Does Communist have to = atheist? [Archive]

Severian

3rd October 2005, 01:59

As you can see, different people have different opinions on this...IMO it's yes and no.

Yes, you can be a communist. You woulda been eligible for membership in Marx's First International; in Lenin's Bolshevik Party; in the Cuban Communist Party today.

You can - and many people do - be religious and agree with the political program of communism. And act on it.

That's been shown by experience in the real, material world. And y'know, the philosophical method of Marxism is supposed to be all about that material world.

But speaking of that philosophical method, religion's not compatible with that. Religion says stuff happens because its part of God's plan. Marxism analyzes events based on the material world, says that ideas and beliefs arise out of social conditions...and that's not just academic. It's how you figure out what to do in order to achieve a world without classes.

Also, offical church hierarchies are consistently hostile to communism and any social change which threatens their gravy train. So any religious believer who listens to them is going to have a hard time acting as a communist.

Some answers various communist leaders have given to this question:

a very good article by Lenin on this subject (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm)

If that is so, why do we not declare in our Programme that we are atheists? Why do we not forbid Christians and other believers in God to join our Party?
....
No number of pamphlets and no amount of preaching can enlighten the proletariat, if it is not enlightened by its own struggle against the dark forces of capitalism. Unity in this really revolutionary struggle of the oppressed class for the creation of a paradise on earth is more important to us than unity of proletarian opinion on paradise in heaven.

Socialism and the Churches (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1905/misc/socialism-churches.htm) by Rosa Luxemburg

The clergy storm against the Social Democrats, exhort the workers not to "revolt" against the overlords, but to submit obediently to the oppression of this government which kills defenceless people, which sends to the monstrous butchery of the war millions of workers, which persecutes Catholics, Russian Catholics and "Old Believers". Thus, the clergy, which makes itself the spokesman of the rich, the defender of exploitation and oppression, places itself in flagrant contradiction to the Christian doctrine. The bishops and the priests are not the propagators of Christian teaching, but the worshippers of the Golden Calf and of the Knout which whips the poor and defenceless.
....
And here is the answer to all the attacks of the clergy: the Social-Democracy in no way fights against religious beliefs. On the contrary, it demands complete freedom of conscience for every individual and the widest possible toleration for every faith and every opinion. But, from the moment when the priests use the pulpit as a means of political struggle against the working classes, the workers must fight against the enemies of their rights and their liberation. For he who defends the exploiters and who helps to prolong this present regime of misery, he is the mortal enemy of the proletariat, whether he be in a cassock or in the uniform of the police.

An article with some Fidel Castro quotes about this (http://www.granma.cu/juanpablo/ingles/016-i.html)
[Relations between the revolutionary movement and Protestant churches were]"very good and easy-going.... Nor were there problems with animist groups or any other type of religious group, nor were there problems with Catholic believers: problems arose with the Catholic institutions, which is not the same thing,"
....From a strictly political point of view - and I think I know something about politics - I even think it's possible to be a Marxist without stopping being a Christian, and to work together with Marxist Communists to transform the world. The important thing is that both should be sincere revolutionaries anxious to eliminate man's exploitation by man and to fight for a just distribution of social wealth, equality, fraternity and the dignity of all human beings; in other words, to be bearers of the most advanced political, economic and social consciousness, even though - in the case of Christians - this may come out of a religious concept.

viva le revolution

3rd October 2005, 18:39

That's nonsense that you have to be an athiest to be communist!
As long as you are for privitization of faith, with a materialistic worldview, recognize that events and conflicts are based not on divine, but on economic exploitation, as long as you recognize and hate the exploitation of capitalism and wish it to end with a communist society as it's alternative, you are a communist. Does not matter whether privately you believe in god, so long as that reasoning does not affect your practical judgements.
Religious communists are just as revolutionary as any i know. So many religious comrades have lived and died( mostly violently, many comrades under torture) for the communist ideal here in Pakistan that it is immaterial whether they privately believe in god.
Many would insist that you MUST be athiest before you can truly be communist, that is complete hogwash! It is just imposing a belief system, trying to impose a religious view, before you can join their club. Mostly from the first world.
From what i have seen, such utopian arguements hold no weight whatsoever.
A communist is here not to kill God, but to kill the priest. That's about it.

3rd October 2005, 19:10

I believe in God and I go to church, does that necessarily mean I am not a "true communist"?

You aren't a communist.

I believe what I believe, and that all people can have their own beliefs, but shouldnt try to inflict them on others.
I am a Christian, my other communist friend is a Wiccan, and the rest of the communists I know are atheist. Does it really matter?

Belief in a religion is the suspension of logic. You cannot be both illogical and communist, as communism is defined in logic.

That's nonsense that you have to be an athiest to be communist!

No it isn't.

As long as you are for privitization of faith, with a materialistic worldview, recognize that events and conflicts are based not on divine, but on economic exploitation, as long as you recognize and hate the exploitation of capitalism and wish it to end with a communist society as it's alternative, you are a communist.

You are not a communist. You believe in communism. Faith is already privatized. A materialistic worldview is in direct conflict with religion.

Does not matter whether privately you believe in god, so long as that reasoning does not affect your practical judgements.

But it does.

Religious communists are just as revolutionary as any i know. So many religious comrades have lived and died( mostly violently, many comrades under torture) for the communist ideal here in Pakistan that it is immaterial whether they privately believe in god.

Just because they fight for the cause doesn't mean that they are communist.

Many would insist that you MUST be athiest before you can truly be communist, that is complete hogwash!

It isn't.

It is just imposing a belief system, trying to impose a religious view, before you can join their club.

Not true. It is imposing a system of logic, of looking at the facts. Not believing in god isn't a system based on belief; it is a system based on all material evidence; it is a system of science. Also, one can fight for the communist cause without being communist.

From what i have seen, such utopian arguements hold no weight whatsoever.

Then you are a fool.

A communist is here not to kill God, but to kill the priest. That's about it.

1. God would have to exist (and be alive) to be killed.
2. Communists aren't here to kill god. Communists are here to open people's eyes. Communists are here to help people realize that god doesn't exist and that the answers to all their problems are in them, not some higher being.
3. Communists don't kill the priest (unless they do something punishable by death). They destroy the church. They don't elimate the people involved in the hierarchy; they eliminate the hierarchy.

Belief in religion is a big hindrance to thinking scientifically, materially and logically. Hence, you cannot be a true communist if you are religious.

viva le revolution

3rd October 2005, 19:47

FleasTheLemur

3rd October 2005, 19:53

Can one be communist and christian? Yeah, I don't see problem. As long as you think rationally and don't take the Bible as the literal word of God, then why not?

Of course when the socialist state comes, I'm going to be for the abolishment of dominational religions. Bapitists, Catholics, Shi'ites, Wahabists, Methodists... all these labels must end if we are to unite the society. The state must impose sanctions on anyone showing loyalty to religions with an established hierarchy system, like the Roman Catholic church. The state should support religions whom reflect a quaker system, where people just gather in a building with no preacher and just debate the merit of God and Christ as well as support antinomialism, meaning that you and God have a direct relationship with no middle man.

Livetrueordie

3rd October 2005, 19:55

So let me elaborate on your statement. you believe in the communist alternative to capitalism and actively fight for it, advocate it to others, you still are not communist, just because you believe in God?
As its been said before they contradict. You can have all the communist ideals in the world but if you believe in god you are not truly a communist...
it is not descrimination by atheist, it is just hipocritical to the comunist "system"

Super Mario Conspiracy

3rd October 2005, 20:02

You aren't a communist.

Even if he personally believes in God?

Belief in a religion is the suspension of logic. You cannot be both illogical and communist, as communism is defined in logic.

Okay, so somekind of police force is going to stop me if I live in a communist society, but believe in a God? That's kinda strange, since I figured that a communist society would be a just one where I am allowed to do and to believe in anything.

You are not a communist. You believe in communism. Faith is already privatized. A materialistic worldview is in direct conflict with religion.

Oh, but this must mean that even those who claim to be communists really aren't since very many people believes something happens after death - and since that is a hard - if not impossible - thing to find out by usual scientific means, this must mean that many people will never be communists.

Yes - that churches and sects are trying to control people is true. But are people not allowed to believe in whatever they want to believe in? In every society there has been one kind of faith or the other - yet we have witnessed many kinds of societies throughout history - even communist-like societies created by monks.

Not true. It is imposing a system of logic, of looking at the facts. Not believing in god isn't a system based on belief; it is a system based on all material evidence; it is a system of science.

Once again - what will stop people from believeing in the "supernatural" where science doesn't apply? Will science ever find out every single fact about this universe? No - I don't think so. Hard sound theories, sure, but not proof. Therefore very many people, and I believe in many years in the future, will believe in something more than just materialism. There will always be theories - maybe even theories about God. What if science had such a theory tomorrow? I guess there wouldn't be any communists left then...

Belief in religion is a big hindrance to thinking scientifically, materially and logically. Hence, you cannot be a true communist if you are religious.

You have forgotten one thing. Denial of "death" - that there isn't anything more than just this. People will never see each other as "if I work for him, he work for me" - no, they will see each other as friends, not as mindless drones. People don't care if science can explain their feelings, they willingly deny the sole fact that it is just "plain chemicals inside the body" they're feeling. People will always believe in a soul unless we can proove with a clear finger what really happens after death.

viva le revolution

3rd October 2005, 20:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 07:26 PM

You can have all the communist ideals in the world but if you believe in god you are not truly a communist...
it is not descrimination by atheist, it is just hipocritical to the comunist "system"
How so?.....in material reality you are fighting and advocating the cause. by ACTION in the MATERIAL world you are communist. but based on purely abstract thought processes you are decried as not worthy? even if the accusers have done less, pontificating on the ideal aspect of the communist instead of the action?
How is it hypocritical to a system that does not yet exist and is admittedly constantly in evolution?
As no doubt you may have read before, there is a wide gulf between first-world and third-world revolutionaries. You see instead of pontificating and dismissing each other on purely philosophical grounds, we third-world communists judge a communist by deed and action.
while the first-world communists prefer to harangue each other on idealist grounds.
You believe in god=you cannot be communist.
How is this not athiest discrimination?

Entrails Konfetti

3rd October 2005, 20:14

Too many people here are making Communism into a faith, when all it is, is an outlook and a practice.

I say it really depends on your relationship with god if you can call yourself a Communist or not. I'm not trying to impose any sort of dogma onto you.

But for example, do you believe that exploitation and the way everything is today is because God wants it that way, and that you shouldn't be concerned with the injustices on Earth because in heaven injustices will be gone?

Or do you believe that you should try to bring a heaven onto earth, and this heaven you percieve is a communist society?

Do you believe that god is the only bringer of your strength?

Or do you believe you have strength within yourself that god wants you to recognise in times of peril?

Personally I consider myself athiest for a few reasons: because I don't believe things in entirety are either good or bad, its just shades of grey. There may have been some sort of energy that created humanoid life, but I don't believe a very large grey old man made me out of a mold.

As far as afterlife is concerned, I'm unsure, energy has always existed and it always changes forms, but I haven't seen any proof of ghosts or an afterlife.
However, I don't believe there could be a heaven or hell because that suggests there are only extremes of good and evil, which is impossible.

On reincarnation, how am I to know if such a thing exists, I don't remember any of my past lifes if I was reincarnated. As far as I'm concerned, since I can't know about any afterworld, I just want to make this world a better place.

Oh and Capitalism is a very dark shade of grey, where Communism is very a light shade.

Livetrueordie

3rd October 2005, 20:21

see communism is not supposed to have a hierarchy, class system, or anyone with any significant power, but if you look at the catholic faith, there are rules prescribed for you to live by or else you comit sin. God controls your way through life and decides wheter your damned or not. this "higer power" is just that(a higher power), and thus hippocritical to the communist ideals where you are governed by the proletariat, and all class systems are abolished. understand?

OleMarxco

3rd October 2005, 20:42

It is possible to help the cause as Religious - 'tho, as a true Communistic -MINDSET - No, but you can still be a supporter, but I wouldn't trust you...it's impossible for you to proove you are not poisoned by the vein's of Religion ;)

Haven't I seen this topic before? :lol:

Karl Marx's Camel

3rd October 2005, 20:46

my other communist friend is a Wiccan,

David?

viva le revolution

3rd October 2005, 20:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 07:52 PM
see communism is not supposed to have a hierarchy, class system, or anyone with any significant power, but if you look at the catholic faith, there are rules prescribed for you to live by or else you comit sin. God controls your way through life and decides wheter your damned or not. this "higer power" is just that(a higher power), and thus hippocritical to the communist ideals where you are governed by the proletariat, and all class systems are abolished. understand?
Let me allow to note and perhaps rebutt some of your points. Let me clarify beforehand that i consider myself a communist and am active. This is purely to refute the notion held that communism is a belief system or alternate spiritual reality or whatever. here goes:

1. You claim that religion imposes heirarchy. You are only taking into account one facet of religion Catholicism. Whereas in other religions, as Islam does not recognize a priest and has no organized church nor priesthood. According to religious belief, all men are equal. Which leads me to conclude that your atheistic dogmatism springs not from the tenets of religion itself, but from it's interpretation and institution in the material world.
Rules that govern life is no excuse. All societies have a set of rules and a concept of crime, even if not categorized as 'sin'. For example, in communist society, those who are pro-capitalist will be regarded as undesirable, and presently capitalists are looked down upon.

