Event at School

[elijahcraig]

I was talking to this girl in school today about atheism (she is a christian), and we touched on the subject of evolution. Now this is the moronic reasoning of a christian: She rejects evolution, why? Because there are still monkies/apes/whatever on the earth. “How come there are still apes?” ahahahhhahahaha

That made me sick to my stomach.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 03:49 AM
I was talking to this girl in school today about atheism (she is a christian), and we touched on the subject of evolution. Now this is the moronic reasoning of a christian: She rejects evolution, why? Because there are still monkies/apes/whatever on the earth. “How come there are still apes?” ahahahhhahahaha

That made me sick to my stomach.
Elijah...I assure you most christians....ok some christians....ok a few christians aren't that dumb

[elijahcraig]

.000001% not that dumb.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 04:06 AM
.000001% not that dumb.
be fair now...atleast have half of a percent

[elijahcraig]

Hiss hiss!

[Vinny Rafarino]

This is a simple case for not bothering to debate the fanatical religious zealot on this matter any further.

It is clear they will not see (or are not intellectually capable of seeing) that they are wrong.

That is why we must proceed to eliminate their ideology ourselves. Once we have control over the government, we will not "outlaw" religion. We will simply cut off the means for religion to exist. We will make it illegal to teach religious doctrine to the youth. We will make it illegal for the religious to publically gather. We will use all land containing religious institutions and places of "worship" for the erection of housing and production facilities. We will educate the following generation from birth of the way religion destroys the mind.

We will breed them into history.

[elijahcraig]

She also said, “Well, what came BEFORE the Big Bang?”

When she asked me the evolution question, I said, “Have you ever read ‘The Origin of Species’?”

“No. I don’t…read.”

“What about ‘The Descent of Man’?”

“No.”

Then on the Big Bang question I said, “Have you ever read ‘A Brief History of Time’? Or any other Stephen Hawkins book?”

“No.”

Right…



You are 100% correct RAF, we must DETHRONE God. Completely.

You don’t have the freedom to jackass around and brainwash your kids.

[Dark Capitalist]

You don’t have the freedom to jackass around and brainwash your kids.

But what gives you the right? :P

[elijahcraig]

Teaching knowledge and individuality as well as comradeship is not brainwashing. Fascist.

[apathy maybe]

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.)

That does not mean that those people who are unwilling educate themselves are not stupid. They are.

[elijahcraig]

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

You could say the same for, say, my turning into a large pink elephant when I die and dancing the tango with Marilyn Monroe. Can you prove it wrong?


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.

Quite the contrary, Engels and Marx both agreed to be a Marxist, you must be an atheist.


(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.)

Thanks for that Chief.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 04:48 AM
Teaching knowledge and individuality as well as comradeship is not brainwashing. Fascist.
Y'know, elijah, if you're looking to get out of the Grotto, you could probably achieve it just by making a habit of eliminating certain extraneous words from your posts, like the last one above.

Just a friendly tip.

Dominic

[elijahcraig]

What the hell was that for hippy?

[synthesis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 05:10 AM
What the hell was that for hippy?
;)

You'll get it eventually.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Dark [email protected] 30 2003, 04:40 AM

You don’t have the freedom to jackass around and brainwash your kids.

But what gives you the right? :P
What gives us the right?


We don't care about you think, so your opinion is irrelevant. I can say the dog that told me to clip Rick Dees gave me the right for all I care. It's not going to change anything.


Happy kiddo?

[RyeN]

Its not right to say that christians are idiots, rather they are misguided or Ignorant. The belif in a religion all be it far fetched and laughable reflects little ones actual inelegence. Im sure a Christian doctor is capable of medicateing you, just as a christian mechanic is still capable of working on your car.

[Funky Monk]

If i was a more fervant christian my argument would be that evolution and Christianity can co-exist ie. God created the basic principal and then improved it over time.

[Bianconero]

What did you expect elijahcraig? 99% of today's western youth are brainwashed sheep, their 'knowledge' is based on phrases, sayings and dogmas. I have stopped arguing with them, they lack knowledge - as simple as that.


Teaching knowledge and individuality as well as comradeship is not brainwashing. Fascist.

'Individuality' is a word easily to be misunderstood. Personally, I'd replace it with 'personality.'

We agree on the religion thing, though. Religion is a tool of the oppressors, it is our duty to eliminate it.

[xy_controlx]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 30 2003, 05:46 AM

[QUOTE]You don’t have the freedom to jackass around and brainwash your kids.





sure you do just make sure that you are doing it right and alway know there is a man out there waiting to indocternate you children

[Vinny Rafarino]

That is not a quote from me my friend.

[redstar2000]

I suspect you took the "wrong angle" with the deluded young woman.

What I've noticed gives "believers" a hard time is called "the problem of evil".

How can "a good god" permit the existence of evil? Either there is no god or god must be evil.

Ask her if she thinks "woman" is responsible for bringing evil into the world?

Ask her if she believes "women" should "submit to their husbands"?

It's generally a waste of time to argue science with such people; they simply don't comprehend it.

But they are "supposed" to "know their Bible"--a document rich in absurdities, contradictions, and just plain evil shit.

If you can crack their faith in that, then the "way of enlightenment" is open.

Rx...

http://www.thewaronfaith.com/bible_quotes.htm

Take one or two quotes daily until faith is eliminated.

:redstar2000:

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

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 05:07 AM

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

You could say the same for, say, my turning into a large pink elephant when I die and dancing the tango with Marilyn Monroe. Can you prove it wrong?


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.

Quite the contrary, Engels and Marx both agreed to be a Marxist, you must be an atheist.


(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.)

Thanks for that Chief.
Who knows you very well may turn into a pink elephant and dance with Pam Greer when you die...oh wait you said Marylin Monroe..but Pam Greer was much sexier..with the afro and those huge....um....well you know


The only way to be sure is to die, and since we don't have Jesus on hand(he's on a buisness trip with Muhammed and Vishnu) to resurrect you we can't find out the real answer


Also the real reason that one would need to be an athiest to be a Marxist is because Religion has such control over people's lives.

Just because you believe in God doesn't mean you let religion control you, of course some people do let it.

Now I consider myself pretty open minded regarding religion despite my own diest beliefs, so I don't see why I couldn't beleve in god and still be a marxist...

but then again according to you I'm not a marxist anyway :)

[BuyOurEverything]

Ignorance is a tool of religion. 99.999% of christians arguing for creation over evolution don't even have the slightest clue of what evolution entails. Even less know about the big bang. You can't even argue rationally with christians because their beliefs are based on irrationality. I agree with redstar though. Focus on the parts of christian beliefs that a lot of people like to ignore (ie stoning an adulteress to death) and the parts that contradict each other and you'll get much farther than you will arguing fact.

Incidentally, I just got this e-mail from one of my "friends." This epitomizes what I hate about religion and religious people. How can you argue with this?:

GOD

IF SOMEONE HAD A GUN HELD IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE AND ASKED YOU IF YOU BELIEVED IN GOD, WHAT WOULD YOU DO? SAY NO AND FEEL ASHAMED THE REST OF YOUR LIFE? OR SAY YES, I DO, AND DIE STANDING UP FOR GOD? IF YOU'D SAY NO, THEN DELETE THIS E-MAIL. IF YOU WOULD SAY YES, AND STAND UP FOR JESUS CHRIST, PLEASE READ THIS AND PASS ON.

Note: This is a true article that was printed in a southern newspaper less then a year ago

TAKE A DEEP BREATH BEFORE READING THIS

There was an atheist couple who had a child. The couple never told their daughter anything about the Lord. One night when the little girl was 5 years old, the parents fought with each other and the Dad shot the Mom, right in front of the child. Then, the dad shot himself! The little girl watched it all. She then was sent to a foster home. The foster mother was a Christian and took the child to church. On the first day of Sunday School, the foster mother told the teacher that the girl had never heard of Jesus, and to have patience with her. The teacher held up a picture of Jesus and said, "Does anyone know who this is?" The little girl said, "I do, that's the man who was holding me the night my parents died."

If you believe this little girl is telling the truth that even though she had never heard of Jesus, he still held her the night her parents died, then you will forward this to as many people as you can.

Or you can delete it as if it never touched your heart.

Funny, isn't it?

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell.

Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says.

Funny how everyone wants to go to heaven provided they do not have to believe, think, say, or do anything the Bible says. (Or is it scary?)

Funny how you can send a thousand 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing.

Funny how the lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene pass freely through cyberspace, but the public discussion of Jesus is suppressed in the school and workplace.

Funny how someone can be so fired up for Christ on Sunday, but be an invisible Christian the rest of the week. (Are you laughing?)

Funny how when you go to forward this message,you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it to them.

Funny how I can be more worried about what other people think of me than what God thinks of me. (Are you thinking?)

Pass this on only if you mean it.

Yes, I do Love God

[elijahcraig]

’Individuality'

No, Stalin promoted individuality.

Communists need to understand the difference between Communist individuality and Randian individuality.


I suspect you took the "wrong angle" with the deluded young woman.

Actually, I was just defending my atheism, not trying to convince her of anything.


What I've noticed gives "believers" a hard time is called "the problem of evil".

How can "a good god" permit the existence of evil? Either there is no god or god must be evil.

Ask her if she thinks "woman" is responsible for bringing evil into the world?

That is not the path I would take. I think evil/good are subjective and useless in any real discussion. Destroying morality is the path I would take with her.


But they are "supposed" to "know their Bible"--a document rich in absurdities, contradictions, and just plain evil shit.

If you can crack their faith in that, then the "way of enlightenment" is open.

O, I talked about the Old Testament’s sick shit. She doesn’t have an answer. No Christian/Jew does.


Who knows you very well may turn into a pink elephant and dance with Pam Greer when you die...oh wait you said Marylin Monroe..but Pam Greer was much sexier..with the afro and those huge....um....well you know


The only way to be sure is to die, and since we don't have Jesus on hand(he's on a buisness trip with Muhammed and Vishnu) to resurrect you we can't find out the real answer

That’s idiocy. We KNOW there is no God. Period.



Also the real reason that one would need to be an athiest to be a Marxist is because Religion has such control over people's lives.

No it is because Marxists are Materialists.


Just because you believe in God doesn't mean you let religion control you, of course some people do let it.

False. ANY belief in a God/religion is enslavement.

I’m thinking of giving her an Evolution FAQ, so she can read it.

[elijahcraig]

The War on Faith is briliant RedStar. Brilliant.

[Don't Change Your Name]

I would never love a god that made such a fucked up world

Please ignore this people's thoughts, they are just based on faith.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 08:03 AM
Ignorance is a tool of religion. 99.999% of christians arguing for creation over evolution don't even have the slightest clue of what evolution entails. Even less know about the big bang. You can't even argue rationally with christians because their beliefs are based on irrationality. I agree with redstar though. Focus on the parts of christian beliefs that a lot of people like to ignore (ie stoning an adulteress to death) and the parts that contradict each other and you'll get much farther than you will arguing fact.

Incidentally, I just got this e-mail from one of my "friends." This epitomizes what I hate about religion and religious people. How can you argue with this?:

GOD

IF SOMEONE HAD A GUN HELD IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE AND ASKED YOU IF YOU BELIEVED IN GOD, WHAT WOULD YOU DO? SAY NO AND FEEL ASHAMED THE REST OF YOUR LIFE? OR SAY YES, I DO, AND DIE STANDING UP FOR GOD? IF YOU'D SAY NO, THEN DELETE THIS E-MAIL. IF YOU WOULD SAY YES, AND STAND UP FOR JESUS CHRIST, PLEASE READ THIS AND PASS ON.

Note: This is a true article that was printed in a southern newspaper less then a year ago

TAKE A DEEP BREATH BEFORE READING THIS

There was an atheist couple who had a child. The couple never told their daughter anything about the Lord. One night when the little girl was 5 years old, the parents fought with each other and the Dad shot the Mom, right in front of the child. Then, the dad shot himself! The little girl watched it all. She then was sent to a foster home. The foster mother was a Christian and took the child to church. On the first day of Sunday School, the foster mother told the teacher that the girl had never heard of Jesus, and to have patience with her. The teacher held up a picture of Jesus and said, "Does anyone know who this is?" The little girl said, "I do, that's the man who was holding me the night my parents died."

