Do Americans really believe in God, or do they just say they do?

[revnoon]

In a recent political thread the opinion was expressed that there are very few true theists -- most are just lying to please others.

According to the most recent Gallup poll, 86% of Americans said that they believe in God. I'm curious to see how many people believe them, and how those opinions differ among atheists, theists and agnostics.

In Europe it less taboo to say you don't believe in God or your not a Christians.:laugh:

Saying you are an atheist or agnostic or a skeptic of God has more stigma to it in the US.

I was once at the library and two girls where talking and one girl ask other girl are you Christian!!:ohmy::ohmy: She said yes!!:ohmy::ohmy: Than said she trying to find who own religion path!! In other words she not a Christian!! But looking at different religion out there or doing her own searching and believe system!! Than being that good old born American and becoming a Christian. That if you not a Christian there is a stigma to it.

When you tell people you not Christian than they think you must be Jewish or Muslim. They look at Jewish as Muslim like foreign species that just came of that airplane and in their country!!:cursing: We don't like that but will deal with it but a NON believer makes my skin crawl.

But atheist, agnostic or a skeptic of God or non Christian has more of stigma and rebellious tone to it like you punk or hippie that is rebelling social norms.

Is the US ever going to change? Makes me wish I was born in Europe.

[reviscom1]

In a recent political thread the opinion was expressed that there are very few true theists -- most are just lying to please others.

According to the most recent Gallup poll, 86% of Americans said that they believe in God. I'm curious to see how many people believe them, and how those opinions differ among atheists, theists and agnostics.

In Europe it less taboo to say you don't believe in God or your not a Christians.:laugh:



Indeed, in Europe it is actually more of a taboo to say that you do believe in God. In terms of peer pressure it is much easier to claim atheism in Europe than it is to claim religious belief.

If anything you would have people claiming to be atheists to please others.

[Blake's Baby]

Well that's just bullshit, I'm afraid.

wiki article:

"The Eurobarometer Poll 2010 found that, on average, 51% of the citizens of EU (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union) member states state that they "believe there is a God", 26% "believe there is some sort of spirit or life force" while 20% "do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force". 3% declined to answer. .."

In other words, 77% (+...) of people from EU member-states are 'religious', and 20% claim to be atheists.

[Rafiq]

Indeed, in Europe it is actually more of a taboo to say that you do believe in God. In terms of peer pressure it is much easier to claim atheism in Europe than it is to claim religious belief.

Actually no, it is a controversial thing to be an atheist in most contexts. A real atheist that is, who rejects all superstitions, including those of the 'exotic' variant.

Virtually every self-proclaimed atheist flirts with hocus pocus, mystiicsm, Eastern spiritualism and all other kinds of pure shit. It offends peoples sensitivities if you are actually an atheist - and that includes having no superstitious reservations about evo-psych mythology, metaphysical interpretations of 'evolution' (that give it meaning).

[Alan OldStudent]

I live in one of the most secular parts of the United States (Pacific northwest State of Washington). Most people around here believe in God. I sometimes hesitate to state I'm an atheist, and if people ask, I just say I'm a secular Jew. That seems less controversial around here.

[Le Libérer]

I am in the deep south and here very few people are secular. I work for civil liberties and civil rights organizations and religion and civil rights are incredibly infused. There is no separation. Everything starts with prayer and ends with one. The most progressive civil rights icons are all religious. And I think being religious was the only way African Americans were able to meet and plan so they are intertwined.

One of the stories of how the oldest black church in this part of the world was, a group of slaves went to their master and said they wanted to start a church. The slave owner asked them, well how many of you people want to start this church. They said everyone on the plantation and 2 others close by. And the slave master said, "Oh no! It will have to be a little union." They named the church Little Union Baptist Church. Those slaves brought brick by brick to build that church.

I have often wondered why a slave would take on the religion of their owners and a friend told me it did several things. It allowed them the freedom to assemble on their own, it also brought the preachers of this church money and power, but it also caused a blind eye by the white community.

[Le Libérer]

I am in the deep south and here very few people are secular. I work for civil liberties and civil rights organizations and religion and civil rights are incredibly infused. There is no separation. Everything starts with prayer and ends with one. The most progressive civil rights icons are all religious. And I think being religious was the only way African Americans were able to meet and plan so they are intertwined.

One of the stories of how the oldest black church in this part of the world was, a group of slaves went to their master and said they wanted to start a church. The slave owner asked them, well how many of you people want to start this church? They said everyone on the plantation and 2 others close by. And the slave master said, "Oh no! It will have to be a little union." They named the church Little Union Baptist Church. Those slaves brought brick by brick to build that church.

I have often wondered why a slave would take on the religion of their owners and a friend told me it did several things. It allowed them the freedom to assemble on their own, it also brought the preachers of this church money and power, but it also caused a blind eye by the white community.

[Heretek]

Well, here in the north east (New Hampshire), there's an odd mix of believers and unbelievers. Mostly, everyone claims to be secular, and most fellow students are atheists (at least those that bother to talk to me). The religious are almost all fanatics of whatever religion they belong to.

One student, favoring himself a good Christian and republican, goes so far as to say he admires the catholic church, its old and modern tactics, and how it came to dominate the world. He goes to the point if claiming erroneous nonsense about the heretics of Catholicism.

For example, cathars and fraticelli, even Protestants, are all genocidal maniacs who want to kill good Christians and ruin gods work. I claimed once to my oldest friend that there's no way a 'virgin birth' actually occurred, and he responded with threatening violence. He's also a tea party proto fascist now, so we're not exactly 'friendly' anymore.

Then of course there are the regionalist rumours that the entire nirth of the state is dominated and religious zealots.

But when I refuse to stand for the pledge of allegiance, I get stares from people who supposedly don't care about religion and are 'cynical' to the state. Of course, my peers are now used to it, so they don't really care anymore.

Didn't stop a substitute from threatening to send me to the office if I didn't. Only when I and my classmates agonized some 'religious' reasons did she relent. Of course my reasons are more political then that, being the refusal to swear allegiance to an imperial institution and the rejection of religion.

I get similar reactions at sports and public events during the anthem. I just stand now with hands behind my back to avoid another physical confrontation.

[RedMaterialist]

I have often wondered why a slave would take on the religion of their owners and a friend told me it did several things. It allowed them the freedom to assemble on their own, it also brought the preachers of this church money and power, but it also caused a blind eye by the white community.

I am also from the deep south and have wondered the same thing. When I started reading Marx it occurred to me that the reason might have to do with historical materialism. That is, the ideas of the ruling class, the slave owners (as well as the northern aggressor bourgeoisie,) become the ideas of all of society, including the slaves. Formerly the slaves probably would have practiced some form of animism in Africa.

Also, the promise of a Christian afterlife would have been a powerful opiate for the miseries of slave life.

[reviscom1]

Actually no, it is a controversial thing to be an atheist in most contexts. A real atheist that is, who rejects all superstitions, including those of the 'exotic' variant.

