Are all of you Atheists? [Archive]

Hegemonicretribution

13th June 2006, 04:42

Personally I have little problem with your position, it is your views I am more interested in. However how do you claim to have a totally personal outlook and be Christian? If you do not subscribe to a church, nor religious texts, then what you are left with is a personal for of spirituality much like someone that simply meditates...and a vague acceptance of a metaphysical being. What is over and above that are your vews that could exist with or without god.

So really, apart from saying that you experience this god, if you are not influenced by other factors, you are the same as other leftists, and I wouldn't care. It is likely that many will accuse you of all sorts, such as having to hate homosexuals, or wanting to stone women for claiming you are a Christian, so I would just make sure that you say you believe in a god, but don't follow the bible or a church. It will save time for the more understanding comrades, although some will simply choose not to believe you.

You will just have to accept that because of what the term "religion" implies it isn't accepted around here, also keep discussion to the appropriate forum.

EusebioScrib

13th June 2006, 04:42

Religion for me won't keep me passive. I will be violent. but I will not kill.
I don't think I have right to deal out death. regardless their crime

You just gave an example of your passivity.

However, I was refering to passive in a broader sense. Religion is used to keep people accepting the status quo, to keep people accepting their condition. Religion and religious people can never truely have a desire to change their condition. Holding on to religion shows how they are still clinging to the old society, that they are afraid of the future. Don't be! We have nothing to lose but our chains!

Hit The North

13th June 2006, 04:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 02:27 AM

But I think alot of my politics stem from my religion. my compassion for example. communism, marxism, socialism. Ideally, aren't they about compassion towards your fellow man. For me thats what Religion is. and thats why I can't let go of that.
But why do you have to believe in a big boogy man in the sky in order to have compassion for your fellow human?

Hegemonicretribution

13th June 2006, 04:44

When morals come into it I have to disagree with you, as well as your unwillingness to kill. Morality is simply an assertion not backed by reason, and I personally have no time for that, if you have a standpoint back it up with reasoning.

if this gets religious though it should be moved, I think it is clear why the board is mostly anti-religious.

EusebioScrib

13th June 2006, 04:45

Thats not always the case, Libertation theology challenges for social change to take place.

Please, Liberation theology is a joke. Plus it's nearly dead anyway. JP II killed it off almost entirely. Who cares?

Red Menace

13th June 2006, 04:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 07:42 PM

Religion keeps people passive, so why would you say it's okay to accept it? Religion will keep your revolution suppressed and will never advance it.
Thats not always the case, Libertation theology challenges for social change to take place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_Theology
god that page took everything i believed, but could not say, and summed it up into a page.

Leo

13th June 2006, 04:52

Now for me, I am a christian.

You have to question religion, its dogmas, theories, ideas, practices to the smallest detail if you are to be a leftist. Question Christianity, question Christ, question god... Question everything. Question why you really have to focus on 'afterlife' and 'faith in something you can't see'. Consider that there is nothing in the way you understand after life, would it be worth to limit yourself to focus on the afterlife in that case? Question why you are a Christian, is it because you have always been so, is it because you want to go to heaven, is it because you are afraid of losing things you love in the world and want to ask someone to protect them? Study the history of Christianity, ask yourself if you would really like to be identified with actions in the name of Christ.

Religion has no tolerance, you can't be 'religious' and be against organized religion, because having an organized religion is the logical expansion of having a religion. If it wasn't for that organized religion, you wouldn't have a religion. The 'real' christians are the ones who take Christianity seriously. The ones who bomb abortion clinics, organizations like Opus Dei, those are real Christians. They are much closer to 'Christian' ideals than those who do 'good things' in the name of religion. Study it, you will see. The same thing goes for other religions. Oppression is in the core of religion.

I think you should question and decide.

LSD

13th June 2006, 04:52

Now I know the common leftist way of thinking is, that there is no God.

I wouldn't say that atheism is restricted to leftists; on the contrary it's actually quite common on the libertarian right.

The street doesn't go the other way, however. While one need not be a communist to be an atheist; one must be an atheist to be a communist. There is simply no place for superstitious idealism within the Marxian/Marxist paradigm.

Besides, it must be pointed out that the nonexistance of "God" is not a "way of thinking", it is rather established fact. Accordingly, anyone who even purports to be rational is obligated to acknowledge that "religion" and "faith" are inherently nonsensical.

I don't think you need a Priest or someone to have a relationship with God.

Perhaps not, but you need some sort of temporal instrument.

Since "God" does not actually exist, one is obligated to turn to a "conduit" in order to "understand" "his will".

Typically this means a "holy" book or doctrine which are then often in turn "interpreted" for one by "holy experts" in the subject. But even if one turns away from the "experts", the unederlying dogma remains just as ridid.

I suppose that, in it's purest form, deism can exist sans instrument, but it's virtually unique in that respect. Certainly the "major" religions are as dogmatic as it comes.

Your religion, for instance, relies upon the "word" of 1800-1900 year old "scripture" primarily composed by bitter Judaean Jews trying to co-opt classical Mithraism.

Hardly what I would call relevent to modern living! :lol:

More to the point, whether or not you accept the legitimacy of the Christian church or not, if you truly believe that the Bible is the "word of God" you are theologically required to support sexism and homophobia and to accept slavery as a valid form of social organization.

You are also obligated to accept the existance of a "divine plan" and a utopian "after life"; both designed to signficantly reduce your chance of challanging the prevaling social order.

There is a reason after all, that Christianity became the official Roman state religion; namely it's excellent at keeping the masses "in their place".

I am a christian
Thats fine with me just so long as you recognise that religion should not be forced on anyone.

Unfortunately, the real world does not work like that.

True Christians can't "keep it to themselves", as much as their apologists may claim the opposite.

Oh sure, the occasional "apostate" Christian may convince themselves that their "faith" is a personal matter, but as a social force religion is ubiquitous. That means that no matter how "personal" one considers one's "beliefs" to be, they will inevitably influence the greater society.

After all, there is a reason that opposition to gay rights is so high in the United States; there's a reason why it's still waging a "war" on abortion.

Even if the American government claims to "seperate Church and State" so long as religious people have a say in policy, religion will have a say in policy.

There is simply no way to seperate a person's fundamental worldview from their attitude on political issues. If someone truly believes that they know the "word of God", how can they help but allow it to influence their decision making?

Indeed, as you yourself have admitted, your "religious convictions" have lead to you adopting a form of para-pacifism in which you will "be violent" but will not "deal out death"; a signficant tactical disadvantage considering that the bourgeoisie will not be so "compassionate".

But I think alot of my politics stem from my religion. my compassion for example. communism, marxism, socialism. Ideally, aren't they about compassion towards your fellow man.

No.

Communism is about the liberation of the working class from the material objective social conditions which oppress it. It is a rational conclusion borne out of a rational analysis of the injustices of capitalism.

It's a wholly unemotional affair.

Red Menace

13th June 2006, 04:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 07:43 PM
Personally I have little problem with your position, it is your views I am more interested in. However how do you claim to have a totally personal outlook and be Christian? If you do not subscribe to a church, nor religious texts, then what you are left with is a personal for of spirituality much like someone that simply meditates...and a vague acceptance of a metaphysical being. What is over and above that are your vews that could exist with or without god.

So really, apart from saying that you experience this god, if you are not influenced by other factors, you are the same as other leftists, and I wouldn't care. It is likely that many will accuse you of all sorts, such as having to hate homosexuals, or wanting to stone women for claiming you are a Christian, so I would just make sure that you say you believe in a god, but don't follow the bible or a church. It will save time for the more understanding comrades, although some will simply choose not to believe you.

You will just have to accept that because of what the term "religion" implies it isn't accepted around here, also keep discussion to the appropriate forum.
I'm not sure how to explain it. but I think that alot of the writings and documents that went into the bible were changed and manipulated to ones own liking so that they could have their own agenda. a form of narcotization if you will. which you could see some of the parallels to this now. I believe in the christian God. I don't think he has been depicted fairly. I guess the thought of God up there keeps me going. I honestly don't mean to creep you guys out. I swear I am not like those Right Wing Christians trying to push my beliefs on you. I'm just wondering if anyone feels the same way I do.

Red Menace

13th June 2006, 04:56

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 12 2006, 07:53 PM

Now for me, I am a christian.

You have to question religion, its dogmas, theories, ideas, practices to the smallest detail if you are to be a leftist.
I do. Thats why I don't believe in orgainzed religion. because I questioned it. I questioned its message.

Hegemonicretribution

13th June 2006, 05:03

Now this has been moved we can get into it ;)....

As others have said, most people here are atheiests because they are opposed to "real religion" and not vague individualist conceptions of it which are perhaps the only tollerable versions. If this is what you support though you are not part of a particular religion, but have created your own, based on your own thoughts and feelings. We all do this, but most of us leave out the god bit as unnecessary.

Some take this view further, claiming that there can be no room for irrationality or idealism within Marxism, to me though this seems irrational and idealistic ans not one of us is completely rational, we can't be as we are confined to a framework of ideas from which we make our decisions, and even then our reason needs to be worked at.

What we can try and be is rational about our irrationality. This is pretty much my world view, and I always try and decde things as objectively as possible, although I see also that this is unlikely to be possible.

Invoking god does not seem to help this, so I don't.

Defy, the god has been manipulated by the church, but that is what constitutes Christianity. Why cling to the label if it does not represent you? Declare yourself as an individual if that is how you see yourself. No doubt you take parts you like and leave parts you don't?

