Religion is bad news

[Elysian]

Religion is a problem in itself, and it cannot always be connected to material conditions. There is that aspect, agreed - the poor having hope in god, and so on. But there is another aspect too where religion distorts our thinking. For instance, a rich person living in a good place with no cares or worries could also be religious - religious enough to believe that homosexuality is evil and homosexuals are very bad people with an agenda. No amount of logic will convince him that homosexuals are people too. His logic comes from the bible, so he doesn't care about facts.

In such cases, we clearly see how religion distorts our thinking, makes us hateful toward our fellow men - but most of all material conditions alone aren't responsible for this. Religion in itself is bad news.

[Ostrinski]

Everything only exists and is only relevant in relation to other things. Nothing is independent of material conditions. The poor person and the rich person have a different relationship to religion because they have a different relationship to society in general.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I know of atheists who are homophobes, transphobes, racists, etc. What are you trying to prove?

[Caj]

it cannot always be connected to material conditions . . . material conditions alone aren't responsible for this.

What can it be connected to then? What is responsible?

[Rafiq]

The fact that religion varies to different classes... Is this not proof it's merely a reflection of material conditions?

[Ocean Seal]

Weren't you the anarcho-Calvinist?

[eric922]

Okay, either we are being trolled or the OP has had a breakthrough, because when he came here he came across as a fairly devout Calvinist, which has to be the most reactionary sect of Christianity I can think of.

[Zealot]

Indeed he was a Calvinist but has recently opened his mind and we must congratulate him on that.

Comrade Elysian, it's imperative that you learn Scientific Socialism and in particular materialism and the dialectic. I know that when I left my religion I went through a hardline anti-religion phase, some of which unfortunately still leaks in what I say, but I soon realized that this in itself is almost as idealist as religion. This may be what you are going through, as the old saying goes, no one is more zealous than the convert or, in this case, the deconverted.

Taking each of your examples, the poor person may think that their faith will lift them out of poverty whereas the rich person may think that god guided him to wealth and is a "confirmation" of the validity of his religion, which in turn would influence his opinion about homosexuality. Homophobia may arise because of something else altogether. In fact, the very examples you provided is a testament to the impact of material conditions. Matter is always in motion and phenomena is always connected and dependent on each other.

[Elysian]

Indeed he was a Calvinist but has recently opened his mind and we must congratulate him on that.

Comrade Elysian, it's imperative that you learn Scientific Socialism and in particular materialism and the dialectic. I know that when I left my religion I went through a hardline anti-religion phase, some of which unfortunately still leaks in what I say, but I soon realized that this in itself is almost as idealist as religion. This may be what you are going through, as the old saying goes, no one is more zealous than the convert or, in this case, the deconverted.

Taking each of your examples, the poor person may think that their faith will lift them out of poverty whereas the rich person may think that god guided him to wealth and is a "confirmation" of the validity of his religion, which in turn would influence his opinion about homosexuality. Homophobia may arise because of something else altogether. In fact, the very examples you provided is a testament to the impact of material conditions. Matter is always in motion and phenomena is always connected and dependent on each other.

Thanks for the encouragement. I am not denying the impact of material conditions on human behavior, just pointing out that religion in itself could also be a problem. I don't know how else to explain this. A may be the cause of b, but that shouldn't stop us from analyzing b in its entirety even while acknowledging the interdependence.

[eric922]

Thanks for the encouragement. I am not denying the impact of material conditions on human behavior, just pointing out that religion in itself could also be a problem. I don't know how else to explain this. A may be the cause of b, but that shouldn't stop us from analyzing b in its entirety even while acknowledging the interdependence.
I think I understand what you are trying to say, but please correct me if I am misunderstanding you here. Material conditions do influence ideas, but the ideas that are influenced by those conditions often take on a "life" of their own and have a strong impact on the world around them and can in some cases even influence the material conditions that gave rise to those ideas. A(material conditions) give rise to B(ideas) and B in turn can influences the world and A. I'm not sure if that is what your saying, but I think it is, and if so I think you are correct.

[Grenzer]

Everything only exists and is only relevant in relation to other things. Nothing is independent of material conditions. The poor person and the rich person have a different relationship to religion because they have a different relationship to society in general.

I think the OP more means that the beliefs propagated by religion are not based in a coherent standing of the material world.

With that said, wtf is going on here? I thought the OP was a calvinist troll a few weeks ago.

[Revolution starts with U]

It's easy to forget that ideas ARE material, and can influence the world every bit as much as a climatic shift. It is true that ideas must translate to action, but it ultimately is still the idea twas the prime cause (unless you want go back in an endless loop of what caused the idea).

Religion is an identity egos latch onto. Like any other ego action it must defend itself. Ego, that is to say identity, is not "wrong" inherently. It gives rise to actions. The question is towards what cause are those actions taken. Unless you are prepared to become egoless, its best to expand your identity to include as much of the universe as you can, that is to say, to the truth.

The truth is, the current paradigm antagonizes and alienates the working class. The interests of this class, the collective ego, considering it currently makes up the majority of humanity, is the removal of class antagonisms: that is to say, a classless society of voluntary labor, and profit free exchange, expanding productive capacity through scientific research, and protecting individual non-antagonistic expression.

[Elysian]

I think I understand what you are trying to say, but please correct me if I am misunderstanding you here. Material conditions do influence ideas, but the ideas that are influenced by those conditions often take on a "life" of their own and have a strong impact on the world around them and can in some cases even influence the material conditions that gave rise to those ideas. A(material conditions) give rise to B(ideas) and B in turn can influences the world and A. I'm not sure if that is what your saying, but I think it is, and if so I think you are correct.

