really bad to be frank.

[ComradeMan]

No, I am not running away from anything. You have no arguments- because you can't define them yourself without logical fallacies.

I am against people who support infanticide.... ;)

As for your sly last appeal to the mob, FUCK OFF! Easy as that. When in doubt try to play the victim.

I couldn't personally care less what a person's gender/orientation or whatever else is as long as they don't spit the shit you come out with. I didn't even know you were transgendered so stop trying to play that pathetic card now.

[Queercommie Girl]

No, I am not running away from anything. You have no arguments- because you can't define them yourself without logical fallacies.


Then why don't you prove that to me. Now you are just throwing around baseless claims.



I am against people who support infanticide.... ;)
I don't support infanticide, I just support Lenin's decision for killing off the entire Tsarist royal family. That was certainly a very special case.



As for your sly last appeal to the mob, FUCK OFF! Easy as that. When in doubt try to play the victim.
Trans people are the oppressed victims in society, that's a fact. So we have the right to raise the issue of transphobia, and fuck you for suggesting that we can't even mention the possibility that transphobia might be involved. And I didn't explicitly say you are transphobic, I was merely raising the possibility of it.

If you think mass movements are actions of "the mob", then it can only show your reactionary position.



I couldn't personally care less what a person's gender/orientation or whatever else is as long as they don't spit the shit you come out with. I didn't even know you were transgendered so stop trying to play that pathetic card now.
If you don't support my idea that religions should not be homophobic and transphobic, that means you don't consider the struggle for LGBT rights seriously.

And I'm still waiting for you to show exactly how my idea that pro-capitalist and discriminatory variants of religions should be opposed is "filled with logical fallacies".

[Queercommie Girl]

No, I am not running away from anything. You have no arguments- because you can't define them yourself without logical fallacies.

I am against people who support infanticide.... ;)

As for your sly last appeal to the mob, FUCK OFF! Easy as that. When in doubt try to play the victim.

I couldn't personally care less what a person's gender/orientation or whatever else is as long as they don't spit the shit you come out with. I didn't even know you were transgendered so stop trying to play that pathetic card now.

You just discriminate against atheists and materialists because we don't drink your religious Kool-Aid.

Fuck off, and get out of this forum, you reactionary defender of Tibetan theocracy.

[ComradeMan]

@Iseul

Then why don't you prove that to me. Now you are just throwing around baseless claims.

I don't support infanticide, I just support Lenin's decision for killing off the entire Tsarist royal family. That was certainly a very special case.

-That's like a rapist saying, well normally I would never do this but it was a special case. You are a psychopath.

Trans people are the oppressed victims in society, that's a fact. So we have the right to raise the issue of transphobia, and fuck you for suggesting that we can't even mention the possibility that transphobia might be involved. And I didn't explicitly say you are transphobic, I was merely raising the possibility of it.

-Yeah in a thread talking about transphobia and LGBT issues. Not because someone is disagreeing with you on an entirely different subject in a thread in which no mention had mean made hitherto of LGBT issues. Then you suddenly blurt out-

Or are you just biased against me because I'm transgendered?

-Which I didn't even know- clever kindkind of victim card to set up a strawman... come off it.

If you think mass movements are actions of "the mob", then it can only show your reactionary position.

-Pathetic. You're dishonest too because I can't believe you would be so stupid to believe anyone here so stupid as to fall for your ploy.

If you don't support my idea that religions should not be homophobic and transphobic, that means you don't consider the struggle for LGBT rights seriously.

- Where did I say that? Where were we actually talking about LGBT issues in religions? Could you point that out please? If you actually bothered to look through older threads I have always been against homophobia and actually pointed out where fundamentalist interpretations of religion, at least Biblical, leading to discrimination against LGBT people are in actual fact flawed from a biblical perspective. So that's why I think your shot here is a cheap one, and that's why I say fuck off.

-And I'm still waiting for you to show exactly how my idea that pro-capitalist and discriminatory variants of religions should be opposed is "filled with logical fallacies".

Lol--- you didn't exactly say that to start with though did you? I asked for a definition of ridiculous and common sense according to logic. You failed to do so. :thumbup1:


Why do I discriminate against atheists and so on? Where? You are the one who goes round offending religious people like Shariati and saying you'd like to burn down churches and so on.... I think you are the one who is discriminating or just trying to seek attention....

[Queercommie Girl]

I don't support infanticide, I just support Lenin's decision for killing off the entire Tsarist royal family. That was certainly a very special case.

-That's like a rapist saying, well normally I would never do this but it was a special case. You are a psychopath.


So you think Lenin was a psychopath?

Congratulations, comrade! You have really showed your true revolutionary colours, by calling one of the greatest Marxist revolutionaries in history a "psychopath" who practices "infanticide"!

Now while I support Lenin's actions here, it is true that some Leninists are critical of it. But none of them would seem to focus on this single point so much like you do, while ignoring the ultra-oppression and ultra-exploitation the Tsarists have placed upon the Russian people for centuries, and the real danger of a counter-revolution at the time which would bring all of the "old crap" back. In focussing on a a few aristocratic children, you are forgetting the fate of countless millions of poor proletarian children.

Your kind of position is really only shared by liberal bourgeois people or anti-Leninists like the bourgeois historian Figes.



Yeah in a thread talking about transphobia and LGBT issues. Not because someone is disagreeing with you on an entirely different subject in a thread in which no mention had mean made hitherto of LGBT issues. Then you suddenly blurt out-

Or are you just biased against me because I'm transgendered?

-Which I didn't even know- clever kindkind of victim card to set up a strawman... come off it.
It's not a "strawman" since I never accused you directly. In principle I have the right to raise this issue, and if you are not discriminatory, just say you are not, and then this issue is over. I raised this point because you called me a "fascist" for simply stating that religions should not be discriminatory, including not be homophobic/transphobic.



Pathetic. You're dishonest too because I can't believe you would be so stupid to believe anyone here so stupid as to fall for your ploy.
What ploy? You used the term "mob", not me.



Where did I say that? Where were we actually talking about LGBT issues in religions? Could you point that out please? If you actually bothered to look through older threads I have always been against homophobia and actually pointed out where fundamentalist interpretations of religion, at least Biblical, leading to discrimination against LGBT people are in actual fact flawed from a biblical perspective. So that's why I think your shot here is a cheap one, and that's why I say fuck off.
I said I oppose discriminatory religions and you called me a "fascist" just for that.



Lol--- you didn't exactly say that to start with though did you? I asked for a definition of ridiculous and common sense according to logic. You failed to do so. :thumbup1:
I actually defined them as well, which you failed to respond. Then you accused me for being a "fascist" simply because I oppose discriminatory and reactionary religions and a "psychopath" simply because I don't disagree with Lenin's political decision to kill the entire Tsarist family.

It's not good for you just to throw around these personal attacks mindlessly. In fact, it is actually against your own religious ethics.



Why do I discriminate against atheists and so on? Where?
You keep on finding faults in whatever I say simply because I take a very firm materialist position. It gets pretty annoying to be frank after a while.



You are the one who goes round offending religious people like Shariati and saying you'd like to burn down churches and so on.... I think you are the one who is discriminating or just trying to seek attention....
There you go with your baseless accusations again. Why don't you PM Shariati and ask him whether or not he feels offended? I never said religious people should be discriminated against or that they can't be a socialist in the political sense, as long as they don't discriminate against others. Any fundamental disagreements are only philosophical. So what the fuck are you talking about?

I would only potentially burn the churches and temples of those religious people who are very reactionary. If this offends your religious sensibilities then sorry, but it is indeed my political position. This is why unlike you, I do not "shed a tear" when the temples of reactionary Lamas in Tibet are torn down by the Communists.

[Robert]

Communism is not something we believe, but it's something we fight for.Really? I thought you guys were just talkers.

Anyway, the visions I've seen expressed around here of communism don't sound any less implausible than that of pink clouds and harp music of caricatures of heaven. (You think maybe there's a reason communism never works?) And for me, they're worse. I at least like the sound of a harp.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ0qcz9xyN2Mle3jw_GEdy3QZiYYic6H I1HkDZqnKL38cfZ-a0&t=1&usg=__6SS5ScvIqVtplLuVV2EGu6XvE0Q=

[Queercommie Girl]

Really? I thought you guys were just talkers.



No, it's only the commies on this forum that spend too much time talking. :D

[ComradeMan]

@Iseul

So you think Lenin was a psychopath? Congratulations, comrade! You have really showed your true revolutionary colours, by calling one of the greatest Marxist revolutionaries in history a "psychopath" who practices "infanticide"!

- Clever tactic until you are sprung. I notice when someone focuses on a specific issue you generalise (logical fallacy) and when somone talks generally you focus on a specific issue (logical fallacy). This is so you can indeed shift the goal posts continuously in defending your so-called argument all the time. I did not say that Lenin was a pyschopath did I? I said that your quasi-prasing the killing of innocent children was psychopathic along with your other bloodthirsty rants. So stop putting words into people's mouths all the time to attack them with strawmen.

Now while I support Lenin's actions here, it is true that some Leninists are critical of it. But none of them would seem to focus on this single point so much like you do, while ignoring the ultra-oppression and ultra-exploitation the Tsarists have placed upon the Russian people for centuries, and the real danger of a counter-revolution at the time which would bring all of the "old crap" back. In focussing on a a few aristocratic children, you are forgetting the fate of countless millions of poor proletarian children.

- Were the innocent children Tsarists? Was haemophiliac young boy a counter-revolutionary? Hmmmm. Don't think so! It is also interesting to note that the announcement of the execution did not include the family, it only stated that the Tsar had been killed and official Soviet accounts sought seemed to place the "blame" not with Lenin but with the Uralispolkom however Trotsky maintained it was Lenin who gave the order.

-By the way there is a school of thought amongst the left that sees the whole Russian Revolution is a bourgeois revolution that essentially failed....

The Russian revolution was a great disaster for the socialist movement. Initially, of course, it was a powerful shot in the arm for socialists everywhere. Previously they had been talking about the possibility of a socialist society (though, admittedly, they tried hard and long to prove it a scientific certainty). Now, for the first time, they were able to point to the reality. Socialism had arrived in Russia and now it only remained to imitate it elsewhere. But as time passed it became increasingly obvious that something had gone wrong with the revolution. Instead of being the inspiring image of our own future, Russia gradually turned into a squalid class-ridden dictatorship. As purge followed purge, and bureaucrats allocated themselves the best food and housing, the-socialist movement in the West floundered as it sought for explanations for what had gone wrong in Russia.
http://libcom.org/library/fresh-look-lenin-andy-brown

Your kind of position is really only shared by liberal bourgeois people or anti-Leninists like the bourgeois historian Figes.

-So not really at all. Or I suppose you are going to denounce Libcom now as bourgeois???? Ever heard of Miasnikov?

It's not a "strawman" since I never accused you directly. In principle I have the right to raise this issue, and if you are not discriminatory, just say you are not, and then this issue is over. I raised this point because you called me a "fascist" for simply stating that religions should not be discriminatory, including not be homophobic/transphobic.

-Of course you did. Rhetorical question thrown in out of the blue without precendent.... it's an old trick. Who ever said that things only need to be said and done directly?

What ploy? You used the term "mob", not me.

-Do you know what an appeal to the mob means? An appeal to the "plebs in the forum", an attempt to throw out an emotive and potentially charged or loaded comment to divert attention from the argument in hand. Marco Antonio was good at this one.

I said I oppose discriminatory religions and you called me a "fascist" just for that.

- Where did I call you fascist? Please point it out?

I actually defined them as well, which you failed to respond. Then you accused me for being a "fascist" simply because I oppose discriminatory and reactionary religions and a "psychopath" simply because I don't disagree with Lenin's political decision to kill the entire Tsarist family.

-Where? I didn't call you a fascist... please quote me? Your definitions were not definitions at all, they were your opinions.

It's not good for you just to throw around these personal attacks mindlessly. In fact, it is actually against your own religious ethics.

-Who said I had religious ethics? Circumstancial ad hom here again. :thumbup1: They are not personal attacks- show me the personal attacks that were not in response to your attacks....

You keep on finding faults in whatever I say simply because I take a very firm materialist position. It gets pretty annoying to be frank after a while.

-But you don't find a firm materialist position do you? Your arguments don't hold up to any logical analysis.

There you go with your baseless accusations again. Why don't you PM Shariati and ask him whether or not he feels offended? I never said religious people should be discriminated against or that they can't be a socialist in the political sense, as long as they don't discriminate against others. Any fundamental disagreements are only philosophical. So what the fuck are you talking about?

-I don't need to pm Shariati, I read through the thread and read the comments. You said that a Muslim could not be a Marxist, perhaps a socialist, but not a Marxist. They were your words.

I would only potentially burn the churches and temples of those religious people who are very reactionary. If this offends your religious sensibilities then sorry, but it is indeed my political position. This is why unlike you, I do not "shed a tear" when the temples of reactionary Lamas in Tibet are torn down by the Communists.

-What about if someone decided you were reactionary? Would you need to be killed?

-I notice you have inserted the word "potentially" here now.:thumbup1:

-Why would you burn down churches and temples anyway? Why would you alienate people from their own culture too- great way to get the masses on your side. The other point is not really that I am shedding tears for the Lamas of Tibet, more that I was concerned about was has been deemed to be "ethnic cleansing" at best. Apart from the fact that destroying works of art, archaeological sites and places that would indeed be useful for future generations to look back on in an historical sense would be a barbaric act of vandalism... I am by no means a big fan of the Pope and the Vatican as an insitution that does not mean I would want to destroy the Sistine Chapel like some mad Taliban blowing up Buddha statues...

PS Your pseudo-religous zeal for historical materialism ignores the caveat:-

"One has to "leave philosophy aside" (Wigand, p. 187, cf. Hess, Die letzten Philosophen, p. 8), one has to leap out of it and devote oneself like an ordinary man to the study of actuality, for which there exists also an enormous amount of literary material, unknown, of course, to the philosophers... Philosophy and the study of the actual world have the same relation to one another as masturbation and sexual love." (Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The German Ideology, International Publishers, ed. Chris Arthur, p. 103)

[Queercommie Girl]

@Iseul

So you think Lenin was a psychopath? Congratulations, comrade! You have really showed your true revolutionary colours, by calling one of the greatest Marxist revolutionaries in history a "psychopath" who practices "infanticide"!

- Clever tactic until you are sprung. I notice when someone focuses on a specific issue you generalise (logical fallacy) and when somone talks generally you focus on a specific issue (logical fallacy). This is so you can indeed shift the goal posts continuously in defending your so-called argument all the time. I did not say that Lenin was a pyschopath did I? I said that your quasi-prasing the killing of innocent children was psychopathic along with your other bloodthirsty rants. So stop putting words into people's mouths all the time to attack them with strawmen.


I never stated or even indirectly suggested that I support "infanticide" at all actually, so it is you who is using a strawman to attack me here. I explicitly said I don't support infanticide in general, and Lenin's case is a very special case. But you just can't accept what I say.

Stop putting words into my mouth.



Now while I support Lenin's actions here, it is true that some Leninists are critical of it. But none of them would seem to focus on this single point so much like you do, while ignoring the ultra-oppression and ultra-exploitation the Tsarists have placed upon the Russian people for centuries, and the real danger of a counter-revolution at the time which would bring all of the "old crap" back. In focussing on a a few aristocratic children, you are forgetting the fate of countless millions of poor proletarian children.

- Were the innocent children Tsarists? Was haemophiliac young boy a counter-revolutionary? Hmmmm. Don't think so! It is also interesting to note that the announcement of the execution did not include the family, it only stated that the Tsar had been killed and official Soviet accounts sought seemed to place the "blame" not with Lenin but with the Uralispolkom however Trotsky maintained it was Lenin who gave the order.
Why are you focussing on this single issue so much? Revolution never is a "perfect" event, that's an utopian delusion. Are you an absolute pacifist? Do you believe that revolution is possible without any bloodshed?

The key here is that due to their status, it is very easy for counter-revolutionaries like the Whites to rally their forces around Tsarists, which is why Lenin made the decision. It was purely on strategic grounds.



-By the way there is a school of thought amongst the left that sees the whole Russian Revolution is a bourgeois revolution that essentially failed....

The Russian revolution was a great disaster for the socialist movement. Initially, of course, it was a powerful shot in the arm for socialists everywhere. Previously they had been talking about the possibility of a socialist society (though, admittedly, they tried hard and long to prove it a scientific certainty). Now, for the first time, they were able to point to the reality. Socialism had arrived in Russia and now it only remained to imitate it elsewhere. But as time passed it became increasingly obvious that something had gone wrong with the revolution. Instead of being the inspiring image of our own future, Russia gradually turned into a squalid class-ridden dictatorship. As purge followed purge, and bureaucrats allocated themselves the best food and housing, the-socialist movement in the West floundered as it sought for explanations for what had gone wrong in Russia.
http://libcom.org/library/fresh-look-lenin-andy-brown
I'm a Leninist and while Lenin was no saint and made some mistakes too I certainly essentially defend the October Revolution.

You will find that most of the bureaucratic degeneration only started to occur after Lenin.



Your kind of position is really only shared by liberal bourgeois people or anti-Leninists like the bourgeois historian Figes.

-So not really at all. Or I suppose you are going to denounce Libcom now as bourgeois???? Ever heard of Miasnikov?
Most serious Marxists are largely supportive of Lenin. There are many more supporters of Lenin than supporters of Mao or Che. It's contradictory for you to be anti-Lenin but pro-Che. But of course there are detractors everywhere.



