Religion in the New Society

[Marshal of the People]

Greetings comrades.

What do you think we should do with religious people in the new society and should we ban religion?

I think organised religion should be banned and religion only be allowed to be practiced at home. All religious property will be seized put to good use while all religious leaders will have to be dealt with in some way (I just don't no how yet, hospitals, prions, etc?). Religion would be legal in the home as long as you don't promote it to your family members (or anyone for that matter). All children will learn about atheism and secular humanism at school and will be tasked with converting their parents if they are religious. There will be atheistic and secular humanistic propaganda everywhere and religion will be demonised in the media.

So please share you thoughts and beliefs on these three questions I have given you.

Thank you.

[Sinister Intents]

Greetings comrades.

What do you think we should do with religious people in the new society and should we ban religion?

I think organised religion should be banned and religion only be allowed to be practiced at home. All religious property will be seized put to good use while all religious leaders will have to be dealt with in some way (I just don't no how yet, hospitals, prions, etc?). Religion would be legal in the home as long as you don't promote it to your family members (or anyone for that matter). All children will learn about atheism and secular humanism at school and will be tasked with converting their parents if they are religious. There will be atheistic and secular humanistic propaganda everywhere and religion will be demonised in the media.

So please share you thoughts and beliefs on these three questions I have given you.

Thank you.

Indeed organized religion should be banned, but personal religion like my practice of Wiccan Paganism should be perfectly fine because that’s my own damn business haha. Same with other people having whatever religion or lack of religion they want, it’s your life so it’s your choice, not mine, not some states, not someone else’s, but your own choice. What is to be done with religious leaders would be up to the commune, collective, community, et cetera to decide. I’m sure some leaders will cease being leaders while others will need to be dealt with immediately in some fashion. Definitely children shouldn’t be educated on religion, it should be their choice though if they find interest in the religion to explore the religion. I don’t think demonizing religion would work too well, but definitely people should be educated of the vast negative things religion causes.

[Marshal of the People]

Indeed organized religion should be banned, but personal religion like my practice of Wiccan Paganism should be perfectly fine because that’s my own damn business haha. Same with other people having whatever religion or lack of religion they want, it’s your life so it’s your choice, not mine, not some states, not someone else’s, but your own choice. What is to be done with religious leaders would be up to the commune, collective, community, et cetera to decide. I’m sure some leaders will cease being leaders while others will need to be dealt with immediately in some fashion. Definitely children shouldn’t be educated on religion, it should be their choice though if they find interest in the religion to explore the religion. I don’t think demonizing religion would work too well, but definitely people should be educated of the vast negative things religion causes.

Who needs religion when you have secular humanism?

[Sinister Intents]

Who needs religion when you have secular humanism?

Secular humanism is good :) but I'm fascinated with Wicca, I've been studying it for a couple years. I wouldn't actually call it a religion though as I did in my above post. But definitely some consider it a religion. No one needs religion at all haha.

[Sabot Cat]

Even though I profess no religious beliefs (for reasons of parsimony and lack of proof), I think that those who have faith in supernatural entities or systems that do not expressly contradict the goal of proletarian liberation don't have to be addressed much at all. Furthermore, if the largely religious proletariat truly has the means of production, there won't be anyone to enforce anti-theism onto them anyway.

That is, unless the vast majority of the working class are held to be reactionaries or counter-revolutionaries because of their faiths, which suggests to me a possible avenue of instating a hierarchy of the irreligious over the religious.

[Ali Ali Oxen Free]

Greetings comrades.

What do you think we should do with religious people in the new society and should we ban religion?

I think organised religion should be banned and religion only be allowed to be practiced at home. All religious property will be seized put to good use while all religious leaders will have to be dealt with in some way (I just don't no how yet, hospitals, prions, etc?). Religion would be legal in the home as long as you don't promote it to your family members (or anyone for that matter). All children will learn about atheism and secular humanism at school and will be tasked with converting their parents if they are religious. There will be atheistic and secular humanistic propaganda everywhere and religion will be demonised in the media.

So please share you thoughts and beliefs on these three questions I have given you.

Thank you.

What if the working class unanimously rejects this? What would the response be?

[Marshal of the People]

Secular humanism is good :) but I'm fascinated with Wicca, I've been studying it for a couple years. I wouldn't actually call it a religion though as I did in my above post. But definitely some consider it a religion. No one needs religion at all haha.

Yeah your right. If you like it and it isn't harmful to other people or society like certain religions you should be free to practice it.

[IBleedRed]

A war against religion could have consequences opposite to what you want. Just keep that in mind.

I don't think it's a big problem if people hold onto their religious beliefs, but we shouldn't pretend like all religious institutions are compatible with workers' emancipation. Some institutions will need to be dismantled. Some policies will need to be ended, and some practices will need to be forbidden.

I don't think there's a definitive answer absent of historical context.

[Tim Cornelis]

In Brazil about 1.5% of the population is atheist. Assuming half of them will be communists it means 0.75% of the population, atheistic communists, will rule over the religious majority. I cannot imagine how one would enforce a ban on organised religion without a state.

Organised religion will diminish of its own accord because extensive social welfare will liberate people from the dependency on organised religion (generally accepted to have caused secularisation in Western Europe from the 1960s onward) and the social function of organised religion (collective identity and community) having become obsolete as a result of a participatory community and the elimination of alienation.

[helot]

How are you defining organised religion? Also, don't you think restricting religious practice to the home is not only pointless but harsh as fuck? Come on, if a group of people want to pray to some imaginary creature together in a park what's the problem? Is it not also their park?


