My Manifesto

[cormacobear]

So this may be the first chapter of a book, I have some more stuff writt on related subjects which I may put together but we'll see when I have enough for a book.

So I thought I'd throw this out for a bit of a kicking see if I can shake a few bugs out.

Average Joe (Every bodies, or, Canadians) Manifesto

By Cormac O'Bear professer of Political Scienceand dean of The University of My Living Room

Preface

If we accept that our goal as humans is ensure the highest quality of life for our descendants and us then we must also accept that conflict causes suffering.These given then rational analysis of our knowledge to date leads to some clear answers about what we as humans need and the most rewarding means of achieving it. Our responsibilities as parents, individuals, and citizens are generally not as far removed from one another as the impression given by the day-to-day issues that tend to cause one to loose focus of the big picture and our goals.

Why we must act collectively?

Ruler is to ruled, as rich is to poor, this Truism clearly demonstrates the ideology of divided class. Which by matter of nature must have predominantly opposing goals. It is this divergence of the two groups base goals that creates the first of two types of conflict.

To prevent this conflict we must unite our goals, and since we may not all be rich as kings, and need not be as poor as our huddled masses, a clear alternative presents itself. For ease of usage you may now re-read this last sentence replacing rich for powerful, and poor for powerless for they are but two faces of the same grim coin. And the solution for both is the same. Democracy has been established as a necessity with checks and balances wherever they can be put. In order to equally distribute the power so that everyones goals were now the same, that is to say; Not to be oppressed, because now that means everyone including you. If we were to do the same with wealth, the equivalent of power, we could eliminate both these sources of conflict at their root. It is absurd to require the transparency and accountability in our governments to maintain equality of power and leave a matter of such import to our survival as the production and distribution of food and commodities to the vagaries of a few wealthy men. Men accountable only to their shareholders. Men required by law to not knowledgably make decisions that will cost money that means morals cannot affect their decisions. Equality of wealth and power, by eliminating these two inequalities no expense in bureaucracy can out weigh the cost in military spending and lives both lost to poverty and those lost to conflict. The solution is within our reach. With a few small changes to make our system in Canada a little more representative we can maximize our democracy and when we feel we can maintain sufficient control and transparency of the government then, we control the government, and we can use the government to control the economy. Then we control the economy and must have the same collective goal by default.


So we know that being oppressed is bad, it divides us and gets us killed. So we must control the government, and the government must be transparent with clear goals and clear policy’s to achieve those goals. As must our industry’s.


So what should the government do, to avoid being an expensive tool for one class to hide their oppression while oppressing the other?

If we accept that we have no right to tell other people how to think. We have grasped the second great source of conflict, and remember: conflict causes suffering, then all else falls into place with a logical analysis of history. Therefore we prevent conflict by allowing freedom. We must tolerate an individuals right to do almost anything. To practice his faith, to love whom he wants, to drink or take drugs. The only freedom that must be denied is the right to infringe on another’s rights. In the case of drugs it must be proven that it is a sufficient violation of others rights. Heroine and crack clearly infringe dramatically on our right to safety their crippling addictiveness sees to that. Yet in the case of marijuana this is not true, science has proven this. This is an example of where legislation has violated our necessary freedoms more than legalization would.

If you remove virtually all cause for conflict the need for a judiciary is vastly limited. It need only deal with the small amount of conflict left. These freedoms all have the same solution. Simply say it is not the job of the government, which is us, to tell the people, us again, what to think or do. There are of course the issues, we cannot allow pedophilia but this clearly falls into an infringement on the child’s right to safety.

Our grandfathers died to preserve the means of peaceful change. Which is government control. They fought fascist and communists, both dictatorships. Are we to tell our grandchildren that we lacked the courage to use it to ensure them an equal opportunity to reach their full potential, with little crime, no poverty, and equal access to virtually everything?

How best do we adjust our perception after a lifetime of indoctrination?

The answers to the confusion has been recently put in the most enlightening manner in what I deem to be one of the greatest advances in political theory ever, placing it’s developers on par with men such as Voltaire, Adams, Marx, and Chomsky

It is the abandonment of the primitive view of society and it’s interactions (which by the way is one definition of politics) as being either left or right on a straight line. Which was only forced to adapt after the realization that Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia were on either ends of the line but were both dictatorships. The rather unimaginative explanation being offered during my formative years was to bend the line so Fascism and Sovietism (which was quite incorrectly being taught on both sides as Communism) were close yet not quite touching. A ‘U’ shape as it were. Yet this left too many glaring inadequacies to be accepted by intelligent men. The answer is a grid with an ‘X’ and ‘Y’ axis.

Where the ‘X’ axis has socialism (public control of economics and wealth for equitable stable, and sustainable distribution) on the left. and capitalism (private enterprise control of the economy for the maximum benefit of a small elite).
And totalitarianism at the top of the ‘Y’ axis and libertarianism at the bottom.
(awaiting reply re. Accredited authors)

Using this method on a large enough grid any individual’s beliefs can be marked.

This provides us the opportunity to better see the difference between democracy and capitalism. Which is a propagandist myth taught for generations to western school children. This false notion that the two were inseparable even if different was intended to protect the collective goals of the wealthy elite. Men whose wealth has given them the lions share of the power under capitalism nearly crippling even mighty democracies. Second history must have taught us by now that the top two and the bottom right should be disbanded entirely as options as they have been proven hazardous to our health. And looking in that lower left hand quadrant in the farthest corner who do we find but those unruly kids, tenaciously clinging to an old doctrine that has nearly been wiped from existence too many times to recon. The works of writers like Emma Goldman and men like Mikhail Bakunin, Pierre-Joseph Proudhom, and Erico Malatesta. Books we can easily imagine being held by the dead visionary’s of the Paris commune of 1871. Reborn today in these angry young men who were yelling at us to tear down these walls long before a president challenged one wall. These Anarchists. This is as close an ideology as can be conceived to Marx’s utopian communism. Most definitely a noble goal. Yet tolerance takes time, as will fixing first our nation and aiding others to end their inequalities that have brought so much conflict born suffering to our planet.

It will take generations likely several centuries for us to learn the civility and tolerance necessary for this pleasant future. First we must make our government more democratic, then we must make all industries and resources democratic. All the while learning to tolerate one another’s differences and respect for each and every single human life.



So what do you think :( :unsure:

[restin256]

Nice. Kind of makes me think of what the Wog or Orph manifesto would be.

[*Hippie*]

I think it's great! :)

[Anarcho-Communist]

I like it a lot.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Cormacobear
We must tolerate an individuals right to do almost anything. To practice his faith, to love whom he wants, to drink or take drugs. The only freedom that must be denied is the right to infringe on another’s rights. In the case of drugs it must be proven that it is a sufficient violation of others rights. Heroine and crack clearly infringe dramatically on our right to safety their crippling addictiveness sees to that. Yet in the case of marijuana this is not true...

The desire to determine the limits of freedom by the exercise of reason is commendable.

All the more reason, then, for you (and all of us) to exercise our reason in the most rigorous fashion.

In that paragraph you call for freedom "to practice one's faith" -- ignoring the hideous historical track-record of religion -- while whining about "heroin and crack"...two substances that are completely harmless to anyone who doesn't use them or uses them only occasionally.

No heroin user ever burnt a witch; no crack-head ever bombed a women's health clinic.

Religion has been an implacable enemy of both reason and freedom from the get-go...there is no reason to believe that will ever change.

It must be destroyed.

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

[LSD]

The only freedom that must be denied is the right to infringe on another’s rights. In the case of drugs it must be proven that it is a sufficient violation of others rights. Heroine and crack clearly infringe dramatically on our right to safety their crippling addictiveness sees to that.

While I appreciate the effort, you seem to have contradicted yourself here.

Certainly heroin and crack have negative effects to the user, but your test was about infringement of "another's rights".

My addiction to heroin or crack does not infringe on anyone else's right, therefore by your own reasoning my right to use either cannot be restricted by society.

[cormacobear]

Heroine and Crack addictions lead to all sorts of crimes including violent ones. Bombing an abortion clinic is and infringement on the occupants safety.

I haven't burned any witches lately. Unless you mean when I forgot my wiccan wife was outside sleeping on the deck and she got a sunburn. ;)

Do you not beleive that opposing religion would not be one of the feircest conflicts ever, one that could potentially end humanity. We can allow freedom of religion and still oppose religious practices that infringe on the rights of others.

[cormacobear]

and LSD would you not agree that such an addiction could easily consume all of ones resources forcing one into a life of crime, and frequently does. If there is a means of regulating it so you can act on that right without posing a viable threat to others I am not apposed to it.

[enigma2517]

Why does this crime occur?

The drug is illegal, thus being hard and expensive to obtain.

Just ask yourself, who is guiltier of a greater crime, a junkie who wastes his whole life shooting up (wastes food, clothing, and shelter, all things that can be produced with such excess by current technology that it really doesn't matter whether or not a person utilizies efficiently), or the President of the transnational corporation that infringes on the rights and wealth of various indiginous people. Compartively, the former is a problem that is much less urgent and needs to be dealt with eventually, but who the fuck can honestly care about it now?

Resistance to capitalist despotism on the other hand...

[LSD]

and LSD would you not agree that such an addiction could easily consume all of ones resources forcing one into a life of crime

Not within an equitable society, no.

It's only within capital societies that one is forced to "kill and steal" to acquire drugs.


Heroine and Crack addictions lead to all sorts of crimes including violent ones.

How so?


Do you not beleive that opposing religion would not be one of the feircest conflicts ever

Not unlike the fight against capitalism.

And besides, religions are destroyed all the time.

Look at what Christianity managed 1700 years ago!

[cormacobear]

Good point. I suppose you are correct in your assertion that the prohibition is what creates the costs that are the stem of the crime. Any other suggestions on a different example I can use than narcotics to explain simply the premiss?

[cormacobear]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 1 2005, 11:03 PM

Not unlike the fight against capitalism.

And besides, religions are destroyed all the time.

Look at what Christianity managed 1700 years ago!
Well I think strenth of numbers expressed through legislation can be put to good use in acheiving many our common goals. And you mean the destrucion of pagan religions like the one my wife practices. :lol:

[LSD]

And you mean the destrucion of pagan religions like the one my wife practices.

Yes.

Neo-paganist revivalists are statistically insignificant. "Paganists" used to cover the globe.

If we reduce religion to the status that "paganism" currently enjoys, I'd be more than satisfied!

[cormacobear]

by what means do you think that could be acheived, without infringing on an individuals right to his thought, and his right to congregate?

[Professor Moneybags]

Religion has been an implacable enemy of both reason and freedom from the get-go...there is no reason to believe that will ever change.

A bit like communism, then ? Especially your brand of it.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 04:51 AM
Why does this crime occur?
Because of irresponsibility, which a free-for-all society will actively promote as there will be no consequences against it.

[LSD]

Because of irresponsibility, which a free-for-all society will actively promote as there will be no consequences against it.

Moneybags, are you saying that you support drug prohibition? :o

Isn't that about as un-libertarian as you can get?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 2 2005, 09:30 AM
Moneybags, are you saying that you support drug prohibition? :o
Or course not. The fact that there will be no free healthcare to help you if you mess yourself up with drugs sounds like a good enough reason not to take them in the first place.

[LSD]

Or course not. The fact that there will be no free healthcare to help you if you mess yourself up with drugs sounds like a good enough reason not to take them in the first place.

Of course, so the rich should be able to "mess themselves", just not the rest of us.

*wheh*, I'm relieved. For a second there, I thought you had "concerns" about "people" :o

It's good to know that, deep down, you're a capitalist to the core.

And, by the way, if your "theory" were correct, why aren't all rich people perpetually strung out on drugs? After all, they can affor it, they can afford treatment. We would expect that they would do nothing but "mess themselves".

Strange... but maybe it could be that people don't want to do nothing but drugs. Maybe people actually enjoy living life as well as the occasional substance or two. Could it be that life is more ccomplex than your paltry little model? :(

[cormacobear]

Healthcare availability matters not we cannot reverse the effects of prolonged hard narcotic use, yet it doesn't stop people so your argument moneybags is incorrect.

Moneybags is picking on them he must agree with all I wrote I've done it ive saved him he's converted yay, yay

[jasontkennedy]

LSD are you serious? You cannot be. I am guessing that you have never been around a person on crack..... I have, I grew up around crack and coke fiends, and let me tell you, when they are high - many of them get extremely violent. It has nothing to do with someone aggitating them, it just seems to be a side effect of the drug. I am not claiming the same is true for other drugs, specifically hallucinogens and opiates. I have experimented with a lot of drugs, and I know quite a few don't cause violence, but to claim that none do is gross hubris in your own knowledge. There are some drugs that make some people unsafe intrinsically. In that regard they infringe on others saftey and freedom.

Additionally, to catagorically assume that people of faith ought to be decimated or forced away from their faith may be some of the most coercive talk I have ever heard. Machiavelli would be proud. Not every person of faith is some dogmatic power freak, and treating them as such is akinned to how the US goverment treated japanese citizens after pearl harbor, or how Hitler treated the jews. That sort of genocidal sentiment makes me think that you are the one who ought to be exterminated.

[LSD]

There are some drugs that make some people unsafe intrinsically. In that regard they infringe on others saftey and freedom.

No they don't.

