Religion-why not?

[setumismo]

I am 100% against organized religion, but I am a very spiritual person. I dont evangelize, or try to make anyone believe anything, but my spirituality is a very important part of my life. I dont want to start a discussion about whether or not god exists, what that might entail, etc. I just want to ask a question: why is religion so taboo in a communist state?

i can understand the lack of organized religion, i think its a great idea, but if anyone has any belief, and finds someone else with a similar one, they might meet together, would that be a "religion?".... and where is the line between regulating organized religions and invading people's private lives? i would love to live in a communist society, but not if i couldnt be spiritual, or had to hide that i was...

i was thinking (pardon the cliche) live and let live -- except without harming or trying to conform/convince anyone else...

anyway, just looking for the balance, what do you think?

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

In a communist state religion simply becomes a private matter, if people start organising religions etc. it could lead to oppression, a sense of superioty over others, a disinterest in this world which goes against communism which holds that this world is the one worth living for etc.

Personally I am spiritual, it is more or less impossible not to be. I am agnostic and uninterested in God but am interested in other ideas of spirituality that seem more feasible to me and require more reason than faith.

[Individual]

The thing with religion in a communist state:

Organized religion, such as Catholicism, Christianity, or Islam, have their own morals. They have their own standards. Some of these morals/standards may go against that of a communist society.

Also, like Geist has said, some organized religion has a class system. In which would not be suitable in a proper communist state.

Organized religion may not need to be outlawed and/or banned, however these religions may have contradicting views than that of a proper and efficient communist society. Thus creating problems within this society that may be harmful to its existance. Religion may or may not be banned, however to have it in existance may bring about problems within society.

Spirituality on the other hand would not neccessarily have to be outlawed or banned. Morals and standards may be set within yourself, however the chances are that these morals/standards will not go against the efficiency of this communist society.


but if anyone has any belief, and finds someone else with a similar one, they might meet together, would that be a "religion?".... and where is the line between regulating organized religions and invading people's private lives?

This may or may not be considered a religion, it would need to consider the circumstances. I believe that this type of circumstance could co-exist in a communist society, as long as there were no morals perpendicular to that of the society. Also as long as there were no class systems, or other guidelines which would not be able to benefit/balance the society.

Religion may not need to be outlawed, it would just need to be able to co-exist and balance in this type of society.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

As regards banning spirituality, it is impossible.

[SittingBull47]

yea, organized religion perpetuates hate and segregation of people. Religion should be a private matter, between you and your soul.

[SBR]

Tell me how do you feel about monastic communities. Buddhism for instance relies heavily on monasteries and such. And would teachers be surpressed? Because although it can be a private manner the world has many shamans, witch docters, hermit teachers and abbots. And although many monasteries would dry up without money are able to sustain themselves and have strong communities of practitioners. For although all can be found with in some guidedance on practices of meditation and such need to be learned.

[redstar2000]

why is religion so taboo in a communist state?

To begin with, there's no "state" in a communist society.

Nevertheless, there wouldn't be any public presence of religion either...for hordes of reasons. Here are just four of them.

1. It's just plain wrong...a completely discredited "theory of everything".

2. It is strongly biased in a reactionary direction..."Heaven is not a republic", etc.

3. Because of that bias, it acts as an attractant to political opponents of communism...and even organizes counter-revolutionary activity.

4. Its "moral codes" are barbaric and inhumane...particularly towards women and children.

There are many more reasons...it sometimes seems like I never get the chance to stop having to post on this subject. :o

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[cubist]

in a classless society where equality is of the the highest stature organised reliigon would create a Class on socalled MORAL GROUNDS.

[Individual]

Redstar.

You seem to like to blow people out of the water with your statement:


there's no "state" in a communist society.

People do not mean a physical state with boundaries (i.e. Alabama, New York, Washington)

I think you need to realize the definition of 'state'. For the most part, when people use the term 'state' to describe living under communism, they are trying to imply 'state' as in: 'in a communist state of living (as in condition of living)'. Do not get so upset, which you seem to fancy, over people using the term state. 'State' has numerous meanings, and using the term is not wrong. As a matter of fact, it is correct.

So really, quit getting upset over using the term 'state' to describe a communist society. The term takes on different meanings, leaving you to determine it's pretence.

Edit:
:redstar2000:
That's right, I'm redstar2000 cool now.

[redstar2000]

For the most part, when people use the term 'state' to describe living under communism, they are trying to imply 'state' as in: 'in a communist state of living (as in condition of living)'.

You may be right.

But the word "state" has a specific meaning in Marxist circles -- "an executive committee of the ruling class", an apparatus of organized repression of the exploited classes, etc.

Leninists use the word to describe their version of "the dictatorship of the proletariat" (they mean their party, of course).

Real communists are against all that...we intend to smash the capitalist state apparatus after the revolution and not replace it.

We think that one of the essential conditions of a classless society is the absence of a "political center of gravity" where a potential new ruling class could concentrate.

So, yeah, I get kind of testy when people blithely say "communist state"...there's no such thing!

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Wenty]

redstar - i disagree with your reasons for not having religion in a communist society.

Simply on the basis that the reasons you give lead inevitably to a totalitarian form of gvt that set the moral standards.

You say:-

"1. It's just plain wrong...a completely discredited "theory of everything".

2. It is strongly biased in a reactionary direction..."Heaven is not a republic", etc.

3. Because of that bias, it acts as an attractant to political opponents of communism...and even organizes counter-revolutionary activity.

4. Its "moral codes" are barbaric and inhumane...particularly towards women and children"

One of the freedoms i think of a capitalist country is a toleration (ostensibly) of views which are wholly different and in some cases abhorrent to some people. Look at the second amendment in the us constitution. You live in a country where your beliefs are allowed and accepted yet you advocate a society which not only condemns other peoples religious views (and logically this turns into any anti-communist views as no.3 suggests) but would seek to eradicate them.

I think this is wrong.

[pandora]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 02:34 AM
Tell me how do you feel about monastic communities. Buddhism for instance relies heavily on monasteries and such. And would teachers be surpressed? Because although it can be a private manner the world has many shamans, witch docters, hermit teachers and abbots. And although many monasteries would dry up without money are able to sustain themselves and have strong communities of practitioners. For although all can be found with in some guidedance on practices of meditation and such need to be learned.
Redstar you prob. knew I'd respond to this,
No I'm not happy with the way the Communist Party in China is handling Tibet,
But I also know high lamas who admit there were problems of status and towards female practioners in Tibet, and that being exposed to the West has helped a lot in terms of that.
The monasteries have always been dependent on benefactors whom they require for subsistance. Some monks and nuns roam free, the begging bowl idea, and take only what is offered.
On the contrary, among monks and nuns I find the closest society to that which I would like to see under Communism, where each person works and receives room and board, but also works on improving themselves and reading. Most of them have no material wealth to speak of, so they can move around easily with just a bag and some books. They live to serve others and are filled with compassion.
In whole I've learned a lot about what society could be in their company, they always put others first and themselves second.
But no I don't like the rule book and fly in the face of authority. I will always be a pain in the side of anyone Communist or Buddhist that tries to dictate, that's me.
It's interesting to walk the walk isn't it, it means self sacrifice how many are willing to do that, even if it means walking away from career and possessions.
I don't feel that's best I try to use what I got to help people, and pray that my rebellious nature doesn't get me in trouble which in this autocraic society it does.

[redstar2000]

I disagree with your reasons for not having religion in a communist society.

Simply on the basis that the reasons you give lead inevitably to a totalitarian form of government that set[s] the moral standards.

And this after I just emphasized that there would be no state or "government" in communist society. (!)


One of the freedoms I think of [in] a capitalist country is a toleration (ostensibly) of views which are wholly different and in some cases abhorrent to some people.