We all do this, only I don't choose aspects of Christianity because they are Christian, I choose whatever I see as best. It just so happens little of it has to do with Christian values anymore. Not killing in general seems ok, but I have no morals as anything is subject to change when need be.

Morality can lead to inaction, and this seperates you from revolutionaries who may well be required to act.

Red Menace

13th June 2006, 05:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 08:04 PM
Now this has been moved we can get into it ;)....

As others have said, most people here are atheiests because they are opposed to "real religion" and not vague individualist conceptions of it which are perhaps the only tollerable versions. If this is what you support though you are not part of a particular religion, but have created your own, based on your own thoughts and feelings. We all do this, but most of us leave out the god bit as unnecessary.

Some take this view further, claiming that there can be no room for irrationality or idealism within Marxism, to me though this seems irrational and idealistic ans not one of us is completely rational, we can't be as we are confined to a framework of ideas from which we make our decisions, and even then our reason needs to be worked at.

What we can try and be is rational about our irrationality. This is pretty much my world view, and I always try and decde things as objectively as possible, although I see also that this is unlikely to be possible.

Invoking god does not seem to help this, so I don't.

Defy, the god has been manipulated by the church, but that is what constitutes Christianity. Why cling to the label if it does not represent you? Declare yourself as an individual if that is how you see yourself. No doubt you take parts you like and leave parts you don't?

We all do this, only I don't choose aspects of Christianity because they are Christian, I choose whatever I see as best. It just so happens little of it has to do with Christian values anymore. Not killing in general seems ok, but I have no morals as anything is subject to change when need be.

Morality can lead to inaction, and this seperates you from revolutionaries who may well be required to act.
I don't know. Honestly I'm not trying to push anything on anyone. You guys can believe whatever you want. That is fine with me. I'm just asking if the two could possibly co-exist with one another, and from this website drain.you showed me, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_Theology they can, and that pretty much sums up what I believe in.

OneBrickOneVoice

13th June 2006, 05:16

Now I know the common leftist way of thinking is, that there is no God. Now for me, I am a christian. I however don't believe in Organized Religion. I think everyone should keep the Religion and their God to themselves. I don't think you need a Priest or someone to have a relationship with God. What is this, does anyone know? Does anyone think the same way I do, or am I just nuts?

You're agnostic not christian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic

There are many communists who have religious values such as Christian anarchists and christian Communists but they have different reasoning for their views than we do.

Red Menace

13th June 2006, 05:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 08:17 PM

Now I know the common leftist way of thinking is, that there is no God. Now for me, I am a christian. I however don't believe in Organized Religion. I think everyone should keep the Religion and their God to themselves. I don't think you need a Priest or someone to have a relationship with God. What is this, does anyone know? Does anyone think the same way I do, or am I just nuts?

You're agnostic not christian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic

There are many communists who have religious values such as Christian anarchists and christian Communists but they have different reasoning for their views than we do.
but I believe in the christian god. not just a god.

LSD

13th June 2006, 05:27

but I believe in the christian god.

You've said that a few times now, but you've still not stated why?

Communism is not merely about "socialism" or "charity", it's also about a materialist outlook which nescessitates reason and understanding. That means that all policies, all "beliefs", must be based on rational defendable argumentation. Nothing can be taken on "faith" as "faith" is inherently undemocratic. Groundless "belief" has no respect for the community or the greater social interest. All it is concerned with its one's own selfish psychology.

Reason on the other hand is universal. It is accessable to and falsifiable by absolutely everyone.

"Faith" cannot be challanged, but logic can. That makes logic and logic alone the foundational principle of just politics. Unless one can explain their "beliefs", those beliefs are incompatible with communism. And when it comes to religion, the proverbial "theory of everything", a capacity to explain becomes even more important.

Religion, after all, is the justification for most of the worst oppression going on in the world today. Whether it's gay right, women's rghts, or plain old fashioned drug prohibition; everywhere religion is destroying lives.

And it is thanks to it's "spiritual" nature that religion escapes critisism. Because it renounces the concept of evidence, that it is not forced to defend its reactionary biggotry.

It must stop! :angry:

Johnny Anarcho

13th June 2006, 05:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 01:10 AM
Now I know the common leftist way of thinking is, that there is no God. Now for me, I am a christian. I however don't believe in Organized Religion. I think everyone should keep the Religion and their God to themselves. I don't think you need a Priest or someone to have a relationship with God. What is this, does anyone know? Does anyone think the same way I do, or am I just nuts?
I'm on the same page with you; they say religion is oppressive but then restrict me because I have a link to the Nation of Islam.

Johnny Anarcho

13th June 2006, 05:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 01:23 AM

I think everyone should keep the Religion and their God to themselves. I don't think you need a Priest or someone to have a relationship with God. What is this, does anyone know? Does anyone think the same way I do, or am I just nuts?
I believe most Leftists think exactly the same thing.That religion has to be private.

I am a christian
Thats fine with me just so long as you recognise that religion should not be forced on anyone.
Funny how they say private-property should be abolished but then force us to keep religion private. I dont want it forced on anyone but I dont want my Quran confiscated, I dont want to be arressted because I'm different. That goes entirely against Socialism.

Red Menace

13th June 2006, 05:44

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 08:28 PM

but I believe in the christian god.

You've said that a few times now, but you've still not stated why?

Communism is not merely about "socialism" or "charity", it's also about a materialist outlook which nescessitates reason and understanding. That means that all policies, all "beliefs", must be based on rational defendable argumentation. Nothing can be taken on "faith" as "faith" is inherently undemocratic. Groundless "belief" has no respect for the community or the greater social interest. All it is concerned with its one's own selfish psychology.

Reason on the other hand is universal. It is accessable to and falsifiable by absolutely everyone.

"Faith" cannot be challanged, but logic can. That makes logic and logic alone the foundational principle of just politics. Unless one can explain their "beliefs", those beliefs are incompatible with communism. And when it comes to religion, the proverbial "theory of everything", a capacity to explain becomes even more important.

Religion, after all, is the justification for most of the worst oppression going on in the world today. Whether it's gay right, women's rghts, or plain old fashioned drug prohibition; everywhere religion is destroying lives.

And it is thanks to it's "spiritual" nature that religion escapes critisism. Because it renounces the concept of evidence, that it is not forced to defend its reactionary biggotry.

It must stop! :angry:
I don't know why. though, I guess because I was brought up Christian, Catholic. so I feel somewhat a sense of loyalty to that.

LSD

13th June 2006, 05:53

Funny how they say private-property should be abolished but then force us to keep religion private.

Are you proposing that religion be public?

Perhaps even that children be exposed to its superstitious lies? :o

Personally, I don't give a damn what you do with "your Quran". You can read it or eat it for all I care; but when you try and impose it's "morality" onto an impressionable child, that's where I draw the line.

When you tell a little girl unless she "covers her head", she's a "whore" and a "sinner". That unless the accepts her husbands domination, she's "bad", you have commited a crime against that child against society.

Raising children religious is psychological abuse and cannot be tolerated by any just society.

I don't know why. though, I guess because I was brought up Christian, Catholic.

That's the commonest explanation, but it still isn't a satisfactory one.

You're a grown-up now and you are capable of making your own decisions. Religion is a set of opinions and opinions can be challanged. If you cannot come up wth a sound reason why a "belief" should be adhered to, it is frankly masochistic to hang on to it.

Self-delusion and denial can only be destructive. There is nothing as liberating as truth.

Now, I certainly understand that it's hard to turn away from beliefs that have been instilled from childhood, but "loyality" just isn't a good enough reason. Most of the racists in the world, after all, were brought up that way. The same for sexists, homophobes, antisemites, and the rest.

In the end, though, they made the choice to stand by their reactionary views and must pay the price for it. It doesn't matter what your father and his father believed in. Your beliefs are your choice.

So choose wisely!

apathy maybe

13th June 2006, 06:21

Originally posted by EusebioScrib+--> (EusebioScrib)Religion keeps people passive, so why would you say it's okay to accept it? Religion will keep your revolution suppressed and will never advance it.[/b]Which is why all those Islamists are killing themselves (and/or others) in the name of Islam?

Originally posted by LSD+--> (LSD) The street doesn't go the other way, however. While one need not be a communist to be an atheist; one must be an atheist to be a communist. There is simply no place for superstitious idealism within the Marxian/Marxist paradigm.[/b] Note: Not all communists are Marxists. Not all communists are atheists. While all Marxists are atheists there exist communists that are not.

Originally posted by LSD
Besides, it must be pointed out that the nonexistance of "God" is not a "way of thinking", it is rather established fact. Accordingly, anyone who even purports to be rational is obligated to acknowledge that "religion" and "faith" are inherently nonsensical. I tend to agree.

[email protected]
No.

Communism is about the liberation of the working class from the material objective social conditions which oppress it. It is a rational conclusion borne out of a rational analysis of the injustices of capitalism.

It's a wholly unemotional affair. Your communism. Not everyone’s. Communism is a classless stateless society where goods (and the means of production if you wish) are held in common. Simple. Could be based on irrationality just as easily as rationality.

LSD
And it is thanks to it's "spiritual" nature that religion escapes critisism. Because it renounces the concept of evidence, that it is not forced to defend its reactionary biggotry.
I agree. Religion is irrational and not evidence based. Does not stop people doing good things in its name, even if they do the things for the wrong reason.

