Campaign against religion

[enigma2517]

I've been thinking about this for awhile. What is the greatest barrier to class consciousness? At this time, I'd be inclined to say religion.

I can't possibly reason with somebody about leftism if they do not analyze things from a materialist perspective.

Countries that are less religious are noticably happier and more progressive. My question is: what can we do to catalyze this?

Religion is, for the most part, on a downward spiral. It is (overall) decreasing throughout the world.

I live in the United States, one of the most religious industrialized countries there is. People my age don't like politics, but religion is a topic they are more receptive to.

Being a senior in high school, what can I do?

Should I try and organize something in my school, or possibly reach out to the greater community instead?

I was thinking about joining the local chapter of this organization:

http://www.wash.org/humanism.html

Anyway...any suggestions are welcome and requested.

[Rockfan]

Try arguing with christains at your school, you may not be able to show them the facts but others around you lisining may see reason. The argument I ussally rip out is dinosaurs something like this:
"One word question dude, dinosaur"

Or how fundimentalists belive the world is 12,000 years old, thats a good one. Also one of the gosballs wrote his book 30 years after jueas was crusifiyed (I hate spelling but you get what I mean), after 30 years hes bound to have forgoten bits or distorted his story, he would have been over 60, a very old man for the tim

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 09:39 PM
Try arguing with christains at your school, you may not be able to show them the facts but others around you lisining may see reason. The argument I ussally rip out is dinosaurs something like this:
"One word question dude, dinosaur"

Or how fundimentalists belive the world is 12,000 years old, thats a good one. Also one of the gosballs wrote his book 30 years after jueas was crusifiyed (I hate spelling but you get what I mean), after 30 years hes bound to have forgoten bits or distorted his story, he would have been over 60, a very old man for the tim
Haha, religious people don't believe in dinosaurs. That's one way to argue with them!

[Rockfan]

Yeah one guy was like "god put dinosaur fossils here to test our faith", I'm like, "so we got a prankster god now, does that idea bother you, that gods fucking with us" lol.

[violencia.Proletariat]

if there are any religious groups in your school you should start an "atheist club" or something of the sort to counteract them. other than usual, phamplets, graffiti, challenging preachers to debates, just talk to ordinary people about it.

[redstar2000]

Humor is enormously popular with high school students; therefore I would employ ridicule heavily.

See any of the humor threads in the Religion subforum for examples.

Good luck!

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

[Scars]

<<I&#39;ve been thinking about this for awhile. What is the greatest barrier to class consciousness? At this time, I&#39;d be inclined to say religion.>>

If you define consumerism, materialism, sport and TV a religion then yes, religion is the biggest barrier to class consciousness.

<<Countries that are less religious are noticably happier and more progressive. My question is: what can we do to catalyze this?>>

I&#39;m gonna presume that you&#39;re American and thus statistically you&#39;ll never have left America, nor will you have a passport.

This is the only explination for a statement that is so incredibly naive. New Zealand has the highest rates of youth suicide in the world and very high rates of depression, particularly among people under 40. New Zealand is a very secular country where religion plays a very minor part in society, politics etc. In fact the majority of parliament are self proclaimed atheists or agnostic, the Prime Minister has publically stated that she&#39;s an Atheist (then she got yelled at by the Pope).

I suggest you go read &#39;A Discource on the Origins of Inequality between Men&#39; (sometimes called &#39;A Discource on the Origins of Inequality&#39; or &#39;On the Origins of Inequality&#39;, depending on the translation) by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The more primitive the society (thus generally the more religious the society), the &#39;happier&#39; the society.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 12:20 AM

This is the only explination for a statement that is so incredibly naive. New Zealand has the highest rates of youth suicide in the world and very high rates of depression, particularly among people under 40. New Zealand is a very secular country where religion plays a very minor part in society, politics etc. In fact the majority of parliament are self proclaimed atheists or agnostic, the Prime Minister has publically stated that she&#39;s an Atheist (then she got yelled at by the Pope).

I suggest you go read &#39;A Discource on the Origins of Inequality between Men&#39; (sometimes called &#39;A Discource on the Origins of Inequality&#39; or &#39;On the Origins of Inequality&#39;, depending on the translation) by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The more primitive the society (thus generally the more religious the society), the &#39;happier&#39; the society.
and what does the suicide rate have to do with religion? if there is a link id like to hear you explain it and see your evidence.

[ketchupstan]

Scars is taking New Zealand as an example. They&#39;re very secular and are fairly miserable. And another example to prove that wrong is the United States; we&#39;re one of the most religious and economically powerful countries on the planet.

Dinosaurs? I don&#39;t know how to say this, as it should be obvious, but most religious people aren&#39;t fundies and know that there were dinosaurs and the earth is older than 12,000 years. My suggestion is to leave the religious people as a group alone. Unless they&#39;re forcing their beliefs on you, or annoying you, what&#39;s the point of antagonizing them? Don&#39;t be an asshole for the hell of it.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Scars is taking New Zealand as an example. They&#39;re very secular and are fairly miserable. And another example to prove that wrong is the United States; we&#39;re one of the most religious and economically powerful countries on the planet

i understand that. but just because he used it as an example doesnt make it true. and just to clarify im not talking about the arguement of less religious countries are "happier" than more religious ones. i want him to back up his statement with evidence.


but most religious people aren&#39;t fundies

ill have to find the poll but i remember one not too long ago that said 40% of american christians took the bible literally. is that not fundementalist?


Unless they&#39;re forcing their beliefs on you, or annoying you, what&#39;s the point of antagonizing them?

except for a couple small groups living out in the middle of nowhere (still have never seen this place) :lol: the fact is, most religious people DO try and convert you. whether they are trying to convert you or not, their ideas are reactionary and dangerous and are a social wall that stands in the way of people accepting a material reality .

[Rockfan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 11:57 AM
Scars is taking New Zealand as an example. They&#39;re very secular and are fairly miserable. And another example to prove that wrong is the United States; we&#39;re one of the most religious and economically powerful countries on the planet.

Dinosaurs? I don&#39;t know how to say this, as it should be obvious, but most religious people aren&#39;t fundies and know that there were dinosaurs and the earth is older than 12,000 years. My suggestion is to leave the religious people as a group alone. Unless they&#39;re forcing their beliefs on you, or annoying you, what&#39;s the point of antagonizing them? Don&#39;t be an asshole for the hell of it.
Do you mean that people in the states are miserable because of religion?? And are you saying that New Zealand (where I live) are miserable beacause it&#39;s secular and not ecomomiclly powerful, because thats what it sounds like, if thats the case then I strongly disagree. From what I know, most suicides are carried out by people under pressure from "stressful" ruling class type jobs or youths of rather well off familys who are depressed, not working class people.

The point I made with the dinosaurs was that your not trying to make the religious person see there wrong (cos they wont admit it), but if people around you see you wasting this guy, there gonna belive your agrgument, and as redstar said, use humor, students enjoy it. And btw, they are trying to force there belifes on you, every single one, so that they do the work of jueas and get to heaven, there all out to "save your soul".

[enigma2517]

The study that I based that off of was posted on aljazeera.net

I&#39;ll find it later and comment.

I will respond to this thread later too, I&#39;m going to bed now :).

By the way, I have a passport, I was born in the former Soviet Union, and I&#39;ve been to many places...although mostly in North America and Europe.

[ketchupstan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 09:05 PM
Countries that are less religious are noticably happier and more progressive.
New Zealand is less religious and not noticably happier, because it has more suicides per capita than other countries. Therefore, the statement quoted above is wrong. I don&#39;t even know if New Zealand does have more suicides, I&#39;m just trying to explain his rather simple point. He needs to back it up with fact.

I hate to break it to you hardcore athiests, but the mission of every Christian is not to convert you to their religion by any means necessary. If all you do is mock every Christian you see, then they&#39;re right when they act like they&#39;re being prosecuted. Ideas are not dangerous. Every person has a fundamental human right to their own beliefs and ideas. If you disagree, argue rationally. On your charge of fundamentalism, I&#39;ll have to see the poll questions to judge its results in any way. Even if 40% of the American public do take the Bible literally, how does this prevent them from accepting the material reality? How is a fanatical devotion to Das Captial any less damaging than a fanatical devotion to Genesis?

[violencia.Proletariat]

:lol: New Zealand is less religious and not noticably happier, because it has more suicides per capita than other countries.

Evidence? and what part of society are these suicides most prominant? maybe its in the clergy :lol:

maybe its people tired of waiting for their "pie in the sky" so they want to get it right away


I don&#39;t even know if New Zealand does have more suicides

if thats so then you cant say this


Therefore, the statement quoted above is wrong


I hate to break it to you hardcore athiests, but the mission of every Christian is not to convert you to their religion by any means necessary

just most of them ;) i have yet to see these collectivist nice keep it to yourself christians that all these defenders say are out there. do you believe in elves and fairies too? :lol:

you see, i think that these people that dont "shove it down your throat" dont take it seriously themselves. they probably dont live their lives like an all powerful god is watching them every moment.


If all you do is mock every Christian you see, then they&#39;re right when they act like they&#39;re being prosecuted

you mean persecuted. and the same could be said for the homosexuals, women, leftists, all people who disagree with the christian fascists too. except they really want to persecute us.

if you religious people are not like pat robertson, what are you doing to get rid of him? i dont see anything. if your willing to live with people like that and let them call themselves your sacred title of christian, than i would have to say your an enemy of mine.


Ideas are not dangerous

of course some of them are, because people follow ideas.


Every person has a fundamental human right to their own beliefs and ideas

tell that to the indoctrinized children in every church in every country.


Even if 40% of the American public do take the Bible literally, how does this prevent them from accepting the material reality?

are you kiding? people who belive people can rise from the dead and acts of all powerful beings are actually true believe material reality? :lol: well since those things obviously exist :blink:


How is a fanatical devotion to Das Captial any less damaging than a fanatical devotion to Genesis?

das capital is not opressive material. it does not call for worship and a strict following of the text. its not a religious book&#33;

[Rockfan]

New Zealands secularness is not the reason, we have supposibly "less happier" citizens. As I said, it&#39;s members of the ruling class who use to religion as a tool of there oppresion (search for Desterny Church if you don&#39;t belive me), who seem to commit suicide more than working class people.

Marxists don&#39;t seek to "convert" (I prefer not to use that word, communism is not a religion) everyone, they seek to educate the working class and have then bring an end to capitalism.

Beliving the bible deffernatly stops most Christains (congatlations on coming to this board, you obvously see a differnt path) from accepting the material reality. They get hung up on reserving there place in heaven by doing "good" things and don&#39;t give two hoots about the problems of the material world i.e. rights for gays, abortion, poverty. If I&#39;m gonna have kids I want a neat place for them to come to, where everyone has food, shelter and a decent job. Not a shit ass world which they have to wait 65 odd years before they might get to a "better place".

Unfortunatly nate some people here are once again, on mass, looking for a "pie in the sky." Again search for Desterny Church.

[Bannockburn]

Yeah Bill hicks is always good to quote, yet it might be nice to have something to back that up, ie, read up on your dino facts, read up the critiques (to know thy enemy, one must understand thy enemy). Also, yeah, its good to argue via Dino power, but generally thats easy. Something which can not be disputed: genes. Read up on Dawkins. The selfish gene, the blindwatch maker.

[Scars]

<<Evidence? and what part of society are these suicides most prominant? maybe its in the clergy>>

No, it&#39;s most prominent among people under the age of 21, and more females do it. However overall there&#39;s a 3:1 ratio for men to women.

Data from 2002:
http://www.nzhis.govt.nz/stats/suicidefactsheet.html

"In 2002, New Zealand’s all-age suicide rates for males and females were the sixth highest among OECD countries with comparable data."

In fact, you could argue that since religion and thus religious morality (which explicitly forbids suicide in most cases) had been in the decline suicides have increased:
http://www.who.int/mental_health/preventio...n/en/index.html (http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/evolution/en/index.html)]


The irony of this whole arguement is that Communism was largely &#39;invented&#39; and first practiced by a load of Puritans in England in the 17th Century.

[violencia.Proletariat]

what do teenage suicides have anything to do with what we are talking about. the average prole is not a 15 year old. kids shoot themselves all over the world because apparently being a teenager is "hard". this has nothing to do with religion.

[STREETasmyCanvas]

religion is a lot more than what the torah or the bible or the qu&#39;ran say....

...its something personal to mostly all people and deserves not to be attacked right now, itll go away with time (at least organized religion will), just focus on class-conscienceness

[Scars]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 04:14 PM
what do teenage suicides have anything to do with what we are talking about. the average prole is not a 15 year old. kids shoot themselves all over the world because apparently being a teenager is "hard". this has nothing to do with religion.
Suicide is an indication of the state of mental health of a country, as you cannot get statistics about depression etc because much of it is undiagnosed and even if it is, the data is confidential.

Because of this, you can clearly see that secularism does NOT equal happiness and New Zealand is an exampel of this. Number one for youth suicide, number 6 overall- yet we&#39;re an incredibly secular country. If the rational less religion = more happiness was true, well, New Zealand would be a fucking barrel of happiness.

[Rockfan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 05:39 PM
Yeah Bill hicks is always good to quote, yet it might be nice to have something to back that up, ie, read up on your dino facts, read up the critiques (to know thy enemy, one must understand thy enemy). Also, yeah, its good to argue via Dino power, but generally thats easy. Something which can not be disputed: genes. Read up on Dawkins. The selfish gene, the blindwatch maker.
I know alot about Dinosaurs, as a kid I wanted to be a paleantoligist (still can&#39;t spell it), I was a dinosaur freak.

Whats this Dawkins guys first name?

And what do you mean by critiques? Critiques of the existance of Dinosaurs or critiques of athiestism?

Scars I think maybe it&#39;s a secular capitalist society that causes high suicude rates. I don&#39;t know what you think but maybe if the pressure but on people, mainly females, that wouldn&#39;t happen in say, a communist society, makes people feel more suppresed, maybe this is just a crack pot thory, what do you think?

[Scars]

<<Scars I think maybe it&#39;s a secular capitalist society that causes high suicude rates. I don&#39;t know what you think but maybe if the pressure but on people, mainly females, that wouldn&#39;t happen in say, a communist society, makes people feel more suppresed, maybe this is just a crack pot thory, what do you think?>>

Exactly. Religion has nothing to do with happiness, in fact religious societies tend to be far happier than secular ones because secular societies are generally more developed, thus have a sharpened sense of unnatural inquality. As I&#39;ve said, read Rousseau.

The biggest barrier is consumerism, which is almost a religion in itself. People are pitted against eachother in a material conflict that overtakes all other priorities. Everything is centred around getting a bigger TV, getting a fancy stereo and a flash car and we get told that happiness is ownership, happiness is property, happiness is things.

