My Thoughts on Theology

[Snard]

I am a writer, and I am going to pull a few paragraphs from a piece I wrote on a writing website.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
After I had read a snippet from Bakunin, I began to wonder: The people who go to church and worship this so-called "God", are they really happy? If church is no more than a vessel to a false sense of happiness and contentment, are the only truly happy people ones who have no investment in this God character? I find church and religion to be the same thing that conservatives and authoritarian figures claim drugs are - a way to make you feel better about your shitty lives. While I think that a lot of drugs are not what the aforementioned claim them to be, that is for another discussion. Church and the religions that may or may not go along with them are but a chamber for one replenish their "Fake-Happy" meter. As Marx has said, religion is the opium of the people. And to add my own words to that, it may feel fantastic at first. But it will eat you from the inside out until your entire life revolves around the ultimately pointless sustenance.

I realize a lot of people on this site fuel their writing with religion, and I find that saddening. As mentioned in the above text, religion is and will always be a crutch for people who cannot comprehend or deal with their own lives. The more and more I read of Mikhail Bakunin, the more I find myself agreeing with him on every corner. Theology is a pointless endeavor. For some people it is also a way to "know" what happens after death. I also find this absurd. Let the alone the fact that nobody really "knows" anything, how could you know what happens/where you go after death? Simply because ink-soaked paper written by who-knows-who said so? Essentially "If you follow all these stupid rules, you will go to heaven. If you break one of these strange rules, you go to a place of eternal hellfire." Aside from the unknown reasons for which one would follow these rules and even more so the entire ideology, you have no way of knowing. You have not died. Those who say they have had near-death experiences or have even "died" and came back do not know. For one, if you had died, your mind would be completely shut off and you would have no cognitive abilities. Thus, even if you DID encounter this God-being, you would not remember it. And if you had came back after this "death", it is not death. Death is permanent cessation of all bodily functions. Near-death experiences are another thing entirely. When one is faced with imminent death, or the illusion of imminent death, their brain releases dimethyltryptamine. This DMT is what I consider to be "the mother of all psychedelic hallucinogens." It takes you to another world inside your mind, and if you see any sort of theological being it is no doubt because you are tripping your ass off. All in all, we will never know during this lifetime. We have no way of knowing what happens after death. And this impossible goal of learning what happens is but a symptom of the bigger problem: The illusion of a theological being.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I feel I need not say anything else in this introductory post. Sadly I cannot post a link to the site because this site which claims to be leftist and therefore for freedom and such tells me I cannot do so until I have 25 posts or more under my belt. What a contradiction. I suppose I'll just put a link in my profile.

[PompeiusMagnus]

"he people who go to church and worship this so-called "God", are they really happy? If church is no more than a vessel to a false sense of happiness and contentment, are the only truly happy people ones who have no investment in this God character? I find church and religion to be the same thing that conservatives and authoritarian figures claim drugs are - a way to make you feel better about your shitty lives. While I think that a lot of drugs are not what the aforementioned claim them to be, that is for another discussion. Church and the religions that may or may not go along with them are but a chamber for one replenish their "Fake-Happy" meter." I am sorry to tell you but you and for that matter Marx and Bukunin are wrong. As a theist trying to understand the creation of the universe, morality, purpose of life, and riddle of the afterlife Is explored through an examination of a higher power. Some people are perhaps dogmatic, however this great investigation
of spirituality I examine with skepticism and consequential.
check out

"A Case of Reincarnation" in which academics, press, politicians, and even Gandhi himself investigate an actual case of reincarnation with a little girl and find the possibility of a hoax unlikely.

The Holy Quran, one of the most complicated and praised works of all time originating from an illiterate merchant.

Finally the "cosmological argument"
which shows need for a creator for the universe itself and is consistent with Abrahmic scripture.

Finally as a Leftist you should note that the longest last Communes to my knowledge of all time have been religious. Notably the Harmony Society with three communes lasted over 100 years. If you truly want to live collectively learn from religion, and if you truly aim for universal love don't look down on the billions of believers as people who want to replenish their "fake happy meter"~Lawrence.:glare:

[Snard]

So is "longest" now a synonym with "successful"? And you speak in past tense. Last-ed. They fell apart, I assume, since they no longer exist. Universal love cannot exist when the oppression of dogmatism exists. Spirituality and religion are not the same. Religion and dogmatism go hand in hand. I have nothing against spirituality, since I take part in things related to it often.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

"he people who go to church and worship this so-called "God", are they really happy? If church is no more than a vessel to a false sense of happiness and contentment, are the only truly happy people ones who have no investment in this God character? I find church and religion to be the same thing that conservatives and authoritarian figures claim drugs are - a way to make you feel better about your shitty lives. While I think that a lot of drugs are not what the aforementioned claim them to be, that is for another discussion. Church and the religions that may or may not go along with them are but a chamber for one replenish their "Fake-Happy" meter." I am sorry to tell you but you and for that matter Marx and Bukunin are wrong. As a theist trying to understand the creation of the universe, morality, purpose of life, and riddle of the afterlife Is explored through an examination of a higher power. Some people are perhaps dogmatic, however this great investigation
of spirituality I examine with skepticism and consequential.
check out

"A Case of Reincarnation" in which academics, press, politicians, and even Gandhi himself investigate an actual case of reincarnation with a little girl and find the possibility of a hoax unlikely.