Of course you did. Rhetorical question thrown in out of the blue without precendent.... it's an old trick. Who ever said that things only need to be said and done directly?
It's not out of the blue though, because you said I am a "fascist" simply because I oppose discriminatory religions.



What ploy? You used the term "mob", not me.

Do you know what an appeal to the mob means? An appeal to the "plebs in the forum", an attempt to throw out an emotive and potentially charged or loaded comment to divert attention from the argument in hand. Marco Antonio was good at this one.
Yet you fail to recognise the historical context of this saying.

Marxists would certainly be on the side of the "plebs" against the reactionary aristocratic Patrician Order in ancient Rome, rather than ridicule them like this.



I said I oppose discriminatory religions and you called me a "fascist" just for that.

- Where did I call you fascist? Please point it out?
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1915884&postcount=31

I said:

I'm doing no such thing at all, idiot. I have repeatedly stressed that people should have the freedom of belief as long as it's not reactionary (i.e. pro-capitalist) and discriminatory.

You replied:

-People are free to believe what they want so long as it's in line with what you think. That's fascism. (idiot).

I just think religions should not be allowed to be discriminatory (i.e. racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic) or reactionary (i.e. pro-capitalist/pro-imperialist). This is hardly a "personal belief", but an universal principle shared by many on the left, regardless of tendency.

Even liberal bourgeois would understand that people should have freedom only as long as these do not infringe upon the freedom of others. So frankly only a fascist would consider the opposition of "freedoms" that would infringe upon other people's freedoms to be "fascistic" itself.



Where? I didn't call you a fascist... please quote me?
See above.



Your definitions were not definitions at all, they were your opinions.
So disprove me then. You are just saying this because you've ran out of arguments and can't respond to me anymore.



It's not good for you just to throw around these personal attacks mindlessly. In fact, it is actually against your own religious ethics.

Who said I had religious ethics? Circumstancial ad hom here again. :thumbup1:
The only redeeming value of religion is indeed its ethics, if you throw away the beatitudes etc, all you end up is reactionary insane fundamentalist bible-thumping BS.



They are not personal attacks- show me the personal attacks that were not in response to your attacks....
Like calling me a "fascist" simply because I said I oppose discriminatory and reactionary religion.



But you don't find a firm materialist position do you? Your arguments don't hold up to any logical analysis.
You have not able to show me how Historical Materialism is flawed from either an empirical or logical perspective, which is why you are not even responding to me anymore.

Logical analysis? Don't make me laugh. This is coming from someone who believes in a Santa Claus-like "omnipotent god" figure, and Jesus really rose from the dead without any kind of non-circular historical evidence. :rolleyes:



I don't need to pm Shariati, I read through the thread and read the comments. You said that a Muslim could not be a Marxist, perhaps a socialist, but not a Marxist. They were your words.
I said a Muslim could not be a Marxist philosophically, but I didn't say that a Muslim cannot be a Marxist politically. There is a fundamental difference between the two. Since Marx himself was very strongly anti-idealist, my position here is just an objective fact.

And anyhow, I seriously doubt Shariati would ever take your side, given your dubious semi-Zionist views regarding Palestine. Isn't that why you were restricted here in the first place?



What about if someone decided you were reactionary? Would you need to be killed?
But who is saying these things are determined subjectively rather than objectively.

If you support imperialism for instance, then you are a reactionary, that's an objective fact. What is reactionary and what is not is certainly not a subjective construction.

Yes, if one day I actually become an apologist for imperialism, then someone should probably kill me.



I notice you have inserted the word "potentially" here now.:thumbup1:
What insertion? It's obviously "potential" since I'm not burning a church or temple right now am I?



Why would you burn down churches and temples anyway? Why would you alienate people from their own culture too
Who says religions are an integral part of everyone's culture?



The other point is not really that I am shedding tears for the Lamas of Tibet, more that I was concerned about was has been deemed to be "ethnic cleansing" at best.

There was no "ethnic cleansing" in Tibet. Even today in revisionist-capitalist China, with Han and Hui migrating into Tibet and economically marginalising the Tibetans, there is still no "ethnic cleansing" or "genocide". Have you even looked at the socialist sources I've given to you? What kind of socialist are you?



Apart from the fact that destroying works of art, archaeological sites and places that would indeed be useful for future generations to look back on in an historical sense would be a barbaric act of vandalism... I am by no means a big fan of the Pope and the Vatican as an insitution that does not mean I would want to destroy the Sistine Chapel like some mad Taliban blowing up Buddha statues...
I didn't say they should all be destroyed, and actually I don't agree with some of the culturally ultra-leftist policies during the Cultural Revolution, only that the possibility of destruction is open. It depends on the context. You probably wouldn't destroy the Vatican at all, but what if the reactionary priests use it as a base of operations and a spiritual symbol for their counter-revolutionary activities against socialism, like what the Lamas did in Tibet? Then it becomes different. Whether or not these things are "useful" is open to interpretation. It depends on what view you take. One could also argue that it could act as a reactionary seed for revisionism to emerge from. Some "old things" should just be left to literally die out.

[Patchd]

I certainly understand that. But if we are going to be empericial--and MATERIALISTIC, why should YOU be a part in anything I DO.
Because we already live in a community where certain actions of individuals have consequences for others. If you don't like it, fuck off to a cave ... oh no, sorry I forgot they were quite communal too.


If we get to the real bottom of materialistic--there is nothing but me.
No, if we want to take it that far, you don't even matter. You're a tiny speck in the universe.

[ComradeMan]

@Iseul

I never stated or even indirectly suggested that I support "infanticide" at all actually, so it is you who is using a strawman to attack me here. I explicitly said I don't support infanticide in general, and Lenin's case is a very special case. But you just can't accept what I say.
Stop putting words into my mouth.

-You supported the decision to kill the Tsar's children, killing children = infanticide. :thumbup1: Not putting words into anyone's mouth.

Why are you focussing on this single issue so much? Revolution never is a "perfect" event, that's an utopian delusion. Are you an absolute pacifist? Do you believe that revolution is possible without any bloodshed? The key here is that due to their status, it is very easy for counter-revolutionaries like the Whites to rally their forces around Tsarists, which is why Lenin made the decision. It was purely on strategic grounds.

- Still infanticide though wasn't it? Doesn't matter how you choose to dress it up.

I'm a Leninist and while Lenin was no saint and made some mistakes too I certainly essentially defend the October Revolution. You will find that most of the bureaucratic degeneration only started to occur after Lenin. Most serious Marxists are largely supportive of Lenin. There are many more supporters of Lenin than supporters of Mao or Che. It's contradictory for you to be anti-Lenin but pro-Che. But of course there are detractors everywhere.

- No it isn't. It's the same reason why I can like some food and not others. It's the same reason why I can say "Marx was right here.." but maybe "wrong there.."-- It's called independent thought, not the hive mind.

It's not out of the blue though, because you said I am a "fascist" simply because I oppose discriminatory religions.

- Where did I say you are a fascist- please show me? Stop lying.

Yet you fail to recognise the historical context of this saying. Marxists would certainly be on the side of the "plebs" against the reactionary aristocratic Patrician Order in ancient Rome, rather than ridicule them like this.

-An "appeal to the plebs" in the forum or an "appeal to the mob" is a device in debating "style", it hasn't got anything to with whether I would have been down with the Gracchi.... groan.... :crying: BTW the Patricians upheld the Republic whereas the plebs were largely responsible for the support the Caesar's had and the birth of the Imperial system. But applying all of this to ancient Rome would be a subject for a different thread. The plebs and the patricians were pretty damn reactionary on both sides.

I said:

I'm doing no such thing at all, idiot. I have repeatedly stressed that people should have the freedom of belief as long as it's not reactionary (i.e. pro-capitalist) and discriminatory.

You replied:

-People are free to believe what they want so long as it's in line with what you think. That's fascism. (idiot).

- I wasn't calling YOU a fascist was I? I was saying that stating people are free to believe in something so long as.... is a typical fascist sentiment. It's also a complete contradiction in terms. It's a bit like Henry Ford's "any colour as long as it's black"- duh.

I just think religions should not be allowed to be discriminatory (i.e. racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic) or reactionary (i.e. pro-capitalist/pro-imperialist). This is hardly a "personal belief", but an universal principle shared by many on the left, regardless of tendency.

- Right... most people would agree with you... what's your point? We weren't discussing the content of religious belief were we?

Even liberal bourgeois would understand that people should have freedom only as long as these do not infringe upon the freedom of others. So frankly only a fascist would consider the opposition of "freedoms" that would infringe upon other people's freedoms to be "fascistic" itself.

- So your burning down churches does not infringe on other people's freedom? Your attacks on Shariati (which I notice you have watered down after the fact) do not infringe on his freedom to be a Muslim. You contradict yourself with your own words.

So disprove me then. You are just saying this because you've ran out of arguments and can't respond to me anymore.

- I don't have to disprove anyone. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. The original point was that a claim was made, i.e. "ridiculous" and I asked someone to define "ridiculous" in an objective manner- which it can't because it's subjective! DUH! You then made appeals to common sense- which is a logical fallacy in an argument.

The only redeeming value of religion is indeed its ethics, if you throw away the beatitudes etc, all you end up is reactionary insane fundamentalist bible-thumping BS.

- Why? Do all people who are religious thump the Bible? Sweeping generalisations again- logical fallacies. I wonder if Hindus thump the Bible? Yet again you talk about what narrow facet of religion.

Like calling me a "fascist" simply because I said I oppose discriminatory and reactionary religion.

- Didn't really say that though did I champ?

You have not able to show me how Historical Materialism is flawed from either an empirical or logical perspective, which is why you are not even responding to me anymore.

-Were we actually discussing the pros and cons of historical materialism? Where's Rosa...?

I quote again...

"One has to "leave philosophy aside" (Wigand, p. 187, cf. Hess, Die letzten Philosophen, p. 8), one has to leap out of it and devote oneself like an ordinary man to the study of actuality, for which there exists also an enormous amount of literary material, unknown, of course, to the philosophers... Philosophy and the study of the actual world have the same relation to one another as masturbation and sexual love." (Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The German Ideology, International Publishers, ed. Chris Arthur, p. 103)

-Historical materialism is an approach, a philosophy- it's not a grand theory of history- which I think Marx pointed out and so did Engels- thought you would have known that.... being a Marxist and all.

Logical analysis? Don't make me laugh. This is coming from someone who believes in a Santa Claus-like "omnipotent god" figure, and Jesus really rose from the dead without any kind of non-circular historical evidence. :rolleyes:

- Do I? Did I ever say that? Where? Circumstancial ad hominems again and again. That is the most pathetic strawman I think I have ever seen on RevLeft. Anyone who is remotely spiritual or believes there might well be a higher plane of existance--- fundamentally believes in Santa Claus?.:thumbup1:

I said a Muslim could not be a Marxist philosophically, but I didn't say that a Muslim cannot be a Marxist politically. There is a fundamental difference between the two. Since Marx himself was very strongly anti-idealist, my position here is just an objective fact.

-LOL!!!!!!!!!!! Seeing as Marxism is a political philosophy that's more or less saying the same thing isn't it? :lol::lol::lol::lol: How can you be a Marxist politically if you are not one philosophically- please explain?

And anyhow, I seriously doubt Shariati would ever take your side, given your dubious semi-Zionist views regarding Palestine. Isn't that why you were restricted here in the first place?

- What semi-Zionist views regarding Palestine? More strawmen. I seem to recall you saying that you believe in the right of Israel to exist and that you had argued with Shariati about that too- hmmm... many people, certainly here, would consider that pretty damn Zionist. LOL!!!!! :lol::lol:

But who is saying these things are determined subjectively rather than objectively.If you support imperialism for instance, then you are a reactionary, that's an objective fact. What is reactionary and what is not is certainly not a subjective construction.

- You support, defend and apologise for Chinese imperialism in Tibet. So you are reactionary by your own definition.

Yes, if one day I actually become an apologist for imperialism, then someone should probably kill me.

- You are being psychopathic again.... Killing people does not kill the idea. You can kill a tree but you cannot kill the idea of a tree.

What insertion? It's obviously "potential" since I'm not burning a church or temple right now am I?

-Well in your little rant a couple of weeks ago in OI: Religion you seemed pretty direct and I don't recall your use of the word "potential".

Who says religions are an integral part of everyone's culture?

-No one, but then who says that a lot of people's spirituality is not an integral part of their lives and culture?

There was no "ethnic cleansing" in Tibet. Even today in revisionist-capitalist China, with Han and Hui migrating into Tibet and economically marginalising the Tibetans, there is still no "ethnic cleansing" or "genocide". Have you even looked at the socialist sources I've given to you? What kind of socialist are you?

- Go to Libcom and read up a bit- I think they spoke about it somewhere or other and described what China was doing as ethnic cleansing and the facts about Tibet seem to support the view.

I didn't say they should all be destroyed, and actually I don't agree with some of the culturally ultra-leftist policies during the Cultural Revolution, only that the possibility of destruction is open. It depends on the context. You probably wouldn't destroy the Vatican at all, but what if the reactionary priests use it as a base of operations and a spiritual symbol for their counter-revolutionary activities against socialism, like what the Lamas did in Tibet? Then it becomes different. Whether or not these things are "useful" is open to interpretation. It depends on what view you take. One could also argue that it could act as a reactionary seed for revisionism to emerge from. Some "old things" should just be left to literally die out.

- Exactly- left to go the way of nature. And stop bringing this argument to Lamas all the time. We are not talking exclusively about Lamas. But you refuse to look at the facts and stats....

[Queercommie Girl]

@Iseul

I never stated or even indirectly suggested that I support "infanticide" at all actually, so it is you who is using a strawman to attack me here. I explicitly said I don't support infanticide in general, and Lenin's case is a very special case. But you just can't accept what I say.
Stop putting words into my mouth.

-You supported the decision to kill the Tsar's children, killing children = infanticide. :thumbup1: Not putting words into anyone's mouth.

Why are you focussing on this single issue so much? Revolution never is a "perfect" event, that's an utopian delusion. Are you an absolute pacifist? Do you believe that revolution is possible without any bloodshed? The key here is that due to their status, it is very easy for counter-revolutionaries like the Whites to rally their forces around Tsarists, which is why Lenin made the decision. It was purely on strategic grounds.

- Still infanticide though wasn't it? Doesn't matter how you choose to dress it up.


So what? I said I don't support infanticide in general, only in very special cases such as this. How many children around the world are Tsarist princes I wonder?

It implies I don't rule out the possibility of killing children for political reasons in an idealistic a priori manner. I reject idealistic ethics, period. Ethical principles are never "absolute". If you think this makes me a "monster", then well so be it. I don't give a damn about your Western-style liberal bourgeois sensibilities.



No it isn't. It's the same reason why I can like some food and not others. It's the same reason why I can say "Marx was right here.." but maybe "wrong there.."-- It's called independent thought, not the hive mind.


It depends on how much disagreements you have though. If you literally consider the October Revolution to be fundamentally a "bourgeois revolution" rather than a proletarian one, then you are not a Leninist.



It's not out of the blue though, because you said I am a "fascist" simply because I oppose discriminatory religions.

- Where did I say you are a fascist- please show me? Stop lying.


I showed you already. You said my views that reactionary and discriminatory types of religions should be opposed are "fascistic" in nature. How is that so different from calling me a fascist?



Yet you fail to recognise the historical context of this saying. Marxists would certainly be on the side of the "plebs" against the reactionary aristocratic Patrician Order in ancient Rome, rather than ridicule them like this.

-An "appeal to the plebs" in the forum or an "appeal to the mob" is a device in debating "style", it hasn't got anything to with whether I would have been down with the Gracchi.... groan.... :crying: BTW the Patricians upheld the Republic whereas the plebs were largely responsible for the support the Caesar's had and the birth of the Imperial system. But applying all of this to ancient Rome would be a subject for a different thread. The plebs and the patricians were pretty damn reactionary on both sides.


Not really. If you read a Marxist account of Roman history, like Harman's A People's History of the World, it clearly suggests that the plebs were more progressive relatively speaking. Of course, no-one is suggesting they were "socialists", but an aristocratic "republic" that benefits mainly the rich and large landowners is clearly more reactionary than a centralised state that economically cater more for the needs of the poor. Economic interests come before political democracy for Marxists. Better an equal totalitarian state than an unequal democratic one. This is why Engels believed that a politically unified Germany was clearly superior to when Germany was still divided into various feudal lords, and why Mao (and Chris Harman as well) believed that the unification of China under the Qin dynasty was superior to when China was divided into regions ruled by various slave-lord aristocrats.



I said:

I'm doing no such thing at all, idiot. I have repeatedly stressed that people should have the freedom of belief as long as it's not reactionary (i.e. pro-capitalist) and discriminatory.

You replied:

-People are free to believe what they want so long as it's in line with what you think. That's fascism. (idiot).

- I wasn't calling YOU a fascist was I? I was saying that stating people are free to believe in something so long as.... is a typical fascist sentiment. It's also a complete contradiction in terms. It's a bit like Henry Ford's "any colour as long as it's black"- duh.


That's ridiculous, because you knew what I meant, which is that religions shouldn't be allowed to be discriminatory and reactionary. If I said for instance "people are free to believe in something as long as it's not transphobic" for instance, how is that "fascist" at all?

By the way, you are using the term "fascist" too liberally. Henry Ford is certainly not a fascist strictly speaking.