Unless i'm mistaken what you want is basically no way for religious people to communicate their religiosity to others. What's the fucking point? The problems with religion are to do with the social conditions in which they have arisen and in which they exist but you're already supposing a new society, why repress people purely because they're not perfect little materialists?

[Marshal of the People]

In Brazil about 1.5% of the population is atheist. Assuming half of them will be communists it means 0.75% of the population, atheistic communists, will rule over the religious majority. I cannot imagine how one would enforce a ban on organised religion without a state.

Organised religion will diminish of its own accord because extensive social welfare will liberate people from the dependency on organised religion (generally accepted to have caused secularisation in Western Europe from the 1960s onward) and the social function of organised religion (collective identity and community) having become obsolete as a result of a participatory community and the elimination of alienation.

Organised religion is inherently oppressive and authoritarian and will have to be destroyed for communism to work.

[Marshal of the People]

How are you defining organised religion? Also, don't you think restricting religious practice to the home is not only pointless but harsh as fuck? Come on, if a group of people want to pray to some imaginary creature together in a park what's the problem? Is it not also their park?


Unless i'm mistaken what you want is basically no way for religious people to communicate their religiosity to others. What's the fucking point? The problems with religion are to do with the social conditions in which they have arisen and in which they exist but you're already supposing a new society, why repress people purely because they're not perfect little materialists?

Praying to any god is just like preying to a dictator (the only difference being that dictators exist) they don't really care about you and are evil, sadistic power mad and authoritarian and some like the Abrahamic god are fascist!

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I think I should be allowed to practice my religion without harassment. It's my private business. As it should be.

[the debater]

I think we should still emphasize freedom of religion, and we should encourage religions like Islam that are heavily anti-science in the modern era to become more open to science. Religion of course is very harmful, but if we can modify religion to be more moderate, and to focus more on humility and not being judgmental, I wouldn't have a problem with it. It's when religion oppresses people that it becomes a problem.

[helot]

Praying to any god is just like preying to a dictator (the only difference being that dictators exist) they don't really care about you and are evil, sadistic power mad and authoritarian and some like the Abrahamic god are fascist!


Or they're a loving champion of Mankind. The very way people conceive of the divine is determined by the social conditions of the time.

[Sinister Intents]

What if the working class unanimously rejects this? What would the response be?

I highly doubt the working class would unanimously reject this, what're you getting at exactly?

[Marshal of the People]

I think we should still emphasize freedom of religion, and we should encourage religions like Islam that are heavily anti-science in the modern era to become more open to science. Religion of course is very harmful, but if we can modify religion to be more moderate, and to focus more on humility and not being judgmental, I wouldn't have a problem with it. It's when religion oppresses people that it becomes a problem.

Try to modify a religion like islam or christianity and it won't end pretty!

[Marshal of the People]

Or they're a loving champion of Mankind. The very way people conceive of the divine is determined by the social conditions of the time.

The jewish, christian and muslim god certainly isn't a loving champion of mankind, quite the opposite actually!

[helot]

Try to modify a religion like islam or christianity and it won't end pretty!



Neither Islam nor Christianity are monolithic. There's huge variation

[Marshal of the People]

Neither Islam nor Christianity are monolithic. There's huge variation

Try telling that to the christians and muslims who think the earth is 6000 years old.

[helot]

The jewish, christian and muslim god certainly isn't a loving champion of mankind, quite the opposite actually!


I initially had Prometheus in mind for that lol. I disagree. It's all in how Jehovah's conceived of it varies drastically. Ironically i don't think it that fitting to talk of one Jehovah but multiple

[Ali Ali Oxen Free]

I highly doubt the working class would unanimously reject this, what're you getting at exactly?

You think this would work in places like Algeria or Brazil where the working class is still unanimously religious?

[helot]

Try telling that to the christians and muslims who think the earth is 6000 years old.


Try telling that to the bulk that don't. Even the Catholic fucking Church accepts evolution occurs.

[Marshal of the People]

I initially had Prometheus in mind for that lol. I disagree. It's all in how Jehovah's conceived of it varies drastically. Ironically i don't think it that fitting to talk of one Jehovah but multiple

Are you a Jehovah's Witness.

The abrahamic god (who isn't real) is omnipotent (all powerful) therefore he can't be good because he lets bad things happen, if he is good he cant be omnipotent because bad things happen. Yet christian, muslims and jews say he is good and omnipotent when he obviously can't be both.

[Marshal of the People]

Try telling that to the bulk that don't. Even the Catholic fucking Church accepts evolution occurs.

In order not to appear backward.

[Sabot Cat]

I highly doubt the working class would unanimously reject this, what're you getting at exactly?

I think the majority of the working class, who are adherents of various faiths, would unanimously reject having their beliefs vilified and seeing their religious leaders incarcerated.

[Sinister Intents]

I think the majority of the working class, who are adherents of various faiths, would unanimously reject having their beliefs vilified and seeing their religious leaders incarcerated.

This is true, I probably just misinterpreted the past above

[IBleedRed]

Are you a Jehovah's Witness.

The Abrahamic god (who isn't real) is omnipotent (all powerful) therefore he can't be good because he lets bad things happen, if he is good he cant be omnipotent because bad things happen. Yet christian, Muslims and Jews say he is good and omnipotent when he obviously can't be both.

This theological problem has been addressed before. There are several responses.

God can be both omnipotent and good, despite the existence of evil in the world, if he must respect human free will. For God to stop evil, he would have to restrict our ability to make decisions for ourselves.

This is a partially satisfactory response, but I don't like it because it doesn't address the existence of natural evil.

