do you think getting rid of religion is neccesary

[el nicaraguense]

I am a communist and a very devout buddhist.people say thats impossible but i incorparate the Buddhism into communism for the whole utopia deal. To create a communist/theocrazy mix. Is that innapropriate by yals standards?

[More Fire for the People]

Getting rid of religion is not neccessary, after the material conditions that generate mass organized religion have been eliminated religion as we know it will fade.

Undoubtedly spiritually will still exist and so would local churches, chapels, mosque, but nothing such as the Roman Catholic Church or Southern Baptist (thank God).

[Clarksist]

There is nothing bad about spirituality, its when you are taking orders from spiritual leaders, and there are authoritarian pressures by an organized religious body that makes religion bad.

[The Apathetic Atheist]

Buddhism is definately the coolest religion I have ever studied. I thought about becoming one, but I can't deal with the spiritual implications and I enjoy living my life on my own terms. The logic it uses is exceptional though.

[codyvo]

Well I agree that buddhism is an interesting religion and that their is no reason for religion to be banned, but I don't think that our policies should change for christianity and for buddhism. It doesn't matter which one is more appealing to each person, our policies have to be the same for all religions otherwise we would be discriminating and that could lead to much worse things as it has in the past.

Also, despite what many think, I believe you can be a communist and be religious, so long as your religion has no effect on your sanity and ability to make intelligent decisions.

[ComradeChris]

Religion itself should not be banned. Organized religions that could have political sway should be. Unless it's a reactionary spiritual belief, I see no problem with personal beliefs.

[redstar2000]

Yes.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[MetaZuton]

I won't complain if someone else is superstitious, so long as they do not impose this superstition on me or other people.

I would suppose that in the kind of 'end society' i would envisage the only religion which could practically survive is individual religion.

Namely, Theosophy; that people construct their own personal religion from the various different beliefs that they like from whatever religions they read (tho theosophy is also usually taken to mean that every religion does contain some portion of truth, you just have to wade through the shit to get the useful stuff)

[El_Revolucionario]

No, not necessary at all.

[guerillablack]

Not necessary. Don't adjust your standards for someone elses.

[El_Revolucionario]

Suppressing someone else's religious beliefs would just put you on the same level as the capitalists and the bible-bangers and the neo-cons.

[Ian]

Buddhist? http://203.15.102.143:8080/ramgen/media/9436ep3_sting.rm

[Roses in the Hospital]

Even without 'the revolution' organised religion will fade. As increases in standards of living and developments in science make it uneccesary. Based on the way things are going at the minute I fairly sure I'll outlive widespread organised religion in the UK...

[OleMarxco]

Well, if you still want to cling on to the good ol' religion and spirituality, well okay, then be my guest. But it won't be NECESSARY anymore, atleast, as if it were from before. There won't be ANY organized religion around for all I care for that matter, but'ah 'reilh, you could always make a church/mosque/so on in backyard if you insist. But we'll surely fade from that as soon as we see...there is no knee! Devoting time to material pleasures is more rewardin' off, don't chou think? :P

[Publius]

Bhuddism is another joke religion.

It just seems to be cool among religion haters because it's exotic and different.

It's not as bad as the other religions, but it's still an ignorant pack of lies.

Why keep religion around, is the question I have to ask.

[guerillablack]

Why not?

[KptnKrill]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 07:11 PM
Getting rid of religion is not neccessary, after the material conditions that generate mass organized religion have been eliminated religion as we know it will fade.

Undoubtedly spiritually will still exist and so would local churches, chapels, mosque, but nothing such as the Roman Catholic Church or Southern Baptist (thank God).
I completely agree :D

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 04:48 AM
Why not?
Because it's damaging to society. Billions of people are exploited, oppressed, enslaved and murdered with religion as an excuse.

[LSD]

guerillablack&#39;s now going to claim that that&#39;s only "western" religion and that "Afrikan" religions aren&#39;t like that ...but he&#39;s not going to offer any evidence. <_<

[guerillablack]

Like you ever offered any evidence for your claims? Or demonstrated any knowledge on other people&#39;s religions?

[LSD]

Do you deny that religion is based on "faith"?
Do you deny that religion is intrinsically antithetical to the scientific method?
Do you deny that religion is predicated on accepting without proof?
Do you deny that religion has been a tool for oppression?
Do you deny that religion (and this is the big one) maintains reactionary dogmas by being fundamentally unable to change its core doctrines?

You are the one making ludicrous claims that this only applies to "western" religion.

Meanwhile, you haven&#39;t even defined "Afrikan" religion&#33;

Is Judaism an "Afrikan" religion?
Is Christianity?
Is Islam?

All three started in "Afrika" but have strong followings in the rest of the world... so do you consider them "Afrikan" or not?

You see, you&#39;ve never even defined your terms, so how can you expect anyone to take you seriously?

[MetaZuton]

maintains reactionary dogmas by being fundamentally unable to change its core doctrines

This is not true of theosophy, and many neo-pagan traditions, and in fact, a hell of a lot of religions that are both relatively new to the world, and ancient to the world (or at least, revived versions of ancient religions)

[C_Rasmussen]

No I don&#39;t think its necessary to get rid of religion for the very fact that some people find comfort in religion and like going to church.

[MysticArcher]

No I don&#39;t think its necessary to get rid of religion for the very fact that some people find comfort in religion and like going to church.

Emphasis added

I like kicking people in the crotch, is that also going to be allowed?

I hate posting one-liners, but most of the points have already been made by Lysergic Acid Diethylamide

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 03:58 AM

No I don&#39;t think its necessary to get rid of religion for the very fact that some people find comfort in religion and like going to church.

Emphasis added

I like kicking people in the crotch, is that also going to be allowed?

I hate posting one-liners, but most of the points have already been made by Lysergic Acid Diethylamide
There is a BIG fucking difference between the two and if you can&#39;t see that then I won&#39;t even bother fucking explaining it.

[Raisa]

Its not that getting rid of them is necissary, though we should not let religion get in the government...but religion will have alot less followers when we make societies that dont make people feel powerless.

As long as there is opression and exploitation cutting holes into people and making them cry, they will turn to religon. But when that isnt happening anymore, then less people are going to turn to it cuase less people wont need to.

Most people are religious out of a need. Eliminating the need eliminates its nescessity and it will fade away greatly.

[Bannockburn]

Bhuddism is another joke religion.

Well to begin with, I have a hard time thinking that Buddhism is a religion. More like a philosophy indoctrinated to a religion through the Mahayana movement after The Buddha’s death. Moreover, I tend to think that Buddhism fundamentally can be a useful tool to combat the dangerous tendencies of materialism and capitalism.

[greymatter]

Bhuddism, just like any other religion, has a great deal of good thought and and valuable ideas put into it. However, just like any other religion, it has a strong reactionary element that &#39;claims&#39; to be bhuddist - the equivalent of christian fundamentalist hatemongers who &#39;claim&#39; to partake in a religion based on love.

Supernatural beings, god, angels etc... are all percieved to be superior to - and therefore more powerful than - humans. This directly contradicts the central idea of communism, which is universal self-determination for the working class. I believe that people will become disillusioned with anything that smacks of heirarchy - religious or otherwise - when the revolutionary movement destroys the opressive economic and social power structures that currently exist in our society.

[Bannockburn]

Supernatural beings, god, angels etc... are all percieved to be superior to - and therefore more powerful than - humans.

Well fortunately for Buddhism, they don’t believe in God, or any Gods for that matter. Core Buddhist teachings specifically were designed within a framework of ethical conduct, and metaphysical speculation such as “God” was something that the Buddha never spoke about. This is certainly clear in early Buddhist teaching. However, after the Buddha’s death, different schism occurred and the Mahayana and Hahayana movement denoted and created Gods, not as a metaphysical superior or having a higher ontological status, but as symbolic references in order for followers to have an easier transition through the 8 fold path.

There is no God like the Abraham religions.


I believe that people will become disillusioned with anything that smacks of heirarchy - religious or otherwise - when the revolutionary movement destroys the opressive economic and social power structures that currently exist in our society.

While fundamentally I agree with this generally statement, hierarchical thinking will take years, centuries in order to dissipate. For example, the hierarchical status of family will not be disseminated into oblivion over night. In fact we may have internalized it so much that its ingrained in our psychology.

[Snowblind]

edit: No, aboloshing it isn&#39;t necessary, though removing the federal funding and probably soliciting for money would be something to remove. The government shouldn&#39;t support any religion of any kind.


Originally posted by Roses in the [email protected] 5 2005, 08:52 AM
Even without &#39;the revolution&#39; organised religion will fade. As increases in standards of living and developments in science make it uneccesary. Based on the way things are going at the minute I fairly sure I&#39;ll outlive widespread organised religion in the UK...
Gee, that may be the UK, but certainly not America. Especially the southern areas (e.g. Arkansas, Oklahoma, Georgia). Though in those states it&#39;s somewhat of a balance of 4 Bible bangers:1 one intelligent athiest:2 stupid drug using athiest

So I suppose there is a ballance of religion, I just hope the next generation is smarter. But by the looks of it everyone here grows up only knowing the religion untill they are 13ish and then they meet someone that has different beliefs and well, nevermind.

[Ultra-Violence]

yes

relgion should be eliminated and there are many reasons why&#33;

1.Seperates people
2.Starts religous wars
3.Makes people dependent on a "GOD" to achieve any sort of goal
4.Makes people have authority over others
5.And will use any sick means to convert some one into there belief system
6.Demonizes All Women
etc............................................... .............

"RELIGION IS OPIUM FOR THE MASSES&#33;" :hammer:

[Xian]

An organized religous group will not happen when communism comes because people will not divide themselves up between each other, or the whole of society. But I also think that spirituality can and will never disappear because it is human nature (curiousity) to search for meaning, whether it is true or false is beside the point. If every human on earth except for two infants died, those two infants will grow (assuming they survive) and look up at the stars and create stories and will observe the paranormal, and will cultivate a belief in God. (And there&#39;s no way you can disprove a beleif in an all powerful god, so don&#39;t even try)

As far as all these atheists saying that religion is so bad, there are also many good things that it does for people on a internal spiritual (which results in external) level. For example, look at Malcolm X before he went to prison, he was a theif and a con man. He found God, helped others, and much of the black population turned their lives around and became good people.

For me, God is much of the reason I am a socialist in the first place. I feel a love and compassion for creation, because I feel attatched to it in this way, that we are all conected and are all the same inside, and we will all live on after death. I look at everything in the universe, and I see it as being a part of who we all are. Since we are conneted this way, I believe we were created by a higher power.

I don&#39;t think that god wants anyone of us to live against or opposed (I sometimes call some hate-mongering organized religions "cliques") to each other. This is not the purpose of religion, and I believe the notions of hell and punishment, and salvation and judgement will disappear. The danger is when people hijack them and use them to purpetuate hate to certain groups. The ones that will remain are the religions of compassion and love, which I think, are what most are made up of. Overall it is a message of hope for meaning, and without it, we&#39;d have a lot of depressed people walking around I think.

Peace.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Xian
...and without [religion], we&#39;d have a lot of depressed people walking around I think.

People should be "depressed"...and ashamed, and angry, and really pissed off&#33;

We live on "the planet of shit"...and anyone wallowing in superstitious "hope" is hardly any better than a fucking scab&#33;

If "God is great", then please explain why "he" doesn&#39;t get off "his" ugly fat ass and fix things up&#33;

If someone actually offered incontestable proof that "God" really existed...you know what the conclusion would have to be, right?

"God" is either utterly impotent in the presence of injustice OR "God" is a sadistic bastard beyond all hope of human emulation.

Either way, who needs the sonofa*****?


And there&#39;s no way you can disprove a belief in an all powerful god, so don&#39;t even try.

Don&#39;t be silly. From a scientific standpoint, the matter has long been settled...there&#39;s no "supernatural realm" at all, much less one that&#39;s inhabited.

No other standpoint is ever worth considering.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[guerillablack]

WHy is there a need for God to "fix" earth up?

[Xvall]

No, but I&#39;m going to try to do it anyways.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 07:41 PM
Why is there a need for God to "fix" earth up?
According to the superstitious, it&#39;s "his baby".

Legally speaking, we should sue the Celestial Asshole for non-support&#33; :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/teu42.gif

[Xvall]

That flood was blatan child abuse. Those christian-types are always drowning their kids.

[violencia.Proletariat]

meh, i dont think religion should be completely sought out and destroyed, its a waste of time. but yes organized religion should be abandoned. and logically as others have said people will drift away from it.

[guerillablack]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jul 25 2005, 02:55 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Jul 25 2005, 02:55 AM)
[email protected] 24 2005, 07:41 PM
Why is there a need for God to "fix" earth up?
According to the superstitious, it&#39;s "his baby".

Legally speaking, we should sue the Celestial Asshole for non-support&#33; :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/teu42.gif [/b]
I don&#39;t know what religion you are referring to but earth is not his "baby" nor am i.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by guerillablack+Jul 25 2005, 12:56 AM--> (guerillablack @ Jul 25 2005, 12:56 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 02:55 AM

[email protected] 24 2005, 07:41 PM
Why is there a need for God to "fix" earth up?
According to the superstitious, it&#39;s "his baby".

Legally speaking, we should sue the Celestial Asshole for non-support&#33; :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/teu42.gif
I don&#39;t know what religion you are referring to but earth is not his "baby" nor am i. [/b]
What? In all Abrahamic religions "God" made the Earth as well as many other religions.
If they lay claims to any gods, one likely "created the Earth...maybe heavens"

[zendo]

Hello Comrade, I myself an a practicing Buddhist and Buddhism, Taoism, and Confusianism in my opinion are compatible philosophies with SOCIALISM

HO CHI MINH came from a very Confucious and Taoist family,

Mao Zedong also was raised Taoist and Buddhist, he also admired the strong family values and strong state values of Confucianism.

Furthermore Buddhism is an atheist philosophy, Buddha was a human not a God, Buddhists do not believe in a creator God rather in the law of cause and effect, we reap what we sow.

So yes as a Buddhist and Socialist I say it is perfectly fine to be both, the problem with religion like Marx said is when governments use it as a means of control.

Marx proclaimed that religion was the opiate of the people because the poor worker was kept under control, the priests and reilgious bishops would tell the poor workers not to worry if they are poor in this lifetime because they will be rewarded in the afterlife. Religion was used as a means of control.

[Xian]

Originally posted by redstar2000+--> (redstar2000)We live on "the planet of shit"...and anyone wallowing in superstitious "hope" is hardly any better than a fucking scab&#33;[/b]

So Malcolm was a scab? Martin Luther King was a scab? I can free America tomorrow and you&#39;d still call me a scab because I believe in god? What does that have anything to do with justice?


redstar2000
"God" is either utterly impotent in the presence of injustice OR "God" is a sadistic bastard beyond all hope of human emulation.

What may look like suffering on the inside may not be in the end. It&#39;s like if you look at the Holocaust, it was needed for Israel to exist. I&#39;m not saying that it was right but I think we are part of a plan and everything affects everything, so suffering is part of life. There will never be a Utopia and I don&#39;t think that&#39;s what living is about. If there was no sadness there&#39;d be no happiness. Now I don&#39;t think that means that capitalism should exist, but if you think about it, if there was no capitalism, what would we do with our lives? People like Marx made that crusade the meaning in their life, so I think that everyone has a meaing and if they don&#39;t get the chance, their death will have some kind of effect.

Peace.

[Clarksist]

What may look like suffering on the inside may not be in the end. It&#39;s like if you look at the Holocaust, it was needed for Israel to exist. I&#39;m not saying that it was right but I think we are part of a plan and everything affects everything, so suffering is part of life.


And because Isreal exists more war and death and murder has occured. What is so fucking great about shoving people off of their land?

BTW, how does suffering being a part of life make it not suffering on the inside?


People like Marx made that crusade the meaning in their life, so I think that everyone has a meaing and if they don&#39;t get the chance, their death will have some kind of effect.


If you believe in God, then doesn&#39;t that mean that the purpose of life is to live "on our knees" sucking on God&#39;s proverbial dick?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Xian
So Malcolm was a scab? Martin Luther King was a scab?

Neither of those guys wasted much time in wallowing in superstitious "hope" -- they went out and did stuff to change the world.

In my opinion, they would have accomplished far more had they not been held back by their own superstitious beliefs.


What may look like suffering on the inside may not be in the end. It&#39;s like if you look at the Holocaust, it was needed for Israel to exist. I&#39;m not saying that it was right but I think we are part of a plan and everything affects everything, so suffering is part of life.

So Hitler not only thought he was "doing God&#39;s will" but he was actually doing it? :o

Perhaps the Israelis should erect a monument to him in Jerusalem. :lol:

And what kind of a sadistic "God" creates people in order that they might suffer?

Be sure and torture your kids tonight before you put them to bed&#33;

They must learn that "suffering is part of life".


If there was no sadness there&#39;d be no happiness.

Oh? Let&#39;s test that rather grim hypothesis, shall we?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[KC]

If there was no sadness there&#39;d be no happiness.

I&#39;m sorry redstar but dialectical materialism dictates it. :D

[viva le revolution]

Religion as a private belief is not harmful to our cause. Indeed, the equality of all men advocated by all major monotheistic faiths gives legitimacy to our cause. The islamic concept of Jihad(fighting oppression), the christian concept of Crusade(fighting oppression) is one that advocates fighting against oppression, in today&#39;s world translated into economic oppression and in some cases military. The advocation of tolerance of all faiths is one that we can identify with very easily.
However that aside, the political dimension of religion is one that we should be wary of. Religion deals with matters of faith in the unseen and spiritual, good enough for private belief, but translated into society can lead to absurdities because the state requires policies based on reason, not the interpretation of the world by a select spiritual elite, claiming divine authority over the masses.
There is no need to oppose religion as a belief because it is not really contradictory to our cause, however the institutionalized system of organized religion, ie. the church and priesthood is the factor that has to be abolished.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 01:04 AM
Yes.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif
Care to explain your reasoning?

[Xian]

Neither of those guys wasted much time in wallowing in superstitious "hope" -- they went out and did stuff to change the world.
In my opinion, they would have accomplished far more had they not been held back by their own superstitious beliefs.

But are you denying the fact that they were motivated by God? What made Malcolm turn from a sinner to a saint? What happened to him in prison? If they were atheists, they probably would&#39;ve never done the things they did. They&#39;d have no motivation.


So Hitler not only thought he was "doing God&#39;s will" but he was actually doing it? :o

I don&#39;t understand. I thought that Hitler was an atheist? And anyway I believe that everyone is doing god&#39;s will because everything has a destiny. Everything has an effect, so the fact that I&#39;m here typing this was planned way before, and the fact that I&#39;ll wake up or go to sleep at a certain time tomorrow was planned.
And for the record I am against Zionism although I think that by having a small amount of land, the Jews can be free or be together. What I think they should realize is that god didn&#39;t just give them a little piece where they should stick together, but the whole world for them to spread apart.


