Secular Athiest Capitalism

[graffic]

Can someone please explain to me in plain English why the fact that the Bible is not nice about homosexuals or women outweighs the extremely important and profound things religion also teaches about taming arrogance and greed that make people better people and the stuff about homosexuals can be interpreted differently anyway. Who invented this idea, why is it happening?

Bourgeoise, anti-religious liberals who are in favour of the free market but also reject religious ethics and morality are sociopaths and mentally ill. I don't care about leftists who oppose religion because they are not capitalists however fetishizing capitalism and materialism at the same time as rejecting religion is extremely fucked up in my opinion.

I think it's the root cause of the "me me" consumerist culture making society increasingly atomised and disconnected, justifying selfish naval gazing nonsense under the guise of being "progressive" because it's anti-religious. No good will come of it.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Edit:

anti-religious liberals who are in favour of the free market but also reject religious ethics and morality are sociopaths and mentally ill. I don't care about leftists who oppose religion because they are not capitalists however fetishizing capitalism and materialism at the same time as rejecting religion is extremely fucked up in my opinion.
Can't blame them - Capitalism is quite clearly an atheist-manned economic system. Religion was an excuse for a hell of a lot of problems facing the working class throughout the centuries, and the surge of religious skepticism in the past 200 years has done wonders in dispelling the myths that kept a worker's discontent quelled.

Also, by 'religious ethics and morals' do you mean those outlined in the bible?

[roy]

the bible containing misogyny and homophobia doesn't "outweigh" whatever positive teachings it may espouse, but that doesn't mean that bigotry should be excused. this so-called "anti-religious, progressive" mindset is definitely not the cause of consumer culture, anywho.

[Avanti]

atheism

is just

another religion

paganism

extoiling

enlightenment ideals

worshipping

the human being

as god

through science

the creator

and not all humans

but the elite

[roy]

atheism

is just

another religion

ugh no

[Avanti]

atheism

is a religion

because

it is

the belief

in human agency

determining

weighing

understanding

the universe

through

scientific means

it is a fetish

the universe

can never

be understood

only experienced

i'm

a monotheist

btw

[roy]

no, it's just lacking a belief in a god or gods. I know it's kinda taken on a different meaning with the dawkins and friends crowd but that's not what it actually is.

[graffic]

the bible containing misogyny and homophobia doesn't "outweigh" whatever positive teachings it may espouse, .

You see the bourgeoise dismissing priests and imams all the time as "bigots" when they are about to make a very profound point about greed and corruption.

Financial free market newspapers and magazines are obsessed with the idea of "growth". They fetishize growth and paint greed as being "good" whilst simultaneously running articles sneering at the "bigoted" and "old fashioned" ways of the church whilst praising the bourgeoise as being "progressive" because they have a bit more skirt in their class.

I think it is morally reprehensible.

[GoddessCleoLover]

IMO both are reprehensible. Who was the person who coined the phrase about strangling the least capitalist with the guts of the las priest?

[hatzel]

they have a bit more skirt in their class

Oh what a way with words you have, such a smooth talker...

[GoddessCleoLover]

I still can't figure out the point he was trying to make.:confused:

[The Jay]

Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.

Yep, he sounds like he's a real fighter for the poor and oppressed there. Also, this could be seen as either an endorsement of the status quo but is likely more in line with encouragement to be apolitical and slightly aloof to Earthly affairs. Either option is foolhardy.


But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

No thank you. If someone is trying to harm me and I deem it beneficial - which would be almost every time - to defend myself I will do so.

____________________

Take a listen to this:

It starts about 1min in.DXGuHCsjXro

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

atheism

is a religion

because

it is

the belief

in human agency

determining

weighing

understanding

the universe

through

scientific means

What definition of "religion" are you using? Atheism doesn't posit a supernatural or teleological universe.


it is a fetish

the universe

can never

be understood

only experienced

Not true. We can understand the universe, which is why we can predict planetary movements and such. Also, the vast majority of the universe is not experienced by human beings. What with us being limited to one planet so far.


i'm

a monotheist

btw

Do you worship this god of yours?