That's exactly it. That's why I feel one should have a two-pronged strategy while dealing with religion - to see it as an effect of material conditions, but to also see it as a thing that may itself be a cause of, or least influence, certain other material conditions.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Religion is a problem in itself, and it cannot always be connected to material conditions.

nope sorry

[Franz Fanonipants]

It's easy to forget that ideas ARE material, and can influence the world every bit as much as a climatic shift.

fucking illogical twaddle bro.

ideas are not material at all. they are formed from mat'l observation and criticism but ideas themselves have no weight, instead they are given weight through labor and economic structure. now what would those two things that reify ideas have to do with marxism hmm...

[Ostrinski]

Once again, ideas are the outcome, not the determining factor, of a given state of affairs.

[Revolution starts with U]

fucking illogical twaddle bro.

ideas are not material at all. they are formed from mat'l observation and criticism but ideas themselves have no weight, instead they are given weight through labor and economic structure. now what would those two things that reify ideas have to do with marxism hmm...

If ideas aren't material than they don't exist. They are no more than electronic synapses in the brain. I don't feed myself unless I have the thought iim hungry." Your Cartesian dualism is bogus yo

[Franz Fanonipants]

If ideas aren't material than they don't exist. They are no more than electronic synapses in the brain. I don't feed myself unless I have the thought iim hungry." Your Cartesian dualism is bogus yo

thats reductionism dummy.

[Ostrinski]

Just because they don't exist materially doesn't mean we don't recognize them. An idea is the regimentation of a reaction to a given set of circumstances.

[Franz Fanonipants]

i mean come on i'm a historian. obviously ideas impel action but action is only carried out in the material world.

you don't just murder people who disagree with you because their ideas don't mesh w/yours. you murder them because there are a set of mat'l conditions and actors in place that allow you to do so.

you're not actually good at this philosophy shit.

[Revolution starts with U]

Once again, ideas are the outcome, not the determining factor, of a given state of affairs.

They can be both, or have you never heard of propaganda? There are 3 methods of being: the prime is pure being such as everything in existence does: energy, rocks, supernova, and even humans do this. The subsets are a product of being life. The first is action, such as the cells in a plant reorganizing to face it towards the sun, a tiger chasing down its meal, or a worker striking. The second subset of being is thinking, such as a worker does when he listens to a socialist agitator, his ego, the identity thought, latches onto being exploited, and he awakens to class consciousness.

Bunch of leninists vanguardists trying to tell me ideas are irrelevant. What then is the point of the vanguard? If circumstances are irrelevant to ideas, why agitate at all? Why don't we all just identify, which is a thought, as capitalists and let socialism happen on its own? Why should we need to protect a revolution against counterrevolutionaries?

[Franz Fanonipants]

Bunch of leninists vanguardists trying to tell me ideas are irrelevant. What then is the point of the vanguard?

education which is a mat'l process

[Ostrinski]

blah blah

Bunch of leninists vanguardists trying to tell me ideas are irrelevant. What then is the point of the vanguard? If circumstances are irrelevant to ideas, why agitate at all? Why don't we all just identify, which is a thought, as capitalists and let socialism happen on its own? Why should we need to protect a revolution against counterrevolutionaries?Who is saying ideas are irrelevant?

[Grenzer]

I think I understand what you are trying to say, but please correct me if I am misunderstanding you here. Material conditions do influence ideas, but the ideas that are influenced by those conditions often take on a "life" of their own and have a strong impact on the world around them and can in some cases even influence the material conditions that gave rise to those ideas. A(material conditions) give rise to B(ideas) and B in turn can influences the world and A. I'm not sure if that is what your saying, but I think it is, and if so I think you are correct.

I hate to break it to you, but this is basically anti-Marxist crap. The concept that ideas can take on a life of their own is essentially Hegelian idealism, which Marx criticized extensively. So in other words, it's not correct at all and this should be basic marxist philosophy(if you would call it such).

Personally I'm not much of a fan of militant atheism. I see it as an extension of bourgeois thought. "We're the masters of the universe and our own fate, really!"

[Revolution starts with U]

i mean come on i'm a historian. obviously ideas impel action but action is only carried out in the material world.

you don't just murder people who disagree with you because their ideas don't mesh w/yours. you murder them because there are a set of mat'l conditions and actors in place that allow you to do so.

you're not actually good at this philosophy shit.

First, ya it is reductionist as I do not believe in any kind of non-material world. Relativity says matter is energy, energy is matter. Unless and until you can show me the spirit world, or the idea plane, I see no reason to define thoughts as anything other than a combination of energy and matter.

There's no room in a pure material philosophy for your Cartesian dualism. An idea is a material action. You murder someone through a combination of your social environment, productive means (meaning their has to be someone to murder, and that you need a knife or at least functional body parts with which to carry out the murder) andy the ideas you identify with.

I never claimed to be good at it, especially since good and bad are archaic misunderstandings created by the ego. There is only being, and how I identify it.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I never claimed to be good at it, especially since good and bad are archaic misunderstandings created by the ego. There is only being, and how I identify it.

haaaaahaaaaahaahahahahaaa

[Revolution starts with U]

education which is a mat'l process

So learning IDEAS is a material process. Correct. Good job:thumbup:

[Franz Fanonipants]

So learning IDEAS is a material process. Correct. Good job:thumbup:

yeah man because education is learning IDEAS

e: i bet you aren't an educator cus guess what

[Revolution starts with U]

haaaaahaaaaahaahahahahaaa

Come at me brow ;)

[Franz Fanonipants]

Come at me brow ;)

the only motherfucker on a leftist website in 2012 talking about the ego

[Revolution starts with U]

yeah man because education is learning IDEAS

e: i bet you aren't an educator cus guess what

Then what is education?