If you believe this little girl is telling the truth that even though she had never heard of Jesus, he still held her the night her parents died, then you will forward this to as many people as you can.

Or you can delete it as if it never touched your heart.

Funny, isn't it?

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell.

Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says.

Funny how everyone wants to go to heaven provided they do not have to believe, think, say, or do anything the Bible says. (Or is it scary?)

Funny how you can send a thousand 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing.

Funny how the lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene pass freely through cyberspace, but the public discussion of Jesus is suppressed in the school and workplace.

Funny how someone can be so fired up for Christ on Sunday, but be an invisible Christian the rest of the week. (Are you laughing?)

Funny how when you go to forward this message,you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it to them.

Funny how I can be more worried about what other people think of me than what God thinks of me. (Are you thinking?)

Pass this on only if you mean it.

Yes, I do Love God
Any email like this you should treat as suspect and email the person who sent it to you and say they should read it and think about it before sending it one. Tell them the people who send it are evil people who want to destroy the Internet by clogging it up with crap like that email.

[Guest1]

I'm an atheist.


But your attitude is unnecessary. There is nothing wrong with religion, nothing wrong with spiritual beliefs. It is organized religion, and the belief that you have a duty to force others to act as you do that is wrong. I have a few religious friends, they know I smoke weed, know that I drink, know that I am loose with women. They don't care, they don't force anything on me and don't think less of me. And neither do I think less of them.

They still stand with me when we protest the iraq war. they stand with me when we organize a leftist take-over of our college. they stand with me when we organize strikes against education cuts. they stand with me when we argue with cold-hearted bastards about why socialism is the human way.

That's all that matters.

Catholicism never blinded Che.

[elijahcraig]

But your attitude is unnecessary. There is nothing wrong with religion, nothing wrong with spiritual beliefs. It is organized religion, and the belief that you have a duty to force others to act as you do that is wrong. I have a few religious friends, they know I smoke weed, know that I drink, know that I am loose with women. They don't care, they don't force anything on me and don't think less of me. And neither do I think less of them.

What you say is contrary to Marxism, completely.


Catholicism never blinded Che.

And Hinduism never blinded me, why? Because I’m not a Hindu and Che wasn’t a Catholic.

[Rastafari]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 30 2003, 10:29 PM
I'm an atheist.


But your attitude is unnecessary. There is nothing wrong with religion, nothing wrong with spiritual beliefs. It is organized religion, and the belief that you have a duty to force others to act as you do that is wrong. I have a few religious friends, they know I smoke weed, know that I drink, know that I am loose with women. They don't care, they don't force anything on me and don't think less of me. And neither do I think less of them.

They still stand with me when we protest the iraq war. they stand with me when we organize a leftist take-over of our college. they stand with me when we organize strikes against education cuts. they stand with me when we argue with cold-hearted bastards about why socialism is the human way.

That's all that matters.

Catholicism never blinded Che.
thank you. Religion IS in fact a tool, but what you do with it can depend. While some do use it to suppress free thoughts and to promote ignorance, just as many use it to become better people. Being Socialists, we are often entailed to be humanists as well, which requires us to beleive in our hearts that nearly everyone is good and will try to guide themselves to perfection.


That being said, I have already covered the Bible cover to cover three times to use as ammunition (and because it really helps knowing the book that Americans think the world is based on). The Department of Justice recently launched an investigation into a Texas Biology professor's policy of not writing recommendations for Medical School unless the students supported Evolution. Now, at this point, you have to be a fool not to beleive that Evolution (as well as the fact that Copernicus/Galileo/Koepler were right) is the true and natural system around which life is based. They did call off the investigation, but it took time. As our Centralized Government inches closer and closer towards a Christian State, one remembers Thomas Jefferson, when he said: "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

[elijahcraig]

thank you. Religion IS in fact a tool, but what you do with it can depend. While some do use it to suppress free thoughts and to promote ignorance, just as many use it to become better people.

Correction: ALL use it to suppress free thoughts and promote ignorance. Religion itself is ignorance, there is no getting around it.

The rest of your statement is something Al Gore would say.


Being Socialists, we are often entailed to be humanists as well, which requires us to beleive in our hearts that nearly everyone is good and will try to guide themselves to perfection.

That is bullshit utopianism, you have no obligation whatsoever to believe that.



That being said, I have already covered the Bible cover to cover three times to use as ammunition (and because it really helps knowing the book that Americans think the world is based on).

I highly doubt this, but ok.

[Rastafari]

you are a dumbass Elijahcraig, pure and simple.
But this is neither here nor there, so I will begin.


Correction: ALL use it to suppress free thoughts and promote ignorance. Religion itself is ignorance, there is no getting around it.

The rest of your statement is something Al Gore would say.

Explain Gandhi. When your done, explain Cesar Chavez. I could pull more out, but I want to see you back out of these two first. It will be fun, trust me.


That is bullshit utopianism, you have no obligation whatsoever to believe that.
Just because I have compassion, I am full of bullshit? Do you really care about people ElijahCraig? If so, you truly aren't evidencing it at all. If not, then why are you here?



I highly doubt this, but ok.
You don't beleive that a human being can dedicate 5 hours a week to reading something and do so three times in Two and a Half Years?
Fine. I can't refute this one. Right now.

[Guest1]

man elijah, just because your intepretation of marx has made you ignorant, doesn't mean marxism leads to ignorance.
I think that's all we need to say about generalizing.

Oh, and Che was a Catholic, so is Castro. Read biographies by Socialists who don't worry so much about painting them as godless bastards whot he US should eliminate.

Marx did say that religion is the opiate of the masses. But I don't think it's our business what drug you use as long as you use it responsibly. Educated religious beliefs (there's a church of che in the village where he was killed) are powerful and we should be open to people's right to them. As long as they accept it is everyone else's right not to share them and they work with us towards the greater good of the people, I see nothing wrong with that.

Besides, he is not to be worshipped either. He was human, and like ALL humans, frequently wrong.

Religion seems to have blinded those I know much less than the Manifesto, or your interpretation of it, has blinded you. I will now save you the trouble of writing a response:

Shutup hippy, you're not even a marxist.

[RyeN]

Buy our everything I was jst wondering how the sunday school teacher got a picture of Jesus, I didnt know they had Cameras 2000 years ago. And the pictures of jesus you see in the church are of a handsom well dressed white man. Jesus was a dirty poor Jewish carpenter. It even states that jesus was homley. Good story though

[redstar2000]

Explain Gandhi. When you're done, explain Cesar Chavez.

And how are things in India these days? Everyone enjoying communism there? I sort of had a different impression...that it was a stinking shithole of human misery and exploitation. Maybe you read different newspapers. :lol:

And those California farmworkers...how are they doing these days? Not too good, huh?

In other words, it is certainly possible to organize a nominally "progressive" mass movement by bundling into the package all of the most backward superstitions that can be found.

The only teeny tiny little problem is that they never accomplish shit.

How could they? A brand-new paint job on a worn-out car will not "miraculously" transform it into a new car.

Whenever religion tries to be "progressive" (a fairly rare occurrence in itself), they just grab some terminology from whatever the latest progressive tendencies might be, cut and paste, and announce a "new revelation" that turns out--beneath the new rhetoric--to be the same old crap.

We've seen that on this board...every month or so, someone writes a post announcing that "Jesus was a communist".

Wow! Praise the Lord! Our Victory is Assured! With Jesus on Our Side, how can we lose?

Pretty easily, actually. Consult the records of one Father Gapon--a Czarist police agent who organized a "workers' movement" in pre-revolutionary Russia. Praising Jesus and the Czar, he led a loyal and peaceful demonstration of prayerful petitioners to the winter palace...where they were slaughtered like chickens in Arkansas!

The "Lord of Hosts" had spoken...and "He" was on the other side.

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

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

[elijahcraig]

Explain Gandhi. When your done, explain Cesar Chavez. I could pull more out, but I want to see you back out of these two first. It will be fun, trust me.

Maybe you should look at the MARXISTS in India who know what Gandhi was: a petty bourgeois nationalist.

Chavez forged no revolution, sorry.

RedStar elaborated on this point.


Just because I have compassion, I am full of bullshit? Do you really care about people ElijahCraig? If so, you truly aren't evidencing it at all. If not, then why are you here?

No, you are full of bullshit because you said we were “required” to be humanists. I have no problem with you feeling compassion, but that wasn’t the subject.


You don't beleive that a human being can dedicate 5 hours a week to reading something and do so three times in Two and a Half Years?
Fine. I can't refute this one. Right now.

Once again, I DOUBT you’ve read the bible three times.


man elijah, just because your intepretation of marx has made you ignorant, doesn't mean marxism leads to ignorance.
I think that's all we need to say about generalizing.

I don’t know what this means.

Marxism is a ideology based FIRSTLY upon MATERIALISM. This leaves NO PLACE for religion, whatsoever.


Oh, and Che was a Catholic, so is Castro. Read biographies by Socialists who don't worry so much about painting them as godless bastards whot he US should eliminate.

Prove to me Che was a catholic.


Marx did say that religion is the opiate of the masses. But I don't think it's our business what drug you use as long as you use it responsibly. Educated religious beliefs (there's a church of che in the village where he was killed) are powerful and we should be open to people's right to them. As long as they accept it is everyone else's right not to share them and they work with us towards the greater good of the people, I see nothing wrong with that.

There is no such thing as “educated religious belief”, ALL religion is based on ignorance.


Besides, he is not to be worshipped either. He was human, and like ALL humans, frequently wrong.

Who is not to be worshipped? Che?

Materialism is Marxism, I am a Materialist even before a Marxist; Marxism comes next.


Religion seems to have blinded those I know much less than the Manifesto, or your interpretation of it, has blinded you. I will now save you the trouble of writing a response:

Shutup hippy, you're not even a marxist.

Well^that is true, but let me elaborate.

You are not a Marxist, you are not a Materialist, you are a Liberal who would fit in quite well with the Democratic party.

[sliverchrist]

jesus.

this is great, almost a reason to pray.

almost.

[Rastafari]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 11:41 PM

Explain Gandhi. When you're done, explain Cesar Chavez.

And how are things in India these days? Everyone enjoying communism there? I sort of had a different impression...that it was a stinking shithole of human misery and exploitation. Maybe you read different newspapers. :lol:

And those California farmworkers...how are they doing these days? Not too good, huh?

In other words, it is certainly possible to organize a nominally "progressive" mass movement by bundling into the package all of the most backward superstitions that can be found.

The only teeny tiny little problem is that they never accomplish shit.

How could they? A brand-new paint job on a worn-out car will not "miraculously" transform it into a new car.

Whenever religion tries to be "progressive" (a fairly rare occurrence in itself), they just grab some terminology from whatever the latest progressive tendencies might be, cut and paste, and announce a "new revelation" that turns out--beneath the new rhetoric--to be the same old crap.

We've seen that on this board...every month or so, someone writes a post announcing that "Jesus was a communist".

Wow! Praise the Lord! Our Victory is Assured! With Jesus on Our Side, how can we lose?

Pretty easily, actually. Consult the records of one Father Gapon--a Czarist police agent who organized a "workers' movement" in pre-revolutionary Russia. Praising Jesus and the Czar, he led a loyal and peaceful demonstration of prayerful petitioners to the winter palace...where they were slaughtered like chickens in Arkansas!

The "Lord of Hosts" had spoken...and "He" was on the other side.

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 is the USSR these days comrade?
or china?

they are both capitalist lapdogs, are they not?



No, you are full of bullshit because you said we were “required” to be humanists. I have no problem with you feeling compassion, but that wasn’t the subject.

if you'd look at the philosophical history of the west, you'd know that Sociology itself wouldn't be around without humanism.

[redstar2000]

How is the USSR these days comrade?
or China?

they are both capitalist lapdogs, are they not?

Well, actually I'd call them "2nd-tier" imperialist countries, like France or the U.K.

But I take your point; the Leninist version of "Marxism" didn't accomplish "anything" either.

But that's a little evasive, isn't it?

You asked for an explanation of Gandhi and Chavez and I gave you one.

If you want to change the subject and talk about Leninism (it does have a lot of parallels with religion), you know I'm always willing to discuss that topic.

But why not stick to your original choice: is religion ever socially "progressive" in a substantive way? Does it ever really amount to anything useful or is it just a reactionary distraction?