I just think religions should not be allowed to be discriminatory (i.e. racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic) or reactionary (i.e. pro-capitalist/pro-imperialist). This is hardly a "personal belief", but an universal principle shared by many on the left, regardless of tendency.

- Right... most people would agree with you... what's your point? We weren't discussing the content of religious belief were we?


I said "people should have the freedom of belief as long as it's not reactionary (i.e. pro-capitalist) and discriminatory", and you accused me for being "fascist". So I explained what I meant by this statement, to further clarify it, which is that religions should not be pro-capitalist or racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic.

Either you completely misunderstood me or you are deliberately misrepresenting what I'm saying.



Even liberal bourgeois would understand that people should have freedom only as long as these do not infringe upon the freedom of others. So frankly only a fascist would consider the opposition of "freedoms" that would infringe upon other people's freedoms to be "fascistic" itself.

So your burning down churches does not infringe on other people's freedom?


I said I would only "burn down the churches" of reactionaries. Since they have already infringed on other people's freedoms, a bit of revenge on them is not wrong.



Your attacks on Shariati (which I notice you have watered down after the fact) do not infringe on his freedom to be a Muslim. You contradict yourself with your own words.


You are truly a fucking idiot, reactionary scum. I've never attacked Shariati in any way since I've never suggested that Muslims should be systematically discriminated in political, social and cultural ways. If I think philosophically Islam is incompatible with Marxism, that is my right to do so, because I have the right to be a very explicit materialist.

Lenin was also a militant materialist philosophically, but he also supported the freedom of belief. So unless you also consider Lenin to be an Islamophobe just because he was philosophically explicitly atheist and materialist, I suggest you shut up.



So disprove me then. You are just saying this because you've ran out of arguments and can't respond to me anymore.

I don't have to disprove anyone. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. The original point was that a claim was made, i.e. "ridiculous" and I asked someone to define "ridiculous" in an objective manner- which it can't because it's subjective! DUH! You then made appeals to common sense- which is a logical fallacy in an argument.


How the fuck is "appealing to common sense" a logical fallacy when your "appeals" to subjective existentialism as a basis for religious faith is not?

How is the belief in a literally "omnipotent god" not ridiculous? The burden of proof is on you to show that God actually exists. Seriously, you claim to be so logically based, so prove that God exists.

Also, prove that Jesus actually rose from the dead, which is the central empirical evidence for your religion, without using non-circular historical evidence.

I say religions like yours are ridiculous because you can't prove it, either by logic or empiricism. So to refute me you need to come up with evidence for your religious belief. If you say it's only based on "subjective existentialism" then you are contradicting yourself. Because on the one hand you are denying that "appealing to common sense" is logically valid, but on the other hand you are completely relying on non-logical existential arguments for the most central tenets of your entire belief system. How the fuck is that any better than the so-called "appeals to common sense" which you seem to be against so much?



The only redeeming value of religion is indeed its ethics, if you throw away the beatitudes etc, all you end up is reactionary insane fundamentalist bible-thumping BS.

- Why? Do all people who are religious thump the Bible? Sweeping generalisations again- logical fallacies. I wonder if Hindus thump the Bible? Yet again you talk about what narrow facet of religion.


My point is that the only positive features of religions in general, not just Christianity, are that they tell people to do good things. If you take away all of that, then all you are left with is fundamentalist insanity. And this doesn't just apply to Christianity.



Like calling me a "fascist" simply because I said I oppose discriminatory and reactionary religion.

Didn't really say that though did I champ?


You considered what I said to be fascist even though all I said is that religions should not be reactionary or discriminatory.



You have not able to show me how Historical Materialism is flawed from either an empirical or logical perspective, which is why you are not even responding to me anymore.

-Were we actually discussing the pros and cons of historical materialism? Where's Rosa...?


Rosa was against dialectical materialism, not historical materialism. I told you this already. And even so her view is among a small minority within the Marxist camp.

It is from the perspective of Historical Materialism that religions are considered to be ridiculous, that is why it is relevant.

Religions are ridiculous because you can't prove it, either logically or empirically, it's as simple as that. You can only appeal to "faith" or "existentialism", but in your case you can't even do that because you claim to believe in very strict logic and don't consider "appeals to common sense" to be valid. If "appeals to common sense" are not valid logically, then why the hell is "existentialism" logically valid? What exactly is the "logic" of "existentialism".

You are frankly even worse than the orthodox theologians who at least attempt to find a formal ontological proof for the existence of God. You don't even try.



Logical analysis? Don't make me laugh. This is coming from someone who believes in a Santa Claus-like "omnipotent god" figure, and Jesus really rose from the dead without any kind of non-circular historical evidence. :rolleyes:

Do I? Did I ever say that? Where? Circumstancial ad hominems again and again. That is the most pathetic strawman I think I have ever seen on RevLeft. Anyone who is remotely spiritual or believes there might well be a higher plane of existance--- fundamentally believes in Santa Claus?.:thumbup1:


I said "Santa Claus" - like, not "Santa Claus". My point is that God is a purely mythical figure. And don't dodge the issue. The key point here is that you are not able to offer any kind of real proof for either the existence of God or the more specific Christian doctrine that Jesus is supposed to be the "Son of God". You can't even reach the level of the orthodox theologians of the past who at least attempt to offer an ontological proof for God's existence, or the Christian evangelicals who write an entire book to attempt to justify the historical claim that Jesus really rose from the dead from an empirical perspective. At least they take their own beliefs seriously. You just totally dodge the issue pathetically like a worthless coward with your ridiculous appeals to "existentialism".



I said a Muslim could not be a Marxist philosophically, but I didn't say that a Muslim cannot be a Marxist politically. There is a fundamental difference between the two. Since Marx himself was very strongly anti-idealist, my position here is just an objective fact.

-LOL!!!!!!!!!!! Seeing as Marxism is a political philosophy that's more or less saying the same thing isn't it? :lol::lol::lol::lol: How can you be a Marxist politically if you are not one philosophically- please explain?


It means I don't advocate removing Muslims or other religious people from socialist and communist parties, so they can be communist party members in the concrete political sense, but it doesn't mean I will accept that Marxism is not fundamentally an anti-idealist philosophy.



And anyhow, I seriously doubt Shariati would ever take your side, given your dubious semi-Zionist views regarding Palestine. Isn't that why you were restricted here in the first place?

- What semi-Zionist views regarding Palestine? More strawmen. I seem to recall you saying that you believe in the right of Israel to exist and that you had argued with Shariati about that too- hmmm... many people, certainly here, would consider that pretty damn Zionist. LOL!!!!! :lol::lol:


The reason why you are restricted. If it were just a strawman, then why has the restriction not been removed yet? :rolleyes:

The only thing I said was that I don't believe in the complete destruction of Israel, or terrorism against Jewish civilians. I however do support explicit terrorism against the Israeli ruling class. That's certainly not "Zionism" at all.



But who is saying these things are determined subjectively rather than objectively.If you support imperialism for instance, then you are a reactionary, that's an objective fact. What is reactionary and what is not is certainly not a subjective construction.

- You support, defend and apologise for Chinese imperialism in Tibet. So you are reactionary by your own definition.


I don't support capitalist China as it stands now. I've told you this so many times I think you must be either really dumb or deliberately dodging the issues.

If you call Maoist China imperialist, then you are taking a reactionary point of view. Since Maoist China wasn't even capitalist, so how can it be imperialist? Marxists believe that imperialism is a variant of capitalism. Maoists liberated Tibetan masses from the serfdom-slavery of Tibetan Lamaist theocracy. You are on the side of the Tibetan Lamas against the Maoists, so that makes you a reactionary.

Maoist China is totally different from China today. Understand?



Yes, if one day I actually become an apologist for imperialism, then someone should probably kill me.

- You are being psychopathic again.... Killing people does not kill the idea. You can kill a tree but you cannot kill the idea of a tree.


In many cases physically neutralising someone is the most effective way of removing reaction. It depends on the context.

It seems you are an absolute pacifist or something. Do you deny that people might get killed in a revolution?



What insertion? It's obviously "potential" since I'm not burning a church or temple right now am I?

-Well in your little rant a couple of weeks ago in OI: Religion you seemed pretty direct and I don't recall your use of the word "potential".


But was I ever actually burning anything? No. I just said it. That's what I mean by "potentially".

By the way, you are more reactionary than I thought if you take the side of that worthless piece of shit "Conquer or Die". You might not be a religious fundamentalist, but he is. You might not be homophobic and transphobic, but he is a borderline transphobe who has harassed me before. He even admits one of the reasons for his restriction is related to transphobia. If you don't believe me, read his profile and his conversation with others.



There was no "ethnic cleansing" in Tibet. Even today in revisionist-capitalist China, with Han and Hui migrating into Tibet and economically marginalising the Tibetans, there is still no "ethnic cleansing" or "genocide". Have you even looked at the socialist sources I've given to you? What kind of socialist are you?

- Go to Libcom and read up a bit- I think they spoke about it somewhere or other and described what China was doing as ethnic cleansing and the facts about Tibet seem to support the view.


Why don't you read the sources I have given you first and see if you can refute it, which I don't think you can.

"Ethnic cleansing" or "genocide" is a very specific term. Just because some people died doesn't mean it is a "genocide".

If you think the Maoists in Tibet conducted a "genocide" then that means you must be an anti-Maoist?

Being a Maoist doesn't mean you agree with everything Mao did. I certainly don't and indeed I don't even call myself an orthodox Maoist. But at some point you'd have to draw a line. If you are against Mao to the extent of calling the Maoists in Tibet a literal "genocide", then you must be an anti-Maoist without question.



I didn't say they should all be destroyed, and actually I don't agree with some of the culturally ultra-leftist policies during the Cultural Revolution, only that the possibility of destruction is open. It depends on the context. You probably wouldn't destroy the Vatican at all, but what if the reactionary priests use it as a base of operations and a spiritual symbol for their counter-revolutionary activities against socialism, like what the Lamas did in Tibet? Then it becomes different. Whether or not these things are "useful" is open to interpretation. It depends on what view you take. One could also argue that it could act as a reactionary seed for revisionism to emerge from. Some "old things" should just be left to literally die out.

- Exactly- left to go the way of nature. And stop bringing this argument to Lamas all the time. We are not talking exclusively about Lamas. But you refuse to look at the facts and stats....

I brought up the Lamas because our arguments revolved around Tibet. And the Tibetan Lamas are a good example of reactionary theocrats who actually engaged in direct military counter-revolutionary activity rather than just being reactionary theoretically.

[ComradeMan]

@Iseul

So what? I said I don't support infanticide in general, only in very special cases such as this. How many children around the world are Tsarist princes I wonder?

- That's like saying I don't support rape in general- for fuck's sakes- do you realise the logical consequences of your arguments?

It implies I don't rule out the possibility of killing children for political reasons in an idealistic a priori manner. I reject idealistic ethics, period. Ethical principles are never "absolute". If you think this makes me a "monster", then well so be it. I don't give a damn about your Western-style liberal bourgeois sensibilities.

-Infanticide- what the fuck is the political reason to kill children?- You are a monster. It's not being idealistic- and hell, if I am idealistic for not wanting to kill children- well then, guilty as accused!!!!!! Déjenme decirles, a riesgo de parecer ridículo, que el revolucionario verdadero está guiado por grandes sentimientos de amor! - pretty idealistic. What's with all this "you are a Western bourgeois liberal shit too"- you live in London! LOL!!!!

It depends on how much disagreements you have though. If you literally consider the October Revolution to be fundamentally a "bourgeois revolution" rather than a proletarian one, then you are not a Leninist.

- Well ... hello.... I wouldn't really define myself as a Leninist. The October Revolution, according to many on the Left, was a miserable failure by socialist standards and did more harm to socialism that many other things. :thumbup1:

I showed you already. You said my views that reactionary and discriminatory types of religions should be opposed are "fascistic" in nature. How is that so different from calling me a fascist?

-No I picked up on one of your comments and said that it was a fascistic argument- that's not the same as calling you a fascist is it champ? :thumbup1:

Not really. If you read a Marxist account of Roman history, like Harman's A People's History of the World, it clearly suggests that the plebs were more progressive relatively speaking. Of course, no-one is suggesting they were "socialists", but an aristocratic "republic" that benefits mainly the rich and large landowners is clearly more reactionary than a centralised state that economically cater more for the needs of the poor. Economic interests come before political democracy for Marxists. Better an equal totalitarian state than an unequal democratic one. This is why Engels believed that a politically unified Germany was clearly superior to when Germany was still divided into various feudal lords, and why Mao (and Chris Harman as well) believed that the unification of China under the Qin dynasty was superior to when China was divided into regions ruled by various slave-lord aristocrats.

-Well if you studied Roman History, Latin and literature you would see that is a load of nonsense. Sure, the plebeian movements may have been considered progressive for their time in comparison to patrician movements but at the same time it was the patricians who upheld the Republic (albeit for their own selfish motives) whereas populist plebeian movements led to the despotism of the Empire... Nero, Caligula, etc etc etc and no real material gains for the plebeians whatsoever. It is in my opion anachronistic to try and say the plebeian movements were "socialist" or progressive in any modern sense of the word. But like I said, that would make an interesting debate for another thread- it's not the theme here and it does not change the fact that the "appeal to the plebs" with the analogy of Marco Antonio does not mean taking a stance on Roman social history.

That's ridiculous, because you knew what I meant, which is that religions shouldn't be allowed to be discriminatory and reactionary. If I said for instance "people are free to believe in something as long as it's not transphobic" for instance, how is that "fascist" at all? By the way, you are using the term "fascist" too liberally. Henry Ford is certainly not a fascist strictly speaking.

-Of course, but you are arguing against the wind here because no one was saying they should be. Stop trying to bring other issues into your already weak arguments.

-BTW Henry Ford was a Nazi sympathiser- "The International Jew, the World's Foremost Problem," by Henry Ford....:thumbup1:

I said "people should have the freedom of belief as long as it's not reactionary (i.e. pro-capitalist) and discriminatory", and you accused me for being "fascist". So I explained what I meant by this statement, to further clarify it, which is that religions should not be pro-capitalist or racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic. Either you completely misunderstood me or you are deliberately misrepresenting what I'm saying.

- You hate religion it seems without qualifying your comments and then when confronted with counter-arguments to your extremely violent stance you suddenly retreat into a "reasonable" position and denounce those countering some of your arguments as reactionaries and failing that proceed with a lot of foul abuse...

I said I would only "burn down the churches" of reactionaries. Since they have already infringed on other people's freedoms, a bit of revenge on them is not wrong.

-But you didn't say that exactly did you? How would you decide whose churches were reactionary and not? How could you prove that?

You are truly a fucking idiot, reactionary scum. I've never attacked Shariati in any way since I've never suggested that Muslims should be systematically discriminated in political, social and cultural ways. If I think philosophically Islam is incompatible with Marxism, that is my right to do so, because I have the right to be a very explicit materialist.

- More flaming---- stop throwing your toys out of the cot and take responsibility for your own words. You said that he could not be a Marxist and a Muslim, you said that! They were your words... sorry if that is uncomfortable for you, but, hell- you said it. Then you tried to back out with some bullshit about he could not be philosophically a Marxist but politically- when Marxism just so happens to be a "poltical philosophy"- thus making a complete fool out of yourself with your own argument. No one said that you suggested Muslims should be discriminated against- but what you did do was basically to discriminate against him, as a Muslim, because of his religious belief.

Lenin was also a militant materialist philosophically, but he also supported the freedom of belief. So unless you also consider Lenin to be an Islamophobe just because he was philosophically explicitly atheist and materialist, I suggest you shut up.

- More strawmen.... I didn't call you an Islamophobe, but if the cap fits as they say... Nice try though? ;) I suggest you shut up. However you did, perhaps unwittingly, discriminate against Shariati with your own words- as stated above. I notice too that you have gone sneakily to his profile accusing me of things that are downright untrue in a cowardly and sneaky attempt to save your face.

How the fuck is "appealing to common sense" a logical fallacy when your "appeals" to subjective existentialism as a basis for religious faith is not?

- Define common sense? It's a well-known logical fallacy, look it up.


-Albert Einstein pointed out that "common sense" was the collection of prejudices acquired by the age of 18, i.e. the result of the logical fallacies to which we have become accustomed over generations. When applied to politics and/or ethics, as I believe you are attempting to do, "common sense" serves only to entrench prejudices even further and other contingent products of social inculcation. It is related/connected to the classical fallacy of the argumentum ad populum.

How is the belief in a literally "omnipotent god" not ridiculous? The burden of proof is on you to show that God actually exists. Seriously, you claim to be so logically based, so prove that God exists.

-Define ridiculous and we can talk about it. Was I trying to prove God exists? Where did I go around saying God exists prove me wrong? Just show me...

-Gödel's ontological proof...:lol: Now Gödel's proof is problematic too from a logical point of view but it makes an elegant equation. But you see at the end of the day it's a load of philosophical hot air in my opinion anyway. If you prove God exists then faith disappears, without faith "God" is nothing.

-You don't seem to understand the difference between knowing a fact, believing and faith- they are not all the same you know. Someone saying that they believe in something is not the same as someone saying they know that water boils at 100c at sea level. Get it? We could bring Wittgenstein into this too if you want but I am afraid Rosa might highjack the whole thread.... :lol:

Also, prove that Jesus actually rose from the dead, which is the central empirical evidence for your religion, without using non-circular historical evidence.

- What is my religion? You don't know what my spiritual beliefs are anyway- you are making a vast assumption here too.

