Is it even possible to "stamp out" religion? [Archive]

Lenina Rosenweg

11th May 2011, 19:38

There's a difference between religion and spirituality. Spirituality could be defined as an "apprehension of the divine". It could mean Freud's "oceanic experience", a feeling of being part of the cosmos. Its also closely connected to an aesthetic appreciation. It seems to be triggered by anything that takes one out of identification with the ego, meditation, gardening, art, yoga. It probably has much to do with a change in the brain's serotonin level. Some people may have a bent for this way of thinking, some may not.

Whether or not spirituality reflects the structure of the universe leads to complicated questions of epistemology and ontology.

A "religion" is a socially constructed conception of what is regarded as the "ultimate reality" of the universe and how this UR wants people to live and society to be organised.

Religions and spirituality are different but have always had complex interactions with each.Spirituality is a subjective experience, religion is socially defined. Religions have been used by ruling classes to mobilize society for certain ends, certain modes of production. In early agrarian societies religions were used for surplus wealth extraction. In feudalism to justify the rule of landowning elite.Under capitalism the role of religions changed again.

I don't think Marxists should advocate an attack on religion, that alienates the working classes by condemning something that people use to impose meaning on a meaningless world, the "heart of a heartless world".Rather when people are able to collectively take control of their own destiny, the power of reactionary preachers will fall away.

graymouser

11th May 2011, 19:52

The problem with "religion" is the conflation of two completely distinct ideas: organized religion and personal religious belief. The way I see it, it's necessary in many cases to remove the former, but the latter is less of an impediment than some militant atheists make it out to be.

In a country like Russia, the priests were not just men dedicated to their faith; they were a whole caste in service to the Tsars. The Russian Orthodox Church was tied to the institution of Tsarism through and through, and like many institutional churches, owned a huge amount of land. It's obvious that this institution would be totally counter-revolutionary, and it had earned a deep-seated hatred from many Russians, so the Bolsheviks had to suppress it. This also meant a thoroughgoing commitment to atheism, since Christianity now was tarred with utter support for the ancien régime.

Every European country had to deal, in one way or another, with liquidating Church property. It was a major problem, since Church landownership meant poverty and backwardness in the countryside (the Church of course did not reinvest its profits in industry etc). This was something that many revolutions, especially in Russia and Spain, have had to deal with in a rather blunt manner. To some degree this backfired - the persecution of priests can create a counter-revolutionary sentiment among certain sectors of the population.

I have nothing against people being personally religious after the revolution; if people want Bibles or Qu'rans or whatever, they can have them. What we would need to do is to stand against two things: one, the church as proprietor would need to be expropriated, taking everything but the church building; two, the churches could not be allowed to be bastions of counter-revolution, with concrete consequences for this. Beyond that, it's a question of strict separation, with science being taught to kids rather than religious creationism and so on.

Astarte

11th May 2011, 20:28

The problem with "religion" is the conflation of two completely distinct ideas: organized religion and personal religious belief. The way I see it, it's necessary in many cases to remove the former, but the latter is less of an impediment than some militant atheists make it out to be.

But why is the latter an impediment at all? There are countless examples through out history which are becoming superfluous to even meantion which show shamanism, and esoteric beliefs as a driving force in pre-Marxian peoples' movements.

In a country like Russia, the priests were not just men dedicated to their faith; they were a whole caste in service to the Tsars. The Russian Orthodox Church was tied to the institution of Tsarism through and through, and like many institutional churches, owned a huge amount of land. It's obvious that this institution would be totally counter-revolutionary, and it had earned a deep-seated hatred from many Russians, so the Bolsheviks had to suppress it. This also meant a thoroughgoing commitment to atheism, since Christianity now was tarred with utter support for the ancien régime.

But again, it only meant a "thoroughgoing commitment to atheism" because that had become a major tenet of orthodox Marxism. It would have been very possible to undercut the power of the Church and replace its influence on the psyche even with something subtle and secular (which happened anyway with the apotheosis of MELS) along the lines of God Building, or Robespierre's "Cult of the Supreme Being", rather just leaving a vacuous void easily exploitable and condemnable by the forces of global reaction.

Inquisitive Lurker

12th May 2011, 15:12

The solution is education (counters all belief systems) and suppression (counters organized religion).

graymouser

12th May 2011, 16:20

But why is the latter an impediment at all? There are countless examples through out history which are becoming superfluous to even meantion which show shamanism, and esoteric beliefs as a driving force in pre-Marxian peoples' movements.
Religious ideology plays a role in social control, and frequently in times of crisis it creates the basis for a sort of "halfway" position, such as radical pacifism, that can only go so far before it needs to be overcome by more direct action. The best example I can think of is the shift in the Black liberation debate; when it was dominated by well-meaning but middle-class Black Christians, it was pacifist, although a fairly radical pacifism, but could not go beyond the narrow yet important field of winning suffrage and formal equality in the South. It could not challenge the ghetto conditions of the North, and within a few years was bypassed by more radical forces, most of them Black Nationalist and/or Pan-Africanist.

But again, it only meant a "thoroughgoing commitment to atheism" because that had become a major tenet of orthodox Marxism. It would have been very possible to undercut the power of the Church and replace its influence on the psyche even with something subtle and secular (which happened anyway with the apotheosis of MELS) along the lines of God Building, or Robespierre's "Cult of the Supreme Being", rather just leaving a vacuous void easily exploitable and condemnable by the forces of global reaction.
This sort of thing reveals a really paternalistic attitude which existed in the ideas of "God-Builders," Robespierre and the Stalinists. By that I mean, the idea that the common people can't take hard reason, have to have the religious sentiments in their brains stimulated and pandered to, is ludicrous. It sets up the expectation of an atheist elite and a superstitious rabble, which is as alien as you can be to socialism.

Why can't the human sentiment of reverence and awe be directed at culture and nature? Beautiful music, a scenic landscape, and the night sky all fill me with a sense of reverence and deep appreciation, but I don't need to worship them to validate it. It's such a narrow view that can't see that this could be the most natural expression of the "religious impulse" without building up some artificial, patronizing "religion" that the elites all know is bunk.

hatzel

12th May 2011, 16:39

The solution is education

Hmm...maybe...

and suppressionProblem is it often just gets people really pissed off and provokes ever more fundamentalist approaches. Usually based on some kind of 'they're trying to oppress us, therefore we must fight against them for our freedom of religion!' idea. I've mentioned before on here my experiences with Ukrainian Christians, who have responded to the Soviet...let's call it discouragement of religion...by going kinda hardcore about it. Lines like "you've been baptised and don't even care about it...I wasn't lucky enough! We had to fight to be baptised! You don't know how lucky you are!" are often flung at irreligious Western Europeans. Doesn't seem productive to me, sorry...

Astarte

12th May 2011, 19:36

Religious ideology plays a role in social control, and frequently in times of crisis it creates the basis for a sort of "halfway" position, such as radical pacifism, that can only go so far before it needs to be overcome by more direct action.

These guys were radical pacifists, right?: Yellow Turbans, Taiping Rebels, Boxer Rebels, Brethren of the Free Spirit, the esoteric left of the French Revolution, etc, etc...

This sort of thing reveals a really paternalistic attitude which existed in the ideas of "God-Builders," Robespierre and the Stalinists. By that I mean, the idea that the common people can't take hard reason, have to have the religious sentiments in their brains stimulated and pandered to, is ludicrous. It sets up the expectation of an atheist elite and a superstitious rabble, which is as alien as you can be to socialism.

Atheists which say through one side of their mouth that they support reason in the working classes, while at the same time scoffing, laughing at, and ridiculing those "backwards provincials" which maintain spiritual beliefs or insights which they do not just believe, but hold to be subjectively true display an ultra-paternalistic attitude directed towards changing the very thought patterns in regards to what no one can Know for Certain, and therefore try to redefine reality to fit their mundane understanding of it. Atheism really is no different than any other kind of organized religion when it is in official state power...

Why can't the human sentiment of reverence and awe be directed at culture and nature? Beautiful music, a scenic landscape, and the night sky all fill me with a sense of reverence and deep appreciation, but I don't need to worship them to validate it. It's such a narrow view that can't see that this could be the most natural expression of the "religious impulse" without building up some artificial, patronizing "religion" that the elites all know is bunk.

No, you do not have to worship them, or anything material to appreciate these things, but it reminds me of this quote:

Porphyry said: “By images addressed to sense, the ancients represented God and his powers–by the visible they typified the invisible for those who had learned to read, in these types, as in a book, a treatise on the Gods. We need not wonder if the ignorant consider the images to be nothing more than wood or stone; for just so, they who are ignorant of writing see nothing in monuments but stone, nothing in tablets but wood, and in books but a tissue of papyrus.”