I noticed that you slipped in that word "ostensibly". Did you think I didn't know what it means?


1. Appearing as such but not necessarily so; 2. Represented or appearing as such; pretended.

In other words, you just shot down your whole paragraph by inserting that truthful qualification.

Whenever capitalist society feels seriously threatened, it is completely intolerant of anti-capitalist views and imprisons or kills those known to have them.

That's history!


You live in a country where your beliefs are allowed and accepted...

You, on the other hand, live on some other planet.


...yet you advocate a society which not only condemns other peoples religious views (and logically this turns into any anti-communist views as no.3 suggests) but would seek to eradicate them.

I think this is wrong.

Then stick with capitalism; you can wallow in any superstitious muck that you like...and do it tax-free.

And "pray" that proletarian revolution will come after your lifetime.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Wenty]

I don't think you have really answered my challenges.

1. That your views lead inevitably to a totalitarian form of gvt.
2.That you live in a country where these views are accepted yet you advocate a society which not only condemns other peoples religious views but would seek to eradicate them.

Yes, the word ostensibly is put in there but by and large views are tolerated. If you live in a capitalist country you are allowed various forms of protest about issues you think are important.

Your picture of a communist society leaves no room for this type of important protest, imagine there are a group of capitalists wanting a say, your rhetoric suppresses their right to freedom of speech and any other 'counter-revolutionaries' for that matter and i'm sure the definition of counter revolutionary activity will be blurred as it was and is in communist countries. T

[Redalias]

No one has the right to tell you what you can and can not think or believe in. Full stop, period, close the fucking book.

[Solace]

The biggest reason that pulled me away from any religion, is that they all advocate submission before authority, something communists are fighting!

You don’t give free speech to what you consider to be shit! Religion is reactionary and makes people reactionary. It’s an obstacle!

Religion distract people from the blunt reality. It affects how one will accept his life. Instead of acknowledging the injustice and the exploitation and do something about it, s/he will accept it as an action of “god”. It turn the people’s attention from the essential!

Being free of any religion also means to view with an open mind. You will not reject an idea on the sole reason that it’s “against” your religion. You live by a set of morals and values that you personnaly established. Look at my sig.

And you can’t say that you choose your religion completely freely. It has imposed on you as a child. You parents didn’t offer you a wide range of religion and asked you to choose one.

[che's long lost daughter]

I was born and baptized as a Catholic. I even went to catholic schools but i have never really been a devout one. Ever since I was a kid, I saw the hypocrisy in my religion so maybe that is the reason why I choose not to belong to any religion but I do believe in the existence of a God. A few months back, our guidance counselor interviewed me and asked about my spirituality. I had to answer this questionnaire wherein you have to complete the sentences and one of which says "My spiritulaity is____" and I wrote "satisfying". During the interview, he asked me why I wrote that and I said that I am satisfied with how my spirituality is. I added that you can call me spiritual but definitely not religious. And he further explored on that. I told him that I do not have to follow rules set by organized religion but on my own, I commune with my own god, whatever he is called. He asked why my view on religion is like this and I told him it's because of the hypocrisy I see in religion. And he talked about how we all are humans, how we commit mistakes, how we are not perfect and he keeps on insisting that I join some religious group. I told him that I have been like these for years but still he said that it would be better if I at least try a different religion to see how things will be are. I lied to him and said that I'll try just to end the argument. Anyhow, I really don't know what my reason was for writing this story in the first place. I just want to add that religion is not necessary, you could just put whatever [spiritual] beliefs you have into practice without having to follow whatever this or that book says and without people telling you over and over that you will burn in hell if you do this and not do that.

About being spiritual in a communist society, I think that if communists fight for freedom, it is only right to allow people to practice spirituality because not allowing so suppresses one's freedom to do things that they have a right to do.

[redstar2000]

I don't think you have really answered my challenges.

1. That your views lead inevitably to a totalitarian form of government.

2.That you live in a country where these views are accepted yet you advocate a society which not only condemns other peoples' religious views but would seek to eradicate them.

1. There is no "government" -- "totalitarian" or otherwise -- in communist society.

2. Communist views are not "accepted" in capitalist societies whenever capitalism feels seriously threatened.

If you think the end of religion is "totalitarian", then stick with capitalism.


If you live in a capitalist country you are allowed various forms of protest about issues you think are important.

Right up to the point where they refuse you a permit...then, they drop the mask and bring out the guns.

Ever hear of Kent State?


Imagine there are a group of capitalists wanting a say, your rhetoric suppresses their right to freedom of speech and any other 'counter-revolutionaries' for that matter; and I'm sure the definition of counter revolutionary activity will be blurred as it was and is in communist countries.

Fuck the capitalists and their "freedom of speech"! The capitalist class has had freedom of speech for centuries. After the revolution, it's our turn.

If you think that's really "terrible", then, I repeat, stick with capitalism.


No one has the right to tell you what you can and can not think or believe in.

People do that constantly, whether or not they have the "right".

When you were a little kid, your teacher told you that 2 + 2 = 4, all the time; no exceptions.

If you want to "believe" that 2 + 2 = 5, go right ahead. But people will laugh at you and they won't let you teach little kids.

Quite rightly.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Wenty]

i don't think you've given me any real reasons to believe your opinions, it just seems to be a difference of belief.

[Redalias]

From Redstar2000

People do that constantly, whether or not they have the "right".

When you were a little kid, your teacher told you that 2 + 2 = 4, all the time; no exceptions.

If you want to "believe" that 2 + 2 = 5, go right ahead. But people will laugh at you and they won't let you teach little kids.

Quite rightly.

No they dont. Theres a big difference between saying someone is wrong and denying them the right to be wrong.

Your analogy is rubbish. We are not talking about kids but grown men and women. We are not within the confines of a scientific method but without. The trouble is you want to impose that which confines your thinking on the rest of us. It is not written into law that 2+2=4 and much less that you will be jailed for creating an organisation that holds something else to be true.

You want to do more than laugh at those you disagree with and that, my friend, is very serious.

[redstar2000]

There's a big difference between saying someone is wrong and denying them the right to be wrong.

Indeed there is. Those who believe that burning people for "witchcraft" is in accordance with the "Will of God" are not only stated to be wrong but are actually denied "the right" to be wrong. If we catch them even trying to do it or trying to gather a following so they can try to do it, we'll shoot them, period.

Many superstitious practices will fall under that provision.

Private superstitious beliefs that have no public dimension are different; what goes on inside someone's head is not something we can do anything about.

People are always free to "think whatever they please".

It's what they do about it that is problematic.


We are not talking about kids but grown men and women.

Who were brainwashed with superstition while they were kids...and who now want to do it to their kids.

No.


We are not within the confines of a scientific method but without.

The scientific method is the only method that the human species has come up with to reliably distinguish between truth and falsehood.

It's not and will never be "perfect", but its "track record" is pretty impressive...especially compared to all forms of superstition.


It is not written into law that 2+2=4 and much less that you will be jailed for creating an organisation that holds something else to be true.

I don't anticipate that there will be much in the way of "laws" in communist society and jails will probably be pretty rare.

In your case, I expect people in your community will decide your fate on the basis of 1. is he a harmless superstitious nutball?; or 2. is he a real asshole who gives us a lot of grief?

The more obnoxious your superstition and the more vigorous your proselytizing, the more the second option will look like the right choice and your fate will doubtless be an unpleasant one.

If that bothers you, like it does Wenty, then, I repeat once more: stick with capitalism!

You won't like communism at all!

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Wenty]

no! we don't have to stick with capitalism. What you are saying isn't the only option available to us.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 07:56 PM
No! We don't have to stick with capitalism. What you are saying isn't the only option available to us.
To be sure, they serve many brands of beer at the political pub.

If you want something stronger, however, then beer just won't do.