And to get to the point at the start of the thread, I am now an atheist. A couple of years ago I went through a process of asking why. I moved from not questioning to only believing in a God, now I do not see the point. God does not do anything, I did not do anything based on the belief. It was superfluous to my life. Use the razor and cut it out of yours.

Red Menace

13th June 2006, 06:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 08:54 PM

Funny how they say private-property should be abolished but then force us to keep religion private.

Are you proposing that religion be public?

Perhaps even that children be exposed to its superstitious lies? :o

Personally, I don't give a damn what you do with "your Quran". You can read it or eat it for all I care; but when you try and impose it's "morality" onto an impressionable child, that's where I draw the line.

When you tell a little girl unless she "covers her head", she's a "whore" and a "sinner". That unless the accepts her husbands domination, she's "bad", you have commited a crime against that child against society.

Raising children religious is psychological abuse and cannot be tolerated by any just society.

I don't know why. though, I guess because I was brought up Christian, Catholic.

That's the commonest explanation, but it still isn't a satisfactory one.

You're a grown-up now and you are capable of making your own decisions. Religion is a set of opinions and opinions can be challanged. If you cannot come up wth a sound reason why a "belief" should be adhered to, it is frankly masochistic to hang on to it.

Self-delusion and denial can only be destructive. There is nothing as liberating as truth.

Now, I certainly understand that it's hard to turn away from beliefs that have been instilled from childhood, but "loyality" just isn't a good enough reason. Most of the racists in the world, after all, were brought up that way. The same for sexists, homophobes, antisemites, and the rest.

In the end, though, they made the choice to stand by their reactionary views and must pay the price for it. It doesn't matter what your father and his father believed in. Your beliefs are your choice.

So choose wisely!
that is a common explanation, but its the only one I can put in words. Why I believe it, I cannot put in words. Whats self delusion to you, is not to me. Whats truth to me, may not be truth to you. and I am fine with that. The way I see it, God gives me strength to fight for what I believe in. I can't put it any other way then that. The only way I can see that being a problem is if I push my belief on another human being. I think it is their journey, and theirs alone. not mine.

JimmyC

13th June 2006, 06:23

But LSD, one can believe in God without being religious.

KGB5097

13th June 2006, 06:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 01:27 AM
Someone is either religious or athiest, no fence-walkers.
What about someone who considers themselves spiritual, but not religious? How about Buddhists, who do not have any perticular diety?

Personally, I find certian qualities of certian religions attractive, but I am not a subscriber of any mainstream religion.

LSD

13th June 2006, 06:33

Why I believe it, I cannot put in words.

Then you should seriously question it. The unexplainable almost always unjustifiable.

Whats truth to me, may not be truth to you.

That's postmodern solipsism.

Truth is an objective reality and is no way subjective to the individual involved. The existance or nonexistance of "God" is not a "personal" matter, it's a physics one.

The only way I can see that being a problem is if I push my belief on another human being.

As I've been trying to explain, however, that is the inevitable result of any religious "faith".

The acceptance of a supernatural authority nescessitates the surrender of will to that authority or, more accurately, one's perception of that authority. And whether you like it or not, the social effect of that submission is the abandonment of reason and the perpetuation of reaction.

Again, without religion the gay rights movement would probably not even be nescessary today. Religion is not "evil", but it acts as an inherently stutifying social influence and so is the perpetual enemy of any progressive social movement.

But LSD, one can believe in God without being religious.

No one can't.

The first definition of "religious" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Religious) is: 1. Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.

"God" is an inherently religious "belief".

Red Menace

13th June 2006, 06:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 09:34 PM

Why I believe it, I cannot put in words.

Then you should seriously question it. The unexplainable almost always unjustifiable.

Whats truth to me, may not be truth to you.

That's postmodern solipsism.

Truth is an objective reality and is no way subjective to the individual involved. The existance or nonexistance of "God" is not a "personal" matter, it's a physics one.

The only way I can see that being a problem is if I push my belief on another human being.

As I've been trying to explain, however, that is the inevitable result of any religious "faith".

The acceptance of a supernatural authority nescessitates the surrender of will to that authority or, more accurately, one's perception of that authority. And whether you like it or not, the social effect of that submission is the abandonment of reason and the perpetuation of reaction.

Again, without religion the gay rights movement would probably not even be nescessary today. Religion is not "evil", but it acts as an inherently stutifying social influence and so is the perpetual enemy of any progressive social movement.

But LSD, one can believe in God without being religious.

No one can't.

The first definition of "religious" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Religious) is: 1. Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.

"God" is an inherently religious "belief".
No thats Faith.

In this case, my truth is subjective to others. and I think it only applies to this.

The Gay Rights Movement was nescessary because of right-wing christians. You can't blame that on Religion in general.

JimmyC

13th June 2006, 06:44

Actually, I'll approach God anyway I please, and without a dictionary if I so choose.

The definition of religion is one that probably HAS to contain the concept of God.
But there is no logical argument that the concept of God has to include religion.

This may be an American approach to the issue, and it may not translate well in a Canadian concept, I cannot say. But I know many people like me who believe in God, and do not believe in an organized faith.

Hope this clears things up for you.

LSD

13th June 2006, 06:50

No thats Faith.

Indeed. One of the most destructive and corrosive forces in human history.

Nothing is worse for a society than the abandonment of rationality. Once the precedent of "belief without reason" is established, anything can be "justified".

In this case, my truth is subjective to others.

Meaningless solipsism.

There is no such thing as "my truth". Truth, again, is objective. What exists exists, what does not does not. Your personal perception has absolutely nothing to do with reality.

You may "believe" that there's some sort of supernatural "God", but that's no more real than Plato's belief in "Zeus". It has absolutely no significance other than providing a windo into your personal psychology.

"Belief" without proof is, by definition, self-delusion. Unless your perception of reality is related to establishable reality, it's utterly without value.

The Gay Rights Movement was nescessary because of right-wing christians.

No, it's nescessary because of the Bible. You know, the "foundation" of your "faith"... <_<

Actually, I'll approach God anyway I please, and without a dictionary if I so choose.

I really don't care about your "God", but if you plan on using the english language, it would be preferable if you use words according to their accepted meanings.

That's where the dictionary comes in.

But there is no logical argument that the concept of God has to include religion.

Yes there is, namely that's what "religious" means.

Perhaps you are thinking of organized religion, something which is not implied in theism. But any belief in a supernatural power is simply by definition religious in one form or another.

Johnny Anarcho

13th June 2006, 06:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 02:54 AM

Funny how they say private-property should be abolished but then force us to keep religion private.

Are you proposing that religion be public?

Perhaps even that children be exposed to its superstitious lies? :o

Personally, I don't give a damn what you do with "your Quran". You can read it or eat it for all I care; but when you try and impose it's "morality" onto an impressionable child, that's where I draw the line.

When you tell a little girl unless she "covers her head", she's a "whore" and a "sinner". That unless the accepts her husbands domination, she's "bad", you have commited a crime against that child against society.

Raising children religious is psychological abuse and cannot be tolerated by any just society.

I don't know why. though, I guess because I was brought up Christian, Catholic.

That's the commonest explanation, but it still isn't a satisfactory one.

You're a grown-up now and you are capable of making your own decisions. Religion is a set of opinions and opinions can be challanged. If you cannot come up wth a sound reason why a "belief" should be adhered to, it is frankly masochistic to hang on to it.

Self-delusion and denial can only be destructive. There is nothing as liberating as truth.

Now, I certainly understand that it's hard to turn away from beliefs that have been instilled from childhood, but "loyality" just isn't a good enough reason. Most of the racists in the world, after all, were brought up that way. The same for sexists, homophobes, antisemites, and the rest.

In the end, though, they made the choice to stand by their reactionary views and must pay the price for it. It doesn't matter what your father and his father believed in. Your beliefs are your choice.

So choose wisely!
Why shouldnt religion be public other than the fact that it will piss off your anti-religious discrimination. If children are exposed to religion fine, they have the option to believe what they want as they get older. You dont give a damn for my Quran and I dont give a damn for you so were even. I never said anything about forcing religion on anyone. Religion is not compulsory, thats what Islam teaches. Teaching children that there is no afterlife and once you die thats it is a crime in that it destroys any reason the child should make distinguishments between good and evil, right and wrong. So if Anarchism does come into place and the next generation has no consience to keep them in check or no reason to not commit evil then you can imagine what the results would be. If religion is psychological abuse then why is it that the greatest minds were theist? Einstein was Jewish, Newton was Christian, and algebra was created by Muslims yet these accomplishments couldnt possibly be the acts of people who were psychologically abused. Also you have no evidence that religion psychologically abuses.

Johnny Anarcho

13th June 2006, 06:56

How's this LSD? I challenge you to pick up a copy of Understanding the Holy Quran. Read the first two chapters and read each verse along with its footnote.

Red Menace

13th June 2006, 06:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 09:51 PM

Indeed. One of the most destructive and corrosive forces in human history.
Nothing is worse for a society than the abandonment of rationality. Once the precedent of "belief without reason" is established, anything can be "justified".

In politics yes, Religion. I don't think so

Meaningless solipsism.

There is no such thing as "my truth". Truth, again, is objective. What exists exists, what does not does not. Your personal perception has absolutely nothing to do with reality.

You may "believe" that there's some sort of supernatural "God", but that's no more real than Plato's belief in "Zeus". It has absolutely no significance other than providing a windo into your personal psychology.

"Belief" without proof is, by definition, self-delusion. Unless your perception of reality is related to establishable reality, it's utterly without value.