Another possibility is that God is good but not omnipotent, or omnipotent and not good. These are pretty easy to understand, but if either one is true, why bother worshiping God?

Another response would be that God does not actively intervene in the world and only functioned as its creator. This is the Deist point of view, to which I subscribe.

Of course, all of this gets very messy since it is bogged down with idealism and moralism.

[Brutus]

This article on the marxist perspective on religion is pretty good: http://marxsrazor.wordpress.com/2013/12/24/towards-the-restoration-of-the-leninist-perspective-on-religion/

[Marshal of the People]

I would rather worship Lord Pannekoek than some god!

All hail Lord Pannekoek!

[Brutus]

I would rather worship Lord Pannekoek than some god!

All hail Lord Pannekoek!

I like how this greatly adds to the discussion and doesn't make you look like a fool.

[Sinister Intents]

I would rather worship Lord Pannekoek than some god!

All hail Lord Pannekoek!

Haha why worship anything? at least Pannekoek was real :) I love his writings!

[helot]

This theological problem has been addressed before. There are several responses.

God can be both omnipotent and good, despite the existence of evil in the world, if he must respect human free will. For God to stop evil, he would have to restrict our ability to make decisions for ourselves.

This is a partially satisfactory response, but I don't like it because it doesn't address the existence of natural evil.

Another possibility is that God is good but not omnipotent, or omnipotent and not good. These are pretty easy to understand, but if either one is true, why bother worshiping God?

Another response would be that God does not actively intervene in the world and only functioned as its creator. This is the Deist point of view, to which I subscribe.

Of course, all of this gets very messy since it is bogged down with idealism and moralism.


Pretty much this. There's also the cop-out by defining evil as the absence of god.








Are you a Jehovah's Witness.

Nope i was raised an atheist and i remain an atheist i just dont' think it's wise to try to take the conception of god as monolithic when there are tons of differing conceptions even within the Abrahamic tradition.

[Marshal of the People]

I like how this greatly adds to the discussion and doesn't make you look like a fool.

Perhaps if you didn't swear or insult me in every one of your posts regarding me I wouldn't hate you so much.

[Tim Cornelis]

Organised religion is inherently oppressive and authoritarian and will have to be destroyed for communism to work.

No it's not. Do you have any arguments for why this supposedly is the case? Also, it implies we can't have communism before we rid the world of organised religion in capitalism. An utterly ridiculous proposition.


Are you a Jehovah's Witness.

The abrahamic god (who isn't real) is omnipotent (all powerful) therefore he can't be good because he lets bad things happen, if he is good he cant be omnipotent because bad things happen. Yet christian, muslims and jews say he is good and omnipotent when he obviously can't be both.

Yes it's stupid. That doesn't warrant banning it.


Try telling that to the christians and muslims who think the earth is 6000 years old.

That's actually disproving your own point. There are many Christians and Muslim who don't and who do, and many more variations.

Honestly, Marshal of the People and Sinister Intent you haven't thought this true at all. Again, you Thank my comment revealing that for your system to work, in some countries, 0.75% of the population needs to rule over everyone else, yet that's, apparently what you support. Nor have either suggested how a stateless society will enforce a ban on organised religion and, moreover, thank comments contrary to your position oblivious that it's contrary to your position!

You two invoke a suspicion of trying to be edgy on more than one occasion. Use your brains for once.

[Marshal of the People]

No it's not. Do you have any arguments for why this supposedly is the case? Also, it implies we can't have communism before we rid the world of organised religion in capitalism. An utterly ridiculous proposition.

Religion supports the worship of a perfect and unquestionable authority who you can't question or else you will be sent to a "special" place. Communism is the opposite of totalitarianism so I don't understand how totalitarian institutions could be present in it.



Yes it's stupid. That doesn't warrant banning it.

It is also bad for society. It promotes blind faith and is against logic, science and reason. That can't be good for any society.



That's actually disproving your own point. There are many Christians and Muslim who don't and who do, and many more variations.

We are talking about the religion here. The whole thing not just little things added and amendments by certain followers to try to fix some their religion's flaws.

[IBleedRed]

Religion supports the worship of a perfect and unquestionable authority who you can't question or else you will be sent to a "special" place. Communism is the opposite of totalitarianism so I don't understand how totalitarian institutions could be present in it. This is really all moot. If God exists and God is good, you wouldn't question him anyway.


It is also bad for society. It promotes blind faith and is against logic, science and reason. That can't be good for any society.
But what about all the people who were/are religious scientists?

[Marshal of the People]

This is really all moot. If God exists and God is good, you wouldn't question him anyway.

That is like saying if you thought Hitler was good you wouldn't question him.


But what about all the people who were/are religious scientists?

Scientist who are religious aren't real scientists.

[Sabot Cat]

Religion supports the worship of a perfect and unquestionable authority who you can't question or else you will be sent to a "special" place.

What of Anglicians in Christianity and others who support universal reconciliation, the belief that everyone enjoys heaven? Or Buddhists, or Taoists, or generally any faith of the many that exist in the world that has neither a deity to be obeyed or a punishment for failing to do so?



It is also bad for society. It promotes blind faith and is against logic, science and reason. That can't be good for any society.


Religion shouldn't be dismissed on the basis it would be bad to do so, because that's a fallacious appeal to consequences. I can't denounce a competing theory in science by saying, "think of the bad things that could happen if one believed in that!". Quelling alternate theories as to the general structure of the cosmos, consciousness, and the entities that exist within it is detrimental to science, which can only operate with a multitude of hypotheses. Are they likely to be true? No, but neither is many-worlds interpretation, in my opinion. I don't think proponents of MWI should be incarcerated or re-educated until they affirm the opposite, however.