- Naughty, naughty- who's making a priori statements now?

- BTW You are wrong on that count too. Christianity, as I understand it, asks for faith and condemns "seeking signs" and "demands for proof" because that fundamentally shows a lack of faith.

- You were the one who also said that if Christ suddenly appeared it would not validate Christianity... LOL!!! But, wait for it.. could be put down to some superior alien intelligence- of which you of course have no evidence.

I say religions like yours are ridiculous because you can't prove it, either by logic or empiricism. So to refute me you need to come up with evidence for your religious belief. If you say it's only based on "subjective existentialism" then you are contradicting yourself. Because on the one hand you are denying that "appealing to common sense" is logically valid, but on the other hand you are completely relying on non-logical existential arguments for the most central tenets of your entire belief system. How the fuck is that any better than the so-called "appeals to common sense" which you seem to be against so much?

- What is my religion? What are my spiritual beliefs? Did you even bother to ask before you set off on your ranting? No, you didn't.

- You don't know what my beliefs are nor can you define what you mean by ridiculous:thumbup1: So how can you say "religions like yours" ??? You just blindly shoot your mouth off without thinking.... oh dear.... You don't seem to be able to separate a debate from that which is being debated.

My point is that the only positive features of religions in general, not just Christianity, are that they tell people to do good things. If you take away all of that, then all you are left with is fundamentalist insanity. And this doesn't just apply to Christianity.

- Like Jainism perhaps? An atheistic religion? If you take all the "positive" things out of what Marx wrote you are left with some pretty damn reactionary and racist materials too.... In fact if you take the "positive" things out of most areas you are not left with much else other than the fucking negative! DUH

-Define what you mean by positive, without being subjective of course.

You considered what I said to be fascist even though all I said is that religions should not be reactionary or discriminatory.

- No because you were actually not really talking about that were you? You were just spouting on about burning down churches and thus forcing your beliefs on others.

Rosa was against dialectical materialism, not historical materialism. I told you this already. And even so her view is among a small minority within the Marxist camp.

- Stalin: "Historical materialism is the extension of the principles of dialectical materialism to the study of social life, an application of the principles of dialectical materialism to the phenomena of the life of society, to the study of society and of its history"- thus if dialectical materialism doesn't work then historical materialism is flawed.

- Is she wrong? There you go again with that hive mind thing too... appeals to the consensus, just because her view is a minority view does not make it wrong. By your "logic" you are wrong because I bet most of the world does not agree with you do they?

- Don't you think attempting to apply historical materialism to ahistorical arguments of inner-spirituality and faith a bit like trying to fry in water? :thumbup1:

It is from the perspective of Historical Materialism that religions are considered to be ridiculous, that is why it is relevant.

- Define ridiculous.

Religions are ridiculous because you can't prove it, either logically or empirically, it's as simple as that. You can only appeal to "faith" or "existentialism", but in your case you can't even do that because you claim to believe in very strict logic and don't consider "appeals to common sense" to be valid. If "appeals to common sense" are not valid logically, then why the hell is "existentialism" logically valid? What exactly is the "logic" of "existentialism".

-LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How does the sun work? Can you prove it?:lol:

- Can you prove that Chomsky's Language Acquisition Device exists? Ooops--- general theory of linguisitcs goes out of the window on "materialistic" basis. Are you saying that Chomsky is now irrational and ridiculous?

-Here's another one- a lot of transpeople speak of feeling like a man/woman "trapped" in man/woman's body. Where is the biological, empirical evidence for this? Although there has been some progress in the areas of transgender biology giving us some clues and possibilities as to the scientific reasons of transgenderism there is to the best of my knowledge no conclusive or concrete evidence that explains transgenderism from a scientific point of view. Therefore if a transperson, using your materialistic approach, says they feel like they are a man/woman "trapped" in a man/woman's body- would some not argue that it is existential? Where's the proof? Where is the biological proof of this? It was these same scientific approaches that had transpeople branded as having a "disorder" for years wasn't it? That was the application of biology and science though.

(Disclaimer- I don't have a problem with trans-people before anyone starts and personally don't care if it's nature, nurture or something else- people are free to live their lives how they want as long as they don't harm others.)

You are frankly even worse than the orthodox theologians who at least attempt to find a formal ontological proof for the existence of God. You don't even try.

- See the faith argument- see what the problems with ontological proofs are too.... Have you never thought that in my own existential reality I don't need to find proof, because perhaps I have faith in something and as long as I don't try to convince someone else that I am right and this is what to believe then it's fine? Have you not thought that the whole damn concept of spirituality or religious belief or that unexplainable something "else" is a product of the mind of man, which is the product of biological man and thus is a natural condition of being, just like someone's personal lifestyle choice? Never thought of that?

I said "Santa Claus" - like, not "Santa Claus". My point is that God is a purely mythical figure. And don't dodge the issue. The key point here is that you are not able to offer any kind of real proof for either the existence of God or the more specific Christian doctrine that Jesus is supposed to be the "Son of God".

- Define God. What is myth? What is the Christian interpretation of the Son of God? See points above.

You can't even reach the level of the orthodox theologians of the past who at least attempt to offer an ontological proof for God's existence, or the Christian evangelicals who write an entire book to attempt to justify the historical claim that Jesus really rose from the dead from an empirical perspective. At least they take their own beliefs seriously. You just totally dodge the issue pathetically like a worthless coward with your ridiculous appeals to "existentialism".

- More strawmen. More flaming... it's not an appeal to existentialism. I am not appealing to anything. Define ridiculous please...

It means I don't advocate removing Muslims or other religious people from socialist and communist parties, so they can be communist party members in the concrete political sense, but it doesn't mean I will accept that Marxism is not fundamentally an anti-idealist philosophy.

-Well Hegel has been accused of being idealistic. In fact anything that takes a philosophical a priori stance could be accused of idealism. But philosophy is about thinking.... yeah? You're taking this all too far and going against Marx's own warnings...

The reason why you are restricted. If it were just a strawman, then why has the restriction not been removed yet? :rolleyes:

- The reason I was restricted was for an argument about the UN actually. I thought a hardened historical materialist would at least get their historical facts straight. I was not restricted for Zionism nor for Islamophobia, seeing as I am neither a Zionist or an Islamophobe- two categories which you, albeit subconsciously, more easily fall in to.

-You can't resist ad hom attacks can you? Even if I were restricted for this, for that or the other- would it change the fact that your arguments are full of logical fallacies and pitfalls? Well done- another fallacy- the genetic fallacy!

The only thing I said was that I don't believe in the complete destruction of Israel, or terrorism against Jewish civilians. I however do support explicit terrorism against the Israeli ruling class. That's certainly not "Zionism" at all.

- LOL!! Well your position would be enough for some here to describe you as a Zionist. Israel is a state, and therefore as a revolutionary marxist you should not really support states should you? Hmmm.... reactionary???? BTW not all people/civilians in Israel are Jewish, there are Muslims, Christians, Druze and atheists. This comment shows who narrowminded and binary your vision is.

I don't support capitalist China as it stands now. I've told you this so many times I think you must be either really dumb or deliberately dodging the issues.

- I didn't ask whether you supported capitalist China now did I? I was talking about what China has been doing in Tibet and you went into some kind of denial about the whole thing... stop shifting the goal posts.

If you call Maoist China imperialist, then you are taking a reactionary point of view. Since Maoist China wasn't even capitalist, so how can it be imperialist? Marxists believe that imperialism is a variant of capitalism. Maoists liberated Tibetan masses from the serfdom-slavery of Tibetan Lamaist theocracy. You are on the side of the Tibetan Lamas against the Maoists, so that makes you a reactionary.

-You don't know what imperialism means do you? Let me help...

The Dictionary of Human Geography: "the creation and maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination."

Before you spout Lenin's definition of Imperialism, remember that Lenin was writing in 1915... before the Soviet Union and before Mao's China.

Have a look here too...
http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=8084

Revel, not necessarily a socialist did make an astute observation with the following however...

[1976] Jean-François Revel, La Tentation Totalitaire, Éditions Robert Laffont, Paris, 1976

- "Si vous avez l'Etat-nation, vous avez l'impérialisme qui en découle comme une nécessité, sans distinction de systèmes politiques. Et les plus forts des Etats-nations sont les plus impérialistes, en vertu d'une loi de physique politique à laquelle je ne vois aucune exception dans l'Histoire. Si vous voulez détruire l'impérialisme, vous devez en détruire la source : l'Etat-nation." (p. 365)
- "Aussi longtemps que le monde sera divisé en nations, il y aura toujours une de ces nations dont le tour viendra d'être économiquement et militairement dominante. L'illusion nationaliste consiste à croire que, pour dissocier la politique mondiale du phénomène impérialiste, il faut d'abord se débarrasser de cette nation-là, et non point de l'Etat-nation en général." (p. 378)

Maoist China is totally different from China today. Understand?

- What's that got to do with the original point in the OP? Israel Today and China Today.... Get it?

In many cases physically neutralising someone is the most effective way of removing reaction. It depends on the context.

- I love the unspeak here- "physically neutralising"- killing in other words.

It seems you are an absolute pacifist or something. Do you deny that people might get killed in a revolution?

- No I don't deny that people would be killed, but that is not to be celebrated and should be avoided. The greatest warrior wins the battle without drawing his sword....

But was I ever actually burning anything? No. I just said it. That's what I mean by "potentially".

- Well you stated your intentions fairly clearly.

By the way, you are more reactionary than I thought if you take the side of that worthless piece of shit "Conquer or Die". You might not be a religious fundamentalist, but he is. You might not be homophobic and transphobic, but he is a borderline transphobe who has harassed me before. He even admits one of the reasons for his restriction is related to transphobia. If you don't believe me, read his profile and his conversation with others.

- I don't take anyone's side... what a childish argument. Grow up!!! If you feel you have been harassed here at RevLeft then take it up with Admin. But how am I to know what your personal issues are with users here? Am I supposed to be the fucking KGB? LOL!!!!!! Whatever your issue with that member then take it up in the relevant way, and if this is true then of course I don't support this member's behaviour. What has that got to do with this thread though?

Why don't you read the sources I have given you first and see if you can refute it, which I don't think you can.

"Ethnic cleansing" or "genocide" is a very specific term. Just because some people died doesn't mean it is a "genocide".

-LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1.2 million people = "some people".

- Ethnic cleansing is a cowardly invention of unspeak, I have already explained why it was invented, to avoid the legal onus of intervention in the case of genocide.

If you think the Maoists in Tibet conducted a "genocide" then that means you must be an anti-Maoist?

- More binary thinking. Cuba doesn't have a very good record on LGBT issues does it? Castro calling people "marricones" etc, I don't support that but it doesn't mean that everyone here in the Solidarity With Cuba group is a homophobe does it?

Being a Maoist doesn't mean you agree with everything Mao did. I certainly don't and indeed I don't even call myself an orthodox Maoist. But at some point you'd have to draw a line. If you are against Mao to the extent of calling the Maoists in Tibet a literal "genocide", then you must be an anti-Maoist without question.

- You however are not totally against the existence of a state of Israel? Hmmm.... you must be a Zionist then by your logic.

I brought up the Lamas because our arguments revolved around Tibet. And the Tibetan Lamas are a good example of reactionary theocrats who actually engaged in direct military counter-revolutionary activity rather than just being reactionary theoretically.

- Right okay, but Tibet is not a country with 6 million Lamas, what about the rest? Hmmmm?

EDIT- Since writing this I have gone back throught he posts and looked at the Conquer or Die issue- yes, I agree with you he is out of line and there may well be cause for concern, I see you also sent me a message about him. I suggest you take it up with the relevant authorities. At the same time, your issue is with him as an asshole, if you suddenly decide that any or every religious person or spiritual person is reactionary and thus in retaliation you are going to burn down their churches etc etc etc it does not really paint you in a good light does it?

[Queercommie Girl]

@Iseul

So what? I said I don't support infanticide in general, only in very special cases such as this. How many children around the world are Tsarist princes I wonder?

- That's like saying I don't support rape in general- for fuck's sakes- do you realise the logical consequences of your arguments?


I don't follow idealistic ethics, that's something you don't understand. As far as I'm concerned, "good" and "evil" in the general abstract sense simply don't exist. Morality and ethics are socio-economic constructions, which means they cannot be separated from class analysis.



It implies I don't rule out the possibility of killing children for political reasons in an idealistic a priori manner. I reject idealistic ethics, period. Ethical principles are never "absolute". If you think this makes me a "monster", then well so be it. I don't give a damn about your Western-style liberal bourgeois sensibilities.

-Infanticide- what the fuck is the political reason to kill children?- You are a monster. It's not being idealistic- and hell, if I am idealistic for not wanting to kill children- well then, guilty as accused!!!!!! Déjenme decirles, a riesgo de parecer ridículo, que el revolucionario verdadero está guiado por grandes sentimientos de amor! - pretty idealistic. What's with all this "you are a Western bourgeois liberal shit too"- you live in London! LOL!!!!
I may live in London, but culturally and ethnically I am not a Westerner. Stop assume everyone else follows your Eurocentric paradigms.

If a white Englishman lives in Beijing, does that imply he must be "Chinese ethnically and culturally"? No.

The logical implication of what you said here is that "Lenin is a monster". Note that I have never said I will kill anyone personally at all, I simply said I agree with Lenin's political decisions. So if I'm a "monster" for simply agreeing with Lenin's decisions, then logically Lenin would be an even greater "monster" for carrying out those decisions surely?

But then there are many Leninists who also agree with him here. Why not go after all of them too and rant emotionally that "they are all monsters"? Why just pick on me personally?

They killed entire aristocratic families during the capitalist French Revolution too, much more so than Lenin did. Does this mean you oppose the capitalist French Revolution and stand on the side of the reactionary feudal landlord class just because you can't bear to see blood?



It depends on how much disagreements you have though. If you literally consider the October Revolution to be fundamentally a "bourgeois revolution" rather than a proletarian one, then you are not a Leninist.

- Well ... hello.... I wouldn't really define myself as a Leninist. The October Revolution, according to many on the Left, was a miserable failure by socialist standards and did more harm to socialism that many other things. :thumbup1:
Then as far as I am concerned you are a reactionary. I don't worship Lenin and I agree he made mistakes, but I consider explicit anti-Leninism to be reactionary. My main ideological influences come from Maoism and Trotskyism, both of which are explicitly pro-Leninist.



I showed you already. You said my views that reactionary and discriminatory types of religions should be opposed are "fascistic" in nature. How is that so different from calling me a fascist?

-No I picked up on one of your comments and said that it was a fascistic argument- that's not the same as calling you a fascist is it champ? :thumbup1:
How is stating that reactionary and discriminatory religions should be opposed "fascistic" in any way? How is that a "fascistic" argument at all?



Not really. If you read a Marxist account of Roman history, like Harman's A People's History of the World, it clearly suggests that the plebs were more progressive relatively speaking. Of course, no-one is suggesting they were "socialists", but an aristocratic "republic" that benefits mainly the rich and large landowners is clearly more reactionary than a centralised state that economically cater more for the needs of the poor. Economic interests come before political democracy for Marxists. Better an equal totalitarian state than an unequal democratic one. This is why Engels believed that a politically unified Germany was clearly superior to when Germany was still divided into various feudal lords, and why Mao (and Chris Harman as well) believed that the unification of China under the Qin dynasty was superior to when China was divided into regions ruled by various slave-lord aristocrats.

-Well if you studied Roman History, Latin and literature you would see that is a load of nonsense. Sure, the plebeian movements may have been considered progressive for their time in comparison to patrician movements but at the same time it was the patricians who upheld the Republic (albeit for their own selfish motives) whereas populist plebeian movements led to the despotism of the Empire... Nero, Caligula, etc etc etc and no real material gains for the plebeians whatsoever. It is in my opion anachronistic to try and say the plebeian movements were "socialist" or progressive in any modern sense of the word. But like I said, that would make an interesting debate for another thread- it's not the theme here and it does not change the fact that the "appeal to the plebs" with the analogy of Marco Antonio does not mean taking a stance on Roman social history.
You must know nothing about the French Revolution then. All genuine Marxists consider the French Revolution to be clearly progressive, and the plebian sans-culottes played the most progressive role during this event. Although the sans-culottes were not proletarians in the modern sense of the word, they were the most progressive, as well as the most oppressed layer in society. There is a direct analogy between the ancient Roman plebians and the French sans-culottes, which is why they are commonly referred to as "plebian".

But then someone like you probably wouldn't support the French Revolution because you would find its massacre of the feudal aristocracy to be too "distasteful" and "bloody". You would probably join the ranks of the right-wing bourgeois historians and label the sans-culottes as "terrorists".

I told you supporting a "republic" doesn't by itself mean much. an extremely unequal aristocratic republic is more reactionary than a much more economically equal populist empire. Economic equality comes before abstract "democracy" for Marxists, which is why we don't support bourgeois democracy.

Of course, genuine Marxists ideally fight for a system that is both economically equal and politically democratic. But hypothetically suppose we can have only one of the two then actually economic equality is more important because "base determines superstructure". "One person, one vote" doesn't bring about any real equality between a multi-billionnaire and an unemployed worker, does it? Obviously in reality the two are always linked. Like the deformed worker's states didn't have sufficient democracy so in the end they all went back to capitalism. But deformed worker's states are still objectively better than Western capitalist states.



