Shouldn't religion be destroyed?

[Milk Sheikh]

Greetings,

Although religion is supposed to be a personal matter, hasn't it become a public nuisance most of the time? Plus it makes people irrational, and even their decisions reflect that. For instance, a Christian nutjob with a fetish for pro-life position could vote republican at all times, even if the said republican candidate happens to be a war-monger, bigot, and whatnot. Just one issue - pro-life - could determine his vote, so much so that even important economic issues will take a backseat.

There could be many examples like this where religion becomes a total distraction. Considering all this, is not every communist duty-bound to attack religion, intellectually and ideologically (not violently)?

Milk Sheikh

[resurgence]

You really arent a Saddamist are you?

[Proukunin]

no, he's a sodomist. haha

[Milk Sheikh]

You really arent a Saddamist are you?

How can you say that? I love Saddam.:laugh:

[resurgence]

How can you say that? I love Saddam.:laugh:

Ah yes, but the question is comrade would Saddam have loved you? :confused:

[Milk Sheikh]

Ah yes, but the question is comrade would Saddam have loved you? :confused:

Why not? He wasn't exactly religious, was he? Nor was he racist, so ...

[resurgence]

Sorry for derailing. I will start another thread on this because you have me really curious!

[Lord Testicles]

Considering all this, is not every communist duty-bound to attack religion, intellectually and ideologically (not violently)?


How do you intellectually attack something which is based on faith?

[Thug Lessons]

Most definitely. I look forward with glee towards the day that religion is finally eradicated from the face of the earth.

[Thug Lessons]

How do you intellectually attack something which is based on faith?

Most religious people think they have good reasons to believe what they do. They come up with all sorts of spurious arguments to justify their belief in fairy tales. If you want to attack religion intellectually, refuting these would be a good start, but that's already been done to death, as has pointing out how absurd so much of religious dogma is in the first place. To move forward, we need to attack religion more deeply, to attack its politics, its social and personal effects. We need to show how it smothers and stifles the individual not merely by imposing arbitrary prohibitions and prescriptions, but by demanding that she restrict her most vital, dynamic expressions of humanity to one narrow field.

Of course, it's not always necessary to attack religion directly, as cultural progress does that on its own, but direct attacks make a good complement to that nonetheless.

[hatzel]

For instance, a Christian nutjob with a fetish for pro-life position could vote republican at all times, even if the said republican candidate happens to be a war-monger, bigot, and whatnot. Just one issue - pro-life - could determine his vote, so much so that even important economic issues will take a backseat.

Welcome to the electoral system. Although voting for a candidate based on one single solitarily issue, rather than just...well, tradition or something...is a step in the right direction for most people :lol:

Incidentally, what's to stop a non-religious person developing a fetish for a single issue and voting for whoever matches their opinion on that one single issue? :confused:

[ChrisK]

I don't see why we should. Religion doesn't make people irrational, people just so happen to vote on the issue (singular) that is most important to them. Anyway, your characterization is just a gross generalization of religious people, not all of them act like that.

Religion ought to be a personal thing, one that people should not be attacked for.

[Dimmu]

Most definitely. I look forward with glee towards the day that religion is finally eradicated from the face of the earth.
Its impossible to eradicate religion. Its an idea.

[B5C]

It is impossible to get rid of religion. The Catholic church stayed during the French Revolution and the Orthodox stayed during the USSR. What can be destroyed is organized religion.

Organized religion is a bigger threat than personal religion.

[Thug Lessons]

Its impossible to eradicate religion. Its an idea.

Racism is an idea as well but I'm firmly dedicated to eradicating it, even if I'm not convinced the task will ever be fully completed.

[Hoplite]

Greetings,

Although religion is supposed to be a personal matter, hasn't it become a public nuisance most of the time? Plus it makes people irrational, and even their decisions reflect that.
Go onto a forum that has PS2 and XBOX360 fans on it. People get into knock-down drag-out fights about Coke vs Pepsi (there is NO fucking difference).

The point is people will be irrational about anything and everything. I'm sure there is a group out there, in the vast reaches of cyberspace, devoted to loving salt and hating pepper.

Religion is not unique in it's ability to draw in people who are nuts.

[hatzel]

I'm sure there is a group out there, in the vast reaches of cyberspace, devoted to loving salt and hating pepper.