For example, you could argue that Protestant fundamentalism was "useful" in the Northern United States from 1840 to 1865 in mobilizing anti-slavery sentiment.

Or you could argue that Islamic fundamentalism is "useful" today in mobilizing anti-imperialist sentiment in the Middle East and Southwest Asia.

I'm afraid those are the only two examples that occur to me.

The record is pretty sparse.

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

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

[Rastafari]

Well, in the aforementioned nations, communism did not fix the situation totally, but the people have it a lot better than they did. Similarily, California farmers have it a whole lot better than they did.

http://www.sfsu.edu/~cecipp/cesar_chavez/apostle.htm

this interview with Cesar Chavez reminded me of religion's greatest social contribution to the last century: passive resistance.

Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. wouldn't have had a leg to stand on if not for Evangelism coupled with passive resistance.

[Rastafari]

something interesting:
I was searching on Google (the revolutionaries' search engine!) for a direct connection between Socialism and Humanism.
This is what I found:
Seems like an interesting guy, but note the opening flash... (http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/pages/mclaren/)

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 10:11 PM

’Individuality'


Who knows you very well may turn into a pink elephant and dance with Pam Greer when you die...oh wait you said Marylin Monroe..but Pam Greer was much sexier..with the afro and those huge....um....well you know


The only way to be sure is to die, and since we don't have Jesus on hand(he's on a buisness trip with Muhammed and Vishnu) to resurrect you we can't find out the real answer

That’s idiocy. We KNOW there is no God. Period.



Also the real reason that one would need to be an athiest to be a Marxist is because Religion has such control over people's lives.

No it is because Marxists are Materialists.


Just because you believe in God doesn't mean you let religion control you, of course some people do let it.

False. ANY belief in a God/religion is enslavement.

I’m thinking of giving her an Evolution FAQ, so she can read it.
No you DON"T KNOW there is no God...PERIOD.

How many times have you died and come back? Until you can do that don't claim to know something you don't.

Even the great cosmologists and physicists who you put so much stock in don't have concrete proof of the origins of the universe, they have theories, granted they have good theories but a theory none the less, and a theory isn't fact.


Theories can be proven wrong, so until what those Brilliant Scientists can turn their theories into CONCRETE FACT, it's still a theory and just as open to skepticism as anyone else's theory.

You yourself said facts, true facts, aren't open to opinion. You yourself said facts were concrete.


Well what is so concrete about something some Professor wrote down in a book...the Bible is a book does that mean it's anything more than a half baked peice of mythology?

A Theory is not fact, a fact is a fact, a theory is a theory.

So until you die, and come back and tell me that nothing exists after you die stop it with this crap about how you know that no God exists when you can only present theories.


Materialists? We have to be..or can we just be Dialectical materialists?

I mean we have to be to be a marxist?

Well I mean Lenin didn't follow Marx to a T but he was a marxist wasn't he?

So i don't see why I can't take out one component and still be a marxist




Any belief in God is enslavement? Why?

That is such an ambiguous statement...i mean there are an infinite amount of ways to believe in God, Gods, Goddesses, Demi-Gods

I mean I'd really like to see you explain why each individual way is enslavement

[Umoja]

I suspect you took the "wrong angle" with the deluded young woman.

What I've noticed gives "believers" a hard time is called "the problem of evil".

How can "a good god" permit the existence of evil? Either there is no god or god must be evil.

Ask her if she thinks "woman" is responsible for bringing evil into the world?

Ask her if she believes "women" should "submit to their husbands"?

It's generally a waste of time to argue science with such people; they simply don't comprehend it.

But they are "supposed" to "know their Bible"--a document rich in absurdities, contradictions, and just plain evil shit.

If you can crack their faith in that, then the "way of enlightenment" is open

I don't think the assumption of good and evil works very well. I think perfection and imperfection are more the terms your looking for, and since the Universe is imperfect, I don't see why more people just assume it could have come from an "imperfect creator" rather then assuming God is assumed as perfect.

Also, ask her why gaining rationale thinking isn't a good thing? The way, I argue with most traditional Christians, is to change how they think about things. Wasn't Eve the hero, Adam the side-kick, the Serpent the wise man in the background, and God the mindless scientist?

[Rastafari]

according to the comparitive likes of Mircea Eliade, Carl Jung, and Joseph Campbell, no human being is truly an atheist anyway.

nearly everybody uses some amount of superstition or religion in their lives as an essence of control.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 09:03 PM

I suspect you took the "wrong angle" with the deluded young woman.

What I've noticed gives "believers" a hard time is called "the problem of evil".

How can "a good god" permit the existence of evil? Either there is no god or god must be evil.

Ask her if she thinks "woman" is responsible for bringing evil into the world?

Ask her if she believes "women" should "submit to their husbands"?

It's generally a waste of time to argue science with such people; they simply don't comprehend it.

But they are "supposed" to "know their Bible"--a document rich in absurdities, contradictions, and just plain evil shit.

If you can crack their faith in that, then the "way of enlightenment" is open

I don't think the assumption of good and evil works very well. I think perfection and imperfection are more the terms your looking for, and since the Universe is imperfect, I don't see why more people just assume it could have come from an "imperfect creator" rather then assuming God is assumed as perfect.

Also, ask her why gaining rationale thinking isn't a good thing? The way, I argue with most traditional Christians, is to change how they think about things. Wasn't Eve the hero, Adam the side-kick, the Serpent the wise man in the background, and God the mindless scientist?
YOU FUCKING HEATHEN!!!!!


Everyone knows that God wasn't the Mindless scientist....he was the Absent Minded Sculptor...get it right

[Rastafari]

http://www.artists-nh.com/knowlton_images/KC_EINSTEIN.JPG


GOD DOES NOT PLAY DICE

[Sensitive]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 04:05 PM
according to the comparitive likes of Mircea Eliade, Carl Jung, and Joseph Campbell, no human being is truly an atheist anyway.

nearly everybody uses some amount of superstition or religion in their lives as an essence of control.
Then you (and those other theists you listed) do not know what the word "atheist" actually means! "Atheist" means that you do not believe in a deity or deities (a god, a goddess, gods or godesses). That is all. You can be an atheist and still believe in elves, unicorns, an afterlife or whatever supernatural stuff you want to, as long as the stuff is not as powerful as a deity. Got it?

[Umoja]

I think the meaning of Atheist has a different conotation now. Generally, it implies a person is a materialist.

[Guest1]

no, no it doesn't.

Atheist

A"the*ist, n. [Gr. ? without god; 'a priv. + ? god: cf. F. ath['e]iste.]

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Materialist

1.Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.

2.The theory or attitude that physical well-being and worldly possessions constitute the greatest good and highest value in life.

3.A great or excessive regard for worldly concerns.



You can also be a theist and still believe you don't want to repeat the inquisition by persecuting people for their beliefs. who gives a damn what people believe as long as they respect your opinion?

[Umoja]

Okay, no point in defending my opinion CyM. I guess it'd be better to say, most Atheist here are materialist.

[Hampton]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 04:14 PM
GOD DOES NOT PLAY DICE
Ohhhhh reallllyyy?

http://www.snunit.k12.il/vmuseum/chaos/gifs/god3.gif

http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/frameless/images/dice.jpg

Exactly.

[Rastafari]

those were the unfunniest two images you have ever posted, which puts them far above some other people's best.













its all good, though

[elijahcraig]

No you DON"T KNOW there is no God...PERIOD.

Yes, I do. There is no logical reason, irrational or logical actually, pointing to a god. End of story. Anything past that is the “logic” of heathens.


How many times have you died and come back? Until you can do that don't claim to know something you don't.

That is false, dying proves nothing. Nothing says, assuming you do not DIE when you DIE, you know everything.


Even the great cosmologists and physicists who you put so much stock in don't have concrete proof of the origins of the universe, they have theories, granted they have good theories but a theory none the less, and a theory isn't fact.

A fact is that there is no god; we posit theories around that fact.



Theories can be proven wrong, so until what those Brilliant Scientists can turn their theories into CONCRETE FACT, it's still a theory and just as open to skepticism as anyone else's theory.

ETC. A fact is concrete, theories are human interpretations of those concrete facts.


You yourself said facts, true facts, aren't open to opinion. You yourself said facts were concrete.

Indeed they are.



Well what is so concrete about something some Professor wrote down in a book...the Bible is a book does that mean it's anything more than a half baked peice of mythology?

Wow, ad homenim. The words of a moron.

Let’s leave the talking like 5 year olds in the closet and talk reality here.


A Theory is not fact, a fact is a fact, a theory is a theory.

Wow thanks for that. Master, indeed, of the obvious.


So until you die, and come back and tell me that nothing exists after you die stop it with this crap about how you know that no God exists when you can only present theories.

False. There is no God. Unless you can prove otherwise, there is no reason to believe so.



Materialists? We have to be..or can we just be Dialectical materialists?

What do you think the “materialist” in “Dialectical materialists” comes from?


I mean we have to be to be a marxist?

Yes.


Well I mean Lenin didn't follow Marx to a T but he was a marxist wasn't he?

And he didn’t uproot the essential basic tenet of the ideology either. There’s a difference between uprooting an economic statistic and destroying the essential belief the marxist rests his ENTIRE ideology upon.


So i don't see why I can't take out one component and still be a marxist

Etc.


Any belief in God is enslavement? Why?

Ever read Bakunin’s “God and the State”? THAT’s why. Unless you consider ignorance freedom.


no, no it doesn't.

Atheist

A"the*ist, n. [Gr. ? without god; 'a priv. + ? god: cf. F. ath['e]iste.]

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Materialist

1.Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.

2.The theory or attitude that physical well-being and worldly possessions constitute the greatest good and highest value in life.

3.A great or excessive regard for worldly concerns.



You can also be a theist and still believe you don't want to repeat the inquisition by persecuting people for their beliefs. who gives a damn what people believe as long as they respect your opinion?

Not wanting people persecuted for beliefs is not Marxism, that is liberalism. Materialism is necessarily atheistic…anyone who tells you otherwise is a MORON.

“that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.”

This leaves no room for Liberal maneuvering. If you are a Materialist Atheist Marxist, then say so; if not, do not dress yourself as one and claim Theology is a possible factual theory.

[elijahcraig]

Well, in the aforementioned nations, communism did not fix the situation totally, but the people have it a lot better than they did. Similarily, California farmers have it a whole lot better than they did.

Wow, comparing a few farmers to a few billion people. The ultimate liberal maneuver.


http://www.sfsu.edu/~cecipp/cesar_chavez/apostle.htm

this interview with Cesar Chavez reminded me of religion's greatest social contribution to the last century: passive resistance.

FOR PETTY BOURGEOISIE. Read the Indian Communist Party’s Programme, and see what MARXISTS (note: not liberals) say about Gandhi.


Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. wouldn't have had a leg to stand on if not for Evangelism coupled with passive resistance.

He could have raised a gun up and struck the white motherfuckers down like Malcolm X did. He had the power, he was disfigured and fucked over by his ideology of “passive” resistance. That is called submission to WHITE LIBERALISM.

[apathy maybe]

I am proud to say that I am not a Marxist. Esp after reading that.

[elijahcraig]

O! The little maggot who called Vietnam “totalitarian” is here! Joy!

“The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected.”
-HL Mencken

[Rastafari]

You DUMB bastard, shut the hell up. I'll wait for redstar2000 to save your ass from this one like he did last time.


Wow, ad homenim. The words of a moron.

Let’s leave the talking like 5 year olds in the closet and talk reality here.

speaking of the words of a moron, I took latin for 2 years and never heard of "ad homenim." I think you must mean ad hominem.


QUOTE
Well, in the aforementioned nations, communism did not fix the situation totally, but the people have it a lot better than they did. Similarily, California farmers have it a whole lot better than they did.


Wow, comparing a few farmers to a few billion people. The ultimate liberal maneuver.

QUOTE
http://www.sfsu.edu/~cecipp/cesar_chavez/apostle.htm

this interview with Cesar Chavez reminded me of religion's greatest social contribution to the last century: passive resistance.


FOR PETTY BOURGEOISIE. Read the Indian Communist Party’s Programme, and see what MARXISTS (note: not liberals) say about Gandhi.

QUOTE
Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. wouldn't have had a leg to stand on if not for Evangelism coupled with passive resistance.


