To all our religious "comrades"

[VermontLeft]

Theres been a whole lot of talk in this forum about whether religion and communism are "compatible" or not, but I dont think that anyones actually asked the important question.

To all the religious "communists" or "socialists on this board, if you had to choose between your politics or your religion, which would it be?

If your "God" or your "Church" demanded that you renounce communism, would you comply; and alternatively if a revolution happened tomorrow but it was not only against capitalism but against religion as well, would you defend your "faith"?

Where do your loyalties lie??? :o

[Red Axis]

If my Church told me to abandon communism, I would abandon the Church, but abandoning the Church does not mean abandoning a religious belief altogether. Ultimately, in the communist state, church and state will be separate and people will be free once and for all to worship as they please.

[amanondeathrow]

Ultimately, in the communist state, church and state will be separate and people will be free once and for all to worship as they please.

As long as you keep your "faith" to your self and don't abuse your children with such illogical ideas.

[RevMARKSman]

I agree with Red Axis. If the "Church" wanted me to abandon communism, I'd chuck the church and go with what I know is the best for all people. If there was a revolution against religion tomorrow, I would not defend my religion, but I would defend my right to have spiritual beliefs.

[redstar2000]

VermontLeft's question goes very much to the heart of the matter.

In my opinion and without questioning anyone's present-day sincerity, I think that the seriously religious must choose their religion (if not necessarily their existing church) over revolution that "threatens their faith".

"Eternity" trumps "earthly life".

To consciously and deliberately choose to "ignore eternity" in favor of earthly considerations is to "spit in God's face"...and I don't think the religious can manage that and still "keep their faith".

What they hope is that some "form" of communism "can" emerge that will "tolerate spiritual beliefs".

Even if that were possible, such a "communism" would perforce be compelled to be intolerant of modern science.

And that would, in turn, result in a gradual return to pre-technological society...in which the "forms" of communism might remain but the practice would actually be the restoration of some form of class society.

The Hutterian Brethren are "Christian communists"...but they actually practice "rule by patriarchs" and women and children have no "rights" of any kind.

And, unlike the Amish, the Hutterians use modern technology. Without it, they'd be much worse...even their "communism" would probably be abandoned.

Modern communism is consciously scientific and rules out all forms of superstition altogether. This fact necessarily provokes, sooner or later, a "crisis of faith" for the believer: abandon communism OR abandon religion?

If communists "tolerate" superstitious beliefs, then all we do is postpone the inevitable.

I see no reason to do that.

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

[C_Rasmussen]

I dont know what I'd choose but then again you can take both up without having to let the other one know. Then again why are you using ""? Are you saying that people with religious views (such as myself) are inferior?

<_<

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by C_Rasmussen
Are you saying that people with religious views (such as myself) are inferior?

What I&#39;ve actually said -- it feels like hundreds of times -- is that religious people with "pro-communist" views are confused&#33;

They are trying to maintain two conflicting "world-views".

If any religious view is "true", then communism can&#39;t be true.

And if communism is "true", then no possible religion can be true.

It&#39;s either or&#33;

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

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Apr 30 2006, 11:13 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Apr 30 2006, 11:13 AM)
C_Rasmussen
Are you saying that people with religious views (such as myself) are inferior?

What I&#39;ve actually said -- it feels like hundreds of times -- is that religious people with "pro-communist" views are confused&#33;

They are trying to maintain two conflicting "world-views".

If any religious view is "true", then communism can&#39;t be true.

And if communism is "true", then no possible religion can be true.

It&#39;s either or&#33;

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif [/b]
Right but can&#39;t the person in question be a socialist instead? I thought I read on here somewhere (forgot what topic it was) that people of religious beliefs can&#39;t be communist or anarchist because those 2 mean a classless state but socialists can believe in a faith of some sort.

