Do you believe in god?

[Captain Marvelous]

Does communism have any bearing on whether or not one believes in god? Do communists generally tend to be theists or atheists? I believe in god.

[The Jay]

There's a poll on this and that poll indicated that a vast majority of revleft is atheistic. It just seems to be a vocal few on here that make it seem otherwise. I'll link the thread in a moment.

[The Jay]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-you-believe-t131150/index.html Here ya go. Also, I am an atheist but I think that one can be a communist and a theist at the same time. I may think that the belief is irrational, but people are free to think what they will, regardless of my opinion.

[ВАЛТЕР]

No, communists aren't so much against the belief in a god or gods as they are against the institutions which claim to represent god (churches, mosques, synagogues, etc.) and especially against the individuals who run these institutions. (priests, rabbis, imams, etc.)

Also, in general communism is based on materialism. We are concerned about material things, such as: factories, farms, produce, minerals, oil, industry in general.

Because of this communists tend to be atheists. We disregard things that aren't material as irrelevant to our politics.

[Bostana]

In Communism,
there is no official religion. But that doesn't mean that Communists hate believers. What we hate is people who are Fascist with Religion.

However most are atheists but they're theists. For those who do they believe s/he has little role in what we do.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

No, I do not believe in any sort of superstition.

[Drosophila]

A belief in God or gods is often accompanied by the notion that it is here to help us, which is ridiculous considering the situation we're in. The belief in a good God is stupid, in my opinion.

[Left Leanings]

I do not believe in god or gods, ghosts, sprites, benevolent fairies, angels and so on.

[Kronsteen]

There's no reason why someone can't believe Marx's political theories and follow his political project...while also believing the universe was created by a being who will provide an afterlife and has an obsession with human sex lives.

It's not as if marxists were any more rational or consistent than anyone else - a look around these forums shows that.

But it is difficult to believe you have a magic friend in the sky, when you understand why other people hold the same belief.

[roy]

A belief in God or gods is often accompanied by the notion that it is here to help us, which is ridiculous considering the situation we're in. The belief in a good God is stupid, in my opinion.

Relevance?

No, whether you're an atheist or a theist has nothing to do with communism.

[Franz Fanonipants]

i believe in God, prophets, and Jesus

[Red Rabbit]

There's a poll on this and that poll indicated that a vast majority of revleft is atheistic. It just seems to be a vocal few on here that make it seem otherwise.

Are we really that loud?

[MotherCossack]

hey we are a broad-minded, easy going, and a tolerant bunch, here on rev-left.....
surely....
personally... belief in god.... hmmmmm.... whole thing smacks of a tall tale to me.....
unfortunately

[The Jay]

Are we really that loud?

A bit, yes. You're free to be as vocal as you want as far as I am concerned. I'm just tired of all the flaming, straw men, and red herrings that have been going on lately. I'm not saying that you were doing such things but you have seen it haven't you?

[Caj]

Although communists tend to be atheists, atheism is in no way a precondition for being a communist. Religious doctrines have, in fact, been fused with progressivism before (e.g. Liberation Theology -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology).


In Communism,
there is no official religion. But that doesn't mean that Communists hate believers. What we hate is people who are Fascist with Religion.

This is the second time just today I've seen you use this term so lightly. Fascism isn't just some buzzword to brand on every form of reaction; it has an objective meaning that needs to be understood.

[Kyu Six]

People sometimes seek spiritual answers to material problems. This will never work. You can pray and pray and pray for bread to fall out of the sky, but you will die of starvation before it happens.

[Optiow]

I don't believe in God in the Christian sense, but I'm a religious Marxist. And so are a lot of other Marxists I know. As long as you are involved class struggle I don't care if you think the world was created by a gigantic bar of soap. (Well, maybe I'd care a little, but I wouldn't stop you believing it).

[Ostrinski]

I'm an atheist and I do not give a fuck.

This is Brospierre and I approve of this message.

[NewLeft]

I'm an atheist and I do not give a fuck.

This is Brospierre and I approve of this message.
Why give a fuck if god exists then, apatheists.. recruiting.