I absolutely love pepper. But my girlfriend claims it upsets her stomach. All manner of calamitous conflicts inevitably ensue! Therefore...we must abolish either pepper or my girlfriend :lol:

[Thug Lessons]

It is impossible to get rid of religion. The Catholic church stayed during the French Revolution and the Orthodox stayed during the USSR. What can be destroyed is organized religion.

Organized religion is a bigger threat than personal religion.

Both the Catholic and Orthodox churches are organized religion, B5C. They're organized religion defined.

[ComradeMan]

I absolutely love pepper. But my girlfriend claims it upsets her stomach. All manner of calamitous conflicts inevitably ensue! Therefore...we must abolish either pepper or my girlfriend :lol:

Depending on how you answer that shows whether or not you are a psychopath! :lol:

[B5C]

Both the Catholic and Orthodox churches are organized religion, B5C. They're organized religion defined.

They can be replaced like happen in the United States. If we get the state out of religion. Organized religion will have a hard time too hold on. Like has happen in the United States.

The problem with the Catholics is that they need to get the removal of the pope.

[Thug Lessons]

They can be replaced like happen in the United States. If we get the state out of religion. Organized religion will have a hard time too hold on. Like has happen in the United States.

The problem with the Catholics is that they need to get the removal of the pope.

Religion in the US is most often organized as well, and if anything it's worse than what the Catholic church advocates. At least the Pope can accept some form of guided evolution, but evangelical Protestants in the US are constantly mucking around with the teaching of evolution.

[Revolution starts with U]

It should be dis-encouraged. "Abolishing" it is like fighting the drug war; a waste of resource that will only cause more problems than it solves.

[Viet Minh]

Religious nuts are dangerous, but Religious Martyrs even more so. Encourage secularism, integration and education, give the people a quality of life and most will turn away from religion, but it won't matter much anyway because the religions themselves will not have negative control over peoples lives or be in a position to sow discord.

[The Man]

It should absolutely abolished. Now I'm not saying that we should deny the freedom to worship religion, I just think overtime it will slowly erode away.

But yeah, I dropped imaginary friends when I was five.

[Rafiq]

Its impossible to eradicate religion. Its an idea.

Just as the world being flat was an Idea.

Surly it won't be eradicated, but changed, morphed, or even whithered away over time.

[NGNM85]

I've been saying this for years...

[Milk Sheikh]

I've been saying this for years...

And they'll call you a fanatic for taking a stand against fanatics.:rolleyes: That's what leftist politics has become - in total contrast to what Marx and the rest had in mind.

[ComradeMan]

You can't destroy an abstract idea. You can kill a tree but you can't kill the idea of a tree. :rolleyes:

[Milk Sheikh]

You can't destroy an abstract idea. You can kill a tree but you can't kill the idea of a tree. :rolleyes:

I can kill comrademan, but I can't kill the idea of comrademan. So I'll go ahead and kill comrademan.:laugh:

[ComradeMan]

I can kill comrademan, but I can't kill the idea of comrademan. So I'll go ahead and kill comrademan.:laugh:

And ComradeMan will kick your ass, ragazzino. Stop being a dick- or perhaps it's true what they say in Italian...

Muore la pecora,
Muore l'agnello,
Muoiono il bue e l'asinello,
Muore la gente piena di guai...
Ma i rompicoglioni non muoiono...mai!

The sheep dies,
So does the lamb,
The ox and donkey,
People with their sorrows as ever-
But pains in the asses die... never!

[Milk Sheikh]

And ComradeMan will kick your ass little boy. Stop being a dick.

Can't take a joke, sheesh!:rolleyes:

[ComradeMan]

Can't take a joke, sheesh!:rolleyes:

Jokes are meant to be funny- if no one laughs, perhaps it's your humour that sucks.

I don't think jokes about killing people are particularly funny.

[Milk Sheikh]

Jokes are meant to be funny- if no one laughs, perhaps it's your humour that sucks.

I don't think jokes about killing people are particularly funny.

Comrademan, I say this to you as a fellow restricted member: you need anger management lessons.:laugh:

[ComradeMan]

Comrademan, I say this to you as a fellow restricted member: you need anger management lessons.:laugh:

I'm not angry- look at my fucking happy happy face :)

[Astarte]

Any person or group of persons who attempts to "destroy" religion will be in for a couple of rude surprises.

[hatzel]

Any person or group of persons who attempts to "destroy" religion will be in for a couple of rude surprises.