Heathen Communist

23rd May 2011, 01:31

Comrades, we must embrace reality here.
Religion itself is not the problem, the institutions associated with religion are.
Let's look at history, shall we?
Religious beliefs and rituals developed prior to class society; therefore, religion can exist in a future classless society.
Religion only adapted to class society, it was not a creation of it. When classes and states began emerging, various new religious concepts did as well- for example the formation of religious hierarchy and ties between state and religion.
Organized religion is not intrinsically bad or opressive. The problem is the manner in which it is organized. If people mutually come together for spiritual reasons, is that really a bad thing?
However, if some guy in a fancy hat tells you when, how, and where without telling you why, with a constant threat of retribution- that is the element of organized religion that must be done away with.

And it is being done away with. As folk religions- the traditions that precede class society- reemerge, education is improved, means of communication improve, etc. we can expect the totalitarian nature of various religious organizations to vanish.
Truly, the best way to deal with religion is to accept what is going on, and allow people to explore religion further. If we suppress or preach against religion, it will only increase religious opposition. If we accept religion, we can expect religious support.

Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame

23rd May 2011, 06:50

The 'stamping out' of Religion is unnecessary what is necessary however is an alternative to religious practices on a state basis that represents the collective thought of humankind and is the embodiment of humanity itself. Such a religious order would have its very goals to be on the basis of Scientific thought, rationality and of materialism. Religion itself can't simply be stamped out as it goes along with the cultural identity of humanity and has been placed into human thoughtform for thousands of years and can likely be traced back to the beginning of humanity in various forms.

Obviously, the replacement though would need to be a proponent of rational, positive Atheism in nature, but it as well would be required to at the same time be neutral towards positive, non-organized religious thoughtforms, but at the same time have the intentions of leading on scientific progress, materialism and rationality.

Lobotomy

23rd May 2011, 07:30

Religions will probably always exist in some form or another as there will always be unanswered questions. But as we slowly become a more secular society, religions will eventually be seen as fringe groups.

Nolan

23rd May 2011, 07:36

Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame

23rd May 2011, 07:54

Yes it is. mostly. For the most part traditional religions in Albania were eradicated. Apparently after capitalist restoration a lot of people didn't know what crucifixes meant and didn't even understand the differences between Christianity and Islam.
1.) 'Yes it is. mostly.'
As it is futile to directly dismantle religion, as it is a cultural and social-construct that must be combated indirectly through building a new state religious order founded on Materialism, Scientific thought and rationality and create this to be the state sponsored alternative to religious activities.
2.) 'For the most part traditional religions in Albania were eradicated.'
As the way that Hoxha had opposed religion was the incorrect method, which instead of building a new religious order with Proletarian Intellectuals, he had instead chose to force forward 'State Atheism' without offering the alternative as previously mentioned. Which is the reason that it was rather unsuccessful, not to mention the fact that Albania had been a predominately Islamic country and he had attempting to lead forward Anti-Religious scientific progress in a small period of time and force it on the general population. The idea is to not directly destroy religion physically, instead the idea is to simply create an alternative that represents the collective interests of humanity.
3.) 'Apparently after capitalist restoration a lot of people didn't know what crucifixes meant and didn't even understand the differences between Christianity and Islam.'
I don't myself see this as a positive, the historical nature of religion shouldn't be forgotten, instead the historical nature should be remembered and through this historical nature the fallacies of religion should be understood. As well as using these religious concepts in a Proletarian manner that is representative to a newly created revolutionary society.

727Goon

2nd June 2011, 05:52

tradeunionsupporter

2nd June 2011, 12:02

Yes it is possible.

redSHARP

6th June 2011, 17:55

would it even be productive to stamp out religion? what would be the point?

Inquisitive Lurker

6th June 2011, 19:45

would it even be productive to stamp out religion? what would be the point?

There's a rat in your house. It's eating your food and spreading disease. It breeds more rats.

You kill it. Problem solved.

Astarte

7th June 2011, 02:57

There's a rat in your house. It's eating your food and spreading disease. It breeds more rats.

You kill it. Problem solved.

You men eat your dinner,
Eat your pork and beans
I eat more chicken
Any man ever seen

CornetJoyce

7th June 2011, 03:22

Jimmie Higgins

7th June 2011, 03:41

I have often heard militant-atheist Marxists say that "religion" needs to be "stamped out" and that Marxism-Leninism is the vehicle for accomplishing such ends. I do not think it is possible since in the vacuum of a "legitimate" religious hegemony it appears that people delve into esotericism and more or less folk religion - seems to me the human psyche requires something greater than the mundane to aspire to. Thoughts?

I don't think it's "natural" or inherent in humans to believe in a religion - I do, however, think it's natural for people to develop answers to questions they have and it's natural for people to fill in the gaps of their knowledge to try and form a coherent view. Religion as well as urban myths or stereotypes or folktales come from this sort of thing.

There will always be some mystery in life and I think that that will cause some people to come up with spiritual or supernatural explanations. But a lot of the questions and anxieties that make religious answers appealing to many people today are the result of an alienating system that causes a lot of needless suffering and stress and confusion.

If we had a more just system where people had control over their lives, then the christian ideas of "original sin" and the evilness of people would not be as powerful. If people didn't feel social alienation and a lack of control over their lives they would not be as easily convinced that we need a christian/whatever religion moral code to guide everyone's lives; they would not care as much what other people do for fun if they themselves were not suffering. It's like the stereotype of the bitter old man who says, "there kids today, all they want to do is have fun and do drugs and have sex, well I had to work for a living, they need discipline, etc" - well that person would be less bitter if they had control over their life and then wouldn't care what drugs or alcohol young people are doing.

As far as radical workers or a revolution "stamping-out" religion... that would be totally counter-productive and against socialist principles IMO. Forcing people to believe things in a certain way is more along the lines of what minority ruling classes have to do to create social hegemony than what a worker's democracy, a system run by the majority, would ever need to do. You can't "stamp out" beliefs, you can at best control behaviors or prevent certain actions. So if a christian nazi group wanted to hold a rally in a immigrant neighborhood, it's possible to confront and smash the fuckers, but not possible to "stamp out" their personal ideas; it's possible to prevent them from organizing and gaining recruits which will help isolate their ideology which can then wither and die with those induviduals. But that's among people who are never going to be productive in a democratic worker's society anyway - regular religious people make up a huge chunk of the working class and most ARE the people who will be running society, so to "stamp-out" by law or decree their beliefs will just be crazy and drive many of them into the arms of reaction.

IMO people have to have self-determination in their ideas in a democratic working class society. As long as their beliefs do not lead to actions that hurt others (like obviously while people can believe in Jesus, they should not be allowed to organize to take away rights of gay people or women or non-Christians) they should be allowed to believe what they like. I think as society becomes more rational, democratic, and decent, our ideas will likewise become more rational and empathetic and decent and the worst aspects of religious belief will loose all currency just as Christians under capitalism would laugh at many of the beliefs of Christians under feudalism.

hatzel

7th June 2011, 11:17

"We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out. "

Hitler speech, October 24, 1933

I think you'll have to explain what you're even trying to get across with this post...I mean, there's a risk you might be stumbling into this kind of territory:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_qyhZ9_eXCHM/TAwlDyTl-EI/AAAAAAAAFV8/A0jjoHxulXI/s1600/GodwinsLaw.jpg

So it's good to be clear and concise, rather than flashing up a quote that mentions both religion and the act of stamping out and hoping that we'll be able to join the dots :)

Inquisitive Lurker

7th June 2011, 12:31

You men eat your dinner,
Eat your pork and beans
I eat more chicken
Any man ever seen
:confused::confused::confused:

Astarte

7th June 2011, 21:52

So it's good to be clear and concise, rather than flashing up a quote that mentions both religion and the act of stamping out and hoping that we'll be able to join the dots :)

What I think Cornet was trying to say is that either extreme is dangerous - there have been attempts to both crush atheism as the quote he posted indicates, and conversely there have been attempts to crush spirituality - essentially people should be allowed to believe what they will spiritually, even if that means having no spirituality at all.

For example, I am a person who cannot imagine life without spirituality, but there is no way I would ever encourage a "crushing of atheism" - once that level of coercion is initiated there is no end to it, and spirituality simply becomes a hollow and oppressive religion, I think the same holds true for militant atheism which wishes to see all spirituality extinguished.

Inquisitive Lurker

7th June 2011, 21:58

I am a person who cannot imagine life without spirituality

Slaves, born into slavery, knowing nothing but slavery, do not even know the word freedom, nor the concept, nor any way of life but the one they have, and a very unlikely to flee the plantation.

Just because you can't imagine atheistic freedom doesn't mean it isn't out there, waiting for you.

Astarte

7th June 2011, 22:15

Slaves, born into slavery, knowing nothing but slavery, do not even know the word freedom, nor the concept, nor any way of life but the one they have, and a very unlikely to flee the plantation.

Just because you can't imagine atheistic freedom doesn't mean it isn't out there, waiting for you.

I find your remark highly ignorant, arrogant and offensive, and I would say you are chained inside a cave staring at your own shadow on the wall of it, taking it for the true reality. I actually was an atheist for years but after an ego death experience I learned the true reality. Perhaps one day you should be so lucky, though I think with your attachment to the material world and your own senses you will not be. For now though, keep your shitty comments to yourself please. Shitty comments = equating spiritual people to slaves.