[godlessfilthycommiedog]

Marx has made some anti-religious statements, but there's still a minority of religious communists. Many argue that religious teachings would favour a communist society, which would discourage greed and would depend on mutual cooperation. I, personally, am an atheist (it's in my username :D), and although I believe that organized religion is harmful to a society, I think that if you would like to believe in God, and aren't against the revolution, you're alright :lol: (I'd think this is the view held by most atheist leftists)

[Mr. Natural]

I'm an atheist with a great appreciation of spirituality. Human community--people coming together in common purpose--is "spiritual." A communist society would be redolent of this human spirituality.

Marx and Engels were well aware of the pitfalls of religion, but weren't dogmatic or inappropriately hostile. Marx thus wrote the following famous passage: "Religious suffering is at the same time an expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
"The abolition of religioin as the illusory happiness of men, is a demand for their real happiness. The call to abandon their illusions about their condition is a call to abandon a condition which requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, the embryonic criticism of this vale of tears of which religion is the halo." (Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right: Introduction)

I find that passage, so rife with dialectical delights, also neatly sums up the roots of the universality of religions.

Marx also said, somewhere, "We must become the gods we have created." His daughter, Eleanor, recalled Marx taking them to a church to hear the music and many times saying, "After all we can forgive Christianity much, because it taught us the worship of the child."

My red-green, spiritual best.

[Positivist]

Jesus had a lot of teachings that were communist so sure. Also idealist commitments and concerns aren't too uncommon amongst most communists but are rejected by some while idealist affairs are big in religion.

[Grenzer]

I don't believe in a deity because I don't see any evidence that one exists or have had an experience that would lead me to conclude one does. I also don't care whether other people think differently; many people that believe in spirits seem to at least tend to be much more rational in other things. With that said, I am a staunch secularist; but opposed to state atheism.

[Rafiq]

It's Materialism that is important to Marxism. Materialism, is in totality postatheist, without a divine entity, etc.

But this doesn't mean that there can be several aspects of Materialism in which theists can concur with.

A lot of Atheists are Idealists which makes them counterrevolutionaries in nature. Blaming "religion" for a lot of the world's problems, for wars, for deaths, is antithetical to Marxism.

As for Communism, it doesn't matter what you believe, so long as your interest is identical with that of the proletariat.

[Lobotomy]

Jesus had a lot of teachings that were communist so sure.

what do you mean? How did Jesus advocate communism when communism didn't come to exist as an idea several centuries after jesus's supposed death?

[SDAN]

It's not a problem as long as you are ultimate liberal in non-spiritual things.

[Red Rabbit]

what do you mean? How did Jesus advocate communism when communism didn't come to exist as an idea several centuries after jesus's supposed death?

Call it what you want, but it was basically Communism. You could say Jesus thought of it before Marx.

[Positivist]

Look for the revleft thread on "from jesus' socialism to capitalistic Christianity" it has some passages from the gospels on owning property in common on the thread opening post.

[Rusty Shackleford]

no, and it doesnt really matter.

[Positivist]

It's Materialism that is important to Marxism. Materialism, is in totality postatheist, without a divine entity, etc.

But this doesn't mean that there can be several aspects of Materialism in which theists can concur with.

A lot of Atheists are Idealists which makes them counterrevolutionaries in nature. Blaming "religion" for a lot of the world's problems, for wars, for deaths, is antithetical to Marxism.

As for Communism, it doesn't matter what you believe, so long as your interest is identical with that of the proletariat.

So someone is a 'counterrevolutionary' because they have ideas other than what their next meal will be? I believe that research should be conducted on a materialist basis but one may still have idealist priorities and be a communist.

[Rafiq]

So someone is a 'counterrevolutionary' because they have ideas other than what their next meal will be? I believe that research should be conducted on a materialist basis but one may still have idealist priorities and be a communist.

And where do you think your precious Ideas come from? Your ass? They are direct reflects of class's relation to the mode of production. Idealism doesn't mean having Ideas. It's about what comes first. Meaning, not only must we know the origin of Ideas, with this, we must undersrand that Ideas cannot create material conditions. If you're a communist before a real class concious exists than your Ideas will not change anything. Ideas can't change anything, period.

[Blake's Baby]

what do you mean? How did Jesus advocate communism when communism didn't come to exist as an idea several centuries after jesus's supposed death?

