Religion [Archive]

redstar2000

18th September 2003, 18:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2003, 12:03 PM
Religion should be practiced freely obviously. People should be able to build the greatest churches and temples they want to. I don't at all see why we need to suppress it. I know some of the members here somehow stumble to the conclusion that anything we disagree with is inherently bad. I'm particularly surprised to see that, that bastion of freedom RedStar thinks would should be so proactive in tackling religion.
Well, about some things, I'm not a "bastion of freedom"--like everyone else.(!)

I think that religion, as long as it has any public presence, will serve as an on-going source of reactionary ideas...including many "divine" excuses for attacks on all manner of other freedoms.

I do not think there is any substantial evidence for a "non-repressive" religion...by definition almost, religion preaches human submission to "divine will"--which always turns out to mean submission to the humans who establish a "plausible" claim to "knowing" what the "divine will" really "is".

The reason we destroy all the buildings of an obvious religious character and do not permit the construction of any new ones is precisely to eliminate this "propaganda in stone" from public observation and attention. Have you noticed that there is no temple to Zeus in your city? Does it bother you? Of course not! Who cares?

With "religious literature", the best course is probably to destroy existing stocks of such garbage and not permit the publication of any more of it...but the stuff that is already in private hands, let them keep it--much good it will do them.

The "religion" section of the public library will consist entirely of critical, scholarly studies of the subject...including heavily-footnoted editions of all the "holy books". Anyone who can read such material with even minimum understanding is quite unlikely to become a "believer".

In general, I don't think there's much to be gained in persecuting believers just for being believers...though I don't see anything amiss, from time to time, in holding up some particularly odious cult as a "bad example".

I think we have to be realistic; it might well take five or ten decades to remove the symbols of religion from public life (but start with the famous ones--send a clear message!) and another couple of centuries for it to completely disappear.

This racket has been going on for a long time and it won't go away if you just scowl at it a little, like the Russians did.

Marx and Engels thought religion, like the state, would "wither away". Well, we've had some experience with "withering away" and it has been less than encouraging, to say the least.

I think the matter is too serious to be left to chance.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

YKTMX

18th September 2003, 20:09

I think that religion, as long as it has any public presence, will serve as an on-going source of reactionary ideas...including many "divine" excuses for attacks on all manner of other freedoms.

Let's be honest, if their is a revolution any day soon, the decline of religion as any kind of force in society would be one of the first things to appear. The church would have no where near the power it has now, it's role would be to preach, nothing more, nothing less.

I do not think there is any substantial evidence for a "non-repressive" religion...by definition almost, religion preaches human submission to "divine will"--which always turns out to mean submission to the humans who establish a "plausible" claim to "knowing" what the "divine will" really "is".

And I see no problem with this. People can proclaim what they like, surely? Under capitalism, I can say what I like to a certain degree can't I? As socialism or "communism" is presumably an advancement on modern capitalist society then how do we explain people losing liberties? If people have accepted Marxism on a mass scale, and discarded religion, then those who which to continue to believe on god would be nothing but a pecuiliarity in society.

With "religious literature", the best course is probably to destroy existing stocks of such garbage and not permit the publication of any more of it...but the stuff that is already in private hands, let them keep it--much good it will do them.

I'm afraid the idea of burning books is slightly too nasty for my tastes. I must be a softie liberal!

The "religion" section of the public library will consist entirely of critical, scholarly studies of the subject...including heavily-footnoted editions of all the "holy books". Anyone who can read such material with even minimum understanding is quite unlikely to become a "believer".

Footnoted? As in propaganda? This non-Leninist state of your's RedStar, picking up quite a few bad habits along the way. Reading is for the reader, not for anyone else, anyone who restricts what people read is a facist in my book (book, haha).

I think we have to be realistic; it might well take five or ten decades to remove the symbols of religion from public life (but start with the famous ones--send a clear message!) and another couple of centuries for it to completely disappear.

I don't believe religion will ever dissapear. The belief in a higher being than yourself is a symptom of humanity.

Pete

18th September 2003, 21:12

I challenge any of you to define religion in a way that it encompasses all world religions, from the Queen Charlotte Islands to Japan, from Baffin Island to Tazmania. Go ahead. Try.

Dr. Rosenpenis

18th September 2003, 22:06

I think that it's quite easy, Pete. Any doctrine that teaches that there is an afterlife, and/or one or more divine/supreme being(s), and/or that there exists something, concrete or abstract, which we cannot physicaly sense, but we must still respect/obey/worship is a religion.

YKTMX, communism seeks to end oppression. Religion creates oppression, therefore it must be suppressed. You are suggesting that we should respect and acknowlege the "rights" and "liberties" set forth by bourgeoisie, and more importantly, for the bourgeoisie. These "liberties" only serve to perpetuate the capitalist class's oppressive role in class society by allowing things such as the free market and wage labor. They say that if these things are restricted, then "liberty" is gone, but you and I both know that the existance of these things, in fact, is what causes the absence of liberty. Religion is exactly the same case. It is used to maintain the bourgeoisie and the clergy in power. The abolishion of religion would liberate people, not restrict them, lad.

Religion should be eliminated, but not in a way that creates fear, right? My question was how can we, with respect to the people, eliminate religion? Redstar, I'm still waiting for an answer.

BuyOurEverything

18th September 2003, 22:28

I think it would be more effective to dissuade religion by non violent methods than to physically supress it and throw preachers in prison. All that does is create martyrs. I think we should reveal the lies of religion to the people, publically ridicule religion, make it socially unnaccptable and possibly declare religions hate groups due to their discriminatory preaching. It's more effective to turn people away from religion of their own volition rather than force them as then they just practice in secret and revolt and such like.

On a somewhat related note, I heard a while ago on CBC that under a new bill that was introduced parts of the bible would be declared hate speach. Anyone heard about this? I think it's great, I mean what does the bible preach: homophobia, sexual repression, brutal executions for many "crimes" such as adultery and cursing your parents.

RyeN

19th September 2003, 03:05

Rise up and save us Antichrist
Soon there will be a leader to rise up and abolish religion. Hopefuly as our technologie increases there will be less and less need for a god. People are already beginig to lose faith at almost a 30% anual decline. People should be able to follow "spiritaul" practices though. Theres nothing wrong with looking into one's self to atain balance. However to worship a god is idle and inefficient.

redstar2000

19th September 2003, 04:13

I don't believe religion will ever disappear. The belief in a higher being than yourself is a symptom of humanity.

I think that's the real message in your post. And it's an unfortunate one...it means that you see any attempt to chuck this garbage out as both "impossible" and an attack on you.

The "impossibility" argument doesn't bother me; it can be made against any human effort and has historically been proven wrong as often as it has been proven right.

Time will tell if we humans can indeed dispense with religion altogether...or not. But we will try!

There's nothing I can do about the feelings of those who see their world "come apart" around them...I'm sure there will be considerable "wailing and gnashing of teeth" when the wrecking ball crashes into the walls of your favorite "palace of worship".

The old order passeth away and is no more.

Religion should be eliminated, but not in a way that creates fear, right?

I think it's guaranteed that proletarian revolution itself will provoke not merely fear but absolute panic among religious believers.

They have been told continuously for the last 150 years that we communists are going to kill them for the "crime" of being believers. No matter how many reassurances we offer them with regards to their personal safety, they will be certain that we will "bring back the lions".

No amount of explanation about what measures we propose to take is going to change that.

So, I'm not going to worry about it. The measures to remove religion from public life should just go ahead and take place, period. If the believers raise a fuss, just deal with it. They will eventually become demoralized and, with the passing of time, disappear.

But the main thing is to make no concessions to religious sentiments. The crap is to be eliminated, period! We don't have to kill anyone or put anyone in prison to do that; just take it out of public life and it will privately die of its own accord.

Anyone visit the "Temple of Zeus" in your neighborhood last week? And they didn't stay away out of "fear", did they?

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

crazy comie

19th September 2003, 15:02

I think BuyOurEverything has the best ideas on this issue.

Pete

19th September 2003, 16:59

The Bible is a fairly good piece of literature (what I have read so far), but it has so many contradictions (such as two creation myths) that one can not take it as being authoritative without leaving out the fact that the world was created first out of an ocean (Tiamat in the Babylonian myth which Ch. 1 of Genisis copies) and then after everything was created and was 'good' the world was created out of an open barren land. Wierd eh?

Banning the bible is bullshit. Some parts in it have made me laugh out loud. "I did not laugh" "You did too!"...bhaha :D It's worth the read my friends, its worth the read.

Dr. Rosenpenis

19th September 2003, 17:42

Most members of the proletariat, Redstar, are religous, many of whom will not easily let go of religion, and remember, it is a proletarian revolution, no?

How do you plan to remove religion from public life? Who will enforce whichever laws would be needed? Nobody can force people to let go of religous beliefs. How do plan to accomplish this with the de-centralized government you seek to establish? If the working class will wield power directly from their unions and commitees as you suggest, how many of these unions and commitees will be so commited to supressing religion?

To remove religion from public life, you will need more than just a demolition of places of worship, eh? What else, stop reproduction of holy books? This is all fine and good, but it will not be enough. The communists cannot keep full control of public life, it is impossible, unless the communists have centralized power, of course.

commie kg

19th September 2003, 18:37

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2003, 09:42 AM
Most members of the proletariat, Redstar, are religous, many of whom will not easily let go of religion, and remember, it is a proletarian revolution, no?

How do you plan to remove religion from public life? Who will enforce whichever laws would be needed? Nobody can force people to let go of religous beliefs. How do plan to accomplish this with the de-centralized government you seek to establish? If the working class will wield power directly from their unions and commitees as you suggest, how many of these unions and commitees will be so commited to supressing religion?

To remove religion from public life, you will need more than just a demolition of places of worship, eh? What else, stop reproduction of holy books? This is all fine and good, but it will not be enough. The communists cannot keep full control of public life, it is impossible, unless the communists have centralized power, of course.
Religion will be almost completely abandoned by the masses, by the time a revolution does come. Let's face it; revolution isn't happening tomorrow. I think there will be little left to do as far as abolishing religion. The entire human conciousness will have made a dramatic flip.

Dr. Rosenpenis

19th September 2003, 18:59

gee, i'd leik to think so, comarde, but religions have been around for thousands of years. I doubt it will go from the membership of billions to a considerable minority in a few hundred years.

Blibblob

19th September 2003, 23:35

gee, i'd leik to think so, comarde, but religions have been around for thousands of years. I doubt it will go from the membership of billions to a considerable minority in a few hundred years.
It is greatly declining right now, however. Everywhere you turn you see Athiest after Agnostic after Athiest. As education improves and literacy rate goes up, people get smarter and see how stupid religion is. In the 20s the number of fundies that many people followed was quite large. Now fundies are laughed at by the majority. Baptist counts are dropping and baptist is a curse word at the Catholic church I go to sometimes. Calling somebody a baptist is on the same line as calling them a moron.

Dr. Rosenpenis

19th September 2003, 23:55

if i were you i'd stop atending that church, redstar might be demolishing it any day now. :lol:

yes, perhaps you are right. But especialy in underdeveloped countries, people still cling strongly to relion, and our chances are better there, as opposed to the first world, where the atheist population is growing. In developing nations, the atheist population is also growing, but only aming intelectuals, which are a scarce minority.

redstar2000

20th September 2003, 02:03

Obviously, the campaign to remove religion from public life would have to have the enthusiastic support of a majority of the working class...otherwise it probably wouldn't work and would end up causing more problems than it was worth.

And I can see difficulties. Given that most of the working class will probably be atheist by the time of the revolution, many will be indifferent to the remnants of public religion. They will argue along the lines of "why shoot a dying man?".

There are several possible responses.

The first reason is that he ain't dead yet...what harm may he yet do before he finally dies? Every human mind lost to superstition is a loss to all of us.

The second reason is that the bastard might recover...it's been known to happen before.

But most important is the fact that religion, as long as it exists, serves as a reservoir of other reactionary ideas--praise of obedience to authority as a general principle being only the most obvious example.

Getting rid of religion dries up a major source of all anti-revolutionary ideas.

So there may ensue, after the revolution, an extended controversy among the working class as to whether and how to remove religion altogether from public consciousness...before a campaign can even begin.

Were I to live to see that day, my voice would be among the loudest: "let's kill it now while we can!"

As to "less-developed" countries in a post-capitalist world, I confess I have not given a great deal of thought to the matter. It would be the height of folly to attempt to impose communism (or atheism) on those people at gunpoint.

But a little judicious bribery might help matters move along in the right direction.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

Dr. Rosenpenis

20th September 2003, 03:21

Looks to me like I've spotted a hole in your anarcho-communism. Communism seeks to bring freedom to the people by ending oppression, but anarchism prevents anything from being done that is not directly endorsed by the working class, no? The bourgeoisie has made it so that the people believe that liberty is freedom to be oppressed. If we must tolerate the oppression brought on by religion, then do you also suggest that we allow them to continue being oppressed by the free market and wage labour? :unsure:

RyeN

20th September 2003, 04:59

Inside of every human being their is an inate quality that makes us want to survive no matter what. Our urge to go on and exist. People who commit suicide are the rare ocasion of system error. People who belive in a god or life after death are afraid to see life as it is. You are just Human after all. A body that contains and sustains our mind. When our mind rots to dust or is blown out the back of our heads for the wrong doings weve done its all over.
With this quality born into us there was a need for stories of an after life or a higher power to develop. There are many diverse cultures wich would acount for all the different religions. Even Christianity one of the dominate religions of our erra has hundreds of different sects, with thousands of differing views and belifs. Not to mention all the logic errors and contradictions in the Holy bible. People just want something to belive in some hope for the future.
The more the education level of the public goes up the more they will come to understand how wrong they were. We need to give people a new image to satisfy that urge. An image of the human race progressing through the work of all peoples. If people could only see the glory of communism, Imagine the things that could get acomplished.

crazy comie

20th September 2003, 10:26

That is true

redstar2000

20th September 2003, 11:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2003, 10:21 PM
Looks to me like I've spotted a hole in your anarcho-communism. Communism seeks to bring freedom to the people by ending oppression, but anarchism prevents anything from being done that is not directly endorsed by the working class, no? The bourgeoisie has made it so that the people believe that liberty is freedom to be oppressed. If we must tolerate the oppression brought on by religion, then do you also suggest that we allow them to continue being oppressed by the free market and wage labour? :unsure:
It would be a most curious "freedom from oppression" that could only be imposed on working people at gunpoint, would it not?

Of course, you are confusing the present with the future. At this point in time, most people still have many ideological ties to the present social order. IF Marx was right, that will change.

It will change because capitalism itself in functioning according to its own "laws" will change the material reality of the working class...things will get worse. When they do, those ideological ties will strain and then break.

That is what makes proletarian revolution possible.

In the years leading up to the revolution, there will be vigorous debate on the course(s) to be followed after the revolution...and those debates will be even more vigorous following the fall of the capitalist state apparatus itself.

Do we need someone at that point to "impose" a course of action at gunpoint? To "herd" the working class into a disciplined "flock"?

Or is the best way to insure victory that of confidence in the class itself to work out the best course of action?

I remind you that the first option has been tried...with less than inspiring results.

That doesn't deprive conscious communists (or any other part of the working class) of a voice in the debate. We are just as free to advocate the course that we think best as anyone else...and we can condemn "bad ideas" (like tolerance for the remnants of superstition) as harshly as we like.

What we are not permitted, from a communist standpoint, is to impose our views on our class at gunpoint "for their own good". That excuse has always been the first step down the road of counter-revolution.

Let's not go there.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

crazy comie

20th September 2003, 14:47

I see your point.

Saint-Just

20th September 2003, 16:07

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2003, 05:00 PM
I am completely in favor of suppressing relion, comrade. It just occured to me that it may be somewhat idealistic, as many people adhere closely to religion.

Will you care to explain how religion was suppressed in the past. From what you told me, it sounds like religion was eliminated only in the way that people were in fear of being imprisioned for worshiping openly, as most religions require.
In schools people were educated properly on religion. Religious buildings were removed; in China they used the bricks from buddhist temples to create pig troughs and sties, rather fitting. In China they also put religious leaders in struggle meetings, where they would be sources of derision in public and made to denounce their beliefs and tell people the true feudal, aristocratic, money swindling nature of their practice.

If someone starts preaching about religion they will be punished, if they publish something they will be punished and so on. I would suggest that in these states religion was removed largely removed in a relatively short period. There still remained substantial numbers of theists, the ones that take longer and with each succcessive generation dissappear.

With these methods the ones redstar2000 describes also appear.

Religion is not entirely harmful may I also suggest and to some people it does not affect society very much.

In the DPRK religion is extremely small in number now, although it may start to grow because of the changin situation and possible liberalisation of the country.

Dr. Rosenpenis

20th September 2003, 20:35

Redstar, so.... you're saying that we should allow, accept, and tolerate the oppression of the working class untill they realize the potential of the power of their unity?!

This is Chairman Mao's sig:

"Maybe Marx could've not written Capital, and maybe the workers would've just one day "figured it out"...but that's not the truth. The truth is that they need help. And giving that help is not wrong. It is Marxism." ~A Comrade

redstar2000

21st September 2003, 01:36

Redstar, so.... you're saying that we should allow, accept, and tolerate the oppression of the working class until they realize the potential of the power of their unity?!

Well, I'll start by saying that is an extremely bizarre interpretation of what I expressed in my post.

"Allow, accept and tolerate"? Are you suggesting that a small minority of conscious communists could "stop" it, all by themselves?

Presumably, out of "the goodness of their hearts", right?

A real "triumph of the will", no question about it!

Look, do you "allow, accept and tolerate" volcanic eruptions? That's what revolutions are! They do not occur as a result of clever political maneuvers by "enlightened humanitarians", mumbling ritual Leninist spells to invoke the "fire god".

What are the Leninists really saying? Perhaps something like "the emancipation of the working class is too important or too urgent to be left to the workers themselves---we, being superior men, must step in and lift their yoke for them...it is our humanitarian duty".

That's for public consumption, of course. Privately, it seems obvious to me that the principal objection of Leninist party leaders to class society is that they weren't born into the ruling class...an "oversight of history" that they intend to rectify at the first opportunity.

Careerist bastards, the whole lot!

Indeed, that evaluation should be obvious not only from their track record but even from their own mouths. What do you think all that rhetoric about a "transitional stage of socialism" with wage-slavery, markets, political dictatorship, etc., really means?

It means purely and simply that they get to run things and the rest of us get to carry out their orders or suffer a variety of unpleasant consequences.

Fuck that shit!

"Maybe Marx could've not written Capital, and maybe the workers would've just one day "figured it out"...but that's not the truth. The truth is that they need help. And giving that help is not wrong. It is Marxism."--emphasis added.

It certainly is the truth and Marx himself would have been the first to say so. New ideologies are the product of new material conditions...not the other way around.

Would Marx have been a "Marxist" in the 18th century? Don't be absurd!

It gets worse.

The workers "need help"? Aaawww, poor workers.

And "helping them is Marxism"? Isn't Marxism "sweet" to lend a helping hand?

It has all the petty-bourgeois sentimental appeal of a Norman Rockwell painting; you know, the kindly, warm-hearted "Marxist" standing on the street corner in the swirling snow, ringing his little bell, with a black kettle bearing the words "help the workers". Afterwards, he will use the money to buy the poor workers a really nice Christmas dinner. Sure he will.

Bah! Humbug!

And not even sincere humbug at that. By "help", this "comrade" means rule over the workers "for their own good". All the rest of that sig is just romanticist drivel intended for those with a guilty conscience.

There are certainly many ways, theoretical and practical, for conscious communists to participate in class struggle and thereby enhance, by a small but measurable amount, the probability of successful proletarian revolution. In a way we act, as some have said, as the "memory" of the working class...reminding it of past failures and successes, as well as suggesting future possibilities.

But be realistic. We are not and will never be the "axis" of human history. We are not "keepers of the sacred flame", "destiny's chosen prophets", or the "designated leaders of the proletariat".

Forget all of that silly bourgeois crap!

Or, if you prefer, you can rise and sing that neo-classic favorite carol Good King Vladimir.

Marx bless us every one!

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

Dr. Rosenpenis

21st September 2003, 04:18

Is there a way, Redstar, that you can understand that we cannot just sit around and wait for a worker's revolution. The bourgeoisie's oppression will never yield to this. Just because we lead their emancipation, does not mean that we will rule over them. They will still have influence over the government, just as the bourgeoisie does today. We will simply act in function of the class as a whole. Freedom and equality cannot be attained unless we do this!

crazy comie

21st September 2003, 11:20

That is true Victorcommie.

redstar2000

21st September 2003, 11:47

Is there a way, Redstar, that you can understand that we cannot just sit around and wait for a worker's revolution. The bourgeoisie's oppression will never yield to this.

I didn't tell you to "just sit around and wait".