He could have raised a gun up and struck the white motherfuckers down like Malcolm X did. He had the power, he was disfigured and fucked over by his ideology of “passive” resistance. That is called submission to WHITE LIBERALISM.


All bullshit. All angry, pointless, evasive bullshit. You clearly have no idea what your talking about on any of these grounds do you, you pathetic moron.

[Guest1]

shutup elijah, you're making the rest of us marxists look bad. once again, you can't say religion breeds ignorance and proceed to, well... talk. crap, you're really making my attempts at being nice to people again difficult.

[IHP]

Why, oh why do the hardcore anti-religious members of this board always lump religion and God together? I am a religious and I don't believe in the existence of god. Though I'm not arrogant and blinkered to say that I know there is no god, because such a stance is ridiculous. Proving there is a god is as hard as proving there is no god. At this point in time neither can be proved or disproved.

RyeN, you say here

"The belif in a religion all be it far fetched and laughable reflects little ones actual intelegence"

That sentence itself shows your "intelegence." So a belief in a religion or discipline makes you somehow stupid? I am absolutely dumbfounded at the ignorance here. I ask you here then if you can comprehend a soundless sound. Or can you ascertain when your mind is not dwelling on good and evil, what is your original face before you were born. Please answer these.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2003, 03:26 AM

No you DON"T KNOW there is no God...PERIOD.

Yes, I do. There is no logical reason, irrational or logical actually, pointing to a god. End of story. Anything past that is the “logic” of heathens.


How many times have you died and come back? Until you can do that don't claim to know something you don't.

That is false, dying proves nothing. Nothing says, assuming you do not DIE when you DIE, you know everything.


Even the great cosmologists and physicists who you put so much stock in don't have concrete proof of the origins of the universe, they have theories, granted they have good theories but a theory none the less, and a theory isn't fact.

A fact is that there is no god; we posit theories around that fact.



Theories can be proven wrong, so until what those Brilliant Scientists can turn their theories into CONCRETE FACT, it's still a theory and just as open to skepticism as anyone else's theory.

ETC. A fact is concrete, theories are human interpretations of those concrete facts.


You yourself said facts, true facts, aren't open to opinion. You yourself said facts were concrete.

Indeed they are.



Well what is so concrete about something some Professor wrote down in a book...the Bible is a book does that mean it's anything more than a half baked peice of mythology?

Wow, ad homenim. The words of a moron.

Let’s leave the talking like 5 year olds in the closet and talk reality here.


A Theory is not fact, a fact is a fact, a theory is a theory.

Wow thanks for that. Master, indeed, of the obvious.


So until you die, and come back and tell me that nothing exists after you die stop it with this crap about how you know that no God exists when you can only present theories.

False. There is no God. Unless you can prove otherwise, there is no reason to believe so.



Materialists? We have to be..or can we just be Dialectical materialists?

What do you think the “materialist” in “Dialectical materialists” comes from?


I mean we have to be to be a marxist?

Yes.


Well I mean Lenin didn't follow Marx to a T but he was a marxist wasn't he?

And he didn’t uproot the essential basic tenet of the ideology either. There’s a difference between uprooting an economic statistic and destroying the essential belief the marxist rests his ENTIRE ideology upon.


So i don't see why I can't take out one component and still be a marxist

Etc.


Any belief in God is enslavement? Why?

Ever read Bakunin’s “God and the State”? THAT’s why. Unless you consider ignorance freedom.


no, no it doesn't.

Atheist

A"the*ist, n. [Gr. ? without god; 'a priv. + ? god: cf. F. ath['e]iste.]

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Materialist

1.Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.

2.The theory or attitude that physical well-being and worldly possessions constitute the greatest good and highest value in life.

3.A great or excessive regard for worldly concerns.



You can also be a theist and still believe you don't want to repeat the inquisition by persecuting people for their beliefs. who gives a damn what people believe as long as they respect your opinion?

Not wanting people persecuted for beliefs is not Marxism, that is liberalism. Materialism is necessarily atheistic…anyone who tells you otherwise is a MORON.

“that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.”

This leaves no room for Liberal maneuvering. If you are a Materialist Atheist Marxist, then say so; if not, do not dress yourself as one and claim Theology is a possible factual theory.
First off, Elijah I like you, I like talking and discussing with you, but you seriously need to cut out the insults. It's childish and I believe or atleast hope you are above it. IF you need to insult people to get your point across then you don't belong here. I've tolerated thus far without saying anything. But I've seen you do this to too many members, myself included. Now I ask you to please cease with the insults.


Have you ever considered the fact that maybe The existence of a God makes sense to someone else? To them the existence of God is logical, now I'm not going to defend their logic thats for them to do. However simply because something is illelogical to you doesn't mean that it is illogical period. Communism is illogical to many and a great many other people, now does that mean it's illogical period?

To me there is no logical reasoning for communism succeding, however you seem utterly convinced that Communism is the inevitable outcome of the world.

Your only real problem is your lack of respect for other's opinions. You can't see things from two sides, which is funny because alot of Christians I know have the same problem.


>That is false, dying proves nothing. Nothing says, assuming you do not DIE when you DIE, you know everything.<


You don&#39;t know everything now yet you have no problem acting like you do, so whats to stop you if you were to die and come back?



>ETC. A fact is concrete, theories are human interpretations of those concrete facts.<


Wrong theories are human interpretations of Data, not facts. You yourself pointed out the difference between a fact and a peice of Data.

Lots of people have created theories that have been proven false, so obviously they weren&#39;t based on fact they were based on Data.


>The words of a moron.Let’s leave the talking like 5 year olds in the closet and talk reality here. <


In case you were wondering, these are the insults i"m talking about.


Also you never answered my question. What makes what one man writes down in a book any different from what another man writes down in a book?

Everyone has the ability to lie, or not even lie, but get things wrong. Just because someone publishes a book he is automatically correct?




>False. There is no God. Unless you can prove otherwise, there is no reason to believe so.<

No, there is no reason for YOU to believe in God. You don&#39;t think for the other 6 billion people on Earth, they could have a reason to believe.

I believe in God, not necassarily the Christian God, but I believe That the existence of life on earth, from the creation of the universe to evolution to me being here is to well orchestrated to be a coencidence.

So until you give me a reason not to believe in God I&#39;m going to keep believing


>And he didn’t uproot the essential basic tenet of the ideology either. There’s a difference between uprooting an economic statistic and destroying the essential belief the marxist rests his ENTIRE ideology upon.<

So let me get this Straight...Marx&#39;s entire ideology was based on God not existing?

The only reason God would hinder MArxism is through the control Organized religion has. IF you aren&#39;t loyal to a church then why does believing in God hinder the revolution?



Elijah...Ignorance? Really? I read the same Physics articles and books you do. I&#39;m not saying Evolution is a lie, in fact I&#39;m saying it&#39;s true. I believe in the big bang. THe only thing we differ on is is the existence of God.

Now tell me just what exactley am I being Ignorant about?

[Rastafari]

now I want him to have the gumption to call you an idiot too. fun stuff

[redstar2000]

So until you give me a reason not to believe in God I&#39;m going to keep believing.

That&#39;s the core of the problem, all right.

One can rather easily expose the logical fallacies, mythological "facts" and reactionary social implications of a particular religion.

But if someone offers up a sufficiently amorphous "higher power" and remains carefully unspecific about any details regarding this "entity", there&#39;s no "hook", nothing there to hang an argument on.

If everything in the universe would be exactly the same whether or not a "god" existed, then when someone asserts that there "is" a "god", you can only reply that it would make no difference if you acted as if "it" didn&#39;t exist.

Frankly, I suspect this is kind of an ultimate "fall back" position and that as soon as your attention is elsewhere, that "amorphous god" will start acquiring some details...and they will turn out to be the same features that characterize traditional religions...reactionary in content and probably in words as well.

But when someone says "I believe that God exists" and stops right there then no argument can be made except that of lack of evidence...to which the believer will always respond "prove me wrong".

It&#39;s not until the believer says "I believe that God exists and therefore blah, blah, blah". You can go after the "blah, blah, blah" and usually disprove it easily.

Otherwise, you&#39;re stuck&#33;


What makes what one man writes down in a book any different from what another man writes down in a book?

That&#39;s an easy one, at least. Some books make sense...others don&#39;t. The more you read and learn, the easier it is to tell the difference.

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

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

[Rastafari]

this all boils down to Aristotilean logic&#33;

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2003, 12:12 PM

So until you give me a reason not to believe in God I&#39;m going to keep believing.

That&#39;s the core of the problem, all right.

One can rather easily expose the logical fallacies, mythological "facts" and reactionary social implications of a particular religion.

But if someone offers up a sufficiently amorphous "higher power" and remains carefully unspecific about any details regarding this "entity", there&#39;s no "hook", nothing there to hang an argument on.

If everything in the universe would be exactly the same whether or not a "god" existed, then when someone asserts that there "is" a "god", you can only reply that it would make no difference if you acted as if "it" didn&#39;t exist.

Frankly, I suspect this is kind of an ultimate "fall back" position and that as soon as your attention is elsewhere, that "amorphous god" will start acquiring some details...and they will turn out to be the same features that characterize traditional religions...reactionary in content and probably in words as well.

But when someone says "I believe that God exists" and stops right there then no argument can be made except that of lack of evidence...to which the believer will always respond "prove me wrong".

It&#39;s not until the believer says "I believe that God exists and therefore blah, blah, blah". You can go after the "blah, blah, blah" and usually disprove it easily.

Otherwise, you&#39;re stuck&#33;


What makes what one man writes down in a book any different from what another man writes down in a book?

That&#39;s an easy one, at least. Some books make sense...others don&#39;t. The more you read and learn, the easier it is to tell the difference.

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 see your point, however I feel that if I were to adopt the ideas of a particular religion I wouldn&#39;t be perceptible to other ideas and beliefs.

You athiests may not think so but everytime you make an arguement for why you are an athiest i take it into consideration.

I take athiest ideas into consideration, Buddhist ideas, christian ideas, Muslim ideas, Hindu ideas.

I don&#39;t want to limit my self to a set of basic beliefs, I don&#39;t want to be an athiest because that ties me down to a set of beliefs(or lack thee of) which is the same reason I&#39;m not a christian.

I say I"m a diest because from where I see the universe it makes the most sense, atleast to me.

Of course I&#39;m not talking about the traditional Diesm of Benjamin Franklin, I simply mean teh diest belief that God create dhte universe and then just left it the hell alone.


Also about the books, what makes sense and what doesn&#39;t is all subjective.

[elijahcraig]

speaking of the words of a moron, I took latin for 2 years and never heard of "ad homenim." I think you must mean ad hominem.

Nice dodge Chief. Pointing out spelling errors is the work of a scoundrel.


All bullshit. All angry, pointless, evasive bullshit. You clearly have no idea what your talking about on any of these grounds do you, you pathetic moron.

A. Are you a Socialist?
B. Are you a Marxist?

If you answered yes to either of these and want a better life for the Indian people you will:

A. Support the Views of the Communist Party of India Concerning India.
B. Meaning Condemn Gandhi for his petty bourgeois ideology.

If you do not do this you are not a Communist but a bourgeois panderer.


shutup elijah, you&#39;re making the rest of us marxists look bad. once again, you can&#39;t say religion breeds ignorance and proceed to, well... talk. crap, you&#39;re really making my attempts at being nice to people again difficult.

YOU are not a Marxist, and no one else who supports religion as a “positive” or “helper of revolution” is either. Marx was anti-religion, he was a materialist, marxism IS materialism. There is no way to justify liberalism towards the god issue.


Why, oh why do the hardcore anti-religious members of this board always lump religion and God together? I am a religious and I don&#39;t believe in the existence of god. Though I&#39;m not arrogant and blinkered to say that I know there is no god, because such a stance is ridiculous. Proving there is a god is as hard as proving there is no god. At this point in time neither can be proved or disproved.

There is no point in arguing with you. Such a moronic statement as “it can’t be disproved” is beyond comprehension.

Can you disprove the following theory?

That I will turn into a pink elephant and fuck gerbils when I die?

That is the same as saying you can’t disprove an illogical, nonsensical, fucked up religious afterlife. Period.


Have you ever considered the fact that maybe The existence of a God makes sense to someone else? To them the existence of God is logical, now I&#39;m not going to defend their logic thats for them to do. However simply because something is illelogical to you doesn&#39;t mean that it is illogical period. Communism is illogical to many and a great many other people, now does that mean it&#39;s illogical period?