[Franz Fanonipants]

Then what is education?

teaching processes which are material in nature. including thought, which is, again, a end product of material observation.

get the fuck out man you don't know what you're saying. your idea about education is pretty firmly 19th century.

[Elysian]

teaching processes which are material in nature. including thought, which is, again, a end product of material observation.

get the fuck out man you don't know what you're saying. your idea about education is pretty firmly 19th century.

Calm down, there's no need to be vulgar. Material conditions give birth to ideas, true, but that doesn't mean ideas do not or cannot in turn shape material conditions. There is always an interaction between the two; it's not like one is dominant, and the other passive.

[Ostrinski]

Material conditions give birth to ideas, true, but that doesn't mean ideas do not or cannot in turn shape material conditions.Yes it does.


There is always an interaction between the two; it's not like one is dominant, and the other passive.No you're wrong.

[Franz Fanonipants]

There is always an interaction between the two; it's not like one is dominant, and the other passive.

if you are a marxist you are a very poor one.

ideas are subservient to the conditions they exist in. this is why there are temporal and spatial variants of, say, Hinduism or science and not perfect, ahistorical versions of ideas. any other position is not marxist, and frankly kind of dumb.

[Revolution starts with U]

teaching processes which are material in nature. including thought, which is, again, a end product of material observation.

get the fuck out man you don't know what you're saying. your idea about education is pretty firmly 19th century.

What are "teaching processes?"

My ideas about thermodynamics are pretty 18th ce too. Marxism is too. Unless you're suggesting ideas change over time, which is nothing different than what I am proposing.

Right now i'm hungry, a matl circumstance. I have two ideas: one a ham sammich, the other a pint of yogurt. I think I'm going to choose the yogurt.

[Franz Fanonipants]

What are "teaching processes?"

you teach process. goddamn you are dumb.

[Revolution starts with U]

if you are a marxist you are a very poor one.

ideas are subservient to the conditions they exist in. this is why there are temporal and spatial variants of, say, Hinduism or science and not perfect, ahistorical versions of ideas. any other position is not marxist, and frankly kind of dumb.

I don't see how this in any way precludes that ideas can influence action, that is to say, cause the shaping of material reality.

Don't mind the vulgarity Elysian. He just has this incessant need to identify with being cool. Look past the ego to what hes actually trying to say. You may learn something. Then again, learning might be a bourgeoisie 19th ce concept.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I don't see how this in any way precludes that ideas can influence action, that is to say, cause the shaping of material reality.

show me one thing that christianity has created

[Revolution starts with U]

you teach process. goddamn you are dumb.

Understanding is a thought. There's a reason you cant turn a rock into a Marxist... and there's a reason anyone becomes a Marxist in the first place. They have the idea, "hey, I think this is the correct way to view society."

You can try to teach joey processes all day, he still has to have the idea that you know what you're talking about to actually learn anything.

[Franz Fanonipants]

You can try to teach joey processes all day, he still has to have the idea that you know what you're talking about to actually learn anything.

yeah you're not actually a teacher.

i've been teaching since 2004. the only way you can teach is by teaching processes. i am sure that your unqualified opinion though is pretty valid lawl.

[Revolution starts with U]

show me one thing that christianity has created

Christians, that is to say, those who self identify, a thought, as such, have created all kinds of things... like missionaries.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Christians, that is to say, those who self identify, a thought, as such, have created all kinds of things... like missionaries.

haha lookit this rube talkin essentialisms

[Revolution starts with U]

yeah you're not actually a teacher.

i've been teaching since 2004. the only way you can teach is by teaching processes. i am sure that your unqualified opinion though is pretty valid lawl.

Nice logic bro: appeal to authority and all that. Its refreshing to see elitism's from a leftist tho.. oh wait, no it isn't.

Blather on all day about processes, if I don't think you know what you're talking about, I simply wont listen and you will have wasted their time. Any student you have ever taught anything only did so because they had the idea that you were worth listening to in the first place.

The material world is a dynamic system influenced by its constituent parts. Ideas exist in the matl world and as such MUST effect it. CDs are for music and bank accounts. Not materialist philosophies.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Nice logic bro: appeal to authority and all that. Its refreshing to see elitism's from a leftist tho.. oh wait, no it isn't.

you still haven't put forth a pedagogy for teaching ideas.

sorry dude. education is a professional skillset, if you lack it, you really can have all the opinions you want but unless you've learned the skillset and applied it welp...

[Revolution starts with U]

haha lookit this rube talkin essentialisms

There's nothing platonic about it. Its a linguistic tool designed to establish definitions so as to move the debate forward, or as has been said "define your term." Sure, in reality there is no such thing as a "Christian." But there are people who identify as such, like yourself, but if we're going to discuss reality we need be able to differentiate between the being-ness of an apple and the tree its on, or the proletariat and the system he lives under.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Sure, in reality there is no such thing as a "Christian."

basically /thread

[Revolution starts with U]

you still haven't put forth a pedagogy for teaching ideas.

sorry dude. education is a professional skillset, if you lack it, you really can have all the opinions you want but unless you've learned the skillset and applied it welp...