But if the bourgeoisie are so overwhelmingly powerful that a workers' revolution "cannot" defeat them, what the hell makes you think you can?

Possession of "the ring of power", perhaps?

Just because we lead their emancipation, does not mean that we will rule over them.

That's what it has meant so far. On what grounds do you suggest that you are any better?

They will still have influence over the government, just as the bourgeoisie does today.

In what way? The "privilege" of "voting yes"?

We will simply act in function of the class as a whole.

That view actually has a name; it's called substitutionism. It means a political course of action wherein you "substitute" the vanguard party for the working class.

It never works.

Freedom and equality cannot be attained unless we do this!

Another unsubstantiated assertion. And how do you propose to attain "freedom and equality" by abolishing both? The workers will have no freedom and be inferior to the party...and this will "lead" to "freedom and equality"???

Bah! Humbug!

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

Dr. Rosenpenis

21st September 2003, 16:11

I meant, Redstar, that the bourgeoisie will never allow the working class to even begin a revolution, which is just my point. When has it ever occured in history where oppressed groups attain, by themselves, liberation from oppression. Because they are oppressed, Redstar. How likely is it that the proletariat of the world today will grab a bunch of guns and defeat capitalism?

redstar2000

22nd September 2003, 01:21

I meant, Redstar, that the bourgeoisie will never allow the working class to even begin a revolution, which is just my point.

Then what sense does it make to even speak of communism at all?

It seems to me that the source of this "ultra-pessimistic" viewpoint is the overall reactionary present...which makes everything look "impossible".

But if there is a lesson in history here, it is that periods of reaction are followed by periods of revolution.

When has it ever occurred in history where oppressed groups attain, by themselves, liberation from oppression?

The February 1917 revolution in Russia would probably be the most outstanding example. The Czarist autocracy and the landed aristocracy were utterly destroyed...and while there were radical political groups that played a role, it was the workers and peasants themselves
who actually did the job.

Of course, this was a bourgeois revolution...it successfully ended semi-feudal and aristocratic oppression...not oppression "in general".

But it shows what happens when the masses are really determined to act...all the apparent "power" of the old order faded away like mist on a summer morning.

Compare this to what happened when the Bolsheviks substituted themselves for the working class in October 1917. Although they certainly enjoyed wide-spread initial support, they pissed it all away. They saw themselves as the "real actors" in history and the workers and peasants as their "subjects"...to be roused or suppressed at Bolshevik convenience.

Czar Nicholas II is dead; Long Live Czar Vladimir I!

How likely is it that the proletariat of the world today will grab a bunch of guns and defeat capitalism? -- emphasis added.

Today, the probability must be as close to zero as makes no difference.

What about tomorrow?

Was Marx right about the inevitability of the working class developing communist consciousness in the course of class struggle against their exploiters?

Or was Lenin right about having to have this consciousness "inserted" into the working class by a trained and disciplined cadre of "professional revolutionaries"? A cadre that would go on to lead the working class to "victory" (like generals lead an army) and would afterwards rule in uncontested splendor "for decades or centuries"?

It seems to me that you have succumbed to a Leninist historical mythology--I used the word "mythology" because there is, in fact, no historical justification for its "validity".

Look at the record! The Leninists have utterly botched all of their opportunities. I understand that they are now blaming all their wretched defeats on the "strength" of the imperialists.

What utter rot!

Did American troops occupy Moscow and smash the USSR? Did UN soldiers march victoriously into China? Did Yugoslavia fall to NATO forces?

You know as well as I that the Leninists all deliberately abandoned their pretense of "socialism" in favor of corruption and capitalism.

The "devil" did not "make them do it".

So what will you have? An uncertain path but a communist path? Or a path that has been repeatedly followed...to the certainty of capitalism?

Choose wisely!

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

Vinny Rafarino

22nd September 2003, 02:56

After reading all of the hot air that the Hack has posted, shit shit has finally rolled downhill far enough for him to finally post this brillaint piece of Miss Cleo-esque wisdom;

What about tomorrow?

The perfect excuse for someone who's ideology is so far from being grounded it's in danger of being hit with a SAM for entering the no fly zone.

Hawker

22nd September 2003, 03:34

Well for me I think that the decline of religion is a good thing,because then people will start to wake up.Lao Tzu once said "Religion is the Way of dillusion,"and I myself personally believe that statement.Religon time and time again has proven to the world it is one of the most dangerous ideas man has ever created.From the Crusades,to the Spanish inquisition,and all the way to modern day cults,religion is a very dangerous thing.

Pete

22nd September 2003, 03:51

Hawker... Taoism is considered a religion.

Anastacia

22nd September 2003, 12:40

First of all, I want to apologize my english. Second, I haven't read all the posts but I want to add some comments.

I am christian and I think that everyone has a right to believe whatever they want and no religions should be banned. Any of you can say that christianity is bullshit and you don't want to believe it. I appreciate your opinion and I'm not going to preach you "you hethen, you will burn in hell!". Well, I believe it is true but if you don't want to believe it, I want try to convert you by force. Because of that, church and state should be separated.

And that Marx's "religion is opium for the masses"-thing or something like that, not sure about it. Many Christians doesn't want a change, because whatever happens, it's in God's hands. I think that’s one of the main reasons. I, as a christian, do not support revolution like I don’t support any kind of violence. But if I could make change for any other way, I will.

The main point in christianity is love, not 24/7 preaching and reading the bible. It was the love that ”made me a commie”. I want that everyone in the world is equal, everyone has a right to live. And my opinions were very close to socialim. Not exactly, but very close. I don’t describe myself as a commie or as a socialist or anything. I don’t support any ideology as a whole. Can’t explain, hope you get the point. Read what Jesus has said before judging.

And I so hate USA’s ”God bless America”- stuff. It gives the wrong picture of christianity. Maybe that’s one of the reasons so many hates christianity. Eg. Bush and many others present themselves as christians but they really aren’t. :angry:

crazy comie

22nd September 2003, 16:21

Evry one has the right to practise religeon in private in my opinion.

redstar2000

23rd September 2003, 00:53

There's this...

I'm not going to preach to you "you heathen, you will burn in hell!". Well, I believe it is true but if you don't want to believe it, I won't try to convert you by force.

And then there's this...

The main point in christianity is love, not 24/7 preaching and reading the bible.

What a strange form of "love" that can contemplate eternal torture of the vast majority of the human species with equanimity.

In some ways, I will never grasp the superstitious (religious) mind.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

Vinny Rafarino

23rd September 2003, 01:39

And that Marx's "religion is opium for the masses"-thing or something like that, not sure about it. Many Christians doesn't want a change, because whatever happens, it's in God's hands. I think that’s one of the main reasons. I, as a christian, do not support revolution like I don’t support any kind of violence. But if I could make change for any other way, I will

That's what we will change. The misconception that the proletariat has no actual control of their own lives. Religion is an archaic oppressive tool of the bourgeoisie used to limit the actions of the proletariat. In essence, it allows the bourgeois to hand the proletariat a pile of shit and effectively limits the response of outrage that is demanded. That "piece of shit" is now "god's piece of shit" and if you eat it with a smile, you will be rewarded in the afterlife. Bullshit. Religion is and will always be a tool of the ruling elite and will need to be abolished completely for the sake of the human race.

I think the debate is "how" this will be accomplished versus "if" it is to accomplished. Any communist, socialist or anarchist should fundamentally strive for the abolishment of religion. If you choose not to, then you are lowered to the level of a simple bourgeois puppet. In essence, you are helping to suppress the workers revolution. This makes you the enemy and a far worseone than the ruling elite. You are the enemy that "claims" to be a friend of the revolution.

Obviously we cannot simply "abolish" religion outright. We will have to breed it out. All religious property will be confscated. All public religious gatherings will be outlawed. No funding will be provided to anyone for any religios purpose. The teaching of religious dogma to the new socialist youth will be a crime that will warrant execution.

Go ahead, worship your faux idols all you want, eventually your kind will be extinct along with another "religious" group, the neanderthal. Your children are ours.

Edit:

In some ways, I will never grasp the superstitious (religious) mind

I have seen inside the religious mind Hack, and I can assure you my firend, there is NOTHING there to grasp.

Anastacia

23rd September 2003, 09:03

What a strange form of "love" that can contemplate eternal torture of the vast majority of the human species with equanimity.

The world God created was good. Ok, perfect. But man wanted more. He wanted to be higher than others. God didn't like it. Just like many of you don't like people who thinks they are better than others. If you lift yourself, you lower someone else. That's not God's will. He wants everyone to be equal. Man chose selfishness. Children are raised surrounded by selfishness. God doesn't like that but he made a deal with us because he loves us. Jesus preached about love and equality. And that love I want to spreaqd around.

Religion is and will always be a tool of the ruling elite and will need to be abolished completely for the sake of the human race.

Every ideology can be a tool of the ruling elite. Even communism when abused. And every good ideology has been abused. And now people think it's not good ideology because it didn't work.

I quote nz revolution on http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?a...t=1226&st=0&hl= (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=3&t=1226&st=0&hl=)

People are rarely executed in Cuba, although I disagree with executions for dissent. WE ARE DISSIDENTS!

Ok... Hope you get my point. I can't really explain it in english. If someone doesn't, I'll try my best.

Vinny Rafarino

23rd September 2003, 09:31

Tell me in spanish then. Guess what, it will still be the same bullshit.

How has communism been "abused" when it has NEVER been implemented?

Usted es un grupo agonizante. Ore mientras usted puede porque tus ninos pertenecen a nosotros.

kylie

23rd September 2003, 09:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2003, 06:26 PM
Religion is a tool of bourgeoisie control and oppression.

There is no bourgeoisie in socialism. So it would die out on its own, making suppressing it a waste of resources. Though if any land held by relegious buildings could be put to better use, then of course it should be, the same with any resources the religious organisations themselves hold.

Anastacia

23rd September 2003, 10:16

How has communism been "abused" when it has NEVER been implemented?

People appear in the name of christianity and they are not or they give the wrong picture. Eg. Bush, Christian democratic party....

Tell me in spanish then. Guess what, it will still be the same bullshit.

I don't know spanish very much. I can explain in finnish if it helps.

Usted es un grupo agonizante. Ore mientras usted puede porque tus ninos pertenecen a nosotros.

I will.

You think different than mainstream. You think you have a right to it. Then why you deny others to think their own way. People should have right to their own opinions whatever they are. It's not right to tell people what they should think. Even if I don't like nazis etc. I give them right to think their own way. I am a christian but I give you a right to think whatever you want about christians.

Christians can also think with their own brain. In christianity there isn't leaders who tell what people should think. Catholic church isn't christian. Christianity isn't "a tool of a ruling elite". It's believing in that man is evil but God still loves him if he believes God wants to help him. Everyone is equal. There is no black or white or rich or poor.

Vinny Rafarino

23rd September 2003, 11:36

Sorry love, I don't speak Finnish. I was judging from you avatar. If you are more comfortable with French or Italian that will due. My German is not fluent enough to hold a conversation as such (possibly my French as well)

Anastacia

23rd September 2003, 11:52

That's what I supposed. I do study spanish but I have started only a few weeks ago. I know english best. I'll do my best with it. I'll give you sometimes some verses from bible so you would undestand what christianity really is about.

Vinny Rafarino

23rd September 2003, 11:54

No my dear, keep you bible verser to yourself. I read that bollocks 25 years ago. I don't need a "lesson" in it. Either debate with your intellect or not at all.

Anastacia

23rd September 2003, 12:26

Ok, if you have read it, you should know what it is about. Then why do you write some crap like that. Just like many people think that muslims are terrorists. Why? Their book doesn't mentoin a word about it. Vice versa. It's the leaders who say so. Any religion isn't guilty to anything. It were people who appear in the name of a religion.

truthaddict11

23rd September 2003, 12:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2003, 07:26 AM
Ok, if you have read it, you should know what it is about. Then why do you write some crap like that. Just like many people think that muslims are terrorists. Why? Their book doesn't mentoin a word about it. Vice versa. It's the leaders who say so. Any religion isn't guilty to anything. It were people who appear in the name of a religion.
Religion not guilty of anything?
what about
The Crusades?
The Spanish Inquisition?
The Salem Witch Trials
The Holocaust?
there are several more examples, how is relgion not guilty?
Christianity in particular has a long list of things it is guilty of. Protestant founder Martin Luther was an anti-semite (http://www.jesuscult.com/Luther_Anti-Semite.htm) While the Catholic church (also part of christianity) condoned the Holocaust!

All of these people did these things in the name of "god".

Blackberry

23rd September 2003, 13:06

Originally posted by truthaddict11+Sep 23 2003, 10:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (truthaddict11 @ Sep 23 2003, 10:45 PM)
[email protected] 23 2003, 07:26 AM
Ok, if you have read it, you should know what it is about. Then why do you write some crap like that. Just like many people think that muslims are terrorists. Why? Their book doesn't mentoin a word about it. Vice versa. It's the leaders who say so. Any religion isn't guilty to anything. It were people who appear in the name of a religion.
Religion not guilty of anything?
what about
The Crusades?
The Spanish Inquisition?
The Salem Witch Trials
The Holocaust?
there are several more examples, how is relgion not guilty?
Christianity in particular has a long list of things it is guilty of. Protestant founder Martin Luther was an anti-semite (http://www.jesuscult.com/Luther_Anti-Semite.htm) While the Catholic church (also part of christianity) condoned the Holocaust!

All of these people did these things in the name of "god". [/b]
You forgot to mention that Christianity, and indeed, most other religions, preach superstition and fantasy in the name of fact.

Vinny Rafarino

23rd September 2003, 13:07

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2003, 12:26 PM
Ok, if you have read it, you should know what it is about. Then why do you write some crap like that. Just like many people think that muslims are terrorists. Why? Their book doesn't mentoin a word about it. Vice versa. It's the leaders who say so. Any religion isn't guilty to anything. It were people who appear in the name of a religion.
Supporting an archaic ideology that warrants the human race to not THINK FOR THEMSELVES and be used as tools of oppression is no "ideology of love" It is an ideology of repression and ignorance. The people are not to slaves to ANYONE. Not even your precious "god".

Invader Zim

23rd September 2003, 13:31

Religion IMO is complete rubbish, and it shocks me to here intelegent people expressing a belief in a higher being, who's has no basis in fact what so ever. I also remember when I was a young child they attempted to indoctronate us with this purile bullshit... And I would agree that religion should be removed from all education, it has no place in modern socioty. People should be given the oppertunity to make up their own minds, and not indoctronated with propaganda from an age where being gulible is a natural reaction to new information and beliefs. When a person reaches the age to make an informed desision (probably around 12-13) they should be given access to religious texts, so they can make there own desision.

No socioty should either force people to believe in a god or a not believe. It is for people to make there own decision. I would hope they take the sensible path of Aithism, but I would not take the path of totalitarian intolerance, and force others to follow my line of thinking. Simply because people would not accept it, religion would be forced under ground, but it would survive. History has displayed this many times, an ideal example is when Henry the 8th famously abolished the catholic faith and set up the the C of E... But catholosism still exists, even though all the Catholic churches, monistarys and cathedrals were pulled down. The catholics mearly rebuilt them, and continued.

It is idiocy, pure and simple, to believe that you can abolish religion.

redstar2000

23rd September 2003, 13:59

God doesn't like that but he made a deal with us because he loves us. Jesus preached about love and equality. And that love I want to spread around.

Not much of a deal, if you ask me! I mean: worship & obey me or I will torture you for all "eternity".

What a sweetheart!

You think different than mainstream. You think you have a right to it. Then why you deny others to think their own way. People should have right to their own opinions whatever they are. It's not right to tell people what they should think. Even if I don't like nazis etc. I give them right to think their own way. I am a christian but I give you a right to think whatever you want about christians.

It's not a matter of "thinking", it's a matter of public behavior.

You can "think" that cannibalism is "god's will" all you want--as Jesus said (in so many words) "eat me"--nevertheless, if you kill someone and eat them, you are going to be in some serious trouble.

We do not care what is inside people's heads; we care about what they actually do.

You say that all the christians that "behave badly" are not "real" christians. That's up to you, but I can assure you that the christians who do behave badly are going to suffer for it...and "faith" is not going to get them "off the hook".

And by "behaving badly", I most definitely include making a public nuisance of themselves.

It is idiocy, pure and simple, to believe that you can abolish religion.

Tell it to the christians, squire. They did a pretty good hatchet job on all the major religions of antiquity.

Was there a big turn-out at the Temple of Zeus in your neighborhood last weekend? There wasn't? You don't even have one?

No one else does either. Care to speculate why they don't?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

Invader Zim

23rd September 2003, 14:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2003, 02:59 PM

God doesn't like that but he made a deal with us because he loves us. Jesus preached about love and equality. And that love I want to spread around.

Not much of a deal, if you ask me! I mean: worship & obey me or I will torture you for all "eternity".

What a sweetheart!

You think different than mainstream. You think you have a right to it. Then why you deny others to think their own way. People should have right to their own opinions whatever they are. It's not right to tell people what they should think. Even if I don't like nazis etc. I give them right to think their own way. I am a christian but I give you a right to think whatever you want about christians.

It's not a matter of "thinking", it's a matter of public behavior.

You can "think" that cannibalism is "god's will" all you want--as Jesus said (in so many words) "eat me"--nevertheless, if you kill someone and eat them, you are going to be in some serious trouble.

We do not care what is inside people's heads; we care about what they actually do.

You say that all the christians that "behave badly" are not "real" christians. That's up to you, but I can assure you that the christians who do behave badly are going to suffer for it...and "faith" is not going to get them "off the hook".

And by "behaving badly", I most definitely include making a public nuisance of themselves.

It is idiocy, pure and simple, to believe that you can abolish religion.

Tell it to the christians, squire. They did a pretty good hatchet job on all the major religions of antiquity.

Was there a big turn-out at the Temple of Zeus in your neighborhood last weekend? There wasn't? You don't even have one?

No one else does either. Care to speculate why they don't?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
How did the Romans destroy the Greek religion's? Well apart from tearing down the Greek monuments etc, they enslaved and murdered all those who disagreed.

How about the european inqusition's of the 13th century, you know it was against the churches rules to make victims blead, because of a passage in the bible? Unfortunatly racks and hot pokers can do the job with equil efficency, not to mention many priests obviously ignored that rule.

However I can see torture and murder would be a welcome part of your ideology.

:redstar2000:

crazy comie

23rd September 2003, 14:49

If there was a perfect being called god wouldn,t he of made pepole perfect ?

Anastacia

23rd September 2003, 15:42

Religion not guilty of anything?
what about
The Crusades?
The Spanish Inquisition?
The Salem Witch Trials
The Holocaust?
there are several more examples, how is relgion not guilty?
Christianity in particular has a long list of things it is guilty of. Protestant founder Martin Luther was an anti-semite While the Catholic church (also part of christianity) condoned the Holocaust!

All of these people did these things in the name of "god".

Christianity doesn't support any of these. If some people do it and they appear in the name of God, I wouldn't accuse the whole religion.

Not much of a deal, if you ask me! I mean: worship & obey me or I will torture you for all "eternity".

What a sweetheart!

Don't talk about things you have no idea of. Where Jesus exactly says "worship & obey me"? Nowhere. The point is that you believe you are very selfish and loveless and apologize it. No more, no less.

You can "think" that cannibalism is "god's will" all you want--as Jesus said (in so many words) "eat me"--nevertheless, if you kill someone and eat them, you are going to be in some serious trouble.

:lol:

Every ideology has made mistakes. You, as a leftist, don't think eg. Mao did right killing many innocent people, do you? Still you are leftist. Try to get my point.

redstar2000

23rd September 2003, 15:58

How did the Romans destroy the Greek religions? Well apart from tearing down the Greek monuments etc., they enslaved and murdered all those who disagreed.

Is there anything to be gained from responding to such massive ignorance?

The Romans did not "destroy" the "Greek religions" but were quite tolerant of nearly all the religions of their empire.

It was the Christians who destroyed the religions of antiquity...and they did it not with murder and torture (for the most part) but by simply removing the old religions from public life. They closed down or took over and remodeled all the old temples; they prohibited all the old public ceremonies; they deprived believers in the old religions of the right to teach in the academies of that period; they burned a lot of the old books.

And after a couple of centuries, the old religions were extinct.

There's no reason why communist society cannot do the same in the future...and make all religions extinct.

However I can see torture and murder would be a welcome part of your ideology.

Yes, that certainly follows logically from everything I've said. At least it does in the eyes of our resident servile lackey of U.S. imperialism.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif
"A site about egocentricity and contradictory confusion"--sc4r

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

truthaddict11

23rd September 2003, 17:23

Christianity doesn't support any of these. If some people do it and they appear in the name of God, I wouldn't accuse the whole religion.