And what kind of a sadistic "God" creates people in order that they might suffer?

It isn&#39;t so much the situation that he puts us in as much as the way that humans were created. Selfishness and anger and sadness and happiness and glum and glee and anything, were put into us, and these emotions create unfortunate circumstances. If you ask why he wouldn&#39;t change it, I don&#39;t know but I think that&#39;s up to us because it is some people&#39;s destiny to teach and some will learn and some will act. I don&#39;t know the meaning of life, and again I don&#39;t think we&#39;re supposed to know, or that religion is supposed to give you a reason that we&#39;re here. What I believe is that we are all connected and in the end we&#39;ll be happy in the afterlife. But if we didn&#39;t have the "bad" emotions (anger, jealousy, etc.) then we wouldn&#39;t know the good ones.


Be sure and torture your kids tonight before you put them to bed&#33;

They must learn that "suffering is part of life".

I don&#39;t mean that kind of suffering but rather the emotional suffering that causes these things. Someone who tortures children does it because of something, whether they are mentally ill or were also tortured themselves. So those types of suffering will never leave the human mind (ying & yang), because it is a part of who we are. What will leave is the way we control our emotion and that will come from help from others. So sending a child molester to prison without treating him with therapy is an example of what is NOT going to heal/condition the bad emotion.

I have this real smart friend (1570 SAT&#33;&#33;) who is a Christian going to college to be a physicist. I asked him if he is ever drawn towards atheism (I know I am-You guys make great arguments&#33; :D ), especially when looking at things from a scientifc standpoint. He said that "being a Christian isn&#39;t something you take because of fact. Even when looking at it from an atheist&#39;s view, you (as a Christian) know that it is improving your life, so where&#39;s the harm in that?"
I also asked him if someone needs proof, then what are we supposed to say to them: "If you ask for proof you were never a believer anyway."
I think his point was that debating between believers and non believers isn&#39;t worth it, because it isn&#39;t a matter of fact or logic, but what you believe. One of the best bible verses for us is "We walk by faith, not by sight." So even if I&#39;m wrong, and there is nothing after death, believing still would&#39;ve made my life better. I&#39;m not looking for god to come down and save me from harm or anything like that. I&#39;m not going to force my opinion on anyone. The only time I would bring it up is if I&#39;m asked. Religion should be a personal thing, and that is when it can turn you into a great person. When you start to realize that god is not on just YOUR side, but EVERYONE"S side, then you understand that destiny is destiny and everything is for a reason.
This doesn&#39;t mean that we can&#39;t change the world, but it means that our destiny is mapped and even though we don&#39;t know it, it will still come true.
Che&#39;s destiny was to free Cuba, and that&#39;s what his life was for. If pre revolution Cuba wasn&#39;t bad and there was never a need for revolution, then Che would&#39;ve done something different, and we never would&#39;ve known him. Now imagine if a kid is so inspired by Che that he decides to free his home, and he succeeds. If it wasn&#39;t for pre revolution Cuba, then he never would&#39;ve done that. So I&#39;m saying that the world has ups and downs and they result from each other. Good things come from bad, and bad from good (over time).

Peace.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Fist of Blood+Jul 27 2005, 10:29 PM--> (Fist of Blood @ Jul 27 2005, 10:29 PM)
[email protected] 5 2005, 01:04 AM
Yes.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif
Care to explain your reasoning? [/b]
If you will visit my site, you will find 13 collections of posts under the title "Communists and Religion". Pick any one or two of them...or read them all (:lol:), and my reasoning should be clear.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Xian
I have this real smart friend (1570 SAT&#33;&#33;) who is a Christian going to college to be a physicist.

If your description is accurate, he will be an atheist by his second year...at the latest.

The more he learns about how the universe really is, the dumber religion will seem to him.

Of course, his progress could be retarded if he goes to a Christian "school"... :o

And he&#39;d end up a pretty crappy physicist as well.

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

Your "world-picture" in which everything that happens and will happen has already been "determined" is an extremely unattractive one. No matter what we do or don&#39;t do, we were "fated" to do or not do that very thing.

But if you hold to it consistently -- everything has already been determined -- then it leaves no "wedge" for a rational attack.

The evidence suggests that the universe does not seem to behave that way; that chance and circumstance play a dominant role in "what happens next".

But you could easily reply that such a view is an illusion caused by our limited and fallible knowledge of "the whole plan".

I will say this: if "what happens" is "all part of a huge plan". then the planner was manifestly incompetent.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Xian]

^^He&#39;s going to Princeton but he&#39;s pretty involved in his church. I&#39;ve talked to him about this several times and he says he doesn&#39;t think he would become atheist because the philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth is improving his life. That&#39;s his reason. He doesn&#39;t care about science when it comes to god. It&#39;s beyond science.


But if you hold to it consistently -- everything has already been determined -- then it leaves no "wedge" for a rational attack.

I already stated: "This doesn&#39;t mean that we can&#39;t change the world, but it means that our destiny is mapped and even though we don&#39;t know it, it will still come true." Because of the fact that we don&#39;t know it, makes it so that we can change it from our viewpoint. So basically your destiny is what you make it, but that doesn&#39;t stop it from being your destiny.


But you could easily reply that such a view is an illusion caused by our limited and fallible knowledge of "the whole plan".

I will say this: if "what happens" is "all part of a huge plan". then the planner was manifestly incompetent.

Because of the unfortunate things in the world? My friend also said this: "There will never be a Utopia, because people would be bored. People like conflict." I am a socialist, and I don&#39;t think that it&#39;s about getting a perfect world. It&#39;s about getting a better world, full of justice and love, but humans are not perfect. So if you&#39;re saying that the plan should have been for us to have a perfect world, what would we have done all day? We wouldn&#39;t be on this debate, because we&#39;d agree right? We wouldn&#39;t read Marx or Lenin or RedStar Papers, because we&#39;d all be happy and would not need to search for justice or equality. So what would we do? My theory is that being a human, in a natural state, consists of many things. Suffering is one part, happiness is another. To have the yang you need the ying. Without one the other would mean nothing. The reason that people need to suffer is so that they can be happy. Happiness cannot exist on it&#39;s own. That doesn&#39;t mean that communism will not come, but that we must learn to control the minds that we have, so that we can have inner peace. Thats when you&#39;ll have communism, and that&#39;s not Utopia or paradise. We&#39;re always going to be in the position where we can improve. We&#39;ll always have conflict, to give us something to do.
As far as the meaning of life I don&#39;t know, but I think we should all leave something for when we die, something that will improve the world. That&#39;s how humans will evolve, through mental evolution, and that will improve the world around us.

Peace.

[Ownthink]

I don&#39;t understand. I thought that Hitler was an atheist?

Go read Mein Kampf (or don&#39;t, it&#39;s up to you.) but in it you will see that Hitler does believe in God.....

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Yes, he DID believe in God.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 03:37 PM

Neither of those guys wasted much time in wallowing in superstitious "hope" -- they went out and did stuff to change the world.
In my opinion, they would have accomplished far more had they not been held back by their own superstitious beliefs.

But are you denying the fact that they were motivated by God? What made Malcolm turn from a sinner to a saint? What happened to him in prison? If they were atheists, they probably would&#39;ve never done the things they did. They&#39;d have no motivation.


what does believing in god have to with motivation. if you think about it people who believe in god would have less motivation to make things better because if they were supposed to be better would god not make it better? just because your an atheist doesnt make you less motivated, in fact it would make you more motivated because you realize there is no god to make things better its up to you to get off your ass and change things.

[Oldergod]

it doesnt matter how the job is done...just finish the job

im an atheist but i&#39;ve been reading the Qu&#39;ran quite a bit lately and am going to see about becoming a muslim...but that has NO BARING on my position politically...why should it? why should what i believe in have any influence on how i want life in general to be run?


like i said im an atheist..but like i told my girlfriend..atheism is a horrible thing...and if you dont think so your an idiot and enjoy living in fear...cause i know you do...because i do.....if you believe in something...keep your faith......religion is a beautiful thing...just dont let it have anything to do with your government

[Bannockburn]

like i said im an atheist..but like i told my girlfriend..atheism is a horrible thing...and if you dont think so your an idiot and enjoy living in fear...cause i know you do...

Could you further explain this to me, because I truly do not understand it whatsoever.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Xian
So if you&#39;re saying that the plan should have been for us to have a perfect world, what would we have done all day?

A "perfect world" would have, by definition, plenty of interesting ways for us to spend our time without pain and suffering.

In the Christian "Heaven", we get to spend "eternity" playing harps and singing praises of "God" (what a self-esteem problem "he" must have&#33; :lol:). In the Islamic "Paradise", we guys get to hang out with a large number of beautiful virgins...but we don&#39;t get to have sex with them. Sound like fun?

Let&#39;s face it, the "Great Plan of Everything" really sucks&#33;

So I&#39;ll decline that "option".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Ownthink]

"im an atheist but i&#39;ve been reading the Qu&#39;ran quite a bit lately and am going to see about becoming a muslim..."

No.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Oldergod
I&#39;m an atheist but I&#39;ve been reading the Qu&#39;ran quite a bit lately and am going to see about becoming a Muslim...but that has NO BEARING on my position politically...why should it? Why should what I believe in have any influence on how I want life in general to be run?

It&#39;s interesting how people ask this question over and over again -- as if they have these air-tight compartments inside their brains: there&#39;s the "religion compartment" and the "politics compartment" and they are completely sealed off from each other.

The reason that "what you believe" has a decisive "influence" on how you want "life in general to be run" is that religion is, by definition, a "theory of everything".

It is a "cosmology" that tells you "why" the universe exists and what you are expected to do if you want the "divinity" to have a "good opinion" of you.

Since you are flirting with Islam, you should have learned that Islam is particularly proscriptive -- it includes an entire "theory of government" that is completely opposed to communism. Its "laws" regarding the social status of women and the expression of female sexuality are notoriously barbaric. As to gay people, Islam just executes them...no fooling around.

In Islam, the world is divided into two parts: "the world of Islam" and "the world of war". Jihad against the heathen is a duty for the truly pious Muslim. (That doesn&#39;t mean you have to become a "terrorist" -- if you write a book that condemns "western secularism", that counts as "good Jihad".)

Communism, as everyone knows, is "godless". So any attempt by you to try and merge communism with Islam is going to be condemned by all your co-believers...and they may even put a price on your head. :o

Also, keep in mind that there&#39;s more than one kind of Islam...and they don&#39;t have a high opinion of each other.

And remember that signing up with Islam is like signing up with the mafia -- quitting is not an option. The "informal" penalty for leaving Islam is death. If you move to a predominately Muslim country, you must remain a Muslim "in public" for as long as you live there.

In the realm of superstition, "what you believe" has a decisive bearing on what you may do and what you are not permitted to do.

Communism is not permitted.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 01:20 AM



Since you are flirting with Islam, you should have learned that Islam is particularly proscriptive -- it includes an entire "theory of government" that is completely opposed to communism. Its "laws" regarding the social status of women and the expression of female sexuality are notoriously barbaric. As to gay people, Islam just executes them...no fooling around.

In Islam, the world is divided into two parts: "the world of Islam" and "the world of war". Jihad against the heathen is a duty for the truly pious Muslim. (That doesn&#39;t mean you have to become a "terrorist" -- if you write a book that condemns "western secularism", that counts as "good Jihad".)

Communism, as everyone knows, is "godless". So any attempt by you to try and merge communism with Islam is going to be condemned by all your co-believers...and they may even put a price on your head. :o

Also, keep in mind that there&#39;s more than one kind of Islam...and they don&#39;t have a high opinion of each other.

And remember that signing up with Islam is like signing up with the mafia -- quitting is not an option. The "informal" penalty for leaving Islam is death. If you move to a predominately Muslim country, you must remain a Muslim "in public" for as long as you live there.

In the realm of superstition, "what you believe" has a decisive bearing on what you may do and what you are not permitted to do.

Communism is not permitted.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif
Have you even read the qur&#39;an? Have you even discussed it with a muslim?
There is Islam and fundamentalist islam. Islam was the first religion to give universal sufferage. Women rights of inheritance etc. Or are you just spewing whatever you read in the media? Passing judgement on something without first understanding it is &#39;close-mindedness&#39;. Islam is not in conflict with communism in theory, it&#39;s only when it gets political is when the trouble starts. Look at Nasserite Egypt, Nasser was a socialist and for the privatization of faith and was supported by the soviet bloc. he enjoyed great support among the people. If it were in contradiction, he wouldn&#39;t have got power in the first place.
What religion is kind to gay people? Islam for bids the imposition of your beliefs on other people. coercion in matters of faith is STRICTLY prohibited.
Jihad is not only &#39;fightining heathens&#39;&#33; Jihad takes on two forms, the greater and the lesser jihad. The greater jihad involves the personal, living humbly etc. the greater jihad is fighting oppression. it is in theory only to be used as self-defence against an attacker. Violence is prohibited and frowned upon in Islam.
I would suggest reading &#39;battle for god&#39; by Karen armstrong, it accounts for the rise of religious fundamentalism. a brilliant book, really.

[viva le revolution]

Communism, in my view is not an attack on religion itself but an attack on organized religion and the religious establishment9THE CHURCH, PRIESTHOOD ETC.) religion as a private belief is not at all bad. Such statements that religion as a belief should be abolished etc. will only make us more enemies and is quite a fatalistic way of thinking.
Again i would recommend the book i stated earlier.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by viva le revolution
Have you even read the Qur&#39;an?

Portions. Like all "holy books", it&#39;s basically unreadable.


Have you even discussed it with a Muslim?

Women in Islam (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1089328946&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)


Islam is not in conflict with communism in theory...

Yes it is. Communism is "godless", remember? It is in conflict with all forms of superstition.


Nasser was a socialist...

No he wasn&#39;t...he was a left-bourgeois despot.

Rather like Saddam Hussein, in fact.


What religion is kind to gay people?

Good question&#33; But you should reflect: if all religions persecute gay people, doesn&#39;t that suggest that all religions are therefore barbaric monstrosities?


Islam forbids the imposition of your beliefs on other people. Coercion in matters of faith is STRICTLY prohibited.

Yeah...that&#39;s the "official" line.

But think about it. Your country has just been conquered by a Muslim Army and all the positions of power are now in the hands of Muslims. Now, if you have any ambitions to get somewhere economically, then doesn&#39;t it make good sense to convert to Islam?

You don&#39;t "have to"...but wouldn&#39;t it be "a good career move"?


I would suggest reading Battle for God by Karen Armstrong.

I&#39;ve added it to my list -- I&#39;m always glad to receive book title suggestions.


Such statements that religion as a belief should be abolished, etc., will only make us more enemies and is quite a fatalistic way of thinking.

No, superstition is an intransigent enemy of rational thought itself.

We cannot become "fully human" -- rational -- until we eliminate superstition altogether.

I don&#39;t see anything "fatalistic" about this view...perhaps you meant to use a different word.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Dante]

Hello Comrade, I myself an a practicing Buddhist and Buddhism, Taoism, and Confusianism in my opinion are compatible philosophies with SOCIALISM

Not its not. Marxism is a scientific theory rooted in materialism, not idealism. You can only believe in &#39;energies&#39; reincarnation or angels and whatever else if you reject materialism and embrace dogma and fiction. Sorry.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 03:31 PM


Portions. Like all "holy books", it&#39;s basically unreadable.



Women in Islam (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1089328946&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)


Islam is not in conflict with communism in theory...

Yes it is. Communism is "godless", remember? It is in conflict with all forms of superstition.


Nasser was a socialist...

No he wasn&#39;t...he was a left-bourgeois despot.

Rather like Saddam Hussein, in fact.



Good question&#33; But you should reflect: if all religions persecute gay people, doesn&#39;t that suggest that all religions are therefore barbaric monstrosities?



Yeah...that&#39;s the "official" line.

But think about it. Your country has just been conquered by a Muslim Army and all the positions of power are now in the hands of Muslims. Now, if you have any ambitions to get somewhere economically, then doesn&#39;t it make good sense to convert to Islam?

You don&#39;t "have to"...but wouldn&#39;t it be "a good career move"?



I&#39;ve added it to my list -- I&#39;m always glad to receive book title suggestions.


Such statements that religion as a belief should be abolished, etc., will only make us more enemies and is quite a fatalistic way of thinking.

No, superstition is an intransigent enemy of rational thought itself.

We cannot become "fully human" -- rational -- until we eliminate superstition altogether.

I don&#39;t see anything "fatalistic" about this view...perhaps you meant to use a different word.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif
1. well then unless you raed it in it&#39;s entirety, you will get aunderstanding of what it&#39;s about. Reading into portions is useless because you don&#39;t get the whole picture. you can&#39;t grasp what it&#39;s about.
2. Ohh...a link. whats that prove? amnesty international? You are concentrating on the practical aspects of the religion. not the theory nor the teachings of Islam. Just it&#39;s interpretation by a bunch of fundamentalist idiots. Don&#39;t judge a book by it&#39;s cover.
3. Communism is a theory based on reason and rationality, ie. materialism. Communism is against the institution of religion, it&#39;s organization and political role. It calls for privatization of faith not imposed atheism. In fact, if you study islam, you will find that islam is supposed to change with the times.According to Islamic tradition, any law can be changed if the majority want to. There is no priesthood in Islam, nor any system of organized heirarchy. Again just fundamentalist wackos hijacking the image.
4. Nasser was a socialist in the sense that he smashed the influence of the ulema in egypt, he introduced secular education, closed down madrassa&#39;s and religious schools, smashed the Muslim brotherhood( a fundamentalist group with huge influence in egypt), he privatized faith( i.e banned all political activities by religious groups), he nationalized egyptian industry. he was well loved in Egypt( unlike saddam hussein) he was popularly in power, not through the CIA like hussein.
He supported the soviet union but did not bring Egypt under soviet influence.
5. Look at the context, these laws were given thousands of years ago, in fact gays have only been tolerated in the last 50 years or so. No just because religion persecutes gays doesn&#39;t make them monstrosities. Personally, i am not all pro-gay, i don&#39;t condone it personally. But that&#39;s just me. i have my private beliefs does that mean that my beliefs should hold precedence over others? no&#33; I respect their right to exist even though i may not like it. Athiesm does not automatically mean tolerance....Nazi Germany downplayed the significance of religion. did that mean gay liberation? Athiestic governments too are capable of monstrosities, look at the USSR they were athiest yet somehow, homosexuality was a crime there.
6. Well if you change your religion on those lines then there is no real faith, then we have nothing to worry about. Doubtless this has happened but nobody forced you to do it did they? This does not account for the survival of persecuted religions, for example, juddaism in egypt, christianity in the roman empire, or Islam in Pre-islamic arabia. how did they survive if the possibility of a good career move existed? How come they did not take the initiative?
7. I would highly recomend reading that book comrade, it accounts for the rise of fundamentalism in all three monothiestic religions.
8. Not neccessarily, Not religious beliefs in themselves, but the religious INSTITUTIONS, yes. Take for example, arabia. well they studied medicine etc. doctors were actually performing surgery there, they developed the first anasthetics, they studied astronomy and the liberal arts. They had philsophers(sufis) who were contemplating gods role and the destiny of man. Aristotle and greek philosophers were studied and reading them was even encouraged. Science and scientific thought flourished. Keep in mind this was in Islamic Arabia during the dark ages, when europe was still dreaming of knights and witchhunts. At that time surgery was forbidden and priests were horrified at the prospect. All this activity was under a religious enviornment, not secular. It&#39;s when religious fundamentalists enter public office and take literalist stances that&#39;s when the shit hits the fan.
9. I agree we cannot be fully human if religion is imposed. but humanity isn&#39;t about science or rationality, it&#39;s about freedom. It&#39;s about the sovriegnity of the mind.
Imposed atheism=imposed religion.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by viva le revolution
Well, then unless you read it in its entirety, you will get [no] understanding of what it&#39;s about.