Virtually every self-proclaimed atheist flirts with hocus pocus, mystiicsm, Eastern spiritualism and all other kinds of pure shit. It offends peoples sensitivities if you are actually an atheist - and that includes having no superstitious reservations about evo-psych mythology, metaphysical interpretations of 'evolution' (that give it meaning).

Well maybe (maybe) it is different in the "Catholic" parts of Europe but here in the UK it is not at all controversial to be an atheist. Tell any gathering that you are an atheist and the reaction will range from approval to puzzlement that you feel the need to share such a banal revelation.

Declare you are a Christian and you will be met by surprise, embarrassment, sniggers, argument and anxiety that you are going to start trying to convert people.

Now atheists like to think they are being bold and iconoclastic and maverick but (in the UK) that is all in their heads. The atheists are the nihilistic, materialistic, consumerist majority.

As for the more "new age-y" forms of spirituality you mention, people do get very confused about them. On the surface the reaction you will get if you start talking about them is much the same as the one I describe above for Christianity, maybe a little less hostile.

But this reaction is only an objection to New Ageyness in general. It excludes the individual aspects of New Ageyness that these same people happen to believe in. Humans are extremely irrational creatures and you are certainly correct that many people who claim to be atheist and to mock "spirituality" in fact harbour superstitions themselves. Of course because they happen to believe in X, then by definition X can't be stupid like all that Spiritualist, hippy crap :glare:

That being said, if you stand up in the UK and say you don't believe in any form of religion or spirituality whatsoever and we're all just atoms, that would not be controversial at all.

If you stand up and say you believe in crystals. or horoscopes, or palm reading or the Virgin Mary, that will get you laughed at.

[Rafiq]

As for the more "new age-y" forms of spirituality you mention, people do get very confused about them. On the surface the reaction you will get if you start talking about them is much the same as the one I describe above for Christianity, maybe a little less hostile.

Please refer back to my argument, which acknowledges that most people call themselves atheists today. I say in fact DESPITE THIS they are more superstitious than ever.


The atheists are the nihilistic, materialistic, consumerist majority.

And while the religious and the cheap conservatives may laud about the consumerism and nihilism of the masses, we communists recognize it to be totally ingenuine. We don't recognize cynicism or nihilism to be authentic. Instead, consumerism, (purported) 'nihilism' are parts of very complex structures of belief, that are almost theological in nature. Think, do you expect that the Aztecs, for example, thought they were 'naively' believing in that which only 'suckers' believe? No, they couldn't articulate a world without their gods in it, and the true idiot for them would be he who does not worship the gods. Ideology does not say "I am ideology". As Althusser said. This is the point of ideological criticism. Religion in capitalist society is universal - whether one believes in the Christian god, or some other bullshit, it's all the same - it is that last ditch superstitious externality that gives vitality to religion.


Humans are extremely irrational creatures

And this is why I call you a bourgeois ideologue, not because I am flaming you, but because I can actually rationally justify this argument. You speak of "humans" being this or that. You justify the superstition of the bourgeois atheists in some pretense to 'humans being irrational creatures'. I, conversely, ground it in very real social processes. In fact, that which humans can be conscious of, they are unbound by. IF one can be conscious of irrationality, how is one, by nature, an irrational creature? Does consciousness make no difference? If one cannot truly be conscious of irrationality, who are you to speak of it? Or perhaps you speak of consciousness of the 'expression' of the irrationality but not its origin. Very well. I declare myself not to be an irrational creature, who believes in zero superstitions. This could be owed into some strange alterations in the DNA of Rafiq, or perhaps it is owed to the fact that Rafiq is a Marxist who is thoroughly conscious of the nature of belief, the social processes that which are responsible for them, etc.

What "rationality' can make pretenses to an innate 'irrationality'? Humans ARE NOT irrational creatures, he who speaks of irrationality, does not understand the nature of the rationality he pretends is lacking. That rationality is actively suppressed, does not mean irrationality is some inevitability of human existence. It means for some practical reason, rationality is suppressed. This practicality is grounded in peoples' real relationships to the production of their own conditions of existence.

It is freudian slips like this, that are responsible for my previous criticism against you. One must not make pretenses to humans, without also making pretenses to themselves. And he who admits he cannot control himself, has no place in the future of Communism, but is a bourgeois ideologue. The irrationality of 'man', is owed to nothing more than the irrationality of his historical context and his contingent inability to overcome it.


That being said, if you stand up in the UK and say you don't believe in any form of religion or spirituality whatsoever and we're all just atoms, that would not be controversial at all.

That is because the ideological designations which underlie this notion are thought to be tacit assumptions. Say that you think we're all just atoms, no one will care.

But go and tell everyone that you seek to destroy nature and replace it with the artificial. Tell everyone you seek the abolition of the family and the desecration of all they find holy. Tell them you seek the return of the guillotine. Well sorry, that's atheism, and most people are thoroughly horrified by this. In fact the only reason people are horrified by, say, eugenics, is because we're "playing god" by doing it - they otherwise literally believe it could 'work'.

In fact, the 'atheism' you describe is nothing more than conventional edginess. That's because it's fashionable to appear unattatched, cynical, and so on. When people feel like being serious and having hope, they will say "Wow, I don't know man, that trip I just had off of acid/DMT/shrooms really made me question things". or "Whoah, I'm an atheist, but that was literally crazy" (some odd situation) and so on.

The argument you make is no different than saying anti-racism is uncontroversial. Who, really, admits to being a racist besides the marginal or 'extreme'? Not even the BNP does.

[reviscom1]

Please refer back to my argument, which acknowledges that most people call themselves atheists today. I say in fact DESPITE THIS they are more superstitious than ever.

Yes I know that's what you said. I was agreeing with you on that part.

You speak of "humans" being this or that. You justify the superstition of the bourgeois atheists in some pretense to 'humans being irrational creatures'.

It wasn't meant as a justification. I was simply trying to make observations on my fellow Britons' attitudes to religion. Just because I have spiritual beliefs does not mean that I am cheerfully uncritical of all aspects of religion and spirituality.

But go and tell everyone that you seek to destroy nature and replace it with the artificial. Tell everyone you seek the abolition of the family and the desecration of all they find holy. Tell them you seek the return of the guillotine. Well sorry, that's atheism,

No, but it's not Communism, to be fair.

In fact, the 'atheism' you describe is nothing more than conventional edginess. That's because it's fashionable to appear unattatched, cynical, and so on. When people feel like being serious and having hope, they will say "Wow, I don't know man, that trip I just had off of acid/DMT/shrooms really made me question things". or "Whoah, I'm an atheist, but that was literally crazy" (some odd situation) and so on.

That is exactly my argument as well, although with a different motive. See also when they listen to some music, or witness a birth or a death or a landscape and then say "I'm no bible basher, in fact I'm a proud atheist, but there was something strangely spiritual about that. I'm a proud atheist, though"

The argument you make is no different than saying anti-racism is uncontroversial. Who, really, admits to being a racist besides the marginal or 'extreme'?

Sure, I was just answering the OP's question.

[Rafiq]

I was simply trying to make observations on my fellow Britons' attitudes to religion.