The side effect of this is that people are often unhappy if they cannot afford the big TV, because according to the Bourgeoise they cannot be happy without it. Then people start comparing themselves to others based not on any sort of merit, but based on what they own. Rich people are seen as better because they own lots of stuff and have lots of money, as opposed to them being intrinsicly good people. Being told that you are inferior and being treated as such tends to make you unhappy.

Religion was manipulated and used by the ruling classes in order to control their population. In a religious society if the church (or whatever) says that to rebel against your rulers is a sin they are inclined to not do so. However many horrible regimes have been overthrown by religious movements, and the earliest Communist-style movements were formed by Christians, most notably the True Levellers (&#39;Diggers&#39;) in 17th Century England. Religion, in itself, has little effect on the formation of a class consciousness and in fact can be turned against the Bourgeoise. For instance there are passages in the Bible that say that property should not exist, there should be no leaders and everything should be done and shared equally.

Just because Marx said it doesn&#39;t make it correct. He said many stupid and incorrect things during his time.

If there&#39;s to be any sort of campaign it should be against consumerism. We should be burning down malls, not yelling at Christians.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Because of this, you can clearly see that secularism does NOT equal happiness and New Zealand is an exampel of this.

i never said it did. however you cant use the suicide rates of teenagers of evidence that religion/no religion makes people happy. there is more to it that just religion.

[Rockfan]

Alright now where on to something. Thats a good point a mean although I love debating with christians I find consumerism more degrading than religion, and just as I&#39;m writing this the song N.S.U. by Cream is playing and one of the lyrics is "happiness is something that just cannot be bourght". If we could make people belive this maxim and live buy it, only buying what they need and doing what THEY like doing, then the biggest barrier to class concisness is broken, whether people are religious or not.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 04:03 AM
Humor is enormously popular with high school students; therefore I would employ ridicule heavily.

See any of the humor threads in the Religion subforum for examples.

Good luck&#33;

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
This is good advice&#33;

About a year ago there was a poster campaign to get people to go to the Christian union, and well if its intention was to get more people to turn up it certainly worked. I went to the head of the union and requested to engage in debate with one of the members at the next meeting, and strangely enough they accepted.

So yea, I went to the debate, we&#39;re stood in front of the union, and I lead the debate all the way through, highlighting absurdities in the bible, getting cheap laughs. The opposition really didn&#39;t make things better for himself saying things like "I talk to jesus all the time" by the end of the debate people were in hysterics, they had a vote to see who&#39;s argument they supported most, and out of about 30 people 4 people voted for Christianity. 2 of whom were from the Church, one who was an ex-priest and the opposition himself.

There&#39;s actually a culture of ridicule towards evangelism in some circles at the school now, though I&#39;ve moved up in education a bit now. Im also quite proud of the fact that "You Fascist" is more common an insult than "You fag"

[darth_revan]

I have to say something.
If you divide people by christians, atheists, muslims, jewishes, You would violate the rules of leftism.
No matter what they believe, no matter what they do, no matter what they know, people must have the same rights.
Although Leftist soviets dont rule the soviet according to religion, you dont have to be an atheist to live there. They just dont care about your religion.
So, religious people means no harm to you.
But people thinking that the soviet must be ruled according to religion are problem, as there is in turkey. (they want ottomans back, they&#39;ll get nothing but dreams)
Leftism is tolerance, not treating someone with your religion better. If you tread the religious people, there would be no difference between you and a racist.
Please, you arent religious, neither am i but dont tread religious ones.

[violencia.Proletariat]

If you divide people by christians, atheists, muslims, jewishes, You would violate the rules of leftism.

first of all you have it wrong. we divide this way, religious people and non religious people. what rules of leftism are we violating? religions are opressive and leftism opposses that.


No matter what they believe, no matter what they do, no matter what they know, people must have the same rights

fuck that shit. i will never give a nazi, preacher, politician, the right of free speech. if they are lucky they will recieve the right to live.


Although Leftist soviets dont rule the soviet according to religion, you dont have to be an atheist to live there. They just dont care about your religion.

what soviets are you talking about? i dont see them. and there is no guideline to run a council by, if people want to ban all churches and religious gatherings then they can do it.


So, religious people means no harm to you

of course they do. for example, pat robertson and his cronies.


But people thinking that the soviet must be ruled according to religion are problem, as there is in turkey. (they want ottomans back, they&#39;ll get nothing but dreams)

idk why you are referring to turkey here, we arent talking about developing nations. we are talking about advanced capitalist countries.


Leftism is tolerance

no its not. leftism is intolerance of opression. maybe lifestylism would fit you better.


If you tread the religious people, there would be no difference between you and a racist.

yes there would. racists treat people based on skin color/origin. we treat religious people differently because they believe in opressive bullshit. idk why you are on this rant anyways. no one is talking about sending religious people to a gulag. most of us envision that the majority of peopel will be non religious in communism therfore chruches and religious gatherings will not be allowed. thats it. oh except for those big name christian fascists we will take out in the revolution for symbolic reasons.

[enigma2517]

Holy shit&#33;

No pun intended.

This is sad...luckily these people make up a very small percentage of the board.


If you tread the religious people, there would be no difference between you and a racist.

Ideas are things you choose and should be criticized throughly for. How the fuck can you support something as reactionary as religion. How damnit?&#33;

Not sure if we can entirely blame this on their own personal decisions though?

Is religion a mental illness?

http://www.atheistempire.com/reference/brain/index.html

[darth_revan]

Well, i still think that If you tread the religious people, there would be no difference between you and a racist.
Racist doesnt like their race, skincolor.
You dont like their religion.
So, you dont have much differences.

Religion will be gone by communism i think. Because people will think logically, they wont be fooled again by bullshit called "miracle".

No matter what they believe, no matter what they do, no matter what they know, people must have the same rights. i still say that. Arent you a humanist? I am and i can easily say that lots of people will be communist by communism.Because we will be able to talk to them that way. Show them that way. Let them have the same rights and see when they change their minds.
Otherwise, they&#39;ll blame you as you blame them.

I mean, if you become tolerant, they wont be level-headed against you. And you will influence them easily. Best way to make them think like you is making them think that you are tolerant.

And one more thing, Leftism is tolerance, you must consider that all people are the same, otherwise, You will be just like racists. I dont care your facts about dividing, You cannot divide people. Thats it&#33;

[Enragé]

the key to talking to someone religious about anything is to link the two

jezus was a commie, jezus was a palestinian resistance fighter...anything. You dont have to make them atheists, all you have to do is show them how religion is perverted and screwed over by those in power. Who cares if they believe in some vague higher being, as long as they realise that the bible is complete bullshit altered a thousand times, and the pope is an elitist fuck only concerned about his own bloody palace and fame.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Well, i still think that If you tread the religious people, there would be no difference between you and a racist.
Racist doesnt like their race, skincolor.
You dont like their religion.
So, you dont have much differences.

Of course, the two aren&#39;t even related.

You&#39;re born &#39;Black&#39;, &#39;Asian&#39;, etc. And the traits are not alterable; nor would a person be better off if they could alter them.

Religion on the other hand, is a institutionalized form of irrationality which you&#39;re not born having; and you will be much better off when you disregard it.

And anyways, we don&#39;t &#39;discriminate&#39; against any particular religion; we&#39;re hostile to all the bullshit . :)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

And one more thing, Leftism is tolerance, you must consider that all people are the same, otherwise, You will be just like racists. I dont care your facts about dividing, You cannot divide people. Thats it&#33;

&#39;Tolerance&#39; of course is an abstract liberal concept. Everyone decides on an individual basis what (and who) they will or will not tolerate.

We shouldn&#39;t &#39;tolerate&#39; racists anymore than we should &#39;tolerate&#39; anti-semites. Infact, we should do the exact opposite.

So instead spouting these liberal banalities, a more serious approach is to decide what we will and won&#39;t tolerate.

[darth_revan]

But, racism is unlogical, a leftist knows that.
After you talk to a person about leftism, (s)he will become one of the leftists, But after a racist talks to that person again, (s)he wont be fooled again.
In soviets, free-speech means no harm as long as you make the folk conscious. Let them have a selection; racism and communism. They&#39;ll select what is right. Because they can think about both and find the true path.
CompaneroDeLibertad, you might be right. racists shouldnt be given rights maybe... But as long as you talk to them logically, there would be no racists.

[darth_revan]

But, racism is unlogical, a leftist knows that.
After you talk to a person about leftism, (s)he will become one of the leftists, But after a racist talks to that person again, (s)he wont be fooled again.
In soviets, free-speech means no harm as long as you make the folk conscious. Let them have a selection; racism and communism. They&#39;ll select what is right. Because they can think about both and find the true path.
CompaneroDeLibertad, you might be right. racists shouldnt be given rights maybe... But as long as you talk to them logically, there would be no racists.

[violencia.Proletariat]

But, racism is unlogical, a leftist knows that.

just as a real leftist knows religion is illogical.


After you talk to a person about leftism, (s)he will become one of the leftists

uhh no. its normally not that easy


But as long as you talk to them logically, there would be no racists

then why are they still neo-nazis? you are WAY too idealistic. this is not fairy tale land. there are people that are just violent illogical bastards who wont change their mind. the question is what are you going to do about them?

[Enragé]

lots, if not most, people will be convinced if you reason with them

however there are thoughs with "dont confuse me with the facts when my mind is already made up"-attitudes who cant be convinced, its the same as arguing a psychopath then

[Scars]

For the record, logic doesn&#39;t exist. It&#39;s a word that is invented to make ones arguements look more credible. Sadly it generally works.

Secondly, peoples race is a state of mind. I could define myself as a New Zealander, A Scot, Irish or (legally) Maori. Instead I choose to define myself as human being, but that&#39;s beside the point. You CAN change your race, depending on what your state of mind is at one point or another. The whole concept of race is based on stereotypes. If you&#39;re going to be geographically correct about who is an Asian, anyone born on the Eastern side of the Ural Mountains is Asian i.e. around 60-70% of Russia. But they are not considered &#39;Asian&#39; they are considered &#39;European&#39;, even though Russia has not really been considerd European until the 20th Century and even though more of it lies outside Europe than inside it. Race, ethnicity, nationality- all of it is bourgeois bullshit designed to divide and dominate people.

[cormacobear]

You&#39;re looking for suggestions on how to fight religion?

Why don&#39;t you try Pogroms, that&#39;s the usuall tactic people who think like you resort too.



fuck that shit. i will never give a nazi, preacher, politician, the right of free speech. if they are lucky they will recieve the right to live.


A yes blood in the streets, mass killings of tens of thousands of people, in millions of communities, that&#39;s not oppression at all .Apperantly you are talking about sending people to gulags ,that is if they&#39;re lucky.

When you try and say millions of people think one thing and all believe the same thing, while you are well aware that is not the case is biggotry. There are exceptions to every rule and to believe that billions and billions of people are your enemy whom you need to fight against because "they are all this" or "all believe that" , is bigotry. who cares if America is mostly fundamentalist. You&#39;d be hard pressed to find a Christian in Germany or Canada who doesn&#39;t believe in dinosaurs.

Taking a group that includes just about evryone, looking at their worst members then projecting those traits or ideals upon them all, Is biggotry. This isn&#39;t Al quaida, or Pat Robertson, a few thousand sycophantic psychopaths, this is everyone you&#39;re talking about opposing, about being your enemy.

Why is this thread being commented on by admins, instead of moved to the Religion forum with all rest of the sites hate mongering. ;)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Your such a fucking liberal. Seriously, you have not a revolutionary bone in you. I don&#39;t know why you post here.. are you trying to win people over to your pacifistic reformist viewpoint?

The rulling class of any society decides who will and who won&#39;t have a public platform to present their ideas. There is, nor has there ever been "free speech" in the abstract sense that people use it.

Under the dictatorship of the proletariat, the working class is the rulling class and must act accordingly. A part of making the "ideas of the rulling class the ideas of society" means no free speech for reactionaries&#33;

[cormacobear]

The working class are religious, so most likely the people they will choose to silence are inflexible dogmatists, That dissapear people, that have lists of people who don&#39;t agree 100% with them so they go around kicking in doors and dragging off and shooting them.

Shooting men like Father Oscar Romero. try telling the people fighting for freedom in central america that he is their enemy and see how many workers support your ideal revolution.

Silencing everyone whose ideas are different than yours regardless of there actions isn&#39;t a revolution it&#39;s a change in leadership. You fight those who fight socialism wheather they be athies t or christian not because they are athiest or christian. I&#39;m quite open to a revolution as long as mass murdering psychopaths aren&#39;t in charge. I ohave always worked for revolution but unlike you I also work for labourers rights and quality of life and freedom equality and social justice, not just revolution so I can get at my neighbor because he goes to church on Sunday.

[darth_revan]

As cormacobear says, people must have rights to choose. Choose to believe or not. No-one can judge people because of their beliefs. He prays and I dont. What harms me? Nothing... People that harms you arent just believers. They do much more than that. You cant consider those people the same...

[violencia.Proletariat]

Shooting men like Father Oscar Romero. try telling the people fighting for freedom in central america that he is their enemy and see how many workers support your ideal revolution.

yes compare us to the death squads. :lol: workers in central america? not many. my ideal revolution is NOT IN CENTRAL AMERICA. central america is not an industrialized area. therfore my "ideal" revolution COULD NOT happen there. there are plenty of non religious revolutionaries in south/cent. america. we dont need your christian leaders.


The working class are religious

most of it, for now. but the statistics that make up that statement and changing in our favor. so while you can still praise your preists but when those countries industrialize, expect them to be forgotten as they are being forgotten in western europe today.


Silencing everyone whose ideas are different than yours regardless of there actions isn&#39;t a revolution

SHUT THE FUCK UP&#33; we arent "silencing" anyone. we want to make sure that religion does not have a grip on the proletariat. idk what fairy tale land you live in, but there are no "oscar romeros" in the united states. the churches are symbols of bourgeois opression. the indoctrinization that takes place in them must be stopped.

we dont wish to kill people who believe in god, or put them in prison, or anything like that. unless that is they arm themseleves against revolution.

i dont care about your latin american preists, they do not effect our religious standing in the third world. i have no reason to start a campaign to stifle them. but i wont not support revolutionary groups that wish to shut them up.


You fight those who fight socialism wheather they be athies t or christian not because they are athiest or christian.

no shit, but those in power are christian. historically the christians of the country will listen to the church for what to do. we are aware of that.


I&#39;m quite open to a revolution as long as mass murdering psychopaths aren&#39;t in charge

such as yourself. you must be hearing voices in your head because i dont see anywhere in this thread where an atheist has advocated killing religious people in mass because they were religious.


not just revolution so I can get at my neighbor because he goes to church on Sunday.

:lol: an example of your condition. making up stuff in your head.



you seriously need to chill the fuck out. you blow this shit up because your upset of our attack on your religion. we havent advocated any violence in this thread. the most we have said was "humor". we wish to convince people to be non-religious not murder them. so for the last time, quit pinning us to bullshit we havent said.