2. God does not control your way of life. It largely depends on interpretation. however is totally irrelevant in this context, controlled or not it is your actions that are having an effect. In most religions, one of the founding tenets is the concept of choice between good and evil. Similarily in a socialist context many would lump people in relation of their actions: pro-market capitalist,bad , Revolutionary communist, good. It is wholly up to interpretation.

3. As i said again, not all religious belief results in class systems. For eg. Islam, otherwise it would in fundamental contradiction to the basic tenet that all men are created equal. I.e then the debate would not concern religion, but papal policies of supporting governments.

4. As i see it religion does not support class systems, just priests complicit with governments. Even if class sysytems are abolished it wouldn't negate the concept of religion, nor can ever replace it. Why? Because nowhere does religion as a belief justify class systems nor is it required. And second, communism is a purely material concept, an economic and social system, that's it. Not spiritual at all, therefore cannot replace spiritual systems like religion, since no alternative is offered.

5. The concept of being governed by the proletariat does not apply to the individual's mind but to the social system as a whole. Towards policies and general outlook of that particuilar society. Religion is the exact opposite, not meant to be implemented at a governmental level but on an individual basis. Thus an inherent contradiction in athiestic dogmatism. How can a system geared towards the community replace a system geared towards the individual in the individual's mind?

Livetrueordie

3rd October 2005, 21:36

. You claim that religion imposes heirarchy. You are only taking into account one facet of religion Catholicism. Whereas in other religions, as Islam does not recognize a priest and has no organized church nor priesthood. i was simply using catholicism as an example. i did not say religion imposes hierarchy. all i have mentioned is catholism and god.

All societies have a set of rules and a concept of crime, even if not categorized as 'sin'. For example, in communist society, those who are pro-capitalist will be regarded as undesirable, and presently capitalists are looked down upon. further in your post (#5)you state religion is not a governing body and only in the mind, but here you say it is...??? also in #2 you say
2. God does not control your way of life. but here you still compare sin to a law. maybe i have interpreted you wrong

3. As i said again, not all religious belief results in class systems. didn't say they did.. sorry for the misunderstanding

4. As i see it religion does not support class systems i see a god as a higer class maybe you don't.

communism is a purely material concept, an economic and social system, that's it. Not spiritual at all, therefore cannot replace spiritual systems like religion, since no alternative is offered. i did not say communism was a spiritual system or would replace a spiritual system.

Religion is the exact opposite, not meant to be implemented at a governmental level but on an individual basis. but the rules aare prescribed by someone other than yourself

How can a system geared towards the community replace a system geared towards the individual in the individual's mind?Never said it would...

Severian

3rd October 2005, 23:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 12:41 PM
Belief in a religion is the suspension of logic. You cannot be both illogical and communist, as communism is defined in logic.
I don't know anyone who's perfectly logical all the time. Certainly not the people who make this argument!

Severian

3rd October 2005, 23:33

Originally posted by viva le [email protected] 3 2005, 02:22 PM
1. You claim that religion imposes heirarchy. You are only taking into account one facet of religion Catholicism. Whereas in other religions, as Islam does not recognize a priest and has no organized church nor priesthood.
I think most organized religions do have a priesthood, even if it's not as centralized and hierarchical as Catholicism.

Even in Sunni Islam, for example, there are the "ulema" - the learned - including people who make their living by preaching religion...on the government payroll in some countries!

I think people who make their living in this way usually do have a material interest in preserving capitalism. Some are involved in reform efforts which involve progressive demands, and we can work with them for that.

But very few preachers of religion have genuinely become revolutionaries - Malcolm X comes to mind - as an exception.

But of course that's a somewhat different question from attitude towards religious believers.

3rd October 2005, 23:34

So let me elaborate on your statement. you believe in the communist alternative to capitalism and actively fight for it, advocate it to others, you still are not communist, just because you believe in God?

Yes.

Because Philosophically it does not make sense, ergo you cannot be a communist. With arguements based on hypothetical possibilities and explanations based on philosophy? Sounds idealist doesn't it?

I don't know what this means.

You believe in God= You are not Communist nor ever can be one, no matter how hard you fight even if you give your life to the cause, because i the internet poster have decreed it so. I advocate material reality and dismiss other's beliefs based on philosophical debates from the 1800's.

If you believe in god, you aren't communist, but you can be one. You must just become atheist. What philosophical debates? Atheism is based in the fact that there is no evidence of god, so there is no point in believing. You might as well believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Snap out of this new-age elitism! If you admit and regulate people based on their PRIVATE religious beliefs, YOU ARE ADVOCATING A SYSTEM EVEN MORE oppressive than catholicism.

It isn't elitism. People can fight for the cause. I just don't consider them communists if their thought is not based on logic. This is my opinion. I'm not saying that this is some elite club where only atheists are allowed. I just don't think a person can be a communist and illogical at the same time. It's a contradiction.

Nobody needs you to tell them whether or not they are communist.

Nobody needs anybody to tell them anything.

Communism is based on reality, therefore through ACTION taken in this regard, not superflous philosophical debates.

Communism is based on rationality, therefore someone that believes in a system which is founded on irrationality cannot be a true communist.

Oh, and sweetheart, fighting for the cause does make them communist, sitting on the internet and passing judgement on other's does not!

Fighting for a cause doesn't make you anything. It makes you a supporter of that cause. If you have such a big deal with my opinion then tough shit.

Can one be communist and christian? Yeah, I don't see problem. As long as you think rationally and don't take the Bible as the literal word of God, then why not?

Because to be Christian you have to believe in a system of beliefs that create this religion. Christianity is more than just agnosticism.

Of course when the socialist state comes, I'm going to be for the abolishment of dominational religions. Bapitists, Catholics, Shi'ites, Wahabists, Methodists... all these labels must end if we are to unite the society. The state must impose sanctions on anyone showing loyalty to religions with an established hierarchy system, like the Roman Catholic church.

Preaching would be illegal.

The state should support religions whom reflect a quaker system, where people just gather in a building with no preacher and just debate the merit of God and Christ as well as support antinomialism, meaning that you and God have a direct relationship with no middle man.

Let's say communist society, since that is our objective and not a socialist state. No religion would be supported. Religion would be permitted as long as it is carried out in private and people that don't wish to be there are free to leave. Any religious activity in public would be illegal.

As its been said before they contradict. You can have all the communist ideals in the world but if you believe in god you are not truly a communist...
it is not descrimination by atheist, it is just hipocritical to the comunist "system"

Yes, thank you. You are exactly right.

Even if he personally believes in God?

After a long debate with Anomaly, I'd accept agnosticism.

Okay, so somekind of police force is going to stop me if I live in a communist society, but believe in a God?

No. Most people will think you're crazy, as the majority of the population will be atheist. If you preach you will be punished (forcing your ideas upon others is illegal).

That's kinda strange, since I figured that a communist society would be a just one where I am allowed to do and to believe in anything.

You aren't allowed to do anything in any society.

Oh, but this must mean that even those who claim to be communists really aren't since very many people believes something happens after death - and since that is a hard - if not impossible - thing to find out by usual scientific means, this must mean that many people will never be communists.

You are correct. Without evidence of this outrageous assertion (and it is quite outrageous if you look at it materialistically), there is hardly a point in believing there is "life after death". This is actually one of the worst beliefs caused by religion. When people believe in a life after death, they aren't as willing to fix the problems in this world. Once people realize that this is all the time that they have, they would jump at the opportunity to improve it.

Yes - that churches and sects are trying to control people is true. But are people not allowed to believe in whatever they want to believe in?

People can believe in whatever they want. What's your point?

In every society there has been one kind of faith or the other - yet we have witnessed many kinds of societies throughout history - even communist-like societies created by monks.

Again, what's your point. Because there has always been religion, we should still have it? Is that your point? Because that point is irrelevant. Religion filled the void that lack of scientific knowledge created. Now that we have so much scientific knowledge, the number of atheists is shooting up fast.

Once again - what will stop people from believeing in the "supernatural" where science doesn't apply?

Science applies anywhere. But I think you meant "what will stop people from believing in the 'supernatural' where science doesn't apply yet?" Nothing stops them. But the belief in science to solve the problem is a lot more rational than religion to solve it. Why? Because science has a history of proving everything.

Will science ever find out every single fact about this universe? No - I don't think so.

It could.

Hard sound theories, sure, but not proof.

There isn't proof of the existance of gravity. Do you believe in it?

Therefore very many people, and I believe in many years in the future, will believe in something more than just materialism.

Why? Because science can't prove the total amount of matter in the universe? The thing is, that instead of believing in the supernatural to explain what science hasn't yet, they just won't care. I don't think the average joe cares about the shape of the universe enough to devote his life to a god.

There will always be theories - maybe even theories about God.

Again, your point is lost.

What if science had such a theory tomorrow?

It wouldn't

I guess there wouldn't be any communists left then...

Sure there would be. Once the existance of god is proven, it can be accepted as belief (only as far as science proves it, though). Atheism is based on the fact that there is no evidence of a god. If there was evidence then there wouldn't be atheism.

You have forgotten one thing. Denial of "death" - that there isn't anything more than just this. People will never see each other as "if I work for him, he work for me" - no, they will see each other as friends, not as mindless drones. People don't care if science can explain their feelings, they willingly deny the sole fact that it is just "plain chemicals inside the body" they're feeling. People will always believe in a soul unless we can proove with a clear finger what really happens after death.

What? Why does the explanation of feelings dehumanize them? If anything, it makes them more human. Just because a "soul" is so much more magical sounding than chemicals in the brain doesn't mean that people will always believe it. All old ideas about religion were much more magical than what science ever provided. And look what happened to religion. Also, belief in a soul is illogical, as there is no proof of its existence.

How so?.....in material reality you are fighting and advocating the cause. by ACTION in the MATERIAL world you are communist.

Being a communist is a mindset. Acting for communism is different than being a communist.

but based on purely abstract thought processes you are decried as not worthy?

Nobody said they're not worthy.

even if the accusers have done less, pontificating on the ideal aspect of the communist instead of the action?

Who did that? I didn't bring this point up, the creater of this topic did.

How is it hypocritical to a system that does not yet exist and is admittedly constantly in evolution?

To be a communist, you must believe certain things. Certainly you know that communism is an outlook on life. Communism as an outlook is based in logic; you can't be a communist unless you think logically. Religion is illogical. Hence the contradiction.

You see instead of pontificating and dismissing each other on purely philosophical grounds, we third-world communists judge a communist by deed and action.

Nobody's dismissing anybody! You're reading what you think you see. Nobody said that religious people fighting for the communist cause shouldn't be.

How is this not athiest discrimination?

It is a contradiction in terms.

Too many people here are making Communism into a faith, when all it is, is an outlook and a practice.

Yes.

But for example, do you believe that exploitation and the way everything is today is because God wants it that way, and that you shouldn't be concerned with the injustices on Earth because in heaven injustices will be gone?

The moment you bring god in is when it becomes irrational.

Or do you believe that you should try to bring a heaven onto earth, and this heaven you percieve is a communist society?

That is what all communists are doing.

It is possible to help the cause as Religious - 'tho, as a true Communistic -MINDSET - No, but you can still be a supporter, but I wouldn't trust you...it's impossible for you to proove you are not poisoned by the vein's of Religion

OleMarxco comin through with the most coherent response ive seen from him!

Haven't I seen this topic before?

All the time!

This is purely to refute the notion held that communism is a belief system or alternate spiritual reality or whatever.

Communism is an outlook on life. To be a communist you must have a communist outlook.

1. You claim that religion imposes heirarchy. You are only taking into account one facet of religion Catholicism. Whereas in other religions, as Islam does not recognize a priest and has no organized church nor priesthood. According to religious belief, all men are equal. Which leads me to conclude that your atheistic dogmatism springs not from the tenets of religion itself, but from it's interpretation and institution in the material world.
Rules that govern life is no excuse. All societies have a set of rules and a concept of crime, even if not categorized as 'sin'. For example, in communist society, those who are pro-capitalist will be regarded as undesirable, and presently capitalists are looked down upon.