[RevMARKSman]

It isn&#39;t either or. It is ALWAYS more complicated than that in this world.
Spiritual beliefs don&#39;t always reject science or technology. Science fits in perfectly with my beliefs, and I like it that way. The only thing that makes spiritual beliefs and communism incompatible is that the atheists in communism can&#39;t tolerate the simple spiritual beliefs of those who have them.

[VermontLeft]

It isn&#39;t either or. It is ALWAYS more complicated than that in this world.


is it though?

from what ive been reading ,the church has almost always been agasint revolutions and wherever it leads, the christians follow.

sure there are some "autonomous" christians (or muslims or jews or whatever), but then tend to believe in the bible or whatever and thats pretty conservative in its teaching (anti-gay, anti-woman, etc...)

marxism is, as i understand it, about building a working and real world here as ratoinaly as possible which doesnt worek weith people who belief in "afterlives" and "fairies" and shit.

whatever your "spititual" shit, it doesnt really exist and so cant be a part of a materialistic society.

(ps, thanks to LSD for explaining to me what materialism is in very simple terms. i cant belief he actually answered all my pestering PMs. :) :wub:)


Spiritual beliefs don&#39;t always reject science or technology.

sure they do.

eitther theres a real world with real shit in it and it can all be explained by natural laws and scientific investigation ...or theres &#39;magical" stuf and "gods" and "angels" and "fairies" and shit.

one or the other&#33;


The only thing that makes spiritual beliefs and communism incompatible is that the atheists in communism can&#39;t tolerate the simple spiritual beliefs of those who have them.

yeah but isnt that usually cause those "simple spiritual beliefs" are fag-bashing and anti-abortion women-hating conservativism? :angry:

racism is a "simple belief" too, that doesnt mean were gonna let fucking racists roam free in communist society&#33;

[RevMARKSman]

is it though?

from what ive been reading ,the church has almost always been agasint revolutions and wherever it leads, the christians follow.

sure there are some "autonomous" christians (or muslims or jews or whatever), but then tend to believe in the bible or whatever and thats pretty conservative in its teaching (anti-gay, anti-woman, etc...)
The bible isn&#39;t anti-gay, anti-woman, prejudiced, etc., at least not the way I read it. The Bible is not absolute; it&#39;s open to various interpretations. See the other religous tolerance thread.



sure they do.

eitther theres a real world with real shit in it and it can all be explained by natural laws and scientific investigation ...or theres &#39;magical" stuf and "gods" and "angels" and "fairies" and shit.

one or the other&#33;



Really? Science explains a lot for me and gives me new insight on the Bible and what God is like. They aren&#39;t exclusive at all to me.

yeah but isnt that usually cause those "simple spiritual beliefs" are fag-bashing and anti-abortion women-hating conservativism?

No they aren&#39;t. See the other religious tolerance thread.

[Connolly]

Right but can&#39;t the person in question be a socialist instead? I thought I read on here somewhere (forgot what topic it was) that people of religious beliefs can&#39;t be communist or anarchist because those 2 mean a classless state but socialists can believe in a faith of some sort.

To understand the "nature" and truth behind human actions and their society has been the goal of marxism and anarchism. This means taking on board the most advanced philosophical understanding of our existance - materialism.

Materialism isnt compatible with religion and the supernatural.

You either take on board the most comprehenive understanding or believe in unprovable and irrational gods, along with the illogical historical events and societal understanding that goes with it.

To be a socialist, you must look at society and our existance in a rational way - to follow fairytale stories is neither.

So were does that leave you.

[Connolly]

The bible isn&#39;t anti-gay, anti-woman, prejudiced, etc.,

It is.


at least not the way I read it.

Read it again. This time wear your glasses.


The Bible is not absolute

Definition of "gospel"

Something, such as an idea or principle, accepted as unquestionably true: My parents&#39; rules were gospel.



it&#39;s open to various interpretations

One of its most fundamental problems


Science explains a lot for me and gives me new insight on the Bible and what God is like.