In fact you were not, instead, you were making pretenses to 'humans' from perceived behaviors of your fellow Britons' - and it is strange that you mention this too, as though there is something unique about the United Kingdom here. There isn't. From the 'observations', you draw the conclusion that 'humans are irrational creatures'. I contest the validity of the conclusion you have drawn, from the observations at hand.


No, but it's not Communism, to be fair.

In fact that is exactly Communism. Everything you think you know about Communism, hate to break it to you, is wrong. Instead you are familiar with petty bourgeois socialism, which is even reactionary in character. Before Stalinism, this atheism was precisely what predominated intellectual, artistic and cultural spheres of life in the advanced sections of the Soviet Union, this unrelenting strife to conquer all walks of life, to defile things that which the superstitious deem sacred. The society of the godless, as the anti-theist arm of society, coupled with very creative artistic pursuits, constructivism, cubism, intellectual currents like Cosmism (i.e. expansion to the cosmos), trans-humanism, EVERYTHING you can think of was there and it wasn't just fiction - they truly were committed to these. In the Soviet Union, there were prominent intellectual currents that wanted to abolish sex (i.e. literally replace processes of reproduction artificially, abolishing not only sexual difference, but sexual pleasure with it), and furthermore (even Trotsky was behind this), abolish feeling. So that effectively, if one is in pain, this would register like a video game - your health's deterioration would be signified as purely informational, you would feel nothing. This is Communism, and it is even more relevant in an age, where things things are at an increasing rate becoming practically possible. They are either going to be implemented in the context of a society rife with social antagonism, or in a socially self-conscious society constituted by the free association of men and women.

The religious conservative, is horrified by this. How, though? The ascetic religious conservative, the pious priest, are all horrified by the abolition of sex (through means of biological engineering). But why? They demonize sex, consign it as sinful, and so on. It is because, perversion, corruption, filth is integral and inherent to holy abstinence, chastity and sexual cleanliness. We Communists, if given the power, will smash this Yin-Yang of slavery, degradation, humiliation and perversity to bits and pieces (before then, obviously, we are for complete and total sexual freedom - in the context of the abolition of gender).

But everyone is horrified by this today, out of sensitiviites they have no knowledge of. They call it 'instinct' and 'irrationality', but we call it ideology. Artifice is now juxtaposed to the 'natural' and 'authentic'. That which is 'man-made' is demonized as corrupt, because we are living in a soul corrupting society. Communism is the death of nature and the triumph of human will. It is the triumph of human consciousnesses, the 'soul' (historic consciousness) even, over its natural, biological context - meaning, artificial bodies, artificial means of life, and so on. Of course this would not be done over night. But it would be the culminative conclusion of a Communist society over time.

This was defeated not because it 'failed', but because the institutions that necessitated their practical implementation could not and did not exist as a result of the conditions of the country.

But nevermind that. This and nothing else is Communism. An atheist does not believe in a big other, an atheist recognizes the self-sufficient nature of human life and modes of human activity that which they themselves are a part of. I mean this is very elementary, Feurerbachian even atheism - the fact that god is an expression of alienation. This kind of sophisticated atheism does not exist today, because not only are we not living in post-religious times, people today are more religious, more 'believers' then they ever were. The difference is that the character of religion has changed, out of the churches. All religion today is the same. There are only aesthetic ("cultural") and political differences in the connotations of varied religions. Take the Muslims. Deeply religious Mulsim communities don't really give a fuck about what you believe. What they care about is your willingness to perform their rituals. So you can say "There is no god" and whatever you want all you like, as long as you don't eat pork, as long as you don't offend the customs of the community. That is because belief is expressed through action - one expresses belief, through what they are doing, not through what they say they believe in. That is the very definition of ideology - to do, to designate, without knowing.


See also when they listen to some music, or witness a birth or a death or a landscape and then say "I'm no bible basher, in fact I'm a proud atheist, but there was something strangely spiritual about that. I'm a proud atheist, though

Conversely, it is not possible for an actual Communist, or atheist, to say this. This is what you amply fail to understand - there is no room for 'spiritaulity' as it pertains to irrationality or superstition here. A bourgeois atheist is spiritually a superstitious person. A Communist conversely, is a materialist, and is spiritually disciplined as a Communist. Communism encompasses every domain of human consciousness, so there is amply no room for any gods or superstitions. Because Communists, as materialists, recognize this 'spiritual' domain as synonymous with the historical domain, that which makes them living human beings.

[Jacob Cliff]

In the Soviet Union, there were prominent intellectual currents that wanted to abolish sex (i.e. literally replace processes of reproduction artificially, abolishing not only sexual difference, but sexual pleasure with it), and furthermore (even Trotsky was behind this), abolish feeling. So that effectively, if one is in pain, this would register like a video game - your health's deterioration would be signified as purely informational, you would feel nothing. This is Communism, and it is even more relevant in an age, where things things are at an increasing rate becoming practically possible.

What? Why would abolishing sexual pleasure – or human feeling – be in any way positive? HOW would this be done, exactly? Performing it on infants without consensual will? Would this not be taking away what it means to be human?


And you seem to treat communism as (what you explained to me before) as a process more so than a mode of production, or phase in society itself, which is interesting to me. If you were to sum communism up in a short, explainable phrase for people interested in your beliefs, how would you do this? Can one say communism is nothing more than the "triumph of man over his conditions/nature"? Or is an explanation of it being a "stateless, classless post-money society" sufficient? Because the former is not very telling – it doesn't say why or how communism implies mastery over man's conditions of life. But the latter, obviously, just seems as if it's a utopian ideal which reality will have to adjust itself to. What, in your opinion, is the best way to "summarize" communism? And what are the institutions, specifically, that are necessary to facilitate the transition into communism (or to put it another way: what were these "vestiges of proletarian dictatorship" that the Soviet Union had to compromise during collectivization, and what would these genuinely proletarian institutions be in, say, the States)?

Also: check your PM, please.

[Guardia Rossa]

what were these "vestiges of proletarian dictatorship" that the Soviet Union had to compromise during collectivization, and what would these genuinely proletarian institutions be in, say, the States

I second you in this.

[Rafiq]

Why would abolishing sexual pleasure – or human feeling – be in any way positive? HOW would this be done, exactly?

Because it would eventually be the logical conclusion of the abolition of gender. "Feeling" as such, would eventually become completely pointless. The point is the conscious mastery over all natural processes, including biological ones to our will. The abolition of sex, the point being, the destruction of not only gender but sexual difference as such. A world that can freely define its own conditions of existence, will irrevocably do away with sexual pleasure as such, which by its own standards will be completely and totally useless - because the rationality of society, will be driven by the antagonism between human consciousness and the natural world. This is what will 'move' society.