Christianity history proves otherwise

The Crusades were started by Pope Urban II (http://www.geocities.com/EnchantedForest/Tower/3098/crusades.html)

The Spanish Inquisition was started by Pope Sixtus IV (http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Student_Work/Trial96/loftis/overview.html)

Both these guys did this in the "name of god" as do others doing gods will by killing the "heretics" to thier beliefs.

Don't talk about things you have no idea of. Where Jesus exactly says "worship & obey me"? Nowhere. The point is that you believe you are very selfish and loveless and apologize it. No more, no less.

actually he does say that not literaly but it states that those who dont worship and obey your god's "rules" that they will be punished such as the bible says for Sodom, Gomorrah and Babylon or face an enternity of damnation for your "sins" unless you "repent".what a swell guy huh?
I was razed christian for 14 years before I became an Atheist and I never regret the day I gave up those silly superstitions.

Vinny Rafarino

23rd September 2003, 21:06

I knew it!

The Hack is "loveless"! You scoundrel!

Invader Zim

23rd September 2003, 22:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2003, 04:58 PM

How did the Romans destroy the Greek religions? Well apart from tearing down the Greek monuments etc., they enslaved and murdered all those who disagreed.

Is there anything to be gained from responding to such massive ignorance?

The Romans did not "destroy" the "Greek religions" but were quite tolerant of nearly all the religions of their empire.

It was the Christians who destroyed the religions of antiquity...and they did it not with murder and torture (for the most part) but by simply removing the old religions from public life. They closed down or took over and remodeled all the old temples; they prohibited all the old public ceremonies; they deprived believers in the old religions of the right to teach in the academies of that period; they burned a lot of the old books.

And after a couple of centuries, the old religions were extinct.

There's no reason why communist society cannot do the same in the future...and make all religions extinct.

However I can see torture and murder would be a welcome part of your ideology.

Yes, that certainly follows logically from everything I've said. At least it does in the eyes of our resident servile lackey of U.S. imperialism.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif
"A site about egocentricity and contradictory confusion"--sc4r

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
No they enslaved evry one no matter their religion or creed... either way the people were still murdered and enslaved. Also have you ever heard of the treatment of Jews byt the Romans, the ones who dared to profess a believe which did not involve the planets? They were enslaved and murdered and their religion outlawed, but later on their emporer became a believer.. great way to wipe out a religion.

It was the Christians who destroyed the religions of antiquity...and they did it not with murder and torture

Yes and have you ever heard of Queen "bloody" Mary, who attempted to wipe out protestants. And what of her Farther Henry he only pulled down the vast majority of Catholic monuments and killed its priests. Lets look at the spanish inqusition, very tolerant, they believed that the heretics could have satan burned from them. Have you ever heard of the crusades, only whole wars to rid the world of the Muslim faith? The list is practically endless.

You really are full of shit, the only way that religions have been successfuly removed is by murder, torture and slavery. History has shown this.

Yes, that certainly follows logically from everything I've said. At least it does in the eyes of our resident servile lackey of U.S. imperialism.

LOL, resorting to bringing up other topics to attack me with? Whats up going senile cant remember which thread you are in?

:redstar2000:

Hawker

23rd September 2003, 23:13

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2003, 03:51 AM
Hawker... Taoism is considered a religion.
Your point is what?

redstar2000

23rd September 2003, 23:37

No they enslaved every one no matter their religion or creed... either way the people were still murdered and enslaved. Also have you ever heard of the treatment of Jews by the Romans, the ones who dared to profess a belief which did not involve the planets? They were enslaved and murdered and their religion outlawed, but later on their emperor became a believer...great way to wipe out a religion.

Alas, Mr. Gibbon, is this cretinous "summary" all that's left of your pioneering efforts in understanding Roman history?

Yes and have you ever heard of Queen "bloody" Mary, who attempted to wipe out protestants. And what of her father Henry he only pulled down the vast majority of Catholic monuments and killed its priests.

So? The mutual persecution of Catholics and protestants is a well-known historical fact; in some places one side had the upper hand and in some places the other. Both sides did resort to torture and murder--it's something that Christians generally like to do.

But it was not necessary.

In fact, torture and murder are generally poor weapons in any struggle except a purely military one.

Not that I would expect you to understand that.

Have you ever heard of the crusades, only whole wars to rid the world of the Muslim faith?

What utter rot! The nominal purpose of the crusades was to capture "the holy land" from the Muslims, not to "wipe out the Muslim faith".

The real reasons are rather more complex, but it was certainly an attempt by the papacy to "export" the class struggle in feudal Europe to the Middle East...it was hoped that landless aristocrats and restive peasants alike would focus their truculence on the infidel far away rather than disturbing the "peace of god" at home.

You really are full of shit, the only way that religions have been successfully removed is by murder, torture and slavery. History has shown this.

No, by and large that is not the case...rather the opposite is true, in fact. Murder, torture, and slavery are ineffective weapons against religion.

That's not to say that some particularly obnoxious asshole might not be ceremonially executed on occasion...but as a routine practice, forget it.

Torture and slavery are unacceptable from a communist point of view; those who resorted to such methods "in the name of communism" turned out to be the same people who restored capitalism.

I have never seen on any board someone as ignorant of history as yourself nevertheless pontificate on "the lessons of history".

You are truly a "Colonel Blimp", squire, and not only because of your servile pro-imperialism. Your self-confidence increases in inverse proportion to your actual knowledge. You are unable to read with comprehension or respond with coherence.

I suspect that your distaste for fox hunting has something to do with discovering that the fox is smarter than you are.

Right?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

"A site about egocentricity and contradictory confusion"--sc4r
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

Pete

23rd September 2003, 23:53

Hawker, I pointed that out because you quite willingly contradict yourself by using a quote that promotes religion to say that it is bad, and by supporting that religion your self.

Lao Tzu once said "Religion is the Way of dillusion,"and I myself personally believe that statement.Religon time and time again has proven to the world it is one of the most dangerous ideas man has ever created.

Taoism is a religion. Lao Tzu is saying that through religion we can loose all of our illusions, and perhaps to see reality (I am too busy with other projects to read the Tao Te Ching right now, but its up there on the list).

Quite frankly if you read your comments you are fundamentally confused. They contradict eachother.

Anastacia

24th September 2003, 06:48

Ok, what do you mean with "christianity"? Do you mean the inquisition, crusades etc.? If you mean then I agree with you. I don't like that shit neither. What I mean with christianity is that you belive your sins are forsaken. That you love every people equally. Like Che said... I don't know it in english. Something like "I can strongly feel pain, misery, any pain and any misery". I can't see why you want to ban christianity. Basically it's loving everyone equally. What eg. catholic church has made is not christianity. They just appear in the name of God. Try to understand. Christianity isn't killing all the heretics. Vice versa. Don't talk about things you don't know about. Tell me, where did Jesus actully advocate these things?

And I can see many of you don't like Stalin. USSR was socialist country. Does it make socilism bad?

Conghaileach

24th September 2003, 13:22

http://www.reformation.org/hitler4.jpg

Enough said.

truthaddict11

24th September 2003, 14:01

I can't see why you want to ban christianity. Basically it's loving everyone equally.

oh really? that sure explains God Hates Fags (http://www.godhatesfags.com)

crazy comie

24th September 2003, 16:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 01:22 PM

very amusing

Dr. Rosenpenis

24th September 2003, 20:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 01:48 AM
Ok, what do you mean with "christianity"? Do you mean the inquisition, crusades etc.? If you mean then I agree with you. I don't like that shit neither. What I mean with christianity is that you belive your sins are forsaken. That you love every people equally. Like Che said... I don't know it in english. Something like "I can strongly feel pain, misery, any pain and any misery". I can't see why you want to ban christianity. Basically it's loving everyone equally. What eg. catholic church has made is not christianity. They just appear in the name of God. Try to understand. Christianity isn't killing all the heretics. Vice versa. Don't talk about things you don't know about. Tell me, where did Jesus actully advocate these things?

And I can see many of you don't like Stalin. USSR was socialist country. Does it make socilism bad?
Dude! Christianity is all about forcing (though the use of superstition and fear) people to sumbit to the will of "God" (e.g. the clergy/bourgeoisie). It preaches intolenrance based on nothing of substance at all. We seek to abolish religion because it is reactionary. As communists, we seek to expel from society anything that impedes rule by the proletariat. Religion does just that!

I said that christianity is a tool of the bourgeoisie. This does not mean that religion will ceise to exist once the bourgeoisie is suppressed. It means that christianity, as all religions do, teaches individualism by preaching notions that people, who are less great than god, cannot have power over all people, because "god" is the only one wise enough and great enough to wield power over others. This is a blatant contradiction to communism, which teaches that the people as a whole must have power over all people, as opposed to capitalism, where people are granted "personal freedoms" allowing them to oppress others and gain individual power through the means of subjugation of the labour of others.

Vinny Rafarino

24th September 2003, 23:02

What eg. catholic church has made is not christianity

I think the Vatican disagrees.

Pete

24th September 2003, 23:14

The Catholic Church was NEVER the ultimate authority on Christianity. Even since the Council of Nicea it has had to fight against strong opposition. For example there where the Arians, then the Orthodox, then the Protestants, ect ect ect

The Feral Underclass

25th September 2003, 06:35

Anastacia

25th September 2003, 09:21

I know many people who appear in the name of God has made some great mistakes. So what? Everybody does. You shouldn't blame the religion about that. Many atheists has killed many people. Does it mean that all atheists are serialkillers? I'm not interested what people has made in the name of christianity. If you blame the religion give me some bible verses that proves christianity is bad and guilty to all the evilness you've talked about.

Dr. Rosenpenis

25th September 2003, 12:09

You just don't read, do you, Anastacia?
Ok, sure, christianity isn't necessarily murderous.... so what?!?!?
Our points still stand.

truthaddict11

25th September 2003, 12:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2003, 04:21 AM
If you blame the religion give me some bible verses that proves christianity is bad and guilty to all the evilness you've talked about.
The history of religion is enough to say on how oppressive and dominating it has been. You have to remember its not just christianity that is going to be going away in communism, all religions even non "mainstream" ones like Buddahism wont be able to influence in peoples lifes. Religion has been in a downtrend for over 100 years all it needs is a little shove in the right direction.

crazy comie

25th September 2003, 14:50

true

Pete

25th September 2003, 14:51

Cain kills Abel and is allowed to live.

God gives the Egyptians a plague after the Pharaoh takes Sarai for his wife, even though Abraham tricked him into doing this...Arbraham does this to Amblemech as well, so does Iaasc.

Good morals eh?

God gets his angels to destroy Sodom and Gomora for 'sinning' yet those sins are never identified.

God tryies to keep humanity stupid and chained to him.

He even creates the world TWICE!

harely

26th September 2003, 17:51

<He even creates the world TWICE!>

what do you mean by this? Twice? When? As far as i know the world was only created once.

<God gets his angels to destroy Sodom and Gomora for 'sinning' yet those sins are never identified.>

Have you read your bible?

It does state that they were engaging in imoral activities such as homosexuality,that the were drinking wine which is not imoral but the bible clearly identifies dunkeness as a sin and that is what the were doing, the bible says that they were doing things that were unnatrual, can't remember exactly what, but ill look it up.

crazy comie

27th September 2003, 17:48

very true

truthaddict11

27th September 2003, 20:29

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 27 2003, 12:48 PM
very true
do you ever give your own opinions or make posts more than 2 words long? you agreed with people having completly difference views on religion in this thread

monkeydust

27th September 2003, 22:46

I'm not trying to advocate christianity but some peoples arguments here for it being 'bad' seem a little unfair to the religion.

Firstly people claim its a bad thing due to the crusades etc. thereby making christianity evil; this is no different to the fact that Stalin killed 20 million or more during his time in the name of socialism. What I'm trying to say is that its unfair to condemn the religion just because of the fact that some who supported it (and misinterpreted its message) did terrible things. Just as socialisms not evil because Stalin was.

Secondly some people have been talking about removing christianity and supressing its worship to remove oppression. Surely you'd be opressing christian groups whilst attempting to remove opression.

Whilst Christian beliefs may seem a little unrealistic the morals that christianiy, when interpreted correctly holds are not bad things. Whilst in the past people were pressured to believe in God now people can chose what to believe of their own will. If people wish to believe in this then fair enough.

Lastly I think some people here keep talking of a proletarian revolution and how christianity would hinder this. The fact is that there simply isn't going to be a revolution and its an unrealistic goal.

The Feral Underclass

27th September 2003, 22:53

Why are you "people" if that really is what you are! even talking about this micky mouse bullshit...come on people...lets get with the programme here... :rolleyes:

The Feral Underclass

27th September 2003, 22:57

Originally posted by Libertarian [email protected] 25 2003, 07:35 AM
I haven't read any of the posts so i am not sure whether it has been said before but...

religion is evil. After the revolution we should smash down every church, temple, synogogue, shrine and alter and every religious leader and dogmatist should be dragged from their beds and shot in the streets. Then we should burn every bible, koran, torah and ban the word god from all languages. punishment for using it....death! :ph34r:
I agree with what this guy said!...very clever man!

truthaddict11

27th September 2003, 23:44

why do people always assume that christianity is the only religion going away under communism? Say good-bye to Judiasm, Islam, and every other superstition too!

redstar2000

28th September 2003, 01:36

Secondly some people have been talking about removing christianity and suppressing its worship to remove oppression. Surely you'd be oppressing christian groups whilst attempting to remove oppression.

Of course.

They would howl with self-righteous outrage...rather like an arrested con-man or stockbroker.

That's what happens in major revolutions where the whole society is turned upside down.

Your reaction to such events depends on which side you are on.

Whilst Christian beliefs may seem a little unrealistic the morals that christianity, when interpreted correctly, holds are not bad things.

Well, I think they are pretty bad, no matter how you "interpret" them.

Particularly atrocious in my view is "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's". A counsel of servile obedience to tyranny is lousy advice.

And here's an easy one: nowhere in the entire "New Testament" is so much as a single word said in condemnation of slavery. That's what makes the uninformed children who come on this board saying "Jesus was a communist" look so foolish...the so-called "son of god" couldn't even foresee the end of slavery and the rise of serfdom.(!)

Lastly I think some people here keep talking of a proletarian revolution and how christianity would hinder this. The fact is that there simply isn't going to be a revolution and it's an unrealistic goal.

You know, I really don't give a shit whether you "think" it's "unrealistic" or not.

It's the right thing to do!

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

Dr. Rosenpenis

28th September 2003, 03:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2003, 05:46 PM
Secondly some people have been talking about removing christianity and supressing its worship to remove oppression. Surely you'd be opressing christian groups whilst attempting to remove opression.
LikeRedstar said, we seek to suppress religion because it is a threat to the rule by the proletariat, because all religions teach that it is necessary, according to their "truth", to submit yourself to god's (their) will. This is a blatant contradiction to communism, like I have already said, because communism says that all the people can be ruled by all the people. And the result of religions' "submition to god", is the transfer of power to the bourgeoisie. So for the working class to wield power, religion must be suppressed!

RyeN

28th September 2003, 06:57

Vinny Rafarino

28th September 2003, 07:50

If you suppress religion people will want to follow it more. I think it would be easier to educate the people on what they are doing wrong. Show them the errors of there way and let them move on. I was raised christian but like most level headed people learned the truth and moved on to Communisum.

That is not accurate. We are not talking about a poulation of school children that will "rebel" and choose to engage in religious beliefs out od spite.

It's very simple like I have already stated. Remove the means to practise organised religion, make the teaching of organised religion to the youth a capital crime and BREED IT OUT.

BuyOurEverything

28th September 2003, 08:29

I haven't read any of the posts so i am not sure whether it has been said before but...

religion is evil. After the revolution we should smash down every church, temple, synogogue, shrine and alter and every religious leader and dogmatist should be dragged from their beds and shot in the streets. Then we should burn every bible, koran, torah and ban the word god from all languages. punishment for using it....death!

I hope you weren't serious. Executing people for saying "god"? If we attack religion that way it will just make it more popular. We need to expose the truth of religion and teach it's bloody past in schools and make it not acceptable by society. Saying your Christian would be the same as saying you were a member of a suicidal cult in today's society. I agree with making it illegal for religions to own land and buildings but I don't agree that we should institutionalize punishing people simply for their beliefs. Shunning by society will be enough to make the realize the error of their ways.

give me some bible verses that proves christianity is bad and guilty to all the evilness you've talked about

Well in addition to all those already given, I'd like to add a few:

He who curses his mother and father shall surely be put to death

He who lies with a man as he would lie with a woman shall be put to death

There are many others.

The Feral Underclass

28th September 2003, 10:28

I hope you weren't serious. Executing people for saying "god"?

You agree with the rest of it then I take it!?!?!

monkeydust

28th September 2003, 15:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2003, 03:40 AM

LikeRedstar said, we seek to suppress religion because it is a threat to the rule by the proletariat, because all religions teach that it is necessary, according to their "truth", to submit yourself to god's (their) will. This is a blatant contradiction to communism, like I have already said, because communism says that all the people can be ruled by all the people. And the result of religions' "submition to god", is the transfer of power to the bourgeoisie. So for the working class to wield power, religion must be suppressed!
I take your point here which is all well and god but a belief and submission to God n a christian manner is completely independent of physical rule. what I mean here is that it's perfectly possible for the proletariat to wield power on a physical and real level but on a spiritual level to hold belief in something greater, this wouldn't necessarily apply only to Christianity.

Well, I think they are pretty bad, no matter how you "interpret" them

I'm not saying that things such as the bible hold a perfect moral code for everything. Only that the general messages such as do not kill, love thy neighbour as you would yourself etc. are morally sound in a general sense and far from 'pretty bad'

redstar2000

28th September 2003, 16:05

I'm not saying that things such as the bible hold a perfect moral code for everything. Only that the general messages such as do not kill, love thy neighbour as you would yourself etc. are morally sound in a general sense and far from 'pretty bad'

Within a few pages of Yahweh telling the people of Israel "thou shalt not kill", "He" is specifically instructing them to engage in mass murder on numerous occasions and even directly punishing them for showing mercy...to livestock!!!

Not to mention "His" own "glorious" deeds at Sodom and Gomorrah...murdering entire cities. Of course, his real "triumph" was the flood...almost succeeding in totally exterminating the entire human species, showing how even Adolph Hitler "falls short of the glory of God".

"Love thy neighbor as thyself"? Don't be absurd; your neighbor may be an asshole. That statement is just a way of setting a standard that is deliberately "impossibly high"...and since you can't possibly meet it, that just "proves" what a "miserable sinner" you really "are".

You might just as well assert that people have a "moral obligation to levitate"...and that their failure to achieve levitation "proves" that they are one and all utterly depraved and deserve to go to "Hell".

It's all a pile of shit.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

RyeN

28th September 2003, 18:25

The term Sodomize finds its roots for the town of Sodom and Gomorrah where the men were practicing in homosexual acts and sodomizing eachother. Thats why Christians belevie ass sex is wrong.

Invader Zim

28th September 2003, 21:12

Well, I think they are pretty bad, no matter how you "interpret" them.

This line stood out of all the material Redstar posted, and the only responce necessary is to say, that what you think is imaterial, the important thing is that 80% of the worlds population believe in some higher being. Majority rule Redstar, all people are made equil, so they all have equil right to their beliefs, you believe that Marx is god and support his words to the extent of a fundermentalist, they believe in a higher being... which they are entitled to do.

Get over it.

:redstar2000:

redstar2000

29th September 2003, 07:07

Well, I think they are pretty bad, no matter how you "interpret" them.

This line stood out of all the material Redstar posted, and the only response necessary is to say, that what you think is immaterial, the important thing is that 80% of the world's population believe in some higher being. Majority rule Redstar, all people are made equal, so they all have equal right to their beliefs...

Typical incoherent and illogical rubbish, Enema.

People will be equal, not opinions. Some opinions are correct, some are incorrect.

Incorrect opinion: some "races" are superior to others.

Correct opinion: "race" is not a meaningful concept in biological science.

Incorrect opinion: men are "intellectually superior" to women.

Correct opinion: there is no meaningful distinction that has been demonstrated to exist between the intellectual capabilities of men and women.

Incorrect opinion: there is a supernatural "higher power" that takes in interest in humanity.

Correct opinion: there are no supernatural entities of any kind.

You certainly have a "right" to hold an incorrect opinion...indeed, no one can stop you. No one can get inside your head and straighten out your "thinking" (too bad in your case).

But if you act on an incorrect opinion or possibly even communicate it, you are likely to find yourself in some serious trouble.

And not just with me.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

crazy comie

29th September 2003, 15:23

The bibel is full of contradictions that is the problem.

Invader Zim

29th September 2003, 17:39

Correct opinion: there are no supernatural entities of any kind.

You certainly have a "right" to hold an incorrect opinion...indeed, no one can stop you. No one can get inside your head and straighten out your "thinking" (too bad in your case).

But if you act on an incorrect opinion or possibly even communicate it, you are likely to find yourself in some serious trouble.