Islam is still organized religion.

God does not control your way of life.

It certainly influences your outlook on life.

And second, communism is a purely material concept, an economic and social system, that's it.

To believe in communism one must believe in the foundation it was built on.

The concept of being governed by the proletariat does not apply to the individual's mind but to the social system as a whole. Towards policies and general outlook of that particuilar society. Religion is the exact opposite, not meant to be implemented at a governmental level but on an individual basis. Thus an inherent contradiction in athiestic dogmatism. How can a system geared towards the community replace a system geared towards the individual in the individual's mind?

Consciousness is affected by religion. We aren't talking about communism as a socio-economic model. We are talking about marxist philosophy and the foundation of communism; science and logic.

Technique3055

3rd October 2005, 23:34

I remember I asked this same question a while ago, and out of all the debates and arguements, one sentenced stuck out to me:

What do you think?

Livetrueordie

3rd October 2005, 23:50

the bottom line is you can't believe in god and be a communist. be socialist be a communist sympathsizer whatever you'd like. it is not some kinda of hate by atheist against the religious it just doesn't work. Compare the two and they just don't mix. it is plain and simple and hardly an opinion peice, while i guess you could still have your opinion

Ownthink

4th October 2005, 00:58

True Communist = Atheist.

Done.

Zingu

4th October 2005, 02:46

Lets do it LOGICALLY!

Communist theory = Materialist Philosophy

God = Idealist Crap

Materialism and Idealism are oppisites and opposed to each other.

Therefore,

A person who believes in Communist theory (Communist) does not believe in god.

A person who does believe in god, does not believe in Communist theory (Not Communist).

Then, a "Religous Communist" is a contradiction, and are no more than silly Utopian Socialists who are naive of what Marxism is about.

STI

4th October 2005, 02:57

EDIT: Sorry, my post turned out to be irrellivant. I need to sleep more and do my friggin homework.

Comrade Corinna

4th October 2005, 02:58

What am I if I think

a) that the best society is a classless one, in which all people are equal
b) no one should be discriminated based on race, sex, sexual orientation, age, RELIGION, ethnicity, etc... As in you can love anyone you want, and believe anything you want, you can worship that rock over there for all I care as long as you arent all ridiculous about it like the fundimentalists
c) that people should work for the common good and not for more money
d) that big business and capitalism is the main cause of evil these days
e) That Marx, Lenin had good intentions and were geniuses, and the dictators such as Stalin, Ceausescu etc just didnt "get it" with the whole totalitarian dictatorship thing
f) that the best kind of government is by the proletariat, and REALLY by the proletariat.
g) that wealth should be distributed equally, for real. Not like Ceausescu who really distributed the wealth equally among himself and his wife (I use him as an example because my mother was from Romania, and she is anti-Communist because she mistakenly assosiates communism with Ceausescu's ways)

4th October 2005, 04:07

a) that the best society is a classless one, in which all people are equal
b) no one should be discriminated based on race, sex, sexual orientation, age, RELIGION, ethnicity, etc... As in you can love anyone you want, and believe anything you want, you can worship that rock over there for all I care as long as you arent all ridiculous about it like the fundimentalists
c) that people should work for the common good and not for more money
d) that big business and capitalism is the main cause of evil these days
e) That Marx, Lenin had good intentions and were geniuses, and the dictators such as Stalin, Ceausescu etc just didnt "get it" with the whole totalitarian dictatorship thing
f) that the best kind of government is by the proletariat, and REALLY by the proletariat.
g) that wealth should be distributed equally, for real. Not like Ceausescu who really distributed the wealth equally among himself and his wife (I use him as an example because my mother was from Romania, and she is anti-Communist because she mistakenly assosiates communism with Ceausescu's ways)

You are someone that believes in communism (as a socio-economic system).

Livetrueordie

4th October 2005, 04:10

socialists, you can get more defined from there

NovelGentry

4th October 2005, 04:46

b) no one should be discriminated based on race, sex, sexual orientation, age, RELIGION, ethnicity, etc... As in you can love anyone you want, and believe anything you want, you can worship that rock over there for all I care as long as you arent all ridiculous about it like the fundimentalists

Note that race, sex, sexual orientation, age, ethnicity are all built in characteristics. They are things you should not be descriminated against for because you have no control over them. You have a choice as to whether or not you think God makes sense. As I've said before, would you hire a farmer if he was going to do a rain dance every time plants needed water? No. The system falls apart if you protect these things -- you have to descriminate against such things, it's the same reason the US was created with a concept of separation of Church and state, although certainly we've failed miserably in it's practical resolution. Realistically the separation between church and state should == no one can hold government office without being an atheist.

As Marx points out in, On the Jewish Question, to give freedom of religion is to actually affirm it's existence. People compose the state, if your people are religious, your state becomes so to, even if not overtly so.

So should you descriminate against people who choose to be religious where religion interferes with their capacity to do the job? OF COURSE

Comrade Corinna

4th October 2005, 10:58

I'm sorry, but IMO discrimination of ANY KIND is wrong. If the farmer were to do a rain dance every time, let him! It might get annoying but he can do it if he wants!

On that note, I am against fundlimentalism of any kind. That just gets ridiculous. What I say: keep your religion, dont be annoying about it, and dont feel that you have to preach it all the time. But by all means, knock yourself out. Worship that rock for all I care.

So does this make me "Socialist" not "Communist" and is that ok?

Urban Guerrilla

4th October 2005, 14:22

Originally posted by Socialist [email protected] 4 2005, 10:29 AM
So does this make me "Socialist" not "Communist" and is that ok?
Sounds to me you are a Marxist and Marxism leans more towards "Communist" :marx: y :engles:

STI

4th October 2005, 15:17

Originally posted by Socialist [email protected] 4 2005, 10:29 AM
I'm sorry, but IMO discrimination of ANY KIND is wrong. If the farmer were to do a rain dance every time, let him! It might get annoying but he can do it if he wants!

On that note, I am against fundlimentalism of any kind. That just gets ridiculous. What I say: keep your religion, dont be annoying about it, and dont feel that you have to preach it all the time. But by all means, knock yourself out. Worship that rock for all I care.

So does this make me "Socialist" not "Communist" and is that ok?
The thing is, religious people have a tendency to not be able to keep their beliefs to themselves. They've never seemed to be able to. If it isn't witch-burning, it's holy wars. When religion gets powerful enough, the fundies always have control.

4th October 2005, 15:51

I'm sorry, but IMO discrimination of ANY KIND is wrong. If the farmer were to do a rain dance every time, let him! It might get annoying but he can do it if he wants!

Because we know how effective that is. :rolleyes:

So does this make me "Socialist" not "Communist" and is that ok?

You are not a communist.

Entrails Konfetti

4th October 2005, 21:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 11:05 PM
The moment you bring god in is when it becomes irrational.

It depends really. Its irrational when you think you can do some sort of cerimony and bent chaos will straighten itself out into a straight order. Hocus-pocus doesn't put forth any effort into making objective conditions better.

However, its not irrational if you think you must put forth the effort ,the bible says "god only helps those who help themselves", if you look at it from a gnostic perspective, that passage means you have or can gain the skills to make things better, once you've applied such skills, you've helped yourself, and then you realize your strength comes from within, which this strength vested in you came from god (god could be the creative force of enegry thats never been broken or created...and energy has always existed). Some christians mostly Gnostics and Cathars (not Catholics) will argue that you shouldn't thank god for the brain you decided to use, its just there, same reason how god is there. Nor do the types of christians belief there is a good or evil force. They are just anti-materialist in the sense that they are against greed and over-consumption, they believe human life is more valuable than materialism, which Marxism, Communism believe that too. One of the reasons why Marxism focuses on Materialism is because it must be understood so greed can be conqured.

Furthermore, I don't understand why Gnostic christians call themselves christians since they believe there will never be a messiah and that jesus was only a magician.

That is what all communists are doing.

And that was my point, and some Christians are doing the same thing, although they believe their strength comes from within and not from some invisable energy ray that comes down from the sky because they are clasping their hands together and pleading.

Entrails Konfetti

4th October 2005, 21:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 02:48 PM

The thing is, religious people have a tendency to not be able to keep their beliefs to themselves. They've never seemed to be able to. If it isn't witch-burning, it's holy wars. When religion gets powerful enough, the fundies always have control.
Nobody likes a fundie. Not everyone religious person is a fundie.

bezdomni

4th October 2005, 21:12

It would be very difficult to be a hardline Marxist and not be an atheist (maybe you could be deist?).

However, you don't have to be a Marxist to be a Communist. So yes, you are a Communist if you think you are.

There are different interpretations of what it is to be a communist.

NovelGentry

4th October 2005, 21:34

If the farmer were to do a rain dance every time, let him!

And if I want to call him an idiot and, assuming I have the power to do so, remove him from his position in any way because he is incapable of fulfilling his responsibility, let me!

This is the point, we're talking about discrimination here... well in what way are we discriminating? Should we for example, allow that farmer to manage vast acres of land? NO. HE SHOULD BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST!. It's not that we don't like him, he's not fit for the job, and his religion interferes with the real needs of our society.

No one here is saying he shouldn't have a right to believe what he believes. There's nothing we can actually do about that, if he wants to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster he can, but we should never accept his practice of that belief merely because he has a right to believe it, particularly when that practice affects real things we all have stock in.

I see a lot of people talk about destroying churches come revolution, well they're just as stupid. We shouldn't destroy them, we should make them into schools, homes, whatever.

We're not gonna have thought police, but we're not gonna give free reign to religion to become the master of our circumstances.

Entrails Konfetti

4th October 2005, 22:18

Not every person who believes in a higher being is some sort of doofus rain dancer.

You can't say the a religious person will be a bad farmer ,because you haven't seen him farm. Religion shouldn't disqualify a person from their position, you'll only know until you see them perform.

As long as church and state or thing (anarchist euphemism for state ;) ) remain separate then you have nothing to worry about.
Chuches cannot have social institutions, and can only places of worship therefore being pretty useless.

STI

4th October 2005, 22:47

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO+Oct 4 2005, 08:39 PM--> (EL KABLAMO @ Oct 4 2005, 08:39 PM)
[email protected] 4 2005, 02:48 PM

The thing is, religious people have a tendency to not be able to keep their beliefs to themselves. They've never seemed to be able to. If it isn't witch-burning, it's holy wars. When religion gets powerful enough, the fundies always have control.
Nobody likes a fundie. Not everyone religious person is a fundie. [/b]
If you'd actually read the content of my post rather than skimming for one word you understood, you'd know how little that has to do with what I was saying.

HoorayForTheRedBlackandGreen

4th October 2005, 23:03

Commune-enforced atheism is no better then state-enforced Christianity. I can't believe there are communists who try to force others down their path, it reminds me of Christians for some odd reason.

For the record, I change religions weekly. Adds a little spice to the tedium.

NovelGentry

4th October 2005, 23:20

Not every person who believes in a higher being is some sort of doofus rain dancer.

No, they just believe in invisible men who could make rain fall if they so choosed.

You can't say the a religious person will be a bad farmer

Which is exactly why I didn't say that.

The problem is that every religious person has their rain dance.

As long as church and state or thing (anarchist euphemism for state ) remain separate then you have nothing to worry about.

The separation of church and state cannot exist without the separation of church from people. The state is nothing more than those who compose it -- it is not some mystical thing beyond the grasp and control of people, it is people. Religious political emancipation necessarily means the vindication of religion in the political sphere because religious people do let their religion influence the decisions in their lives, and if a part of their lives is working within a state, it will influence that too.

Entrails Konfetti

5th October 2005, 00:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 10:18 PM
If you'd actually read the content of my post rather than skimming for one word you understood, you'd know how little that has to do with what I was saying.
I read what you said, don't assume I didn't.

I know religious people who are able to keep their beliefs to themselves.
Your generalizations creates predjudice, you might aswell say every Black person is a mugger, every Jew is a white-collar theif, every Muslim creates acts of terrorism.

Novel Gentry

No, they just believe in invisible men who could make rain fall if they so choosed.

Hahaha, no Christian I know thinks they have the control over weather.
You're assuming that all Christians believe god is on their side, when some Christians or Abraham-based religions believe god cares about humanity in general.

The problem is that every religious person has their rain dance.

I know some Gnostics who don't prey, don't go to church and believe entirely that their strength comes fromithin, and that doing silly practices won't improve objective reality.

Religious political emancipation necessarily means the vindication of religion in the political sphere because religious people do let their religion influence the decisions in their lives, and if a part of their lives is working within a state, it will influence that too.