If indeed it can be shown that some recreational drugs, in and of themselves, cause violent behaviour, then it must be the responsibility of the user to ensure proper safeguards (locks, a sitter, binds if nescessary) before using.

Prohibition, however, is never an answer.


Additionally, to catagorically assume that people of faith ought to be decimated or forced away from their faith may be some of the most coercive talk I have ever heard.

Really?

I guess you've lived a pretty sheltered life then.

By the way, what's your opinion on racism?

Should racists be "forced away from their" racism?

Certainly you'd agree that racism is a horrible and oppressive superstitious ideology that should be combatted at all ideologies. If we have the chance, should we not do all we can to end racism?

Shouldn't we shun racists, provide anti-racist education, not permit racist preaching or the use of public resources for racist monuments or buildings?

...how is this any different from religion?

Both are oppressive, dogmatic, superstitious beliefs based on nonsense logic and "faith". Both reject rational argumentation and claim that they represent some "higher" purpose.

One claims that all [INSERT RACE HERE] are superior, the other claims that all [INSERT RELIGION HERE] are superior. Both are direclty responsible for millions of deaths (although religion still does have the higher body count by far), both are intrinsically antirational and antihumanist, and both have, at different times, been hailed as essential features of civilization.

Religion is demonstrably false. It is a superstition that, by its nature, enslaves, oppresses, and sedates. It has been one of the most destructive forces in human history and we would be remiss if we don't take advantage of any opportunity to destroy it forever.


Not every person of faith is some dogmatic power freak, and treating them as such is akinned to how the US goverment treated japanese citizens after pearl harbor, or how Hitler treated the jews.

Oh, good, the Hilter analogy!

You'r so bad ...you're like ...Hitter! :o

[KC]

I have to agree with Jason, to an extent. It isn't religion that is the enemy; religion is the means that people use to describe the unexplainable. Organized religion is the problem; when a religious group tries to discredit science and wage war on other religions is true oppression.


One claims that all [INSERT RACE HERE] are superior, the other claims that all [INSERT RELIGION HERE] are superior.
Not all religious people believe that their religion is superior to others. Also in your belief that religion should be destroyed, have you considered the fact that this itself infringes on the rights of the individual?

Someone believing something is one thing. Someone pressing their beliefs on others is another. Religion isn't the problem, it's when people start preaching that religion becomes a problem. Are you going to kill someone because they pray every night before they go to bed?

[jasontkennedy]

I guess you've lived a pretty sheltered life then.

By the way, what's your opinion on racism?

Racism is horrible. A belief of inate superiority based on ethinic descent is really troubling if you aren't a part of the espoused better race. By the way, for you naturalists, Darwin was a radical racist. The original name for origin of species was "The Origin of Species by means of natural selection or the PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STUGGLE FOR LIFE"



Certainly you'd agree that racism is a horrible and oppressive superstitious ideology that should be combatted at all ideologies. If we have the chance, should we not do all we can to end racism?

yes



Shouldn't we shun racists, provide anti-racist education, not permit racist preaching or the use of public resources for racist monuments or buildings?

I agree with most of this except for shuning, I think that would only agitate them into violence, because the sort of simplicity that is required, in thought, to be racist may cause, when provoked, a need to be demonstrative



...how is this any different from religion?

Both are oppressive, dogmatic, superstitious beliefs based on nonsense logic and "faith". Both reject rational argumentation and claim that they represent some "higher" purpose.

Faith is not intrinsically opressive, dogmatic, or provably superstitious my friend. If you believe that there is no creator, the burden of proof falls on you. Some of the greatest intellectual giants throught history were people of faith, up to today. Kent Polkinghorn for example, one of the greatest astro physist alive. Several string theory physists, chaoticians, biologists, archeologists, etc are at least Deists based on the amazing order and proportion that they find, amongsts other things. To claim that the belief in creation is lunacy, based on intellectual grounds, is itself lunacy.


One claims that all [INSERT RACE HERE] are superior, the other claims that all [INSERT RELIGION HERE] are superior. Both are direclty responsible for millions of deaths (although religion still does have the higher body count by far), both are intrinsically antirational and antihumanist, and both have, at different times, been hailed as essential features of civilization.

First of all, the belief that an affirmation of divine deity makes one feel superior is your presupposition. I would guess, based on your deliniation, that if you ascended to some faith, that you would become elitist based on your statement. As far as faith being a motivation for murder, I agree, lots of people have taken it to mean somthing that maybe it does not. I don't think, should any of them be real, Sri Krishna, Bhudda, Jesus, Brahma, Vishnu, Ganish, etc, are up there smiling on people using them as killing cards. But consider that genocidal behavior transcends faith issues, I think you'll find it does. The 20th century was the bloodiest in recorded history. And in that century athiests killed more people than anybody else. Adolf Hitler, Joeseph Stalin, Fidel Castro, Poll Pot, need I continue? One could make the argument that from an athiestistic paradigm, human life has no intrinsic value, so extermination is an easy decision. In fact it happend, consider Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Poll Pot, etc.


Religion is demonstrably false. It is a superstition that, by its nature, enslaves, oppresses, and sedates. It has been one of the most destructive forces in human history and we would be remiss if we don't take advantage of any opportunity to destroy it forever.

HAHAHAHAHA Okay, then please demonstrate for me that there is no God(are no Gods). Please, I will lay down my faith if you can. In fact, if I claim that my great grandpa could turn into a grasshopper at will, and asked you to disprove it you couldn't. Based on scientific process, it is impossable to prove the non-existance of just about anything. Again, you are showing signs of your own hubris, and making it quite clear that you are nonscientific. Please don't make sweeping, grandeois claims if you really want to have people take you seriously. Lack of faith has, as I said above, made it rather easy to exterminate people. But go ahead and try to separate Hinduism from India. Try to Separate Bhuddaism from China or Thailand. Try to separate Christianity from the US or Africa. Try to separate Judism from Israel or America or the Gaza strip.The point is that you yourself become the wolf that utopian politics seek to destroy. You would have to kill most of the people in the world to remove faith for your cause.

I think that people, of faith or no faith, kill because they are indoctrinated by the wrong people. Militants exist everywhere, and they are the real criminals. What to do with those criminals is up to a governing body to decide. If that governing body be a complete democracy, a republic, and anarchy, etc, and decides rehabilitation, or execution, or whatever, that is their decision. I personally see life as precious, and would like to see more rehabilition. I personally would like to see a Marxist democracy (likely Libritarian Socialism). But that question does rise up, when you see people like Ted Bundy or Ed Gien, "What do we do with these people?" But that is an all together different question than, "is this person of the belief that we were created? If so, either deprogram them or exterminate them." The moment that you begin to destroy people of faith is the moment that your cause becomes a cruel tyranny. Please consider these issues with a little more gravity. Mayby LSD has made you a senseless rabid killing machine.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 2 2005, 10:30 AM
Of course, so the rich should be able to "mess themselves", just not the rest of us.

You mess yourself up at your own risk. "Rich vs poor" doesn't come into it.


*wheh*, I'm relieved. For a second there, I thought you had "concerns" about "people" :o

What concern should I have for those who don't even show concern for themselves ?


And, by the way, if your "theory" were correct, why aren't all rich people perpetually strung out on drugs?

The same reason all poor people aren't all strung out of drugs- most of them aren't stupid enough to take them.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 10:31 AM
Healthcare availability matters not we cannot reverse the effects of prolonged hard narcotic use, yet it doesn't stop people so your argument moneybags is incorrect.

Moneybags is picking on them he must agree with all I wrote I've done it ive saved him he's converted yay, yay
Repeat that again in English.

[cormacobear]

I noticed moneybags you only criticized other people comments on my peice of work. So I assume you had no disagreements with it?


LSD if your best argument against religion is the fact that wars have been fought over it, and lives lost, then by your own logic we should work to eliminate Marxism from the planet, because it's dogma has also led to wars and massacres. In fact by that logic holding us responsible for the actions of previous generations, we must wipe out everyone, because I doubt there is an individual alive who decends from entilrely innoncent lineage.

With effective seperation of Church and state we can legislate against religious practices that infringe on others, without lowering ourselves to what you beleive is your right to tell others what they can think.

and while I enjoy seeing something I said made people argue. this has turned into both a religious and narcotics debate, without anyone offering an exemple of of two similair situations, like soft and heavy drugs and how they can show nescessary controls and overstepping of legislative nesessity, that I can use instead. And I'm not taking out the reference to religious freedom because it was written to convince normal people not us eggheads.

[LSD]

By the way, for you naturalists, Darwin was a radical racist.

For "us" naturalists?

Are you saying that you don't believe in evolution? :o


Faith is not intrinsically opressive, dogmatic, or provably superstitious my friend.

Yes it is!

"Faith" requires, by definition, the surrender of reason and rationality. It requires that we give up that which makes us human and accept blindly.

Religion is unchanging, or slow to change, it is regressive and reactionary. It is, with almost no exceptions, antiquated and traditionalistic. Religion, because it claims to be of "divine" source, must be inflexible as the "word of God" can hardly be rewritten!

Therefore religion resists progression by nature.

Furthermore, "faith" prevents rational decision making. Religion is a framework; if you truly believe that "God" judges you and your actions, everything you do will be influenced. If you're intellectually consistant, you are unable to analyze any situation without filtering it through your supernaturalistic dogma first.

Like with any nonsense belief, religion undermines logic and rationality, the very thing that makes us as a specied unique

And as for "provably superstitious", you're right, religion isn't "provably superstitious" ...it's superstitious. No proverbs needed.

Superstition: n. 1. an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear.


If you believe that there is no creator, the burden of proof falls on you.

:lol:

Sorry, science doesn't work like that.

If you propose a positive conjecture (like there is a "God"), it is your responsibility to provide coroborating evidence.

In the lack thereof, we assume that this conjecture is untrue.


Some of the greatest intellectual giants throught history were people of faith, up to today.

Appeal to authority.


I think that people, of faith or no faith, kill because they are indoctrinated by the wrong people.

Absolutely, but "faith" makes it alot easier to do so.

I'm not saying that religion is the only agent of oppression, it's just one of the worst. But there are certainly others that must be eliminated as well!


LSD if your best argument against religion is the fact that wars have been fought over it, and lives lost,

That's not my argument at all.

It's that, by being intrinsically anti-rational, religion lends itself for abuse and exploitation. That by opposing reason and logic, it is nescessarily antiprogressive and antihumanist, and that by minimizing corporeal life it sedates and oppresses.

[cormacobear]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 5 2005, 04:03 PM
If you propose a positive conjecture (like there is a "God"), it is your responsibility to provide coroborating evidence.

Or we can beleive whatever we like, meet weekly with like minded folks, and say nuts to you. :rolleyes:

With the religious in the 90 percentile, wheather this is moral or no, we don't have to defend anything, that's the political reality of it. Now answer my dam question about a pair of laws.

[LSD]

Or we can beleive whatever we like, meet weekly with like minded folks, and say nuts to you.

Sure you can.

KKK's been doing it for years.


With the religious in the 90 percentile, wheather this is moral or no, we don't have to defend anything, that's the political reality of it.

Kind of like capitalism?


Now answer my dam question about a pair of laws.

Which question was that?

[cormacobear]

and while I enjoy seeing something I said made people argue. this has turned into both a religious and narcotics debate,I suppose you are correct in your assertion that the prohibition is what creates the costs that are the stem of the crime. Any other suggestions on a different example I can use than narcotics to explain simply the premiss?

without anyone offering an exemple of of two similair situations, like soft and heavy drugs and how they can show nescessary controls and overstepping of legislative nesessity, that I can use instead.

And I'm not taking out the reference to religious freedom because it was written to convince normal people not us eggheads.

[jasontkennedy]

For "us" naturalists?

Are you saying that you don't believe in evolution?

Please tell me you are joking! Really you are, right? The idea of creation doesn't require one to belive that we live in a static world. Evolution is a process of adaptaion to environment and progress in feeding efficientcy.(I know this is condensed, but I don't see a need to prove I have a basic understanding of evolution) The acknowledging of a something to adapt doesn't reject the idea of a creator.


"Faith" requires, by definition, the surrender of reason and rationality. It requires that we give up that which makes us human and accept blindly.

Umm, no it doesn't. Blindly accepting the the idea of a creator? Have you ever heard the watchmaker analogy? Again I am not making an arguement for a specific faith or doctrine. I am instead, making a deist argument. Allow me to define my terms:

de·ism - The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation. dictionary.com

If you were walking through the woods and found a hand made Rolex watch, to assume it grew there would be absolute foolishness. It there is something w/ the intricacy of a watch, there must be a watch maker. There is strong evidence for design. The cell has more processes than any given city in the world. Choaticians say
that you would have better odds of having a random letter generating machine randomly type out McBeth with perfect punctuation and spelling than the possible occurance of a cell out of a universe of primordial soup (much less some swamp somewhere on Earth) in 16 Billion years. There is very strong evidences for a watch maker in the design of nature. This idea does not alienate evolutionary process and is very much a rational conclusion. If there is not creator, then where did all of this stuff come from? If your answer is the big bang, then where did the substance within it come from? And of that substance, what caused the gravitational grip of that singularity point to be overwhelmed by nuclear force? In other words, what was the uncaused cause? My paradigm makes an explanation for these events. Does yours? Does your model work, or do you just say you don't know? In that case you are an agnostic (greek for without knowledge) and not an athiest (greek against God, or in this context, "there is no God)? This is the very begining of the rational deliniation of thought that produces faith. And I am still waiting for you to demonstrat that there is no God. Or if you don't want to do it in person, for practical reasons, then give me a scientific test to prove that there is no God.


