Religion and Communism

[Abood]

if i believe in religion and think we can establish socialism without abolitiong them... does that mean im not a communist?!

[Sentinel]

Unfortunately, yes. Communists are opposed to religion. There are already alot of threads on this subject in the religion forum in Opposing Ideologies . Read the debates there. Karl Marx stated: Religion is the opium of the masses .

This means: Religion is counterproductive to the class struggle since it's purpose is to make people accept the atrocities of oppressive societies in hope of a better "next life",
and obey authority. We communists strive to make this world the "paradise" the superstitious speak about. Because there are no other worlds.

[Abood]

but, i dont agree on the belief that religion actually makes people obey the rules and has any influence on the class struggle. take me as an example, i am not religious but have some "spirituality" but i am part of the struggle :)
i believe that the class struggle is only being countered by the ignorance of the class that is supposed to be struggling - the workers. If people want a social world, the first thing we should do is educate the workers about the work of the capitalist world.

and by the way, if i am to be put in a class, i admit that i would be a bourgeois, cuz we are rich and stuff, but i dont believe that that is fair and im hoping that our rich would help budget the class struggle - it is not my money, it's the society's.

[Sentinel]

I disagree with you on this subject. We communists are by default against religion by general principle, since we advocate a materialistic worldview based on logical thinking and science.
This is one of the cornerstones of marxism.You might be with us in the struggle now.
But what kind of society do you wish to build in the place of the current one?

This is the question.

I, and marxists in general prefer a secular society, since it has been proven to be
superior in every way to one affected by religious customs. The outspoken sexism and homophobia of most religions doesn't speak in their favor exactly.

You coming from a bourgeois background, however, I don't have any problem with.
Many, as a matter of fact most, of the greatest Marxist leaders have.
Among them Che.. It's your own actions you are judged after.
As I said, read the numerous religion threads.
One of the more recent is "Why is everybody here against religion".

[Roses in the Hospital]

Just because your religious dosen't mean your not allowed to be a communist. After all, there's no one going to stop you calling yourself a communist if you feel that's the descripition that best fits your belief. However, as you get into the theory of communism you might find it difficuilt to reconcile your communist ideas with your religious ones at which point to you might need to rethink one, the other, or perhaps both...

[ComradeOm]

It may be possible to be religious and communist - I don't know of any anarchist literature that makes the two incompatible though I very much suspect that there is some - but it is impossible to be religious and Marxist. Historical materialism leaves no room for divinity or gods.

Personally I started out with some religious habits but after reading Marx I was forced to confront these and decided whether I was religious or a materialist.

[violencia.Proletariat]

If you are looking for the creation of communism as proposed by marx or the anarchist theorists, then NO! Go try to revive that liberation theology bullshit, or waste your time doing other things like that (trying to make reactionaries into revolutionaries :lol: )

[Abood]

heh, im not a marxist, im sure of that.. but about communism, im not totally communist. i do believe in the things about the bourgeois and that they exploit the workers, and a struggle will cause them to be overthrown and stuff like that..
i believe in it all, but only religion...
whether im a communist or not doesnt matter much, i consider that as a label..
all that i am is a socialist... :D i will read more on communism later when i am less occupied with school studies and stuff.


If you are looking for the creation of communism as proposed by marx or the anarchist theorists, then NO! Go try to revive that liberation theology bullshit, or waste your time doing other things like that (trying to make reactionaries into revolutionaries laugh.gif )
the image i got from communists from this forum is that they are close-minded and dont accept other people&#39;s beliefs. please try to be more open-minded and remember that people think ur wrong too.. <_< its an opinion... cuz even materialism can be questioned, cuz some people think that objects are only illusions in the head... so after all, even materialism is only a belief.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Socialist [email protected] 16 2006, 05:27 PM
the image i got from communists from this forum is that they are close-minded and dont accept other people&#39;s beliefs.
Why should we tolerate others&#39; beliefs when they are both baseless and wrong.

[Sentinel]

By openminded you mean what? Allowing religion, with it&#39;s inbuilt flaws including:
Homophobia, sexism, and worst of all: obedience to authority, among our ranks?
Sorry but no&#33; And yes, the obedience part is there, in some form, in every single religion I can come to think of. It is the very essence of them. They are not just "easily used" as tools for oppression, they are designed to be that.

Can you please give me some further details on the very interesting critique of materialism you referred to. The one, in which you argued that objects only are illusion in our heads.
That&#39;s a new one for me. It sounds like the concoction of some bourgeois philosopher.
One that had nothing to do on a very boring, rainy sunday afternoon.

[Social Greenman]

I believe Xian theology is sexist, homophobic but there will always be leaders in one form or another. I am a pagan which means we elect people into positions and re-call them when they become assholes. I am no communist nor do I think true Marxist communism will emerge on the planet.

[Abood]

Why should we tolerate others&#39; beliefs when they are both baseless and wrong.
that is exactly what i mean,.. pure utter close-mindedness.. LOL
how do u KNOW theyre all wrong.. after all, theyre all BELIEFS&#33;
and by the way, accepting others is essential in a socialist world...

[Sentinel]

accepting others is essential in a socialist world

No&#33; There are always things that are unacceptable&#33;

And we have yet to get there. The world is not socialist. I think it&#39;s very important for the movement to think about which views should be accepted in our ranks, to have a change of success.

This goes for the different forms of socialist thinking.

The religious, however, have no place in the revolutionary leftwing movement whatsoever.

You must understand the nature of reality before you start talking about changing it.

Period.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Socialist [email protected] 17 2006, 11:49 AM

Why should we tolerate others&#39; beliefs when they are both baseless and wrong.
that is exactly what i mean,.. pure utter close-mindedness.. LOL
how do u KNOW theyre all wrong.. after all, theyre all BELIEFS&#33;
and by the way, accepting others is essential in a socialist world...
Accepting others is not essential in any world. You dont accept those who are directly opposed to what you are trying to accomplish.

How do we no they are wrong? Science, there is no scientific proof of any god. Dont like science? Then fuck off. :)

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Socialist [email protected] 17 2006, 03:49 PM
that is exactly what i mean,.. pure utter close-mindedness.. LOL
how do u KNOW theyre all wrong.. after all, theyre all BELIEFS&#33;
and by the way, accepting others is essential in a socialist world...
First of all, and I am uncomfortable with these terms so bare with me, but communist theory does not really include belief. Communism is a civilisation based on interaction with the material reality. That is not to say that there can not be different views of what material reality is, however rational and reasonable debate is central to this.

The reason why most people here appear close minded is either because they are (in some cases) or you are just assuming they are without looking into why they hold this view (perhaps you are in this way). When religion cannot be rationally debated with any great success, and people hold this view it could cause friction. However, and this is the annoying bit, it when it is claimed that there is no need to prove this via discussion because belief is superior to this, or their knowledge is.(claim to infallibility)

The first group consists mainly of those that have seen the negative side attributed to religions that they have encountered. It is not that they are annoyed people hold different views, but that these views conflict directly with the aims of socialist/communist/anarchist theoretical foundations. Therefore, when you adopt the view of a communist this view could be tollerated.

However, and this is where the second group comes in, most have never seen an example exempt from all of the reactionary elements, regardless of any "positives." It is not that they are asserting their vew without justification, but that they hold this view with good reason until they come into contact with an example that could, at least partially, falsify it.

Simple induction would suggest that the latter grou may be onto something, and this is why there is a group that holds this view as dogmatically as the religious members do. However this is irrellevant until someone can post religious examples that can shatter this standpoint.

I think you will find that when you suggest such religions, they are no longer counted as religions. That is to say you are on a revolutionary leftist website, and here at least, when the term religion is used, it is synonomus with reactionary behaviour. Just as when you talk about communism here it is is not synonomus with dictatorship, the state, secret police or a threat to freedom.

I have argued, not for, but against some of those that are zealously against religion (not the reactionary elements) and have learned that this is pointless. People are not interested in/aware of what appear to be obscure conceptions of religion, and do not class them such.

If you are going to preach tollerance of mainstream religions however, I would like to see justification of your tollerance regarding reactionary practices. There are plenty of examples here of such practice (it is what 99% of this forum consists of), but no real examples of justification.

Just to presupose one response to this, you might ask what our claim is to stop this practice. If you do, I ask where that leaves are right to stop capitalist exploitation? It is after all what our society is now based on, our "culture" if you will.

It isn&#39;t nice, but to improve material conditions we might have to alter them ;)

[Kittie Rose]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 16 2006, 12:33 PM
Unfortunately, yes. Communists are opposed to religion. There are already alot of threads on this subject in the religion forum in Opposing Ideologies . Read the debates there. Karl Marx stated: Religion is the opium of the masses .

This means: Religion is counterproductive to the class struggle since it&#39;s purpose is to make people accept the atrocities of oppressive societies in hope of a better "next life",
and obey authority. We communists strive to make this world the "paradise" the superstitious speak about. Because there are no other worlds.
If you have to agree with every little thing Karl Max said just to be one of the things he described, then I don&#39;t see how that makes you much better than a bible thumper. Communism is an economic model and I don&#39;t see how abolishing religion is inherent ot it. I don&#39;t think opposing religion is necessary for a socialist/communist society, and it&#39;s important draw distinction between organised religion and spiritual beliefs. Most people can&#39;t handle atheist beliefs and it&#39;s not fair to force it on them.

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by Kittie Rose
If you have to agree with every little thing Karl Max said just to be one of the things he described, then I don&#39;t see how that makes you much better than a bible thumper.

I don&#39;t "have to agree" on everything he said because "he said so"
I agree with him on this, and most issues, because I see his point .
That&#39;s what "marxist" means.


Communism is an economic model and I don&#39;t see how abolishing religion is inherent ot it.

It is so much more than that. It also includes understanding the theory of historical materialism, for example.


Most people can&#39;t handle atheist beliefs and it&#39;s not fair to force it on them.

There is no such thing as "atheist beliefs". Atheists focuse on material reality.
If you can&#39;t prove it, it doesn&#39;t exist.

And the problem is that they tend to try to force their "beliefs" on us, and on their own innocent children.

I know from own experience that if you are raised free of superstition, you can handle this life perfectly without them.

[Kittie Rose]

I don&#39;t "have to agree" on everything he said because "he said so"
I agree with him on this, and most issues, because I see his point .
That&#39;s what "marxist" means.

Most is the keyword here. Similarily, someone could disagree with him on religion, but agree with everything else.



It is so much more than that. It also includes understanding the theory of historical materialism, for example.

But it is still, first and foremost, an economical model.


There is no such thing as "atheist beliefs". Atheists focuse on material reality.
If you can&#39;t prove it, it doesn&#39;t exist.

...and that&#39;s a belief.


And the problem is that they tend to try to force their "beliefs" on us, and on their own innocent children.

But are you being any better by striving to create a society where they cannot have their beliefs?


I know from own experience that if you are raised free of superstition, you can handle this life perfectly without them.

This suggests that you only see Fundamental Christianity as the common alternative to atheism. I&#39;d question your motives as an atheist because of this. Blaming all spiritual paths for the faults of one is both unfair and illogical, not to mention highly immature and unnecessarily rebellious.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Kittie [email protected] 19 2006, 04:19 PM
This suggests that you only see Fundamental Christianity as the common alternative to atheism. I&#39;d question your motives as an atheist because of this. Blaming all spiritual paths for the faults of one is both unfair and illogical, not to mention highly immature and unnecessarily rebellious.
I said something similar to this a few posts up, but in a much more roundabout way. However I am an atheist, and am anti-religious. It just so happens that I don&#39;t fully support the majority of anti-religious around here, because I think they tend to miss the point of getting rid of religion.

There are reasons why religion outside of Christianity is dangerous, and unless you can describe some obscure religion which you suport, and is not reactionary, the general anti-religious view here is justified. The majority of religious practicioners are reactionary, so it is up to those that claim not to be to prove themselves so.

Could you outline your beliefs?

I thnk this might be worth repeating here:
I think you will find that when you suggest such religions (non-reactionary), they are no longer counted as religions. That is to say you are on a revolutionary leftist website, and here at least, when the term religion is used, it is synonomus with reactionary behaviour. Just as when you talk about communism here it is is not synonomus with dictatorship, the state, secret police or a threat to freedom.

[Kittie Rose]

I said something similar to this a few posts up, but in a much more roundabout way. However I am an atheist, and am anti-religious. It just so happens that I don&#39;t fully support the majority of anti-religious around here, because I think they tend to miss the point of getting rid of religion.

That sounds good. I think you can distinct a bit better between what you do and don&#39;t like, and what should and shouldn&#39;t be.

I go by the philosophy of theosophy(which is in some ways the opposite of what a lot of people believe, I believe that all spiritual paths have worth at attempts to uncover the truth, and have some spiritual worth and are true to a certain extent in some sense even if they are not literally so, but since organised religion actually prevents this pursuit, I guess it wouldn&#39;t be so much so), but I have more earth based pagan spiritual beliefs, which I&#39;ve rationalised a lot more than the norm and have somewhat logical defenses for my beliefs.
Because of the way capitalism buys up the earth like it&#39;s a disposable commodity, socialism and communism(though I personally think socialism would work better) are much more compatible with those so it&#39;s a shame being told I can&#39;t be spiritual. Most of my beliefs come from the idea of the observer of concious life that witnesses all the brains thoughts and feels the feelings, the "self", and the way I believe in which it functions. It gets more complicated from there.

[violencia.Proletariat]

but I have more earth based pagan spiritual beliefs

Do you lock yourself to trees too?


Because of the way capitalism buys up the earth like it&#39;s a disposable commodity, socialism and communism(though I personally think socialism would work better) are much more compatible with those so it&#39;s a shame being told I can&#39;t be spiritual.

You dont have much of an understanding of socialist/communist theory do you?
The purpose of communism is not to "save" the earth from human development. While communism would strive for sustainable development, this is not primmi&#39;s free the planet.com

[Martyr]

What doesnt make sense is you "Communists" want to create a perfect world and peace but your approach to reaching that is violence...

[gilhyle]

I think Roses in the Hospital got this right.

But isnt it a reflection of the times that people talk about being a communist as accepting a set of ideas. We forget that communism is a political programme and method, not a personal philosophy; if you accept the program goals and can accept the political method then you can be a communist whatever you believe in your heart.

THe more I read of Marx and Marxism, the clearer I am that there is no such thing as being a Marxist, for what that is worth.

The real issue is, if a workers state began to reverse the political gains of organised religions, so that religions had to rest solely on faith without recourse to property rights or state sponsorship, whose side would you be on ?

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 05:28 PM
What doesnt make sense is you "Communists" want to create a perfect world and peace but your approach to reaching that is violence...
Says the one with ho chi minh as his avatar. :lol:

There is no such thing as a perfect world, and no communist I know has promised that. You seem to be taking the Gandhi approach of, if I&#39;m not peaceful I cant create peace. Well this is a load of shit. The bourgeois stands in our way, they will not let go by any non-violent means, so we must do WHATEVER it takes in order to take them out.

[Martyr]

Yeah but you do know that communism wont survive. And the Ho Chi Minh remark he was more of a patriot and almost like a ghandi than a communist.

[Sentinel]

Most is the keyword here. Similarily, someone could disagree with him on religion, but agree with everything else.

This is an ignorant argument. You could disagree with Marx on a lot of issues and still be a marxist by definition. But disagreeing with him on materialism is like disagreeing with his idea that capitalism is not the way to go.

It&#39;s a key issue. Materialism is one of the cornerstones of marxist thinking. And of any intelligent thinking I would say.

Marxism is about knowledge, not belief. It&#39;s all science.

Btw. I give you this: it was perhaps a clumsy formulation. ;)

I used it because having not read every single page he ever wrote, I feel that claiming that I agree with him on everything would feel ridiculous.

However, I have been brought up in a marxist home and have read his key works. So I could claim I have grasped what marxism is about.

I tried to think of something I disagree with Marx on, but just couldn&#39;t.
Many comrades on this site do, see the dialectics thread for instance,
but only the religious would disagree with him on something as fundamental as materialism.


But it is still, first and foremost, an economical model

While the economic part sure isn&#39;t unimportant, marxism and communism are so very much more. They are a science that explains how our world works.


...and that&#39;s a belief.

Excuse me for the language but how the fuck is taking only scientifically proven facts for truth a belief? You must explain.