The seperation of Church and state means individuals must make a descision on a scientific basis, it must be proven, it must be factual.

You're suggesting to eradicate Churches, well I'm not a fan of organized religion either, but if you get rid of churches you violate the religious freedom of the people, you're telling them they can't have their religion. When really people should be allowed to have religion as long as it doesn't interfere with the state or the rights of others.

5th October 2005, 01:30

Nobody likes a fundie. Not everyone religious person is a fundie.

Every religious person is a fool.

Not every person who believes in a higher being is some sort of doofus rain dancer.

They believe in it for some reason, and it affects their consciousness.

You can't say the a religious person will be a bad farmer ,because you haven't seen him farm. Religion shouldn't disqualify a person from their position, you'll only know until you see them perform.

Religious people are irrational.

Commune-enforced atheism is no better then state-enforced Christianity. I can't believe there are communists who try to force others down their path, it reminds me of Christians for some odd reason.

Nobody is doing that here.

For the record, I change religions weekly. Adds a little spice to the tedium.

Then you're dumber than the average religious person.

I know religious people who are able to keep their beliefs to themselves.

Nobody can fully keep their beliefs to themselves. The only way to do that is to not express any idea. As religion affects the consciousness, it affects everything that person believes/does/thinks/etc...

Your generalizations creates predjudice, you might aswell say every Black person is a mugger, every Jew is a white-collar theif, every Muslim creates acts of terrorism.

The difference is that religion is irrational. When people believe in an irrational system, they temselves are irrational. I have just logically proved this. These statements you compare it to aren't logically conclusive.

CrazyModerate

5th October 2005, 01:54

Entrails Konfetti

5th October 2005, 02:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 01:01 AM
Every religious person is a fool.

Nice one-liner, prove it !
How do you know the christian faith is wrong, it hasn't been disproven.

They believe in it for some reason, and it affects their consciousness

As does Marxism as, does Anarchism, as does Capitalism, as does Post-modernism. As does chocolate, as does beer, as does sex, as does a ham sandwich. Your point?

Religious people are irrational.

Only if they decide what is the way god "wanted" this or that to be. They have no proof.

Nobody can fully keep their beliefs to themselves. The only way to do that is to not express any idea. As religion affects the consciousness, it affects everything that person believes/does/thinks/etc...

A religious person who doesn't try to convert me is doing me any harm by going to church or helping out the homeless because Jesus did or Allah did or because they will be remember for the things they say and do. You make it seem that every religious person is a fundementalist.

Commune-enforced atheism is no better then state-enforced Christianity. I can't believe there are communists who try to force others down their path, it reminds me of Christians for some odd reason.

Nobody is doing that here.

They will be if they seize control of the state, chuches will be replaced with schools, organized religion won't be tolerated because there isn't a building for it to occupy, unless a person decided their house to become a church.

The difference is that religion is irrational. When people believe in an irrational system, they temselves are irrational. I have just logically proved this. These statements you compare it to aren't logically conclusive.

No you didn't, you just said black people didn't choose to be black, but Christian chose to be Christians and Moslems chose to be Moslems....just like YOU chose to be a Communist. Oh, but Communism is compatable with material reality and religion is a theology, well there hasn't been a modern Communist society thats ever existed. What if our theory is wrong? Then what?

If not Communism atleast something better, atleast some sort of system with equal distribution and no exploitation.

Entrails Konfetti

5th October 2005, 03:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 01:25 AM
Man, I'm really scared. You guys scare me. I think too many communists have become so dogmatic and almost elitist that they believe only people who agree with them on every point deserve to exist in society.
But don't you know Marx had that grey old man appearance, and Che(sus) Christvara died for our sins (Capitalism)!

Too many people are making Communism seem like a religion.
But Marx said this,
Che did that,
Lenin wrote this.

Its only theory people it may not be 100% accurate.

NovelGentry

5th October 2005, 03:07

Hahaha, no Christian I know thinks they have the control over weather.

No Christian I know thinks they are invisible, I was referring to their various interpretations of God. They do not believe God could make it rain if he so choosed? Isn't he all powerful?

You're assuming that all Christians believe god is on their side, when some Christians or Abraham-based religions believe god cares about humanity in general.

I'm assuming no such thing. I didn't say they could make God change the weather, I said they think an invisible man (god) could change it if he so choosed. I used plural to actually refer to any god over multiple religions. I'm not just talking about Christians here.

believe entirely that their strength comes fromithin, and that doing silly practices won't improve objective reality.

Who here is just talking about strength? And again, do they not believe God is all powerful? If they don't, they don't really believe in a God, now do they.

The seperation of Church and state means individuals must make a descision on a scientific basis, it must be proven, it must be factual.

According to religious people God is proven and factual. The separation of church and state, however, means no such thing, it means quite simply that religion has no place in deciding political matters. You could just as easily flip a coin to make a decision, as long as it's not based on religious beliefs there is separation.

Then again, regardless of how you believe they are coming to these conclusions, you can never remove their religious influence without removing their religion.

You're suggesting to eradicate Churches

I'm suggesting to eradicate religion.

well I'm not a fan of organized religion either

Lucky you, not only am I not a fan, I'm a downright hater.

but if you get rid of churches you violate the religious freedom of the people

I'm not gonna get rid of churches, I'm not going to do anything with them. I suspect the revolutionary proletariat will convert them (not get rid of) into things which fulfill the necessities of society in a very real way.

you're telling them they can't have their religion.

I'm telling them no such thing. They can have their religion all they want, what they cannot have is the resources and efforts of the working class for private function and use.

Religion is not universal, to relegate property to churches is to relegate private property. We will not be making Jesus fish bumper stickers with our resources, we will not be producing pictures of Jesus, we will not be printing bibles. If they want to devote their labor to it, they are more than welcome to. The working class is not here to fulfill the fantasy desires of people who believe in fairy tales.

When really people should be allowed to have religion as long as it doesn't interfere with the state or the rights of others.

Again, they can have their religion, what they cannot have is free labor and a privatized outcome of it.

NovelGentry

5th October 2005, 03:08

Man, I'm really scared. You guys scare me.

Why's that?

I think too many communists have become so dogmatic and almost elitist that they believe only people who agree with them on every point deserve to exist in society.

I've not seen anyone here advocate destruction of religious people.

5th October 2005, 03:33

Man, I'm really scared. You guys scare me. I think too many communists have become so dogmatic and almost elitist that they believe only people who agree with them on every point deserve to exist in society.

Give an example of where someone said anything about that. Or shut up.

Nice one-liner, prove it !
How do you know the christian faith is wrong, it hasn't been disproven.

Something cannot be disproven when there is no evidence of its existence in the first place. The point is that it hasn't been proven. If it hasn't been proven, then it isn't right. That's how science works. You don't make an assertion and try to disprove it; you make a guess and try to prove it. The evidence against christianity (and all religion) is that there is no evidence proving it to be correct.

As does Marxism as, does Anarchism, as does Capitalism, as does Post-modernism. As does chocolate, as does beer, as does sex, as does a ham sandwich. Your point?

My point is that all these things that you have listed are all based on science. There is no evidence for religion.

Only if they decide what is the way god "wanted" this or that to be. They have no proof.

Only if they believe in a god.

A religious person who doesn't try to convert me is doing me any harm by going to church or helping out the homeless because Jesus did or Allah did or because they will be remember for the things they say and do. You make it seem that every religious person is a fundementalist.

Their decisions affect your life. Going to church affects you in the sense that the land that the church is on could have been put to MUCH better use. I never said every religious person is a fundamentalist. I said every religious person is irrational and a fool.

They will be if they seize control of the state, chuches will be replaced with schools, organized religion won't be tolerated because there isn't a building for it to occupy, unless a person decided their house to become a church.

Churches should be abolished. If you're against that then you are in no way a communist. As private property is abolished, so is the property that the church is on. There are a few points you have to realize here. The first is that organized religion is a plague. It is completely different than religion in the personal sense. Secondly, private property will be abolished, the land that the churches is on will be turned into something more useful (like a hospital or, like you said, a school!). Thirdly, if people want to be religious then they can do so on their own time, in private. Any preaching would be illegal, as that is forcing your beliefs on others.

No you didn't, you just said black people didn't choose to be black, but Christian chose to be Christians and Moslems chose to be Moslems....just like YOU chose to be a Communist.

What's your point?

Oh, but Communism is compatable with material reality and religion is a theology, well there hasn't been a modern Communist society thats ever existed.
What if our theory is wrong? Then what?

Then we are wrong. Again, what's your point? What you don't seem to get is that communism, whether right or wrong, is based on science. What is religion based on? Nothing!

If not Communism atleast something better, atleast some sort of system with equal distribution and no exploitation.

Or communism.

But don't you know Marx had that grey old man appearance, and Che(sus) Christvara died for our sins (Capitalism)!

Too many people are making Communism seem like a religion.
But Marx said this,
Che did that,
Lenin wrote this.

Its only theory people it may not be 100% accurate.

You are the only one "making it seem like a religion." If I keep repeating the atomic theory, are you going to ***** about how I'm quoting Dalton and how his theory might not be 100% accurate?

adreamofequality

5th October 2005, 03:56

adreamofequality

5th October 2005, 03:58

Man, I'm really scared. You guys scare me. I think too many communists have become so dogmatic and almost elitist that they believe only people who agree with them on every point deserve to exist in society.

I strongly agree and most of you guys on this forum have led me away from communism and that is why I now consider myself a democratic socialist. Thanks guys.

Entrails Konfetti

5th October 2005, 04:22

Okay now were getting somewhere with this arguement.

I agree churches shouldn't be composed of free labour, but if a worker were to convert part of his house into a church then I'd have nothing against that, or they can meet others in a park and discuss a religion.

Any preaching would be illegal, as that is forcing your beliefs on others

It doesn't force belief on others if state is sepate from religion, because there aren't any penalties due to not following a religion.

If your going to ban preaching, then you'll have to ban cartoons and fairytales.

Its illogical that a canister of dynamite explodes next to a villian, yet the cartoon villian is only charred and not dead.

Its illogical that an old lady with a wand can turn a pumkin into a stage coach.

All the state should do is to maintain the right of freedom opf religion, which means that people are allowed to believe in whatever they want, but they can't have a piece of land coming from someone elses labour, nor should religious arguments get to take part in desicions. Only arguments that can be scientifically proven should have the floor.

That is all I have to say, I must not be on this site so much anymore,I really need to catch up on reading.

NovelGentry

5th October 2005, 04:26

your acknowledging the fact that there is a God

See what I'm saying when I noted, "According to religious people God is proven and factual."

I strongly agree and most of you guys on this forum have led me away from communism and that is why I now consider myself a democratic socialist. Thanks guys.

Maybe one day Hawking will lead you away from gravity too, then you can float away from proletarian struggle.

NovelGentry

5th October 2005, 04:29

I agree churches shouldn't be composed of free labour, but if a worker were to convert part of his house into a church then I'd have nothing against that, or they can meet others in a park and discuss a religion.

http://www.dotink.org/~gent/index.php?SITE...ic%20Facilities (http://www.dotink.org/~gent/index.php?SITER=writing&TEXT=Religion%20in%20Public%20Facilities)

If your going to ban preaching

I just want to clarify that I do not propose such... this argument is with Lazar and/or whoever else.

nor should religious arguments get to take part in desicions.

They don't have to get to take part in decisions. Homosexuality can be attacked from many different angles other than saying, "the bible says it's wrong" -- the problem is of course, that's the real reason it's being attacked.

STI

5th October 2005, 04:43

I read what you said, don't assume I didn't.

I didn't "assume" you didn't, it logically followed from the complete lack of understanding of its content which you demonstrated.

If you'd read the post in question, you'd know that I never said that all religious people are fundamentalists, but rather that the fundamentalists are always the ones who "set the tone" or "call the shots" in a religion once it manages to amass some considerable degree of power.

I know religious people who are able to keep their beliefs to themselves.

Well, religion has a lot less pull than it used to (but it's still too much), and it also depends on what religion the people you know are a part of. It's a lot more likely that, for example, a Christian in the US will have a tough time keeping his/her mouth shut than a Sikh, because of social norms and acceptability.

But even all this is ignoring what my original point was: even if people aren't fundamentalists, the fundamentalists dictate the course of the religion when given a chance.

Your generalizations creates predjudice, you might aswell say every Black person is a mugger, every Jew is a white-collar theif, every Muslim creates acts of terrorism.

There's a difference, though (a few actually):

1)I'm not saying that all religious people are fundamentalists
2)What I'm saying is factually correct, whereas the examples you've provided are clearly untrue.
3)You're committing the fallacy of popular appeal. It's almost as though you think that, simply by saying "it's the same as racism", it makes you right.