Don&#39;t be silly. You know the really serious Muslims insist that you "can&#39;t understand" the Qu&#39;ran unless you learn Arabic and read it in the original.

Believe that one?


Ohh...a link. what&#39;s that prove?

It proves that I have discussed the Qu&#39;ran with a practicing Muslim. I posted it in answer to your question.

But since it was a female Muslim...perhaps that "doesn&#39;t count". :lol:


In fact, if you study Islam, you will find that Islam is supposed to change with the times.

What "heretics" have you been listening to?

There are many verses in the Qu&#39;ran that condemn the idea of innovation in principle.

Islam is "an old-time religion" if there ever was one.


No, just because religion persecutes gays doesn&#39;t make [religions] monstrosities.

Why not? Is persecuting gays "ok" because all religions agree that it&#39;s "ok"?

Are you prepared, as a "good Muslim", to kill someone because they are gay?

Think carefully before you answer that.


I respect their right to exist even though I may not like it.

That&#39;s very kind of you. You "wish" they wouldn&#39;t exist but, since they do, you grudgingly "respect" their right to go on existing.

But then you&#39;re not really a serious Muslim yet, are you?


Well, if you change your religion on those lines then there is no real faith, then we have nothing to worry about.

For most people, there isn&#39;t. Every religion is run by a clergy (of some kind) and a relatively small group of serious believers. Everyone else just "goes along" because it&#39;s easier to do that than to do otherwise.


Science and scientific thought flourished.

Yes, Islam&#39;s "golden age"...ended by the Muslim Turks in the east and the Christians in Spain.

It showed promise...no question about it. But it didn&#39;t last very long and never revived.

Perhaps had the Arabs invented the printing press...


...but humanity isn&#39;t about science or rationality, it&#39;s about freedom.

But without science and rational thought, one can only be a slave to ignorance and superstition.

The very word "islam" means submission...an unusually appropriate choice of terminology.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 02:54 AM


Don&#39;t be silly. You know the really serious Muslims insist that you "can&#39;t understand" the Qu&#39;ran unless you learn Arabic and read it in the original.

Believe that one?



It proves that I have discussed the Qu&#39;ran with a practicing Muslim. I posted it in answer to your question.

But since it was a female Muslim...perhaps that "doesn&#39;t count". :lol:



What "heretics" have you been listening to?

There are many verses in the Qu&#39;ran that condemn the idea of innovation in principle.

Islam is "an old-time religion" if there ever was one.


No, just because religion persecutes gays doesn&#39;t make [religions] monstrosities.

Why not? Is persecuting gays "ok" because all religions agree that it&#39;s "ok"?

Are you prepared, as a "good Muslim", to kill someone because they are gay?

Think carefully before you answer that.


I respect their right to exist even though I may not like it.

That&#39;s very kind of you. You "wish" they wouldn&#39;t exist but, since they do, you grudgingly "respect" their right to go on existing.

But then you&#39;re not really a serious Muslim yet, are you?



For most people, there isn&#39;t. Every religion is run by a clergy (of some kind) and a relatively small group of serious believers. Everyone else just "goes along" because it&#39;s easier to do that than to do otherwise.



Yes, Islam&#39;s "golden age"...ended by the Muslim Turks in the east and the Christians in Spain.

It showed promise...no question about it. But it didn&#39;t last very long and never revived.

Perhaps had the Arabs invented the printing press...



But without science and rational thought, one can only be a slave to ignorance and superstition.

The very word "islam" means submission...an unusually appropriate choice of terminology.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif
1. That&#39;s a crock of shit. Who said that? In fact in Islam, reading it merely in arabic without understanding is useless, You must read the qur&#39;an in your own language. This is encouraged.

2. Did she discuss the thoery or the practical application of those laws. In her opinion are they practiced correctly? If islam is so oppressive to women, why is she still practicing it? Because the religion and beliefs are not bad and oppressive at all, it&#39;s just the wrong interpretation of those beliefs by fundamentalists that fuck things up. I&#39;m sure she would agree if asked this.

3. Not heretics actually, prominent muslim scholars and leaders. Hell, even Khomeini( believe it or not) said that the state should be progressive with a mix of shariah(islamic law) and ijtamah(consensus, reason). Even he said that the ulema should not rule iran only safeguard old islamic traditions. Again it&#39;s interpretation by fundamentalists fucks things up. There is no such thing, Quite the opposite, in the qur&#39;an it is said that the mind is a gift from god and progressing is the duty of every muslim.

4. No it&#39;s not ok to persecute someone because of homosexuality, but in my view it should not be encouraged either.No i am not prepared to kill someone, because that wouldn&#39;t make me a very good muslim. Listen not the whole of muslim society acts as executioners, we don&#39;t all brand swords looking for thieves and gays.

5. I do not condone homosexuality personally, not because of religion, but becauise of a scientific standpoint. Homosexuality serves no purpose and is biologically incompatible. Procreation is not fulfilled. it serves absolutely no purpose.
From that standpoint, i don&#39;t agree with the concept of homosexuality but i don&#39;t condemn them to hell or anything like that.

6. That is quite a simplistac way of looking at it. It is historically and practically impossible for such a vast institution to survive thousands of years run by only a handful of people, with no faith on the part of the general population. By that logic then everybody should renounce their faith eveytime something catastrophic occurs, quite on the contrary, hitorically, adversity only serves to entrench faith more deeply.

7. Well then the very fact that that &#39;golden age&#39; existed contradicts your point that with the presence of religion no progression is possible.

8. You did not complete my whole quote, Humanity is not only about science or rationality but about freedom and the sovreignity of the mind. Without the freedom to ponder not only on the practical but also the spiritual aspects of ourselves we denying the concept of being human. and serves only to make us automatons of logic.

9. Islam does not mean &#39;submission&#39; but means &#39;surrender to god&#39;.What that means is up to individual interpretation.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by viva le revolution
In fact in Islam, reading it merely in Arabic without understanding is useless...

No...you are encouraged to learn Arabic in order that you may read the Qu&#39;ran in its original language and thus understand it fully.


Did she discuss the theory or the practical application of those laws?

Why don&#39;t you click on the link and read for yourself?


Again its interpretation by fundamentalists fucks things up.

Fundamentalists are the "real Muslims"...they are the ones who really take Islam seriously.

Why is it so difficult to grasp the fact that people who take their religion seriously are always fundamentalists?

You want your ham sandwich and a beer "with a side order of Islam"?


I do not condone homosexuality personally, not because of religion, but because of a scientific standpoint. Homosexuality serves no purpose and is biologically incompatible. Procreation is not fulfilled. It serves absolutely no purpose. From that standpoint, I don&#39;t agree with the concept of homosexuality but I don&#39;t condemn them to hell or anything like that.

Curiously enough, neither does the Qu&#39;ran...at least in so many words -- I looked for a verse and couldn&#39;t find one.

Nevertheless, it&#39;s pretty clear that "Allah" doesn&#39;t like gay people much -- the story of "the destruction of Sodom by heavenly fire" is so relished by Muhammad that he repeats it in four different chapters. It&#39;s hard to believe that "Allah" wouldn&#39;t "follow through" and send all the "Sodomites" to "Hell".

As to your own "scientific" position, are you arguing that one should not have sex unless one intends to conceive a child? Or that sex for pleasure is "ok" between men and women but "not ok" between women and women or men and men?

Not that it really matters; such puritanical notions are only significant when supported by the police.


It is historically and practically impossible for such a vast institution to survive thousands of years run by only a handful of people, with no faith on the part of the general population.

Why? Most people go through the socially accepted rituals with little or no thought to the matter...until something happens that threatens the whole paradigm.

Then they re-evaluate.

If you are a rational person, then you realize that "profession of faith" means very little to one&#39;s real material concerns...except in unusual situations.


By that logic, then everybody should renounce their faith every time something catastrophic occurs; quite on the contrary, historically, adversity only serves to entrench faith more deeply.

It depends, I think, on the nature and the duration of the catastrophe. A flood or an earthquake are brief...the dead are buried and forgotten. A series of severe epidemics are more serious; one could make an argument that the European "black plague" was, in part, responsible for the crisis of Christianity that led to the Protestant Reformation. (The Roman Empire also suffered from severe epidemics during and after the 2nd century...which may have assisted the rise of Christianity itself.)

Foreign conquest by followers of a different faith seems to be especially damaging. Most of the places that were conquered by Islam were Christian...and yet nearly all of the native inhabitants converted to Islam over the following century or so. There are small Christian minorities still scattered about the Arab world today...remnants of what was once the dominant religion in that part of the world.


Well then, the very fact that that &#39;golden age&#39; existed contradicts your point that with the presence of religion no progression is possible.

No it doesn&#39;t. The 19th century was very religious in Europe and North America...and progress was made on a very large scale. But the more progress was made, the less religious people became.

And note also that after 1850 or so, religion was a declared enemy of further progress. It was "getting out of hand" and people were "leaving the churches".

This will happen in the Muslim world (and the Hindu world) as well. When people are really "into" making progress, they just shove religion out of the way.

And the fundamentalists try very hard to stop that from happening.

But, in the long run, they&#39;ll lose.


Without the freedom to ponder not only on the practical but also the spiritual aspects of ourselves, we [are] denying the concept of being human; and [that] serves only to make us automatons of logic.

There&#39;s no such thing as "the spiritual aspects of ourselves"...that is meaningless babble.

And "automaton of logic" is just rhetoric -- all it means is that we are free (at last&#33;) to engage in rational thought about things that are real.


Islam does not mean &#39;submission&#39; but means &#39;surrender to god&#39;.

I am not a student of Arabic, but as I understand it, the word "islam" does mean "submission" and the word "muslim" means "one who submits". The "to God" part is understood when the words are used for a follower of Muhammad.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Aug 1 2005, 04:18 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Aug 1 2005, 04:18 PM)
viva le revolution
In fact in Islam, reading it merely in Arabic without understanding is useless...

No...you are encouraged to learn Arabic in order that you may read the Qu&#39;ran in its original language and thus understand it fully.


Did she discuss the theory or the practical application of those laws?

Why don&#39;t you click on the link and read for yourself?


Again its interpretation by fundamentalists fucks things up.

Fundamentalists are the "real Muslims"...they are the ones who really take Islam seriously.

Why is it so difficult to grasp the fact that people who take their religion seriously are always fundamentalists?

You want your ham sandwich and a beer "with a side order of Islam"?


I do not condone homosexuality personally, not because of religion, but because of a scientific standpoint. Homosexuality serves no purpose and is biologically incompatible. Procreation is not fulfilled. It serves absolutely no purpose. From that standpoint, I don&#39;t agree with the concept of homosexuality but I don&#39;t condemn them to hell or anything like that.

Curiously enough, neither does the Qu&#39;ran...at least in so many words -- I looked for a verse and couldn&#39;t find one.

Nevertheless, it&#39;s pretty clear that "Allah" doesn&#39;t like gay people much -- the story of "the destruction of Sodom by heavenly fire" is so relished by Muhammad that he repeats it in four different chapters. It&#39;s hard to believe that "Allah" wouldn&#39;t "follow through" and send all the "Sodomites" to "Hell".

As to your own "scientific" position, are you arguing that one should not have sex unless one intends to conceive a child? Or that sex for pleasure is "ok" between men and women but "not ok" between women and women or men and men?

Not that it really matters; such puritanical notions are only significant when supported by the police.


It is historically and practically impossible for such a vast institution to survive thousands of years run by only a handful of people, with no faith on the part of the general population.

Why? Most people go through the socially accepted rituals with little or no thought to the matter...until something happens that threatens the whole paradigm.

Then they re-evaluate.

If you are a rational person, then you realize that "profession of faith" means very little to one&#39;s real material concerns...except in unusual situations.


By that logic, then everybody should renounce their faith every time something catastrophic occurs; quite on the contrary, historically, adversity only serves to entrench faith more deeply.

It depends, I think, on the nature and the duration of the catastrophe. A flood or an earthquake are brief...the dead are buried and forgotten. A series of severe epidemics are more serious; one could make an argument that the European "black plague" was, in part, responsible for the crisis of Christianity that led to the Protestant Reformation. (The Roman Empire also suffered from severe epidemics during and after the 2nd century...which may have assisted the rise of Christianity itself.)

Foreign conquest by followers of a different faith seems to be especially damaging. Most of the places that were conquered by Islam were Christian...and yet nearly all of the native inhabitants converted to Islam over the following century or so. There are small Christian minorities still scattered about the Arab world today...remnants of what was once the dominant religion in that part of the world.


Well then, the very fact that that &#39;golden age&#39; existed contradicts your point that with the presence of religion no progression is possible.

No it doesn&#39;t. The 19th century was very religious in Europe and North America...and progress was made on a very large scale. But the more progress was made, the less religious people became.

And note also that after 1850 or so, religion was a declared enemy of further progress. It was "getting out of hand" and people were "leaving the churches".

This will happen in the Muslim world (and the Hindu world) as well. When people are really "into" making progress, they just shove religion out of the way.

And the fundamentalists try very hard to stop that from happening.

But, in the long run, they&#39;ll lose.


Without the freedom to ponder not only on the practical but also the spiritual aspects of ourselves, we [are] denying the concept of being human; and [that] serves only to make us automatons of logic.

There&#39;s no such thing as "the spiritual aspects of ourselves"...that is meaningless babble.

And "automaton of logic" is just rhetoric -- all it means is that we are free (at last&#33;) to engage in rational thought about things that are real.


Islam does not mean &#39;submission&#39; but means &#39;surrender to god&#39;.

I am not a student of Arabic, but as I understand it, the word "islam" does mean "submission" and the word "muslim" means "one who submits". The "to God" part is understood when the words are used for a follower of Muhammad.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif [/b]
1. There is no compulsion or force involved. The arabic language is beautiful for poetry and most of the verses are written in poetic prose. Also something gets lost in the translation. Although the gist of it is the same but certain arab words have no literal english translation. Thus learning arabic is encouraged, but there is no compulsion involved.

2. I did read it for myself. The question was directed at you comrade. Seems to me the main gist of her discussion concernes not the laws themselves but how they are put into practical use, and distorted by fundamentalists.

3. No they are not comrade. that&#39;s a simplistic thing to say. That&#39;s like saying that stalinists are the only real communists because they are the only ones who brought most of the revolutions. Like the fundamentalists they deviated from the course, just because they were the most vocal doesn&#39;t make them true representatives of communism does it?

4. Communism urges us to think in a rational and scientific way. Scientifically it leads nowhere. But that&#39;s just me. Calling me puritanical comrade? For me the only issue is the class struggle, the emancipation of the working class. That&#39;s the only thing to be accomplished in my view. This is just a side-issue that divides leftists furthur.

5. Exactly&#33; Profession of faith means little to one materially. So does not have much impact on the material condition of the person. Then why go through with it if there is no percieved benefit? because it&#39;s spiritual.

6. Natural disasters do not weaken faith, it strengthens it. You know, praying to god and such. The muslim conquests were mainly in pagan lands. The only christian realms ever conquered were egypt and spain. Egypt had the coptic church, but paganism was a signicant part of the egyptian culture and society.

7. That model is not exact to every part of the world. For instance, Europe was modernizing without outside threats, which is a vast contradiction to the islamic empire(threatened by the persians and the byzantines) and the third world today.
Fundamentalism arises when a percieved threat is facing the religion(in this case the western powers and israel). No comrade the contradictory circumstances suggest otherwise. Natural evolution of society as took place in Europe and America is practically the opposite of what is going on in the muslim world and the hindu one. which is why we need revolution to jumpstart the privatization of faith. Left alone to develop by themselves, more likely the violence is prone to spiral even more out of control.

8. Why shouldn&#39;t people be free to hold religious beliefs in the privacy of their homes. Isn&#39;t imposed athiesm just another form of oppression.

9. That;s the literal meaning, however the word is not used in casual arabic language, only as a refernce to the religion. In which case it means surrender to god.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by viva le revolution
Thus learning Arabic is encouraged, but there is no compulsion involved.

Which is exactly what I said. If you are really going to be a serious Muslim, then you are supposed to learn it.

But it is indeed "not compulsory".


Seems to me the main gist of her discussion concerns not the laws themselves but how they are put into practical use, and distorted by fundamentalists.

Well, she explicitly said that she admired Iran...that it was much closer to what an Islamic regime under Islamic "law" should be like than "Saudi" Arabia.

Presumably she "would know" better than a "disbeliever" like me. :lol:


That&#39;s a simplistic thing to say.

Sometimes things are "simple". The people who read their "holy book" and assume that it means exactly what it says are clearly far more serious about their religion than people who create a pleasing costume, elaborate makeup, flattering lighting, etc. to make a particular religion "more socially acceptable".

Isn&#39;t that what "interpretation" of a "holy book" is all about? The effort to take some blunt and unpleasant statement and say, in one sense or another, "well, it doesn&#39;t actually mean that."

The fundamentalist replies, "Yes, it does mean exactly that&#33;"

Gods and prophets know exactly what they are saying and mean every word of it.

How could it be otherwise? A "holy book" is a HOLY BOOK...it&#39;s either the "Word of God" or it&#39;s a pile of crap.

"God" forbids you to "cherry-pick" the stuff you like and ignore all the rest.


Communism urges us to think in a rational and scientific way. Scientifically it leads nowhere. But that&#39;s just me.

More specifically, it&#39;s your failure to think in a rational and scientific way about these matters.

Why you would actually prefer to wallow in medieval obscurantism is simply unknown to me...perhaps you suffer from some organic problem in your brain -- one that makes rational thought unusually difficult for you.

If that&#39;s the problem, then I really can&#39;t help you.


Calling me puritanical, comrade?...This is just a side-issue that divides leftists further.

No, it&#39;s not a "side-issue"...it speaks directly to the quality of life in post-capitalist society. If you do not grasp the liberating effect of wiping out all forms of puritanism (religious and secular), then the "new society" that you would create would be just about as bad as the one that exists right now.