That's ridiculous, because you knew what I meant, which is that religions shouldn't be allowed to be discriminatory and reactionary. If I said for instance "people are free to believe in something as long as it's not transphobic" for instance, how is that "fascist" at all? By the way, you are using the term "fascist" too liberally. Henry Ford is certainly not a fascist strictly speaking.

-Of course, but you are arguing against the wind here because no one was saying they should be. Stop trying to bring other issues into your already weak arguments.
But after I made that statement, you immediately jumped the gun and called it "fascist". If you just think it is irrelevant, why couldn't you have simply ignored it?

You seem to like "arguing for the sake of arguing" and attacking other people personally. What a waste of time you are.



-BTW Henry Ford was a Nazi sympathiser- "The International Jew, the World's Foremost Problem," by Henry Ford....:thumbup1:
That doesn't make his statement "fascist". In Marxism these are all strict terms, you are just using the loose liberal definition.



I said "people should have the freedom of belief as long as it's not reactionary (i.e. pro-capitalist) and discriminatory", and you accused me for being "fascist". So I explained what I meant by this statement, to further clarify it, which is that religions should not be pro-capitalist or racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic. Either you completely misunderstood me or you are deliberately misrepresenting what I'm saying.

- You hate religion it seems without qualifying your comments and then when confronted with counter-arguments to your extremely violent stance you suddenly retreat into a "reasonable" position and denounce those countering some of your arguments as reactionaries and failing that proceed with a lot of foul abuse...
Another pathetic strawman. When did I ever say I hate religions? Did I not repeatedly say that even though I am a firm atheist (and somewhat of an "evangelical materialist"), I support people's freedom of belief?



I said I would only "burn down the churches" of reactionaries. Since they have already infringed on other people's freedoms, a bit of revenge on them is not wrong.

-But you didn't say that exactly did you? How would you decide whose churches were reactionary and not? How could you prove that?
Actually if you follow the context of that particular conversation, which I assume you didn't, you would realise that I did not make a general comment, but was only referring to reactionary instances of religions.

It was a hypothetical point. Which means there is no point in trying to work out exactly how we "judge" them to be reactionary. I just mentioned a few general points as guidelines.

Just to stress this again: Yes I am an evangelical materialist, which means not only do I firmly believe in materialism, I also try to convince other people to believe in it. But I support the freedom of belief in general, and since I oppose bureaucratism I do not think atheism can be imposed in a top-down bureaucratic fashion. People can only be convinced of the validity of materialism through gradual education.



You are truly a fucking idiot, reactionary scum. I've never attacked Shariati in any way since I've never suggested that Muslims should be systematically discriminated in political, social and cultural ways. If I think philosophically Islam is incompatible with Marxism, that is my right to do so, because I have the right to be a very explicit materialist.

- More flaming---- stop throwing your toys out of the cot and take responsibility for your own words. You said that he could not be a Marxist and a Muslim, you said that!
Yes, and I said philosophically. Marx himself would have said the same thing, so how is it discriminatory in any way?

Seriously, stop accusing me completely groundlessly. This is getting out of order. You are also misrepresenting Shariati by claiming that he is offended by what I said, whereas in reality he isn't.



They were your words... sorry if that is uncomfortable for you, but, hell- you said it. Then you tried to back out with some bullshit about he could not be philosophically a Marxist but politically- when Marxism just so happens to be a "poltical philosophy"- thus making a complete fool out of yourself with your own argument. No one said that you suggested Muslims should be discriminated against- but what you did do was basically to discriminate against him, as a Muslim, because of his religious belief.
You are truly a dumbass. If I say theism and idealism are incompatible with Marxism objectively in the philosophical sense, that is not discrimination at all. Discrimination would imply I advocate banning religious people from entering communist and socialist parties, which I don't.



Lenin was also a militant materialist philosophically, but he also supported the freedom of belief. So unless you also consider Lenin to be an Islamophobe just because he was philosophically explicitly atheist and materialist, I suggest you shut up.

- More strawmen.... I didn't call you an Islamophobe, but if the cap fits as they say... Nice try though? ;) I suggest you shut up. However you did, perhaps unwittingly, discriminate against Shariati with your own words- as stated above. I notice too that you have gone sneakily to his profile accusing me of things that are downright untrue in a cowardly and sneaky attempt to save your face.
I have never attacked Shariati at all. How can you just assume that he felt offended by what I said? Can you read his mind or something?

The point still stands: Lenin also believed that Islam is incompatible with Marxism philosophically, but politically he clearly allowed Muslims to join the Communist Party. So is this "discrimination" or not?

By the way, the only reason I've told him that is because you are doing something very bad by bringing him into this. He has absolutely nothing to do with the debates in this thread, and you have no right to mention him here. You are misrepresenting him by claiming that he was offended by what I said, but clearly he was not.



How the fuck is "appealing to common sense" a logical fallacy when your "appeals" to subjective existentialism as a basis for religious faith is not?

- Define common sense? It's a well-known logical fallacy, look it up.


-Albert Einstein pointed out that "common sense" was the collection of prejudices acquired by the age of 18, i.e. the result of the logical fallacies to which we have become accustomed over generations. When applied to politics and/or ethics, as I believe you are attempting to do, "common sense" serves only to entrench prejudices even further and other contingent products of social inculcation. It is related/connected to the classical fallacy of the argumentum ad populum.




I already defined it. Look at an earlier post in this thread.

Existentialism is in fact just "common sense" applied at an individual level.




How is the belief in a literally "omnipotent god" not ridiculous? The burden of proof is on you to show that God actually exists. Seriously, you claim to be so logically based, so prove that God exists.

-Define ridiculous and we can talk about it. Was I trying to prove God exists? Where did I go around saying God exists prove me wrong? Just show me...
Ridiculous = believing in something without any evidence at all, especially when it is a central belief in one's life.



-Gödel's ontological proof...:lol: Now Gödel's proof is problematic too from a logical point of view but it makes an elegant equation. But you see at the end of the day it's a load of philosophical hot air in my opinion anyway. If you prove God exists then faith disappears, without faith "God" is nothing.
Obviously I think the ontological proof is invalid. However, I have more respect for that than your non-existent "blind faith" and "subjective existentialism".

Blind faith = believing in something without even attempting to justify it logically or empirically.



-You don't seem to understand the difference between knowing a fact, believing and faith- they are not all the same you know. Someone saying that they believe in something is not the same as someone saying they know that water boils at 100c at sea level. Get it? We could bring Wittgenstein into this too if you want but I am afraid Rosa might highjack the whole thread.... :lol:
You are trying to claim that the "faith in God" is non-epistemological. But that in itself is a logical fallacy.




You are wrong on that count too. Christianity, as I understand it, asks for faith and condemns "seeking signs" and "demands for proof" because that fundamentally shows a lack of faith.
That's blind faith. Blind faith = believing in things or asking people to believe in things without even attempting to justify them logically or empirically. That's one of the things I really don't appreciate about faith-centric religions. Indeed, even some evangelical Christians have more sense than you in this. They actually write a detailed book trying to justify Jesus rising from the dead using what they claim to be "historical evidence". Now they are obviously mistaken but I have more respects for them due to their efforts than I have for you.

What you are saying is that we should just believe literally in the existence of an "omnipotent God" as well as someone actually rising from the dead simply on the basis of blind faith. If people believed in other things, like UFOs, simply on the basis of blind faith, you would call them mad, why would we make a special case for monotheistic religions?



- You were the one who also said that if Christ suddenly appeared it would not validate Christianity... LOL!!! But, wait for it.. could be put down to some superior alien intelligence- of which you of course have no evidence.
Eh...did I ever claim that any of the proposed "evidence" for UFOs, aliens etc are actually scientifically valid? No. I said they fail as a matter of evidence.

But of course according to the materialist theory of the universe, in principle it is far more probable for there to be intelligent alien intelligences than for there to be a literally "omnipotent" God. Try to define "omnipotence" scientifically and quantitatively for a start. What does it actually mean? Having infinite mass or energy? Having infinite informational complexity? What exactly is "omnipotent" except just being an ill-defined buzz word?

As for Christ, yes I did say that, but frankly there is no need to even go to that step, since you can't even provide any evidence for his supposed "rising from the dead" at all.

The problem with Christianity is three-fold:

1) you can't prove that an "omnipotent" God exists.
2) you can't prove that Jesus really rose from the dead.
3) you can't prove that even if Jesus rose from the dead, he really is identical to the "omnipotent" God, as Christian theology claims.



I say religions like yours are ridiculous because you can't prove it, either by logic or empiricism. So to refute me you need to come up with evidence for your religious belief. If you say it's only based on "subjective existentialism" then you are contradicting yourself. Because on the one hand you are denying that "appealing to common sense" is logically valid, but on the other hand you are completely relying on non-logical existential arguments for the most central tenets of your entire belief system. How the fuck is that any better than the so-called "appeals to common sense" which you seem to be against so much?

- What is my religion? What are my spiritual beliefs? Did you even bother to ask before you set off on your ranting? No, you didn't.

- You don't know what my beliefs are nor can you define what you mean by ridiculous:thumbup1: So how can you say "religions like yours" ??? You just blindly shoot your mouth off without thinking.... oh dear.... You don't seem to be able to separate a debate from that which is being debated.
I already defined "ridiculous". Look at an earlier post in this thread.

But here it is again: ridiculous = believe in something without any logical or empirical evidence.

(Religions are often very reactionary too, that's also why they are ridiculous, but let's leave that aside for now)

Ok, I don't know exactly what your personal beliefs are since you never explicitly told me. But really, it doesn't matter. All religions, Christianity, Buddhism, anything, rely on doctrines they can't prove.



My point is that the only positive features of religions in general, not just Christianity, are that they tell people to do good things. If you take away all of that, then all you are left with is fundamentalist insanity. And this doesn't just apply to Christianity.

- Like Jainism perhaps? An atheistic religion? If you take all the "positive" things out of what Marx wrote you are left with some pretty damn reactionary and racist materials too.... In fact if you take the "positive" things out of most areas you are not left with much else other than the fucking negative! DUH

-Define what you mean by positive, without being subjective of course.
I said the "positive aspects" are the ethical aspects in religions which tell people to do good things, which is apparently something you don't understand too well since you like to viciously and groundlessly attack other people without reason. I wasn't just referring to "positive aspects" as an empty category. Actually read what I said.

E.g. the Golden Rule: "Do not to do others what you don't want others to do to you" (Confucianism) or "Love others as yourself" (Christianity). That's positive. Fundamentalist bible-thumping is not.



You considered what I said to be fascist even though all I said is that religions should not be reactionary or discriminatory.

- No because you were actually not really talking about that were you? You were just spouting on about burning down churches and thus forcing your beliefs on others.
No I was actually talking about that. You must have completely misread. If you read the context of when I made that argument, it was only after Conquer or Die told me he would "murder me in cold blood" just because I said reactionary religions should be opposed.

Don't misrepresent me.

I mean seriously, if you can think I'm "psychotic" just because I said I agree with Lenin's decision to kill the Tsarist family, how can you not consider his statement to "murder me in cold blood" to be psychotic? Just because he is a "fellow religious person" so you let him off for that? Is that what your religion (whatever it is) teaches you?

If you want people to respect your beliefs more, here is my advice to you: stop telling people all these abstract useless theological beliefs, but actually do good things, actively help other people, be considerate and just, then when people see you are truly virtuous then they will naturally and automatically be drawn to your beliefs.

On the other hand, the more you act like how you act now, the less people will be attracted to you and your beliefs.



Rosa was against dialectical materialism, not historical materialism. I told you this already. And even so her view is among a small minority within the Marxist camp.

- Stalin: "Historical materialism is the extension of the principles of dialectical materialism to the study of social life, an application of the principles of dialectical materialism to the phenomena of the life of society, to the study of society and of its history"- thus if dialectical materialism doesn't work then historical materialism is flawed.
Not really. Rosa's views are flawed anyway, but most of those who oppose dialectical materialism don't actually oppose the historical materialist way of analysing class and society by Marxism. (E.g. S.Artesian here on RevLeft) What they oppose is the reliance on "dialectics" as a purely abstract logical category without any empirical reference, because that's just like imposing a certain category on reality, which is not scientific.

Rosa's views may be more extreme but the vast majority of Marxists disagree with her.



- Is she wrong? There you go again with that hive mind thing too... appeals to the consensus, just because her view is a minority view does not make it wrong. By your "logic" you are wrong because I bet most of the world does not agree with you do they?
I don't think you understand Rosa's position, to be frank. Her position is certainly extreme, but she does not oppose the standard Marxist method of class analysis, which is central to Marxism, just the abstract application of "dialectical logic" on concrete empirical situations.

Her views are flawed, but not completely wrong.



- Don't you think attempting to apply historical materialism to ahistorical arguments of inner-spirituality and faith a bit like trying to fry in water? :thumbup1:
Everything is historical, because everything in existence is framed by Time, including individual human lives in the personal sense.

Your argument is basically that "I'm prepared to be logical and scientific in everything else except my 'personal' belief in God".



It is from the perspective of Historical Materialism that religions are considered to be ridiculous, that is why it is relevant.

- Define ridiculous.
I already did many times. Look it up. Gosh you are truly annoying as hell.



Religions are ridiculous because you can't prove it, either logically or empirically, it's as simple as that. You can only appeal to "faith" or "existentialism", but in your case you can't even do that because you claim to believe in very strict logic and don't consider "appeals to common sense" to be valid. If "appeals to common sense" are not valid logically, then why the hell is "existentialism" logically valid? What exactly is the "logic" of "existentialism".

-LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How does the sun work? Can you prove it?:lol:
I don't have a degree in astrophysics, but I can refer you to the relevant scientific sources if you are interested.

Short answer: nuclear fusion.



- Can you prove that Chomsky's Language Acquisition Device exists? Ooops--- general theory of linguisitcs goes out of the window on "materialistic" basis. Are you saying that Chomsky is now irrational and ridiculous?
I don't necessarily agree with certain claims of mainstream linguistic theory, like the idea that "language determines thought", which is clearly idealistic drivel.

But the difference between rational idealism and your kind of blind faith is simply that at least they make a very serious attempt to justify their ideas scientifically, (and of course there are always disputes in science) whereas you don't even try.



-Here's another one- a lot of transpeople speak of feeling like a man/woman "trapped" in man/woman's body. Where is the biological, empirical evidence for this? Although there has been some progress in the areas of transgender biology giving us some clues and possibilities as to the scientific reasons of transgenderism there is to the best of my knowledge no conclusive or concrete evidence that explains transgenderism from a scientific point of view.
There are actually some scientific evidence for transgenderism, and it looks like it will improve in the future.

Science can't explain everything, but it explains more and more as time goes on.



Therefore if a transperson, using your materialistic approach, says they feel like they are a man/woman "trapped" in a man/woman's body- would some not argue that it is existential? Where's the proof? Where is the biological proof of this? It was these same scientific approaches that had transpeople branded as having a "disorder" for years wasn't it? That was the application of biology and science though.
Well, transgenderism doesn't necessarily involve feelings of "being trapped in the wrong body" etc in the "existential sense". It can just be a matter of subjective choice.



(Disclaimer- I don't have a problem with trans-people before anyone starts and personally don't care if it's nature, nurture or something else- people are free to live their lives how they want as long as they don't harm others.)
Fair enough on this. I agree. Like I said, it is unfortunately that you misunderstood me, because I am not anti-religion.

Philosophically, I am "anti-religion" since I am a materialist, but in the concrete sense I have always said that I defend people's freedom of belief and I don't discriminate against any religious people in any way as long as they don't discriminate against others and don't support reactionary socio-economic structures. This is a matter of political principle for me and I take it quite seriously.



You are frankly even worse than the orthodox theologians who at least attempt to find a formal ontological proof for the existence of God. You don't even try.

- See the faith argument- see what the problems with ontological proofs are too.... Have you never thought that in my own existential reality I don't need to find proof, because perhaps I have faith in something and as long as I don't try to convince someone else that I am right and this is what to believe then it's fine? Have you not thought that the whole damn concept of spirituality or religious belief or that unexplainable something "else" is a product of the mind of man, which is the product of biological man and thus is a natural condition of being, just like someone's personal lifestyle choice? Never thought of that?
I don't force you or anyone to become an atheist. As I said I support everyone's freedom of belief.

But since we are debating here, well I am an evangelical materialist, so I try to convince other people to become materialists too.



I said "Santa Claus" - like, not "Santa Claus". My point is that God is a purely mythical figure. And don't dodge the issue. The key point here is that you are not able to offer any kind of real proof for either the existence of God or the more specific Christian doctrine that Jesus is supposed to be the "Son of God".

- Define God. What is myth? What is the Christian interpretation of the Son of God? See points above.
That's half the problem actually. How can you really believe in something which you can't even define? Objectively, what exactly is it that you are believing in?

It's your God, you define it.



You can't even reach the level of the orthodox theologians of the past who at least attempt to offer an ontological proof for God's existence, or the Christian evangelicals who write an entire book to attempt to justify the historical claim that Jesus really rose from the dead from an empirical perspective. At least they take their own beliefs seriously. You just totally dodge the issue pathetically like a worthless coward with your ridiculous appeals to "existentialism".

- More strawmen. More flaming... it's not an appeal to existentialism. I am not appealing to anything. Define ridiculous please...
For the last time:

Ridiculous = belief without evidence or proof



It means I don't advocate removing Muslims or other religious people from socialist and communist parties, so they can be communist party members in the concrete political sense, but it doesn't mean I will accept that Marxism is not fundamentally an anti-idealist philosophy.