Perhaps I phrased it wrong. My belief. My faith. Not necessarily truth.

No, it's nescessary because of the Bible. You know, the "foundation" of your "faith"... <_<

Like I said before, I think good portions of the Bible were doctored for ones own propaganda AKA. the church

LSD

13th June 2006, 07:04

If children are exposed to religion fine, they have the option to believe what they want as they get older.

Not if they've been indoctrinated from birth that their only choice is "faith" or "hell".

Children are incredibly impressionable and the "values" of their parents will become internalized. When they grow up, they may well be able to break free of these binds, but it will not be easy and it will not be quick.

So why not raise them right from the begining and teach them to think for themselves. That way, when they mature, they'll have not "iron-clad" notions of the unviverse and will be able to truly choose for themselves.

Tell me, do you support allowing children to be raised racist? (I already know that you support raising them sexist <_<)? Because there is no practical difference between teaching a child to hate the jews and teaching them to "believe in Allah".

Not to mention that this is not just about belief! It's also about identity. Teaching a young girl that she is "inferior" and she must be "ashamed" of herself is abject abuse.

It scars and disfigures her and stunts her psychological maturation. It is one of the crulest and most dispicable acts possible and it is the obligation of a fair society to stop it wherever it occurs. :angry:

No one has the right to tell a developing child that she does not have the right to equality or that she is anything less than she is. Children have a right to basic societal protection and that includes protection from abusive parents!

Teaching children that there is no afterlife and once you die thats it is a crime in that it destroys any reason the child should make distinguishments between good and evil, right and wrong.

You do realize that, statistically speaking, atheists are less likely to commit a crime and that the nations with the lowest religious attendance are also the safest ...right?

Morality derived from religion is not only unnescessary, it's fundamentally destructive because it is nescessarily not derived from rational nescessity. That's how, after all, we ended up with the absurd notion that property is "just" but homosexuality is "abomination".

The reason that most people don't go around killing each other is not because of fear of "Hell", but because of the basic evolutionary common decency of human beings.

No "God" required! :)

If religion is psychological abuse then why is it that the greatest minds were theist?

Because childhood abuse is not a barrier to great accomplishments.

Mozart, for instance, by all accounts had a horrific childhood, as did Beethoven, but both ended up being among the more brilliant composers to ever live.

The real question you should be asking is how much more could the greats of history accomplished had they not been hampered by "faith"?

Imagine what Newton could have accomplished had he not been distracted pursuing "alchemy" and studying the bible. Imagine what Einstein could have had he not been so opposed to QF's "random chance".

How's this LSD? I challenge you to pick up a copy of Understanding the Holy Quran. Read the first two chapters and read each verse along with its footnote.

To what end?

I've already read the Quoran through and I have no desire to repeat the experience.

Johnny Anarcho

13th June 2006, 07:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 04:05 AM

If children are exposed to religion fine, they have the option to believe what they want as they get older.

Not if they've been indoctrinated from birth that their only choice is "faith" or "hell".

Children are incredibly impressionable and the "values" of their parents will become internalized. When they grow up, they may well be able to break free of these binds, but it will not be easy and it will not be quick.

So why not raise them right from the begining and teach them to think for themselves. That way, when they mature, they'll have not "iron-clad" notions of the unviverse and will be able to truly choose for themselves.

Tell me, do you support allowing children to be raised racist? (I already know that you support raising them sexist <_<)? Because there is no practical difference between teaching a child to hate the jews and teaching them to "believe in Allah".

Not to mention that this is not just about belief! It's also about identity. Teaching a young girl that she is "inferior" and she must be "ashamed" of herself is abject abuse.

It scars and disfigures her and stunts her psychological maturation. It is one of the crulest and most dispicable acts possible and it is the obligation of a fair society to stop it wherever it occurs. :angry:

No one has the right to tell a developing child that she does not have the right to equality or that she is anything less than she is. Children have a right to basic societal protection and that includes protection from abusive parents!

Teaching children that there is no afterlife and once you die thats it is a crime in that it destroys any reason the child should make distinguishments between good and evil, right and wrong.

You do realize that, statistically speaking, atheists are less likely to commit a crime and that the nations with the lowest religious attendance are also the safest ...right?

Morality derived from religion is not only unnescessary, it's fundamentally destructive because it is nescessarily not derived from rational nescessity. That's how, after all, we ended up with the absurd notion that property is "just" but homosexuality is "abomination".

The reason that most people don't go around killing each other is not because of fear of "Hell", but because of the basic evolutionary common decency of human beings.

No "God" required! :)

If religion is psychological abuse then why is it that the greatest minds were theist?

Because childhood abuse is not a barrier to great accomplishments.

Mozart, for instance, by all accounts had a horrific childhood, as did Beethoven, but both ended up being among the more brilliant composers to ever live.

The real question you should be asking is how much more could the greats of history accomplished had they not been hampered by "faith"?

Imagine what Newton could have accomplished had he not been distracted pursuing "alchemy" and studying the bible. Imagine what Einstein could have had he not been so opposed to QF's "random chance".

How's this LSD? I challenge you to pick up a copy of Understanding the Holy Quran. Read the first two chapters and read each verse along with its footnote.

To what end?

I've already read the Quoran through and I have no desire to repeat the experience.
If parents go through the work of having a child then I think they are entitled to teach it as they please. Youre ignorant, in the Quran it states that if youre Jewish you can go to heaven even without becoming Muslim. Believing in a higher-power doesnt make me anti-Semetic especially when my religion is telling me that I worship the same God the Jews and Christians do. I have no fucking idea where you got the idea that I'm sexist, I've never stated that any sex was superior to the other. I know plenty of Muslim girls and none of them acted as if they were inferior. I agree that children must have protection from abusive parents. What statistics, bring me proof or otherwise your statment is unfounded. What does religion have to do with youre belief that homosexuality is an abomination, I'm not for or against it. I advise you to read it to the end you might learn. Sorry, got the title wrong. Its the Meaning of the Holy Quran by Abdulah Yasuf Ali.

LSD

13th June 2006, 07:44

If parents go through the work of having a child then I think they are entitled to teach it as they please.

So, you'd have no problem with a father teaching his 4-year old daughter to remove her clitoris? Or to drink poison? Or to suck his cock? :o

There is a limit to the rights of parents over "their" children. At some point, the rights of the children must become paramount. And "faith", especially abusive faith like Islam, is remarkably destructive.

Teaching a young girl that she must be covered at all times, that she must submit to her husband, these might be the "values" of the parents, but they have no right to impose them on anyone, no matter the genetic link.

I don't care how much "work" went into producing a child, once she is born, she is a free individual with all the societal rights that go along with it.

Believing in a higher-power doesnt make me anti-Semetic

I didn't say that it did.

What I said was that educating a child in "religous faith" is not in any way functionaly different from teaching a child racism.

Both are biggoted irrational superstitions predicated on anachronistic "beliefs" and both largely promligate due to childhood indoctrination.

I have no fucking idea where you got the idea that I'm sexist

I didn't say that you were nescessarily sexist, I said that you support teaching sexism. That is, you support raising girls in "Muslim" law, an intrinsically sexist set of moral precepts predicated on antiquated 7th century notions of women's "proper role".

What statistics, bring me proof or otherwise your statment is unfounded.

Just compare the crime rates of the US and Canada; or Belgium and Saudi Arabia; or Denmark and Iran...

What does religion have to do with youre belief that homosexuality is an abomination, I'm not for or against it.

:lol:

It's not my belief, buddy, it's "Allah's"!

An archist

13th June 2006, 13:02

I have a strong problem with religion (duh, I'm an anarchist)
but no problem at all with faith: people should be able to believe whatever they like, just like with political theories. They only shouldn't force others to do as they say. just like with political theories. :)

redstar2000

13th June 2006, 16:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 08:42 PM

Religion keeps people passive, so why would you say it's okay to accept it? Religion will keep your revolution suppressed and will never advance it.
Thats not always the case, Libertation theology challenges for social change to take place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_Theology
"Liberation theology" was a con specifically invented to counter the appeal of Guevaraism in Latin America. Had there been no Cuban revolution, no one would have ever heard of "Liberation theology".

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

backwardsbulldozer

13th June 2006, 17:57

It's pretty interesting how people are saying that religion makes people not think for themselves when in fact, for someone to be Marxist or Anarchist and religious means they clearly have thought for themselves and made a difficult choice.
The only members here that I've seen forcing their religion on anyone are atheists. The Christian and Muslims have only defended their beliefs that have been attacked without any knowledge of them personally. I think a good idea is to question every belief until you find the ones you agree with, and I think a lot of you would do well to question their presumption that all religion is harmful. If someone finds that a religion correlates well with what they have come to believe, then good for them, so long as they do not want everyone to believe what they do, which is discouraged in most Western religion and unheard of or even forbidden in Eastern religions.
Personally, I have no religion, but I am deeply interested in them and would like to learn as much as possible about them. I would not call myself atheist and I have some resistance to the term Agnostic, even though it's probably the closest analogy I disagree strongly with the basis of many major religions, but I see good in them too. I have particular interest in certain ones, such as Catharism, Sikhism, Kemetic Orthodoxy, and others.