This suggests that you only see Fundamental Christianity as the common alternative to atheism. I&#39;d question your motives as an atheist because of this. Blaming all spiritual paths for the faults of one is both unfair and illogical, not to mention highly immature and unnecessarily rebellious.

On the contrary: I have nothing "personal" against fundamentalist christianity.
It&#39;s the entire concept of religion I&#39;m opposed to. As all real communists are.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Kittie Rose+--> (Kittie Rose)Communism is an economic model and I don&#39;t see how abolishing religion is inherent in it.[/b]

Can you imagine a "communism" with racism, sexism, homophobia, patriotism, etc.?

Maybe that would be ok with you...but it ain&#39;t for me.

Yes, it&#39;s technically correct to say that communism is fundamentally the abolition of private property and wage-labor.

But, to be truthful, we want to get rid of all the old shit that presently exists...since all of it derives from class society in one fashion or another.

Religion as a historical phenomenon has been almost universally reactionary in every way possible.

So it has to go&#33;


...and it&#39;s important [to] draw [a] distinction between organised religion and spiritual beliefs.

What you privately believe is of no interest to us. What we intend to do is completely remove religion from public life.

No churches, no public "religious leaders", no landmarks with religious names, no stores with religious paraphernalia or books, no religious schools...just nothing&#33;

Oh, and teaching children religion will be considered child abuse and the penalty could be pretty severe.


This suggests that you only see Fundamental Christianity as the common alternative to atheism. I&#39;d question your motives as an atheist because of this. Blaming all spiritual paths for the faults of one is both unfair and illogical, not to mention highly immature and unnecessarily rebellious.

We are "unnecessarily rebellious"...and damn proud of it.

There&#39;s really no such thing as a "spiritual path"...just slightly different lies to suck money out of the gullible at best and commit horrendous atrocities whenever possible.

Any "spiritual path" that hasn&#39;t really fucked over people yet just hasn&#39;t had the chance to do it.

Give them time and opportunity. :angry:


...but I have more earth based pagan spiritual beliefs...

I&#39;ve read that the neo-pagan Wiccans are now actually providing military chaplains to the imperialist U.S. army.

A chance to "go mainstream" is worth millions&#33;

Who cares what you have to do for it? The Goddess will forgive. :lol:


...it&#39;s a shame being told I can&#39;t be spiritual.

No, it&#39;s an invitation to purge yourself of all forms of superstition and enter the modern world of rational discourse.

There&#39;s nothing we communists can do for people who forge chains for their own brains...except point out that they are chains and chains can be broken.


gilhyle
We forget that communism is a political programme and method, not a personal philosophy; if you accept the program goals and can accept the political method then you can be a communist whatever you believe in your heart.

Only the brain has "beliefs"...the heart is just a muscle for pumping blood.

And the brain is not a series of locked "compartments"...what you think about one thing affects what you think about everything else.

Religion is, of course, a "theory of everything"...so if someone believes that some religion is "true" then that has to affect their views of everything.

And the effect cannot be a good one...because it promotes irrationality.

If someone believes in a "loving God", why not go ahead and believe in a "Great Leader" who was "sent by God"?

In fact, why not believe in anything at all?

Once you "open the gates" to unreason, on what grounds can you reject any belief except personal taste?

And who&#39;s to say which person&#39;s "personal taste" is more or less "in tune" with "God&#39;s Will"?


The more I read of Marx and Marxism, the clearer I am that there is no such thing as being a Marxist, for what that is worth.

The term might be "retired" in this century; I would prefer the phrase historical materialism myself. It&#39;s the method that really counts...not just what Marx had to say specifically about this or that. He got a ton of things right but he was also clearly wrong about some stuff.

And besides, we know that he didn&#39;t much care for the people who were calling themselves "Marxists" shortly before he died. :lol:

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

[Kittie Rose]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 09:16 PM

but I have more earth based pagan spiritual beliefs

Do you lock yourself to trees too?


Because of the way capitalism buys up the earth like it&#39;s a disposable commodity, socialism and communism(though I personally think socialism would work better) are much more compatible with those so it&#39;s a shame being told I can&#39;t be spiritual.

You dont have much of an understanding of socialist/communist theory do you?
The purpose of communism is not to "save" the earth from human development. While communism would strive for sustainable development, this is not primmi&#39;s free the planet.com
I don&#39;t recall saying it was. Capitalism is a system that takes resources for granted, so it will be inherently more harmful to the environment as a result.

And don&#39;t insult me like that again.


Can you imagine a "communism" with racism, sexism, homophobia, patriotism, etc.?

Maybe that would be ok with you...but it ain&#39;t for me.

Yes, it&#39;s technically correct to say that communism is fundamentally the abolition of private property and wage-labor.

But, to be truthful, we want to get rid of all the old shit that presently exists...since all of it derives from class society in one fashion or another.

Religion as a historical phenomenon has been almost universally reactionary in every way possible.

So it has to go&#33;


Racism, sexism, homophobia, and patriotism do not come exclusively from religion and any notion to the contrary is utterly absurd. If anything they come from the idealogies conservatism. There is absolutely nothing in my personal spiritual beliefs about racism, sexism, homophobia and patriotism except a note reading "Avoid if at all possible."


What you privately believe is of no interest to us. What we intend to do is completely remove religion from public life.

No churches, no public "religious leaders", no landmarks with religious names, no stores with religious paraphernalia or books, no religious schools...just nothing&#33;

Oh, and teaching children religion will be considered child abuse and the penalty could be pretty severe.

Why do you want to destroy all those things so mercilessly? I&#39;d just honestly like to hear your personal opinion as to why rather than "Bible" quoting me on it.

A severe penalty for teaching religion is absolutely insane. I do have a strong loathing for the way in which it&#39;s socially acceptable to indirectly force your religion on your kids, but a severe punishment will only warrant rebellion. You should be working to create a system that&#39;s agreeable as possible, not one that shoves the needs of the few in everyone&#39;s face. At least, this is what my local socialist party agree on.

Getting rid of stores with religious paraphernalia is stupid. You do care what I personally believe; what you&#39;re implying would wipe out spiritual beliefs(Which most humans can&#39;t handle not having) as well as religion. If you don&#39;t want, don&#39;t go into it. Where am I meant to get my God/Goddess statues, candles, and other ritual items? What on earth is the point in removing that? People will always have beliefs, and they will always require items to associate with.


We are "unnecessarily rebellious"...and damn proud of it.

Well, you shouldn&#39;t be. I remember reading another topic where someone specifically said that the whole point of being a leftist is being a rebel with a cause.


There&#39;s really no such thing as a "spiritual path"...just slightly different lies to suck money out of the gullible at best and commit horrendous atrocities whenever possible.

Quite frankly, now is when I&#39;m going to ask you to shut the fuck up. You&#39;re being incredibly immature and nobody has suckered money out of me for my beliefs.


Any "spiritual path" that hasn&#39;t really fucked over people yet just hasn&#39;t had the chance to do it.

You have absolutely nothing to back this with but your own arrogance. People like you are *Exactly* what is putting people off socialism and communism.

Individual spiritual beliefs mean that there is no organisational control, and people still see that little bit extra worth in life. People can do bad things in the name of atheism too; because they gave up all faith in god, they gave up faith in human kind. It can happen. People will ALWAYS find something to kill in the name of; you&#39;re just removing the one that at least has some beneficial effect.


I&#39;ve read that the neo-pagan Wiccans are now actually providing military chaplains to the imperialist U.S. army.

A chance to "go mainstream" is worth millions&#33;

Who cares what you have to do for it? The Goddess will forgive. laugh.gif


Fucking hell you&#39;re an ignorant sod.


No, it&#39;s an invitation to purge yourself of all forms of superstition and enter the modern world of rational discourse.

Does the "Modern world of rational discourse" involve acting like an assjacket on a socialist messageboard towards someone who&#39;s beliefs differ from your own? If so, count me out.


There&#39;s nothing we communists can do for people who forge chains for their own brains...except point out that they are chains and chains can be broken.

Spirituality is a means of support as much as a "chain". Completely denying any beneficial factors just makes you look ignorant and over-zealous, not to mention very much like a fundamentalist. Actually, yes, going by the technical definition, you are a fundamentalist.


Only the brain has "beliefs"...the heart is just a muscle for pumping blood.

And the brain is not a series of locked "compartments"...what you think about one thing affects what you think about everything else.

... and so we must abolish all religion? Genius&#33;


Religion is, of course, a "theory of everything"...so if someone believes that some religion is "true" then that has to affect their views of everything.

Yes, and get this, they&#39;re allowed to have that view if it&#39;s not immediately harmful and doing anything about it makes you a bigot.


nd the effect cannot be a good one...because it promotes irrationality.

Or it could provide an AMAZING new world view. You know those gangsters who convert all of a sudden because they "see the light of God"? They may be full of shit, but if there *hadn&#39;t* been any form of spirituality for them to reconise with, they never would have been able to change their world view to a positive one.


If someone believes in a "loving God", why not go ahead and believe in a "Great Leader" who was "sent by God"?

In fact, why not believe in anything at all?

Oooh, slippery slope&#33; For a man of science and logic, you sure love your fallacies.


Once you "open the gates" to unreason, on what grounds can you reject any belief except personal taste?

Once you let gays marry, you "Open the gates" for horses to marry ducks.


And who&#39;s to say which person&#39;s "personal taste" is more or less "in tune" with "God&#39;s Will"?

I&#39;ve never seen someone make such a ridiculous characature of religion. What age are you, seriously?

[Sentinel]

Kittie Rose: It seems as you misunderstood me. I didn&#39;t see it right away because I was in a hurry, being at work.

I was brought up in an atheist, communist home. I was told these things when I was old enough to ask.

A privilege most of the superstitious want to deprive kids. :(

[Kittie Rose]

It&#39;s a key issue. Materialism is one of the cornerstones of marxist thinking. And of any intelligent thinking I would say.

Actually, I believe that abolishing organised religion is only one method to help achieve the final goal, and not an important byproduct of the goal itself. And even then, it&#39;s still a byproduct.


Marxism is about knowledge, not belief. It&#39;s all science.

Umm... so we force everyone not to believe in anything? That SURE follows.


Btw. I give you this: it was perhaps a clumsy formulation. ;)

I used it because having not read every single page he ever wrote, I feel that claiming that I agree with him on everything would feel ridiculous.

However, I have been brought up in a marxist home and have read his key works. So I could claim I have grasped what marxism is about.

I tried to think of something I disagree with Marx on, but just couldn&#39;t.
Many comrades on this site do, see the dialectics thread for instance,
but only the religious would disagree with him on something as fundamental as materialism.

Many Bible thumpers I know say the exact same things.



While the economic part sure isn&#39;t unimportant, marxism and communism are so very much more. They are a science that explains how our world works.

But where does not letting people have religious beliefs fit into this? I&#39;m still waiting.


Excuse me for the language but how the fuck is taking only scientifically proven facts for truth a belief? You must explain.

No, you&#39;re not, you&#39;re committing the logical fallacy of presuming that since something hasn&#39;t been proven, it can&#39;t be true. "If you can&#39;t prove it, it doesn&#39;t exist" is a belief that is utterly illogical when pushed as fact.



On the contrary: I have nothing "personal" against fundamentalist christianity.
It&#39;s the entire concept of religion I&#39;m opposed to. As all real communists are.

So yes, you do blame all of one or two religion&#39;s crimes on one, so yes, you are unable to make a distinction, so yes, you are being immature and unnecessarily rebellious. Nobody&#39;s new age Crystals told them to invade france. Until you learn to make that distinction, I cannot say your views are well formed or mature.

[Sentinel]

Actually, I believe that abolishing organised religion is only one method to help achieve the final goal, and not an important byproduct of the goal itself. And even then, it&#39;s still a byproduct.

I&#39;m really not sure if I want to know what you consider as the "final goal".
Not anymore.


Umm... so we force everyone not to believe in anything?

Yes&#33; you&#39;re finally starting to understand&#33; ...or maybe not. "Miracles" aren&#39;t for real, after all.


Many Bible thumpers I know say the exact same things.


But where does not letting people have religious beliefs fit into this? I&#39;m still waiting.


No, you&#39;re not, you&#39;re committing the logical fallacy of presuming that since something hasn&#39;t been proven, it can&#39;t be true. "If you can&#39;t prove it, it doesn&#39;t exist" is a belief that is utterly illogical when pushed as fact.


So yes, you do blame all of one or two religion&#39;s crimes on one, so yes, you are unable to make a distinction, so yes, you are being immature and unnecessarily rebellious. Nobody&#39;s new age Crystals told them to invade france. Until you learn to make that distinction, I cannot say your views are well formed or mature.

OK. Kittie Rose has failed to either grasp anything of what I meant or just pretends to understand the english language, so all you rational people out there:

You see my point?

We can&#39;t let the superstitious into our movement because of their complete ignorance to logic.

[Kittie Rose]

We can&#39;t let the superstitious into our movement because of their complete ignorance to logic.

In other words, I whooped your ass, ironically, using logic(hilariously, three instances of which you quoted) and now you&#39;re comitting any number of additional logical fallacies on top of the obvious ad hominem.

Thanks for the chuckle though, reminds me of some of the really ignorant right wing sites I&#39;ve been on only the other way around. It&#39;s just sad that some people give the "Movement" a bad name.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Actually, I believe that abolishing organised religion is only one method to help achieve the final goal, and not an important byproduct of the goal itself. And even then, it&#39;s still a byproduct.

Abolishing religion is not a method to destory the bourgeois state. We could do that without destroying religion. However, in our attempt to create a revolutionary society, we must abolish mysticism in order to promote rational and scientific thinking. We are here to smash the old order of hierarchy and lies. In order to run the new society we must rely on rational decisions in order to effectivly control the means of production communely.


Umm... so we force everyone not to believe in anything? That SURE follows.

What the comrade ment was that "belief" is faith. We use empirical observation, not faith.


But where does not letting people have religious beliefs fit into this? I&#39;m still waiting.

No one is denying individuals from having religious beliefs. We are however demanding the destruction of organized religious institutions and the stopage of all resources to the production and distribution of said mysticism.


So yes, you do blame all of one or two religion&#39;s crimes on one, so yes, you are unable to make a distinction, so yes, you are being immature and unnecessarily rebellious. Nobody&#39;s new age Crystals told them to invade france. Until you learn to make that distinction, I cannot say your views are well formed or mature.

God told the religious right to invade Iraq. Are we supposed to really accept that an all powerful being told the rich to invade a country rich with oil is really the truth?

You seem to think that religion is bad only when its killing people. What about the young kid who was never given the chance of rational thought? What about the everday promotion of sexist/homophobic ideas. Why are we supposed to let be a belief of hierarchy whichs is directly opposed to a non hierarchacal society we propose?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Kittie Ross
Racism, sexism, homophobia, and patriotism do not come exclusively from religion...

No, they were incorporated into the major religions because they reflected the social realities of the times when those religions were invented.

And since then, religion is used to reinforce those reactionary views on a consistent basis.

It&#39;s a "perfect mix".


Why do you want to destroy all those things so mercilessly?

See above.

Also, we know that whenever religion is deprived of public approbation, it "withers away".

Which, in our opinion, is a very good thing.


You should be working to create a system that&#39;s agreeable as possible, not one that shoves the needs of the few in everyone&#39;s face. At least, this is what my local socialist party agree on.

Your "local socialist party" is probably just another reformist racket...there are still a few left over from the last century.

If it sucks up to the godracket, it&#39;s almost certainly no damn good at all.


Where am I meant to get my God/Goddess statues, candles, and other ritual items?

Make them yourself. The "God/Goddess" will appreciate this sign of "exceptional devotion" and send you a plus-five "ring of power" that&#39;s especially effective against the "undead". :lol:


People will always have beliefs...

No they won&#39;t.


...and nobody has suckered money out of me for my beliefs.

You mean those hustlers that you got your "God/Goddess statues, candles, and other ritual items" from just gave them to you? :lol:

You paid for that ridiculous crap.

Sucker.


You have absolutely nothing to back this with but your own arrogance.

It&#39;s a prediction based on historical experience.

New "spiritual paths" don&#39;t hurt anyone at first (except by lying to them). They blubber ceaselessly about "love" and "compassion", blah, blah, blah.