What are you talking about? There have been religious communists since before Jesus was supposed to have lived. James led the first Christian communists in Jerusalem by about AD40. The teachings of the early Church (up to c AD400) were heavily slanted towards 'give up all you have and follow me' and 'it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven'. Check out 'the Sicilian Briton, a monk who wrote pamphlets cAD400 explaining 'it is the few rich that are the cause of the many poor, abolish the rich and there will be no more poor'.

[Positivist]

And where do you think your precious Ideas come from? Your ass? They are direct reflects of class's relation to the mode of production. Idealism doesn't mean having Ideas. It's about what comes first. Meaning, not only must we know the origin of Ideas, with this, we must undersrand that Ideas cannot create material conditions. If you're a communist before a real class concious exists than your Ideas will not change anything. Ideas can't change anything, period.

Ideas only exist in the folds of our neurons so of course they themselves cannot create material conditions but what then may we ask does create material conditions? They don't just spontaneously emerge now do they? No. Material conditions are changed by people, and people's actions are directed by thoughts, which when thoroughly developed, are ideas. Furthermore ideas aren't always born of our material interests. Somehow I manage to believe that the suffering of the masses under capitalism is wrong and can be avoided through socialist communes without being on foodstamps.

[eyeheartlenin]

I am a theist, and I work, informally, with a tendency that makes atheism a requirement for membership. We get along great. There are plenty of indications, in both Testaments, that the Deity has a special regard for the impoverished and victims of injustice, which would certainly include exploited workers. The Old Testament "minor" prophets (those with the shorter books) tirelessly denounced social injustice, so a concern for society is a part of biblical religion.

[Yuppie Grinder]

lol no

[LiquidBryan]

Nope. I'm an atheist like most of the other leftists here.

The main reason I'm against organized religion is because it divides the working class. It'd be a lot less easier to mobilize the whole working class if it weren't for religion getting in the way. It's hard enough to get us all to unite but having religion just adds a needless roadblock to us collectively working for the betterment of our lives.

Sure, it's possible to enjoin communism with religion. I'd liken it to scientists who are religious though. Not to be mean but in a way it seems like an irresponsible way of combining two viewpoints that are pretty incompatible. My hope is that religion would be outlawed once we establish a communist state.

Aside from that, faith is generally not conducive to leftist ideals. Call me cynical but I think that some of the people ITT who say they're religious communists are likely secular Christians (or whatever faith they claim to be). And that's fine with me, because taking faith too seriously would make them fundamentalists. As far as I can tell, I don't think we'd regard them as comrades if they were fundies.

[lombas]

I think God exists in so far as p-brane exists.

Also, I "like" the New Testament and appreciate the Religious Society of Friends.

[Mr. Natural]

Joel Kovel insightfully investigates the Bruderhof, an essentially conservative Christian sect that successfully eschews capitalist values while making its living in the capitalist marketplace, in his excellent and neglected work, The Enemy of Nature (2002). The Bruderhof base their community on first Christians, Acts 2: 44-45: "And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need."

Then there is A.V. Lunacharsky, a Bolshevik who became the first post-revolutionary minister of education, who attempted to develop a "proletarian" religion. Here is Helena Sheehan on this in her most excellent Marxism and the Philosophy of Science (1985): "Reflecting both the influence of Machism and the increase in religious interest after 1905, Lunacharsky and Gorky proposed a reconstructed religion, and anthropocentric and purely immanent religion for socialism. The idea was to embrace all that was positive in traditional religion, that is, the sense of community and man's yearning for transcendence, without adhering to belief in God, the supernatural world, or the immortality of the soul."

"Spirituality" arises from material, communal relations, whether they are the relations of community among ourselves or of living in community with the rest of life. As Marx and Engels knew, we are natural beings, and natural human beings live in community: communism.

[Rafiq]

Ideas only exist in the folds of our neurons so of course they themselves cannot create material conditions but what then may we ask does create material conditions? They don't just spontaneously emerge now do they? No. Material conditions are changed by people, and people's actions are directed by thoughts, which when thoroughly developed, are ideas. Furthermore ideas aren't always born of our material interests. Somehow I manage to believe that the suffering of the masses under capitalism is wrong and can be avoided through socialist communes without being on foodstamps.

Material conditions change as a result of the mode of production, most of the time unintentionally.

