Judicial equality ?

[cormacobear]

Since the new trend of handing out warning points ofr not discussing religion in a negative light, I 'm wondering how many warning points have been handed out to those "Preaching " Athiesm.

I'd hoped to make this a poll, but i've gone from an elder CC member to reviled exile, not for my beliefs which after desperate searching they failed to prove reactionary, but because I refused to renounce my faith.

But I like most CC members profess to be a firm believer of equality, and would like to know how well the CC's rhetoric match their actions.

[redstar2000]

You don't have any warning points.

What's your gripe?

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

[VonClausewitz]

I think their 'gripe' is that it's fine for an Atheist to preach how religion is obviously fake because they say so, and have that really evasive 'burden of proof' to back them up, and how that any type of religion is evil and mean and obviously the worst thing ever, but a person who says anything even vaguely positive about religion is shunned. Or did I miss something ?

[violencia.Proletariat]

Communists aren't religious, no matter how much you whine.

[Sentinel]

and have that really evasive 'burden of proof' to back them up,

How about you refute it in some way? Why isn't the burden of proof on the ones that make a positive claim? Lazar's thread made it a 'hell' of a lot faster to dispute theist arguments. :lol:

Saying the same thing over and over again is frustrating, you know.

It's nice to see people fall silent, it hardens your conviction! I haven't seen anyone disprove that thread in any way yet, and would really like to see someone try. A good laugh prolonges life, they say. :D


Or did I miss something ?

Not really, except that this is a progressive community.

[VonClausewitz]

I just see that burden of proof thing as some quasi-academic excuse for you people not to have a proper theological debate. Basically, someone says something about religion, you say there is no God, and then because of that thread, don't have to back up what you say at all. It's ridiculous frankly, if you don't know enough to discuss theology, fine, but hiding behind some smokescreen reeks of either cowardice or just plain ignorance.

It doesn't make it easier for you to dispute anything, it makes it easier for you not to have to prove anything, to in effect, dismiss an argument that has raged for centuries. You can't prove that there aren't Gods, I can't (and really don't want to) prove that there is, it's just one of lifes little certainties. You'd probably make more of a name for yourselfs if you got together and cooked up a theological way to dispute the existence of Gods


Not really, except that this is a progressive community.

Progressing towards what ? Religious intolerance ? That isn't doing the world much good right now, I'd hate to think what trouble a bunch of armed atheists could cause. I support some of social things you people believe in, but some of it is just PC rubbish.

[chaval]

what about the occams razor argument? i think its a terrible argument. just cause you might be able to explain "x" without accounting for "y" doesnt mean that "y" didnt have anything to do with "x"

just cause you can find a simpler answer without adding further complexities doesnt mean those complexities dont exist in real life

[violencia.Proletariat]

but some of it is just PC rubbish.

,


Progressing towards what ? Religious intolerance ?

So what is it? PC bullshit or us being anti-moral whiners? You are a hypocrite.


I just see that burden of proof thing as some quasi-academic excuse for you people not to have a proper theological debate. Basically, someone says something about religion, you say there is no God, and then because of that thread, don't have to back up what you say at all.

How can you back up the denial of something that doesn't exist!!!!!!?????????

If something doesn't exist, thats all there is to it. Do you wan't a 100 page essay on why something is not there?


You can't prove that there aren't Gods

You can't prove there aren't purple unicorns prancing around on earth. But based on the evidence we have, there are no purple unicorns or any evidence pointing to it. The same goes for god.

[VonClausewitz]

You can't prove there aren't purple unicorns prancing around on earth. But based on the evidence we have, there are no purple unicorns or any evidence pointing to it. The same goes for god.

Crap argument - purple unicorns would have been noticed, and recorded. They're very easy to disprove - no skelletons, no pictures, no records. Gods are something apparently metaphysical, it's a completely different argument when compared to facetious crap about unicorns.


So what is it? PC bullshit or us being anti-moral whiners? You are a hypocrite.

I never said anti-moral, I said it seems most of you are liking towards religious intolerance. You can have both by the way, it's very easy. People aren't made of extremes, the world would be an even more bloody place if they were.


If something doesn't exist, thats all there is to it.

See, this is the hole in your argument - you can't prove that there are no Gods, there is no scientific, physical way for you to disprove what the religious believe in.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Negative statements about God are not falsifiable - they cannot be proven false.