If your taste runs to "milk-and-water socialism", then you'll just be getting capitalism "with a human face"...and then just ugly old capitalism, period.

Leninist despotisms have been semi-tolerant of religion...but the hangover is pretty grim.

So, name your poison.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Redalias]

From Redstar2000


Indeed there is. Those who believe that burning people for "witchcraft" is in accordance with the "Will of God" are not only stated to be wrong but are actually denied "the right" to be wrong. If we catch them even trying to do it or trying to gather a following so they can try to do it, we'll shoot them, period.

It is the burning of people that is ilegal not the belief in witches. Obviously when religious practices (I think clitorectomy would be a more contemporary example) infringe on basic human rights they should be outlawed. But they should be outlawed exactly because, and only because, they infringe on people's most basic rights. Freedom from religious persecution is a basic human right too.


Many superstitious practices will fall under that provision.


Really? Like what? Tell me Redstar2000, would you shoot people for celebrating mass or perhaps wearing a cross?


what goes on inside someone's head is not something we can do anything about.


Not that you wouldn't try. I can see it now, Redstar2000 captain of thought police.


Who were brainwashed with superstition while they were kids...and who now want to do it to their kids.

No.


What of people who were not raised up to be religious but became so? The undeniable truth is that you treat people with contempt, unbelievable arrogance. No you don't own the truth and even if you did you could not impose it.


The scientific method is the only method that the human species has come up with to reliably distinguish between truth and falsehood.

That is not the point. Read what I said again, THATS the point.

By the way, alot of the mumbo jumbo you want to shoot people over isn't supported by any scientific method either. See, in science you have to prove your conclusions be they postitive or negative.


I don't anticipate that there will be much in the way of "laws" in communist society and jails will probably be pretty rare.

When Wenty pointed out to you earlier "your views lead inevitably to a totalitarian form of government" you replied There is no "government" -- "totalitarian" or otherwise -- in communist society."

So, there is no goverment and there are no laws but if you go to church Redstar will shoot you.


In your case, I expect people in your community will decide your fate on the basis of 1. is he a harmless superstitious nutball?; or 2. is he a real asshole who gives us a lot of grief?

The more obnoxious your superstition and the more vigorous your proselytizing, the more the second option will look like the right choice and your fate will doubtless be an unpleasant one.

I understand you want me shot but I wouldn't hold my breath.

I have not made any personal statement, you will note, concerning religious beliefs and im not going to, its not relevant. Dont assume though (unless you don't mind being wrong, that is).


If that bothers you, like it does Wenty, then, I repeat once more: stick with capitalism!

You won't like communism at all!

Really? I'll "stick" with something else altogether then.

[Postteen]

I strongly believe that people don't really need a religion in order to live their lives.And as Marx said religion distracts people from the reality.They say that in Heaven they'll find their right and they don't care about what's happening on earth.Although,I think that real christians do care about their neighbour and can be real communists as well,because(I'll say it again)christianity and communism tell that everything is for all.Now concerning other religions I don't know.?To sum up,people are able to live with values they have established(as Solace said)I don't know why they should follow whatever nonsense a religion is saying! They have to belive in themselves.That's all. :redstar2000:

[redstar2000]

Tell me Redstar2000, would you shoot people for celebrating mass or perhaps wearing a cross?

No. But if they did it in public, I might "pie" them. :lol:


Not that you wouldn't try. I can see it now, Redstar2000 captain of thought police.

Why ask what I would do in this or that situation if you've already made up your "mind" (such as it is) that I'm evil incarnate...


What of people who were not raised up to be religious but became so? The undeniable truth is that you treat people with contempt, unbelievable arrogance. No, you don't own the truth and even if you did you could not impose it.

Certainly not on you...some tasks are beyond even my abilities. <_<


See, in science you have to prove your conclusions be they positive or negative.

No, that&#39;s wrong. In science, the burden of proof is always on the person who makes the positive assertion; s/he must put forward evidence that the assertion is true.

The negative is the "default option" -- something is not considered true until positive evidence is forthcoming.

Among other faults, religion is on the same level with fortune-telling, astrology, etc. If you take money for it, you&#39;re guilty of fraud.


So, there is no government and there are no laws but if you go to church Redstar will shoot you.

No, you&#39;re wrong again. Didn&#39;t I mention it? In communist societies there will be no churches.

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?a...&f=6&t=22473&s= (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=22473&s=)


I&#39;ll "stick" with something else altogether then.

Excellent&#33; As Wenty has emphasized, capitalism offers the freedom for a wide variety of superstitions (supernatural and political) to flourish.

May your choice be a happy one for you. :)

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Redalias]

From Redstar2000


In science, the burden of proof is always on the person who makes the positive assertion; s/he must put forward evidence that the assertion is true.

This much is true.


The negative is the "default option"

This much is not. There is no "default option". The possibility is absurd.

Something has not been proven. is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the same as Its contrary has been proven.

The former does not imply the latter. If we are not able to prove something this may be so for a variety of reasons, its contrary being true is just one of them.

Science&#39;s silence is not a statement of any kind. For that statement to exist it would have to be supported by experiment, by thesis, by verifiable evidence; otherwise how can said statement be endowed with scientific legitimacy? The fact that you can not grasp this fully exposes your intellectual bankruptcy.


No, you&#39;re wrong again. Didn&#39;t I mention it? In communist societies there will be no churches.

Yea, I tought you&#39;d say something like that. In communist society, according to Redstar, there will be no government, no laws and of course no religion (people will have collectively evolved to that extent). Well, perhaps. I really cant say, I&#39;m not in the business of making futurology. What I can say is that in my world, in the real world, people have free will and exercise it extensively. No two people agree on the color of green.

Then again, it is beside the point. If everyone just decides to stop being religious I have no problem with that. What you don&#39;t seem to understand is that you have no right to force their hand.

[DarkAngel]

Religion is just a fight over who has the best imaginary friend.

I go to church to say hang out with my imaginary friends.


-Very smart people.

[redstar2000]

Something has not been proven. is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the same as its contrary has been proven.

Well, pretty close to that...at least in practical terms.

For example, the absence of evidence for the existence of supernatural entities is pretty convincing evidence for their non-existence...especially since verifiable evidence has been sought for many thousands of years without success.

Of course, a new hypothesis that has only recently been tested might still be proven true with better testing. Time is a relevant consideration.

Another example: if capitalism continues to successfully exist over the next two or three centuries, I would conclude that the Marxist hypothesis of proletarian revolution and communism has been effectively falsified.

Just another "good idea" that didn&#39;t "pan out".


The fact that you can not grasp this fully exposes your intellectual bankruptcy.

I sure have been on the receiving end of a lot of insults lately and I&#39;m beginning to think it&#39;s time to start replying in kind.


What I can say is that in my world, in the real world, people have free will and exercise it extensively. No two people agree on the color of green.

Differences on the color of green being equivalent, I gather, to the difference between rational thought and superstition.

Have you checked your own "intellectual bank balance" lately? I think you might be overdrawn.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Redalias]

I did not mean it as an insult but I admit it is blunt. Still, if its premiss is correct, is it that unfair?

If I can get you to question, or just think twice, about your views on what we have discussed, then that would be the best thing I could get out of this. The same goes for people with similar views who might be reading this. I&#39;m not here to insult or belittle anyone but I won&#39;t shy away from the truth, as I see it, either.

I hope you won&#39;t take it personally.

About the color of green... What I meant was that people think, say and do the most diverse things. It wasn&#39;t limited to the athiest/believer dichotomy. What that means, I think, is that we are a long way off a society where everyone will agree on everything and behave in acceptable (acceptable to themselves) manner. So much so that no government, laws or jails will be required.

I never compared or equated "rational thought" with "superstition". I didn&#39;t pass judgement, I didn&#39;t qualify, I didn&#39;t so much as adjectivate either of these things during our exchanges. If I were to do so I would agree you.