But let them start to "catch on" and develop some real "clout"...and watch the blood flow.


People will ALWAYS find something to kill in the name of; you&#39;re just removing the one that at least has some beneficial effect.

Yes, people are "sinners" and the "gods" are "good".

No, it&#39;s clearly the other way around. Most people are pretty decent when they have the chance. But there&#39;s nothing like a "religious revival" for promoting the savage execution of the sinners and the heretics.


Fucking hell you&#39;re an ignorant sod.

Reduced to sputtering indignation, eh?

That always tells me I&#39;m on the right track. :D


Spirituality is a means of support as much as a "chain".

Yeah...like a rope "supports" a hanging man.


...doing anything about it makes you a bigot.

Got it in one. I&#39;m proud to say that the members of this board honored me with the 2005 Award for Most Prejudiced User.

I am deeply bigoted when it comes to reactionary ideas and those who advocate them.

I&#39;d be ashamed not to be.


You know those gangsters who convert all of a sudden because they "see the light of God"? They may be full of shit, but if there *hadn&#39;t* been any form of spirituality for them to reconise with, they never would have been able to change their world view to a positive one.

Watch out...I think you&#39;ve taken the early lead for Most Naive User of 2006.

People in prison "find Jesus" because they know it&#39;s a "fast track" to early release.

They don&#39;t believe that crap...what they&#39;ve learned to do is speak as if they believed it.

That&#39;s all the parole board requires.


Oooh, slippery slope&#33;

Some slopes are notably slippery...superstition being one of the outstanding examples.


Once you let gays marry, you "Open the gates" for horses to marry ducks.

I&#39;m for the abolition of marriage myself; people should be able to begin and end their intimate relationships without the formal approval of strangers.

I&#39;m informed that horses are unusually sociable animals that will readily "make friends" with animals of other (non-threatening) species. If you ever decide to "keep a horse", it would like it if you acquired a cat to keep it company. :)


What age are you, seriously?

Why would that concern you? Would it make my views sound more reasonable if I said I was 14? Or 64?

If I said that I was 14, you could just say that I was a "young punk" who "didn&#39;t know shit". And if I said that I was 64, you could just say that I was a "senile old fart" who "can&#39;t remember to wipe his ass after he takes a shit".

In other words, you&#39;re just desperately grasping for some irrelevant "reason" to "discredit" my views.

It won&#39;t fly...at least not on this board. We don&#39;t much care "how old" people are here...what they actually have to say takes priority.

And what you have to say is just a mess.

For example...


...you&#39;re committing the logical fallacy of presuming that since something hasn&#39;t been proven, it can&#39;t be true.

You like to "find refuge" in formal language without regard to real world experience.

Many of the working scientists of the 18th and 19th centuries were sincerely pious and actively searched for some kind of demonstrable evidence in support of the "supernatural"...unsuccessfully.

In the last century, there was unprecedented progress in scientific understanding of reality...and still nothing turned up to "prove the supernatural".

Thus, for rational people, the matter is settled.

There is no "spiritual realm"...much less one that&#39;s "inhabited".

End of story.

Except for poor saps like yourself...reduced to taking "comfort" from imaginary friends.

However old you might be, isn&#39;t it time for you to escape from the dark age of faith?

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

[Sentinel]

In other words, I whooped your ass, ironically, using logic(hilariously, three instances of which you quoted) and now you&#39;re comitting any number of additional logical fallacies on top of the obvious ad hominem.

Let&#39;s cool down.. (Personally I&#39;ve been cool as a container of milk throughout this debate, but you sure could need some meditation and chrystal counceling, or whatever floats your boat.) ;)

No you didn&#39;t. You only proved that you don&#39;t understand what historical materialism is about.

And in case you thought so, you haven&#39;t placed a single shred of evidence against materialism. You also haven&#39;t countered this:

Religion is counterproductive to the class struggle since it&#39;s purpose is to make people accept the atrocities of oppressive societies in hope of a better "next life",and obey authority.

What I and Karl mean by this is: Religion, that is any form of it, is harmful to our cause. It makes people accept opression. Why, in your opinion, should we accept it?

I agree with Redstar2000 and Nate when they say that we can&#39;t do much about personal beliefs.

But the reactionary hordes of the superstitious stand in the camp of our enemies.
They have fiercely fought our materialistic worldview, known as communism,
since Marx wrote down it&#39;s theories.

Just as they fought the capitalists before their "breakthrough", during the age of feudalism.

Since the cappies now rule the world, the religious have allied themselves with them to preserve at least a shadow of their former power over peoples minds.

They are opposed to progress of any kind.

They want to stop the wheels of history. Fortunately, we communists know as a fact
that this is impossible. This is why we are certain of our future victory. :)


Thanks for the chuckle though

The most satisfying laughter is reserved to those that do it last. :D

[Comrade-Z]

I am realizing more and more that religion is probably the one most reactionary force in society today. More than capitalism, more than the capitalist media, more than racism, more than nationalism.

For instance, I can see direct evidence of it at my high school. I have several friends who come from wealthier backgrounds. They are by no means from capitalist families; their families&#39; relations to the means of production would best be described as "petty-bourgeois"--their parents are professionals of some sort (lawyers, doctors, professors, etc.) But they are fairly well off. Furthermore, these friends, while not downright atheist, are predominantly secular in their thinking.

For instance, one of these friends immigrated to the U.S. from Burma when she was three years old. Her family, according to her, is nominally Buddhist, but my friend has rather completely lost interest in the religion of her parents (probably because there are no other external institutional factors in society re-inforcing Buddhism as a worldview in the U.S. In the modern world, a religion in this situation can&#39;t help but die out because secular thinking is more useful, interesting, and appealing).

When I talk about Marxism, communism, and anarchism with her, she largely dismisses it, but she still has some sort of appreciation or respect for the idea--kind of a notion that, "Oh, I guess it would be nice if things could work that way, but I doubt that it&#39;s possible. Besides, capitalism has raised our standard of living so much so far and is still working for us, why go through so much trouble to try to abandon it and even abolish it?" That is, she pragmatically accepts capitalism for the time being because it is "working" for her for the time being. But she&#39;s not married to the system like Christians are married to Christianity. She ultimately operates from self-interest, a concept that Christians usually find downright Satanist. Thus, if capitalism starts failing to "bring home the goods" and she sees that it is in her self-interest to adopt anarchism, she would not hesitate to do that. (I don&#39;t imagine her type would feel an attraction towards Leninist "communism," being far too free-thinking and self-directed for that crap. Her type would probably opt for a non-leninist variant of marxism or anarchism).

The other secular friends seem to hold similar views. For instance, her secular friend recently gave a presentation in class about philosphy and art in which she gave concepts like dada, surrealism, and their connection to communism and anarchism a serious treatment. She obviously doesn&#39;t agree with communism or anarchism (she obviously favors capitalism), but she does treat them as legitimate ideologies/forms of society. Her view is largely, "It would be impractical as of now to try to advocate anarchism or communism, and it would really be unnecessary and possibly detrimental to try to do that now, considering capitalism is working very well (for me, at least) for the time being." To her, communism and anarchism aren&#39;t "swear words" that always warrant the adjective "evil." She feels no special repulsion to them, except to the extent that she perceives that they would degrade her material well-being and/or freedom. But suppose capitalism itself were to begin to degrade her material well-being and/or freedom? Her type would not hesitate to consider (non-leninist) communism or anarchism as serious alternatives. This friend is also an asian immigrant. Perhaps not having grown up in the U.S., with its culture of hysterical anti-communism, has something to do with why these two friends are so open-minded towards communism and anarchism?

Another (secular, petty-bourgeois) friend remarked disdainfully about how many religious philosophy presentations there have been in the past two weeks (in our I.B. Theory of Knowledge class we have been giving philosophy presentations. I gave mine on Marxism, of course). Indeed, I would guess that for at least 25% of the class it was, "Today I will be presenting the philosophy of Jesus Christ, my personal savior." This secular, petty-bourgeois friend was rather disgusted with the religious zeal of some of our fellow students.

She also is (at least somewhat) open-minded towards communism and anarchism, even if she strongly supports capitalism at the present time. At least she evaluates anarchism and communism from a basis of self-interest while using critical, materialist thinking. Her premises about how capitalism brings so much prosperity and freedom and how communism only brings enslavement and material deprivation are all wrong, of course, but her thought processes are fine. And eventually, if capitalism runs the course that Marx predicted, the system will unmistakably show its flaws and deceptions as it slides into ruin, dispelling those false premises in my friend&#39;s mind like leaves in the wind and leading her to naturally adopt (non-leninist) communism or anarchism.

On the other hand, the religious nutballs will never get it. They dogmatically think that communism and anarchism (especially anarchism) are "evil incarnate" and downright Satanist. Not only are the ideas without merit, in their view, but the ideas themselves are also downright dangerous and must be eliminated from the face of the Earth. They don&#39;t come right out and say it (most of them), but that&#39;s what they are thinking. They also have no way of re-evaluating these views. They are supposed to unquestioningly accept whatever god (or his Earthly representatives) proclaim. Furthermore, they cannot be attacted to communism or anarchism out of self-interest because embracing one&#39;s self-interest is to commit the ultimate sin, according to their religion (and any religion, as far as I know. I don&#39;t know of one religion that says, "Do whatever you want.") Even if it becomes obviously apparent that capitalism is raping them in the ass and communism offers them a sweet alternative, these religious people will still feel compelled to take capitalism&#39;s raping without complaint. They aren&#39;t supposed to think about their own well-being or self-interest. To do so is "sinful." They are just supposed to dogmatically follow god and the clergy, both of which say, "You and your desires are nothing. God is everything."

In reality a secular supporter of capitalism is very close to accepting the slogan, "No gods, no masters&#33;" Atheism is a very small step from secular thinking, and the secular supporter of capitalism thinks that capitalism offers freedom from masters and well-being, which is why the secular supporter of capitalism is drawn to capitalism in the first place. However, once the secular supporter of capitalism discovers that capitalism actually guarantees enslavement to masters and exploitation (and that communism really guarantees freedom from masters and material enrichment), this person&#39;s self-interest will naturally kick in and tell the person to switch to communism or anarchism. Furthermore, this awareness should arise naturally due to the ruinous course that capitalism should take, if Marx was right.

However, a godsucker completely rejects the slogan, "No gods, no masters&#33;" on all counts. There is no reason for hope with such a person. Promoting critical, materialist, secular thinking in the place of dogmatic and supersitious thinking is necessarily the first step towards communist/anarchist revolution.

[James]

People will kill others for a "cause" as long as people are of the mindset that their perception of the "good life" is the "right one", and that others should be "forced to be free" (i.e. when someone forces their perception of the good life on another).

Many (for example Hayek) would argue that this is the consequence of most communitarianism. So we can develop the above statement;

"However, a godsucker completely rejects the slogan, "No gods, no masters&#33;" on all counts. There is no reason for hope with such a person. "

...to a criticism of some forms of democratic leftist communitarianism - "no gods, no masters": except for the master that is the "will of the majority" or "vanguard".

[Kittie Rose]

I&#39;m getting rather tired of this, nobody has provided a shred of actual evidence past anecdotes and obsessive one line assertions. You are NOT being logical, you are not the guardians of logic and common sense. This is ridiculous and not anything resembling a debate. You have not just disagreed with religion, you have made discriminatory comments in the violent extreme. Just because someone is "superstitious" does not mean they are unfit to have a position of power, but I shouldn&#39;t have to be explaining that to you. Calling someone an asshat is fair if they&#39;re acting like an asshat. Saying that all religious people are completely opposed to progress is a) discriminatory, b) stupid. You are making vastly untrue assumptions and enforcing them on people even when it seems like they are wrong. You seem to presume people cannot seperate spiritual and physical. This is called creating a straw man, one of the most famous logical fallacies.

I know I&#39;m a socialist. I know what I believe in bringing power to the people and away from private investors. Spirituality has nothing to do with this. I&#39;m not a communist or marxist, but if being a jackass is a prerequisite, then I&#39;m glad. I do not care what Marx said on the subject, or what words you put in his mouth, he was expressing his honest opinion like any other person and I&#39;m free to accept and reject as much as I like. Right now I&#39;m getting the feeling that people take him as God, and Che is Jesus spreading his word(in that a lot of people don&#39;t seem to believe in him too). In this there is a great irony that you still can&#39;t seperate yourself from a form of worship.


People will kill others for a "cause" as long as people are of the mindset that their perception of the "good life" is the "right one", and that others should be "forced to be free" (i.e. when someone forces their perception of the good life on another).


I think this is why destroying organised religion would solve nothing. Personally I&#39;m against organised religion for the reason that it interferes with real spiritual and personal growth but as long as there are means to control people, people will be controlled. You have to give people a reason not to be controlled instead of trying to blow everything up that might control them. Many spiritualities are nothing but positive in their nature. A world driven entirely by logic, when humans are not very logical beings, would be cold, empty, and soulless. And I&#39;m not talking about spiritual soulless, I&#39;m talking about it in the concept of human warmth, art and spirit(again, in the non-literal sense). Though technically speaking, if you&#39;re "Materialist" in the literal sense you don&#39;t have a problem with these being abolished.

Read: You are not Vulcans. Logic is for debate and reasoning, not determining how people should live their lives. That&#39;s up to them.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Kittie Rose
I&#39;m getting rather tired of this...

Think we aren&#39;t? Every couple of weeks, it seems, some poor godsucker shows up here and we have to go through the same old arguments over and over again.

It&#39;s a dirty job but someone has to do it. :lol:


Just because someone is "superstitious" does not mean they are unfit to have a position of power...

We&#39;re not big fans of the whole idea of "positions of power" here.

But godsuckers in power?

Well, would you prefer being stoned to death, beheaded, or burned at the stake?


Saying that all religious people are completely opposed to progress is a) discriminatory, b) stupid.

We are "discriminatory"...against reaction.

And we don&#39;t think that&#39;s "stupid", we think it&#39;s smart.

You disagree...because it&#39;s your sacred cow on the barbecue.


You seem to presume people cannot separate spiritual and physical.

Not if they take the "spiritual" at all seriously. Sure, there are probably still a lot of people in the "west" who are nominally religious...who say they believe in this or that superstition but who live their daily lives as if they were atheists.

If religion completely disappeared from public life "instantly", they&#39;d never miss it.

We&#39;re talking here about the people who do take it seriously...and who almost always line up on the side of reaction&#33;

You think you are an "exception" to that rule...but that&#39;s only because your particular superstition is too small and weak to have any chance at real power.

If your religion "catches on" and "gets organized", watch what happens. :o

Would "nice pagans" execute followers of rival superstitions if they had the chance?

In a heartbeat&#33;


I&#39;m not a communist or marxist...

Yes, we know that. :lol:


Right now I&#39;m getting the feeling that people take him as God, and Che is Jesus spreading his word...

Try thinking instead of feeling...

Is Marxism a "Religion"? (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1101735552&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)


A world driven entirely by logic, when humans are not very logical beings, would be cold, empty, and soulless. And I&#39;m not talking about spiritual soulless, I&#39;m talking about it in the concept of human warmth, art and spirit(again, in the non-literal sense).

A rational world does not exclude human emotions...it simply excludes irrational behavior that harms others.

You will not be permitted to "sacrifice" a virgin to the "Sun God"...not even if she&#39;s "willing" to be "sacrificed".

Sorry. :(

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

[Kittie Rose]

Think we aren&#39;t? Every couple of weeks, it seems, some poor godsucker shows up here and we have to go through the same old arguments over and over again.

It&#39;s a dirty job but someone has to do it. laugh.gif

Don&#39;t you dare call me or anyone else a "Godsucker" again. You don&#39;t know the last damn thing about my beliefs. Go shove your silly little strawmen up your rectum.

But you&#39;re right, it&#39;s a dirty job asserting your own confidence level by putting down the beliefs of others. Someone HAS to be pathetic enough to do it.


We&#39;re not big fans of the whole idea of "positions of power" here.

Why are you an admin then?


But godsuckers in power?

Well, would you prefer being stoned to death, beheaded, or burned at the stake?

You&#39;re one of the finest examples of a puritan I&#39;ve ever seen. Your burning malevolent prejudice knows no bounds.


We are "discriminatory"...against reaction.

No, you are discriminatory against any religious or spiritual. All of the rest of your post confirms this beyond a shred of doubt. You are a bigot. Deal with it. You are the reactionary force here.