[cormacobear]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 10:51 AM
fuck that shit. i will never give a nazi, preacher, politician, the right of free speech. if they are lucky they will recieve the right to live.
;)

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 11:05 PM
You&#39;re looking for suggestions on how to fight religion?

Why don&#39;t you try Pogroms, that&#39;s the usuall tactic people who think like you resort too.



fuck that shit. i will never give a nazi, preacher, politician, the right of free speech. if they are lucky they will recieve the right to live.


A yes blood in the streets, mass killings of tens of thousands of people, in millions of communities, that&#39;s not oppression at all .Apperantly you are talking about sending people to gulags ,that is if they&#39;re lucky.

When you try and say millions of people think one thing and all believe the same thing, while you are well aware that is not the case is biggotry. There are exceptions to every rule and to believe that billions and billions of people are your enemy whom you need to fight against because "they are all this" or "all believe that" , is bigotry. who cares if America is mostly fundamentalist. You&#39;d be hard pressed to find a Christian in Germany or Canada who doesn&#39;t believe in dinosaurs.

Taking a group that includes just about evryone, looking at their worst members then projecting those traits or ideals upon them all, Is biggotry. This isn&#39;t Al quaida, or Pat Robertson, a few thousand sycophantic psychopaths, this is everyone you&#39;re talking about opposing, about being your enemy.

Why is this thread being commented on by admins, instead of moved to the Religion forum with all rest of the sites hate mongering. ;)
Show me where anyone suggested putting priests/bishops/rabbi/imam&#39;s etc into gulags or mass murdering them?

Did you just make that shit up? The most I saw was that they were our enemies, and rightly so&#33;

I think any comments (such as Nate&#39;s) that were made that contained any violence were made in jest.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by cormacobear+Dec 27 2005, 03:48 AM--> (cormacobear &#064; Dec 27 2005, 03:48 AM)
[email protected] 24 2005, 10:51 AM
fuck that shit. i will never give a nazi, preacher, politician, the right of free speech. if they are lucky they will recieve the right to live.
;) [/b]
so you think nazis, politcians, and reactionary preachers should be able to do as they please after a revolution? :lol: im sure we can all play nice.

i guess thats not something you have to think about since we will never get anywhere your way. :P

[boosh logic]

hey guys you cant just out anybody whos religeous
i mean personally i think its a load a crap, but if you ignore the lies (jesus, miracles, etc.) then its just a way of people gettin through hard times
there is good and bad religeon, an we should get rid of the bad, but those who are religeous in the good sense should be let be as they are rite?

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 05:23 PM
yo guys u cant jus out neone whos religeous
i mean personally i think its a load a crap, but if u ignore the lies (jesus, miracles, etc.) then its just a way of people gettin through hard times
ther is gd an bd religeon, an we shud get rid o the bad, but those who r religeous in the gd sense should be let be as they r rite?
Holy shit, not to be a dick, but learn to write in English before posting.

[boosh logic]

alright sorry i was in a hurry
iv edited it - happy? :D

[cormacobear]

Yep nothing funnier than genocide jokes. You make light of it because you agree with it. If it were some one you knew whose right to live he was attacking it might not be as funny a joke. I&#39;m sure making anti-semetic jokes made gassing the victims of Auschwitz&#39;s ovens easier to justify to it&#39;s gaurds as well. THat doesn&#39;t make religious violence acceptable because you two think it&#39;s funny.

.... and this thread still hasn&#39;t been moved. Are the admins all on holidays? I know they can&#39;t be leaving this here because they symapthize, when they can&#39;t even get 50% of the CC to stop nominating religeous candidates. That is minor to leaving a clearly divisive religious debate in a leftist thread. Seperate politics and religion, unless Bush is right ;)

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 09:51 PM



Yep nothing funnier than genocide jokes. You make light of it because you agree with it. If it were some one you knew whose right to live he was attacking it might not be as funny a joke. I&#39;m sure making anti-semetic jokes made gassing the victims of Auschwitz&#39;s ovens easier to justify to it&#39;s gaurds as well. THat doesn&#39;t make religious violence acceptable because you two think it&#39;s funny.

what joke are you referring to?

you keep trying to pin the anti-religious on this board with being genocidal stalinists. yet we dont believe anything near that. again i ask you to stop with this bullshit.

[cormacobear]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 10:51 AM


fuck that shit. i will never give a nazi, preacher, politician, the right of free speech. if they are lucky they will recieve the right to live.

;)

[Forward Union]

Sorry,
I thought It fitted into practice for a while, but It&#39;s clearly a more religious topic.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by cormacobear+Dec 28 2005, 05:15 AM--> (cormacobear @ Dec 28 2005, 05:15 AM)
[email protected] 24 2005, 10:51 AM


fuck that shit. i will never give a nazi, preacher, politician, the right of free speech. if they are lucky they will recieve the right to live.

;) [/b]
:lol: you call that genocide?

do you believe in class supression? or will everyone get along in your christian world? you see, there are these people and they are what you call "reactionary". reactionary people are a threat to revolution. they want to bring back how it was before. these reactionaries usually use violence, so in order to protect the revolution we must supress these people.

[violencia.Proletariat]

why was this moved in here? its not a discussion about religion. its a discussion on what to do to stop religious influence. so it should be in practice. we arent discussing the posibility of gods or anything like that.

[Nathe]

i was having an argument with one of my christian friends today.
i noticed he had one universal refutation.
as soon as things werent going his way, he brought out FAITH.

i brought out the problem of evil.
he said our free will
i said if we created evil, god (being omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent) would have to restrict our free will.
he said FAITH <_<

he even said that his god was omniscient, but couldnt &#39;know&#39; the future (that was another reason for evil, that god made &#39;mistakes&#39; cause he couldnt tell the future :lol: )
when i pointed out that this is impossible, he said FAITH <_<

i guess the only thing you can say to that is

FAITH... LOGIC, it dosent compare :lol:

[Ian]

Originally posted by nate+Dec 22 2005, 09:28 AM--> (nate @ Dec 22 2005, 09:28 AM)
[email protected] 21 2005, 12:20 AM

This is the only explination for a statement that is so incredibly naive. New Zealand has the highest rates of youth suicide in the world and very high rates of depression, particularly among people under 40. New Zealand is a very secular country where religion plays a very minor part in society, politics etc. In fact the majority of parliament are self proclaimed atheists or agnostic, the Prime Minister has publically stated that she&#39;s an Atheist (then she got yelled at by the Pope).

I suggest you go read &#39;A Discource on the Origins of Inequality between Men&#39; (sometimes called &#39;A Discource on the Origins of Inequality&#39; or &#39;On the Origins of Inequality&#39;, depending on the translation) by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The more primitive the society (thus generally the more religious the society), the &#39;happier&#39; the society.
and what does the suicide rate have to do with religion? if there is a link id like to hear you explain it and see your evidence. [/b]
When I last saw the suicide figures all of the countries from the top 10 were former soviet republics and Japan, not new zealand

[drain.you]

As claimed in the initial post, religion has a decreasing influence. It will slowly die out. Why preach against it? That merely gives them an excuse to group together and put up more resistance, surely?

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 09:19 AM
As claimed in the initial post, religion has a decreasing influence. It will slowly die out. Why preach against it? That merely gives them an excuse to group together and put up more resistance, surely?
not it doesnt. its speeds to process up because it shows people ITS OK TO DUMP THAT SHIT. when anti-religion becomes more accepted more people will stop being religious. sure the people who really believe in that shit will get more militiant but we are gonna have to take care of those people at some point anyways.

[enigma2517]

Yeah the question is how?

Being overly antagonistic never helps, but creating a new culture based on secularism could really give people a boost in dumping religion.

If we come in there with fiery rhetoric and arms swinging, then yes, we won&#39;t gain a lot of support. But if we point out the ridiculous things in religion, firmly but not angrily reject its many forms, and demonstrate our own lifestyles as being pragmatic and appealing, then we&#39;ll get somewhere.

Perhaps this has to be less about denouncing religion as it is about promoting secularism. I&#39;ve noticed you get a better response for people when you propose a new, better solution rather than just ranting about how everything in the world is fucked up. That part comes when people actually get interested and ask you why. This is when you reveal that religion (aka mental servitude) is the cause of a lot of problems in the present day.

[Iroquois Xavier]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 03:26 AM
Yeah one guy was like "god put dinosaur fossils here to test our faith", I&#39;m like, "so we got a prankster god now, does that idea bother you, that gods fucking with us" lol.
:lol: HAHA :lol:

I got told that i was going to burn in the fires of hell. I said i would send them a postcard addressed to 1 Imaginary Paradise.

Its already been predicted by this dude called Nostradamus that the Christian faith would collapse in the 21st Century. great. 1 down 100 to go.

[OkaCrisis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 10:21 PM
I&#39;ve been thinking about this for awhile. What is the greatest barrier to class consciousness? At this time, I&#39;d be inclined to say religion.
I didn&#39;t read most of this thread, but I didn&#39;t like the direction of the conversation.

What&#39;s the greatest barrier to class consciouness? Education.

Keeping the People ignorant by allowing post-secondary education institutions to run themselves as Big-Business, for-Profit Corporations limits the working class&#39;s access the educations that they need to learn about their world and the system that keeps them poor. Also, it keeps the doors closed later in life when to get a "good job", the pre-requisite is always some kind of degree. Who are more likely to have a leftist view of the world? Probably the working class, that is, if they only had any idea that they were a class at all. By sheer numbers, if the poor were as educated as the rich, there would be a lot more passionate Leftists out there.

There&#39;s a reason they don&#39;t teach you any real Politics in school. They don&#39;t want you to figure out that they&#39;re exploiting you&#33;

The only institutions that receive funding from their communities are Churches. Surprise, surprise.
But meanwhile, public school that are SUPPOSED to publicly funded are allowed to deteriorate at alarming rates. Our tax dollars go to bonuses for big Corporations, while education is incessantly suffering from cuts.

Why do communities place so much value on religion (which they&#39;ll take the hit to pay for themselvs), but not education? I don&#39;t know, but I think it&#39;s a question worth considering.

If you teach the people why religion is bad for them; teach them to critically analyse, and teach them the work of Marx, Durkheim, other great thinkers, and they will recognise the true power that oppresses them- not any delusions of "God", but the Capitalist system.

Teach the people, and they will learn.


Emile Durkheim: As long as scientific analysis does not come to teach it to them, men will know well that they are acted upon, but they do not know by whom. So they must invent by themselves the idea of these powers with which they feel themselves in connection.

[Kittie Rose]

Conservatism is the true pain of the western world. Getting rid of religion will do squat if you still have conservatism.

Not that you should "get rid" of religion anyway. It can have it&#39;s positive as well as it&#39;s negative aspects.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Conservatism is the true pain of the western world. Getting rid of religion will do squat if you still have conservatism.

What do most religions go hand in hand with?....


Not that you should "get rid" of religion anyway. It can have it&#39;s positive as well as it&#39;s negative aspects.

*Gets out history book, laughts at you*

[Martyr]

Still discriminating against religous people but wanting freedom to those who already have it....

[Kittie Rose]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 09:18 PM

Conservatism is the true pain of the western world. Getting rid of religion will do squat if you still have conservatism.

What do most religions go hand in hand with?....


Not that you should "get rid" of religion anyway. It can have it&#39;s positive as well as it&#39;s negative aspects.

*Gets out history book, laughts at you*
Conservatism can still exist abstract of religion. The fact that there are some atheist conservatives suggests that if you remove fundamentalism, you will still have neo-cons.

Anyone who starts miming laughing at someone in an argument is generally on their last legs. Your laughter is reaffirming your utter reliance on the logical fallacy of the past crimes of one or two religions being associated with ones that even go out of their way not to associate themselves with that religion.

When you show me recent news of a Buddhist related Wal*Mart massacre, maybe you&#39;d have some ground to stand on.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Kittie [email protected] 19 2006, 07:32 PM





Conservatism can still exist abstract of religion. The fact that there are some atheist conservatives suggests that if you remove fundamentalism, you will still have neo-cons.

Didnt say you wouldnt, however, organized religion has always gone had in hand with reactionary forces. Even your obscure mysticism (pagan/individual god/blah blah) is not revolutionary, it CAN NOT be aligned with rational thinking.


Anyone who starts miming laughing at someone in an argument is generally on their last legs.

If you say so :lol:


Your laughter is reaffirming your utter reliance on the logical fallacy of the past crimes of one or two religions being associated with ones that even go out of their way not to associate themselves with that religion.

One or two religions? Try ALL of the major religions. Who trys not to associate themselves with those religions? I dont/never have heard that voice. The reality is religious priority is to do what you have to do to please your god to get into their afterlife. This is not in the interests of the proletarian class.


When you show me recent news of a Buddhist related Wal*Mart massacre, maybe you&#39;d have some ground to stand on.

Does the country of Thailand sound familiar?

[Kittie Rose]

Didnt say you wouldnt, however, organized religion has always gone had in hand with reactionary forces. Even your obscure mysticism (pagan/individual god/blah blah) is not revolutionary, it CAN NOT be aligned with rational thinking.


Um, yes it can. Anyone who&#39;s intelligent enough to seperate their beliefs from the rest of the world can be just as rational as anyone else.

Also, just because people do things in the name of religion doesn&#39;t mean that religion is causing them. More often than not it&#39;s a fall back mechanism that can easily be replaced.


One or two religions? Try ALL of the major religions. Who trys not to associate themselves with those religions? I dont/never have heard that voice. The reality is religious priority is to do what you have to do to please your god to get into their afterlife. This is not in the interests of the proletarian class.


The only religion I can think of as a "whole" would be Christianity in the "dark ages" and it&#39;s modern fundamentalist counterpart, unless you&#39;re bringing up a ridiculous "muslims are terrorists" argument.

[LSD]

Um, yes it can. Anyone who&#39;s intelligent enough to seperate their beliefs from the rest of the world can be just as rational as anyone else.


And how can one possibly do this?

Religion is a "theory of everything". It is an outline of how one should live ones life in all respects.

If one believes that they have direct instructions from their deity, how can they possibly "seperate" this from their political life? How can they be expected to make decisions "seperate" from what they "believe" to be the "will of God"?

The only way to seperate religion from politics is to seperate religious people from politics, and in a free society that means seperating religion from people.

[Kittie Rose]

And how can one possibly do this?

Religion is a "theory of everything". It is an outline of how one should live ones life in all respects.

Only in fundamentalism. You too are a fundamentalist of sorts. I know when proved reality ends and the areas of belief begin.


If one believes that they have direct instructions from their deity, how can they possibly "seperate" this from their political life? How can they be expected to make decisions "seperate" from what they "believe" to be the "will of God"?

By being self aware and able to see how other people&#39;s beliefs differ from your own. Something which you would do well to learn.


The only way to seperate religion from politics is to seperate religious people from politics, and in a free society that means seperating religion from people.

