Why is everyone in here opposing religion? [Archive]

LSD

12th January 2006, 21:58

I do not think that Communism has any say on religion

Of course communism has a "say" on religion, communism has a "say" on all forms of oppression, "spiritual" or otherwise.

Religion divides the working class, keeps the masses sedate, and artificially perpetuates antiquated morality.

What is driving the homophobic movement in the United States and the world?
Who are pushing for the prevention of science education?
Who teaches that the universe has a "natural hierarchy" and that we must "render unto Caesar"?

Religions express the values of the time they were invented. For 99% of religions, that means pre-capitalist or even pre-feudalist concepts.

Such nonsense have no place in a proletarian society!

i think some religions keep people united...

So does racism.

The point is it's the wrong people.

Martyr

13th January 2006, 02:25

Yes I believe that communsim unites people and their spirit. people get to say what they want and believe in everything. Liberators like Stalin Pol pot and Mao and kim sung fought for the people and liberated them while Religion physically enslaves people and kills them everyday. All us communists wants to do is free the people from oppression through revolution and specialized programs. And those proletariats who lived in cambodia and north korea its their fault that they did not believe in the peoples revolution and its their fault that they were always depressed and they starved to death becasue the bourgeise killed them not the leaders.Viva la communism

Clarksist

13th January 2006, 04:50

and lenin only opposed religion cuz he thought it was a rival to power

I just have a question about this statement: So what?

But could that same quote also be used to say that religeon is the only thing getting the proletariat through the harsh world, providing comfort and solace?

As ComradeOm mentioned, that's the problem with religion. The proletariat are being lied to, and they buy into the lies that say that they should keep their head low and not fuck with anything.

Then, it turns out their religion isn't true, and they've wasted their existence fighting for a lie instead of freedom. But by the time their dead its too fucken late.

Liberators like Stalin Pol pot and Mao and kim sung fought for the people and liberated them

Liberators?

Stalin - created a police state and hindered the rights of the workers.

Pol Pot - followed Marx, but only selected out-of-context quotes to the point of forcing women in labor to leave the country side.

Mao - through his degeneration of the worker's struggle, he ended up created a bureaucracy which was responsible for the incident at Tianimin(sp?) Square.

Kim Sung - created the practicing theory of 'juche'... very non-communistic.

Liberation?

death88junkie

13th January 2006, 09:49

:blink:
that was not my point, my point is, u can keep ppl united thru religion.. evry1.. u can keep them all united... there are wrong religions and bad religions, but ofcourse not evry1 agrees on whats wrong and whats right.. but i think that there is no way that the world would be religionless... and i dont think that capitalists r forcing religion or even convincin the workers to get into religion,... rnt there religious rich ppl out there? there are... religions never mentioned u shud not kare about life and just give in to the afterworld ((or watever that religion believes in)). i doubt that people who are religious.. thts the reazon why they dont revolt against the bourgeoisie. i think they're just ignorant and not look at the big picture. a person working in a factory, or in the streets, would have no idea of whats going on in the offices and all the beauraucracy involved..

yes marx did say religion is the opium of the people, but i dont believe in that. religion is real, and eventho i dont practise my religion, i do believe in it... but in my religion, u shud care about the world as much as u care about the afterworld...

and if u want a religionless communist society, u can never get it... for example, wen lenin banned religion, all the peasants revolted... why? cuz that's wrong.. its like telling them: ur religion is fake, wake up.. obviously no1 is gonna wake up, no matter HOW FAKE it is!! i dont call tht being "opium of the people"... its just that they believe its real, and no1 believes the hallucinations opium does is real.. even if sum1 takes any sort of opium drug doesnt believe its real... and marx was generalizing, and even if he wasnt... its impossible and im saying IMPOSSIBLE to get evry1 to not believe in god and be an atheist...
and as i said before, some bourgeois r religious, and i dont think religion really stops communism taking place!

Connolly

13th January 2006, 10:27

that was not my point, my point is, u can keep ppl united thru religion.. evry1.. u can keep them all united... there are wrong religions and bad religions, but ofcourse not evry1 agrees on whats wrong and whats right.. but i think that there is no way that the world would be religionless... and i dont think that capitalists r forcing religion or even convincin the workers to get into religion,... rnt there religious rich ppl out there?

You cannot keep people united through religion. Religion, like many other failures, has been created by man. Its history has been plagued by splits. Its religious texts, have been written so vaguely that splits are inevitable through various conflicts of interpretation.