What's the evidence, then?


The Holy Quran, one of the most complicated and praised works of all time originating from an illiterate merchant.

Because the idea that a merchant could possibly learn to read and write (or hire someone to dictate to) is so utterly ridiculous, that it's better instead to suppose that it was magicked into their head by an un-evidenced being. Right.


Finally the "cosmological argument"
which shows need for a creator for the universe itself and is consistent with Abrahmic scripture.

The cosmological argument does no such thing. Firstly, it fails to justify why the un-caused cause should be a god and not say, something else or even the universe itself. Secondly, it fails to establish that such an entity would have to be the God of Abraham.


Finally as a Leftist you should note that the longest last Communes to my knowledge of all time have been religious. Notably the Harmony Society with three communes lasted over 100 years.

Communalism within a specific religious group isn't communism, which is about the liberation of the working class, who can be of all religions and of none. Looking to religious communes established in the name of a particular God will provide no answers for a class which crosses religious lines.


If you truly want to live collectively learn from religion, and if you truly aim for universal love don't look down on the billions of believers as people who want to replenish their "fake happy meter"~Lawrence.:glare:

Considering the generations of pampered clerics and long history of bloody sectarianism, religion has nothing to say about "living collectively" or "universal love", except perhaps as an example of how not to do it.

[liberlict]

My thoughts on theology are 'who gives a fuck'? If you want to worship the asshole of a dead horse because that satisfies your spirit, all the power to you---I envy your satisfaction. I'm an apathetic agnostic myself. But really spirituality belongs to the self, not the public. Anyone who bullies people about their private beliefs needs to be skull-fucked by a pack of aids-infected gorillas.

[Snard]

You just said it, whether you realize it or not. The things I speak of are not "private", they are oppressive to the masses; the exact opposite of "private beliefs". And "who gives a fuck?" Me. I give a fuck because I don't want to see humanity get shat on by illusion.

[BIXX]

My thoughts on theology are 'who gives a fuck'? If you want to worship the asshole of a dead horse because that satisfies your spirit, all the power to you---I envy your satisfaction. I'm an apathetic agnostic myself. But really spirituality belongs to the self, not the public. Anyone who bullies people about their private beliefs needs to be skull-fucked by a pack of aids-infected gorillas.

I just wanted to pop in and say that you shouldn't support rape culture.

My opinion is that religion is just wrong, and if we follow it we are subjecting ourselves to unclear thought. I don't see why we should allow ourselves to do that to ourselves.

[Snard]

Sadly people do not agree with this, EchoShock. Their reasons as to why? Most likely because they don't give a fuck. "Apathetic agnostic" indeed. Religion dulls the mind, and in turn dulls the body and ultimately your life and the lives of everyone else when applied to the masses(which it is bound to as long as there is a living person following a theological ideal).

[argeiphontes]

Not sure about the source (it could have been me or one of my friends who liked to debate this sort of thing actually and not an academic) but there's the idea that religion is an ontic scam. You give up aspects of your humanity to a god and only get part of it back through worship.

But don't confuse the recent dark age of Christianity with religion itself. I'm a hellenic polytheist (in a weak and quasi-jungian sense) and I don't see my religion or any of the other "natural religions" (animism, hinduism, etc) as being scams. It's the prophet who profits from any scam; religion itself is a spontaneous human activity arising from the irrational in all of us. There's no conflict between my religion and science, in fact the contrary. It seems to me Jung was right about projection into the heavens...

Also, what about the Hutterites? They're religious communists (good for them) and do remarkably well economically, just looking at their shiny new tractors alone.

[Remus Bleys]

Sadly people do not agree with this, EchoShock. Their reasons as to why? Most likely because they don't give a fuck. "Apathetic agnostic" indeed. Religion dulls the mind, and in turn dulls the body and ultimately your life and the lives of everyone else when applied to the masses(which it is bound to as long as there is a living person following a theological ideal).
THANK ATHIESMO THE PROLETARIAT HAS YOU TO SAVE THEM FROM THE EVILS OF RELIGION!!!!111!!!

lern2marx

[BIXX]

Sadly people do not agree with this, EchoShock. Their reasons as to why? Most likely because they don't give a fuck. "Apathetic agnostic" indeed. Religion dulls the mind, and in turn dulls the body and ultimately your life and the lives of everyone else when applied to the masses(which it is bound to as long as there is a living person following a theological ideal).

I don't necessarily agree that one person (or even a group of people) following the teachings of a god or whatever will hurt the whole society, as long as thy don't impose their views on others. That being said, I just don't see why we would allow ourselves to follow it. If others wanna, whatever. I won't impose my atheism on them, they won't impose their theism on me. Simple as that.

[Snard]

I don't necessarily agree that one person (or even a group of people) following the teachings of a god or whatever will hurt the whole society, as long as thy don't impose their views on others. That being said, I just don't see why we would allow ourselves to follow it. If others wanna, whatever. I won't impose my atheism on them, they won't impose their theism on me. Simple as that.

Of course my previous statement was somewhat broad, since it depends on the situation. If only your latter statement was always the case.

[liberlict]

You just said it, whether you realize it or not. The things I speak of are not "private", they are oppressive to the masses; the exact opposite of "private beliefs". And "who gives a fuck?" Me. I give a fuck because I don't want to see humanity get shat on by illusion.