I also think we&#39;d do well to seperate you from the bold tag.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Um, yes it can. Anyone who&#39;s intelligent enough to seperate their beliefs from the rest of the world can be just as rational as anyone else.

You cant do this if your religious. Your religion IS your world. It explains everything in a convenient package that requires no though.


Also, just because people do things in the name of religion doesn&#39;t mean that religion is causing them.

So when the christian fascists in america spew racist/sexist/homophobic messages, and then they start praising jesus and the bible, it just came from something they saw on tv? :lol:

Maybe it would do you some good to read the bible and other texts. They arent pretty.


More often than not it&#39;s a fall back mechanism that can easily be replaced.

Fall back mechanism? Are you trying to say its nature?


The only religion I can think of as a "whole" would be Christianity in the "dark ages" and it&#39;s modern fundamentalist counterpart, unless you&#39;re bringing up a ridiculous "muslims are terrorists" argument.

All religion is opressive, from the moment you praise reactionary texts to when you put your kids in church from the time they are toddlers. You keep the proletariat in line with the bourgeois with your bullshit mysticism. We wont stand for that.


Only in fundamentalism. You too are a fundamentalist of sorts. I know when proved reality ends and the areas of belief begin.

This shows me how you dont even take your religion seriously. If you really believed in a god would you not do what it takes to make sure your on its good side, so you can have your future after death?

You cant play both sides. Are you rational, or are you religious? Religion is an explanation of the world. Where do you stand?


By being self aware and able to see how other people&#39;s beliefs differ from your own. Something which you would do well to learn.

Yeah yeah, we&#39;ve heard the elitist arguement too many times to count. The point is, we have already learned and dismissed the idea of theism. Is it you who cant come to terms with marxism/anarchism?


I also think we&#39;d do well to seperate you from the bold tag.

I think we need to seperate you from the leftist community and rational thinking

[Kittie Rose]

You cant do this if your religious. Your religion IS your world. It explains everything in a convenient package that requires no though.

Wow, how well you know me. I think I&#39;ll just ask you what I want dinner next time since you apparantely know me better than myself.



So when the christian fascists in america spew racist/sexist/homophobic messages, and then they start praising jesus and the bible, it just came from something they saw on tv?

No, it came from their inherent fear and the conservative values of the society they live in. Blaming all of religion because of their actions is completely ridiculous.


Maybe it would do you some good to read the bible and other texts. They arent pretty.

And neither is your attitude or the world you want to create.


All religion is opressive,

Prove this.


from the moment you praise reactionary texts to when you put your kids in church from the time they are toddlers. You keep the proletariat in line with the bourgeois with your bullshit mysticism. We wont stand for that.

Oooh, the commies are coming and they&#39;re not standing for it?

Kid, here&#39;s a tip, if you want people to join your movement; don&#39;t be an idiot.




This shows me how you dont even take your religion seriously. If you really believed in a god would you not do what it takes to make sure your on its good side, so you can have your future after death?

Um, you seem to think that all religion = Christianity.


You cant play both sides. Are you rational, or are you religious? Religion is an explanation of the world. Where do you stand?

Yes, because all the world is in black and white.


Yeah yeah, we&#39;ve heard the elitist arguement too many times to count.

Probably because it&#39;s right.


The point is, we have already learned and dismissed the idea of theism. Is it you who cant come to terms with marxism/anarchism?

Yes, I have severe issues with it. It caused me to loose bladder control when I was 6.

The point is, you are not a very intelligent person and do not seem to be able to comprehend a world with different types of people in it.


I think we need to seperate you from the leftist community and rational thinking

Oh boy, that&#39;s not discrimination, and you&#39;re not one of the most pitiful examples of a human being I&#39;ve ever seen. Just passing back your ad hominem.

[boosh logic]

I&#39;ll probably get yelled at for saying this by half the forum, but I don&#39;t think that religion has to be removed for communism. If the argument is that it is the opiate, then that may be, but surely many religeous people would want equality and community, so that this life and their next life are enjoyable, as opposed to just having to put up with shit so their next life is good?

I don&#39;t know where it says in the bible, koran, etc (because I havn&#39;t read any ;) ) that some people (other than popes, priests, etc) have to be rich and secure whilst others live in poverty.

[Kittie Rose]

I think one of the main problems here is that people are "fundamentalist" Communists and Marxist, and I am a liberal socialist. Shame there&#39;s no place for me online.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by voiceofthevoiceless
...but surely many religious people would want equality and community, so that this life and their next life are enjoyable, as opposed to just having to put up with shit so their next life is good?

The general consensus among the seriously religious is that the "true faith" must prevail...otherwise "God" will "get mad and punish us" for "incorrect worship".

A believer in a particular superstition has a "God-given duty" to both spread that particular superstition and stamp out the different superstitions of others.

The more seriously they take their religion, the more important that "duty" becomes.

That&#39;s what the seriously religious really mean by "an enjoyable life".

And it&#39;s often their "ticket" to an "enjoyable after-life" as well. Even if you&#39;re really a "terrible sinner", you can still get a "free pass" into "Heaven" if you&#39;ve managed to slaughter a substantial number of "infidels".

You might even be "promoted to saint". :D

So yes, communism really means getting rid of that crap.

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

[Kittie Rose]

I&#39;m convinced all you OMG DIE RELIGION zealots are the same person. You all use the same annoying talking in bold where it&#39;s really not needed.

You are in no position to speak of what the "religious" truly want. You have a pathetic little straw-man and that&#39;s all you care about. Why are you STILL talking about Fundamental Christianity as if it&#39;s the only religion? I&#39;m going to treat all you bold users as the same person from now on since I&#39;m convinced you are...

[Vinny Rafarino]

You are in no position to speak of what the "religious" truly want.


Luckily for us we don&#39;t care what the religious "truly want".

They have had a couple millenia to show us what they "truly want" and have succeeded, masterfully.


Shame there&#39;s no place for me online.

I fear that as a "liberal socialist" there is no place for you anywhere; outside of the local parish of course.

A liberal religious apologeticist is more valuable there then a stable of pre-teen alter boys.

[Kittie Rose]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 20 2006, 07:03 PM

You are in no position to speak of what the "religious" truly want.


Luckily for us we don&#39;t care what the religious "truly want".

They have had a couple millenia to show us what they "truly want" and have succeeded, masterfully.


Shame there&#39;s no place for me online.

I fear that as a "liberal socialist" there is no place for you anywhere; outside of the local parish of course.

A liberal religious apologeticist is more valuable there then a stable of pre-teen alter boys.
I see you&#39;re one of the "Bold crew", too. So are you the same person or just clones?

[Vinny Rafarino]

The more primitive the society (thus generally the more religious the society), the &#39;happier&#39; the society.

Fortunately, history hitherto has proven otherwise. There is no place for primativism in modern Communism; as there is no place for religion in modern Communism.


The irony of this whole arguement is that Communism was largely &#39;invented&#39; and first practiced by a load of Puritans in England in the 17th Century.

The Diggers were no more Communist then say, our silly friend Kitty here. A more appropriate title would be "communalists"; as the only Digger ideology shared with Communism is the abolution of private property.

Their social conditions and rigid command structure absolutely reeked of superstitious nonsense and more importantly, capital.

Our dear little kitty would be right at home.


We should be burning down malls, not yelling at Christians.

Quite the opposite.

Communism has no intention whatsoever of "reverting" back to some primative stage in social development.

Once capital is dissolved, currency and monetary value are meaningless; greed subsequently becomes obsolete.

In addition, we don&#39;t plan on "yelling" at Christians, a few well placed executions should do the trick.



For the record, logic doesn&#39;t exist.

This statement is completely illogical.


Secondly, peoples race is a state of mind

I get the feeling that perhaps you are from Pluto.

Just for the record, destroying all of our shopping malls is by no means "coming in peace".

[Kittie Rose]

Communism has no intention whatsoever of "reverting" back to some primative stage in social development.


In addition, we don&#39;t plan on "yelling" at Christians, a few well placed executions should do the trick.

You are both a hypocrite and a facist to the violent extreme.

You need counselling to deal with your issues before you end up hurting someone.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Kittie [email protected] 20 2006, 05:12 PM

Communism has no intention whatsoever of "reverting" back to some primative stage in social development.


In addition, we don&#39;t plan on "yelling" at Christians, a few well placed executions should do the trick.

You are both a hypocrite and a facist to the violent extreme.

You need counselling to deal with your issues before you end up hurting someone.
Says the person who worships trees, elves, fairies, whatever else goes on in that messed up mind of yours. Comrade RAF was not referring to shooting everyday "christians" just those big timers that hold power, maybe pat robertson, etc. These people call for reaction now, imagine what they will do after revolution, its a necessity.

[boosh logic]

In response to Red Star 2000, I agree with you in terms of heavily religeous, but I have met people who have their beliefs and have no intention of even mentioning it to other people, but are just happy in themselves.

Picture this; a communist land, though somehow someone made it through with their mild religeous beliefs. It is discovered they are religeous, and although they keep it to themselves, and only follow it to the extent of carrying out goodwill and believing in a higher being, but none-the-less they are forced to abandon this?

I can understand it in the way of not wanting it to spread, but if it is harmless, why harm it?

I am not applying that harmless theory to modern-day religeon though, as I realise the crippling effect it has had on the world, but there must have been a time when religion did not walk hand in hand with consequent dictatorship and wars.

[Kittie Rose]

Originally posted by nate+Jan 20 2006, 09:43 PM--> (nate &#064; Jan 20 2006, 09:43 PM)
Kittie [email protected] 20 2006, 05:12 PM

Communism has no intention whatsoever of "reverting" back to some primative stage in social development.


In addition, we don&#39;t plan on "yelling" at Christians, a few well placed executions should do the trick.

You are both a hypocrite and a facist to the violent extreme.

You need counselling to deal with your issues before you end up hurting someone.
Says the person who worships trees, elves, fairies, whatever else goes on in that messed up mind of yours. Comrade RAF was not referring to shooting everyday "christians" just those big timers that hold power, maybe pat robertson, etc. These people call for reaction now, imagine what they will do after revolution, its a necessity. [/b]
Go fuck yourself, you immature little brat. I&#39;ll be a nutty hippie chick over a facist hate driven asshead anyday.
If you spent your times working to limit the incitement to hate people like Pat Robertson instead of plotting to kill them you might actualy have gotten him to shut up.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Kittie [email protected] 20 2006, 06:27 PM



Go fuck yourself, you immature little brat. I&#39;ll be a nutty hippie chick over a facist hate driven asshead anyday.
If you spent your times working to limit the incitement to hate people like Pat Robertson instead of plotting to kill them you might actualy have gotten him to shut up.

Lets see, if I tell the christian fascists that "hate is bad", why of course&#33; they will stop being reactionary :lol: :lol: :lol:

Come one now, what did the spanish anarchists do to the fascists priests? Give them a pat on the back? :lol:

[Kittie Rose]

Originally posted by nate+Jan 20 2006, 10:54 PM--> (nate @ Jan 20 2006, 10:54 PM)
Kittie [email protected] 20 2006, 06:27 PM



Go fuck yourself, you immature little brat. I&#39;ll be a nutty hippie chick over a facist hate driven asshead anyday.
If you spent your times working to limit the incitement to hate people like Pat Robertson instead of plotting to kill them you might actualy have gotten him to shut up.

Lets see, if I tell the christian fascists that "hate is bad", why of course&#33; they will stop being reactionary :lol: :lol: :lol:

Come one now, what did the spanish anarchists do to the fascists priests? Give them a pat on the back? :lol: [/b]
Um, considering your views are highly facist I don&#39;t think you&#39;ve a right to call anyone else "facist" and act like it&#39;s bad.

Some people actually try to solve their problems through intelligent means. Too bad you&#39;re not some people.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Um, considering your views are highly facist I don&#39;t think you&#39;ve a right to call anyone else "facist" and act like it&#39;s bad.

Some people actually try to solve their problems through intelligent means. Too bad you&#39;re not some people.

My views are not fascist and you know it. You are upset because I called your "beliefs" idiotic. DEAL WITH IT.

I am solving my problems through intelligent means, debating you. However you still seem stuck with this reactionary mysticism and the strict defense of it. Its a big indicator that you value religion over class, something not welcomed on the revolutionary left. I suggest you join a democratic party board or something, this is a place for revolutionaries not tolerance reformists.

[Kittie Rose]

My views are not fascist and you know it. You are upset because I called your "beliefs" idiotic. DEAL WITH IT.

You called my beliefs idiotic, that you did. You most certainly did not "challenge" them as LSD bemusingly claims. Challenging involves a person finding and present hard, solid evidence and arguing their case in a polite manner using this evidence as their backing. You have failed in that utterly.

Your views are by definition fascist. This is not an opinion, this is a fact.


fas·cism Audio pronunciation of "Fascism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fshzm)
n.

1. often Fascism
1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.


This is exactly the kind of thing you&#39;re instigating. You talked about killing key religious figures.


I am solving my problems through intelligent means, debating you.

You&#39;re not debating, which is exactly why I&#39;m using "Ad Hominem" attacks. If this where a real debate, I would not be personally attacking you. However, your argument consists of nothing but unbacked, sweeping statements, and my attacks at least only target the person making them.

If you wish to debate intelligently with me, by all means, do. Find some backing for your claims, and show a little more respect for your opposition. Until then, your filth will be met with my filth.


However you still seem stuck with this reactionary mysticism and the strict defense of it.

Actually, you and your "comrades" are the ones who are being reactionary. You are the ones making vicious assertments based on someone spiritual daring to declare themselves as left. At least I am only challenging those making the statements, and not every communist or marxist.

Statements like this are why I, and nobody outside of this board, will ever take you seriously.


Its a big indicator that you value religion over class, something not welcomed on the revolutionary left.

That&#39;s incredible. Religion and Communism being mutually exclusive is one thing, destroying religion being a necessity for solving class issues is another.

I value freedom of expression, child, and I always will. Any system which removes it to the extent where you can&#39;t publically display your believes is and always will be fascism.


I suggest you join a democratic party board or something, this is a place for revolutionaries not tolerance reformists.

There are a thousand ways to start a revolution, but only one way to shut the fuck up and stop insulting my beliefs based entirely on unbacked assertions.

[Comrade J]

Originally posted by Kittie [email protected] 21 2006, 01:26 AM

fas·cism Audio pronunciation of "Fascism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fshzm)
n.