And we don&#39;t think that&#39;s "stupid", we think it&#39;s smart.

You disagree...because it&#39;s your sacred cow on the barbecue.

I disagree because you&#39;re an immature moron who couldn&#39;t back a single point if it killed him. Your attempts at logic are laughable at best and the fact that you hate homophobes and racists when you&#39;re far worse than any homophobe or racist I&#39;ve met online is more so.


Not if they take the "spiritual" at all seriously. Sure, there are probably still a lot of people in the "west" who are nominally religious...who say they believe in this or that superstition but who live their daily lives as if they were atheists.

Nobody should have to live their daily lives as if they were atheists They should be free to act as they wish, our apparent insanities are what make us human. Let&#39;s face it, I can&#39;t distinct between you and your other three or four "comrades". You&#39;re practically a drone. There is no real purpose to your existence except for numbers.


If religion completely disappeared from public life "instantly", they&#39;d never miss it.

Um, yes they would. It&#39;s an assault on freedom of speech in the grandest degree. They&#39;d still like to know they could express their beliefs if they so wished to.


We&#39;re talking here about the people who do take it seriously...and who almost always line up on the side of reaction&#33;

Don&#39;t be an idiot. You&#39;re the one "Reacting" right now, and the word "reaction" doesn&#39;t even make any sense any more.


You think you are an "exception" to that rule...but that&#39;s only because your particular superstition is too small and weak to have any chance at real power.

You&#39;re living in a retarded fantasy world. But you don&#39;t believe in "fantasy". I still can&#39;t get my head around how detattched from reality you are yet claiming it as your greatest strength.


If your religion "catches on" and "gets organized", watch what happens. ohmy.gif

It will not get organised. Neo-Paganism is growing in numbers but is still not organised and never will be because it defeats half the purpose of the religion.


Would "nice pagans" execute followers of rival superstitions if they had the chance?

In a heartbeat&#33;

With that, you have lost every single shred of respect I could ever have for you as a human being. You are pathetic. You&#39;re a delusional, hate driven freak.


A rational world does not exclude human emotions...it simply excludes irrational behavior that harms others.

You will not be permitted to "sacrifice" a virgin to the "Sun God"...not even if she&#39;s "willing" to be "sacrificed".

Sorry. sad.gif

You wish to ban all religion, and religion is not irrational behaviour that harms others unless you allow it do so. Your refusal to make that distinction shows your utter lack of respect and knowledge.

I&#39;d say you disgust me but that would be like being disgusted by a mental patient who can&#39;t help but shit on the carpet.

[James]

Why are you an admin then?



Lol.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Kittie Rose
Don&#39;t you dare call me or anyone else a "Godsucker" again.

Why not? As far as I know, I actually coined the expression...because I think it perfectly expresses the mind-set of the superstitious.

I also like: godracket and godbabble.

In a sentence: Godsuckers are in thrall to a godracket and tend to endlessly speak godbabble.


Why are you an admin then?

Every message board has them...they are an unfortunate necessity.

But our "power" is rather limited when you get down to it. For example, if I just started summarily banning the godsuckers on this board, the chances are pretty good that I would be removed from my position and the people that I banned would be reinstated.

The sort of arbitrary and unaccountable authority that characterizes the godracket is not tolerated much here.

The obnoxious and belligerent tone of your posts is "building a case" for your own banning...but that won&#39;t be decided by me or another admin. Probably there&#39;ll be a poll in the CC on whether or not to do it.


...our apparent insanities are what make us human.

Clearly you really do have a "medieval mind". I imagine that it&#39;s the almost universal opinion on this board that it&#39;s our capacity for rational thought that "makes us human".

Many of the higher mammals display what cannot be other than emotional responses...and our brains share with other mammals a section of the brain now thought to generate emotional responses.

Your idea that insanity is "a good thing" may express your own perceived self-interest at this point...there may come a time when the seriously religious will be considered clinically insane and receive some sort of appropriate therapy.

Perhaps an injection of stem-cells in the "front end" (or rational) part of the brain would help people like you conquer your delusions.


It will not get organised. Neo-Paganism is growing in numbers but is still not organised and never will be because it defeats half the purpose of the religion.

I don&#39;t know about that...all Neo-Paganism needs is a charismatic leader with a gift for organizing. Prior to the conversion of Saulos of Tarsus ("St. Paul"), there was no "Christianity" at all...just a minor sect of dissident Jews that mostly lived in Jerusalem.

Should such a figure emerge among the Neo-Pagans in your lifetime, you might well be outraged...but that won&#39;t matter. The original Jerusalem Church was often "outraged" by the behavior of "St. Paul"...but it didn&#39;t stop him or even slow him down.


You wish to ban all religion, and religion is not irrational behaviour that harms others unless you allow it do so.

Well, it would be impractical to assign "guards" to follow the seriously religious around 24/7/365 and make sure they didn&#39;t harm anyone.

So just getting rid of the godracket altogether seems like the best thing to do. :)

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

[Kittie Rose]

The obnoxious and belligerent tone of your posts is "building a case" for your own banning...but that won&#39;t be decided by me or another admin. Probably there&#39;ll be a poll in the CC on whether or not to do it.


You mean pointing out that you&#39;re full of shit and a lot of real leftists would never associate with you is building a case for my banning. It&#39;s not as if you like strong examples of opposing opinion in these parts.


Should such a figure emerge among the Neo-Pagans in your lifetime, you might well be outraged...but that won&#39;t matter. The original Jerusalem Church was often "outraged" by the behavior of "St. Paul"...but it didn&#39;t stop him or even slow him down.

You know nothing about Neo-Paganism. It has no real set structure and is just an umbrella for various somewhat related spiritual paths. At least read up on what you wish to destroy. It&#39;s essentially impossible for it to have a leader. Saying that there could be a leader common to all pagan beliefs is as nonsensical as saying buddhism, shentoism and catholicism could share an exclusive messiah.


Your idea that insanity is "a good thing" may express your own perceived self-interest at this point...there may come a time when the seriously religious will be considered clinically insane and receive some sort of appropriate therapy.

Perhaps an injection of stem-cells in the "front end" (or rational) part of the brain would help people like you conquer your delusions.

Wow, major flashback. Someone said the exact same thing to me on a republican dominated forum, only about homosexuality/transsexuality. You do realise that you&#39;re no better than them, don&#39;t you?

If your arguments are rational, why are they completely unbacked by anything but extremely crude, offensive and demeaning statements such as that, which you have conveniently declared a-okay by the boards rules since you&#39;re the only ones assinine enough to use them?

Anyone, some quotes since you probably are very annoyed by being proved wrong -


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. - Lenin


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. - Marxist.com

The attitudes displayed here are mostly exlusive to this board and it&#39;s ridiculous prejudices and fears.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Lenin+--> (Lenin)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.[/b]


Marxist.com
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.

Yes, we are well aware of those views...and there are even people on this board who still express them.

Are they valid?

No, not really.

Among the severe defects of last century&#39;s Leninist paradigm was the more or less total failure to recognize the practical liabilities of tolerance for reactionary ideas.

The collapse of "socialist" Poland and "socialist" East Germany are most instructive in that regard: in both countries it was the superstitious that organized and led the "grand march" back to open capitalism.

It was "a short trip" to be sure...but it was also as open a demonstration of the reactionary nature of superstition as anyone could reasonably ask.

Note further that the two principal architects of "post-Soviet" Russia -- Gorbachev and Yeltsin -- were both baptized in the Eastern Orthodox Church back in the 1930s.

These days, Gorbachev has become fascinated with various "eastern mysticisms"...he&#39;d probably like Neo-Paganism. Yeltsin remained faithful to Eastern Orthodoxy all his life.

It figures.


The attitudes displayed here are mostly exclusive to this board...

Maybe so. A new revolutionary left has to be small to begin with...there&#39;s so much 20th century crap to be disposed of.

Check back with us around 2020. :D

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

[VonClausewitz]

redstar2000 -



The collapse of "socialist" Poland and "socialist" East Germany are most instructive in that regard: in both countries it was the superstitious that organized and led the "grand march" back to open capitalism.

It was "a short trip" to be sure...but it was also as open a demonstration of the reactionary nature of superstition as anyone could reasonably ask.


Wouldnt East Germany and Poland moving into modern capitalism be progressive rather than reactionary in essence ? Previously, Germany was either a dictatorship, a mess, or a feudal monarchy government-wise, with poland being not much better.

After that, both nations simply ceased to be, Germany cut in half, and were given the lesson in why extremist politics and megalomaniacs with terrible moustaches don&#39;t mix.

By your constant use of the term &#39;reactionary&#39;, you&#39;d usually imply that they moved back to a previous state of being, this obviously isn&#39;t the case. Perhaps the "superstitious" just saw a way out of a deteriorating system and society and took it ?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by VonClausewitz
Wouldn&#39;t East Germany and Poland moving into modern capitalism be progressive rather than reactionary in essence?

Good question...that turns on the nuances of the word "progressive".

Speaking in the "broad historical sweep" of things, modern capitalism is indeed progressive by comparison with the regimes it replaced.

Though not by much.

From the standpoint of the working classes in those countries -- especially women and gays in Poland -- the change was unquestionably reactionary.

Next to the U.S., Poland is the most reactionary country in "Christendom"...a word I choose deliberately. The kinds of things that I write against religion on this board would result in imprisonment if I wrote them in Poland. Abortion is a criminal offense in Poland -- like the Christian Fascists want it to be here. Random police brutality against gays is openly countenanced...like it used to be in the U.S. say 25 years ago or so.

Both Poland and East Germany had elaborate "social safety nets". Those are gone in Poland and are being dismantled in Germany.

So in those senses, what happened in both of those places was reactionary.

Objective material conditions made the "fall" of those old regimes inevitable...but it nonetheless illustrates the role of superstition in actively doing all in its power to shit on the weak.

It&#39;s said that the late pope funneled &#036;50 million in CIA funds into Poland to purchase "Solidarity".

And the East German Lutherans knew that they would go "on the government payroll" as soon as the "wall" came down. (You may not know this: in the old West Germany and now in the united Germany, you declare your "faith" on your income tax return and the government diverts a portion of your taxes to support the religion of your choice. You can also declare that you are an atheist...and the government just keeps all the money.)

So "progressive" in the "big picture" but reactionary down "on the ground".

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

[Tormented by Treachery]

I tire of this senseless vitriol. Seriously, I&#39;m going to go with redstar, especially since neither of the counterarguments are based on communism. And this debate is (supposed to be) about how religion interacts with communism, no es verdad? So why not keep it to that, instead of saying why each other are constructing false arguments.

I&#39;m going to say that religion would be most effective in communism if nonexistant altogether.

[Zingu]

Anyone, some quotes since you probably are very annoyed by being proved wrong -

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.
- Lenin



Heres a few points you should be aware of:

1) Alot of people here are anti-Leninists

2) Quoting Lenin about RELIGOUS TOLERATION is something that should be extremely questioned for validity, if you take a look at history of what Lenin and the Bolsheviks did concerning religon.....

3) From that statement, I think you are so terribly confused that someone like Lenin should be seen as some hero of your ideals


As for the other quote, where is it? I&#39;m aware marxist.com is a trotskyist site anyhow...

[KC]

If you have to agree with every little thing Karl Max said just to be one of the things he described, then I don&#39;t see how that makes you much better than a bible thumper.

This isn&#39;t about "agreeing with everything Marx said". Marxism is founded in logical thought. You cannot be both a Marxist and illogical. The two are diametrically opposed.



Communism is an economic model and I don&#39;t see how abolishing religion is inherent ot it.

Communism is not just an ecomonic model. Communism is many things. It is a socio-economic system based on Marxist economics. This is very different than a Communist. A communist is someone that agrees with Marxism. Marxism is based in logic. Religion is illogical. A communist cannot be religious.


I don&#39;t think opposing religion is necessary for a socialist/communist society

I&#39;m not sure what this means. In a socialist/communist society people won&#39;t be religious as there will be no need for it. People that are religious will probably be thought of as very strange and probably socially ostracized.


and it&#39;s important draw distinction between organised religion and spiritual beliefs. Most people can&#39;t handle atheist beliefs and it&#39;s not fair to force it on them.

Organized religion and spiritual beliefs are both illogical and therefore they are both opposed to Marxism, or even scientific thought in general. There is no such thing as "atheist beliefs" as atheists are people that don&#39;t have a belief in god. People can&#39;t handle this because this would make them face the harsh realities of life.



Most is the keyword here. Similarily, someone could disagree with him on religion, but agree with everything else.


You can&#39;t disagree with Marx on fundamental concepts (such as the most important one, which is materialism) and still be a communist.



But are you being any better by striving to create a society where they cannot have their beliefs?


We are striving to create a society where they won&#39;t need to have these beliefs. Certainly you will be able to believe anything you want. But you better be aware of the social implications of admitting to believing in something as insane as religion.



This suggests that you only see Fundamental Christianity as the common alternative to atheism. I&#39;d question your motives as an atheist because of this. Blaming all spiritual paths for the faults of one is both unfair and illogical, not to mention highly immature and unnecessarily rebellious.

Where did he do this?



There are reasons why religion outside of Christianity is dangerous, and unless you can describe some obscure religion which you suport, and is not reactionary, the general anti-religious view here is justified.

Religion itself is reactionary.



I go by the philosophy of theosophy(which is in some ways the opposite of what a lot of people believe, I believe that all spiritual paths have worth at attempts to uncover the truth, and have some spiritual worth and are true to a certain extent in some sense even if they are not literally so, but since organised religion actually prevents this pursuit, I guess it wouldn&#39;t be so much so)

Truth must be proven. Religion certainly isn&#39;t a means to prove anything.


but I have more earth based pagan spiritual beliefs, which I&#39;ve rationalised a lot more than the norm and have somewhat logical defenses for my beliefs.

Would you please go into more detail as to what your beliefs are and justify them logically? If not you must either stop believing it or you will become illogical and it will be completely pointless to debate as there is no such thing as an illogical debate.


Because of the way capitalism buys up the earth like it&#39;s a disposable commodity, socialism and communism(though I personally think socialism would work better) are much more compatible with those so it&#39;s a shame being told I can&#39;t be spiritual.

What on earth do you think socialism is? Marxist socialism isn&#39;t a socio-economic model, and so I am guessing that the socialism that you support is some sort of further-left capitalist model. I could be wrong though. Care to elaborate?


What doesnt make sense is you "Communists" want to create a perfect world and peace but your approach to reaching that is violence...

Of course it makes sense. This is what all revolutions are based on. If you disagree with revolution it doesn&#39;t really matter, as it is completely effective at changing society immensely.


We forget that communism is a political programme and method, not a personal philosophy; if you accept the program goals and can accept the political method then you can be a communist whatever you believe in your heart.


Marxists believe only in materialism. To be a communist you must be a marxist.



THe more I read of Marx and Marxism, the clearer I am that there is no such thing as being a Marxist, for what that is worth.

Then you are a fool.


Yeah but you do know that communism wont survive.

Of course it would survive.




Racism, sexism, homophobia, and patriotism do not come exclusively from religion and any notion to the contrary is utterly absurd. If anything they come from the idealogies conservatism. There is absolutely nothing in my personal spiritual beliefs about racism, sexism, homophobia and patriotism except a note reading "Avoid if at all possible."


Those all share something, though. They are all completely devoid of any logic.



A severe penalty for teaching religion is absolutely insane. I do have a strong loathing for the way in which it&#39;s socially acceptable to indirectly force your religion on your kids, but a severe punishment will only warrant rebellion. You should be working to create a system that&#39;s agreeable as possible, not one that shoves the needs of the few in everyone&#39;s face. At least, this is what my local socialist party agree on.


The proletariat will decide what to do. We are merely expressing our views on how the issue should be handled. No minority is "oppressing" anyone.


what you&#39;re implying would wipe out spiritual beliefs(Which most humans can&#39;t handle not having) as well as religion.

Religion is an act of desperation. Religion is a drug.


Where am I meant to get my God/Goddess statues, candles, and other ritual items?