[Ali Ali Oxen Free]

Scientist who are religious aren't real scientists.

How do you view the past Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc. scientists who have contributed to our understanding of the world?

Are they not worthy of being called real scientists to you?

[Marshal of the People]

What of Anglicians in Christianity and others who support universal reconciliation, the belief that everyone enjoys heaven? Or Buddhists, or Taoists, or generally any faith of the many that exist in the world that has neither a deity to be obeyed or a punishment for failing to do so?

I was really only referring to supernatural religions which believe in deities. But I can see how you could misunderstand.

[Sabot Cat]

I was really only referring to supernatural religions which believe in deities. But I can see how you could misunderstand.

But Anglicians believe in a God, and so do other universalists. And one doesn't need to affirm the existence of deities to have beliefs that fail to accord with parsimony. The existence of reincarnation is not proven, and mind-body dualism likewise; nonetheless, the latter remains a contentious topic in the philosophy of the mind, and I sympathize with those who might think that reductionist accounts of consciousness don't account for qualia and thus fail to be the most parsimonious because of a lack of equal explanatory power. A blanket ban on religion shouldn't only be impossible in a communist society, it's unnecessary and counter to the goals of promoting a scientific worldview, which welcomes opposing theories and a free discourse about them.

[IBleedRed]

That is like saying if you thought Hitler was good you wouldn't question him.

No, it isn't. In the case of God, God is by definition good. It's not a matter of opinion.

Remember, I'm talking about God, not our ideas about God or what holy texts say about God.


Scientist who are religious aren't real scientists.

So Isaac Newton wasn't a real scientist?

[Goblin]

That is like saying if you thought Hitler was good you wouldn't question him.



Scientist who are religious aren't real scientists.

Oh my God. I fucking hate you! Seriously, go fuck yourself you edgy piece of shit!

[Marshal of the People]

No, it isn't. In the case of God, God is by definition good. It's not a matter of opinion.

Remember, I'm talking about God, not our ideas about God or what holy texts say about God.

What do you define god as then. Show evidence he is real.


So Isaac Newton wasn't a real scientist?

He was a scientist and possibly an atheist, back then if you were an atheist you wold be burned so obviously he would say he was a christian whether he was one or not.

[Sinister Intents]

Should this thread be moved to the religion sub forum? Just out of curiosity

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Priests and similar religious figures are also a special economic layer, linked to the ideological instruments of bourgeois dictatorship, and as such can't really expect to fare well under a proletarian dictatorship. But really, instituting a blanket ban on being a despicable misogynist, homophobic, transphobic, ethnic-chauvinist and racist bastard would be enough to decimate the fuckers. As for the rest, if someone wants to believe in unscientific nonsense, that's not our department. It's be just as obnoxious to ban private religious belief as it would be to ban fatty food or sex without a condom.

[Tim Cornelis]

Religion supports the worship of a perfect and unquestionable authority who you can't question or else you will be sent to a "special" place.

A special place in the afterlife, not in this life. Hence it isn't inherently authoritarian and oppressive in the material world.


Communism is the opposite of totalitarianism so I don't understand how totalitarian institutions could be present in it.

The metaphysical superstition in an afterlife based on rewards and sanctions in accordance with strict rules may well be considered totalitarian, but such beliefs concerning an afterlife are not intrinsically and necessarily manifesting themselves in real-world social institutions. In other words, it doesn't necessarily ffect communism at all.



It is also bad for society. It promotes blind faith and is against logic, science and reason. That can't be good for any society.

Go read the post you thanked saying it's a private affair. The idiotic rejection of evolution in favour of creationism is, well, idiotic but it doesn't make a person bad, it doesn't, necessarily, negatively affect society in any way.

But so, organised religion, supposedly is intrinsically negative, how will you enforce a ban by a minority over the majority in a stateless society?


We are talking about the religion here. The whole thing not just little things added and amendments by certain followers to try to fix some their religion's flaws.

There's many interpretations of "the religion ... the whole thing" we are talking about.


He was a scientist and possibly an atheist, back then if you were an atheist you wold be burned so obviously he would say he was a christian whether he was one or not.

It's well known Newton was a religious nut, paling the likes of Bill O'Reilly in comparison.

[Ali Ali Oxen Free]

He was a scientist and possibly an atheist, back then if you were an atheist you wold be burned so obviously he would say he was a christian whether he was one or not.

I guess you believe all the scientists during the Islamic Golden Age and Renaissance were secretly atheist, right?

[IBleedRed]

What do you define god as then. Show evidence he is real.

Whether or not God exists is irrelevant, since we're simply examining the notion of God being good and, therefore, unquestionable. In that case, if God exists, and God is perfectly good, you couldn't question God unless you were not good. It's a logical argument.


He was a scientist and possibly an atheist, back then if you were an atheist you wold be burned so obviously he would say he was a christian whether he was one or not.
I don't think so.

You can simultaneously believe that the universe is intelligible and worth studying empirically and that it is the product of an intelligent creator.

[Marshal of the People]

Oh my God. I fucking hate you! Seriously, go fuck yourself you edgy piece of shit!

^ Personal attack (again:glare:).

Definition of Science


The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

As seen by the definition above religion and science are incredibly different. Science uses evidence, facts,hypothesis and observations to deduct how the universe works while religion uses blind faith, guessing and imagination to try to figure out how the universe work.

[Sabot Cat]

As seen by the definition above religion and science are incredibly different. Science uses evidence, facts,hypothesis and observations to deduct how the universe works while religion uses blind faith, guessing and imagination to try to figure out how the universe work.