Believer: "disprove god's existance!"

Atheist: "We haven't detected him"

Believer: "That's because you're blinded by sin"

You see, you can come up with all sort of bullshit rationalisation about why something cannot be verified.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by VonClausewitz+Apr 13 2006, 11:11 PM--> (VonClausewitz @ Apr 13 2006, 11:11 PM)
If something doesn't exist, thats all there is to it.

See, this is the hole in your argument - you can't prove that there are no Gods, there is no scientific, physical way for you to disprove what the religious believe in. [/b]

That&#39;s cause they believe. <_<

Anyway, if the Religious would provide us with an exact location for God(s), then we could investigate....so it&#39;s up to them.

If I recall correctly, after the invention of the modern telescope and the subsequent findings that there was no "God in the sky"....the Vatican put out a "death warrant" on the inventor which was lifted in 1997&#33;

So, once upon a time we did have a definition from the Catholic Clergy, and it was disproved&#33;

So all that&#39;s left is, as you said, belief.

Perhaps though the Catholics could provide us with another definition....but surely this would show that they weren&#39;t consistent and therefore the "scripture" was wrong.

Edit: Just looked up the scenario, it was Galileo and the Catholic Church "renounced" its order of execution in 1998 and not 1997 as I said.

Anyway, I was also incorrect in my summary of why the Catholic Church got pissed off. Rather than the telescope showing that there was no God (which it did do), the Vatican objected because....


Mark Steel
Galileo, having redesigned the the telescope, discovered that Jupiter had several moons. This upset the Pope, as there were supposed to be seven heavenly bodies - the sun, the moon and five planets - because seven was the heavenly number.

So the Church forced Galileo to renounce his findings or be executed....

Page 27 of Vive La Revolution by Mark Steel.

But still, the Religious in this case had an opinion and science disproved it.

What more can science do?

[violencia.Proletariat]

Crap argument - purple unicorns would have been noticed, and recorded.

A great all powerful being in a huge paradise would be invisible if it were real? :lol:


They&#39;re very easy to disprove - no skelletons, no pictures, no records.

I haven&#39;t seen god&#39;s skeleton, pictures of him, or any records.


Gods are something apparently metaphysical

No wonder you can&#39;t prove his existence :P


I said it seems most of you are liking towards religious intolerance.

Which is something people who call things "too pc" usually call "being pc."


See, this is the hole in your argument - you can&#39;t prove that there are no Gods, there is no scientific, physical way for you to disprove what the religious believe in.

Science can&#39;t disprove something that has no existence. That&#39;s HOW IT WORKS.

I really wonder if people are still going to be taking the idea of god as truth in 2500, I sure hope not :(

[VonClausewitz]

Science can&#39;t disprove something that has no existence

Aye true, but it also can&#39;t do anything without evidence against, evidence for, of evidence in general. There are a lot of things that science can and can not prove, the religious debate just happens to be the most important unfortunately, which is why it&#39;s gone on for hundreds of years. Make no mistake, I don&#39;t care either way, I was just trying to say that &#39;the burden of proof is on you&#39; being used on the offensive is a little ridiculous. It&#39;s less childish on the defensive though, in lieu of a proper argument.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by VonClausewitz
I think their &#39;gripe&#39; is that it&#39;s fine for an Atheist to preach how religion is obviously fake because they say so...but a person who says anything even vaguely positive about religion is shunned. Or did I miss something?

Um...yeah. You "missed" a very large number of posts in the Religion subforum in which people have said "positive things" about religion and did not receive warning points or get banned.

"Positive" statements do not receive a "friendly reception" here...that&#39;s true.

Why would you expect otherwise? Communism is supposed to be a rational and scientific view of reality; why ever would we be "receptive" to views fundamentally opposed to both?

Go to one of the message boards set up for young science students and start babbling about "God"...you&#39;d get banned&#33; They don&#39;t have any time to waste on that crap.

That might eventually be the case on this board...people are, I think, becoming less "tolerant" of that crap here.

Do you blame us? Do you need "more examples" of the horror of religion?

Check out this one...

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48710

Nice folks, godsuckers. :angry:

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

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 11:11 PM





Crap argument - purple unicorns would have been noticed, and recorded. They&#39;re very easy to disprove - no skelletons, no pictures, no records. Gods are something apparently metaphysical, it&#39;s a completely different argument when compared to facetious crap about unicorns.