Astarte

7th June 2011, 22:40

"...Gross matter then is the nutriment of bodies, and spirit is the nutriment of souls. But besides these, there is mind, which is a gift from heaven, and one with which mankind alone are blessed,-not indeed all men, but those few whose souls are of such quality as to be capable of receiving so great a boon. By the light of mind the human soul is illumined, as the world is illumined by the sun,-nay, in yet fuller measure. For all things on which the sun shines are deprived of his light from time to time by the interposition of the earth, when night comes on; but when mind has once been interfused with the soul of man, there results from the intimate blending of mind with soul a thing that is one and indivisible, so that men's thought is never obstructed by the darkness of error".

Asclepius III, Hermes Trismegistus

Inquisitive Lurker

8th June 2011, 01:33

I find your remark highly ignorant, arrogant and offensive, and I would say you are chained inside a cave staring at your own shadow on the wall of it, taking it for the true reality. I actually was an atheist for years but after an ego death experience I learned the true reality. Perhaps one day you should be so lucky, though I think with your attachment to the material world and your own senses you will not be. For now though, keep your shitty comments to yourself please. Shitty comments = equating spiritual people to slaves.

It was meant to be enlightening. As for your situation, many recovered alcoholics have relapses, and sometimes never pull out of them.

Religion and spirituality are slavery. Slavery of the mind. Sometimes inflicted by family, sometime by society, and sometimes, the worst times, it is self-inflicted.

CommieTroll

8th June 2011, 01:55

It was meant to be enlightening. As for your situation, many recovered alcoholics have relapses, and sometimes never pull out of them.

Religion and spirituality is slavery. Slavery of the mind. Sometimes inflicted by family, sometime by society, and sometimes, the worst times, it is self-inflicted.

In Ireland kids are born into religion and its taught in every school but Atheism is not. It sickens me, the Catholic Church still has a firm grip on Ireland.
In Biology Darwin's Theory of Evolution is barely touched by teachers. Religion is basically ''shoved down children's throats'' (pun intended).
The mindless devotion to religion in Ireland sickens me, and I would very much like it to be violently wiped out

ZrianKobani

8th June 2011, 01:56

727Goon

8th June 2011, 01:58

If religion is forcibly "stamped out" then whats to stop political views

Most authoritarian socialists are pretty clear that they don't support political freedom #LiberalIdealism

hatzel

8th June 2011, 02:00

Polite reminder: there are people in this and other threads who really need to stop trolling around everywhere...

Revolution starts with U

8th June 2011, 02:06

Inquisitive Lurker

8th June 2011, 02:28

Polite reminder: there are people in this and other threads who really need to stop trolling around everywhere...

You will be dealt with in your due time, in your own special thread. You know the topic. I did those interviews I was talking about to prep on my end. Once I finish up a few other threads, then we will begin. I hope you are up to it, "Rabbi".

RedRise

8th June 2011, 11:37

Is it possible to stamp out religion? No, because some new beliefs will just take over. There are those that would argue 'science is the new religion'. I mean, it is a fact that you can't really ever prove anything. The best we have is very strong inferences.
And, to make this clear, my view is that religion is very much a matter of the individual's relationship with god/s/whatever their beliefs. I personally was brought up nothing-in-particular (as differentiated from atheist) with a dash of half-hearted Christianity at Christmas and Easter and in the end had to go on my own spiritual search (as corny as that sounds). So I am inclined to believe that it is important for human beings to believe in something at least in the vein of religion (ethical beliefs count).

Astarte

8th June 2011, 13:38

It was meant to be enlightening. As for your situation, many recovered alcoholics have relapses, and sometimes never pull out of them.

Religion and spirituality are slavery. Slavery of the mind. Sometimes inflicted by family, sometime by society, and sometimes, the worst times, it is self-inflicted.

What did you just say? Slavery of the mind? It is liberation of the mind, and has not been "inflicted" upon me by anyone. You know not of what you speak, so as I said the first time, I suggest you don't keep this line of argument up - you have already proved yourself several times on this thread to be after the blood of non-atheist Leftists. You and several other "comrades" seem to think it is a good thing to crush and destroy with coercion people who have spiritual knowledge which you do not even have the slightest inkling of. This shows your true statist and authoritarian nature - this shows it is you and those of your ilk that are the true reactionaries wishing to impose your dogmas onto those who cannot unlearn what they know to be true. This shows you are an arch-reactionary theocratic of atheism.

Conversely, there have been no spiritual leftists on this forum which have ever suggested it to be a good idea to wage a statist assault on atheism. Who are the true leftists then, and who represent the germ of the state?

Astarte

8th June 2011, 13:42

It's when spiritual nut jobs say "the true reality" that makes militant atheists want to stamp it out.
(I hope everyone knows my position is that I don't care if you are religious or spiritual... even if I do think it is naive.)

And it is when atheists nuts claim they know the true reality simply based on their senses and the tools they created with those senses that drives me nuts - how inane, how naive, how juvenile and simplistic to think human senses are the pinnacle of understanding across the entirety of the universe. Still though, I do not, and never will encourage a "stamping out of atheism", but again, conversely, my line of argument clearly provokes people of your ilk to show their true statist and reactionary nature.

Astarte

8th June 2011, 13:44

You will be dealt with in your due time, in your own special thread. You know the topic. I did those interviews I was talking about to prep on my end. Once I finish up a few other threads, then we will begin. I hope you are up to it, "Rabbi".

What is your problem? You are a real punk man. Are you an anti-semite? What is the deal? Why are you after this dude's blood?

Inquisitive Lurker

8th June 2011, 13:53

What is your problem? You are a real punk man. Are you an anti-semite? What is the deal? Why are you after this dude's blood?

The "Rabbi" and I have an outstanding subject to discuss. A wonderfully atheistic one. I shall try to prove my point, and he will have to refute it. The facts and logic are wonderfully on my side.

Astarte

8th June 2011, 13:56

Inquisitive Lurker

8th June 2011, 13:57

Why not take your personal vendetta to private messages?

Because it's worthy of other people learning from it. I am also enjoying the build up. It's going to be an impressive thread, and I'm going to put a lot of work into it.

ComradeMan

8th June 2011, 14:35

The "Rabbi" and I have an outstanding subject to discuss. A wonderfully atheistic one. I shall try to prove my point, and he will have to refute it. The facts and logic are wonderfully on my side.

My money is on the Rabbi. :lol:

I'm always suspicious of anyone who claims that the truth is on his or her side (implicit- exclusively), strangely that's what religious fanatics and bigots usually claim.

The wise man/woman admits he/she knows very little.....;)

Inquisitive Lurker

8th June 2011, 14:41

My money is on the Rabbi. :lol:

I'm always suspicious of anyone who claims that the truth is on his or her side (implicit- exclusively), strangely that's what religious fanatics and bigots usually claim.

The wise man/woman admits he/she knows very little.....;)

Don't count on it. The subject/history/facts are biased towards my side. Maybe I'll make the thread a poll as well, and people can vote on who they think is going to win. Or better yet, what final conclusion will be reached.

Inquisitive Lurker

8th June 2011, 14:44

If religion is forcibly "stamped out" then whats to stop political views or ethnic groups or sexual minorities from becoming the next target?

There is a major difference. Ethnic and sexual minorities are real things. Religion isn't.

hatzel

8th June 2011, 14:48

Why not take your personal vendetta to private messages?

Probably because he's been on ignore for quite a long time for being an overly pretentious numpty who does little but spam the forums with a load of bullhonk which adds little if anything to the conversation, so the only fragments of his ramblings I actually see are those quoted by other users :)

Queercommie Girl

8th June 2011, 14:53

There is nothing wrong with intellectually arguing passionately in favour of atheism, Richard Dawkins style, since evangelical atheism should be allowed. (Of course, religious people can argue against this in a polite and non-vicious way too)

However, socialists must oppose the use of direct political and administrative power to explicitly crush religion. Of course, any discriminatory or anti-socialist variants of religions should be firmly opposed, but religions themselves must be allowed. Genuine socialism is based on mass proletarian democracy, which should include cultural democracy as well. People should have the freedom of belief as long as they don't discriminate against others or try to use their belief as a political ideology to counter socialism.

Inquisitive Lurker

8th June 2011, 14:56

Of course, any discriminatory or anti-socialist variants of religions should be firmly opposed...

In essence, almost all of them.

ComradeMan

8th June 2011, 14:58

There is nothing wrong with intellectually arguing passionately in favour of atheism...

Something Dawkins might like to think about...... :lol:

Queercommie Girl

8th June 2011, 15:00

In essence, almost all of them.

I don't see why one cannot have a progressive variant of religion that is pro-socialist and not discriminatory against women, ethnic and sexual minorities either in principle. In fact, even today we have such religious variants, such as liberation theology in Latin America.