That&#39;s not what I want and, therefore, at this point we are divided.


Then why go through with it if there is no perceived benefit? Because it&#39;s spiritual.

No...for most people, they "go through with it" because it&#39;s socially acceptable behavior. It&#39;s a token of "membership in the group" -- like wearing the proper clothing.

When society is entirely atheist, most people will never miss religion at all...any more than we miss wearing the clothing of Shakespeare&#39;s time.


The Muslim conquests were mainly in pagan lands.

No...all of the Middle East except Persia was Christian and so was all of North Africa and Spain. Of course, if you&#39;re talking about Afghanistan or Indonesia or someplace like that...well, you may be right. I have no idea what they believed.


Fundamentalism arises when a perceived threat is facing the religion (in this case the western powers and Israel).

No doubt. The fundamentalist sees that his faith is "weakening", becoming diluted with foreign ideas and customs, etc. He calls for a return to the principles of the "true faith" and the removal of all the "patches" and "add-ons".

You can make a strong argument that "Jesus" was a Jewish fundamentalist...who fiercely opposed the Graeco-Judaism of the Jerusalem hierarchy.

Muhammad was obviously familiar with portions of both the Jewish and the Christian "holy books" -- his own new religion was really a fundamentalist variant of those older faiths.

Along with the stuff that he borrowed from the pagans, of course...like the "holy meteorite" in Mecca.


Why shouldn&#39;t people be free to hold religious beliefs in the privacy of their homes?

I&#39;ve never proposed that they shouldn&#39;t be.

But consider. Should people be "free" to be illiterate? Should they be "free" to eat spoiled food from a broken refrigerator? Should they be "free" to suffer illness without modern medical care?

As a matter of common decency, should we "tolerate" our fellow humans being victims of superstition? If some poor sap insists on "his right" to be stupid...well, then it can&#39;t be helped. But shouldn&#39;t we make an effort to pull people out of the shit?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 02:56 AM


Which is exactly what I said. If you are really going to be a serious Muslim, then you are supposed to learn it.

But it is indeed "not compulsory".



Well, she explicitly said that she admired Iran...that it was much closer to what an Islamic regime under Islamic "law" should be like than "Saudi" Arabia.

Presumably she "would know" better than a "disbeliever" like me. :lol:



Sometimes things are "simple". The people who read their "holy book" and assume that it means exactly what it says are clearly far more serious about their religion than people who create a pleasing costume, elaborate makeup, flattering lighting, etc. to make a particular religion "more socially acceptable".

Isn&#39;t that what "interpretation" of a "holy book" is all about? The effort to take some blunt and unpleasant statement and say, in one sense or another, "well, it doesn&#39;t actually mean that."

The fundamentalist replies, "Yes, it does mean exactly that&#33;"

Gods and prophets know exactly what they are saying and mean every word of it.

How could it be otherwise? A "holy book" is a HOLY BOOK...it&#39;s either the "Word of God" or it&#39;s a pile of crap.

"God" forbids you to "cherry-pick" the stuff you like and ignore all the rest.



More specifically, it&#39;s your failure to think in a rational and scientific way about these matters.

Why you would actually prefer to wallow in medieval obscurantism is simply unknown to me...perhaps you suffer from some organic problem in your brain -- one that makes rational thought unusually difficult for you.

If that&#39;s the problem, then I really can&#39;t help you.



No, it&#39;s not a "side-issue"...it speaks directly to the quality of life in post-capitalist society. If you do not grasp the liberating effect of wiping out all forms of puritanism (religious and secular), then the "new society" that you would create would be just about as bad as the one that exists right now.

That&#39;s not what I want and, therefore, at this point we are divided.



No...for most people, they "go through with it" because it&#39;s socially acceptable behavior. It&#39;s a token of "membership in the group" -- like wearing the proper clothing.

When society is entirely atheist, most people will never miss religion at all...any more than we miss wearing the clothing of Shakespeare&#39;s time.


The Muslim conquests were mainly in pagan lands.

No...all of the Middle East except Persia was Christian and so was all of North Africa and Spain. Of course, if you&#39;re talking about Afghanistan or Indonesia or someplace like that...well, you may be right. I have no idea what they believed.


No doubt. The fundamentalist sees that his faith is "weakening", becoming diluted with foreign ideas and customs, etc. He calls for a return to the principles of the "true faith" and the removal of all the "patches" and "add-ons".

You can make a strong argument that "Jesus" was a Jewish fundamentalist...who fiercely opposed the Graeco-Judaism of the Jerusalem hierarchy.

Muhammad was obviously familiar with portions of both the Jewish and the Christian "holy books" -- his own new religion was really a fundamentalist variant of those older faiths.

Along with the stuff that he borrowed from the pagans, of course...like the "holy meteorite" in Mecca.



I&#39;ve never proposed that they shouldn&#39;t be.

But consider. Should people be "free" to be illiterate? Should they be "free" to eat spoiled food from a broken refrigerator? Should they be "free" to suffer illness without modern medical care?

As a matter of common decency, should we "tolerate" our fellow humans being victims of superstition? If some poor sap insists on "his right" to be stupid...well, then it can&#39;t be helped. But shouldn&#39;t we make an effort to pull people out of the shit?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif
1. Learning arabic does not mean that you are suddenly turned into a serious muslim, apart from the rest. on ahigher plane of thought. no, it is just meant as a &#39;perk&#39;, something out of interest, not compulsion. NOWHERE in islam is that said anywhere.That&#39;s your view how you would like to interpret it. Just like learning latin is not the mark of a &#39;serious&#39; christian.

2. The iranian revolution was fought against the shah who was a puppet of the west and was supported even by the leftist parties of Iran initially. It was fought on a nationalistic front. Perhaps she is referring to the more moderate tone of Iran as compared to saudi arabia. If you read into the details of the Iranian revolution, you would find that Khomeini did not believe in rule by the ulema. he also advocated a democracy. However after his demise, the mullahs fucked it all up.
I can&#39;t answer for her nor ponder as to why she admires Iran, suffice it to say that i don&#39;t.

3. That depends which view you would rather listen to. The fundamentalist view( so popular nowadays) or the moderate view. The fundamentalists are not the true representatives of the faith, so there is no question about whether they are more serious or not. Like the exmple of the stalinists i gave before, just because a group is more vocal and conspicous does not make them the representatives of that ideology.
Interpretation of a holy book is not taking a literalist stance, that goes against the notion of interpretation, dismissing an idea without properly reasearching it is also taking a literalist stance.
Saying that oh.. this is fucked up... look at all the crap the mullahs are saying and doing, that means that the religion MUST be bad. Let me bring up the point that islam has no priesthood, so the actions of mullahs are not a representation of faith, because no such group exists, just a group of wackos giving their opinions and forcing them down the people&#39;s throats. The mullahs have no authority under islam to impose their views.
Cherry-picking is forbidden, now you are going by the protestant stance of hings, in fact islam does encourage pondering on facts of life and applying your own thought to religious doctrines.
Merely giving the choices of either following the word of god or not being a muslim is also literalist. A simplistic stance.Either you are with or against us. not much room left.

4. You still haven&#39;t given me a proper answer, how does it benefit society? what scientific role does it function? Just insulted my intelligence and gave me the proverbial &#39;go to hell&#39;.

5. But isn&#39;t communism about class struggle. Doesn&#39;t it advocate that once the working class is liberated then all those oppressing strictures of society would vanish? so then shouldn&#39;t our main aim be to liberate the proletariat?
My stance on this is that at present that is a job for the liberals and reformists. Leave class struggle to us. That should be our main aim should it not?

6. Well that&#39;s an entirely subjective view. For the first world maybe, but here in the third world religion does play a part in every day life, not purely cosmetic.
That&#39;s where we differ, from what i can gather(i may be wrong) but your society would impose athiesm and abolish religion altogether, while i believe in the abolishment of the public face of religion and the privatization of faith.

7. Proportionally, the conquered muslim lands were more pagan than christian. For example in egypt cults of egyptian pantheon were popular at the time alongside the coptic church. The middle east was also predominantly pagan, although classified as christian because of the byzantine conquests ther, the byzantine empire was christian.

8. Actually the kaabah was according to muslim tradition, built by Abraham and his elder son Ishmael. The holy meteorite was placed there at that time by Abraham himself. Not pagan at all, although they did take over the kaabah afterwards.

9. So in other words YOU view religion as stupid, so the world has to accept that?
i am for privatization of the faith, so naturally in your view that would liberate most of the people from those forced attendance, being part of a group and all... so invariably that would lead to secularization right? So why go after it so forcefully. As i said before imposed athiesm=imposed religion.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by viva le revolution
Just like learning Latin is not the mark of a &#39;serious&#39; Christian.

Up through the 19th century, it was indeed one of the marks of a serious Christian to learn Latin...but Greek even more so (the books of the New Testament were all originally written in Greek). The especially dedicated learned Hebrew. (&#33;)


I can&#39;t answer for her nor ponder as to why she admires Iran, suffice it to say that I don&#39;t.

Well, that&#39;s good to hear. But is it because the mullahs "fucked things up" or because you are more inclined to the Sunni version of Islam than the Shiite version.

Of the two, the Sunni version is, of course, much more fundamentalist.


That depends which view you would rather listen to. The fundamentalist view (so popular nowadays) or the moderate view. The fundamentalists are not the true representatives of the faith...

Why not?

Why do you assert, over and over again, that the very people who make the most effort to stick to the literal "truth" of their revelation (whatever it might be) "are not" the "true" representatives of their faith?

It sounds to me like your "personal vision" of Islam is like a social democrat&#39;s vision of "Marxism". You pay lip service to the Qu&#39;ran but shrink from actually carrying out what Muhammad told you that "God" wanted you to do.

Nothing wrong with that, of course, in the case of religion...the less serious about it one is, the better things are for all the innocent bystanders.

But your personal distaste for the rigors of fundamentalist Islam should not blind you to the fact that they are the seriously faithful.


...look at all the crap the mullahs are saying and doing, that means that the religion MUST be bad.

Yes, that&#39;s what it means.

And it&#39;s not just the mullahs, either. There are serious Muslims all over the Muslim world and even in Europe who echo the mullahs. There was a well-known Muslim in Spain last year who wrote and published a book on Islam which included appropriate instructions for wife-beating. This caused a "big fuss" in the Spanish press -- but I don&#39;t remember any Muslim "moderates" denouncing him.

In fact, I&#39;ve never heard of a prominent Muslim teacher/preacher coming right out and publicly saying "don&#39;t hit women", period.

Because if they did that, then that would be saying that the infamous verse in the Qu&#39;ran is just plain wrong.

And they can&#39;t say that because the Qu&#39;ran is the "literal word of God".


The mullahs have no authority under Islam to impose their views.

Technically speaking, you are probably right about that. But in practical terms, religions always develop a de facto clergy...people who have "intensely studied" the "holy book" and who are widely regarded as "authorities" on its content and meaning.

A rabbi is not a "clergyman" in the Christian sense; he is a "teacher" and "interpretor" of the "Law", that&#39;s all. But when the rabbi speaks, serious Jews pay careful attention.


...in fact Islam does encourage pondering on facts of life and applying your own thought to religious doctrines.

I&#39;m not aware of any passage in the Qu&#39;ran that encourages this sort of attitude.

You do have some latitude; if you are very poor or disabled, you may skip the pilgrimage to Mecca, for example. If there is no water to wash your hands before prayer, you may symbolically cleanse yourself with dirt or sand. Allah accepts pious intentions and does not demand the impossible.

But here is something you have not considered. Muhammad, speaking with the "voice of Allah", repeatedly commands the pious not to make friends with disbelievers and to avoid them whenever possible.

So here you are on a lefty message board -- with an overwhelming majority of "disbelievers".

How can you "justify" this? When you appear "before Allah", are you going to say that you were just here to "save souls"?

How can you be part of a movement of "godless communists" when you&#39;ve been commanded by Allah to do no such thing?


Either you are with or against us. Not much room left.

It&#39;s interesting how so many people balk at that phrase...perhaps the only time in George W. Bush&#39;s life that he has ever made a true statement in public.

And it is a true statement. When it comes to Bush, I am against him...across the board.

When it comes to all forms of superstition, puritanism, etc., I am against them...across the board.

I am against capitalism in all its forms...including the "socialist" ones.

I am, I suppose you would say, a "fundamentalist commie"...I take it very seriously indeed and am in no mood for "fooling around".


You still haven&#39;t given me a proper answer, how does it benefit society?

How does what benefit society? Rational and scientific thinking?

Are you serious?


But isn&#39;t communism about class struggle? Doesn&#39;t it advocate that once the working class is liberated, then all those oppressing structures of society would vanish?

The answer to your first question is yes.

The answer to your second question is, indeed, controversial among communists. Marx and Engels did think that all the "derivative" forms of oppression would "wither away" once their material foundations had been removed.

But experience has taught us a different lesson; that "all the old shit" doesn&#39;t just "go away quietly"...it has "historical inertia".

If we want a new society free from racism, sexism, homophobia, puritanism, superstition, etc., then those things must be struggled for right now...as an integrated part of what it means to struggle for communism itself.

If we fail with regard to any of those things, then the outcome of our struggle will be grim indeed. Those reactionary views are fully capable of subverting the entire communist project and bringing about counter-revolution itself.


For the first world maybe, but here in the third world, religion does play a part in every day life, not purely cosmetic.

Well, backward countries are indeed oppressed by wide-spread superstition. People take it far more seriously than in the "west". Nevertheless, we know from history that when a people of one religion is conquered by people of a different religion, then waves of conversion to the religion of the conquerer do emerge...and eventually prevail.


The holy meteorite was placed there at that time by Abraham himself. Not pagan at all...

Yes, but Muhammad made that up. The meteorite was worshiped by pagans for many centuries before Muhammad incorporated it into Islam.


So in other words YOU view religion as stupid, so the world has to accept that?

The rational world is accepting that view anyway. A mere 300 years ago, you would have been hard pressed to find a living atheist anywhere on the planet.

Now some 15% of humanity has abandoned the gods for good.

The end of religion does not mean the end of all stupidity...but it does mean the end of a particularly cruel and vicious stupidity.

Anything I can do to accelerate this process strikes me as "a good thing to do".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[LSD]

Originally posted by redstar2000

You still haven&#39;t given me a proper answer, how does it benefit society?

How does what benefit society?


He&#39;s talking about homosexuality. <_<

Viva, how does heterosexuality "benefit society"? Most heterosexual sexual acts do not result in children, and an increasingly high number of heterosexual relationships never have children. But I don&#39;t see you "not condoing" childless couples.

Simply put, any loving relationship bennefits society by giving happiness and confort to the people involved. But, seriously, who even gives a damn?

The question isn&#39;t does it "bennefit" society, it&#39;s does it hurt society, does it hurt anyone. If not, then its none of your damn business&#33; Me making myself a bluberry pie doesn&#39;t "help society" ....does that mean that you "don&#39;t condone" my eating pie? Maybe you "don&#39;t agree with the concept of" pie? :D

If you want to claim to be scientific, then you need to be scientific. You need to rationaly and logically answer the question what makes homosexual relationships any less desriable than heterosexual ones?


Homosexuality serves no purpose and is biologically incompatible. Procreation is not fulfilled. It serves absolutely no purpose.

:lol:

Having children? Is that it? Homosexual sex (like most heterosexual sex) doesn&#39;t result in procreation therefore it&#39;s "wrong"&#33;? What the hell is the logic in that?

Almost everything doesn&#39;t result in procreation&#33;

What&#39;s the "purpose" in having friends? What&#39;s the "purpose" in you and friends playing sports?

Think carefully before you answer that question, however, because any argument for why you and your friend should be able to play football is equally valid for why you and your friend should be able to have sex.

Freedom means freedom.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 01:35 PM


Up through the 19th century, it was indeed one of the marks of a serious Christian to learn Latin...but Greek even more so (the books of the New Testament were all originally written in Greek). The especially dedicated learned Hebrew. (&#33;)


I can&#39;t answer for her nor ponder as to why she admires Iran, suffice it to say that I don&#39;t.

Well, that&#39;s good to hear. But is it because the mullahs "fucked things up" or because you are more inclined to the Sunni version of Islam than the Shiite version.

Of the two, the Sunni version is, of course, much more fundamentalist.


That depends which view you would rather listen to. The fundamentalist view (so popular nowadays) or the moderate view. The fundamentalists are not the true representatives of the faith...

Why not?

Why do you assert, over and over again, that the very people who make the most effort to stick to the literal "truth" of their revelation (whatever it might be) "are not" the "true" representatives of their faith?

It sounds to me like your "personal vision" of Islam is like a social democrat&#39;s vision of "Marxism". You pay lip service to the Qu&#39;ran but shrink from actually carrying out what Muhammad told you that "God" wanted you to do.

Nothing wrong with that, of course, in the case of religion...the less serious about it one is, the better things are for all the innocent bystanders.

But your personal distaste for the rigors of fundamentalist Islam should not blind you to the fact that they are the seriously faithful.



Yes, that&#39;s what it means.

And it&#39;s not just the mullahs, either. There are serious Muslims all over the Muslim world and even in Europe who echo the mullahs. There was a well-known Muslim in Spain last year who wrote and published a book on Islam which included appropriate instructions for wife-beating. This caused a "big fuss" in the Spanish press -- but I don&#39;t remember any Muslim "moderates" denouncing him.

In fact, I&#39;ve never heard of a prominent Muslim teacher/preacher coming right out and publicly saying "don&#39;t hit women", period.

Because if they did that, then that would be saying that the infamous verse in the Qu&#39;ran is just plain wrong.

And they can&#39;t say that because the Qu&#39;ran is the "literal word of God".


Technically speaking, you are probably right about that. But in practical terms, religions always develop a de facto clergy...people who have "intensely studied" the "holy book" and who are widely regarded as "authorities" on its content and meaning.

A rabbi is not a "clergyman" in the Christian sense; he is a "teacher" and "interpretor" of the "Law", that&#39;s all. But when the rabbi speaks, serious Jews pay careful attention.



I&#39;m not aware of any passage in the Qu&#39;ran that encourages this sort of attitude.

You do have some latitude; if you are very poor or disabled, you may skip the pilgrimage to Mecca, for example. If there is no water to wash your hands before prayer, you may symbolically cleanse yourself with dirt or sand. Allah accepts pious intentions and does not demand the impossible.

But here is something you have not considered. Muhammad, speaking with the "voice of Allah", repeatedly commands the pious not to make friends with disbelievers and to avoid them whenever possible.

So here you are on a lefty message board -- with an overwhelming majority of "disbelievers".

How can you "justify" this? When you appear "before Allah", are you going to say that you were just here to "save souls"?

How can you be part of a movement of "godless communists" when you&#39;ve been commanded by Allah to do no such thing?



It&#39;s interesting how so many people balk at that phrase...perhaps the only time in George W. Bush&#39;s life that he has ever made a true statement in public.