Lord Testicles

13th June 2006, 18:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 03:58 PM
The only members here that I've seen forcing their religion on anyone are atheists.
Calling atheism a religion is like calling bladness a hair colour.

backwardsbulldozer

13th June 2006, 18:31

Atheism should not be made into a religion, but instead a personal belief held by someone. In practice, atheist fundamentalism clearly exists, and in places like this is much more prevalent then theologic fundamentalism. Those that can't tolerate religion make a clear point of it, are convinced that atheism is the only belief anyone can have, and are saying that believing something many people do is not only incorrect, but morally wrong. I expect people to say that they don't believe in morals, but just because you reject the word and the traditional ways it is applied doesn't mean you're not morally motivated and, as is the case for many people here, fanatical to your own religion of lack of religion.

MurderInc

13th June 2006, 18:42

QUOTE
Actually, I'll approach God anyway I please, and without a dictionary if I so choose.

I really don't care about your "God", but if you plan on using the english language, it would be preferable if you use words according to their accepted meanings.

That's where the dictionary comes in.

QUOTE
But there is no logical argument that the concept of God has to include religion.

Yes there is, namely that's what "religious" means.

Perhaps you are thinking of organized religion, something which is not implied in theism. But any belief in a supernatural power is simply by definition religious in one form or another.

Obviously LSD, you have a bee in your bonnet and you feel a need to exorcize by challenging anyone who has faith in something and labeling it religion and ending your discussion with, "Where's your proof?"

I cannot help you with your enterprise. I was not put on the plantet to defend those things I have faith in: my faith in my childrens' love, my faith in humanity, my faith in the U.S. Constitution, these beliefs have no proof for me to offer, yet the vast majority of people I know, dictionary or not, LSD's narrow view of words or not, would not define this collection of faiths as a "religion".

Good luck fighting for a revolution without faith.

You might be surprized how many of our Framers of the Constitution (what used to be called the Founding Fathers) had their problems with religion. Jefferson was a deist, who believed in a God who created, and then left it all alone. Washington referred to what he called a Providence, and he capitalized it that way, but rarely referred to God as altering destiny.

But I degress. If you genuinely live your life based ONLY on the scientific interaction between people, and cannot atach yourself to the wide view of human experience that cannot be explained: Love, poetry, women, etc., then that's your problem.

But there is a laughable result to your fixation on the dictionary or some sole authority for all conversation, and an example can be found in the world of revolutionary cause:

Though you are a Canadian, you are probably aware of some of the names of our states. There are a collection of them in the American southwest: Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona and others, were ceded to the United States around 1849, after a brief war with Mexico. These are now states of the U.S., and have each of them two members of our federal Senate, and fly the Stars and Stripes over their schools and parks.

But there is a group of people called Chicaos, and a branch of them do not call Arizona a state, but part of Occupied Aztlan, or other references. (I won't bore you with what this means.

We got a state in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, Hawaii, and a small minority of the population, idiots mostly, call their lands not a state, but Occupied XXX (that XXX is Hawaii misspelled).

Now, before you freak out about how these territories became fully fleged U.S. states, don't worry. I have an authority, and one more powerful than the dictionary! The Constitution of the United States of America states that Congress can determine a method for the inclusion of other states into the republic.

Well, that settles it, doesn't it. Regardless of those winers in Santa Fe and on Maui, CONGRESS declared them to be states.

AND THEY ARE! Senators, the Stars and Stripes, inclusion in all of our Federal programs.

IT'S ALL SETTLED!!!

And through Science and firm authority.

Well, that ends that argument!

Damn I'm good!

Dyst

13th June 2006, 18:53

I've always thought of the idea that one must be an atheist (as opposed to agnosticist or deist) in order to be a communist as quite metaphysical and strange.

There will obviously be no place for any organized religion what-so-ever in a post-revolutionary society.

However, note that in most of the developed western countries, organization of religion is falling quite rapidly.

I believe maybe the only exception is the U.S., from which I know there are many members, so I can understand your despair. This might be a sign that a revolution in the U.S. (or a successfull one) is not gonna come anytime very soon.

I am holding the belief that it (religion) will not present itself to be too big of a problem after the revolution. As for there to be a revolution in the first place, people's minds will have to be open and not willing to take shit from anyone.

LSD

13th June 2006, 19:05

I was not put on the plantet to defend those things I have faith in

Indeed not, rather you were "put" on the planet to reproduce and promulgate your genes.

Believing in any deeper "purpose" is pure postmodern idealism.

Good luck fighting for a revolution without faith.

I don't believe in luck. ;)

Not to mention of course that the kind of revolution that I am fighting for is a materialist one; one predicated on internationalist proletarian self-determination in which "faith" will play no role.

"Faith" is the single biggest ideological obstacle to progress in the world today. By its nature it is stultifying and regressive and can only serve to entrentch anachronistic value structures.

But I degress. If you genuinely live your life based ONLY on the scientific interaction between people, and cannot atach yourself to the wide view of human experience that cannot be explained: Love, poetry, women, etc., then that's your problem.

You seem to be suffering from a misunderstanding of what materialism actually means.

I am not claiming that I cannot experience the non-scientific parts of life; merely that I recognize that even they have an, ultimately, scientific root.

So, for instance, I am in no way prevented from "falling in love". It's just that I'm fully aware that that sensation is the result of hormones and neuronic pathways and not supernatural "Gods".

"Faith" is not a prerequisite for pleasure. On the contrary, it is often the primary obstacle to it. Adopting a rational outlook means that one is not limited by arbitrary or dogmatic "values" and can pursue the many "human experiences" undaunted.

Atheists, after all, are far less likely to be "uptight" about sexuality than obvservant Christians. It is not materialism that limits human experience, it's religion.

But there is a laughable result to your fixation on the dictionary or some sole authority for all conversation, and an example can be found in the world of revolutionary cause:

Though you are a Canadian, you are probably aware of some of the names of our states. There are a collection of them in the American southwest: Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona and others, were ceded to the United States around 1849, after a brief war with Mexico. These are now states of the U.S., and have each of them two members of our federal Senate, and fly the Stars and Stripes over their schools and parks.

But there is a group of people called Chicaos, and a branch of them do not call Arizona a state, but part of Occupied Aztlan, or other references. (I won't bore you with what this means.

We got a state in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, Hawaii, and a small minority of the population, idiots mostly, call their lands not a state, but Occupied XXX (that XXX is Hawaii misspelled).

Now, before you freak out about how these territories became fully fleged U.S. states, don't worry. I have an authority, and one more powerful than the dictionary! The Constitution of the United States of America states that Congress can determine a method for the inclusion of other states into the republic.

Well, that settles it, doesn't it. Regardless of those winers in Santa Fe and on Maui, CONGRESS declared them to be states.

AND THEY ARE! Senators, the Stars and Stripes, inclusion in all of our Federal programs.

IT'S ALL SETTLED!!!

And through Science and firm authority.

Well, that ends that argument!

Damn I'm good!

:unsure:

um...what?

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to get at. The fact that the United States congress "declared" something is meaningless to me. I have absolutely no respect for the American Constitution and do not accept its political legitimacy.

All of which has nothing to do with my point regarding the propper use of the english language.

The word "religion" has a specific meaning. Attempting to graft a different definition on to the word is not only confusing but contrary to the basic contract of a common discussion.

When we agree to speak in the same language, we agree to speak in the same language. That doesn't mean having "respect" for "authority", it just means abiding by the, current, guidelines of the language.

It's not "revolutionary" or "radical" to arbitrarily redefine words, it's just annoying.

...and I still can't figure out what any of this has to do with Hawaii! :lol:

my faith in the U.S. Constitution,

:blink:

Please clarify this point immediately.

You have "faith" in the American Constitution? If so, please explain why you should not be restricted to OI as a pro-capitalist?

The Resistor

13th June 2006, 19:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 01:10 AM
Now I know the common leftist way of thinking is, that there is no God. Now for me, I am a christian. I however don't believe in Organized Religion. I think everyone should keep the Religion and their God to themselves. I don't think you need a Priest or someone to have a relationship with God. What is this, does anyone know? Does anyone think the same way I do, or am I just nuts?
I have my own oppinion about religion, its the same as marx. I have some arguments that I think makes religion sounds like rubish, but I also somewhere think that should think for yourself, and if you realy believe in God and you thought about it, you should let believe what you think.

violencia.Proletariat

13th June 2006, 20:47

Atheism should not be made into a religion, but instead a personal belief held by someone.

Atheism is a logical position based on a FACT. The fact that there is no "god." If you are rational, you are an atheist.

Those that can't tolerate religion make a clear point of it, are convinced that atheism is the only belief anyone can have, and are saying that believing something many people do is not only incorrect, but morally wrong.

First of all, we aren't claiming people can't have religious beliefs. We are saying that communists can't have religious believes nor can rational people.

Morally wrong? I have yet to find an atheist that believes in morality. Religious people can have that bullshit.

I expect people to say that they don't believe in morals, but just because you reject the word and the traditional ways it is applied doesn't mean you're not morally motivated and, as is the case for many people here, fanatical to your own religion of lack of religion.

We are not morally motivated. We support things based on how much rational sense they make.

I must commend LSD for his work in this thread. He has repeatedly and succesfully defeated the religious ideas put forth in this thread.

Hit The North

13th June 2006, 22:08

Morally wrong? I have yet to find an atheist that believes in morality. Religious people can have that bullshit.

We've never met but - Hello!

If you don't react to the world in a moral way and see injustice in the way the system is ordered and feel disgust at the exploitation, oppression and murder of people in the name of profit then what the fuck are you a revolutionary for?

If you do feel those emotions, then you're responding in a moral way.