Physical feeling, i.e. feeling pain, is a weakness, and replacing it with pure processes of information (i.e. if you are in danger, if your body is being damaged) again allows one, with their consciousness, to master rather than be enslaved by such processes in proximity. The human body as an obstacle to the prerogatives of human consciousness, think about it! We decay and die. We hunger and we tire. We break, and so on. Human feeling, physical feeling, what is more sweet and just than the triumph of that which had been used against humans to enslave them, their propensity to feel physical pain? Again I am not making blueprints - these are very simple, logical conclusions of Communism. There is no domain of the sacred. Communism as a society will have no ends. It will be an eternal process, whose final conclusion is - in effect - freedom from the physical constitution of man. of course man's consciousness, which requires physical processes to even exist, will have to be given a different physical basis.

Silicon Valley scum, sais Julian Assange, are already talking about how they want to 'upload their consciousness' and live forever. They are serious about it too. Weird, shit science fiction scenarios of an aristocracy of immortal trans-humans reigning over the biological filth, is this what we want as our future? The technological strive for it is already there. Whether it leads to hell on Earth, or something under the control of those building a new world, that is what is up to us, not whether we pursue the technology.


Performing it on infants without consensual will?

Sorry, what? Without consensual will? As though infants need to be consulted? That is silly. Infants aren't able to consent to being raised by a communist society either. They aren't able to consent to a number of things, including vaccination. There is no such thing as violating an infant's 'will' or consent, because infants do not have consent. Instead, it is the responsibility of society to define the standards of how infants are treated. And of course, society as a whole would have to accept this - but it is my contention that a society free from superstition, a Communist society, would have no problem with this. I assert and stand by this argument.

How exactly it would be done, again, I don't want to have a discussion about science fiction. Obviously we cannot do it today, but the fact that we are talking about it means that eventually we will be able to do it. How, well, how the hell should I know? The point is that these are examples of the much wider theme of mastery over all domains of life.


Would this not be taking away what it means to be human?

No, because "what it means to be human" is not grounded in that which would be manipulated - the biological. These processes are vestigial, and we, in a secondary manner, consciously articulate them. What that means is, humans are not simply defined by their physical constitution, because we as conscious beings find ourselves having arms, legs, and bodies, they are not 'us', they are externalities just like an object that is separate from your body - objects of potential manipulation. What it means to be human has nothing to do with 'feeling'. And this is a very silly game - doesn't medicine, modern surgical practices, etc. alter what it 'means to be human' by the standards of humanness that were in place 2 thousand years ago? Who cares?


If you were to sum communism up in a short, explainable phrase for people interested in your beliefs, how would you do this?

Communism is hte movement for the supersession of the present state of things. Communism is the practical application of social self-consciousness.

That is how I would sum it up. Though I oppose the notion that people need such simplistic buzz-phrases.


Because the former is not very telling – it doesn't say why or how communism implies mastery over man's conditions of life

There is no A-to-B causal relationship, no easy answer here - all of this requires critical thinking that is merciless.

Communism implies mastery over man's conditions of life, because Communims is nothing more than consciousness of social processes. After this contradiction is resolved (the social antagonism), the only contradiction which remains, is between man's consciousness and the world around him. NO MATTER WHAT, insofar as natural processes are not under the direct conscious control of this socially self-conscious society, they will, by merit of antagonisms created by the manipulation of natural processes. Think of it this way: There will always be room for improvement, and solving a problem that is natural, will beget more problems. Think about it - what would DRIVE a society, if not THIS? What would be the underlying RATIONALITY of this society's self-perpetuation? It would be the ever increasing mastery over man's mind and the natural world around him, and the seeds of this process are already present in capitalism, which regularly undergoes technical revolution, albeit in a manner which is 'alien'.


And what are the institutions, specifically, that are necessary to facilitate the transition into communism (or to put it another way: what were these "vestiges of proletarian dictatorship" that the Soviet Union had to compromise during collectivization, and what would these genuinely proletarian institutions be in, say, the States)?

Well how can I answer you here, if I have already answered this so many times before for you. I can't satisfy your question, clearly, so what can I say? The vestiges of the proletarian dictatorship, amounted to nothing more than the state apparatus that was built (and afterwards expanded, then transformed) from the period of 1917-1924. The 'proletarian dictatorship' endured in a hollow way, i.e. insofar as it could not reproduce itself, it was ripe for transformation. But still, the 20's were a period in which anything and everything was possible.

But again, I have addressed this question multiple times already: The problem was that there were no 'institutions' of the proletarian dictatorship as such, which is why the goals could not be implemented. Experiments in alternative child rearing, failed not because they were failures but because the Soviet state could not afford their widespread implementation. And that is for quite obvious reasons - it wasn't even industrialized, for christ's sake.

About what these institutions will look like, again, I am not a fortune teller. We can only talk about what they will not look like. Talking about the institutions of the proletarian dictatorship in 2016, when there isn't even a carcass of a new movement is not possible, because these institutions are necessarily the outgrowth of the Communist movement as such.

The question, moreover, is not an important one, and I have on several occasions told you, that nothing will satisfy your questions because they have a deeply ideological basis. We don't need to know what they will look like to be Communists today, becaues Communism derives from antagonisms as they exist in the here and the now. One becomse a Communist when one confronts the purported shortcomings of 'human nature' or some other superstition: When one approaches a social question, and sais "That's very well, but we can't because human nature/god/ etc.", THE MINUTE you critically reject this, you become a Communist.

The message of Communism is: We can.

[Jacob Cliff]

Thanks for the response – it does help a lot, but I would like to make it absolutely clear that the questions I've asked you pertaining to the proletarian dictatorship has never, up until now, pertained to what SPECIFICALLY these aspects are (what we can CONCRETELY identify this or that as genuinely in the process of constructing communism). I'm sorry if my persistence annoys you, but I have never received an answer that clearly outlined WHAT the "compromised vestiges of the proletarian dictatorship" were, or WHAT we even demand as communists to facilitate communism. This is my problem – yes, I understand you perfectly when you say the USSR had to compromise it's proletarian dictatorship (what remained of it at least) in having to accommodate the peasant masses and proletarianize the country in collectivization, but exactly "what" it lost has remained a mystery for me, and judging by other comments, for others as well.


We don't need to know what they will look like to be Communists today, becaues Communism derives from antagonisms as they exist in the here and the now.

But Rafiq, this begs the question: WHY BE A COMMUNIST if we have not even a VAGUELY defined goal? Opposition to the existing order – this implies we have a solution to the existing order that must be at least vaguely defined. "Derives from antagonisms as they exist in the here and now" – well that implies the communist movement is purposes to OVERCOME these antagonisms, which implies we need to understand HOW we will do this. I don't think it is utopian blueprinting if we at least preach how we will solve this or that problem – how this or that will be overcome. How else do we expect to build a communist movement? By not having a clearly defined, affirmative goal, HOW to we build a communist movement besides that of a few deep-thinkers on an Internet forum?

I'm sorry if you feel my questions are repeated to an annoying degree, and I certainly appreciate the time you take to answer such questions, but for every one answer I receive I have ten more given the ambiguity of the responses (or, perhaps, of the nature of the questions being asked).