Religion is unchanging, or slow to change, it is regressive and reactionary. It is, with almost no exceptions, antiquated and traditionalistic. Religion, because it claims to be of "divine" source, must be inflexible as the "word of God" can hardly be rewritten!

So, then you are saying that if a religion were built upon false precepts it would be dangerous. I would agree. But if a given religion is exactly what it caims to be, and it is condescended knowledge from God, then it really doesn't need philosophical reconsideration, now does it? The key here to remember is that these are peoples personal beliefs, that they are entitled to. Just like you are entitled to poisoning yourself with your hallucinagenics. That is your prerogative. But your utter reprisal against 70+% of the world's population makes you an inhumane butcher. Hitler only wanted jews decimated. You are saying you want every person of faith, are you not?


Therefore religion resists progression by nature.

I can think of at least two religions that support Marxist ideology, or have a capacity to house the ideologies. Most of the adherants to those faiths that I know don't ascribe to marxist ideologies, but they are not mutually exclusive. Neither are science and religion mutually exlusive by design. Believe me, again there are plenty of people who who uphold both.


If you propose a positive conjecture (like there is a "God"), it is your responsibility to provide coroborating evidence.

In the lack thereof, we assume that this conjecture is untrue.


your positive conjuncture is that this universe exists without creative origin. Your model necessitates all of the matter in the universe coming from nothing or some other universe with no God that came from nothing. To reject God necesitates that there has always been matter with no origin. I am saying dirt came from God, you are saying dirt came from dirt.


Appeal to authority

And why not? In a case of forensic science in a court hearing, they don't call in a high school janitor to make a case, they call an expert. In the realm of science, there people who have more knowledge than you or I. You are claiming that rational thinkings forces the rjection of a creator. I am saying that there are many rational thinkers who would disagree. Am I really defending this?


Absolutely, but "faith" makes it alot easier to do so.


Maybe Islam. It is the only faith of which I know that ecourages it's adherants to god and slaughter non-adherents as an inherent part of the faith, because it is explicitely a part of their religious text. The Koran specifically tells believers to slaughter those how oppose Allah. There is no other faith I have studied that encourages such behavior. to this point I have read all of the Bhagavad Gita, the Koran, the Bible, Tao Te Ching, many Hindu Vedas, some remnants of Zoroastrian texts, plenty of text on Nimrod, and a few others. Islam is exclusive in it's genocidal approach to sharing it's faith. If you can site references otherwise, PM me. Spare these people any more of your rantings are it would be way off topic.


I'm not saying that religion is the only agent of oppression, it's just one of the worst. But there are certainly others that must be eliminated as well!

So, in your world, who gets to live? Or do you just stand there, the last person on Earth with a hammer and sickle in hand, free at last?


It's that, by being intrinsically anti-rational, religion lends itself for abuse and exploitation. That by opposing reason and logic, it is nescessarily antiprogressive and antihumanist, and that by minimizing corporeal life it sedates and oppresses.

Many would say that using mind altering chemicles is anti-rational. Concluding that all of this is here without creation is counter intuitive. Bigotry toward religious people lends itself to abuse and exploitation. Following your reason and logic, it is necessary to murder most everyone on the planet in the name of progress and humanism.

Interesting that you should mention "corporeal life" as a part of your proof. Are you saying that rationally you can know that a material universe exists? I would think someone skeptical to the point you are, and with as little regard for human life as you have as a solipsist. After all, how can you prove anything other that "I am"? You cannot prove the nature of your existance, nor the existance of anything outside of yourself. You cannot prove the existance of your body nor a material universe. Can you?

[KC]

This idea does not ailenate evolutionary process and is very much a rational conclusion. If there is not creator, then where did all of this stuff come from? If your answer is the big bang, then where did the substance within it come from? And of that substance, what caused the gravitational grip of that singularity point to be overwhelemed by nuclear force?

Maybe there is no beginning to time. Is that so hard to accept? Of course it is; it's not something that humans can't comprehend. That is why we try to find out the beginning. Can I comprehend it? No, forever is incomprehensible to me, as it is to everyone else on this board and everyone on this planet.

Of course, we don't know enough about science at all to determine what caused cells to form. There is so much about the universe that we don't know that you can't even present this question at this time and expect an answer. So many other factors could come into effect. So yes, my belief that there is no beginning to time is based on unfounded conclusions that I have come up with myself. Religion is a belief based on unfounded conclusions that people have come up with or accepted. Similar?

[LSD]

Please tell me you are joking! Really you are, right?

Hey, you're the one who said "you naturalists (emphasis added)", you tell me!


Umm, no it doesn't. Blindly accepting the the idea of a creator? Have you ever heard the watchmaker analogy?

Yes, and it's deeply flawed.

We assume that a watch has a creator because we know what a watch is, not because it's complex.

Assuming that complexity demands design is pure assertion.


But if a given religion is exactly what it caims to be, and it is condescended knowledge from God, then it really doesn't need philosophical reconsideration, now does it?

That's a hell of a hypothetical!

And one which has no correlation to the real world. No religion has demonstrated that it is indeed "divinely inspired" or even that there is such a thing as a "divine". Untill that occurs, logic demands that we assume it does not.


The key here to remember is that these are peoples personal beliefs, that they are entitled to.

Like racism?


But your utter reprisal against 70+% of the world's population makes you an inhumane butcher. Hitler only wanted jews decimated. You are saying you want every person of faith, are you not?

No!

Of course not, no more than I am suggesting that we kill all racists or capitalsts. I'm saying that we must destroy the superstition, not the people who hold it.


Following your reason and logic, it is necessary to murder most everyone on the planet in the name of progress and humanism.

Don't be absurd.


Neither are science and religion mutually exlusive by design.

Yes they are.


Believe me, again there are plenty of people who who uphold both.

Not really.

Those serious scientists who claim to be religious are not really following their "faith", and those truly religious who claim to "scientists" are nothing but.

Science directly conflicts with religious texts on several key points. Not to mention that believing without evidence ("faith"), is directly anti-science.


your positive conjuncture is that this universe exists without creative origin.

:lol:

That's a negative conjecture.

One clue is the presence of a negative adverb (without) in the sentence.

Sort of like the negative conjecture fairies do not live inside the moon.

It's not anyone's responsibility to defend such statements, it's up to the proponents of positive contentions to back them up.


And why not? In a case of forensic science in a court hearing, they don't call in a high school janitor to make a case, they call an expert.

Right, but he actually has to come to court and testify.

The prosecutor doesn't just get to say lot's and lot's of forensic analysts agree with me...


Maybe Islam. It is the only faith of which I know that ecourages it's adherants to god and slaughter non-adherents as an inherent part of the faith, because it is explicitely a part of their religious text. The Koran specifically tells believers to slaughter those how oppose Allah. There is no other faith I have studied that encourages such behavior.

Try Judaism and Christianity to start.


Interesting that you should mention "corporeal life" as a part of your proof. Are you saying that rationally you can know that a material universe exists?

Again, it's a baseline assumption we all make.

If there really is "no reality", then nothing we do matters. If on the other hand, there is a reality, what we do does matter.

Therefore, as there is no way to be sure, we assume that reality exists and act accordingly to maximize the potential bennefit either way.


So, then you are saying that if a religion were built upon false precepts it would be dangerous. I would agree.

Then remind me what we're arguing about?

Are you saying that all you need to convince you that religion is dangerous is evidence that it is based on "false precepts"? :huh:

If so, I would advise that you read through the Bible. I think once you get to the "cure for leprosy", you'll have all the evidence you need! :lol:

[KC]

Is there something wrong with people believing in racism? The answer is NO. Only when a belief is EXPRESSED should it be taken into consideration. It doesn't matter if someone is a racist or is a nazi sympathizer or ANYTHING. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH HAVING BELIEFS.

Never judge if a belief is right or wrong; there's no such thing (this is completely objective). You can, however judge if expression of beliefs is beneficial or not(this doesn't mean asking someone if they're racist and they say yes). Expression of a belief has effects on other people, and that is when it must be put into question. That is why religion itself isn't the problem. The problem lies in the expression of religion i.e. preaching, religious acts, organized religion, churches, etc....

[cormacobear]

screw religion, did any of you read the artical the word religion came up like once. quit beating a dead horse an try on concentrate on the amendment you guys have convinced me to make. :blink:

[Andy Bowden]

As far as I am concerned so long as religion and state are completely seperated I don't particularly care what people do or don't practise in - unless it's something discriminatory in which case the state should intervene.


Besides, the way things are going virtually all of the western world will be secular in the next few decades. It's in the third world, where people hang on to religion more where religious beliefs are stronger.

[Publius]

Umm, no it doesn't. Blindly accepting the the idea of a creator? Have you ever heard the watchmaker analogy? Again I am not making an arguement for a specific faith or doctrine. I am instead, making a deist argument. Allow me to define my terms:

de·ism - The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation. dictionary.com

If you were walking through the woods and found a hand made Rolex watch, to assume it grew there would be absolute foolishness. It there is something w/ the intricacy of a watch, there must be a watch maker. There is strong evidence for design. The cell has more processes than any given city in the world. Choaticians say
that you would have better odds of having a random letter generating machine randomly type out McBeth with perfect punctuation and spelling than the possible occurance of a cell out of a universe of primordial soup (much less some swamp somewhere on Earth) in 16 Billion years. There is very strong evidences for a watch maker in the design of nature. This idea does not alienate evolutionary process and is very much a rational conclusion. If there is not creator, then where did all of this stuff come from? If your answer is the big bang, then where did the substance within it come from? And of that substance, what caused the gravitational grip of that singularity point to be overwhelmed by nuclear force? In other words, what was the uncaused cause? My paradigm makes an explanation for these events. Does yours? Does your model work, or do you just say you don't know? In that case you are an agnostic (greek for without knowledge) and not an athiest (greek against God, or in this context, "there is no God)? This is the very begining of the rational deliniation of thought that produces faith. And I am still waiting for you to demonstrat that there is no God. Or if you don't want to do it in person, for practical reasons, then give me a scientific test to prove that there is no God.

The watchmaker analogy is false.

You could look at the Grand Canyon and say it required some sort of design, but did it?

The 'argument' is absurd it's hardly worth picking apart.

You're essentially saying, a man-made object such as a watch, can only be made by a man (or God).

Well no shit.

A flower is pretty fucking complex too, but can you make one of those? Can a watchmaker? Can a gardner?

The watchmaker fallacy only works if the Universe WAS created by God. It's circular logic:

If the Universe were created by God, it would be to complex to have happend on it's own, so since God created the Universe, it is to complex to have happend on its own, so God created the Universe.

Can you find the logic flaws in that?

Compare:

If a watch were invented by man, it would be to complex to have been created on it's own, since the watch was invented by man, it is to complex to have happend on its own, so man created the watch.

Notice the difference?

The second one can be proven (Man created the watch) the first one cannot.

[KC]

You interpreted that like a complete moron

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 6 2005, 12:31 PM
As far as I am concerned so long as religion and state are completely seperated I don't particularly care what people do or don't practise in - unless it's something discriminatory in which case the state should intervene.
Someone believing the wrong thing infringes on my right to force them to believe the right thing.

You'll need to be re-educated after the revolution, my friend.

[LSD]

Don&#39;t spam, Moneybags... <_<

[jasontkennedy]

LSD, I am going to rebut one last time, I haven&#39;t forgotten. Please do understand that I am a full time student and a full time carpenter (which sometimes demands a lot of overtime), so I will resume this as soon as I have time to spare

[jasontkennedy]

Really quickly though, allow me to say / ask this. To operate from an atiestic perspective requires just as much faith as does a theistic. They are both inductive arguments, thus leading to resolution in probability and possablility, and neither in certainty. The philosophical vantage of athiesim requires an ABSOLUTE belief that there is no God. So, please define your postion, are you arguing from an atheistic or an agnostic vantage? Are you arguing in absolutes or are you arguing in possability/probability? You also made the statement that socialism was beneficial to the non-materialist (solipist), why? To the non-materialst, opportunism seems more fitting, after all there is nobody else to coerce. Additonally, you should know that not every person of faith is necessary operating in absolutes in an ontological sense, there is something that a person of faith would describe as a metaphysical transcendence, and experiential pheonomina that they would claim occurs in a sort of communion w/ God(s), it you have never experianced this yourself, how can you deny it&#39;s validity? Your arguement to this point has been operating on the presupposition that there is only imperical evidence alone to prove the existence of something. That is problematic on many levels. Science, philosophy, and athiesm offer no explination for spirit (or if you resist that word "consciousness"), and have a nearly impossable time understanding the very most basic emotions, or how the brain causes the firing of sepsis. Again, if you have never had this "epiphany", this metaphysical experiance, you really are operating from a vantage point of ignorance, as far as logic is concerned (and calling it superstition is a presupposition made in ignorance).

Later I will rebut your misunderstanding of the watchmaker concept. The idea isn&#39;t about complexity. It is about irreducable complexity, and an absurdity of interdependence. I could spray paint on the floor randomly and come up with something complex. That is not the argument I am making. Anyhow, I have to get back to homework for now.