STI

5th October 2005, 04:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 01:25 AM
Man, I'm really scared. You guys scare me. I think too many communists have become so dogmatic and almost elitist that they believe only people who agree with them on every point deserve to exist in society.
Ya. Everyone in this thread is saying that we should kill religious people :rolleyes:

Sorry, pal. The sky isn't falling. Play your victim game somewhere else.

Entrails Konfetti

5th October 2005, 04:49

Interesting argument on cell churches.

There definately has to be a way that they can be watched so they don't infiltrate government or school buildings.

If a church goer is a teacher or has a government job, I think it would be impossible to sneak a whole congregation into a larger building, too many people would see a large group of strangers entering a building or leaving it.

NovelGentry

5th October 2005, 04:53

They don't sneak a congregation in, they sneak the ideas in, and eventually the school becomes the congregation. You don't have to sneak it in if everyone there agrees it's OK to have it there. They essentially recruit to the cell churches (in peoples homes) until a significant enough portion of their target grounds (work, school, whatever) are pulled in, then and only then do they move on to where it has become acceptable.

In some instances these types of things have raised some issues, most of the time they go simply unnoticed because everyone becomes accustom to their existence and influence. For one instance where some controversy was sparked you can google the Boston Church of Christ.

Entrails Konfetti

5th October 2005, 05:03

The thing is, religious people have a tendency to not be able to keep their beliefs to themselves. They've never seemed to be able to. If it isn't witch-burning, it's holy wars. When religion gets powerful enough, the fundies always have control.

You made it seem its a behavioural characteristic and not just a fundementalist splinter group.

5th October 2005, 05:40

GOD IS NOT A RELIGION BUT A SPIRTIUAL BOND and for all you "atheists" your acknowledging the fact that there is a God by saying that you don't believe in him. You guys are proving to me my thoughts about communism being to ideal. I mean your saying that you can't believe in God to be a communist. Come on man.

Atheists don't say "we don't believe in god". Atheists say "god doesn't exist and there is nothing there to believe in." Stop arguing semantics. And you're right. God isn't a religion. But that doesn't make it any less irrational.

I strongly agree and most of you guys on this forum have led me away from communism and that is why I now consider myself a democratic socialist. Thanks guys.

This is the product of your irrational thinking.

I agree churches shouldn't be composed of free labour, but if a worker were to convert part of his house into a church then I'd have nothing against that, or they can meet others in a park and discuss a religion.

They can't meet others in a park and discuss religion, that is a public display of religion and would be against the law. Congregate in your house if you want to talk religion.

It doesn't force belief on others if state is sepate from religion, because there aren't any penalties due to not following a religion.

Yes it is. Preaching your ideas to people is forcing your belief on them when they don't want to hear it. If a child hears that and believes it, it is because of your preaching and forcing your idea on that child. That is why it is illegal.

If your going to ban preaching, then you'll have to ban cartoons and fairytales.

There's a difference between cartoons and fairytales. Their creators admit to them being fake.

Its illogical that a canister of dynamite explodes next to a villian, yet the cartoon villian is only charred and not dead.

They aren't saying it's logical.

Its illogical that an old lady with a wand can turn a pumkin into a stage coach.

They aren't saying it's logical.

Not that none of this matters, anyways. The majority of people during the revolution will be atheist as it is.

NovelGentry

5th October 2005, 13:26

You made it seem its a behavioural characteristic and not just a fundementalist splinter group.

I did? I didn't write that.

Let me, however, remind you that the nature of the cell church is not one of fundamentalist splinter groups. It is initiated as private household practice (what you propose should occur under communism)... it is people using their houses for churches. The problem, as noted in the paper, is that this form of church bares far more success for it's community relationship and as a result finds great ease in it's growth. Relationships in these types of churches are far more intimate, and because of this they are far more capable of making use of the size of the church, whatever that may be. In short, they are unbridled and grow wildly in comparison to regular churches. Why does this present a problem? Because they're exactly what you propose exist to cope with religion in communism to avoid the private property of the church.

STI

5th October 2005, 19:11

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 5 2005, 04:44 AM

The thing is, religious people have a tendency to not be able to keep their beliefs to themselves. They've never seemed to be able to. If it isn't witch-burning, it's holy wars. When religion gets powerful enough, the fundies always have control.

You made it seem its a behavioural characteristic and not just a fundementalist splinter group.
When they're allowed to get away with it, pretty much all religious people do act that way, because the fundamentalists call the shots. Consider the Spanish Inquisition or Afghanistan under the Taliban.

And you want to let these guys party like it's 1999. Ridiculous.

I did? I didn't write that.

No worries, Gent. He was talking to me :D

violencia.Proletariat

5th October 2005, 19:21

you cant discuss religion outside of your house? now thats a bit too far. the point isnt to outlaw people and stopping religion that way. its to create a society which knows better than the irrationality of religion.

Qwerty Dvorak

5th October 2005, 19:59

religion doesnt necessarily have 2 = atheist, as long as religion is kept private. i myself am an agnostic, i think to say you know god doesnt exist is as bad as to say you know he does. u should read some james connolly, he was an irish nationalist/socialist. a lot of his works deal with nationalism and religion in relation to marxism.
you can find pretty much all his works here:
www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/

Zingu

5th October 2005, 21:14

We won't have to "outlaw" religon, you are still thinking in terms of this current era.

By the time of the revolution, religion will be withering away by itself. I personally think a Communist revolution, a real one, is only possible when the working class sheds any reactionary thoughts such as religon.

Just like the Spanish Revolution, religon was rejected by the people, and the preists were shot, did anyone feel sorry for the preists? No. Because people saw what they really represented.

Karl Marx's Camel

5th October 2005, 22:06

as communism is defined in logic.

Yes, it's so scientific.. It's like anatomy, or... Nuclear physics... :rolleyes:

5th October 2005, 22:27

Why do you think it's called scientific socialism?

STI

5th October 2005, 22:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 09:47 PM

as communism is defined in logic.

Yes, it's so scientific.. It's like anatomy, or... Nuclear physics... :rolleyes:
It's based on a material observation an analysis of the world.

Of course, human sciences are "tougher" and "messier" than 'hard sciences', but science it is.

You can't go through an introductory sociology or political science course (both human sciences) without hearing a good deal about Marx. Guess why.

Entrails Konfetti

6th October 2005, 02:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 06:52 PM
And you want to let these guys party like it's 1999. Ridiculous.

Where did I say this?
I just don't want the freedom of speech to be violated, not for you or me or anyone, theres a difference between protecting the freedom of speech and letting fundies commit genocide.

Don't put words into my mouth.

Freedom of speech is a two way street. Which means even pinheads can have their say. It may be stupid, it may be dissagreeable, but they must have it because its a right everyone must have.

As for Lazar, if someone was preaching at me I don't have to believe it, I don't have to listen to it, I can walk away. You might aswell ban any he said/she said arguments in your new society, because the logic of those arguments haven't any basis.

I gotta get going.

Bait me all you want I'm not going to be around here for few days.

NovelGentry

6th October 2005, 03:43

Freedom of speech is a two way street. Which means even pinheads can have their say. It may be stupid, it may be dissagreeable, but they must have it because its a right everyone must have.

Quite the contary, people have lived under systems that did not have freedom of speech. It is not true that they must have it. I agree that religious people should not have freedom of speech, but I also think I have a very different notion of what freedom of speech is than you do. I agree religious people should not have freedom of speech in the same way that the proletariat does not have freedom of speech, and specifically dissenters to current political standards.

If you want society to provide religious people with the same freedom of speech that current society provides to dissenters, that's fine. They will need permits to demonstrate in public, which the proletarian government can deny without cause. They will be void of any presence in media and entertainment. They will be, as we have seen so many others with so-called "freedom of speech" relegated to the position of loiterer on the sidewalk, annoying you with flyers which you will only crumple up and throw in the garbage the minute you find a barrel.

And you will.

patrickbeverley

11th October 2005, 21:24

Martin Luther King was a Christian. Gandhi was a Hindu. Neither was an absolute fundamentalist, but neither denied their religion and both claimed it was an inspiration in their struggle against injustice.

Unless you want to deny these two heroes their place in history, you must accept that religion does not necessarily put a person politically in the wrong. And if you do want to deny them their place in history, I don't have much time for you. I am an atheist, but I say let people have their religion.

And please, never limit freedom of speech.

Zingu

11th October 2005, 21:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 09:05 PM
Martin Luther King was a Christian. Gandhi was a Hindu. Neither was an absolute fundamentalist, but neither denied their religion and both claimed it was an inspiration in their struggle against injustice.

Unless you want to deny these two heroes their place in history, you must accept that religion does not necessarily put a person politically in the wrong. And if you do want to deny them their place in history, I don't have much time for you. I am an atheist, but I say let people have their religion.

We're talking about Communists, not reformers or nationalist leaders....

11th October 2005, 22:20

I am an atheist, but I say let people have their religion.

Why? Because it's "personal"? Religion isn't personal at all; that is a disguise.

NovelGentry

12th October 2005, 00:18

Unless you want to deny these two heroes their place in history

Indeed I do.

you must accept that religion does not necessarily put a person politically in the wrong.

I never said it did. I said it makes them wholely incapable of creating communism.

And if you do want to deny them their place in history, I don't have much time for you.

Goodbye.

And please, never limit freedom of speech.

We'd probably need free speech first in order to be in a position to limit it.

Orthodox Marxist

12th October 2005, 00:49

as long as you can think on your own you can be a communist or a socialist but to be a "true communist" you have to think on your own and rid yourself of all Influence that religion has over you religion is a disease it is a leech upon humankind it does nothing but sap your individuality and turn you into a conformist to fully rid yourself of this Influence that religion has over you can take years

colonelguppy

12th October 2005, 02:32

if i'm not mistaken, the early eraly christian church was a collective

Guest1

12th October 2005, 04:04

Sure. The argument could be made. But not communist.

Black Dagger

12th October 2005, 13:46

if i'm not mistaken, the early eraly christian church was a collective

Collectives are not inherently progressive.

Other so-called 'ancient communists' such as Mazdak, believed in 'collective and common ownership'- but the property held in common included women. :angry:

colonelguppy

13th October 2005, 04:17

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 12 2005, 08:27 AM

if i'm not mistaken, the early eraly christian church was a collective

Collectives are not inherently progressive.

Other so-called 'ancient communists' such as Mazdak, believed in 'collective and common ownership'- but the property held in common included women. :angry:
just throwing ideas out

Zingu

13th October 2005, 04:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 02:13 AM
if i'm not mistaken, the early eraly christian church was a collective
Collective does not mean Communist. A Collectivist society can still have reactionary values, such as religon.

Wasted7

30th October 2005, 05:59

Lucky you, not only am I not a fan, I'm a downright hater.

Good for you. Tell you what i'm a buddist and i find your hatred of all religions disgusting. (and illogical)

Yeah how would we get rid of millions of religious people? Um... I know death camps sound like a good idea.

If you hate religions fine. Dont come looking for me after the revolution brother if you know whats good for you.

30th October 2005, 07:50

Good for you. Tell you what i'm a buddist and i find your hatred of all religions disgusting. (and illogical)

Because being against illogical belief systems is illogical. Explain this to me; I can't make any sense of it. You're the one being illogical for being buddhist in the first place.

Yeah how would we get rid of millions of religious people? Um... I know death camps sound like a good idea.

Point out where someone suggested that. Stop trying to play off of people's emotions; why don't you debate instead of making outrageous emotional claims that have no basis in fact and haven't even been stated by anybody here? There are other ways to deal with religious nuts anyways.

If you hate religions fine. Dont come looking for me after the revolution brother if you know whats good for you.

Why would we? Oh, because you fabricated this idea that there will be death camps for religious people. What works better than this is debating.

Wasted7

31st October 2005, 02:16

Why would we? Oh, because you fabricated this idea that there will be death camps for religious people. What works better than this is debating.

Fine Im big enough to admit i was wrong.

But back to the issue why should we outlaw a religion because its illogical. Many of the greastest things in humanity are illogical such as poetry, art, music, singing etc the list goes on.

In your opinion a person cannot be a communist and religious because religion of all forms are illogical well no one can be 100% percent logical all the time so therefore no man can be communist, its about finding a balance.

This is exactly the sort of crap that right-wingers ***** about saying that we are 'hurting freedom' and 'against god'.

Zingu

31st October 2005, 03:07

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 03:05 AM

But back to the issue why should we outlaw a religion because its illogical. Many of the greastest things in humanity are illogical such as poetry, art, music, singing etc the list goes on.