[campesino]

a

[Rakshaal]

I'm sorry but I'm having trouble how you think that liberals are anti-religious. I've met quite a few liberals that are more religious than even many conservatives, at least in the United States. Also being a priest doesn't mean they has some particular new insight about the world the rest of us don't have. I'd reject all those religion given morals in no time in favor of ones that I decided for myself.

[Red Banana]

atheism

is a religion

Oh yeah, just like how not playing baseball is a sport.

[Avanti]

we are all god

we worship

by living

[graffic]

Oh what a way with words you have, such a smooth talker...

Liberals also use it to apologize for imperialism. For example US "democracy" and the spreading of it is excused by liberals in such ways as claiming it encourages women's rights etc. Liberal defenders of Israel often use the argument that "Israel is nice to gays" as if that excuses the violence and land grabbing.

I don't agree with identity politics at all. Yet there seems to be a cross party consensus in most Western nations that advocating identity politics is "morally" correct and is a feather in the cap of the bourgeoise.

[The Jay]

I am a proud atheist, and the path of materialism has taught me I am a social being.


Materialism (http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/materialism.htm) is the philosophical school that holds that there is nothing that makes up reality other than the physical ie: there is only physics. What you are trying to say is that Historical Materialism taught you that you are interconnected with other people. That may be true but you should have known that or have been exposed to that from basic psychological and sociological studies, only under different names. Behaviorism (http://core.libraries.wright.edu/handle/2374.WSU/3709) is very similar to HM and is taught in highschools and earlier school curricula.

If you meant that hearing the argument broke the hold of bourgeois ideology over you, to put it metaphorically, then I guess that I understand what you mean, but the way you worded it reminded me of how one talks about a religion instead of a mode of analysis.



It has taught me that insight and introvertedness and ascetism is just a ploy to isolate us and create a false sense of superiority.
You are using an uncommon version of the word 'introversion'. Most people think of the word as a person being quiet or pensive.

As for the sentence itself: the ideological hegemony of the bourgeoisie is not an intentional construction for the most part. They do not intend to create sheep or whatever you meant by superiority. The ideology of the bourgeoisie is that of the John Locke with his emphasis on the social contract and an adherence to his ideas of private property.

There is no ploy or grand conspiracy.



it is awful to be an introvert who believes that the poor deserve to be poor and believes ion the other lies of idsealism, that an individual can surpass his environment and become an ubermensch.

Again, that is not the conventional use of the word but I'll roll with it.

Idealism is not a 'lie'. It is a mistaken view that holds onto abstract notions of reality being existent in fact. The example that you used is a very specific example of an idealistic view in the philosophical sense. That is not the core or even a commonality between those that adhere to Idealism as a philosophical tradition. It is not a religion.




that is the core of right-wing ideology, that any chiold can surpass his ghetto poverty-stricken upbringing and become rich.
Right-wing ideology is a conglomeration of many different views and cannot be lumped into such a simplistic grouping. Many conservatives do not think that the poor deserve to be poor. They merely think that they are unlucky and that working hard only increases their chances of escaping poverty. Those people certainly do not fit your rubric.



when the truth is that, we inhabit a materialistic universe, where the children of the poor, are doomed to poverty, where the children of the rich did not earn one cent of their wealth.That is not true either. There is a small amount of social mobility. Proletarians can become capitalists and vice versa. Whether or not the Universe is materialistic or dualistic or whatever has nothing to do with that really. As for if the system is 'good' because of that limited social mobility as those subscribing to capitalism as a system argue, that would require an in depth analysis of how capitalism works and the foundations it is based upon. That can be found in Marx's Capital.

To repeat: that is all Capital is. It is a critique of political economy, which is another name for the work of Adam Smith and David Ricardo. It is nothing else other than explaining Capitalism.


individualism destroys that eternal human struggle for the well-being of man, and replaces it with the struggle of the well-being of me.
It depends what you mean by Individualism. Even Communism is a blend of Humanism (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/humanism-civic/) and Structuralism (http://www.philosophybasics.com/movements_structuralism.html) with different ratios depending on who you are talking to. Mine is almost all structuralist in nature.