The Church, especially the Catholic church, and most kinds of Islamism, are just the kind of spiritual bullies I had in mind. I like what Gandhi said ---"I like your Christ but not your Christians".

[ChrisK]

Sadly people do not agree with this, EchoShock. Their reasons as to why? Most likely because they don't give a fuck. "Apathetic agnostic" indeed. Religion dulls the mind, and in turn dulls the body and ultimately your life and the lives of everyone else when applied to the masses(which it is bound to as long as there is a living person following a theological ideal).

Really? I guess religious thought made Einstein a real dumbass.

Religion does not make people stupid. Religion is not a crutch. I personally think that religion is something that helps some people deal with life. Its not necessarily bad, nor is it good. Its just what helps people live and I see no reason to take that away from them.

[Snard]

Religion does not make people stupid. Religion is not a crutch. I personally think that religion is something that helps some people deal with life. Its not necessarily bad, nor is it good. Its just what helps people live and I see no reason to take that away from them.

Then you should read some Bakunin. I see everything wrong with religion, and there's little else for me to add that I haven't stated before, without getting very specific, which I just don't have the willpower to do right now in my current state.

Bottom line is that religion is a crutch. You just contradicted yourself by saying that it is something that people use to help them deal with life! That is the very definition of a crutch.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't blame people for using opium or religion as a crutch. Neither is adequate for trying to understand or change the world, but either can help people cope.

I think it's a complete misunderstanding of the attraction religion has for some people to view religion as a set of ideas. For example, for most regular people, transubstantiation or the trinity is not why they are catholic, if they go to mass because it is a social community where wealth or professional status are not supposed to matter among the worshipers, it a network for people in an otherwise isolated or atomized life. For decades, black churches were one of the few refuges from racism.

If illusions and bad idealism were the reason to oppose things, Hollywood has a bigger meaningful influence on ideas than religion, and in many ways it's myths are more troublesome because they are more relevant to daily life (than stories from hundreds or thousands of years ago about caste societies and such).

Religion needs to be criticized by radicals in a specific, not crude blanket ways, IMO. If a religious organization is acting in a reactionary matter, the fairy stories that are used as a pretext for reactionary politics are beside the point, the point is the church as a social organization in that instance and the fight is political, not theological.

[Remus Bleys]

I don't blame people for using opium or religion as a crutch. Neither is adequate for trying to understand or change the world, but either can help people cope.

I think it's a complete misunderstanding of the attraction religion has for some people to view religion as a set of ideas. For example, for most regular people, transubstantiation or the trinity is not why they are catholic, if they go to mass because it is a social community where wealth or professional status are not supposed to matter among the worshipers, it a network for people in an otherwise isolated or atomized life. For decades, black churches were one of the few refuges from racism.

If illusions and bad idealism were the reason to oppose things, Hollywood has a bigger meaningful influence on ideas than religion, and in many ways it's myths are more troublesome because they are more relevant to daily life (than stories from hundreds or thousands of years ago about caste societies and such).

Religion needs to be criticized by radicals in a specific, not crude blanket ways, IMO. If a religious organization is acting in a reactionary matter, the fairy stories that are used as a pretext for reactionary politics are beside the point, the point is the church as a social organization in that instance and the fight is political, not theological. I'm in complete agreement with you here. Except, the bolded part is actually precisely why I'm catholic.
But yeah, churches shouldn't just be shut down, but just the reactionary priests IMO.

[ChrisK]

Then you should read some Bakunin. I see everything wrong with religion, and there's little else for me to add that I haven't stated before, without getting very specific, which I just don't have the willpower to do right now in my current state.

I see, if I read the almighty Bakunin I will suddenly understand why it is that religion makes people stupid. Nope, sorry that doesn't work.

Anyway, your introductory post wasn't filled with a whole lot of information other than a list of things that religion doesn't provide, without proving that such things are harmful to people. You just assert that they are.


Bottom line is that religion is a crutch. You just contradiccted yourself by saying that it is something that people use to help them deal with life! That is the very definition of a crutch.

Fair point. I'll call it a crutch, but I'll also be calling drugs, escapist fiction and sports to be crutches as well.

[Snard]

Anyway, your introductory post wasn't filled with a whole lot of information other than a list of things that religion doesn't provide, without proving that such things are harmful to people. You just assert that they are.

Being restrictive of livelihood, potentially enlightening/enjoyable experiences, your very personality. And what religion is not is one of the big reasons why I hate it. It is seen as having these great things about it, when in reality it does not and in fact is in opposition of these things. However the "members" or whatever, do not realize this, and cling to illusions that will constantly be shot down whether they realize it's happening or not.


Fair point. I'll call it a crutch, but I'll also be calling drugs, escapist fiction and sports to be crutches as well.

It's all relative to the mentality that goes along with it. Religion is almost always a crutch, and more often than not is masked by something that is claimed to be positive, when it really is not. Drugs are not always a crutch, though I would be a fool to say that they are not often used as such. Escapist fiction I can also agree with, but nobody can say that with 100% certainty. I hate sports, as I feel they do nothing (positive) for society. Just babbling idiots either screaming at a team or actually being the team and throwing a ball around in accordance to a set of wacky rules. And then they get paid millions for it. I can think of almost nothing more exploitational of the common folk, next to capitalist industry and corporations. If sports are not a crutch, then they are just a passtime for the people who would rather pretend to be doing something positive instead of actually helping their fellow man.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Alright, let's say that religious is really daft (I honestly think it is, but that's neither here nor there), that it makes its adherents stupid and miserable and so on. Is that an adequate argument against religion? No, I don't think so. Alcohol also makes people miserable and makes them act stupid, but I don't think alcohol is bad. Whether other people are miserable or stupid is no problem of ours as long as it doesn't impact our lives.