1. often Fascism
1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

Notice that out of the various definitions of fascism, you are only able to accuse him of one of these. All the others in bold are definitions which cannot be applied to him. And just because this one single definition happens to be of fascism, it does not neccessarily refer to fascism alone.
For example, I could say &#39;the balloon is yellow,&#39; yet this does not mean only the balloon is yellow, and nothing else in the world is. Cheese for example is still yellow. Similarly, a description referring to fascism does not solely define fascism.
It is therefore possible to eliminate those whom it is neccessary to eliminate for the purpose of establishing communism, and for the overall benefit of the protelariat.
When Marx rightfully said that religion is the opium of the masses, he was stating the importance that religion had on the prevention of communism, for it prevented the protelariat from realising that this life really is all there is, so they continued to cope with oppression from their supposed masters, concentrating solely on what &#39;the next life&#39; would be like. So eliminating several key religious figures may not initially seem like the most pleasant act, but it is essential in realising the ambitions of communism. Therefore, it is not an act of terror, but one that in fact frees the workers from the constraints of their religious beliefs so that they do not waste their lives but realise the power they have to make this life much better.
However, you&#39;re entitled to your views and this is by no means a personal attack on you.

[Kittie Rose]

Notice that out of the various definitions of fascism, you are only able to accuse him of one of these. All the others in bold are definitions which cannot be applied to him. And just because this one single definition happens to be of fascism, it does not neccessarily refer to fascism alone.

But it&#39;s still part of fascism, and a fascist view. And who says it won&#39;t lead to the other things, as there will at some point have to be some kind of centralised force of intolerance? This is exactly the thread of thought that has lead to fascism and nazi-ism in the past, and there is actually REAL historic evidence for this. Perhaps Nazi-ism was more appropriate for once.


When Marx rightfully said that religion is the opium of the masses, he was stating the importance that religion had on the prevention of communism, for it prevented the protelariat from realising that this life really is all there is, so they continued to cope with oppression from their supposed masters, concentrating solely on what &#39;the next life&#39; would be like. So eliminating several key religious figures may not initially seem like the most pleasant act, but it is essential in realising the ambitions of communism.

I&#39;m sorry, but what century are you living in? "Eliminating" several key religious figures means you are advocating murder; not deaths in the heat of a revolution but cold, calculated murder.

[Comrade J]

Well, clearly the typical christian then... seems you only decided to extract the bits that suited your argument in your counter argument. Take it you don&#39;t own a slave or concubine either? Seems that bit of the Bible is often... &#39;overlooked&#39; these days.

Had you been capable of comprehending what I meant, you would not have written "But it&#39;s still part of fascism, and a fascist view," for it was quite obvious that I pointed out that a definition may be applied to multiple terms. I even used a nice balloon example, kept it nice n&#39; simple.

And I happen to be living in the same century as you. Though that shouldn&#39;t be an issue, should it? Isn&#39;t God supposedly transcendent, ie- beyond time? If it&#39;s such an issue that people only refer to events of the current century, then you might want to get rid of &#39;the unchanging word of God.&#39;

And once again, you allowed your Christian indoctrination to seep out; you extracted only the sentence you wanted to here, namely the part where I referred to the elimination of certain people. You failed to see my justification of this, and if you can&#39;t accept that some deaths are vital for the full revolution of the protelariat, then may I ask why you&#39;re here? Some deaths need to be calculated and not dealt in the heat of battle. The Pope isn&#39;t going to be out there with his rifle, but he&#39;d still be there after the revolution, posing a threat for everything we&#39;d strived for. So he&#39;d have to go, but it would benefit so many others in the long run.

[Kittie Rose]

I can&#39;t accept that cold blooded and unnecessary murders are necesssary for this supposed "Liberation", no.

And I am not Christian by any stretch of the imagination.

[violencia.Proletariat]

You called my beliefs idiotic, that you did.

So that makes me a fascist. Since I call capitalism idiotic does that make me a fascist? If I call a racist idiotic, does that make me a fascist?

If thats the case then I guess im a fascist.


You most certainly did not "challenge" them as LSD bemusingly claims. Challenging involves a person finding and present hard, solid evidence and arguing their case in a polite manner using this evidence as their backing. You have failed in that utterly.

I have failed nothing. You are making the positive assertion of god, wheres your proof? I criticize every mysticist&#39;s beliefs who comes on here claiming to be a communist, not a single one of them can show me proof of god, care to prove me wrong?


Your views are by definition fascist. This is not an opinion, this is a fact.

That would make 98% of communists fascists then my friend. Have you ever heard of the phrase dictatorship of the proletariat?

Fascism is an idealogy which incorporates several economic controls and a single authroity as you have pointed out, however severe supression of opposition has been incorporated into the deffinition because of its totalitarian nature.

HOWEVER, communist supression of reactionary ideals is not put forth by an individual, but rather the COMMUNITY. Therefore my "supression" is not "fascist". Communist supression is also not about imprisoning or shooting anyone who disagrees with the conditions. Its about the removal of resources for the promotion of reactionary ideals. Only during revolution and the threat of armed force is supression violent.


This is exactly the kind of thing you&#39;re instigating. You talked about killing key religious figures.

Yes those so deep in reaction who will call for violent means against the revolution.


Actually, you and your "comrades" are the ones who are being reactionary. You are the ones making vicious assertments based on someone spiritual daring to declare themselves as left.

Nothing I do is based on spirituality.


Statements like this are why I, and nobody outside of this board, will ever take you seriously.

Then why do you feel the need to debate me?


That&#39;s incredible. Religion and Communism being mutually exclusive is one thing, destroying religion being a necessity for solving class issues is another.

Thats whats on the table.


I value freedom of expression, child, and I always will.

Dont call me child, patronising me is not the way to go when you try and talk about civilized debate. Not everyone on the internet is 14 you know.


Any system which removes it to the extent where you can&#39;t publically display your believes is and always will be fascism.

Then go to jesusleft.com

I dont remember fascism being the total liberation of the working class including the liberation and supression of organized represive institutions (religion).


There are a thousand ways to start a revolution, but only one way to shut the fuck up and stop insulting my beliefs based entirely on unbacked assertions.

Whats unbacked about it. You love the "tolerance" thing, thats not what this place is all about. I suggested a place where you would get along better, it makes sense.

[violencia.Proletariat]

But it&#39;s still part of fascism, and a fascist view. And who says it won&#39;t lead to the other things, as there will at some point have to be some kind of centralised force of intolerance? This is exactly the thread of thought that has lead to fascism and nazi-ism in the past, and there is actually REAL historic evidence for this. Perhaps Nazi-ism was more appropriate for once.

Supression of one system that does not work out with the current system is how things work. If you want to call that facism then fine, but dont expect to have a revolution and your class enemies to give up.


I&#39;m sorry, but what century are you living in? "Eliminating" several key religious figures means you are advocating murder; not deaths in the heat of a revolution but cold, calculated murder.

Many of the christian fascist leaders are CLASS ENEMIES. As soon as revolution occurs they will do everything in their power to stop it by any means necessary. What are you going to do about that?

People usually die in revolutions, its how it works.

[Kittie Rose]

Right, I think it&#39;s about time to break out this:

http://www.forumspile.com/Thread-Crap-Religion.jpg

[violencia.Proletariat]

Is that your example of debate? You keep repeating that everything I say is unfounded asertions. Well that is not true.

I would actually like to continue what you said in your complaint thread about how I criticized your beliefs therfore I have to show you proof that their is no god. However I do not need to do this, the burden is on you. I am criticizing the belief in god because there is no evidence of god. That is my assertion and it is not unfounded, if you think so SHOW ME SOME PROOF.

[Axel1917]

A Marxist cannot bar any religious person interested in the class struggle from participating in it. That is exremely sectarian and nonsensical.

See:

V.I. Lenin - Socialism and Religion (online at http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm )

Alan Woods - Marxism and Religion (online at http://www.marxist.com/marxism-religion-li...ology220701.htm (http://www.marxist.com/marxism-religion-liberation-theology220701.htm) )

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 11:36 PM
A Marxist cannot bar any religious person interested in the class struggle from participating in it. That is exremely sectarian and nonsensical.

See:

V.I. Lenin - Socialism and Religion (online at http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm )

Alan Woods - Marxism and Religion (online at http://www.marxist.com/marxism-religion-li...ology220701.htm (http://www.marxist.com/marxism-religion-liberation-theology220701.htm) )
No one is barring anyone from taking part in class struggle. What I am doing is criticizing religious "belief" and putting forth the notion that the religious cant be marxists/anarchists. Nor can they be revolutionary.

[Kittie Rose]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 03:33 AM
Is that your example of debate? You keep repeating that everything I say is unfounded asertions. Well that is not true.

I would actually like to continue what you said in your complaint thread about how I criticized your beliefs therfore I have to show you proof that their is no god. However I do not need to do this, the burden is on you. I am criticizing the belief in god because there is no evidence of god. That is my assertion and it is not unfounded, if you think so SHOW ME SOME PROOF.
What you&#39;re saying ARE unfounded assertions. You have provided nothing to back up your claims and the only person who has linked and cited resources goes against your cliams.

You are not merely "criticising", you are being viciously insulting.

The burden is not on me. I am not trying to prove that my gods exist, just that I am entitled to believe in them. YOU are the one who wants to remove my right to expesss that, so YOU have to explain why you want to do that. Otherwise you&#39;re using the ridiculous Neo-Con argument of "all gays are paedophiles, prove me otherwise".

Lenin says this -
Everyone must be absolutely free to profess any religion he pleases, or no religion whatever, i.e., to be an atheist, which every socialist is, as a rule. Discrimination among citizens on account of their religious convictions is wholly intolerable.

You&#39;re missing the point of leftism entirely by refusing to accept this. The point is to FREE people not force them into a spiritual stance they don&#39;t agree with.


However, Marxists must do everything possible to involve all workers in the struggle against capitalism, including those who are religious. We must not erect barriers between ourselves and these workers, but encourage them to participate actively in the class struggle.

This is from Marxism.com. So not only communism, but marxism, should be supportive and not offensive towards those who are religious. Nate, you and others have specifically said I should be left out of the leftist movement. You are going against true marxist, communist and leftists and beliefs. The fact that the admins are on your side says a lot about this site.

Seriously, it&#39;s fucking true. I came here as a socialist wanting to know ways of making the world a better place. And what did you do? Turn me away with your immaturity.

[violencia.Proletariat]

What you&#39;re saying ARE unfounded assertions. You have provided nothing to back up your claims and the only person who has linked and cited resources goes against your cliams

I dont have to back up my claim, because there is no evidence that opposes my claim. Unless that is, youd care to provide some?

The person above has not gone against any of my claims, their links have nothing to do with the existance of god.

As someone who is religious it is your job to provide evidence to counter my claim, if you dont and no one can, it makes my claim true.


The burden is not on me. I am not trying to prove that my gods exist, just that I am entitled to believe in them. YOU are the one who wants to remove my right to expesss that, so YOU have to explain why you want to do that.

I already have, look at my posts above. I do not wish to block your beliefs, just to stop you from spreading them.

[Kittie Rose]

I dont have to back up my claim, because there is no evidence that opposes my claim. Unless that is, youd care to provide some?

The person above has not gone against any of my claims, their links have nothing to do with the existance of god.

As someone who is religious it is your job to provide evidence to counter my claim, if you dont and no one can, it makes my claim true.

No it doesn&#39;t, don&#39;t be an idiot. Stop trying to look for ways to "win" without actually arguing your case. What IS your claim, exactly? Your claim is that religion should be utterly destroyed and that religious people do not belong in communism and marxism. You have provided no backing for that stance whatsoever.


I already have, look at my posts above. I do not wish to block your beliefs, just to stop you from spreading them.

I do not prostelyse and I do not witness. What you wish to block is my freedom of expression and my ability to freely express my spiritual values as I please. No doubt you&#39;d take my ankh necklace from me?

[violencia.Proletariat]

No it doesn&#39;t, don&#39;t be an idiot. Stop trying to look for ways to "win" without actually arguing your case. What IS your claim, exactly?

God does not exist.


Your claim is that religion should be utterly destroyed and that religious people do not belong in communism and marxism.

No, you obviously dont pay attention to what I say, and I dont expect you to as you are not serious about rational thought. What I said is that religious people cannot be revolutionary communists/anarchists. A religious person CAN live in communism, however they CANNOT start a church or other opressive institution. Resources would not be given to them to make and distribute their ideas.

Religion does not need to be "destroyed". It is already dieing. The institution and infostructure will be deconstructed but more and more people in advanced capitalist nations are turning away from religion.


You have provided no backing for that stance whatsoever.

Do I need to? My stance is there is no god/s. My proof is there IS NO PROOF OF GOD/s. Uless you would like to provide me with some proof.


t prostelyse and I do not witness. What you wish to block is my freedom of expression and my ability to freely express my spiritual values as I please. No doubt you&#39;d take my ankh necklace from me?

No I dont care what you do. You can worship/praise whatever you want to. But when you try and promote this idea to others then I have a problem. So if you "keep it to yourself" I see no reason to continue this debate. :)

[Kittie Rose]

God does not exist.

I have no interest in debating that point with you, and as someone who does not believe in "god" but alternate spiritual concepts I am not a suitable person to do so either. The point is that you wish to remove all religion from public display. You wish to force people to give up their beliefs. You cannot prove God does not exist, it has not been proven by people many times more intelligent than you, and you do not hold all the answers. You have no right to remove people&#39;s right to belief.


No, you obviously dont pay attention to what I say, and I dont expect you to as you are not serious about rational thought.

Again, you are constantly worked up about "logic" and "rational thought" without displaying much evidence of either. Your opinions are unbacked and therefore irrational.


What I said is that religious people cannot be revolutionary communists/anarchists. A religious person CAN live in communism, however they CANNOT start a church or other opressive institution. Resources would not be given to them to make and distribute their ideas.

And you would burn down harmless new age shops and christian book stores simply because you do not approve of their existence? What harm is there in people providing resources for those who are already of a particular spiritual persuasion? There is none. Again, you are highly dillusional and have serious issues. You see religion as an all purpose scapegoat. You and many others here are in SEVERE need of counselling.


Religion does not need to be "destroyed". It is already dieing. The institution and infostructure will be deconstructed but more and more people in advanced capitalist nations are turning away from religion.

Religion is not dying, it is mutating into individual spiritual beliefs. Atheism may be becoming more common but agnosticism and other "On the fence" beliefs seem to be more the norm. Your particular brand of atheism is unscientific and unethical.



No I dont care what you do. You can worship/praise whatever you want to. But when you try and promote this idea to others then I have a problem. So if you "keep it to yourself" I see no reason to continue this debate. smile.gif

But you would also have pagan websites shut down, stores selling pagan related paraphanalia and otherwise harmless institutions. What you&#39;re instigating would cut off my support base and my means of relating to people with similiar beliefs. And no, I&#39;m not being "conned" out of my money, I formed my own path and then bought things associated with it well after.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Kittie Rose
And you would burn down harmless new age shops and christian book stores simply because you do not approve of their existence?

No, just clean out the trash, remodel the interiors, and use them for something useful.


Atheism may be becoming more common but agnosticism and other "On the fence" beliefs seem to be more the norm.

Agnosticism? (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1111678407&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

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

[Kittie Rose]

No, just clean out the trash, remodel the interiors, and use them for something useful.