-Well Hegel has been accused of being idealistic. In fact anything that takes a philosophical a priori stance could be accused of idealism. But philosophy is about thinking.... yeah? You're taking this all too far and going against Marx's own warnings...
Marx is against Hegel too, obviously.

Theism is not the only type of idealism. Confucianism is also idealistic even though it can be either theistic or atheistic.

But the key here is that if I philosophically disagree with religious socialists, that does not constitute discrimination in any way. If I actually try to kick religious people out of political parties, or culturally discriminate against them, then yes that would be discrimination, but I don't advocate that at all. In fact I oppose it.

Please, stop misrepresenting me, when you haven't understood my points.



The reason why you are restricted.[/q If it were just a strawman, then why has the restriction not been removed yet? :rolleyes:

- The reason I was restricted was for an argument about the UN actually. I thought a hardened historical materialist would at least get their historical facts straight. I was not restricted for Zionism nor for Islamophobia, seeing as I am neither a Zionist or an Islamophobe- two categories which you, albeit subconsciously, more easily fall in to.
Stop accusing me groundlessly.

Unless you think "believing that philosophically Islam is not compatible with Marxism = Islamophobia", then you have absolutely no evidence for this at all, so shut up.

And how the hell am I a Zionist? Just because I take the interests of Israeli workers into account, and don't call for the removal of the entire Israeli state without Israeli workers agreeing to it, and don't support terrorism against civilians. I actually do support terrorist action against the Israeli ruling class and army. So is this what you call "Zionism"? LOL :laugh::laugh:

Psycho told me you were restricted for borderline Islamophobia, and he is a senior admin. I trust him more than I trust you on this.



-You can't resist ad hom attacks can you? Even if I were restricted for this, for that or the other- would it change the fact that your arguments are full of logical fallacies and pitfalls? Well done- another fallacy- the genetic fallacy!
What fallacies? You still haven't shown exactly how my arguments are logically invalid. I define terms for you, but you just pretend not to see them.

How can someone like you who totally rely on blind faith accuse me for being illogical? Are you kidding me? LOL :laugh:



The only thing I said was that I don't believe in the complete destruction of Israel, or terrorism against Jewish civilians. I however do support explicit terrorism against the Israeli ruling class. That's certainly not "Zionism" at all.

- LOL!! Well your position would be enough for some here to describe you as a Zionist. Israel is a state, and therefore as a revolutionary marxist you should not really support states should you? Hmmm.... reactionary???? BTW not all people/civilians in Israel are Jewish, there are Muslims, Christians, Druze and atheists. This comment shows who narrowminded and binary your vision is.
Now you are just arguing for the sake for arguing mindlessly.

I meant I don't support the complete destruction of the Israeli nation-state, given that the Israeli working class also has a say in this matter. It doesn't mean I support the Israeli state machine as it exists now which is why I'm opposed to the ruling class of Israel.

Yeah, I specifically mentioned Jewish civilians because that's who the Islamic terrorists sometimes target on. Does this mean I ignore civilians of other ethnicities? Of course not. Do I have to mention all of the ethnicities in Israel everytime I mention one of them? No. Since you accused me for being a Zionist (a ridiculous standpoint), I'm just describing my stance to you with respect to Israel, which is why I just mentioned Jewish civilians here.

I don't think any Marxist would call me a "Zionist" for these. My stance on Israel is similar to the stance of the Trotskyist organisation CWI for instance.



I don't support capitalist China as it stands now. I've told you this so many times I think you must be either really dumb or deliberately dodging the issues.

- I didn't ask whether you supported capitalist China now did I? I was talking about what China has been doing in Tibet and you went into some kind of denial about the whole thing... stop shifting the goal posts.
There isn't a singular "China", so please clarify what you are talking about. Are you talking about Maoist China or post-Maoist China?



If you call Maoist China imperialist, then you are taking a reactionary point of view. Since Maoist China wasn't even capitalist, so how can it be imperialist? Marxists believe that imperialism is a variant of capitalism. Maoists liberated Tibetan masses from the serfdom-slavery of Tibetan Lamaist theocracy. You are on the side of the Tibetan Lamas against the Maoists, so that makes you a reactionary.

-You don't know what imperialism means do you? Let me help...

The Dictionary of Human Geography: "the creation and maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination."
That's not the Marxist definition. And there was no real inequality in Tibet in Mao's era. And a socialist state, even a deformed one, is certainly not an empire.

So objectively you are standing on the side of the Lamaists.



Before you spout Lenin's definition of Imperialism, remember that Lenin was writing in 1915... before the Soviet Union and before Mao's China.
So? Lenin's general theory applies even today.



Have a look here too...
http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=8084
I'm not an anarchist, but I never said I support Mao 100%. There were deformations in the system and he made mistakes. But certainly relatively speaking, Maoist Tibet was superior and more progressive to Lamaist Tibet.

Maybe you should ask the Tibetan serfs who were liberated from landlordism what they thought.

And look at the sources I've given you in the other thread on Tibet. Only one of them is Maoist, and even that one is not an orthodox Maoist source.



Maoist China is totally different from China today. Understand?

- What's that got to do with the original point in the OP? Israel Today and China Today.... Get it?
I already said, I think China's actions in Tibet now constitute semi-colonialism. Do you ever read anything I say?

But it's certainly not as bad as in Israel. There is no systematic discrimination in China. Objectively the Tibetans are being marginalised economically due to capitalist competition, but there is no systematic discrimination, let alone "genocide", against them.



In many cases physically neutralising someone is the most effective way of removing reaction. It depends on the context.

- I love the unspeak here- "physically neutralising"- killing in other words.

It seems you are an absolute pacifist or something. Do you deny that people might get killed in a revolution?

- No I don't deny that people would be killed, but that is not to be celebrated and should be avoided. The greatest warrior wins the battle without drawing his sword....
I don't "celebrate" violence. However I believe absolute pacifism is fundamentally incompatible with revolutionary socialism. But I follow Lenin and Mao here, celebrating violence is wrong, it should be minimised, but when it is required, do it with careful strategic consideration and efficiency. You might think the phrase "physically neutralising" sounds too cold, but it certainly fits the context.

As Mao said, even in a revolutionary situation, most reactionaries would not need to be killed, and many can be won over.



But was I ever actually burning anything? No. I just said it. That's what I mean by "potentially".

- Well you stated your intentions fairly clearly.
But was I planning anything? No. It was completely hypothetical.



By the way, you are more reactionary than I thought if you take the side of that worthless piece of shit "Conquer or Die". You might not be a religious fundamentalist, but he is. You might not be homophobic and transphobic, but he is a borderline transphobe who has harassed me before. He even admits one of the reasons for his restriction is related to transphobia. If you don't believe me, read his profile and his conversation with others.

- I don't take anyone's side... what a childish argument. Grow up!!! If you feel you have been harassed here at RevLeft then take it up with Admin. But how am I to know what your personal issues are with users here? Am I supposed to be the fucking KGB? LOL!!!!!! Whatever your issue with that member then take it up in the relevant way, and if this is true then of course I don't support this member's behaviour. What has that got to do with this thread though?
Heh...a pro-tip and advice for you: don't jump the gun in an argument. That's childish. I never was asking you to be an admin or mod. In fact, Conquer or Die was already restricted for something related to transphobia before.

I mentioned this because you failed to understand the context of when I said I would "burn down the churches of reactionaries".

I only said that after he explicitly said he would "murder me in cold blood" - a very childish line of course, but he only said this because I said I oppose reactionary and discriminatory religions, nothing more.

Since here in this thread you've repeatedly accused me groundlessly for being "anti-religious" even after I told you about this context (another pro-tip for you: never judge anything prematurely without considering its actual context), so naturally I think you might be on his side. I'm not accusing you, just trying to advise you not to take his side, that's all.



Why don't you read the sources I have given you first and see if you can refute it, which I don't think you can.

"Ethnic cleansing" or "genocide" is a very specific term. Just because some people died doesn't mean it is a "genocide".

-LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1.2 million people = "some people".

- Ethnic cleansing is a cowardly invention of unspeak, I have already explained why it was invented, to avoid the legal onus of intervention in the case of genocide.
Even China's actions in Tibet today, while objectively semi-colonial, do not constitute "genocide". I'm sorry, but Marxists take these terms seriously. We don't just throw them around like liberals do.



If you think the Maoists in Tibet conducted a "genocide" then that means you must be an anti-Maoist?

- More binary thinking. Cuba doesn't have a very good record on LGBT issues does it? Castro calling people "marricones" etc, I don't support that but it doesn't mean that everyone here in the Solidarity With Cuba group is a homophobe does it?
Actually Castro has changed his mind now. He has openly apologised for his homophobia in the past, now Cuba has a relatively good policy for both gay and trans people.

But this isn't the same as the Tibetan case. Castro never committed a genocide against LGBT people. Sure, they were discriminated against in some ways, but it's light-years apart from what you are trying to claim for Maoist Tibet...

I mean, sure, I don't agree with Mao on a lot of things, but I really can't see how one can still be partially a Maoist while actually claiming that Lamaist Tibet was better than Maoist Tibet.



Being a Maoist doesn't mean you agree with everything Mao did. I certainly don't and indeed I don't even call myself an orthodox Maoist. But at some point you'd have to draw a line. If you are against Mao to the extent of calling the Maoists in Tibet a literal "genocide", then you must be an anti-Maoist without question.

- You however are not totally against the existence of a state of Israel? Hmmm.... you must be a Zionist then by your logic.
The Trotskyist CWI agrees with my line on Israel, so do a lot of other Marxists. So I guess all of us are now "Zionists"? :rolleyes:



I brought up the Lamas because our arguments revolved around Tibet. And the Tibetan Lamas are a good example of reactionary theocrats who actually engaged in direct military counter-revolutionary activity rather than just being reactionary theoretically.

- Right okay, but Tibet is not a country with 6 million Lamas, what about the rest? Hmmmm?
Eh...do you think the Maoists suppressed everyone in Tibet??



EDIT- Since writing this I have gone back throught he posts and looked at the Conquer or Die issue- yes, I agree with you he is out of line and there may well be cause for concern, I see you also sent me a message about him. I suggest you take it up with the relevant authorities. At the same time, your issue is with him as an asshole, if you suddenly decide that any or every religious person or spiritual person is reactionary and thus in retaliation you are going to burn down their churches etc etc etc it does not really paint you in a good light does it?
Just for clarification:

-It's good you are not siding with him;

-I never came to you because I thought you were the "authorities";

-I'm NOT considering that "every religious person" is reactionary on this issue at all, please for the love of God, stop misrepresenting me! That post was only directly at him, and I even clarified it in the next post in that thread.

[ComradeMan]

I don't follow idealistic ethics, that's something you don't understand. As far as I'm concerned, "good" and "evil" in the general abstract sense simply don't exist. Morality and ethics are socio-economic constructions, which means they cannot be separated from class analysis.

- I think you should get out more... you're taking this way too seriously and you are confusing all kinds of issues with politics and philosophy.
If good and evil don't exist then there is no morality or ethics is there? Duh? What does "general abstract sense" mean- sounds good though, but pretty damn meaningless really isn't it?

I may live in London, but culturally and ethnically I am not a Westerner. Stop assume everyone else follows your Eurocentric paradigms.

- So you live in London and benefit from all the privileges of living in a rich, imperialist Western bourgeois state, you are using internet and speaking English and you don't think it's just a bit hypocritical to start calling people Western and bourgeois? :lol:

If a white Englishman lives in Beijing, does that imply he must be "Chinese ethnically and culturally"? No.

- "Western", "European" and "bourgeois" are not ethnicities. Pray tell me, what would it take to be considered Chinese ethnically and culturally? I would be interested to hear....

The logical implication of what you said here is that "Lenin is a monster". Note that I have never said I will kill anyone personally at all, I simply said I agree with Lenin's political decisions. So if I'm a "monster" for simply agreeing with Lenin's decisions, then logically Lenin would be an even greater "monster" for carrying out those decisions surely?

- Then you are an even bigger hypocrite and a coward to boot. You condone killing and you talk the talk about people needing to be killed but you would shy away from it yourself. The decision was to kill innocent children, you agreed with it, ergo you condone killing children. BTW it's not a competition on whose the biggest monster.

But then there are many Leninists who also agree with him here. Why not go after all of them too and rant emotionally that "they are all monsters"? Why just pick on me personally?

- Because they aren't having a discussion on this thread. They are welcome to join if they wish. Master of context aren't we?

-There you go again- people picking on you. You sure have got some kind of victim complex haven't you? As soon as someone doesn't agree with you or say what you want to massage your insecure little ego you cry that you are being picked on. How the fuck would you cope if the bullets really were flying?

They killed entire aristocratic families during the capitalist French Revolution too, much more so than Lenin did. Does this mean you oppose the capitalist French Revolution and stand on the side of the reactionary feudal landlord class just because you can't bear to see blood?

- Did I say that was right? Were we talking about the French Revolution? Hold on a minute... no we weren't.... But also- you make the same old error- picking one specific example and wandering off everywhere with it. If you want my opinion on Lenin, you can have it- but you won't like it....

Then as far as I am concerned you are a reactionary. I don't worship Lenin and I agree he made mistakes, but I consider explicit anti-Leninism to be reactionary. My main ideological influences come from Maoism and Trotskyism, both of which are explicitly pro-Leninist.

- As far as I am concerned---- the big "I"- you use "I" four times in three sentences. Do you think anyone cares who you consider to be a reactionary. Like people are going to lie awake at night saying "OMG OMG Iseul said I'm a reactionary"... :lol: You might find a lot of reactionaries around here.... any Makhnovists reading?

How is stating that reactionary and discriminatory religions should be opposed "fascistic" in any way? How is that a "fascistic" argument at all?

- But you didn't state that did you? You went off on some violent rant about imposing your own ideas on other people.

You must know nothing about the French Revolution then. All genuine Marxists consider the French Revolution to be clearly progressive, and the plebian sans-culottes played the most progressive role during this event. Although the sans-culottes were not proletarians in the modern sense of the word, they were the most progressive, as well as the most oppressed layer in society. There is a direct analogy between the ancient Roman plebians and the French sans-culottes, which is why they are commonly referred to as "plebian".

-LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We weren't talking about the French Revolution were we? "plebian" (sic). Pray tell me what is this direct "analogy" between the plebeians and the sans-culottes? :lol:

But then someone like you probably wouldn't support the French Revolution because you would find its massacre of the feudal aristocracy to be too "distasteful" and "bloody". You would probably join the ranks of the right-wing bourgeois historians and label the sans-culottes as "terrorists".

- Would I?

I told you supporting a "republic" doesn't by itself mean much. an extremely unequal aristocratic republic is more reactionary than a much more economically equal populist empire. Economic equality comes before abstract "democracy" for Marxists, which is why we don't support bourgeois democracy.

- Yeah, the Roman Empire after the Republic shows that doesn't it? You obviously know nothing about Roman history. (Just for curiosity the patricians and the plebeians were officially equal by 287 BCE.) Many of the later figures of Roman history such as Antonio and several emperors had plebeian origins.

Of course, genuine Marxists ideally fight for a system that is both economically equal and politically democratic. But hypothetically suppose we can have only one of the two then actually economic equality is more important because "base determines superstructure". "One person, one vote" doesn't bring about any real equality between a multi-billionnaire and an unemployed worker, does it? Obviously in reality the two are always linked. Like the deformed worker's states didn't have sufficient democracy so in the end they all went back to capitalism. But deformed worker's states are still objectively better than Western capitalist states.

- genuine Marxists ideally fight- thought you weren't an idealist? Hypothetical arguments based on failures of the past is exactly what's wrong with the left.

But after I made that statement, you immediately jumped the gun and called it "fascist". If you just think it is irrelevant, why couldn't you have simply ignored it?

-Oh, sorry, next time I'll ignore things that might be uncomfortable for your argument. Oops....

You seem to like "arguing for the sake of arguing" and attacking other people personally. What a waste of time you are.

-LOL!!!!!!! I merely asked for the definitions in the OP to be defined, which you have still failed to do, you have thus expanded this into an all out attack. You feel free to call people scum, reactionary, pieces of shit---and then you complain about personal attacks!:lol: BTW- what do you want a discussion forum or an echo-chamber?

That doesn't make his statement "fascist". In Marxism these are all strict terms, you are just using the loose liberal definition.

- What is the definition of fascist?

THERE ISN'T ONE!!!!!!!! :lol:

-Fascists don't agree with freedom of speech or expression.

Another pathetic strawman. When did I ever say I hate religions? Did I not repeatedly say that even though I am a firm atheist (and somewhat of an "evangelical materialist"), I support people's freedom of belief?

- As long as they don't talk about it or you will start insulting, mocking and deriding them.... actions speak louder than words....

Just to stress this again: Yes I am an evangelical materialist, which means not only do I firmly believe in materialism, I also try to convince other people to believe in it. But I support the freedom of belief in general, and since I oppose bureaucratism I do not think atheism can be imposed in a top-down bureaucratic fashion. People can only be convinced of the validity of materialism through gradual education.

- What is your gospel then? Evangelical materialist.... :lol: Do you knock on people's doors and talk to them about materialism?

Yes, and I said philosophically. Marx himself would have said the same thing, so how is it discriminatory in any way?

- How do you know what Marx would have said? He might have said, come in sit down and have a cup of tea comrade! Marxism is a political philosophy so saying someone cannot be a Marxist philosophically does have a major impact on whether they can be one politically doesn't it?