Religion, however, does impact the lives of the nonreligious unduly, being an instrument of the bourgeois state, an religious figures being both initiators and the inspiration behind acts of violence against atheists, women, LGBT people, and so on. That, I think, is why religion needs to be opposed.

[ChrisK]

Being restrictive of livelihood, potentially enlightening/enjoyable experiences, your very personality. And what religion is not is one of the big reasons why I hate it. It is seen as having these great things about it, when in reality it does not and in fact is in opposition of these things. However the "members" or whatever, do not realize this, and cling to illusions that will constantly be shot down whether they realize it's happening or not.

Still more assertions without proof. Seriously, your very personality? An overwhelming majority of my extensive family are religious and I see nothing that you mention here.

Now don't get me wrong. There are a great deal of reactionary ideas expressed by certain priests. But this is not the whole of religion and it is this that needs to be fought against. Going after the exploited for being religious to cope with life is attacking the wrong target.


It's all relative to the mentality that goes along with it. Religion is almost always a crutch, and more often than not is masked by something that is claimed to be positive, when it really is not. Drugs are not always a crutch, though I would be a fool to say that they are not often used as such. Escapist fiction I can also agree with, but nobody can say that with 100% certainty. I hate sports, as I feel they do nothing (positive) for society. Just babbling idiots either screaming at a team or actually being the team and throwing a ball around in accordance to a set of wacky rules. And then they get paid millions for it. I can think of almost nothing more exploitational of the common folk, next to capitalist industry and corporations. If sports are not a crutch, then they are just a passtime for the people who would rather pretend to be doing something positive instead of actually helping their fellow man.

Well then, you have just succeeded in alienating the overwhelming majority of people exploited. Those you missed by calling them stupid for believing in god, you just got by calling them stupid for enjoying sports.

Though as I mentioned above, you have failed to demonstrate how religion as a whole is actually exploitative, so we still don't have much to go on.

As a side note, very few athletes actually make millions of dollars per year. The vast majority of athletes make too little to cover their injuries and short careers. They are exploited much the same as everyone else.

[Remus Bleys]

Religion, however, does impact the lives of the nonreligious unduly, being an instrument of the bourgeois state, an religious figures being both initiators and the inspiration behind acts of violence against atheists, women, LGBT people, and so on. That, I think, is why religion needs to be opposed.
No. That is why those religious aspects need to be opposed. But, even then, I hope we all realize religion isn't the sole cause of these things, and is more of a justification for these things.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

No. That is why those religious aspects need to be opposed. But, even then, I hope we all realize religion isn't the sole cause of these things, and is more of a justification for these things.

Religions are institutions, though, you can't pick and mix parts of them as you please. And while religion is not the root cause of such violence - class society is - it is often the proximate cause and needs to be addressed unless you think specially oppressed groups should just wait for the socialist revolution, so as to not inconvenience the religious.

[Snard]

Still more assertions without proof. Seriously, your very personality? An overwhelming majority of my extensive family are religious and I see nothing that you mention here.

Now don't get me wrong. There are a great deal of reactionary ideas expressed by certain priests. But this is not the whole of religion and it is this that needs to be fought against. Going after the exploited for being religious to cope with life is attacking the wrong target.

To address your second set of statements, I agree on the point that it is not attacking the source. I stand by Marx on this subject and say that religion is but a symptom of the true problem, however that does not mean it is automatically positive. Influenza is the cause of shitty symptoms, so with your logic are the shitty symptoms now not-shitty? Should they be accepted and welcomed while we attack the source? Or should they be attacked as well as the source for the best chance at defeating it as a whole? I prefer my latter statement.


Well then, you have just succeeded in alienating the overwhelming majority of people exploited. Those you missed by calling them stupid for believing in god, you just got by calling them stupid for enjoying sports.

Though as I mentioned above, you have failed to demonstrate how religion as a whole is actually exploitative, so we still don't have much to go on.

As a side note, very few athletes actually make millions of dollars per year. The vast majority of athletes make too little to cover their injuries and short careers. They are exploited much the same as everyone else.

The people who I spoke of are the sports superstars. I should've been more clear about that and I apologize. The egotistical superstars who are all over television get paid like that. Less recognized athletes do not. I think we agree here, or at least I hope so.

"Stupid for enjoying sports", okay. Nice paraphrasing there. I've come to find that incorrect paraphrasing is common around here, at least from the people who have trouble having a real debate on things. Perhaps they are stupid. Who is to say they are not? They may not be stupid for enjoying sports, but they could still very well be stupid and the sports-loving could be a strange but common symptom of that stupidity. I wonder how many revolutionary minds obsessed about sports and "which side is going to win?"

I'm sure Albert Einstein always put football before his life-changing work. Oh absolutely.