But they are something useful to those who use them. You have no right to decide the use other people make of them. They&#39;re not hurting you by being there, nor are they prostylising or witnessing. You wish to destroy them out of your own selfish motives. You ARE forcing your beliefs on people this way and you are, in my view, a bad person.

And I don&#39;t much care what your shitty self absorbed papers say. "ooh look i PRETHOUGHt all this bullshit, that makes it correct, right?"

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Kittie Rose
And I don&#39;t much care what your shitty self absorbed papers say.

The link is there for the interested reader.

I would be shocked if you showed any interest at all...much less the capacity to grasp my critique.

Like "gods", some things are just impossible on their face.

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

[Vinny Rafarino]

You are both a hypocrite and a facist to the violent extreme.

You need counselling to deal with your issues before you end up hurting someone.

No need to get your horns all twisted son.

If I may make a suggestion: try looking up the word fascist prior to arbitrarily tossing it around at other guys. It really looses its minty flavour in a hurry otherwise.


Comrade RAF was not referring to shooting everyday "christians" just those big timers that hold power, maybe pat robertson, etc.

Only if we&#39;re lucky....I&#39;m sure quite a few "high profile" spiritual frauds will be targeted by the masses.


You called my beliefs idiotic, that you did. You most certainly did not "challenge" them as LSD bemusingly claims. Challenging involves a person finding and present hard, solid evidence and arguing their case in a polite manner using this evidence as their backing. You have failed in that utterly.

Stop your whining son. You ***** constantly about this nonsense yet you begin your own posts as such:

"Go fuck yourself, you immature little brat.

Try reading Peter and the Wolf; you just may learn a thing or two.


Your views are by definition fascist. This is not an opinion, this is a fact.

fas·cism Audio pronunciation of "Fascism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fshzm)
n.

1. often Fascism
1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.



Nice try sonny boy; unfortunately for you, the word OR seems to be missing from between all of those.

If you&#39;re going to hack up a definition and take it out of context, at least learn how basic grammar and punctuation work.

It will most certainly save you at least some of your embarrassment.


I&#39;m sorry, but what century are you living in? "Eliminating" several key religious figures means you are advocating murder; not deaths in the heat of a revolution but cold, calculated murder.

You catch on quick&#33;

Don&#39;t worry kitty, the ruling elite are used to "cold, calculating murder"; they have been using it on us for millenia&#33;

A little "touché" is just what the doctor ordered.





(RS)
The link is there for the interested reader.

I would be shocked if you showed any interest at all...much less the capacity to grasp my critique.

Like "gods", some things are just impossible on their face

That&#39;s all there is to it. The next time I get your way we&#39;re going bowling.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Kittie [email protected] 21 2006, 01:55 AM




I have no interest in debating that point with you, and as someone who does not believe in "god" but alternate spiritual concepts I am not a suitable person to do so either.

Then show me your spirits or talking trees or whatever super natural stuff that you believe in. I WANT TO SEE PROOF&#33;


The point is that you wish to remove all religion from public display. You wish to force people to give up their beliefs.

These are two different things. Even the fashionable christian thing to do today is to pretend you can talk to god without going to church (its an excuse because they dont like church :lol: )


You cannot prove God does not exist

I dont have to, there is no proof that there is a god.


it has not been proven by people many times more intelligent than you, and you do not hold all the answers

I guess you dont get it, the religious are making the positive assertion that god is real. As atheists we deny this, and until they come up with scientific proof, GOD DOES NOT EXIST.


You have no right to remove people&#39;s right to belief.

Again, nowhere do I propose to do this. People can privately believe in whatever they want.


Again, you are constantly worked up about "logic" and "rational thought" without displaying much evidence of either. Your opinions are unbacked and therefore irrational.

Whats unbacked? My claim that there is no god, how can a dis-prove something thats NOT PROVEN IN THE FIRST PLACE.

My "proof" is a few hundred years of science, if any supernatural entity existed it would have been discovered by now. Or does your god only show itself every 1000 years, what a perfect excuse :lol:


And you would burn down harmless new age shops and christian book stores simply because you do not approve of their existence?

Burn them down? What a waste of a perfectly good building, the community would remove those stores from the buildings and replace it with something useful.


What harm is there in people providing resources for those who are already of a particular spiritual persuasion?

As I have demonstrated already organized religion is a reactionary institution, its COUNTER REVOLUTIONARY. No logical person would give resources to such an institution.


You see religion as an all purpose scapegoat. You and many others here are in SEVERE need of counselling.

Ok, did you already discuss this with your elve friends? What about the trees outside, what did they have to say about this topic? :lol:


Atheism may be becoming more common but agnosticism and other "On the fence" beliefs seem to be more the norm. Your particular brand of atheism is unscientific and unethical.

:lol: :lol:

You are trying to talk to me about science. WOW


But you would also have pagan websites shut down, stores selling pagan related paraphanalia and otherwise harmless institutions.

Yes the obvious websites would be shut down along with all the other scam sites. Information sources on what paganism is would not be shut down, but we arent going to comb over the internet shutting everything we find down.


What you&#39;re instigating would cut off my support base and my means of relating to people with similiar beliefs.

Since you have reactionary beliefs then I DONT GIVE A FUCK. Its the same as shutting down a nazi website.


And no, I&#39;m not being "conned" out of my money, I formed my own path

....


and then bought things associated with it well after.

Make sure you get all the lucky charms to make sure the bad nature spirits dont get you&#33; :lol:

[redstar2000]

It wouldn&#39;t hurt to print up a collection of "good quotes" from the book discussed in this thread and distribute them to students...at least the ones that show some capacity for clear thinking.

The End of Faith (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45353)

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

[C_Rasmussen]

@ Nate

I got an idea. How about you fucking show proof that theres no God? How about you show us instead of sitting there being an elitist prick telling people what is and what isnt? You talk about logic, rational thought while in the same breath talking about KILLING PEOPLE? I&#39;m sorry buts about as rational of thought as Pat Robertson&#39;s train of thought. Just thought I&#39;d break it to ya ;).

[Comrade J]

Killing people = possible, proven etc.
Existence of God = Unproven, practically impossible. Invisible man in sky who sees everything I can do? Bullshit.

And if killing is so bad, I guess the Old Testament is such a tragic work of fiction to you? God was such a bastard back then, smiting people left right and centre. Several million people starved to death in those dark days in Jerusalem, for fear of going to the shop and feeling the wrath of God. He wasn&#39;t too bad in the New Testament, he kind of changed his ways, though he did impregnate a woman who didn&#39;t ask for it, so he was still a bit sick.
He went way down hill with the Qur&#39;an though, for a start he changed his language to Arabic and abandoned prose, well that&#39;s gonna fucking confuse everyone for a start. Then he went back to being a bastard again, condoning murder of anyone who surprisingly failed to believe an illiterate barbaric conqueror when he said there was an invisible man in the sky, and praising a bloke married to a 10 year old girl. There&#39;s just no changing some people.

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 23 2006, 01:33 PM
Killing people = possible, proven etc.
Existence of God = Unproven, practically impossible. Invisible man in sky who sees everything I can do? Bullshit.

And if killing is so bad, I guess the Old Testament is such a tragic work of fiction to you? God was such a bastard back then, smiting people left right and centre. Several million people starved to death in those dark days in Jerusalem, for fear of going to the shop and feeling the wrath of God. He wasn&#39;t too bad in the New Testament, he kind of changed his ways, though he did impregnate a woman who didn&#39;t ask for it, so he was still a bit sick.
He went way down hill with the Qur&#39;an though, for a start he changed his language to Arabic and abandoned prose, well that&#39;s gonna fucking confuse everyone for a start. Then he went back to being a bastard again, condoning murder of anyone who surprisingly failed to believe an illiterate barbaric conqueror when he said there was an invisible man in the sky, and praising a bloke married to a 10 year old girl. There&#39;s just no changing some people.
I&#39;m not denying that that happened nor do I agree that God should&#39;ve done that but then again its not my place to say what He did or didn&#39;t do.

Anyway though the "Killing people = possible, proven etc.
Existence of God = Unproven, practically impossible." comment made no sense to me there.

[KC]

I&#39;m not denying that that happened nor do I agree that God should&#39;ve done that but then again its not my place to say what He did or didn&#39;t do.

Prove that it exists.

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 02:03 PM


I&#39;m not denying that that happened nor do I agree that God should&#39;ve done that but then again its not my place to say what He did or didn&#39;t do.

Prove that it exists.
How about you fuckin prove that it doesnt&#39; exist? How about you quit telling others what to do and try actually proving its non-existance? I can play this little game too <_<.

[Comrade J]

Originally posted by C_Rasmussen+Jan 23 2006, 07:42 PM--> (C_Rasmussen @ Jan 23 2006, 07:42 PM)
Comrade [email protected] 23 2006, 01:33 PM
Killing people = possible, proven etc.
Existence of God = Unproven, practically impossible. Invisible man in sky who sees everything I can do? Bullshit.

And if killing is so bad, I guess the Old Testament is such a tragic work of fiction to you? God was such a bastard back then, smiting people left right and centre. Several million people starved to death in those dark days in Jerusalem, for fear of going to the shop and feeling the wrath of God. He wasn&#39;t too bad in the New Testament, he kind of changed his ways, though he did impregnate a woman who didn&#39;t ask for it, so he was still a bit sick.
He went way down hill with the Qur&#39;an though, for a start he changed his language to Arabic and abandoned prose, well that&#39;s gonna fucking confuse everyone for a start. Then he went back to being a bastard again, condoning murder of anyone who surprisingly failed to believe an illiterate barbaric conqueror when he said there was an invisible man in the sky, and praising a bloke married to a 10 year old girl. There&#39;s just no changing some people.
I&#39;m not denying that that happened nor do I agree that God should&#39;ve done that but then again its not my place to say what He did or didn&#39;t do.

Anyway though the "Killing people = possible, proven etc.
Existence of God = Unproven, practically impossible." comment made no sense to me there. [/b]
Well you were commenting on the rationality and logic (or lack of) in Nate&#39;s post-

"...talk about logic, rational thought while in the same breath talking about KILLING PEOPLE? I&#39;m sorry buts about as rational of thought as Pat Robertson&#39;s train of thought

Well killing people is logical/rational in certain circumstances, and entirely possible. God however, has no logical explanation, nor is there any proof that he exists. So your argument that Nate can&#39;t point out the lack of logic in a religious belief is flawed, because his point is entirely logical; killing is undoubtedly the most logical solution in certain circumstances.

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by Comrade J+Jan 23 2006, 02:06 PM--> (Comrade J @ Jan 23 2006, 02:06 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 07:42 PM

Comrade [email protected] 23 2006, 01:33 PM
Killing people = possible, proven etc.
Existence of God = Unproven, practically impossible. Invisible man in sky who sees everything I can do? Bullshit.

And if killing is so bad, I guess the Old Testament is such a tragic work of fiction to you? God was such a bastard back then, smiting people left right and centre. Several million people starved to death in those dark days in Jerusalem, for fear of going to the shop and feeling the wrath of God. He wasn&#39;t too bad in the New Testament, he kind of changed his ways, though he did impregnate a woman who didn&#39;t ask for it, so he was still a bit sick.
He went way down hill with the Qur&#39;an though, for a start he changed his language to Arabic and abandoned prose, well that&#39;s gonna fucking confuse everyone for a start. Then he went back to being a bastard again, condoning murder of anyone who surprisingly failed to believe an illiterate barbaric conqueror when he said there was an invisible man in the sky, and praising a bloke married to a 10 year old girl. There&#39;s just no changing some people.
I&#39;m not denying that that happened nor do I agree that God should&#39;ve done that but then again its not my place to say what He did or didn&#39;t do.

Anyway though the "Killing people = possible, proven etc.
Existence of God = Unproven, practically impossible." comment made no sense to me there.
Well you were commenting on the rationality and logic (or lack of) in Nate&#39;s post-

"...talk about logic, rational thought while in the same breath talking about KILLING PEOPLE? I&#39;m sorry buts about as rational of thought as Pat Robertson&#39;s train of thought

Well killing people is logical/rational in certain circumstances, and entirely possible. God however, has no logical explanation, nor is there any proof that he exists. So your argument that Nate can&#39;t point out the lack of logic in a religious belief is flawed, because his point is entirely logical; killing is undoubtedly the most logical solution in certain circumstances. [/b]
Actually its never logical to kill someone unless its done in self-defense. No and I mean actual self-defense like if someone pulls a knife or gun on you.

[Comrade J]

Originally posted by C_Rasmussen+Jan 23 2006, 08:05 PM--> (C_Rasmussen &#064; Jan 23 2006, 08:05 PM)
[email protected] 23 2006, 02:03 PM


I&#39;m not denying that that happened nor do I agree that God should&#39;ve done that but then again its not my place to say what He did or didn&#39;t do.

Prove that it exists.
How about you fuckin prove that it doesnt&#39; exist? How about you quit telling others what to do and try actually proving its non-existance? I can play this little game too <_<. [/b]
Ok, try this.

When it is daytime in whatever country you live in, take a walk to your local library.
Pick up the Bible, and starting at Genesis, read through it. Then read through the Qur&#39;an, or the Holy Book of whatever religion you happen to follow.
Then move to the Science section. Pick up a book with &#39;dinosaurs&#39; in the title, and read this. Then pick up one about the universe and again, read this. Then read a book about the history of the Earth, how the geological makeup has altered over millions of years. Then read a book about &#39;evolution.&#39;
After reading these books, you might have forgotten some of the Bible/Qur&#39;an/Whatever, so go back and read it again.
Now take note... Scientists have PROVEN the existence of dinosaurs, PROVEN many laws of the universe to be true, PROVEN that the age of the Earth is billions of years old. Note that &#39;God&#39; is not one of these PROVEN things.
Also note that the Holy Book of your choice does not include dinosaurs, evolution, carbon dating of million year old rocks, and so on. Strange that, no?
Anyway, by this time it must be quite late, even those blessed by an invisible bloke in the sky are limited in our reading speed, so head off home. As you walk, look up to the stars and tell God "hey, when you wrote your book(s)... you kinda missed a bit out."

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by Comrade J+Jan 23 2006, 02:16 PM--> (Comrade J @ Jan 23 2006, 02:16 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 08:05 PM

[email protected] 23 2006, 02:03 PM


I&#39;m not denying that that happened nor do I agree that God should&#39;ve done that but then again its not my place to say what He did or didn&#39;t do.

Prove that it exists.
How about you fuckin prove that it doesnt&#39; exist? How about you quit telling others what to do and try actually proving its non-existance? I can play this little game too <_<.
Ok, try this.