[redstar2000]

What that means, I think, is that we are a long way off a society where everyone will agree on everything and behave in acceptable (acceptable to themselves) manner. So much so that no government, laws or jails will be required.

Well of course we are&#33; Did you think I was talking of measures to be taken next week? Or next decade?

I don&#39;t expect proletarian revolution before the second half of this century at the earliest.

By that time, I expect most people to be atheists and to agree with the kinds of things I have proposed to remove religion once and for all from the public landscape.

Of course there will be sharp struggles with the remnants of the believers, especially the "die-hard" fundamentalists. They will undoubtedly squeal like stuck pigs; they always do whenever they sense a threat to their dirty little racket.

But the image that some people here seem to have -- grim-faced Red Army soldiers holding back thousands of sobbing faithful as the great wrecking ball smashes into the ancient cathedral -- is false.

I think people will come watch the cathedral imploded as an entertainment; they&#39;ll bring their kids and a picnic lunch.

It will be a celebration.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Wenty]

redstar - i don&#39;t believe what your saying will happen, i also think your brand of communism verges more on authortarianism than the former. This is sad as it has historically led to millions of deaths.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

I agree, although quite clearly the negative aspects of religion are self evident any attempt to elimanate spirituality will fail. It has failed before.

Your view as Wenty has already pointed out seem&#39;s too authoritarian. Your intentions may be good in fact they are but I would be uneasy in a society where I was not allowed to even contemplate religious matters or exercise any kind.

Now your points about how the church would be reactive against communism and most likely it would be complicit in the counter-revolution...It needs to be examined in closer detail by myself but just a few points.

[redstar2000]

I also think your brand of communism verges more on authoritarianism...This is sad as it has historically led to millions of deaths.

"Think" what you please, Wenty...you&#39;ve already claimed that there&#39;s "freedom" under capitalism (and also millions of deaths, mind you).


...any attempt to eliminate spirituality will fail. It has failed before.

I guess we have to try harder.


...but I would be uneasy in a society where I was not allowed to even contemplate religious matters or exercise any kind.

What is the source of your "unease"? Do you have a secret lust for human sacrifice? Or ritual cannibalism? Or do you have a "moral code" that you think people really ought to be made to observe "for their own good"?

It is quite odd to be "accused" of being "authoritarian" for wanting to suppress the most authoritarian institution in recorded history -- religion&#33;

It&#39;s like being accused of being a fascist for wanting to suppress Nazism.

Very strange.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Rasta Sapian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 04:17 PM
I am a very spiritual person. I dont evangelize, or try to make anyone believe anything, but my spirituality is a very important part of my life. I dont want to start a discussion about whether or not god exists, what that might entail, etc.
Thank God, that has been debated endlessly&#33; I also have faith, and consider myself spiritual&#33;

Spirituality does have a place in a socialist order&#33; There is a spiritual revolution happening around the world right now&#33; which can also exist and evolve along side of a politi-social movement towards socialism&#33;

This neuveau idealism, that of universalism can do non other that help socialism move along over its debated hang ups, Public or Organized faiths may have to be abolished in the new socialist order, however that does not mean that faith will be repressed, but rather liberated from evangelical dissipline, where as communes of proletariot working and living together side by side, can also be aware of God if faith exists in one&#39;s soul, and be free to rejoice and praise at the same time&#33;

peace yall

[Wenty]

It is quite odd to be "accused" of being "authoritarian" for wanting to suppress the most authoritarian institution in recorded history -- religion&#33;


Your analogy isn&#39;t sound redstar. You are suggesting that every religion ever in the history of the world is in itself authortarian which i don&#39;t think is true.

Regardless of this, i never expected you to come up with a reply which would convince me that you don&#39;t harbour authortarian views. In your society there will be no freedom of speech or thought, just the party doctrine brainwashing people. This is what i believe will happen, and i&#39;m leaning on history to form that belief for me.

[redstar2000]

Regardless of this, I never expected you to come up with a reply which would convince me that you don&#39;t harbour authoritarian views.

So...argument and evidence are irrelevant; in your eyes I&#39;m "guilty", period.

To paraphrase Alice in Wonderland, "First the verdict and forget the trial&#33;"

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[cubist]

Wenty

"Your analogy isn&#39;t sound redstar. You are suggesting that every religion ever in the history of the world is in itself authortarian which i don&#39;t think is true. "

ALLOW ME WENTY

there is no religion that doesn&#39;t impose rules and restrictions on the believer, therefore all relgions in some shape or form are authoritarian.

You must proove god exists in any given religion in order to argue that he doens&#39;t impose authoritarian leadership.

as if all religions are fake (which i believe they are) then one individual created each religion, that individual has imposed his rules and regulations on any believer of his religion, thus he is authoritarian and is using mans weakness to gain more power.

[Wenty]

cephas - i would accept this view, be it somewhat controversial. However, we must remember that to believe in a religion is a self-made decision, i choose to believe in christianity and so therefore am not being &#39;restricted&#39; by it, i choose to live my life like that because i want to.

I don&#39;t think religion can be seen as authortarian in the sense that a gvt can be but i would accept that it has been used in the past like this. It isn&#39;t within its nature though.

redstar - you still haven&#39;t come up with a viable response, perhaps i&#39;ll cut to the chase and ask are you an authortarian communist much in style of Stalin or modern China? (it seems the term &#39;authortarian communist&#39; is an oxymoron though so perhaps just authortarian)

[RedAnarchist]

Wenty, it is good that you can be a left-winger and a Christian -noone should be made to be completely communist or completely capitalist. Dont conform with non-conformists. Be the individual you are.

[redstar2000]

However, we must remember that to believe in a religion is a self-made decision; I choose to believe in Christianity and so therefore am not being &#39;restricted&#39; by it; I choose to live my life like that because I want to.

I see. You were raised with no contact with religion at all. Upon reaching the "age of reason", you carefully examined all the world&#39;s religions and freely decided that Christianity was "the one that was true".

No kidding&#33; :lol:


I don&#39;t think religion can be seen as authoritarian...but I would accept that it has been used in the past like this. It isn&#39;t within its nature though.

:lol: :lol: :lol:


...perhaps I&#39;ll cut to the chase and ask are you an authoritarian communist much in [the] style of Stalin or modern China?

Even if I denied it, you wouldn&#39;t believe me...so why ask?

Besides, from the standpoint of the godsuckers, I&#39;m worse than Stalin.

Why? Not because I&#39;ve killed anyone or even have any particular desire to do so...but because I intend to kill religion itself.

The "ultimate crime" in your eyes.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Solace]

However, we must remember that to believe in a religion is a self-made decision; I choose to believe in Christianity and so therefore am not being &#39;restricted&#39; by it; I choose to live my life like that because I want to.

Shall I repeat?

You can’t say that you choose your religion completely freely. It has imposed on you as a child. You parents didn’t offer you a wide range of religion and asked you to choose one. You were brought up into one when younger, your parents indoctrinated you and it stayed&#33;

[pandora]

QUOTE=redstar2000,Mar 6 2004, 05:57 PM] [QUOTE]I don&#39;t think you have really answered my challenges.
When you were a little kid, your teacher told you that 2 + 2 = 4, all the time; no exceptions.
If you want to "believe" that 2 + 2 = 5, go right ahead. But people will laugh at you and they won&#39;t let you teach little kids."

In biology 2 + 2 can equal 5 or a great deal more rabbits if you catch my drift.
There is no reason in certain things, religion is one of them.
Being spiritual is beautiful, judging someone else or having a state religion is wrong, but state suppression of religion breeds resentment.

Perhaps Socialist doctrine should take a cue from science in that when we create more socialist institutions of learning socialist doctrine which makes much of the cult of religion look foolish will naturally lead to kids not believing a lot of the crazy stuff, leading them to question religion more.