[Remus Bleys]

Religions are institutions, though, you can't pick and mix parts of them as you please. And while religion is not the root cause of such violence - class society is - it is often the proximate cause and needs to be addressed unless you think specially oppressed groups should just wait for the socialist revolution, so as to not inconvenience the religious.
Of course I don't.

Religious institutions should be forced to change. When the revolution comes, reactionary priests should be dealt with the same way other reactionaries are. Religious institutions should be forced to remove their sexism, homophobia, and racism. The support for imperialism and capitalism should likewise be removed from any religious institutions.
Which is entirely possible. And I'm telling you this as a gay catholic who wore drag to Church one day.
But I do not believe that religious institutions should be abolished on grounds of being "metaphysical" or "hierarchical."

EDIT: I misread that. But, the point stands, even before the socialist revolution, the reactionary elements should be purged, but not the entity itself.

[Remus Bleys]

To address your second set of statements, I agree on the point that it is not attacking the source. I stand by Marx on this subject and say that religion is but a symptom of the true problem, however that does not mean it is automatically positive. Influenza is the cause of shitty symptoms, so with your logic are the shitty symptoms now not-shitty? Should they be accepted and welcomed while we attack the source? Or should they be attacked as well as the source for the best chance at defeating it as a whole? I prefer my latter statement.
You obviously don't know what you are talking about. You really don't stand by 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.
Keep in mind that opium was a medicine in marx's day.

I'm sure Albert Einstein always put football before his life-changing work. Oh absolutely.
Your being elitist. But, I should expect that from a Bakuninite.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Of course I don't.

Religious institutions should be forced to change. When the revolution comes, reactionary priests should be dealt with the same way other reactionaries are. Religious institutions should be forced to remove their sexism, homophobia, and racism. The support for imperialism and capitalism should likewise be removed from any religious institutions.
Which is entirely possible. And I'm telling you this as a gay catholic who wore drag to Church one day.
But I do not believe that religious institutions should be abolished on grounds of being "metaphysical" or "hierarchical."

Neither do I - as I stated earlier, I think people have the prerogative to believe whatever metaphysical rubbish they please, although certain forms of metaphysical rubbish need to be fought in a political manner. But the last thing we need is a commissariat for the prevention of vice and promotion of revolutionary virtue.

That said, and I am not trying to be sarcastic, if actually existing religions were to be stripped of capitalist, homophobic, misogynist, etc., content, what would remain? Not much, as far as I can tell.

[Remus Bleys]

That said, and I am not trying to be sarcastic, if actually existing religions were to be stripped of capitalist, homophobic, misogynist, etc., content, what would remain? Not much, as far as I can tell. The theology? The rituals? The metaphysics? The faith? The community?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The theology? The rituals? The metaphysics? The faith? The community?

But the theology, the metaphysics and the faith - all of these are misogynist, supportive of class rule etc. The community and the rituals, perhaps, but that isn't really a religion, is it?

[Remus Bleys]

But the theology, the metaphysics and the faith - all of these are misogynist, supportive of class rule etc. The community and the rituals, perhaps, but that isn't really a religion, is it?
I'd like to know which part of the trinity is supportive of class rule.
I'd also like to know which part of the transubstantiation is sexist.
The Nicene Creed, what in that is homophobic?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I'd like to know which part of the trinity is supportive of class rule.
I'd also like to know which part of the transubstantiation is sexist.
The Nicene Creed, what in that is homophobic?

But those are simply examples of Catholic doctrines. No religion is simply a collection of disparate teachings - there is a certain ideological cohesion so that each doctrine is reinforced by others. The Trinity, filioque, transubstantiation, all of these are part of a basically Aristotelian metaphysics, which is blatantly misogynist, homophobic, transphobic and supportive of class rule, as a quick browse through the Summa Theologica should prove (assuming the bloody thing doesn't fall on you and kill you while you're getting it off the shelf).

[Remus Bleys]

But those are simply examples of Catholic doctrines. No religion is simply a collection of disparate teachings - there is a certain ideological cohesion so that each doctrine is reinforced by others. The Trinity, filioque, transubstantiation, all of these are part of a basically Aristotelian metaphysics, which is blatantly misogynist, homophobic, transphobic and supportive of class rule, as a quick browse through the Summa Theologica should prove (assuming the bloody thing doesn't fall on you and kill you while you're getting it off the shelf).
You know how many times I've tried to read Aquinas? Guys a freaking bore.

I don't know enough about Aristotlean metaphysics to comment on that. However, I'd assume that, again, certain things could be "salvaged" so to speak, and the rest "purged."

[Snard]

You obviously don't know what you are talking about. You really don't stand by marx.

Keep in mind that opium was a medicine in marx's day.

Your being elitist. But, I should expect that from a Bakuninite.

I don't stand by Marx in every sense, absolutely not. But in response the Young Hegelians (which I strongly feel applies here), I stand by him.

Yes, and why is it not a medicine now? Perhaps because it is harmful after long periods, in excess, and when used dependently. Sounds almost exactly like religion to me.

The only "elitism" (as you put it) that I support, is implied right here:

"From the naturalistic point of view, all men are equal. There are only two exceptions to this rule of naturalistic equality: geniuses and idiots." -Bakunin, of course.

I can think of nobody who would say that the idiot triumphs over the genius in matters that are important.

[Remus Bleys]

Yes, and why is it not a medicine now? Your gonna have to explain how religion was a "medicine" then and not a medicine now. Unless your taking the analogy literally.