Seriously, stop accusing me completely groundlessly. This is getting out of order. You are also misrepresenting Shariati by claiming that he is offended by what I said, whereas in reality he isn't.

- Misrepresenting Shariati? Why, I'm talking about what YOU said to him, not what he said, his actions or his opinions. You really are being deliberately obtuse aren't you? Did I say he was offended? If he was or was not offended doesn't make a difference to the fact that you discriminated... deal with it.

You are truly a dumbass. If I say theism and idealism are incompatible with Marxism objectively in the philosophical sense, that is not discrimination at all. Discrimination would imply I advocate banning religious people from entering communist and socialist parties, which I don't.

- I notice you keep making your statements longer and longer in your desperate attempts to save your sinking ship, dare I say Titanic, of an argument. Marxism is a political philosophy not the human genome- it can be picked up or dropped, adapted or changed as times move on. Historical materialism is an approach to historiography- not a grand theory of everything. If you knew your Marx well enough you'd realise that your approach would be considered by him as intellectual masturbation. What point would there be for a religious/spiritual person in your party if they couldn't be philosophically involved? Duh!!! :lol:

I have never attacked Shariati at all. How can you just assume that he felt offended by what I said? Can you read his mind or something?
- Did I say he was offended? Did I go around with a t-shirt saying "Hands Off Shariati"-? No, I read the thread and the reactions- learn to deal with your words.

The point still stands: Lenin also believed that Islam is incompatible with Marxism philosophically, but politically he clearly allowed Muslims to join the Communist Party. So is this "discrimination" or not?

-Are you Lenin? If Lenin wiped his ass in a certain way would you do it? Marx and Engels were also pretty homophobic too- would you include that in your stance?

By the way, the only reason I've told him that is because you are doing something very bad by bringing him into this. He has absolutely nothing to do with the debates in this thread, and you have no right to mention him here. You are misrepresenting him by claiming that he was offended by what I said, but clearly he was not.

-Yawn.... If I were misquoting him, or even talking about what he said or did it would be misrepresentation, but I am actually more concerned about what YOU said to be honest.

I already defined it. Look at an earlier post in this thread.

- No, you think you defined it.... LOL!!!!


Existentialism is in fact just "common sense" applied at an individual level.

-Err no it isn't- But seeing as you reject existentialism then you have now just rejected your whole justification of appeals to common sense in terms of historical materialism- Well done! Have a lollipop! :lol:

Ridiculous = believing in something without any evidence at all, especially when it is a central belief in one's life.

- No it doesn't. Ridiculous refers to something that provokes ridicule- and is similar to absurd or preposterous. In any case it's a purely subjective POV statement. I'll help you with this one... why not try "irrational".

If you had said "Abrahamic religions are irrational"--- I'd have said, "probably"... and explained why. :D

Obviously I think the ontological proof is invalid. However, I have more respect for that than your non-existent "blind faith" and "subjective existentialism".

-Why would you have respect for something that is invalid? You're contradicting yourself once again. I personally don't care which theories you do or do not have respect for but I notice anyone who disagrees with yours is reactionary.

Blind faith = believing in something without even attempting to justify it logically or empirically.

-They were a good blues band too. Why should people to have to justify their personal beliefs to you or anyone else? Could you explain that?

You are trying to claim that the "faith in God" is non-epistemological. But that in itself is a logical fallacy.

- No it isn't when you are demanding people provide hard, material proof of something which cannot be proven. A metaphysical solipsist might also have an interesting chat with you about this...

That's blind faith. Blind faith = believing in things or asking people to believe in things without even attempting to justify them logically or empirically. That's one of the things I really don't appreciate about faith-centric religions. Indeed, even some evangelical Christians have more sense than you in this.

- How do you know that Marxism works? You would ask capitalists to give up a system that works (albeit badly and not in a way we like) in practice for a "real" Marxism- which is only a theory? See the problem with taking materialism too far?

They actually write a detailed book trying to justify Jesus rising from the dead using what they claim to be "historical evidence". Now they are obviously mistaken but I have more respects for them due to their efforts than I have for you.

- They are bad Christians then.... idiots! Why are they mistaken though? Can you disprove them?

What you are saying is that we should just believe literally in the existence of an "omnipotent God" as well as someone actually rising from the dead simply on the basis of blind faith. If people believed in other things, like UFOs, simply on the basis of blind faith, you would call them mad, why would we make a special case for monotheistic religions?

-No- I didn't say that "we" should do any such thing. Put the straw away.

-Why would people believe in UFO's with blind faith? Has that ever happened?

Eh...did I ever claim that any of the proposed "evidence" for UFOs, aliens etc are actually scientifically valid? No. I said they fail as a matter of evidence.

-LOL!!! You posited it as a rational response to the point raised.

But of course according to the materialist theory of the universe, in principle it is far more probable for there to be intelligent alien intelligences than for there to be a literally "omnipotent" God. Try to define "omnipotence" scientifically and quantitatively for a start. What does it actually mean? Having infinite mass or energy? Having infinite informational complexity? What exactly is "omnipotent" except just being an ill-defined buzz word?

-Omnipotence means doing anything that can be done.

-What is your definition of God? Out of interest.

As for Christ, yes I did say that, but frankly there is no need to even go to that step, since you can't even provide any evidence for his supposed "rising from the dead" at all.

- Yes... let's go there instead..... But you don't seem to get this, someone who has faith does not need the proof, it's on a different level if you like.

The problem with Christianity is three-fold:

1) you can't prove that an "omnipotent" God exists.
2) you can't prove that Jesus really rose from the dead.
3) you can't prove that even if Jesus rose from the dead, he really is identical to the "omnipotent" God, as Christian theology claims.

- Well don't believe in it then if you don't want to. But let other people follow their own "instinct".

-The problem with a lot of things that we accept, like Chomsky's language acquisition device is that they cannot be proven. I don't want to get Karl Popper on you, but you seem to take the position that our current scientific knowledge is absolute- which it isn't....

(Religions are often very reactionary too, that's also why they are ridiculous, but let's leave that aside for now)

- Why are "religions" reactionary? Which ones? Why? Are Jains reactionary in the same way an indigenous shaman may be reactionary? Hmmm- sweeping generalisations.

Ok, I don't know exactly what your personal beliefs are since you never explicitly told me. But really, it doesn't matter. All religions, Christianity, Buddhism, anything, rely on doctrines they can't prove.

I said the "positive aspects" are the ethical aspects in religions which tell people to do good things, which is apparently something you don't understand too well since you like to viciously and groundlessly attack other people without reason. I wasn't just referring to "positive aspects" as an empty category. Actually read what I said.

-Oh shut up about the personal attacks, you get what you give- if you can't stand the heat get out the fucking kitchen. Don't try and use religious ethics on me. You state the obvious and then claim it as some sort of wisdom. The point was that your comment was inept.

-What is good and what is bad? Objectively of course...

E.g. the Golden Rule: "Do not to do others what you don't want others to do to you" (Confucianism) or "Love others as yourself" (Christianity). That's positive. Fundamentalist bible-thumping is not.

- Well, I think we already knew that...

No I was actually talking about that. You must have completely misread. If you read the context of when I made that argument, it was only after Conquer or Die told me he would "murder me in cold blood" just because I said reactionary religions should be opposed.

- Did he say that? I didn't see that and I had I would have reported it. Let's cut him out of this discussion though. BTW I had the grace to look through and add an Edit to the message with regards to this (separate issue).

Don't misrepresent me.

-Yawn.

I mean seriously, if you can think I'm "psychotic" just because I said I agree with Lenin's decision to kill the Tsarist family, how can you not consider his statement to "murder me in cold blood" to be psychotic? Just because he is a "fellow religious person" so you let him off for that? Is that what your religion (whatever it is) teaches you?

- I think it's pretty much the same- your both psychotic freaks in that case.

If you want people to respect your beliefs more, here is my advice to you: stop telling people all these abstract useless theological beliefs, but actually do good things, actively help other people, be considerate and just, then when people see you are truly virtuous then they will naturally and automatically be drawn to your beliefs.

- But I don't care about what other people think about what I believe personally? Get it? Perhaps you should practise what you preach then with regards to your dodgy politics.

On the other hand, the more you act like how you act now, the less people will be attracted to you and your beliefs.

- I don't care. I am not here to try and start a fucking religion! LOL!!!!

Not really. Rosa's views are flawed anyway, but most of those who oppose dialectical materialism don't actually oppose the historical materialist way of analysing class and society by Marxism. (E.g. S.Artesian here on RevLeft) What they oppose is the reliance on "dialectics" as a purely abstract logical category without any empirical reference, because that's just like imposing a certain category on reality, which is not scientific.

-Why are Rosa's views flawed? I think Rosa's views are pretty damn solid and way above my level of knowledge in that area- I also think that historical materialism and dialectics is probably the most mind-numbingly boring subject you could imagine and couldn't really give a fuck about it to be honest. It's just an approach to historical analysis- that's all.

Rosa's views may be more extreme but the vast majority of Marxists disagree with her.

-Appeal to consenus- logical fallacy...! :crying:

I don't think you understand Rosa's position, to be frank. Her position is certainly extreme, but she does not oppose the standard Marxist method of class analysis, which is central to Marxism, just the abstract application of "dialectical logic" on concrete empirical situations. Her views are flawed, but not completely wrong. Everything is historical, because everything in existence is framed by Time, including individual human lives in the personal sense.

- Well, if you think Marxism is a historical re-enactment society based on failed regimes then good luck to you. I prefer to consider the present and look to the future.

Your argument is basically that "I'm prepared to be logical and scientific in everything else except my 'personal' belief in God".

- Yep, that's right. I'm prepared to apply logic to a debate on an internet forum it doesn't mean I lie awak at night in cold sweats worrying about the class analysis and dialectics of my sandwich for work.

I already did many times. Look it up. Gosh you are truly annoying as hell.

- In this post- duh!!!!

I don't have a degree in astrophysics, but I can refer you to the relevant scientific sources if you are interested.

Short answer: nuclear fusion.

But does it work? What about the faint young sun paradox? hmmm....

I don't necessarily agree with certain claims of mainstream linguistic theory, like the idea that "language determines thought", which is clearly idealistic drivel.

- Why?
-But the point was that there are many things accepted as "science" for which there is no proof. Scientists also make mistakes, have agendas and lie too you know. 60 years ago the proponents of plate-tectonics were laughed out of court- now it's textbook.

But the difference between rational idealism and your kind of blind faith is simply that at least they make a very serious attempt to justify their ideas scientifically, (and of course there are always disputes in science) whereas you don't even try.

- Because personal spirituality is not a scientific argument- the same thing I tell fundamentalist religionists too!!!!!

There are actually some scientific evidence for transgenderism, and it looks like it will improve in the future.

-You cannot appeal to the future. What is the proof now? Prove it... in a hardened materialistic way.

Science can't explain everything, but it explains more and more as time goes on.

-Ah.... :lol: So what do we do about the bits that it can't explain?

That's half the problem actually. How can you really believe in something which you can't even define? Objectively, what exactly is it that you are believing in?

- Can you define love? Can you define senses of guilt or anger? Really- in terms of a mathematical equation? Can they be repeated in a laboratory?

It's your God, you define it.

- LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!! You're asking someone of a Judaeo-Christian background to define God- call in Krimskrams. The first rule about "God" is you cannot define "God". We're not talking about big grumpy Jewish guy with a beard who lives on a cloud....

And how the hell am I a Zionist? Just because I take the interests of Israeli workers into account, and don't call for the removal of the entire Israeli state without Israeli workers agreeing to it, and don't support terrorism against civilians. I actually do support terrorist action against the Israeli ruling class and army. So is this what you call "Zionism"? LOL

- So do you think the state of Israel has a right to exist?

Psycho told me you were restricted for borderline Islamophobia, and he is a senior admin. I trust him more than I trust you on this.

- Poisoning the well, genetic fallacy- ask Edelweiss. ;) You have the mentality of elementary school- "he told me," "it wasn't me who said that"---- grow up.

What fallacies? You still haven't shown exactly how my arguments are logically invalid. I define terms for you, but you just pretend not to see them.

- Over and over and over again.... and named them too.

How can someone like you who totally rely on blind faith accuse me for being illogical? Are you kidding me? LOL :laugh:

- Because a personal spiritual belief is not relevant to a logical discussion thereof. Have you no capacity to separate things?

I meant I don't support the complete destruction of the Israeli nation-state, given that the Israeli working class also has a say in this matter. It doesn't mean I support the Israeli state machine as it exists now which is why I'm opposed to the ruling class of Israel. Yeah, I specifically mentioned Jewish civilians because that's who the Islamic terrorists sometimes target on. Does this mean I ignore civilians of other ethnicities? Of course not. Do I have to mention all of the ethnicities in Israel everytime I mention one of them? No. Since you accused me for being a Zionist (a ridiculous standpoint), I'm just describing my stance to you with respect to Israel, which is why I just mentioned Jewish civilians here.

- Backtracking...... Is there an Israeli, Jewish, working class movement that supports the Palestinians?

I don't think any Marxist would call me a "Zionist" for these. My stance on Israel is similar to the stance of the Trotskyist organisation CWI for instance. There isn't a singular "China", so please clarify what you are talking about. Are you talking about Maoist China or post-Maoist China?

That's not the Marxist definition. And there was no real inequality in Tibet in Mao's era. And a socialist state, even a deformed one, is certainly not an empire.

- You accuse me of being irrational- you live in a dreamworld... You don't get imperialism do you?

So objectively you are standing on the side of the Lamaists.

- Secundum quid.... Nope--- not really. Are all 6 million Tibetans lamas?

I'm not an anarchist, but I never said I support Mao 100%. There were deformations in the system and he made mistakes. But certainly relatively speaking, Maoist Tibet was superior and more progressive to Lamaist Tibet.

- Racism- let's civilise the savages. Even the OP doesn't agree with you.

Maybe you should ask the Tibetan serfs who were liberated from landlordism what they thought.

- The same ones that are trying to escape all the time? Or the ones that have been moved out of Tibet? Or the ones who haven't been born because of the brutal enforcement of eugenics.

And look at the sources I've given you in the other thread on Tibet. Only one of them is Maoist, and even that one is not an orthodox Maoist source.

-So? Look they talk about this and that and dress things up nicely but I gave you numbers... now, if the numbers are correct- hell, then numbers don't lie.

I already said, I think China's actions in Tibet now constitute semi-colonialism. Do you ever read anything I say?

- Well then why did you take the offensive against the comment? Why the defense of China? Why did you not join me in condemning both forms of imperialism and aggression? Why did you defend (semi-) colonialism. That's pretty damn reactionary of you.

But it's certainly not as bad as in Israel. There is no systematic discrimination in China. Objectively the Tibetans are being marginalised economically due to capitalist competition, but there is no systematic discrimination, let alone "genocide", against them.

- Isn't there? Not what I have read, heard, seen. I would say in some respects it's worse than Israel. But getting into the who's worse than who argument is futile too.

I don't "celebrate" violence. However I believe absolute pacifism is fundamentally incompatible with revolutionary socialism. But I follow Lenin and Mao here, celebrating violence is wrong, it should be minimised, but when it is required, do it with careful strategic consideration and efficiency. You might think the phrase "physically neutralising" sounds too cold, but it certainly fits the context.

- As long as it's not you doing it. I wonder if you have ever seen someone lying on the pavement with the brains 3m behind them all over a wall....

As Mao said, even in a revolutionary situation, most reactionaries would not need to be killed, and many can be won over. But was I planning anything? No. It was completely hypothetical.

- Ah........ it was just hypothetical. I see.

Heh...a pro-tip and advice for you: don't jump the gun in an argument. That's childish. I never was asking you to be an admin or mod. In fact, Conquer or Die was already restricted for something related to transphobia before.

-WTF???? Do you have no sense of humour either? Or is humour impossible to define materialistically. Hey, that's a good one. Can you prove "funny" in a materialistic way?

Since here in this thread you've repeatedly accused me groundlessly for being "anti-religious" even after I told you about this context (another pro-tip for you: never judge anything prematurely without considering its actual context), so naturally I think you might be on his side. I'm not accusing you, just trying to advise you not to take his side, that's all.

- Well someone who argues indiscriminately and mockingly against religion is going to be seen as anti-religious aren't they?

Even China's actions in Tibet today, while objectively semi-colonial, do not constitute "genocide". I'm sorry, but Marxists take these terms seriously. We don't just throw them around like liberals do.

- Semi-, not as bad as before, not like the others--- piffle. Apologism of the worst degree.

Actually Castro has changed his mind now. He has openly apologised for his homophobia in the past, now Cuba has a relatively good policy for both gay and trans people.

-So we just say sorry and that makes it all right then does it? The point about the homophobia in earlier "versions" of communism is that no doubt all of those responsible would have justified themselves with materialism.... get it?

But this isn't the same as the Tibetan case. Castro never committed a genocide against LGBT people. Sure, they were discriminated against in some ways, but it's light-years apart from what you are trying to claim for Maoist Tibet...

-Well when a "maricon" as Castro put it, was sitting in a concentration camp I bet he felt a lot better knowing that at least he wasn't in Tibet. :lol:

I mean, sure, I don't agree with Mao on a lot of things, but I really can't see how one can still be partially a Maoist while actually claiming that Lamaist Tibet was better than Maoist Tibet.

- No one is claiming that it was BETTER- we are discussing as to whether it was right!
-You pick and choose when it suits you- that's fine, but then that makes your position subjective too doesn't it? Then you shouldn't go around preaching to others about being reactionary scum according to your own personal SUBJECTIVE interpretation of what you believe Marxism is and isn't.