How can you unite a proletariat through obsolete texts which dictate that, for example the Koran, that females who are guilty of lewdness should be locked in a house until death?

Then you have splits between those who like to take the Koran word by word, and those who are more progressive - splits and conflict begin to occur within the religion. And this will be continuous as long as religions are in existance, as, naturally, they are reactionary - they have been written by man - who cannot predict detailed social change, which will inevitably happen.

By the way, what religion are you?

Have you ever read any of the religious texts of that religion? Bible, Koran?

If so, do know how stupid, badly written and obsolete they are? its absolute Bollox.

If not, why the hell are you followng something without reading or understanding it

death88junkie

13th January 2006, 10:42

first of all, i am muslim, and i eventho i am not religious, i knw more stuff about it than all my frends - bcuz my parents r religious, and well.. im forced to listen to stuff on the radio and tv... and i have read about the Koran, and by the way, its a miracle i would say.. it actually predicted the 9/11.. or so they say... and the date 9/11 was hidden.. for example it was the 9th chapter and 11th sentence.. or sumthing like tht.. i 4got.. well they say tht was it, but im not sure... i even read it myself..

and if ur talking about people who take things word by word is an bin laden.. he doesnt.. hes brainwashed, like alot of so called "muslims"... islam NEVER EVER said u should kill innocents. it actually said that u shudnt kill others, even our enemies, until they kill us first..

islam also predicted that people will be more "liberated" and allow such things as homosexuality. and eventho i am not a homophobe or against such thing, i think it is sick and is only created by society.

How can you unite a proletariat through obsolete texts which dictate that, for example the Koran, that females who are guilty of lewdness should be locked in a house until death?

that is so false.. a woman who ADMITS shes done such stuff is stoned to death..
and theres a stories of a woman who sinned and went to the prophet (Muhammad) and she confessed. He told her to go back. she went again and said that she's done it again, and he told her to go back. the third time she said she sinned and shes pregnant, he told her come back when u give birth. when she gave birth, she went to him and he told her: come back when hes 2yrs old.. after the breastfeeding years... and she did.. and then he told her she should keep the child with someone she trusts.. so she did.. and THEN she was stoned to death.. by her OWN WILL!
my point is... wherever u read that islam orders women to be locked till death, tht is false.... and, women only get punished on their own will.. cuz they feel its right..

i will bring the original text in if u dont believe.. but i gotta find it first. and that story is not from the Koran, its from the Hadeeth.. which is the 2nd to the Koran, and is the stories and quotes of the prophet.

Connolly

13th January 2006, 12:42

and i have read about the Koran, and by the way, its a miracle i would say.. it actually predicted the 9/11.. or so they say... and the date 9/11 was hidden.. for example it was the 9th chapter and 11th sentence

Súrah 9, At-Tawbah (the repentance) sentence 11

"But (even so), if they repent, establish regular prayers, and practice regular charity - they are your brethren in faith: (thus) do we explain the signs in detail, for those who understand."

Where the hell in this sentence does it say anything about the september 11 attacks?

Every religion on earth uses "predictions" to enforce its legitimacy as truly the word of god.

The truth of the matter is, other religious books claim to have predictions too - if there is only one book of gods spoken words - wouldnt the Koran be in some special position to predict? for which its not. Every religion attemts to say that any major event in history has been predicted in their texts.

You follow Islam simply because of coincidence. If you were born into the catholic faith you would be defending it just as you are now defending Islam, spurting out predictions from the bible instead of the Koran.

and if ur talking about people who take things word by word is an bin laden.. he doesnt.. hes brainwashed, like alot of so called "muslims"... islam NEVER EVER said u should kill innocents. it actually said that u shudnt kill others, even our enemies, until they kill us first..

You must never have read the Koran then. I have it here on front of me now.

And, chapter 4, An-Nisá (the woman) section 3, sentence 15 it states

"If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four (reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way."

Notice the "(other) way" at the end. This leaves mans imagination to play around with it- whipping, stoning - and for what - sexual desire and thoughts?

Notice the next sentence, sentence 16 which states

"If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful."

Complete and utter inequality.