In your opinion a person cannot be a communist and religious because religion of all forms are illogical well no one can be 100% percent logical all the time so therefore no man can be communist, its about finding a balance.
Wrong.

Marx (and all real Communists) are against god not because it is illogical; even though God is, its because it is reactionary.

31st October 2005, 04:12

In your opinion a person cannot be a communist and religious because religion of all forms are illogical well no one can be 100% percent logical all the time so therefore no man can be communist, its about finding a balance.

This could be equated to saying "nobody's 100% nice all the time so therefore everyone is an asshole."

This is exactly the sort of crap that right-wingers ***** about saying that we are 'hurting freedom' and 'against god'.

1. We are hurting freedom; freedom in the bourgeois sense of the word that they use it as. That would be property rights.
2. We are against god.

Wasted7

31st October 2005, 05:21

his could be equated to saying "nobody's 100% nice all the time so therefore everyone is an asshole."

That's exactly my point you said earlier that:

Belief in a religion is the suspension of logic. You cannot be both illogical and communist, as communism is defined in logic.

So by definition all people that beleive in a religion are illogical, thats exactly the same as saying that everyone who's not nice is an asshole.

We are hurting freedom; freedom in the bourgeois sense of the word that they use it as. That would be property rights.

But wait aren't we debating the rights of people to be religious. Not own property, stick to the subject.

We are against god.

You cannot be against him if he does not exist.

Correction: You are against religion. ;)

Wasted7

31st October 2005, 05:26

Zingu I was qouting Lazaar he did infact say that.

Nothing Human Is Alien

31st October 2005, 05:28

Short reply (since this has been brought up countless times), you cannot be a communist and a theist; the two are counterposed.

Invader Zim

31st October 2005, 10:17

I can understand that organised religion and communism may be incompatable, but personal belief is harmless.

idealisticcommie

31st October 2005, 13:15

:D No you don't have to be an atheist to be a Marxist. Marxism is actually a process for identifying the collective societal symptoms of rampant materialistic addiction. Recognize the disease, and you end your denial.

:) True socialist man isn't concerned about "stuff", cause he's more concerned about people.

;) End your fixation with the stuff, and you actualize your true self; as opposed to your "fragmented", and alienated self.

(So who says that Buddha and Karl weren't in cahoots with their take on reality! Hah!) :lol:

31st October 2005, 15:57

So by definition all people that beleive in a religion are illogical, thats exactly the same as saying that everyone who's not nice is an asshole.

You failed to understand my point. As for this quote, everyone that is religious is illogical; everyone that isn't nice is an asshole. Now, for what I said earlier (which you misinterpreted and/or misrepresented). What you said was:

In your opinion a person cannot be a communist and religious because religion of all forms are illogical well no one can be 100% percent logical all the time so therefore no man can be communist, its about finding a balance.

In response to this I wrote:

This could be equated to saying "nobody's 100% nice all the time so therefore everyone is an asshole."

What this means is that nobody is 100% anything; because someone isn't 100% logical all the time, doesn't make them an illogical person. This is what I was proving to you. I can be an asshole for five minutes in my lifetime. That doesn't make me an asshole. Read the posts, comprehend them, and write an intelligent response, and this mistake won't happen again.

But wait aren't we debating the rights of people to be religious. Not own property, stick to the subject.

My point was that we (communists) are against property rights. We are against religion because it masks the material world; it blinds people to seeing the world for what it is, and the relations between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. I replied to that part rather quickly; I apologize if it was a bit premature.

You cannot be against him if he does not exist.

Correction: You are against religion. wink.gif

You're arguing semantics now? I will correct myself. I am against the concept of god. That is essentially the same thing as being against god. Don't argue semantics; let's stick to the issues, please.

As for what Zingu has said, we are in agreement. The difference is that I believe that what is illogical is reactionary. This, however, is also semantics.

I can understand that organised religion and communism may be incompatable, but personal belief is harmless.

Is it? What happens when someone starts expressing their personal beliefs? What happens when these personal beliefs spread? What happens when the majority believe these things? What if these ideas are hierarchial, or reactionary? Then we are right back where we started. Perhaps even worse off.

Zingu

31st October 2005, 22:51

Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.

It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.

.......

The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses. Theory is capable of gripping the masses as soon as it demonstrates ad hominem, and it demonstrates ad hominem as soon as it becomes radical. To be radical is to grasp the root of the matter. But, for man, the root is man himself. The evident proof of the radicalism of German theory, and hence of its practical energy, is that is proceeds from a resolute positive abolition of religion. The criticism of religion ends with the teaching that man is the highest essence for man – hence, with the categoric imperative to overthrow all relations in which man is a debased, enslaved, abandoned, despicable essence, relations which cannot be better described than by the cry of a Frenchman when it was planned to introduce a tax on dogs: Poor dogs! They want to treat you as human beings!

Wasted7

1st November 2005, 05:29

You failed to understand my point. As for this quote, everyone that is religious is illogical.

Once again you assume that religious people are illogical.

But religion is not logical or illogical it is faith which is neither. So to say someone is illogical because they beleive in a god is false because it cannot be added to the equation. Smarter people than you have argued about the existance of god and never really gotten anywhere, it is a circular argument.

You know what else is a faith my friends COMMUNISM yes thats right the faith that we can acheive a better system is not based with any hard facts in comparison to capitalism. We have only ever acheived socialism so therefore if we have not acheived Communism how can we know that Communism can be acheived? We dont, but we beleive it can we have faith .

If nothing else many of the greastest minds in the world are religious yet no one in their right minds would consider them illogical. Well you would maybe.

everyone that isn't nice is an asshole.

You knew exactly what i meant. Now whos arguing semantics?

Is it? What happens when someone starts expressing their personal beliefs? What happens when these personal beliefs spread? What happens when the majority believe these things? What if these ideas are hierarchial, or reactionary? Then we are right back where we started. Perhaps even worse off.

All ideas can be dangerous but we shouldn't persecute people for their ideas. We should empose law if they act in a destructive or negative way because of those ideas but we should not restrict the essence of ideas including religion.

As for Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right
Im gonna be bold here and say i think Marx was wrong.

1st November 2005, 05:42

Once again you assume that religious people are illogical.

That isn't an assumption.

But religion is not logical or illogical it is faith which is neither. So to say someone is illogical because they beleive in a god is false because it cannot be added to the equation.

Religion and faith are both illogical.

Smarter people than you have argued about the existance of god and never really gotten anywhere, it is a circular argument.

If you feel this way then you might as well stop posting on this discussion board; it's all circular arguments... :rolleyes:

You know what else is a faith my friends COMMUNISM yes thats right the faith that we can acheive a better system is not based with any hard facts in comparison to capitalism.

You don't need faith to believe that you can do better. Communism is based in fact. That is why it is scientific and not utopian.

We have only ever acheived socialism so therefore if we have not acheived Communism how can we know that Communism can be acheived? We dont, but we beleive it can we have faith.

This is also semantics, as your belief of what faith is is so large and encompassing that you believe that the belief that one can improve oneself and their environment is just as faithful as believing in some wacko being that created the universe.

If nothing else many of the greastest minds in the world are religious yet no one in their right minds would consider them illogical. Well you would maybe.

That I would. One doesn't have to be logical to reach logical conclusions. ;)

You knew exactly what i meant. Now whos arguing semantics?

I knew that you were trying to dismantle my argument by twisting it in a way that it wasn't meant to go.

All ideas can be dangerous but we shouldn't persecute people for their ideas. We should empose law if they act in a destructive or negative way because of those ideas but we should not restrict the essence of ideas including religion.

What you are continuously failing to understand is that religion in itself is a destructive and negative idea. When one person believes in this nonsense, they convince more to. When the majority believes in this nonsense, we are back where we started.

Black Dagger

1st November 2005, 05:56

But religion is not logical or illogical it is faith which is neither.

Wrong. 'Faith' is illogical, why? Because it is not based on reason, rationality or... wait for it... logic. Religion is based on superstition, which is inherently irrational/illogical. What does faith mean? Faith is believing in something when there is no evidence for no reason but that you 'have faith', it is maintaing this position despite evidence to the contrary, only because of a commitment to a religious superstition- a commitment that is illogical based on the present evidence.

If you disagree, feel free to demonstrate, with logic & rationality, why 'god' is real, and religious superstition valid.

So to say someone is illogical because they beleive in a god is false because it cannot be added to the equation.

Huh? I can't say someone is being illogical if they believe illogical things irrationally!
Why not?

Smarter people than you have argued about the existance of god and never really gotten anywhere, it is a circular argument.

And that's a vulgar appeal to authority! I question the intelligence of someone who can maintain, under a challenge, an irrational, illogical position- that's not 'smart'.

You know what else is a faith my friends COMMUNISM yes thats right the faith that we can acheive a better system is not based with any hard facts in comparison to capitalism.

:lol: Don't tell that to any (materialist) communist! It's self-evident that a 'better' system than capitalism is possible, communism for example. It requires no 'faith' that a movement can be built to attempt to bring this system into existance, because it has already happened - a lot.

We have only ever acheived socialism so therefore if we have not acheived Communism how can we know that Communism can be acheived?

Because most communists have learned from the mistakes of the 20th century?

If nothing else many of the greastest minds in the world are religious yet no one in their right minds would consider them illogical.

Who are these 'great' minds? The 'leading' scientists and intellectuals of our day are in the majority atheists.

Im gonna be bold here and say i think Marx was wrong.

No doubt he'd have similar words for you if he was alive <_<

Zingu

1st November 2005, 13:26

You know what else is a faith my friends COMMUNISM yes thats right the faith that we can acheive a better system is not based with any hard facts in comparison to capitalism. We have only ever acheived socialism so therefore if we have not acheived Communism how can we know that Communism can be acheived? We dont, but we beleive it can we have faith .

If everyone had this attitude, then Communism isn't even possible.

Wasted7

2nd November 2005, 08:02

That isn't an assumption.

Yes it is.

If you feel this way then you might as well stop posting on this discussion board; it's all circular arguments...

We're not debating the existance of god here which is an entirely different matter. We are debating whether a communist can be religious and what future religion in a communist society which is not a circular argument.

This forum was marked 'Religion' not 'The existance of god.'

You don't need faith to believe that you can do better. Communism is based in fact. That is why it is scientific and not utopian.

You don't need faith to believe you can do better. But you do need a degree in faith you believe you can you can reach 'true' communism. There are no facts we can reach the end product which is communism their is only a theory that hasn't been proven yet.

I knew that you were trying to dismantle my argument by twisting it in a way that it wasn't meant to go.

Okay...Thats really not true.

What you are continuously failing to understand is that religion in itself is a destructive and negative idea. When one person believes in this nonsense, they convince more to. When the majority believes in this nonsense, we are back where we started.

I am not failing to understand anything. I do not believe that religion is destructive all humans can be made to destructive things by using patrotism, propaganda or Im-your-leader-do-this-because-i-said-so. Religion has been used to do destructive things in the past but it didn't cause the holocaust or the Rwandan genocide or the world wars. Religion used to be used to control people but after it declined did we suddenly become less inclined towards doing destructive things? No, people found other ways to control the masses. Which is exact what will continue to happen if religion is abolished.

This is also semantics, as your belief of what faith is is so large and encompassing that you believe that the belief that one can improve oneself and their environment is just as faithful as believing in some wacko being that created the universe.

I am NOT using semanticsalthough you are! I never said that you need faith to improve society. I said you need faith to believe that true communism can be acheived.

That I would. One doesn't have to be logical to reach logical conclusions.

What is your definition of a logical person then?

And that's a vulgar appeal to authority! I question the intelligence of someone who can maintain, under a challenge, an irrational, illogical position- that's not 'smart'.

Whose authority am I refering to? Not my own, I don't really believe in god I just hold an unbiased opinion (unlike many here). Yes 'smart' people for a long time have debated the existance of god its a debate that rages to this day even if thats hard for you to believe.

Don't tell that to any (materialist) communist! It's self-evident that a 'better' system than capitalism is possible, communism for example. It requires no 'faith' that a movement can be built to attempt to bring this system into existance, because it has already happened - a lot.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Right back at you buddy true communism has NOT been acheived EVER. Only socialism has been acheived if you really dont believe this youre more deluded than i thought.

Because most communists have learned from the mistakes of the 20th century?

You miss my point entirely. Think about it.

Who are these 'great' minds? The 'leading' scientists and intellectuals of our day are in the majority atheists.

Once again you miss the point it does not matter if its not the majority the fact that you claim that a person cannot be logical and religious even if their was one brilliant scientist it would make you statement unture. Do i really have to make a list for you of religious scholars i think you get my point.

No doubt he'd have similar words for you if he was alive

And? I never said i was smarter than Marx.