And not just with me.

Ohh dont get me wrong, I am no thiest, I dont belive in any form of higher being from a different plain of existance, or whatever religios nutters want to bullshit with next. But just because I dont believe its true, dont make it so.

But their is no such thing as a correct or incorrect opinion their is fact and fiction. Incorrect opinions as you put it are mearly beloeved fiction.

monkeydust

29th September 2003, 19:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 07:07 AM

Incorrect opinion: some "races" are superior to others.

Correct opinion: "race" is not a meaningful concept in biological science.

Incorrect opinion: men are "intellectually superior" to women.

Correct opinion: there is no meaningful distinction that has been demonstrated to exist between the intellectual capabilities of men and women.

Incorrect opinion: there is a supernatural "higher power" that takes in interest in humanity.

Correct opinion: there are no supernatural entities of any kind.

Isn't it a bit unrealistic simply to bluntly state that you are 100% certain that there is no existance of any higher being. Whilst I'd agree with you here, its hardly comparable to your first two points which are both undoubtedly true. For starters there are a number of scientists believe it or not who believe in the existence of a higher being. Admittedly it can't be proven by science but my point is that it's yet to be disproven and since most scientist would claim that we only know a tiny fraction of what can be learnt I think its a bit unfair for you to rule out the possibility as incorrect.

RyeN

29th September 2003, 22:40

I proved 100% that there is no afterlife. Read what I wrote in the Euthinasia thread under Polotics

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?a...4&t=17255&st=80 (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=17255&st=80)

Lardlad95

30th September 2003, 01:07

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 10:40 PM
I proved 100% that there is no afterlife. Read what I wrote in the Euthinasia thread under Polotics

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?a...4&t=17255&st=80 (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=17255&st=80)
100%?

Thats impossible, you may have provided a logical arguement..however proving something of this nature to be 100% true is impossible.

I'm sure you've heard the analogy of the white raven before so I don't think I need to explain it

187

30th September 2003, 02:01

Che Daikoji

30th September 2003, 04:03

redstar2000

30th September 2003, 04:36

For starters there are a number of scientists, believe it or not, who believe in the existence of a higher being.

The last poll I saw suggested that 25 per cent of American scientists "believe in God". :o

But, you see, someone's occupation does not generally qualify them automatically to speak on this issue with any greater weight than anyone else.

A reputable scientist is knowledgeable in her/his specialty...outside of her/his specialty, s/he relies on the same general information and logic as the rest of us do.

There is a rich (and weird) literature of scientists attempting to "pontificate" on matters outside their specialty...and they say the oddest things.

But whether scientist or non-scientist, the obligation is on the believer to produce evidence that the belief is "true".

None of them have ever done so.

Admittedly it can't be proven by science but my point is that it's yet to be disproven and since most scientists would claim that we only know a tiny fraction of what can be learnt, I think it's a bit unfair for you to rule out the possibility as incorrect.

This is actually why I chose the other two examples that I did.

The reason that biologists have discarded "race" as a useful concept is not because they started reading Margaret Mead or Malcolm X. They did it for a very pragmatic reason..."race" turned out not to be able to explain anything. Every time the available evidence was examined through the "lens" of "race", the results were just a useless mess.

When this happens in science, the reputable scientists discard the concept and move on to more useful explanations.

In recent years, the same thing has happened in regard to gender "differences" and "intelligence". The more this "subject" is investigated, the "tinier" the "differences" become...to the level of statistical insignificance.

Reputable scientists no longer bother with the "question"...it is one that makes no sense in nature.

"Race" and gender "differences" are still studied...but now it is social scientists who study those subjects because it is understood that they are social constructs created for real social purposes and to serve real social interests.

The same is true of religion. There was a flurry of interest in the late 19th and early 20th century in the supernatural by a number of reputable scientists. They attempted to acquire rigorous laboratory "proof" of the existence of the supernatural and of an "after-life", if not of the existence of "god".

To no avail. Such "proofs" as they obtained turned out to be simple tricks performed by charlatans.

Thus, the subject "lost the interest" of scientists...it was another dead end.

And, as with my other examples, the scientists who are interested in religion now are social scientists...who understand religion as a social construct created for real social purposes to serve real social interests.

The real question about religion is who benefits?.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

apathy maybe

30th September 2003, 04:46

I don't know whether this has been said or not, but I'll say it anyway.

There is no proof for OR AGAINST the existance of God or Gods.

But that is no need to say that those who believe (ignoring other aspects such as Christ etc) in a God or Gods are stupid or in some way anti-revulutionaries. Unless you say the same about atheists.
(For those of you who don't know, atheist means disbelief in a God or Gods. Theist means belief in God or Gods. Either could have other religious beliefs or no other religious beliefs.)

RyeN

30th September 2003, 05:30

Quote: "100%?

Thats impossible, you may have provided a logical arguement..however proving something of this nature to be 100% true is impossible.

I'm sure you've heard the analogy of the white raven before so I don't think I need to explain it."

Wow that was the smartest thing ive heard since i joined this chanel. I totaly forgot about the whole existentialism thing.

I retract my statement to 99.9999999...

But it seriusloy makes you think eh! Thank you Comrade for hepling me find that insight.

Anastacia

30th September 2003, 09:13

anastacia,

Explain to me why god says he made the world and all of it's inhabitants in 6 days (not including the almighty and all powerful's 'day of rest') yet ample evidence is available that would show that life was created over billions of years with huge gaps in between each beings existence?

And when God says a day he means a day...not whatever you want it to be.

Ok... Old Testament is not a biological factbook. The whole book is written by human beings. Nobody was here while the world was created. So they had to invent something. There is no fact that world really was created in six days. I'm not saying it's impossible but I don't believe it. The whole creation story is a theory. No scientist has been writting it.

And God doesn't live in time nor place. So six days may be six million days.

Old Testament is a law. Old Testament shows us where we have gone wrong. People in 0ld Testament were just human beings. Not perfect demi-gods. So, they sinned too.

crazy comie

30th September 2003, 14:42

rieligon and science don't go together.

Vinny Rafarino

30th September 2003, 17:49

Okay, I have no stance on such issues of Christian dogma, but there is convincing evidence that something must have sped something along.

I would love to hear what you consider to be "convincing evidence".

Anti-Fascist

30th September 2003, 18:40

There is no proof for OR AGAINST the existance of God or Gods.

But the burden of proof is on him who claims that there is a God. The typical Atheist does not claim that there is no God. He lacks a belief in God without making a claim.

However, there is irrefutable proof that God does not exist. Supposing that God is God (that He has such and such properties), the existence of God is one hundred per cent refuted. For his properties are self-contradictory, and we all know that anything self-contradictory necessarily cannot exist.

There are also moral arguments, scientific arguments, and other philosophic arguments which make the existence of God very improbable or (in the case of a few valid and sound arguments) impossible.

There is proof that God does not exist, but there is no proof that He does exist, and therefore your statement quoted hereinabove is incorrect.

Now supposing that there is no proof that God does not exist, still, the burden of proof is upon him who posits Deity's existence - the theist.

Lardlad95

30th September 2003, 20:46

Explain to me why god says he made the world and all of it's inhabitants in 6 days (not including the almighty and all powerful's 'day of rest') yet ample evidence is available that would show that life was created over billions of years with huge gaps in between each beings existence?

And when God says a day he means a day...not whatever you want it to be.

I see two problems in this eternal debate.

1. Athiests think that the Bible is a peice of flawed evidence that Christians are trying to push

2. Christians don't realize the bible is a allegory

The Bible isn't Evidence at all it's am allegory and Athiests and Chrisitians alike need to realize this.

If you look at the creation story there are striking similarities to how the universe came into being.

First there was an abyss, then the universe came into being, then came the stars and planets, then the earth bacame suitable for life, then the animals in the sea were created, then the animals of the land and air, finally man was created.

Basically this means...the universe came into being, planets and stars were formed, the earth became suitable for life, animals in the sea evolved to animals in the air and on land, then Man evolved.

The terms in which the writers of the bible put it in are irrelevant.

So athiests if you are trying to argue this "But the bible can't be right because the universe is really billions of years old" get off it.

The bible isn't a fact sheet, don't think that christians are trying to pawn it off as fact.

And christians you need to quit pawning off like it really is fact because it isn't.

THe only real facts in the Bible are historical accounts anyway

Wow that was the smartest thing ive heard since i joined this chanel. I totaly forgot about the whole existentialism thing.

I retract my statement to 99.9999999...

But it seriusloy makes you think eh! Thank you Comrade for hepling me find that insight.

You are very welcome

Firestorm

1st October 2003, 02:42

Let me be bold I am a competely against Fundamentalist zelous Bible pounders and other such freaks. I have NO problems with your everyday religious person who keep his or her relgion to themselves.

redstar2000

1st October 2003, 03:02

The Bible isn't Evidence at all, it's an allegory and Atheists and Christians alike need to realize this.

The problem, of course, is that "allegory" like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

For example, here are three seemingly straightforward statements...

Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ...
..........Ephesians 6:5

Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect...
..........Titus 2:9

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
..........Romans 13:1

So what's the "allegorical" interpretation of crap like this?

In what way can anyone "spin" this into an attack on slavery or mindless obedience to authority?

Why not simply admit the reactionary nature of Christianity?

It stands convicted by its own words.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

apathy maybe

1st October 2003, 03:37

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 04:40 AM

There is no proof for OR AGAINST the existance of God or Gods.

But the burden of proof is on him who claims that there is a God. The typical Atheist does not claim that there is no God. He lacks a belief in God without making a claim.

However, there is irrefutable proof that God does not exist. Supposing that God is God (that He has such and such properties), the existence of God is one hundred per cent refuted. For his properties are self-contradictory, and we all know that anything self-contradictory necessarily cannot exist.

There are also moral arguments, scientific arguments, and other philosophic arguments which make the existence of God very improbable or (in the case of a few valid and sound arguments) impossible.

There is proof that God does not exist, but there is no proof that He does exist, and therefore your statement quoted hereinabove is incorrect.

Now supposing that there is no proof that God does not exist, still, the burden of proof is upon him who posits Deity's existence - the theist.
But the burden of proof is on him who claims that there is a God. The typical Atheist does not claim that there is no God. He lacks a belief in God without making a claim.
He believes there is no God, rather then, he lacks a belief in a God. There is a difference.

However, there is irrefutable proof that God does not exist. Supposing that God is God (that He has such and such properties), the existence of God is one hundred per cent refuted. For his properties are self-contradictory, and we all know that anything self-contradictory necessarily cannot exist.
A certain God, such as the Christian God may not exist because of the Problem of Evil and other contradictions but a God who created the Universe and then sat back may or maynot exist.

There are also moral arguments, scientific arguments, and other philosophic arguments which make the existence of God very improbable or (in the case of a few valid and sound arguments) impossible.
There are also moral and other philosphic arguments which make the existence of a God possible and in some cases nessasery(sp?).

...the burden of proof is upon him who posits Deity's existence - the theist.
Wrong, mosts theists have faith, no proof needed when one has faith.

RyeN

1st October 2003, 05:01

Actualy Science and God do kinda mix in a wierd way. At bible camp one year I read this old school book called Apologetics, An Introduction By William L Craig. Basicaly the guy was using the fith law of thermo dynamics to prove the existance of God. Its almost logical too.

Hey what about this guy benny hinn. Holy shit this guy is the son of God. Him or David Blain!

apathy maybe

1st October 2003, 05:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 01:02 PM

The Bible isn't Evidence at all, it's an allegory and Atheists and Christians alike need to realize this.

The problem, of course, is that "allegory" like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

For example, here are three seemingly straightforward statements...

Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ...
..........Ephesians 6:5

Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect...
..........Titus 2:9

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
..........Romans 13:1

So what's the "allegorical" interpretation of crap like this?

In what way can anyone "spin" this into an attack on slavery or mindless obedience to authority?

Why not simply admit the reactionary nature of Christianity?

It stands convicted by its own words.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
Thereticly(sp?) if one if a Christian, one should follow the teachings of Christ, that does not mean obaying the Old Testoment as it was superseded by the New.

RyeN

1st October 2003, 06:04

Romans Episians and Titus are in the new testament.

IHP

1st October 2003, 06:36

RyeN,

You didn't prove anything, except you inability to accept a differing point of view. You further proved that if one logical argument is presented, you will take it and run with it.

RyeN, you proved nothing

Lardlad,

Thank you for seeing what I see in his 100% stance.

RyeN

1st October 2003, 07:07

Quote "You didn't prove anything, except you inability to accept a differing point of view."

Have you read anything Ive writen on this post board I am very accepting. I just refuse to belive that when our brain dies we live on. As bleak as it may be to think that your going to die I have hope for something else. Dont think me so narow minded. read Imortality in the theory thread

crazy comie

1st October 2003, 14:38

I think ryen is right

Anti-Fascist

1st October 2003, 17:44

There are also moral and other philosphic arguments which make the existence of a God possible and in some cases nessasery(sp?).

No, in fact, there are not any valid ones.

Wrong, mosts theists have faith, no proof needed when one has faith.

Do not be absurd. No one merely has faith. Theists posit God's existence all the time - the burden of proof is on them. They claim that he exists. How could the burden of proof by upon anyone else? It can only be on him who posits, who makes positive affirmations.

A certain God, such as the Christian God may not exist because of the Problem of Evil and other contradictions but a God who created the Universe and then sat back may or maynot exist.

Of course, as soon as you defend this type of God who is merely a creator - as soon as you try to demonstrate his necessity - contradictions will arise. Besides, no God is merely a creator. Such a thing is no God at all. Moreover, the universe is everything. God is something. Therefore God created himself. More contradictions become manifest. Also, as soon as you begin to describe this God, contradictions will arise. Omipotence, omniscience, etc., have all been proven to be self-contradictory properties, even if He has but one of these properties.

He believes there is no God, rather then, he lacks a belief in a God. There is a difference.

Of course. That is what I said.

Anti-Fascist

1st October 2003, 17:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 05:01 AM
Actualy Science and God do kinda mix in a wierd way. At bible camp one year I read this old school book called Apologetics, An Introduction By William L Craig. Basicaly the guy was using the fith law of thermo dynamics to prove the existance of God. Its almost logical too.

Hey what about this guy benny hinn. Holy shit this guy is the son of God. Him or David Blain!
Science and God do not mix at all. What you are talking about is pseudo-science.

Lardlad95

1st October 2003, 21:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 03:02 AM

The Bible isn't Evidence at all, it's an allegory and Atheists and Christians alike need to realize this.

The problem, of course, is that "allegory" like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

For example, here are three seemingly straightforward statements...

Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ...
..........Ephesians 6:5

Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect...
..........Titus 2:9

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
..........Romans 13:1

So what's the "allegorical" interpretation of crap like this?

In what way can anyone "spin" this into an attack on slavery or mindless obedience to authority?

Why not simply admit the reactionary nature of Christianity?

It stands convicted by its own words.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
Take it as a metaphor for obidience,be obidient to those who are over you.

Remember I said the bible was an Allegory, I never said it was a good one.

Basically the book is a guide for how the people who wrote it think life should be lived, or atleast should ahve been lived at the time it was written.

Also the bible is outdated, there is no denying that. All that remains of the bible is hackneyed phrases and messeges that christians try to pawn offas the only thing the bible says, which we both know isn't true.

But how many times have you heard a Young commie spout Tired phrases from the maniefesto without knowing whats really inside of it?

The manifesto is a bet outdated, but I"m not complaining, which is the same reason chrisitians ignore the obivious out moded models of living outlined in the bible.

And going back to the obidience thing, I'm very aware of these quotes, I've already told you i'm writing some things on the evolution of religion and how they stay around so long, you didn't think I wasn't going to include quotes from the bible that could be used for control did you?

I've never attempted to defend the Bible, I'm just saying that we need to take a look at what it was really meant to be, a guide for living. It needs to be looked at as an allegory because, unless we are living in 600 BC, the only way to take it is as an allegory

IHP

2nd October 2003, 01:49

RyeN,

So now you are changing your stance. You're not 100% positive, you just don't believe it. Totally different stances.

Crazy comie,

I have read about a half a dozen resonses from you on this topic and you're yet to post anything of substance, or that doesn't resemble a sheep. Please stop posting on this topic.

RyeN

2nd October 2003, 03:18

Ok once again I didnt change my stance on things. I changed my post in here when I said I can prove 100% that there is a no god. With the thought of exastentialism I cant even prove that Im real. So as to that post I agreed however I still havent retracted my original statement that I belive 100% that there is no after life because I only belive in exastentialism when Im all cranked out on Magical mushrooms buddie.

BuyOurEverything

2nd October 2003, 04:27

The entire concept of monotheism came from the bible. If you admit that the bible isn't 100% true (which you have to do as the bible contradicts itself) then you come to the problem of what is true and what isn't (or if you prefer what is a "metaphor" or has a "deeper meaning.") But every single person that believes in god has a different interperetation of the bible. People just read it and adapt the meaning to suit their beliefs. How can one discern what is true from a book that can be interpereted billions of different ways? Maybe monotheism is allagorical. The fact is the bible and religion is completely illogical and anyone with a rational mind knows it however there are many reasons that people overlook this fact, the main ones being fear of death and desire for a meaning of life.

But how many times have you heard a Young commie spout Tired phrases from the maniefesto without knowing whats really inside of it?

But nobody's worshiping Karl and Friedrich as divine beings. People's words can become outdated but how could the "word of god"? Just to clarify, I don't think the manifesto is outdated, I hope you understand the point I was trying to get across.

IHP

2nd October 2003, 09:34

But, RyeN, you have changed your argument. There is a huge difference between being "100% positive that there's no life after death" and "believing." Totally different. However, I accept your point of view that you believe there's no life after death. I disagree, but it's healthy to disagree with people.

Lardlad95

2nd October 2003, 11:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2003, 04:27 AM
The entire concept of monotheism came from the bible. If you admit that the bible isn't 100% true (which you have to do as the bible contradicts itself) then you come to the problem of what is true and what isn't (or if you prefer what is a "metaphor" or has a "deeper meaning.") But every single person that believes in god has a different interperetation of the bible. People just read it and adapt the meaning to suit their beliefs. How can one discern what is true from a book that can be interpereted billions of different ways? Maybe monotheism is allagorical. The fact is the bible and religion is completely illogical and anyone with a rational mind knows it however there are many reasons that people overlook this fact, the main ones being fear of death and desire for a meaning of life.

But how many times have you heard a Young commie spout Tired phrases from the maniefesto without knowing whats really inside of it?

But nobody's worshiping Karl and Friedrich as divine beings. People's words can become outdated but how could the "word of god"? Just to clarify, I don't think the manifesto is outdated, I hope you understand the point I was trying to get across.
I hate to point this out but there were monotheistic religions before Judaism and CHristianity, Zoroastrianism being one of them

crazy comie

2nd October 2003, 14:35

We have elemnts of the brain wich make us happyer if things are explaind like for exmple the idea that god created all.

Silent Eye

2nd October 2003, 20:54

First off, we have the situation(didnt get to read whole thread, so forgive me if someone posted this earlier.) But we have this sitatuation. Can God create a rock he cannot lift? The answer disproves god's all powerfullness, thus disproving god. A God that isn't all powerful isn't a god.

Then we have these, a few bible quotes i compiled:
Deutronomy 5:41-42
Psalm 137:9
1 Samuel 19:8
1 Timothy 6:1
Deutronomy 3:1-9(not sure about this one)

I don't have the exact passages, and i wrote these a few years ago in a notebook, so i am not sure if all are valid but all show instances of God's excessive cruelty/paradox nature.

Note: I am an atheist

Invader Zim

2nd October 2003, 22:10

yes, ive seen that argument a lot, but with an unmoveable box. The nuts always say god "doesnt work that way..." which has to be the lamest excuse ever, because they never actually explain how god does work. Whenever I ask I get all the complicated areguments, which sound impressive, but dont actually answer the question.

Lardlad95

2nd October 2003, 22:31

Originally posted by Silent [email protected] 2 2003, 08:54 PM
First off, we have the situation(didnt get to read whole thread, so forgive me if someone posted this earlier.) But we have this sitatuation. Can God create a rock he cannot lift? The answer disproves god's all powerfullness, thus disproving god. A God that isn't all powerful isn't a god.

Then we have these, a few bible quotes i compiled:
Deutronomy 5:41-42
Psalm 137:9
1 Samuel 19:8
1 Timothy 6:1
Deutronomy 3:1-9(not sure about this one)

I don't have the exact passages, and i wrote these a few years ago in a notebook, so i am not sure if all are valid but all show instances of God's excessive cruelty/paradox nature.

Note: I am an atheist
A god that isn't all powerful isnt a God?

You do realize that Christianity, Judaism, and ISlam AREN"T the only religions on earth.

There have been numerous religions in which there have been Gods who are limited or in someway flawed.