And, to get back to your quote, is a woman who is found guilty of sexual desire an innocent?..............acording to modern civilised society, yes she is. Therefore, your shit hole religious book does claim to order the killing of innocents.

that is so false.. a woman who ADMITS shes done such stuff is stoned to death..

my point is... wherever u read that islam orders women to be locked till death, tht is false.... and, women only get punished on their own will.. cuz they feel its right..

Allah will bring great embarrasment to those who speak lies and roomers about him.

Be very weary of what you are saying, for Allah is all knowing.!!!

i will bring the original text in if u dont believe.. but i gotta find it first. and that story is not from the Koran, its from the Hadeeth.. which is the 2nd to the Koran, and is the stories and quotes of the prophet.

Please note what it says on the cover - "THE HOLY QUR'AN"

extract from the brief explanation at the rear:

"The holy Qur'an (also known as the Koran), is the sacred book of Islam. It is the word of God whos truth was revealed by the prophet Muhammad through the angel Gabriel over a period of 23 years"

Is this not it no?

death88junkie

13th January 2006, 13:35

the story i mentioned about the woman is not from the Koran, no.. and im sure there is mistranslations from the book ur reading. i will bring the arabic version and another translation.

and about 9/11.. its not tht what i meant.. i said im not sure of its place. i will check and write back.

and about justifying why im defending islam.. islam is statistically the religion most people convert to. that must mean sumthing. and no, having pre-martial sex IS a sin, but america made it legal.

i am lookin now for justifications both the 9/11 and the women... i will find the arabic version and translate it as much as i can, and i will be 100% honest on what it says.

death88junkie

13th January 2006, 13:45

As for those of your women who are guilty of lewdness, call to witness four of you against them. And if they testify (to the truth of the allegation) then confine them to the houses until death take them or (until) Allah appoint for them a way (through new legislation).

the one about the women, the translation u brought is right, but u misinterpreted..
basically, it says that u either punish them ((im not sure what "confine them to the houses" means... but u usually stone a woman to death if she is guilty of lewdness... or thts wut the prophet used to do.. ((i will read the arabic version))
and note the OR

confine them to the houses until death take them or (until) Allah appoint for them a way (through new legislation).
this is simply bcuz in islam, the belief is if u get punished for commiting a crime on earth, then u are not punished in the afterworld.. but if ur not punished, u will be punished later.. this means that if a woman is guilty of lewdness and not punished by men, then Allah will punish her.

o, and i just remembered.. the thing about 9/11.. its in the Tawba section 11, but im not sure which sentence, its in the 100s i think... and i havent heard it being proven by islamic scholars, it was just a fwd email i received.

death88junkie

13th January 2006, 13:58

There it is...
it's the Tawba, section 11, sentence 109... i heard that from the beginning of the Tawba till that sentence is 2001 words.. but ofcourse i never counted.. lol

Which then is best? - he that layeth his foundation on piety to Allah and His good pleasure? - or he that layeth his foundation on an undermined sand-cliff ready to crumble to pieces? and it doth crumble to pieces with him, into the fire of Hell. And Allah guideth not people that do wrong.

Hegemonicretribution

13th January 2006, 15:24

Religion can be used to unite a group, however, and the major religions realised this some time ago, the "market" is at pretty much stauration point. That is to say that it is hard to make major roads into another religion's membership. The hope of one unified religion is laughable, especially since the majority of the various denominations in question are in direct opposition to any such idea.

I am one of the few that think it is at least conceivable to hold some belief (although more along deist lines, it has to be said) and still maintain a communist stance. However ther is a causal link between what you are talking about and reaction, plain and simple.

Even if everyone was religious, there is still class conflict, although the role of a class will have changed. Class may not remain such a socio-economic orientated group, but a religious based class. Whilst this happens communism has not been achieved. Many would argue that even with one religion this is the case, but where theist beliefs, as you imply, co-exist in opposityion to each other, they negate the possibility of communist society.

death88junkie

13th January 2006, 16:09

To Hegemonicretribution:
i never said that religion should be the route for communism, cuz i knw its not. there is no way u can achieve communism just by following a religion, any religion. but that does not mean religions are capitalistic. bcuz capitalism involves exploitation of the proletarians and an aim for $$$. Some religions, if not most or all ((since i dont know all religions)) are peaceful and demand equality but still paid differently.

co-exist in opposityion to each other, they negate the possibility of communist society.