[cormacobear]

I don&#39;t feel I need to defend my faith, only the right to practice it.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 12:05 AM
Really quickly though, allow me to say / ask this. To operate from an atiestic perspective requires just as much faith as does a theistic.
Is disbelief in Santa Claus an act of faith ?


They are both inductive arguments, thus leading to resolution in probability and possablility, and neither in certainty. The philosophical vantage of athiesim requires an ABSOLUTE belief that there is no God.

Disbelief in god rests on the idea of "conformation by affirmation". There is no evidence that god exists, therefore it is reasonable to suggest that he doesn&#39;t. You don&#39;t need to know everything to know something.

[jasontkennedy]

Is disbelief in Santa Claus an act of faith ?


Actually, yes it is. By the way St. Nicholas was real. So thank you for availing my point. A better question would be " do you believe that the Tazmanian Tigers existed?" The reason that this is a better question is that there is remaining evidence that is conducive to the theory. There are historical accounts and skeletal remains. To assume that those skeletal remains were actually part of a real creature is an ontological assumption and a matter of faith. The destinction with God is that most faiths espouse that God is non-corporeal, and that the His notable traits are realised on a spiritual plain. With being non-corporeal, it is kinda hard to detect God with any sort of human instrument. However, that does not eliminate the possability of God&#39;s existence, or the possability of a person to experiance him&#33; Have you ever wondered why 90% of all humans ascend to some sort of an image of a higher power? Maybe we are all "superstisious" or maybe we are telling the truth in saying that we legitmately experiance something transcendental. If you have never experianced this, then you wouldn&#39;t know, would you?



Disbelief in god rests on the idea of "conformation by affirmation". There is no evidence that god exists, therefore it is reasonable to suggest that he doesn&#39;t. You don&#39;t need to know everything to know something.


Duh. Seriously, duh. Of course it is reasonable to SUGGEST that God doesn&#39;t exist. That is your prerogative. It is mine to suggest that God does exist and that I have experianced God. It is unreasonable absolutely assume that God doesn&#39;t exist. That is the difference between atheism and agnosticism. So, again, the ateistic view is one of faith the agnostic view is not. In fact agnosticism is ascent or descent to nothing at all, and is therefore not within it&#39;s juristiction to deny, because it doesn&#39;t know.

If you still disagree, it is because you want to, or because you need to reread the definition of the terms. Please spare me the dicitonary.com definition, I speak 3 languages, 1 of them is koine greek. I have done etymological studies on these words, my terms are right. (Actually, I just checked. Dictionary.com has correct definitions. They are a castrated version of the definitions, but workable none the less.)

And no, you don&#39;t need to know everything to know something. Thanks you for emboldening my existencialist argument.

Finally, someone said that they don&#39;t need the right to defend their faith, just the right to practice it. I agree. If you re-read everything in this string of posts, I have not once defended or upheld any one faith (I may have ailenated some forms of Buddahism, as some of them don&#39;t recognize a divine deity), but the idea that a creator is plausable, and should be allowed to people that ascend to it. It is up to an individual to decide if they have a maker beyond this world and whether or not that creator deserves reverence. Anything less than that right is coersion and VERY unlibertarian. I have not asked anyone here to acencend to faith.

[redstar2000]

Superstition rears its ugly countenance once more...


Originally posted by jasontkennedy
To operate from an atheistic perspective requires just as much faith as does a theistic.

No it doesn&#39;t. Atheism is a rational conclusion from the complete lack of any reliable evidence in support of theism.

Not believing in any gods is exactly the same as not believing in any unicorns.


...there is something that a person of faith would describe as a metaphysical transcendence, and experiential phenomena that they would claim occurs in a sort of communion w/ God(s), if you have never experienced this yourself, how can you deny its validity?

Easy. They&#39;re nutballs.


A better question would be "do you believe that the Tasmanian Tigers existed?" The reason that this is a better question is that there is remaining evidence that is conducive to the theory. There are historical accounts and skeletal remains. To assume that those skeletal remains were actually part of a real creature is an ontological assumption and a matter of faith.

Yes...we all know that skeletons can sometimes just magically appear without living animals to produce them. :lol:


The distinction with God is that most faiths espouse that God is non-corporeal, and that the His notable traits are realised on a spiritual plane.

The problem is that "God" won&#39;t stay on his "spiritual plane" but rather insists on mucking about with earthly matters...at least this is what the superstitious always tell us.

Very well, where&#39;s the earthly evidence for "his" "deeds"?


Have you ever wondered why 90% of all humans ascend to some sort of an image of a higher power?

No. Parental indoctrination and the gullibility of children is a sufficient explanation in itself -- and there are lots of other explanations clamoring for attention as well.

Rather you should ask yourself why the belief in any "gods" at all is perceptibly declining?

Because science works...and superstition doesn&#39;t.


If you have never experienced this, then you wouldn&#39;t know, would you?

How come I never experienced this? What kind of "god" grants "transcendent experiences" to some and not all?

What kind of shit is that?

And also, how come "God" gives different messages to different people? If the Christian "God" really existed, then everybody would be a Christian, right? Or a Jew. Or a Muslim. Or a whatever.

One of the inescapable logical consequences of the "existence" of "one God" is that there would be only one religion and it would be demonstrably true...everyone would believe and worship the same.

And, of course, everyone would have a "transcendent experience" at least once.

The very fact that this does not happen is a fatal blow to all versions of monotheism -- though not to polytheism, of course.


I speak 3 languages, 1 of them is koine Greek.

Goody for you. But superstitious babble, even in 300 languages, remains superstitious babble.


It is up to an individual to decide if they have a maker beyond this world and whether or not that creator deserves reverence.

Yes, you may believe in the "Great Pumpkin" if you wish.

But do not pretend that this is an "individual decision" taken in isolation from social reality.

Religion has a social role in public life...and that role is always reactionary.

Yeah...always&#33; :angry:

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

[jasontkennedy]

No it doesn&#39;t. Atheism is a rational conclusion from the complete lack of any reliable evidence in support of theism.

Not believing in any gods is exactly the same as not believing in any unicorns.

These are very easily defiable terms. I don&#39;t see the problem here. Faith is a matter of asserting something as true without absolute evidence. Absolute evidence is a key term here, don&#39;t gloss over it. Because you exist in a given place and a given time, your knowledge is finite (this the understatement of all time). Not one person knows all that humans have known, much less all there is to know. We don&#39;t know about about a vast amount on this little rock we live on, much less all of the space/time continuum. Since we cannot be omniscient, vertually any conclusion is "inductive" (if you don&#39;t thoroughly understand the concept of inductive vs. deductive arguments, please take the time to learn before you spout off a reply). The fact that virtually every conclusion is inductive accounts for scientific "theories". The term theory is attatched to things like gravity, and magnetic attraction, pressure in fluid systems, friction, etc, because it is too expansive to call it fact. So to conclude "there is no God" is to claim that you have been everywhere, and experianced everything on every level, for all of eternity. If you haven&#39;t done as I have just mentioned, then you are making an inductive argument, which is not based on an absolute. Since the notion is not absolute, barring you are omniscent, then it is a theory, and a matter of faith. You cannot claim that there is no God, because you don&#39;t know that there is no God.

LSD asserted that to ascend to a negative removed the burden of proof. Even if that were the case, which it is not, it doesn&#39;t lend correctness to the output. For example, scientests were fairly certain that the celacanth was extinct since the end of the cretaceous period. Here is someone asserting the nonexistence of something. (sort of like asserting the non-existance of a unicorn). But their agruement was inductive. "Because we haven&#39;t seen one, and the only remains we have examined were found on the cretaceous rock strata, we believe that this fish doesn&#39;t exist". This was generally accepted until christmas of 1938 when a fisherman caught one. The inductive argument for the non existence of the fish was sort of blown out of the water. Just like one day, we may find that your inductive arguement against God was wrong.

To answer LSD&#39;s comment about affirming a negative removing the burden of proof, consider the big bang. To say "the big bang happened" is an inductive conclusion, and a matter of faith. To say "the big bang didn&#39;t happen" is an inductive conclusion, and a matter of faith. To say "I don&#39;t know it the big bang happened or not" is no conclusion and thus not a matter of faith. If someone asserts that the big bang occurred, then it is up to them to have an argument for why. If someone asserts that it did not happen, then it is up to them to offer an argument why. Neither argument will be exhaustive, and thus conclusions of faith.


Easy. They&#39;re nutballs.


so you believe, but until you have experianced what they have, you are presupposing. That is a very weak arguement.


Yes...we all know that skeletons can sometimes just magically appear without living animals to produce them. laugh.gif

any ontological beliefs that you might have about the material universe are superstitious, oh you of faith. :lol:


The problem is that "God" won&#39;t stay on his "spiritual plane" but rather insists on mucking about with earthly matters...at least this is what the superstitious always tell us.

Very well, where&#39;s the earthly evidence for "his" "deeds"?

To you it may be a problem. You are anthropomorphizing a transcendent deity. That is like a bug trying to understand a human. Our limitation of understanding existance is our limitation of reason.

Where is the evidence? How about the earth? You are by faith (because your belief is not absolutely exahustive) claiming that he didn&#39;t make it, I am claiming by faith that I think he(they) did. Really the agnostic is the only one who cannot be disproven. But our assertions fall into the law of non-condtradictions.


No. Parental indoctrination and the gullibility of children is a sufficient explanation in itself -- and there are lots of other explanations clamoring for attention as well.

Rather you should ask yourself why the belief in any "gods" at all is perceptibly declining?

Because science works...and superstition doesn&#39;t.


that is one theory. But it is nothing more. You cannot proove that. Why would should I assume that 90% of the population are lying about an experiance that they are having. Are you so prideful that you can&#39;t accept that you might be wrong? I know that I consider it. Faith is perceptibly declining? Really? Did you notice the last american election? The GOP didn&#39;t sweep then nation becasue of their fiscal loyalty to the american people, it was because of their ethics. I am not at all claiming that I am behind any bourgeois, ruling class enabling asshole, but you have toi admit it is a hell of a way to get votes. I think ebb and flow sufficiently answers your question. If a little child were to arrive at the beach during high tide and then leave as teh tides retreated, he may believe that the ocean is dissappering forever because he doesn&#39;t understand ebb and flow. The same is true with the stock market, the closeness of the earth to the sun, etc.


How come I never experienced this? What kind of "god" grants "transcendent experiences" to some and not all?

What kind of shit is that?


maybe because you spend your life in bitter rebellion against the mere possibility. Again you are making assumptions abut what you think God ought to be. Is it possable that he gave man free will? That if man decided to live a life against him, that it would be that man&#39;s choice? Your ideal of the creator isn&#39;t necessarily an accurate description of him.


And also, how come "God" gives different messages to different people? If the Christian "God" really existed, then everybody would be a Christian, right? Or a Jew. Or a Muslim. Or a whatever.

Maybe God communicates to people in a culturally relative sense. Not every person of faith is a hard universalist, some are soft universalists, others cultural relativist (which is different than ethical relativism, please define the terms if you don&#39;t know them)


One of the inescapable logical consequences of the "existence" of "one God" is that there would be only one religion and it would be demonstrably true...everyone would believe and worship the same.

please refer to the above answer. Also, the idea that it is demonstratably true is an idealistic assumption that you are asserting onto God. You are claiming that he better be your ideal image of him, or he doesn&#39;t exist. Furthermore, many people claim that their faith is verifed through experiance, which you say you have never had and so cannot even really talk about. It is like trying to explain LSD to someone who has never taken it. Just because you haven&#39;t experianced something doesn&#39;t mean it doesn&#39;t exist. Again consider how many claim to have had this sort of experiance. You are calling most humans that have ever lived perennial liars from a platform of absolute ignorance, is this not hubris?


And, of course, everyone would have a "transcendent experience" at least once.

And you ascertained this how?


The very fact that this does not happen is a fatal blow to all versions of monotheism -- though not to polytheism, of course.


so you are rejecting monotheism, but not polytheism?


Goody for you.

That wasn&#39;t a brag. If I lived in Europe, Asia, or Africa 3 languages would be average to low.


But do not pretend that this is an "individual decision" taken in isolation from social reality.

Religion has a social role in public life...and that role is always reactionary.



Yeah...always&#33; mad.gif

another great example of an inductive assumption.

You have absolutely no clue what drew me to faith or religion, again you are assuming things that you cannot know. Another bold act of faith on your part. There is a reason that religion has a role in public life, it usually has ethics attached to it. It is the job of appointed officials or a democracy to limit the influance of that group of people. Marxism is reactionary. People tend to feel passionate about issues of justice, or better yet injustice. Humans don&#39;t exist in a vacuum. There is human nature at play. The ideal (for me) is to create a freedom in society where people can practice their own beliefs privately, and a state (local or national) protects the minorties from social or religious dogmas. a governing body, in my opinion should exist to protect it&#39;s people from coersion internally and externally. People should have the right to their faith, drugs, etc, while others should have the choice to reject those things with minimal consequence.

[jasontkennedy]

"The problem is that "God" won&#39;t stay on his "spiritual plane" but rather insists on mucking about with earthly matters...at least this is what the superstitious always tell us.

Very well, where&#39;s the earthly evidence for "his" "deeds"?"

I forgot to mention this. Did you notice that most of my first posts were purely deistic? Ifyou don&#39;t know the difference between deism and theism here they are.