[Wenty]

redstar - if u answered the question honestly of course i would believe you, as it is you haven&#39;t really. All you&#39;ve done is to act like a politician and try and get around the question.

solace - your thought is much akin to mine, one of the problems i have with christianity are more orthodox religions like judaism or islam bring up their children that way and so if they died when they were young what happens to them? Do they go to hell? Surely this is wrong.

In response to what you said i think that although, if you have been brought out a believer, you reach a point where you have to make a self-made decision anyway, if you are brought up believing in christianity it isn&#39;t a smooth process from childhood believing to adult believing. In my view there is an intermittent stage when you have to decide what to do with your life. I also think you owe it to yourself to explore all aspects of what the world has to offer, including other religions.

[Solace]

if you are brought up believing in christianity it isn&#39;t a smooth process from childhood believing to adult believing. In my view there is an intermittent stage when you have to decide what to do with your life.

That&#39;s not it. Being raised in a certain religion form your opinions and your perspective of stuff. You can always look for other things, but the foundations of your thinking stays.

During that thought process you are describing, most people will keep up with the religion they were taught or simply abandon it.

That "self-decision" is not as personal as you want it to be.

I say biased.


I also think you owe it to yourself to explore all aspects of what the world has to offer, including other religions.

Acquiring knowledge about other religion is really not the same being brought into one. Come on&#33;

[redstar2000]

There is no reason in certain things, religion is one of them.

Actually, I think there are reasons behind everything...even if we don&#39;t know what they are or how they work.

In other words, I think the world is knowable...at least in principle.

Wenty&#39;s case is a pretty simple one; he was raised Christian, well-indoctrinated, and now defends it against "Stalinists" like me.

It&#39;s part of his "psychological identity" now, and he can no more consider a rational argument against it than he can consider living on Pluto...at least for the time being. Life experience can change that, of course. But it doesn&#39;t happen very often.

Once people really get "comfortable" in religion, they rarely abandon it.

That&#39;s why churches set up their own schools or want to play a big role in public schools; if they can get the kids, then their success is "automatic". They&#39;ll lose the really bright kids, of course...but they&#39;ve become used to that anyway. They&#39;ll keep most of the "sheep"...the ones that will keep giving them money (supporting their racket).

And they&#39;ll recruit some bright (but not overly scrupulous) adults...who want to get on the "money-train".

I&#39;ve even toyed with the idea myself...setting up a religion is one of the easiest cons in the world.

But somehow, I just never got around to it...I like to think I was "too decent" to do that to people.

Or, it must be admitted, too lazy. :P

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Wenty]

you&#39;ve slowly digressed from normal debating to baseless and arrogant insults redstar. Thanks, my opinion of you has gone down considerably.

I like to think i keep a very open mind about things and to suggest i have somehow been &#39;indoctrinated&#39; is absurd and wrong. Regardless of this fact though, the continued unanswered question of your authortarianism still lingers ever present.

[redstar2000]

I like to think I keep a very open mind about things and to suggest I have somehow been &#39;indoctrinated&#39; is absurd and wrong. Regardless of this fact though, the continued unanswered question of your authoritarianism still lingers ever present.

Many claim to be "open-minded" -- few live up to that...probably because over-hauling your own world-view is a lot of work and we&#39;d rather not do that on a daily or even yearly basis if it can be avoided.

In fact, people who change their views frequently are regarded not so much as "open-minded" but rather as "unserious".

The only times that I think we are really "open-minded" is when we&#39;re young enough to have not yet "put all the pieces together" or when some tragedy or disaster strikes that challenges the world-view we developed in maturity.

After the holocaust, a great many Jews completely abandoned the religious aspects of their ethnic-cultural identity. A "God" that permitted mass murder was a &#39;god" that either did not exist or was unworthy of worship.

Someone like Wenty may still be young enough to escape his childhood indoctrination...but it&#39;s unlikely, in my opinion. His claim of "open-mindedness" is belied by his insistence that I "must" be some kind of "Stalinist" because I wish to eliminate religion from the human species.

Someone who would casually throw his own precious superstition into history&#39;s dumpster must be "evil"...and Stalin was the most "evil" guy he could think of.

In fact, Wenty, the general consensus of Stalinists on the internet who are familiar with my posts is that I am "an anarchist masking as a communist".

Because I reject the "transitional workers&#39; state" and propose that we begin creating communism on day one after the revolution, the Stalinists claim that I have abandoned Leninism (correctly) and Marxism (incorrectly).

Of course, that means nothing from where you stand (or kneel, more likely).

Your definition of "authoritarianism" is simply "intends to abolish the true religion -- Christianity".

So to you and other godsuckers, I am indeed worse than Stalin. Stalin, after all, did not abolish religion or even try to; he put the Russian Orthodox priesthood "on the payroll" of his "worker&#39;s" state. He thought religion was something you could "regulate"...like the Securities Exchange Commission "regulates" the stock market in the United States. Didn&#39;t work.

So there&#39;s your answer Wenty. To real authoritarians, I&#39;m an "anarchist". But to you and those like you, I&#39;m "worse than Stalin".

Some answers depend on who you ask.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Trissy]

I like to think i keep a very open mind about things and to suggest i have somehow been &#39;indoctrinated&#39; is absurd and wrong.

I agree Adam, you&#39;ve not been indoctrinated at all. You just lack the balls to question the holy...
:lol: To be fair you have progressed from the more basic arguments for God&#39;s existence but in the end you never seem to cease reminding me of Pascal or Kierkegaard. Fear and trembling my friend...fear and trembling...

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

I call it falling into the void...

[Wenty]

i can&#39;t help but think there is a horrible brand of dogmatic atheism on this board where people treat theists with contempt.

in response to redstar - i have never called you a Stalinist, furthermore, my opinion that you harbour dangerous authortarian views does not stem from your wish to abolish religion but indeed that opinion adds to it.

Your stated opinions had unequviocally indicated to me that in your society there will be a distinct lack of free speech for anyone who is anti-communist in any form. This is not only abhorrent but wrong.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Wenty what do you think of Kiekegaard by the way, we may as well save this thread and point it towards a philosophical discussion.

[redstar2000]

I can&#39;t help but think there is a horrible brand of dogmatic atheism on this board where people treat theists with contempt.

Is there a "non-horrible brand" of "dogmatic atheism"? :lol:

Look at the "god poll" thread at the top of this forum...and tell me what you honestly expect.

Tell me why superstition deserves any respect whatsoever?


Your stated opinions had unequviocally indicated to me that in your society there will be a distinct lack of free speech for anyone who is anti-communist in any form. This is not only abhorrent but wrong.

The Myth of "Free Speech" October 3, 2003 (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/monthlytheoryarchives.php?subaction=showfull&id=1065146919&archive=1067850372&cnshow=archive&start_from=&ucat=&)

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[redstar2000]

Churches give away Gibson tickets

Four English churches are offering free cinema tickets to see Mel Gibson&#39;s film The Passion of the Christ in an attempt to boost their congregations.

..."This is the greatest opportunity for the church in the last 30 years and if we did not use it we may not get such an opportunity again."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3545443.stm

:lol: :lol: :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Wenty]

I read some of that &#39;myth&#39; paper, it seems you have just pointed out how people have distorted free speech and used it against others as well as how we haven&#39;t been able to attain a pure form of it. I acknowledge this but it doesn&#39;t act as a response to anything i said to you.

You&#39;re still managing to avoid questions, well done.

Geist - i know bits and bobs about K. His ideas can be pretty abstract at times, it seems since Hume etc. had critcised christianity people like K. had to look for more radical ways to define their faith. Didn&#39;t he believe each decision was a case of &#39;either/or&#39;. He is also seen as the founder of existentialism and certainly this previous idea can be seen in Sartre and the idea of at one point in your life there being a &#39;will&#39; or decision which defines who you are. Overall, i am sympathetic to Kierkegaard.