And it is a true statement. When it comes to Bush, I am against him...across the board.

When it comes to all forms of superstition, puritanism, etc., I am against them...across the board.

I am against capitalism in all its forms...including the "socialist" ones.

I am, I suppose you would say, a "fundamentalist commie"...I take it very seriously indeed and am in no mood for "fooling around".


You still haven&#39;t given me a proper answer, how does it benefit society?

How does what benefit society? Rational and scientific thinking?

Are you serious?


But isn&#39;t communism about class struggle? Doesn&#39;t it advocate that once the working class is liberated, then all those oppressing structures of society would vanish?

The answer to your first question is yes.

The answer to your second question is, indeed, controversial among communists. Marx and Engels did think that all the "derivative" forms of oppression would "wither away" once their material foundations had been removed.

But experience has taught us a different lesson; that "all the old shit" doesn&#39;t just "go away quietly"...it has "historical inertia".

If we want a new society free from racism, sexism, homophobia, puritanism, superstition, etc., then those things must be struggled for right now...as an integrated part of what it means to struggle for communism itself.

If we fail with regard to any of those things, then the outcome of our struggle will be grim indeed. Those reactionary views are fully capable of subverting the entire communist project and bringing about counter-revolution itself.


For the first world maybe, but here in the third world, religion does play a part in every day life, not purely cosmetic.

Well, backward countries are indeed oppressed by wide-spread superstition. People take it far more seriously than in the "west". Nevertheless, we know from history that when a people of one religion is conquered by people of a different religion, then waves of conversion to the religion of the conquerer do emerge...and eventually prevail.



Yes, but Muhammad made that up. The meteorite was worshiped by pagans for many centuries before Muhammad incorporated it into Islam.


So in other words YOU view religion as stupid, so the world has to accept that?

The rational world is accepting that view anyway. A mere 300 years ago, you would have been hard pressed to find a living atheist anywhere on the planet.

Now some 15% of humanity has abandoned the gods for good.

The end of religion does not mean the end of all stupidity...but it does mean the end of a particularly cruel and vicious stupidity.

Anything I can do to accelerate this process strikes me as "a good thing to do".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif
1.Well the christian faith has an established clergy...which is why it relies mostly on interpretation by an elite as one of it&#39;s fundamental principals. thus arises the trend of a special language as a form of communicatio exclusive to that elite few. Since no such principal exists in Islam, there is no persepective of learning a language out of religious need. The situations are vastly different.
2. Well read just under my avatar. That will give you some idea of my principals concerning society. To be more specific yes, beacuse the mullahs fucked things up. Since the mullahs are not supposed to exist in the first place, it is inevitable for them to fuck things up.
3. No my personal vision of islam is as a PRIVATE faith the way it SHOULD be. The fundamentalists and mullahs are not even sanctioned in islam, so how can they be the true representatives of the faith? Seriously faithful? if they were then they wouldn&#39;t impose their views on others because that&#39;s just a mutilation of islam.
Comrade, don&#39;t go on the image of islam projected in the media.
4. I can&#39;t account for the action of individuals nor verses handed down thousands of years ago. it was revealed in light of social conditions of those times.
5. on that i agree, the arising of a de0facto priesthood is inevitable, which is why it must be smashed.
6. Well maybe you would aware of such passages if you read the quran in it&#39;s entirety. not just portions of it. Those sayings of muhammed were in the context of arabia in those times when the muslims were persecuted by the pagans. This was in light of the chieftain of Medina who befriended the quraish pagan tribe of mecca and subsequently stabbed the muslim community of medina in the back by colluding with the meccans.
Does that have any relation to modern times, no. because islam espouses tolerance, that is clear contradiction to that statement. again it is just the interpretation and the practical application of this by the fundamentalists that has brought forward this warped version of islam.
7. Glad to hear that comrade. I doubt anybody here is a fan of bush and superstition(fundamentalist).
8. In my experience, such issues brought to the forfront instead of class struggle only serves to divide not unify.
9. And Abraham came many centuries before Muhammed. The meteorite was plced many centuries before muhammed. It&#39;s not an object of worship but an object of reverance in it&#39;s connection with Abraham.
10. 15% Then the majority still believes in god, then tell me being against religion as a private belief itself and advocating it&#39;s abolishment, how is that supposed to attract the majority that do believe in god? Then that would be rule of a minority viewpoint would it not? In other words an ELITE.

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 2 2005, 08:08 PM



He&#39;s talking about homosexuality. <_<

Viva, how does heterosexuality "benefit society"? Most heterosexual sexual acts do not result in children, and an increasingly high number of heterosexual relationships never have children. But I don&#39;t see you "not condoing" childless couples.

Simply put, any loving relationship bennefits society by giving happiness and confort to the people involved. But, seriously, who even gives a damn?

The question isn&#39;t does it "bennefit" society, it&#39;s does it hurt society, does it hurt anyone. If not, then its none of your damn business&#33; Me making myself a bluberry pie doesn&#39;t "help society" ....does that mean that you "don&#39;t condone" my eating pie? Maybe you "don&#39;t agree with the concept of" pie? :D

If you want to claim to be scientific, then you need to be scientific. You need to rationaly and logically answer the question what makes homosexual relationships any less desriable than heterosexual ones?


Homosexuality serves no purpose and is biologically incompatible. Procreation is not fulfilled. It serves absolutely no purpose.

:lol:

Having children? Is that it? Homosexual sex (like most heterosexual sex) doesn&#39;t result in procreation therefore it&#39;s "wrong"&#33;? What the hell is the logic in that?

Almost everything doesn&#39;t result in procreation&#33;

What&#39;s the "purpose" in having friends? What&#39;s the "purpose" in you and friends playing sports?

Think carefully before you answer that question, however, because any argument for why you and your friend should be able to play football is equally valid for why you and your friend should be able to have sex.

Freedom means freedom.


Redstar2000:

There&#39;s no such thing as "the spiritual aspects of ourselves"...that is meaningless babble.

And "automaton of logic" is just rhetoric -- all it means is that we are free (at last&#33;) to engage in rational thought about things that are real.


Lsd:


Freedom means freedom.


I think you misunderstood my point. The above was stated by redstar2000, my contention is that since procreation is impossible in homosexual relationships, then it must not be the need for procreating that attracts homosexuals to each other... but a deeper spiritual thing. Thus the spiritual aspects of ourselves come into play.
Redstar in his statement has dismissed such talk as non-sense and dismissed the spiritual aspects of ourselves as rubbish. My contention is that then why does he recognize homosexuality as legitimate, something that arises out of pure spirituality,if everything spiritual is rubbish. This was not meant as a homophobic statement do not misunderstand me on this.

I agree freedom means freedom. if homosexuality is recognized, something that is purely spiritual free from the primal impulse of procreation, then why not private belief in religion, another thing that is spiritual. Kind of sounds like a double standard, doesn&#39;t it?

[LSD]

I think you misunderstood my point. The above was stated by redstar2000, my contention is that since procreation is impossible in homosexual relationships, then it must not be the need for procreating that attracts homosexuals to each other

Of course not. Like with heterosexuals, it&#39;s just the right combinations of hormones and neuronic firings that leads to emotional desire; neurological patterns that we have labeled "attraction". In the case of heteroexual attraction these patterns evoloved because of a need for procreation, but people are not attracted to one another out of a desire to reproduce&#33; Rather it is the patterns themselves that are the attraction.

With homosexual, the evolutionary development of those patterns is more complex, but those patterns are no less biological or real.


but a deeper spiritual thing.

Not spiritual, psychological and biological. "Spiritual" is a made up concept.


Thus the spiritual aspects of ourselves come into play.

No need&#33;

By all indications, attraction and love can be fully explained as psycho-biological, there is no need for the "spiritual".


My contention is that then why does he recognize homosexuality as legitimate

Because he doesn&#39;t have any reason not to.

Do you?


if homosexuality is recognized, something that is purely spiritual free from the primal impulse of procreation, then why not private belief in religion

Because homosexuality isn&#39;t "belief", it&#39;s attraction. It doesn&#39;t require irrationality or "faith" like religion does, it doesn&#39;t colour everything that one does like religion does, it doesn&#39;t demand an abandonment of logic like religion does, and, most importantly, it isn&#39;t founded on a lie like religion is.

By the way, comparing religion to homosexuality is a very weak analogy. It would be much better to compare it to another belief system ...like racism&#33;

Racism, like religion, is based on unscientific assertions, demands abandonment of logic, glorified the group at the expense of outsiders, and often tries to shroud itself in the cloak of pseudoscience.

Religion should be treated like racism. Racists shouldn&#39;t be killed, shouldn&#39;t be tortured, shoudln&#39;t be "oppressed", but we should try all that we can to educate and inform them. People are generally intelligent. If they are in an environment in which they are confronted with the ludicrousness and futility of their beliefs, they will eventually turn around. It&#39;s no different with religion.

Already, we see the "God of the gaps" emerging, in which religion is used to explain merely those things which science cannot. As we are able to provide more and more actual answers, the gaps will grow smaller and smaller.


This was not meant as a homophobic statement do not misunderstand me on this.

Really?

Explain:

I do not condone homosexuality personally, not because of religion, but becauise of a scientific standpoint ... From that standpoint, i don&#39;t agree with the concept of homosexuality but i don&#39;t condemn them to hell or anything like that.


Personally, i am not all pro-gay, i don&#39;t condone it personally. But that&#39;s just me.

If that&#39;s not homophobia, what is?

[viva le revolution]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 2 2005, 11:19 PM


Of course not. Like with heterosexuals, it&#39;s just the right combinations of hormones and neuronic firings that leads to emotional desire; neurological patterns that we have labeled "attraction". In the case of heteroexual attraction these patterns evoloved because of a need for procreation, but people are not attracted to one another out of a desire to reproduce&#33; Rather it is the patterns themselves that are the attraction.

With homosexual, the evolutionary development of those patterns is more complex, but those patterns are no less biological or real.



Not spiritual, psychological and biological. "Spiritual" is a made up concept.


Thus the spiritual aspects of ourselves come into play.

No need&#33;

By all indications, attraction and love can be fully explained as psycho-biological, there is no need for the "spiritual".


My contention is that then why does he recognize homosexuality as legitimate

Because he doesn&#39;t have any reason not to.

Do you?


if homosexuality is recognized, something that is purely spiritual free from the primal impulse of procreation, then why not private belief in religion

Because homosexuality isn&#39;t "belief", it&#39;s attraction. It doesn&#39;t require irrationality or "faith" like religion does, it doesn&#39;t colour everything that one does like religion does, it doesn&#39;t demand an abandonment of logic like religion does, and, most importantly, it isn&#39;t founded on a lie like religion is.

By the way, comparing religion to homosexuality is a very weak analogy. It would be much better to compare it to another belief system ...like racism&#33;

Racism, like religion, is based on unscientific assertions, demands abandonment of logic, glorified the group at the expense of outsiders, and often tries to shroud itself in the cloak of pseudoscience.

Religion should be treated like racism. Racists shouldn&#39;t be killed, shouldn&#39;t be tortured, shoudln&#39;t be "oppressed", but we should try all that we can to educate and inform them. People are generally intelligent. If they are in an environment in which they are confronted with the ludicrousness and futility of their beliefs, they will eventually turn around. It&#39;s no different with religion.

Already, we see the "God of the gaps" emerging, in which religion is used to explain merely those things which science cannot. As we are able to provide more and more actual answers, the gaps will grow smaller and smaller.


This was not meant as a homophobic statement do not misunderstand me on this.

Really?

Explain:

I do not condone homosexuality personally, not because of religion, but becauise of a scientific standpoint ... From that standpoint, i don&#39;t agree with the concept of homosexuality but i don&#39;t condemn them to hell or anything like that.


Personally, i am not all pro-gay, i don&#39;t condone it personally. But that&#39;s just me.

If that&#39;s not homophobia, what is?
Well what about certain things such as personality and love. You are basically stating WHY the attraction takes place, not accounting for factors that make people choose their partners. That kind of rationality basically breaks us down to primal animals who can&#39;t keep their dong in thier pants. No there is much else involved than mere biology.
No it is not a made-up concept. That&#39;s your view, but cannot account for the intricancies involved in relationships and the criteria each individual has in selecting a partner. Psychology is still largely a subjective science not an objective one since no two people have the exact mode of thinking.

My full quote:My contention is that then why does he recognize homosexuality as legitimate, something that arises out of pure spirituality,if everything spiritual is rubbish.

please don&#39;t post half quotes to try to insult my intelligence comrade. I&#39;m sure proper arguement will suffice, i know it&#39;s convenient to try to get your point across but please regard statements in the light in which they are given. don&#39;t try to misconstrue it as something else.



Do those statements prove me to be a homophobic. because homophobia is actually acting out those impulses. It is a matter of private opinion. Please bring to light ANY statement made by me that states that homosexuals should be oppressed or ostracized. I may not like it, but i respect the homosexual&#39;s right to exist and his right to do as he pleases. I repeat, ANY example of any such statement i have given. You see because i view communism as the class struggle as it is happening here in the third world, where material wealth and the conflict that follows is the supreme concern. or do you hold every communist against a preconcieved yardstick. oh..he doesn&#39;t like cheese so he CAN&#39;T possibly be a communist&#33;
In my opinion focus on these relatively minor issues, the concept of homophobia, racism etc. was introduced to keep the working class divided, so the bigger picture is bourgeois vs. the proletariat, enforcing these notions as a means of control. Then according to that rationale shouldn&#39;t we then be focusing on the root of the problem, ie. class struggle.
For me that IS the major struggle. all other issues take a back seat. But apparently in the first-world that isn&#39;t the case, which would explain the rise of social democracy as a replacement of revolutionary communism.
To sum it all, i would like to ask a question, I don&#39;t see homosexuality as a major issue, since it all comes out of class oppression, does that make anyone less of a communist? Do i wholeheartedly have to embrace homosexuality as a major issue to be a communist, then there is a major difference in first-world and third-world communism comrade.

[redstar2000]

At a meeting in Bankstown earlier this month, an excerpt of which was broadcast on Channel Nine’s 60 Minutes program last Sunday, US imam Sheik Khalid Yasin said Islamic law prescribed the death penalty for gay sex.

“The sharia is very clear about it, the punishment for homosexuality, bestiality or anything like that is death. We don’t make any excuses about that, it’s not our law — it’s the Koran,” Yasin was quoted as saying.

Yasin, who is understood to be visiting Australia at the invitation of a Sydney mosque, also said young Muslims should avoid attending university because it was a “gateway for deviation”.

http://www.ssonet.com.au/display.asp?ArticleID=4523

"Moderate" Muslims predictably denounced the statement, of course.

But one of them was imprudent enough to reveal the real motive for the denunciation...


And while Islam did not condone homosexuality, Yasin’s anti-gay remarks were still unwelcome, Mehboob said.

“I don’t think Sheik Yasin’s comments in this environment have helped the debate in the right direction. It has only caused undue conflict and divisions in our society,” he said.

In other words, Yasin was "making unnecessary waves" and "causing problems" for Islam...in Australia.

It&#39;s not that Yasin was wrong...but rather that he was indiscreet in blurting out the truth in an inappropriate location.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[KC]

Communism, in my view is not an attack on religion itself but an attack on organized religion and the religious establishment9THE CHURCH, PRIESTHOOD ETC.)

Actually, it is an attack on both. Communists use logic to explain things, and as religion is illogical, communists can&#39;t believe in religion. It&#39;s a contradiction.



religion as a private belief is not at all bad.

It&#39;s not BAD, it&#39;s just illogical. (and contradictory to communist thought)


Such statements that religion as a belief should be abolished etc. will only make us more enemies and is quite a fatalistic way of thinking.

Religion shouldn&#39;t be hunted down and destroyed, nor abolished. But one can&#39;t be both communist and religious, unless you can explain your belief with LOGIC.

[LSD]

Well what about certain things such as personality and love.

Well what is "personality" and "love"?

Our personalities are created by the interaction of our genetically determined brain with the environment. Neuronic patterns are fomed which fire in such a fashion as to make us think, believe, and feel in certain ways.

And since there are an infinite number of combinations thereof, there are an infinite number of personalities possible.


You are basically stating WHY the attraction takes place, not accounting for factors that make people choose their partners.

No, I&#39;m doing both.

People choose their partners based on attraction, attraction is a factor of personality and experience.


That kind of rationality basically breaks us down to primal animals who can&#39;t keep their dong in thier pants.

Not at all. It just makes us real, not some sort of transcendent spiritual being, but actual flesh and blood animals. Animals who have evolved intelligence and rationality ...so we should use it&#33; We should analyze ourselves and our species and realize that we are "primal animals" and that our brains are tangible organs.

Our minds are not "spiritual", they are very much physical. They are humps of cells and fat and electrical impulses so advanced and so evolved that they are capable of love and creation and reason. They are collections of carbon atoms that have dreamed up sonnets and invented space travel. Imagining that it was "spirits" that did all this, that it was our "souls" reduces us.

If we are "spiritual" then what we have accomplished is meaningless. Great things are to be expected from transcendent beings. But if we are nothing more than animals, then what we have done is earth-shattering.

You see rationality doesn&#39;t denigrate us, it elevates us.


No there is much else involved than mere biology.

An assertion like this requires evidence.

We have proof that the physical brain exists, we have evidence that psychological factors exist. At present, we have no evidence for "spirits".


Do those statements prove me to be a homophobic.

Yes.

Here&#39;s an experiment. Let&#39;s replace homophobic with being African-American.

"I do not condone being African American personally, not because of religion, but becauise of a scientific standpoint ... From that standpoint, i don&#39;t agree with the concept of being African American".

Sound racist?


because homophobia is actually acting out those impulses.

No it isn&#39;t, it&#39;s having them.

If racism were only "acting" on racist sentiments, I guess that the KKK isn&#39;t racist anymore. After all, they hardly ever act nowadays. All they do is talk...


It is a matter of private opinion.

Yes, a homophobic one.

Private opinions can be prejeduced, most hateful opinions are.


I may not like it [homosexuality]

WHY?


In my opinion focus on these relatively minor issues, the concept of homophobia, racism etc. was introduced to keep the working class divided

And you help keep it devided when you embrace homophobia&#33;

You&#39;re damn right that racism and homophobia are tools used to keep workers divded and weak, so&#39;s religion. The way to fight back is to not buy into it.

[red_orchestra]

In keeping with the tradition of Communism, organised religion should be abolished. Plain and simple.

for your info:

Buddhism: Certainly, this is a religion worth investigating. But remember it has its conservative religious side just like any other religion. Just take one look at the Soka Gakkai and its ties with the Komeito Party in Japan. These guys are radical Buddhist Neo-Cons who are interested in taking over Japan. These guys are BAD news.