[oneday]

Because it would eventually be the logical conclusion of the abolition of gender. "Feeling" as such, would eventually become completely pointless. The point is the conscious mastery over all natural processes, including biological ones to our will. The abolition of sex, the point being, the destruction of not only gender but sexual difference as such. A world that can freely define its own conditions of existence, will irrevocably do away with sexual pleasure as such, which by its own standards will be completely and totally useless - because the rationality of society, will be driven by the antagonism between human consciousness and the natural world. This is what will 'move' society.

Physical feeling, i.e. feeling pain, is a weakness, and replacing it with pure processes of information (i.e. if you are in danger, if your body is being damaged) again allows one, with their consciousness, to master rather than be enslaved by such processes in proximity. The human body as an obstacle to the prerogatives of human consciousness, think about it! We decay and die. We hunger and we tire. We break, and so on. Human feeling, physical feeling, what is more sweet and just than the triumph of that which had been used against humans to enslave them, their propensity to feel physical pain? Again I am not making blueprints - these are very simple, logical conclusions of Communism. There is no domain of the sacred. Communism as a society will have no ends. It will be an eternal process, whose final conclusion is - in effect - freedom from the physical constitution of man. of course man's consciousness, which requires physical processes to even exist, will have to be given a different physical basis.


I can understand wanting to do abolish pain, but why would the choice be to remove all feeling, including sexual pleasure? Wouldn't the triumph of the human will be for everyone to feel pleasure, similar to a sexual pleasure, all the time? Who would choose a 'blank' state over a continual feeling of pleasure? Or am I completely misinterpreting what you are saying?

[Rafiq]

but exactly "what" it lost has remained a mystery for me, and judging by other comments, for others as well.

What was lost was not any kind of paradise, but potentiality. That is the point. The proletarian dictatorship, as I said, at that point was unable to reproduce itself. But invested in it, was the potential for building real proletarian institutions - obviously it could not do this - but the SOCIAL potential, i.e. ideological la potential by merit of its character, was there. There were many differences between the state in the 20's and later on. I have given examples for this in multiple domains - one of them being the treatment of gulag prisoners, which was infinitely more 'humane' than under Stalinism. There are infinitely more examples, but it is futile for me to provide them to you, because what you are looking for is false. You might say "So that's it? All a society needs is X and it's a proletarian dictatorship"? And that is dealing with nothing more than abstractions from their concrete context. The problem is an idealist formalism, which designates to ideas unmoving and static meaning, in the context of infinitely more fluid, changing and dynamic historical processes.

But again, I question the basis of your question in the first place. I question, and contest, the notion that this is important. One cannot so simply hone in on a single committe, commission, or whatever, and say "Oh, this is a proletarian dictatorship". ONe must understand the difference as it relates to the totality of things - and my prime example is the field of art. Soviet avant-garde, 1920's cinema and dissonant music that is the proletarian dictatorship. But again, this will beg the question "Does all avante garde, dissonant music, etc. signify Communism?" and again, you are asking a plethora of false questions, as a result of an idealist understanding of comprehending phenomena. This is not a 'A-to-B' matter. The specific character of Soviet art, is what makes it Communist. Does that mean the introduction of mass art campaigns makes a proletarian dictatorship? THAT IS NOT my point. My point is that the art encapsulated the ideological forces that were at play there, it serves to symbolize the attittudes of people during this time.

Again, I need to tell you: The problem is not that you are not getting proper answers, it's that you're asking false questions.


But Rafiq, this begs the question: WHY BE A COMMUNIST if we have not even a VAGUELY defined goal?


Opposition to the existing order – this implies we have a solution to the existing order that must be at least vaguely defined

Frankly it does not. An empty signifier, does not need any affirmative supplement. Just go and ask the Arab kids in Paris who were burning cars on the streets a few years ago, go ask the members of Occupy, go ask virtually any expression of 'resistance' to the existing order that is spontaneous. OPPOSITION does NOT CONGRUENTLY mean a 'solution' is ready at hand. one can oppose something without having ANY solution whatsoever, all that is needed is the vague idea that there is a solution. What comes after is ambiguity: One can articulate this solution as a Fascist, an Islamist, etc. - or, should they scientifically articulate the order, through Communism. Marx was a Young Hegelian. he was equipped with what was the closest thing to a science of history there was, and he was at that placed squarely in the camp of revolutionary-Jacobin politics.

Of course CONSCIOSU opposition to the existing order implies that there CAN be an alternative to it, but most opposition to the existing order ,does not designate consciousness of the intricacies of the existing order. And here we go back to another problem with your thinking, you are unable to articulate the fact that people can do things, without having knowledge of the things they are doing. That is ideology. One can oppose the existing order, without consciously understanding the order he is opposing, that is the point, he will designate this order ideologically, i.e. through anti-semitism, conspiracy theories, or something else, but ultimately they will not understand the order they are opposing. Becasue they are not opposing it in its totality - this requires the prerequisite of Communism.

But you INCESSANTLY bring this up, when I have responded to this several times over and over again: Your demand and interest in having a 'vague' blueprint has its basis in false ideological consciousness. That is literally all I can tell you. YOU DON'T NEED A 'SOLUTION", you only need a CONSCIOUS ARTICULATION of concrete circumstances, and the confidence that "We can", i.e. WE CAN do things about it, that we are told we cannot. THERE IS NO ready made "solution", that is so silly - there are only the conscious prerogatives of socially conscious men and women and how we choose to circumvent the circumstances as a broad democratic masses, as the proletariat, as the COMMONS, without absolutely any kind of superstition whatsoever. This relates to concrete circumstances at hand, and how antagonisms, contradictions, struggles, within those concrete circumstances can be accentuated in such a way that they would lead to the aufhebeng, or supersession, of the existing order.


"Derives from antagonisms as they exist in the here and now" – well that implies the communist movement is purposes to OVERCOME these antagonisms, which implies we need to understand HOW we will do this.

Sorry no, you honestly have no idea what you are talking about. You don't understand what is meant by 'antagonsims', IT DOESN'T MEAN 'problems' that Communists as external spectators will magically introduce to 'overcome' them. WE DON'T WANT TO "OVERCOME" the antagonisms as such, we want to ACCENTUATE the antagonsim and bring it to its highest heights. Honestly, anyone who bothers with Lenin, should already know this. ONE THING leads to another. That means, workers fighting for reform, or for higher wages, or for anything in their favor as a collective existence, will inevitably lead to more and more demands, because one thing leads to another. This is how Communism becomes DEFINED.

I've gone over this so many times - not simply in the past, but in the past year. Communism derives from taking a side in the controversies that exist in the here and now (not 'overcoming' them with some magical panacea - are you even remotely familiar with Marx's critique of utopian socialism?), in the problems that relate to ordinary people in the here and now. it is a PROCESS that which this struggle is taken to its highest conclusion. Even if that means taking a side that opposes both purported alternatives, it means having a RELEVANT position on matters. It means building a movement to see through minimal demands, under the substrate of maximal ones, which means a proletarian dictatorship.