Theism assumes that God is personal and a ruling force. Deism assumes that there is a creator(s) and that since creation he might have not done anything else. So you are attributing theistic premises to all creator paradigms. I think that is just plain incorrect.

[Black Dagger]

A better question would be " do you believe that the Tazmanian Tigers existed?" The reason that this is a better question is that there is remaining evidence that is conducive to the theory. There are historical accounts and skeletal remains. To assume that those skeletal remains were actually part of a real creature is an ontological assumption and a matter of faith.

No faith is necessary. There are skeletons, written accounts, photos and stuffed remains of the animal.

[jasontkennedy]

Black dagger, you must have missed something. You cannot make any sort of ontological affirmation about the material universe. To affirm that your body, other people, the world, the stars, anything, exists is a statement of faith. You have no way of proving any of it based on the fact that you have falsifiable senses.You don&#39;t know anything about yourself for certain, other than that you "are". You cannot verify that I "am", or anyone else "is". You cannot know anything about existance other than "I am(to self)" deductively. That is it. I recommend that you read about the ideas of Gorgias and the concepts of solipsism if you want to more fully understand my point.

[KC]

jasontkennedy, did you know that the word "belief" can be used differently in different situations? Because I believe a theory has nothing to do with having faith in it. I am coming to the conclusion that it is true based on thousands of experiments that have proven it so (of course you&#39;d argue that it isn&#39;t true, it just hasn&#39;t been proven false yet). And when redstar said he came to a conclusion based on the lack of evidence presented to him, he doesn&#39;t have to be omniscient. The burden of proof rests on whoever claims there is a god as that is a huge claim to make. So the burden of proof is on them and since they can&#39;t prove it we can come to the conclusion that there is no god. It&#39;s not a belief, it&#39;s a conclusion.

Some definitions of the word "belief"

A degree of conviction of the truth of something esp. based on a consideration or examination of the evidence

The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another.

Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.

Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

What you are arguing will come down to semantics.

[redstar2000]

As the more articulate of the superstitious always produce a Noaitic flood of ontological evasions when confronted with simple arguments, here we go again.


Originally posted by jasontkennedy
Faith is a matter of asserting something as true without absolute evidence.

Not "absolute" evidence...no evidence of any kind that can be independently verified.

Religious claims always boil down to "it&#39;s true because I say it&#39;s true".


Because you exist in a given place and a given time, your knowledge is finite.

No doubt about it...but I don&#39;t need "infinite knowledge" to tell the difference between shit and shoe polish.

All I need to know about "god" is that in the course of three centuries of serious investigation of the universe (science)...not a shred of useful evidence has turned up in favor of the idea.

Nor has negative evidence been lacking...

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=38002


The term theory is attached to things like gravity, and magnetic attraction, pressure in fluid systems, friction, etc, because it is too expansive to call it fact.

That&#39;s not true. In science, a "theory" is an explanation (or series of connected explanations) for which a considerable amount of very good evidence exists. It is pragmatically treated as "fact" by most scientists.

The "theory of evolution", for example, is regarded as fact by all reputable scientists today.

Out on the "cutting edge" of science are "hypotheses"...proposed coherent explanations for which only a little direct evidence exists or even none at all. Many of those hypotheses will turn out to be inadequate or even just plain wrong...as a consequence of further investigation.


So to conclude "there is no God" is to claim that you have been everywhere, and experienced everything on every level, for all of eternity.

It claims nothing of the sort, as you very well know.

It claims only that human scientific experience up to this point in time is more than adequate to answer that particular question.

Is there a "supernatural realm" that is inhabited by entities that interact with this universe?

No.


For example, scientists were fairly certain that the celacanth was extinct since the end of the cretaceous period.

Yeah, yeah, and they were wrong. Science has been wrong about a whole shit-load of things...as demonstrated by later and better science.

But they&#39;ve never turned up a unicorn...or a god.

And you, poor sap, are betting that "someday" they will?

Well, someday we might be able to genetically engineer a unicorn species -- if there were some good reason to do that. We&#39;ve already made "glow-in-the-dark" goldfish...so maybe we&#39;ll make unicorns "just for fun".

I can&#39;t see any reason to "make a god" though. :lol:


To say "the big bang happened" is an inductive conclusion, and a matter of faith.

No, it&#39;s not "a matter of faith".

What you&#39;re doing here is trying to say that "knowledge is not real unless it is known to be always and forever true".

And since that&#39;s never the case in the real world, you can just slide in the casual assumption that everything that everybody says about anything is "based on faith".

Bullshit&#33;

You are just as aware as I am of the abyss that lies between knowledge of the real world that we rely on in order to live our lives...and the monstrous mythologies of religion.


You are anthropomorphizing a transcendent deity. That is like a bug trying to understand a human.

Bugs do not concern themselves with theological matters.

In fact, bugs do not even have a "sense of understanding".

Irrelevant metaphors do not advance the discussion...or support your "arguments".


Where is the evidence? How about the earth?

But we already know how the earth came into existence and a considerable amount about how it&#39;s changed since it was formed.

No trace of "gods" there.


Why would [or] should I assume that 90% of the population are lying about an experience that they are having.

I think it&#39;s down to 85% now...but no "mass lie" is required. Most people are superstitious simply because that&#39;s the way they&#39;ve been taught -- and they&#39;ve simply never had reason to question the matter in a serious way.

Only a small proportion of believers are liars and another small proportion, of course, are simply insane.


Did you notice the last American election?

Yes. Unlike 2000, when Bush stole Florida, in 2004 he added Ohio to his list of stolen states.

Faith is one thing, but keeping African-Americans from voting is the real secret of GOP success.


I think ebb and flow sufficiently answers your question.

At least this is a matter that doesn&#39;t require faith to answer. When western Europeans return to the Church, you will be vindicated.

Don&#39;t hold your breath.


Maybe God communicates to people in a culturally relative sense.

Yeah...or maybe "he" just gets off on watching humans slaughter each other "in his name".

Or maybe God doesn&#39;t exist at all...how&#39;s that for an idea?


Also, the idea that it is demonstrably true is an idealistic assumption that you are asserting onto God.

Well, "God" is an idealist concept in the first place...but if we are going to discuss it, why isn&#39;t my assertion just as valid as all those other assertions that are made?

What kind of a "God" is deliberately unknowable?


Furthermore, many people claim that their faith is verified through experience, which you say you have never had and so cannot even really talk about.

"God" knows where I live, right? "He&#39;s" free to drop by for a chat at any time...though "he" may be less than delighted at the grilling I would give "him".

I think people that claim to have "experienced God" are (1) self-deluded; or (2) con-men.


It is like trying to explain LSD to someone who has never taken it.

Another crappy metaphor. There are many written accounts of what taking LSD is like...beginning with the discoverer of the drug himself. The accounts are all quite similar.

In fact, an interesting difference between taking LSD and "experiencing God" is that everyone who takes LSD will have an identical experience -- even someone who thought LSD was a fake would still have the same experience. Objective reality prevails.

But since I am aware that "God" is a fake, "he" withholds "his" presence from me. Only believers (suckers) need apply.


So you are rejecting monotheism, but not polytheism?

No, I reject them both. But between the two, polytheism makes more sense. If one were so unfortunate as to succumb to theism, polytheism would be the more "quasi-rational" choice.


You have absolutely no clue what drew me to faith or religion, again you are assuming things that you cannot know.

What difference would it make? The most likely assumption is that you had some form of it pounded into your head when you were a helpless kid...and all you can do now is try to find some other form of it that makes you less uncomfortable.

Or, you could suffer from a mental illness of some sort...always a possibility when dealing with the superstitious.


There is a reason that religion has a role in public life, it usually has ethics attached to it.

Does it ever&#33; And a finer collection of sadistic and systematic cruelties cannot be found anywhere&#33;

What is publicly done "in the name of God" would make a simple barbarian blush with shame.


Marxism is reactionary.

You prove my point&#33; But why have you come to this board to plague us with your reactionary crap?


There is human nature at play.

Ain&#39;t there always&#33;

What next..."original sin"?


So you are attributing theistic premises to all creator paradigms.

Deism is not a serious religion. A "god" that never interacts with the real universe may as well not exist at all.

The social role of religion is to either preserve an unjust social order or to replace it with one that is even more unjust..."in God&#39;s name".

That&#39;s history.

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

[Publius]

Excellent refutation until...


Deism is not a serious religion. A "god" that never interacts with the real universe may as well not exist at all.

The social role of religion is to either preserve an unjust social order or to replace it with one that is even more unjust..."in God&#39;s name".

That&#39;s history.

Now I&#39;m not a deist, though I used to be, but to say that deism is not a serious religion is just wrong.

Deism is the only serious religion, with the possible exceptions of transcendalism and panetheism (Which are almost off-shoots of deism).

Deism has a rational basis simply because the God is so un-defined. You may say that&#39;s being dishonest, sort of &#39;moving the goal posts&#39; if you will, but I think it IS fair to assume that the deistic God is plausable, indeed, more plausable than any other God.

Thankfully, with (Better) logic and (Better) science backing me, I abandondoned the deistic God, but it is the only supreme being that POSSIBLY could exist.

And a God that takes no interest in our experience is not illogical if he didn&#39;t intentionally create us.

But I really don&#39;t want to go into detain into defining my former beliefs. They are irrelivent.

Viva atheism.

[Xian]

I think that a belief in God is a personal thing. There is no proof there is a god but what right does anyone have to bash a belief that there is more to our universe, that we were put here for a reason? If I believe in god, that&#39;s between me and him, if I believed in him. How the fuck does anyone else know what I am thinking?

The problem is when religion is not personal and you have organized religion which creates a class system where I am better than you because I have the correct outlook on god and you do not. When people start to understand that god is personal, then people will respect that and there will not be conflict.

As for atheism, I don&#39;t think there is much basis for your argument against god. AN analogy is like if I like apples, and you like oranges. There is no evidence that apples are better, but there is also no evidence that they are not. You say that I&#39;ve been brainwashed into liking apples, while you cannot experience the taste that it gives me, because everytime you taste apples, you think it is an illusion. So although you may be correct that there is no god, you cannot be definatley sure of it and therefore you cannot dismiss a believer&#39;s claims, and they cannot dismiss your&#39;s.

A freedom to believe is a freedom that we need. It gives us meaning and a hope for the afterlife. By abolishing religion you abolish hope. What you can and should abolish is the hostility between different beliefs. It&#39;s personal.

Peace


EDIT:

Also there is a story I wanted to tell. When my grandfather was on his death bed (2 hours before his death) five years ago my mother was talking to him, and he had no strength to talk back. The only thing he had was raising his eyebrows and nodding when affirming something. My mother was whispering to him names of people who have died in our family, since she is very religous and wanted to see if he could see them. He didn&#39;t really do anything when she said the names, except when she mentioned his sister in law, my mother&#39;s aunt. He raised his eyebrows up really high and actually started shaking the bed a little.

A few days later, after he passed, my mother was looking at photographs of gravesites (in Europe where she was born & raised) and found her aunt&#39;s. Her death was on the same day to the day as my grandfather&#39;s, like 12 years before or something. There was no way my grandfather, lying on his deathbed, would&#39;ve known that it was the same day.

I&#39;m just making the point that things like these make you wonder and I know that there is no other explanation to his reaction.

[cormacobear]

Wow thank you the first on topic comment in pages.

Who cares if there is a god. Do you or do you not believe you have the right to tell me what to think?

Do you or doyounot believe we have the right to freely congregate?

That is all the manifesto discusses. Some how you people make theology dirty, and it has nothing to do with the freedom issue, except in a yes, or no, this is why.

[Xian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 08:30 PM
Wow thank you the first on topic comment in pages.

Who cares if there is a god. Do you or do you not believe you have the right to tell me what to think?

Do you or doyounot believe we have the right to freely congregate?

That is all the manifesto discusses. Some how you people make theology dirty, and it has nothing to do with the freedom issue, except in a yes, or no, this is why.
I do not have a right to tell you what to think.

I do believe we have a right to congregate but only if it is non threatening to other groups of congregation.

And I do believe that we have the freedom to believe in god whether you agree with that or not it&#39;s not your call because it&#39;s personal.

Peace.

[Xvall]

Heroine and Crack addictions lead to all sorts of crimes including violent ones.

How many times have people killed in the name of Christianity, Islam, or any religion, for that matter? Wouldn&#39;t that mean that religion leads to all sorts of crimes, and therefore shouldn&#39;t it be prohibited?

[jasontkennedy]

Redstar, LSD we could go back and forth dozens of times with well articulated points, and nobody will budge an inch. This is not the first time I have had one of these debates, and I am sure the same is true for you. They go no where. This has become a complete waste of my time. If you wanna take that as a consession, fine, whatever flips your skirt. I just forsee this going back and forth infinately. I recommend that you all notice what other members are saying. There seems to be some signifigant support for religion as something that should be at least privately permissable on this board. Consider at this point who is running a dogmatic agenda. You are trying to force disbelief, while I am arguing that people are entitled to their own beliefs. Good luck in your fucked up 1984ish tyranny. Until there are legitimate "thought police", you will never see religion squashed. Please consider not calling yourself some form of libritarian, and calling yourself some form of tyrant. This is my last post on this topic. I&#39;ll see you in other topics, where I think we&#39;ll likely see eye to eye on a lot of other things, but this is not resolvable. I really hope that some day you get over your own pride and self importance, and understand that other people have their own perspectives, and don&#39;t need yours shoved down their throat, especially in an intellectually free society.