Please. Tell me what god is like. Im dieing to know.

[RevMARKSman]

Did you even read the friggin&#39; article? CLICK HERE DANGIT&#33; (http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-walter-wink) Seriously...and yes, read the entire thing, especially the end, which I conveniently quoted part of in the other thread.

[Fistful of Steel]

My politics and my religion and my philosophy about how I live my life are all linked very much. I think there may be a God, it&#39;s unknowable though. I believe I have the right to think what I want about God, and I believe everyone has the right to think what they want as long as they don&#39;t infringe upon the freedom of others. Very simple.

And I don&#39;t believe that being an anarchist means I have to take on board the most "advanced" philosophical theory possible, materialism. Materialism, in its fullest, absolute form seems to be largely refutable.

[Connolly]

Did you even read the friggin&#39; article? CLICK HERE DANGIT&#33; Seriously...and yes, read the entire thing, especially the end, which I conveniently quoted part of in the other thread.


im sorry, I didnt read the article :blush:

But since you reminded me - I have attempted, and almost lost consciousness in the process.

give it a while and somone will post that link with the incriminating biblical quotes.

If not, ill do it myself tomorrow.

[Connolly]

I believe everyone has the right to think what they want as long as they don&#39;t infringe upon the freedom of others. Very simple.

And who gives them the notions of a God?.........Who gives them the building blocks for what to think?

Religion, in one way or another, with its unsolvable, unprovable notions ends up being organised.

Organised religion is the enemy of progress and the communist movement.


Materialism, in its fullest, absolute form seems to be largely refutable.

Enlighten me.

[Goatse]

I believe everyone has the right to think what they want as long as they don&#39;t infringe upon the freedom of others. Very simple.

Yes, and preaching homophobia, sexism and intolerance most certainly does infringe upon the freedom of others.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 30 2006, 07:59 PM

I believe everyone has the right to think what they want as long as they don&#39;t infringe upon the freedom of others. Very simple.

And who gives them the notions of a God?.........Who gives them the building blocks for what to think?

Religion, in one way or another, with its unsolvable, unprovable notions ends up being organised.

Organised religion is the enemy of progress and the communist movement.


Materialism, in its fullest, absolute form seems to be largely refutable.

Enlighten me.
Where do thoughts and ideas come from? Numerous places I&#39;m sure. A lot of philosophy has unsolvable and provable notions too, and atheism is as much unsolvable and unprovable as religion. I do agree that organized religion leads to problems, I&#39;m arguing for personal faith.

Enlighten you to some of the criticisms of the fullest form of materialism?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminativist...t_eliminativism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminativist_materialism#Arguments_against_elimin ativism)

Preaching action against others is wrong, of course. That doesn&#39;t mean people aren&#39;t free to think it all they want.

[bezdomni]

Organized religion is inherently reactionary if not entirely regressive.

"Religions" such as Deism, Unitarian Universalism and some parts of Pantheism seem to be "less bad" than organized religion.

I believe organized religion should be actively discouraged. To build on what RedStar said, religion will eventually kill itself - since it will no longer be necessary. Ancient Religions (think Greek Mythology) were created to explain the inexplicable (lightning? Zeus did it) and give people something to do (think up stories). People stopped believing in it not only because of Christian repression, but because a &#39;better" religion was around.

Modern religions make people feel good, it validates their seemingly meaningless existence on earth. It dulls the pain of daily life. "Religion is the opiate of the masses" and it is damned hard to quit.

Eventually, people will no longer need modern religions to feel good; to cope with alienation. Then, the bible will fade away into obscurity and will be read by high school students in the same manner that Edith Hamilton&#39;s Mythology is read today.

[LSD]

Enlighten you to some of the criticisms of the fullest form of materialism?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminativist...t_eliminativism

:lol:

All of those "refutations" rely upon "intuition" or outdated metaphysical notions of "feelings".