There is no double standard concerning logic. It is or it is not. Individual subjectivism has nothing to do with concrete fact.

Whether someone makes the statement of their belief “No, you are not typing on a computer.” In reference to me. or Not. It does not change the fact: I AM typing on the computer, whether you see it as so or not.

This roundabout circular reasoning is the same you used when you tried to “prove” that there was nothing called a “fact”.

I hate to use an insult, but this ILLOGIC gets you nowwhere Lardlad, either use LOGIC or stop posting long rambling useless posts.


To me there is no logical reasoning for communism succeding, however you seem utterly convinced that Communism is the inevitable outcome of the world.

I do not believe Communism is inevitable.

The only thing behind Communism is Logic, stemming from Hegel on up.


Your only real problem is your lack of respect for other&#39;s opinions. You can&#39;t see things from two sides, which is funny because alot of Christians I know have the same problem.

See the Mencken quote from above post. I do not respect IGNORANCE, sorry.



>That is false, dying proves nothing. Nothing says, assuming you do not DIE when you DIE, you know everything.<


You don&#39;t know everything now yet you have no problem acting like you do, so whats to stop you if you were to die and come back?

This is a null point, without any bearing on the discussion.




>ETC. A fact is concrete, theories are human interpretations of those concrete facts.<


Wrong theories are human interpretations of Data, not facts. You yourself pointed out the difference between a fact and a peice of Data.

Lots of people have created theories that have been proven false, so obviously they weren&#39;t based on fact they were based on Data.

What nonsense is this?

Theories are based on interpretation of facts. Data is that interpretation. A fact is still concrete, a human theory surrounding it is based upon it, not fact itself.



>The words of a moron.Let’s leave the talking like 5 year olds in the closet and talk reality here. <


Also you never answered my question. What makes what one man writes down in a book any different from what another man writes down in a book?

Believe Hawkings, most likely the smartest man to ever live, or an uneducated tribal native, who can barely think straight, handing down oral stories, blended with hundreds of others asserted as fact.? I choose the smartest man to ever live. Not the uneducated native.


Everyone has the ability to lie, or not even lie, but get things wrong. Just because someone publishes a book he is automatically correct?

When did I assert this to be so?





>False. There is no God. Unless you can prove otherwise, there is no reason to believe so.<

No, there is no reason for YOU to believe in God. You don&#39;t think for the other 6 billion people on Earth, they could have a reason to believe.

6 billion people on Earth are ALL accomplices to the basic logic of the world. I am as they are, they have the same reasoning as I: based upon the reason and logic of the world. There is nothing beyond this. Facts are not subjective.


I believe in God, not necassarily the Christian God, but I believe That the existence of life on earth, from the creation of the universe to evolution to me being here is to well orchestrated to be a coencidence.

And you base this on what?


So until you give me a reason not to believe in God I&#39;m going to keep believing

How ‘bout this Rambo: THERE”S NO FUCKING REASON TO BELIEVE IN A GOD. Period. NO REASON. NO LOGIC. NO FUCKING WAY. Religion touches NOWHERE with reality in ANY way.



>And he didn’t uproot the essential basic tenet of the ideology either. There’s a difference between uprooting an economic statistic and destroying the essential belief the marxist rests his ENTIRE ideology upon.<

So let me get this Straight...Marx&#39;s entire ideology was based on God not existing?

YES. MATERIALISM is the basic for Marxism, then dialectics. This is 101 buddy, need to learn it before you call yourself a “Marxist”.


The only reason God would hinder MArxism is through the control Organized religion has. IF you aren&#39;t loyal to a church then why does believing in God hinder the revolution?

It has NOTHING to do with “hindering revolution”. Marxism is a philosophy, a way of thinking. It is based MOST ESSENTIALLY on DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM.

You might try READING something before you plaster this fucked up nonsense on the board.


Elijah...Ignorance? Really? I read the same Physics articles and books you do. I&#39;m not saying Evolution is a lie, in fact I&#39;m saying it&#39;s true. I believe in the big bang. THe only thing we differ on is is the existence of God.

And your liberal thinking. Your ideology is liberalism, mine is Marxism.


Now tell me just what exactley am I being Ignorant about?

Read above^.


Also about the books, what makes sense and what doesn&#39;t is all subjective.

That’s fucking whoreshit. Pure whoreshit.

“There are trees.” This is not subjective.

[Rastafari]

there is no point in argueing with a dumbass.

[elijahcraig]

there is no point in argueing with a dumbass.

Do you even know what I’m talking about? Do you know what materialism is? Do you know that that negates the idea of God, COMPLETELY?

Do you CARE what COMMUNISTS of India think? As opposed to the middle class Hitler-praising Gandhi?

I guess not.

[Rastafari]

man, you make me sick


do even know what you "beleive in?"

[elijahcraig]

Can you debate at all?

Can you answer my questions, liberal?

[Jesus Lives]

It makes my heart warm to know that there are still believers in these end times of ours. Why don&#39;t you try listening to this person first elijahcraig?

[elijahcraig]

I knew you’d pop in some time.

You are aware Christianity is a worldly philosophy as well are you not?

[Jesus Lives]

Of course its been influenced. But the core of it all remains true. The holy spirit lives within the church and will never allow it to be truly corrupted.

[elijahcraig]

And you base this on what?

Corrupted writings of tribal fools?

I could easily say: “A large brown turtle created the earth, it’s spirit dwells in my ass, that core remains true.”

It means exactly fucking nothing.

Stop the incessant nonsense.

[elijahcraig]

Here are the opinions from the “Programme of the Communist Party of India, Rasta, just for you:


5. The Great October Revolution brought the ideology of Marxism-Leninism to our country and the Communist Party of India was born. However, despite tremendous opportunities, the leadership of the working class could not be established over the national liberation struggle as the leadership of the Party refused to fight Gandhism and the Gandhian leadership and to take to the path of revolution. The leadership refused to integrate the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practice of Indian revolution. It refused to integrate the Party with the heroic masses, chiefly the revolutionary peasantry, and to forge a revolutionary united front. It refused to learn from the great liberation struggle of the Chinese people led by the CPC and Chairman Mao Tsetung and to take to the path of armed struggle.


4. The Indian bourgeoisie, comprador in nature, intervened to divert the national liberation struggle from the path of revolution to the path of compromise and surrender. Beginning from the Champaran peasant struggle, the Gandhian leadership representing the upper stratum of the bourgeoisie and feudal class, with its ideology of &#39;ahimsa&#39;; &#39;satyagraha&#39;, passive resistance and &#39;charkha&#39;, sought to tailor the national movement to serve the interests of the British imperialist rule and its feudal lackeys.

[Jesus Lives]

Name me one religion were the god/deity actrually cared for and died for his children.

[elijahcraig]

Name another god who sent 10 million of his “chosen” people to slaughter.

Name another god who has millions of “his children” starving every day.

Name another god who sends his son to die in the ultimate resentful act of will to power.

Name another god who tells his children that humanity is evil.

Name another god who loves his children so much he sends them to an eternity in hell for disobeying him.

^That is the “Love” of your god.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2003, 10:09 PM

Have you ever considered the fact that maybe The existence of a God makes sense to someone else? To them the existence of God is logical, now I&#39;m not going to defend their logic thats for them to do. However simply because something is illelogical to you doesn&#39;t mean that it is illogical period. Communism is illogical to many and a great many other people, now does that mean it&#39;s illogical period?

There is no double standard concerning logic. It is or it is not. Individual subjectivism has nothing to do with concrete fact.

Whether someone makes the statement of their belief “No, you are not typing on a computer.” In reference to me. or Not. It does not change the fact: I AM typing on the computer, whether you see it as so or not.

This roundabout circular reasoning is the same you used when you tried to “prove” that there was nothing called a “fact”.

I hate to use an insult, but this ILLOGIC gets you nowwhere Lardlad, either use LOGIC or stop posting long rambling useless posts.


To me there is no logical reasoning for communism succeding, however you seem utterly convinced that Communism is the inevitable outcome of the world.

I do not believe Communism is inevitable.

The only thing behind Communism is Logic, stemming from Hegel on up.


Your only real problem is your lack of respect for other&#39;s opinions. You can&#39;t see things from two sides, which is funny because alot of Christians I know have the same problem.

See the Mencken quote from above post. I do not respect IGNORANCE, sorry.



>That is false, dying proves nothing. Nothing says, assuming you do not DIE when you DIE, you know everything.<


You don&#39;t know everything now yet you have no problem acting like you do, so whats to stop you if you were to die and come back?

This is a null point, without any bearing on the discussion.




>ETC. A fact is concrete, theories are human interpretations of those concrete facts.<


Wrong theories are human interpretations of Data, not facts. You yourself pointed out the difference between a fact and a peice of Data.

Lots of people have created theories that have been proven false, so obviously they weren&#39;t based on fact they were based on Data.

What nonsense is this?

Theories are based on interpretation of facts. Data is that interpretation. A fact is still concrete, a human theory surrounding it is based upon it, not fact itself.



>The words of a moron.Let’s leave the talking like 5 year olds in the closet and talk reality here. <


Also you never answered my question. What makes what one man writes down in a book any different from what another man writes down in a book?

Believe Hawkings, most likely the smartest man to ever live, or an uneducated tribal native, who can barely think straight, handing down oral stories, blended with hundreds of others asserted as fact.? I choose the smartest man to ever live. Not the uneducated native.


Everyone has the ability to lie, or not even lie, but get things wrong. Just because someone publishes a book he is automatically correct?

When did I assert this to be so?





>False. There is no God. Unless you can prove otherwise, there is no reason to believe so.<

No, there is no reason for YOU to believe in God. You don&#39;t think for the other 6 billion people on Earth, they could have a reason to believe.

6 billion people on Earth are ALL accomplices to the basic logic of the world. I am as they are, they have the same reasoning as I: based upon the reason and logic of the world. There is nothing beyond this. Facts are not subjective.


I believe in God, not necassarily the Christian God, but I believe That the existence of life on earth, from the creation of the universe to evolution to me being here is to well orchestrated to be a coencidence.

And you base this on what?


So until you give me a reason not to believe in God I&#39;m going to keep believing

How ‘bout this Rambo: THERE”S NO FUCKING REASON TO BELIEVE IN A GOD. Period. NO REASON. NO LOGIC. NO FUCKING WAY. Religion touches NOWHERE with reality in ANY way.



>And he didn’t uproot the essential basic tenet of the ideology either. There’s a difference between uprooting an economic statistic and destroying the essential belief the marxist rests his ENTIRE ideology upon.<

So let me get this Straight...Marx&#39;s entire ideology was based on God not existing?

YES. MATERIALISM is the basic for Marxism, then dialectics. This is 101 buddy, need to learn it before you call yourself a “Marxist”.


The only reason God would hinder MArxism is through the control Organized religion has. IF you aren&#39;t loyal to a church then why does believing in God hinder the revolution?

It has NOTHING to do with “hindering revolution”. Marxism is a philosophy, a way of thinking. It is based MOST ESSENTIALLY on DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM.

You might try READING something before you plaster this fucked up nonsense on the board.


Elijah...Ignorance? Really? I read the same Physics articles and books you do. I&#39;m not saying Evolution is a lie, in fact I&#39;m saying it&#39;s true. I believe in the big bang. THe only thing we differ on is is the existence of God.

And your liberal thinking. Your ideology is liberalism, mine is Marxism.


Now tell me just what exactley am I being Ignorant about?

Read above^.


Also about the books, what makes sense and what doesn&#39;t is all subjective.

That’s fucking whoreshit. Pure whoreshit.

“There are trees.” This is not subjective.
>There is no double standard concerning logic. It is or it is not. Individual subjectivism has nothing to do with concrete fact.

Whether someone makes the statement of their belief “No, you are not typing on a computer.” In reference to me. or Not. It does not change the fact: I AM typing on the computer, whether you see it as so or not.

This roundabout circular reasoning is the same you used when you tried to “prove” that there was nothing called a “fact”.

I hate to use an insult, but this ILLOGIC gets you nowwhere Lardlad, either use LOGIC or stop posting long rambling useless posts.<

...I said what makes sense differs not what is fact. Instead of suggesting I read Marx a little bit more how about you read my posts a little bit more before you make an arguement that is irrelevant to what I said.