I don't know if you were just trying to be poetic or moving with that comment but it was just not quite right. Sorry.

[campesino]

a

[hatzel]

@graffic: I was actually talking about your decision to refer to women as 'skirt' and how it shows what a wordsmith you are...

[GoddessCleoLover]

Perhaps hew was watching a Mad Men marathon?;)

[soso17]

[QUOTE=graffic;2541029
I don't agree with identity politics at all. Yet there seems to be a cross party consensus in most Western nations that advocating identity politics is "morally" correct and is a feather in the cap of the bourgeoise.[/QUOTE]

I might be confused, but wouldn't identifying with the church and seeking freedoms on such a basis BE identity politics?

And I don't form my beliefs by looking at what liberals do and believing the opposite. That's just childish.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

we are all god

we worship

by living

I've seen vacuums that are less empty than that statement.

[The Jay]

I've seen vacuums that are less empty than that statement.

Avanti

Could use

Cooperation

In your

writing form.

It is

confusing

the way

that you write.

Please

adopt

revolutionary

sentence

format.

[Raúl Duke]

I feel the premise of this thread is disingenuous and will lead to a slippery-slope to a whole bunch of non-sense and waste time.

So there are atheist (or more particularly "New Atheism"), umm, self-declared spoke-persons like Hitchens and so on who propose imperialism in certain areas as a means of "civilizing" religious fundamentalist-infested regions or some such... Usually the had traction within neo-conservatives but perhaps in certain countries (the UK?) also with neo-liberals (New Labour) types.

But on the flip-side, there are religious people in the US who believe we must stand with Israel and fight the Muslims for a variety of reasons, some even believe it's needed so to accomplish some Revelations prophecy so the second coming of Jesus can occur. Some of these people have traction of some degree within the GOP. (I feel the initial premise of this thread is ignoring this flip-side, almost implying the majority of this "imperialism push" is coming from atheist scum like Hitchens, et.al or some such non-sense.)

Either way, it doesn't matter if the idea is in a religious package or not: the reason why certain factions (New Atheists, Dominionists, whatever) have had political traction is because in the end these ideologies support/'justify' something the bourgeois wants to do: imperialism in the resource-rich Middle-East.

Also, I would like to mention that atheists are more motivated by compassion when doing charitable acts and there are other things that indicate that a non-religious society wouldn't be so bad/"reprehensible," in fact it may be objectively better than a overly religious society.

http://www.livescience.com/20005-atheists-motivated-compassion.html

[Ostrinski]

Capitalism through its commodification of all facets of society has drove the stake through the heart of religion for all practical purposes. At the very least it has taken upon a much different character than its feudal days of sanctity. Such is the natural course if an ideology is to survive the transfer of one mode of social organization to another I suppose. I guess religion serves best now to alleviate some of the despairs, anxieties, and struggles that folks might feel as a result of their relationship to society.

[Avanti]

I feel the premise of this thread is disingenuous and will lead to a slippery-slope to a whole bunch of non-sense and waste time.

So there are atheist (or more particularly "New Atheism"), umm, self-declared spoke-persons like Hitchens and so on who propose imperialism in certain areas as a means of "civilizing" religious fundamentalist-infested regions or some such... Usually the had traction within neo-conservatives but perhaps in certain countries (the UK?) also with neo-liberals (New Labour) types.

But on the flip-side, there are religious people in the US who believe we must stand with Israel and fight the Muslims for a variety of reasons, some even believe it's needed so to accomplish some Revelations prophecy so the second coming of Jesus can occur. Some of these people have traction of some degree within the GOP. (I feel the initial premise of this thread is ignoring this flip-side, almost implying the majority of this "imperialism push" is coming from atheist scum like Hitchens, et.al or some such non-sense.)

Either way, it doesn't matter if the idea is in a religious package or not: the reason why certain factions (New Atheists, Dominionists, whatever) have had political traction is because in the end these ideologies support/'justify' something the bourgeois wants to do: imperialism in the resource-rich Middle-East.