If everyone had this attitude, then Communism isn't even possible.

Why?

2nd November 2005, 14:36

Yes it is.

No it is not. Religion is an illogical belief system. For someone to believe in it, they must also be illogical.

You don't need faith to believe you can do better. But you do need a degree in faith you believe you can you can reach 'true' communism. There are no facts we can reach the end product which is communism their is only a theory that hasn't been proven yet.

You don't need faith to believe you can do better. You don't need faith to believe you can reach communism. We know this because it is possible for us to improve society. No matter how large or small, this is an undeniable fact.

Okay...Thats really not true.

That's exactly what happened.

I am not failing to understand anything. I do not believe that religion is destructive all humans can be made to destructive things by using patrotism, propaganda or Im-your-leader-do-this-because-i-said-so. Religion has been used to do destructive things in the past but it didn't cause the holocaust or the Rwandan genocide or the world wars. Religion used to be used to control people but after it declined did we suddenly become less inclined towards doing destructive things? No, people found other ways to control the masses. Which is exact what will continue to happen if religion is abolished.

Religion is an illogical belief system. For people to believe in it they must be illogical. When they start looking at the world in a materialist standpoint, this can no longer happen. You can't change the world if you don't know what it is.

I am NOT using semanticsalthough you are! I never said that you need faith to improve society. I said you need faith to believe that true communism can be acheived.

I'm not saying you do so on purpose. I am just stating that your definition of faith is faulty.

What is your definition of a logical person then?

Someone that is logical for the most part.

Why?

Because we would be back to utopian socialism.

STI

2nd November 2005, 18:42

Props, Lazar. It's no fun to argue with somebody who refuses to say more than "no it isn't".

Zingu

2nd November 2005, 20:41

Why?

As stated in the quote from Marx. Religous suffering replaces real suffering, so if revolution is even going to be possible, religon is going to have to wane and suffer beforehand.

Wasted7

3rd November 2005, 05:59

You don't need faith to believe you can do better. You don't need faith to believe you can reach communism. We know this because it is possible for us to improve society. No matter how large or small, this is an undeniable fact.

Improving societiy no matter how much doesn't mean in fact reaching communism.
Communism is just one form or method of creating a better society.

You don't need faith to believe you can reach communism.

We obviously agree to disagree.

That's exactly what happened.

If you say so.

Religion is an illogical belief system. For people to believe in it they must be illogical. When they start looking at the world in a materialist standpoint, this can no longer happen. You can't change the world if you don't know what it is.

Oh so its no longer negative its JUST illogical.

To say that someone cannot change the world if they're religious is rediculous.

I'm not saying you do so on purpose. I am just stating that your definition of faith is faulty.

You wrote this in response to this.

I am NOT using semanticsalthough you are! I never said that you need faith to improve society. I said you need faith to believe that true communism can be acheived.

Now what I was saying is that you were using semantics to twist my argument into saying that you need faith to improve society which is not what I said at all what I said was that you need faith to reach communism. (Which we don't agree on.)

Someone that is logical for the most part.

This is such a simplified explanation that it is impossible to debate. 'Most part' is opinionistic.

Props, Lazar. It's no fun to argue with somebody who refuses to say more than "no it isn't".

He's right this has been interesting but its getting childish.

The only way I think we could really debate this is orally.

3rd November 2005, 06:25

Improving societiy no matter how much doesn't mean in fact reaching communism.
Communism is just one form or method of creating a better society.

I guess we are going to agree to disagree, as it doesn't sound like you wish to continue this debate.

Oh so its no longer negative its JUST illogical.

Anything that is illogical is reactionary. In my opinion, anything that is reactionary is negative.

To say that someone cannot change the world if they're religious is rediculous.

Someone cannot bring forth a communist society if they preach religion, are influenced by religion, etc...

This is such a simplified explanation that it is impossible to debate. 'Most part' is opinionistic.

The most part means that someone doesn't have to be logical 100% of the time to be a logical person. People make mistakes. People aren't perfect. This is what "most part" was referring to.

red team

4th January 2006, 08:20

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 2 2005, 11:46 PM
I believe in God and I go to church, does that necessarily mean I am not a "true communist"?
Yes, but you're a communist sympathiser if you believe in the Marxist vision of a Communist society. The situation now is the left needs all the sympathiser they can get even religious ones. Its a stupid strategy to alienate religious Communist sympathisers since one time sympathisers can be persuaded to be "true communists" (whatever that means) over time. I really don't like the quote "true communists" its implies that we're just another faith. Let me put it to you another way. There's no Communist truth or Bourgeosie truth or Christian truth. There's empirical truth (truth you can see, hear, touch, taste and smell) and thats it.

Red Team

redstar2000

4th January 2006, 09:30

Originally posted by red_team
The situation now is the left needs all the sympathisers they can get even religious ones. It's a stupid strategy to alienate religious Communist sympathisers since one time sympathisers can be persuaded to be "true communists" (whatever that means) over time.

If you tell someone that their religious beliefs are false, then have you not "alienated" them?

But how do you propose to "persuade" them to become "true communists" without historical materialism...a paradigm that rules out the supernatural altogether.

When people suggest, in one way or another, that we should be "nice atheists", it usually means that they want us to speak "respectfully" about superstition...even going so far as to act "as if" religion were somehow intellectually "legitimate" or (:o) politically "progressive".

That just doesn't make any sense!

One might just as well advocate that we should "tolerate" racism, patriotism, sexism, homophobia, etc. on the grounds that we "need all the sympathizers we can get".

People with reactionary ideas are not real sympathizers with communism...even if "they think they are".

Any serious consideration of communism cannot avoid the conclusion that, if achieved, it would mean the end of what Marx himself called "all the old shit"!

You can try to "hide that" if you want...but you'd be lying. And when you got caught -- and you would get caught! -- anyone you lied to could be reasonably expected to become your intransigent enemy.

Communism has plenty of enemies; we don't need to make more by lying to people.

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

Ol' Dirty

5th January 2006, 01:17

I believe that although Communism and Atheism are deeply intertwined, you don't have to be an atheist to be a communist. Aren't there atheist Capitalists? Then there are (such as Comrade Corrina) religious Communists.

Peace.

violencia.Proletariat

5th January 2006, 02:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 09:28 PM
I believe that although Communism and Atheism are deeply intertwined, you don't have to be an atheist to be a communist. Aren't there atheist Capitalists? Then there are (such as Comrade Corrina) religious Communists.

Peace.
No there arent. capitalists believe in making money, thats their top priority, not god. As communists focus on material conditions which show there is no god.

ReD_ReBeL

5th January 2006, 02:40

fuck sake , some of you people comment that believing in a religion is bad because it puts you in a certain mind-set. But you also state that if you are a communist you cant be religious? :wacko: , by your explained logic that is saying that communism is also setting your mind into a certain way. seems like some of you people are turning communism into a faith instead of a theory. Anyway who says communism and religion is not compatible, Marx? so you are denying religion because Marx said so. Sounds as if he is your god. Theorys should just be takin as a baseline not a whole out obsesssion, i.e Communism base lines are class struggle for the working man uniting and liberating them and others out of exploitation and opresssion<this alone basically makes you a communist or at least a leaning sympathetic communist. banning religion is very authoritarian and is not a way to run a communist society. Haha some of you people are Hitler-like. Hitler-"death to jews", Some Communists-"death to religion"

redstar2000

5th January 2006, 05:43

Originally posted by ReD_ReBeL
Anyway who says communism and religion is not compatible, Marx?

The question is not "who" said something; the question is is it true?.

It is self-evidently true.

You can be a historical materialist OR a believer in superstition.

You cannot combine the two...just as 2 + 2 cannot equal both 4 and 5. One answer is correct and the other answer is incorrect.

I know this sounds terribly "dogmatic" and "bigoted"...but it's the way things are!

Haha some of you people are Hitler-like.

That is an outstandingly idiot-like statement...suggesting your total ignorance of Hitler and the Nazis as well as the development of communist ideas.

Haha yourself. :huh:

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

Kittie Rose

19th January 2006, 15:01

No, you don't have to be an atheist. Anyone who's telling you otherwise is just being silly/elitist and inable to make the distinction between organised religion and spirituality, and Karl Marx's beliefs and their own take on them.

violencia.Proletariat

19th January 2006, 20:56

Originally posted by Kittie [email protected] 19 2006, 11:17 AM
No, you don't have to be an atheist. Anyone who's telling you otherwise is just being silly/elitist and inable to make the distinction between organised religion and spirituality, and Karl Marx's beliefs and their own take on them.
The only arguement these people who say you can be both is that we are being elitist. :lol: Yes we communists are trying to make sure no one can get into our club :rolleyes: Its not compatible, you cant play commie for a couple of your rebellious years.

Kittie Rose

19th January 2006, 23:19

Originally posted by nate+Jan 19 2006, 09:12 PM--> (nate @ Jan 19 2006, 09:12 PM)
Kittie [email protected] 19 2006, 11:17 AM
No, you don't have to be an atheist. Anyone who's telling you otherwise is just being silly/elitist and inable to make the distinction between organised religion and spirituality, and Karl Marx's beliefs and their own take on them.
The only arguement these people who say you can be both is that we are being elitist. :lol: Yes we communists are trying to make sure no one can get into our club :rolleyes: Its not compatible, you cant play commie for a couple of your rebellious years. [/b]
Then why on earth are you acting like the most ridiculous stereotype of a rebellious teenager I've seen in years?

violencia.Proletariat

20th January 2006, 01:06

Originally posted by Kittie Rose+Jan 19 2006, 07:35 PM--> (Kittie Rose @ Jan 19 2006, 07:35 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 09:12 PM

Kittie [email protected] 19 2006, 11:17 AM
No, you don't have to be an atheist. Anyone who's telling you otherwise is just being silly/elitist and inable to make the distinction between organised religion and spirituality, and Karl Marx's beliefs and their own take on them.
The only arguement these people who say you can be both is that we are being elitist. :lol: Yes we communists are trying to make sure no one can get into our club :rolleyes: Its not compatible, you cant play commie for a couple of your rebellious years.
Then why on earth are you acting like the most ridiculous stereotype of a rebellious teenager I've seen in years? [/b]
Or maybe your just pissed because I insult your petty mysticism. ;)

Kittie Rose

20th January 2006, 01:40

So you take pride in discriminating against my beliefs?

Well you are more than likely a piece of shit spotty little teen rebelling against his slightly-christian parents. And if you're not, then you're even MORE pathetic.

You are most certainly not a true leftist. There is no room for bigotry and discrimination in the left.

LSD

20th January 2006, 02:33

You are most certainly not a true leftist. There is no room for bigotry and discrimination in the left.

What nonsense.

Leftists should and do discriminate all the time.

We discriminate against Nazis, against capitalists, against sexists and homophobes and racists.

"Tolerance" is bourgeois liberal garbage. We are "tolerant" of people, but we are not "tolerant" of bad ideas.

This idealist "relativism" crap has really got to go. Some ideas are good, some ideas are bad, some ideas are true, and some ideas are flat out wrong.

And we should have no problem throwing out the latter group.

Well, religion happens to fall into it.

"Faith" is, by definition, "believing" in the nonverifiable. It is the surrendering of reason for superstition and it is enforced ignorance.

Its past clearly shows a high degree of correlation with attoricity and brutality, but even if it didn't, it would still be incompatible with a materialist outlook.

The belief that the world is flat has almost certainly not caused a single death in human history. Neither has the belief that the earth rests on a series of infinite turtles. But does that mean that communism is compatible with these viewpoints? Does that means that we should be "tolerant" with "flat-earthers"?

Or should we educate people about the objective truth.

And how about homophobes and racists? Should we "accept" their "views"? After all, don't they have a "right" to their "beliefs"? :angry:

Sorry, but you simply cannot have it both ways.

Luckily, communism doesn't ask you to; communism is not about "tolerance", it's about liberation. We aim to liberate the worker from all oppression, that includes physical and psychologically. The grip of religion is a coercive and divisive one and it must be destroyed.

You may find that "offensive" to your "beliefs", but frankly I don't give a damn.

I'm sure that there were many aristocrats "offended" in 1792.

Fuck' em!

Kittie Rose

20th January 2006, 02:50

We discriminate against Nazis, against capitalists, against sexists and homophobes and racists.

... because all of those cause harm or something which is the polar opposite of your system.

"Tolerance" is bourgeois liberal garbage. We are "tolerant" of people, but we are not "tolerant" of bad ideas.

How exactly do you define "Bad ideas" in this? I hate to sound like a rightie, but I really think it does come down to "Ideas we don't agree with".

This idealist "relativism" crap has really got to go. Some ideas are good, some ideas are bad, some ideas are true, and some ideas are flat out wrong.