A &#39;metaphysical&#39; being cannot be proved physically.

If he could, he wouldn&#39;t really be &#39;meta&#39;physical, now would he?

God is a non-walking contradiction.

Asserting his metaphysicallity is admitting his impossiblity.

It&#39;s bullshit sophistry.

If God isn&#39;t falsfiable, then he isn&#39;t real, or he doesn&#39;t matter, which roughly equates to the same thing.

For him to have any effect on the Universe, he would have be detectable, &#39;physical&#39;, falsfiable, or, things would have to be happening that could not be explained physically.

On both of these counts, God fails.

None has any evidence of God existing, or any evidence that God has ever done anything. Thus assigning properties like metaphysicallity to God is applying a property to something non-real; it&#39;s meaningless.

Secondly, we have an astounding track record of proving things physically. In fact, science has never once had to claim &#39;metphysicality&#39; or &#39;God&#39;. The problems always seem to come out physical.

After 2000+ of scientific inquiry, don&#39;t ya think we might have found some hint of &#39;God&#39;? Something that could not be explained?

As is clearly evinced, God is irrational; it&#39;s safe to say that he does not exist, and even safer to say that if he does exist, he really isn&#39;t that relevent.

At best, you could say deism has a shred of plausability, simply becuase it makes no positives claims about God.



See, this is the hole in your argument - you can&#39;t prove that there are no Gods, there is no scientific, physical way for you to disprove what the religious believe in.

It depends on the religion.

Deism, probably not.

Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, probably.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by VonClausewitz
See, this is the hole in your argument - you can&#39;t prove that there are no Gods, there is no scientific, physical way for you to disprove what the religious believe in.
I don&#39;t think this is a &#39;hole&#39;, but you&#39;re quite accurate: we can&#39;t prove that &#39;god&#39; doesn&#39;t exist.

But you can&#39;t prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn&#39;t exist either.

Negatives really can&#39;t be proven. Positives can be proven.

So, if you want us to get on our knees for this god character, you must first prove that it exists. After all, why follow the rules of a deity if we don&#39;t even know whether the deity exists?

So where&#39;s you proof of god?

[theraven]

god is a belief, his actual existance or non-existance is a moot point. if you believe in him (or some varaiotn ) then thats aweosme. I do and I have no problems related to it.

[cormacobear]

Weather god exists or not and weather we are providing historical continuity, and preserving history, [(Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. G Santayana] with our religious traditions, or wasting time. Is not your concern. It’s OUR time and you absolutely cannot be a leftist if you won’t allow non-political association. For gods sake the whole leftist enterprise is devoted to the single notion that we are all equal and deserving of at least equality in judgement. That we be judged on our actions and our comments not those of our ancestors, or so wide an association as religion.

You on both sides somehow mistakenly believe that gods existence is relevant. What people do with their beliefs and associations is no concern of ours. So long as they’re INDIVIDUAL actions are not working against there fellow man. And that their individual actions have always been and are consistently working to improve equality and communism. I’ll not condemn you for being a Mason, or a Shriner, or a knight of Columbus, or an accordion player. So long as your speech and actions show you to be of noble character and a friend of mankind.

I&#39;m a member of a dozen scientific sites regarding astrophysics, astronomy, anthropolgy, sociology, psychology, hematology, anatomy, bio-chemistry, etc. etc. etc. your intolerance towards those who hold religious beliefs is by far more extreme than that which occurs in non social sciences but actual science.Your efforts to exclude and silence the voices of like minded individuals over details and semantics including those whose social associations you don&#39;t like reaks of Macarthyism, sectarianism, and intolerance.

Judging men born now, and who come here seeking the brotherhood of man, on the actions of their predescessors or the worst of their multi million person groupings ( "A christian is a homophobe because that&#39;s what their perants believed" <_<, {sarcasm}) reeks of nationalism, racism, religious biggotry etc. etc. etc.. The Catholic church is not the Nazi party half of the greatest liberators and Leftist organizers were clergy, and almost all their followers and believers from the dawn of self respect to the miners marching through Bolivia were and are believers in god.
exclude all these, exclude everyone, but you 20 bitter, blind, intolerant athiests, if you hope to retain a shred of others respect should at least match your rhetoric to your actions and treat athiest pronunciations like those of any other obviously religious positioning statement.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by theraven
I do and I have no problems related to it.