Ya, because my teachers were awesome at understanding reality and totally Marxist revolutionaries.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Ya, because my teachers were awesome at understanding reality and totally Marxist revolutionaries.

i'm sorry you had shitty teachers bro. maybe you would be smarter if they hadn't just tried to teach you ideas.

[Revolution starts with U]

basically /thread

There is no real such thing as a proletariat either. Again terms are symbols we use to differentiate between different types of being. A proletariat is the symbol used to define the being-ness of an exploited human within the being-ness that is capitalism... which itself is only being, in actuality.

[Revolution starts with U]

i'm sorry you had shitty teachers bro. maybe you would be smarter if they hadn't just tried to teach you ideas.

Just goes to shoe their status as an educator was irrelevant to the validity of their views on teaching.

Try logic next time, or is that a bourgeois 4th ce bce concept?

[Bostana]

I quote from Marx:

"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

[l'Enfermé]

I don't think you understand what Marx is saying...it's not an anti-religious quote.

[Bostana]

I don't think you understand what Marx is saying...it's not an anti-religious quote.

I know it's not.

Why would it have to be anti-religious?

[Guy Incognito]

Are we arguing semantics again? I'm fucking lost.:confused:

[Franz Fanonipants]

There is no real such thing as a proletariat either.

yes there is no group of people defined by their material circumstances for sure

[Franz Fanonipants]

Are we arguing semantics again? I'm fucking lost.:confused:

revolution starts with U is super dumb and basically can't actually make an argument so

[Revolution starts with U]

yes there is no group of people defined by their material circumstances for sure

Only symbolically. In reality there is only being, that is, the dynamic now. Anything other than pure being is a symbol used to differentiate between different methods of being.

For example, the material that makes up two apples is different. But its form is the same, so we find it easier to group identify them as apples, to get a point across, rather than regarding each apple independently. In fact, even for a specific apple we group identify the atoms as molecules, the molecules ss proteins, and the proteins as that one specific apple.

In reality all that had or will ever exist is the dynamic now.

[Revolution starts with U]

revolution starts with U is super dumb and basically can't actually make an argument so

Fraud can be sooo cute sometimes :wub:

[Guy Incognito]

molecules ss proteins

I fucking knew it! Science is a reactionary construct! :scared: /sarc

[Franz Fanonipants]

In reality all that had or will ever exist is the dynamic now.

basically you are qualified to make a TED talk

e: cool teleology bro

[Os Cangaceiros]

I give this thread two thumbs way down.

[Revolution starts with U]

basically you are qualified to make a TED talk

e: cool teleology bro

In fact it is the antithesis of teleology, or more accurately that finalities are just means to a now. The revolutionary process and realization of socialism will happen in a now. I would posit even the past, except as a memory used as an idea, is completely non-existent and irrelevant.

For example geology. Opposite to the view that the past determines the future is the view that now is a dynamic interplay of energies. Nothing really changes but your perspective, the facts remain the same. Its just about realizing identity is an illusion we use for understanding; there is only oneness, pure being. It is matter that atomizes, not time.

Right now is created by energies and methods of organization constantly in motion, not by some ethereal plane called "the past," nor is it advancing to "the future." Right now advances to right now.

[Franz Fanonipants]

words

man what the fuck are you even talking about

[Revolution starts with U]

man what the fuck are you even talking about

Your ideas about the world are every bit as relevant to your actions as the world, as they are a part of the world. I'm talking about your Cartesian view if mind.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Your ideas about the world are every bit as relevant to your actions as the world, as they are a part of the world. I'm talking about your Cartesian view if mind.

saying a bunch of shit doesn't make it true.

[Minima]

i'd like to hear franz outline his personal pedagogy, perhaps in a new thread. please elaborate on what you mean by teaching processes. 1- in general education, 2- in educating people about marxist theory

i think it would be helpful.

[Decolonize The Left]

Your ideas about the world are every bit as relevant to your actions as the world, as they are a part of the world. I'm talking about your Cartesian view if mind.

What. The. Fuck.

"A Cartesian view of mind"? Are you serious?

Descartes was single-handedly responsible for some of the most meaningless and asinine ideas that still pervade our society to date. The notion of "dualism" is, in itself, a self-justifying pile of crap masquerading as logic. Furthermore, he was totally anti-materialist: he posits metaphysics (read: fucking nonsense) as the basis of all knowledge and all physical knowledge to arise from it.

The guy was totally and completely full of shit.

- August

[Franz Fanonipants]

i'd like to hear franz outline his personal pedagogy, perhaps in a new thread. please elaborate on what you mean by teaching processes. 1- in general education, 2- in educating people about marxist theory

i think it would be helpful.

i utilize constructivist pedagogy. i look at knowledge accumulation as a process of scaffolding knowledge. in order to learn the most basic unit of knowledge (and you'll note I am not saying ideas, because yelling "1 + 1 = 2!" in someone's face is not helpful) must first be experienced by the learner.

So, let's take last semester as an example. I'm GAing a class about early modern Europe, i chose to teach about the conquest of Mexico. the first thing i did was have the students (around 80) break into small group discussions and asked them what they already knew about the conquest of Mexico and the Aztecs/Triple Alliance. from there, i utilized primary source documents and images to build an argument among students as to whether or not the Triple Alliance were fully subdued by the Spanish and destroyed or if social structures and literary styles survived the conquest. both answers were valid and the class produced several strong discussions on both sides.

i did not:
have an idea i wanted them to memorize
mediate their experience with primary documents or essays on the subject
give them an answer or conclusion that they were supposed to reach

i did:
identify a process-based objective (utilize primary sources, maps, and images to make a persuasive argument)
gave students access to the tools necessary to reach that objective
allowed students to experience the process of argumentation and study

idk the rest give me some time to think

[Franz Fanonipants]

What. The. Fuck.