That paradox only questions the Judaeo-Christian God, not God in general.

Not everyone views God as an all powerful being

Silent Eye

3rd October 2003, 00:21

Fine,this theory disproves the idea of all monotheistic religions, if that makes you feel better.

IHP

3rd October 2003, 04:52

"There have been numerous religions in which there have been Gods who are limited or in someway flawed."

Or other religions such as mine (zen) that are non-theistic.

RyeN

3rd October 2003, 05:18

The greek gods were limited in power. Each had certain special abalities and tasks. Zeus was their Father and the king of Gods yet his powers were limmited as well. He also had an affair on his wife hera.

Ive been thinking about it and probably the 2 most tolerable of all religions in my opinion are Bhuddism or Satanism. There both more based around your own self though and seeing the god within. Yoga is prety cool too and if you follow the 10 tores its a way of life and almost like a religion. Keeping our bodies and minds in good working order is good for survival.

crazy comie

3rd October 2003, 15:20

as isaid religond are just there to make pepole feel better.

Alejandro C

3rd October 2003, 19:32

IHP- you are zen?! that's fantastic. i've always adored zen buddhism for its art and the beauty of its beliefs. please send me some of your poems, or your favorites.

but i have to ask you why all of you are arguing about the existence of God? this is more useless than arguing about abortion. what we should be talking about is the relationship between religion and the revolution. I've always believed religion has a strong place in a revolution. I see many good things done by religions in my country(america). The nuns here are wonderful to help the poor and to sacrifice their lives to help others. they are warriors. 'comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.' the first revolutionary i met was a jesuit who came to speak at my school illegally because he was on probation in another state. he has been to jail several times the most recent for breaking into a naval base and sneaking into a nuclear sub. he made it all the way to the reactor room door. he started pounding on the door with a small hammer. this was a symbolic protest from a passage in the bible 'turn your swords into plows'

religion has a place helping people to be more compassionate towards eachother. the problems have come when organized religion backs down to politics. such as the catholic church's vatican 2. that was a horrible thing to happen. priest were doing so much good in latin america to help the people. then john paul 2, who is adamantly anti-communist (i believe because he is polish), started to notice that many churches had communist ties or were working very closely with left wing organizations. in vatican 2, which happened in the 60's the church took the official possition that they and their priests were to stay out of politcs. what a fool the pope is to tell his people to focus on the afterlife instead of the now. i will welcome the day that man dies. he has caused more hurt to latin america in particular than anyone except the U.S.

but you all have to realize that religion can help a person too. look at tibet. the dahli lama himself said that buddhism shared many things with socialism. that is because both are moral systems. Che's idea of a new man could just as easily be thought of converting people to monks. self-sacrificial, honest, compassinate, and caring. the main conflict is of course violence, something which most religions will eventually admit being neccesary.

Lardlad95

3rd October 2003, 23:44

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2003, 04:52 AM
"There have been numerous religions in which there have been Gods who are limited or in someway flawed."

Or other religions such as mine (zen) that are non-theistic.
AWW you got teh watered down buddhism....do Nicheren with me

Rastafari

4th October 2003, 02:47

we should all follow Zoroastrianism. seriously.

http://www.crystalinks.com/movzcard.gif

I may have to start posting here if that idiot ElijahCraig doens't shape up.

IHP

4th October 2003, 06:48

Crazy Comie,

at first I thought you had a little bit to say, but the more of your posts I read, the more I realize that you don't. Please stop posting such drivel.

Alejandro,

Thank you. I'm glad that someone else sees the beauty of zen. I love many of the poems and haikus. I have a whole book compiled by Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki, who more-or-less introduced zen to the west.

PM me your email address and I'd be happy to send you a few of my favourites.

This is my favourite that I have read so far:

On believing in mind, Shinjin-no-Mei by Seng-t'san (paragraph 25)

In the higher realm of true suchness
There is neither "slef" nor "other":
When direct identification is sought,
We can only say "Not two"

The whole poem is awesome, but this one always catches my eye.

Larldlad,

I prefer Zen to many of the other buddhist schools because it rejects the worship of Buddha, arguing that we are the same, just that Buddha was more enlightened.

What are your thoughts?

crazy comie

4th October 2003, 12:02

what is Zoroastrianism.

redstar2000

4th October 2003, 12:50

"What is Zoroastrianism?"

http://tenets.zoroastrianism.com/

Rastafari, you should be aware that there is no such thing as "conversion" to Zoroastrianism...unless you are "Aryan" by birth (probably meaning one of the ethnic sub-groups in Iran).

Like Judaism, Zoroastrianism is a tribal faith. If you convert to Judaism, you are being "adopted" into the tribe. (For this reason, very conservative rabbis won't even do conversions.)

But the Z-guys are much more exclusive...they don't do adoptions at all.

Otherwise it's pretty much what you'd expect...the moral code of primitive nomads, women as property, homophobia, etc.

The usual crap.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

Lardlad95

4th October 2003, 13:56

Larldlad,

I prefer Zen to many of the other buddhist schools because it rejects the worship of Buddha, arguing that we are the same, just that Buddha was more enlightened.

What are your thoughts?

Well there are two general "schools" of Buddhism, Thereavedic and Mahayanic. basically those that believe buddha is a god and those who don't.

Nechiren doesn't believe he's a god, that is the one my mother practices

Rastafari, you should be aware that there is no such thing as "conversion" to Zoroastrianism...unless you are "Aryan" by birth (probably meaning one of the ethnic sub-groups in Iran

Redstar is right, unless your parents were Zoroastrians you can't be one

crazy comie

4th October 2003, 14:00

Thanks for the info

ComradeRobertRiley

5th October 2003, 19:35

All forms of religion should be banned/destroyed

crazy comie

5th October 2003, 19:37

pepole should be discouredged from belif in religeon by society.

Lardlad95

5th October 2003, 22:48

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 5 2003, 07:37 PM
pepole should be discouredged from belif in religeon by society.
Let it go guys, people aren't going to be athiests if you force them to be.

Religion has done alot of good in some people's lives and it's a horrible idea to take away something thats gotten people through the hardest times in thheir lives.

Just because religion isn't important to you doesn't mean it has to be the same for everyone else.

You guys need to learn to respect diversity

Dr. Rosenpenis

5th October 2003, 22:54

Religion, Lardlad, is only truly important to the bourgeoisie. It benefits nobody else. It acts strictly in fuction of advancing the interests of the ruling class, and therefore furthering the subjugation of the proletariat. Yes, religion may have successfuly fooled people providing some momentary gratitude to some individuals of the working class.

It is still necessary that it be suppressed.

Religion will always condemn true democratic rule by the people and will always spread other recationary ideas.

Lardlad95

5th October 2003, 23:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2003, 10:54 PM
Religion, Lardlad, is only truly important to the bourgeoisie. It benefits nobody else. It acts strictly in fuction of advancing the interests of the ruling class, and therefore furthering the subjugation of the proletariat. Yes, religion may have successfuly fooled people providing some momentary gratitude to some individuals of the working class.

It is still necessary that it be suppressed.

Religion will always condemn true democratic rule by the people and will always spread other recationary ideas.
Do you really believe your own BS or are you just saying it to say it?

I'm well aware of the historical control religion has held over people, but this isn't 1245 I think it's time we stopped acting like the Pope is still as powerful as the Rulers of Europe.

Religion is whatever you make it out to be personally, and you guys have confused Faith with blind alligence to some Political body.

I've been to severl curches, synagouges, Temples, and for the most part none of them control people, mainly because people go once a week, leave ad don't think twice about it.

Spirituality doesn't necassarily mean that you are a pawn in the Pope's evil scheme.

Religion shouldn't be down played it should be irrelevant. Don't focus on supporting or destroying it.

If people really wanted to get rid of religion they would, after all you guys put so much stock in people over throwing things they find opressive

Dr. Rosenpenis

6th October 2003, 00:06

Do you really believe your own BS or are you just saying it to say it?

No, I really believe it.

I'm well aware of the historical control religion has held over people, but this isn't 1245 I think it's time we stopped acting like the Pope is still as powerful as the Rulers of Europe.

The catholic church as well as many others still have lots of influence in many nations. Like I mentioned in the abortion thread, in Brazil abortion is illegal, mostly from the catholic church's immense reactionary influence upon the people and the government.

Religion is whatever you make it out to be personally, and you guys have confused Faith with blind alligence to some Political body.

Faith is fine, we're not going to punish people for expressing ideas that suggest religous beliefs. We're going to work to end the manifestation of current religions as a tool of indoctrinating people to submit to the will of reactionaries who do not have the interests of the working class in mind.

I've been to severl curches, synagouges, Temples, and for the most part none of them control people, mainly because people go once a week, leave ad don't think twice about it.

That's what you think.

Spirituality doesn't necassarily mean that you are a pawn in the Pope's evil scheme.

Spirituality doesn't mean anything at all.

Religion shouldn't be down played it should be irrelevant. Don't focus on supporting or destroying it.

If people really wanted to get rid of religion they would, after all you guys put so much stock in people over throwing things they find opressive

Perhaps if people really wanted to get rid of capitalism they would, right?

Lardlad95

6th October 2003, 00:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 12:06 AM

Do you really believe your own BS or are you just saying it to say it?

No, I really believe it.

I'm well aware of the historical control religion has held over people, but this isn't 1245 I think it's time we stopped acting like the Pope is still as powerful as the Rulers of Europe.

The catholic church as well as many others still have lots of influence in many nations. Like I mentioned in the abortion thread, in Brazil abortion is illegal, mostly from the catholic church's immense reactionary influence upon the people and the government.

Religion is whatever you make it out to be personally, and you guys have confused Faith with blind alligence to some Political body.

Faith is fine, we're not going to punish people for expressing ideas that suggest religous beliefs. We're going to work to end the manifestation of current religions as a tool of indoctrinating people to submit to the will of reactionaries who do not have the interests of the working class in mind.

I've been to severl curches, synagouges, Temples, and for the most part none of them control people, mainly because people go once a week, leave ad don't think twice about it.

That's what you think.

Spirituality doesn't necassarily mean that you are a pawn in the Pope's evil scheme.

Spirituality doesn't mean anything at all.

Religion shouldn't be down played it should be irrelevant. Don't focus on supporting or destroying it.

If people really wanted to get rid of religion they would, after all you guys put so much stock in people over throwing things they find opressive

Perhaps if people really wanted to get rid of capitalism they would, right?
>Like I mentioned in the abortion thread, in Brazil abortion is illegal, mostly from the catholic church's immense reactionary influence upon the people and the government<

Abortion is considered Immoral becase of the society that says it's immoral. A societies opinions are influenced by the cultures present in them, the religions ppresented them, the philosophies presented in them.

Abortion isn't ok just because you say that it is, morality differs in different places and those people have a right to view it as they see fit.

Every societies values are a reflection of the beliefs held in that society, religion just happens to be a particular belief, even if you eliminate religion a society still wont necassarily act on what is universally moral, they will act on what that particular society feels is moral.

Religion isn't the only thing that determins how a person thinks.

>Faith is fine, we're not going to punish people for expressing ideas that suggest religous beliefs. We're going to work to end the manifestation of current religions as a tool of indoctrinating people to submit to the will of reactionaries who do not have the interests of the working class in mind.<

And you do? THe majority of leftists insult the average man, and are so distanced from him you don't even know what they want anymore.

The left used to work for the common man, but now we are so busy calling them brainwashed cappie pigs we don't even really try to figure out what they want. We tell them what they want, just like religion.

IF you were really looking out for what the common man wants, you wouldn't ridicule and belittle his beliefs.

>Perhaps if people really wanted to get rid of capitalism they would, right?>

Isn't that the entire idea behind communist revolution?

Dr. Rosenpenis

6th October 2003, 00:38

Communism, lardlad, seeks to end oppression. Submitting yourself to the will of anyone is oppressive. What is best for the people is rule by the people. Things that successfuly limit the rule by the people, such as religion, are bad for the people.

The entire idea behind communism is that the people must be led to victory over reactionary powers of the bourgeoisie power structure such as religion. The people cannot, as you seem to be suggesting, suppress reactionary powers, because as long as they have power, the people do not have the power to suppress it.

Lardlad95

6th October 2003, 00:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 12:38 AM
Communism, lardlad, seeks to end oppression. Submitting yourself to the will of anyone is oppressive. What is best for the people is rule by the people. Things that successfuly limit the rule by the people, such as religion, are bad for the people.

The entire idea behind communism is that the people must be led to victory over reactionary powers of the bourgeoisie power structure such as religion. The people cannot, as you seem to be suggesting, suppress reactionary powers, because as long as they have power, the people do not have the power to suppress it.
bourgeoisie power structure? What structure? Capitalism is that structure, religion just happens to be something that can be easily perverted in a control mechanism.

Your paranoid conspiracy theories about how religion i part of some great bourgeoisie plan are useless. Lets focus on the problem on hand, which is US imperialism and global capitalism.

The pope did not declare war on Iraq, in fact he codemed it. John Doe going to church every sunday is not creating a sweatshop in Thailand.

Leftists are too busy focusing on religion when we need to be focusing on relavent matters.

Religion is only opressive when it is force fed on people, that type of religion needs to be crippled and destroyed.

However Religion isn't opressing everyone, you are exxagerating it. Just because some religion is opressing someone doesn't mean that it all does.

Communism/Socialism has resulted in millions of deaths, does that mean we are opressive?

Dr. Rosenpenis

6th October 2003, 01:03

Telling people that they're going to suffer horribly for eternity if they don't shut up and follow you sounds like force to me.

IHP

6th October 2003, 02:15

Once again we see a total misconception about 'religion' and this tendency to lump them all together. I ask you victorcommie, where in buddhist thought is there as you describe above?

Lardlad, yes I'm aware of the schools. Zen also rejects buddha as a worshippable deity. There is no god, nor anything close to a 'god,' thats one of the many reasons I joined zen.

Dr. Rosenpenis

6th October 2003, 03:31

IHP, earlier in this thread I explained to CrazyPete what my definition of religion is here it is:

I think that it's quite easy, Pete. Any doctrine that teaches that there is an afterlife, and/or one or more divine/supreme being(s), and/or that there exists something, concrete or abstract, which we cannot physicaly sense, but we must still respect/obey/worship "it", is a religion.

Not all of these make a religion necessarily bad, but I am yet to see an innocent religion. I don't knwo too much about this Zen faction of Buddhism, but Buddhism has been one of the most bloody and cruel religions in the world. Some information on this has been posted recently in some debate about Tibet, I'm sorry, but I can't find it right now.

Does Zen Buddhism fall into my deffinition of religion above?

Dr. Rosenpenis

6th October 2003, 03:34

And lardlad, if you're going to bring up the war in Iraq, then fine. One of Bush's primary "reasons" to go to war was his acusation of Iraq helping out Muslim Fundamentalists factions such as Al-Qaeda. So is religion still so innocent today.... even in the "developed world"?

IHP

6th October 2003, 09:19

Talk about simplification. Boyo, that analysis/break down of yours is so simple that I cannot compare even mainstream buddhist thought to it.

crazy comie

6th October 2003, 15:01

I wasn't aware that budism was one of the killing sorts of Religion i thought it was pascifistic.

redstar2000

6th October 2003, 18:30

Abortion isn't ok just because you say that it is, morality differs in different places and those people have a right to view it as they see fit.

Well, in the Sudan, it is still "moral" for Muslims to impress black people into slavery. Do they have a "right" to view slavery "as they see fit"?

I don't think so and I don't think you do either. Slavery is disgusting, period.

But if slavery is indeed disgusting wherever it is practiced, why is not the same true of other forms of bondage? The abortion laws in Brazil are barbaric and disgusting. The anti-drug laws in America are barbaric and disgusting. The legal oppression of women in "Saudi" Arabia is barbaric and disgusting.

The role of religion is well-known and infamous in regards to these things. I do not see how any realistic person could deny this.

Therefore, is it not both logical and "moral" (to use your word) to rid ourselves once and for all of the ideological "justification" of these social atrocities?

When America abolished slavery, it didn't abolish racism...and black people paid a heavy price for that omission.

We can easily abolish a particular religion-sponsored atrocity...but what of religion's role as a source of reactionary ideas, always ready to restore old atrocities or innovate new ones?

Where would religion be without a pool of "sinners" to persecute?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

Lardlad95

6th October 2003, 22:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 06:30 PM

Abortion isn't ok just because you say that it is, morality differs in different places and those people have a right to view it as they see fit.

Well, in the Sudan, it is still "moral" for Muslims to impress black people into slavery. Do they have a "right" to view slavery "as they see fit"?

I don't think so and I don't think you do either. Slavery is disgusting, period.

But if slavery is indeed disgusting wherever it is practiced, why is not the same true of other forms of bondage? The abortion laws in Brazil are barbaric and disgusting. The anti-drug laws in America are barbaric and disgusting. The legal oppression of women in "Saudi" Arabia is barbaric and disgusting.

The role of religion is well-known and infamous in regards to these things. I do not see how any realistic person could deny this.

Therefore, is it not both logical and "moral" (to use your word) to rid ourselves once and for all of the ideological "justification" of these social atrocities?

When America abolished slavery, it didn't abolish racism...and black people paid a heavy price for that omission.

We can easily abolish a particular religion-sponsored atrocity...but what of religion's role as a source of reactionary ideas, always ready to restore old atrocities or innovate new ones?

Where would religion be without a pool of "sinners" to persecute?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
I'm not saying anything is morally right or wrong, all we can do is debate our particular opinions on what we feel is moral.

in my particular opinion slavery isn't morally justified, however to someone else it is. All I can do is express why i feel I'm right.

Weren't you the one who said that there is no such thing as universal moral law when I started that discussion about Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative.

I happen to agree with Montesquie atleast on his point that says that morality depends on a certain culture.

What I deem morally wrong isn't what is DEFINITELY Morally wrong, it's simply my opinion.

Now I ask you, aretheir such things as universal moral law?

>The anti-drug laws in America are barbaric and disgusting<

This is a bit of a stretch don't you think? Putting this in the same category as the Sudanese slave trade is trivializing it don't you think?

American anti drug laws are moronic and they do more harm than good. They aren't however barbaric, they are simply wrong.

Also communism has resulted in atrocities that are just as bad as that of Religion.

granted religion is bad, but you guys are suggesting eliminating people's personal faith and that sir is just wrong.

You can do away with the atrocities without doing away with religion, you can put regulations on it, but telling people they can't worship how they see fit is disgusting.

Now back to the morality thing...

THe biggest problem with american slavery is that it is hypocrisy and barbaric.
It is barbaric for obvious reasons but it is hypocritical for deeper reason.

The hypocrisy esults in one simple reason, slavery isn't justified by the societies standards.

I already said that there are no universal moral laws and this is true. However Christian doctrine is supposed to be against hurting people, slavery obviously hurts people.

Now since these are supposedly good christian people, would it make sense for them to own slaves? Of course not.

Atleast the greeks were upfront with it, their religion nor their society saw something wrong with slavery.

Christianity is (supposed to be) opposed to all forms of harm against your fellow man, YET the society saw nothing wrong with slavery.

Whether or not slavery is wrong is up to debate(and i do happen to agree that it is beyond wrong) the point is that the actions of the society conflicted with it's suppposed values.

So we were filled with a society of hypocrisy

apathy maybe

6th October 2003, 22:57

Where would religion be without a pool of "sinners" to persecute?

Umm, I am not sure about this but does Buddism say that you will burn in hell? I thought that you just reincarnated until you got it right.

Dr. Rosenpenis

7th October 2003, 01:08

Lardlad, a society that allows people to wield power without limitations upon that power is democracy and that is what is right! It's only moraly wrong is you're a fascist! Religion ultimately places power in the hands of fascists (people who seek to advance the interests not of the people).

Someone tell me, does Buddhism fall into my deffinitionof religion?

Lardlad95

7th October 2003, 01:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2003, 01:08 AM
Lardlad, a society that allows people to wield power without limitations upon that power is democracy and that is what is right! It's only moraly wrong is you're a fascist! Religion ultimately places power in the hands of fascists (people who seek to advance the interests not of the people).

Someone tell me, does Buddhism fall into my deffinitionof religion?
you sir are speaking of the politics of religion, not religion it's self.

Also if that is your definition of facist, then there are facists in every faction of everything

Dr. Rosenpenis

7th October 2003, 03:19

Lardlad, capitalism places power in the hands of land-owning, capital-owning individuals by forcing the people to work and ultimately be subjugated by these oppressors.

Religion places power in the hands of the "truth-knowing" people who "have the secret to eternal greatness" by forcing people to follow their superstitous laws (rules that are punishable) and ultimately be subjugated by these oppressors.