I&#39;m not surprised at that; you are honestly opposed to what we support.

What gives us problems are those who claim to support the emancipation of the proletariat and yet also support some ignorant superstition that has oppressed and exploited people for literally centuries&#33; And is still doing it today&#33;

And plans to do it forever&#33; :o

Is it not self-evident that this is intolerable to us?

Imagine the spectacle if I went to a cappie message board and claimed to be a "good neo-con" who just happens to "ultimately believe that Stalin was right". :lol:

Did you happen to notice the claim in the Religion Subforum that "there will be free enterprise in Heaven"? :lol:

Yeah, that&#39;s where "modern religion" is going these days. Look for a "First Church of Enron" coming soon to a neighborhood near you. :lol:

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

[violencia.Proletariat]

That we be judged on our actions and our comments not those of our ancestors, or so wide an association as religion.

Your ancestors are just a confirmation of what your doing now. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS REPRESSIVE RIGHT FUCKING NOW&#33; Catholicism is oppressive RIGHT NOW&#33;


What people do with their beliefs and associations is no concern of ours.

If they KEEP IT TO THEMSELVES, no it&#39;s not. When they erect reactionary institutions, damn straights it&#39;s our concern&#33;


So long as your speech and actions show you to be of noble character and a friend of mankind.

:lol: tell that to the church


Judging men born now, and who come here seeking the brotherhood of man, on the actions of their predescessors or the worst of their multi million person groupings ( "A christian is a homophobe because that&#39;s what their perants believed" <_<, {sarcasm}) reeks of nationalism, racism, religious biggotry etc. etc. etc..

"Brother hood of man"? I don&#39;t recall ever seeking that, maybe the unity of proletarians, but I don&#39;t associate by gender. Maybe that&#39;s another hint at what your religion has done to you ;)

A Christian who believes in the bible IS A HOMOPHOBE, the bible IS HOMOPHOBIC&#33;


The Catholic church is not the Nazi party half of the greatest liberators and Leftist organizers were clergy

The new pope WAS A FUCKING NAZI :lol: :lol: :lol:


exclude all these, exclude everyone, but you 20 bitter, blind, intolerant athiests

We exclude the openly religious from leftist leadership because there is no room for that bullshit&#33; We&#39;ve had this discussion 1000 times and I don&#39;t think it&#39;s necessary again, do you?


if you hope to retain a shred of others respect

I don&#39;t remember the last time I was trying to appeal to catholics in third world countries :lol:

[cormacobear]

Wow, RedStar; brilliant defense of your notion that athiests should be permitted to openly evangelize their religious beliefs at will with Carte Blanche on the site , w while asking our members oppinions on a bible verse in ones first few threads warrants a warning ppoint. :o ;) which is the subject of the thread

[cormacobear]

Yes Nate, you&#39;re wrong to exclude all the proletariat from those you&#39;re willing to work with on the grounds their christian or any other religion. so the debate is still nescessary instead of anecdotal wisecracks try defending your position. It&#39;s not the position of Marx Engels, Connelly, Luxemburg, and virtually every other respected leftist ideological contributer.

[violencia.Proletariat]

brilliant defense of your notion that athiests should be permitted to openly evangelize their religious beliefs at will

Atheists aren&#39;t religious, thats why they are "A THEIST".


you&#39;re wrong to exclude all the proletariat from those you&#39;re willing to work with on the grounds their christian or any other religion

1st world proletarians are of my concern when it comes to communist revolutions. The first world proletariat is becoming less and less religious. 50 years from now your statement will most likely be obsolete.


It&#39;s not the position of Marx Engels, Connelly, Luxemburg, and virtually every other respected leftist ideological contributer.

Actually most theoreticians I&#39;ve read denounce god in all forms, well the anarchists anyways :P Karl Marx had a revolutionary perspective of capitalist society, but that doesn&#39;t mean he could see the future. And guess what, we have seen that religion represses revolutions or sells them out. Something Marx couldn&#39;t have seen, but we can.

[cormacobear]

well if i&#39;m right for the next fifty years that will have to do. So I assume you&#39;re going to shut up for fifty years until it&#39;s no longer the truth.