People can never be punished for "thought crime". Marxism is an atheist philosophy, but communism is not an "atheist theocracy".

Inquisitive Lurker

8th June 2011, 15:08

I don't see why one cannot have a progressive variant of religion that is pro-socialist and not discriminatory against women, ethnic and sexual minorities either in principle.

5% at most.

In fact, even today we have such religious variants, such as liberation theology in Latin America.I think you are using old data. Liberation Theology is a spent force. It was crushed by the Vatican. All the proponents were transferred out and sent to conservative countries, to be replaced with conservative clergy in Latin America.

I was once very much into Liberation Theology, but it's done, dead, spent. It may rise again with all the left wing regimes, but nothing is certain.

Inquisitive Lurker

8th June 2011, 15:17

People can never be punished for "thought crime".

Education is not punishment.

Marxism is an atheist philosophy, but communism is not an "atheist theocracy".

In Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, Engels makes it pretty clear that a communist society would be atheistic.

Queercommie Girl

8th June 2011, 15:20

Something Dawkins might like to think about...... :lol:

Well, I don't think Dawkins' evangelical atheism is really vicious or discriminatory in any way, even though he does employ a lot of sharp literary devices, which I think are fair enough, and religious people can use similar literary styles to counter militant atheism too.

Queercommie Girl

8th June 2011, 15:22

I think you are using old data. Liberation Theology is a spent force. It was crushed by the Vatican. All the proponents were transferred out and sent to conservative countries, to be replaced with conservative clergy in Latin America.

So what? Left-wing political forces can utilise political power to put liberation theology in power in the Catholic Church in principle, which is certainly much better than going against Catholicism intrinsically.

Just as the bourgeois used their variant of religion to fight against the feudal variant (i.e. the Reformation in Europe), socialists can do the same.

Religions should be reformed in a socialist direction, but not banned.

Queercommie Girl

8th June 2011, 15:27

In Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, Engels makes it pretty clear that a communist society would be atheistic.

Engels was referring to the natural fading away of all religions in a completely communist society (not a socialist society, which is the transitional stage between capitalism and communism), not the forced banning of religions via administrative or bureaucratic power.

Also, strictly speaking this is a scientific hypothesis, not a certain truth, because it has not (and indeed cannot) be empirically verified. It is certainly possible that all religions will naturally fade away in a communist society, but this is not certain.

Not everything Marx and Engels said is to be interpreted as 100% absolute certain truth in a dogmatic way.

Astarte

8th June 2011, 15:30

There is a major difference. Ethnic and sexual minorities are real things. Religion isn't.

So people who refuse to give up their "beliefs" are not real people? They are eligible for being killed, huh? Arch-Reactionary.

hatzel

8th June 2011, 15:34

Well, I don't think Dawkins' evangelical atheism is really vicious or discriminatory in any way, even though he does employ a lot of sharp literary devices, which I think are fair enough, and religious people can use similar literary styles to counter militant atheism too.

I would much rather neither side bother partaking in any attacks over the divide, nor let themselves be lured into countering. As far as I'm concerned, the only reason people feel so obliged to preach at each other at every opportunity is because they seek external validation for their supposed truth. Somebody who is certain in their beliefs / opinions / whatever pays no attention to whether or not other people agree with them, and therefore will not feel any need to 'convert' others to their subjective opinion, as the truth is the truth irrespective of who knows it. Only those who are uncertain about their personal 'truth' have the uncontrollable urge to 'convince' others, as, in fact, the intention is to convince themselves that they are to be believed. Hence I do not engage in preaching, nor do I humour preachers...I am more than happy to discuss ideas with those willing to actually partake in a discussion, but I don't think that preachers are in it for the discussion or the exchange of ideas. They're in it for relentlessly trying to install ideas in others. And that's a sign of weakness in my books.

Oh, and @somebody else: cough (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/07/world/americas/07theology.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5089&en=34f757c655dbef9f&ex=1336190400&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss). And that's only if we believe that the life of an idea is reliant on the extent of its organisation, rather than based on, say, how many people have read and been inspired by its texts. There's a shelf on the wall in my room that suggests liberation theology is far from dead...

ComradeMan

8th June 2011, 15:39

There is a major difference. Ethnic and sexual minorities are real things. Religion isn't.

Is communism real? Can you hold it in your hand? Can you measure it?

What is reality? What is real in 100% objective terms?

Let's persecute people for a belief, which you say is not even in a "real thing"....

Some serious problems with this lines of thought....

Queercommie Girl

8th June 2011, 15:39

I would much rather neither side bother partaking in any attacks over the divide, nor let themselves be lured into countering.

Which is your personal opinion, and is certainly fair enough. However, people should have the RIGHT to preach in a socialist society, as long as they are not anti-socialist or discriminatory, whether they are preaching atheism or preaching religion. Lenin did not ban religious evangelism either after the October Revolution, it was only limited in certain ways.

Not only should religion be allowed, religious evangelism should also be allowed, within certain limits. (E.g. preaching is not permissible in certain locations and events) You might not like evangelism (whether religious or atheist), which is a respectable position, (and indeed you can also "preach against the preaching of others") but you cannot literally ban evangelism in a political sense.

hatzel

8th June 2011, 15:41

Yeah, I'm not talking about whether or not it should or shouldn't be permitted...I just don't personally see the point in getting involved in it :)

Inquisitive Lurker

8th June 2011, 15:43

So what? Left-wing political forces can utilise political power to put liberation theology in power in the Catholic Church in principle, which is certainly much better than going against Catholicism intrinsically.

The Vatican has already made it's ruling on Liberation Theology, they crushed it, and that was under a much more liberal regime than we have now. They said "we are having none of this" for various reasons, including people doing things for themselves instead of relying on God, people thinking for themselves and taking initiative, not directions, etc. etc. etc.

ZrianKobani

8th June 2011, 16:25

The "Rabbi" and I have an outstanding subject to discuss. A wonderfully atheistic one. I shall try to prove my point, and he will have to refute it. The facts and logic are wonderfully on my side.
An atheist and a theist for the umpteenth time meet to bash each other with who's wrong and who's right. I wonder what new insights will be learned:rolleyes:

ZrianKobani

8th June 2011, 16:59

There is a major difference. Ethnic and sexual minorities are real things. Religion isn't.

1) If religion isn't real then you've nothing to worry about and you're just fighting phantoms.

2) Persecutors have often claimed their victims to not be victims; homophobes saying homosexuality is a choice, racists saying non-Whites aren't human, and now those who would force religion's demise justify it as saying it doesn't exist.

Queercommie Girl

8th June 2011, 18:47

There is a major difference. Ethnic and sexual minorities are real things. Religion isn't.

I agree with you that "god" may certainly be not real at all, but people who practice religions are real. In other words, religions are a social reality.

hatzel

8th June 2011, 19:10

An atheist and a theist for the umpteenth time meet to bash each other with who's wrong and who's right. I wonder what new insights will be learned:rolleyes:

I'll just point out that I wasn't actually at any point involved in this 'debate', definitely not to the extent of claiming some eternal truth or whatever...that's why there is an 'outstanding subject to discuss', because I've flatly refused to participate in such a mundane discussion when I have countless better things to do with my life. Like, say, picking my nose, or scratching my bum. Things that actually makes the blindest bit of difference to anything, you know? :)

Inquisitive Lurker

8th June 2011, 20:14

I'll just point out that I wasn't actually at any point involved in this 'debate', definitely not to the extent of claiming some eternal truth or whatever...that's why there is an 'outstanding subject to discuss', because I've flatly refused to participate in such a mundane discussion when I have countless better things to do with my life. Like, say, picking my nose, or scratching my bum. Things that actually makes the blindest bit of difference to anything, you know? :)

Well we'll see how your self-discipline holds up after I publish my thesis and prompt you to reply. Silence can be interpreted in many ways. Resolve, cowardice, ignorance, stoicism, or defeat.

Others of course will be welcome to comment, but you and I will both know the thread is made specially for you. On a subject that is oh so sweet. The rabbis I've been talking with, the real rabbis I mean, were not at all silent. For the first half of the interviews I let them talk mainly, prompting a few points here and there, but letting them talk. Then I informed them I was going to take a hostile position (I'm much more polite in real life than online), and started hammering away with questions. Questions for which even they couldn't answer satisfactorily. Only with glib truisms, sometimes with stammering, other times trying to deflect the questions rather than answer them.

And these were real rabbis. How will you stand up... "Rabbi"? Don't you at least have the balls to go 12 rounds with me, someone who you must think is a lesser man than you? Surely you can beat me, this is your subject.

Tell you what, I'll give you a week to do the research I did. Go talk to some real rabbis and ask them for advice on how to counter my position. That will make the fight fair.

Revolution starts with U

8th June 2011, 20:17

You and several other "comrades" seem to think it is a good thing to crush and destroy with coercion people who have spiritual knowledge which you do not even have the slightest inkling of.
Are you sure they even want it?