Also, I would like to mention that atheists are more motivated by compassion when doing charitable acts and there are other things that indicate that a non-religious society wouldn't be so bad/"reprehensible," in fact it may be objectively better than a overly religious society.

http://www.livescience.com/20005-atheists-motivated-compassion.html

what is most meaningless

is often

the most meaningful

in a deeper

context

it was levis jeans

that brought down

the soviet union

not nuclear weapons

as for Babylon

it plays all sides

if communism was popular

it would try

to corrupt communism

christian zionism

or atheist anti-theism

can both be used

to strengthen

the system

feeding on oil

from the middle east

[graffic]

I might be confused, but wouldn't identifying with the church and seeking freedoms on such a basis BE identity politics?

And I don't form my beliefs by looking at what liberals do and believing the opposite. That's just childish.

No I mean specifically feminism and gay rights when I refer to "identity politics". The over-emphasis of feminism and gay rights over class struggle by leftists and liberals is one of the many factors that drive straight men (a large part of the proletariat) into being reactionary.

For example, thats why its often easy to spot the undercover cops at protest marches because they are the only muscley, built men there.

[hatzel]

...okay did you actually just say that 'straight men' are excluded from the leftist movement and therefore 'muscly, built men' stand out at protests as a direct consequence? That definitely makes sense, yeah, what with it being universally acknowledged that sexual contact with bepenised individuals causes myopathy...

[Thirsty Crow]

I'll be brief:


I think it's the root cause of the "me me" consumerist culture making society increasingly atomised and disconnected, justifying selfish naval gazing nonsense under the guise of being "progressive" because it's anti-religious. No good will come of it.

The contradiction of the function performed by the ideology in question - "justifying selfish naval..." - and the proclamation that it is the root cause is apparent.

On a different note, in a society where I go for a job interview and find myself with 50 other applicants for a single job, it is no wonder that there are real and structural pressures which account for people's "greed" and "selfishness". It is the way society is reproduced day by day that necessitates this attitude of all against all.

[graffic]

...okay did you actually just say that 'straight men' are excluded from the leftist movement and therefore 'muscly, built men' stand out at protests as a direct consequence? That definitely makes sense, yeah, what with it being universally acknowledged that sexual contact with bepenised individuals causes myopathy...

No I said the over-emphasis of identity politics by liberals pushes men into being reactionary because it just looks like selfish, naval gasing nonsense rather than class struggle and social justice.

[graffic]

...okay did you actually just say that 'straight men' are excluded from the leftist movement and therefore 'muscly, built men' stand out at protests as a direct consequence? That definitely makes sense, yeah, what with it being universally acknowledged that sexual contact with bepenised individuals causes myopathy...

By the way, are you a feminist? This is the same in real life. I come across very defensive women who think their identity as a women is just as, if not more, important than their radical politics.

I say self-depreciating things about myself all the time and if you turn up at the Marxist reading group as I do you get used to the generalisations about men and the frequent anti-male rants and you just let it go. But I can see why a lot of straight blokes don't have the patience and just throw up their arms after a while and say "fuck this" and go to the pub or whatever because of "heterosexual bloke" being a constant and legitimate target of ridicule. Its even more absurd when you consider the fact straight males make up the largest social group of the supposed vanguard of revolutionary politics.

[Grenzer]

Can someone please explain to me in plain English why the fact that the Bible is not nice about homosexuals or women outweighs the extremely important and profound things religion also teaches about taming arrogance and greed that make people better people and the stuff about homosexuals can be interpreted differently anyway. Who invented this idea, why is it happening?

Well the problem is that things like "greed" are not causes, but effects.

I'm not certain why you have such a hard on for the supposedly "altruistic' religious institutions, but altruism isn't going to solve the problems of capitalism. The problems are structural, not subjective in nature.

[bifo_161]

athiest capitalism is big and is being reproduced all the time. capitalism is seeking a liberal face and being secular is part of that now.

[graffic]

athiest capitalism is big and is being reproduced all the time. capitalism is seeking a liberal face and being secular is part of that now.