You mean when the Big Man kicks their @$$? :rolleyes:

[Astarte]

You mean when the Big Man kicks their @$$? :rolleyes:

The "big man" in the form of spirituality's persistence. I do not think you can "destroy" or "abolish" beliefs in spirituality and the occult which supersede organized religion - it is something that has been with us since before state civilization and will be with us after any misinformed state tries to "destroy" it.

[Viet Minh]

There's a seam on my scrotum, explain that one Evolutionists!

[ChrisK]

There's a seam on my scrotum, explain that one Evolutionists!

You had your balls hatcheted and sewed it back together.

[Tim Finnegan]

Although religion is supposed to be a personal matter, hasn't it become a public nuisance most of the time?
I think the world could do with more public nuisance.

http://www.scotlandvacations.com/images/Kier%20Hardie.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/33/41965790_896c55ade5.jpg
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00443/news-graphics-2007-_443942a.jpg

[NGNM85]

You can't destroy an abstract idea. You can kill a tree but you can't kill the idea of a tree. :rolleyes:

No, you can't 'exterminate', or 'kill' an idea like you can kill or exterminate an organism. However, there are a number of ideas that we could, metaphorically, describe as 'dead', such as; the Ptolemaic model of the cosmos, Phlogiston, etc. It is entirely conceivable, as well as desirable, that religion should join the rest of this nonsense in the dustbin of history.

[Viet Minh]

No, you can't 'exterminate', or 'kill' an idea like you can kill or exterminate an organism. However, there are a number of ideas that we could, metaphorically, describe as 'dead', such as; the Ptolemaic model of the cosmos, Phlogiston, etc. It is entirely conceivable, as well as desirable, that religion should join the rest of this nonsense in the dustbin of history.

Thats the beauty of religion, its difficult to disprove (at least the existence of God) and when it has been disproven that is dismissed as a 'test of faith'. Even the most avid Atheists might find themselves in a situation where they think 'please God help me' because as an idea its appealing its convenient and useful in controlling the people. And I'm not denying it probably inspires some people to lead better lives, and even help others, but it also dehumanises non-believers, other faiths, and animals (except Buddhism which teaches respect for nature). ultimately though all religions create division. It is also a major scapegoat. Kids starving in Africa? Well it must be God's divine will. Genocide? Everything happens for a reason. Slavery? The Lord works in mysterious ways.

One day the human race will face the fact that 'God' will not help us, we have to help each other. Until then the rat race continues..

[Tim Finnegan]

It bugs me when secularists choose only to debunk the crudest and most undeveloped forms of religious belief, when there really is a great deal more complexity and nuance available- and not all of it, as the Dawkinian caricaturists would have you belief, and enormous game of back-peddling and cherry-picking. It both harms our position, and does a disservice to those people of faith who are not all the demonic figures the describe.

Loyal4Life, for example, claims that religion leads one to "de-humanise" non-believers, and, while this is certainly true of many religious authorities and institutions, could the same be said of all believers. Take, say, Abdul Sattar Edhi, a devout Pakistani Muslim whose non-profit organisation has previously been threatened by Islamist militants for their scrupulousness in refusing to take religious background into account when administering medical aid to the impoverished- hardly de-humanisation! (In fact, Mr. Edhi has something of a humanistic streak, having previously said that, although he is a devout Muslim, his "true religion is the human race", and has declared the two not only compatible but necessarily co-existent.)

[Viet Minh]

It bugs me when secularists choose only to debunk the crudest and most undeveloped forms of religious belief, when there really is a great deal more complexity and nuance available- and not all of it, as the Dawkinian caricaturists would have you belief, and enormous game of back-peddling and cherry-picking. It both harms our position, and does a disservice to those people of faith who are not all the demonic figures the describe.

Loyal4Life, for example, claims that religion leads one to "de-humanise" non-believers, and, while this is certainly true of many religious authorities and institutions, could the same be said of all believers. Take, say, Abdul Sattar Edhi, a devout Pakistani Muslim whose non-profit organisation has previously been threatened by Islamist militants for their scrupulousness in refusing to take religious background into account when administering medical aid to the impoverished- hardly de-humanisation! (In fact, Mr. Edhi has something of a humanistic streak, having previously said that, although he is a devout Muslim, his "true religion is the human race", and has declared the two not only compatible but necessarily co-existent.)

Most religions are great in theory, but in practise none have worked out too well to my knowledge. A bit like Anarchism.. Joke! :p