And it is when atheists nuts claim they know the true reality simply based on their senses and the tools they created with those senses that drives me nuts - how inane, how naive, how juvenile and simplistic to think human senses are the pinnacle of understanding across the entirety of the universe
Relying on the senses and the laws of nature has done more for the world, by far, than any spirituality has.

. Still though, I do not, and never will encourage a "stamping out of atheism", but again, conversely, my line of argument clearly provokes people of your ilk to show their true statist and reactionary nature.
Where have I called for a stamping out of religion? You want to talk about true nature?! Does it not show your truly ignorant nature to suggest that was my position at all when I expressly stated it wasn't?
I would expect nothing less from the spiritual persuasion; naivety and ignorance.

Inquisitive Lurker

8th June 2011, 20:30

I agree with you that "god" may certainly be not real at all, but people who practice religions are real. In other words, religions are a social reality.

It is completely intangible, known only by it's effects. Ethnic minorities are tangible, then can been seen and counted, they are real. Sexual minorities are the same, they are real.

Philosophies do not deserve protection. A philosophy, of any kind, including Marxism, should be attacked. If it survives the attack, it lives to fight another day. It has been tested and found to have merit. If it limps away, it must strengthen itself, correct its errors, and prepare for the next fight. If it can not survive the attack, and religion can not, which is why it has surrounded itself with the mystique of sacredness, that is to say, a quality forbidding you from attacking it. Like the soft body of a tortoise inside of its shell. If it can not survive the attack, then it should die.

Remove religion's "shell", the pretense that sacred ideas should not be attacked, and it will fall to reason, logic, rationality, and science.

NOTE: Partially cribbed from Douglas Adams, May His Memory Not Be Forgotten (a much better epigram than Rest In Peace)

Inquisitive Lurker

8th June 2011, 20:34

2) Persecutors have often claimed their victims to not be victims; homophobes saying homosexuality is a choice, racists saying non-Whites aren't human, and now those who would force religion's demise justify it as saying it doesn't exist.

I say religion is a disease, with many sources. I seek to cure the disease, not persecute the ill. What measures are taken against them are for their own health. And with any disease, its spread must be fought at every turn.

ZrianKobani

8th June 2011, 20:58

What measures are taken against them are for their own health.

People used to do electro-shock therapy on gays and lesbians using the same logic, so did the Nazi's when they slaughtered the handicapped.

hatzel

8th June 2011, 21:04

Interestingly enough, I have a book here which assesses the health implications of religion. On the one hand, increased risk of contagious diseases during pilgrimages and the like, but this could also be said of political protests, for example, so that's hardly worth mentioning. On the other hand, it cites Comstock and Partridge in suggesting that those who regularly attend church (in Maryland in 1963, at least :rolleyes:) are less likely to die of all manner of diseases. Not one to say that correlation implies causation, but...if we're going to pretend we're acting for the good of people's health, I think we should be sending everybody to church, see how that turns out :) (n.b. I'm not being entirely serious here)

ComradeMan

9th June 2011, 07:06

Philosophies do not deserve protection. A philosophy, of any kind, including Marxism, should be attacked. If it survives the attack, it lives to fight another day. It has been tested and found to have merit. If it limps away, it must strengthen itself, correct its errors, and prepare for the next fight. If it can not survive the attack, and religion can not, which is why it has surrounded itself with the mystique of sacredness, that is to say, a quality forbidding you from attacking it. Like the soft body of a tortoise inside of its shell. If it can not survive the attack, then it should die.

More pseudo-intellectual nonsense. It seems like we are falling into the trap of the false reification of abstracts.

I say religion is a disease, with many sources. I seek to cure the disease, not persecute the ill. What measures are taken against them are for their own health. And with any disease, its spread must be fought at every turn.

Do you realise that you are beginning to sound like a complete maniac?

a) ...and of course you are the "doctor" who is qualified to cure everyone.

In one phrase you say you seek to cure the disease and not persecute the "ill" yet in the next you talk about measures to be taken "against" them (presumably these sick people). I don't recall doctors using the term taking measures against the patients, rather the disease- so a bit of a freudian slip there I think. Your bellicose terminology does not help your case much.

b) As Victor has pointed out, history is full of people taking "unpleasant measures" for people's own good..... more alarm bells ringing.....

Zav

9th June 2011, 07:54

Religion could be stamped out, I suppose, with enough tyranny and legislation, but it is burning out of it's own accord. I say just laugh at the religious and move on.

Astarte

9th June 2011, 08:21

Where have I called for a stamping out of religion? You want to talk about true nature?! Does it not show your truly ignorant nature to suggest that was my position at all when I expressly stated it wasn't?
I would expect nothing less from the spiritual persuasion; naivety and ignorance.

Do you really want to play the doublespeak game? If you do, maybe play it better next time.

You said:

It's when spiritual nut jobs say "the true reality" that makes militant atheists want to stamp it out.
(I hope everyone knows my position is that I don't care if you are religious or spiritual... even if I do think it is naive.)

You are apologizing for militant atheists wanting "to stamp it [spirituality] out".

Kind of like the bully on the playground saying "well if he wasn't such a dork my buddies wouldn't want to punch him in the face so badly...! But really ... I personally don't wanna hit anyone, no matter how dorky they are!"

Hah.

Queercommie Girl

9th June 2011, 10:50

It is completely intangible, known only by it's effects.

Effects are tangible. I'm essentially an utilitarian pragmatist, so I judge things primarily by their effects.

Philosophies do not deserve protection. A philosophy, of any kind, including Marxism, should be attacked. If it survives the attack, it lives to fight another day.

Ok. Well, it all depends on what you mean by "attack". I have absolutely nothing against atheist evangelism - that is to say, fair intellectual competition with religious ideas. However, religions and cultures should always be protected against political suppression, in the interests of cultural democracy.

Religions can be intellectually criticised, heavily criticised even, but not politically banned.

There is a difference between evangelism and theocracy...

Revolution starts with U

9th June 2011, 17:35

Do you really want to play the doublespeak game? If you do, maybe play it better next time.
:rolleyes:

You said:

You are apologizing for militant atheists wanting "to stamp it [spirituality] out".
Explaining their reasoning and apologizing for them are not the same thing. If I said "a lot of racists are racist ecuase they are not very smart and think minorities threaten their financial position" would that be apologizing for racism? Hint: the answer is no.

Kind of like the bully on the playground saying "well if he wasn't such a dork my buddies wouldn't want to punch him in the face so badly...! But really ... I personally don't wanna hit anyone, no matter how dorky they are!"
Let me tell you a little story about me back in the schoolyard days. I was one of the "cool kids." And I personally don't think whiny little tattle tales deserve a seat at the cool kids tables. That's a personality flaw they need to get in touch with (sort of like how we, here, don't think fascists deserve a seat at our table). If they can stop being whiny tattle tales, and many in my grade did... then they are perfectly welcome.
Now let me tell you another story of my schoolyard days. There was no bullying in our class. A group of 3 of us "cool kids" let everyone else know, if you picked on people weaker than you, you had us to deal with.

I don't have to like your ignorant, naive, and self-righteous behavior to be against the banning of religion, or the persecution of religious people.

Inquisitive Lurker

10th June 2011, 02:21

...and of course you are the "doctor" who is qualified to cure everyone.

It doesn't take a doctor. It takes skill at argument, debate, and logic. It takes reason and rationality. It takes a few years study of theology. It takes persuasive and convincing tactics. And then it just takes some time.

I may be an exceptional example (in all humility), but I do think that there is no one, given the time and effort and opportunity, that I couldn't convert to Atheism.

Strand me on a desert island with the Pope for a year and I'll convert him.

Might take two years. And I might need a library.

ZrianKobani

10th June 2011, 02:54

It doesn't take a doctor. Pretty sure that was an analogy.

I may be an exceptional example (in all humility).

Humilty:rolleyes:

Astarte

10th June 2011, 04:36

:rolleyes:

Explaining their reasoning and apologizing for them are not the same thing. If I said "a lot of racists are racist ecuase they are not very smart and think minorities threaten their financial position" would that be apologizing for racism? Hint: the answer is no.

Let me tell you a little story about me back in the schoolyard days. I was one of the "cool kids." And I personally don't think whiny little tattle tales deserve a seat at the cool kids tables. That's a personality flaw they need to get in touch with (sort of like how we, here, don't think fascists deserve a seat at our table). If they can stop being whiny tattle tales, and many in my grade did... then they are perfectly welcome.
Now let me tell you another story of my schoolyard days. There was no bullying in our class. A group of 3 of us "cool kids" let everyone else know, if you picked on people weaker than you, you had us to deal with.

I don't have to like your ignorant, naive, and self-righteous behavior to be against the banning of religion, or the persecution of religious people.

Cool story, bro. You can stop digging now.

Revolution starts with U

10th June 2011, 04:46

Scathing response bro. Fail harder next time
(see I can do it to :cool:)

ComradeMan

10th June 2011, 09:12

It doesn't take a doctor. It takes skill at argument, debate, and logic. It takes reason and rationality. It takes a few years study of theology. It takes persuasive and convincing tactics. And then it just takes some time.