i never said they should be in opposition, thts my whole point. there should be understandings and open-mindedness so people tolerate each others beliefs. i think that is an essential part of communism... this is because u cannot eliminate all things that cause opposition, such as races, beliefs and other things.. if we eliminate all religions, there wud still be opposition on other things. and i do believe in god and im sure millions if not billions of the world do too! it is impossible to eliminate all religions, but also impossible to achieve communism with opposition about religion - there should be toleration.

commiecrusader

13th January 2006, 16:49

Religions would have to change to be able to continue to exist in a communist society. Some religions are more capitalistic than others. Take Catholocism for example. That religion is based around inequality, most people according to Catholocism aren't even good enough to talk to God on their own, they have to confess to a priest, or pray together at mass. Protestantism isn't much better, in fact most Christian religions are similar. If religious people want a place for their beliefs in a communist society, then they are going to have to learn that they are all equal, priest or not, and that no religion is better than any other.

death88junkie

13th January 2006, 18:02

Yes, i agree commiecrusader. but as a muslim i would say islam is not EXACTLY socialist, but the closest one. i think u need to read about it, in non-biased places and decide for urself...

If religious people want a place for their beliefs in a communist society, then they are going to have to learn that they are all equal, priest or not, and that no religion is better than any other.

i totally agree, and thts wut ive been on about.. we dont wanna eliminate religions, but make ppl realize that they cant spread religions by force - just live and let live.

LSD

13th January 2006, 18:51

the one about the women, the translation u brought is right, but u misinterpreted..

Really?

It seems rather difficult to "misinterpret" something so mindnumbingly obvious, but allow me to explain it in simple words: If a woman has "lewd thoughts", lock her up!

Those are the orders of your "Allah".

Now, the Koran is 1400 years old, it is the product of 7th century Arabian values, so it's really not surprising that it is sexist.

But you, as a Muslim, are obligated to believe that it is the "word of God", correct? That it contains "divine truth"?

Accordingly, I must ask you, do you then support sexism, homophobia, and racism?

They are all, afterall, values espoused in your "holy text". So what's your "say"?

Is homosexuality "abomination"? Are women the inferior sex?

basically, it says that u either punish them ((im not sure what "confine them to the houses" means...

It means confine them to their house.

ut u usually stone a woman to death if she is guilty of lewdness... or thts wut the prophet used to do.. ((i will read the arabic version))

Oh, is that what it "usually means"?

Just a stoning, eh?

Just a brutal inhuman murder for having "lewd thoughts"!? :angry:

this is simply bcuz in islam, the belief is if u get punished for commiting a crime on earth, then u are not punished in the afterworld.. but if ur not punished, u will be punished later.. this means that if a woman is guilty of lewdness and not punished by men, then Allah will punish her.

It doesn't matter what their bullshit justification is, it only matters what they do.

Made-up supersition is not an excuse for murder, nor is it a justification for heinous atrocities, and I am still waiting for an answer.

Do you believe that the Koran is the "word of God"? Do you support "stonings"?

Martyr

13th January 2006, 18:55

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 10:01 PM

and lenin only opposed religion cuz he thought it was a rival to power

I just have a question about this statement: So what?

But could that same quote also be used to say that religeon is the only thing getting the proletariat through the harsh world, providing comfort and solace?

As ComradeOm mentioned, that's the problem with religion. The proletariat are being lied to, and they buy into the lies that say that they should keep their head low and not fuck with anything.

Then, it turns out their religion isn't true, and they've wasted their existence fighting for a lie instead of freedom. But by the time their dead its too fucken late.

Liberators like Stalin Pol pot and Mao and kim sung fought for the people and liberated them

Liberators?

Stalin - created a police state and hindered the rights of the workers.

Pol Pot - followed Marx, but only selected out-of-context quotes to the point of forcing women in labor to leave the country side.

Mao - through his degeneration of the worker's struggle, he ended up created a bureaucracy which was responsible for the incident at Tianimin(sp?) Square.

Kim Sung - created the practicing theory of 'juche'... very non-communistic.

Liberation?
If you have not noticed I was being sarcastic

Connolly

13th January 2006, 23:09

Look, I really dont want to turn you away from the Marxist movement, but you must realise, that, if you are to fully understand its primary philosophy, historical materialism, Islam and mystics must be rejected - as they simply do not work together.

the story i mentioned about the woman is not from the Koran, no.. and im sure there is mistranslations from the book ur reading. i will bring the arabic version and another translation.

The Koran I was reading from was translated by someone, most likly, more qualified than you to translate the text. Not to mention that all English translated versions of the Koran I have read say the same thing.