Humans do make history, but they can never make history as they please, i.e. Their thoughts are mere products of their physical relation to the production process. We only developed language for hunting purposes, btw.

Ideas are products of human organizational techniques, i.e. these modes of organization create something beyond themselves, beyond a mere relation, but a new constraint in which new forms of thought and language can exist.

[seventeethdecember2016]

Does communism have any bearing on whether or not one believes in god? Do communists generally tend to be theists or atheists? I believe in god.
God is impossible to prove one way or another. Opposition to religion will just breed Reactionary fervor wherever it is challenged.
Any competent Communist movement will know that opposition to religion is counterproductive.

Please realize this fact! We are not here to start an Atheist revolution. We are here to spread a Proletarian revolution! Religion has nothing to do with out cause, and we shouldn't make it part of our cause.

[brigadista]

no - not after a convent education ...:D:D

[The Jay]

Please realize this fact! We are not here to start an Atheist revolution. We are here to spread a Proletarian revolution! Religion has nothing to do with out cause, and we shouldn't make it part of our cause.

I don't think that anyone here is advocating a purely atheistic revolution. What's your point exactly?

[Yefim Zverev]

religion is bad. life taught me this.

[Red Rabbit]

I don't think that anyone here is advocating a purely atheistic revolution. What's your point exactly?

You obviously haven't read many threads around here then.

[roy]

Nope. I'm an atheist like most of the other leftists here.

The main reason I'm against organized religion is because it divides the working class. It'd be a lot less easier to mobilize the whole working class if it weren't for religion getting in the way. It's hard enough to get us all to unite but having religion just adds a needless roadblock to us collectively working for the betterment of our lives.

Why would it be easier to mobilise the working class without religion? Religion isn't an objective obstacle; it's personal belief. Besides which, it's not the job of the left to rouse the slumbering masses to action. The proletariat can liberate itself, regardless of how many pamphlets leftist sects print.


Sure, it's possible to enjoin communism with religion. I'd liken it to scientists who are religious though. Not to be mean but in a way it seems like an irresponsible way of combining two viewpoints that are pretty incompatible. My hope is that religion would be outlawed once we establish a communist state.

You can join communism with religion if you really want, but they're two completely separate things. They don't have to conflict or be joined. What do you mean it's irresponsible to join religion with communism anyway? Which religion? Why do you falsely suppose that all adherents to a certain faith make the same interpretations? This is obviously untrue. Outlawing religion would be nothing short of disgusting. That doesn't begin to cover it, actually. Most people in the world are religious. You'd basically be making most of the world's population, most of the proletariat, illegal. People wouldn't simply stop believing something because the thought police said so. Anyway, that's obviously not going to happen and there's no such thing as a "communist state". Communism is stateless.


Aside from that, faith is generally not conducive to leftist ideals. Call me cynical but I think that some of the people ITT who say they're religious communists are likely secular Christians (or whatever faith they claim to be). And that's fine with me, because taking faith too seriously would make them fundamentalists. As far as I can tell, I don't think we'd regard them as comrades if they were fundies.

It's clearly not fine with you that Christians merely uphold secularism seeing as though you'd have religion outlawed in your nightmare "communist state". Why do you care what others believe? Stating that faith is not conducive to supposed "leftist ideals" is a drastic over-simplification and is also very vague.

[The Jay]

You obviously haven't read many threads around here then.

I have but I don't recall people saying that religious people should not be represented in the revolution. I think that you're mistaking criticism for exclusion.


PS: Also, LiquidBryan, I'll take your mimicry as a compliment but still . . .

[seventeethdecember2016]

I don't think that anyone here is advocating a purely atheistic revolution. What's your point exactly?
That comment was a reminder to our Left-wing associates that simply because our ideology has an Atheistic character does not mean that we should promote Atheism.

The comment was aimed towards a General audience, not anyone to be specific.

[Red Rabbit]

I have but I don't recall people saying that religious people should not be represented in the revolution. I think that you're mistaking criticism for exclusion.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/militant-atheism-necessary-t169584/index.html

While Elysian is a troll, just note how many people agreed with him throughout the thread.