I can think of nobody who would say that the idiot triumphs over the genius in matters that are important.
You seem pretty full of yourself.

I've met sports players who are probably smarter than you, Mr. "This whole Jewish world, comprising a single exploiting sect, a kind of blood sucking people, a kind of organic destructive collective parasite, going beyond not only the frontiers of states, but of political opinion, this world is now, at least for the most part, at the disposal of Marx on the one hand, and of Rothschild on the other... This may seem strange. What can there be in common between socialism and a leading bank? The point is that authoritarian socialism, Marxist communism, demands a strong centralisation of the state. And where there is centralisation of the state, there must necessarily be a central bank, and where such a bank exists, the parasitic Jewish nation, speculating with the Labour of the people, will be found." is not antisemitic.


Its elitist because you are just writing off athletes and people who watch sports as idiots.

[ChrisK]

To address your second set of statements, I agree on the point that it is not attacking the source. I stand by Marx on this subject and say that religion is but a symptom of the true problem, however that does not mean it is automatically positive. Influenza is the cause of shitty symptoms, so with your logic are the shitty symptoms now not-shitty? Should they be accepted and welcomed while we attack the source? Or should they be attacked as well as the source for the best chance at defeating it as a whole? I prefer my latter statement.

I apologize, I was unclear. I meant that it is the reactionary elements that should be fought against, not religion as a whole.

I have a few general problems with such attacks against religion.

1. Many of the exploited people who have the potential to rise up against capitalism. We alienate them when we assault religion.

2. There is a good history of religious people engaging in the fight for radical leftism. Famously Eugene V. Debs filled his speeches with Christian rhetoric, though he was opposed to organized religion. Further, a large number of Catholic priests have supported labor movements, strikes and fought reactionary trends within the church.

3. I personally believe that religion will go away after the revolution. Why bother trying to make everyone irreligious now, when the material conditions push them into religion to cope? Why should we try to make life harder for workers so that they have no hope?


"Stupid for enjoying sports", okay. Nice paraphrasing there. I've come to find that incorrect paraphrasing is common around here, at least from the people who have trouble having a real debate on things.

Okay I'll rephrase. You called them "babbling idiots either screaming at a team or actually being the team and throwing a ball around in accordance to a set of wacky rules." There no paraphrase and you are still alienating the revolutionary class.


Perhaps they are stupid. Who is to say they are not? They may not be stupid for enjoying sports, but they could still very well be stupid and the sports-loving could be a strange but common symptom of that stupidity. I wonder how many revolutionary minds obsessed about sports and "which side is going to win?"

I direct you to A People's History of Sports by Dave Zirin that covers this issue rather well.


I'm sure Albert Einstein always put football before his life-changing work. Oh absolutely.

Well not Einstein. But Bertrand Russell certainly spent quite some time enjoying sports, especially rowing, when he was revolutionizing logic. Alan Turing, who pretty much invented the computer, just barely missed qualifying for the 1948 Olympics. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were all known to obsess over the Olympics. Sports don't make you anymore stupid than religion does.

[Snard]

You seem pretty full of yourself.

I've met sports players who are probably smarter than you, Mr. "This whole Jewish world, comprising a single exploiting sect, a kind of blood sucking people, a kind of organic destructive collective parasite, going beyond not only the frontiers of states, but of political opinion, this world is now, at least for the most part, at the disposal of Marx on the one hand, and of Rothschild on the other... This may seem strange. What can there be in common between socialism and a leading bank? The point is that authoritarian socialism, Marxist communism, demands a strong centralisation of the state. And where there is centralisation of the state, there must necessarily be a central bank, and where such a bank exists, the parasitic Jewish nation, speculating with the Labour of the people, will be found." is not antisemitic.


Its elitist because you are just writing off athletes and people who watch sports as idiots.

Standing by my views and trying to organize my words is not being full of myself. You're just another person who confuses arrogance with loads of other words.

I don't think it is racially anti-Semitic, I think it is culturally/religiously antisemitic. I will provide a scenario to compare my viewpoint to:

Say, I am a black man. And I wrong someone. You then address my wrongdoing by saying "that black man really fucked that guy over". Now, this is not a racist statement. It is simply a statement of your observation(s). I am a black man, and I fucked someone over. I would feel no different if I were white in this situation and something said "that white guy really fucked that other guy over". It isn't racist, it simply adds a detail that isn't exactly necessary. Bakunin speaks of the Jews, and it may not be necessary to address them as "the Jews", but rather as "a large group of people who are being pretty big assholes."

I couldn't give less of a fuck if people watched sports/enjoyed them. However, you cannot honestly say that that is THE BEST THING they could be doing for...anything really. Sitting on your ass and watching people fuck around with a ball is not productive, and I dare for you to explain to me how it would be.

[Remus Bleys]

Standing by my views and trying to organize my words is not being full of myself. You're just another person who confuses arrogance with loads of other words. You are using things to back yourself, when the evidence you use isn't actually supporting you.

Maybe I'm being rude, but cmon.