Ugh. Holy shit. Let me explain this - YOUR OWN ideas right now, where do they come from? THEY DERIVE from real conditions of life and the social antagonism. The social antagonisms, and the controversies that exist here and now (healthcare, ETC.) WE ARE NOT ABOVE THESE THINGS. We are ONLY people who can take a position on these controversies. What separates us, is our confidence in social-consciousness, or knowledge of the social order. Struggles today, like the 15 dollar wage, healthcare, i.e. the POLITICALLY POLARIZING controversies, these are NOT means to an end we have to pass through to get to some golden future. They are the struggles we need to engage with, in an organized and programmic fashion, to bring them to their highest conclusions. Again, one thing leads to another - you gain something, working people will still not be satisfied, until the final controversy is between revolution or reform in broad society.

THE MOVEMENT IS NOT a stage, a means to an ends. What you fail to understand is that men and women in capitalism can fight only with the confidence that - THEY CAN FIGHT. Working people don't need to be convinced of the merits of a Communist society, they need to be convinced that their cynicism, disollusionment, and lack of confidence is groundless - only then will they be willing to fight. Do you not understand? I have poured so much energy into this, and for what? Why should I even explain this to you, if you're just going to ignore it and repeat the same damned question over and over again? You don't even want to think about this long and hard, you outpace and get ahead of yourself. I am telling you that you are asking me this, I request you take everything seriously and critically - do not jump to conclusions by making groundless assumptions. Question every single assumption you have in relation to the matter. Communism is NOTHING MORE than the movement which seeks to supersede the present state of things. This is what Marx said. It is not an idea we adjust reality to. IT IS NOTHING MORE than a force, a movement, a process. Does that entail things about how society will function? Yes, society will be scientifically planned, with the active participation of its constituent members, society's destiny will be in CONSCIOSU hands. Is capitalism consciously planned? To an extent, it is planned, but not CONSCIOUSLY. That is the fucking point of alienation - we are alien from our own means of life and our own basis of existence (think about it CONCRETELY - where did your computer come from?) in that we are not 'connected' to these things (producing them), they seem outside the proximity of our lives, and so on.


I don't think it is utopian blueprinting if we at least preach how we will solve this or that problem – how this or that will be overcome.

Not only is it utopian blueprinting, it is thoroughly anti-democratic and in nature bourgeois. It is silly because it assumes that we can be the architects of a new society as intellectauls, without consulting a real existing movement and its relation to concrete circumstances. Say you 'preach' about how you will solve this or that problem. HOW? You don't have anyone's support, so 'preaching' how you will solve a problem is no different from how a candidate tells his supporters that "I'm going to win the election!" in order to inspire into them confidence. The difference is that what makes or break the election, is whether you get enough support. My point? Telling supporters there is a big other, i.e. that it's just "more likely" you will be elected, will make them confident enough to support and elect you with their votes. But what is the paradox? The fact that, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT to say that "I will be elected!", because the VEHICLE of your election is the masses themselves who you are trying to inspire confidence in (i.e. "It's just more likely I'll win"). But a candidate sais it anyway, so as to inspire confidence in his electorate in thinking that forces outside of them are working in his favor.

THIS is the highpoint of anti-democratic alienation. And what you say is no different - you want to propose to the masses a solution, without consulting a movement that which they are organized in (which does not exist). You want to 'preach' something that directly involves them, when you have no right to because they have nothing to do with you. You effectively want to tell the broad masses, to sell them some panacea - "Support us, and I'll get this done for you". A communist conversely sais - WE CAN, everything and anything is possible so long as we are are socially self-conscious. Because the NATURE of ALL problems, are SOCIAL. Meaning they involve actual human beings themselves. We seek to mobilize human beings, to instill into them self-discipline and collective solidarity, through organization and struggle, and through this there is no problem. We seek the general transformation of human consciousness into social self-consciousness. Which means, organizing and planning a society, in a conscious way, in every domain of life possible.

What you fail to understand is that THERE IS NO GUARANTEE, there is no external force, outside of this new community - a Communist movement - that guarantees ANYTHING. It will require their sacrifice, dedication, will, skill, and so on. NOTHING more.

Is the problem some inevitability of life, nature, or divine life? No, it isn't. That means the problem IS NOT inevitable. It means WE CAN confront it. The controversy for communist isn't about whether we can solve such problems, but the political, TACTICAL implications of this position in the context of the struggles and antagonsims of our own society. It means nothing to say "oh, we'll fix everything" and proceed to explain how you will do this, because WE ARE NOT repair men. The movement is of prime importance, then the proletarian dictatorship, and it is the responsibility of THIS SOCIETY to deal with such matters. We don't give workers ANYTHING but necessary education, organizational prowess, etc. - we don't say "We'll do this for you". Marx said the working class must free itself, which means, the only thing we have to tell them is: WE CAN confront and solve these problems, because they are not inevitable. Their PROPENSITY to fight, their willingness to care, etc. - that is not controversial. You want evidence? Look at the EXPLOSIVE rise of Fascism. They are willing to fight. They do not properly know what to fight for.

THIS QUESTION is what separates a Communist from others. That's the point. the fact that we can scientifically articulate problems, means we can form a solution to them. What is amply pointless, is making pretenses to how you are going to solve this or that problem when: 1) ANY PRACTICAL VEHICLE of doing this is NON-EXISTENT right now, because we are not living in a proletarian dictatorship that would be INCLINED to solve the problem 2) The means by which one comes up with a remedy, does not take into account the concrete circumstances of the future, but instead is an extrapolation, a fantasy, of present day capitalism. The idea that we need to come up with a direct solution to the ecological crisis as a blueprint which will be undertaken by a socialist society, some panacea, is just as nonsensical as saying we need to come up with battle tactics RIGHT NOW in dealing and confronting the counter-revolution.

The closer a Communist MOVEMENT gets to maturing, the closer we can get to talking about these things. But such a movement is not only mature, it doesn't even exist. So it is vulgar and crass to say "Well we need to sell the masses something". We won't sell them anything. We will tell the masses: YOU CAN, YOU CAN fight for things that are relevant to them. The course of this fight, and this struggle, encompassing a wide variety of issues, will lead to true proletairan consciousness and a Communism of the 21st century. Right now we are no different than the Young Hegelians of Marx's time, nay, we are worse, for at least the Young Hegelians did in thought what we the pathetic Left does not, but pretends to do in practice.


HOW to we build a communist movement besides that of a few deep-thinkers on an Internet forum?

YOu shouldn't ask me this, because this is literally the topic of so much controversy, it is what me, DNZ and so many others spend so much time talking about. Read Lars Lih. Read Mike McNair. This is what we need to be talking about. How one engages in movement building, is not something you will get a ready-made answer for on an internet forum. If that was the case, we would already have a movement.

All that is important is: CAN we have a movement? And as Communists we say yes we can. Those who do not have confidence we can, have no place among us. It's that simple.


but for every one answer I receive I have ten more given the ambiguity of the responses

That is because a degree of this, means you have to read yourself. It seems like you are looking for easy answers and solutions, and I am telling you you will have none. You need to, as I have said several times in the past, investigate theses matters on your own critically and relate them to my 'ambiguous' responses. My answers are meant to guide you, not make you content or 'relieve' your concerns. You must do this on your own.