When it is daytime in whatever country you live in, take a walk to your local library.
Pick up the Bible, and starting at Genesis, read through it. Then read through the Qur&#39;an, or the Holy Book of whatever religion you happen to follow.
Then move to the Science section. Pick up a book with &#39;dinosaurs&#39; in the title, and read this. Then pick up one about the universe and again, read this. Then read a book about the history of the Earth, how the geological makeup has altered over millions of years. Then read a book about &#39;evolution.&#39;
After reading these books, you might have forgotten some of the Bible/Qur&#39;an/Whatever, so go back and read it again.
Now take note... Scientists have PROVEN the existence of dinosaurs, PROVEN many laws of the universe to be true, PROVEN that the age of the Earth is billions of years old. Note that &#39;God&#39; is not one of these PROVEN things.
Also note that the Holy Book of your choice does not include dinosaurs, evolution, carbon dating of million year old rocks, and so on. Strange that, no?
Anyway, by this time it must be quite late, even those blessed by an invisible bloke in the sky are limited in our reading speed, so head off home. As you walk, look up to the stars and tell God "hey, when you wrote your book(s)... you kinda missed a bit out." [/b]
I thought I heard somewhere that scientists are starting to be able to prove that God actually exists.

[Comrade J]

Yep, amazing what you can find out when the Vatican funds your research.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 03:15 PM
@ Nate

I got an idea. How about you fucking show proof that theres no God? How about you show us instead of sitting there being an elitist prick telling people what is and what isnt? You talk about logic, rational thought while in the same breath talking about KILLING PEOPLE? I&#39;m sorry buts about as rational of thought as Pat Robertson&#39;s train of thought. Just thought I&#39;d break it to ya ;).
How is killing people irrational? As a revolutionary there are people who will do anything to stop you (kill you) so I see nothing unrational about that.

I AM NOT MAKING THE POSITIVE ASSERTION, THE THEISTS/SPIRTUALISTS ARE&#33; Therfore the burden of proof IS ON THEM&#33; You can tell the atheist to show proof all day but how can I disprove something that DOESNT EXIST. There is nothing to base my critique on because IT IS NOT THERE.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by C_Rasmussen+Jan 23 2006, 04:19 PM--> (C_Rasmussen @ Jan 23 2006, 04:19 PM)
Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 23 2006, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 08:05 PM

[email protected] 23 2006, 02:03 PM


I&#39;m not denying that that happened nor do I agree that God should&#39;ve done that but then again its not my place to say what He did or didn&#39;t do.

Prove that it exists.
How about you fuckin prove that it doesnt&#39; exist? How about you quit telling others what to do and try actually proving its non-existance? I can play this little game too <_<.
Ok, try this.

When it is daytime in whatever country you live in, take a walk to your local library.
Pick up the Bible, and starting at Genesis, read through it. Then read through the Qur&#39;an, or the Holy Book of whatever religion you happen to follow.
Then move to the Science section. Pick up a book with &#39;dinosaurs&#39; in the title, and read this. Then pick up one about the universe and again, read this. Then read a book about the history of the Earth, how the geological makeup has altered over millions of years. Then read a book about &#39;evolution.&#39;
After reading these books, you might have forgotten some of the Bible/Qur&#39;an/Whatever, so go back and read it again.
Now take note... Scientists have PROVEN the existence of dinosaurs, PROVEN many laws of the universe to be true, PROVEN that the age of the Earth is billions of years old. Note that &#39;God&#39; is not one of these PROVEN things.
Also note that the Holy Book of your choice does not include dinosaurs, evolution, carbon dating of million year old rocks, and so on. Strange that, no?
Anyway, by this time it must be quite late, even those blessed by an invisible bloke in the sky are limited in our reading speed, so head off home. As you walk, look up to the stars and tell God "hey, when you wrote your book(s)... you kinda missed a bit out."
I thought I heard somewhere that scientists are starting to be able to prove that God actually exists. [/b]
:lol: You mean Pat Robertson and his scientists right?

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by nate+Jan 23 2006, 02:32 PM--> (nate @ Jan 23 2006, 02:32 PM)
[email protected] 23 2006, 03:15 PM
@ Nate

I got an idea. How about you fucking show proof that theres no God? How about you show us instead of sitting there being an elitist prick telling people what is and what isnt? You talk about logic, rational thought while in the same breath talking about KILLING PEOPLE? I&#39;m sorry buts about as rational of thought as Pat Robertson&#39;s train of thought. Just thought I&#39;d break it to ya ;).
How is killing people irrational? As a revolutionary there are people who will do anything to stop you (kill you) so I see nothing unrational about that.

I AM NOT MAKING THE POSITIVE ASSERTION, THE THEISTS/SPIRTUALISTS ARE&#33; Therfore the burden of proof IS ON THEM&#33; You can tell the atheist to show proof all day but how can I disprove something that DOESNT EXIST. There is nothing to base my critique on because IT IS NOT THERE. [/b]
Nice to know that part of what you said made little sense and the other part was laden with paranoid dribble.

No you dont kill them until they try something first. If you kill them before then you&#39;re being really fucking paranoid. Oh and yeah how about YOU prove that God doesn&#39;t exist. I&#39;m still waiting for ya to get around to doing that.

[LSD]

h and yeah how about YOU prove that God doesn&#39;t exist. I&#39;m still waiting for ya to get around to doing that.

You seem to be having trouble grasping the concept of a positive conjecture.

The onus is always on the person making the claim, not on those refuting it. It&#39;s one of the more elemental rules of logic.

Contending that "God" does not exist is not a conjecture in and of itself, rather it is a response to the positive conjecture of "God".

Perhaps a non-theological example would assist in your understanding.

When an "inventor" claims to have developped a "cure for cancer", we universally demand that he provide evidence for it. We do not expect that his detractors prove his theory to be false, rather we expect that he himself defend his claims.

Likewise, when a new political theory is presented, it is expected to be accompanied by logical argumentation.

Well, religion is no different. Despite the claims of those who make their living off of it, religion is not "sacred" or "special", it is merely a set of opinions, and opinions must be justified if they are to be "respected".

No one here is arguing that all religious people be "taken out and shot" or any such paranoid nonsense. But we are saying that it be identified for what it is: an illogical, irrational, idealist, superstition akin to other precapitalist superstitions like racism and "channeling".

Now, that may not be particularly "politically correct", but it&#39;s clearly what the evidence indicates.

As someone who keeps demanding "proof", I trust that you respect that.


If you kill them before then you&#39;re being really fucking paranoid

Paranoia is when you imagine that people are out to get you.

Well the capitalists are out to get us ...no imagining required.

We have no choice but to try and get them first. If that means blood and death, so be it.

It&#39;s called revolution.

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 03:38 PM

h and yeah how about YOU prove that God doesn&#39;t exist. I&#39;m still waiting for ya to get around to doing that.

You seem to be having trouble grasping the concept of a positive conjecture.

The onus is always on the person making the claim, not on those refuting it. It&#39;s one of the more elemental rules of logic.

Contending that "God" does not exist is not a conjecture in and of itself, rather it is a response to the positive conjecture of "God".

Perhaps a non-theological example would assist in your understanding.

When an "inventor" claims to have developped a "cure for cancer", we universally demand that he provide evidence for it. We do not expect that his detractors prove his theory to be false, rather we expect that he himself defend his claims.

Likewise, when a new political theory is presented, it is expected to be accompanied by logical argumentation.

Well, religion is no different. Despite the claims of those who make their living off of it, religion is not "sacred" or "special", it is merely a set of opinions, and opinions must be justified if they are to be "respected".

No one here is arguing that all religious people be "taken out and shot" or any such paranoid nonsense. But we are saying that it be identified for what it is: an illogical, irrational, idealist, superstition akin to other precapitalist superstitions like racism and "channeling".

Now, that may not be particularly "politically correct", but it&#39;s clearly what the evidence indicates.

As someone who keeps demanding "proof", I trust that you respect that.


If you kill them before then you&#39;re being really fucking paranoid

Paranoia is when you imagine that people are out to get you.

Well the capitalists are out to get us ...no imagining required.

We have no choice but to try and get them first. If that means blood and death, so be it.

It&#39;s called revolution.
First quote: Ok I can understand where you&#39;re coming from on that and I respect that opinion. It also just came off as that "all religious people be "taken out and shot" thing with a few members here. Sorry for misunderstanding that.

Second quote: If they&#39;re not posing a threat (at the moment) such as pulling that knife or gun than why do anything? Thats what I meant about the paranoia.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 05:51 PM


Second quote: If they&#39;re not posing a threat (at the moment) such as pulling that knife or gun than why do anything? Thats what I meant about the paranoia.
They do pose a threat, they are in bed with the capitalist class because the next revolutionary movement will abolish them. It&#39;s a breeding ground for ignorant reactionary thought. In a time of rationality and science they are the ones wanting to take us back to the middle ages.

Im sorry but if there were a revolution I wont be sitting back in my lawn chair with a cool glass of lemonade. I dont give the benefit of the doubt to the people who hold power, as they will destroy anything that threatens it.

[Ol' Dirty]

The problem is, people are so strongly rooted in their beliefs that they don&#39;t want to give in the logic.

[KC]

How about you fuckin prove that it doesnt&#39; exist? How about you quit telling others what to do and try actually proving its non-existance? I can play this little game too dry.gif.


The burden of proof is on you. Using logic, god doesn&#39;t exist until it is proven so. So until you prove that it exists, it doesn&#39;t.



I thought I heard somewhere that scientists are starting to be able to prove that God actually exists.


Well until "I thought I heard somewhere that scientists are starting to be able to prove" it exists, it doesn&#39;t.

Here&#39;s something that will help you. I found this on a website that identified logical fallacies in arguments for UFO&#39;s. You can find the website here (http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/8148/tricks.html).


It is unreasonable to demand that skeptics prove that a given UFO was not an alien space ship, because it is the burden of the claimant to prove his claim. It is the UFOlogists who claim that some UFOs are alien space ships, therefore, this is what they must prove.

The burden of proof does fall upon the skeptic if he ventures to make a specific claim. If he claims that a given UFO was marsh gas, for example, this is what he must prove. However, most skeptics are content to accept that UFOs are unidentified, the only claim proved by default.

If we are to accept the validity of demanding that skeptics prove that UFOs are not alien space ships, one could also ask them to prove that they are not smurfs on a joy-ride, or evil robots from the future. Following Nick Pope&#39;s logic, it would then be reasonable to assert that smurfs or robots exist based upon a lack of proof to the contrary.

What Nick Pope should realize is that it is very difficult to prove a negative. For example, a believer in Santa Claus might challenge skeptics to prove that reindeer cannot fly. A determined skeptic might select 1000 reindeer at random, and throw them off a tall building, but even if they all crash to their deaths, has the skeptic proved that no reindeer can fly?

No, all he has proved is that these particular reindeer could not fly, or chose not to for some reason. Negatives are prohibitively difficult to prove. It would be much easier to prove the positive assertion, that reindeer can fly (if they can), by simply demonstrating one in flight.

And so, it is the burden of the claimant to prove his claim. In the case of UFOs the skeptic would assert that the object was unidentified. This claim is proved by default, because nobody knows what it was. It is for those that wish to claim that it was an alien space ship to prove that it was (1) a space ship and (2) alien.

The claim of alien visitations is not proved by default. Ignorance of what something was is not proof that it was built by aliens.

Of course it is easier to believe in alien visitations if one turns the rules of logic and science on their heads, simply assumes that anything that cannot be explained was caused by aliens, and defies the skeptics to prove otherwise. But in the real world it does not work that way.

The burden of proof falls upon the claimant, not those skeptical of the claim. If UFOlogists wish to claim that aliens are visiting the Earth, then they must prove it. It is not proved by default simply because nobody can prove that aliens are not visiting the Earth, or explain every UFO story in prosaic terms.

Here&#39;s another:
Who has the Burden of Proof? Atheism vs. Theism (http://atheism.about.com/od/doesgodexist/a/burdenofproof.htm)

I made a thread on the Burden of Proof. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=37&t=45457)

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 10:06 PM
The nproblem is, people are so strongly rooted in their beliefs that they won&#39;;t give in the logic.
I follow an idealogy, critically. I dont not have "faith" in anything therefore I do not "believe" in anything. And that is not the problem, the problem is that some ideas are BETTER than others, yet there clings many to reactionary ideas :(

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 08:06 PM
The nproblem is, people are so strongly rooted in their beliefs that they won&#39;;t give in the logic.
Thats absolutely correct and thats why its going to be damn near impossible for any of us to give in to the other.

[Ol' Dirty]

Exactly.

I say we let it go and agree to disagree. In fact, the hardline atheists on this board seem to be trying to convert people to their beliefs. Your&#39;e acting just as bad as any hardline religionists.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 06:36 PM
Exactly.

I say we let it go and agree to disagree. In fact, the hardline atheists on this board seem to be trying to convert people to their beliefs. Your&#39;e acting just as bad as any hardline religionists.
See my above post. We will never be able to act as bad as hardline religious people because or message is not of hierarchy or power but of being objective and rational.

[C_Rasmussen]

No nate you&#39;re sort of wrong on that. Your messege is more based on destroying all forms of religion, burn down places of worship, kill the priests and such just like the hardline religionists messege is to kill atheists and all that disagree with them. Both are fucked if you ask me.

[James]

Nate:
You claim that your "message is not of hierarchy or power but of being objective and rational".

I couldn&#39;t disagree with you more. Your "message" is completely and utterly wrapped up in concepts of hierarchy and power. The "purpose" of your "message" is the pursuit of such things.

[Comrade-Z]

I don&#39;t really see the point in censoring religion. It&#39;s not about "converting" people to atheism. I don&#39;t want people who are nominally "atheist" but who are in reality mindless drones who simply "follow" an idea. I want free thinkers who are unconstrained by dogma. In order to get there, we need to actively repudiate, discredit, and destroy the intellectual legitimacy of dogmas such as religion. What I think is needed is a vicious attack on religion in the realm of public debate. How is it that hurling the best and most rational arguments one has against an idea that one vehemently disagrees with is "hierarchical" or "oppressive"? I guess godsuckers just can&#39;t take a heated intellectual fight.

[James]

How is it that hurling the best and most rational arguments one has against an idea that one vehemently disagrees with is "hierarchical" or "oppressive"?

Did i say that was?
No. I did not.


I guess godsuckers just can&#39;t take a heated intellectual fight.

Well you hardly just gave one then did you&#33;
O the irony.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 08:31 PM
Nate:
You claim that your "message is not of hierarchy or power but of being objective and rational".

I couldn&#39;t disagree with you more. Your "message" is completely and utterly wrapped up in concepts of hierarchy and power. The "purpose" of your "message" is the pursuit of such things.
If you say so James, specifically where?

[James]

You don&#39;t seek power?
As in, the context of your ideology. Thus not "you" singulary. But the people pluarly.

[ReD_ReBeL]

Ok..think hard about this. We abolish religion so that the masses can unify and all descrimination is dropped. But why is a religous person going to unify with the people who took there beloved religion away?
It&#39;s just going to cause friction and hostile. We surely can&#39;t force them to unify because that would be slaving them to do something they deteste and i thought we leftists where all about taking the chains off the people?