The JSP (Japanese Socialist Party) has ties with the Jodo-Shin, Shingon, and Soto Zen Buddhist groups are very much Leftist groups....maybe read more on these guys??
----------------

[Ele'ill]

If I saw a leftist political party fall into power and abolish religion that&#39;s one thing, ..
but if they then turned around and started appointing which religions were legitimate that would not fly very well. I don&#39;t think they&#39;d make if out of the abolish religion phase.
Too many of the proletariat are religious. The revolution would never get off the ground. And if this abolishment of religion was done so afterwards there would be a counter revolution against the revolutionary movment which would be very dangerous because who knows who&#39;d end up with power.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Mari3L
Too many of the proletariat are religious. The revolution would never get off the ground.

Too many of the proletariat are also patriotic, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

At the present time, the proletariat is too fucked up to make a revolution...and so one is not being made.

Will this be true in 2050? In 2100? In 2150?

That&#39;s the real question...will the working class remain entrapped in reaction or will it break out and become revolutionary?

IF Marx was right, then the proletariat will become revolutionary. And if he was wrong, then presumably some form of capitalism will endure into the indefinite future.

Though even then, the future of religion is not very bright...capitalism itself is, at its roots, entirely secular. The restless search for profit is like an acid that eats away at anything that does not serve its purpose.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by viva le revolution
Then the majority still believes in god, then tell me being against religion as a private belief itself and advocating it&#39;s abolishment, how is that supposed to attract the majority that do believe in god?

It won&#39;t and I don&#39;t expect it to.

But the majority who "believe in god" is shrinking as people inevitably become more familiar with a scientific way of looking at things.

(That&#39;s why Christian fundamentalists are opposed to science teaching in schools...and why that imam wants Muslim kids to avoid attending universities.)

It&#39;s my hypothesis that a "believing proletariat" cannot make an enduring communist revolution...even if they win momentary power, they soon fall "back into the shit".

But there are a growing number of countries (in western Europe) where the majority of the working class no longer believes.

And they have a real chance -- when the time comes -- of being victorious in the long run.

Sooner or later, that will be the situation in every country in the world.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Capitalist Lawyer]

The restless search for profit is like an acid that eats away at anything that does not serve its purpose.

Interesting comment, can you give me a few examples? What has been eaten away?

What about the family? It&#39;s still around and I don&#39;t know how a family serves the profit making purpose.


then the proletariat will become revolutionary.

What&#39;s so great about a proletariat revolution? I might be confused here, do you communists SUPPORT a proletariat revolution or are you just saying that it&#39;s inevitable and that you don&#39;t support or support it?

I mean predicting a proletariat revolution isn&#39;t too far fetched but does that make someone a Marxist or a communist if they just merely think that a proletariat revolution is inevitable?

[KC]

Interesting comment, can you give me a few examples? What has been eaten away?

I suggest you go see "The Corporation." It&#39;s a documentary that basically covers everything that&#39;s been "eaten away" in the fight for profits.

[Oldergod]

wow i forgot all about this thread and yall made it more than what it should have been...

first of all...vive le revolution...thanks for holdin it down...

second of all...there are many different inturpretations of the Qu&#39;ran...to say that muslim women "dont count" is fuckin ignorant...my girlfriend is muslim and she counts...so what the fuck are you talking about? shes a sunni muslim and i intend on becoming a sunni muslim...the shi&#39;ites are the ones that take the Qu&#39;ran to the extreme....as a sunni...my girl does not wear a fuckin cover all day...she doesnt have to cover her face...none of that shit...the way you understand the book is the way you follow it...IT IS WRITTEN that women have to cover up from head to toe...but you can choose to follow it or not if you think it will please Allah...if you dont think Allah will mind...then dont...you&#39;ll find out when you die...ahah


im really getting sick and tired of these discussions about gay people on this site...ill be TOTALLY honest with you people...i dont favor homosexuality and i do think its un-natural...but i believe like religion it should be kept in the fuckin closet...im not going to go parade around telling everyone im a muslim..i dont wanna hear about you being gay...fuck do i care? leave it alone and dont act all flamboyant around me...i dont go in front of you and pray...certain things should just be kept quiet...someones sexual preference and someones religion are a couple of those things...you dont need to know and i dont need to tell you...leave it alone...does it matter that i dont like homosexuality? i dont think so...i dont go around herassing gay people...cause i dont occupy with them...because my thoughts on homosexuality are MINE...im not forcing my hand on anyone...i keep my beliefs and my religions and my political ideas TO MYSELF...you should too...


that also goes for my influence in politics...NO my religion will not influence me at all with my political views...first of all someone here said something communism and islam dont mix...or something...honestly i dont give a shit cause im not a communist....as far as im concerned socialism gives me the freedom to be a muslim...i dont see why it doesnt...and like i said before...even if i am a muslim...why would everyone else know? when i go vote im not thinking "is this what Allah wants?" no...im thinking "is this good for the people?" as everyone on earth should...keep religion in the closet...where it belongs


keep in mind though im NOT a muslim...im studying to become one....a few years ago i&#39;ve lost god but im trying to find him again in the scriptures of islam...someone here asked me to explain why i think atheism is a horrible thing...alright...

every religion is based on one simple element...fear...we all as humans fear the same thing...death...but with religion...we are meant to believe that there is an afterlife...all religions talk of an afterlife..."is there a god?" "yes" "well will i ever see him?" "yes..when you die"...simple as that theres an after life...it promises that SOMETHING WILL HAPPEN after we die...and its comforting to know...

as an atheist....we dont have that...as an atheist we dont have that comfort of knowing after we die that theres something later...as atheists we KNOW that after you die...your DEAD...its over...fuck it...everything you&#39;ve done while you were alive doesnt count....and thats a scary fuckin feeling...i know it is cause i cant sleep at night...and if it doesnt bother you than your not really an atheist cause you havent even thought about it....but i do...and thats not a feeling i want...im not studying islam for an afterlife...i already have it drilled in my head that theres no afterlife...but im just doing it for the search...to see if ill find SOMETHING...and you&#39;ll probably say "theres nothing there you wont find anything"....have you looked? its a journey im willing to take for a good nights sleep...and if you dont like that...ohh well..fuck you...


about the scriptures of the Qu&#39;ran have to be read in arabic...ahahah yea okay...in my book it has both english and arabic...and if you think imma be sitting there and decifer the words from arabic...you got another thing coming...my girl cant even read that...let me stick to english please...


by the way about the difference between the sunnis and the shi&#39;ites...if im wrong at all tell me...im new to the differences...but i believe that to be accurate...but if im wrong tell me

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 02:12 PM

every religion is based on one simple element...fear...we all as humans fear the same thing...death...but with religion...we are meant to believe that there is an afterlife...all religions talk of an afterlife..."is there a god?" "yes" "well will i ever see him?" "yes..when you die"...simple as that theres an after life...it promises that SOMETHING WILL HAPPEN after we die...and its comforting to know...

as an atheist....we dont have that...as an atheist we dont have that comfort of knowing after we die that theres something later...as atheists we KNOW that after you die...your DEAD...its over...fuck it...everything you&#39;ve done while you were alive doesnt count....and thats a scary fuckin feeling...i know it is cause i cant sleep at night...and if it doesnt bother you than your not really an atheist cause you havent even thought about it....but i do...and thats not a feeling i want...im not studying islam for an afterlife...i already have it drilled in my head that theres no afterlife...but im just doing it for the search...to see if ill find SOMETHING...and you&#39;ll probably say "theres nothing there you wont find anything"....have you looked? its a journey im willing to take for a good nights sleep...and if you dont like that...ohh well..fuck you...



ok, you said religion is about fear, not getting into the afterlife. then you say you dont believe in an after life? i dont get it. i dont think its scary that when we die, we are gone, theres no after life. id be scarred if i had to spend the rest of my life with someone who can intervine and stop death/suffering completely but doesnt.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 3 2005, 11:45 AM

The restless search for profit is like an acid that eats away at anything that does not serve its purpose.

Interesting comment, can you give me a few examples? What has been eaten away?

What about the family? It&#39;s still around and I don&#39;t know how a family serves the profit making purpose.
Are you fucking kidding me? The family is encouraged as a unit of efficient indoctrination, especially in the middle class. "Family" rhetoric about honor, bloodline and duty is a great asset to capitalists, even more so to fascists.

The family has been attacked by capitalism though. Look at how many working class people simply cannot afford to raise their children themselves and cannot afford to even spend much time in the house together:

Daddy has to work late, mommy has two jobs and little Billy has to go to school from age 3-15, 7:00AM - 4:00PM possibly attempting to make something of himself, so spending even more time away from his family; Yay capitalism&#33;



then the proletariat will become revolutionary.

What&#39;s so great about a proletariat revolution?


I mean predicting a proletariat revolution isn&#39;t too far fetched but does that make someone a Marxist or a communist if they just merely think that a proletariat revolution is inevitable?

What is so great about the workers taking control of their own lives, then creating a productive and just society? What isn&#39;t?


do you communists SUPPORT a proletariat revolution

Me? Yes.
Other Marxist communists? Yes.
Communists in general? Yes
Vanguardists? Disputable; they want to use the power of the proletariat but don&#39;t want the proletariat in power :rolleyes:


or are you just saying that it&#39;s inevitable and that you don&#39;t support or support it?

I wouldn&#39;t say inevitable. People need to organize a communist revolution; this is something we cannot forget&#33; Sure it is highly probable that some day people will rise to a communist revolution but who knows when? Never, if people don&#39;t make it happen.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 12:12 PM
im really getting sick and tired of these discussions about gay people on this site...
What discussions and why?


ill be TOTALLY honest with you people...i dont favor homosexuality and i do think its un-natural...but i believe like religion it should be kept in the fuckin closet...

It wasn&#39;t too long ago that I believed the same thing; unfortunately.
Many animals can be homosexual; is that not natural enough for you?


im not going to go parade around telling everyone im a muslim..i dont wanna hear about you being gay...fuck do i care?

People parade around telling everyone they are heterosexual all the time; is that okay?
Why does this bother you? Obviously you do care or you wouldn&#39;t express such distaste for people being gay.


leave it alone and dont act all flamboyant around me...

Who are you talking about here? What do you want them to not do?


i dont go in front of you and pray...certain things should just be kept quiet...

Why?


someones sexual preference and someones religion are a couple of those things...you dont need to know and i dont need to tell you...

Yet you have told us... so why shouldn&#39;t others?


does it matter that i dont like homosexuality?

"Does it matter that I don&#39;t like [Mexicans]?" I suppose not if I "keep it to myself" but what if I treat people poorly because of it?


i dont go around herassing gay people...cause i dont occupy with them...because my thoughts on homosexuality are MINE

So you do not assosiate with them? Do you exclude them? Would you treat them less favorably? Would you act on their behalf as much as anyone else?


...im not forcing my hand on anyone...i keep my beliefs and my religions and my political ideas TO MYSELF...you should too...

Are you saying people shouldn&#39;t be allowed to express themselves?


that also goes for my influence in politics...NO my religion will not influence me at all with my political views...

How does that work? Don&#39;t your religious views affect your ideological perception of the world?


first of all someone here said something communism and islam dont mix...or something...

That is debatable.


a few years ago i&#39;ve lost god but im trying to find him again in the scriptures of islam...

Why do you need to find "god"? What makes you think "god" is in the scriptures of Islam?


every religion is based on one simple element...fear...we all as humans fear the same thing...death...but with religion...we are meant to believe that there is an afterlife...all religions talk of an afterlife..."is there a god?" "yes" "well will i ever see him?" "yes..when you die"...simple as that theres an after life...it promises that SOMETHING WILL HAPPEN after we die...and its comforting to know...

So comfort is more important than knowledge and reality? Why is diluting yourself okay and how will that help one find "god?"


as an atheist....we dont have that...as an atheist we dont have that comfort of knowing after we die that theres something later...as atheists we KNOW that after you die...your DEAD...its over...fuck it...

Aren&#39;t you just assuming without any proof either way?


everything you&#39;ve done while you were alive doesnt count....and thats a scary fuckin feeling...

Not at all; your actions can personally affect many people and have repecusions that will greatly impact the world.


i know it is cause i cant sleep at night...and if it doesnt bother you than your not really an atheist cause you havent even thought about it....but i do...and thats not a feeling i want...im not studying islam for an afterlife...i already have it drilled in my head that theres no afterlife...but im just doing it for the search...to see if ill find SOMETHING...and you&#39;ll probably say "theres nothing there you wont find anything"....have you looked? its a journey im willing to take for a good nights sleep...and if you dont like that...ohh well..fuck you...

You don&#39;t really have to "chose" atheism or theism; here is something else to cosider in your search, Agnosticism (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=38361).

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer
Interesting comment, can you give me a few examples? What has been eaten away?

You understand that by "eaten away", I mean weakened...not necessarily destroyed -- at least not yet.

Very well, we still have the forms of many pre-capitalist institutions with us (including the Constitution of the United States, for example).

But if you compared the strength of those institutions now with their strength in, say, 1850...the differences are astonishing&#33;

For example, yes, we still have something that we call "family"...do you think it means anything remotely what it meant in 1850? Or even 1950?

Consider any institution in America (or any advanced capitalist country) and compare its strength now with the strength it once had.

Patriotism? If you&#39;ll pay me enough.

Law? For sale to the highest bidder.

Religion? A commodity like Coke© or Pepsi© -- except to the fundamentalists and even they are using marketing techniques.

Public office? What&#39;s in it for me?

Marriage? Did you ever see a copy of Bride&#39;s Magazine?

Kids? A "human resource" requiring considerable investment to pay off.

University? Glorified trade school.

Art? :lol: :lol: :lol:

All of the things that most humans took very seriously indeed prior to the rise of capitalism are, by now, empty shells...or just rackets.

We may or may not pay verbal fealty to them still...but no one lets any of them stand in the way of making a dollar.

Not for a New York second.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

PS: Marx was well aware of this in his own time; and everything that&#39;s happened since has confirmed his insight.

[KC]

second of all...there are many different inturpretations of the Qu&#39;ran...to say that muslim women "dont count" is fuckin ignorant...my girlfriend is muslim and she counts...so what the fuck are you talking about? shes a sunni muslim and i intend on becoming a sunni muslim...the shi&#39;ites are the ones that take the Qu&#39;ran to the extreme....as a sunni...my girl does not wear a fuckin cover all day...she doesnt have to cover her face...none of that shit...the way you understand the book is the way you follow it...IT IS WRITTEN that women have to cover up from head to toe...but you can choose to follow it or not if you think it will please Allah...if you dont think Allah will mind...then dont...you&#39;ll find out when you die...ahah

If it&#39;s written that they HAVE to, why would you believe that you have an option there? Because it&#39;s more humane? Because you have to evolve the original religious texts to fit modern social standards?



im really getting sick and tired of these discussions about gay people on this site...

I have seen only one or two in all my time coming here.



ill be TOTALLY honest with you people...i dont favor homosexuality and i do think its un-natural...

Know what&#39;s funny about this? Gay people have been in existence since man has been in existence. It&#39;s just as natural as heterosexuality. Is it as productive as heterosexuality? No; no child is made. But then you&#39;re going to have to also be against birth control as that is "unnatural." The horrible truth is that so many things are "unnatural" nowadays that to have something against homosexuality, you&#39;re going to either have to be a primitavist or you&#39;re going to be a hypocrit.




but i believe like religion it should be kept in the fuckin closet...

Nothing should be "kept in the fuckin closet"&#33; Everything should be debatable&#33; Everybody should express themselves&#33; It&#39;s good for people.



i dont wanna hear about you being gay...fuck do i care? leave it alone and dont act all flamboyant around me...

You seem to be the type of person that thinks that all gay people are like the gay people on tv.



certain things should just be kept quiet...

WHY?



someones sexual preference and someones religion are a couple of those things...you dont need to know and i dont need to tell you...leave it alone...does it matter that i dont like homosexuality?

Yes it matters&#33; Because you&#39;re contributing to the very problem that communism tries to solve&#33; You can&#39;t be a communist and be homophobic. You can&#39;t be a communist and be religious. Both are illogical.


i dont go around herassing gay people...cause i dont occupy with them...because my thoughts on homosexuality are MINE...im not forcing my hand on anyone...

So you don&#39;t harass them, you just shun them? How do you even know if someone&#39;s gay if they don&#39;t tell you?



i keep my beliefs and my religions and my political ideas TO MYSELF...you should too...

Really? Is that why you&#39;re on a political discussion board, in a religious forum?

[Elect Marx]

All that commentary and no response... don&#39;t people love to waste time.

[Zingu]

Religon is rectionary, end of story.


Religon creates a false cousciness, as long as people believe in it, they will not realize they are the sole instrument for social change, they will keep praying to their metaphysical gods and hoping for better times, if our destiny is in god&#39;s hands, its time we snatched it back, to think I was religous when I joined these forums...lol

[guerillablack]

Exactly, people who are religous just sit back and wait for their God to handle to give them justice. So i guess the PLO, Al- Jihad and other palestinian organizations don&#39;t exist?

Lazar there is an option. When you get your syllabus for college it states you have to do your homework. Do you do it all the time? Cuz i sure as hell don&#39;t. Because even though you would like to think so, there is almost always an option. You may not like the options, or may not think its much of an option but there is always an option. Do it or don&#39;t do it.

[LSD]

Exactly, people who are religous just sit back and wait for their God to handle to give them justice. So i guess the PLO, Al- Jihad and other palestinian organizations don&#39;t exist?

You&#39;re right, being religious doesn&#39;t mean you&#39;re not willing to fight, it just means that you&#39;ll tend to fight for the wrong things.


When you get your syllabus for college it states you have to do your homework. Do you do it all the time? Cuz i sure as hell don&#39;t.

Are you comparing a course syllabus with the "WORD OF GOD"? :lol: :lol:

I don&#39;t know about you, but none of my professors ever claimed to have magic powers&#33;

If I don&#39;t do my homework it&#39;s because I know I can get away with it, if God is truly all-knowing and all-seeing, there is no way to get away it with. If I break one of "his" rules, he&#39;ll know -- and according you your "holy text" he&#39;ll punish me eternally for it.

If an omniscient omnipotent being gives you a list of demands, you had damn well better adhere to them by the letter. Any deviation, any deviation, and you deny your own faith.

If God is your God, and your God is all-knowing then you can&#39;t reject his writings because you disagree with them.

Luckily, in the end, this "cherry picking" that we see so much of nowadays is progressive. It shows that even the self-described "religious" are unable to deny the fact that their "faith" is reactionary. Eventually, even the staunchest hold-outs will be forced to "reform" their religions so much that they&#39;re indistinguishable from theism ...and then it&#39;s just one materialist leap to the truth.

And won&#39;t that be a great day. :)

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 10:38 AM
Religon is rectionary, end of story.
Well; that is a little too black and white for me but I would say religion is an open door for reactionary views; whether or not people are reactionary has to do with their particular doctrine. Organized religion really is though...