Materialism is not only the only established rational means of analyzing the universe it is also fundamental to a communist outlook. Accordingly any "faith" is intractably in opposition to basic communist tenants and so is in no way "compatible".

"Faith" is by definition the rejection of reason; it is, in its various forms, probably the greatest single "evil" in the history of humanity. When people "believe they are right" instead of deducing it, it leads to all variants of atrocity.

Remember, people didn&#39;t follow Hitler because he was rationally sound, they followed him because they believed.

The same for the inquisition and the crusades and all the various religious mass murders of the past five thousand years.

[Connolly]

Where do thoughts and ideas come from? Numerous places I&#39;m sure

We are not scientifically developed enough to answer these questions fully.

Nor are we advanced enough to include the supernatural as the possible causes of thought and ideas.

We can however, based on what we know to be our material reality, and the fact that we have yet to face anything supernatural, accept our existance as nothing but matter - until proven otherwise.

Hence, the most advanced philosophical position to take.

That, or remove the existance of matter completely, solipsism

[Publius]

Where do thoughts and ideas come from?

Are you really interested in finding that out?

If you are, and you have the intellectual chops for it (Your religiosity throws some doubt on this), read this book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/046502656...glance&n=283155 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465026567/104-5613133-8769538?v=glance&n=283155)

It doesn&#39;t completely answer the question, obviously, but it does explain how things might work, which is more than religion does.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 08:43 PM

Enlighten you to some of the criticisms of the fullest form of materialism?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminativist...t_eliminativism

:lol:

All of those "refutations" relly upon "intuition" or outdated metaphysical notions of "feelings".

Materialism is not only the only established rational means of analyzing the universe it is also fundamental to a communist outlook. Accordingly any "faith" is intractably in opposition to basic communist tenants and so is in no way "compatible".

"Faith" is by definition the rejection of reason; it is, in its various forms, probably the greatest single "evil" in the history of humanity. When people "believe they are right" instead of deducing it, it leads to all variants of atrocity.

Remember, people didn&#39;t follow Hitler because he was rationally sound, they followed him because they believed.

The same for the inquisition and the crusades and all the various religious mass murders of the past five thousand years.
Faith is by definition the confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

And yes the refutations rely on things like "intuition", "feelings" and "thoughts", which are hard to repudate. They&#39;re unmeasurable and yes we know personally that they exist, yet not in a material sense. I don&#39;t especially care if something is fundamental to a communist outlook or not, as I&#39;m an anarchist and reject absolute notions of truth while still believe commitedly to left-wing ideals and revolution.

It&#39;s always implied that people who have faith are like stereotypical religiousites, which is clearly biased. Because I think there may be a God doesn&#39;t mean I&#39;ll suddenly go out an murder people who don&#39;t agree with me, I&#39;m opposed to that completely. As far as most atheists and theists go I&#39;m much more in step with leftist politics. It&#39;s entirely possible to believe God created the universe, and yet live as fully as any atheist does. Not to mention active denial in the existence of God is unprovable.

[LSD]

Faith is by definition the confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

"Confident belief" without rational basis.

I&#39;m fairly confident that the earth rotates, but I don&#39;t have "faith" in gravity. If I were to "belief", however that "Jesus" was the "son of God", that would be faith.

I trust it&#39;s apparent why the former is rational and the latter insane.


And yes the refutations rely on things like "intuition", "feelings" and "thoughts", which are hard to repudate. They&#39;re unmeasurable and yes we know personally that they exist

Just like we "know personally" that the sun orbits the earth? :rolleyes:

Subjective "feelings" are dismissed by science for a reason, they&#39;re subjective.

It doesn&#39;t matter what your thoughts "feel like", all actual evidence points to their being nothing more than chemical reactions in your brain dictated by natural laws. "Believing" in anything else is groundless, illogical, and borders on the dadaistic.

