God

[chimx]

Let me preface this with that I do not believe in god. the idea strikes me as anachronistic.

However, the grand majority of the earth's population has yet to shake off what we would consider this ahistorical superstitious tradition. Is religion, and in reality as a westerner i am speaking of christianity in particular, so antithetical to communist ideology that one can never apologize our communities unfortunate traditions to it? To brashly denounce god and church, though ultimately i agree with it, strikes me as generally irrelavent to the current political climate and ultimately only serves to alienate working folk from what is thought to be "godless communism".

why is it that you dogmatically cling to this anti-religious fervor, and in the process ostracize yourself from your community and its traditions? speaking pragmatically, how do you justify it?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Well... Personally I am in disagreement with the majority of the board and I think that post-revolution, you should still be able to hold any opinion you like.

That said, the argument for kicking religion out is strong.

A. They are preaching obvious myth, on a very large scale.

B. They dictate morality to a vast number of people, and since they are dogmatic institutions, any morality they have is therefore fundamentally flawed.

C. Throughout history relgion has been a huge cause of death, regression and brutality. The crusades, the inquisition, genocide of the cathars, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, Israel/Palestine, and so on ad infinitum.


I think that's basically the anti-religion talking points. :)

-Alex

[Tarik]

For me the religion is a childish illusion told by ordinary but intelligent men.
So I don't think religion is part of my culture, I tried to understand and to know a minimum about all religions, but I don't need it to advance in my life.
But off course I respect people who believe in any religion, but believe is not know, so religion is no more than a story which permitted to make us blind, and to have falses answers about questions we cannot understand in 2000, or 3000 ect... years ago.And there are still strange questions, but if we are not a child of 5 years old, we can't accept the solutions of the religion which are almost jokes and Disney stories.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Still, disney stories can be dangerous when they preach burning heretics, and they are taken seriously...


For me, religion has not got a scrap of evidence of any kind whatsoever to support it unless reduced to pure theism, or belief in a creator of some kind. Even then the "evidence" is exceedingly thin on the ground, far out weighed by atheist and agnostic logic.

-Alex

[RedAnarchist]

What you have to remember is that in the West a lot of people will say they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim etc but aren't actually practising. For example, Mr Y considers himself Protestant but doesn't go to church or prays or fasts in Lent or anything like that. These people just consider themselves to be part of a religion because their parents were, or because they were baptised or because it is more socially accepted that most people are religious. These people will be more open to Communism than those who are devoutly religious.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Mmm, it's a tricky one. You see, there's a woman I know who was at a family dinner on monday night. She's one of the non-practicing anglicans, who basically just mimics her parents. I suggested to the table in general that raising a child on a particular faith, or even atheism, should be considered as child abuse and outlawed. Most took it with a grain of salt and asked me about the practicalities, etc. This woman, the anglican, recoils in total HORROR. And she then immediately engages me in a debate about infallible truth and evangelism and all the rest of it, in this low, urgent tone, and never breaking eye contact. She gave me a list of books to read and everything... Some of these "non-practicing" are more devout than one might suspect. Although this could just be the ones i've come across.

-Alex

[Free Left]

I agree with BurnTheOliveTree. People may not practise a religion but they still feel attached to it, and will immediately defend it in any debate.

[Comrade-Z]

Heh, it's funny how many threads there are in this forum entitled "God"


I agree with BurnTheOliveTree. People may not practise a religion but they still feel attached to it, and will immediately defend it in any debate.

Yeah, it almost seems like some people, especially those who don't really practice religion anymore and don't even believe in the basic tenets, but still self-identify as "Christian" or whatever, it seems like it's kind of like identifying with sports teams. It's a way to socially connect "Oh, you're Christian too? How neat." especially since there are so many other people who think similarly (it's like the ultimate social-networking scheme--way bigger than myspace) and it's something to root for, I guess. It's still extremely harmful, though, because in the process of all of this these irrational ideas still maintain their legitimacy, and the weak believers are always in danger of falling back into it full-force, especially if they face a crisis in life (such as a crisis in capitalism). It also promotes passivity, spectatorship, and following of authority, none of which we want.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I think the social part is really crucial... Look at that french place, Lourdes, where they go to be healed. There are thousands that go there, which must be a big boost for faith. I remember Richard Dawkins talking about in his documentary, "Root of all evil". I suppose it's like a warped version of solidarity. Dawkins tries to argue that no one had come to Lourdes and had a severed leg re-grow, and these people just flatly dismissed him, even laughed. In private, you wonder if they'd be so confident.