In that particular quote which you attacked I was simply saying that what makes sens to you isn&#39;t what makes sense to someone else necassarily.

Now are you going to sit there and tell me that everyone agrees on what makes sense?

Does the existence of God make sense to you? No, but it does to a Chritsian.

Now I hope I explained my self well enough for you to understand it this time




>The only thing behind Communism is Logic, stemming from Hegel on up.<


I think you and I know a few capitalists who would disagree with this. Just because you necassarily agree with Hegel doesn&#39;t make it true. You happen to agree with Hegel, that is fine, but you are only saying that he supports Communism with logic because you are a communist.

To a cappie or any non-communist this wouldn&#39;t be true.



>See the Mencken quote from above post. I do not respect IGNORANCE, sorry.<

No you don&#39;t respect people. No one said you had to agree with everyone, but you need to respect People.



>Theories are based on interpretation of facts. Data is that interpretation. A fact is still concrete, a human theory surrounding it is based upon it, not fact itself.<


I like this definition of what a theory is. However a theory still isn&#39;t based on fact, it&#39;s an explanation or interpretation of Fact. A Theory is based on data, which as you put are interpretations of fact.

Remember reddi&#39;s experiment?

The fact in this experiement was that there were maggots on a peice of meat.


Reddi set up an experiement to refute Spontaneous generation.

By collecting data he created the theory of biological generation.

He couldn&#39;t have created this theory if he had not collected the data.



>Believe Hawkings, most likely the smartest man to ever live, or an uneducated tribal native, who can barely think straight, handing down oral stories, blended with hundreds of others asserted as fact.? I choose the smartest man to ever live. Not the uneducated native<

By your standards Hawking is the smartest man alive, to someone who thinks that the big bang is bullshit Hawking is a raving lunatic.

Now I&#39;m not debating Hawking&#39;s intellegence, he is certainly super intellegent.

However you must realize that you are looking at this situation subjectivley.

You are assuming that everyone

1. Shares the same opinion of Hawking that you do

and

2. That everyone views the Tribal leader as uneducated.


I&#39;m sure you&#39;ve seen Baptists Revs. ranting and raving about Jesus....now don&#39;t these guys seem like nut jobs to you?

But to a member of that congregation he is making perfect sense and someone who is talking about Evolution is talking nonsense.

Not everyone shares your beliefs and opinions.


>6 billion people on Earth are ALL accomplices to the basic logic of the world. I am as they are, they have the same reasoning as I: based upon the reason and logic of the world. There is nothing beyond this. Facts are not subjective.<


Sir, I think you need to check your demographics again, the majority of people on Earth believe in some type of God or afterlife


>And you base this on what?<


Everything I know about the universe from the big bang to me and you argueing this asinine topic.

There were too many possibilities of what could have happened for human life to be a simple coincidence, atleast in my opinion.

How was it that every condition was perfect for this planet to sustain sentient life? Sentient life that evolved from creatures who over time have survived every natural catastrophe, every great extinction.

In the billions of years it took to make us, too many things could have wiped us or our ancestors from the face of the earth.

>YES. MATERIALISM is the basic for Marxism, then dialectics. This is 101 buddy, need to learn it before you call yourself a “Marxist”.<


First off I see sarcasm is lost on you. Second DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM IS THE BASIS FOR MARXISM

DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM AND MATERIALISM ARE NOT THE SAME THING&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

and if you want me to give you a definition I&#39;ll give you an excerpt from the Second addition of the dictionary of philosophy.

"...In asserting the primacy of matter, dialectical materialists do not advance a reductive theory; they do not assert that everything that exists is nothing but matter..."-Dictionary of Philosophy second edition p. 95

If you want a summary of the entire thing it basically says that to dialectical materialists hold the belief that matter takes precedence over all else, and that there are certain laws that govern how matter changes.


Also as far as Materialism being core to marxism, Marxists are a form of Materialist, not however "mechanist materialists" but "dialectical materialists".

So you see my friend Dialectical Materialism and Materialism aren&#39;t the same thing, they will never be the same thing.


>You might try READING something before you plaster this fucked up nonsense on the board.<

You might try GETTING YOUR DEFINITIONS STRAIGHT BEFORE YOU POST YOUR NONSENSE


>“There are trees.” This is not subjective.<


I SAID WHAT MAKES SENSE AND WHAT DOESN"T IS SUBJECTIVE....IN NO PART OF THAT STATEMENT DID I SAY THAT FACTS WERE SUBJECTIVE, START READING BEFORE YOU SPEAK.

[Rastafari]

Originally posted by Jesus [email protected] 3 2003, 06:50 PM
It makes my heart warm to know that there are still believers in these end times of ours. Why don&#39;t you try listening to this person first elijahcraig?
I&#39;m afraid I don&#39;t recognize Jesus as what you would, but I do believe in fighting stupidity, which is obviously what we have here.

[elijahcraig]

>There is no double standard concerning logic. It is or it is not. Individual subjectivism has nothing to do with concrete fact.

Whether someone makes the statement of their belief “No, you are not typing on a computer.” In reference to me. or Not. It does not change the fact: I AM typing on the computer, whether you see it as so or not.

This roundabout circular reasoning is the same you used when you tried to “prove” that there was nothing called a “fact”.

I hate to use an insult, but this ILLOGIC gets you nowwhere Lardlad, either use LOGIC or stop posting long rambling useless posts.<


...I said what makes sense differs not what is fact. Instead of suggesting I read Marx a little bit more how about you read my posts a little bit more before you make an arguement that is irrelevant to what I said.



In that particular quote which you attacked I was simply saying that what makes sens to you isn&#39;t what makes sense to someone else necassarily.

“Sense” has nothing to do with ANYTHING. We are talking about facts, and not “opinions”. I could give six shits for the opinions of morons.


Now are you going to sit there and tell me that everyone agrees on what makes sense?

Am I typing on the computer or not? Yes I am. If you disagree you are wrong, in the untruth.


Does the existence of God make sense to you? No, but it does to a Chritsian.

Who the fuck cares? Insane people may believe they’re Jesus, does it make sense to them? Yes&#33; Does it matter five fucks? No&#33;


>The only thing behind Communism is Logic, stemming from Hegel on up.<



I think you and I know a few capitalists who would disagree with this. Just because you necassarily agree with Hegel doesn&#39;t make it true. You happen to agree with Hegel, that is fine, but you are only saying that he supports Communism with logic because you are a communist.

To a cappie or any non-communist this wouldn&#39;t be true.

If a theory (subjective economics) can be proven wrong, it is wrong. Not up for further debate by Liberal Democrats such as yourself.




>See the Mencken quote from above post. I do not respect IGNORANCE, sorry.<


No you don&#39;t respect people. No one said you had to agree with everyone, but you need to respect People.

As I said before, look at the quote. I DO NOT respect ignorance. Ie religion.




>Theories are based on interpretation of facts. Data is that interpretation. A fact is still concrete, a human theory surrounding it is based upon it, not fact itself.<



I like this definition of what a theory is. However a theory still isn&#39;t based on fact, it&#39;s an explanation or interpretation of Fact. A Theory is based on data, which as you put are interpretations of fact.

This is roundabout reasoning and really has no bearing here. We both know what the answer to these questions are, studdering and masturbating over conservative definitions gets you nowhere, it only takes up space.


>Believe Hawkings, most likely the smartest man to ever live, or an uneducated tribal native, who can barely think straight, handing down oral stories, blended with hundreds of others asserted as fact.? I choose the smartest man to ever live. Not the uneducated native<


By your standards Hawking is the smartest man alive, to someone who thinks that the big bang is bullshit Hawking is a raving lunatic.

Once again, who GIVES A FUCK what lunatics such as the people whom you described think? I can THINK “I am not typing on the computer.” The FACT is that “I AM typing on the computer.” PERIOD.


You are assuming that everyone

1. Shares the same opinion of Hawking that you do

and

The point is that he is extremely smart. Anyone who says otherwise is not worth my time.


2. That everyone views the Tribal leader as uneducated.

EVERYONE who is educated should. Warlords with political agendas and slaves is not educated except in the ways of persuasion and coercion. Saying otherwise is once again an example of your liberal ideals: thinking doesn’t matter, meaning opinions; facts do.



I&#39;m sure you&#39;ve seen Baptists Revs. ranting and raving about Jesus....now don&#39;t these guys seem like nut jobs to you?

But to a member of that congregation he is making perfect sense and someone who is talking about Evolution is talking nonsense.

Not everyone shares your beliefs and opinions.

Evolution is not a “belief or opinion” it is a FACT. Members of a cult, FUCKING MORONS, are of no concern to me. And to NO ONE who has a SHRED OF INTELLIGENCE.

Stop the liberal nonsense.



>6 billion people on Earth are ALL accomplices to the basic logic of the world. I am as they are, they have the same reasoning as I: based upon the reason and logic of the world. There is nothing beyond this. Facts are not subjective.<



Sir, I think you need to check your demographics again, the majority of people on Earth believe in some type of God or afterlife

This has nothing to do with what I said.



>And you base this on what?<



Everything I know about the universe from the big bang to me and you argueing this asinine topic.

There were too many possibilities of what could have happened for human life to be a simple coincidence, atleast in my opinion.

How was it that every condition was perfect for this planet to sustain sentient life? Sentient life that evolved from creatures who over time have survived every natural catastrophe, every great extinction.

In the billions of years it took to make us, too many things could have wiped us or our ancestors from the face of the earth.

We are one of a near infinite number of possibilities, all just as unlikely. This is bullshit “reasoning” on your part.


>YES. MATERIALISM is the basic for Marxism, then dialectics. This is 101 buddy, need to learn it before you call yourself a “Marxist”.<



First off I see sarcasm is lost on you. Second DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM IS THE BASIS FOR MARXISM

DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM AND MATERIALISM ARE NOT THE SAME THING&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Are you insane? Are you completely fucking insane? Do you always have to use this pathetic liberal reasoning with EVERY point in a discussion?

The Dialectical in Dialectical Materialism is obviously not the same as the absence of the word Dialectical in Materialism. It is Materialism NONE THE LESS.


and if you want me to give you a definition I&#39;ll give you an excerpt from the Second addition of the dictionary of philosophy.

"...In asserting the primacy of matter, dialectical materialists do not advance a reductive theory; they do not assert that everything that exists is nothing but matter..."-Dictionary of Philosophy second edition p. 95

If you want a summary of the entire thing it basically says that to dialectical materialists hold the belief that matter takes precedence over all else, and that there are certain laws that govern how matter changes.

Thanks for that Dr Magoo.



Also as far as Materialism being core to marxism, Marxists are a form of Materialist, not however "mechanist materialists" but "dialectical materialists".

Once again, thanks Dr Magoo.

I don’t need a third-rate class in Materialism. You seem to. Calling yourself a Marxist while being an Idealist? Moron.

You missed the “Historical” as well.







>“There are trees.” This is not subjective.<



I SAID WHAT MAKES SENSE AND WHAT DOESN"T IS SUBJECTIVE....IN NO PART OF THAT STATEMENT DID I SAY THAT FACTS WERE SUBJECTIVE, START READING BEFORE YOU SPEAK.

Opinions are subjective in the terms you place them. They are not objective and fact, but subjective and facts are as well subjective.

[Anti-Fascist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 03:49 AM
I was talking to this girl in school today about atheism (she is a christian), and we touched on the subject of evolution. Now this is the moronic reasoning of a christian: She rejects evolution, why? Because there are still monkies/apes/whatever on the earth. “How come there are still apes?” ahahahhhahahaha

That made me sick to my stomach.
I know exactly how you feel. This is an extraordinarily common &#39;argument&#39; against evolution among Christians - in my experience. Well, among the uneducated Christians at least. Too many times I have bursted blood vessels in frustration trying to explain why this argument is absurd.

[IHP]

There is no point in arguing with you. Such a moronic statement as “it can’t be disproved” is beyond comprehension.

Can you disprove the following theory?

That I will turn into a pink elephant and fuck gerbils when I die?

That is the same as saying you can’t disprove an illogical, nonsensical, fucked up religious afterlife. Period."