[Veovis]

God is impossible to prove one way or another. Opposition to religion will just breed Reactionary fervor wherever it is challenged.
Any competent Communist movement will know that opposition to religion is counterproductive.

Please realize this fact! We are not here to start an Atheist revolution. We are here to spread a Proletarian revolution! Religion has nothing to do with out cause, and we shouldn't make it part of our cause.

I think we need to make the distinction between opposition to religion and calling out those who would use religious rhetoric to justify bigoted bullshit against people of other religions, the non-religious, LGBTs, etc.

Also, we should also strive for a secular society where people's religious beliefs and practices are an exclusively private matter.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Jesus dies about 33 A.D. The Gospels weren't written for another 4 decades. The only thing connecting these two time periods were the Epistles of Paul; letters Paul had written to early christian leaders. In it, Paul only knows about the death, resurrection, and ascension of the story of Jesus. In these letters, he doesn't even know Jesus was supposed to be a man that had currently existed and thought that all these things happened in a mystical realm, not on earth. This is the only thing connecting the death of Jesus to the writings of the Gospels. Also, there are stories of other mythological figures that proceed the story of Jesus that included healing the blind, rising from the dead, being born of a virgin, etc. The virgin birth of Jesus isn't even in all the Gospels, etc. etc.

Watch the movie The God Who Wasn't There and Religilous. Disproves the whole Jesus myth and Christianity.

[lombas]

Jesus dies about 33 A.D. The Gospels weren't written for another 4 decades. The only thing connecting these two time periods were the Epistles of Paul; letters Paul had written to early christian leaders. In it, Paul only knows about the death, resurrection, and ascension of the story of Jesus. In these letters, he doesn't even know Jesus was supposed to be a man that had currently existed and thought that all these things happened in a mystical realm, not on earth. This is the only thing connecting the death of Jesus to the writings of the Gospels. Also, there are stories of other mythological figures that proceed the story of Jesus that included healing the blind, rising from the dead, being born of a virgin, etc. The virgin birth of Jesus isn't even in all the Gospels, etc. etc.

Watch the movie The God Who Wasn't There and Religilous. Disproves the whole Jesus myth and Christianity.

Do you often copy/paste your posts to voice your opinion that isn't even relative to the question asked?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/im-reading-bible-t169568/index.html?p=2398962

;)

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Do you often copy/paste your posts to voice your opinion that isn't even relative to the question asked?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/im-reading-bible-t169568/index.html?p=2398962

;)

HA! You caught me:D
Obviously, I thought it would be relevant here to. At least it's my own text and I wasn't claiming someone else's shit! That would be screwed up.

[Positivist]

Material conditions change as a result of the mode of production, most of the time unintentionally.

Humans do make history, but they can never make history as they please, i.e. Their thoughts are mere products of their physical relation to the production process. We only developed language for hunting purposes, btw.

Ideas are products of human organizational techniques, i.e. these modes of organization create something beyond themselves, beyond a mere relation, but a new constraint in which new forms of thought and language can exist.

I agree with this for the most part. My one objection is that many communists develop their views without carrying the physical relation to production where it can be expected to develop. Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels for example developed their ideas without working in factories in or in any other form of exploitive labor.

[Positivist]

Maybe its time for a new thread on ideological developments and their relation to material conditions. The two conflicting views seem to be that material conditions alone account for the development of ideas and that ideas can have their basis in subjective reasoning or emoting.

[Rafiq]

I agree with this for the most part. My one objection is that many communists develop their views without carrying the physical relation to production where it can be expected to develop. Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels for example developed their ideas without working in factories in or in any other form of exploitive labor.

No, Marx and Engels didn't discover or "Create" communism. Communism as a movement and Ideology was created organically from the proletariat. Communism, essentially, came as a direct result of productive forces in relation to the mode of production.

Marx and Engels hitched a ride with it and made the movement more Scientific all together.

[DrStrangelove]

religion is bad. life taught me this.

Religion is only as progressive or reactionary as the conditions in which it exists. Religion and religious people can foster some of the most backwards and reactionary opinions. They can also be revolutionary leftists and Marxists. Conditions shape ideas and ideology, not the other way around.

[seventeethdecember2016]

I think we need to make the distinction between opposition to religion and calling out those who would use religious rhetoric to justify bigoted bullshit against people of other religions, the non-religious, LGBTs, etc.