Capitalism has always been athiest and secular. The schiesters, thieves and spivs who rip people off and exploit people have never been religious, even if they attend a Church or a mosque. It's easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle than it is to enter heaven. Some church goers emphasise this part of the faith more than others. And there is a history of established religion selling out, corruption etc and siding with capitalists. Michael Moore explained it very well in his film " capitalism a love story". This is just the same as social democrats who sell out their ideology to capitalism.

What religion did do, and does do, is make people feel guilty about being unscrupulous and tame arrogance. Free market ideology is not "nice" by definition. Free-marketers and ideological capitalists advocate a "free market" and competition. It is unscrupulous and competitive by definition.

Coupled with New Athiesm in other words they see greed, pride, arrogance being a schiester and a spiv as morally "good". New Athiesm says God doesn't exist whilst at the same time the existence of women in the upper class and in the "market" morally justifies for bourgeoise free-market liberals doing away with archaic anti-women religion hence justifying their greed, arrogance and exploitation. In a roundabout way New Athiesm is a pro-capitalist moral and intellectual collapse.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

Yep, he sounds like he's a real fighter for the poor and oppressed there. Also, this could be seen as either an endorsement of the status quo but is likely more in line with encouragement to be apolitical and slightly aloof to Earthly affairs. Either option is foolhardy

I don't know if this was true or not, but I was reading that Jesus was trying to outwit the question of paying taxes. If he had said that they shouldn't pay taxes, they would arrest him, but if he said you should pay taxes, he would be lying. So he was saying that you should give to Ceaser what was his, and meant that the money wasn't his.

It's an idea, but I thought it was interesting.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Capitalism has always been athiest and secular. The schiesters, thieves and spivs who rip people off and exploit people have never been religious, even if they attend a Church or a mosque. It's easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle than it is to enter heaven. Some church goers emphasise this part of the faith more than others. And there is a history of established religion selling out, corruption etc and siding with capitalists. Michael Moore explained it very well in his film " capitalism a love story". This is just the same as social democrats who sell out their ideology to capitalism.

Religion's a pretty good con-job as well. Why do you think that Catholic priests aren't allowed to get married? It's to try and prevent them from having kids who can inherit their property, so if they die childless (or in less enlightened societies, without legitimate issue) then the Church gets it instead.


What religion did do, and does do, is make people feel guilty about being unscrupulous and tame arrogance. Free market ideology is not "nice" by definition. Free-marketers and ideological capitalists advocate a "free market" and competition. It is unscrupulous and competitive by definition.

Feeling guilty about doing something is not the same thing as actually refraining from doing something. This is why the Catholic Church uses guilt as a method of social control - on the one hand the Church needs the guilt in order to create a psychological and cultural dependency, but if that guilt actually stopped people committing "sins" then the confessional would never see use.

I don't want the rich bastards to feel guilty about exploiting workers. I want them, all of them, to actually stop doing it.


Coupled with New Athiesm in other words they see greed, pride, arrogance being a schiester and a spiv as morally "good". New Athiesm says God doesn't exist whilst at the same time the existence of women in the upper class and in the "market" morally justifies for bourgeoise free-market liberals doing away with archaic anti-women religion hence justifying their greed, arrogance and exploitation. In a roundabout way New Athiesm is a pro-capitalist moral and intellectual collapse.

Are you a practising Catholic? Do you drop money into the collection plate? If so, you've got a hell of a nerve to go on about anyone else being anti-woman.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't know if this was true or not, but I was reading that Jesus was trying to outwit the question of paying taxes. If he had said that they shouldn't pay taxes, they would arrest him, but if he said you should pay taxes, he would be lying. So he was saying that you should give to Ceaser what was his, and meant that the money wasn't his.

It's an idea, but I thought it was interesting.

Fucking weasel words, that's what they are. Why would Jesus worry about being arrested? Wasn't he supposed to have been sent here by God in order to die anyway?