"A Cartesian view of mind"? Are you serious?

Descartes was single-handedly responsible for some of the most meaningless and asinine ideas that still pervade our society to date. The notion of "dualism" is, in itself, a self-justifying pile of crap masquerading as logic. Furthermore, he was totally anti-materialist: he posits metaphysics (read: fucking nonsense) as the basis of all knowledge and all physical knowledge to arise from it.

The guy was totally and completely full of shit.

- August

yeah he's saying i'm full of shit because i allegedly believe there's a dualistic split between idea and matter.

or something idk he's kind of stupid

[Revolution starts with U]

saying a bunch of shit doesn't make it true.

Are ideas material? If not, how then do they exist? Are you suggesting things can exist that are not material a la Cartesian dualism; a mind/matter dichotomy?

Is reality just going to push us into the revolution, or does the proletariat bring about the revolution through the pursuit of its revolutionary class interest, that is to say, the collective identity of self of its individual constituents? I posit it as both.

...I'm thinking of a Marx quote about history where he says something about mankjnd being both moved by and the movers of history...

[Franz Fanonipants]

Are ideas material? If not, how then do they exist? Are you suggesting things can exist that are not material a la Cartesian dualism; a mind/matter dichotomy?

thoughts exist out of reaction to external, material stimuli.

i don't believe in a mind/matter dichotomy. but i sure do believe in a soul/matter dichotomy.

[Franz Fanonipants]

shit i guess thinking about it i did mediate their sources by giving them a set of them.

but since i couldn't just expect them to get the 'idea' of the Triple Alliance from an inexhaustible pile of memes floating around i kind of had to curate the sources they had access to.

instead lets say i mediated the selection of sources but not their ability to study the set of sources.

[Revolution starts with U]

What. The. Fuck.

"A Cartesian view of mind"? Are you serious?

Descartes was single-handedly responsible for some of the most meaningless and asinine ideas that still pervade our society to date. The notion of "dualism" is, in itself, a self-justifying pile of crap masquerading as logic. Furthermore, he was totally anti-materialist: he posits metaphysics (read: fucking nonsense) as the basis of all knowledge and all physical knowledge to arise from it.

The guy was totally and completely full of shit.

- August

Exactly my point. There is no Cartesian mind/matter dichotomy. Mind is a function in which matter expresses itself, through electronic coding in the synapses of the brain. Mind both shapes and is shaped by its environment.

For example, I identify as, that is I have an idea about myself, a seeker of truth. In pursuit of this identity I read, discuss, and watch people's perspectives, their idea of what the facts say, mold them with my own, and synthesize new perspectives on the truth. Sure I can do this because I live comfortably in a developed society. But ultimately its my idea of myself providing a large cause of it.

If you don't think ideas can influence action, and therefore reality... I don't see how you can get away from positing that ideas exist in their own non-material reality.

[Revolution starts with U]

i utilize constructivist pedagogy. i look at knowledge accumulation as a process of scaffolding knowledge. in order to learn the most basic unit of knowledge (and you'll note I am not saying ideas, because yelling "1 + 1 = 2!" in someone's face is not helpful) must first be experienced by the learner.

So, let's take last semester as an example. I'm GAing a class about early modern Europe, i chose to teach about the conquest of Mexico. the first thing i did was have the students (around 80) break into small group discussions and asked them what they already knew about the conquest of Mexico and the Aztecs/Triple Alliance. from there, i utilized primary source documents and images to build an argument among students as to whether or not the Triple Alliance were fully subdued by the Spanish and destroyed or if social structures and literary styles survived the conquest. both answers were valid and the class produced several strong discussions on both sides.

i did not:
have an idea i wanted them to memorize
mediate their experience with primary documents or essays on the subject
give them an answer or conclusion that they were supposed to reach

i did:
identify a process-based objective (utilize primary sources, maps, and images to make a persuasive argument)
gave students access to the tools necessary to reach that objective
allowed students to experience the process of argumentation and study

idk the rest give me some time to think

How are you defining ideas? I'm saying all mental constructs are ideas, to be clear. These answers they are striving for, perspectives on the truth, are ideas. This Newfound perspective may influence them closer to anti-imperialism, especially if they are of Mexican descent, from a working class upbringing, and/or they prefer to identify with underdog, or some other such circumstance.


shit i guess thinking about it i did mediate their sources by giving them a set of them.

but since i couldn't just expect them to get the 'idea' of the Triple Alliance from an inexhaustible pile of memes floating around i kind of had to curate the sources they had access to.

instead lets say i mediated the selection of sources but not their ability to study the set of sources.

Right. As you said, you cant just start yelling facts at people. You have to simplify, so you provided them with concise perspectives on the situation. Reality is far too dynamic and complex for us to discuss it on its terms. Instead our mindscreate identities, we define things, and discuss these constituent parts. But these are merely incomplete perspectives on true reality.

Ideas are an inescapable aspect of being conscious. I'm hungry and there is an apple, is an idea. In reality the big bang happened stars formed, earth coallesced and created life, on and on to really define what it means for a person to be running low on fuel and desire a sweet treat.

...or... we could just acknowledge that life found an evolutionary advantage in creating
thought, the ability to symbolize being, atomize it so to speak, and pursue ends. Alligators have to know, ie have an idea, that fish are filling, to pursue the fish.
thought

[Decolonize The Left]

thoughts exist out of reaction to external, material stimuli.

i don't believe in a mind/matter dichotomy. but i sure do believe in a soul/matter dichotomy.