Also, we should also strive for a secular society where people's religious beliefs and practices are an exclusively private matter.
I am actually advocating secularism, so perhaps you should use a little more thought the next time you read one of my comments.

[Veovis]

I am actually advocating secularism, so perhaps you should use a little more thought the next time you read one of my comments.

Where in this thread did you do that, then?

[seventeethdecember2016]

Where in this thread did you do that, then?


Any competent Communist movement will know that opposition to religion is counterproductive.
I.E. if we want to be successful, we have to be respectful to religion.


That comment was a reminder to our Left-wing associates that simply because our ideology has an Atheistic character does not mean that we should promote Atheism.
I.E. although our ideologies are mostly Atheistic, that doesn't mean we should force everyone to adopt Atheism.

[TheGeekySocialist]

nope, been an atheist since 13, latterly I consider myself a Secular Humanist. before 13 I was Catholic and quite a strong one before I lost my faith. I have no real issue with people being religious (unless they are fundamentalist's or the like) though.

[MotherCossack]

well actually.....
i am not sure if i should be telling you this....
but they want me to take over...
the last guy... he had issues....
whatdya reckon....
should i do it...

[Azraella]

1. Yes.

2. No. It's not a theistic conception of god. It's Haisch's God (http://www.amazon.com/dp/1578634369?tag=calphysics-20&camp=14573&creative=327641&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=1578634369&adid=011Y3BJFPXQTCFN8DZFH&&ref-refURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegodtheory.com%2F), and even though I describe myself as a soft polytheist, it's more along the lines of a Jungian outlook on the gods and goddesses I believe in. I think they are Jungian archetypes.

3. Quite frankly. God knows us better than we believe in it.

That is all.

[Luís Henrique]

Jesus dies about 33 A.D. The Gospels weren't written for another 4 decades. The only thing connecting these two time periods were the Epistles of Paul; letters Paul had written to early christian leaders. In it, Paul only knows about the death, resurrection, and ascension of the story of Jesus. In these letters, he doesn't even know Jesus was supposed to be a man that had currently existed and thought that all these things happened in a mystical realm, not on earth. This is the only thing connecting the death of Jesus to the writings of the Gospels.

According to Earl Doherty (http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/home.htm), at least. The idea is that the Gospel of Mark is a kind of midrash, and that the others built upon it.


Also, there are stories of other mythological figures that proceed the story of Jesus that included healing the blind, rising from the dead, being born of a virgin, etc. The virgin birth of Jesus isn't even in all the Gospels, etc. etc.The virgin conception is only in Luke and Matthew, but even then the accounts are mutually exclusive (Mt has it happening during the end of Herodes the Great reign, ie, about 4 bC, while Lk has it around the time of Quirinus' census, ie, about 6 aD). But don't forget that the story of Lazarus is widely believed to be only in John, but if the Secret Mark isn't a forgery, then it is in Mark too.

Mark seemed to have an interesting sence of humour; the confrontation between Jesus, the son of the Father, and Barrabas (literally, son of the father) is baffling. Particularly since the religious leader is depicted as "King of the Jews" (a political title), as opposed to the political leader, that is only Bar-Abbas (a religious title disguised as a proper name). And the devil is the only character that can accurately cite the scriptures, as he does when he tempts Jesus.

Luís Henrique

[capinyourasspitalism]

nope:thumbdown:

[SinoRebel]

I wouldn't say that being religious and a communist is a through and through oxymoron.

However I would say in most cases us far leftists should be above believing in superstitions created by the bourgeois to manipulate the masses.

[RedAtheist]

I.E. if we want to be successful, we have to be respectful to religion.

I'm more concerned with being true to what I think than I am with being successful. People (especially those active in politics) often criticise each others political and ethical beliefs, yet for some reason its 'unacceptable' for us to criticise religion. I don't think it makes sense for religion to have such a priviliged status.

I don't think religious people should be prevented from participating in revolutions or joining revolutionary organisations, but if a religious person decides not to be part of a socialist party, just because somebody in that party said something critical about their religion, I think it is up to the religious person to develop a thicker skin. It's not up to the people who dislike religion to be dishonest, by pretending that they are perfectly fine with it.