You need to have imagination and guesswork in order to form hypotheses about something you don't know about yet.. Furthermore, all religious cosmologies should be viewed as theories about how the universe works because that's what they are.

[Goblin]

^ Personal attack (again:glare:).

Oh, cry me a river you whiny bastard.

[helot]

He was a scientist and possibly an atheist, back then if you were an atheist you wold be burned so obviously he would say he was a christian whether he was one or not.

Newton was a theist although he would have been considered a heretic at the time.

[Sinister Intents]

Oh, cry me a river you whiny bastard.

Goblin this seems really unnecessary to insult users

[IBleedRed]

What a silly characterization of both religion and science



Definition of Science



As seen by the definition above religion and science are incredibly different. Science uses evidence, facts, hypothesis and observations to deduce how the universe works while religion uses blind faith, guessing and imagination to try to figure out how the universe work.

What do you mean science uses "facts"? Science doesn't begin with facts. Science is supposed to lead to facts, although there are very few hard facts in modern scientific knowledge.

I'll concede that blind faith plays a role in some peoples' experiences with religion, but why are you listing imagination and "guessing" as if they're bad things? Scientists need to have an imagination and they do a whole lot of guessing.

The scientific method is superior, there is no doubt. The reason is that it enables people to falsify bad explanations and bad theories ("bad guesses"). That doesn't mean you can't still be a religious scientist. The most reasonable religious scientists admit a degree of agnosticism.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

That is like saying if you thought Hitler was good you wouldn't question him.



Scientist who are religious aren't real scientists.

Surely one should be judged on the actual things they research and the results though. Religion is only a thing to keep in mind when considering objectivity and possible biases, not a reason for dismissal in and of itself.
It's really fucking stupid to do that, no surprise there since you're saying it, and flies in the face of any science itself. It's really sickening and your disgusting "militant atheism" is pathetic.

[Marshal of the People]

You need to have imagination and guesswork in order to form hypotheses about something you don't know about yet.. Furthermore, all religious cosmologies should be viewed as theories about how the universe works because that's what they are.

Yes but hypothesis aren't just guesses with no evidence like religious predictions. Hypothesis are educated guesses they are made when there is evidence to suggest an outcome.

Definition of hypothesis:


A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

[Tim Cornelis]

^ Personal attack (again:glare:).

Definition of Science



As seen by the definition above religion and science are incredibly different. Science uses evidence, facts,hypothesis and observations to deduct how the universe works while religion uses blind faith, guessing and imagination to try to figure out how the universe work.

There's no such thing as a religious scientist as they are mutually exclusive. Metaphysical subjects, by definition, escape empirical and scientific inquiry. There's, however, such a thing as a scientist who is also religious. For instance, a chemist who applies the scientific method to the study of chemistry is a scientist by the definition of science and scientist irrespective of the religious affiliations, which is an entirely different subject. This person may be a scientist who is also religious. However, a chemist who applies religion (or a mixture of religion and the scientific method) to the study of chemistry is not a scientist.


^ Personal attack (again:glare:).


A personal attack is different from being insulted.

"You are ugly" = insult
"You are wrong because you are ugly" = personal attack

Pedantic, I know.


You need to have imagination and guesswork in order to form hypotheses about something you don't know about yet.. Furthermore, all religious cosmologies should be viewed as theories about how the universe works because that's what they are.

Pedantic, but hypotheses are articulated on the basis of observation, not random guesses.

[consuming negativity]

Why are all of you responding to what appears, to me, to be an obvious troll? Even if this person is being serious, they clearly didn't make this thread with the intent of learning anything, so why keep feeding into it?

[Sabot Cat]

Yes but hypothesis aren't just guesses with no evidence like religious predictions. Hypothesis are educated guesses they are made when there is evidence to suggest an outcome.


Pedantic, but hypotheses are articulated on the basis of observation, not random guesses.

There exists no explanation which is both meaningful and doesn't use evidence, because all meaningful concepts necessarily have empirical precedents. In which case, all meaningful religious theories have a basis in observational evidence and thus qualify as hypotheses.

[Tim Cornelis]

Why are all of you responding to what appears, to me, to be an obvious troll? Even if this person is being serious, they clearly didn't make this thread with the intent of learning anything, so why keep feeding into it?

I suspect trolling as well. They refuse to address my objections to the practicality of their proposal and instead focus entirely on bashing religion. Either trolling or teenage angst expressed through contrarian politics.

[Marshal of the People]

Why are all of you responding to what appears, to me, to be an obvious troll? Even if this person is being serious, they clearly didn't make this thread with the intent of learning anything, so why keep feeding into it?

Really? This is the third or fourth time you have called me a troll without even a shred of evidence to suggest I am one!

How on earth do you know what I am thinking! Are you capable of reading minds? How dare you say I didn't intend on learning anything! Just because you hate me for some reason is no excuse to continue trolling me!

[Ali Ali Oxen Free]

How dare you say I didn't intend on learning anything! Just because you hate me for some reason is no excuse to continue trolling me!

Hmmm. What exactly did you learn?


Organised religion is inherently oppressive and authoritarian and will have to be destroyed for communism to work.


No it's not. Do you have any arguments for why this supposedly is the case? Also, it implies we can't have communism before we rid the world of organised religion in capitalism. An utterly ridiculous proposition.



Religion supports the worship of a perfect and unquestionable authority who you can't question or else you will be sent to a "special" place. Communism is the opposite of totalitarianism so I don't understand how totalitarian institutions could be present in it.



A special place in the afterlife, not in this life. Hence it isn't inherently authoritarian and oppressive in the material world.