I don't have to believe in an omnipotent, caring creator God in order to have a moral code. They are drawn from my humanism, my sense of injustice, and my respect for those around me.

The idea that religion has a monopoly on morality is laughable when you look at its history - if anything, morality, as in our basic sense of solidarity with each other, is the first thing that religion hijacks.

violencia.Proletariat

13th June 2006, 23:04

If you don't react to the world in a moral way and see injustice in the way the system is ordered and feel disgust at the exploitation, oppression and murder of people in the name of profit then what the fuck are you a revolutionary for?

Why am I a revolutionary? Because it is in my CLASS INTEREST to end class exploitation. It is logical to organize classless society as it is more efficient and rational society.

This is not a fucking christian tv special where you feel bad for starving african children, write a check, and feel you've "done good."

If you do feel those emotions, then you're responding in a moral way.

Thats where your arguement is week. I don't base my revolutionary outlook on emotions. I base it on the material conditions and how to effectivly change them in order to overthrow bourgeois society.

Hit The North

13th June 2006, 23:24

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 09:05 PM

If you don't react to the world in a moral way and see injustice in the way the system is ordered and feel disgust at the exploitation, oppression and murder of people in the name of profit then what the fuck are you a revolutionary for?

Why am I a revolutionary? Because it is in my CLASS INTEREST to end class exploitation. It is logical to organize classless society as it is more efficient and rational society.

This is not a fucking christian tv special where you feel bad for starving african children, write a check, and feel you've "done good."

If you do feel those emotions, then you're responding in a moral way.

Thats where your arguement is week. I don't base my revolutionary outlook on emotions. I base it on the material conditions and how to effectivly change them in order to overthrow bourgeois society.
So you don't feel those emotions?

If "rationality" is the only way in which you assess the validity of action then you're in trouble my friend. If you were a farmer it would be rational for you to destroy your unsold corn rather than contribute it for free to starving people. You might even find yourself honouring genocidal policy against "historically redundant classes" like Stalin against the Kulacks - in the name of the rationally deduced historical process.

Having a moral repugnance when one sees images of starving African children doesn't necessarily lead to charity - it can also strengthen your resolve to fight against such conditions.

Apparently, you just look blankly on and shake your head and say, "How irrational".

As far as I know, the only people who lack a sense of morality are generally labelled as pychopaths.

RedCeltic

13th June 2006, 23:51

“If you tremble indignation at every injustice then you are a comrade of mine.”
----Ernesto Che Guevara.

I believe that is quite a powerful statement of morality there. Che is not saying here that injustice is illogical but rather morally bankrupt. I do not believe that religious folks hold any kind of monopoly on morality, in fact I feel that it is a very human thing and one doesn't need a god nor read a book in order to have morality.

violencia.Proletariat

14th June 2006, 00:11

So you don't feel those emotions?

Yes I feel emotions. But to base a stance on emotions is irrational. You must have reason behind your viewpoint. Calling something "bad" or "good" isn't gonna cut it.

If you were a farmer it would be rational for you to destroy your unsold corn rather than contribute it for free to starving people.

Why is that rational? It would take more work to destroy the corn than it would be to give it away. But this situation is stupid in the first place, there are no more "farmers" in America, it's agro business.

You might even find yourself honouring genocidal policy against "historically redundant classes" like Stalin against the Kulacks

Genocide is not a very rational option in context with the society we wish to create. Why would a communist use genocide? Exterminating the bourgeoisie is completely impossible. It is also a bad idea because if you start exterminating people, then they will have a reason to do the same back to you.

You see, it's not that we disagree on whats actions are "bad" it's that I don't stop my justification at morality. I could claim anything is bad or good but thats subjective and doesn't mean anything.

Hit The North

14th June 2006, 00:27

You see, it's not that we disagree on whats actions are "bad" it's that I don't stop my justification at morality. I could claim anything is bad or good but thats subjective and doesn't mean anything.

But my point is:

(a) A sense of morality must underpin our vision of a new society and
(b) all sorts of atrocities have been committed in the name of rational systems.

BTW, the reason the wealthy West prefer to destroy their surplus unsold food is because if they shipped it to Africa to feed starving people for free it would force down the market price of their commodities. It's one of the basic contradictions of the capitalist system: we grow enough food to feed the world but profitablility imposes a limit on our ability to distribute it and meet human need.

For me that's not only irrational, it's also a moral abomination.

RebelDog

14th June 2006, 00:32

I think that you find that atheists have better morals, as you touch on redceltic. Pat Robertson is a example of why that statement is true. Although I admit Pat Roberson is not typical of a lot of christians I know. In fact I know some christian comrades who are invaluable to our movement and are true friends of mine and they have a place in my heart no less than athiest comrades.

The fact is that most christians are not comrades of ours and are indeed bitter enemies. Most right-wing christians seem to use communism's inherent atheism as their first line of attack. One must embrace Jesus Christ first they say, with the niggling inner voice reminding them capitalism is not egalitarian and never will be and that communism is built on egalitarianism.

The other night I watched a programme on UK channel 4. It was about a exclusive christian college in the US. The programme was called 'God's next army'. It was very, very scary. It was about a college that educated according to the scriptures and hoped to produce the USA's next political elite in the republican mould. Here was young christians going to lobby congress to reduce social security spending and stop all payments to industrial asbestosis victims. What struck me was how evil and heartless this was. You don't even want to know about the biology classes.

If I conceded for one tiny second that god exists it wouldn't matter. I could not bring myself to be associated with such people. You are a comrade, a comrade of equal, but isn't that the crux, we have no masters, none that we must worship, no gods. Its just me and you and our friends against the hell of capitalism.

violencia.Proletariat

14th June 2006, 00:33

(b) all sorts of atrocities have been committed in the name of rational systems.

And the same can't be said of morality? Rationality is just that, when something isn't rational it can be shown. You can't justify good or bad other than by subjectivity.

One could easily commit genocide against all rich people in the world and call it good because they can no longer exploit poor people.

if they shipped it to Africa to feed starving people for free it would force down the market price of their commodities.

There is more to it than that. Much of the free food doesn't even make it to the victims of famine. Theres a lack on infrustructure to get it there. We must also look at the situation in terms of over population of the famine stricken areas.

Just because it's "good" to send the starving people the food doesn't mean we should.

It's one of the basic contradictions of the capitalist system: we grow enough food to feed the world but profitablility imposes a limit on our ability to distribute it and meet human need.

For me that's not only irrational, it's also a moral abomination

I don't claim that the capitalist system is rational, but the opposite.

RedCeltic

14th June 2006, 01:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 04:12 PM

If you were a farmer it would be rational for you to destroy your unsold corn rather than contribute it for free to starving people.

Why is that rational? It would take more work to destroy the corn than it would be to give it away. But this situation is stupid in the first place, there are no more "farmers" in America, it's agro business.

Family farms are not all gone in the US or there wouldn't be a such thing as farm aid... but they are dying off rather quickly. At any rate, farmers do not spend the money and resources to harvest corn only to destroy it. They silo surplus corn which is turned into animal feed.

The only instance I could see a farmer "destroying" corn is when they have a poor crop. If the farmer can not even silo corn for feed they would be throwing money away to harvest a bad crop and therefore would let it rot in the fields.

Once harvested however, it is not rational for a farmer to simply give away what he/she has invested money into harvesting while there are numerous markets for corn including biofuels.

Hit The North

14th June 2006, 01:52

And the same can't be said of morality? Rationality is just that, when something isn't rational it can be shown. You can't justify good or bad other than by subjectivity.

That's a good point. At the same time you can't assess the value of one rational system over another without employing some kind of morally led value judgement.

There is more to it than that. Much of the free food doesn't even make it to the victims of famine. Theres a lack on infrustructure to get it there. We must also look at the situation in terms of over population of the famine stricken areas.

Crossed wires here, I think. I'm not talking about the food relief organised by voluntary organisations, but the hundreds of thousands of tons of grain which is dumped in the ocean by European and American nations every year.

Incidentally, over population isn't the issue. We produce enough food to feed every stomach on the planet. The rational systems of capitalist production achieve this. However, the irrational system of distribution and exchange forbid its employment.

Just because it's "good" to send the starving people the food doesn't mean we should.

Are you saying let them starve? If you think over-population is the cause of their starvation then perhaps you are. Afterall, it would be a rational solution.

[/QUOTE] I don't claim that the capitalist system is rational, but the opposite.[QUOTE]

But many elements of it are rational.

violencia.Proletariat

14th June 2006, 02:07

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 13 2006, 06:53 PM

Incidentally, over population isn't the issue. We produce enough food to feed every stomach on the planet. The rational systems of capitalist production achieve this. However, the irrational system of distribution and exchange forbid its employment.

That may be true but the location of that production is not equal. Do you think it's rational to keep sending food to a country that can't sustain itself? Or provide the resources for them to sustain themselves.

Are you saying let them starve?

No, I'm trying to find a logic way to fix the problem. Shipping food 24-7 is not the answer.

If you think over-population is the cause of their starvation then perhaps you are. Afterall, it would be a rational solution.

No the logical solution would be to industrialize the country so they can provide for themselves. Supporting forces within the country that want to do this would be a lot more rational than sending food that never even gets to the people that are starving.

But many elements of it are rational.

At one point in time. That time has already started to pass.

Hit The North

14th June 2006, 02:23

violencia.Proletariat, you make some valid points and rather than knit-pick them, I want to return to my original intervention which was to question you ceding morality to the God Squad and claiming revolutionaries have no use for it.