[Xvall]

Actually, yes it is. By the way St. Nicholas was real. So thank you for availing my point.

Saint Nicholas isn&#39;t "Santa Clause". You know that he was talking about the iconic christmas figure, not the historical one.

[Black Dagger]

I really hope that some day you get over your own pride and self importance, and understand that other people have their own perspectives, and don&#39;t need yours shoved down their throat, especially in an intellectually free society.

:&#39;(

Do you want a tissue?

[CrazyModerate]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jul 2 2005, 04:10 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Jul 2 2005, 04:10 AM)
Cormacobear
We must tolerate an individuals right to do almost anything. To practice his faith, to love whom he wants, to drink or take drugs. The only freedom that must be denied is the right to infringe on another’s rights. In the case of drugs it must be proven that it is a sufficient violation of others rights. Heroine and crack clearly infringe dramatically on our right to safety their crippling addictiveness sees to that. Yet in the case of marijuana this is not true...

The desire to determine the limits of freedom by the exercise of reason is commendable.

All the more reason, then, for you (and all of us) to exercise our reason in the most rigorous fashion.

In that paragraph you call for freedom "to practice one&#39;s faith" -- ignoring the hideous historical track-record of religion -- while whining about "heroin and crack"...two substances that are completely harmless to anyone who doesn&#39;t use them or uses them only occasionally.

No heroin user ever burnt a witch; no crack-head ever bombed a women&#39;s health clinic.

Religion has been an implacable enemy of both reason and freedom from the get-go...there is no reason to believe that will ever change.

It must be destroyed.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
It is bad to worship someone not on earth therefore not having to follow any earthly leader, but it is okay to worship stalin or mao&#39;s cult of personality?

[cormacobear]

K the quote thing is confusing so keep up&#33;

although Redstar is a tyrannical oppressor of relifgious freedom, but he&#39;s the most outspoken opponent of the cult of personality aaround any figure. so that argument is week.

Now go argue about religion in the right forum quit highjacking my thread. If You finally all agree on something there let me know and I&#39;ll amend my article.

Also week was the santa thing. the &#39;He was talking about the one we beleive is fake rather than the one we knew existed.&#39; Drac Dracoli you crack me up.

As to your relevant question the defence is simple one is a tangible obect and can be withheld, the other is an idea, a philosophy and acultural tradition supression of these is gory to say the least. And if followed this thread I already said I agree that much of the crime is produced by the prohibition, so I&#39;m willing to change the analogy i&#39;m just waiting for a suggestion that shows both examples.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Xian+--> (Xian)There is no proof there is a god but what right does anyone have to bash a belief that there is more to our universe, that we were put here for a reason?[/b]

Because it is a stupid idea.

But, much more importantly, it is a stupid idea that leads to monstrous behavior.

If the gullible and the predatory kept their nutball ideas to themselves, I would have no problem with them...I would simply avoid their company at all costs.

But they don&#39;t do that. They sincerely believe that "god intervenes in earthly concerns through them".

Even the most rapacious capitalist knows in the back of his mind that he can&#39;t physically swallow "the whole world". He recognizes, at least abstractly, that there are limits.

The serious leader of a thriving godracket has no limits to his ambitions&#33; "With God, all things are possible."


How the fuck does anyone else know what I am thinking?

By what you say and, even more importantly, what you do.

Or do you pretend, like "god", to also be "unknowable"?


As for atheism, I don&#39;t think there is much basis for your argument against god. An analogy is like if I like apples, and you like oranges.

Another terrible analogy.

A personal difference in tastes for fruit is not relevant...as it is demonstrably true that both fruits exist.

Moreover, I&#39;ve never heard of anyone proposing the death penalty for "eating forbidden fruits"...except for, well, you know.


So although you may be correct that there is no god, you cannot be definitely sure of it...

Yes I can...and am.


...and therefore you cannot dismiss a believer&#39;s claims...

Yes I can...and do&#33;


A freedom to believe is a freedom that we need. It gives us meaning and a hope for the afterlife. By abolishing religion you abolish hope.

The "hope" that I wish to abolish is fake&#33;

Real hope in real possibilities is infinitely superior.


I&#39;m just making the point that things like these make you wonder and I know that there is no other explanation to his reaction.

Try coincidence...it would be a very strange world indeed if coincidences never occurred.

Once I was at a single-deck blackjack table in Reno and saw the dealer get three straight blackjacks. :o The odds are about 8,000 to 1 against. But play enough blackjack and you&#39;ll see it happen.

Live long enough and you&#39;ll see quite a few odd coincidences...and forget all the millions of occasions that coincidences didn&#39;t happen.


cormocobear
Do you or do you not believe we have the right to freely congregate?

All depends. You want to do your collective mumbo-jumbo in your basement? Or do you want to construct some towering monstrosity to intimidate the heathen?

The first doesn&#39;t bother me (but no kids under 13&#33;). The second is out of the question&#33;

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

[cormacobear]

You have no right to tell my children what to think either. Try preventing perants from passing on there faith and you&#39;ll soon have a bodycount higher than the worst pope. Justify that.

The churches serve a voting centers, community centers, reception halls, they are the congregation points and a valuable contribution to any neighborhood. Attacking them on there shape is pretty weak. but you&#39;re not going to convince me that people should lose their freedom of religion. And this thread is supposed to be about my article if you want to preach go do it in the anti-religion forum.

[KC]

There would be no churches in a communist society anyways, as it is a waste of space. You can have your religious gatherings, but public religious acts are going to be forbidden. And redstar, don&#39;t you think that it wouldn&#39;t matter if kids are raised with the same values as their parents as long as they don&#39;t publicly promote their beliefs (i.e. preach)? People should be allowed to believe whatever they want, no matter what. And in a communist society children will be raised by the community, thereby seeing both sides of the argument (for religion and against).

[cormacobear]

At which point does my article suggest I beleive communism is possible.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 02:36 PM
Black dagger, you must have missed something. You cannot make any sort of ontological affirmation about the material universe. To affirm that your body, other people, the world, the stars, anything, exists is a statement of faith.
You need to exist in order to make that absurd statement in the first place. Proof presupposes existence.


You have no way of proving any of it based on the fact that you have falsifiable senses.

You mean we&#39;re all blind because we have eyes and deaf, because we has ears ?


You don&#39;t know anything about yourself for certain, other than that you "are". You cannot verify that I "am", or anyone else "is". You cannot know anything about existance other than "I am(to self)" deductively. That is it. I recommend that you read about the ideas of Gorgias and the concepts of solipsism if you want to more fully understand my point.

Philosophical skepticism is self-refuting.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by cormacobear+--> (cormacobear)You have no right to tell my children what to think either.[/b] -- emphasis added.

Or what? You&#39;ll accuse me of "ideological trespassing" on your "biological property"? :lol:

Breaking News Bulletin: You don&#39;t own your kids&#33;

Nor do you have any fucking right to raise them to "think like you". They are independent human individuals who have the same rights to be told the truth as anyone else.


Try preventing parents from passing on their faith and you&#39;ll soon have a bodycount higher than the worst pope.

Maybe, maybe not. We&#39;ll see when the time comes.

But face it, the time will come when filling a helpless kid&#39;s head with superstitious bullshit will be felony child abuse&#33;

And the sooner the better, say I. :angry:


The churches serve a voting centers, community centers, reception halls, they are the congregation points and a valuable contribution to any neighborhood.

What, you think secular community centers are "impossible"?

Good grief&#33;


And this thread is supposed to be about my article; if you want to preach go do it in the anti-religion forum.

You put that crap in your article...and I and anyone else have the right to criticize it.


Lazar
And redstar, don&#39;t you think that it wouldn&#39;t matter if kids are raised with the same values as their parents as long as they don&#39;t publicly promote their beliefs (i.e. preach)?

No...because kids are intellectually helpless. They tend to believe without questioning anything that adults tell them.

Therefore, it&#39;s vital that they be told as much of the truth as they can grasp -- lying to kids is simply unforgivable. :angry:

And they will "preach", by the way. Kids are not very socially inhibited. There&#39;ve already been media reports of kids being sent home from school for telling their classmates that they will "burn in Hell".

True.

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

[Xvall]

There is no proof there is a god but what right does anyone have to bash a belief that there is more to our universe, that we were put here for a reason?

First Amendment.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jul 18 2005, 03:10 AM--> (redstar2000 &#064; Jul 18 2005, 03:10 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected]
There is no proof there is a god but what right does anyone have to bash a belief that there is more to our universe, that we were put here for a reason?

Because it is a stupid idea.

But, much more importantly, it is a stupid idea that leads to monstrous behavior.

If the gullible and the predatory kept their nutball ideas to themselves, I would have no problem with them...I would simply avoid their company at all costs.

But they don&#39;t do that. They sincerely believe that "god intervenes in earthly concerns through them".

Even the most rapacious capitalist knows in the back of his mind that he can&#39;t physically swallow "the whole world". He recognizes, at least abstractly, that there are limits.

The serious leader of a thriving godracket has no limits to his ambitions&#33; "With God, all things are possible."


How the fuck does anyone else know what I am thinking?

By what you say and, even more importantly, what you do.

Or do you pretend, like "god", to also be "unknowable"?


As for atheism, I don&#39;t think there is much basis for your argument against god. An analogy is like if I like apples, and you like oranges.

Another terrible analogy.

A personal difference in tastes for fruit is not relevant...as it is demonstrably true that both fruits exist.

Moreover, I&#39;ve never heard of anyone proposing the death penalty for "eating forbidden fruits"...except for, well, you know.


So although you may be correct that there is no god, you cannot be definitely sure of it...

Yes I can...and am.


...and therefore you cannot dismiss a believer&#39;s claims...

Yes I can...and do&#33;


A freedom to believe is a freedom that we need. It gives us meaning and a hope for the afterlife. By abolishing religion you abolish hope.

The "hope" that I wish to abolish is fake&#33;

Real hope in real possibilities is infinitely superior.


I&#39;m just making the point that things like these make you wonder and I know that there is no other explanation to his reaction.

Try coincidence...it would be a very strange world indeed if coincidences never occurred.

Once I was at a single-deck blackjack table in Reno and saw the dealer get three straight blackjacks. :o The odds are about 8,000 to 1 against. But play enough blackjack and you&#39;ll see it happen.

Live long enough and you&#39;ll see quite a few odd coincidences...and forget all the millions of occasions that coincidences didn&#39;t happen.


cormocobear
Do you or do you not believe we have the right to freely congregate?

All depends. You want to do your collective mumbo-jumbo in your basement? Or do you want to construct some towering monstrosity to intimidate the heathen?

The first doesn&#39;t bother me (but no kids under 13&#33;). The second is out of the question&#33;

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
That&#39;s right&#33; It is a stupid idea, and does lead to monstrous behavior. It&#39;s the same with the KKK... they avocate hate and racism.. they should be abolished. End of story. If you want to be part of some fairy tale believeing morons, then go ahead. But don&#39;t start trying to become a force and restricts other&#39;s REAL freedoms. Like, you know, the physical ones that exist, unlike this "god".

I love Redstar. :D

[Xvall]

Hey Xian. There is a five ton invisible purple dragon floating above your head that routinely ejaculates invisible fluid into your brain. You can&#39;t technically prove that I&#39;m wrong, so you can&#39;t dismiss my claims and you have no right to say that such a creature doesn&#39;t exist. I&#39;m going to construct a mile long building in recognition to the creature, and if you say I can&#39;t, you are infringing on my beliefs&#33;


Once I was at a single-deck blackjack table in Reno and saw the dealer get three straight blackjacks. The odds are about 8,000 to 1 against. But play enough blackjack and you&#39;ll see it happen.

The casino was probably cheating, man.

[cormacobear]

I have a responsibility to teach my children the truth and protect them from state sponsored brainwashing.

If lying to children is unforgiveable on what basis do you beleive perants will allow you to tell their children your lies.

Kids get sent home from school for all kinds of stupid things the list would clearly astound you.

So you agree with all of the other points and their logic since religious freedom is the only point you&#39;ve attacked?

[Xian]

You can say it all you want that there is no god and no greater truth and the universe is nothing, and you can say that you really believe it, but we both know that you cannot believe that 100% doubt free. Why because you don&#39;t know the universe. No one does. No one knows why we got here and how the big bang came about and all that and therefore you cannot definatley tell me that I have no soul. You and I are still looking at it from the inside out.

As far as a coincidence, this was no coincidence. You know that some things are sooo unlikely that there&#39;s no way they can be a coincidence. I have a lot of stories including one where my step-aunt woke up at 5 am and somehow knew it in her head that her mother, on her deathbed, would pass away at 6:00. She rushed to the hospital and 6 AM came and went. My aunt went home, and her mother ended up dying at exactly 6 PM later that day.
Here&#39;s another one...My english teacher was good friends with this kid who died in a car accident about 10 years ago. Their favorite song (i don&#39;t recall what song)was the same and they used to practice playing it together because they were in a band. My english teacher ran in to his late friend&#39;s brother at a park about 2 years ago, and after having a conversation, with his mind on his dead friend, he started the car to leave and that song was playing on the radio. The song was about 12 years old and although i can&#39;t remember the song, I know it was not popular. Now what are the chances of that happening? Seeing the brother and then immediatley after hearing this song that he hadn&#39;t heard on the radio in years.