I may be an exceptional example (in all humility), but I do think that there is no one, given the time and effort and opportunity, that I couldn't convert to Atheism.

Strand me on a desert island with the Pope for a year and I'll convert him.

Might take two years. And I might need a library.

Has it never crossed your mind that your "conversions" are just saying you've converted them so you'll go away? ;)

Rainsborough

10th June 2011, 09:25

It doesn't take a doctor. It takes skill at argument, debate, and logic. It takes reason and rationality. It takes a few years study of theology. It takes persuasive and convincing tactics. And then it just takes some time.

I may be an exceptional example (in all humility), but I do think that there is no one, given the time and effort and opportunity, that I couldn't convert to Atheism.

Strand me on a desert island with the Pope for a year and I'll convert him.

Might take two years. And I might need a library.

Shit, isn't that what the 'inquisition' used to say before converting people to christ?

hatzel

10th June 2011, 11:10

Shit, isn't that what the 'inquisition' used to say before converting people to christ?

Nah, I'm pretty sure their exact words were 'embrace Jesus or GTFO'...or whatever that is in Spanish :rolleyes: But of course, as we know, them guys didn't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marrano) actually (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neofiti) convert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morisco), so ComradeMan might have hit this metaphorical nail right on its metaphorical head :)

Che a chara

10th June 2011, 13:34

Inquisitive Lurker

10th June 2011, 15:47

Shit, isn't that what the 'inquisition' used to say before converting people to christ?

The Inquisition (assuming your are referring to the Spanish Inquisition, because there were half a dozen Inquisitions) was not trying to convert anyone. They were charging people with heresy and punishing them.

One of my heroes, Luis de Leon, who I did my thesis on, was arrested by the Spanish Inquisition and stood his ground, used reason and rationality, and beat them at their own game, and was released a hero.

Inquisitive Lurker

10th June 2011, 15:51

Religion is mostly needed because society isn't providing. You can't or shouldn't "stamp" religion out. Like the state, in communism, it must be let to wither away, i.e. not needed.

A socialist society must be let to develop itself and the working class's use and understanding of scientific means and educational and conscious progress may render religion a thing of nostalgic interest, but not of importance or as a necessity.

*edit* - the working class must develop themselves, not be programmed to automatically reject something without themselves giving it scientific thought or research it's historical context.

Under the socialist/communist transition, the state is prevented from expanding, and encourage to wither. It is not just left alone to do it itself.

If you want to encourage religion to wither away, in addition to education, evangelism should be banned. Don't let the disease spread, just as one should not let the machinery of the state increase.

RedRise

10th June 2011, 16:09

To all those making an argument to the point that religion should eventually be given the boot (by whatever method) that persuading people to give up their religious beliefs in favour of atheism is as bad as anyone trying to convert someone to their religion.:thumbdown: Withholding any person's right to religious belief is withholding an aspect of their freedom. This doesn't move society in a constructive direction, the last time I checked.
It is true that religion can hold people and society back in some instances, nobody's denying that, but is it fair to then deny people a right of choice in respect to their faith and beliefs. Religion in its self (I'm not talking about a religious institution, but actual religion) does not grant or prevent freedom, but I know that if did not have a right to choose to practice a religion it would be no different to a religious state forcing me to comply to a certain faith.

By the way

The Inquisition (assuming your are referring to the Spanish Inquisition, because there were half a dozen Inquisitions) was not trying to convert anyone.
I'm not sure this explains the multitudes of Spanish 'Christians' who wonder why they light candles every Friday night (i.e they were originally Jewish and were converted but retained Jewish customs).

Queercommie Girl

10th June 2011, 16:22

To all those making an argument to the point that religion should eventually be given the boot (by whatever method) that persuading people to give up their religious beliefs in favour of atheism is as bad as anyone trying to convert someone to their religion.:thumbdown: Withholding any person's right to religious belief is withholding an aspect of their freedom. This doesn't move society in a constructive direction, the last time I checked.
It is true that religion can hold people and society back in some instances, nobody's denying that, but is it fair to then deny people a right of choice in respect to their faith and beliefs. Religion in its self (I'm not talking about a religious institution, but actual religion) does not grant or prevent freedom, but I know that if did not have a right to choose to practice a religion it would be no different to a religious state forcing me to comply to a certain faith.

You need to make a distinction between "evangelism" and "theocracy". People have the right to try to convince others of their own ideas (in a non-vicious and non-discriminatory way), because some people do feel passionate about certain ideas, both religious people and atheists. Banning evangelism is just as bad as banning religion altogether.

What we should make sure is that cultural democracy is maintained and people are not being political suppressed simply due to their beliefs, or politically forced to believe in certain things.

Inquisitive Lurker

10th June 2011, 16:49

Banning evangelism is just as bad as banning religion altogether.

Consider the suppression of hate speech in Europe. And specifically the banning of all Nazi movements and propaganda in Germany. The suppression of evangelism is comparable. The question is, which of these speeches does more damage.

Queercommie Girl

10th June 2011, 16:53

Consider the suppression of hate speech in Europe. And specifically the banning of all Nazi movements and propaganda in Germany. The suppression of evangelism is comparable. The question is, which of these speeches does more damage.

As I told you before, I am an utilitarian pragmatist. That is to say, I judge things primarily by their tangible results. Pure metaphysics holds no interest for me, whether religious or non-religious. I fail to see how religions which are not anti-socialist and non-discriminatory can have socially tangible and concrete damaging effects which are comparable to fascism and racist/sexist/queerphobic hate speech.

Inquisitive Lurker

10th June 2011, 17:02

As I told you before, I am an utilitarian pragmatist. That is to say, I judge things primarily by their tangible results. Pure metaphysics holds no interest for me, whether religious or non-religious. I fail to see how religions which are not anti-socialist and non-discriminatory can have socially tangible and concrete damaging effects which are comparable to fascism and racist/sexist/queerphobic hate speech.

Religions are anti-socialist and discriminatory. They teach we are right and everyone else is wrong. They teach you should give preferential treatment to members of your own religion better and, under their voice, that you should treat members of other religions worse.

They teach hierarchy, they teach anti-science, they teach racism (Mormonism), classism (Hinduism), and homophobia (almost all of them). They teach the respect of private property, they teach giving money to those above you, and respect for those above, without any justification.

They are anti-socialist and discriminatory.

Astarte

10th June 2011, 18:14

Religions are anti-socialist and discriminatory. They teach we are right and everyone else is wrong. They teach you should give preferential treatment to members of your own religion better and, under their voice, that you should treat members of other religions worse.

Inquisitive Lurker's "socialism" is anti-socialist and discriminatory. He teachs he is right and everyone else is wrong. He teachs you should give preferential treatment to members of his own religion-of-atheism.

The rest of the first paragraph just had to be edited out, it was too choppy. The second paragraph just shows IL is still ignorant of the difference between organized religion and spirituality.

hatzel

10th June 2011, 19:18

ComradeMan

10th June 2011, 19:39

Consider the suppression of hate speech in Europe. And specifically the banning of all Nazi movements and propaganda in Germany. The suppression of evangelism is comparable. The question is, which of these speeches does more damage.

Silly false equivalencies and dramatic rhetoric. Jehovah's witnesses or Nazis? Think about the difference....

Queercommie Girl

10th June 2011, 19:41

Sounds exactly like Maoism* to me :rolleyes:

(* to be fair, I admit that plenty of other tendencies could have been plugged in here instead...)

Actually on paper Maoism supports religious freedom. Though it's true that during the Cultural Revolution both traditional Chinese and Western religions were cracked down on by the state. But then Leninism supports religious freedom on paper too (and technically Maoism is also a branch or variant of Leninism), yet Stalin obviously didn't.

It's like many religions preach "peace", but religious wars have killed countless people throughout human history...

Words and deeds often don't match...

hatzel

10th June 2011, 20:30

Actually on paper Maoism supports religious freedom.

To be honest I was thinking more about a few of the Maoists on here calling themselves 'real communists' (as opposed to the others, who presumably aren't 'real' in their eyes), claiming everybody else is 'dark forces' or 'enemy agents' and then making some questionable comments about raping women for being bourgeois or German or whatever. Seems to fit in with the idea of saying 'we are right and everyone else is wrong' and all that preferential treatment stuff...I fail to see any notable difference between the two positions...

It's basic in-group out-group bias, the difference being that, in the case of a religion, the lines are obviously drawn between religions, whilst a nationalist may draw lines between people based on their nationality, a racist according to ethnicity, a socialist according to class or, perhaps, specific tendency. Seems to me to be result of existing in society, in as much as one has little choice but to place oneself in a variety of in-groups: man, white, Protestant Christian, German, working class, football fan. However, as those who consider their primary identify be the working class don't necessarily follow red cat in claiming that rape of bourgeois women isn't as serious a crime as rape of proletarian women (that is to say, preferential treatment for one's own 'group'), there's no reason to suggest that those who identify themselves primarily (or strongly) by their religious grouping would necessarily give preferential treatment to other members of their own in-group in a comparable situation.