Ask yourself why you are a Communist. Ask it. Why are you a Communist? Why do you even care?


I can understand wanting to do abolish pain, but why would the choice be to remove all feeling, including sexual pleasure? Wouldn't the triumph of the human will be for everyone to feel pleasure, similar to a sexual pleasure, all the time? Who would choose a 'blank' state over a continual feeling of pleasure? Or am I completely misinterpreting what you are saying?

Pleasure only exists if it is juxtaposed to pain. One has no pleasure, if there is no pain, if it is from that contextual spectrum. Of course sex will remain for quite some time, and while it does, there will be no room for chastity. But the abolition of bourgeois sexual morality, also means destroying the basis of hypersexualism and sexual obsession.

Feeling pleasure all the time, would in effect not be possible without increments of pain. What I am saying is far beyond simply abolishing feeling: My point is that society would reach a point, eventually, where nothing remains of humans outside of that 'spark' of historical movement inside of them, their consciousness, their death drive that will make them an eternally expanding and transformative force.

Communism as a society, will be hellbent on total knowledge of natural processes, the practical knowledge of them to change them in our favor. Eventually a standard will be created where something's usefulness is determined by its ability to facilitate this in the most efficient way possible.

[Jacob Cliff]

Communism is NOTHING MORE than the movement which seeks to supersede the present state of things. This is what Marx said. It is not an idea we adjust reality to. IT IS NOTHING MORE than a force, a movement, a process. Does that entail things about how society will function? Yes, society will be scientifically planned, with the active participation of its constituent members, society's destiny will be in CONSCIOUS hands. Is capitalism consciously planned? To an extent, it is planned, but not CONSCIOUSLY. That is the fucking point of alienation - we are alien from our own means of life and our own basis of existence (think about it CONCRETELY - where did your computer come from?) in that we are not 'connected' to these things (producing them), they seem outside the proximity of our lives, and so on.

This is what I needed to hear, thank you. I sort of had an epiphany of realization that I was entirely wrong in my understanding of communism, and this helped sort that out. It's not that I didn't read what you had answered with in older posts, so don't think I was just skimming through to find a cheap fix for the ideological crisis I was facing, it's that, as you mentioned, I was not approaching this the way I should have.

But I do have something to end with: what if one were to reject all superstitions yet not be a communist? I know many materialists who I don't believe are communists in the slightest. Or what about the anarchists? Surely, they reject superstitions, but but do not accept Marxism.

[oneday]

Feeling pleasure all the time, would in effect not be possible without increments of pain. What I am saying is far beyond simply abolishing feeling: My point is that society would reach a point, eventually, where nothing remains of humans outside of that 'spark' of historical movement inside of them, their consciousness, their death drive that will make them an eternally expanding and transformative force.

One could feel pleasure all the time without any pain today with a steady supply of opiates. Sure the context for this could be removed, but this would involve transcending the biological substrate to silicon or whatever, which is going to be far in the future of the point where we can produce some great drugs with little side effects and no downsides, or modify the biological features of our brains to eliminate pain and suffering.

The permanent modification of our brains to a state of pleasure, euphoria and universal love would be a great step forward. It would provide the impetus for expansion and transformation, without incentive or punishment. The desire to expand the sense of pleasure/love/whatever out to as many conscious minds as possible.

What we want to avoid any superstition that this will make us 'lose our humanity' or 'it's not real' or 'you can only have pleasure through pain'. That reminds me of how the guy had to suffer on the cross so we could go to heaven, or we have to suffer now in this life to be rewarded in the next, or whatever.



Ask yourself why you are a Communist. Ask it. Why are you a Communist? Why do you even care?
For me it's on some level simply because I want everyone to be happy. So I would want one of the first tasks of the revolution to be just doing that directly.

[Rafiq]

One could feel pleasure all the time without any pain today with a steady supply of opiates.

If one was in a permanent state of pleasure, one would be in a permanent state of numbness - you cannot have pleasure without pain, it is unthinkable that one could feel any rudimentary sense of pleasure, without being immersed in a spectrum of feeling which also includes pain. Think about it.


It would provide the impetus for expansion and transformation, without incentive or punishment. The desire to expand the sense of pleasure/love/whatever out to as many conscious minds as possible.

This is quite perverse, though, no? The error derives from the notion that this would be necessary for 'expansion and transformation'. But it wouldn't - transformation, eternal 'expansion', would already have to be the basis of society's existence. These are things people are willing to suffer for, at the expense of their sensuous constitution, so the point is - eventually, sensuous processes would no longer have to exist in the first place, there would be no 'impediment' or 'distraction' as such.

The fundamental, essential basis of society would not be some crusade to spread joy to everyone. It would be to control society's direct conditions of existence, reproduce those, while moving through a process of antagonism between mind and external world. Inevitably, our physiological constitution would become an 'external object' from the mind that we can manipulate, because it is already an 'externality' we reflect on, consciously understand, and so on. This includes the overcoming of all feelings of pain, pleasure, or in general feeling. Not that one would be spiritually numb, but that one would be immersed in, and understand the world through pure information. All that would be left after this, is the constant transformation/mastery of all natural processes.

I suppose I could understand what you are saying, if you don't actually mean physical pleasure, but 'spiritual completeness', i.e. the absence of spiritual suffering. In which case you are correct. But this kind of suffering is irreducible to physical pain or pleasure.


That reminds me of how the guy had to suffer on the cross so we could go to heaven, or we have to suffer now in this life to be rewarded in the next, or whatever.

But this isn't the logic I am using. I am not saying one is undeserving of pleasure unless they do not have pain. I am saying, quite literally, it is impossible to feel something called 'pleasure' if there is no such thing as pain. Put it this way - the threshold that which we consider pain/pleasure is something that can vary. So even if you eliminate our standards of pain today, so that effectively, if I were transported into the future, I would not have 'pain', pain would return, it would simply have a lower threshold.

Pleasure and pain are both of the same spectrum of feeling. The point is simple: It's not that you cant have one without the other as some kind of stupid wisdom, it's that neither pleasure nor pain accurately describe the processes that underlie them - these processes, are what we call feeling. One cannot be in an eternal state of masturbation, if there isn't a standard of non-masturbation already in place. So it would be rather silly to think that eternal pleasure is possible.

Instead, what is possible is the existence of neither pleasure or pain - the replacement of direct feeling all together, so that one registers everything in terms of pure information.

[reviscom1]

In fact you were not, instead, you were making pretenses to 'humans' from perceived behaviors of your fellow Britons' - and it is strange that you mention this too.....


But......but....I was!

I specified Britons because I do not have sufficient in-depth experience of other countries to generalise about their religious.

So I can be confident of saying "it is not controversial to say you're an atheist in Britain" but I can't be confident saying that about the US.

[Rafiq]

I specified Britons because I do not have sufficient in-depth experience of other countries to generalise about their religious.

What you said:

Humans are extremely irrational creatures and you are certainly correct that many people who claim to be atheist and to mock "spirituality" in fact harbour superstitions themselves.