As far as I'm concerned, it's my sense of injustice and moral indignation with the system that puts the fire in my belly and makes me a revolutionary. The rational analysis of the system - how it works and how it can be overthrown is also very important.

However, a dispassionate rational analysis is never enough on its own. I know plenty of people who share my analysis of the world but they prefer to wallow in cynicism. The reason? They don't really care. They have no moral engagement with the issue.

Martyr

14th June 2006, 18:18

I'am a Christian myself yes and are absoulutly objective to the forced morality or ideology onto another.I used to be a communist then to a socialist and questioned them and found there is no future for both of them. It's why I have a problem with socialistic thinking is that every one is equal and there is no way out of it. I mean look at former soviet union,Cambodia,Cuba, North Korea are they truly free communistic countries?

guerillablack

14th June 2006, 19:15

You don't have to be Marxist or athiest to be a revolutionary or a socialist. I'm not an atheist, nor will i ever be one.

Athiests have better morals? :rolleyes:

Tungsten

14th June 2006, 19:56

drain.you

You'll probably experience the fact that most people around here have little tolerance when it comes to religion, they see religion as evil and of serving little use to mankind except to reinforce capitalist values.
I have yet to see a religion that doesn't refer to greed and self interest (i.e. capitalism) as some form of sin.

black magick hustla

14th June 2006, 20:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 04:57 PM
drain.you

You'll probably experience the fact that most people around here have little tolerance when it comes to religion, they see religion as evil and of serving little use to mankind except to reinforce capitalist values.
I have yet to see a religion that doesn't refer to greed and self interest (i.e. capitalism) as some form of sin.
You are right.

Capitalism--if anything--destroys religious values.

We don't like religion because we are materialists, and religion promotes reactionary values remniscent of older eras.

violencia.Proletariat

14th June 2006, 20:13

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 12:57 PM
drain.you

You'll probably experience the fact that most people around here have little tolerance when it comes to religion, they see religion as evil and of serving little use to mankind except to reinforce capitalist values.
I have yet to see a religion that doesn't refer to greed and self interest (i.e. capitalism) as some form of sin.
Tungsten, I also have seen the phrase "treat others like you want to be treated" in many religions. I have yet to find one that follows that :lol: It is inherently impossible for them to follow it.

You don't have to be Marxist or athiest to be a revolutionary or a socialist. I'm not an atheist, nor will i ever be one.

Athiests have better morals?

We don't believe in "moralism." However I don't remember the last time we had a crusade, brainwashing camps, a fascist movement, purging of homosexuals and leftists, opposition to science and birth control, but I remember when you guys did! :lol:

Hit The North

14th June 2006, 20:25

Originally posted by Marmot+Jun 14 2006, 06:06 PM--> (Marmot @ Jun 14 2006, 06:06 PM)
[email protected] 14 2006, 04:57 PM
drain.you

You'll probably experience the fact that most people around here have little tolerance when it comes to religion, they see religion as evil and of serving little use to mankind except to reinforce capitalist values.
I have yet to see a religion that doesn't refer to greed and self interest (i.e. capitalism) as some form of sin.
You are right.

Capitalism--if anything--destroys religious values.

We don't like religion because we are materialists, and religion promotes reactionary values remniscent of older eras. [/b]
We also don't like religion because it is based on demonstrably false premises about reality. It sows illusions. It distracts man from his real relationship with his species.

Yes, religion can sometimes condemn greed and exploitation; however, it lacks the tools to do anything about it.

guerillablack

14th June 2006, 22:44

Originally posted by violencia.Proletariat+Jun 14 2006, 12:14 PM--> (violencia.Proletariat @ Jun 14 2006, 12:14 PM)
[email protected] 14 2006, 12:57 PM
drain.you

You'll probably experience the fact that most people around here have little tolerance when it comes to religion, they see religion as evil and of serving little use to mankind except to reinforce capitalist values.
I have yet to see a religion that doesn't refer to greed and self interest (i.e. capitalism) as some form of sin.
Tungsten, I also have seen the phrase "treat others like you want to be treated" in many religions. I have yet to find one that follows that :lol: It is inherently impossible for them to follow it.

You don't have to be Marxist or athiest to be a revolutionary or a socialist. I'm not an atheist, nor will i ever be one.

Athiests have better morals?

We don't believe in "moralism." However I don't remember the last time we had a crusade, brainwashing camps, a fascist movement, purging of homosexuals and leftists, opposition to science and birth control, but I remember when you guys did! :lol: [/b]
Self Proclaimed Marxists and Athiests haven't done those things? Stop romanticizing things brother. Cuz i can go down the list of things the FARC did that isn't so peachy. :angry:

Lord Testicles

14th June 2006, 23:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 08:45 PM
Self Proclaimed Marxists and Athiests haven't done those things? Stop romanticizing things brother. Cuz i can go down the list of things the FARC did that isn't so peachy. :angry:
Yeah, I can remember the atheist crusades and the Marxist fascist movement, and who can forget when the Marxists opposed to science and birth control. :rolleyes:

violencia.Proletariat

14th June 2006, 23:33

Self Proclaimed Marxists and Athiests haven't done those things? Stop romanticizing things brother. Cuz i can go down the list of things the FARC did that isn't so peachy. :angry:

:lol: Yeah those fucking massacres that are documented by for profit media which got their information from colombian security forces.

Lets compare the horrible things that the FARC has done with the AUC (their god sucking opposites). I think its rather obvious who the real criminals are.

Johnny Anarcho

14th June 2006, 23:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 04:45 AM

If parents go through the work of having a child then I think they are entitled to teach it as they please.

So, you'd have no problem with a father teaching his 4-year old daughter to remove her clitoris? Or to drink poison? Or to suck his cock? :o

There is a limit to the rights of parents over "their" children. At some point, the rights of the children must become paramount. And "faith", especially abusive faith like Islam, is remarkably destructive.

Teaching a young girl that she must be covered at all times, that she must submit to her husband, these might be the "values" of the parents, but they have no right to impose them on anyone, no matter the genetic link.

I don't care how much "work" went into producing a child, once she is born, she is a free individual with all the societal rights that go along with it.

Believing in a higher-power doesnt make me anti-Semetic

I didn't say that it did.

What I said was that educating a child in "religous faith" is not in any way functionaly different from teaching a child racism.

Both are biggoted irrational superstitions predicated on anachronistic "beliefs" and both largely promligate due to childhood indoctrination.

I have no fucking idea where you got the idea that I'm sexist

I didn't say that you were nescessarily sexist, I said that you support teaching sexism. That is, you support raising girls in "Muslim" law, an intrinsically sexist set of moral precepts predicated on antiquated 7th century notions of women's "proper role".

What statistics, bring me proof or otherwise your statment is unfounded.

Just compare the crime rates of the US and Canada; or Belgium and Saudi Arabia; or Denmark and Iran...

What does religion have to do with youre belief that homosexuality is an abomination, I'm not for or against it.

:lol:

It's not my belief, buddy, it's "Allah's"!
Now you're being sarcastic and please dont try to twist the meaning of my words. When I said that a parent has the right to teach their children as they wish that means to teach them to be productive and successful members of society who wont grow to be criminals, do harm to themselves or others. Yes there are limits but these limits have nothing to do with spirituality. I know that there is sexism in the middle-east and I think it should be stopped and that the corrupt Saudi Arabian government be brought to justice but these crimes aren't the fault of Islam there the fault of a corrupted society thats ruled by an oppressive monarchy which I oppose because of its violation of human-rights and constant mis-representation of Islam. Also, if Islam is so oppressive then explain to me why so many women in liberal nations like Britain, Denmark, etc. are becoming Muslim. The crime rates in the nations you listed are due to economic inequality which causes the poor and lower-classes to commit crime in order to obtain money for survival. That is no way the fault of religion. The only connection that I can make between these would be the corrupt religious leaders like Pat Robertson, Jerry Farwell, etc. who dupe many people into funding their already lavish estates. However these are only a few and the majority cannot be held accountable for a minorities fault.

LSD

15th June 2006, 00:15

Now you're being sarcastic and please dont try to twist the meaning of my words. When I said that a parent has the right to teach their children as they wish that means to teach them to be productive and successful members of society who wont grow to be criminals, do harm to themselves or others.

I would generally agree with that standard; and indeed it is by that standard that I am condemning "religious education".

Teaching a young girl that she is "less than" a man, that her future husband will be "her head", or, worst of all, that she must cover herself in shame, all qualifies as "harm to [herself]"!

When she grows up, she will be an indoctrinated and psychologically broken individual, almost incapable of living a normal healthy life. Not only will she continue to "harm" herself ad nauseum, but she will be entirely unable to be "productive" or "successful".

By your own definition, her parents have committed abuse.

And even when the issue is less clear-cut "evil", parents who raise their children in lies and deceptions are preventing them from truly understanding the world.

Parents who teach hatred an intolerance -- who follow "divine scripture" and impart racist, homophobic, or sexist values unto their children -- have crossed the line of "acceptable" parental idiosyncracy.

"Spirituality" is one thing, but institutional bullshit and unreasoning "faith" are as destructive and corrosive as any dehumanizing trickery.

Children deserve to know about the word as it really is, not the way that "Allah" wants it to be. And any parent who puts "Allah" above reality is denying their children a fundamental human right.

Also, if Islam is so oppressive then explain to me why so many women in liberal nations like Britain, Denmark, etc. are becoming Muslim.