IHP

7th October 2003, 04:46

apathy maybe, in a sense you are correct, you will not burn in a 'hell' for being a 'bad buddhist.' There is no concept of 'hell.' I'm not too good on the more mainstream buddhism, but there is no hell. Buddhism, it could be argued, is a guideline to a way of life, in which you do not have to follow any 'rules' per se. For example, take vegetarianism. It's a way of life people choose. If they eat meat, they are not following their lifestyle, yet they will not burn in 'hell' for eating it. Therefore buddhism, it can be argued, is a discipline, more than a religion.

victorcommie, the reason I found your defintion lacking was that it simply is that...lacking. By your analysis, a cult group claiming that if you drink the "Orange Tang" you will be reincarnated as magicians would be a religion. Therefore no, I disagree with your definition. Furthermore, the post above shows, again the euro-centric religious stigma you hold. In my faith, there are no rules. I practice zazen (meditation) as often as I can. Do you understand the conept of meditation and why it is practiced?

Dr. Rosenpenis

7th October 2003, 04:56

Yes I know what meditation is. I find it quite relaxing and liberating, but no spirituality involved.

I am not being Euro-centric. The Dalai Lama in Tibet wielded supreme power. In Japan, Shinto was used to defend the morals of Japanese feudalism. It's completely true that almost all religions play an important role in class society.

redstar2000

7th October 2003, 06:44

Weren't you the one who said that there is no such thing as universal moral law when I started that discussion about Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative?

If I didn't, I should have. :D

I used the word "moral" because you did. I don't think in those terms myself.

I prefer progressive, liberating, etc. vs. reactionary, primitive, barbaric to express these dichotomies.

That which is liberating is "good"; that which is reactionary is "bad".

American anti drug laws are moronic and they do more harm than good. They aren't however barbaric, they are simply wrong.

I disagree; in fact, I think they are on the same ethical level as the anti-semitic Nuremberg Laws of 1935.

Basically, they set up a substantial portion of the population for ruthless, relentless, and brutal persecution. There is no rational goal involved except imprisonment under gulag-like conditions. In fact, the anti-drug laws were initially directed against Chinese and black people...and racism is still one of the primary characteristics of the "war on drugs".

Not to mention that the modern use of prison labor and the privatization of the prison system has turned out to mean that groups of inmates are actually "bought" and "sold" by one prison company from/to another.

It's actually pretty fucking close to slavery...and getting closer.

The hypocrisy results in one simple reason, slavery isn't justified by the society's standards.

It certainly was. Throughout southern society prior to 1865, it was universal Christian opinion that slavery was explicitly justified by "God"--it was; you've seen the quotes.

However Christian doctrine is supposed to be against hurting people, slavery obviously hurts people.

Southern preachers hammered the message home time and time again...slavery is "good" for black people. Were it not for slavery, these people (slaves) would still be "savage heathens" in the jungle and would die and go to "Hell".

Now since these are supposedly good christian people, would it make sense for them to own slaves? Of course not.

It made perfect sense to them and none of them questioned it. One particularly articulate slave-owner took it even further...saying that all workers--even whites--should be slaves. His idea was that there should be only two classes in American society: those who own at least one slave and all the rest should be slaves.

What do you want to bet that he was not at least a "deacon" at his country church?

At least the Greeks were upfront with it, [neither] their religion nor their society saw something wrong with slavery.

You do them something of an injustice...at least the Athenians. They publicly recognized that being sold into slavery was the ultimate misfortune and degradation--and had laws that made it practical for a slave to "purchase his freedom" (I don't know if female slaves could do that).

Aristotle thought it disgraceful for Greeks to own other Greeks, though enslaving barbarians was ok with him.

And I think, if I'm not mistaken, that one of the surviving classical Greek dramas deals with slavery in a very critical way. There are even fragments that suggest the possibility that there might have been something of an anti-slavery "movement" in Athens...though most historians consider the evidence to be dubious.

We do know that when Athens was endangered on a number of occasions, slaves were invited to fight for the city and promised their freedom if they would do so...and Athens kept her promise.

Greek religion, of course, was not "about" personal "morality" at all--it was about propitiating powerful and capricious entities. You didn't sacrifice to Poseidon because it was "the right thing to do"...you sacrificed to Poseidon so that he would refrain from sinking your ship.

Christianity is (supposed to be) opposed to all forms of harm against your fellow man, YET the society saw nothing wrong with slavery.

All that's required is to change the definition of "harm". When the Inquisition tortured and burned a heretic, they didn't see that as "harm"...their justification was that it was better that a sinner should suffer a brief torment on earth than an eternity of torment in "Hell".

They actually thought they were doing good.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

crazy comie

7th October 2003, 15:12

religeon is as marx said the opium of the mases first it pacifies the opresd then it lets the rulers attack the opresd.

Lardlad95

7th October 2003, 22:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2003, 03:19 AM
Lardlad, capitalism places power in the hands of land-owning, capital-owning individuals by forcing the people to work and ultimately be subjugated by these oppressors.

Religion places power in the hands of the "truth-knowing" people who "have the secret to eternal greatness" by forcing people to follow their superstitous laws (rules that are punishable) and ultimately be subjugated by these oppressors.
THe first part I agree with

The second part I don't. Not all religions put an emphasis on the need for clergy, in fact some discourage it. If you can't find these religions tell me and I'll provide you with some names

Lardlad95

7th October 2003, 23:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2003, 06:44 AM

Weren't you the one who said that there is no such thing as universal moral law when I started that discussion about Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative?

If I didn't, I should have. :D

I used the word "moral" because you did. I don't think in those terms myself.

I prefer progressive, liberating, etc. vs. reactionary, primitive, barbaric to express these dichotomies.

That which is liberating is "good"; that which is reactionary is "bad".

American anti drug laws are moronic and they do more harm than good. They aren't however barbaric, they are simply wrong.

I disagree; in fact, I think they are on the same ethical level as the anti-semitic Nuremberg Laws of 1935.

Basically, they set up a substantial portion of the population for ruthless, relentless, and brutal persecution. There is no rational goal involved except imprisonment under gulag-like conditions. In fact, the anti-drug laws were initially directed against Chinese and black people...and racism is still one of the primary characteristics of the "war on drugs".

Not to mention that the modern use of prison labor and the privatization of the prison system has turned out to mean that groups of inmates are actually "bought" and "sold" by one prison company from/to another.

It's actually pretty fucking close to slavery...and getting closer.

The hypocrisy results in one simple reason, slavery isn't justified by the society's standards.

It certainly was. Throughout southern society prior to 1865, it was universal Christian opinion that slavery was explicitly justified by "God"--it was; you've seen the quotes.

However Christian doctrine is supposed to be against hurting people, slavery obviously hurts people.

Southern preachers hammered the message home time and time again...slavery is "good" for black people. Were it not for slavery, these people (slaves) would still be "savage heathens" in the jungle and would die and go to "Hell".

Now since these are supposedly good christian people, would it make sense for them to own slaves? Of course not.

It made perfect sense to them and none of them questioned it. One particularly articulate slave-owner took it even further...saying that all workers--even whites--should be slaves. His idea was that there should be only two classes in American society: those who own at least one slave and all the rest should be slaves.

What do you want to bet that he was not at least a "deacon" at his country church?

At least the Greeks were upfront with it, [neither] their religion nor their society saw something wrong with slavery.

You do them something of an injustice...at least the Athenians. They publicly recognized that being sold into slavery was the ultimate misfortune and degradation--and had laws that made it practical for a slave to "purchase his freedom" (I don't know if female slaves could do that).

Aristotle thought it disgraceful for Greeks to own other Greeks, though enslaving barbarians was ok with him.

And I think, if I'm not mistaken, that one of the surviving classical Greek dramas deals with slavery in a very critical way. There are even fragments that suggest the possibility that there might have been something of an anti-slavery "movement" in Athens...though most historians consider the evidence to be dubious.

We do know that when Athens was endangered on a number of occasions, slaves were invited to fight for the city and promised their freedom if they would do so...and Athens kept her promise.

Greek religion, of course, was not "about" personal "morality" at all--it was about propitiating powerful and capricious entities. You didn't sacrifice to Poseidon because it was "the right thing to do"...you sacrificed to Poseidon so that he would refrain from sinking your ship.

Christianity is (supposed to be) opposed to all forms of harm against your fellow man, YET the society saw nothing wrong with slavery.

All that's required is to change the definition of "harm". When the Inquisition tortured and burned a heretic, they didn't see that as "harm"...their justification was that it was better that a sinner should suffer a brief torment on earth than an eternity of torment in "Hell".

They actually thought they were doing good.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
>I prefer progressive, liberating, etc. vs. reactionary, primitive, barbaric to express these dichotomies<

Labels are labels, are their things which are universally liberating? Or universally barbaric?Societies view different things as "barbaric" and different things as "progressive".

Relativism applies to all these labels.

>That which is liberating is "good"; that which is reactionary is "bad".<

Once again Relativism applies.

however I haveno disagreement with this...I'm sure however that Loknar and his Cappie cronies would disagree with us :D

>It's actually pretty fucking close to slavery...and getting closer.<

Come on these assertions can be applied and should be applied to America's justice system as a whole.

Not to mention it all depends on your particular definition of what barbaric is.

I'd say the laws were more ludacrious than barbaric, I mean atleast these laws present a charade of justice in them...it's a crappy charade, but a charade none the less.

The laws biggest problem are as you asserted, their inherent racism. A black man is more likely to go to jail for them, and also a worse jail.A white CEO who buys bricks of coke at a time will more than likely end up in a minimum security resort.

So what I'm seeing is that the laws are not barbaric, but racist and MASSIVELY UNFAIR. 7 ounces of fine Purple haze should not be justification for ANYONE to go to prison.

However the term barbaric is a bit over blown. What is barbaric is the jail system, not the laws themselves.

>It certainly was. Throughout southern society prior to 1865, it was universal Christian opinion that slavery was explicitly justified by "God"--it was; you've seen the quotes.<

No my point was that it wasn't supposed to be, they manipulated and contradicted their own "docterine" to support that societie's opinion.

The basic idea of Christianity is that harming your fellow man is "SUPPOSED" to be wrong. Of course we see what happens when things are "SUPPOSED" to be a certain way.

Because the Church made it thier opinion doesn't mean it was necassarily what Christianity was "SUPPOSED" to represent.

I mean take the example of Stalin...Socialism and COmmunism aren't supposed to opress people....BUT................

>Southern preachers hammered the message home time and time again...slavery is "good" for black people. Were it not for slavery, these people (slaves) would still be "savage heathens" in the jungle and would die and go to "Hell<

But is that what Christianity was "SUPPOSED" to be promoting?

People are corrupt, people corrupt religion, and it's even easier for people to corrupt a religion that was flawed in teh first place.

People pervert ideas all the time to suit their purpose, surely you can't deny this.

>It made perfect sense to them and none of them questioned it. One particularly articulate slave-owner took it even further...saying that all workers--even whites--should be slaves. His idea was that there should be only two classes in American society: those who own at least one slave and all the rest should be slaves.<

Even WHITES? Surely this man was a nut job, I mean I could see blacks...maybe even asians....but whites? :o :o :o :o :D

On a serious note though his opinions were based on the society he group up in, and this particular society distorted an already flawed religion to suit it's purpose

ON THE SUBJECT OF GREEK SLAVERY:

You are correct of course about the athenians, but one must remember that the Athenians were a bit more enlitened than any other greek city-state. The Athenians were thinkers and philosophers, they were miles above most other city statest/

The Spartan economy was utterly dependent on the Helots (granted they were technically "serfs" it was actually slavery) for slave labor.

All other greek societies had them, though they weren't as dependent as the Spartans.

>Greek religion, of course, was not "about" personal "morality" at all--it was about propitiating powerful and capricious entities. You didn't sacrifice to Poseidon because it was "the right thing to do"...you sacrificed to Poseidon so that he would refrain from sinking your ship.<

....Powerful beings or establishments...sacaraficing your private property to appease them....if you don't they'll kill you...

My this sounds like a familiar economic system...two enfact....

On the one hand its capitalism for obvious reasons

on the other it's a Right wing slant on COmmunism

Seriously though there was some incentive to bahave well, I mean tartarus is no joke.

Though tartarus and the elysian feilds didn't appear until later

>All that's required is to change the definition of "harm". When the Inquisition tortured and burned a heretic, they didn't see that as "harm"...their justification was that it was better that a sinner should suffer a brief torment on earth than an eternity of torment in "Hell".<

ONCE AGAIN DISTORTION FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT

Dr. Rosenpenis

8th October 2003, 02:07

Religions do not need a clergy to spread reactionary ideas and often force them upon people.

Which religions do not have a clergy?

All religions were created by, or are kept in existance because of people whose class interests benefit from the reactionary ideas that are spread by religion.

IHP

8th October 2003, 03:31

"Yes I know what meditation is. I find it quite relaxing and liberating, but no spirituality involved."

Finally, a bit of understanding. Now we're somewhere. Therefore, my practicing of zazen in a religious way cannot be terribly harmful to society, no?

Dr. Rosenpenis

8th October 2003, 04:21

I have alreday told lardlad what our goal is:

We're going to work to end the manifestation of current religions as a tool of indoctrinating people to submit to the will of reactionaries who do not have the interests of the working class in mind.

Expressing ideas that suggest faith in something supernatural is fine, the problem is when people try to use their "knowledge" of the "supernatural" to subjugate people into following their undemocratic and unsocialistic ways that benefit nobody but themselves and/or the ruling class.

crazy comie

8th October 2003, 15:09

reilegeons would cerrtainly be done away with in a communist society.

Dr. Rosenpenis

8th October 2003, 18:14

hey, lardlad, look! :o
I think that crazy commie over here just debunked your whole argument with his amzing insight! :lol:

Lardlad95

8th October 2003, 19:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 04:21 AM
I have alreday told lardlad what our goal is:

We're going to work to end the manifestation of current religions as a tool of indoctrinating people to submit to the will of reactionaries who do not have the interests of the working class in mind.

Expressing ideas that suggest faith in something supernatural is fine, the problem is when people try to use their "knowledge" of the "supernatural" to subjugate people into following their undemocratic and unsocialistic ways that benefit nobody but themselves and/or the ruling class.
Yeah I'm fine with that, my problem is with people openly condeming faith.

You should let people choose for themselves, instead Pumping Propaganda into people's minds.

In my opinion anyne who denounces free thought is worse than any cappie....

Oh And I'm not saying that anyone here is like this, I'm just saying this generally

monkeydust

8th October 2003, 20:14

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 8 2003, 03:09 PM
reilegeons would cerrtainly be done away with in a communist society.
People would simply find something else spiritual to believe in though.

BuyOurEverything

9th October 2003, 02:31

Yeah I'm fine with that, my problem is with people openly condeming faith.

You should let people choose for themselves, instead Pumping Propaganda into people's minds.

In my opinion anyne who denounces free thought is worse than any cappie....

Oh And I'm not saying that anyone here is like this, I'm just saying this generally

I most definately openly condemn faith. Faith by its very definition goes against free thought. Faith means don't look at the facts, don't question it, just believe it and have FAITH in it.

As for Buddhism, doesn't the whole idea of karma and reincarnation go against socialism? I mean if someone is poor or suffering or being exploited, it's ok because they did bad deeds in their past life and are now being punished; they deserve it.

Dr. Rosenpenis

9th October 2003, 03:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 09:31 PM

Yeah I'm fine with that, my problem is with people openly condeming faith.

You should let people choose for themselves, instead Pumping Propaganda into people's minds.

In my opinion anyne who denounces free thought is worse than any cappie....

Oh And I'm not saying that anyone here is like this, I'm just saying this generally

I most definately openly condemn faith. Faith by its very definition goes against free thought. Faith means don't look at the facts, don't question it, just believe it and have FAITH in it.

As for Buddhism, doesn't the whole idea of karma and reincarnation go against socialism? I mean if someone is poor or suffering or being exploited, it's ok because they did bad deeds in their past life and are now being punished; they deserve it.
That's why I'm condemning the manifestation and worship of faith-based cults, such as the religions of today, because they indoctrinate people with ignorance, superstition, prejudice, submition to "higher beings", and other fundamentaly reactionary ideas.

IHP

9th October 2003, 03:30

Victorcommie, therefore, Zen would be allowed to be practised in a communist society. There is no supernatural. check 1. The only superiority through knowledge is a master and a student. Much in the same way as a worker and his/her apprentrice. Check 2. As for the post above mine. Have you read anything about buddhism or zen specifically? Let me break this down:

"because they indoctrinate people with ignorance, superstition, prejudice,"

Nope. When I get home, I will post two koans written by two zen buddhist monks. Both considered to be masters, and both koans, totally contradicting each other! In fact, in zen thought, you question everything and come to whatever conclusion you want. Another example would be, if someone gives you a round, red, vegetable and asks "What is it?" If your answer is, "it's a tomato" you cling to labels and what you are told. If you answer "it's not a tomato" Then you again haven't understood, and are a fool. If you bit into the tomato and gave it back and asked "What is it?" Then you would an idea of the thoughts.

"submition to "higher beings""

There is no higher being. Even buddha is considered to just be an enlightened human being, and worship of him is seen as folly.

"and other fundamentaly reactionary ideas. "

See the first answer I made. Zen adapts, because it is constantly changing and being re-thought.

BuyOurEverything, firstly, I'm not a communist, and barely a socialist. I'm a leftist. Secondly, about Karma, I will give you a quote from Tinju, a Chinese buddhist. "A bad man suffers like a bad man, a good man suffers like a good man. We all suffer" You are talking about the Western interpretation of karma, which is skewed and inaccurate.

Dr. Rosenpenis

9th October 2003, 03:44

Okay, perhaps Zen Buddhism isn't socialy harmful, but doesn't it preach reincarnation, the existance of souls, and other illogical notions of the like?

I know very little about Buddhism.

IHP

9th October 2003, 03:54

No, it doesn't "preach" anything. You don't have to believe in souls (although I do) or reincarnation. There is no set doctrine to follow. In fact you don't have to follow anything. Zen is more a way of life than a set religion. I think I posted something about this earlier... I can't remember. There seems to be a lot of religion type threads at the moment.

Also I should point out that there is a difference between Zen and Zen buddhism (I am the latter). And what might be illogical to you is totally logical to me. I haven't been A zen buddhist my whole life, I made my decisions about what I believe. Adopted Zen, looked very skeptically at my thoughts (as Zen tries to do) and decided that I do in fact believe in the concept of a soul.

Lardlad95

9th October 2003, 04:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2003, 02:31 AM

Yeah I'm fine with that, my problem is with people openly condeming faith.

You should let people choose for themselves, instead Pumping Propaganda into people's minds.

In my opinion anyne who denounces free thought is worse than any cappie....

Oh And I'm not saying that anyone here is like this, I'm just saying this generally

I most definately openly condemn faith. Faith by its very definition goes against free thought. Faith means don't look at the facts, don't question it, just believe it and have FAITH in it.

As for Buddhism, doesn't the whole idea of karma and reincarnation go against socialism? I mean if someone is poor or suffering or being exploited, it's ok because they did bad deeds in their past life and are now being punished; they deserve it.

>I most definately openly condemn faith. Faith by its very definition goes against free thought. Faith means don't look at the facts, don't question it, just believe it and have FAITH in it.<

Main Entry: free thought
Function: noun
Date: 1711
: unorthodox attitudes or beliefs; specifically : 18th century deism

Faith in no way contradicts freethought. Free Thought is what ever beliefs differ from the norm, so if Athiesm is the norm then a Belief in God would be considered free thought

Just look at the example of 18th century diesm, which is a religion (of which i belong to), it is based on faith in a God, yet it is still considered free thought.

Diesm conflicted with traditional religion, mainly because there was no set religion, basically it relies on natural religion,self reliance, and reason.

Diest don't believe in the "revealed" religions, we don't go to church, and we don't have a set doctrine.

Here is a quote from a diest website

"Unlike the revealed religions, Deism makes no unreasonable claims. The revealed religions encourage people to give up, or at least to suspend, their God-given reason. They like to call it faith. For example, how logical is it to believe that Moses parted the Red Sea, or that Jesus walked on water, or that Mohammed received the Koran from an angel? Suspending your reason enough to believe these tales only sets a precedent that leads to believing a Jim Jones or David Koresh."

I just thought I'd describe deism just for the hell of it

So basically what I'm trying to say is that Faith contradicts reason, it doesn't contradict freethought. And people have the right to think freely, regardless of whether or not what they believe is true(especially since truth is unkowable)

Also what facts? There are no facts disproving God, only explanations for phenomena that used to be credited to God.

So why are you going to harp on the lack of Evidence for God?

Dr. Rosenpenis

9th October 2003, 04:03

A notion that you arrive at without suggestions of its validity is undoubtedly illogical.

If Zen and/or Zen Buddhism is not a doctrine, then what is it. You've told me that it's a way fo life, but what, less vaguely this time, is it?