The metaphysical superstition in an afterlife based on rewards and sanctions in accordance with strict rules may well be considered totalitarian, but such beliefs concerning an afterlife are not intrinsically and necessarily manifesting themselves in real-world social institutions. In other words, it doesn't necessarily effect communism at all.


No further response to this from you.



Scientist who are religious aren't real scientists.



So Isaac Newton wasn't a real scientist?



He was a scientist and possibly an atheist, back then if you were an atheist you wold be burned so obviously he would say he was a christian whether he was one or not.



It's well known Newton was a religious nut, paling the likes of Bill O'Reilly in comparison.

Again. No further response to this from you.

Let's no forget this gem.


I would rather worship Lord Pannekoek than some god!

All hail Lord Pannekoek!



I suspect trolling as well. They refuse to address my objections to the practicality of their proposal and instead focus entirely on bashing religion. Either trolling or teenage angst expressed through contrarian politics.

Check to that.

[Le Socialiste]

I'm beginning to suspect trollish behavior on the part of Marshal of the People as well, but posts like this are unacceptable in the Learning forum:


Oh my God. I fucking hate you! Seriously, go fuck yourself you edgy piece of shit!

Verbal Warning, Goblin. Feel free to critique Marshal of the People's and other posters' positions, but please refrain from stuff like the above.

Edit: As per the stricter rules we've adopted for the Learning forum, I'm going to have to infract Goblin instead of giving them a Verbal.

[Marshal of the People]

I'm beginning to suspect trollish behavior on the part of Marshal of the People as well, but posts like this are unacceptable in the Learning forum:



Verbal Warning, Goblin. Feel free to critique Marshal of the People's and other posters' positions, but please refrain from stuff like the above.

Just because I don't like North Korea doesn't mean I am a troll!

[Marshal of the People]

Hmmm. What exactly did you learn?









No further response to this from you.









Again. No further response to this from you.

Let's no forget this gem.






Check to that.

The reason I hadn't replied is: I was sick of all this abuse but you just want to keep piling it on don't you?

[consuming negativity]

The reason I hadn't replied is: I was sick of all this abuse but you just want to keep piling it on don't you?

You left a visitor message on my account saying that you hated me (separate from the one where you said I was "annoying and mean") and sent me a PM saying I was a fascist troll. Kindly fuck off. In before I get an "infraction" while this shit continues to go on unchecked.

[Ali Ali Oxen Free]

The reason I hadn't replied is: I was sick of all this abuse but you just want to keep piling it on don't you?

You're the one that made this thread and said you intended to learn something. So far you haven't shown signs of learning anything new and instead used this thread to be edgy and bash religion with no logical thought process.

[Le Socialiste]

Just because I don't like North Korea doesn't mean I am a troll!

See, this has me thinking you are a troll. Nowhere did I mention North Korea(?), or your supposed dislike for it…

More to the point: you asked a question in the Learning forum. This is not a place to ignore or brush off other people's posts or comments, but to actually engage in a helpful/educational environment. Now, you can continue to act the way you have been throughout this entire thread, or you can actually contribute to a discussion that you yourself started.

[Marshal of the People]

You left a visitor message on my account saying that you hated me (separate from the one where you said I was "annoying and mean") and sent me a PM saying I was a fascist troll. Kindly fuck off. In before I get an "infraction" while this shit continues to go on unchecked.

You keep being mean to me! you called me a troll four times! You are trying to fracture the left one member at a time!

[consuming negativity]

You keep being mean to me! you called me a troll four times! You are trying to fracture the left one member at a time!

[citation needed]

[Marshal of the People]

[citation needed]

What does that mean? Do you want a citation form me?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

You keep being mean to me! you called me a troll four times! You are trying to fracture the left one member at a time!

Yeah, I can't take this hyperbole seriously, as if he's trying to FRACTURE THE LEFT. Please lay off this silliness Marshal, in this thread in general. Do you even read any replies? What is the point of this thread?

[Marshal of the People]

That is it I'm leaving this thread!

[IBleedRed]

There's no such thing as a religious scientist as they are mutually exclusive. Metaphysical subjects, by definition, escape empirical and scientific inquiry. There's, however, such a thing as a scientist who is also religious. For instance, a chemist who applies the scientific method to the study of chemistry is a scientist by the definition of science and scientist irrespective of the religious affiliations, which is an entirely different subject. This person may be a scientist who is also religious. However, a chemist who applies religion (or a mixture of religion and the scientific method) to the study of chemistry is not a scientist.

This is an informative clarification, and what I meant when I said "religious scientist".

However, John Lennox, Christian apologist and mathematician at the University of Oxford, has made the case that scientific and religious explanations may not be mutually exclusive.

When a physicist says that this or that law of physics is responsible for the universe, he is not excluding God as an explanation.


Clearly the Higgs particle is more relevant than God to the question of how the universe works. But not to the question why there is a universe in which particle physics can be done. The internal combustion engine is arguably more relevant than Henry Ford to the question of how a car works, but not for why it exists in the first place.http://www.christianpost.com/news/the-god-particle-not-the-god-of-the-gaps-but-the-whole-show-80307/

I'm not saying this perspective is valid, but it's worth taking into account.

[Remus Bleys]

That is it I'm leaving this thread!

Why? Why start a thread and then do nothing but ignore everyone and then get insulted when people call you on your shit. Jesus Christ, you were an obvious troll from day one.

[Marshal of the People]

Why? Why start a thread and then do nothing but ignore everyone and then get insulted when people call you on your door. Jesus Christ, you were an obvious troll from day one.