Simple, they're not!

More European women are converting than European men, but both figures are relatively low.

Indeed, the greatest religious shift happening in the west is the shift away from religion. An in terms of actual religions, apparently Buddhism is gaining the highest number of European converts.

The myth of a massive "world Islamic conversion" is just that.

http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-myths-fastest-growing.htm

The crime rates in the nations you listed are due to economic inequality which causes the poor and lower-classes to commit crime in order to obtain money for survival.

I don't disagree with that. But it nonetheless highlights the fact that religion is not an antidote to crime.

Despite your claim that a lack of religion nescessitates imoral behaviour, the clear objective evidence is that religious people are just as likely to commit crime, if not more so. When the need or desire arises, their "faith" is quickly subsumed to their personal interst.

Accept it, atheism is not only logical, rational, and supported by the evidence; it is also morally, the best available choice. "God" or not "God", people's propensity to crime has nothing at all to do with their "faith".

So we might as well just abandon this 7th century bullshit and move on!

Johnny Anarcho

15th June 2006, 04:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 09:16 PM

Now you're being sarcastic and please dont try to twist the meaning of my words. When I said that a parent has the right to teach their children as they wish that means to teach them to be productive and successful members of society who wont grow to be criminals, do harm to themselves or others.

I would generally agree with that standard; and indeed it is by that standard that I am condemning "religious education".

Teaching a young girl that she is "less than" a man, that her future husband will be "her head", or, worst of all, that she must cover herself in shame, all qualifies as "harm to [herself]"!

When she grows up, she will be an indoctrinated and psychologically broken individual, almost incapable of living a normal healthy life. Not only will she continue to "harm" herself ad nauseum, but she will be entirely unable to be "productive" or "successful".

By your own definition, her parents have committed abuse.

And even when the issue is less clear-cut "evil", parents who raise their children in lies and deceptions are preventing them from truly understanding the world.

Parents who teach hatred an intolerance -- who follow "divine scripture" and impart racist, homophobic, or sexist values unto their children -- have crossed the line of "acceptable" parental idiosyncracy.

"Spirituality" is one thing, but institutional bullshit and unreasoning "faith" are as destructive and corrosive as any dehumanizing trickery.

Children deserve to know about the word as it really is, not the way that "Allah" wants it to be. And any parent who puts "Allah" above reality is denying their children a fundamental human right.

Also, if Islam is so oppressive then explain to me why so many women in liberal nations like Britain, Denmark, etc. are becoming Muslim.

Simple, they're not!

More European women are converting than European men, but both figures are relatively low.

Indeed, the greatest religious shift happening in the west is the shift away from religion. An in terms of actual religions, apparently Buddhism is gaining the highest number of European converts.

The myth of a massive "world Islamic conversion" is just that.

http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-myths-fastest-growing.htm

The crime rates in the nations you listed are due to economic inequality which causes the poor and lower-classes to commit crime in order to obtain money for survival.

I don't disagree with that. But it nonetheless highlights the fact that religion is not an antidote to crime.

Despite your claim that a lack of religion nescessitates imoral behaviour, the clear objective evidence is that religious people are just as likely to commit crime, if not more so. When the need or desire arises, their "faith" is quickly subsumed to their personal interst.

Accept it, atheism is not only logical, rational, and supported by the evidence; it is also morally, the best available choice. "God" or not "God", people's propensity to crime has nothing at all to do with their "faith".

So we might as well just abandon this 7th century bullshit and move on!
Wearing the hijab is not about women being shamful its about modesty. Islam has also laid restrictions on men so as to prevent favoritism. The reason Muslim women are taught to cover their hair is to prevent lust and so men will judge a woman based on her character and not her appearance. The hijab is a personal matter and isnt required until the woman feels ready. Its true that men are the "head" of a family but only in certain degrees. Its required that a married man provide for his wife, be loving to her, be just with her, be obedient to her, and put her needs before his own. That being said why shouldnt a wife show obedience to her husband; a man's natural being is strong and a woman should be willing to support that. However she cant be forced into marriage and who she marries is ultimatly her choice. If the husband doesnt live up to what is expected of him then she can divorce him. This is all in the Quran. Islam teaches self-defence, good character, intelligence, love, self-love, justice, equality, freedom, etc. How that causes one to be harmful is beyond me and if the person wishes they can convert from Islam. Teaching religion isnt deceptive especially if the parents know what their teaching to be true. Atheist parents teach their children Atheism, why, because in the parents minds they percieve what their teaching to be true. The goes with every parent. I dont know where you got that any religion teaches racism or sexism but as far as homosexuality it was never mentioned to me by my parents who are as Baptist as you can get. They taught me not to steal, kill, cheat, lie, etc. and they specifically got that from scripture. Also, you said religion shouldnt be forced upon others yet you persist in forcing Atheism upon me.

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

15th June 2006, 04:41

Atheism isn't a religion - it's a natural state of belief. People are born atheist - they become religious.

Comrade-Z

15th June 2006, 05:01

There is no rational basis for accepting any religion as true. This is well-demonstrated fact. Teaching children otherwise is to deliberately mislead them about the world.

15th June 2006, 08:00

Its true that men are the "head" of a family but only in certain degrees. Its required that a married man provide for his wife, be loving to her, be just with her, be obedient to her, and put her needs before his own. That being said why shouldnt a wife show obedience to her husband

So as long as the slaveowner is respectful to their slaves then they should be allowed to be slaveowners?

Also, you said religion shouldnt be forced upon others yet you persist in forcing Atheism upon me.

Nobody's forcing you to do anything. We are presenting you with the truth; this truth is that you can't prove any religion to be true.

Also, if you're looking for a moral code to live by, why does it have to be religion? Can't you live just as responsible life being an atheist?

LSD

15th June 2006, 10:36

Wearing the hijab is not about women being shamful its about modesty.

And what is "modesty" in this context?

I'm assuming that you're using the secondary definition of modesty here, namely "observing conventional proprieties in speech, behavior, or dress" which is really quite redunant.

Basically you're saying that women must abide by traditional standards for dress because it's the traditional standard of dress. Not only is that entirely circular but it also complete evades the issue of why?.

Why are women "obligated" to be "modest" about their natural bodies? Why must their go to the extra effort to constantly cover themselves?

When one sex is required to place a "barrier" between themselves and the world and the other sex is not, it nescessarily implies the superiority of the latter. It makes the one sex detatched and removed, while the other is free to interact as an equal.

In short, it makes women property; objects to be "protected" and "secured". Covered to make sure that no one else "lusts" for them and marked so that their ownership is advertised.

It is the reactionary value system of 7th century arabia forcibly and anachronistically extended unto the modern world and it is throoughly oppressive.

That you would even attempt to defend this regressive bullshit is honestly quite disturbing.

Islam has also laid restrictions on men so as to prevent favoritism. The reason Muslim women are taught to cover their hair is to prevent lust and so men will judge a woman based on her character and not her appearance.

And why doesn't a similar requirement apply to men? You know, so women will judge men based on their "character".

After all, don't women lust after men just as much as men lust after women? And don't gay men lust after men as well? In total, then, there are just as many people liable to be lusting after men as there are lusting after women.

So why isn't this "law" universal?

Obviously this prohibition was invented by men so as to serve their interests. It is yet another example of subjugating women to the whims and desires of men; treating women like personal property.

If this was about stopping "lust", it wouldn't just apply to one sex. And, by the way, what's so fucking wrong with lust anyways?

Sexual desire and gratification is one of the greates parts of being human. Suppressing it is an intrinsically oppressive and exploitive act. As is entirely disregarding the existance of individual female sexuality.

Sex is not a "guy thing" and to assert that society must be designed so as to protect "male urges" is hopelessly patriarchal.

That being said why shouldnt a wife show obedience to her husband; a man's natural being is strong and a woman should be willing to support that.

Why shouldn't a wife "show obedience"? Because no one should have to "obey" anybody!

There is no such thing as a "natural being" and even if there were, mens' are no more "strong" than womens'. Gender differences are primarily socialized; that is they are grafted onto individuals by society, not the other way around.

Men are percieved as "stronger" in most of the world, because they've been the ones making the law. But if the gender disparity were reversed, so would our perception of "natural being".

Your premise is, frankly, identical to that made by Southern Americans in the 1850s. They too asserted that their slaves were "naturally" inferior and that, so long as they treated them well, they were actually "caring for" and "protecting them".

But slavery is slavery and "obdience" is the watchword of the taskmaster. It certainly has no place in a modern and free world.

Atheist parents teach their children Atheism, why, because in the parents minds they percieve what their teaching to be true. The goes with every parent.

Yeah, but the difference is that the atheist parents are right.

Look, intent really doesn't matter here. Fathers who remove their daughter's cllitorises also think that their being "true"; as to parents who beat their children to instill "discipline".

That doesn't make what they're doing any less abusive.

Similarly teaching children to subjugate themselves, to cover their head at all times, or to "obey" some future "husband", are scarring their children and preventing them from living a "successful" life. As such, parents who insist on "instilling" these kind of values cannot be allowed to raise children.

Again, I don't care what you want to "believe" yourself, but children have a right to be raised free; and that right trumps your personal petty religious interest.

I dont know where you got that any religion teaches racism or sexism

You don't know "where I got that" Islam is sexist? Really? Try your own post:

That being said why shouldnt a wife show obedience to her husband; a man's natural being is strong and a woman should be willing to support that.