I don't think it is racially anti-Semitic, I think it is culturally/religiously antisemitic. I will provide a scenario to compare my viewpoint to:

Say, I am a black man. And I wrong someone. You then address my wrongdoing by saying "that black man really fucked that guy over". Now, this is not a racist statement. It is simply a statement of your observation(s). I am a black man, and I fucked someone over. I would feel no different if I were white in this situation and something said "that white guy really fucked that other guy over". It isn't racist, it simply adds a detail that isn't exactly necessary. Bakunin speaks of the Jews, and it may not be necessary to address them as "the Jews", but rather as "a large group of people who are being pretty big assholes.":laugh:

Its funny that you think Jewish people had any control of anything in TZARIST RUSSIA!
Like, do you even history dude?


I couldn't give less of a fuck if people watched sports/enjoyed them. However, you cannot honestly say that that is THE BEST THING they could be doing for...anything really. Sitting on your ass and watching people fuck around with a ball is not productive, and I dare for you to explain to me how it would be I am most productive when I am at my liesure. Leisure relieves stress, therefore, people are happier, and therefore produce better goods.

[Snard]

I apologize, I was unclear. I meant that it is the reactionary elements that should be fought against, not religion as a whole.

I have a few general problems with such attacks against religion.

1. Many of the exploited people who have the potential to rise up against capitalism. We alienate them when we assault religion.

2. There is a good history of religious people engaging in the fight for radical leftism. Famously Eugene V. Debs filled his speeches with Christian rhetoric, though he was opposed to organized religion. Further, a large number of Catholic priests have supported labor movements, strikes and fought reactionary trends within the church.

3. I personally believe that religion will go away after the revolution. Why bother trying to make everyone irreligious now, when the material conditions push them into religion to cope? Why should we try to make life harder for workers so that they have no hope?

1. You may be right on a small insignificant scale, but I disagree with you on that statement when it comes to actual revolution. Perhaps maybe a few people, but in all likelihood they were not a large enough group to be able to even hopefully attempt to revolt.

2. While it sounds fantastic that they helped the left, religion is just unnecessary. It is blinding. It is probably the largest irrationality to ever grace the minds of the people on the Earth.

3. Religion is one (albeit also one of the worst) of the many sources of hope. I am antitheistic and many other things give me hope, many things that are not intrinsic to just myself. So if these things give me (and many other people hope), what reason can you provide as to why they can't for the workers?

[ChrisK]

Sitting on your ass and watching people fuck around with a ball is not productive, and I dare for you to explain to me how it would be.

Rather easy. Watching sports is psychologically productive because it engages in a form of catharsis.

For example, watching the fight Silva vs Sonnen II was very cathartic as I got to watch Anderson Silva beat the fuck out of Sonnen's racist, ignorant ass. It made me feel a bit better knowing that one asshole got his ass beat.

[Snard]

For example, watching the fight Silva vs Sonnen II was very cathartic as I got to watch Anderson Silva beat the fuck out of Sonnen's racist, ignorant ass. It made me feel a bit better knowing that one asshole got his ass beat.

Just causes and sports are two different things, but yes they can go together in some cases. Like the one you just provided.

[Snard]

Its funny that you think Jewish people had any control of anything in TZARIST RUSSIA!
Like, do you even history dude?

I will openly admit that I am not well-read enough on that subject yet to be able to get deep into this. You may be right, but I have no way of knowing and cannot support or defend myself against you.



I am most productive when I am at my liesure. Leisure relieves stress, therefore, people are happier, and therefore produce better goods.

Free time is spent according to one's desires, and if one's desires are that of silly nature such as watching people waddle around in costumes, so be it. While I wouldn't hurt someone for it or anything like that, I am still opposed to it if they have the means to do something much better. But this is a personal preference, and people do what they wish. I hate sports for these reasons, but do not actually condemn people that enjoy it. That sort of thing only comes out when I have actual discussions about like I am here.

[Remus Bleys]

1. You may be right on a small insignificant scale, but I disagree with you on that statement when it comes to actual revolution. Perhaps maybe a few people, but in all likelihood they were not a large enough group to be able to even hopefully attempt to revolt.

2. While it sounds fantastic that they helped the left, religion is just unnecessary. It is blinding. It is probably the largest irrationality to ever grace the minds of the people on the Earth.

3. Religion is one (albeit also one of the worst) of the many sources of hope. I am antitheistic and many other things give me hope, many things that are not intrinsic to just myself. So if these things give me (and many other people hope), what reason can you provide as to why they can't for the workers?

actually,if anyone is highly irrational, its Mikhail Bakunin. Even from a mmarxist standpoint, this war on religion your having, is futile.

Oh, your too good to work with irrational people know?

Were different people.

[ChrisK]

1. You may be right on a small insignificant scale, but I disagree with you on that statement when it comes to actual revolution. Perhaps maybe a few people, but in all likelihood they were not a large enough group to be able to even hopefully attempt to revolt.

Not really. Based on the history of revolutions and city revolts (Paris 1871, Russia 1917, Seattle 1919, Spain 1936) it is precisely those people who rise up and fight, not the minority.


2. While it sounds fantastic that they helped the left, religion is just unnecessary. It is blinding. It is probably the largest irrationality to ever grace the minds of the people on the Earth.

That fails to address my point.

Regardless, you have still failed to prove that religion is blinding. Oddly, my actual point is evidence to the contrary. If religion is blinding, then the priests wouldn't be on our side.


3. Religion is one (albeit also one of the worst) of the many sources of hope. I am antitheistic and many other things give me hope, many things that are not intrinsic to just myself. So if these things give me (and many other people hope), what reason can you provide as to why they can't for the workers?