In my mind, the fundamental nature of intergroup relations remains identical, irrespective of how the in- and out-group is defined. Getting into talk of the supposedly inherent divisive nature of a certain form of classification, in this case religion, runs the risk of opening up a whole can of worms, which will see us having to decry all other forms of distinction, all forms of in-group, just to remain consistent. I'm not interested in, for instance, abolishing all languages bar one to overcome the 'divisive' nature of distinct linguistic groups, or operating some kind of eugenics program to breed a perfectly monoracial population, because it just so happens that some people discriminate against people who they don't consider to belong to their racial in-group...doesn't seem like the most productive path to take in this case...

Queercommie Girl

10th June 2011, 21:12

Justifying rape isn't Maoist in principle. If anything, the Chinese Red Army or People's Liberation Army was significantly more disciplined than the Russian Red Army under Stalin, as far as this particular issue is concerned.

It's like Judaism does not advocate murdering people at all, yet reactionary Zionists have murdered Palestinians.

Words and deeds often don't match...

Your mistake is in singling out Maoism - even in that thread there were quite a few non-Maoists who were also apologising for rape to various extents (including our infamous resident Caesarean Socialist...). I hope you can be less sectarian on this matter.

Inquisitive Lurker

11th June 2011, 14:55

Has it never crossed your mind that your "conversions" are just saying you've converted them so you'll go away? ;)

Usually you can recognize a true conversion by its "Road to Damascus" moment(s).

Rainsborough

11th June 2011, 19:06

Silly false equivalencies and dramatic rhetoric. Jehovah's witnesses or Nazis? Think about the difference....

Yeah, Jehovah's Witnesses just come round and torture your door. :laugh:

hatzel

11th June 2011, 20:00

Yeah, Jehovah's Witnesses just come round and torture your door. :laugh:

I actually had Catholics doing just that the other day. The highlight of the conversation:

Catholic: Do you have any Irish heritage?
Rabbi K: No, none at all.
C: Any Irish friends?
K: Nope...no offense, it's nothing personal! :lol:

EDIT:

Your mistake is in singling out Maoism - even in that thread there were quite a few non-Maoists who were also apologising for rape to various extents (including our infamous resident Caesarean Socialist...). I hope you can be less sectarian on this matter.

I was just using Maoism as the example of the tendency I consider the most sectarian, and the most fitting of the original statement. That's not reliant on that particular thread, it was just a recent example that sprang to mind. I could have picked all manner of other examples, and, in fact, did reference such other behavior. Personally, I have no problem calling out those particular Maoists on this board when those particular Maoists on this board seem to be the people that I most often notice clashing with other members and tendencies, and who most obviously have their own little clique mentality, an exclusive club kind of thing. Hence it fits better than most of the other tendencies. Though I didn't 'single out Maoism', because I did actually say that "to be fair, I admit that plenty of other tendencies could have been plugged in here instead..." I don't feel that the distinction between words and deeds needs to be addressed, given the fact that the initial statement didn't make any distinction between the two, it just made gross generalisations, and I will follow suit, to highlight the foolishness of the initial statement, if that's okay?

Still, none of this is anywhere near relevant to this thread :laugh:

Queercommie Girl

11th June 2011, 20:14

I was just using Maoism as the example of the tendency I consider the most sectarian, and the most fitting of the original statement. That's not reliant on that particular thread, it was just a recent example that sprang to mind. I could have picked all manner of other examples, and, in fact, did reference such other behavior. Personally, I have no problem calling out those particular Maoists on this board when those particular Maoists on this board seem to be the people that I most often notice clashing with other members and tendencies, and who most obviously have their own little clique mentality, an exclusive club kind of thing. Hence it fits better than most of the other tendencies. Though I didn't 'single out Maoism', because I did actually say that "to be fair, I admit that plenty of other tendencies could have been plugged in here instead..."

Well, I think objectively Trotskyism is actually more sectarian, but the different Trotskyist sects mainly fight amongst themselves but present an "united front" when they are in the midst of non-Trotskyists, which is why you don't see Trotskyist sectarianism so much here on RevLeft.

But it's true that some Maoists can also be sectarian, though I think sometimes people here can be somewhat prejudiced against Maoism, in the sense of judging Maoism solely on the words of a few self-proclaimed Maoists rather than examining Maoist texts themselves. It's like having a negative view of Judaism solely based on the observation of Israelis bullying the Palestinians today and then reach the conclusion that Judaism must be an inherently racist religion.

Astarte

12th June 2011, 04:55

If religion is forcibly "stamped out" then whats to stop political views or ethnic groups or sexual minorities from becoming the next target? Regardless of whether or not there is a God, if you target one you can target the other and I'll be damned if the movement goes the way of gulaging and concentration camps to purge out an idea it sees as harmful. Let's call this what it is, psychological holocaust.

There is a major difference. Ethnic and sexual minorities are real things. Religion isn't.

So people who refuse to give up their "beliefs" are not real people? They are eligible for being killed, huh? Arch-Reactionary.

I find it funny that I was "neg repped" for this comment by Invader Zim, when I was replying to the above posts. His only reasoning for the neg rep was "Strawman. Fail."

It is especially funny because I wasn't building a strawman at all, but pointing out how Inquisitive Lurker seemed to be OK with the forcible stamping out of religion - because what would really be stamped out? Yes, an idea (can you kill an idea, anyway?), but also those whose psychological and spiritual will was not broken "intellectually" would be broken physically, thus the coercion of religion has no bearing on whether or not it is real since "re-education" at least, and the physical "stamping out" at most, would be directed towards people. I think it is more of a missing premise than a "Strawman".

ZrianKobani

12th June 2011, 07:15

Silly false equivalencies and dramatic rhetoric. Jehovah's witnesses or Nazis? Think about the difference....

I've never had Jehovah's Witnesses try and kill me for being gay; I'm Mormon and I've even met some Witness missionaries while going on exchange with missionaries of my own church, I'll never forget how civil the Witnesses were.

ComradeMan

12th June 2011, 10:10

I've never had Jehovah's Witnesses try and kill me for being gay; I'm Mormon and I've even met some Witness missionaries while going on exchange with missionaries of my own church, I'll never forget how civil the Witnesses were.

To be honest, I've never had a problem with ANY evangelicals who call at my house or stop me in the street, on occasion I have had some interesting conversations too, even if we didn't agree on things.

Astarte

12th June 2011, 18:22

To be honest, I've never had a problem with ANY evangelicals who call at my house or stop me in the street, on occasion I have had some interesting conversations too, even if we didn't agree on things.

Usually I invite them in and tell them they can tell me what they think of Jesus and Elohim while I finish up my daily haruspicy.

Inquisitive Lurker

12th June 2011, 18:53

I usually invite them in, offer them things they can't have (coffee, alcohol, etc.) let them talk just a little bit, then commence with demolishing the tenets of their religion. Because I know the flaws of them all. Mormons are the easiest. Horses in North America, steel weapons during the bronze age, sailing a ship across the Atlantic, the golden plates, the magic stones, the hat into which Joseph Smith would stick his head while translating, his inability to translate the same book twice. And then there's the teachings of the Mormons, which are in extreme conflict with both the New and Old Testaments.

It's a fun way to entertain yourself for an hour or two on a Saturday.

In New York City (I spent a week there once) I was approached by a woman handing out roses. She was part of some cult in that city, pseudo-Christian, with a leader that can never be wrong. I took the rose, talked a bit, then got her into a coffee shop, where I spent the next six hours doing basic deprogramming. That was an interesting day. I left her with her faith destroyed, but a whole world open to her. I wonder what happened to her after that. I gave her my cell but my number has changed twice since then. Her name was Linda.

The rose I still have, flattened beneath the cover of Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament by James Pritchard. A good (and huge) book to read if you are under the illusion that anything in the Old Testament is original. But a hard book to find. Major universities should have a copy. UW-Madison has one, which is where I was introduced to it. I eventually bought my own copy on ABEbooks.com for $50. If anyone wants to buy my copy I'll sell it at cost. I've read it a few times, don't need it anymore. But I'm keeping the rose.

ComradeMan

12th June 2011, 19:07

I usually invite them in, offer them things they can't have (coffee, alcohol, etc.) let them talk just a little bit, then commence with demolishing the tenets of their religion. Because I know the flaws of them all. Mormons are the easiest. Horses in North America, steel weapons during the bronze age, sailing a ship across the Atlantic, the golden plates, the magic stones, the hat into which Joseph Smith would stick his head while translating, his inability to translate the same book twice. And then there's the teachings of the Mormons, which are in extreme conflict with both the New and Old Testaments.

It's a fun way to entertain yourself for an hour or two on a Saturday.