There are basically only two approaches that one can take to the world with a degree of consistancy and those are materialism and solipsism; and sopipsism is pointless.

Any other "beliefs" are fundamentally contradictory and irrational. Accordingly they are not only incompatible with communism and anarchism, but they are also flat out socially destructive.


It&#39;s always implied that people who have faith are like stereotypical religiousites

Yeah, because they believe in irrational things for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

Sounds pretty fucking nuts to me&#33; :lol:


Not to mention active denial in the existence of God is unprovable.

So is "active denial" of the existance of the fucking tooth fairly. That doesn&#39;t make it any less logical.

Positive conjectures don&#39;t need to be disproven, they need to be proven; otherwise they are assumed to be false.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 09:18 PM

Faith is by definition the confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

"Confident belief" without rational basis.

I&#39;m fairly confident that the earth rotates, but I don&#39;t have "faith" in gravity. If I were to "belief", however that "Jesus" was the "son of God", that would be faith.

I trust it&#39;s apparent why the former is rational and the latter insane.


And yes the refutations rely on things like "intuition", "feelings" and "thoughts", which are hard to repudate. They&#39;re unmeasurable and yes we know personally that they exist

Just like we "know personally" that the sun orbits the earth? :rolleyes:

Subjective "feelings" are dismissed by science for a reason, they&#39;re subjective.

It doesn&#39;t matter what your thoughts "feel like", all actual evidence points to their being nothing more than chemical reactions in your brain dictated by natural laws. "Believing" in anything else is groundless, illogical, and borders on the dadaistic.

There are basically only two approaches that one can take to the world with a degree of consistancy and those are materialism and solipsism; and sopipsism is pointless.

Any other "beliefs" are fundamentally contradictory and irrational. Accordingly they are not only incompatible with communism and anarchism, but they are also flat out socially destructive.


It&#39;s always implied that people who have faith are like stereotypical religiousites

Yeah, because they believe in irrational things for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

Sounds pretty fucking nuts to me&#33; :lol:


Not to mention active denial in the existence of God is unprovable.

So is "active denial" of the existance of the fucking tooth fairly. That doesn&#39;t make it any less logical.

Positive conjectures don&#39;t need to be disproven, they need to be proven; otherwise they are assumed to be false.
I gave you the dictionaries definition of faith. If you don&#39;t agree with it take it up with the author of the dictionary, rather than me. The former is rational because you have a scientific bias, and the latter is irrational... Because you have a scientific bias.

They&#39;re dismissed by science because they&#39;re subjective? What then, there&#39;s no room for subjective experience in the meta-narrative of science, despite subjective experience clearly being a part of life. And what, because a possibility is "pointless" to think that rules out that it&#39;s a possibility worth considering? There are beliefs besides materialism that are far from incompatible with anarchism or communism, and that are socially destructive.

There is a reason for believing something, the reason that something had to start the universe and materials don&#39;t come into being out of nowhere on there own, and don&#39;t just pop into existence. The material would then therefore need a point of origination. A random hunk of stuff has no excuse for popping into existence while an all-powerful supernatural entity exists beyond the laws of the universe.

What? Being completely logical is competely pointless and the ideal reponse if you want to turn man into a machine. You know what happens when you assume it makes an ass out of u and me.

[LSD]

I gave you the dictionaries definition of faith.

Yeah, but you chose the wrong one.

"Faith" has a couple of meanings in english, but the relevent one to this discussion is Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence[/i] (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith).


They&#39;re dismissed by science because they&#39;re subjective? What then, there&#39;s no room for subjective experience in the meta-narrative of science, despite subjective experience clearly being a part of life.

Subjective experiences may be a part of "life", but they are caused by objective phenomena.

And it is the latter that science should focus on, for the most part as eventualy they will lead to a fuller understanding of the former.

For now, of course, it is nescessary to work with "feelings" indirectly due to our poor understanding, but with a little more development, we will be able to make fields like psychology and sociology actually scientific&#33;


And what, because a possibility is "pointless" to think that rules out that it&#39;s a possibility worth considering?