[l'Enfermé]

We don't live in the 13th century anymore. Ever heard of something called the "Enlightenment"? Check this out: we don't have to be slaves to religion and it's apostles, we are allowed to think for ourselves now :)

[graffic]

What was so great about the enlightenment? If Jesus was around today some priests and bishops would have a nasty shock.

[Marxaveli]

You are looking at the enlightenment in the context of things right now. By doing that, of course it is going to appear reactionary, and in the context of society right now, it is reactionary. Many of the ideas of the Enlightenment that philosophers like Locke, Rousseau, and Voltaire are the foundation for our current social organization, such as the right to property, inalienable rights by the "creator", liberty, free-will and so forth. But during the 17th-18th centuries, the Enlightenment was very much a revolutionary movement in the context of a feudal organization of society, and we saw it materialize in the form of the French Revolution.

[graffic]

Religion's a pretty good con-job as well. Why do you think that Catholic priests aren't allowed to get married? It's to try and prevent them from having kids who can inherit their property, so if they die childless (or in less enlightened societies, without legitimate issue) then the Church gets it instead.

I don't think the Catholic church is the best representation of Christianity. Thats like saying Stalin was the best representation of Marxism. It's political propaganda that de-values the true meaning of the term.


Feeling guilty about doing something is not the same thing as actually refraining from doing something. This is why the Catholic Church uses guilt as a method of social control - on the one hand the Church needs the guilt in order to create a psychological and cultural dependency, but if that guilt actually stopped people committing "sins" then the confessional would never see use.

I don't want the rich bastards to feel guilty about exploiting workers. I want them, all of them, to actually stop doing it.

Again, you are too ideological. Someone who legitimately cares about others is a good person. They deserve more respect than secular free-marketers based on this simple fact. Feeling guilty is part of the process to stop them doing the act.

Free-marketers are just irrational animals. They are sub-human. Even the 2000 year old gospels are economically progressive.

[GoddessCleoLover]

The gospels are certainly not economically progressive. They justify slavery.

[graffic]

You have to see it in the historical context. Of course Jesus was not a "socialist" because there was no such thing as socialism or proletariat in antiquity. Slavery was the norm at the time. Jesus was a radical egalitarian. He was no free-marketer.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What was so great about the enlightenment? If Jesus was around today some priests and bishops would have a nasty shock.

What does Church hypocrisy have to do with the Enlightenment? The Church had been doing some of their most horrible shit well before that period.


I don't think the Catholic church is the best representation of Christianity. Thats like saying Stalin was the best representation of Marxism. It's political propaganda that de-values the true meaning of the term.

All of Christianity is fundamentally anti-human. It denigrates the entirety of humanity as "fallen" and/or "sinful" and thus considers humans to be inherently evil.


Again, you are too ideological. Someone who legitimately cares about others is a good person. They deserve more respect than secular free-marketers based on this simple fact. Feeling guilty is part of the process to stop them doing the act.

No it's not. Like I said, feeling guilty about doing something is not the same thing as not doing it in the first place. In fact, if there's nothing transgressive that is being or has been done, then there's no actual basis for transgressors to feel any guilt.

Also, it is possible for guilt to be entirely misplaced, with people feeling guilty when they have no good reason to be feeling that way. See survivor guilt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivor_guilt).


Free-marketers are just irrational animals. They are sub-human. Even the 2000 year old gospels are economically progressive.

We're all irrational animals, despite Christian dogma. Having an incorrect paradigm does not make one sub-human, I seriously frown on such dehumanising language. We don't need the Gospels, because we have economics and well, just about everything else that has been invented or conceived since those times.


You have to see it in the historical context. Of course Jesus was not a "socialist" because there was no such thing as socialism or proletariat in antiquity. Slavery was the norm at the time. Jesus was a radical egalitarian. He was no free-marketer.

What kind of egalitarian bends knee and sucks up to God? Not a good one, in my opinion.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

Fucking weasel words, that's what they are. Why would Jesus worry about being arrested? Wasn't he supposed to have been sent here by God in order to die anyway?

Yeah, I actually thought about that. I'm just saying it's an interesting explanation.