Furthermore, you said that in Europe, it is taboo to profess belief in a god. That is simply wrong, it is not taboo at all, so long as you shower it with new age nonsense. "I just believe in a higher power, man, I don't know." - if you even criticize someone for saying this, it is you who will be making a taboo.


So I can be confident of saying "it is not controversial to say you're an atheist in Britain" but I can't be confident saying that about the US.

In fact there is no difference regarding how religion works anywhere in the world. Religion works in the middle east the same way it does in the west, the only difference is that it is has political ('cultural') significance. That is not because of 'humans', it is because we live in a global totality already, a globalized world.

Moreover, we will just keep repeating the same argument. It isn't controversial to call yourself an atheist, but this is not a proper qualification for what it means to be an atheist.

[reviscom1]

Yes I initially said Europe to be clear, as the questioner was asking about the US. It later occurred to me that Europe may still be too broad an area to generalise about,
so added "it might be different in the Catholic areas of Europe..."

The point about humans being irrational was general to the lot of 'em, but that irrationality's effect on religious belief is specific to location.

Moreover, we will just keep repeating the same argument

I wasn't repeating the argument, just repeating the words to clarify what I had said.

However, I don't think the original questioner had your distinction between bourgeois atheists and Communist atheists in mind.

[Invader Zim]

Rafiq welcomes the onset of a society without sexual pleasure? This explains so much.

[oneday]

But this isn't the logic I am using. I am not saying one is undeserving of pleasure unless they do not have pain. I am saying, quite literally, it is impossible to feel something called 'pleasure' if there is no such thing as pain. Put it this way - the threshold that which we consider pain/pleasure is something that can vary. So even if you eliminate our standards of pain today, so that effectively, if I were transported into the future, I would not have 'pain', pain would return, it would simply have a lower threshold.

Pleasure and pain are both of the same spectrum of feeling. The point is simple: It's not that you cant have one without the other as some kind of stupid wisdom, it's that neither pleasure nor pain accurately describe the processes that underlie them - these processes, are what we call feeling. One cannot be in an eternal state of masturbation, if there isn't a standard of non-masturbation already in place. So it would be rather silly to think that eternal pleasure is possible.

Instead, what is possible is the existence of neither pleasure or pain - the replacement of direct feeling all together, so that one registers everything in terms of pure information.

Well, try putting it the opposite way and see if it works. If you transported into the future and were in constant pain instead, I doubt you would say 'it's all relative, my threshold of pleasure is lowered" or something. You would want to get out of pain. Chronic pain patients want to get out of pain. There is an absolute or qualitative difference between pain and pleasure.

There's no yin/yang of pain and pleasure, if we had conquered our biological form and natural processes with the natural sciences sufficiently, we could put someone in a constant state of masturbation, if so desired. It's just brain chemicals. Something like opioid tolerance is a physical process, it's not some mystical realigning of the delicate balance of pain and pleasure. It is just beyond our current technological capability of controlling.

Some kind of soma-esque drug or brain alteration by genetic engineering or other procedures is certainly possible, I'd wager that it's on a much closer horizon than brain/consciousness uploading, which is the only possible way I could conceive of overcoming the biological limitations of feeling you mention. Of course the context of such things is important, as you already went over in your previous posts.

[ManBeaR]

The amount of dopamine distributed in your brain when experiencing something pleasuring is lowered upon constant exposure, which is why drug addicts have to take larger and larger doses to experience the same effect. If one were to modify the brain to make the dopamine flow constant, we would constantly be experiencing pleasure.

[Rafiq]

No, there are certainly thresholds for both pain and pleasure, these things are not simply brain chemicals. Of course, they are physical processes, no doubt about this, but constantly being in a state of pleasure would re-define the very coordinates of 'pain/pleasure' so that one, in effect, is no longer feeling pleasure at all, but is simply 'feeling' what is normal. Because feeling still remains, then a new threshold of pain and pleasure would emerge, its 'middle point' would simply shift. It works exactly the same way with drugs, re - tolerance.

Conventional wisdom shows that people living in rougher neighborhoods probably have a higher pain tolerance than sheltered rich suburban kids.

Pain and pleasure are not simply chemical processes, because one consciously articulates these things. One articulates a certain feeling as either pain or pleasure. Whether you are going to 'like' the feeling or not, is not necessarily a given (usually it is quite clear, however), because 'liking' things is a matter of consciousness. If you are in a constant state of masturbation, this will no longer be pleasurable, it will be just a normal standard for feeling over time. The only way to get around this is to introduce increments of non-pleasure/pain.

The feeling does not necessarily determine the exact nature of how they articulate it. With certain training, one can greatly increase their threshold of pain, for example, or even pleasure.

But the whole point is to render these feelings into pure informational inputs, i.e. so that when your body is in danger, instead of feeling pain, you will get some kind of feedback you can consciously articulate directly. Pleasure then becomes pointless, because the only reason we are ever in states of pleasure, is because we juxtapose these states with other states of feeling, riveting between pain and pleasure constantly.

[BebopRebop]

Where I live, in the rural south, the church forms the backbone of the community. Therefore, not believing in God makes you an outcast to the community. So most people believe. It's a cultural thing. The real question is when does religion become a cult?

I still say "yes" when someone asks me if I've taken Jesus in to my life. I don't have 2 hours to waste arguing my view on religion to them.

[GLF]

As prior stated, and as someone who spends a lot of time associating with Europeans, often more so than Americans, I can confirm that atheism is by no means "the status quo". In Scandinavian countries many people will still go to church on occasion and speak positively of Christianity while professing atheism, which is quite odd in my opinion. In in England, there is a tendency amongst professed atheists, particular the older ones raised in the Anglican tradition, to be extremely Islamophobic and gush poetic about Christianity. You would never see this in America. European atheists are vastly more tolerant of Christianity while they attack Islam, whereas in America, it's often the other way around (but not always).

And as stated by others, many are in to astrology, or profess agnosticism, or something else. It's also in Europe where they've taken to calling themselves "Brights" specifically because of the negative connotations associated with "atheist". Futhermore, I can attest that there are places in central Europe, and southern Europe, where people are often WAY more religious than anything seen in America...even the Bible belt. There are places in Europe where gays cannot marry or women cannot get an abortion, so while there is truth to the notion that Europeans are often less religious, insisting that they've fully embraced atheism is just wishful thinking.

[Walking Disappointment]

I live in Ohio and attended Catholic schools from grade school through high school. Personally, even from a young age, I never really bought into Christianity - I would just go along with it because, well, that's just what you did. That being said, I'm almost certain I'm in the minority. I find that while people from the Christian community disagree with the teachings of the church plenty, they still carry with them the concept of a Christian God, and are actually pretty devout in that belief. A lot of it comes down to a bit of cognitive dissonance. They realize that parts of the Bible are bullshit, but they've been conditioned to rationalize it in a million different ways.

Al that being said, the majority of people (around here at least) believe in a God, but are fairly moderate when it comes to the practices of their religion.

[makkkenzie]

American Christianity is completely watered down and has no influence over peoples lives. I myself am a Christian and find American 'Christianity' to be blasphemous at best.