Yes.

If a philosophy is a dead end there is no point in pursuing it. If solipsism is correct than none of you exist and nothing I do matters since it&#39;s all an illusion.

I, therefore, must pursue reality as though it does exist, since I have no way of establishing otherwise, and it is the only one of the two possibilities in which my actions matter.

In other words, logically speaking, I must act by the paradigm in which my actions externalistically exist.


There is a reason for believing something, the reason that something had to start the universe and materials don&#39;t come into being out of nowhere on there own

And that would be....?

Speaking of which, where did you "God" "come from"?

Did he just "pop" out of "nowhere"? Well, how the fuck did that happen?? :lol:


What? Being completely logical is competely pointless and the ideal reponse if you want to turn man into a machine.

"Man" is a "machine", bub. A very complex, multifaceted, organic machine.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 10:15 PM

I gave you the dictionaries definition of faith.

Yeah, but you chose the wrong one.

"Faith" has a couple of meanings in english, but the relevent one to this discussion is Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence[/i] (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith).


They&#39;re dismissed by science because they&#39;re subjective? What then, there&#39;s no room for subjective experience in the meta-narrative of science, despite subjective experience clearly being a part of life.

Subjective experiences may be a part of "life", but they are caused by objective phenomena.

And it is the latter that science should focus on, for the most part as eventualy they will lead to a fuller understanding of the former.

For now, of course, it is nescessary to work with "feelings" indirectly due to our poor understanding, but with a little more development, we will be able to make fields like psychology and sociology actually scientific&#33;


And what, because a possibility is "pointless" to think that rules out that it&#39;s a possibility worth considering?

Yes.

If a philosophy is a dead end there is no point in pursuing it. If solipsism is correct than none of you exist and nothing I do matters since it&#39;s all an illusion.

I, therefore, must pursue reality as though it does exist, since I have no way of establishing otherwise, and it is the only one of the two possibilities in which my actions matter.

In other words, logically speaking, I must act by the paradigm in which my actions externalistically exist.


There is a reason for believing something, the reason that something had to start the universe and materials don&#39;t come into being out of nowhere on there own

And that would be....?

Speaking of which, where did you "God" "come from"?

Did he just "pop" out of "nowhere"? Well, how the fuck did that happen?? :lol:


What? Being completely logical is competely pointless and the ideal reponse if you want to turn man into a machine.

"Man" is a "machine", bub. A very complex, multifaceted, organic machine.
The wrong definition? There&#39;s more than one definition and I chose that one to support faith in God since proof is no a factor in that belief.

Caused by objective phenomena? Maybe objective phenomena are caused by the brain, it&#39;s entirely possible and I&#39;m free to think it. If actually scientific reduces humans to a set of tables and graphs, personally I&#39;ll pass.

Just because it "seems" like a dead-end isn&#39;t enough motivation to not follow it. It&#39;s as logical as one and because the actions make it seem pointless isn&#39;t enough reason to rule out it&#39;s possible, it just seems like a negative approach but this only matters if the other possibility turns out correct which it may not.

Where would God come from then? "A random hunk of stuff has no excuse for popping into existence while an all-powerful supernatural entity exists beyond the laws of the universe."

I&#39;d rather not think people are machines as that leads to the allowance and perpetuation of all kinds of atrocities based on logic alone. It&#39;d probably be beneficial for humanity and the Earth to wipe out a good chunk of humanity, a couple billion. That way the humans that are around can sustain themselves for longer and have more chance to become better. If I was a completely rational, logical person I would advocate this. Do I? Fuck no.

[amanondeathrow]

The wrong definition? There&#39;s more than one definition and I chose that one to support faith in God since proof is no a factor in that belief.