Make them yourself. Labour shouldn&#39;t be wasted on that garbage. If people want to be spiritual or religious or insane they can be. However, teaching others to be that way shouldn&#39;t be allowed. It is proven that the majority of people that are brought up secularly turn out to be atheist. This is because this allows people to make their own decisions on what to believe and they are not being introduced to them as true. They are the judge of what is true and not their parents. Also, if your spirituality or religion requires such items, you should make them. Why should people that don&#39;t believe that crap have to work on something all for you? Of course, next to nobody would believe any of this in a communist society so it wouldn&#39;t matter.


What on earth is the point in removing that?

Workers can be more productive elsewhere. Making things that is higher on the list than religious commodities. Also, you should think of the reason that there are so many religious commodities out there now. Religion is a very profitable market, and those in charge are making a lot of money off of you.


People will always have beliefs, and they will always require items to associate with.


People will always have beliefs. This doesn&#39;t mean people will always be unsensible.



Quite frankly, now is when I&#39;m going to ask you to shut the fuck up. You&#39;re being incredibly immature and nobody has suckered money out of me for my beliefs.

Maybe not directly.



Individual spiritual beliefs mean that there is no organisational control, and people still see that little bit extra worth in life.

That little bit extra worth in life is an illusion. If you need such a hallucinogen to live a happy life, then I feel bad for you. You might as well take some acid. That&#39;ll make you see "that little bit extra worth in life."




Fucking hell you&#39;re an ignorant sod.


That comment that he made is true regardless of how mad it makes you.



Does the "Modern world of rational discourse" involve acting like an assjacket on a socialist messageboard towards someone who&#39;s beliefs differ from your own? If so, count me out.


No. It includes being logical, sensible, realistic and sane. Things that religion and "spirituality" take away from you.



Spirituality is a means of support as much as a "chain". Completely denying any beneficial factors just makes you look ignorant and over-zealous, not to mention very much like a fundamentalist. Actually, yes, going by the technical definition, you are a fundamentalist.

False hopes can make people feel better. Hell, drugs make people feel better&#33; That doesn&#39;t make it healthy or "right".




... and so we must abolish all religion? Genius&#33;

Religion will abolish itself.



Yes, and get this, they&#39;re allowed to have that view if it&#39;s not immediately harmful and doing anything about it makes you a bigot.

Sure, but people will still think you&#39;re nuts. If you believed that in a communist society you might as well move into the mountains and live in a cave.



Or it could provide an AMAZING new world view.

So does meth&#33;&#33;&#33; That doesn&#39;t make the drug healthy for you, and that doesn&#39;t make illogical belief right. If you need religion to feel better that just means that you can&#39;t deal with reality.


You know those gangsters who convert all of a sudden because they "see the light of God"? They may be full of shit, but if there *hadn&#39;t* been any form of spirituality for them to reconise with, they never would have been able to change their world view to a positive one.

The gangsters converting because they "see the light of god" could be compared satisfactorily to people converting to suicide bombers because they "see the light of god". They can&#39;t deal with reality so they turn to religion. Whether the outcome of their conversion is good or bad, their beliefs themselves are bad because of the very fact that it clouds their vision of the real world. People shouldn&#39;t have to hide from reality. They should embrace it. They should believe in themselves and not in some imaginary being.



Actually, I believe that abolishing organised religion is only one method to help achieve the final goal, and not an important byproduct of the goal itself. And even then, it&#39;s still a byproduct.

He was speaking of Marxist thought and not of communist society.




Umm... so we force everyone not to believe in anything? That SURE follows.


No. We want people to believe in reality, common sense, materialism, etc... We don&#39;t force it on people. We promote it. One way of doing this is attacking religious ideas such as your own. Society will come to the logical conclusion on its own.




No, you&#39;re not, you&#39;re committing the logical fallacy of presuming that since something hasn&#39;t been proven, it can&#39;t be true. "If you can&#39;t prove it, it doesn&#39;t exist" is a belief that is utterly illogical when pushed as fact.


Temporal Logic I believe.



In other words, I whooped your ass, ironically, using logic(hilariously, three instances of which you quoted) and now you&#39;re comitting any number of additional logical fallacies on top of the obvious ad hominem.


Until you logically prove your beliefs you are illogical yourself. You have hardly whooped anyone&#39;s ass.


You are NOT being logical

You must prove your conjecture before you are allowed to believe it. Otherwise you are illogical. We are logical because we don&#39;t believe something without evidence of its existence.


Calling someone an asshat is fair if they&#39;re acting like an asshat.

Ok. You&#39;re acting like an asshat. :lol:



Wow, major flashback. Someone said the exact same thing to me on a republican dominated forum, only about homosexuality/transsexuality. You do realise that you&#39;re no better than them, don&#39;t you?


Hardly. Just because they said the same thing to do you doesn&#39;t mean you can compare the two situations. One is an unfounded idea which you believe in without proving to be true. Another is a material reality.



If your arguments are rational, why are they completely unbacked by anything but extremely crude, offensive and demeaning statements such as that, which you have conveniently declared a-okay by the boards rules since you&#39;re the only ones assinine enough to use them?

If your argument is rational then why don&#39;t you prove your religion true?



The attitudes displayed here are mostly exlusive to this board and it&#39;s ridiculous prejudices and fears.


Entirely untrue.



If your beliefs are logical then you would be able to prove them. So I challenge you to do so. I am looking forward to your attempt.

[Kittie Rose]

Heres a few points you should be aware of:

1) Alot of people here are anti-Leninists

2) Quoting Lenin about RELIGOUS TOLERATION is something that should be extremely questioned for validity, if you take a look at history of what Lenin and the Bolsheviks did concerning religon.....

3) From that statement, I think you are so terribly confused that someone like Lenin should be seen as some hero of your ideals


It was quoted for irony, more than anything. Whatever he ended up doing wasn&#39;t what he set out to do. So think of the kind of destruction people setting out to do that will cause. And therein lies my point.


This isn&#39;t about "agreeing with everything Marx said". Marxism is founded in logical thought. You cannot be both a Marxist and illogical. The two are diametrically opposed.

Yet nearly everyone here bases their arguments on illogical assumptions. Logic is not a buzzword. It is something you have to defend.


Communism is not just an ecomonic model. Communism is many things. It is a socio-economic system based on Marxist economics. This is very different than a Communist. A communist is someone that agrees with Marxism. Marxism is based in logic. Religion is illogical. A communist cannot be religious.

That statement is illogical. It is perfectly possible for a "religious" person to be more logical than a non-religious person, as religion is only one of many possible sources of "Illogic".


I&#39;m not sure what this means. In a socialist/communist society people won&#39;t be religious as there will be no need for it. People that are religious will probably be thought of as very strange and probably socially ostracized.

Just like gays and blacks? And you support this? Nice to see what kind of a person you are inside.


Organized religion and spiritual beliefs are both illogical and therefore they are both opposed to Marxism, or even scientific thought in general. There is no such thing as "atheist beliefs" as atheists are people that don&#39;t have a belief in god. People can&#39;t handle this because this would make them face the harsh realities of life.

Stop using "Illogical" as a buzzword and start backing it. There are many other "Illogical" stances which would be even more incompatible to Marxism. Making your arguments based on logical fallacies is one of them, and 90% of the people here seem to be guilty of this.

And you&#39;re quite right, some people can&#39;t handle atheism. That&#39;s one of the many reasons why it shouldn&#39;t be forced on people. You have no right to make that decision for someone. It does not make them any less intelligent or worthy. You are a bigot for saying otherwise.


You can&#39;t disagree with Marx on fundamental concepts (such as the most important one, which is materialism) and still be a communist.

Some people would disagree with you on that. Please learn to live in a world which has different types of people.


We are striving to create a society where they won&#39;t need to have these beliefs. Certainly you will be able to believe anything you want. But you better be aware of the social implications of admitting to believing in something as insane as religion.


No, you&#39;re striving to create a society where they&#39;re forced not to have them. Creating a society that rejects people who believes in them as mentally ill is an effective way of doing so.


Religion itself is reactionary.

As are you.


Would you please go into more detail as to what your beliefs are and justify them logically? If not you must either stop believing it or you will become illogical and it will be completely pointless to debate as there is no such thing as an illogical debate.

My beliefs are not part of the debate, as I&#39;m not the one killing or maiming over them(which is quite ironic if you think about it). Like it or not, Marxism is a belief too, and your "beliefs" have been used by people in the past by people like Stalin to kill countless numbers of people. Any belief, not just a religious one, can be abused. The only way to stop this is to prevent people from having opinions whatsoever, which will result in instant and successful counter-revolution.


Of course it makes sense. This is what all revolutions are based on. If you disagree with revolution it doesn&#39;t really matter, as it is completely effective at changing society immensely.


No, all revolutions are based on change. They merely ended up being violent because there was an opressive regime that could in no means be reasoned With. Whether or not this is the case in this modern age remains to be seen.


Marxists believe only in materialism. To be a communist you must be a marxist.

That&#39;s ridiculous. They wouldn&#39;t have two seperate terms otherwise. You can&#39;t say what all people of a particular belief believe along with that. It&#39;s being stupid.


Of course it would survive.

Not if you forced the religious out of society, it wouldn&#39;t.



Those all share something, though. They are all completely devoid of any logic.


This is untrue. Religion/spirituality can give people a kind of strength they may not get from atheism. Until you can prove that religion has no beneficial aspects whatsoever, you have no ground to stand on.


The proletariat will decide what to do. We are merely expressing our views on how the issue should be handled. No minority is "oppressing" anyone.

Why do I not believe this?


Religion is an act of desperation. Religion is a drug.

So it is they who have to be responsible with it.


Make them yourself. Labour shouldn&#39;t be wasted on that garbage.

You&#39;ve no right to call another person&#39;s beliefs "Garbage", you can disagree with them but as long as they do not actively hurt you, and don&#39;t even begin to claim they do as you have no proof whatsoever, you have no right to call them garbage. Besides being religious "artifacts", they are works of art and an expression of one&#39;s self. Being a soulless barbarian you wouldn&#39;t understand the concept of "art". You&#39;re barely human, more a violent machine that&#39;s learned logic and emotion, but none of the thought that binds them.

People should be allowed to create such statues as they are an expression of one&#39;s self. You wish to destroy art and that is why ultimately, if you revolt, I will destroy you. This is why you will never win. All the true revolutionaries are against you on this. True revolutionaries believe in art.


If people want to be spiritual or religious or insane they can be.

Yes, you&#39;ve proven the "insane" part quite well, I should think.


However, teaching others to be that way shouldn&#39;t be allowed. It is proven that the majority of people that are brought up secularly turn out to be atheist.

No, they turn out to be agnostic/undecided. HUGE difference. If the world was orientated more towards people finding their own paths you&#39;d have a different scenario, too. You want to create a world where freedom of expression is discouraged.


This is because this allows people to make their own decisions on what to believe and they are not being introduced to them as true.

Except you would kill off all ideas and inspiration that would allow people to reason their own beliefs. If you destroyed science, would people believe that on their own? Or would they turn to superstition? What you&#39;re doing isn&#39;t a null, it&#39;s a negative.


Why should people that don&#39;t believe that crap have to work on something all for you?

Who says they don&#39;t believe in that "crap", and why do they care so much that they&#39;re working on something they don&#39;t "believe" in? Candles and statues of mythological figures are hardly going to scar somone for life.


Of course, next to nobody would believe any of this in a communist society so it wouldn&#39;t matter.

For which you have no backing but your own ridiculous optimism in the worth of destruction.



Workers can be more productive elsewhere. Making things that is higher on the list than religious commodities.

Most religious commodities are made by the religious, regardless. You wish to block them from expressing a belief you do not agree with. It really comes down to that. You surround it in false logic and fancy terms, but at the end of the day, you&#39;re a puritan, nothing more.


Religion is a very profitable market, and those in charge are making a lot of money off of you.


They&#39;ve made a total of 150 euros from the statues I own, and any candles or other bits and pieces I&#39;ve ever bought. Considering I enjoy those things(but apparently in this new world you&#39;ll be able to tell people what to enjoy and what not to enjoy), I do not consider it investment wasted, and you have no right to make those decisions for me. You wish to destroy which makes us human; what seperates man from machine. You show aspects of animal and machine, but little of a human being.



That comment that he made is true regardless of how mad it makes you.

No, it&#39;s not. Please learn to seperate between "things you agree with" and "things that have proven to be true".


False hopes can make people feel better. Hell, drugs make people feel better&#33; That doesn&#39;t make it healthy or "right".

But that&#39;s for them to decide, not you.


Sure, but people will still think you&#39;re nuts. If you believed that in a communist society you might as well move into the mountains and live in a cave.

So you endorse kicking people out of society because society doesn&#39;t agree with your beliefs. Even the worst homophobes and bigots would never say that. How "Logical" their beliefs are is irrelevant. The fact that they are human beings that deserve love and respect and that you show little trace of being one is perfectly relevant.


o does meth&#33;&#33;&#33; That doesn&#39;t make the drug healthy for you, and that doesn&#39;t make illogical belief right. If you need religion to feel better that just means that you can&#39;t deal with reality.

There is nothing wrong with escaping reality. Again, you are, whether you realise it or not, against all forms of art. Right now, you yourself are escaping, living in a fantasy world where you can insult religious people all you like, destroy their lives and nobody will stop you. Start living in the real world, where other people exist, and don&#39;t like you very much.


The gangsters converting because they "see the light of god" could be compared satisfactorily to people converting to suicide bombers because they "see the light of god".

But the suicide bombers were also manipulated by a political cause.


People shouldn&#39;t have to hide from reality. They should embrace it. They should believe in themselves and not in some imaginary being.

People should do what they damn well please and not be forced into doing what makes them uncomfortable. You don&#39;t have the slightest idea of the implications of what you&#39;re saying.


No. We want people to believe in reality, common sense, materialism, etc... We don&#39;t force it on people.

Yes, you do. You said you support extroditing people from society who have religious beliefs. This is forcing them out of society and most people are going to hide their beliefs before doing that. You are, in effect, forcing people.


We don&#39;t force it on people. We promote it. One way of doing this is attacking religious ideas such as your own.

Yet all you&#39;ve done is put me off your idealogy completely. This is, again, why you will never win. I will never see your point because spirituality aside, I AM a person who relies on logic and proof and don&#39;t take things based on what they promise, but based on what they are. What you accuse the religious of is exactly what you need to get anyone involved in your movement to begin with.


Until you logically prove your beliefs you are illogical yourself. You have hardly whooped anyone&#39;s ass.

That&#39;s a completely illogical statement as you too hold beliefs which you have not logically proven.


You must prove your conjecture before you are allowed to believe it.

No, people are allowed to believe as they wish. Believing in something proven isn&#39;t a belief. That&#39;s another illogical statement you&#39;ve made... However, in a debate, if you propose a motion, you must defend and back it. You have failed to do that so far, and have only continued to attack my points based on ad nauseum and the same general unbacked rubbish.



Hardly. Just because they said the same thing to do you doesn&#39;t mean you can compare the two situations. One is an unfounded idea which you believe in without proving to be true. Another is a material reality.

But you&#39;re forgetting to look at people as human beings. What you&#39;re saying would make sense if they were just machines that needed to be reprogrammed. Human beings have feelings. You do not understand human beings.


If your argument is rational then why don&#39;t you prove your religion true?

My religion is not part of my argument, my right to keep it is. I&#39;ve done more than enough to defend that. You are the one attacking it, you are the one who has to say why you have that right. I am doing nothing but defending. You cannot use the typical neo-con argument of "no YOU prove why I shouldn&#39;t".


Entirely untrue.



If your beliefs are logical then you would be able to prove them. So I challenge you to do so. I am looking forward to your attempt.

I find this hilarious, you demand I prove my beliefs, right after stating two words, "Entirely Untrue" as "Proof" that my last statemetn was wrong. This shows the deep running illogic and hypocrisy in your argument.


Otherwise you are illogical. We are logical because we don&#39;t believe something without evidence of its existence.

Yet everytime communism has been attempted it has failed. You have little more to go on than I do. I have seen and experienced things that make me feel this way, which is probably more than you have in that respect.

Emotion and logic, with none of the thought that bonds them, and truly understanding neither.

[Sentinel]

Yet nearly everyone here bases their arguments on illogical assumptions. Logic is not a buzzword. It is something you have to defend.

How are we illogical? When you say something like this, we require a more exact explanation. Oh yeah, and it must be something better than this:


That statement is illogical. It is perfectly possible for a "religious" person to be more logical than a non-religious person, as religion is only one of many possible sources of "Illogic".