How dare you!

[Marshal of the People]

Why? Why start a thread and then do nothing but ignore everyone and then get insulted when people call you on your door. Jesus Christ, you were an obvious troll from day one.

I wouldn't have had to ignore everyone if they had not been mean to me!

[Remus Bleys]

I wouldn't have had to ignore everyone if they had not been mean to me!

No one was initially mean to you until you turned out to be a terrible troll. When you get banned, I hope your sock does better.

[Marshal of the People]

No one was initially mean to you until you turned or to be a terrible troll. When you get banned, I hope your sock does better.

How can you call me a troll without any evidence? Oh wait is it guilty until proven innocent?

[Tim Cornelis]

This is an informative clarification, and what I meant when I said "religious scientist".

However, John Lennox, Christian apologist and mathematician at the University of Oxford, has made the case that scientific and religious explanations may not be mutually exclusive.

When a physicist says that this or that law of physics is responsible for the universe, he is not excluding God as an explanation.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/the-god-particle-not-the-god-of-the-gaps-but-the-whole-show-80307/

I'm not saying this perspective is valid, but it's worth taking into account.

Without looking into it, a preliminary comment: like I said, metaphysical subjects can by definition not be investigated by scientific means because these are concerned with the natural world -- not the supernatural world, any claim of a deity is external to the natural world. That a scientist is not excluding god as the reason for the existence of the laws of physics is a nonsensical comment because it alludes to an argument from ignorance. Neither is he excluding a mastermind mathematician from an alien world, a multiverse, or other non-scientific philosophical explanations. Which is, incidentally, all religious explanations: "we don't know, therefore god."

[Remus Bleys]

How can you call me a troll without any evidence? Oh wait is it guilty until proven innocent?

Seriously read the thread and it becomes obvious. This has also been shown on this thread several times.

[Marshal of the People]

Seriously read the thread and it becomes obvious. This has also been shown on this thread several times.

You actually can't be sure someone is a troll unless you can read their mind!

[Remus Bleys]

You actually can't be sure someone is a troll unless you can read their mind!

If you are for real I fear for humanity.

[Marshal of the People]

If you are for real I fear for humanity.

Bla bla bla... Lets all kill me I know that is what you all want!

[Remus Bleys]

Bla bla bla... Lets all kill me I know that is what you all want!

You are so not helping your car. Who here said they wanted to kill you?
Protip: quit taking things so literally dumbfuck

[IBleedRed]

Without looking into it, a preliminary comment: like I said, metaphysical subjects can by definition not be investigated by scientific means because these are concerned with the natural world -- not the supernatural world, any claim of a deity is external to the natural world. That a scientist is not excluding god as the reason for the existence of the laws of physics is a nonsensical comment because it alludes to an argument from ignorance. Neither is he excluding a mastermind mathematician from an alien world, a multiverse, or other non-scientific philosophical explanations. Which is, incidentally, all religious explanations: "we don't know, therefore god."

I think you're right concerning whether or not God can be investigated by science, but I'm more interested in whether or not God can have real explanatory power alongside science.

I disagree with this:

That a scientist is not excluding god as the reason for the existence of the laws of physics is a nonsensical comment because it alludes to an argument from ignoranceThe concept of a deity is, at its core, the concept of intelligent agency. We experience intelligent agency every day, and we interact with the products of intelligent agency every day. Therefore, it's not unreasonable to extrapolate intelligent agency as an explanation of the universe (that doesn't mean it's a correct explanation, only that it is not a baseless one). To clarify, I'm not concerned with any specific deity, but the notion of a deity itself.

[Le Socialiste]

You are so not helping your car. Who here said they wanted to kill you?
Protip: quit taking things so literally dumbfuck

Remus, cut the crap. You can call the user out, but quit resorting to flaming/personal attacks.

[celticnachos]

Bla bla bla... Lets all kill me I know that is what you all want!

This is an internet forum filled with a bunch of zionist pedophilic anarchists. The audience of these types are minuscule in the real world, you're not going to get killed lol.

[Sinister Intents]

This is an internet forum filled with a bunch of zionist pedophilic anarchists. The audience of these types are minuscule in the real world, you're not going to get killed lol.

Zionist pedophilic anarchists? what the fuck?

[Tim Cornelis]

I think you're right concerning whether or not God can be investigated by science, but I'm more interested in whether or not God can have real explanatory power alongside science.


I disagree with this:
The concept of a deity is, at its core, the concept of intelligent agency. We experience intelligent agency every day, and we interact with the products of intelligent agency every day. Therefore, it's not unreasonable to extrapolate intelligent agency as an explanation of the universe (that doesn't mean it's a correct explanation, only that it is not a baseless one). To clarify, I'm not concerned with any specific deity, but the notion of a deity itself.

That's philosophy, not science.

[Le Socialiste]

This is an internet forum filled with a bunch of zionist pedophilic anarchists. The audience of these types are minuscule in the real world, you're not going to get killed lol.

This post contributes nothing to the discussion, celticnachos. Infraction for flaming and off-topic post.

Edit - If this keeps up I or another mod will be forced to close this thread. So, get back on topic people.

[Sabot Cat]

That's philosophy, not science.

I ask this not as a rhetorical question, but an exploratory one: what is the difference between philosophy and science, and what is the basis for this distinction?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Okay, I went ahead and banned CelticNachos as he was a sockpuppet of the user Radical Rambler - the 'zionist paedophile' thing being a clear give-away, as this was what he talked about before as well. Though he masked his IP it was from the same city.