Religion did nothing religion isn&#39;t an annimate object men did things, some good some very bad. Some clergy worked to quell revolutions and numerous clergy inspired and began revolutions. read some history.

[KC]

I just see that burden of proof thing as some quasi-academic excuse for you people not to have a proper theological debate.

Well, that&#39;s because there&#39;s no debate to be had.


Basically, someone says something about religion, you say there is no God, and then because of that thread, don&#39;t have to back up what you say at all.

We don&#39;t have to back up what we say. Theists do. They are making the positive assertion so it is their responsibility to back up their position. Until they do that there&#39;s no reason to believe what they say.


it makes it easier for you not to have to prove anything

Because we don&#39;t have to prove anything.


You can&#39;t prove that there aren&#39;t Gods, I can&#39;t (and really don&#39;t want to) prove that there is

The whole point is that we don&#39;t need to "prove there are no gods".


Crap argument - purple unicorns would have been noticed, and recorded.

Not if they&#39;re invisible&#33; And silent&#33; And transparent&#33; :o


They&#39;re very easy to disprove - no skelletons, no pictures, no records.

How about psionic spiders living at the center of Mars controlling everyones&#39; minds?



See, this is the hole in your argument - you can&#39;t prove that there are no Gods, there is no scientific, physical way for you to disprove what the religious believe in.

We don&#39;t have to&#33; ;)


I was just trying to say that &#39;the burden of proof is on you&#39; being used on the offensive is a little ridiculous.

Well, the burden of proof is on theists. So why should we even have to formulate a response to their assertion until they overcome that burden?


god is a belief

God is a belief? :huh: That doesn&#39;t even make sense. Why would you believe in a belief?


his actual existance or non-existance is a moot point.

Why doesn&#39;t it matter? If you believe in it then you obviously think it exists. If you proclaim that it exists then you must back up your proclamation. Since you have failed to do so, you&#39;re wrong.


Yes Nate, you&#39;re wrong to exclude all the proletariat from those you&#39;re willing to work with on the grounds their christian or any other religion. so the debate is still nescessary instead of anecdotal wisecracks try defending your position. It&#39;s not the position of Marx Engels, Connelly, Luxemburg, and virtually every other respected leftist ideological contributer.

This board isn&#39;t representative of the proletariat. We can attack religion all we want here. Should we attack religion in public? No. Should we question it and guide people towards atheism? Yes.

[violencia.Proletariat]

I assume you&#39;re going to shut up for fifty years until it&#39;s no longer the truth.

Hardly. I&#39;ll have plenty of organizational work and be taking part in things such as what happened in France this past couple months when the oppertunity arises.


Religion did nothing religion isn&#39;t an annimate object men did things, some good some very bad.

And those men should be judged, our heavenly lord will spite those who.... :lol: The bible, koran, etc are all full of god inspired and supported massacres and injustices. FUCK EM.


and numerous clergy inspired and began revolutions

Wooo the eln, what revolution have they inspired? At least the atheistic FARC isn&#39;t giving up :lol:

And that god sucker you continually parade around from Ireland, real revolution there :rolleyes:

[EneME]

This is a prime example of why I haven&#39;t been on RL in quite awhile, and I apologize Cormaco for not having been present or aware of what was going on. Unlike most, I spend most of my time, not on a message board, but working towards the ability to make a social change. Instead of becoming a community of: sharing ideas, enhancing our knowledge, and a general networking of leftists around the world; it has become a witchhunt of who does or who does not fit into certain categories. As if human&#39;s were created to be polar opposites of one another, human existence is not black or white, but lives in the shades of gray. A leftist like myself who is an immigrant working class woman of color in california, will have a VASTLY different human experience than someone who has lived on the other side of the world. So, eventhough we are all leftists, some of us have had different experiences and have been socialized differently. This labeling and categorization is exactly what will keep capitalism alive, and continue to shatter the revolutionary left. We are our own enemy, and will impede any sort of successful revolution. I come from a place where many revolutionaries, supporters of the revolution, and the oppressed working class believe in a higher power; and they all faught for equality, and many gave up their lives for it. Most persons who are oppressed, exploited, and enslaved in this world are people of some sort of faith because it is their only hope for escape/freedom. This is one of the ways this board will continue to perpetuate the status quo, instead of fighting it. Instead of seeing human&#39;s as products of their environment, or victims of oppression and exploitation, they will be judged, interogated, ridiculed, and humiliated. Cormaco, we&#39;ll just have to move on, because at the root of it all, this is just an INTERNET FORUM. I am not a pseudo/internet leftist so that I can cut and judge other progressives, my political stance is my life source, my core, and my being that has created all my morals and values sans any religion. It never began, nor will it end on a message board. Rise above it, fuck it&#33;

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by EneME
Unlike most, I spend most of my time, not on a message board, but working towards the ability to make a social change.