Oh really, you need your ritalyn. Calm down. You may very well turn into a pink elephant and have sex with gerbils. But being you&#39;re so crash hot with your latin, ever heard of reductio ad absurdum? Furthermore, can you prove that your theory works? The prove that there is no afterlife. Your language is terrible by the way. Swearing you head off is unnecessary, though you find to be so.

What is beyond comprehension is your total inability to see anything bar your point. Grow up little boy. One day you will realize that you don&#39;t know everything...one day.

[apathy maybe]

It is a fact that your body is made up of over 70% water, why doesn&#39;t it go everywhere? (Hypothetical question for those of you too dumb to realise).

Did you know that Australia has plastic bank notes?

According to some scientists we are most likly living inside a simulated universe.

If we are, there is a god&#33; But he is just as human (or not) as you or I.

According to some scientists everything is predetermined and that nothing is random. Apparently some things (such as decay of atoms) can not be predicted but because of cause and effect, everything was set rolling at the Big Bang.

Another theory states that everything that could be, will be.

And this all has relevance but if you can&#39;t see it you should read it again.

[Umoja]

Here&#39;s a quote from "Liber Kaos", a book by Peter Carrol, a self proclaimed "Magician". Although, his beliefs are hard to explain other then that he believes "nothing is true. Everything is permitted."

"In the Materialist paradigm the universe is believed to consist fundamentally and entirely of matter. Energy is but a form of matter and together they subtend space and time within which all change occurs strictly on the basis of cause and effect. Human behaviour is reducible to biology, biology is reducible to chemistry, chemistry is reducible to physics and physics is reducible to mathematics. Mind and consciousness are thus merely electrochemical events in the brain and spirit is a word without objective content. The causes of some events are likely to remain obscure perhaps indefinitely, but there is an underlying faith that sufficient material cause must exist for any event. All human acts can be categorized as serving some biological need or as expressions of previously applied conditioning or merely as malfunction. The goal of materialist who eschews suicide is the pursuit of personal satisfaction including altruistic satisfactions if desired."

"Materialist time is linear but unbounded. Ideally it can be extended arbitrarily far in either direction from the present. To the strict materialist it is self-evidently futile to speculate about a beginning or an end to time. Similarly the materialist is contemptuous of any speculations about any forms of personal existence before birth or after death. The materialist may well fear painful or premature death but can have no fears about being dead. "

"Of the three views of self the purely materialistic one is the most problematical. If mind is an extension of matter it must obey material laws and the resulting deterministic view conflicts with the subjective experience of free will. On the other hand if mind and consciousness are assumed to be qualitatively different from matter then the self is incomprehensible to itself in material terms. Worse still perhaps, the materialist self must regard itself as a phenomenon of only temporary duration in contradiction of the subjective expectation of continuity of consciousness. Because a purely materialist view of self is so austere few are prepared to confront such naked existentialism. Consequently materialist cultures exhibit a frantic appetite for sensation, identification and more or less disposable irrational beliefs. Anything that will make the self seems less insubstantial."

[kitty44]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2003, 03:26 AM

No you DON"T KNOW there is no God...PERIOD.

Yes, I do. There is no logical reason, irrational or logical actually, pointing to a god. End of story. Anything past that is the “logic” of heathens.


How many times have you died and come back? Until you can do that don&#39;t claim to know something you don&#39;t.

That is false, dying proves nothing. Nothing says, assuming you do not DIE when you DIE, you know everything.


Even the great cosmologists and physicists who you put so much stock in don&#39;t have concrete proof of the origins of the universe, they have theories, granted they have good theories but a theory none the less, and a theory isn&#39;t fact.

A fact is that there is no god; we posit theories around that fact.



Theories can be proven wrong, so until what those Brilliant Scientists can turn their theories into CONCRETE FACT, it&#39;s still a theory and just as open to skepticism as anyone else&#39;s theory.

ETC. A fact is concrete, theories are human interpretations of those concrete facts.


You yourself said facts, true facts, aren&#39;t open to opinion. You yourself said facts were concrete.

Indeed they are.



Well what is so concrete about something some Professor wrote down in a book...the Bible is a book does that mean it&#39;s anything more than a half baked peice of mythology?

Wow, ad homenim. The words of a moron.

Let’s leave the talking like 5 year olds in the closet and talk reality here.


A Theory is not fact, a fact is a fact, a theory is a theory.

Wow thanks for that. Master, indeed, of the obvious.


So until you die, and come back and tell me that nothing exists after you die stop it with this crap about how you know that no God exists when you can only present theories.

False. There is no God. Unless you can prove otherwise, there is no reason to believe so.



Materialists? We have to be..or can we just be Dialectical materialists?

What do you think the “materialist” in “Dialectical materialists” comes from?


I mean we have to be to be a marxist?

Yes.


Well I mean Lenin didn&#39;t follow Marx to a T but he was a marxist wasn&#39;t he?

And he didn’t uproot the essential basic tenet of the ideology either. There’s a difference between uprooting an economic statistic and destroying the essential belief the marxist rests his ENTIRE ideology upon.


So i don&#39;t see why I can&#39;t take out one component and still be a marxist

Etc.


Any belief in God is enslavement? Why?

Ever read Bakunin’s “God and the State”? THAT’s why. Unless you consider ignorance freedom.


no, no it doesn&#39;t.

Atheist

A"the*ist, n. [Gr. ? without god; &#39;a priv. + ? god: cf. F. ath[&#39;e]iste.]

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Materialist

1.Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.

2.The theory or attitude that physical well-being and worldly possessions constitute the greatest good and highest value in life.

3.A great or excessive regard for worldly concerns.



You can also be a theist and still believe you don&#39;t want to repeat the inquisition by persecuting people for their beliefs. who gives a damn what people believe as long as they respect your opinion?

Not wanting people persecuted for beliefs is not Marxism, that is liberalism. Materialism is necessarily atheistic…anyone who tells you otherwise is a MORON.

“that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.”

This leaves no room for Liberal maneuvering. If you are a Materialist Atheist Marxist, then say so; if not, do not dress yourself as one and claim Theology is a possible factual theory.
Spoken like a true jackass......you don&#39;t know that there is no god......who are you to say?? Not everyone believes as you do.....it&#39;s their choice.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2003, 05:12 AM

>There is no double standard concerning logic. It is or it is not. Individual subjectivism has nothing to do with concrete fact.

Whether someone makes the statement of their belief “No, you are not typing on a computer.” In reference to me. or Not. It does not change the fact: I AM typing on the computer, whether you see it as so or not.

This roundabout circular reasoning is the same you used when you tried to “prove” that there was nothing called a “fact”.

I hate to use an insult, but this ILLOGIC gets you nowwhere Lardlad, either use LOGIC or stop posting long rambling useless posts.<


...I said what makes sense differs not what is fact. Instead of suggesting I read Marx a little bit more how about you read my posts a little bit more before you make an arguement that is irrelevant to what I said.



In that particular quote which you attacked I was simply saying that what makes sens to you isn&#39;t what makes sense to someone else necassarily.

“Sense” has nothing to do with ANYTHING. We are talking about facts, and not “opinions”. I could give six shits for the opinions of morons.


Now are you going to sit there and tell me that everyone agrees on what makes sense?

Am I typing on the computer or not? Yes I am. If you disagree you are wrong, in the untruth.


Does the existence of God make sense to you? No, but it does to a Chritsian.

Who the fuck cares? Insane people may believe they’re Jesus, does it make sense to them? Yes&#33; Does it matter five fucks? No&#33;


>The only thing behind Communism is Logic, stemming from Hegel on up.<



I think you and I know a few capitalists who would disagree with this. Just because you necassarily agree with Hegel doesn&#39;t make it true. You happen to agree with Hegel, that is fine, but you are only saying that he supports Communism with logic because you are a communist.

To a cappie or any non-communist this wouldn&#39;t be true.

If a theory (subjective economics) can be proven wrong, it is wrong. Not up for further debate by Liberal Democrats such as yourself.




>See the Mencken quote from above post. I do not respect IGNORANCE, sorry.<


No you don&#39;t respect people. No one said you had to agree with everyone, but you need to respect People.

As I said before, look at the quote. I DO NOT respect ignorance. Ie religion.




>Theories are based on interpretation of facts. Data is that interpretation. A fact is still concrete, a human theory surrounding it is based upon it, not fact itself.<



I like this definition of what a theory is. However a theory still isn&#39;t based on fact, it&#39;s an explanation or interpretation of Fact. A Theory is based on data, which as you put are interpretations of fact.

This is roundabout reasoning and really has no bearing here. We both know what the answer to these questions are, studdering and masturbating over conservative definitions gets you nowhere, it only takes up space.


>Believe Hawkings, most likely the smartest man to ever live, or an uneducated tribal native, who can barely think straight, handing down oral stories, blended with hundreds of others asserted as fact.? I choose the smartest man to ever live. Not the uneducated native<


By your standards Hawking is the smartest man alive, to someone who thinks that the big bang is bullshit Hawking is a raving lunatic.

Once again, who GIVES A FUCK what lunatics such as the people whom you described think? I can THINK “I am not typing on the computer.” The FACT is that “I AM typing on the computer.” PERIOD.


You are assuming that everyone

1. Shares the same opinion of Hawking that you do

and

The point is that he is extremely smart. Anyone who says otherwise is not worth my time.


2. That everyone views the Tribal leader as uneducated.

EVERYONE who is educated should. Warlords with political agendas and slaves is not educated except in the ways of persuasion and coercion. Saying otherwise is once again an example of your liberal ideals: thinking doesn’t matter, meaning opinions; facts do.



I&#39;m sure you&#39;ve seen Baptists Revs. ranting and raving about Jesus....now don&#39;t these guys seem like nut jobs to you?

But to a member of that congregation he is making perfect sense and someone who is talking about Evolution is talking nonsense.

Not everyone shares your beliefs and opinions.

Evolution is not a “belief or opinion” it is a FACT. Members of a cult, FUCKING MORONS, are of no concern to me. And to NO ONE who has a SHRED OF INTELLIGENCE.

Stop the liberal nonsense.



>6 billion people on Earth are ALL accomplices to the basic logic of the world. I am as they are, they have the same reasoning as I: based upon the reason and logic of the world. There is nothing beyond this. Facts are not subjective.<



Sir, I think you need to check your demographics again, the majority of people on Earth believe in some type of God or afterlife

This has nothing to do with what I said.



>And you base this on what?<



Everything I know about the universe from the big bang to me and you argueing this asinine topic.

There were too many possibilities of what could have happened for human life to be a simple coincidence, atleast in my opinion.

How was it that every condition was perfect for this planet to sustain sentient life? Sentient life that evolved from creatures who over time have survived every natural catastrophe, every great extinction.

In the billions of years it took to make us, too many things could have wiped us or our ancestors from the face of the earth.

We are one of a near infinite number of possibilities, all just as unlikely. This is bullshit “reasoning” on your part.


>YES. MATERIALISM is the basic for Marxism, then dialectics. This is 101 buddy, need to learn it before you call yourself a “Marxist”.<



First off I see sarcasm is lost on you. Second DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM IS THE BASIS FOR MARXISM

DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM AND MATERIALISM ARE NOT THE SAME THING&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Are you insane? Are you completely fucking insane? Do you always have to use this pathetic liberal reasoning with EVERY point in a discussion?

The Dialectical in Dialectical Materialism is obviously not the same as the absence of the word Dialectical in Materialism. It is Materialism NONE THE LESS.


and if you want me to give you a definition I&#39;ll give you an excerpt from the Second addition of the dictionary of philosophy.

"...In asserting the primacy of matter, dialectical materialists do not advance a reductive theory; they do not assert that everything that exists is nothing but matter..."-Dictionary of Philosophy second edition p. 95

If you want a summary of the entire thing it basically says that to dialectical materialists hold the belief that matter takes precedence over all else, and that there are certain laws that govern how matter changes.

Thanks for that Dr Magoo.



Also as far as Materialism being core to marxism, Marxists are a form of Materialist, not however "mechanist materialists" but "dialectical materialists".

Once again, thanks Dr Magoo.

I don’t need a third-rate class in Materialism. You seem to. Calling yourself a Marxist while being an Idealist? Moron.

You missed the “Historical” as well.







>“There are trees.” This is not subjective.<



I SAID WHAT MAKES SENSE AND WHAT DOESN"T IS SUBJECTIVE....IN NO PART OF THAT STATEMENT DID I SAY THAT FACTS WERE SUBJECTIVE, START READING BEFORE YOU SPEAK.