Because of how shitty their lives really are. Right now with no alternative presented to them, the best they can hope for is a good afterlife. That is our job, to give them the other alternative. Heaven on earth if you will. But we cannot do that if we alienate them from the beginning by attacking some of their deepest held beliefs.

[Remus Bleys]

I will openly admit that I am not well-read enough on that subject yet to be able to get deep into this. You may be right, but I have no way of knowing and cannot support or defend myself against you.

I'm sorry. I just assumed everyone learned about russia in like eighth grade, which to me was 4 years ago. But then again, most teens don't know who marx is...

[argeiphontes]

Snard, I'll see your Bakunin and raise you a Mircea Eliade, a C. G. Jung, and a Karl Kerenyi.

The Maxims of Delphi, i.e. the words of the Terrible God, Φοίβος Ἀπόλλων, as interpreted by his oracle at Delphi, the Pythia, while she was tripping off her ass on hallucinogens (or maybe not), have this to say about some of the things you mentioned:


Being restrictive of livelihood

Use your skill (Τεχνη χρω).
Gain possessions justly (Δικαιως κτω).
Acquire wealth justly (Πλουτει δικιως).
Practice what is just (Πραττε δικαια).



potentially enlightening/enjoyable experiences


Be/Know Yourself (Σαυτον ισθι).
Long for wisdom (Σοφιαν ζηλου).
Test the character (Ηθος δοκιμαζε).
Benefit yourself (Σεαυτον ευ ποιει).



your very personality.


Be overcome by justice (Ηττω υπο δικαιου).
Think as a mortal (Φρονει θνητα).
Control yourself (Αρχε σεαυτου).
Control anger (Θυμου κρατει).
Love friendship (Φιλιαν αγαπα).
Shun evil (Κακιας απεχου).
Listen to everyone (Ακουε παντα).
Be accommodating in everything (Παςιν αρμοζου).
Give what you have (Εχων χαριζου).

=> Are those really so bad?



And what religion is not is one of the big reasons why I hate it. It is seen as having these great things about it, when in reality it does not and in fact is in opposition of these things.

As others have said, I think you're reacting to particular aspects of particular religions, and even more so, their expression in organized religion. Literal interpretation of religious scriptures is a big problem in some religions. (And literalization of psychic contents itself is an interesting problem.) If religion has nothing to do with the actual existence of supreme beings, then it reflects the human psyche. It's not the same as the Flying Spaghetti Monster.



Just babbling idiots either screaming at a team or actually being the team and throwing a ball around in accordance to a set of wacky rules. And then they get paid millions for it.

Sports can also be participated in rather than jingoistically watched on TV. In that case you could get some physical, mental, and social benefits from it, some of which are scientifically proven. You could be cheering for a team of people you know instead of millionaires from another city. I used to hate sports too, and still hate commercial team sports, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Finally, since Einstein's spirit has already been summoned:

"[T]he fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional 'opium of the people'—cannot bear the music of the spheres."
-- Einstein (in a letter).

[Remus Bleys]

I realize a lot of people on this site fuel their writing with religion, and I find that saddening. As an aside, I think I might be one of the few people on revleft that do that. Actually, I don't even do that that much. I honestly have no idea what you are talking about here.

[Snard]

As an aside, I think I might be one of the few people on revleft that do that. Actually, I don't even do that that much. I honestly have no idea what you are talking about here.

If you paid attention, you would've realized that this was taken from my writer's profile at WritersCafe, a site who's people often do use religion to fuel their writing. I wasn't talking about the people on here.

[Alan OldStudent]

Hello Christofer,

You write


Really? I guess religious thought made Einstein a real dumbass.

Actually, Einstein's religious thought may not believe what you think it is. Check this out (http://books.google.com/books?id=T5R7JsRRtoIC&pg=PA43#v=onepage&q&f=false):

I get hundreds and hundreds of letters but seldom one so interesting as yours. I believe that your opinions about our society are quite reasonable.

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it
http://alanoldstudent.nfshost.com/general_images/Dingbats/divide4.gif

You also wrote


Religion does not make people stupid. Religion is not a crutch. I personally think that religion is something that helps some people deal with life. Its not necessarily bad, nor is it good. Its just what helps people live and I see no reason to take that away from them.
Your point is well taken. Religion can be a crutch, but not always. Moreover, there are plenty of intelligent people who adhere to religious points of view.

As an atheist and a revolutionary socialist, I think it is important for us radicals to recognize that fact.


If we wish to influence people who see things differently than we do, then it's crucially important to talk with them, not at them.
If we wish to teach others, we must be willing to learn from others.
If we wish to speak to others, we must be willing to listen to others.
If we wish others to to treat us with respect, we must treat others with equal respect.


We can be sharp and polemical, and indeed we must at times. But we must avoid being condescending and smug, or nobody will listen to us. While being sharp and polemical, it's important to show respect for the other human being. Insulting another person's intelligence is not revolutionary. It's boorish.

That's part of the reason I dislike it that some of us atheists call ourselves "brights," as if we're more intelligent than everyone else.

Regards,

Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living--Socrates

[ChrisK]

Actually, Einstein's religious thought may not believe what you think it is. Check [COLOR=Blue][B]

I am aware. Einstein made it extremely clear that when he spoke about god he was referring to something akin to Spinoza's understanding of god.