[Trissy]

i can&#39;t help but think there is a horrible brand of dogmatic atheism on this board where people treat theists with contempt

I hope you don&#39;t lump me in that category Adam because some of us atheists aren&#39;t dogmatic in our approaches. I merely try to raise questions in a bit to understand what I am yet unable to comprehend...so far people have eventually resorted to dismissing me as a blasphemer or a heretic and desired to talk/discuss no more. Apparently they prefer to hide in their bunker of faith...


Didn&#39;t he believe each decision was a case of &#39;either/or&#39;. He is also seen as the founder of existentialism and certainly this previous idea can be seen in Sartre and the idea of at one point in your life there being a &#39;will&#39; or decision which defines who you are. Overall, i am sympathetic to Kierkegaard.

Indeed he did believe that life is defined by choices and that truth is grounded in the subjective. What I am more interested to know is what your opinions are about Kierkegaard&#39;s view of Christianity because at times I think you express opinions similar (although not totally identical) to his. I have to start an essay on it soon and I have been thinking about his work for a while. I personally think that Kierkegaard delivered the first deadly blow to God far (well before Nietzsche predicted his death) due to his view that Christianity is ultimately subjective (which I think leads to the complete destruction of his precious faith). As you can see by my signature I agree with Nietzsche&#39;s general outlook on faith...


“It is with subjectivity that Christianity is concerned; and it is only in subjectivity that its truth exists” - Kierkegaard

[Wenty]

As soon as Kierkegaard calls truth subjective it inevitably snowballs to religion too. This belief is very much akin to my own though, I also believe the &#39;truth&#39;, as it were, of it can be seen quite obviously.

I&#39;d like for you to answer why you think it is destrcutive for his faith. My understanding of it is that while the belief part, the truth of it for you can be subjective, the faith in itself is objective.

[Trissy]

I&#39;d like for you to answer why you think it is destrcutive for his faith. My understanding of it is that while the belief part, the truth of it for you can be subjective, the faith in itself is objective.

But Kierkegaard says that if someone could prove Christianity to be true, or prove it to be false then this would still not sway the true believer as belief and faith come from a choice and a commitment.

If the truth of religion is objective then it is proveable, if it subjective then it is unproveable. As an irrationalist Kierkegaard held the latter view. But if the truth lies in the subjective then Scripture is only useful as far as personal interpretation is concerned. Tradition and the church become totally useless because Kierkegaard places religious truth in the subjective, and if the truth lies in my decision to believe then it would be wrong of me to be swayed by the beliefs of others (as this is inauthentic existence). Plus if Scipture is only useful as far as I interpret it then I can believe what the hell I want. I can believe Jesus is a women, the son of God or a monster frog for all I care, just so long as I remain commited to this belief. If this is the case then faith become worthless as it is based on the mere whim of the believer, and if I want to fly a plane into a building or go on a Crusade in God&#39;s name then I can. For Kierkegaard there is no heresy and there can be no heresy. The shift from realism to anti-realism destroys faith...

[Redalias]

From Wenty

i can&#39;t help but think there is a horrible brand of dogmatic atheism on this board where people treat theists with contempt.


Not everyone shares those views. Redstar just has to much time on his hands and posts to much, he isn&#39;t the board. Some people agree with him, sure, but others don&#39;t.

From Redstar2000

Tell me why superstition deserves any respect whatsoever?

Atheism is as such a "superstition" as religion and this is why:


Something has not been proven. is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the same as Its contrary has been proven.

The former does not imply the latter. If we are not able to prove something this may be so for a variety of reasons, its contrary being true is just one of them.

Science&#39;s silence is not a statement of any kind. For that statement to exist it would have to be supported by experiment, by thesis, by verifiable evidence; otherwise how can said statement be endowed with scientific legitimacy?

[redstar2000]

Redstar just has too much time on his hands and posts too much...

Yeah, there must be some way to make that wordy bastard shut up&#33; :lol:


Atheism is as much a "superstition" as religion...

The godsucker&#39;s ultimate whine: "you can&#39;t prove there isn&#39;t a god."

In the scientific outlook, absence of evidence is routinely considered evidence of absence.

The reason that most scientists don&#39;t loudly proclaim their atheism is that they want to avoid the flak. As I&#39;ve learned on this board, whenever you publicly maintain that "the emperor is naked", you can expect "the shit to fly".

Imagine the reaction, however, if a scientist actually claimed supernatural intervention in the course of explaining some aspect of natural reality.

He might well get a job as Bush&#39;s "science adviser" -- he would lose all respect from his peers...and from any intelligent and informed layman as well. He would be regarded as a nutball and even the "good science" he did before this occurrence would probably be severely scrutinized. People would speculate about what "drove him off the tracks" of rationality.

In private, scientists have no respect at all for superstition.

Neither do I.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Redalias]

First, your reply is not an argument but is more akin to abuse. Second, I don&#39;t believe in God so stop misrepresenting my views. Third, what you say is ludricrous: unlike my self, there are many scientists that believe in God.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 08:37 PM
First, your reply is not an argument but is more akin to abuse. Second, I don&#39;t believe in God so stop misrepresenting my views. Third, what you say is ludicrous: unlike my self, there are many scientists that believe in God.
In what sense have I "abused" you?

Where did I say that you were a godsucker?

Finally, the last time I saw a poll of American scientists on the subject, 75% were atheists.

I suspect the true percentage is even higher; people don&#39;t trust poll-takers in this country very much.

I also suspect that the scientist who does claim to be a believer is just doing a little "public relations" work...possibly s/he is working in a "sensitive" area and wants to pre-emptively block some of the flak.

If you were doing research into cloning, for example, it might be a good idea in the course of your interview with the Daily Bullshit to "say some nice things about God".

Couldn&#39;t hurt, could it?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Redalias]

Redstar, You claim to be a rational man, while at the same time you make statements you can not rationally back up. Its that simple. Your locked up in that head of yours and when the objective truth (such as it is) isn&#39;t convinient you simply ignore or contradict it.

I would like nothing better than to see religious claims proved wrong by science but since this has not happened I can not pretend it has. I have to recognize that all contentions pertaining to such matters are in the realm of pure speculation because I&#39;m a rational man. You, on the other hand, take liberties you should not.

I no information on your poll, if you do I&#39;d be interested in reading it.

Your "suspicions" are just that...

[redstar2000]

I have to recognize that all contentions pertaining to such matters are in the realm of pure speculation because I&#39;m a rational man.

Then on what "rational" grounds do you advocate "respect" for what is, in your words, "pure speculation"?

That the godsuckers "might be right"? :lol:

Is your "olympian neutrality" on the subject a product of your own simple desire to "avoid flak"?

Or do you think that horseshit is "good enough" for the "idiots" even though you, being "rational", are "above" such matters?

In fact, why are you even "interested" in this subject?

My motivations are transparent; I want to eliminate superstition from human experience...I think it is irrational -- not to mention a bitter and irreconcilable enemy of human emancipation.

What are your motives in this discussion?

An "utterly disinterested" pursuit of "truth" for "its own sake"? :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Redalias]

My motivations are none of your business.

[cubist]

wenty, very good point, yes you choose so you subject yourself to that oppression, but like i said only if gods existance is prooved does that apply, if he doesn&#39;t exist then someone has tricked you and you are being oppressed against your will becuase you are told lies to make you do things.




i think the reason theyre is such an dogmatic atheism on this board is becuase relgion was not apporved by one of the key writers of socialism MR KARL MARX though he did not renounce it like many 20th century communists

"
Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.