And, this proves the first point I made in the first post - that conflicts naturally arise from various groups and individuals interpreting things differently. You would have people like you, who may not see Allahs translations the way I have pointed out, and those who will follow it word by word - conflicts arise - naturally.

and about justifying why im defending islam.. islam is statistically the religion most people convert to. that must mean sumthing. and no, having pre-martial sex IS a sin, but america made it legal.

There are various sociological, and of course economic reasons why people are converting to Islam. Im not going to go into all of them, but take the west (ireland, UK, France etc) for example. Religion has collapsed in these countries due to its irrelevance to modern life. These people who are converting, quite obviously, feel the need for structure in their lives, rules to follow and a God to believe in - for which their previous religion could no longer provide. But these are a minority. And, if you could call it a faith, atheism is actually growing more rapidly than Islam in the modern western world.

And so what if Islam is the fastest growing? that dosnt justify anything. It dosnt mean anything. Your religion, just like any other, is subject to economic and scientific conditions - meaning, dont count on it lasting forever!

or (until) Allah appoint for them a way (through new legislation).

Yes, I notice the OR. What is this legislation? If I read that correctly, Allah speaks to the judges (somehow) and tells them what to do, the judges then carry out the legislation appointed by Allah. Any ideas on what law school I could go to in Kuwait? Id love to be a legal judge if I could talk to Allah. Id study night and day if I had to.

this is simply bcuz in islam, the belief is if u get punished for commiting a crime on earth, then u are not punished in the afterworld.. but if ur not punished, u will be punished later.. this means that if a woman is guilty of lewdness and not punished by men, then Allah will punish her.

About that lewdness thing, I think you are out of touch with reality. Maybe its the norm over there, but for the rest of the world its sex sex sex - its great, youd enjoy it - sure woman here in Ireland actually go out purposly to get layed (fucked) for the night - what would Allah think of that :o

Which then is best? - he that layeth his foundation on piety to Allah and His good pleasure? - or he that layeth his foundation on an undermined sand-cliff ready to crumble to pieces? and it doth crumble to pieces with him, into the fire of Hell. And Allah guideth not people that do wrong.

Ill look into this tomorrow - counting 2001 words etc.

But a sand cliff could mean anything - its the furthest possible thing from a sky scraper built from glass, concrete and steel. And the twin towers didnt just crumble, rather, collapsed due to intense heat within.

death88junkie

14th January 2006, 15:28

Yes, i do believe it is the world of God, and no i am not a homophobe, but i do think that it is sickening for someone to have sex with someone of the same gender, the nature is, opposites attract.. or am i wrong?! i mean, its true in magnets, in electricity and in many other things.. so even if u dont believe in god, opposites attract..

and how does islam support racism?! black people were treated equally, and by the way, while america and the west were busy torturing their slaves during the slave trade, the middle east had slaves but treated them with respect. my family (grandfather and such) had a slave and treated her like their mom. so dont talk about islam as being racist. <_<

and i would understand why u would consider islam sexist, but it isnt, yes, even many muslim girls think guys r treated better, but that's cuz by nature guys r different... girls get tricked and fooled easily, and guys r strong and muscular, so islam only did that to support girls and keep them safe. ;)

and about stoning, no i do not support stoning.. but no1 is stoned anymore, people who commit crimes these days are usually imprisoned... The Koran only says stoning, cuz that was the way it was back then, they did not have secure prisons and such. and about stoning - it was not an obligation for a women who is guilty of lewdness to be stoned, it was up to her - like i said before. if she thought shes guilty, then she asked for it.

ComradeOm

14th January 2006, 16:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 03:39 PM
and i would understand why u would consider islam sexist, but it isnt, yes, even many muslim girls think guys r treated better, but that's cuz by nature guys r different... girls get tricked and fooled easily, and guys r strong and muscular, so islam only did that to support girls and keep them safe. ;)
This has cheered up my day no end :lol:

awate

14th January 2006, 16:16

I think the whole point is missed here .It is religion that was & IS the cause of many discriminations that generated hatered among so many peole.And not because of its contents but because of its hypocrcy & wrong interpretations.I think this things will always create disorder in a society.

boosh logic

14th January 2006, 18:40

Heres a nice little paradox:

If God/Allah/whatever lie you chose to believe is all powerful, can he/she/whatever make a mountain to big for them to climb?