Besides, material conditions play a much bigger role in determining how successful a revolutionary organisation will be, than how 'nice' that organisation is.



although our ideologies are mostly Atheistic, that doesn't mean we should force everyone to adopt Atheism.

Please understand that when I see the word 'force' used, I imagine guns being pointed to people's head. Pointing out to people what is wrong with religion and attempting to reason with them about their beliefs is not 'forcing' them to adopt atheism.

I can't speak for all critics of religion, but I daresay most of us don't want religion banned. This doesn't mean I admire religion. It just means that I recognise that forcing people to accept an idea (as in, using the actual force of the state in an oppressive manner) does not work. It can sometimes make people more religious.

Never-the-less I must emphasis that there is a difference between criticising something (even strongly criticising it) and wanting to stamp it out using the force of the state.

[MotherCossack]

can you bloody believe it....
they gave the job to someone else.
i am gutted.....
something about my grammar not being up to scratch.... and my general inability to think and do along the same lines as everybody else!
bloody cheek.
thats it.... i definitely dont believe in god!

[Kyu Six]

I am a theist, and I work, informally, with a tendency that makes atheism a requirement for membership. We get along great. There are plenty of indications, in both Testaments, that the Deity has a special regard for the impoverished and victims of injustice, which would certainly include exploited workers. The Old Testament "minor" prophets (those with the shorter books) tirelessly denounced social injustice, so a concern for society is a part of biblical religion.

The god of the Old Testament was a fascist. He was committed to an ethnically pure Israelite nation and pursued a policy of genocide with regard to other peoples such as the Amalekites. The New Testament was similarly reactionary with Jesus advocating paying taxes to Caesar, knowing full well that Caesar was only exploiting the working class and unfairly appropriating their surplus labor value for his own enrichment. And don't even get me started on "turn the other cheek". Jesus was opposed to proletarian revolution! :p

[Zostrianos]

I don't think religion and socialism are incompatible. The important thing is for religion to remain a personal matter, and for secularism to be maintained. A lot of the problems with organized religions that exist today (mainly Christianity and Islam) stem from such religions' desire to extend their influence over social and political spheres, and that is unacceptable.

As for believing in God, yes I do, but more in a symbolic sense. Like Lady Catherine said, the Gods may exist as archetypes in the human psyche. My idea of God is that of the transcendent, pantheistic One of Hermetism and Neoplatonism. I'm a firm believer in the power of mysticism and esoteric philosophy as the highest forms of spirituality. Scientific study of mystical practices like meditation
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_on_meditation) has proven their usefulness to make one's life better. I'd consider myself a Pagan Neoplatonist if I had to label my beliefs.

The way I reconcile my spiritual beliefs with reality is that I accept the universe as it is, but I think there's more to it. Ultimately, it may simply be my pattern-seeking brain that's seeing more than there really is, but in any case I think it's a reasonable way of reconciling reality and religion. When I think about the Universe, I get a strange feeling that maybe all those mystics, holy men, shamans, Gnostics, &c of the past were not as delusional as we may think, and perhaps stumbled onto something else about the universe that we haven't yet found through conventional science.

[Avocado]

Religion is divisive, breeds hierarchies of power and is irrational. It has no place in a civilised society.
I would be prepared to stomach a State Secular 'Religion" in a Rousseauian sense: not much else.

[Luís Henrique]

The god of the Old Testament was a fascist.

Yeah, he is so a-historical that he managed to be a fascist in times the concept of fascism didn't even make sence! :rolleyes:


He was committed to an ethnically pure Israelite nation and pursued a policy of genocide with regard to other peoples such as the Amalekites.

Or rather the Israelites were committed to their "ethnical purity" (just like, let's say, hmm, practically all ethnic groups of the time) and superimposed it on their creations, their god included.


The New Testament was similarly reactionary with Jesus advocating paying taxes to Caesar, knowing full well that Caesar was only exploiting the working class and unfairly appropriating their surplus labor value for his own enrichment.

Erm, no, that is not quite what Jesus was doing. First of all, he was thwarting a petty scheme by the Pharisees to intrigue him with either the Roman conquerors or the Jewish zealots: he was telling the Pharisees that if they didn't reject the political system imposed by the Romans, they had no right to reject its consequences, taxes being one of those.