Marx believed as i do that religion is there to trick and create an illusion of false hope for those that have not found happiness in the economic systems that are engaged in our society. so it actually helps those who are indeed the ones affected most negatively by the economic systems in place. But In My OP MArx&#39;s dislike lies in the fact that the FIX the
opium of the people was a mere cure for the pain cuased by the system in place, the resolution is to remove what cuases the pain not just relieve it.

[Wenty]

cephas - i am sympathetic to this view and for sure it has been used like this in the past. I do not believe it entirely though.

Tristan - Maybe we should set religion aside for one second and respect what K. has to say about the subjectivity of truth. For me, believing in this latter point doesn&#39;t necessarily change the possibility of God etc. It just means you are appreciating the limitations of human understanding.

[Trissy]

But Adam, how can we set this issue asside? Religion figures in nearly all of Kierkegaard&#39;s work and to be fair he doesn&#39;t hold a consistant view on it. If religion is subjective then anything outside belief or non-belief is to talk about it objectively. In the Concluding Unscientific Postcript he claims that Christianity and its truth are merely subjective but then in books life The Sickness Unto Death he claims that atheism is a kind of psychological illness for there is nothing that kills us because there is life after death. Plus if you appreciate the understanding of human limitations then you cannot make any religious claim at at and we should stop speculating on it...ergo we should all be atheists, agnostics or silent believers who don&#39;t need to attend church or read the bible or link their beliefs to ethics. All I&#39;m after is a bit of consistency...

[cubist]

a question to be asked is how in the situation of revolution can we keep what is clearly important to many with out it conflicting with social interests of those who choose to be atheists. effectively how do you place a class of people [a] in a supposedly classless society?

[a]by this i mean christians believe differently and have themselves created a class of people

[Wenty]

i wouldn&#39;t call Christianis a whole different class&#33; Thats going too far the problem is that of tolerance. Something unseen in 20th C &#39;communist&#39; countries and found on this board with the likes of redstar etc.

Tristan - we should debate less of K. and more of the ideas in themselves.

[cubist]

ok wrong term.

tolernace is a good point but what should/shouldn&#39;t politically be tolerated and what should/shouldn&#39;t socially be tolerated.

to me abolishment is impossible, too many believe to just block it.
but it would be important to stop religion becoming a political movement.

[Trissy]

Adam - K. is the main exponent of the idea of truth being in subjective faith alone. If we can find flaws in his argument then this leaves us open to discussing flaws in the general argument. The ideas in themselves come from somewhere and so we must go to the source if we are ever to understand them fully and their effects.

[redstar2000]

...the problem is that of tolerance. Something unseen in 20th Century &#39;communist&#39; countries and found on this board with the likes of redstar etc.

Organized religion was both legal and state-supported in the USSR, all of the Eastern European countries, Vietnam and Laos, etc.

Both Yeltsin and Gorbachev, born in the 1930s under the "great tyrant" Stalin, were duly baptized in the nearest Russian Orthodox cathedral on the 8th day after their births.

In Poland, the great central cathedral in downtown Warsaw, heavily damaged during World War II, was completely rebuilt at public expense.

One of the last official acts of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) was a nation-wide celebration of the anniversary of Martin Luther...the vicious anti-semite and persecutor of rebellious peasants.

In Cuba, Fidel Castro himself presided over ceremonies to celebrate the complete renovation (at public expense) and re-opening of a nunnery...not to mention, of course, his warm welcome to that senile fraud John Paul II.

In Laos, a Buddhist temple complex has been completely refurbished and opened as a tourist attraction.

Wrong as you are about 20th century "communist" countries, you are quite correct about my attitude. I would have been vehemently opposed to all of that crap.

Tolerance for superstition merely advances the cause of superstition.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Wenty]

I somehow doubt the validity of their &#39;tolerance&#39;. I think it could have been used, ironically, to dull the masses.

Your views extend further to just religion redstar, you&#39;re authortarian through and through&#33;

[cubist]

wenty i have been thinking on this and don&#39;t know where i exactly stand, i hate organised religion, i don&#39;t think science is right, but i don&#39;t thing GOD talks to you or provides you with any answers. effectively i believe something made us the end. religous rules and morals are forms of humans oppressing each other

i&#39;m going to retract a previous statement fuck tolerating religion

Isn&#39;t it about time relgions tolerated others, but religion in some shape or form has persecuted and killed lots of people esp non believers. so what if redstar is authoritarian least he doesn&#39;t talk to himself in order to feel better about ones weaknesses.

[Wenty]

My opinion is that the vast majority of religious people are tolerant.

I think the events of the past have blurred the present, those that aren&#39;t tolerant these days are always going to be right wing. Thats the real problem here&#33; You would never get a liberal christian, liberal muslim or liberal buddhist being intolerant.

Thats just my humble opinion.

[cubist]

wenty my rents are supposedly liberal theyre are not republican/cpmservative round here but they are intolerant of unchristian ethical ideals, my parents are so indoctrinated they believe bush is a good man cus hes fucking christian and he has fucking prayer meetings everyday.

its silly things like the belief that god gives each christian a role and that they should follow theyre heart becuase god is telling them that sickens me becuase they trust other christians on the principals of them being christian. unfortunately truely liberal christians are in the vast minority and as a result are misrepresnted by the majority

[Wenty]

well its just down to generalisations now. true christians are tolerant, those that aren&#39;t aren&#39;t christian.

[cubist]

there you go generalisations................................... ...........................

[Wenty]

suppose so, but it seems more like the truth.

[kroony]

Hello, tristan, hello adam.

Just a quick and from-the-hip point since I haven&#39;t read k&#33;

If God can be believed in by means of subjective faith why stop there? And why the Christian God? And if it&#39;s valid to do it to affirm God&#39;s existence, isn&#39;t it valid to use it to deny it?

[redstar2000]

True Christians are tolerant; those that aren&#39;t aren&#39;t Christian.

Or "give us credit for our saints and blame the devil for our sinners". :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[kroony]

Redstar -- since you&#39;re unwilling to accept that the bad consequences of Christianity arise from bad implementation rather than an ideological problem; would you accept the same thing for communism?

[Wenty]

what a glaringly good point.

Also, would Marx be so revered if he had lived a thousand years ago. We have seen in a very short space of time the bastardisation of his ideas, what will happen in hundreds of years to come? After all, Christianity has been around 2000 odd years longer; there has been a longer time for people to distort those ideas too.

[redstar2000]

The obvious rejoinder, of course.

A couple of points.

Marxism has been around for 150 years or so. Christianity as a "state religion" for 1,700 years or so.

Thus, Marxism has a "very short" track record so far; on the other hand, we&#39;ve had a "large sample" of Christian behavior to examine.

And secondly, of course, I hold the view that the Leninist variant of Marxism is responsible for the "bad reputation" of communism. Leninism is indeed "ideologically faulty" and communists should reject it.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[kroony]

I don&#39;t see how you can claim a "small sample" for communism. There have been innumerable communist countries around the world, almost all of them unmitigated failures.

A word about the "leninist variant" -- I would be the first to agree that Leninism is a bad thing. However, it has been only Leninist parties which have shown themselves to be capable of obtaining power at all. Rosa Luxemburg&#39;s prescience about the Bolshevik "dictatorship of the party" was astounding -- but her attempts to bring communism to power in Germany were a glaring failure. The anarchists in Spain, much the same.

PS. Your avatar is annoying.

[cubist]

wenty,

yes 2000 years christianity has had alot of time to rape, pillage, murder and unfairly execute non believers.

christianity had plenty of time to support bad scientists and prevent continuous developemnt of human science, divinchi risked his life with the work he did, as did vesailius all becuase of the christian movement in place,
poets were hung for blastphamy
muslims murdered for holy crusades so people could make it to heaven

non believers have indeed tolerated christians for far too long

you may be a socialist with ideals to protect the proleteriat but christianity itself has done little but provide false hope for the proleteriat and bred ignorance in the capitalist.

i quote

jesus replyith, giveth unto cesar what is cesars and giveth unto god what is gods.