What? ... how? ... :confused:

That is so nonsensical it hurts the face of the cat sitting outside my window.

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

Exactly my point. There is no Cartesian mind/matter dichotomy. Mind is a function in which matter expresses itself, through electronic coding in the synapses of the brain. Mind both shapes and is shaped by its environment.

Matter does not "express itself." You are anthropomorphizing at a basic level here. "Mind" does not exist either, and hence cannot "shape" or "be shaped" by environment.


For example, I identify as, that is I have an idea about myself, a seeker of truth. In pursuit of this identity I read, discuss, and watch people's perspectives, their idea of what the facts say, mold them with my own, and synthesize new perspectives on the truth. Sure I can do this because I live comfortably in a developed society. But ultimately its my idea of myself providing a large cause of it.

This is all nonsensical due to the positing of the "I."


If you don't think ideas can influence action, and therefore reality... I don't see how you can get away from positing that ideas exist in their own non-material reality.

This is fair enough other than the notion that "ideas" exist separate from anything (as is implied in the first line).

- August

[Revolution starts with U]

Matter does not "express itself." You are anthropomorphizing at a basic level here. "Mind" does not exist either, and hence cannot "shape" or "be shaped" by environment.



This is all nonsensical due to the positing of the "I."



This is fair enough other than the notion that "ideas" exist separate from anything (as is implied in the first line).

- August

By mind I am referring to mental processes, thinking. By expresses itself I meant basically that it appears in reality. Mental processes are simply one way in which material appears in reality.

I completely agree that "i" is a nonsensical term." It is a symbol a certain function of being uses to identify itself.

I am taking the exact opposite position of ideas existing seperate from everything else.

[Franz Fanonipants]

What? ... how? ... :confused:

That is so nonsensical it hurts the face of the cat sitting outside my window.

- August

you're a dumbass

the mind is matter, is body.

the soul isn't. i don't think its that difficult.

[Astarte]

Um, a three-way between Franz Fanonipants, The Revolution Starts With U and AugustWest ... I'm gonna go ahead and sit this one out :D would love to see Franz wiggle out of this one though...

[Ostrinski]

Don't count him out he's a squirmy little bugger

[Franz Fanonipants]

if i tell you of earthly things and you do not believe how shall you believe then when i tell you of heavenly ones?

fakedit: i have real work to do and spring break so its gonna have to wait.

[Azraella]

Religion is a problem in itself, and it cannot always be connected to material conditions.

Bullshit. All thought is tied to material conditions in orthodox Marxist philosophy. This includes religion and other philosophies.




But there is another aspect too where religion distorts our thinking. For instance, a rich person living in a good place with no cares or worries could also be religious - religious enough to believe that homosexuality is evil and homosexuals are very bad people with an agenda. No amount of logic will convince him that homosexuals are people too. His logic comes from the bible, so he doesn't care about facts.


Wow. I'm shocked someone picks and chooses from the bible. /sarcasm But seriously, the Bible is a complex text that does contradict itself. Why? Because it has different authors from different times. Most objections to homosexuality from Leviticus which in either the letters of Peter or Paul was revoked(actually if I remember correctly almost all of the laws from Leviticus were revoked especially the ones regarding sacrifices since well guess what? Jesus took the place of those sacrifices) What's even more hilarious is that in any religious text, non-believers and believers alike pick and choose what they want to read in a religious text. Hence the reason for theological disputes.



In such cases, we clearly see how religion distorts our thinking, makes us hateful toward our fellow men - but most of all material conditions alone aren't responsible for this. Religion in itself is bad news.


Sorry to burst your bubble, but your discussing a sliver of religious people and not even a majority. You can have the most reactionary, intolerant piece of shit and the most loving, tolerant 'let's love the entire world' person in the same religion. Most people are shades of grey; indifferent towards others' differences. I personally don't give a land based or flying fuck about your religious differences with me. Do you think that I should be denied rights because I'm a queer female and pagan? No? Great, now let's talk about the best way to institute some radical structure in our city or whatever.

---

Personally, I have yet to see a good refutation of Aquinas' First Way (http://rocketphilosophy.blogspot.com/2011/07/aquinas-first-way.html) or Anselm's Ontological Argument (http://rocketphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/02/anselms-ontological-argument-express.html)(as examples) that are particularly convincing. Or as another example Kalam's Cosmological Argument (http://rocketphilosophy.blogspot.com/2011/07/kalm-cosmological-argument.html) There are some valid criticisms that I personally have of each, but it has been my experience that atheists(and even some theists, deists, and pantheists) will utterly mangle these arguments to prove their point or that their conception of god exists or doesn't exist. All of this together is why I have strong dislike of militant atheism and anti-theism as expressed in this thread's OP.

[Revolution starts with U]

:lol:Land based fuck

No but if we are taking william Craigs version of Kalam, because its the one I'm familiar with... the word "timeless" they use is nonsensical and self contradictory. It absolutely rules out the God of the Bible, and only leaves space for an undefinable being that can do or be whatever whenever it wants. Such entities, even if they exist, are meaningless to discuss.

[Azraella]

No but if we are taking william Craigs version of Kalam, because its the one I'm familiar with... the word "timeless" they use is nonsensical and self contradictory. It absolutely rules out the God of the Bible, and only leaves space for an undefinable being that can do or be whatever whenever it wants. Such entities, even if they exist, are meaningless to discuss.


Oh absolutely. Like I said there are valid criticisms of each logical proof for the existence of God. I just think that more often than not, most people don't bring them out to the table.