The only other definitions are ones that attempt to justify faith; therefore they are not acceptable in an organized debate.


ust because it "seems" like a dead-end isn&#39;t enough motivation to not follow it.

It more then seems like a dead end. It is a dead end.

Throughout all of history when has it lead anywhere, except toward tyranny and hatred.


Where would God come from then? "A random hunk of stuff has no excuse for popping into existence while an all-powerful supernatural entity exists beyond the laws of the universe."

If you believe that something can break the laws of logic, as your god can, then it is fair to say that you do not even believe in the laws of nature since they can be broken.

But yet you try and explain why we have these laws with this belief. Do you see the insanity of this?


I&#39;d rather not think people are machines as that leads to the allowance and perpetuation of all kinds of atrocities based on logic alone.

As if religion has never been a force for atrocities.

Once we understand that we are basically highly developed "machines" it will become much easier to prevent such atrocities as the Holocaust.


It&#39;d probably be beneficial for humanity and the Earth to wipe out a good chunk of humanity, a couple billion. That way the humans that are around can sustain themselves for longer and have more chance to become better. If I was a completely rational, logical person I would advocate this. Do I? Fuck no.

Logic, as communist practice it, is used to benefit the majority of humanity, not a select few. That’s religion and capitalism’s job.

If your "faith" is the only thing holding you back from mass murder, then I think you should see a fucking doctor because that is not normal.

[LSD]

The wrong definition? There&#39;s more than one definition and I chose that one to support faith in God since proof is no a factor in that belief.

:lol:

This isn&#39;t a "political" question, it&#39;s a semantic one.

The definition that you cited is in reference to "having faith in things, not "having faith" of things.

That is, it means having confidence in things known to exist, not believing in the existance of thing not so known.

So, for instance, one can have "faith in ones friends", but their existance was never in doubt.

"Having faith" in a "God", however, means believing that something ("God") exists without any rational reason to do so.

Look, this can go in circles and if nescessary I&#39;ll crack out my big giant copy of the OED. But it&#39;s better if you just concede this one.

Religious "faith" means what I said it does. Again, this is a matter of fact.


Caused by objective phenomena? Maybe objective phenomena are caused by the brain, it&#39;s entirely possible and I&#39;m free to think it.

Yes, that&#39;s called solipsism and while it&#39;s entirely internally consistant, it&#39;s also pointless.

So while you can choose to adhere to that if you wish, it automatically discounts you from any participation in revolutioanry struggle.

Again, like I said before, solipsism is a possible paradigm to adopt. The mixed idealism/concretism of your "belief system" however is not only pointless, but it&#39;s also internally and externally logically inconsistant.


Just because it "seems" like a dead-end isn&#39;t enough motivation to not follow it.

Sure it is.

Why follow something without a point? If it turns out to be true, who cares? It has no point anyways.


Where would God come from then? "A random hunk of stuff has no excuse for popping into existence while an all-powerful supernatural entity exists beyond the laws of the universe."

:rolleyes: That&#39;s a cop-out and you know it&#33;

If you can stretch credulity to accept that "God" can exist "beyond the laws of the universe" why not accept that matter can come from nothing?

Personally, I reject both and instead claim ignorance on the subject. I, like peopl who&#39;ve actually studied this question, can&#39;t say for certain how the universe begain or even if its begining was actually an absolute one.

Your groundless assertion, however is completely without merit.

You cannot simultaneously plea for common sense in rejecting "something from nothing" and assert a magical "God" that obeys no laws.

It is absolute and overt hypocrisy.


It&#39;d probably be beneficial for humanity and the Earth to wipe out a good chunk of humanity, a couple billion.

What nonsense&#33;

Killing a "good chunk" of humanity is obviously not "beneficial for humanity" because, in your own words, the slain would be "a good chunk of humanity". :rolleyes:

And, frankly, I don&#39;t give a damn about the "earth" in an externalistic sense. Human society&#39;s only obligation is the welfare of its members, namely human beings.