That statement was perfectly logical. He really tried to explain this to you.
But I&#39;m starting to think it&#39;s impossible. Don&#39;t twist our words:

He said religion is illogical. But you say it&#39;s possible for a religious person to be more logical than a non-religious.

Something I very deeply doubt btw. :rolleyes:

We see what you&#39;re doing, but you will not get away with that sort of thing here.
This is a leftist board you see, we are arguing in front of intelligent people.


Just like gays and blacks? And you support this? Nice to see what kind of a person you are inside.

How did you manage to twist this to that? Don&#39;t put words in our mouths. It won&#39;t work either.


And you&#39;re quite right, some people can&#39;t handle atheism

That is because the world you think God/Gods/Santa/Whoever created isn&#39;t perfect.
But we communists are trying to make it a place where people can handle facing reality.

We are not really forcing atheism on them, no matter how much we&#39;d like to. It can&#39;t be done. Instead we try to make it impossible for them to force their bullshit on anyone else. It&#39;s a more efficient way to end superstition.

And trust me on this: Knowledge is much more comforting than belief. I myself find great pleasure on knowing we communists will inevitably be victorious.

We have agreed that you are not a marxist or a communist. Remember what this debate was about anymore? Why are you still in it?

[Kittie Rose]

How are we illogical? When you say something like this, we require a more exact explanation. Oh yeah, and it must be something better than this:

You&#39;re illogical because not once has anyone referenced a damn thing to back up what they&#39;re saying. So far there&#39;s been nothing but hate talk. And I have pointed out point by point before how things are illogical. Pay attention, child.


He said religion is illogical. But you say it&#39;s possible for a religious person to be more logical than a non-religious.

Something I very deeply doubt btw.

So religion is the only cause of illogic, and someone must be judged on one aspect rather than the whole? This is called discrimination. Challenge this point in your next reply, otherwise, your "views" are worth less than nothing.


We see what you&#39;re doing, but you will not get away with that sort of thing here.

What, actually daring to suggest that not all religious people are nutjobs, or pointing out the fact that you&#39;re absolutely and completely full of shit? Considering the increasingly fascist nature of your administration, I suppose not.


This is a leftist board you see, we are arguing in front of intelligent people.

Shame they haven&#39;t butted into the argument yet.


How did you manage to twist this to that? Don&#39;t put words in our mouths. It won&#39;t work either.

I put no words into your mouth. Your side wishes to extrodite spiritual people in the same way gays and blacks were once exrodited, only worse.


That is because the world you think God/Gods/Santa/Whoever created isn&#39;t perfect.
But we communists are trying to make it a place where people can handle facing reality.

But you&#39;re not going to achieve that. Why? Not one of you is a nice person. Nobody is going to want to join in on a revolution with a bunch of assholes. You need charisma to start a movement. None of you have a drop of it.


We are not really forcing atheism on them, no matter how much we&#39;d like to. It can&#39;t be done. Instead we try to make it impossible for them to force their bullshit on anyone else. It&#39;s a more efficient way to end superstition.

So you&#39;re just INDIRECTLY forcing atheism on them, and only because you can&#39;t do it directly. That makes it MUCH better.


And trust me on this: Knowledge is much more comforting than belief. I myself find great pleasure on knowing we communists will inevitably be victorious.

Then you&#39;re dellusional, and far more so than any religious fanatic. The communists will never be victorious for reasons I&#39;ve already gone though; you are against human expression, and against art. People like me will never stand for that, and people like me have drive like you&#39;ll never imagine. All true revolutionaries are artists.
Socialism, on the other hand, has a flying chance as socialists seem to have some level of sense.


We have agreed that you are not a marxist or a communist. Remember what this debate was about anymore? Why are you still in it?

I am arguing against your "views", as you call them, whatever you claim them to be. I don&#39;t see what&#39;s hard to understand about that.

By the way, I find your name ironic. Not only are you named after cold, hard destructive but "logical" machines whose intent lies with oppressing humanity, but what I think of when I read your name are the Sentinels from X-men - huge, soulless killing devices and minority oppression personified. I think that&#39;s what you will turn into if this "revolution" will ever occur.

[KC]

Yet nearly everyone here bases their arguments on illogical assumptions. Logic is not a buzzword. It is something you have to defend.

Actually most people base their argument here on the fact that religion is illogical.


That statement is illogical. It is perfectly possible for a "religious" person to be more logical than a non-religious person, as religion is only one of many possible sources of "Illogic".

Religious is illogical. If you believe in religion you are an illogical person. To be logical you must be able to prove your beliefs logically or you must change them. That is how many people here work.




Just like gays and blacks? And you support this? Nice to see what kind of a person you are inside.


:lol:




Stop using "Illogical" as a buzzword and start backing it. There are many other "Illogical" stances which would be even more incompatible to Marxism. Making your arguments based on logical fallacies is one of them, and 90% of the people here seem to be guilty of this.

I&#39;m not using "illogical" as a buzz word. I am just using it often, and this is because this is where your fault lies in this debate. Rejecting materialism is about the biggest opponent to Marxism as it is what Marxism is founded upon. I have made no such logical fallacies.



And you&#39;re quite right, some people can&#39;t handle atheism. That&#39;s one of the many reasons why it shouldn&#39;t be forced on people. You have no right to make that decision for someone. It does not make them any less intelligent or worthy. You are a bigot for saying otherwise.

Where in the fuck did I say I want to force that on people? I didn&#39;t so shut the fuck up. Stop crying persecution, you aren&#39;t being persecuted. You are taking all of this too personally and I find it quite funny. I believe that people will voluntarily turn away from religion. My other posts on this issue will confirm this. So you can stop flaming me; I never even fucking insulted you so show some damn respect.




Some people would disagree with you on that. Please learn to live in a world which has different types of people.


I don&#39;t care if people would disagree with me on that. People that don&#39;t think that are idiots and I don&#39;t have to respect their opinion (much like you think I should :lol: ). Please learn how to debate.




No, you&#39;re striving to create a society where they&#39;re forced not to have them. Creating a society that rejects people who believes in them as mentally ill is an effective way of doing so.

Nobody will be forced not to have them. So you can shut the fuck up about that. Learn to debate.



As are you.

Nice debating skills.



My beliefs are not part of the debate, as I&#39;m not the one killing or maiming over them(which is quite ironic if you think about it). Like it or not, Marxism is a belief too, and your "beliefs" have been used by people in the past by people like Stalin to kill countless numbers of people. Any belief, not just a religious one, can be abused. The only way to stop this is to prevent people from having opinions whatsoever, which will result in instant and successful counter-revolution.

Stalinism was based off of Leninism then went some other random direction in which no theory has covered (that is why it is called "Stalinism"). Stalin didn&#39;t abuse Marx&#39;s theories at all.



No, all revolutions are based on change. They merely ended up being violent because there was an opressive regime that could in no means be reasoned With. Whether or not this is the case in this modern age remains to be seen.

Ok.



That&#39;s ridiculous. They wouldn&#39;t have two seperate terms otherwise. You can&#39;t say what all people of a particular belief believe along with that. It&#39;s being stupid.

What you fail to realize is that all communists are Marxists at least. The term communist is used to describe all believers in communism. The term "Marxist" only applies to Marxists; the term "Marxist-Leninist" only applies to Marxist-Leninists; the term communist applies to all of these. They all at least believe in Marxism.



Not if you forced the religious out of society, it wouldn&#39;t.

Nobody&#39;s forcing anyone to do anything.




This is untrue. Religion/spirituality can give people a kind of strength they may not get from atheism. Until you can prove that religion has no beneficial aspects whatsoever, you have no ground to stand on.


My point remains. This isn&#39;t even an argument against my point&#33; Read what you quote.




Why do I not believe this?

Because you&#39;re an asshat.



You&#39;ve no right to call another person&#39;s beliefs "Garbage", you can disagree with them but as long as they do not actively hurt you, and don&#39;t even begin to claim they do as you have no proof whatsoever, you have no right to call them garbage.

They are useless. They are a waste of labour-power. Therefore they are garbage.


Besides being religious "artifacts", they are works of art and an expression of one&#39;s self. Being a soulless barbarian you wouldn&#39;t understand the concept of "art". You&#39;re barely human, more a violent machine that&#39;s learned logic and emotion, but none of the thought that binds them.

If they are works of art then they shouldn&#39;t be created in factories. Also, if they are for your religion then you should be the one making them as they would be "an expression of one&#39;s self" (yourself). Being an asshat, you can&#39;t seem to realize this.



People should be allowed to create such statues as they are an expression of one&#39;s self. You wish to destroy art and that is why ultimately, if you revolt, I will destroy you. This is why you will never win. All the true revolutionaries are against you on this. True revolutionaries believe in art.

Where have I said nobody should create them? Did you even fucking read my post? I said they shouldn&#39;t be made in factories and they should be made by the people demanding them. They are allowed to create whatever they want. You are an asshat for making completely unfounded assumptions. If the proletariat revolts, you will probably die. You won&#39;t destroy anyone.



Yes, you&#39;ve proven the "insane" part quite well, I should think.

I love how you resort to ad hominems instead of real debate.



No, they turn out to be agnostic/undecided. HUGE difference. If the world was orientated more towards people finding their own paths you&#39;d have a different scenario, too. You want to create a world where freedom of expression is discouraged.

Actually they become atheist. This is from my personal experience with dozens of people that I&#39;ve met. Dozens.



Who says they don&#39;t believe in that "crap", and why do they care so much that they&#39;re working on something they don&#39;t "believe" in? Candles and statues of mythological figures are hardly going to scar somone for life.


I said "people that don&#39;t believe in that crap shouldn&#39;t have to work on it for you". I explicitly stated that these people shouldn&#39;t have to work on this stuff if they don&#39;t believe in it. Are you even fucking thinking? Is your brain on? I said they don&#39;t believe in that crap and if they don&#39;t they shouldn&#39;t have to work on it.



For which you have no backing but your own ridiculous optimism in the worth of destruction.


My proof is the decline of religion, which is presently happening and is very obvious.



Most religious commodities are made by the religious, regardless. You wish to block them from expressing a belief you do not agree with. It really comes down to that. You surround it in false logic and fancy terms, but at the end of the day, you&#39;re a puritan, nothing more.

You really are an idiot. The whole point is that people that don&#39;t believe in this crap shouldn&#39;t have to make it&#33;&#33;&#33; Did you fucking read anything I said? Or are you just making assumptions? Because you&#39;re either just making assumptions or you really are an idiot.



No, it&#39;s not. Please learn to seperate between "things you agree with" and "things that have proven to be true".


Yes, it is.




But that&#39;s for them to decide, not you.

I&#39;m not deciding that for anybody. Which you can&#39;t seem to handle. You seem to want me to be like that so you can paint me as "evil". Well, sorry to disappoint but that&#39;s not how it works.



So you endorse kicking people out of society because society doesn&#39;t agree with your beliefs.

Society will alienate these people because their views of a mystical god and spirits and all that crap is fucking insane.


The fact that they are human beings that deserve love and respect and that you show little trace of being one is perfectly relevant.

Nazis are human beings. Are you going to go give them some "love and respect"?



There is nothing wrong with escaping reality.

:lol: :lol: :lol:




But the suicide bombers were also manipulated by a political cause.

So is anyone that believes in religion. Religion is a bourgeois tool.


I will never see your point because spirituality aside, I AM a person who relies on logic and proof and don&#39;t take things based on what they promise, but based on what they are.

Obviously you don&#39;t "rely on logic and proof" if you&#39;re spiritual.




That&#39;s a completely illogical statement as you too hold beliefs which you have not logically proven.


Which beliefs would those be?




No, people are allowed to believe as they wish.

Then you&#39;re illogical.


However, in a debate, if you propose a motion, you must defend and back it.

God is an introduced concept, and as the defender of such a conjecture you are required to prove it or become illogical. Deal with it.



But you&#39;re forgetting to look at people as human beings. What you&#39;re saying would make sense if they were just machines that needed to be reprogrammed. Human beings have feelings. You do not understand human beings.


All we have to define this world is logic.




My religion is not part of my argument, my right to keep it is.

So you can&#39;t defend it.




I find this hilarious, you demand I prove my beliefs, right after stating two words, "Entirely Untrue" as "Proof" that my last statemetn was wrong. This shows the deep running illogic and hypocrisy in your argument.


So you can&#39;t prove it.



Yet everytime communism has been attempted it has failed. You have little more to go on than I do. I have seen and experienced things that make me feel this way, which is probably more than you have in that respect.

This goes to show that you have no grasp of Marxism or its foundations (more specifically, Marxist economics).



Emotion and logic, with none of the thought that bonds them, and truly understanding neither.


This is a sentence fragment. I don&#39;t know what this is supposed to mean. "Thought" and "Understanding" aren&#39;t belief in a god.

I again invite you to prove your religion.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Kittie Rose
Not one of you is a nice person.

And we :wub: you too. :lol:

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

[Kittie Rose]

Actually most people base their argument here on the fact that religion is illogical.


Then their arguments are completely non sequitor, as lack of logic doesn&#39;t not mean you destroy it. That&#39;s just akin to destroying what you do not understand.




Religious is illogical. If you believe in religion you are an illogical person. To be logical you must be able to prove your beliefs logically or you must change them. That is how many people here work.


One aspect of a person does not make up the whole. If you believe in a single illogical thing, which I guarantee you do since you&#39;re "human" or something vaguely remsembling it anyway, that also makes you fallible to illogical thought, which makes you an illogical person. What you&#39;re talking about is pure religious discrimination and bigotry. Unfortunately for you, holding strong bigotted views is most certainly enough to make your whole a bigot.

Your terms are asinine.


I&#39;m not using "illogical" as a buzz word. I am just using it often, and this is because this is where your fault lies in this debate.

No, this is where your fault lies. You have not backed a single point with evidence yet you force your opinions with fact. This is illogical, and THAT is fact, you can read up on logic on wikipedia if you do not believe me. Do you understand me? I have a shitload of debating under my belts. I&#39;ve argued with both fundies and atheists for many years. I&#39;ve read up on how to argue. I know what the fuck I&#39;m talking about.


Rejecting materialism is about the biggest opponent to Marxism as it is what Marxism is founded upon. I have made no such logical fallacies.

Because Marxism rejects it doesn&#39;t make it "Logical". You are using circular reason to justify your beliefs. I have no problem if you hold those personal beliefs, it&#39;s your attitude towards those who do hold belief that is unjust and immature. There is nothing to say that materialism is for definite the most logical path. Considering that human beings are by nature, not machines, and therefore illogical, even logic itself may not apply. You have proven nothing, you have provided evidence for nothing.


Where in the fuck did I say I want to force that on people? I didn&#39;t so shut the fuck up. Stop crying persecution, you aren&#39;t being persecuted. You are taking all of this too personally and I find it quite funny. I believe that people will voluntarily turn away from religion. My other posts on this issue will confirm this. So you can stop flaming me; I never even fucking insulted you so show some damn respect.

Yet you and your comrades don&#39;t seem very phased at the idea that society will reject the spiritual "leftovers". If you truly fought oppression, you would have a problem with this. Regardless, if you are fighting for a world in which people will "voluntarily" turn away from religion, even those who blatantly chose it themselves to begin with, you are fighting against my spirituality, and you are fighting against me. Your world WOULD persecute me, so I have every right to be outspoken.


I don&#39;t care if people would disagree with me on that. People that don&#39;t think that are idiots and I don&#39;t have to respect their opinion (much like you think I should laugh.gif ). Please learn how to debate.

"Everyone is wrong and I&#39;m right" isn&#39;t "debating", idiot.


Nobody will be forced not to have them. So you can shut the fuck up about that. Learn to debate.

Why do unintelligent people always accuse their opposition of what they themselves are blatantly guilty of? Neo-cons do it all the time.


Stalinism was based off of Leninism then went some other random direction in which no theory has covered (that is why it is called "Stalinism"). Stalin didn&#39;t abuse Marx&#39;s theories at all.

It still was originated in Marxism and is an example of what supposed communism can mutate into. The reason this will happen again is that many people here have views bordering on fascism, which isn&#39;t compatible with communism.



They are useless. They are a waste of labour-power. Therefore they are garbage.