Firestorm

9th October 2003, 09:02

Buddhism is more a way of life than anything. Yes it is looked on as a religion, yet...it cannot be truely defined as one because it has no central point of creation..no powerful gods or deities. The Buddha was a human being who saw the world as illusional. It was human beings that had to liberate themselves in order to become enlightened.

Buddhism is a-political in itself. The structure of most Zen/Pure Land Buddhist temples is completely socialist. many of the lay practisers are active in the JSP, Japanese Socialist Party.

RyeN

9th October 2003, 09:33

I am not a buddhist but Ive chiled with Buddha before. Just meditate and become one with your body and mind. Sure what does that mean. Well meditation is different everytime and it also differes from person to person. Chillin with buddha is like closing your eyes and relaxing, going away to a more peaceful place where your thoughts are calm. Think of a happy place, and let buddha be your guide there. Once in a calm place where your thoughts are rational you can sense your body. feel but dont move the muscles. You can focus in on stress areas and relax those parts of your body. Wow meditation is fun.

crazy comie

9th October 2003, 12:35

budism sounds intresting

[email protected]

9th October 2003, 14:14

The thing is it is in some respects relatively easy to abolish relgion,but we forget a very important aspect and that is unfortunately people need religion. They need it to provide an explanation of their existence,it's all part of the natural law theory. Rain is for plants to grow,plants to feed animals,animals to feed man and God to serve as guidance for man. Everything seems to have a telos in this chain except for man and thus they need some other being to explain what this telos is, to provide laws and commandments on how they ought to lead their lives and reassure mankind that at the end of the day he will not face extinction and return to dust,he will reap some form of benefits,i.e. his inheritance in heaven and for the bad punishment through hell. Therefore try as you may to get rid of religion and the world just might go through mayhem- this is purely objective, something I've observed through being brought up in a Catholic household and having to realize that to me it's bullshit,but to the unwise it is a neccessity.

crazy comie

9th October 2003, 14:17

you can always teach them the baisis of science

redstar2000

9th October 2003, 23:22

There seems to be a lot of religion type threads at the moment.

Man, you said it! :o

The thing is it is in some respects relatively easy to abolish religion,but we forget a very important aspect and that is unfortunately people need religion.

No they don't. The very fact that atheists exist demonstrates that people don't "need" it.

They need it to provide an explanation of their existence...

Hardly.

...they need some other being to explain what this telos is, to provide laws and commandments on how they ought to lead their lives and reassure mankind that at the end of the day he will not face extinction and return to dust,he will reap some form of benefits,i.e. his inheritance in heaven and for the bad punishment through hell.

An "explanation" that is obviously false is not an explanation of anything.

Therefore try as you may to get rid of religion and the world just might go through mayhem- this is purely objective, something I've observed through being brought up in a Catholic household and having to realize that to me it's bullshit, but to the unwise it is a necessity.

It is not a matter of "wisdom", it is a matter of ignorance.

That can be fixed.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

apathy maybe

10th October 2003, 02:03

Science does not explain why the universe is here nor does it explain what happens to a person's mind/soul/psyche when they die. Religion provides an answer. So do other philosophies that can't be classed as religions (e.g. existentialism and materialism).

marxstudent

10th October 2003, 02:56

redstar2000

10th October 2003, 03:32

Science does not explain why the universe is here nor does it explain what happens to a person's mind/soul/psyche when they die.

Does it matter why the universe is here?

Does the question even make any sense?

It seems to be based on a distant philosophical descendent of the primitive theory that inanimate objects had "purposes" of their own, akin to human "purposes".

The universe is an inanimate object...it has no "why" about it. The "how" is still much disputed and we have a lot to learn. But no evidence of a "why" has ever been discovered.

As to the second question, science has a very good answer. The mind is a product of organized matter--the brain. When that matter becomes disorganized, the mind ceases to exist.

Although many pious scientists have looked for evidence of the "soul" or "psyche", none has been found. The presumption is that those things don't exist.

Religion provides an answer.

Actually, hundreds or even thousands of "answers"...not a single one of which has ever proven to be worth a puddle of warm spit.

If even one of those "answers" was worth anything, it would show. There would be obvious and compelling evidence that this or that religion "really worked"...the way science really works.

You could get results that you could really rely on.

That never happens.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

Dr. Rosenpenis

10th October 2003, 03:35

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 9 2003, 09:03 PM
Science does not explain why the universe is here nor does it explain what happens to a person's mind/soul/psyche when they die. Religion provides an answer. So do other philosophies that can't be classed as religions (e.g. existentialism and materialism).
Redstar just said that an explanation that is obviously false is not an explanation of anything! Anyone can come up with some lunatic theory about how something "works", but if it is obviously absurd, then it will provide no gratifaction to those who seek to understand the world. Science has made so many advances, that what was once thought to be a realistic theory can today be easily classified as "mythology". Thousands of years ago, people expalined natural occurances with what today we call myths! People simply must realize how absurd religous doctrines really are!

marxstudent

10th October 2003, 03:57

But what some people call dumb, others think are right. It's just like how you'll watch a movie and say it was the best ever and I'll say it was horrible. It's all about interpretation. Science has proved lots of stuff bout not everything that deals with religion. IF it could or if it ever does, then I can fully break out of religion. So far it hasn't, so there wouldn't be a point for me to.

Does it matter why the universe is here?

It does for me.

So if communism is to take effect, there will be no religion? So that means the people do not have free will? No freedom? Some will say believing in a religion is not having freedom but it was that person's CHOICE to believe in it. Most communists will say religion is bullshit but what makes them right for saying that? The supernatural stuff? I'm pretty sure all of you have experienced something like that and you'll probably say that it was just luck. Then what makes it luck? Does science prove it's luck too? Science doesn't prove everything. Has anyone read Hard Times by Charles Dickens? Don't you ever wonder that's how we'll turn out if everything's just straight up science?

Dr. Rosenpenis

10th October 2003, 04:32

The validity of religion is not a question of opinion. You must weigh in the facts. When you're told something, you ask yourself, "Can this be true?", "Have I ever witnessed anything that would suggest that there is some validity to this?", "Does this contradict anything that I know is true?", and etc. Once you begin to accept such notions that are presented to you as fact, and you fail to question its validity, then you also begin to accept is as eternal truth. Then you are subjugated by false superstition! It is just as logical to believe that you'll be doomed if you walk underneath a ladder, as it is to think that you'll burn for eternity if you jack off. If the government accepts the manifestation of groups that indoctrinate people with laws such as those presented by christianity, then you are allowing people to submit their freedom to others. These others are normaly those who seek to remove power from the people and concentrate it in the hands of a ruling class, race, nationality, etc. i.e., fascists!

IHP

10th October 2003, 04:33

Here are the two stanzas that I promised that I think shows that there is not one way of thought in zen.

*Bhodi = True wisdom

The Bohdi is not like a tree;
The mirror bright is nowhere shining:
As there is nothing from the first,
Where does the dust collect itself?

And the second one

This body is the Bohdi-tree;
The soul is like the mirror bright;
Take heed to keep it always clean
And let no dust collect upon it.

These were written by two seperate monks believed to have fully understood zen, yet these poems are complete opposites. Therefore you do not have to stick to a way of thinking.

Victorcommie, I have made my thoughts clear on the concept of a soul. I believe that there exists an immaterial you and everybody, that more so than environment, culture etc makes up who you. Do not use such words as 'undoubtedly illogical' unless you want to say something like 'to me is undoubtedly illogical.' To me and countless millions of others a soul is totally logical.

As to your other question, it's difficult to explain exactly where Zen buddhism fits in. It is non-thestic. I would, should you ask what zen teaches, then my answer would be: Nothing. (which is quite a zen-style answer!) Anything you learn from Zen comes out of your own mind.

I will quote here from a book by Daistez Teitaro Suzuki, because I'm at a loss as to how to explain what zen is to people they don't have good knowledge of it.

"Is Zen a religion?It is not a religion in the sense that the term is popularly understood; for zen has no God to worship, no ceremonial rites to observe, no future abode to which the dead are destined, and last of all, zen has no souls whose welfare is to be looked aftr by somebody else and whose immortality is a matter of intense concern with some people. Zen is from from all these dogmatic and 'religious' encumberences.

When I say there is no God, the pious reader may be shocked, but this does not mean that Zen denies the existence of Go; neither denial nor affirmation concerns Zen. When a thing is denied the very denial invloves something not denied. The very same can be said of affirmation. This is inevitable in logic. Zen wants to raise above logic."

This goes on for a while about how it is somewhere between a reilgion and a philosophy, whilst being both at the same time, but I cannot find an online version to link you to.

RyeN

10th October 2003, 04:33

Religion is nothing like discussing wether or not a movie was good. Well it kinda is in the fact that such disscusions are trite. Belif in something doesnt make it so. Hell I will personaly deliver you to the right hand of god myself when you die if you follow me. Anyone can claim it because they are idle prommises. There is no soul inside of you that is trying to get to heaven. Face the fact that when you die life is over, and try to do the best you can while your here.

IHP

10th October 2003, 04:41

RyeN, let's not start this again. You have said it though, "belief in something doesn't make it so." Exactly. Your belief that there is no soul is just that, a belief. My belief that there is a soul, is also a belief. That's all. Face what "facts"? That the material you dies? Yes it does, though you think in 15 years you can change the brain (which we don't even presume understand an umpteenth of) to program it to perpetual life.

marxstudent

10th October 2003, 04:48

Believe me Ryen I would if I could. That's the point there is no evidence that proves there's a heaven but there's no proof to prove that there isn't- at least there isn't any credible proof. I don't care about those stories where a guy says "Oh I died and went to hell it was horrible." I will believe when I die but then that'll be too late whether there is one or not. I've been brought up a Protestant my whole life and although I don't agree with everything they have to say, overall I live my life somewhat in its ways. Again, I think as long as you don't let religion affect your thinking radically, you should be fine. Not all people belonging to a religion are crazy radicals. When there is some straight up profound evidence proving there is no God, then can I fully let go of my faith but nothing of that sort has appeared.

If you don't let your religion take over everything you do, there shouldn't be a problem, no? Like abortion- I'm pretty neutral in that subject, yet I'm Protestant. It's about interpretation of the Bible like how some Catholics say "If your not Catholic your going to hell." That's their interpretation but my personal interpretation is that God is love and so anyone can go to heaven. Buddhists who travel around the world helping starving kids will go to heaven it doesn't matter.

RyeN

10th October 2003, 04:55

Ill tell you what, if there is a god that means theres satan too. According to the bible theory Satan and god were in a battle for the power of the universe. God said "no bad satan" and sent him to hell. God then decided to create a 3rd dimension universe with earth right. All in 7 amazing days. Then Satan athough banned to hell was able to sneak into gods new universe and corupt it. Now god and Satan are in a battle for souls to control the universe. The way I see it if your faith is in god your going to be on the losing side. So actualy your going to hell comrade, better keep praying.

Dr. Rosenpenis

10th October 2003, 04:59

But the point, marxstudent, is that religion does "take over everything that you do"! It prevents people from doing what they want! It subjugates people! It places people in bondage, committal, confinement, constraint, enslavement, enthrallment, imprisonment, incarceration, restraint, servitude, slavery, subjection! It prevents the people from wielding power! It counters socialism! It prohibits democracy! It thwarts our goals completely!

redstar2000

10th October 2003, 12:49

To me and countless millions of others a soul is totally logical.

Then where's the damn evidence?

You guys, even zen Buddhists, just assert and assert and assert...an absolute torrent of assertions that "this is true" and "this exists" and "this will happen".

And never so much as a nanogram of evidence.

If the existence of "souls" is "logical", then what's left of the word logical?

Why not just say "X is true" because I say so...that's my "logic".

That has "logical" implications of its own. If truth turns out to mean only "it's true for me", then it follows that any view--even Hitler's--is equally "true".

No one has the "right" to criticize or condemn any view...they are all true for someone.

So then what? Fall back on the numbers? If X millions of people believe it's true, then it must "really" be true, right?

Or how about "famous believers"? Cyndi Celebrity believes X, does that make X "true"? Or Nobel Peace Prize winner Fred Fake believes X is "true"; is it?

What a morass of rubbish and nonsense these threads always turn out to be.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

crazy comie

10th October 2003, 14:52

science explains as much as religeon. Some scientists say the big bang started things but we don't know how that came about and the religion's say god made the world but they have nothing to say how god came about.

marxstudent

10th October 2003, 22:15

science explains as much as religeon.

yea it does but it doesn't explain everything. religion doesn't necessarily affect how one acts. religion to me is like morals even and everyone has morals. i don't know maybe it's because i'm not religious even though i say i believe in God? again, none of this answers all the unanswered questions.

Lardlad95

11th October 2003, 02:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2003, 03:32 AM

Science does not explain why the universe is here nor does it explain what happens to a person's mind/soul/psyche when they die.

Does it matter why the universe is here?

Does the question even make any sense?

It seems to be based on a distant philosophical descendent of the primitive theory that inanimate objects had "purposes" of their own, akin to human "purposes".

The universe is an inanimate object...it has no "why" about it. The "how" is still much disputed and we have a lot to learn. But no evidence of a "why" has ever been discovered.

As to the second question, science has a very good answer. The mind is a product of organized matter--the brain. When that matter becomes disorganized, the mind ceases to exist.

Although many pious scientists have looked for evidence of the "soul" or "psyche", none has been found. The presumption is that those things don't exist.

Religion provides an answer.

Actually, hundreds or even thousands of "answers"...not a single one of which has ever proven to be worth a puddle of warm spit.

If even one of those "answers" was worth anything, it would show. There would be obvious and compelling evidence that this or that religion "really worked"...the way science really works.

You could get results that you could really rely on.

That never happens.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
I think the question WHY the Universe is here is irrelevant.

The real question is HOW The universe came into being.

And so far no one has been capable of giving a concrete answer.

Though I think philosophically the question of "why" is relevant.And it isn't just asking why are we here in the sense of what is our purpose on earth, it also poses the questions why did everything fall into place?

Ive always wondered, why exactley did everything fall into place. Looking at the Universe's history in retrospect, everything worked like clock work. The universe formed just so, the galaxy formed just so, the Solar system formed just so, and the earth was formed in a way that was cpable of supporting life.

The life that the Earth supported faced certain conditions that forced it to adapt or be killed. Animals evolved into countless species, some survived, some didn't.

Humans evolved from a common ancestor that we shared with other hominids, we survived they didn't.

Everything fell into place.

Coencidence, or Planning?

marxstudent

11th October 2003, 03:16

Good point, Lardlad. :)

RyeN

11th October 2003, 05:31

Sleep is where it all comes together. Everything we do is devoted to sleep. Why do you go to work? To get money or to suply a means of providing the basic means of survival. Shelter, food and drink. Why do we need these things. So we can sleep. Everything you do in your day is filler until once again you can sleep. Every day getting older and closer to the day we finaly hit the big sleep. Death equals = peace

Do you want the meaning of life? Life is a chaotic cirlce. Everything we do is useless. In our sleep it doesnt matter. There is no life after death but there is peace from everthing. Everything in life is just filler to amuse us until we die. Dont try to figure out where the universe came from because even if you do figure it out, you still have to sleep, you still have to die. The moral is make sure you have enough, to ensure plenty of rest. Have fun!

crazy comie

11th October 2003, 12:33

The point of life is to live for as long as possible and reprouduce as much as possible.

IHP

11th October 2003, 12:45

"You guys, even zen Buddhists, just assert and assert and assert...an absolute torrent of assertions that "this is true" and "this exists" and "this will happen"."

Wrong! Ironic that in your critique of Zen Buddhism, you yourself assert what belief system is held. Have you read anything I've posted about the way Zen works? Or doesn't work as such because it's a natural part of our lives. Zen asserts nothing. Zen wants you to question everything

I will post this again.

When I say there is no God, the pious reader may be shocked, but this does not mean that Zen denies the existence of God; neither denial nor affirmation concerns Zen. When a thing is denied the very denial involves something not denied. The very same can be said of affirmation. This is inevitable in logic. Zen wants to raise above logic."

Is that a little clearer? Zen does nothing of what you just described. I am really starting to tire of these arguments that show such total ignorance of Zen thought.

As to the concept of a soul. That is not to do with my beliefs in regards to Zen. That is a belief I personally hold.

"And never so much as a nanogram of evidence. "

Nor is there any to the contrary. If everything we believed was totally staked entirely within the realms of fact, then we'd be livin inside a bubble.

"If the existence of "souls" is "logical", then what's left of the word logical?"

Is anything therefore "logical Is a Marxist paradise "logical"? To some people yes, to others, absolutely not. Both could argue down lines of logic.

"No one has the "right" to criticize or condemn any view...they are all true for someone"

Nice try. Where have I said that? Everyone has the right to critisize. The essence of this board is such. What's your direction with this?

"So then what? Fall back on the numbers? If X millions of people believe it's true, then it must "really" be true, right?"

Wrong. I never said such. My only reference to numbers was what you quoted. I never said that due to the numbers I quoted it was "true" because I wouldn't presume to affirm anything through that basis. Only that those people believed it.

"Or how about "famous believers"? Cyndi Celebrity believes X, does that make X "true"? Or Nobel Peace Prize winner Fred Fake believes X is "true"; is it?"

Where did I make reference to this?

"What a morass of rubbish and nonsense these threads always turn out to be."

It's because there is a serious case of blinkers in this forum.

Lardlad95

11th October 2003, 15:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 05:31 AM
Sleep is where it all comes together. Everything we do is devoted to sleep. Why do you go to work? To get money or to suply a means of providing the basic means of survival. Shelter, food and drink. Why do we need these things. So we can sleep. Everything you do in your day is filler until once again you can sleep. Every day getting older and closer to the day we finaly hit the big sleep. Death equals = peace

Do you want the meaning of life? Life is a chaotic cirlce. Everything we do is useless. In our sleep it doesnt matter. There is no life after death but there is peace from everthing. Everything in life is just filler to amuse us until we die. Dont try to figure out where the universe came from because even if you do figure it out, you still have to sleep, you still have to die. The moral is make sure you have enough, to ensure plenty of rest. Have fun!
Screw that, after I die I want to either

1. relive my life

2. be riencarnated as a descendent of mine

3. Sit and talk with other dead people (icluding figures from the past) as well as god

4. Have my own personal heaven that I shape

but should those things not pan out, sure an eternal slumber would be fine

crazy comie

11th October 2003, 15:34

i doudt heavn exists.

Lardlad95

11th October 2003, 15:54

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 11 2003, 03:34 PM
i doudt heavn exists.
I also doubt that Michael Jackson is still a real person, but he walks talks and breathes like one

redstar2000

11th October 2003, 23:19

Zen wants to raise above logic.

Christianity makes the same claim...as all religions do. There's nothing inherently "logical" about the basic assumptions that all religions make.

You can, if you wish, call it "rising above" logic...I call it falling miserably below logic.

If everything we believed was totally staked entirely within the realms of fact, then we'd be living inside a bubble.

A "bubble" that's usually referred to as the real world.

Is anything therefore "logical"? Is a Marxist paradise "logical"? To some people yes, to others, absolutely not. Both could argue down lines of logic.

And evidence, as well. Certainly there are those who argue with both logic and evidence against Marxism; and Marxists argue back. But neither side can appeal to the "supernatural" without immediately losing the argument.

I never said that due to the numbers I quoted it was "true" because I wouldn't presume to affirm anything through that basis. Only that those people believed it.

Then why mention numbers at all, if they were not relevant to your point? Whether one person or a billion people believe that the existence of "souls" is "logical" is irrelevant.

What is the logic? On what evidence is it based?

Where did I make reference to this?

You didn't...I apologize if I gave the impression that you did. The "famous believer" argument is a common response to criticism of religion...so I just tossed it in as an example.

It's because there is a serious case of blinkers in this forum.

That may well be the case; but whose eye contains the mote and whose the beam?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

IHP

12th October 2003, 05:21

"Christianity makes the same claim...as all religions do. There's nothing inherently "logical" about the basic assumptions that all religions make"

Once again, redstar, you misunderstand. The difference is that Christianity and the like preach their assumptions about the world we live in. Zen makes you critique the world and interpret it to your own logical understanding. More so than that, I say it once more, Zen wants to question everything, and don't take anything at face value.

"A "bubble" that's usually referred to as the real world."

Are you saying everything you believe is totally factual, and is 100% based in fact? I think not redstar, that would be impossible.

"And evidence, as well. Certainly there are those who argue with both logic and evidence against Marxism; and Marxists argue back. But neither side can appeal to the "supernatural" without immediately losing the argument."

Here you change the argument. We were talking about personal logic, to oneself. This is a broader scale. Ok, remembering that my belief in a soul has nothing to do with Zen, I will say it again. I believe that a soul exists. This immaterial you is who you are, beyond your upbringing, environment etc. To me the concept of a soul explains much. To others it's impossible.