[Technocrates]

And another thing, Jesus was a socialist, so why dump him? I believe in him personally and I feel my views are more alike to his.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 08:56 PM
You don&#39;t seek power?
As in, the context of your ideology. Thus not "you" singulary. But the people pluarly.
I&#39;m an anarchist James, obviously not.


Ok..think hard about this. We abolish religion so that the masses can unify and all descrimination is dropped. But why is a religous person going to unify with the people who took there beloved religion away?

You act like this is going to happen tomorrow, I wish :lol: The time when these actions are likely to happen is when a large majority of the population are non-religious. This should be withing the next century in western europe. Therefore the few people left who do still hang on "to beliefs" can go take a flying leap. :)


It&#39;s just going to cause friction and hostile. We surely can&#39;t force them to unify because that would be slaving them to do something they deteste and i thought we leftists where all about taking the chains off the people?

I dont care if they want to "unify" with us or not. Its not the church goer we are against, its the churches.


And another thing, Jesus was a socialist, so why dump him? I believe in him personally and I feel my views are more alike to his.

This defense is used alot but no matter how many times its used, it DOESNT become true. Jesus was not a socialist, socialism did not exist in his time (if he even existed). Whether he did or not is not the point, his teachings have nothing to do with the material conditions of the working class, therefore we have absolutely no logical reason to follow anything in the bible that was supposedly said by him.

[James]

I&#39;m an anarchist James, obviously not

You are missing the point.
You want anarchism to come about. Don&#39;t you?
You want, say in a hypothetical situation, anarchist society to survive once it is establised?

[KC]

James, your argument that "Nate wants the people to have power" doesn&#39;t mean anything.

[James]

Yes it does. As it means it is a message message wrapped up in power. Thus nate was wrong.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 06:37 AM

I&#39;m an anarchist James, obviously not

You are missing the point.
You want anarchism to come about. Don&#39;t you?
You want, say in a hypothetical situation, anarchist society to survive once it is establised?
I want my class to take power. If they dont want anarchism, then theres nothing I can do about it. I do not however want a new class society, I believe in the supression of the former ruling class until they are no longer a threat to the former proletariat, where ANYONE who wants to be equal can. But if you wish to stop our transition to such a society and bring back class society, then you obviously are brinnging supression on yourself.

[James]

So in short - i was right.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 06:21 PM
So in short - i was right.
About what? The end goal is not hierarchy. Capitalism is about hierarchy, communism is not. But then again, you can say the same thing about how you cant use violence to get peace, etc. But thats not true.

The supression of the former class is not through hierarchy but through community action. There are no officers saying to shut this place down, or to arrest these people. Its communities responding to counterrevolutionary threats.

[James]

lazar caught on to what i was saying: my "argument that "Nate wants the people to have power" doesn&#39;t mean anything."
To which i said: Yes it does. As it means it is a message wrapped up in power/the pursuit of power.

[James]

double post

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 06:37 PM
lazar caught on to what i was saying: my "argument that "Nate wants the people to have power" doesn&#39;t mean anything."
To which i said: Yes it does. As it means it is a message wrapped up in power/the pursuit of power.
So what James? Does that make me love hierarchy or something? James, wanting people to have power does = hierarchy

[ItalianCommie]

Say that humans "are somewhat better than sheep following the shepherd". I once neutralized somebody&#39;s argument for Religion like that...
OR...
Delegitimize the Church institution(that&#39;s for Catholics)...
OR...
For the fanatic dumbasses: if they really are irritating, beat the shit out of them(then say "where&#39;s your God/Satan/Idle/Thor/wind spirit know, huh?") :lol:

[James]

So what James? Does that make me love hierarchy or something? James, wanting people to have power does = hierarchy

I didn&#39;t say that it did. The point though is that you lied before:

You said :

See my above post. We will never be able to act as bad as hardline religious people because or message is not of hierarchy or power but of being objective and rational.


Your message is of power.

[ItalianCommie]

I totally support nate&#39;s point of view. Religion truly is a chain to get rid of. I&#39;ve already converted a few people to atheism.

The Vatican in Italy has always been one of Italy&#39;s primary issues. Italian schools still have the Crucifix in ALL school classes. COMPULSORY. Most people oppose communism in Italy because they are religious. The Bank of the Vatican has millions invested in USA arms industries. Plus they donated money to secret paramilitary groups tied with NATO, with the objective of overthrowing an eventual communist government (the PCI received almost 35% of the vote in the 1970s. They were not Social Democrats). Fuck the Vatican and the USA, as far as I&#39;m concerned.

Fervent Christians are by nature conform to society, and although early christianity had a "communistic" view of the community, the Church immediately chose not to change society, because they believed that anyhow God would punish the oppressor. A bit like having the Supreme Court of the World with Santa Claus as judge.

Just about all religions are based on a hierarchical society. Buddism too. The average tibetan was a serf before 1950. And we all know that a permanent hierarchical society will only live through ignorance and poverty(I thank George Orwell for that line&#33;).

One of the first well known atheists was the ancient greek Aesop. He wrote a fable about Religion in general. Not suprisingly it&#39;s one of the least well known. It&#39;s called "The man and the wooden god". Here it is straight to you.
In the old days people used to worship idols, as most of you know.
"It happened that a man had often prayed to a wooden idol received from his father, but his luck never seemed to change. He prayed and he prayed, but still he remained as unlucky as ever.
One day in the greatest rage he went to the wooden god, and with one blow swept it down from it&#39;s stand. The idol broke in two, and what did he see? An immense number of coins flying all over the place."
And the moral of the story is, &#39;Religion is just a con trick created to make money for the priests&#39;.

Whatever Aesop said, the priests didn&#39;t like it one little bit. They took him to the top of a cliff and threw in down to his death. :angry:

Whaddya say, nate? I just backed your argument with the "Wisdom of The Ancient World"&#33; :lol:

[vox_populi]

My opinion is that religion and faith are a good things...i find much hope, relaxation and happiness in my quest to be one with the "Tao" :D

Religion in it self is never bad, it&#39;s when you can&#39;t accept that other people feel different and worship other gods the real problems are created. When you start forcing people to join your faith, when you create religious organizations that are supposed to represent everything all the followers believe in, when you occupy foreign countries claiming that your holy book says it belongs to you, you betray everything religion is supposed to be.
If we just realize that belief is something purely subjective, religous as well as political, and start accepting and respecting eachothers beliefs the world would be a much better place.

Remember that it isn&#39;t the religion that forces you wear the crucifix, it&#39;s the vatican organization that does that.
And if the problem is wearing religous symbols in general, then wearing an anarchist A necklase, a Hammer and The Sickle t-shirt or in anyway showing your political stance would be the same thing.

I think that people talking about how to eliminate religion from the world are just as bad as people discussing how to eliminate homosexuality.

Excuse my bad english but i think you get the point.

[KC]

My opinion is that religion and faith are a good things...i find much hope, relaxation and happiness in my quest to be one with the "Tao"

Drugs make people feel good too. That doesn&#39;t make it good for them.



Religion in it self is never bad

Religion itself is idealist and reactionary.


When you start forcing people to join your faith, when you create religious organizations that are supposed to represent everything all the followers believe in, when you occupy foreign countries claiming that your holy book says it belongs to you, you betray everything religion is supposed to be.

Yes, that is what religion breeds, isn&#39;t it?


If we just realize that belief is something purely subjective, religous as well as political, and start accepting and respecting eachothers beliefs the world would be a much better place.

No it wouldn&#39;t be. Religious people are wrong. It defies all logic to be religious, and therefore they are wrong.



I think that people talking about how to eliminate religion from the world are just as bad as people discussing how to eliminate homosexuality.

Religion is a set of ideas. Homosexuality is a physical attribute. You can&#39;t compare the two at all. In the "campaign against religion" there is only an attack of ideas. Nothing more. And there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, there is everything right about it.

[vox_populi]

I&#39;m going to write a more detailed reply later...i&#39;m going to bed now...but i want you to answer this:

Don&#39;t you think that everyone has the right to believe in whatever he/she wants to?
Do you really think it&#39;s right to fight to eliminate Ideas?

I just think that everyone has the right to have opinions, thoughts, ideas and beliefs...i think it&#39;s fundamentaly wrong to harrass people because of their beliefs...don&#39;t you agree?

And i just want to clarify that i don&#39;t consider myself as connected to any particular organized religion. And I do agree that Organized religion (like the Vatican) is reactionary and wrong&#33;

Good night :D

[ItalianCommie]

Wearing the crucifix is quite different from wearing the hammer and sickle t-shirt:

1. By using this vague reason you could also justify someone wearing a nazi t-shirt.
2. While "free" market capitalism is based on greed and desire and religion is based on abstract emotion and blind "belief" in God, by all means comparable to a child&#39;s belief in the tooth fairy/Santa Claus/boogeyman, communism(my ideology)/socialism/anarchism is based on well-defined human reason and compassion toward the masses, sustained by concrete action, rather than meager charity(do you think LiveAid actually changed something?).

Anyhow I&#39;m not talking about killing the priests, or anything like that. There is no armed revolution seriously planned in the Western World as far as I know. Religion in Europe is withering day by day, so let&#39;s just try and accelerate the process. I don&#39;t know if religion is increasing or decreasing in America though.

I think religion is pretty much different from sexual orientation: you can&#39;t "convince" somebody that liking men or women is bad. Ironically, that&#39;s often what the religious institution tries to do.

Don&#39;t you think there is no religion without a religious institution? Which tells you what to do and what not to? Which often represents God&#39;s will on Earth? Be it Pope, Imam or Dalai Lama?

[James]

Fervent Christians are by nature conform to society


Utter nonsense.
Of course a society may claim to be in some way "christian" but that doesn&#39;t mean soceity is naturally christian. Indeed, i don&#39;t know any society that claims to be christian, and can actually support their claim.

do you?

[KC]

Don&#39;t you think that everyone has the right to believe in whatever he/she wants to?

Yes, but that doesn&#39;t mean that I have to respect their beliefs.


Do you really think it&#39;s right to fight to eliminate Ideas?

Depends what you mean by "fight". Fight could mean using science to disprove wrong ideas (such as religious ones). Fight could mean debating and using logic to disprove ideas. You have to clarify what you mean by fight.



I just think that everyone has the right to have opinions, thoughts, ideas and beliefs...i think it&#39;s fundamentaly wrong to harrass people because of their beliefs...don&#39;t you agree?

Harassing people is completely different than attacking their beliefs. Beliefs are ideas.

[vox_populi]

Once it was common knowledge that all the planets circualte around the earth...new discoveries are made all the time and old facts are prooved wrong...so i don&#39;t really trust science completely...i don&#39;t think that love is just a matter of substances getting released in the brain is a good enough explanation...deep down inside everything is made of energy, different fluctiations creates different sub-atomic particles, who create atoms, who create molecules, who ultimate creates everything around us...deep down inside whe are all connected...and i find much motivation in my belief...my vision is that in our socialist society people will be allowed to practise any belief and have any ideology...ultimately it&#39;s the majority&#39;s decision that counts...

And i feel that we have different definitions of religion...I don&#39;t blindly trust in some god&#39;s will...i believe in material dialectics...i think that some scientific discoveries should be considered as facts...i question things...including the vadility of scientific truths...

I think that the best of societies incorporates tolerance of all kinds&#33; Of course you can&#39;t let your beliefs affect other people negatively...and i believe that not all religous people support everything that has been done in their religons name..for an example..i have some jewish friends who completely support the palestinians and think of Israel as a criminal "nation" that drags their names in the dirt...

Of course you hve the right to question ideas and beliefs...but when discussing national socialism for an example, you can question the idea that aryans are a supreme rase...but when discussing religion you can&#39;t proove that God doesn&#39;t exist (you can&#39;t proove that he does either :P)..it all boils down to that religious people believe in something that can&#39;t be seen and never hs been seen...you guys belive in the classless society, right? So do I...but no one has seen a classless society...people have developed teories on how to create one but it has never been done...and many people regard it as an utopia...but you won&#39;t accept that, right? You keep working for the creation of the classless society and you let anyone stop you...

I don&#39;t have the energy to keep discussing this issue...so i&#39;ll just summarize it with:
It&#39;s impossible to proove the existance, or lack of existance, of a god of somekind.
And there is nothing i can say that will make you abandone your stance that there is no such thing as "magic" :D

But then i think i should explain that i am in a part of my life where i try different ideologies and faiths just to see what is right for me...and i have noticed that the best way of testing your beliefs is entering a discussion defending that belief...if you stick by it afterwards you might assume that the idea/belief is right for you...

So next week i might be as much atheist i have been in the past...but who knows...

I respect your opinion...you should try that sometime...might be good for you...

Have a good one :D

[KC]

Once it was common knowledge that all the planets circualte around the earth...new discoveries are made all the time and old facts are prooved wrong...so i don&#39;t really trust science completely...

Planets revolving around the earth wasn&#39;t a scientific deduction.


i don&#39;t think that love is just a matter of substances getting released in the brain is a good enough explanation...

Well too bad, because scientists proved it. (https://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=blog&id=10051&entry=407&action2=perma)


deep down inside everything is made of energy, different fluctiations creates different sub-atomic particles, who create atoms, who create molecules, who ultimate creates everything around us...

And this is science.


deep down inside whe are all connected...

No. We aren&#39;t.


and i find much motivation in my belief...my vision is that in our socialist society people will be allowed to practise any belief and have any ideology...ultimately it&#39;s the majority&#39;s decision that counts...


And the majority decision will be atheist.



And i feel that we have different definitions of religion...I don&#39;t blindly trust in some god&#39;s will...i believe in material dialectics...i think that some scientific discoveries should be considered as facts...i question things...including the vadility of scientific truths...

That&#39;s not religion. That&#39;s scientific thinking.


Of course you can&#39;t let your beliefs affect other people negatively...and i believe that not all religous people support everything that has been done in their religons name..for an example..i have some jewish friends who completely support the palestinians and think of Israel as a criminal "nation" that drags their names in the dirt...


So what? They&#39;re still crazy for being jewish in the first place&#33;


but when discussing religion you can&#39;t proove that God doesn&#39;t exist (you can&#39;t proove that he does either tongue.gif)..

Who has the burden of proof? (https://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45457)


it all boils down to that religious people believe in something that can&#39;t be seen and never hs been seen...

And that is why they are insane.


you guys belive in the classless society, right? So do I...but no one has seen a classless society...

No one has seen atoms either. That doesn&#39;t mean that they don&#39;t exist. In fact, all of science implies their existence (much like classless society is implied through economic facts).


and many people regard it as an utopia

They are wrong.


It&#39;s impossible to proove the existance, or lack of existance, of a god of somekind.

Who has the burden of proof? (https://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45457)


And there is nothing i can say that will make you abandone your stance that there is no such thing as "magic"

Well, if you proved it I would.