[Revolution starts with U]

They certainly don't. I remember the first time I discussed with a "student" so to speak, of Dr craigs. I was floored! Most people, at least where I live, kind of take the latitude of "I kno God doesn't exist, but I have faith." To see an actual argument made that's not "the Bible says so" was a little shocking.

Looking back I think it made me a little less of an anti theist.

[Decolonize The Left]

you're a dumbass

the mind is matter, is body.

the soul isn't. i don't think its that difficult.

bahahahahahahahaha

You call me a "dumbass" AND THEN go on to say that the "soul isn't matter."

Well sir... since I'm so fucking stupid, why don't you go on and explain:
a) What is a soul
b) What it's made out of
c) Where it is
d) Where it came from
e) How it relates to matter
f) Where the relation takes place
g) Why no one can see it
h) Why no one can measure it
i) Why only you seem to understand it
j) How you know it's not material (because you are material, so you must be able to perceive non-material things, which makes you extra special).

Etc... etc...

I don't think you will, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. So demonstrate your knowledge and my stupidity.

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

Personally, I have yet to see a good refutation of Aquinas' First Way (http://rocketphilosophy.blogspot.com/2011/07/aquinas-first-way.html) or Anselm's Ontological Argument (http://rocketphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/02/anselms-ontological-argument-express.html)(as examples) that are particularly convincing. Or as another example Kalam's Cosmological Argument (http://rocketphilosophy.blogspot.com/2011/07/kalm-cosmological-argument.html) There are some valid criticisms that I personally have of each, but it has been my experience that atheists(and even some theists, deists, and pantheists) will utterly mangle these arguments to prove their point or that their conception of god exists or doesn't exist. All of this together is why I have strong dislike of militant atheism and anti-theism as expressed in this thread's OP.

Aquinas' First Way is a series of logical fallacies.
It's a logical fallacy because it's an irrelevant conclusion, it's also begging the question, and it's a fallacy of false cause.

Anselm's Ontological argument is nothing more than a priori reasoning at its finest and hence is useless as an argument.

Kalam's Cosmological Argument is a first-cause argument and hence is equally as logically fallacious as Aquinas' First Way.

- August

[MotherCossack]

aahhh! i'm scared!!!
this is a hairy, fairy, scarey, contrary exchange between folk who know about stuff!
if i put my oar in.... please dont grab it and pull.... or i will get wet!
what the hell.... i've gotta bit of savvy.... and it seems like a load of bumkum and balderdash is going down around here.

listen... you could all be going in the same direction but on different planes?

you said a soul is what ...numbskull!
mind is matter ... right ... yeah?
soul is horseshit tomfoolery and away with the fairies!

yeah... agreed... but also soul is a reasonably suitable way of expressing that funny stuff that happens to us on the inside. which makes it a bit more than plain matter.
feelings, beliefs, emotions, desires and so on... they are part of physical action inside our mind...messages, impulses, charged particles... whatever... shoot around working hard together to enable us to be so incredibly SOULFUL.

thats what i reckon.... but none of this is worth falling out over....dead entertaining watching you and you and the rest getting your knickers in a twist though.

[bcbm]

you're a dumbass

the mind is matter, is body.

the soul isn't. i don't think its that difficult.


don't flame other users motherfucker

[Franz Fanonipants]

Well sir... since I'm so fucking stupid, why don't you go on and explain:
a) What is a soul
b) What it's made out of
c) Where it is
d) Where it came from
e) How it relates to matter
f) Where the relation takes place
g) Why no one can see it
h) Why no one can measure it
i) Why only you seem to understand it
j) How you know it's not material (because you are material, so you must be able to perceive non-material things, which makes you extra special).

I don't think you will, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. So demonstrate your knowledge and my stupidity.

- August

answer to a-through-j:

none of it can be quantified in this manner since it's immaterial. i cannot analyze the soul like relationships to means of production. thats the major part of it being immaterial (and possibly non-extant).

[Decolonize The Left]

answer to a-through-j:

none of it can be quantified in this manner since it's immaterial. i cannot analyze the soul like relationships to means of production. thats the major part of it being immaterial (and possibly non-extant).

So.... you're saying that:

You don't know what it is
You don't know how it works
You don't know where it is
You don't know how it relates to anything
You don't know why it's there
You don't know how it came to be there

In effect, you don't know shit.

BUT, despite your self-stated totally not-knowing-what-the-fuck-you're-talking-about, you still want to claim that something is true?

Well done sir. Well done. If there were more religious people like you the whole institution would collapse under its own lack of integrity.

- August

[Franz Fanonipants]

fury.txt

[Franz Fanonipants]

Well done sir. Well done. If there were more religious people like you the whole institution would collapse under its own lack of integrity.

- August

if i were elected pope tomorrow i would abolish the institution idk what you want bro

you ask for me to quantify and define something that i said is unquantifiable and indefinable and then you give me some vinegar-ass bullshit when i say 'hey bro idk this shit is not really something you can measure empirically.'

[Astarte]

And so ended the 567th great atheist vs theist debate on revleft - neither side being able to prove nor disprove the existence of everything and nothing.

[MotherCossack]

well... hmph!
so much for mother superior's wise words of reconciliation and co-operation...
that has somewhat fucked up my self image..

i'm just a loser who gets ignored,
i just make most folk bored.
red ma red ma you is shit
you dont help us one little bit!

that self obsessed enough for ya...?
come on guys... its either... def. con. one.... or lets kiss and make up....