Religon creates a false cousciness, as long as people believe in it,

You have just described idealism.


they will not realize they are the sole instrument for social change,

Maybe, maybe not; idealists are inconsistent in their ideology but it certainly doesn&#39;t help.


they will keep praying to their metaphysical gods and hoping for better times,

Perhaps that is a waste of time or maybe it makes them feel better; some people are desperate but I should hope they would progress beyond dependency as many with the opportunity do.


if our destiny is in god&#39;s hands, its time we snatched it back, to think I was religous when I joined these forums...lol

So was I; so was I. I wouldn&#39;t suggest leaving your life to be determined by anything other than your own efforts to progress.

[guerillablack]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 17 2005, 06:34 PM

Exactly, people who are religous just sit back and wait for their God to handle to give them justice. So i guess the PLO, Al- Jihad and other palestinian organizations don&#39;t exist?

You&#39;re right, being religious doesn&#39;t mean you&#39;re not willing to fight, it just means that you&#39;ll tend to fight for the wrong things.


When you get your syllabus for college it states you have to do your homework. Do you do it all the time? Cuz i sure as hell don&#39;t.

Are you comparing a course syllabus with the "WORD OF GOD"? :lol: :lol:

I don&#39;t know about you, but none of my professors ever claimed to have magic powers&#33;

If I don&#39;t do my homework it&#39;s because I know I can get away with it, if God is truly all-knowing and all-seeing, there is no way to get away it with. If I break one of "his" rules, he&#39;ll know -- and according you your "holy text" he&#39;ll punish me eternally for it.

If an omniscient omnipotent being gives you a list of demands, you had damn well better adhere to them by the letter. Any deviation, any deviation, and you deny your own faith.

If God is your God, and your God is all-knowing then you can&#39;t reject his writings because you disagree with them.

Luckily, in the end, this "cherry picking" that we see so much of nowadays is progressive. It shows that even the self-described "religious" are unable to deny the fact that their "faith" is reactionary. Eventually, even the staunchest hold-outs will be forced to "reform" their religions so much that they&#39;re indistinguishable from theism ...and then it&#39;s just one materialist leap to the truth.

And won&#39;t that be a great day. :)
Now, LSD are you telling me that if you didn&#39;t do your homework your teacher wouldn&#39;t know? And that if you didn&#39;t do your homework you wouldnt be punished for it? What school you got to. :lol:

[LSD]

Now, LSD are you telling me that if you didn&#39;t do your homework your teacher wouldn&#39;t know? And that if you didn&#39;t do your homework you wouldnt be punished for it?

No, I&#39;m saying that that punishment will be something that I am willing to accept -- most likely the loss a few percentage points.

I know that this is the consequence of my action and I certainly don&#39;t try and claim ignorance. The syllabus was clear ...I disobeyed.

By the same token, if my "holy" book tells me that I must do something, I must do it&#33; Instead of a few docked grades, this time the presribed alternative is eternal torment and I certainly don&#39;t want that&#33; :o

Luckily, the "holy" book, like the syllabus, is clear. I don&#39;t have to "wonder" as to what will "please" my deity, he&#39;s laid it all down&#33; That&#39;s what makes the damn book "holy"&#33;

If I ignore or convieniently disregard any section of my deity&#39;s writings, I have sinned. I have committed an infraction just like if I did not do my homework. And, just like if I did not do my homework, I must be punished.

But you&#39;re not willing to accept the prescribed punishment for your sinful disobedience. In fact, you refuse to acknowledge that it even is disobedience. You are claiming that in this case the "holy" book is wrong, and you know better what God "wants".

Sorry, but you can&#39;t have it both ways. Either the religion is right and God&#39;s "holy" words are "holy" or the religion&#39;s wrong ...and there is no God. It&#39;s one or the other.

If the Muslim God is real then by nescessity every word, every syllable of "his" work is holy and infallible. You have no choice but to obey them all, whether they appeal to your "lowly" sensibilites or not.

You see extremism isn&#39;t "fringe" religion, it&#39;s religion. It&#39;s the rest of you that are fakers. If God is perfect and his words divine, then what right do you have to pick and choose? Mustn&#39;t you simply accept that he "knows better"?

And, after all, isn&#39;t that the "point"? Isn&#39;t that why people have "faith", so they don&#39;t have to think about all the "tough stuff"?

So don&#39;t worry, be happy&#33; :) God has a "plan"&#33; All that you have to do is follow it. So what if it means adhering to the moral code of 7th century arabia and treating women like second class property, at least "God is pleased". Hell, you might even get into "heaven".

Isn&#39;t that all that matters?

Isn&#39;t it???

[Xian]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jul 30 2005, 09:31 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Jul 30 2005, 09:31 AM)
Xian
So if you&#39;re saying that the plan should have been for us to have a perfect world, what would we have done all day?

A "perfect world" would have, by definition, plenty of interesting ways for us to spend our time without pain and suffering.

In the Christian "Heaven", we get to spend "eternity" playing harps and singing praises of "God" (what a self-esteem problem "he" must have&#33; :lol:). In the Islamic "Paradise", we guys get to hang out with a large number of beautiful virgins...but we don&#39;t get to have sex with them. Sound like fun?

Let&#39;s face it, the "Great Plan of Everything" really sucks&#33;

So I&#39;ll decline that "option".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif [/b]

A "perfect world" would have, by definition, plenty of interesting ways for us to spend our time without pain and suffering.


Not so. "A pefect world" is impossible. You are right it would have interesting things to do. That is if it will be possible to have a place where there is no pain, but since that is not possible, then you can&#39;t assume anything about it. You&#39;re dreaming. Life would be a complete bore. You would get sick of being happy, and this would cause pain. It&#39;s like how you eat your favorite food, but if you eat too much of it too often, then you would grow to hate it.


In the Christian "Heaven", we get to spend "eternity" playing harps and singing praises of "God" (what a self-esteem problem "he" must have&#33; :lol:). In the Islamic "Paradise", we guys get to hang out with a large number of beautiful virgins...but we don&#39;t get to have sex with them. Sound like fun?

Let&#39;s face it, the "Great Plan of Everything" really sucks&#33;


You are being totally subjective on Christianity. By saying heaven I mean afterlife and by afterlife I am talking about something I have no knowledge of whatsoever. What I believe in is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Love god above all others." What this means is love god, which actually means love the world because the world and the universe and everything in it is part of god. The afterlife doesn&#39;t consist of clouds and harps or anything like that.
This is a story made up by people assuming things. It&#39;s all theoretical. The reason that Jesus is different is because of the gospels and the things he taught. This is an example for people to help others and change the world for the better, and also to attain happiness. This is the reason for MLK and all the Catholic charity and Mother Tereasa and the peace of Pope John Paul II and all the good they have all spread. Christianity is helping people for the most part. It is not perfect, but nothing is (Not even Communism&#33;&#33;). Some people don&#39;t steal because they live for Jesus. Some don&#39;t hate because they live for Jesus. Some have compassion and love for the poor, because they live for Jesus. Whether or not you feel that faith in your heart, you have no right to dismiss it. Communism must take place, into function, with everyone on the same page. This means that if you think that the revolution will come and people will put the Bible down and the Koran and Torah down, then you are sadly mistaken.
Communism is not the abolition of faith, but rather the respect of it. Because of Marx and their hatred for clergy, you have manifested a beleif that god doesn&#39;t exist no matter what (using science as so called "proof"). Fine, believe that. But that&#39;s not the voice of the people. To everyone who believes in god (afterlife), don&#39;t think that you have to give that up for communism.

And by hope I don&#39;t mean hope for our earth, but I mean hope for an afterlife. My life and purpose is not for nothing. The people I have lost to death are not really gone. Without an afterlife there is no reason for people to live. Therefore I could kill myself with no reason not to. And I don&#39;t refuse to change things because it is god&#39;s will for things to be this way. On the contrary, I think that my job is to make the world better, so I&#39;m alive for a reason. I will make an impact for good here, and move on when I die.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Xian
"A perfect world" is impossible. You are right it would have interesting things to do. That is if it will be possible to have a place where there is no pain, but since that is not possible, then you can&#39;t assume anything about it. You&#39;re dreaming. Life would be a complete bore. You would get sick of being happy, and this would cause pain.

What a mess this statement is.

We should have pain and suffering "because" we would get "bored" if we didn&#39;t.

I take it you&#39;re one of those idiots that likes to hit themselves in the head with a hammer "because it feels so good when you stop".

It also implies that your imaginary "afterlife" must also contain pain and suffering, right?

And there is a further implication: anything that you do that directly causes pain and suffering "must be a good thing"...since otherwise your victim might get "bored".


What I believe in is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Love god above all others." What this means is love god, which actually means love the world because the world and the universe and everything in it is part of god.

Sorry, but I find nothing particularly "lovable" about the world or the universe -- it is a rather hostile environment, all things considered.

I expect humans and other rational species will make some rather drastic changes in it over the next few million years.


The reason that Jesus is different is because of the gospels and the things he taught. This is an example for people to help others and change the world for the better, and also to attain happiness. This is the reason for MLK and all the Catholic charity and Mother Teresa and the peace of Pope John Paul II and all the good they have all spread.

Christians believe that "Jesus" was "the Son of God" and could perform "miracles", right?

So, with real "divine powers", how come he didn&#39;t really change the world instead of dicking around for a few years in the most backward province of the Roman Empire?

MLK meant well; Catholic charities do not. Mother Teresa was a misogynist hustler and John Paul II was a fascist asshole.


Whether or not you feel that faith in your heart, you have no right to dismiss it.

I don&#39;t "dismiss" it...I regard it as an intransigent enemy of human freedom and progress.


This means that if you think that the revolution will come and people will put the Bible down and the Koran and Torah down, then you are sadly mistaken. Communism is not the abolition of faith, but rather the respect of it.

Communism is not possible until people have "put away superstition".

As they are doing.


To everyone who believes in god (afterlife), don&#39;t think that you have to give that up for communism.

Oh yes you do&#33;


Without an afterlife there is no reason for people to live.

About 15% of the world&#39;s population are managing to do it...thus it must be well within human capabilities to live without superstition.

As more people discover every day. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Xian]

What a mess this statement is.

We should have pain and suffering "because" we would get "bored" if we didn&#39;t.

I take it you&#39;re one of those idiots that likes to hit themselves in the head with a hammer "because it feels so good when you stop".

It also implies that your imaginary "afterlife" must also contain pain and suffering, right?

And there is a further implication: anything that you do that directly causes pain and suffering "must be a good thing"...since otherwise your victim might get "bored".

I&#39;m not saying we should, I&#39;m saying we must. And my statements imply nothing other than my statements themselves. My argument is that god is real. You try to say it is impossible because of pain. Pain is the oppositte of joy, and thus you cannot have joy without pain. Even when communism comes, there will still be depressed and sad people. There is no escaping the human state of anger, jealousy, lust, sadness, etc, just like you can&#39;t get rid of the oppositte- happiness.
There cannot be "Utopia" because it would be boring. Because of that it is impossible, since humans will always have conflict in their minds, which is interesting. Therefore, god gave us this planet and this pain and this anger and all that, so that happiness and compassion and love can be possible.
The afterlife (which is very real) is, as I said, something that I have no knowledge of, other than my faith that it exists. It is behind the capability of my brain. The afterlife can be reincarnation or heaven. I don&#39;t know, and neither do you, so don&#39;t make assumptions.


Sorry, but I find nothing particularly "lovable" about the world or the universe -- it is a rather hostile environment, all things considered.

I expect humans and other rational species will make some rather drastic changes in it over the next few million years.

If you don&#39;t love the world, why change it? Why are you a socialist if you have no compassion and hope for the world? The world is a beautiful place, and this is the reason why: I went through depression, and other people lifted me out. I appreciate every sunset and sunrise, every cloud and bird and tree. I appreciate the sound of friends&#39; laughter and my favorite music. I appreciate this life, and I know that the good things make it worth living. Hope for the future makes it worth living. It makes it worth changing for the better.


Christians believe that "Jesus" was "the Son of God" and could perform "miracles", right?
Not all do. I personally believe, based on the gospels, that he was a man, but at the same time a prophet who could do miracles. The thing about faith is that you can pick and choose. It&#39;s philosophy. Everyone has their own philosophy for life.


So, with real "divine powers", how come he didn&#39;t really change the world instead of dicking around for a few years in the most backward province of the Roman Empire?

Because he wasn&#39;t meant to. He wasn&#39;t sent to free us. It&#39;s up to every individual to do that, and that was the message he brought. And he really did change the world. This man was born 2000 years ago and he changes sinners to saints every single day. He turns suicidal people to life, murderers to healers, and theives to volunteers. He may not have freed this whole planet from pain, but he saved a lot of lives. I&#39;ve seen it happen. You know it happens. That&#39;s what was meant to happen.



MLK meant well; Catholic charities do not. Mother Teresa was a misogynist hustler and John Paul II was a fascist asshole.

Ignorance. I know people who get up at 6AM and volunteer for hours every day in the name of Catholic charities. They spread goodness and peace. Mother Teresa lived a life of charity (Hustler?&#33; HA&#33;), what I could assume is much more selfless than yours or mine. Pope John Paul II is a symbol of hope and love. He is peace. You hold a grudge because of the religion thing. If these people were atheists you would kneel before them. You are being subjective because everything is in god&#39;s name. You can&#39;t look past that.


Communism is not possible until people have "put away superstition".

As they are doing.

Spirituality is no superstition. I am not afraid of god, and he does not give me rules or ways to act. He gives me a reason. He gives me hope. That is the purpose of god. Not rules or laws or hell and punishment. Not war or hate. God is strength.


About 15% of the world&#39;s population are managing to do it...thus it must be well within human capabilities to live without superstition.

As more people discover every day. :)

More people? More people are turning to god everyday too. This means nothing. Believers, through birth, are still growing faster than non believers. Atheism will grow but it will then decline. And even if it someday dominates, people will the go back the other way. You cannot rid humanity of faith, just like a person must talk or dance or laugh, they must search for meaning.


I expect humans and other rational species will make some rather drastic changes in it over the next few million years.

As do I, and I expect that there will be more prophets. And I will be "dead", but I&#39;ll also be alive.

Peace.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Xian
My argument is that god is real.

That&#39;s not an argument, it&#39;s a claim.

And moreover, a claim with zero evidence in its favor and tons of evidence against.


Even when communism comes, there will still be depressed and sad people.

I agree...communism is not "Heaven".

But the reasons that people will have to be sad and depressed will not be related to material deprivation.


There is no escaping the human state of anger, jealousy, lust, sadness, etc....

Lust? Lust???

What is it with you believers and "lust"? Granted that all superstitions are inherently and irreversibly irrational, your on-going passion to suppress human sexuality has to be your most stratospheric insanity&#33;


The afterlife (which is very real) is, as I said, something that I have no knowledge of, other than my faith that it exists.

Something is "real" that you have "no knowledge of"...even of its "reality".

Does that make sense?

No.


If you don&#39;t love the world, why change it?

To make it more "lovable"...or at least more tolerable.


I personally believe, based on the gospels, that he was a man, but at the same time a prophet who could do miracles.

Heretic&#33; The "divinity" of "Jesus" is a core doctrine of Christianity...your denial of this "essential truth" places you completely outside of all the Christian denominations.

It&#39;s the stake and the fire for you, boy. :lol:


The thing about faith is that you can pick and choose.

No, in most of recorded history, you could not "pick and choose". You publicly worshiped in the socially approved manner or you were executed.

Only in the last century or so have people had the freedom to "pick and choose"...and only in a small part of the world at that.

And, interestingly enough, where people do have the freedom to "pick and choose", they are choosing more and more not to have faith in anything.


He wasn&#39;t sent to free us. It&#39;s up to every individual to do that, and that was the message he brought. And he really did change the world. This man was born 2000 years ago and he changes sinners to saints every single day. He turns suicidal people to life, murderers to healers, and thieves to volunteers. He may not have freed this whole planet from pain, but he saved a lot of lives. I&#39;ve seen it happen. You know it happens. That&#39;s what was meant to happen.

I do not "know it happens" and dispute the claim across the board.

I know that the claim that "Jesus changed my life" is a very utilitarian one...in Christian countries, at least.

It&#39;s excellent for getting suckers to give you money...and often useful when the parole board meets to consider your case for early release.

People who are suicidal but don&#39;t carry through on their plan probably have something material improve in their lives. Even if it&#39;s just that people around them pay more attention to them.


I know people who get up at 6AM and volunteer for hours every day in the name of Catholic charities.

Suckers. In a class society, volunteer labor that&#39;s not directed towards the overthrow of class society is simply foolish.

Or, perhaps, an attempt to create a "public image" of yourself as a "caring person".


Mother Teresa lived a life of charity...

The "Mother Teresa" Myth (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=36144&st=90&#entry1291924612)


Pope John Paul II is a symbol of hope and love.

He was a principle figure in the restoration of capitalism in Poland and firm supporter of the fascist Opus Dei -- proclaiming its founder to be a "saint".

He was a life-long enemy of women&#39;s reproductive freedom and was directly responsible for spreading the LIE that condoms "would not slow the spread of AIDS" in Africa.


If these people were atheists you would kneel before them.

No I would not. I do not "kneel" to anyone.

And I do all I can to hasten the end of the "age of kneeling".


Spirituality is no superstition.

Oh yes it is&#33; It makes the same claims (and with the same lack of evidence) as every other superstition makes.

It&#39;s all verbal "smoke and mirrors".


Believers, through birth, are still growing faster than non-believers.

Only in the more backward parts of the world. Do you think they will stay backward? Do you imagine that "1789" will forever be out of their reach?

Still, I&#39;m glad you grasp an important point: the principle reason that religion is still with us is that parents indoctrinate their kids&#33;

As you know, we intend to put a stop to that.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Xian]

"By night an atheist half believes in God."
~Edward Young


And moreover, a claim with zero evidence in its favor and tons of evidence against.

Life is the only evidence I need. You don’t understand that god is not something or someone you can actually understand. Do they really think that the creator of this universe would give us the knowledge to “know” him unconditionally? Would he really give us a life free of mystery? Would he give us a life without pain, making it impossible for us to know happiness? I don&#39;t think so. You cannot give me the origin of the universe. You can&#39;t know it all.


But the reasons that people will have to be sad and depressed will not be related to material deprivation.

I agree. It will be related to conflict. Not because of material, but because of emotions. So as for your argument, "why does god give us pain?", the answer is because that&#39;s the only way that happiness can exist.


Lust? Lust???

Lust is sexuality in the bad sense. Lust is fucking someone because they&#39;re hot, and not because you love them. Lust is rape and prostitution. It does not bring happiness, but suffering. So people have feelings of lust that they need to control, mostly through realizing the suffering it brings to others.


Something is "real" that you have "no knowledge of"...even of its "reality".

I have faith in it&#39;s existence, and I have feelings that support this faith. I have no knowledge because I&#39;ve never seen it, and I don&#39;t know what it&#39;s like. I&#39;m not supposed to know. Just because I don&#39;t know it&#39;s details, doesn&#39;t mean I shouldn&#39;t believe in it.