There was no surplus-value in Jesus' place and time. You are projecting capitalist categories into a thoroughly pre-capitalist society.


And don't even get me started on "turn the other cheek". Jesus was opposed to proletarian revolution! :p

No, he wasn't. He would have no possibility of being either opposed or in favour of it, the basic fact being that there was no proletariat at the time that could undertake a proletarian revolution.

Luís Henrique

[Hit The North]

Blimey, Luis, it's only a story...

[Lilith]

God is my sugardaddy.

[Ele'ill]

We are born and we live once before forever nothingness. Do something.

[Ele'ill]

nope:thumbdown:

I see this here:
Rep Power: 0
Reputation: -2147483640

[desire]

I cannot post the essay I wanted to yet so this reply might not make sense.
The essay was "On The Jewish Question" by Karl Marx written in autumn of 1843. It is in response to Bruno Bauer's "The Jewish Question."

How does the Jew emincapte himself? Why would he want to emnicapte himself?
For sake of the discussion I was a Jew. I was completely involved in the heritage of the jewish people and the jewish culture but now that has passed.
In order to emincapte mankind and for the progression of human life I gave up the Jewish culture and the Jewish God.
I took away moral values that guide my life today but I do not need to pray to a ficitional creator to be a "righteous" human being.
Men do not need these religious institutions because they ARE corrupt.
I do respect all people and with all their ideologies even if they are different and in conflict with my ideals.

[Valdyr]

I can't square dialectical materialism with religion, and I can't conceive of Marxism without dialectical materialism, ergo...

However, I certainly am not going to care outside of a purely intellectual debate whether or not one of my fellow revolutionaries is religious, so long as they are on the right side of the class struggle. Religion being a product of material conditions, we (atheists) can't just point out what's wrong with religion and expect religion to disappear, and if it doesn't people are stupid - that's what Marx criticized Feurbach for thinking.

I would not hesitate to count myself an ally of a religious Marxist and an enemy of the bourgeois/positivist atheists like Hitchens.

[fabian]

I do not believe in God, so I can be called a non-theist, also I could be called an infidel, because I am a staunch rationalist and against all fideist ideas.

As I said- I do not believe in God, but I do think that God exists, and like to make a distinction between that two things- belief and opinion.

Formally, I am a Deist, and my theological (and somewhere ethical) opinions are close to Neoplatonism.

If had to indentify with a school that exists, or that existed, that would we be the school of Quintus Sextius.

[Bloodwerk]

No. And I doubt I ever will.
This is the simplest answer I can give. Otherwise I'd go on and on with hours about every little detail I dislike.

[Pretty Flaco]

Well I do believe in myself, so yes.

[Rooster]

If there is a god, then what have they done for me recently?

[Rafiq]

If there is a god, then what have they done for me recently?



It's this argument that any Marxist should avoid, as it's weak.

Here is the point: The Universe operates independantly from Conciousness and Thought, so to reduce it to a mere thought on behalf of a higher being is ludicrious. We are, in ourselves nothing more than self operating Automata, i.e. No different from a Tree, or, for example, a rock.

We are a collective of several organs operating simultaniously, like a Solar System. With this, there is no mystery to life, life itself is the constant process of an organism to forfill it's own survival, or the collective survival of many like itself, in some cases.

[Azraella]

If there is a god, then what have they done for me recently?

Who says God is a personal god?

[Ostrinski]

If God is not a personal God then I have no use for it.

[Art Vandelay]

Given the state of the world, I think this is a fair assessment:

If he's god, he's not great; if he's not great, he's not god.

[Klaatu]

I do not believe in a religious god, per se. But I do think there is a hidden force of life, in line with other forces such as electrostatic force, magnetic force, quarks, string theory, and such. In other words, I believe there is a sort of scientific explanaton of life, as there are scientific explanations of these other things I have mentioned. We just have not found the mechanism yet.

And if there actually is a "god" out there he (she) would be a scientist,
not an angry-looking old bearded guy in a white robe wearing a fancy hat.

He would look like a scientist, a lot like Albert Einstein. (hmmmm)

http://lh5.ggpht.com/kopykawai/SNhMfjTilgI/AAAAAAAAJQw/YH19iq3KX-E/Einstein001.jpg