[bcbm]

BUT, despite your self-stated totally not-knowing-what-the-fuck-you're-talking-about, you still want to claim that something is true?

Well done sir. Well done. If there were more religious people like you the whole institution would collapse under its own lack of integrity.

- August

i think that approach is more honest than a lot of bullshit from religious people like creation science or whatever.

[Franz Fanonipants]

And so ended the 567th great atheist vs theist debate on revleft - neither side being able to prove nor disprove the existence of everything and nothing.

only one side will constantly act like it performed an act of amazing disproving and everyone should kiss its neckbeard atheist ass cus

[NGNM85]

i utilize constructivist pedagogy. i look at knowledge accumulation as a process of scaffolding knowledge. in order to learn the most basic unit of knowledge (and you'll note I am not saying ideas, because yelling "1 + 1 = 2!" in someone's face is not helpful) must first be experienced by the learner.

So, let's take last semester as an example. I'm GAing a class about early modern Europe, i chose to teach about the conquest of Mexico. the first thing i did was have the students (around 80) break into small group discussions and asked them what they already knew about the conquest of Mexico and the Aztecs/Triple Alliance. from there, i utilized primary source documents and images to build an argument among students as to whether or not the Triple Alliance were fully subdued by the Spanish and destroyed or if social structures and literary styles survived the conquest. both answers were valid and the class produced several strong discussions on both sides.

i did not:
have an idea i wanted them to memorize
mediate their experience with primary documents or essays on the subject
give them an answer or conclusion that they were supposed to reach

i did:
identify a process-based objective (utilize primary sources, maps, and images to make a persuasive argument)
gave students access to the tools necessary to reach that objective
allowed students to experience the process of argumentation and study

idk the rest give me some time to think

tl:dr

(Where have I heard that before???)

[MotherCossack]

Religion is a problem in itself, and it cannot always be connected to material conditions. There is that aspect, agreed - the poor having hope in god, and so on. But there is another aspect too where religion distorts our thinking. For instance, a rich person living in a good place with no cares or worries could also be religious - religious enough to believe that homosexuality is evil and homosexuals are very bad people with an agenda. No amount of logic will convince him that homosexuals are people too. His logic comes from the bible, so he doesn't care about facts.

In such cases, we clearly see how religion distorts our thinking, makes us hateful toward our fellow men - but most of all material conditions alone aren't responsible for this. Religion in itself is bad news.

hang-a-bloody-bout....
this thread got lost in the woods, clearly!....
it seems we are supposed to be discussing whether religon is socially, intellectually and morally a force for bad...arn't we?

not competing to be the most articulate waffle producer on rev-left...
[and we're not talking warm sweet toasted snacks either]

or even arm-wrestling over any metaphorical undetectables.....
or trying to write a definitive guide to intangible variables.....

anyway.... it's getting boring!!!!!!!!
anyway... nobody is takin any notice of me!
not fair!

[MotherCossack]

not really.
but, hey.... it is mothers day...
i'm allowed!

[Revolution starts with U]

You rock Mother Cossak! Everytime I read your posts, even when I don't understand them, are always by me taken notice. You keep being who you are... as if we could ever be anything else :lol:

[MotherCossack]

why i thank you kindly... not just with a click of my mousey mouse mouse...
but in words.... these words...
the day is but young...
indeed, the week is barely begun
and here am i
an ageing fart
but,young at heart
with a little smile
for a while
thank u

[Franz Fanonipants]

tl:dr

(Where have I heard that before???)

hey stupid i don't think you know it but tl semi-colon dr means that i am summarizing shit

[MotherCossack]

hey stupid i don't think you know it but tl semi-colon dr means that i am summarizing shit

normal literacy does not apply then?
what language is this....?
would you be so good as to post a list of these new-fangled abbreviations/ summarizations that you have or, may use.
so that in the future , an ageing stupido like myself, may have some hope of understanding......
what the fuck you are talking about!

(dont be cross you make me laugh and i like your name, although dumbass me has no idea what it means)

[dodger]

normal literacy does not apply then?
what language is this....?
would you be so good as to post a list of these new-fangled abbreviations/ summarizations that you have or, may use.
so that in the future , an ageing stupido like myself, may have some hope of understanding......
what the fuck you are talking about!

(dont be cross you make me laugh and i like your name, although dumbass me has no idea what it means)

It means Franz fragrantpants, Mother Cossack....which is how I like to think of him too.

[Franz Fanonipants]

normal literacy does not apply then?
what language is this....?
would you be so good as to post a list of these new-fangled abbreviations/ summarizations that you have or, may use.
so that in the future , an ageing stupido like myself, may have some hope of understanding......
what the fuck you are talking about!

(dont be cross you make me laugh and i like your name, although dumbass me has no idea what it means)

basically the key is to use the internet a lot and then you will get it but until then it is impenetrable.

[Elysian]

Religion makes people irrational and close minded. They won't acquire any knowledge which contradicts their scripture. This keeps them ignorant, and ignorant people are easily swayed by appeals to emotion - such people often become faithful followers of leaders who manipulate them, turn them against others who hold different beliefs or no belief system at all.

In short, religion is poison.

[bcbm]

well there's a crass generalization if i ever saw one

[Red Rabbit]

Religion makes people irrational and close minded. They won't acquire any knowledge which contradicts their scripture. This keeps them ignorant, and ignorant people are easily swayed by appeals to emotion - such people often become faithful followers of leaders who manipulate them, turn them against others who hold different beliefs or no belief system at all.

In short, religion is poison.

I'm sorry to say, but you are completely wrong.