Then why mention numbers at all, if they were not relevant to your point? Whether one person or a billion people believe that the existence of "souls" is "logical" is irrelevant"

You are changing what I said. Alright, I mentioned the guesstimate at how many people believe there is a soul, because a member declared it "illogical." My mentioning of this had no intent of 'proving' my belief.

"You didn't...I apologize if I gave the impression that you did. The "famous believer" argument is a common response to criticism of religion...so I just tossed it in as an example."

Ok. But in Zen you have to want to learn for yourself, you would never follow anyone.

"That may well be the case; but whose eye contains the mote and whose the beam?"

Well, that can be argued and we'd never reach a "factual" or "logical" conclusion. Everyone would hold their own beliefs on this matter, correct?

RyeN

12th October 2003, 06:05

You people who say that science doesnt disprove the "theory" of life after death dont like to look at facts eh! The truth is there are thousand of facts proving it but you just dont acknowledge them. Just because we are the smartest species on this planet doesnt mean that we are so much more special than any other species. Look at a beaver. Its brain can't comprehend things like the beging of the universe or how to please god, but its still alive. Or the way a pet cat has a personality of its own, but still no god?

In a way part of us will live on forever. In Essence people are made up of cells. Our cells are made from many microscopic parts, like the Mitochondria, Golgi, Ribosomes and the Nucleus. There are more but I wont list them all. Take for example the Vacuole which accounts for majority of the cell. This is made from fluids such as water. Water as we all know H2O is 1 part hydrogen and 2 parts oxygen. Both those substances are made from the same 3 things, Electrons, Protrons and Neutrons. A hydrogen molecule has 1 of each and an oxygen molecule has 8. Thats the only real differnce.

So when you die and your cells deteriorate there are still the same amount of electrons protons and nuetrons there. Maybee they sink into the soil and feed a plant to grow. That plant grows tobaco leaves and your former building blocks are now being smoked and released into the air by redstar. It doesnt matter what happens to them after you die your conciousness is over and that is life. hahahaha

crazy comie

12th October 2003, 12:30

good post ryen

Lardlad95

12th October 2003, 19:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 06:05 AM
You people who say that science doesnt disprove the "theory" of life after death dont like to look at facts eh! The truth is there are thousand of facts proving it but you just dont acknowledge them. Just because we are the smartest species on this planet doesnt mean that we are so much more special than any other species. Look at a beaver. Its brain can't comprehend things like the beging of the universe or how to please god, but its still alive. Or the way a pet cat has a personality of its own, but still no god?

In a way part of us will live on forever. In Essence people are made up of cells. Our cells are made from many microscopic parts, like the Mitochondria, Golgi, Ribosomes and the Nucleus. There are more but I wont list them all. Take for example the Vacuole which accounts for majority of the cell. This is made from fluids such as water. Water as we all know H2O is 1 part hydrogen and 2 parts oxygen. Both those substances are made from the same 3 things, Electrons, Protrons and Neutrons. A hydrogen molecule has 1 of each and an oxygen molecule has 8. Thats the only real differnce.

So when you die and your cells deteriorate there are still the same amount of electrons protons and nuetrons there. Maybee they sink into the soil and feed a plant to grow. That plant grows tobaco leaves and your former building blocks are now being smoked and released into the air by redstar. It doesnt matter what happens to them after you die your conciousness is over and that is life. hahahaha
Actually there are no facts disproving it.

the Soul, and heaven are abstract concepts. There is no scientific way to prove they don't exist, simply because we can't record what happens after death

RyeN

12th October 2003, 20:12

Thats complte garbage. Thats like saying you cant prove that rocks dont coverse with eachother from far distances using the power of thier soul. Everyone knows it doesnt happen its a stupid idea. Wake up and open your fucking eyes

IHP

13th October 2003, 00:10

RyeN, I will quote Robert Allen, an American Zen master.

"People who spend a lot of time practicing zazen are no longer impressed with the notion, 'When you're dead your body and brain rot and that's the end of you.' It soon becomes clear that this view of reality is not the whole truth. Buddhists and others notice that children, whose personalisites are popularly thought to be the twin affects of nature and nurture often show strong personality traits that seem to have come from neither source."

Do you remember my question about the orange, round, fruit? If I were to hand you one, what would you say it is?

Open our eyes? Look, all your theory, which is all it is, is based around the material.

Can you materially explain this: Two years ago my uncle died at 3.32 in the morning. Myself, my mother, and my aunty (his wife) all woke up suddenly at 3.32 AM. Why? Can all your jargon about cells being the be all and end all explain this?

redstar2000

13th October 2003, 00:45

"People who spend a lot of time practicing zazen are no longer impressed with the notion, 'When you're dead your body and brain rot and that's the end of you.' It soon becomes clear that this view of reality is not the whole truth. Buddhists and others notice that children, whose personalisites are popularly thought to be the twin affects of nature and nurture often show strong personality traits that seem to have come from neither source."

A perfect example of "religious" writing which appears to say "something" and actually says nothing!

1st sentence: who gives a rat's ass about impressions? Where is the evidence?

2nd sentence: In what way does it "become clear"? Where is the evidence?

3rd sentence: "often notice"? Do they indeed? So what? Because science at this point is still woefully ignorant of the precise determining factors that form human personalities, people can (and do!) say anything with an attitude of certainty that is totally unjustified.

Strong personality traits are not "evidence" of the existence of a "soul".

Look, all your theory, which is all it is, is based around the material.

Indeed it is...that is what is real. And do not sneer at "theories"...good ones are useful descriptions of reality.

Religion is not competent to develop theories of reality, just mythology and word-play.

Can you materially explain this: Two years ago my uncle died at 3.32 in the morning. Myself, my mother, and my aunty (his wife) all woke up suddenly at 3.32 AM. Why? Can all your jargon about cells being the be all and end all explain this?

All in the same time zone, were you?

And everyone had presence of mind enough to note the exact time? All of the clocks were accurate to the minute? None of you had engaged in any unusual behavior such as to cause early wakefulness? None of you were actually in the habit of waking up at that hour?

None of you had ever done that before and simply never made a note of it because nothing happened?

Everyone has anecdotes of odd coincidences. But the plural of anecdote is not data.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

Lardlad95

13th October 2003, 00:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 08:12 PM
Thats complte garbage. Thats like saying you cant prove that rocks dont coverse with eachother from far distances using the power of thier soul. Everyone knows it doesnt happen its a stupid idea. Wake up and open your fucking eyes
....Well you can't prove that rocks don't converse using soul power.

Just because it seems outrageous to you doesn't mean it's outrageous to everyone.

Socialism and Communism is an outrageous idea to some, but not to others.

All beliefs are subjective

marxstudent

13th October 2003, 01:26

Just because it seems outrageous to you doesn't mean it's outrageous to everyone.

Socialism and Communism is an outrageous idea to some, but not to others.

All beliefs are subjective

True that, LardLad.

redstar2000

13th October 2003, 02:20

....Well you can't prove that rocks don't converse using soul power.

Just because it seems outrageous to you doesn't mean it's outrageous to everyone.

Socialism and Communism is an outrageous idea to some, but not to others.

All beliefs are subjective

That is so lame.

Reality is not a matter of "belief" and "outrageousness" has nothing to do with the matter.

Where is the fucking evidence?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

marxstudent

13th October 2003, 02:57

It's only lame because you and science can't explain it.

Where is the fucking evidence?
... I don't know... turn to science, right? Since science proves everything... :blink:

RyeN

13th October 2003, 06:21

I could belive in telepathy and telekenisis. There are many parts of the brain that we cant explain such as these two extra senses. On the high average people use 12-14% of thier brain power. This leaves 86% unaccounted for. Lots of power for things like moving objects with your mind and sensing death, however these are all attributes that come from the power of you brain. Once again though when your brain dies your dead.

Lalard on the other hand. I said that stuff about the rock too see if you would agree with it. Look how desperate you are for something to hold up the power of your belif system. You will admit that rocks could posibly talk to eachother. lol cmon friend its ok.

praxis1966

13th October 2003, 07:20

Two things: First of all Ryen, that's nonsense. The thing about only utilizing 12-14% of your brain is truth, but only half of it. Nuerologists now commonly agree that we use the entire mass of our brains, just not all at once. Different areas of the brain are used for different functions. Emotions, motor skills, processing of sensory input, and control of autonomic muscles are all housed in different areas of the brain. The thing about reaching our full human potential if we tapped into the other 86-88% of our brains is a myth that's been allowed to survive for entirely too long.

As for the whole collective consciousness, or unconsciousness as the case may be, argument goes consider this: A study was done a few years back in which a large group of people were given crossword puzzles. The control group was given ones that had not yet been published. The variable group was given puzzles that, though the group had never seen them, were a day old. The resulting data suggested that the variable group finished the puzzles 20% faster. Take it for what you will, but some people would say this this suggests evidence of some form of collective consciousness. It was as if the people in the variable group were somehow simultaneously accessing some hypothetical database.

By the way, I don't want to hear any quotations of Ockham's Razor as a means of disproving this. It doesn't say that the simplest explanation is preffered. It says that unecessary entities should not be introduced into the explanation of a phenomenom if a simpler one already exists. If, however, the simplest explanation does not cover all of the events in said phenomenom, than additional entities must then be added. (argument based on this article discussing the Evolution/Creation debate and can be found here: CA240: Ockham's Razor (http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA240.html).) Anyone who thinks differently has seen the movie Contact one too many times.

Guest1

13th October 2003, 07:29

Where is the proof that Democratic Communism, the kind I know me and you both strive for redstar, would work? How can we continue to fight for it if we don't know that the elimination of states, police, military won't lead to utter chaos?

Everyone needs to understand people will believe what they want. It is essential to allow them to. Try to convince them not to, but they should be allowed to waste their lives worshipping purple elephants described by dillusional writers in archaeic books if they want. Just not to force it on others.

We'll teach them to look away from the shadows on the cave wall, but if they decide that the shadows are casting objects behind us, that's their choice.

RyeN

13th October 2003, 08:02

Ants have a collective conciousness, so do other species does this mean that god is out there? No it means that we are able to communicate in more ways than we havent yet been able to define. praxis1966 I wonder if you gave that crossword puzzle to a dead guy if he would do better than when he was alive?

I agree partly with che y marijuana in that people should be free to belive in something if they want. I am however against the influence and control that the established religions have over peoples lives. Especialy when the views are so counter productive to human evolution. Once true Communism kicks in there will much better things to do that waste your time trying to please a god that isnt there. With true Communism people will truly be free and not need a god to free them from anything. People will finaly have thier own lives to live once again and wont need to live the life of Jesus, or Budah, or crazie commie. Freedom from religion is salvation.

praxis1966

13th October 2003, 08:54

Actually, ants don't have a collective consciousness. The reason why they follow each other around in those neat little single file lines is because of pherimones. They release them as they walk to let the other ants know that they're on a safe path. If you don't believe me do this little experiment sometime. The next time you see a line of ants travelling along the ground, take your finger and rub it through that line. When the ants arive at that spot, they go apeshit. Because the pherimone trail ends, they can't figure out where to go. Eventually one of them will screw up in reverse and stumble upon the other side of the trial. What you have in effect done is rubbed out the scent of the pherimones. There are basic scientific principles at work here.

If you want a secular discussion of consciousness, I would refer you to Paolo Friere. He argues that animals, while having a consciousness of their own, it is lesser than that of humans. Plants and animals react to their environments and have no framework for the objectification of that environment. Humans, on the other hand, manipulate their various environments to their own liking. Furthermore, human consciousness gives us the most important ability of all. Freire calls it the naming capacity. We have the ability to sit back, observe our reality, and define it.

To give an example, there was a collective farm somewhere in South America (I forget where) at which the farmers had ousted the plantation owner. Every night they would sit around and have theoretical discussions at this dinner. Friere observed several of these and related the following. The guy leading the discussion came to this question, "If this world were still here, but lacked the presence or influence of human beings, would it still be a world?" The other farmer responded, "No. If this place existed, with rocks trees, mountains, animals and other things, it would not. The only reason this world exists is because I am here. It is a world because I say it is a world."

The philosophical question they were addressing was consciousness. Reality exists only whithin the contextual framework of human objectification. It seems as if these members of the so-called peasantry had just solved the age old question, "If a tree falls in the woods, and there's no one around to here it, does it make a sound?" It is something akin to the secularization of the thousands year old Buddhist tennent "Reality is as you perceive it to be." Friere then goes on to discuss that without a global consciousness, there would be no common understanding or apprehension of every day objects. Therefore, absent definition, reality ceases to exist.

By the way, I'm not particularly religious. If anything, I'm agnostic. I'm meerly arguing the possibility of the existance of some supreme being. Oh, and don't go on using examples from the natural world if you can't be bothered to research your assumptions first. As far as I can tell, you don't have expertise in any natural science field so you're not qualified to speak on it. At least I quote experts.

One last thing. As far as I'm concerned, you're "dead man" argument is completely ridiculous and invalid as an analogy. Of course a dead man isn't going to score well on the puzzle. His consciousness has "evaporated." That makes about as much sense as saying I could still do well on the old puzzles if I was sleeping!

RyeN

13th October 2003, 09:21

His consciousness has "evaporated."

thats the only point I wanted to make.

I understand that ants follow phermones to food, but why do the ants go get the food. How is it determined which ants dig and which ones scavange for food and wich one protects the colony. It is coloctive conciousness perpeuated through the queen. There was a study by Dr. Ralph Vaneisen giving conclusive evidience that ants exibited such patterns. When ants were observed individualy they worked at getting a goal acomplished and when more ants were introduced the worked togeter. Wether the goal was to extinguish a flame or get across some water. They work together all seeming to know what needs to be done to acomplis the task at hand.

BuyOurEverything

13th October 2003, 09:40

First of all, comparing communism to religion is stupid because communism doesn't try to explain the world, it is simply the best system for making sure everybody gets what they need (that's a little simplistic i know.) It is a political system not some "absolute truth."

Second, as for the argument that this existence must have been 'planned' because of all the order there is, order is only defined by the human mind. If the universe evolved in a completely different way and apeared to us to be completely chaotic, the organisms that existed would think it looked completely orderly. The earth didn't just happen to form in such a way that it could sustain life, it just came to be and shit evolved that could survive on the earth as it was.

As for your argument about the soul, I say this: what do you think about people that have had brain injuries? I have seen people that have been in accidents and the physical structure of their brain has been damaged and as a result, their personality changes. If there was such a thing as a soul, how could this be? Also, just because we can't currently understand why people have some personality traits, doesn't mean that a "soul" exists, it just means we don't yet know everything. Also, how would someone know if those traits weren't genetic? Just because their parents or even grandparents didn't have them doesn't mean they weren't passed down. Also, they don't know that they weren't a result of nurture. They haven't seen every moment of the person's upbringing and even if they did, we don't yet know how everthing effects kids.

praxis: I doubt very much the validity of this test as even if a large enough group was tested, the variables would be extremely difficult to control. For example, maybe the first crossword test was just easier. And even if there is some sort of 'communal consiousness,' how does that prove the existence of a higher power? All it means is that humans can communicate on some sort of subconsious level.

I agree with Ryen on this one. Everything is the universe is made up of protons, neutrons and electrons orginized in different ways.

praxis1966

13th October 2003, 09:50

This Vaneisen guy sounds like a quack. He's drawing conclusions on something he can never prove. Anyone who claims that they can determine the psychology of an organism without the use of language is full of crap. Do you mean to tell me that he knows all about the inner workings of the ant consciousness and there isn't a physicist on the face of the planet that can explain how a bumble bee maintains air speed velocity? After all, according to all the known laws of physics and aerodynamics, the bumblebee doesn't have the wing surface area to body mass ratio to stay in the air.

I have a sneaking suspicion that in his research he said the ants "appear" to have a mass consciousness and you took that as a definate affirmative. This wouldn't pass the litmus test as a theory because it can neither be qualified nor falsified. In any case, ants may very well have a collective consciousness. I don't know. I'm not an ant. I do, however, think you're missing the point. My argument was that since ants meerly react to their surroundings as a means of survival and humans manipulate theirs, we are of a higher intelligence. I hope you would stipulate to that. BTW, it sounds to me that you're using the same logic as in the "rock speech" analogy. Lemme see if if I've got it: If you can't quantifiably prove or disprove a hypothesis, then it's valid. WTF? Sounds like a lot of circular reasoning to me...

redstar2000

13th October 2003, 13:07

...turn to science, right? Since science proves everything...

A better way to put it is that good science does not say anything positive on a subject unless there is pretty clear evidence to support what it says.

Thus for science to say that, for example, "God exists", there would have to be compelling evidence in favor of that statement.

Since there isn't any, the polite scientist says simply "there is no evidence to support that statement" and the blunt scientist says "it's a load of crap".

Scientists, both polite and blunt, will freely concede that there is much that remains unknown and undiscovered about the universe and everything in it.

How do we learn more? From the latest evangelical charlatan with a new revelation to relieve the gullible of their cash? Or from the sustained efforts of serious scientists to actually understand the material causes of things?

The resulting data suggested that the variable group finished the puzzles 20% faster.

Lots of possible explanations for this one, including, most likely, coincidence.

Coincidence is remarkably common and it would be a very strange universe if that were not the case. Low probability events happen frequently, if the "pool" of events is sufficiently large.

Someone wins the lottery almost every week, inspite of the huge odds against any particular ticket.

Where is the proof that Democratic Communism, the kind I know me and you both strive for redstar, would work? How can we continue to fight for it if we don't know that the elimination of states, police, military won't lead to utter chaos?

There is no "proof". There is evidence that supports what we want to do, but it is fragmentary and far from conclusive.

We fight for democratic communism because that's what we really want.

The people who are ideologically opposed to us do not want that--what they really want is a variation on what we have now with them in charge.

All of their arguments about "practicality", etc. are just a verbal smokescreen to disguise their own vaulting ambition...and their contempt for the masses of working people.

Fighting for democratic communism is not a matter of proceeding from "proven" hypotheses; it is an attempt, based on limited and fragmentary evidence, to achieve something that has never been done before.

We could be completely wrong! The reactionary "evolutionary psychologists" could be right. The human species could be condemned to hierarchy and tyranny forever...or at least until it becomes extinct.

I've actually said as much: in a post last summer I said that if there is are no proletarian revolutions and classless societies by 2400 or so, then it would be pretty clear that the central Marxist hypothesis is wrong.

Which doesn't rule out a new revolutionary hypothesis, of course, but which would certainly strengthen the position of those who argue that some form of class society is "inevitable".

And it is indisputable, at least to people who've actually thought about the matter, that the present class society--monopoly capitalism--is intolerable.

So, we try...and time will tell if we were right or not.

By the way, I'm not particularly religious. If anything, I'm agnostic. I'm merely arguing the possibility of the existence of some supreme being.

I must have missed something there. I didn't perceive an argument either way.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

praxis1966

13th October 2003, 13:26

Redstar, two things:

It's entirely possible that a coincidence occured. In my discussion of the data, you may notice my careful word choice. Instead of "determined" I used the word "suggested." I simply had a possible explanation that happened to fit the facts.

Also, I was deliberately trying not to come down too hard on either side of the fence. I just hope I didn't rack my own nuts in the process. I guess I'm just not as willing to rule out the metaphysical as you are.

Lardlad95

13th October 2003, 14:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2003, 02:20 AM

....Well you can't prove that rocks don't converse using soul power.

Just because it seems outrageous to you doesn't mean it's outrageous to everyone.

Socialism and Communism is an outrageous idea to some, but not to others.

All beliefs are subjective

That is so lame.

Reality is not a matter of "belief" and "outrageousness" has nothing to do with the matter.

Where is the fucking evidence?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
You couldn't be more wrong.

Reality does have to do with beliefs. How I interpret reality is different than how you interpret reality. We don't see the world as exactley the same despite the fact that we are existing on the same earth.

Reality has everything to do with beliefs, what you believe affects how you see reality.

For instance, as an athiest you would simply see the earth as a series of cause and effect that resulted in what we see now.

A christian would see the earth as a creation of a higher being(regardless of the evidence, so please don't harp on this)

As a communist you would percieve America as an imperialist greedy nation built on blood money

A Capitalist would see America as the home of the free built on good ole' fashioned inginuity and free enterprise.

You don't percieve what exists and what happens as the same. You can't honestly say that everyone percieves reality as the same, that would be a moronic assertion.

and "outrageouness" has a lot to do with how we percieve reality, obviously you wouldn't believe something you felt was far fetched.

What is outrageous to you is the world being created by an agry, jealous, but eternally loving all powerful god....so you don't believe in it.

To a christian evolving from a monkey (granted this isn't even remotely how evolution actually works) is outrageous so they wont believe it.

Your reality, isn't thhe same as my reality, which isn't the same as George Bush's Reality(for obvious reasons)

If they were we would all share the exact same beliefs. If I saw the world the same as you did wouldn't I be a communist instead of a Democratic Socialist?