They are not a waste to me and they happen to be my most valued posessions. I would not call something that brings me such pleasure a "waste of labour-power". However, it appears your primitive way of thinking disallows you from discerning opinion and fact.


If they are works of art then they shouldn&#39;t be created in factories.

Not all of them are. And when something becomes mass produced, it doesn&#39;t cease to be art. Neil Gaiman&#39;s The Sandman is still art even if it sold millions of issues.


Also, if they are for your religion then you should be the one making them as they would be "an expression of one&#39;s self" (yourself). Being an asshat, you can&#39;t seem to realize this.

Come up with your own insults, dear. And why should I make them myself? They are an expression of the person that created them, and a part of their self that I share with them. It&#39;s called "relating". A human characteristic. In Borg land you don&#39;t understand this sort of thing, I suppose.


Where have I said nobody should create them? Did you even fucking read my post? I said they shouldn&#39;t be made in factories and they should be made by the people demanding them. They are allowed to create whatever they want. You are an asshat for making completely unfounded assumptions.

You&#39;ve provided no convincing reasons why nothing religious should be made in factories. They are produce, like any other, and provide happiness to those that recieve them, much like entertainment. Are you against all forms of entertainment, then? You don&#39;t seem to like things that make people happy very much.


If the proletariat revolts, you will probably die.

Strong assertions, little man. Do you back them with your fists, or just your arrogance? I am stronger and have survived more than you could imagine. The proletariat as a whole will not stand for the abolishing of things that give them access to art. Your "revolution" if it should occur would be a fragment of the whole.


You won&#39;t destroy anyone.

Quite on the contrary. If someone as pathetic as you can start a movement, then someone as independant and strong willed as I sure as hell can. I will demean and demoral you until you yourself realise what a discrace you are to modern leftism. Most socialists will be on my side. Why do you wish to create such a rift beside people who share many of your beliefs?



I love how you resort to ad hominems instead of real debate.

I love how there was no debate to begin with, just slander and hate-speach.


Actually they become atheist. This is from my personal experience with dozens of people that I&#39;ve met. Dozens.

Personal anecdotes mean little, especially through your biased, jaded vision. If anything, atheists are more commonly the produce rebellion against strict catholic parents.


My proof is the decline of religion, which is presently happening and is very obvious.

Decline does not mean tending towards Zero. What you are saying defies all mathematics used for measure such trends.


You really are an idiot. The whole point is that people that don&#39;t believe in this crap shouldn&#39;t have to make it&#33;&#33;&#33;

If someone doesn&#39;t believe in Deck chairs, should they not have to make them? Look who&#39;s being reactionary now.


Yes, it is.

Another unbacked assertion. What are you, 11 1/2?


I&#39;m not deciding that for anybody. Which you can&#39;t seem to handle. You seem to want me to be like that so you can paint me as "evil". Well, sorry to disappoint but that&#39;s not how it works.

You are the one using the strawman of religious people, you have no right to accuse me of that. It is not that you are directly forcing this, it&#39;s that you are creating a world in which it will be allowed and encouraged to happen in such a way that it is really just indirect forcing.


Society will alienate these people because their views of a mystical god and spirits and all that crap is fucking insane.

No, society will(in the extremely unlikely possibility that this happens) alienate these people because people like you say things like this.


Nazis are human beings. Are you going to go give them some "love and respect"?

Oh by, invoking Godwins law&#33; That&#39;s going to get you EVERYWHERE.

Yes, actually. As human beings, but no more. And comparing Nazis to religious people is ridiculous and shows how weak your argument is that you have to fall back on invoking Godwin&#39;s law just to make a point.



So is anyone that believes in religion. Religion is a bourgeois tool.


No, it isn&#39;t, only major religions. I am considered a minority of sorts because of my religion. How on earth are they using a religion they&#39;re opposed to to control me?



Obviously you don&#39;t "rely on logic and proof" if you&#39;re spiritual.


Another unbacked assertion. In a debate, I most certainly do. I do not use my spiritual beliefs to back my arguments, only my right to have them.


Which beliefs would those be?


Read your post and notice a distinct lack of quotes, links, studies, logical constructs or anything past "Religions r ghey lol".


Then you&#39;re illogical.

Is this the best you can do? Honestly?


God is an introduced concept, and as the defender of such a conjecture you are required to prove it or become illogical. Deal with it.

I am NOT the one proposing God as part of the argument, you frustrating little man. I am only defending the right for one to believe as they wish as you have not provided anything resembling convincing evidence to show otherwise.



All we have to define this world is logic.

Are you that fat kid who dresses up at Mr. Spock at every Star Trek convention and always gets a bit too into character, by any chance?



So you can&#39;t defend it.

I don&#39;t have to defend that which you have no appropiate attack for. I can only begin to DEFEND someone when you have made a proper motion warranting one. Otherwise I wouldn&#39;t know where to begin. I can only defend by countering your points and refuting your evidence, of which you&#39;ve provided little to none, which has been refuted.


This goes to show that you have no grasp of Marxism or its foundations (more specifically, Marxist economics).


Another one line answer that essentially explains nothing. Is that it? Explain to me why I&#39;m wrong instead of telling me why I&#39;m wrong, and you&#39;ll get somewhere.


This is a sentence fragment. I don&#39;t know what this is supposed to mean. "Thought" and "Understanding" aren&#39;t belief in a god.

You don&#39;t know what it means because I posed it in a poetic manner, i.e. as if it was an excerpt from a poem. If you read "Books" people do it a lot in those, and it happens sometimes in debate too. Being against art, especially mass produced art, which includes poetry, you wouldn&#39;t understand.


I again invite you to prove your religion.

My religion has nothing to do with this argument. I have said this time and time again. You rely solely on strawmen and some of the strongest forms of illogic to base your "logical" argument on. I repeat. I am not the one attacking. You are the one attacking, proposing the motion that religion should be removed. Until you attack in a tangible and logical manner, I do not have to defend, yet I have defended my right to belief, regardless. I do not wish to debate the content of my beliefs as they have no bearing on the argument at hand. You wish to drag them in because it&#39;s the only way you can win.

I don&#39;t know why I&#39;m bothered, though. You&#39;re just some spotty angsty 18-20 something year old who never learned in his teen years when to shut the fuck up.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Kittie Rose
You&#39;re just some spotty angsty 18-20 something year old who never learned in his teen years when to shut the fuck up.

Well, let&#39;s see now, what&#39;s the proper "neo-pagan" response to such effrontery?

Cast a "crotch-rot spell", perhaps? :o

Or hey, how about the traditional way? Tie him in a wicker basket, tie the basket to a tree-trunk high in the air, and then set the tree on fire&#33;

That will teach him "when to shut the fuck up&#33;" :lol:

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

[Kittie Rose]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jan 21 2006, 06:04 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Jan 21 2006, 06:04 PM)
Kittie Rose
You&#39;re just some spotty angsty 18-20 something year old who never learned in his teen years when to shut the fuck up.

Well, let&#39;s see now, what&#39;s the proper "neo-pagan" response to such effrontery?

Cast a "crotch-rot spell", perhaps? :o

Or hey, how about the traditional way? Tie him in a wicker basket, tie the basket to a tree-trunk high in the air, and then set the tree on fire&#33;

That will teach him "when to shut the fuck up&#33;" :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif [/b]
Actually, if I met you, I&#39;d probaly just knock you out with some sedatives and sew your fingers together. That&#39;d keep you busy for a while.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Kittie Rose
Actually, if I met you, I&#39;d probably just knock you out with some sedatives and sew your fingers together.

Why not just cut them off? :D

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

[Kittie Rose]

That would be sinking to your level, dear, and nowhere near as original or amusing.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Kittie Rose
That would be sinking to your level, dear, and nowhere near as original or amusing.

I don&#39;t think there&#39;s any way that a "spiritual" person like yourself could either "sink" or "rise" to my level.

You see, that would require rationality...something that to you is unacceptable in principle.

I&#39;ve no doubt that the vision of me trying to type with my fingers sewn together is "amusing" to you.

It&#39;s just the sort of "little horror" that we communists could not even begin to imagine.

What "original and amusing" thrills the "neo-Pagans" have in store for us...once they get organized and "go mainstream", of course. :D

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

[Sentinel]

And I have pointed out point by point before how things are illogical. Pay attention, child.

By explanation I meant a valid explanation. So I&#39;ll refrase: Prove us wrong.


So religion is the only cause of illogic, and someone must be judged on one aspect rather than the whole? This is called discrimination.

No, that wasn&#39;t my point. But since you ask, yes there are more causes to illogic.
And if someone should be judged by the whole? Depends on what "the whole" includes, obviously.


Challenge this point in your next reply, otherwise, your "views" are worth less than nothing.

Wonder how your opinion would have changed? Now we&#39;ll never know.


What, actually daring to suggest that not all religious people are nutjobs, or pointing out the fact that you&#39;re absolutely and completely full of shit? Considering the increasingly fascist nature of your administration, I suppose not.

No, Twisting our words. Like you did with Lazar&#39;s.


I put no words into your mouth. Your side wishes to extrodite spiritual people in the same way gays and blacks were once exrodited, only worse.


Nobody&#39;s born religious. And there is nothing wrong with being black or gay.


But you&#39;re not going to achieve that. Why? Not one of you is a nice person. Nobody is going to want to join in on a revolution with a bunch of assholes. You need charisma to start a movement. None of you have a drop of it.

It doesn&#39;t matter what people think of us now. As marxists we know the revolution will happen. And this sentence proves that you are so far from a marxist as one can be.



So you&#39;re just INDIRECTLY forcing atheism on them, and only because you can&#39;t do it directly. That makes it MUCH better.

It&#39;s far more efficient at least. :)


I am arguing against your "views", as you call them, whatever you claim them to be. I don&#39;t see what&#39;s hard to understand about that.

Nothing, but the initial question was none the less: Can a person be both communist and religious.


By the way, I find your name ironic. Not only are you named after cold, hard destructive but "logical" machines whose intent lies with oppressing humanity, but what I think of when I read your name are the Sentinels from X-men - huge, soulless killing devices and minority oppression personified. I think that&#39;s what you will turn into if this "revolution" will ever occur.

LOL&#33;&#33; :lol:

I&#39;m not familiar with the X-Men. I&#39;m not from the USA and have never been very fond of comics anyway. I&#39;ve always been more into books

And The Sentinel is one of the greatest songs written by the heavy metal group Judas Priest.

[Kittie Rose]

I don&#39;t think there&#39;s any way that a "spiritual" person like yourself could either "sink" or "rise" to my level.

You see, that would require rationality...something that to you is unacceptable in principle.

For the last FUCKING time you are NOT rational. All your arguments are COMPLETELY unbacked and that means your view is ENTIRELY irrational, yet you STILL assert logic and rationality as your virtues&#33; You are an arrogant, disrespectful and hate filled person and that&#39;s an observation, not an attack.

You sound like a fucking idiot. I ought to show this board around so people can see how fucking stupid you are, people deserve to laugh once in a while.


What "original and amusing" thrills the "neo-Pagans" have in store for us...once they get organized and "go mainstream", of course. biggrin.gif

AAARGH&#33;? Did you take an IQ test and it came back negative or something? I already explained ten thousand times Neo-Paganism is not only organised, but cannot possibly be organised because it is not a religion but a collection of vaguely associated belief systems. Have you even cared to read up on that? Or even fucking LISTEN to what I&#39;m saying? You don&#39;t WANT to know, you don&#39;t WANT to read up because you already have your stupid fucked up worldview and will twist everything else to fit into your fantasy world of oppression and revolution. Actual fact gets away of that. If ever I needed a single quote to prove that your arguments are worth less than nothing, it&#39;s this.

You sick, pathetic, hate filled, bigotted, ignorant, destructive, elitist, disrespectful fucked up deformity of a human being. You&#39;re the most arrogant bunch of twats I&#39;ve ever met who&#39;ve crafted their board&#39;s rules exactly right so they can say anything they damn well want. I had a more enjoyable and tolerable experience among a bunch of right wingers, and I&#39;m not lying. At least they didn&#39;t make the pretense of being well read and all knowing.

You do not show a SHRED of rational thought. No doubt you&#39;ll respond to this by saying it&#39;s proof I couldn&#39;t handle a debate, ignoring the fact that you&#39;re all completely and utterly frustrating, self-absorbed and refuse to listen to anyone else&#39;s point of view WHATSOEVER. This forum being set up as a joke, it&#39;s just here because you sods probably got the shit beaten out of you on other forums for harassing religious people, so you made your own little bigot hole. It&#39;s really fucking sad.

You fucking sicken me, the lot of you. Impure wank stains upon a somewhat noble idea.

There was more logic in this emotion filled post than you&#39;ve offered in any topic in this forum. I find that sad and pathetic.

[Vinny Rafarino]

No doubt you&#39;ll respond to this by saying it&#39;s proof I couldn&#39;t handle a debate,

Rhetorical question, of course.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Kittie [email protected] 21 2006, 04:35 PM
I already explained ten thousand times Neo-Paganism is not only organised, but cannot possibly be organised because it is not a religion but a collection of vaguely associated belief systems.
"Not only organized" and "cannot possibly be organized" at the same time?

?


You sick, pathetic, hate filled, bigotted, ignorant, destructive, elitist, disrespectful fucked up deformity of a human being.

How "rational"... :rolleyes:


You&#39;re the most arrogant bunch of twats I&#39;ve ever met who&#39;ve crafted their board&#39;s rules exactly right so they can say anything they damn well want.

Well...it&#39;s "our" forum, in a way...

What were you expecting? :D


This forum being set up as a joke, it&#39;s just here because you sods probably got the shit beaten out of you on other forums for harassing religious people, so you made your own little bigot hole.

:lol:

[Amusing Scrotum]

Wow&#33;

It seems in less than a week, we have had the privilege (?) of watching two individuals go mad on the internet. Is there something in the air? :lol:

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Kittie [email protected] 21 2006, 02:09 PM

Actually, if I met you, I&#39;d probaly just knock you out with some sedatives and sew your fingers together. That&#39;d keep you busy for a while.
OMG&#33;&#33;&#33; YOU Fascist&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

You want to oppress us and sew all our fingers together, why cant you be tolerant?

:lol: :lol:

[Tormented by Treachery]

And we have officially reached a page where Neither side has presented information to support their opinion, just stated why they think the other person is a fucking moron.

What lively debate. Both sides: If you try to show someone you&#39;re right, don&#39;t insult them.


"Convince me of why you&#39;re right, and I&#39;ll walk through Hell with a squirtgun for you. Ridicule me for my beliefs, and Hell will freeze over before I agree with you, ever."

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by Tormented by [email protected] 21 2006, 06:42 PM
And we have officially reached a page where Neither side has presented information to support their opinion, just stated why they think the other person is a fucking moron.

What lively debate. Both sides: If you try to show someone you&#39;re right, don&#39;t insult them.


"Convince me of why you&#39;re right, and I&#39;ll walk through Hell with a squirtgun for you. Ridicule me for my beliefs, and Hell will freeze over before I agree with you, ever."
We dont have anything to prove. We dont have a positive assertion, its up to those who believe to provide us with proof and until then they can ***** about how we say there is no god.

And your little quote doesnt match the debate, we arent trying to get you to destrory "hell" we are saying THERE IS NO HELL.

[Sentinel]

For not a long time ago someone said something like: when you confront the religious they run out yelling. :)
Guess that is a common pattern of behavior among them.

Being at work, only capable of sneaking to our shared computer to check this one thread once in a while, who was the other person that went nuts recently? Post a thread?

Kittie: If you&#39;re still there, I&#39;d just like to clarify this.
When I said you were twisting our words I meant this:

Lazar:
Communism is not just an ecomonic model. Communism is many things. It is a socio-economic system based on Marxist economics. This is very different than a Communist. A communist is someone that agrees with Marxism. Marxism is based in logic. Religion is illogical. A communist cannot be religious.

Kittie Rose:
That statement is illogical. It is perfectly possible for a "religious" person to be more logical than a non-religious person, as religion is only one of many possible sources of "Illogic".

You answered to a statement he never made. He was talking about the concept of religion. It is not the same thing as: a religious person.

As in: "we don&#39;t hate all religious persons, but the concept of religion".

And there being other "possible" sources of illogic like schizophrenia, drug abuse and so on, doesn&#39;t make religion less illogic.