The Trotskyist CWI agrees with my line on Israel, so do a lot of other Marxists. So I guess all of us are now "Zionists"? :rolleyes:

- LOL You haven't been on RevLeft long have you? Perhaps you'd like to post a thread on what your line on Israel-Palestine is. I would be interested.

-I'm NOT considering that "every religious person" is reactionary on this issue at all, please for the love of God, stop misrepresenting me! That post was only directly at him, and I even clarified it in the next post in that thread.

- But.... but... I thought you didn't believe in God?


Advice- get out more and write shorter posts.:thumbup1:

I don't care so much what Marx said 150 years ago, or Lenin said 90 or more years ago... I care about what YOU say NOW.:cool:

[freepalestine]

comrademan.
lol.i didn't realise you gave so much concern for 'those' muslims.
furthermore your arguments on this thread are a bitpathetic.your antagonist rants are not worth replying to . ;l

[mikelepore]

There are many thing that are faith-based. Because something is faith-based doesn't mean you have to ignore empirical findings. Take diffusion: how the hell can diffusing particles move randomly, bouncing off each other, but always end up moving to regions of alower concentration of particles? I have to base it on faith, because I can't see sub-microscopic particles such as atoms diffusing.

It's because there are many more combinations that have lower concentration gradients. Take a deck of playing cards. Begin by arranging the cards so that all the black cards are on top and all the red cards are on the bottom. Thoroughly shuffle the deck several times. After each shuffle, check the pattern. Which do you see more of, combinations with the black and red sharply separated, or combinations with the colors intermixed? Do the same thing with small particles and you have the second law of thermodynamics. I don't see there anything similar to having faith.

[Cham_Empire]

I think that all christians should be sentenced to hard-labour.

[ComradeMan]

comrademan.
lol.i didn't realise you gave so much concern for 'those' muslims.
furthermore your arguments on this thread are a bitpathetic.your antagonist rants are not worth replying to . ;l

Well then why are you replying?

But just for your information this has got nothing to do with Islam. Not all Palestinians are Muslims... thought you'd know that. :lol:

[Milk Sheikh]

All religions, not just the Abrahamic ones, are dangerous in that they divert a worker's attention to things which have absolutely nothing to do with the objective, material world. Examples: god, karma, fate, reincarnation, heaven/hell, meditation, yoga etc. These things are an escape from the real world.

I'd also include endless philosophizing because that too becomes rather vague and abstract, and has a negative effect on the worker: even the misery of the common man becomes a philosophical problem to be pondered over (over a cup of tea) rather than an empirical one to be dealt with.

That's why I believe all religions and philosophies are dangerous. Some of them may even be rational, that's not the point. They do nothing to improve class consciousness, which is why they're useless; they are pills that make the workers forget, at least temporarily, that they're workers.

[ComradeMan]

All religions, not just the Abrahamic ones, are dangerous in that they divert a worker's attention to things which have absolutely nothing to do with the objective, material world. Examples: god, karma, fate, reincarnation, heaven/hell, meditation, yoga etc. These things are an escape from the real world.

I'd also include endless philosophizing because that too becomes rather vague and abstract, and has a negative effect on the worker: even the misery of the common man becomes a philosophical problem to be pondered over (over a cup of tea) rather than an empirical one to be dealt with.

That's why I believe all religions and philosophies are dangerous. Some of them may even be rational, that's not the point. They do nothing to improve class consciousness, which is why they're useless; they are pills that make the workers forget, at least temporarily, that they're workers.

"Man does not live by bread alone".

Although I would agree that a lot of religious dogma and doctrine is outdated "mumbo-jumbo" or "hocus-pocus", I don't think you can lump everything in together like that. Why yoga? It seems to work....

Would you not agree that a spiritual belief, a means of meditation and "calming" the soul is not as important to the human psyche as those other things that make us "human"?

What is the point of music, art, poetry?

[Technocrat]

Here is the major difference between Abrahamic religions and non-Abrahamic religions:

Abrahamic religions claim to be historically accurate. That is, everything written in the holy books ACTUALLY HAPPENED (it is claimed). Non-Abrahamic religions don't make this claim to historical accuracy.

I believe it is this feature of the Abrahamic religions which has resulted in them being the cause of so much suffering in the world.

[ComradeMan]

Here is the major difference between Abrahamic religions and non-Abrahamic religions:

Abrahamic religions claim to be historically accurate. That is, everything written in the holy books ACTUALLY HAPPENED (it is claimed). Non-Abrahamic religions don't make this claim to historical accuracy.

I believe it is this feature of the Abrahamic religions which has resulted in them being the cause of so much suffering in the world.


That's not true. Vedic religions also claim historical fact and if you go on the net you can find a lot of stuff about the Vedic origins of civilisation and so on.

Buddhism ultimately derives its forms from Buddha- a historical person, but is there any proof of his existence?

Zoroastrianism also claims an historical figure... I don't think you can single out Abrahamic religions so specifically.

[Milk Sheikh]

"Man does not live by bread alone".

Yes, he also needs butter.;)


Although I would agree that a lot of religious dogma and doctrine is outdated "mumbo-jumbo" or "hocus-pocus", I don't think you can lump everything in together like that. Why yoga? It seems to work....

It works - and that's why it's dangerous! I'll give you an example. A man works and works and works - he is under stress, goes through a lot of suffering and frustration. All this could make him think about his condition as a worker and realize how he's being exploited by the capitalist class. But if yoga takes away all that stress and makes him stronger and calmer, he'd rather accept his condition instead of rebelling against it; yoga, therefore, would be a sedative in this instance.


Would you not agree that a spiritual belief, a means of meditation and "calming" the soul is not as important to the human psyche as those other things that make us "human"?

All this may develop in us naturally if the social conditions are first taken care of. A man who works at a dead-end job will feel a range of negative emotions, ranging from frustration to fear to sorrow to loneliness. So the real problem is the economic rather than psychological condition of man.


What is the point of music, art, poetry?

Beauty, love, bliss. And it involves no rituals, no fanaticism, nothing. It is effortless and hence poses no danger.

[Milk Sheikh]

That's not true. Vedic religions also claim historical fact and if you go on the net you can find a lot of stuff about the Vedic origins of civilisation and so on.


No, they make a more outrageous claim that the 'veda' has no origin and that it is timeless.:rolleyes:

[Bud Struggle]

"Man does not live by bread alone".

Although I would agree that a lot of religious dogma and doctrine is outdated "mumbo-jumbo" or "hocus-pocus", I don't think you can lump everything in together like that. Why yoga? It seems to work....

Would you not agree that a spiritual belief, a means of meditation and "calming" the soul is not as important to the human psyche as those other things that make us "human"?

Anything that doesn not lead to Class Consciousness--detracts from it. That is why Marx disliked religion so much. As Milk suggests any sort of idalism, anything that isn't emperical and materialistic is not in the interest of Communism. Communism isn't just an economic system or a political system it is a whole new way of human existence that deals only with the tactile elements of reality. The rest needs to be eliminated.


What is the point of music, art, poetry? To serve the materialistic view. Art exists (or should exist) only to further Class Consciousness. Anything that detracts from that--that gives us an ideological perspective instead of a materialistic one should be abolished.

Stalin made that quite clear with his "Soviet Art." After the Revolution all traces of the previous "decadent" art must be distroyed and only Class Conscious art be allowed to exist.

[RGacky3]

Anything that doesn not lead to Class Consciousness--detracts from it. That is why Marx disliked religion so much. As Milk suggests any sort of idalism, anything that isn't emperical and materialistic is not in the interest of Communism. Communism isn't just an economic system or a political system it is a whole new way of human existence that deals only with the tactile elements of reality. The rest needs to be eliminated.



Your just making stuff up


To serve the materialistic view. Art exists (or should exist) only to further Class Consciousness. Anything that detracts from that--that gives us an ideological perspective instead of a materialistic one should be abolished.

Stalin made that quite clear with his "Soviet Art." After the Revolution all traces of the previous "decadent" art must be distroyed and only Class Conscious art be allowed to exist.

If the best you can do is compare with Stalinism, thats a shame.

[Bud Struggle]

Your just making stuff up No. I'm just extrapolation on what attempts at Communism have failed so many times before. It failed because those that were putting it into practive never took Communism far enough. They always let that little bit if idealism survive--and it ALWAYS grew like a cancer. It has to be exterminated.



If the best you can do is compare with Stalinism, thats a shame. Has any other attempt at Communism ever produced any art?

Tell me who and I'll say the same them about them.

[ComradeMan]

Anything that doesn not lead to Class Consciousness--detracts from it. That is why Marx disliked religion so much. As Milk suggests any sort of idalism, anything that isn't emperical and materialistic is not in the interest of Communism. Communism isn't just an economic system or a political system it is a whole new way of human existence that deals only with the tactile elements of reality. The rest needs to be eliminated.

To serve the materialistic view. Art exists (or should exist) only to further Class Consciousness. Anything that detracts from that--that gives us an ideological perspective instead of a materialistic one should be abolished.

Stalin made that quite clear with his "Soviet Art." After the Revolution all traces of the previous "decadent" art must be distroyed and only Class Conscious art be allowed to exist.


Hitler also had views on decadent art etc--- interesting....

Stalin isn't here any more but the Bolshoi still is....


The fact is, until people finally resolve the age-old problem of what happens when you die in a way that cannot be refuted you will always have spirituality. You could burn down every church, shoot every christian and destroy every work of Christian art and literature- wipe it off the map and erase it from the pages of history- then someone would see a ghost or have a "revelation" or divine insight and it would start again.

You can kill a tree but you can't kill the idea of a tree....

[Technocrat]

That's not true. Vedic religions also claim historical fact and if you go on the net you can find a lot of stuff about the Vedic origins of civilisation and so on.

Buddhism ultimately derives its forms from Buddha- a historical person, but is there any proof of his existence?

Zoroastrianism also claims an historical figure... I don't think you can single out Abrahamic religions so specifically.

There is a difference between making reference to historical events, and claiming myth as historical fact. This is unique to the Abrahamic traditions. Sure, Buddhism is based on the historical figure of the Buddha, but few Buddhists take seriously the idea that he walked on water and such and understand these stories to be metaphors (the Buddha dharma teaches that miracles are misleading illusions or something similar).

[ComradeMan]

There is a difference between making reference to historical events, and claiming myth as historical fact. This is unique to the Abrahamic traditions. Sure, Buddhism is based on the historical figure of the Buddha, but few Buddhists take seriously the idea that he walked on water and such and understand these stories to be metaphors (the Buddha dharma teaches that miracles are misleading illusions or something similar).

Or that he was shaded by a giant cobra that bears his mark, or that he
reached full realisation and sort of disappeared under a tree?

I'm not sure about Biblical miracles, I think many are metaphors have been badly translated too.

But the Vedic religions also have references to battles, floods and so on that are considered to have happened by followers. Numerous shrines and holy cities etc that were "visited" by deities and such- the devout followers no doubt consider these to be historical facts.

[Bud Struggle]

Hitler also had views on decadent art etc--- interesting....

Stalin isn't here any more but the Bolshoi still is.... But the Bolshoi put on old programs--nothing new. So there was no problem there. Shostakovich did--and he had big problems with Stalin.

http://www.justabovesunset.com/id39.html


The fact is, until people finally resolve the age-old problem of what happens when you die in a way that cannot be refuted you will always have spirituality. You could burn down every church, shoot every christian and destroy every work of Christian art and literature- wipe it off the map and erase it from the pages of history- then someone would see a ghost or have a "revelation" or divine insight and it would start again.

You can kill a tree but you can't kill the idea of a tree....

You need to burn down the forest and start again. I really think that's the only way Communism will work--otherwise it's going to be one half assed Revolution after the next till the end of time.

[ComradeMan]

But the Bolshoi put on old programs--nothing new. So there was no problem there. Shostakovich did--and he had big problems with Stalin.

http://www.justabovesunset.com/id39.html



You need to burn down the forest and start again. I really think that's the only way Communism will work--otherwise it's going to be one half assed Revolution after the next till the end of time.


Bud Nihilist.....! :lol:

[Bud Struggle]

Bud Nihilist.....! :lol:

Bud--Golden CHE candidate! :D

[freepalestine]

Well then why are you replying?

But just for your information this has got nothing to do with Islam. Not all Palestinians are Muslims... thought you'd know that. :lol:what is the point of that.lol
less of the racial(-ist?) undertones .

[Fulanito de Tal]

Here is the major difference between Abrahamic religions and non-Abrahamic religions:

Abrahamic religions claim to be historically accurate. That is, everything written in the holy books ACTUALLY HAPPENED (it is claimed). Non-Abrahamic religions don't make this claim to historical accuracy.

I believe it is this feature of the Abrahamic religions which has resulted in them being the cause of so much suffering in the world.

I see 3 major constructs they hold.

1) One super god

2) Good and evil

3) Heaven and hell

Super god: Everyone must worship him. No one can worship another god, so who ever is the highest ranking member of the faith is in charge. No one should question him.

Good and evil: There are approved and disapproved behaviors and they are backed by moral standards that come from the person that wrote them. If you can manipulate what is good and what is evil, you can control the population. Example, GW Bush and the Axis of Evil. Ooohhhhh!

Heaven and hell: You better keep up the good behaviors, or you will be in a place worse than you can imagine for eternity. If you're suffering, don't try to change your situation. You'll go to heaven soon.

[Astarte]

They are faith-based which means that you have to ignore personal empirical findings. They ask you to believe in a God with out any proof. WTF is a god anyway? Is it an all encompassing construct? That's ridiculous.

By looking at the history of organizations that sponsor these ideas, you can see that Abrahamic religions have been and continue to be falsified. GALILEO, galileo, GALILEO, galileo, GALILEO, figaro, magnificoooooo. Evolution, dinosaurs, germs, mental health...whatever. A bunch of shit. My girlfriend was told when she was young that she wasn't supposed to pray with her hands folded because her fingers would point to the ground and the devil. She should pray with her hands pressed together, fingers pointing to God in the sky. So, I'm thinking, if God is up, where to people in China point their fingers to?

As Lenin said, if you want to know the truth, figure out who's most likely to benefit from that incident. Who's benefiting from Abrahamic religions? My answer, their leaders. The pawns at are level are the ones getting screwed. We give tithe, go to war, get molested, and even blow ourselves up. Meanwhile, the leaders are chillaxing with their air condition and gold and working once a week and jacking off to the virgin Mary.

Here's a good quote: If the Pope believes that he's going to heaven when he dies, then why is he driving around in bullet-proof glass? - DL Hughley

So a BIG thumbs down and a fart noise to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Can I get an amen?

You should check out Gnosticism. When Christianity was institutionalize by the Romans it took on a very totalitarian glare. Most gnostic texts will not be found in the canonized bible.

[ComradeMan]

what is the point of that.lol
less of the racial(-ist?) undertones as well

Which racial(ist) undertones? Would you elucidate? Why don't you respond to the posts instead of posting inept one-line responses all the time and contributing nothing?


I see 3 major constructs they hold.

1) One super god

2) Good and evil

3) Heaven and hell

Super god: Everyone must worship him. No one can worship another god, so who ever is the highest ranking member of the faith is in charge. No one should question him.

Good and evil: There are approved and disapproved behaviors and they are backed by moral standards that come from the person that wrote them. If you can manipulate what is good and what is evil, you can control the population. Example, GW Bush and the Axis of Evil. Ooohhhhh!

Heaven and hell: You better keep up the good behaviors, or you will be in a place worse than you can imagine for eternity. If you're suffering, don't try to change your situation. You'll go to heaven soon.

1) One super god

- Well they are monotheistic religions but the interpretation of "God" is open to debate- in any case we are not talking about an anthropomorphic god at all, especially in Judaism.

2) Good and evil

-Good and evil are subjective terms and problematical too. We consider slavery to be bad, but 3000 years ago people may have struggled with that idea and accepted it as being a normal part of the world- nearly all societies other than hunter-gatherers and nomads were slave owning.
In the Gnostic gospels Christ rebukes his followers with the "You create your Good and Evil"- if I recall correctly.

3) Heaven and hell

-Not actually defined that easily in scripture. More like you create your own heaven and hell on earth according to what you do. It's tricky really but our concepts of heaven and hell are largely creations of the Medieval world and mindset influenced by Greco-Roman thought.

You better keep up the good behaviors, or you will be in a place worse than you can imagine for eternity. If you're suffering, don't try to change your situation. You'll go to heaven soon

It's more of a survival mechanism created by "oppressed" religions or groups if you want a more materialistic analysis. You only suffer if you allow yourself to suffer- this is similar to some eastern concepts. The ethical part is not so much saying if you don't do this we will do this to you, more like if you follow this way you will inevitably receive.

I'm not getting into the whole theological debate but it does seem to be a very crude and somewhat culturally biased analysis you are giving.

[L.A.P.]

No shit.

[hobo8675309]

More progressive Abrahamic sects are not ridicukous, instead, they encourage you to questiont he authority of God.

[ComradeMan]

More progressive Abrahamic sects are not ridicukous, instead, they encourage you to questiont he authority of God.

The trouble is people don't want to focus on those very often- especially militant atheists and the Dawkins followers. In fact one of the criticisms levelled at Dawkins was that he did not really go beyon a superficial examination of religion- in my opinion he showed a confrimational bias, very unscientific too, in seeking to prove what he wanted to prove.