[Sea]

How can you call me a troll without any evidence? Oh wait is it guilty until proven innocent?When you're religious, evidence is superfluous.
Secular humanism is good :) but I'm fascinated with Wicca, I've been studying it for a couple years. I wouldn't actually call it a religion though as I did in my above post. But definitely some consider it a religion. No one needs religion at all haha.This absolutely boggles my mind. How can you believe something based on your interest in it rather than the likelihood (from what you know) of it being correct? "Is it cool?" is a hugely different question from "Is it accurate?".
I think I should be allowed to practice my religion without harassment. It's my private business. As it should be.And why is that?

In Brazil about 1.5% of the population is atheist. Assuming half of them will be communists it means 0.75% of the population, atheistic communists, will rule over the religious majority. I cannot imagine how one would enforce a ban on organised religion without a state.You've said things like this before, and it is just as flawed as ever, because you assume that people can only act on their own petty beliefs.
Zionist pedophilic anarchists? what the fuck?You know who you are. :laugh:

[Tim Cornelis]

I ask this not as a rhetorical question, but an exploratory one: what is the difference between philosophy and science, and what is the basis for this distinction?

Philosophy is using reason to determine truth but does not rely (primarily at least) on empirical experiments, only mind experiments. Science is based on empirical evidence, tested and replicated.



You've said things like this before, and it is just as flawed as ever, because you assume that people can only act on their own petty beliefs.

What does that mean?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

A communist revolution will abolish existing social institutions. Religion is one of those institutions. That said, a communist society would have no interest in whether some members of society still practice religion as long as they're not trying to impose it on others.

[Sabot Cat]

Philosophy is using reason to determine truth but does not rely on empirical experiments, only mind experiments. Science is based on empirical evidence, tested and replicated.

Philosophers can't fail to use empirical evidence in reaching their conclusions if they're meaningful, as with religious adherents. In order to distinguish between two concepts, there has to be qualitative differences between them. That is to say, every theory and proposition necessarily relies upon observational evidence.

It is true that philosophers, as people, may not be the ones conducting the experiments themselves, but they can use them as a starting point for analysis. Meanwhile, thought experiments are not exclusive to philosophy. Albert Einstein utilized a thought experiment to build his theory of Special Relativity, while Erwin Schrodinger used his titular thought experiment about a cat that could be both living and dead as a critique of the Copenhagen interpretation.

Science and philosophy are functionally equivalent.

[IBleedRed]

That's philosophy, not science.
So...?

That doesn't diminish the ability for God to have explanatory power. I'm not claiming that Lennox's statement about God is a scientific one (and neither is he).


I ask this not as a rhetorical question, but an exploratory one: what is the difference between philosophy and science, and what is the basis for this distinction?

Until the Enlightenment, philosophy dominated the search for truth. Philosophy employs reason and empirical observation in the quest for objective, universal truth. Science is a branch of philosophy, but what distinguishes it from traditional philosophy is the scientific method. That's the key difference between hard science and traditional philosophy.

[Tim Cornelis]

Philosophers can't fail to use empirical evidence in reaching their conclusions if they're meaningful, as with religious adherents. In order to distinguish between two concepts, there has to be qualitative differences between them. That is to say, every theory and proposition necessarily relies upon observational evidence.

It is true that philosophers, as people, may not be the ones conducting the experiments themselves, but they can use them as a starting point for analysis. Meanwhile, thought experiments are not exclusive to philosophy. Albert Einstein utilized a thought experiment to build his theory of Special Relativity, while Erwin Schrodinger used his titular thought experiment about a cat that could be both living and dead as a critique of the Copenhagen interpretation.

Science and philosophy are functionally equivalent.

Kant's theory of the noumenon and phenomenon is qualitatively different from a scientific theory. It is primarily a mind experiment.
David Hume's ultraskepticism does not rely on observational evidence, it is a mind experiment.
Ethics does not rely on empirical evidence but is reason-based.
Etc.
I do think that is a qualitatively difference between science and philosophy.


So...?

So? We were discussing religion and science, not religion and philosophy.

[Sabot Cat]

Kant's theory of the noumenon and phenomenon is qualitatively different from a scientific theory. It is primarily a mind experiment.
David Hume's ultraskepticism does not rely on observational evidence, it is a mind experiment.
Ethics does not rely on empirical evidence but is reason-based.
Etc.
I do think that is a qualitatively difference between science and philosophy.

They all necessarily rely upon observational evidence, as I have said before, and science employs thought experiments as well. Science is just natural philosophy, with an empirical epistemic framework based upon the method pioneered by philosopher/scientist Francis Bacon.

[Thirsty Crow]

They all necessarily rely upon observational evidence.
How does the theory of noumenon and phenomenon, to rely on Tim's example, rely upon observational evidence? And more importantly, in what way does scientific research employ thought experiments?

[Sabot Cat]

How does the theory of noumenon and phenomenon, to rely on Tim's example, rely upon observational evidence?

Because absent observational evidence, they would be meaningless. Noumenon and phenomenon is the distinction between that which is thought, and that which is sensed. It relies upon the experienced difference between thinking and sensing. One can think of things one isn't sensing, as in the imagination or dreams.


And more importantly, in what way does scientific research employ thought experiments?

I cited the example of Schrodinger's cat, along with the famous train thought experiment from Einstein, the twin paradox, the EPR paradox, the double-slit thought experiment, the Brownian racket, etc. Science uses thought experiments all of the time to analyze data and work out the implications of it.

[Sea]

What does that mean?You make the assumption that only atheists can be part of a party or state that demands atheism in action. The entireity of your argument, in which you equate an atheistic DotP with minority rule, is based on this assumption.