That&#39;s a reasonable explanation for the decline in your frequency of posting.

But when you do post, does that make your ideas "better" than those of some old guy (like me&#33;) who physically cannot "hit the streets" like he once did?

Is there some "law of nature" that says people who, for one reason or another, are confined to the internet as their political "focus" therefore "must" have "worse ideas" than those who are still young and healthy and can physically give the ruling class a hard time? Or those who have, for that matter, found a political group in which they can function productively?

My position is that ideas stand or fall on their merits...not who said them or when they were first said or even what the social context happened to be at the time. "Activists" can have good ideas or bad ideas. The same is true of "academics" or "philosophers" or "social scientists" or some guy who stumbles across this board as a consequence of a google search.

The proposition that "I am more active than you" and "therefore my ideas are better than yours" will not stand&#33;


Instead of becoming a community of: sharing ideas, enhancing our knowledge, and a general networking of leftists around the world; it has become a witchhunt of who does or who does not fit into certain categories.

Indeed...the main "category" being who is a leftist?

What do we mean when we use that word?

The implication of your statement is that we should just accept any label that people choose to pin on themselves.

But, for all your emphasis on "real life", you should be fully aware that we do not "in real life" just accept whatever people say about themselves at face value.

Lots of people say lots of things about themselves...do we just "buy that"? When the boss puts his arm around your shoulder, is that because he&#39;s "really your friend" and "has your best interests at heart"? :lol:

Like it or not, it really was Karl Marx who ripped the verbal costumes off...and said that we should critically examine all of social reality -- including the people who say that they&#39;re "on our side".

There&#39;s no question that this approach makes some people very uncomfortable...and perhaps you are one of those people.

It&#39;s not "nice"&#33;

It&#39;s my view, and that of many people here, that it is not our role as revolutionaries to "be nice".

Our job is to expose the ugly truth about capitalist society and all the "social forces" in it.

We have this "funny idea" that truth wins in the end...no matter how "unpopular" or "uncomfortable" it might be now.

No doubt most people find it very disturbing when we say bluntly that there are no gods and religion is a reactionary racket&#33;

But it happens to be true...and therefore we are obligated to say it no matter how "unpopular" that might make us.

Remember that no one else is going to tell people the truth about stuff like this...except us&#33; If we don&#39;t say it, it won&#39;t get said&#33;

You see, revolutionaries are not "running for public office"...nor are we competing for the front cover of People magazine or trying to arrange for our own weekly dummyvision sitcom or any other measure of "social acceptance" in a reactionary social order.

Reformists can do that sort of thing; we cannot&#33;

What we want is intransigent resistance to the despotism of capital...and the only way to build that is to tell people the ugly truth&#33;

All of it.


This labeling and categorization is exactly what will keep capitalism alive, and continue to shatter the revolutionary left. We are our own enemy, and will impede any sort of successful revolution.

I disagree. The clearer our understanding of what it means to "be revolutionary", the better we&#39;ll do.

The history of failed revolutionary movements and failed revolutions is not one of "being too revolutionary" but rather not being revolutionary enough&#33;

It&#39;s long past time to correct that. :)


I come from a place where many revolutionaries, supporters of the revolution, and the oppressed working class believe in a higher power...

And it didn&#39;t do them a damn bit of good, did it?

Old story. :(


Most persons who are oppressed, exploited, and enslaved in this world are people of some sort of faith because it is their only hope for escape/freedom.

Their odds are better buying a lottery ticket. Once in a while, somebody does win the lottery and escapes the shit.

"God" never freed a single slave&#33;

And never will&#33; :angry:


I am not a pseudo/internet leftist so that I can cut and judge other progressives...

Then you&#39;ll either just be suckered into some reformist crap or, if you&#39;re particularly unscrupulous, you&#39;ll end up suckering other people.

It&#39;s a living. :(

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