Actually, while I normally dislike moral relativism, this is EXACTLY where it should apply. What works for one does not work for others, and you have no right to force what works for you onto other peoplel.

And we should have no problem throwing out the latter group.

Yes you should. You should quit being a baby and learn to tolerate ideas you don't agree with.

Well, religion happens to fall into it.

Does it now.

"Faith" is, by definition, "believing" in the nonverifiable. It is the surrendering of reason for superstition and it is enforced ignorance.

How is it "enforced" ignorance? I choose my beliefs and structured them out of my own experiecnes and free will.

Its past clearly shows a high degree of correlation with attoricity and brutality, but even if it didn't, it would still be incompatible with a materialist outlook.

It's past from a historical point of view; you mean that of Christianity. Being a person of obviously limited mental capabilities, you are unable to make a distinction between "dark ages" style Christians and the rest of the world. Does that offend you, dear? Guess what, I don't give a fuck. I'm a nice, tolerant decent person, not some asshole who wants to tear down everyone's beliefs.

The belief that the world is flat has almost certainly not caused a single death in human history. Neither has the belief that the earth rests on a series of infinite turtles. But does that mean that communism is compatible with these viewpoints? Does that means that we should be "tolerant" with "flat-earthers"?

Well, yeah. If they're not causing any harm. Let them be idiots. Until they start using their beliefs to preach hate, what exactly is the problem here? You obviously want to destroy freedom of speech.

Or should we educate people about the objective truth.

There's a difference between education and forcing your beliefs on others. You are a strong supporter of forcing your beliefs on others.

And how about homophobes and racists? Should we "accept" their "views"? After all, don't they have a "right" to their "beliefs"? mad.gif

Their beliefs and the way in which they express them are harmful. History aside, most religious beliefs are not. Again, smart people can make this distinction.

Sorry, but you simply cannot have it both ways.

...yes you can. In fact, that's how most of Europe has it currently.

Luckily, communism doesn't ask you to; communism is not about "tolerance", it's about liberation. We aim to liberate the worker from all oppression, that includes physical and psychologically. The grip of religion is a coercive and divisive one and it must be destroyed.

What if they don't want to be? Did you ever think about that? No. You care only about furthering your own goals and perogatives. You are no better than any multinational corporation.

If you "destroy" religion, something else will take it's place as a "divisor" and it will have none of the pleasantries associated with it. People will always find something to fight over and destroying the current "Mask" does nothing to address the real problem. There are atheist conservatives too, and they're generally the biggest assholes of all. But that's what half the world will become under your illogic.

You may find that "offensive" to your "beliefs", but frankly I don't give a damn.

Then you're an asshole with no respect and an extremely immature human being intolerant of those whose ideas who differ from their own. I have a right to be offended by someone who wants to destroy my right to my beliefs and free speech.

Go back to listening to Good Charlotte and trying to grow pubes, kid, and maybe someday you'll start acting your age.

LSD

20th January 2006, 03:06

How exactly do you define "Bad ideas" in this?

Bad ideas are those which are demonstrably harmful or based on incorrect or invalid data.

One such idea is capitalism, another is racism, another is religion.

Actually, while I normally dislike moral relativism, this is EXACTLY where it should apply.

Why?

Again, why should we be tolerant with objectively irrational ideas?

Religion promotes the surrender of rational thought, the most useful and effective tool the human race has. Why should we "tolerate" such insanity?

How is it "enforced" ignorance? I choose my beliefs and structured them out of my own experiecnes and free will.

I, obviously, cannot speak to your particular case, but this is overwhelming not the situation with most religious people.

Almost everyone who is a serious religious adherent today is so because they were brought up that way.

If we were to eliminate childhood superstitious indoctrination, we would see religios numbers plummet.

The number of adults who willingly chose superstition is microscopic.

There's a difference between education and forcing your beliefs on others. You are a strong supporter of forcing your beliefs on others.

And how do you infer that?

Where I have I advocated "forcing" anything?

Religious apologists are always paranoid that atheists are planning on "locking up" all the superstitious and "forcing" them to "renounce" their "Gods".

I can promise you we have no such "diabolical" plans. :lol:

It's understandable that you're afraid, of course. After all, we all know what religious "proponents" do when they're trying to "spread their word". :o

Luckily, however, we are far more civilized. We also are not forced to use such extreme measures to defend our claims. Unlike the superstitious, reality is on our side.

And so instead of torture and execution, we use a far more less lethal, and yet far more effective, weapon: logic.

Unlike the burning stake that your forbeareres were so fond of, there's no running away!

History aside, most religious beliefs are not.

:lol:

I hope that you can see the ridiculousness of starting a sentence with "history aside".

History is never "aside". It is our guide and our standard by which we judge past actions and contemplate new ones.

And, as I've already outlined, this isn't just an issue of past atrocities. Religion is fundamentally irrational all on its own. As such it is a danger as it cannot be rationaly dialogued with.

People who believe that they are carrying out the "will of God" cannot be rationaly convinced otherwise.

All superstitions are a hindrence to progress, no matter what cloaks they hide themselves in.

What if they don't want to be? Did you ever think about that?

What if they don't want to be liberated?

Then it's our job to explain why they would be better off if they were.

It's really not that difficult. Freedom is always more attractive than slavery.

If you "destroy" religion, something else will take it's place as a "divisor" and it will have none of the pleasantries associated with it.

Then what's the point?

If it's all "hopeless" and the people will "always" be divided, then we might as well give up now.

I chose, rather, to assume possibility and deal with the oppressive instutions that exist at present rather than pessimistically assert that they will "be replaced" by "something worse".

You should quit being a baby

Being a person of obviously limited mental capabilities

Then you're an asshole with no respect and an extremely immature human being

Go back to listening to Good Charlotte and trying to grow pubes, kid.

:lol:

Wow, the concept of "intelligent debate" is a little lost on you, isn't it?

Oh well, at least you've gotten ad hominem attacks down. Now, if you could only learn logic and rationality...

Kittie Rose

20th January 2006, 03:21

Bad ideas are those which are demonstrably harmful or based on incorrect or invalid data.

One such idea is capitalism, another is racism, another is religion.

Where is your backing for this? You're just listing things out with little or no correalation to what you're saying.

Why?

Again, why should we be tolerant with objectively irrational ideas?

They are irrational from your point of view because you don't know why that person holds them. And the proper question is, why not be tolerant?

Religion promotes the surrender of rational thought, the most useful and effective tool the human race has. Why should we "tolerate" such insanity?

Because you speak with pure, utter, irredeemible and shameful emotional bias. You refuse to see religion as anything but dark and bleak and refuse to acknowledge it's virtues. Certainly, the religion that exists in your head should be killed off. Just as well as the real world doesn't resemble the inside of your head.

, obviously, cannot speak to your particular case, but this is overwhelming not the situation with most religious people.

How many have you met? I doubt with your extreme bias that you even saw them clearly past your rage tinted glasses.

Almost everyone who is a serious religious adherent today is so because they were brought up that way.

And what if they weren't? You can't say for sure. They probably wouldn't be christian, but they might be something.

If we were to eliminate childhood superstitious indoctrination, we would see religios numbers plummet.

Gods, I'm really getting sick of your pretentious wanker speak. You're *not* smart, you're just arrogant and cocky. Speaking with fancy looking words and nonsense terms doesn't make you look smart, it just looks like you're programmed to say that.

I do personally disagree with parents forcing their beliefs on kids. Nonetheless, many kids will pick up these beliefs regardless.

The number of adults who willingly chose superstition is microscopic.

How do you know this? Have you researched this? And once again, you are playing out to the majority and not caring about the minority. There is more to religion than superstition. Your immature terminology does not serve you well.

If the number that chose willingly, why are pagan type beliefs on the rise? Nobody's really "brought up" into them. That alone proves you wrong.

And how do you infer that?

Where I have I advocated "forcing" anything?

You're joking, right?

Religious apologists are always paranoid that atheists are planning on "locking up" all the superstitious and "forcing" them to "renounce" their "Gods".

I can promise you we have no such "diabolical" plans. laugh.gif

Well, considering you just said how religion has no place in the world and should be abolished, I really can't see where on earth they'd get THAT idea from.

Luckily, however, we are far more civilized. Instead of torture and execution, we use a far more effective weapon: logic.

That's a joke. You've used more logical fallacies than I can count on one wikipedia entry. By the way, look up logical fallacies on wikipedia before making your next post and make sure you don't make any next time.

I hope that you can see the ridiculousness of starting a sentence with "history aside".

History is never "aside". It is our guide and our standard by which we judge past actions and contemplate new ones.

And, as I've already outlines, this isn't just an issue of past atrocities. Religion is fundamentally irrational on its own. As such it is a danger as it cannot be ratiaonly dialogued with.

People who believe that they are carrying out the "will of God" cannot be rationaly convinced otherwise.

All superstitions are a hindrence to progress, no matter what cloaks they hide themselves in.

I still see absolutely no base or backing for these "Opinions" of yours. Just another spotty 12 year old listening to My Chemical Romance and flipping off his parents.

What if they don't want to be liberated?

Then it's our job to explain why they would be better off if they were.

Uh-huh. I think I see where this is going.

It's really not that difficult. Freedom is always more attractive than slavery.

The amount of emotionally weighted terms you use is laughable, and would have you thrown out of a serious debate after three sentences.

Then what's the point?

If it's all "hopeless" and the people will "always" be divided, then we might as well give up now.

No, you just look for real ways to improve society instead of blowing things up you don't like the look of.

I chose, rather, to assume possibility and deal with the oppressive instutions that exist at present rather than pessimistically asserting that they will "be replaced" by "something worse".

Because you find bigots of every path. You're forgetting that most people don't really actively believe in the religion they were "given" to begin with and that many of those people are STILL consersvative and STILL assholes. You must address why people should be more open minded and accepting, not showing them how you are not open minded and accepting towards them. What kind of ignorant message are you sending?

Wow, the concept of "intelligent debate" is a little lost on you, isn't it?

You don't back your arguments or adhere to any form of real logic or common sense in the way you make your points. It's too frustrating trying to debate "Properly" with somone like you.

Oh well, at least you've gotten ad hominem attacks down. Now, if you could only learn logic and rationality...

Your argument is a complete fucking joke. Next time you post I'm going to disect it bit by bit doing nothing but pointing out the logical fallacies. Your entire argument is non sequitor, regardless.

LSD

20th January 2006, 03:38

They are irrational from your point of view because you don't know why that person holds them.

Irrationality isn't a matter of "point of view".

An idea is either rational or it is not. If it is rational then it is logically consistant and supported by objective data.

Religion is neither of these things.

You refuse to see religion as anything but dark and bleak and refuse to acknowledge it's virtues.

Where I have said that religion is either "dark" or "bleak"?

You are injecting an emotionalism into my argument where none exists.

I am not objecting to superstition because I think it's "wrong" or any such idealist nonsense. Rather I recognize that religion and "faith" are objectively dangerous because they demand an abandondment of rationality.

Furthermore, I recognize that ignorance is inherently reactionary and religion is inherently ignorant.

It's really not an "emotional" issue for me.

Gods, I'm really getting sick of your pretentious wanker speak.

"Gods"? "Wanker speak"? :huh:

Speaking with fancy looking words and nonsense terms doesn't make you look smart, it just looks like you're programmed to say that.

I'm sorry.

Which words specifically were troubling you?

There is more to religion than superstition.

Actually, by definition no there isn't.

Supernaturalist beliefs are inherently superstitious.

That is, of course, unless you are willing to present some evidence in favour of your "beliefs"? :)

You're joking, right?

Not at all.

I oppose religion, but that doesn't mean that I support "extreme" means to eliminate it.

Indeed, I oppose religion in exactly the same way that I oppose sexism and racism.

I firmly believe that all three can be effectively treated with education and information. There is no need for "concentration camps" or "mass murder" or whatever paranoid fantasy you're worried about.

Well, considering you just said how religion has no place in the world and should be abolished, I really can't see where on earth they'd get THAT idea from.

Well, neither can I.

As I've already outlined, there is a distinct difference between opposing an idea and harming the person who holds it.

I oppose capitalism, but that doesn't mean that I beat up every capitalist that I see on the street!

It's too frustrating trying to debate "Properly" with somone like you.

:lol:

This from the person who wrote such gems as:

your rage tinted glasses.

pretentious wanker speak

You're *not* smart

Your immature terminology

Just another spotty 12 year old listening to My Chemical Romance and flipping off his parents.

If you don't calm down and start conversing civily, I'm going to have to start issuing warning points.

I understand that this is an emotionaly charged issue for you, but please try to keep your anger in check.