When you were incapable of countering the statement "Religion is illogical" you
just said something else. Nice trick but we are too damn smart for it. :D

Because we are rational people. :)

Yours truly, The Sentinel a.k.a. Mr. Huge, Soulless Killing Device

PS at least you got soulless right&#33; :lol:

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by The Sentinel+Jan 21 2006, 11:57 PM--> (The Sentinel &#064; Jan 21 2006, 11:57 PM)....who was the other person that went nuts recently?[/b]

Ownthink (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showuser=11545).


The Sentinel
Post a thread?

The rise of Eco Fascism, Interesting Read&#33;&#33;111 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45091&hl=)

The other thread (Marxist Propaganda or something), in Events and Propaganda which I moved to to the Trashcan, seems to have been deleted permanently (thankfully&#33;).

[Publius]

I don&#39;t think there&#39;s any way that a "spiritual" person like yourself could either "sink" or "rise" to my level.

You see, that would require rationality...something that to you is unacceptable in principle.

For the last FUCKING time you are NOT rational. All your arguments are COMPLETELY unbacked and that means your view is ENTIRELY irrational, yet you STILL assert logic and rationality as your virtues&#33; You are an arrogant, disrespectful and hate filled person and that&#39;s an observation, not an attack.

You sound like a fucking idiot. I ought to show this board around so people can see how fucking stupid you are, people deserve to laugh once in a while.


What "original and amusing" thrills the "neo-Pagans" have in store for us...once they get organized and "go mainstream", of course. biggrin.gif

AAARGH&#33;? Did you take an IQ test and it came back negative or something? I already explained ten thousand times Neo-Paganism is not only organised, but cannot possibly be organised because it is not a religion but a collection of vaguely associated belief systems. Have you even cared to read up on that? Or even fucking LISTEN to what I&#39;m saying? You don&#39;t WANT to know, you don&#39;t WANT to read up because you already have your stupid fucked up worldview and will twist everything else to fit into your fantasy world of oppression and revolution. Actual fact gets away of that. If ever I needed a single quote to prove that your arguments are worth less than nothing, it&#39;s this.

You sick, pathetic, hate filled, bigotted, ignorant, destructive, elitist, disrespectful fucked up deformity of a human being. You&#39;re the most arrogant bunch of twats I&#39;ve ever met who&#39;ve crafted their board&#39;s rules exactly right so they can say anything they damn well want. I had a more enjoyable and tolerable experience among a bunch of right wingers, and I&#39;m not lying. At least they didn&#39;t make the pretense of being well read and all knowing.

You do not show a SHRED of rational thought. No doubt you&#39;ll respond to this by saying it&#39;s proof I couldn&#39;t handle a debate, ignoring the fact that you&#39;re all completely and utterly frustrating, self-absorbed and refuse to listen to anyone else&#39;s point of view WHATSOEVER. This forum being set up as a joke, it&#39;s just here because you sods probably got the shit beaten out of you on other forums for harassing religious people, so you made your own little bigot hole. It&#39;s really fucking sad.

You fucking sicken me, the lot of you. Impure wank stains upon a somewhat noble idea.

There was more logic in this emotion filled post than you&#39;ve offered in any topic in this forum. I find that sad and pathetic.

Congratulations, you lose at the internet.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Kittie Rose
You sick, pathetic, hate filled, bigotted, ignorant, destructive, elitist, disrespectful fucked up deformity of a human being.

I think you win the "hate-filled" competition. :lol:

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

[Tormented by Treachery]

Originally posted by nate+Jan 21 2006, 11:11 PM--> (nate @ Jan 21 2006, 11:11 PM)
Tormented by [email protected] 21 2006, 06:42 PM
And we have officially reached a page where Neither side has presented information to support their opinion, just stated why they think the other person is a fucking moron.

What lively debate. Both sides: If you try to show someone you&#39;re right, don&#39;t insult them.


"Convince me of why you&#39;re right, and I&#39;ll walk through Hell with a squirtgun for you. Ridicule me for my beliefs, and Hell will freeze over before I agree with you, ever."
We dont have anything to prove. We dont have a positive assertion, its up to those who believe to provide us with proof and until then they can ***** about how we say there is no god.

And your little quote doesnt match the debate, we arent trying to get you to destrory "hell" we are saying THERE IS NO HELL. [/b]
You miss my point, comrade. It is an idiom relating to the fact that if you are trying to win someone over to your belief, whether it be marxism or if there really is a santa claus, you should not insult them as you&#39;re doing it. Forgive me for using a religious saying :lol:

[KC]

One aspect of a person does not make up the whole. If you believe in a single illogical thing, which I guarantee you do since you&#39;re "human" or something vaguely remsembling it anyway, that also makes you fallible to illogical thought, which makes you an illogical person. What you&#39;re talking about is pure religious discrimination and bigotry. Unfortunately for you, holding strong bigotted views is most certainly enough to make your whole a bigot.


Actually I don&#39;t believe anything that is illogical. And if I do then I don&#39;t realize it, and if it was pointed out to me I would stop believing it. That is what a logical person does. You, however, don&#39;t do that. You continue to believe in religion and therefore you are illogical. That is what seperates people like you (crazy) from people like me (sensible).



Your terms are asinine.

Your arguments are asinine, as are your debating skills and your lack of logical thought.



No, this is where your fault lies. You have not backed a single point with evidence yet you force your opinions with fact. This is illogical, and THAT is fact, you can read up on logic on wikipedia if you do not believe me. Do you understand me? I have a shitload of debating under my belts. I&#39;ve argued with both fundies and atheists for many years. I&#39;ve read up on how to argue. I know what the fuck I&#39;m talking about.


I don&#39;t have to back up any points. You do. God is an introduced concept. Therefore, it must be proven to exist or it doesn&#39;t exist. Temporal logic (more specifically, Tense logic). So my argument that "god doesn&#39;t exist" is true. Why? Where&#39;s my evidence? My evidence is in the fact that you haven&#39;t provided any evidence for the existence of god. The nonexistence of god is true until the existence of god is proven true. You apparently don&#39;t know what you&#39;re talking about at all.



Because Marxism rejects it doesn&#39;t make it "Logical". You are using circular reason to justify your beliefs. I have no problem if you hold those personal beliefs, it&#39;s your attitude towards those who do hold belief that is unjust and immature. There is nothing to say that materialism is for definite the most logical path. Considering that human beings are by nature, not machines, and therefore illogical, even logic itself may not apply. You have proven nothing, you have provided evidence for nothing.


Marxism is based on logic. If something isn&#39;t logical then it isn&#39;t Marxist. It is transitive, not circular. Materialism is the most logical path; in fact, it&#39;s the only logical path. Human beings aren&#39;t illogical by nature. Of course, that&#39;s irrelevent as it doesn&#39;t matter if humans are illogical or not. You&#39;re missing the point. In order to understand the world logic is the only means by which to do so. That is why, without logic we have nothing. No science. No math. No society. Nothing.



Yet you and your comrades don&#39;t seem very phased at the idea that society will reject the spiritual "leftovers".

Of course we&#39;re not "phased". There&#39;s no point. Communist society will shape itself. Morality will change. What&#39;s good or bad now might not be in the future. I can say that religious people will be treated as strange or crazy in the future. Does it really matter what I think? Of course not. I am describing a future society; I am not describing my feelings on the issue. Of course, you have to be crazy to believe in such rubbish :lol:


If you truly fought oppression, you would have a problem with this.

We&#39;re not fighting oppression. We are fighting oppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie. If we just fought oppression, then we would also have to fight against the proletariat when they oppress the bourgeoisie&#33;&#33;&#33; Talk about a double standard&#33;


Regardless, if you are fighting for a world in which people will "voluntarily" turn away from religion, even those who blatantly chose it themselves to begin with, you are fighting against my spirituality, and you are fighting against me. Your world WOULD persecute me, so I have every right to be outspoken.

Actually you&#39;ll be dead. We&#39;re talking about hundreds of years in the future. It doesn&#39;t matter what you think. It doesn&#39;t matter that people are still choosing religion now. The next generation will be less religious, and the one after that even less. Some religious people will even turn away from it (I believe that the majority will). Of course, you would be fighting against the entire human race as these are the people who will perform what I advocate, regardless of what I (or you) do. You connect too much with your ideas and that is why you are impossible to debate with. You are asinine.



"Everyone is wrong and I&#39;m right" isn&#39;t "debating", idiot.

The quote I was responding to wasn&#39;t really debate, asshat.



Why do unintelligent people always accuse their opposition of what they themselves are blatantly guilty of? Neo-cons do it all the time.


I did no such thing.




It still was originated in Marxism and is an example of what supposed communism can mutate into. The reason this will happen again is that many people here have views bordering on fascism, which isn&#39;t compatible with communism.

You continue to prove your lack of understanding of Marxist theory. It was originated in Leninism, which is an extraordinarily different theory than Marxism.




They are not a waste to me and they happen to be my most valued posessions. I would not call something that brings me such pleasure a "waste of labour-power". However, it appears your primitive way of thinking disallows you from discerning opinion and fact.

They are a waste of labour-power because there is more productive things that people can do. Also, if you are against organized religion then why are you for organized production of religious artifacts en masse?


And why should I make them myself?

Because you&#39;re the only person that will want it.



You&#39;ve provided no convincing reasons why nothing religious should be made in factories. They are produce, like any other, and provide happiness to those that recieve them, much like entertainment

Because in a communist society people that continue to have religious views will have radically different beliefs. Nobody will have the same views as you. I see no more point in arguing this, though, as the majority of people will be atheist.


Are you against all forms of entertainment, then? You don&#39;t seem to like things that make people happy very much.

You sure are a fan of the slippery slope.



Strong assertions, little man. Do you back them with your fists, or just your arrogance? I am stronger and have survived more than you could imagine. The proletariat as a whole will not stand for the abolishing of things that give them access to art. Your "revolution" if it should occur would be a fragment of the whole.


If you are alive you will be very old. You will probably die.


If someone as pathetic as you can start a movement, then someone as independant and strong willed as I sure as hell can.

I&#39;m not seeking to start a movement. The proletariat will do that on its own.




Personal anecdotes mean little, especially through your biased, jaded vision. If anything, atheists are more commonly the produce rebellion against strict catholic parents.

Regardless, they are still atheist. So my "biased, jaded vision" doesn&#39;t really matter.



Decline does not mean tending towards Zero. What you are saying defies all mathematics used for measure such trends.

The fact that religion has been on the decline and losing power since the rise of the catholic church is pretty powerful evidence. A constant decline for hundreds, perhaps even thousands of years is very powerful evidence indeed.



If someone doesn&#39;t believe in Deck chairs, should they not have to make them? Look who&#39;s being reactionary now.


A deck chair isn&#39;t a belief. You&#39;re horrible at analogies.



Another unbacked assertion. What are you, 11 1/2?

A chance to "go mainstream" is worth millions, regardless of how much it upsets you. Profits will skyrocket. You being upset won&#39;t change that. Deal with it.



You are the one using the strawman of religious people, you have no right to accuse me of that.

That wasn&#39;t me. Quote me on where I used it.


It is not that you are directly forcing this, it&#39;s that you are creating a world in which it will be allowed and encouraged to happen in such a way that it is really just indirect forcing.

I&#39;m not creating a world at all. The proletariat will create it. You are powerless to it.



No, society will(in the extremely unlikely possibility that this happens) alienate these people because people like you say things like this.


That doesn&#39;t even make sense. Society will alienate these people because societal norms won&#39;t tolerate it.



No, it isn&#39;t, only major religions. I am considered a minority of sorts because of my religion. How on earth are they using a religion they&#39;re opposed to to control me?


All religions support bourgeois rule, regardless of whether or not the bourgeoisie is directly controlling them. The very fact that you have to turn away from reality supports the bourgeoisie.




Another unbacked assertion.

So you can prove spirituality to be logically true? Go for it&#33;


In a debate, I most certainly do. I do not use my spiritual beliefs to back my arguments, only my right to have them.


If you relied on logic and proof you wouldn&#39;t be spiritual because you would be relying on logic and proof to make the decision to believe in spirituality or not&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;



Read your post and notice a distinct lack of quotes, links, studies, logical constructs or anything past "Religions r ghey lol".

Prove your religion and I will agree with you. Prove any religion and I will agree with you. Prove that I am illogical and I will agree with you. Prove that any of my arguements are wrong and I will change my mind. I don&#39;t need to prove anything because you are the one coming to illogical conclusions. If you used logic you wouldn&#39;t come to the conclusions that you have come to. That is all the evidence that I need. This would be where you logically prove your conclusions.


I am only defending the right for one to believe as they wish as you have not provided anything resembling convincing evidence to show otherwise.

People can believe whatever they want&#33; I agree with you&#33; What you don&#39;t realize is that I don&#39;t have to respect people&#39;s beliefs. That is what debate is about. Criticism and self-criticism are what make society progress.



Are you that fat kid who dresses up at Mr. Spock at every Star Trek convention and always gets a bit too into character, by any chance?

Do you disagree with me?



Another one line answer that essentially explains nothing. Is that it? Explain to me why I&#39;m wrong instead of telling me why I&#39;m wrong, and you&#39;ll get somewhere.

Communism has only been attempted through Leninism and Maoism. Marxism was attempted once, with the Paris Commune, and was destroyed because those involved failed to realize that capitalism had a long ways to develop. Marxist revolution will be implemented once capitalism has developed fully and the contradictions inherent in capitalism will make the system collapse in on itself.



My religion has nothing to do with this argument.

I am introducing it into the debate.


You are the one attacking, proposing the motion that religion should be removed.

Religion will be removed. It doesn&#39;t matter what I think.


I do not wish to debate the content of my beliefs as they have no bearing on the argument at hand. You wish to drag them in because it&#39;s the only way you can win.

Well if it&#39;s a way I can win then doesn&#39;t that go to show that your beliefs are, in fact, illogical and you are unable to defend them? You yourself just admitted that it would be a way for me to "win". So if you can&#39;t defend your beliefs then why believe them?



Or hey, how about the traditional way? Tie him in a wicker basket, tie the basket to a tree-trunk high in the air, and then set the tree on fire&#33;

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Let&#39;s review some key points in this debate:

1. God is an introduced concept. If you introduce a concept, according to temporal logic, you must prove it to be true unless the original truth remains to be true (God=not true remains true until God=true is proven). Since god is an introduced concept, the original truth is that god doesn&#39;t exist. Therefore, god doesn&#39;t exist until it is proven that it does. You must either prove the existence of god or believe that it doesn&#39;t exist if you want to remain logical.

2. A person is logical because, when given a chance, they will choose the logical response to an issue. If they hold illogical beliefs, they do so without knowing it, and when these illogical beliefs are presented to them, they change them. This is what a logical person is.

3. Logic is the only means by which we have to understand the universe.

4. I agree with the fact that people should be allowed to believe whatever they want. However, I don&#39;t have to respect anyone&#39;s beliefs. If I feel that beliefs are wrong (wrong means illogical. #3 applies here) then I will openly say so. I will not remain silent, nor will I be agressive about it (in your case I became agressive as you were aggressive to me right from the beginning).

5. Ideas are seperate from the people which hold them. An idea is as much a part of a person as a file is a part of a computer, or value is part of a commodity, etc...

6. Going back to what this thread was about, communism and religion don&#39;t mix. Marxism is the foundation of communsim. Logic is the foundation of Marxism. Logic is diametrically opposed to religion. Transitively communism is diametrically opposed to religion.

NOW: I have laid out my arguments in a very organized and systematic fashion. If you wish to have productive debate I suggest that you do the same.

EDIT: Considering the fact that you fail to argue any of this sensibly, I suggest that you shorten your response to this or I will probably just respond to a few points in your post as this is turning out to be a huge waste of time for m1e.

[violencia.Proletariat]

You miss my point, comrade. It is an idiom relating to the fact that if you are trying to win someone over to your belief, whether it be marxism or if there really is a santa claus, you should not insult them as you&#39;re doing it. Forgive me for using a religious saying :lol:

Im not trying to win "kittie rose" over, and its not to a "belief". She is illogical and really has no hope. I have toned down my arguement from insults yet she has not. The people I&#39;m after are those who are unsure, those who are 100% sure there is a god and are going to defend that side to death will not "come over" to our side.