Opinions are subjective in the terms you place them. They are not objective and fact, but subjective and facts are as well subjective.
>“Sense” has nothing to do with ANYTHING. We are talking about facts, and not “opinions”. I could give six shits for the opinions of morons.<


...no i was talking about opinions. Just because you want to limit the discussion to what is fact doesn&#39;t mean I want to also.


From what I see this entire time we&#39;ve been argueing about two totally seperate things. You about facts and me about opinions



>Who the fuck cares? Insane people may believe they’re Jesus, does it make sense to them? Yes&#33; Does it matter five fucks? No&#33;<


But what you say does matter? My how you think so much of yourself. Shall we all bow down and praise Elijah, the only man who&#39;s opinion matters?

You really need to learn to respect people&#39;s opinions.


>If a theory (subjective economics) can be proven wrong, it is wrong. Not up for further debate by Liberal Democrats such as yourself.<


Well, let me ask you this then, can you prove Adam Smith wrong?

Or better yet can you prove Communism right? THus far in history communism hasn&#39;t exactley been the most sucessful thing around, regardless of whether or not those societies actually ever became communist, their original intentions were in fact attempts at communism. So far communism just hasn&#39;t come through. Now if it&#39;s messedup this many times who&#39;s to say it will ever work?


>As I said before, look at the quote. I DO NOT respect ignorance. Ie religion.<

Fine you lack respect for religion, but you also lack respect for people. You insult people for absolutely no reason instead of trying to educate them. You are condecending, snide, and above all else you are concieted. No wonder you can&#39;t convince anyone that you are right about religion, you never try to explain it because you are to busy insulting people.


>Once again, who GIVES A FUCK what lunatics such as the people whom you described think? I can THINK “I am not typing on the computer.” The FACT is that “I AM typing on the computer.” PERIOD.<

Who gives a fuck about what they think? Oh yeah you really respect people.


>The point is that he is extremely smart. Anyone who says otherwise is not worth my time.<

Damn man you just have a general love for humanity don&#39;t you. Not worth your time? What is your time made out of gold now? Does every second i your prescence cost 300 dollars or something?



>EVERYONE who is educated should. Warlords with political agendas and slaves is not educated except in the ways of persuasion and coercion. Saying otherwise is once again an example of your liberal ideals: thinking doesn’t matter, meaning opinions; facts do.<

What is educated? You define educated based on the society you live in. What educated means is subjective.

Your definition is not universal, different cultures view a learned man as different things.

Aristotle was a learned man for ancient greek times, but I bet damn well he didn&#39;t know how to do calculas.

So does that mean he&#39;s uneducated? By todays standards he knows very little in the realm of education.

Granted he was an admired philosopher but does he know anything about physics? or Modern Biology? Or modern Medicine? Modern Literature?

Different societies view educated as different things.



Thinking doesn&#39;t matter? Come on now, everyone has opinions, even you.

You can&#39;t believe an ideology without opinions.

You can&#39;t even say why Imperialism is wrong without using an opinion.

Because there is no scientific way to say it is wrong.

There is no scientific way to prove greed is wrong, there is no scientific way to prove that harming 3rd world nations is wrong.

Opinions do matter.


>Evolution is not a “belief or opinion” it is a FACT. Members of a cult, FUCKING MORONS, are of no concern to me. And to NO ONE who has a SHRED OF INTELLIGENCE.

Stop the liberal nonsense. <


...Wonderful, wonderful job. You just proved once and for all you lack respect for people. Not for religions, not for superstitions, but for people.

You don&#39;t respect anyone who isn&#39;t exactley like your self, what a wonderful way to go through life.

Everyone who does not believe what you believe is a moron without any intellegence...

You need to gather your followers and just move into the hills because you are wasting your valuble time amongst morons with no intellegence.

Not to mention how exactley do you expect to get the common man to join this revolution if you alienate and insult them?

You are driving people away from the cause not to it. People like you sir are a bigger threat to revolution than religion ever could be.



>We are one of a near infinite number of possibilities, all just as unlikely. This is bullshit “reasoning” on your part<

The number of possibilities is beyond infinite, because every second an infinite number of things could have occured.

No it&#39;s more like infinite times trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions of seconds.

Damn, what a big coincedence.




>The Dialectical in Dialectical Materialism is obviously not the same as the absence of the word Dialectical in Materialism. It is Materialism NONE THE LESS.<

No it&#39;s not, i gave my definition. I&#39;m sorry if you think that theya re one in the same but they aren&#39;t. You got it wrong my friend, and I&#39;m not going to conceede this just because in your OPINION they are one in the same.


>I don’t need a third-rate class in Materialism. You seem to. Calling yourself a Marxist while being an Idealist? Moron.

You missed the “Historical” as well.<


Fine take a first rate class, as long as you realize that you are wrong.



Historical materialism is the marxist theory of history that focuses on the laws governing the development of human society and thought.

Historical Materialism had no bearing in our disscussion.



I&#39;ll close giving you this advice:


1. Go find a therapist to help you tone down that enourmous ego, and stop being so condecending, as well as helping you learn to respect PEOPLE and disagree with them without insulting them.


2. GO FIND SOMEONE WHO WILL TEACH YOU THAT MATERIALISM AND DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM AREN"T TEH SAME THING


or you can.


3. Take your followers, go into the mountains,and ***** and complain about the morons and their lack of intellegence. Stay there and form your own communist society and don&#39;t bother the rest of us.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2003, 07:04 AM

What is beyond comprehension is your total inability to see anything bar your point. Grow up little boy. One day you will realize that you don&#39;t know everything...one day.
True, he doesn&#39;t respect anyone else&#39;s opinion. He doesn&#39;t respect anyone else. HE thinks he knows everything.

However I don&#39;t think he will grow out of it.

Which a shame because he&#39;s a smart guy, just a bit....concieted.....ok very concieted

[elijahcraig]

It is a fact that your body is made up of over 70% water, why doesn&#39;t it go everywhere? (Hypothetical question for those of you too dumb to realise).

That JUST might be the STUPIDEST thing I’ve ever read.


>“Sense” has nothing to do with ANYTHING. We are talking about facts, and not “opinions”. I could give six shits for the opinions of morons.<


...no i was talking about opinions. Just because you want to limit the discussion to what is fact doesn&#39;t mean I want to also.


From what I see this entire time we&#39;ve been argueing about two totally seperate things. You about facts and me about opinions

Opinions have NOTHING to do with this. If a moron wants to give the opinion that I am not typing at this moment, he can do so…it has nothing to do with anything.



>Who the fuck cares? Insane people may believe they’re Jesus, does it make sense to them? Yes&#33; Does it matter five fucks? No&#33;<


But what you say does matter? My how you think so much of yourself. Shall we all bow down and praise Elijah, the only man who&#39;s opinion matters?

You really need to learn to respect people&#39;s opinions.

I have nothing to do with this. I am relying on facts, etc., you are abstracting the subject and inserting “opinions” as having anything to do with this debate.

I do not respect the opinions of morons, as I have said many times.



>If a theory (subjective economics) can be proven wrong, it is wrong. Not up for further debate by Liberal Democrats such as yourself.<


Well, let me ask you this then, can you prove Adam Smith wrong?

Do I have to? Are you actually saying Marx did not point out his folly? Please, you are pathetic if you believe so.


Or better yet can you prove Communism right? THus far in history communism hasn&#39;t exactley been the most sucessful thing around, regardless of whether or not those societies actually ever became communist, their original intentions were in fact attempts at communism. So far communism just hasn&#39;t come through. Now if it&#39;s messedup this many times who&#39;s to say it will ever work?

Who says? Communists. We may be wrong. I don’t lay down future events which I do not know as fact.


>Once again, who GIVES A FUCK what lunatics such as the people whom you described think? I can THINK “I am not typing on the computer.” The FACT is that “I AM typing on the computer.” PERIOD.<

Who gives a fuck about what they think? Oh yeah you really respect people.

No, I don’t.



>The point is that he is extremely smart. Anyone who says otherwise is not worth my time.<

Damn man you just have a general love for humanity don&#39;t you. Not worth your time? What is your time made out of gold now? Does every second i your prescence cost 300 dollars or something?

Are you really claiming Hawking is not smart?


>EVERYONE who is educated should. Warlords with political agendas and slaves is not educated except in the ways of persuasion and coercion. Saying otherwise is once again an example of your liberal ideals: thinking doesn’t matter, meaning opinions; facts do.<

What is educated? You define educated based on the society you live in. What educated means is subjective.


Your definition is not universal, different cultures view a learned man as different things.

I don’t view natives calling twigs on trees moving in the wind “educated” sorry. NO MATTER what culture they come from.


Aristotle was a learned man for ancient greek times, but I bet damn well he didn&#39;t know how to do calculas.

You know very well Aristotle could have mastered that in a second.


So does that mean he&#39;s uneducated? By todays standards he knows very little in the realm of education.

In Mathematics? Ever read Nicomachean Ethics? ANYONE who claims he is uneducated is useless in debate.


Granted he was an admired philosopher but does he know anything about physics? or Modern Biology? Or modern Medicine? Modern Literature?

Seeing how those things all exist in times in which he did not live, this is of no relevance. Though he did conceive of Physics.

You always argue from inane points of view, which have no point at all except to argue.


Thinking doesn&#39;t matter? Come on now, everyone has opinions, even you.

What is thinking? Heidegger describes it as: “Thinking is the thinking of Being….Thinking is of Being inasmuch as thinking, coming to pass from Being, belongs to Being. At the same time thinking is of Being insofar as thinking, belonging to Being, listens to Being. As the belonging to Being that listens, thinking is what it is according to its essential origin. Thinking is—this says: Being has fatefully embraced its essence.”

Opinions are not thought, they are culturally grown ignorance.


You can&#39;t believe an ideology without opinions.

Says who? You?


You can&#39;t even say why Imperialism is wrong without using an opinion.

False.


Because there is no scientific way to say it is wrong.

It is not wrong. Good and Evil are not real things. They are social constructs.

What is in your interest, or the interest of your class, is the ONLY way to justify your ideology. “Opinions” are merely the things which morals bring out into the open.


Opinions do matter.

Not if they are useless to me. And not if they are based on the nonsensical ravings of lunatics. Such as yourself.


>Evolution is not a “belief or opinion” it is a FACT. Members of a cult, FUCKING MORONS, are of no concern to me. And to NO ONE who has a SHRED OF INTELLIGENCE.

Stop the liberal nonsense. <

You are driving people away from the cause not to it. People like you sir are a bigger threat to revolution than religion ever could be.

Nice dodge. Care to reply or just backpeddle like a saint?


>We are one of a near infinite number of possibilities, all just as unlikely. This is bullshit “reasoning” on your part<

The number of possibilities is beyond infinite, because every second an infinite number of things could have occured.

No it&#39;s more like infinite times trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions of seconds.

Damn, what a big coincedence.

There is no such thing as “beyond infinite”. In fact, there is no such thing as “infinite”. This shows your illogic.

The rest is just elaboration of the first dribbling sentence of nonsense.


>The Dialectical in Dialectical Materialism is obviously not the same as the absence of the word Dialectical in Materialism. It is Materialism NONE THE LESS.<

No it&#39;s not, i gave my definition. I&#39;m sorry if you think that theya re one in the same but they aren&#39;t. You got it wrong my friend, and I&#39;m not going to conceede this just because in your OPINION they are one in the same.

They aren’t the same. Which I stated in my point, “The Dialectical in Dialectical Materialism is obviously not the same as the absence of the word Dialectical in Materialism. It is Materialism NONE THE LESS.”

Your definition? Moron.


>I don’t need a third-rate class in Materialism. You seem to. Calling yourself a Marxist while being an Idealist? Moron.

You missed the “Historical” as well.<


Fine take a first rate class, as long as you realize that you are wrong.



Historical materialism is the marxist theory of history that focuses on the laws governing the development of human society and thought.

Historical Materialism had no bearing in our disscussion.

Are you serious? Marxist thought is BASED on Historical Materialism. History is a Dialectic.

You are fucking out of your mind.

[elijahcraig]

What is beyond comprehension is your total inability to see anything bar your point.

Using this logic…there is no way a God can exist. Our conception is so limited, we cannot possibly conceive of such a thing.