-Alex

[chimx]

i have spoken of this in threads in the past, but what i personally advocate is the realization that the economic bonds between church and state have been severed by bourgeois revolutions of the 18/19th century. while some aspects of this bond persisted, ie. spain 1936, in the present day, it is so minimal that one has the freedom to reinterpret (synthesize?) the meaning of scripture to have it cease to be antithetical to our atheistic communism. while i think it would be illogical to try to promote "christian communism" or "christian anarchism" a la Jaques Ellul, etc., one should try to show those members of our community that still cling to this tradition--even if only for apperances--that their tradition can work hand-in-hand with communist/anarchist ideology.

what is the alternative that militant athetists propose? demand a rejection of god whenever a neighbor or coworkers becomes fed up with his or her boss or our governments policies? its that kind of naive idealism and disconcern for others social needs that leaves us on the political margins of society.

[Delta]

Well I think in the actual day to day worker struggle, no one is in the habit of demanding that anyone reject God. Workers go on strike together regardless of their religious persuasion and will also fight in their immediate interests.

I think if the topic comes up, and the person is sympathetic with anarchist or communist thinking, but wonders if it can coexist with their religion, I think it's a good idea to tell that that it can (even if it's a lie). In my experience, religious and political deconversions rarely happen at the same time (mine were separated by almost 10 years, although atheism came first). Letting them get involved with radical politics may, over time, bring them away from the superstitious hierarchy that is religion. And in a post-revolutionary world, feelings of solidarity with one's common man is likely going to replace the void that some people today choose to fill with religion.

[chimx]

but material hierarchy isn't intrinsic to religion. that is a byproduct of the economic realities in which religion existed. as society evolved, so did religion. why can't this be the case with communism as well. why not show theists how to pick the weeds of capitalist remnants which fester in their religious institutions instead of suggesting or hoping they come around to atheism?

[Tetsuo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 03:30 PM
Mmm, it's a tricky one. You see, there's a woman I know who was at a family dinner on monday night. She's one of the non-practicing anglicans, who basically just mimics her parents. I suggested to the table in general that raising a child on a particular faith, or even atheism, should be considered as child abuse and outlawed. Most took it with a grain of salt and asked me about the practicalities, etc. This woman, the anglican, recoils in total HORROR.
Can&#39;t think why, I mean, you only basically called her parents child abusers <_<

Religion is just one of those irrational beliefs that only really continues to exist because it is socially acceptable. I&#39;ll never understand why some leftists seem to think that it&#39;s a priority to have a go at ordinary, working class people who just happen to be religious because they were brought up that way.

[An archist]

Obviously, people should be able to believe whatever they like, because how can we be sure that god doesn&#39;t exist? Maybe we were all wrong and god is a plate of flying spaghetti. People just shouldn&#39;t force others to believe the same thing.

As for breaking with tradition, my parents are both atheists and raised me that way. (yay&#33; not baptised&#33;)

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Tetsuo - Only very indirectly... :rolleyes: I&#39;m pretty sure she didn&#39;t think of it like that, she was just against the idea that you should stay out of a child&#39;s worldviews.

-Alex

[Tetsuo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 12:10 PM
Tetsuo - Only very indirectly... :rolleyes: I&#39;m pretty sure she didn&#39;t think of it like that, she was just against the idea that you should stay out of a child&#39;s worldviews.

-Alex
Put it this way. Let&#39;s say a friend of yours who knew you were left wing said something like "Well, you know, lefties only want less state surveilance so they can interfere with children sexually without getting caught." What would your first instinct be?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

That case is utterly different. Utterly.

A. I wasn&#39;t aware she was Anglican until she started talking about it.

B. All I said was raising a child to have a certain view on life, basically denying a child choice in the matter, should be illegal and called child abuse.

I really have a hard time seeing the link there. Nothing about sexual interference, no ridiculous generalisations, etc. :blink:

-Alex

[Tetsuo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 07:15 PM
That case is utterly different. Utterly.

A. I wasn&#39;t aware she was Anglican until she started talking about it.

B. All I said was raising a child to have a certain view on life, basically denying a child choice in the matter, should be illegal and called child abuse.

I really have a hard time seeing the link there. Nothing about sexual interference, no ridiculous generalisations, etc. :blink:

-Alex
Ah, sorry, I thought from reading your post that You did know she&#39;d been brought up Anglican and;
You talked about religion specifically.

Either way, calling it "abuse" is probably one of the sillier bits of hyperbole that gets used on the left. Locking a child in a cupboard for days on end with no food or water is abuse, beating the shit out of a child becuase you&#39;re in a bad mood is abuse. Bringing a child up according to your deepest beliefs is not child abuse, not least because you&#39;re not doing any actual harm to the child (except in a few rare cases where the beliefs are actually emotionally or physically harmful, e.g. scientology).

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Well, I suppose it depends on what we call abuse. I guess I have to agree that it might be stretching the term a little. Still, it&#39;s nice to be a bit provocative from time to time.


-Alex

P.S Yeah, I would include atheism aswell. Agnosticism... Perhaps an exception, because it doesn&#39;t really say much.