Because if they can, they are not all powerful, as they cannot climb the mountain

If they can't, they are not all powerful

:lol:

LSD

14th January 2006, 19:42

i am not a homophobe, but i do think that it is sickening for someone to have sex with someone of the same gender

um...you do know what homophobia means, right?

the nature is, opposites attract.. or am i wrong?!

Deeply.

Opposites "attract" sometimes ...but ususally not in interpersonal relationships.

Despite the quoted aphorism, most people are attracted to people who share characteristics.

Communists, for instance, tend not to be attracted to Nazis.

the middle east had slaves but treated them with respect.

:lol:

Wow...just....wow.

that's cuz by nature guys r different... girls get tricked and fooled easily, and guys r strong and muscular, so islam only did that to support girls and keep them safe.

"Girls" get "easily fooled"?

Homosexuality is "sickening"?

Consider yourself, warned, restricted, and polled for banning. :angry:

Martyr

14th January 2006, 22:38

^^ whatever happened to free speech

STI

14th January 2006, 23:44

This is a leftist forum for leftist people. We don't want to spend our time listening to that trash when we could be having more useful discussion.

Also, we don't want our board being used as a platform for that type of crap.

Connolly

14th January 2006, 23:47

Consider yourself, warned, restricted, and polled for banning.

Way too harsh there comrade! :( :o IMO

The guy comes from a background with such ignorance on matters of gender equality and homophobia - with society, religion and media hammering such ideas into the minds of people like this guy, not to mention pressure from family.

I dont think you should just ban, or even restrict him for having misconceptions about the communist movement.

Give the guy a break,

He's here to learn and get rid of his misinformation, comrade.

He came here with positive, anticapitalist views - ready to learn more!!

Comrade RedBanner

Hegemonicretribution

15th January 2006, 13:41

First of all my line of argument wasn't that religions are capitalistic as such, rather that they are compatible with capitalism, but not communism.

You never once attemtepted to address any major points, and the advocation of a religion over another will create class conflict. You said religion would have to change, and I agree. However I can only find compatible religion when you look into really obsure belief systems and values, not any of the major world religions, Islam included. Perhaps I just don't know, not being a Muslim, but unlike many, I have spent quite a long time studying various versions of all the major, and countless less well known religions. If you cannot understand this, then I think I have shown the problems of dogmatically maintaining a belief above and beyond reason.

Islam, and I realise you agreed, is not compatible, but it isn't even close as you suggest.

my family (grandfather and such) had a slave and treated her like their mom.
Still a slave. The bourgeois may no longer always beat the workers, but we don't owe them shit. I can see why you were banned.

but that's cuz by nature guys r different... girls get tricked and fooled easily, and guys r strong and muscular,
Social attitudes not shared worldwide. Regardless, everyone is taken on individual merit, because generalising about possible trends has negative effects on all of society. Just incase you weren't aware, it is taken often here that women are the more manipulative and cunning sex, and men get lost trying to understand their games. As different cultures hold different attitudes as true, I think it makes sense to disregard both attitudes.

but no1 is stoned anymore,
Speak for yourself :lol:

Schwarzwald

15th January 2006, 20:42

red team

16th January 2006, 01:41

If anything religion keeps the order instead of destroying it. Suppose it is a hoax (hypothetically); people would then believe in no afterlife or God and feel there to be no consequences for their actions and nothing better than what this world has to offer.
That would leave people without purpose, incentive, and reason not to do the most evil acts imaginable. So even if religion is a lie or a hoax it gives people hope and until a revolution happens, who are we to deprive them of their beliefs even after the revolution if we were really just and wanted people to have rights we'd secure their right to have their own beliefs including theat of religion.

Seeing this quote alone tell us that we're far from ready in material and technical progress for anything resembling Socialism. As for the utopian dreamers out there, don't kid yourself. Even after the "revolution" if material conditions remain the same as they are now with the same old type of industrial manual labor intensive production techniques your still going to end up with the same old crap, but with different bosses! :lol: Instead of reporting to the supervisor you'll report to the commissar. :lol: Politics isn't going to defeat religion, productive forces are. Or put another way, productive forces (technology) will enable politics to defeat religion.