And my grandfather could hear my mother and, when hearing that name, he started shaking with any strength he had left.

Now you say about the black jack but imagining having a dream the night before about it, and then having it happen. Most people have stories like this. There is more to this life than we can see. I beleive that I have a soul, and if you do not, then that is what you believe and I respect that. The problem is when people force or bash religion and I believe that is wrong, and I think that it should be personal.
When real communism comes and (in your theory) religion is gone, people are still gonna be born and look up at the sky and think "is there something else there?" I&#39;ll say it again: Religion is about hope, hope for the next life. Whether it is a false hope or not, it&#39;s not your call because you have no proof. We have a freedom to hope and believe, and you cannot take that away like you can take away capitalism or government.

Drake Dracoli when I start getting sick from something with no explanation other than semen in my brain and 90% of the people back you, then I&#39;ll give you some help building that tower.

Peace.

[OleMarxco]

The article has and is too much bold ;)
Meaning both literally - and in the writin&#39; sense of way.

[CrazyModerate]

Originally posted by Ownthink+Jul 18 2005, 09:23 PM--> (Ownthink &#064; Jul 18 2005, 09:23 PM)
Originally posted by redstar2000+Jul 18 2005, 03:10 AM--> (redstar2000 &#064; Jul 18 2005, 03:10 AM)
[email protected]
There is no proof there is a god but what right does anyone have to bash a belief that there is more to our universe, that we were put here for a reason?

Because it is a stupid idea.

But, much more importantly, it is a stupid idea that leads to monstrous behavior.

If the gullible and the predatory kept their nutball ideas to themselves, I would have no problem with them...I would simply avoid their company at all costs.

But they don&#39;t do that. They sincerely believe that "god intervenes in earthly concerns through them".

Even the most rapacious capitalist knows in the back of his mind that he can&#39;t physically swallow "the whole world". He recognizes, at least abstractly, that there are limits.

The serious leader of a thriving godracket has no limits to his ambitions&#33; "With God, all things are possible."


How the fuck does anyone else know what I am thinking?

By what you say and, even more importantly, what you do.

Or do you pretend, like "god", to also be "unknowable"?


As for atheism, I don&#39;t think there is much basis for your argument against god. An analogy is like if I like apples, and you like oranges.

Another terrible analogy.

A personal difference in tastes for fruit is not relevant...as it is demonstrably true that both fruits exist.

Moreover, I&#39;ve never heard of anyone proposing the death penalty for "eating forbidden fruits"...except for, well, you know.


So although you may be correct that there is no god, you cannot be definitely sure of it...

Yes I can...and am.


...and therefore you cannot dismiss a believer&#39;s claims...

Yes I can...and do&#33;


A freedom to believe is a freedom that we need. It gives us meaning and a hope for the afterlife. By abolishing religion you abolish hope.

The "hope" that I wish to abolish is fake&#33;

Real hope in real possibilities is infinitely superior.


I&#39;m just making the point that things like these make you wonder and I know that there is no other explanation to his reaction.

Try coincidence...it would be a very strange world indeed if coincidences never occurred.

Once I was at a single-deck blackjack table in Reno and saw the dealer get three straight blackjacks. :o The odds are about 8,000 to 1 against. But play enough blackjack and you&#39;ll see it happen.

Live long enough and you&#39;ll see quite a few odd coincidences...and forget all the millions of occasions that coincidences didn&#39;t happen.


cormocobear
Do you or do you not believe we have the right to freely congregate?

All depends. You want to do your collective mumbo-jumbo in your basement? Or do you want to construct some towering monstrosity to intimidate the heathen?

The first doesn&#39;t bother me (but no kids under 13&#33;). The second is out of the question&#33;

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
That&#39;s right&#33; It is a stupid idea, and does lead to monstrous behavior. It&#39;s the same with the KKK... they avocate hate and racism.. they should be abolished. End of story. If you want to be part of some fairy tale believeing morons, then go ahead. But don&#39;t start trying to become a force and restricts other&#39;s REAL freedoms. Like, you know, the physical ones that exist, unlike this "god".

I love Redstar. :D [/b]
You are the most hypocritical retard ever. You are arguing that restricting liberties and rights will strengthen liberty and rights. Well I guess thats how doublethink works&#33; Now go off and salute your Che portrait or Mao poster.

The fact is, you Stalinist/Maoists are against individuality and liberty because it would cause the people to not mindlessly follow the centralized government you would want to set up.

[cormacobear]

Wow I&#39;m suprised to hear someone from here call it bold. It advocates peacefull reform, rather than revolutionary upheavel.

I the bold made it easier to read for me anyway, maybe I need glasses.

Anyway that&#39;s how I see the world, and if enough people could read and be convinced of this I&#39;d be far more confident of a bearable future.

[Ownthink]

You are the most hypocritical retard ever. You are arguing that restricting liberties and rights will strengthen liberty and rights. Well I guess thats how doublethink works&#33; Now go off and salute your Che portrait or Mao poster.

The fact is, you Stalinist/Maoists are against individuality and liberty because it would cause the people to not mindlessly follow the centralized government you would want to set up.
Did I say people couldn&#39;t worship their stupid little figure of fake that makes them feel more secure? No. I said they shouldn&#39;t become a force that can make decisions or anything of importance. I don&#39;t think that Political "churches" should be established. I am all for real rights and liberties, and you can still worship... But I mean look at the U.S.... The Religious Right contributes NOTHING to Society, they only detract from good. I&#39;m sick of Religion and people basing decisions off it. I believe that people should be able to have personal beliefs though.

EDIT: And I heard most people here look down upon Stalinism and Maoism...

[Capitalist Lawyer]

told the truth as anyone else.

And what is this "truth" oh wise one? That maybe someday they might have to work for a living? That they&#39;ll realize that wealth and income are earned rather than distributed? Oh the horrors&#33;

I read your "HIGH SCHOOL COMMIES GUIDE"......total bullshit.


But face it, the time will come when filling a helpless kid&#39;s head with superstitious bullshit will be felony child abuse&#33;

You mean like telling them that there will be a society where everybody is........blah blah blah......wage slavery.....exploitation....working hard will get you nowhere......blah blah blah.....look at Enron all those workers....blah blah blah...

Well, look at all the people who HAVE worked hard and have made a decent middle-class standard of living. Sure they aren&#39;t Donald Trumps and yes some do inherit extrodinary amounts of wealth without ever lifting a finger but what about all the people who have worked hard and made out with a decent standard of living? I&#39;m sure the triumphs outnumber all of the victims of corporate scandals.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by cormacobear+--> (cormacobear)If lying to children is unforgivable, on what basis do you believe parents will allow you to tell their children your lies?[/b]

And what lies would those be, pray tell?

Oh, that religion is superstitious hokum.

Is that a "lie" or is it the truth?

By the time there is a proletarian revolution, most parents will not be superstitious and will not be lying to their kids (at least not about that).

The parents who still are superstitious are going to find themselves in some deep shit. How deep remains to be seen.


Originally posted by [email protected]
You can say it all you want that there is no god and no greater truth and the universe is nothing, and you can say that you really believe it, but we both know that you cannot believe that 100% doubt free. Why? Because you don&#39;t know the universe. No one does. No one knows why we got here and how the big bang came about and all that and therefore you cannot definitely tell me that I have no soul. You and I are still looking at it from the inside out.

I do not assert that our knowledge of the universe is "perfect" or "total".

I am saying that we already know enough to completely rule out the existence of "gods" or, for that matter, "souls".


As far as a coincidence, this was no coincidence.

Yes it was. I think you have to read up on this stuff; you don&#39;t seem to grasp that just because something is "highly improbable" that doesn&#39;t mean it never happens.

Have you ever picked up a telephone to call someone only to find that you are already connected to that particular person? In other words, they had just called you and you picked up the phone before it had a chance to ring even once.

It&#39;s happened to me a couple of times -- they were people I talked to on the phone with some frequency and this very low probability event "happened".

"Psychic connection"? Or just coincidence.


Now you say about the black jack but imagine having a dream the night before about it, and then having it happen.

Well, I&#39;ve never had that experience -- dreaming of an event and then seeing it happen.

But look, where do our dreams come from if not from events in our waking lives? I certainly have dreamed of being in a casino, playing blackjack, etc. -- because I used to do a lot of that in my waking hours.

We don&#39;t dream of things we know nothing about at all -- we dream of combinations of things that we are already familiar with. I often dream about the material in a book that I was reading before I went to sleep.

People who say "I dreamed of such-and-such" and the next day "it happened" forget both the commonplace content of the event and all the tens of thousands of times they dreamed of an event that didn&#39;t happen.


There is more to this life than we can see.

Not really...when you learn how to see clearly.

It might be a more interesting world if all kinds of weird things were going on "behind the scenes" -- you might get seduced by an elf-maid or gored by an angry unicorn.

But, as far as we can tell, what we see is what we get -- the universe is just like it appears to be. No elf-maids, unicorns, devils, angels, gods, etc.

You may find this "boring" -- but others have different reactions. If "what we see is what we get", then that means that the universe is, in principle, knowable. Since we part of the universe, that means that humans and human societies are also knowable.

And what is knowable can be changed.


...people are still gonna be born and look up at the sky and think "is there something else there?"

Sure they will...only they will be able to go online and find out just exactly what is really known about "what&#39;s out there".

There will be lots of interesting surprises...but no gods.


I&#39;ll say it again: Religion is about hope, hope for the next life. Whether it is a false hope or not, it&#39;s not your call because you have no proof.

Everything we know about human consciousness defines it as the property of a living human brain. When the brain dies, consciousness dies.

There&#39;s no such thing as an "afterlife".

It&#39;s an oxymoron.


We have a freedom to hope and believe, and you cannot take that away like you can take away capitalism or government.

We cannot, at this point, go inside your skull and run a "cleandisk" program. You and anyone are automatically free to "hope and believe" in anything you like.

But should you bring the matter up in public, consequences will follow...some of them not to your liking.

Just as if you made racist remarks within the hearing of African-Americans.


Ownthink
And I heard most people here look down upon Stalinism and Maoism...

Indeed they do. But that has no effect on the argument-challenged. When they can&#39;t think of anything else to say, they can always accuse their adversaries of "Stalinism" or "Maoism".

It makes them feel better about themselves. :D

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

[KC]

As far as a coincidence, this was no coincidence. You know that some things are sooo unlikely that there&#39;s no way they can be a coincidence.

Have you ever heard of quantum physics? It&#39;s basically a science based around probabilities. According to quantum physics, ANYTHING can happen. People can walk through walls, fly, anything. The thing is that the probability is so small that it has never happened and probably never will. So yes things happen. And yes it is coincidence. Also, maybe the answer doesn&#39;t lie in "god." Maybe it&#39;s in our own minds. We don&#39;t know what the human mind is capable of, and maybe some of these coincidences, such as 6:00, is a part of the human mind working that we don&#39;t know about yet. It can happen. Instead of looking to a god, look into your own damn head.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

One thing I forgot to mention......a bout of insomnia a few nights ago had me looking for a handy book to read. I found a copy of Margaret Atwood&#39;s "The Handmaid&#39;s Tale" on my bookshelf. I read it years ago, and re-read it over the last couple of days.

It&#39;s Atwood&#39;s portrayal of the U.S. after the evengelical christians of the religious right seize power. Its an interesting book. It shows the deep level of paranoia that Atwood (and others like Redstar on the far left) have about religion. Redstar&#39;s posts above reflects that as well. For some, its not enough to keep religion out of government...they want to keep religion out of ALL public life. Anyone who professes faith or talks about their religion anywhere but at church on Sunday is a "religious nut."

Atwood wrote "Handmaid&#39;s Tale" after Reagan&#39;s landslide election victory in 1984. Since evangelicals were an important part of Reagan&#39;s base of support, she and her cohorts viewed this election and Reagan&#39;s presidency with great alarm. This book was a cautionary tale about what could happen now that these "religious nuts" had a taste of power. It had a sort of "the sky is falling" tone.

Well, of course the sky didn&#39;t fall and evangelical christian values were not FORCED onto the population. No police raids seizing books to be burned, and all that rot.

Just kinda interesting because 20 years later, its all happening again. A conservative president is elected, with evangelical christians forming a part of his base of support (though only a part), and suddenly the left believes the sky is falling and the US is on the verge of becoming a puritan society like Salem in the 1600s, with witch burnings and mandatory public prayers and adulterers made to wear scarlet A&#39;s etc.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer
Well, of course the sky didn&#39;t fall and evangelical Christian values were not FORCED onto the population. No police raids seizing books to be burned, and all that rot.

I agree that predicting that "the sky will fall" is hazardous...nevertheless, when intelligent Germans predicted the sky was about to fall in 1930-33, they were dead right. (And, if they remained in Germany, just plain dead as well.)

Organized Christian fascists remain a distinct minority in the U.S. -- and they may never command enough support to actually impose their "dominion".

All we know is what they want to do...

Quotes from the The American Taliban (http://www.reandev.com/taliban/)

There is a perfectly normal human tendency to "assume continuity" -- tomorrow will probably be pretty much like today because things change so slowly.

But, as you know from history, there are occasional abrupt discontinuities during which things change very rapidly indeed. The years 1933-39 in Germany was one such period.

To stick one&#39;s head in the sand (that is, watch the dummyvision) and simply say "it can&#39;t happen here" is a common response.

That doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s the right response.

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

[cormacobear]

You feel eradication of faith, and religion nescessary, that&#39;s fascist dictatorship your forcing your beleifs and morals on me for no other reason than your preference. I&#39;m confident that enough of a legal bullwark seperating church and state is sufficient. The middle east and the US are the only areas having problems with encroaching religious dogmatism. The state has no business in my head or my childrens, and we do have a natural right to congregate with who share our personal beleifs. The church&#39;s are where we will continue to gather because we are the majority not the lunatic fringe. All my other proposals are also at the forefront of political and econmomic agreement from paris to Brasilia, increased social freedoms and more public economic control ids the route being most widely advocated.

[KC]

The public display of religion is what should be attacked. Preaching should be illegal, promoting religion illegal, etc...

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Now Redstar, I&#39;ve heard you call cathedrals "propaganda in stone" but I say prayer in stone. Architecture and art can be a form of shared, community prayer.

Church architecture and art (the sculptures, the stained glass, the painting) etc. shares this in common with every other type of art: Some is good and some is bad...some is god-awful bad.

I&#39;ll admit there are some ugly churches out there, some that may even be intended to "intimidate the heathens" as you claim. But there are also some beautiful structures and artwork out there in the religious world. Breathtaking, awe-inspiring places of beauty and serenity. Prayer in stone and stained glass.

These places are extremely important to many people. Important in ways that you obviously don&#39;t understand. They are where we go to mark all the major milestones in our lives. Before the bulldozers of your "dictatorship of the proletariat" could knock down my church, they&#39;d have to roll over my dead body.



All depends. You want to do your collective mumbo-jumbo in your basement? Or do you want to construct some towering monstrosity to intimidate the heathen?

The first doesn&#39;t bother me (but no kids under 13&#33;). The second is out of the question&#33;


Redstar, I don&#39;t know if you have your tongue in your cheek when you say these things, so I don&#39;t know if I&#39;m wasting my time (and looking foolish) by replying. But here goes:

Once again, you&#39;ve illustrated the point of my previous post. Why is there this deep fear and paranoia among the far left about religion? As long as I&#39;m not trying to force it upon you, why does my faith bother you so much? How can you claim to be for a free society on the one hand, in the same post say you would bulldoze my church and forbid me to bring my children (no children yet, but just a hypothetical) to religious services? Some freedom . Sounds like every other dictatorship...the dictator knows whats best for me and will make my decisions for me.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by cormacobear+--> (cormacobear)The churches are where we will continue to gather because we are the majority, not the lunatic fringe.[/b]

You&#39;re not the majority in Europe and you won&#39;t be in the majority within a half-century in North America.

As a matter of fact, "lunatic fringe" is at least half-right in describing you now -- the "lunatic" part seems to be reasonably accurate.


Capitalist Lawyer
Architecture and art can be a form of shared, community prayer.

Sorry, but "shared, community prayer" is not on our list of priorities.

As far as I am concerned, churches -- especially the "spectacular" ones -- are monuments to the tyranny of superstition.

Down they must come&#33; :angry:


Before the bulldozers of your "dictatorship of the proletariat" could knock down my church, they&#39;d have to roll over my dead body.

That can be arranged. :D


Why is there this deep fear and paranoia among the far left about religion?

Historical experience.


Sounds like every other dictatorship...the dictator knows what&#39;s best for me and will make my decisions for me.

I guess I just have to keep repeating myself on this one. The measures I propose to be taken in dealing with superstition will be voted on by workers&#39; assemblies in each part of the revolutionary society...and will not be implemented until they are approved -- probably by a national referendum.

So please knock off the "dictatorship" crap -- unless, of course, you&#39;re referring to the dictatorship of the proletariat.

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

[dietrite]

As far as I am concerned, churches -- especially the "spectacular" ones -- are monuments to the tyranny of superstition.

I&#39;m not sure I agree with this...destroying aesthetic works for the sake of social progression? eh...

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 07:09 AM
Historical experience.


Does your belief that communism is going to work wonderfully stem from "Historical Experience", too ?

[cormacobear]

Good then Redstar will quit preaching is anti-religious hate speach untill he&#39;s in the majority. Which should be sufficiently long enough to end my annoyance since 92% of the worlds population don&#39;t describe themselves as not being athiests who hope to force their beleifs on others.

So I guess I&#39;ll publish it as is, since no one can come up with a similiar example to hard and soft drugs, to illustrate nescessary and infringing government control.

[jasontkennedy]

I just had to comment on the quotes from the american taliban. What a bunch of scary assholes&#33;

[Capitalist Lawyer]

As far as I am concerned, churches -- especially the "spectacular" ones -- are monuments to the tyranny of superstition.

Down they must come&#33;


Key word being "must." Wonderful insight into what you consider freedom.

You continue to attempt to distance yourself and your beliefs from the USSR, Cambodia and the like, but your statements only show how similar your beliefs are to those systems.



The measures I propose to be taken in dealing with superstition will be voted on by workers&#39; assemblies in each part of the revolutionary society...and will not be implemented until they are approved -- probably by a national referendum.


Pretty oxymoronic to call something a national referendum when you&#39;re going to purposefully exclude entire classes of society.



So please knock off the "dictatorship" crap


I&#39;m just calling a spade a spade.



-- unless, of course, you&#39;re referring to the dictatorship of the proletariat.

As opposed to the dictatorship of... you know... the "workers&#39; assemblies."


And this message below is from me to you redstar&#33; Enjoy&#33;

The great and holy prophet redstar speaks the mind of the almighty Karl to those of us so benighted as to believe something different than they who are so enlightened as to know all....

You dropped a screed and I replied - I stick to my original assesment - you&#39;re a nut.


I have a good friend that lost much of his Orthodox family at the hands of Tito (or some such "benevolent leader of the proletariat") in Yugoslavia... I&#39;ll pass you&#39;re sentiments on to him and ask what he thinks of you&#39;re assesment of how much better the world would be with Marxists in charge... I&#39;ll post his reply if he even bothers.

Fear and paranoia indeed... it would be kinda funny if it weren&#39;t so sickeningly ironic and you weren&#39;t half serious.

Oh well - I leave you in others capable hands - I got no time for wasting any more of it on the dead psychoreligious babblings that your betters exhausted years ago... with no better success than their century old forebears (unless you count dead "workers" as success).

Cheers and good luck finding utopia&#33;

--The Capitalist Lawyer

[danny android]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 07:09 AM

Why is there this deep fear and paranoia among the far left about religion?

Historical experience.


I must admit we christians definitly deserve this comment. But if you are going to base everything on historical experience then our own idealogie will be seen as brutal and corrupt. For example if everyone looked at the USSR and stalin for an example of communism then we communists would all be viewed as paronoid toltalitarions that would kill just at the slightest suspection of treason to "the people". Therefore you cannot base all of christianity (or religion) on the crusades or the haulocaust or other horrible historical experiences.

You should not base christians all off of the KKK or the nazi&#39;s or the crusades of the dark ages. Just like capitolists shouldn&#39;t base all communists on past "communist" dictators.

[danny android]

wow those american taliban guys are a bunch of scary assholes.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer
I have a good friend that lost much of his Orthodox family at the hands of Tito (or some such "benevolent leader of the proletariat") in Yugoslavia... I&#39;ll pass your sentiments on to him and ask what he thinks of your assesment of how much better the world would be with Marxists in charge... I&#39;ll post his reply if he even bothers.

I understand perfectly.

All the reactionary rats find their way, sooner or later, to America...a.k.a. Ratland&#33;

When the Americans are driven out of Iraq, guess where its quislings will want to live? And be welcomed with open arms?

Give me your arrogant tyrants yearning to escape justice. I lift my lamp beside the golden door...so bring loot&#33;

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

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 21 2005, 04:51 PM

As far as I am concerned, churches -- especially the "spectacular" ones -- are monuments to the tyranny of superstition.

Down they must come&#33;


Key word being "must." Wonderful insight into what you consider freedom.

You continue to attempt to distance yourself and your beliefs from the USSR, Cambodia and the like, but your statements only show how similar your beliefs are to those systems.



The measures I propose to be taken in dealing with superstition will be voted on by workers&#39; assemblies in each part of the revolutionary society...and will not be implemented until they are approved -- probably by a national referendum.


Pretty oxymoronic to call something a national referendum when you&#39;re going to purposefully exclude entire classes of society.


wow you breath air? you must be a supporter of the ussr and cambodia, the commies in those places breath air too.

i didnt know you could have an anti-religious view point but have to support people who also have it :(

prett "oxymoronic" to call it a representative government, when it doesnt represent everyone :blink:

[Capitalist Lawyer]

I understand perfectly.

All the reactionary rats find their way, sooner or later, to America...a.k.a. Ratland&#33;

When the Americans are driven out of Iraq, guess where its quislings will want to live? And be welcomed with open arms?

Give me your arrogant tyrants yearning to escape justice. I lift my lamp beside the golden door...so bring loot&#33;


Whuh????????

When you go into a restaurant and the host/hostess asks you where you want to be seated, do you tell them "the backside, babbling, mumbling idiot" section?

What the hell are you trying to say? That my Slavic friend was part of the ruling class in that society and he fled to America? How fucking wrong you are&#33; The guy had no English, no marketable skills and was working class just as much as YOU&#33; He worked in a fucking convenient store for 20 years while attending a shitty tech school learning how to computer networking.

And I noticed how you delibertely ignored my other replies to your bullshit.



wow you breath air? you must be a supporter of the ussr and cambodia, the commies in those places breath air too.

i didnt know you could have an anti-religious view point but have to support people who also have it

prett "oxymoronic" to call it a representative government, when it doesnt represent everyone

Atleast redstar expresses some mild intelligence in his writings, even though he&#39;s "clever" with his way of words. Can you please do the same?

Come back when you have something "clever" to say.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer
When you go into a restaurant and the host/hostess asks you where you want to be seated, do you tell them "the backside, babbling, mumbling idiot" section?

I might...if I was having lunch with you. :)


What the hell are you trying to say? That my Slavic friend was part of the ruling class in that society and he fled to America?

No...that his family was reactionary and that he shared their views -- and fled to Ratland (here).


And I noticed how you delibertely ignored my other replies to your bullshit.

They lacked substance. :(

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

[red_orchestra]

Wow, those quotes on the Christian Taliban Site are quite stunning. Sick, really sick. But thnaks for sharing REDSTAR&#33;

...trying hard not to thow up.

[cormacobear]

Athiests don&#39;t have a clean record either.

Do you ever expect to make any advancement towards socialism in the next 200 years? If not then continue to attack religious freedom at every turn, but if you think capitalism sucks and you want a few more than the ten of us involved maybe you should bite your tounge. Which is more important to you, acheiving socialism or destroying religion?

[KC]

acheiving socialism or destroying religion?

Both&#33; People are allowed to believe stupid ideas, but they shouldn&#39;t be allowed to spread them. Please, cormacobear, could you pm me as to why you believe in god, what religion does for you, and what you think god is/does. PM me, don&#39;t reply, I don&#39;t want to stray this more off topic than it has already gone.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by cormacobear
Which is more important to you, achieving socialism or destroying religion?

I think those two objectives are intertwined with one another to such a degree that trying to separate them actually leads to misleading and even harmful conclusions.

What, for example, has been the importance of religion in retarding the development of revolutionary class consciousness? In my opinion, it&#39;s been enormous. If you go back to the very beginning of the "cold war", you&#39;ll find reactionary ideologues and politicians making the explicit appeal for a crusade against "godless communism".

And when you get right down to it, what is the "war against terrorism" except a thinly-disguised Christian crusade against Islam?

There were, of course, many material reasons for the failures of the 20th century socialist countries. But surely you must have noticed the failure of Leninism to really confront and defeat superstition -- particularly in East Germany and Poland. As a consequence, the Catholic Church in Poland and the Lutheran Church in East Germany played major roles in organizing the restoration of capitalism in those countries.

In the struggle for socialism, religion has been our intransigent enemy everywhere.

How do you propose to struggle for, much less achieve, any kind of socialism while leaving this major foe "unfought"?

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

[cormacobear]

Lazar I feel no need to defend my my beliefs to anyone, I discuss my personal beliefs with family friends and clergy. You will notice my Virtual abscence from the religion forum. I&#39;m defending the right to religion in regard to a democratically acheived socialism, and the route I feel it must take to be as inclusive as possible, without losing aim of the goal of ending capitalism.

It apperantly you&#39;ve never considered that if they had not sought out religion as an enemy, 100&#39;s of millions wouldn&#39;t have risen against the system in places like Poland. If they had rather endeavoured to encourage the intellctual, and clerical communitiesto communicate in such a fashion as occured between the Marxists and the Church in the 1960&#39;s and 70&#39;s in Europe. There is a great deal of rsources with brilliant insight into both fields from this period. Many isssues between the factions were resolved although many deep rifts still remain, a great deal of the work of reconsiling Marxism and public religion was taken during these years.


I propose the same type of peacfull Ideological change from within the community of the church as I do with government and economics. It is maximum change with minimal, cost of life and suffering.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by cormacobear
I propose the same type of peacful ideological change from within the community of the church as I do with government and economics. It is maximum change with minimal cost of life and suffering.

It changes nothing at all...but is perhaps preferable to watching the dummyvision.

Your choice.

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