To make it more "lovable"...or at least more tolerable.

And you do this why? Because you&#39;re bored? You love it, and you want to improve it. As do I.


Heretic&#33; The "divinity" of "Jesus" is a core doctrine of Christianity...your denial of this "essential truth" places you completely outside of all the Christian denominations.

It&#39;s the stake and the fire for you, boy. :lol:

No, in most of recorded history, you could not "pick and choose". You publicly worshiped in the socially approved manner or you were executed.

Only in the last century or so have people had the freedom to "pick and choose"...and only in a small part of the world at that.

And, interestingly enough, where people do have the freedom to "pick and choose", they are choosing more and more not to have faith in anything.

I know a lot of people who pick and choose. As I said, it&#39;s philosophy. The philosophy of Jesus is what I look up to, but I don&#39;t live any philosophy other than my own. God comes to us in so many ways, so there is no "essential truth" to me, other than that life has a meaning, attainment of happiness. The word "Christian" means the follower of the messiah, the annointed one. I follow Jesus, but I interpret his message in another way, because it makes more sense to me.


I know that the claim that "Jesus changed my life" is a very utilitarian one...in Christian countries, at least.

This is the truth. Sinners have turned their lives around. You can deny this, but it&#39;s the truth. It&#39;s not only Jesus, it&#39;s Muhammed and Moses and MLK and Malcolm X and tons of others. What you have done, is turned everything you know about religion into a bad thing. Clergies are good people. Go talk to them. You&#39;re hanging on things that happened hundreds of years ago. Go to a church and talk about love and justice. They&#39;re not greedy.


People who are suicidal but don&#39;t carry through on their plan probably have something material improve in their lives.

It&#39;s always material. When I say god intervenes, I don&#39;t mean he goes inside us and changes our brains around like a ghost or something. This is totally subjective again. Intervention means sending people and things to give them strength. I told you it&#39;s planned, it&#39;s fate. Everyone has a job in this life, and when their job is over, they die. Your job is to write that atheist stuff. That&#39;s your fate that god planned for you. WHy? Because without it, I wouldn&#39;t be debating with you right now. Not just me, but the whole world. We were destined to meet here. I don&#39;t know what effect it will have on our lives, but it will definatly have one, because everything does.


In a class society, volunteer labor that&#39;s not directed towards the overthrow of class society is simply foolish.
Or, perhaps, an attempt to create a "public image" of yourself as a "caring person".


:lol:


Only in the more backward parts of the world. Do you think they will stay backward? Do you imagine that "1789" will forever be out of their reach?

You keep talking this "more and more" shit. This growth is insignificant. God will not disappear. Even if it were true that there is no god (which is not likely), people like to believe in hope and meaning. The atheists today are an exception, an abnormality, and they will never be the majority. Just like homosexuality and mental illness is an abnormal exception to society&#39;s trends. They will never be the majority.


parents indoctrinate their kids&#33;

Yes, but does a child, as it grows, not struggle with their own belief? God almost always wins. I struggled with mine, and came up with my philosophy, which you have seen above.

The reasons for this are spiritual and material. I know that god sent people to lift my depression. I know this in my heart. It may seem like a superstition, but I know it&#39;s not. The most important thing is that my life is better, just by going to Catholic school. I have become a better person, and I have a great deal of compassion, and I have recognized the suffering involved in the capitalist system. I want to help change this. This is what god sent me here to do. How is that hurting anyone? This is what religion is about. It&#39;s not perfect, but you have blown the imperfections all over the place, and in your head thinking, "THIS is what it&#39;s about." That&#39;s not the truth. (People are ignoring what they are being taught, and that&#39;s the real problem. Every Christian would be a socialist if they listened and adhered to the gospels. Just look at my sig. They draw a line between god and real life, when it&#39;s the same thing.) You should get closer to these people and the charity they do when the help the sick and the poor. It&#39;s not money. Remember Che at the Lepor&#39;s colony?


Originally posted by Matthew 8
When He had come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed Him. And behold, a leper came and worshiped Him, saying, “Lord, if You are willing, You can make me clean.”
Moved with compassion Jesus put out His hand and touched him, saying, “I am willing; be cleansed.” Immediately his leprosy was cleansed.
And Jesus said to him, “See that you tell no one; but go your way, show yourself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.”

Can you really tell me this didn&#39;t change my life for the better?


Peace.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by Xian
"By night an atheist half believes in God."
~Edward Young
No... I&#39;m not afraid of the dark.


Life is the only evidence I need. You don’t understand that god is not something or someone you can actually understand. Do they really think that the creator of this universe would give us the knowledge to “know” him unconditionally? Would he really give us a life free of mystery? Would he give us a life without pain, making it impossible for us to know happiness? I don&#39;t think so. You cannot give me the origin of the universe. You can&#39;t know it all.
That&#39;s such a copout. Just because we don&#39;t know everything doesn&#39;t mean there is a creator, it just means... we&#39;re human. Biology is doing quite a good job of explaining the origins of life and physics is getting there with the early universe.
When I look at the complexity of life, I think "What a wonderful coincidence" and it is really awe-inspiring. I don&#39;t see "god" at all. In fact, I have never seen. felt or smelled god. Maybe god doesn&#39;t want us to "know" "him" completely, but it seems he doesn&#39;t want me to know him at all. :o


Lust is sexuality in the bad sense. Lust is fucking someone because they&#39;re hot, and not because you love them. Lust is rape and prostitution. It does not bring happiness, but suffering. So people have feelings of lust that they need to control, mostly through realizing the suffering it brings to others.
How moralistic. People can and should fuck whoever they want, for whatever reason they want and it&#39;s NONe of your business at all. Way to equate casual sex with rape and prostitution. :blink:


Just because I don&#39;t know it&#39;s details, doesn&#39;t mean I shouldn&#39;t believe in it.
But it&#39;s profoundly irrational.


I follow Jesus, but I interpret his message in another way, because it makes more sense to me.
But isn&#39;t the Bible the word of god? Can god be wrong?


Clergies are good people. Go talk to them. You&#39;re hanging on things that happened hundreds of years ago. Go to a church and talk about love and justice. They&#39;re not greedy.
I was just at at a rally defending an abortion clinic from anti-choicers who try to intimidate staff and clients. There were clergy, monks and nuns there. They harass women, film them and throw plastic foetuses at them. A guard was KILLED at that clinic by these zealots.
The Catholic church in Sydney preaches homophobia constantly, and the Archbishop refuses GLBT people communion.
Then there&#39;s Hillsong Church, a fundie moneyspinner that gets MASSIVE government grants.


It&#39;s always material. When I say god intervenes, I don&#39;t mean he goes inside us and changes our brains around like a ghost or something. This is totally subjective again. Intervention means sending people and things to give them strength. I told you it&#39;s planned, it&#39;s fate. Everyone has a job in this life, and when their job is over, they die. Your job is to write that atheist stuff. That&#39;s your fate that god planned for you. WHy? Because without it, I wouldn&#39;t be debating with you right now. Not just me, but the whole world. We were destined to meet here. I don&#39;t know what effect it will have on our lives, but it will definatly have one, because everything does.
Or it could just be stuff that happens. And the way we turn out could be a combination of several earthly factors. Seems a lot more likely.


You keep talking this "more and more" shit. This growth is insignificant. God will not disappear. Even if it were true that there is no god (which is not likely), people like to believe in hope and meaning. The atheists today are an exception, an abnormality, and they will never be the majority. Just like homosexuality and mental illness is an abnormal exception to society&#39;s trends. They will never be the majority.
:rolleyes:


Yes, but does a child, as it grows, not struggle with their own belief? God almost always wins. I struggled with mine, and came up with my philosophy, which you have seen above.
The thing is, lots of people DON&#39;T question, really question. They just go along, still being religious or calling themselves religious because they don&#39;t want to cause a fuss. Also, if you live in a country/area where religion is more than just religion, it&#39;s embedded in culture it can be very hard to question it and leave it behind.

[Anarchist Freedom]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 6 2005, 07:57 AM
guerillablack&#39;s now going to claim that that&#39;s only "western" religion and that "Afrikan" religions aren&#39;t like that ...but he&#39;s not going to offer any evidence. <_<
Ive heard first hand accounts from my dads friend sampson he lives in nigeria. He says that alot of things are killed in the name of religion especially in africa. Sudan maybe?

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by Mujer Libre+Aug 26 2005, 10:50 PM--> (Mujer Libre @ Aug 26 2005, 10:50 PM)
Xian
"By night an atheist half believes in God."
~Edward Young
No... I&#39;m not afraid of the dark.


Life is the only evidence I need. You don’t understand that god is not something or someone you can actually understand. Do they really think that the creator of this universe would give us the knowledge to “know” him unconditionally? Would he really give us a life free of mystery? Would he give us a life without pain, making it impossible for us to know happiness? I don&#39;t think so. You cannot give me the origin of the universe. You can&#39;t know it all.
That&#39;s such a copout. Just because we don&#39;t know everything doesn&#39;t mean there is a creator, it just means... we&#39;re human. Biology is doing quite a good job of explaining the origins of life and physics is getting there with the early universe.
When I look at the complexity of life, I think "What a wonderful coincidence" and it is really awe-inspiring. I don&#39;t see "god" at all. In fact, I have never seen. felt or smelled god. Maybe god doesn&#39;t want us to "know" "him" completely, but it seems he doesn&#39;t want me to know him at all. :o


Lust is sexuality in the bad sense. Lust is fucking someone because they&#39;re hot, and not because you love them. Lust is rape and prostitution. It does not bring happiness, but suffering. So people have feelings of lust that they need to control, mostly through realizing the suffering it brings to others.
How moralistic. People can and should fuck whoever they want, for whatever reason they want and it&#39;s NONe of your business at all. Way to equate casual sex with rape and prostitution. :blink:


Just because I don&#39;t know it&#39;s details, doesn&#39;t mean I shouldn&#39;t believe in it.
But it&#39;s profoundly irrational.


I follow Jesus, but I interpret his message in another way, because it makes more sense to me.
But isn&#39;t the Bible the word of god? Can god be wrong?


Clergies are good people. Go talk to them. You&#39;re hanging on things that happened hundreds of years ago. Go to a church and talk about love and justice. They&#39;re not greedy.
I was just at at a rally defending an abortion clinic from anti-choicers who try to intimidate staff and clients. There were clergy, monks and nuns there. They harass women, film them and throw plastic foetuses at them. A guard was KILLED at that clinic by these zealots.
The Catholic church in Sydney preaches homophobia constantly, and the Archbishop refuses GLBT people communion.
Then there&#39;s Hillsong Church, a fundie moneyspinner that gets MASSIVE government grants.


It&#39;s always material. When I say god intervenes, I don&#39;t mean he goes inside us and changes our brains around like a ghost or something. This is totally subjective again. Intervention means sending people and things to give them strength. I told you it&#39;s planned, it&#39;s fate. Everyone has a job in this life, and when their job is over, they die. Your job is to write that atheist stuff. That&#39;s your fate that god planned for you. WHy? Because without it, I wouldn&#39;t be debating with you right now. Not just me, but the whole world. We were destined to meet here. I don&#39;t know what effect it will have on our lives, but it will definatly have one, because everything does.
Or it could just be stuff that happens. And the way we turn out could be a combination of several earthly factors. Seems a lot more likely.


You keep talking this "more and more" shit. This growth is insignificant. God will not disappear. Even if it were true that there is no god (which is not likely), people like to believe in hope and meaning. The atheists today are an exception, an abnormality, and they will never be the majority. Just like homosexuality and mental illness is an abnormal exception to society&#39;s trends. They will never be the majority.
:rolleyes:


Yes, but does a child, as it grows, not struggle with their own belief? God almost always wins. I struggled with mine, and came up with my philosophy, which you have seen above.
The thing is, lots of people DON&#39;T question, really question. They just go along, still being religious or calling themselves religious because they don&#39;t want to cause a fuss. Also, if you live in a country/area where religion is more than just religion, it&#39;s embedded in culture it can be very hard to question it and leave it behind. [/b]
Holy shit, I just saved this conversation. QFT.

[Zingu]

By definition, a religous person cannot be a Communist.

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 04:15 AM
By definition, a religous person cannot be a Communist.
But in the Left spectrum, there are varying degrees of leftists and not all of them are godless commies. Our embrace of them in our big family to fight the "system" is conducive to others&#39; awareness of our movement.

[Zingu]

Yes, I do consider non-Communist religous leftists as my comrades, but by pure definition, a religous person CANNOT be a Communist, being a Communist means looking at the world in an objective viewpoint, and if you believe in religon, your view is tainted by false consciousness.

[Fidelbrand]

Well, I think the word "false consciousness" is a bit false and overdone .... but I understand your atheist stance.

yup yup...

[Phalanx]

What kind of homophobic bullshit is tolerated here? I don&#39;t care if you&#39;re fucking religion demands that gays should be condemned, THIS BOARD AIN&#39;T YOUR RELIGION&#33; There are a few gays and lesbians on this board, and I&#39;d imagine they may feel quite hurt by some of these comments. Discrimination shouldn&#39;t be accepted in this board&#33; Believe me, I get really pissed off when people here make anti-semitic remarks under the veil of &#39;zionism&#39;.

[guerillablack]

Communism is a theory, IE, communism definition can change. IE, it is possible for someone who is communist to believe in religion.

[MKS]

Religion is a cancer that must be cut from the human consiousness.
It allows oppression and creates division. It threatens the advance of scientific discovery and progress.
The Socialist goal must be to irradicate religion in all its forms.

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 01:58 AM
Communism is a theory, IE, communism definition can change. IE, it is possible for someone who is communist to believe in religion.
No, it is not possible.

For the zillionith time;

Religous mysticism is not compatiable with Communist theory. A Communist is not an ideological posistion its a THEORITICAL POSISTION&#33; A RELIGOUS PERSON CANNOT BE A COMMUNIST&#33;

A religous person can be a SOCIALIST, but not a Communist&#33; Religon is false counsciness, if you accept religon, you&#39;re ruining the theory completely and allowing revisionism&#33;

[TheReadMenace]

The pious man wakes again, content so long as he&#39;s convinced that there are higher powers watching over us. And why should i disagree?
We all want to live meaningfully. How unfortunate--the numbers don&#39;t add up.

Whichever path you follow--faith or science, it&#39;s all so hollow--rest assured we&#39;re spiralling toward our dusty end.

[workersunity]

This is how i Put it

"It is not therefore necessary to rid society of religion, but instead rid it of organized religion"

[workersunity]

Originally posted by Anarchist Freedom+Aug 26 2005, 08:57 PM--> (Anarchist Freedom @ Aug 26 2005, 08:57 PM)
Lysergic Acid [email protected] 6 2005, 07:57 AM
guerillablack&#39;s now going to claim that that&#39;s only "western" religion and that "Afrikan" religions aren&#39;t like that ...but he&#39;s not going to offer any evidence. <_<
Ive heard first hand accounts from my dads friend sampson he lives in nigeria. He says that alot of things are killed in the name of religion especially in africa. Sudan maybe? [/b]
Also Northern Uganda, like the Lords resistance army, Josef Kony is their "enlightened" leader

[TheReadMenace]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 03:16 AM
Religion is a cancer that must be cut from the human consiousness.
It allows oppression and creates division. It threatens the advance of scientific discovery and progress.
The Socialist goal must be to irradicate religion in all its forms.
Asking in honesty here:

What about gnosticism, and the idea that &#39;god&#39; cannot be &#39;known&#39; and shouldn&#39;t be worshipped because he/she/it cannot be known (ie, god exists, but who cares)? What if the teachings of all the &#39;prophets&#39; and religious figures (Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, et cetera) are just different ways to reach a personal &#39;enlightenment&#39; that is really just the light of knowledge and self-awareness?

I mean, I&#39;m an atheist, but that notion of &#39;god&#39; doesn&#39;t seem harmful to me, because it&#39;s saying that god cannot be known and is completely unreachable by any of us, so worship is completely useless because it has no bearing on us at all.

I don&#39;t care, either way. I know I sure as hell don&#39;t believe in any higher beings, so whatever.


Andrew

[Donnie]

You&#39;re hanging on things that happened hundreds of years ago. Go to a church and talk about love and justice. They&#39;re not greedy.
There not greedy? The Catholic religion denounces that women and men should not sleep with any other people except their own partner. Islam regards women as private property; the Shiite diversion of Islam makes women cover their faces.
The Christian religion is swamped in riches; with gold and silk robes, with gold and silver platters. The Christian religion has a thirst for power over the masses.


I have faith in it&#39;s existence, and I have feelings that support this faith. I have no knowledge because I&#39;ve never seen it, and I don&#39;t know what it&#39;s like. I&#39;m not supposed to know. Just because I don&#39;t know it&#39;s details, doesn&#39;t mean I shouldn&#39;t believe in it.
Ignorance and fear are the parents of all superstition.

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by Chinghis [email protected] 2 2005, 01:35 AM
What kind of homophobic bullshit is tolerated here? I don&#39;t care if you&#39;re fucking religion demands that gays should be condemned, THIS BOARD AIN&#39;T YOUR RELIGION&#33; There are a few gays and lesbians on this board, and I&#39;d imagine they may feel quite hurt by some of these comments. Discrimination shouldn&#39;t be accepted in this board&#33; Believe me, I get really pissed off when people here make anti-semitic remarks under the veil of &#39;zionism&#39;.
Um that really had nothing to do with the convo other then you *****ing about how a few homosexual individuals on this site may be offended by something that was said. You know as well as I do that they&#39;d probably get over it after they log off of their computers <_<.


Anyway back on topic, as someone stated earlier its not the idea of religion that should be done away with but the idea of organized religion that should. I mean I believe in God but I also believe that people should be able to do what they want so long as it doesn&#39;t infringe on other&#39;s rights and thats what organized religion does so thats what should really go. Ya know what I mean?

[Phalanx]

I was replying to Oldergod. His comments were quite intolerant. Insults are harder to heal than injuries. Unless you&#39;ve been shot in the stomach or some fatal wound that was inflicted.

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by Chinghis [email protected] 6 2005, 01:59 AM
I was replying to Oldergod. His comments were quite intolerant. Insults are harder to heal than injuries. Unless you&#39;ve been shot in the stomach or some fatal wound that was inflicted.
My apologies then as I misread it.

[OleMarxco]

Sure, let&#39;s all get serious and talk about "psychial injuries". Ooh, you called me a fucking asshole, I have to rant and write about by new mind-situation. Whatever happened to "sticks and stones might break my bones, but words can never hurt me"? Obviously, this guy never has heard that saying ;)

So yeah; Insults ARE harded to heal than injuries. If you&#39;re VERY sensible and physically feelingly, NUMB. Get over it....I&#39;m not being inhumane, but realistic. I don&#39;t give a shit what people say &#39;bout me, not even if it was God.
Fuck you, God :D