Red Team

Sentinel

16th January 2006, 02:50

a woman who ADMITS shes done such stuff is stoned to death..
and theres a stories of a woman who sinned and went to the prophet (Muhammad) and she confessed. He told her to go back. she went again and said that she's done it again, and he told her to go back. the third time she said she sinned and shes pregnant, he told her come back when u give birth. when she gave birth, she went to him and he told her: come back when hes 2yrs old.. after the breastfeeding years... and she did.. and then he told her she should keep the child with someone she trusts.. so she did.. and THEN she was stoned to death.. by her OWN WILL!
my point is... wherever u read that islam orders women to be locked till death, tht is false.... and, women only get punished on their own will.. cuz they feel its right..

Deathjunkie was banned, "thank god", so he'll maybe not get to see this. But I have to say this:
That story almost made me vomit. The fact that the woman was brainwashed to actually
wanting to be stoned to death, if anything, proves to us how sick the nature of these superstitions is.

Originally posted by Schwarzwald
If anything religion keeps the order instead of destroying it. Suppose it is a hoax (hypothetically); people would then believe in no afterlife or God and feel there to be no consequences for their actions and nothing better than what this world has to offer.

Which is exactly our point as atheists! Why don't you finally understand it?
As revolutionaries we intend to overthrow this "order"!
People that don't have any false hopes of a better next life might actually get off
their asses and try to better this world. And they would not fear the "consequenses"
of opposing authority, which is the "cardinal sin" according to the preachers.

Publius

16th January 2006, 04:48

And thus Islam move further down my list of 'religions that suck' (Note: Includes all religions).

I actually think its already at the bottom though.

I guess nothing changes.

:lol:

Sentinel

16th January 2006, 10:59

Yeah. And that turbobullshit about free will:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1962827.stm

These stonings and maimings are enforced by the law.

commiecrusader

16th January 2006, 11:39

How do these religions build their temples/shrines/whatevers? Vatican City? Mecca? Pyramids? All made with the money and labour of the workers. Does this sound like a capitalist way to do things...? Well... wait a minute... EUREKA!!! I think it does!! But what would God think of this exploitation? Who cares, we made him up to persuade the workers to do things like this anyway.

Religions aren't capitalist? Get a grip.

redstar2000

16th January 2006, 13:03

Originally posted by BBC
Venezuela head angry at cardinal

Venezuela's leader has demanded an explanation after a Roman Catholic cardinal said that the country was becoming a dictatorship.

President Hugo Chavez described the Church's behaviour as "undoubtedly a provocation" and demanded a full apology for the "insults" and "hate".

He said there was a conspiracy in Rome and at home to damage his government.

The Venezuelan head of state said the Church should stick to spiritual work and stay out of politics altogether.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/4615776.stm

As if religions ever "stay out of politics"...unless they're driven out!

Which is what needs to happen...everywhere!

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

Comrade J

18th January 2006, 19:25

What I don't understand is how the hell Muhammad the supposed prophet was able to tell people that having 'lewd thoughts' is evil and punishable by death. It seems to me that one cannot possibly condemn this without at least thinking what a lewd thought is... does this not then lead to thinking of a lewd act, (whether you like it or not?)
So Muhammad must have thought a lewd act at one point. Actually, one of his wives was 10. So he owned a 10 year old concubine (which is basically the role of a Muslim wife) and he thinks its wrong to think lustful thoughts? I honestly struggle to comprehend how any man can possibly believe in such ludicrously hypocritical and contradictory texts like the Hadith, the Qur'an, the Bible etc.

Free Palestine

18th January 2006, 20:26

It seems the version of the Quran you read was from the Fox news network. ^^

Comrade J

19th January 2006, 00:52

I have never read the Qur'an as I don't speak Arabic, and the only language the Qur'an is available in is Arabic.
I have read English translations of it though (cannot be called the Qur'an as it isn't in the exact word of what God supposedly wrote).

And I live in the UK, where we're luckily not made to endure the Fox network, but I do see the point you're trying to make. However, various sources cite that Muhammad had a wife who was 10 years old (it may have been 11, can't remember). I just don't believe one can possibly take any morals from such a religion.
Several of my friends are Muslims, I have nothing against Muslims, but I certainly disagree with many of its teachings, and question it's right to teach certain things, as it seems rather hypocritical at times. And as with most other religions, despite claims to have absoloute rules that cannot be interpreted in any other way, it appears subsceptible to radical interpretation, who then exploit the large number of undereducated young Muslims into believing extremist views. Such extremist interpretation happens with Christianity as well, though on an even larger scale.