In New York City (I spent a week there once) I was approached by a woman handing out roses. She was part of some cult in that city, pseudo-Christian, with a leader that can never be wrong. I took the rose, talked a bit, then got her into a coffee shop, where I spent the next six hours doing basic deprogramming. That was an interesting day. I left her with her faith destroyed, but a whole world open to her. I wonder what happened to her after that. I gave her my cell but my number has changed twice since then. Her name was Linda. The rose I still have, flattened beneath the cover of Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament by James Pritchard. A good book to read if you are under the illusion that anything in the Old Testament is original. But a hard book to find. Major universities should have a copy.

:lol:

You are fighting a battle against yourself, not religion.

qJtRkwgqpew

Inquisitive Lurker

12th June 2011, 19:22

:lol:

You are fighting a battle against yourself, not religion.

I have a gift for freeing people from religion. From a humanist and utilitarian perspective such a gift should be used to bring the greatest amount of good to the largest number of people. There is a war to be fought. The battleground is the minds of the masses. And I'll fight it one person at a time if I have to. Though I'm usually working a few people at the same time. Seven in real life. Making more progress with some than I am with others. Just a few words every few conversations. Subtle influence. Gifts of books. Plus these are people I care about so I'm being gentle. I'm not gentle with strangers. Nor online.

"Turn an atheist into a priest, turn a priest into an atheist."

It's a gift.

ComradeMan

12th June 2011, 20:28

I have a gift for freeing people from religion. From a humanist and utilitarian perspective such a gift should be used to bring the greatest amount of good to the largest number of people. There is a war to be fought. The battleground is the minds of the masses. And I'll fight it one person at a time if I have to. Though I'm usually working a few people at the same time. Seven in real life. Making more progress with some than I am with others. Just a few words every few conversations. Subtle influence. Gifts of books. Plus these are people I care about so I'm being gentle. I'm not gentle with strangers. Nor online.

"Turn an atheist into a priest, turn a priest into an atheist."

It's a gift.

You're not having much success here though are you..... :rolleyes:

Inquisitive Lurker

12th June 2011, 21:00

You're not having much success here though are you..... :rolleyes:

I did great in the Death thread, disproving reincarnation. I'd call that a whopping success. I was very proud of my work on that thread.

ComradeMan

12th June 2011, 21:04

I did great in the Death thread, disproving reincarnation. I'd call that a whopping success. I was very proud of my work on that thread.

But you didn't because your mathematical analysis was flawed and based on false conceptions of what "reincarnation" means in the various spiritual systems that accept it.

Sounds like you're crowning yourself here...

Inquisitive Lurker

12th June 2011, 21:17

But you didn't because your mathematical analysis was flawed and based on false conceptions of what "reincarnation" means in the various spiritual systems that accept it.

I took on exactly what various religions teach about reincarnation, and provided disproofs for each of them using flawless math and logic (and eventually astrophysics). Each time someone came back with a retort, I disproved those as well, eventually getting as abstract as talking about the multiverse. And even in those bizarre situations, the disproof stood.

The dissenters eventually gave up, dropping off one by one when they could find no more possible explanations (and getting increasingly frustrated until they gave up). I dare say I shook some faith that day, and provided others with weapons of logic they can wield on their own.

I found the achievement... mildly orgasmic. Especially because I hadn't intended to do it. It just happened after I pointed out one glaring flaw, then I had to point out another one. Soon I was writing paragraphs and pages, the text flowing like water. Each challenge I met with relish, each rebuttal making me laugh. Much fun, and mildly orgasmic.

ComradeMan

12th June 2011, 21:49

I took on exactly what various religions teach about reincarnation, and provided disproofs for each of them using flawless math and logic (and eventually astrophysics). Each time someone came back with a retort, I disproved those as well, eventually getting as abstract as talking about the multiverse. And even in those bizarre situations, the disproof stood.

The dissenters eventually gave up, dropping off one by one when they could find no more possible explanations (and getting increasingly frustrated until they gave up). I dare say I shook some faith that day, and provided others with weapons of logic they can wield on their own.

I found the achievement... mildly orgasmic. Especially because I hadn't intended to do it. It just happened after I pointed out one glaring flaw, then I had to point out another one. Soon I was writing paragraphs and pages, the text flowing like water. Each challenge I met with relish, each rebuttal making me laugh. Much fun, and mildly orgasmic.

Err.... in short, you didn't. I posted my reply underlining the flaws with your mathematical proof and you did not acknowledge it...

That's one big karmic fail...:lol:

Revolution starts with U

12th June 2011, 22:34

Not to mention your terrible crankery astrophysics

Robocommie

13th June 2011, 22:00

I found the achievement... mildly orgasmic.

Ew.

Also, dickhead atheist yoga ftw.

Zealot

13th June 2011, 22:25

I don't think it's necessary to get rid of religion ourselves and I don't think it's possible either. Even if it were suppressed they would just move underground as it happened in the past and new ones would pop up. Religions can spring out of anything be it an idea, a movie or David Icke. More likely it will slowly (or rapidly) disappear with the growth of our world but I still think there would be VERY small fringe groups in certain areas...just my opinion.

Rainsborough

14th June 2011, 16:30

I took on exactly what various religions teach about reincarnation, and provided disproofs for each of them using flawless math and logic (and eventually astrophysics). Each time someone came back with a retort, I disproved those as well, eventually getting as abstract as talking about the multiverse. And even in those bizarre situations, the disproof stood.

The dissenters eventually gave up, dropping off one by one when they could find no more possible explanations (and getting increasingly frustrated until they gave up). I dare say I shook some faith that day, and provided others with weapons of logic they can wield on their own.

I found the achievement... mildly orgasmic. Especially because I hadn't intended to do it. It just happened after I pointed out one glaring flaw, then I had to point out another one. Soon I was writing paragraphs and pages, the text flowing like water. Each challenge I met with relish, each rebuttal making me laugh. Much fun, and mildly orgasmic.

Sweet Jesus. When you put it that way, it almost makes me want to become religious. :confused:

ZrianKobani

27th June 2011, 07:33

Rainsborough

27th June 2011, 08:53

ComradeMan

27th June 2011, 20:16

It's rare that I ever see a theist victory on this site; I'm not out to evangelize the Earth but usually when someone states a belief in a god or gods, they're flooded with either ridicule, contempt, accusations of reactionism, or assaults on the evils of religion.

The theists usually win due to the ignorance and flawed reasoning of the non-theists who then proceed to shout down the other points of view and become abusive.

The way I see it is if you don't believe, well- okay... that's for you. But as wrong as it is to force belief down people's throats so is it wrong to force non-belief.

Personally I think the atheist/theist conflict is silly and a waste of time but to see the tables turned, to see the majority put in a minority position; there's a sense of satisfaction to that.

They'll all get their karma.
:lol:

Octavian

2nd July 2011, 11:08

The theists usually win due to the ignorance and flawed reasoning of the non-theists who then proceed to shout down the other points of view and become abusive.

The way I see it is if you don't believe, well- okay... that's for you. But as wrong as it is to force belief down people's throats so is it wrong to force non-belief.

How do non-theists have flawed reasoning? The fact that all religion is based on faith cements it in flawed reasoning. It's not forcing non-belief if you're discussing strong beliefs that can have negative effects on other people. You also might respond with "but it's my belief and it doesn't effect others". That's secular thinking and the only problem I have with your belief is that it validates the crazy peoples beliefs.

ComradeMan

3rd July 2011, 12:00

How do non-theists have flawed reasoning? The fact that all religion is based on faith cements it in flawed reasoning. It's not forcing non-belief if you're discussing strong beliefs that can have negative effects on other people. You also might respond with "but it's my belief and it doesn't effect others". That's secular thinking and the only problem I have with your belief is that it validates the crazy peoples beliefs.

Well, you shouldn't generalise but what seems to happen a lot is that non-theists/militant-atheists tend to pick up on one small contradiction here or one detail there (very often with a limited interpretation) and use that as overwhelming evidence that all religion is a "mental illness"- either that or they focus on groups that are usually considered to be fanatics within their own religio-sphere.

It's a bit like hardcore creationists, ironically, they find one "unexplainable" trait in a sea-snail or some obscure animal or whatever and then use that to say that all evolutionary theory is outright wrong.

As for beliefs- so long as people are not forcing them on others, what's the problem?

Octavian

3rd July 2011, 12:31

Well, you shouldn't generalise but what seems to happen a lot is that non-theists/militant-atheists tend to pick up on one small contradiction here or one detail there (very often with a limited interpretation) and use that as overwhelming evidence that all religion is a "mental illness"- either that or they focus on groups that are usually considered to be fanatics within their own religio-sphere.
I understand that and those are the try hard atheists. They are interested in making emotion based arguments to anger religious people rather than figuring out what is true and what isn't.

As for beliefs- so long as people are not forcing them on others, what's the problem?
Beliefs cause people to act and effect the world. Unfortunately for that other person I live in the world with them. So if their beliefs cause them to act in a way that's based off something with no evidence to support then I do have a problem with that. On top of that as I have said before, even if someone does not harm other people the fact they believe validates the beliefs of crazy people and makes them seem less or not crazy.