[Trissy]

Hello Arie. Just a quick point...


the bad consequences of Christianity arise from bad implementation rather than an ideological problem

Couldn&#39;t you say that the bad consequences arise from a bad implementation and an ideological problem? Many of the ideas raised in the Bible are contradictory and paradoxical whether they be ethical (love your neighbour, judge not lest ye be judged, he who lives without sin...etc, etc Vs stone adulterers and homosexuals, and numerous other passages that pick out people as sinners) or about the idea of God himself (the trinity for example...being human and mortal as well as supposedly divine and immortal).

This also brings us back to Kierkegaard and subjectivity. Who should be allowed to interpret Scripture? Me? Priests and men of the cloth? If the truth lies in the subjective and my own belief as to the meaning of Scripture then who can be called heretical? Also suddenly Christianity becomes Christianities where everybody holds varying different types of belief....is it any wonder that the vast majority of Christians fail to live their lives in a way that is in accordance with the Bible? There own interpretation as well as their own human falibility is what makes swathes of them hypocrites.

In case Adam wishes to write a defence of Christianity in which he dismisses my comments (again) somehow, then I&#39;ll get in a pre-emptive comment by saying that all I am after is consistency once more.

[redstar2000]

I don&#39;t see how you can claim a "small sample" for communism.

Communism = 150 years; Christianity (as a state religion) = 1,700 years.

Do the math.


There have been innumerable communist countries around the world, almost all of them unmitigated failures.

Well, which comparison would you like to make? Christianity&#39;s first 150 years were completely undistinguished; classical writers of the period generally don&#39;t even both to mention them.

Or, if you&#39;d like to compare us with the period 300-450CE, the first "accomplishment" of the Christians was to lose the western half of the Roman Empire. This was shortly followed by the shutting down of the classical philosophical schools; the teachers had to flee to Parthia (Persia).

All this, of course, long before the Christians burned their first "witch"...something that Stalin never quite got around to.


However, it has been only Leninist parties which have shown themselves to be capable of obtaining power at all.

And they never tire of reminding us of that&#33; But their "power" turned out to be "in service to the bourgeois revolution"...as Marx foretold. (See the new thread in Theory on this.)

I think we have to be clear that the Marxist hypothesis is exactly that: if proletarian revolution and communism don&#39;t take place within the next three or four centuries (at the most), then he was wrong.

There might then be a "First Church of Marx (Orthodox)"...but it will be as irrelevant and futile as Christian philosophy is now.

And people will spend their time on other matters.


Your avatar is annoying.

It&#39;s meant to be.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[apathy maybe]

<rant>This topic seems to come up every few months. Now I know that it is an important point, for many people do have a religion and we must convince them to join us to get a majority. But jeez, why can&#39;t people read some of the stickies before posting about all this stuff (including what is communism, what is anarchism etc)</rant>



Now my 3.5 cents. Religion (so long as it does not advocate things that are obviously opposed to out &#39;ideal&#39; society) is free to come and go as it pleases. Actually I think that even if a religion does advocate destruction of everybody else, so long as they don&#39;t do it, let them hang around. (This follows from my stand on other political parties and people in general: you can say what you want, so long as you don&#39;t do it.)

As to organised religion in general, you can try and destroy it if you want, but while there are people willing to be &#39;martyrs&#39; (and there will be) you haven&#39;t a hope of truly crushing it (unless you want to go the way of the PR of China).

[kroony]

Tristan -- yeah, I agree with what you just said. I think it is an ideological problem as well as an implementation problem.

redstar -- well, since I won&#39;t be around in three or four centuries I guess I&#39;ll never be able to convince you&#33;

By the way -- in which part of Marx&#39;s writings does he predict the "dictatorship of the party"? I&#39;ve only read the Communist Manifesto and I don&#39;t recall it in there.

[redstar2000]

By the way -- in which part of Marx&#39;s writings does he predict the "dictatorship of the party"?

He never does&#33; :D


But jeez, why can&#39;t people read some of the stickies before posting about all this stuff?

I deeply sympathize.

In fact, I&#39;ve been considering a "boiler-plate" post that would have links to a sampling of all the stuff I&#39;ve posted against religion. Whenever the subject comes up, I&#39;d just slot the post in and be done with the matter.

To write the same stuff over and over again becomes tedious. :(

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Trissy]

To write the same stuff over and over again becomes tedious. :(

Quite true but if we were complacent then Christianity would spread like wildfire. Plus we must remember that both sides have fun antagonising each other. They tell us that God loves them and us and that they&#39;ll prey for our immortal souls whilst we ask them questions they cannot answer and refuse to answer and choose to cry about instead...

[cubist]

redstar
you love crushing the hopes of religous people too much :lol:

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Redstar why not make a topic like this a sticky so we dont have new threads every so often about it and other split off threads about christianity etc.

Its getting annoying to be honest. Oh and you should do one big monster post against religion, Im sure it gets tedious replying over and over again.

[Wenty]

indeed, this is philosophy and we should debate other aspects than just theology over and again.

in response:-

tristan - i empthaise with your quest for consistency. The problem with interpretation is always going to happen whatever, and is an inevitable problem but not damning i don&#39;t think.

redstar - you cannot compare the first 150 yrs of christianity and the first 150 yrs of marxism. As much as you would like to they occured in two completely different times when civilisation was wholly different. Its almost like saying:-

"Look how undemocratic Sparta was, i don&#39;t understand it, we&#39;re not like that today"

[redstar2000]

redstar - you cannot compare the first 150 yrs of christianity and the first 150 yrs of marxism. As much as you would like to, they occurred in two completely different times when civilisation was wholly different.

Well, I was trying to respond to a point of view that implies (1) if Christianity must be held responsible for its "sinners", then (2) so must Marxism.

Marxism has generated some pretty notorious "sinners" in its first century-and-a-half...and I simply wanted to point out that Christianity did likewise. Probably the worst was the emperor Constantius...who murdered nearly all of his relatives to prevent familial rivalries over his throne (he was the Christian "King Herod"). The only one that he missed was his nephew Julian...who, not surprisingly, renounced Christianity as soon as he succeeded to the principate -- Christians know him as "Julian the Apostate".

Julian, by the way, issued the last "Edict of Toleration" of the Roman Empire...which was repealed immediately after his death in 363CE by the following emperor, another Christian.

Justinian "the Great" was the one who shut down all the philosophy schools in Athens and other cities and sent their teachers fleeing to Parthia. Non-Christians were forbidden to teach for a living after that.

But if this period does not appeal to you, pick another. I think you will be very hard pressed to find an era in which Christians can&#39;t be found "doing the dirty" to one another, the heathens, or both.

Not long ago, I believe there was an American general who claimed victory over some Muslim tribesmen on the grounds that "My God is real while their god was just an idol". :lol:

From 4th century Constantinople to 21st century Washington, D.C., many things have changed.

The behavior of Christians is not one of them.

Which raises, by the way, an interesting question: if Christianity (or any religion) were really "true", wouldn&#39;t it show?

Wouldn&#39;t the believers in "the real god" both behave qualitatively better than others and also enjoy a greater share of good fortune, the reward granted by "the true god" to those that worshiped it "properly"?

I read a science-fiction novel some years ago, called (I believe) Raising the Stones...it was about "gods that worked".

These gods really existed (an alien life form, of course) and while they rewarded the faithful with unusually healthy bodies and long lives (barring accidents), their main gift was empathy -- the more faithful you were, the greater empathy you had with all living creatures. They&#39;d even have a little chat with you now and then (inside your head).

Think of all the thousands and thousands of gods that humans have worshipped...and not a single damn one of them has worked, has actually made things any better.

Is it any wonder that we have become atheists...out of sheer exasperation?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas