The worst belief, from a Philisophical standpoint

[EwokUtopia]

Listed alphabetically are 10 of the worlds leading Religious viewpoints. From a purely Philisophical/Theological standpoint, which of these do you find to be the most absurd, irrational, illogical and wrong. For those who would say all (except Atheism), I ask you to say which of these is the most untrue. For those who say Atheism, here is your chance to tell us why Atheism is flawed. Disregard any historical or current attrocities and intolerance, as this is not a political question, but a Philisophical one.


My vote goes to Christianity, because of all of these, no other persuasion personifies the higher order of existance (which Atheists look at as the scientific explaination of existance) we know as God. Christianity states that God not only has human emotions, and involves himself in the doings of each and every human, but that God was a human who died so that we could live. We are to look at images of Jesus on the cross and think that that is the reason for our creation. No religion has been so hostile to Evolutionism as Christianity has been, and no religion has such a simplistic, yet similtaniously complex outlook at God. Catholics/Orthodox/Anglicans believe that God wants us to follow a complex, highly structured Human organization with unwavering devotion, and Protestant and Reformast groups believe that their individual organizations are the most correct path to salvation, even though they are still ran by, of, and for humans. They acknowledge the Bible was written by humans, yet still take it as the word of God, the unfathomable truth in most circumstances. Even the other Abrahamic faiths do not personify God as much as the Christians do, it is against both Judaism and Islam to make any representation of God, especially with a human face, yet this is a standard practise (sometimes even form of worship) for Christians.

[Ihavenoidea]

I ment to cast my vote for islam. oops. lol. i have to go to work now but I will post my reason after.

[Zero]

Christianity; it must be the least profound of ANY religion. Simply attributing everything to a single god is so...

lazy!

[RedStarOverChina]

I choose Judaism cuz honest to Marx----I can't tell Islam apart from Christianity and can't tell Christianity apart from Judaism.

They are the exact, same bullshit when it comes to theology.

And the only reason I choose the Judeo-Christian religions over others is because I'm most effected by them personally. Hindu-Buddhist religions are just as bad IMO...I despised Buddhism ever since I was 8.

[bcbm]

I think each one of them, aside from Atheism (as it doesn't really have any meaning beyond a non-belief in god, or whatever), has their own good points and bad points and in purely philosophical terms, they're all about equal. If I had to choose, though, I would probably pick some of the strains of Buddhism, particularly those emphasizing non participation in this world, and pacifism and other such shit. Granted all of these have that in them, but it seems to be the most central in Buddhism, if the Dalai Lama is any standard to judge by.

[Black Dagger]

It's not on there, but easily Scientology - made up by a science fiction writer in the 20th century (!) - long after science killed theism; its just completely absurd.

[Honggweilo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 05:51 am
I ment to cast my vote for islam. oops. lol. i have to go to work now but I will post my reason after.
http://myspace.com/damnpotatoes

Noticed.

I voted hinduism for its the largest religion that keeps the caste system in place. If Scientology was i choice, it would be my pick (Dianectical Materialism (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Dianetics)?? :wacko: :lol: ). And dont forget the psuedo-religious bourgeois teahouse; Freemasonry :rolleyes:

[MrDoom]

Everything but Atheism. Same nonsense, different wording and semantics.

[razboz]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 04:25 pm
I wish there was an everything but atheism choice.
me too.

[colonelguppy]

i vote islam because currently, alot of its followers are bathsit insane to a violent degree.

as far as sheer stupidity goes, i would vote for mormonism.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

I vote white race Christians as the most stupid.

[colonelguppy]

most people here vote christianity because they grew up around it and thus have more experience with it, mostly negative. i guarantee that if you grew up in a muslim country your opinion would be different.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Hinduism on account of the caste system

[Eleutherios]

My vote goes to Islam. Nothing else comes close.

[Enragé]

hinduism

most elitist, caste system etc

Islam isnt that bad, in and of itself it is countless times more progressive than either christianity and judaism (if you look at holy scriptures)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

In practice, perhaps Egyptian mythology has been the most oppressive. Almost ten thousand years of autocratic rule and slavery.

Judging solely by doctrine, Islam is no worse than Christianity and Judaism. The old testament is some pretty crazy shit. But I really don't know very much at all about religion as you can tell.

[Fawkes]

Hinduism because of the caste system. For God's sake, class separations are an inherent part of this religion which makes me see it as being more antithetical to communism than any other on that list.

[ichneumon]

Atheism

-it prodives no ethical system, and thus is useless as a religion. this is on purely philosophical grounds, disregarding the atrocities of history, and the subjective correctness of various systems. Atheism provides justification for pure selfishness and immorality, even antisocial behavior.

[wtfm8lol]

atheism isn't a religion so why would it provide a bullshit static ethical system?


Atheism provides justification for pure selfishness and immorality, even antisocial behavior.

atheism doesnt provide justification for anything. it allows atheists to create their own ethical systems which are in general far more humane than theist ethical systems. one example would be (secular) humanism. and of course what you call immoral is subjective so why would you bother to say that? and id really like to know how it provides justification for antisocial behavior...

my vote goes to islam, by the way.

[razboz]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 10:01 pm
Atheism

-it prodives no ethical system, and thus is useless as a religion. this is on purely philosophical grounds, disregarding the atrocities of history, and the subjective correctness of various systems. Atheism provides justification for pure selfishness and immorality, even antisocial behavior.
If its true that atheism does not provide any set moral rules or guidelines it does not in any way justify immoral behaviour. All it does is allow the individual to make a subjective decision on what is moral and what is not. It does not set it out in its set of rules
though shalt be immoral and this shall be justified by...ummm. science. And Darwin. And those fucking Commie Hippies down at Revleft

So all Atheism has is a void where a set of rules determining how our behaviour should be, allowing us to fill in our own blanks.

Basically your completely wrong in saying that atheism leads to selfishness and "anti-social behaviour" (define?). All it leads to is people making their own decisions on what to do with their lives, which more often than not leads them to become more caring of others on earth rather than of some magical sky fairy of any description (sorry for lapsing into atheist rethoric here, but im a bit tired and its the best i can think of)

EDIT: wtfm8lol beat me to it apperently

[ichneumon]

Basically your completely wrong in saying that atheism leads to selfishness and "anti-social behaviour" (define?). All it leads to is people making their own decisions on what to do with their lives, which more often than not leads them to become more caring of others on earth rather than of some magical sky fairy of any description (sorry for lapsing into atheist rethoric here, but im a bit tired and its the best i can think of)

not all the time, no. "there is no god, no heaven, it makes no difference, so just pull the trigger". many atheists are bitterly unhappy people.

anti-social behavior, as in ASPersonality Disorder, meaning behavior that damages your SOCIETY as a whole, like mass murder sprees, etc.

question: is your average violent felon more likely to be an atheist than a regular joe when he commits the crime?

not all atheists are head in the clouds dreamers. some are nasty SOB's who don't care about ANYBODY. this is true about all religions, but most religions state, philosophically, that being a nasty SOB is somehow bad. atheism does not. atheists may develop ethical systems, but this has nothing to do with atheism. ergo, atheism is the worst philosophical system because it is *useless* when it comes to teaching people how to live together in complex societies, which is the only thing that religion is actually GOOD at.

hey, i'm not the one who put it on the same list with the other religions. none of the existing human religions are actually misanthropic, atheism is nothing in that area, therefore....

FURTHERMORE i'm deathly ill of the "hey, religion is stupid, let's bash it" posts. grow up.

[wtfm8lol]

ichneumon, you have no idea what you're talking about. your assertions are completely unfounded. do you really think that belief in god and not laws stops people from committing violent crimes? to answer your question, i'd say the majority of violent felons are probably religious. this is just a guess of course, but my reasoning is that religious belief and intelligence correlate negatively, whereas income level and intelligence correlate positively and income level and violence correlate negatively.

also, since atheism offers no philosophical beliefs (as in it is neutral) i would say its better than the vast majority of theist systems which offer harmful philosophical beliefs.

[TC]

Buddhism. Most anti-materialist and life defeating.

[Fawkes]

Who the hell voted atheism?

[EwokUtopia]

OK, I think a reminder is in order, this poll is not a question of which has been most oppressive, repressive, or innate to violence, but which religions theoligical/philisophical teachings are the most flawed. Please leave the question at that. Do not bring the Crusades or 9/11 into this arguement, but rather leave it at the philosophical standpoint. that was the question which was asked, that is the question which I am asking you to answer.

[ichneumon]

ichneumon, you have no idea what you're talking about. your assertions are completely unfounded. do you really think that belief in god and not laws stops people from committing violent crimes? to answer your question, i'd say the majority of violent felons are probably religious. this is just a guess of course, but my reasoning is that religious belief and intelligence correlate negatively, whereas income level and intelligence correlate positively and income level and violence correlate negatively.


Who the hell voted atheism?

why, is that not allowed? what are you going to do, burn me at the stake?

add to the mix: atheism is elitist, exclusivistic and classist.

philosophically, it is 100% nonconstructive/destructive. the only tenants are "there is no god, there is no life after death". it has nothing to offer. and yet, it's followers are rabidly exclusive, even violently opposed to other religions, in a way that makes islam look warm and fuzzy. and atheists proselytize *compulsively*, which it totally unforgivable. one of the reason i'm a buddhist is because buddhism considers proselytism unacceptable.

"religious belief and intelligence negatively correlate" - that is so fucking fascist it makes me sick. how dare you? you consider yourself a man of the people? wtf?

and you are DEAD wrong. religion does prevent people from being antisocial, all the damn time. that's what it's FOR.

[EwokUtopia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 01:50 am
income level and intelligence correlate positively
So poor people are stupid?


Intelligence level is not class based, you confuse intelligence with education, the only reason education and income level correlate positively is due to privilege. Some of the most stupid people I know, actually all the most stupid people I know, are well off white kids with every oppurtunity granted to them.

Education does not grant income level, income level grants education.

[RedStarOverChina]

why, is that not allowed? what are you going to do, burn me at the stake?

No, but you have our condolences.


one of the reason i'm a buddhist is because buddhism considers proselytism unacceptable.

Um, the first Buddhists were Hindu-converts.

[Fawkes]

why, is that not allowed? what are you going to do, burn me at the stake?
Did I ever say that it wasn't allowed? I am just curious as to how atheism is more dangerous than any of the others on that list.

[RASHskins]

i put christianity cause i used to be one.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 08:34 pm

why, is that not allowed? what are you going to do, burn me at the stake?
Did I ever say that it wasn't allowed? I am just curious as to how atheism is more dangerous than any of the others on that list.
To be fair the question isn't "which is most dangerous".

I'm still trying to work out what to vote for. Pagan is currently winning for me - but Buddhism and Christianity are strong contenders. It's a shame agnosticism is not on there.

[ichneumon]

does paganism encompass the Aztec/Mesoamerican religion system?

what do we mean, here, by philosophical worth? this, i think, means the teachings of the religion, not what its followers actually do.

atheism still gets my vote for the worst, as it proposes nothing and has no ethical system, yet is still exclusivistic and elitist. agnosticism is neither of those. secular humanism, along with engaged buddhism, would get my votes for the best systems, as both have strong ethical systems centered around activism and are completely inclusive. universalism is pretty good, too, but too diffuse to really work.

[EwokUtopia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 01:50 am
does paganism encompass the Aztec/Mesoamerican religion system?

what do we mean, here, by philosophical worth? this, i think, means the teachings of the religion, not what its followers actually do.

atheism still gets my vote for the worst, as it proposes nothing and has no ethical system, yet is still exclusivistic and elitist. agnosticism is neither of those. secular humanism, along with engaged buddhism, would get my votes for the best systems, as both have strong ethical systems centered around activism and are completely inclusive. universalism is pretty good, too, but too diffuse to really work.
Paganism is an umbrella term here, like Atheism and Animism. It essentially covers:

Wicca
Asatru
Greek Godism (I forget what this is called...starts with an h)
Mesoamerican Spirituality
Ba'alism
Egyptian Mythology
Ancient Japanese Mythology
and Others



Animism includes most Indigenous beliefs around the world

Atheism has been lumped with Agnosticism, Pantheism and Nihilism

When you only have 10 options, you have to make extreme generalizations.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 03:02 am
Atheism has been lumped with Agnosticism, Pantheism and Nihilism
With this in mind I voted "atheism". Agnosticism, Pantheism and Nihilism are a load of utter shite.

[EwokUtopia]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+March 07, 2007 01:53 pm--> (Jazzratt @ March 07, 2007 01:53 pm)
[email protected] 07, 2007 03:02 am
Atheism has been lumped with Agnosticism, Pantheism and Nihilism
With this in mind I voted "atheism". Agnosticism, Pantheism and Nihilism are a load of utter shite. [/b]
...They are also extremely broad terms in themselves. I mean, technically all but the most blockheaded Atheists are Agnostic, if only slightly, because there is no way for you to completely disprove the existance of God, Jesus, Thor, Zeus, Santa Clause. You can just be pretty sure that they dont exist, but no matter how small, there allways is a chance.

Come to think of it, who the fuck is eating those cookies on the 24th of December??

Thats it, I'm starting the First Church of Santa (Reformed).



Pantheism is just Atheism with an extreme love for all things in existance, as they are all intransically complex and derrive from the same origins (Big Bang for lack of a better word). Its not a religious belief and is certainly not something people peddle around to potential converts, its an inner understanding for teh beauty of all things that sometimes uses passe words like "God" even though the context with which that word is used differs vastly from the traditional connentations. There is really no such thing as a Pantheist, Pantheistic beliefs can be found in pretty well anyone, its a state of mind, not a faith. It is a personal belief, we all have them, and you seem quite intolerant of outlooks on the world that arent yours, but then I remember that you are a bit of an ass.

Nihilism doesnt matter.

[Rage Against Right]

deffinetly christians...just because i go to a catholic skool and think they contract themeselves to much to be taken seroiusly

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by EwokUtopia+March 07, 2007 08:38 pm--> (EwokUtopia @ March 07, 2007 08:38 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 01:53 pm

[email protected] 07, 2007 03:02 am
Atheism has been lumped with Agnosticism, Pantheism and Nihilism
With this in mind I voted "atheism". Agnosticism, Pantheism and Nihilism are a load of utter shite.
...They are also extremely broad terms in themselves. I mean, technically all but the most blockheaded Atheists are Agnostic, [/b]
Not really, agnosticism is a load of wank. If I declared that you had an intangible goblin on your shoulder would you immediately become a "goblin agnostic" because you can't disprove the Goblin?


if only slightly, because there is no way for you to completely disprove the existance of God, Jesus, Thor, Zeus, Santa Clause. You can just be pretty sure that they dont exist, but no matter how small, there allways is a chance. There is no need to completely disprove them, burden of proof is a wonderful thing.


Pantheism is just Atheism with an extreme love for all things in existance, as they are all intransically complex and derrive from the same origins (Big Bang for lack of a better word). Its not a religious belief and is certainly not something people peddle around to potential converts, its an inner understanding for teh beauty of all things that sometimes uses passe words like "God" even though the context with which that word is used differs vastly from the traditional connentations. There is really no such thing as a Pantheist, Pantheistic beliefs can be found in pretty well anyone, its a state of mind, not a faith. What a load of pretentious twaddle. I'm glad I'm not a pantheist.
It is a personal belief, we all have them, and you seem quite intolerant of outlooks on the world that arent yours, Yes, yes I am. They contradict mine for a start and I have no reason to be tolerant of them.
but then I remember that you are a bit of an ass. I guess by 'ass' you mean 'person who can't be bothered with all this "tolerance" shit that seems to be in fashion at the moment' then yes, yes I am.


Nihilism doesnt matter. That doesn't make it any less philosophically weak now does it?

[EwokUtopia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 02:00 pm

...They are also extremely broad terms in themselves. I mean, technically all but the most blockheaded Atheists are Agnostic, [/QUOTE]
Not really, agnosticism is a load of wank. If I declared that you had an intangible goblin on your shoulder would you immediately become a "goblin agnostic" because you can't disprove the Goblin? [/quote]
I was going on what Dawkins said in the God Delusion that there is no such thing as a complete Atheist, or if there is than whoever is a complete Atheism must have faith in Atheism which is bunk, so all Atheists are just really really really strong Agnostics, technically speaking.

Agnosticism is for the most part a weak idealogy which dodges the question of what they believe. It is probably the most correct, being as nobody can be certain of anything (Can you really be fully certain that I exist?) but at the same time, it is just not a good standpoint socially.




Pantheism is just Atheism with an extreme love for all things in existance, as they are all intransically complex and derrive from the same origins (Big Bang for lack of a better word). Its not a religious belief and is certainly not something people peddle around to potential converts, its an inner understanding for teh beauty of all things that sometimes uses passe words like "God" even though the context with which that word is used differs vastly from the traditional connentations. There is really no such thing as a Pantheist, Pantheistic beliefs can be found in pretty well anyone, its a state of mind, not a faith.
What a load of pretentious twaddle. I'm glad I'm not a pantheist.

Then dont be one, and dont counter pretentiousness with arrogance and assholery.



It is a personal belief, we all have them, and you seem quite intolerant of outlooks on the world that arent yours,
Yes, yes I am. They contradict mine for a start and I have no reason to be tolerant of them.

Tolerance is just really common courtisy, we live in an extremely diverse world and I can tell you that your specific views do not reflect the views of the vast majority. Without tolerance of other outlooks, you'll find yourself very alone.
And if you dont have tolerance of people, they wont have tolerance of you, and come to the conclusion that your a pissed off jackass, they'll likely keep their distance.



but then I remember that you are a bit of an ass.
I guess by 'ass' you mean 'person who can't be bothered with all this "tolerance" shit that seems to be in fashion at the moment' then yes, yes I am.

yes, yes you are.



Nihilism doesnt matter.
That doesn't make it any less philosophically weak now does it?

Its called a joke you dense christfucker!

[Comrade Castro]

Islam. 2 years ago I converted to it (from Catholicicsm), and only half a year ago I was a sick Muslim fanatic. Seriously, the "conversion, tax, or death" kind. The pro-911 kind. The can't eat pork or I'll go to Hell, must not use my left hand near food kind who performs about a dozen stupid rituals a day. I look back upon those days with disgust. Thank Marx that a random link to Revleft saved me from that. :D

[wtfm8lol]

for comrade castro: just out of curiosity, what makes a person convert from one type of mythological beliefs to another that are as similar as christianity and islam?

[Comrade Castro]

The slight theological differences somehow appealed to me, I don't remember exactly how. First, you read some basic things and you're like "oh thats nice". Then you see those guys, performing those "interesting rituals", and wonder "why do they do that? How?" It just slowly drags you in, and you forget that it's the exact same thing as your previous beliefs with just a change in how to pray. By the time it's taken over your thoughts, you're lucky to get out. That goes for any convert to any religion, converts generally go into extremism a lot quicker than people born and brainwashed from birth, the willing quest for more "knowledge" :rolleyes: sends you sliding down the slope faster because you're actively seeking out brainwashing, not having it read to you by some old guy on weekends because your parents make you. So when you are a strict fundamentalist, you just spew the same things into your mind that the religious leaders tell you, and when they tell you that your new religion is the one truth, you never doubt it.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 07:49 pm
I was going on what Dawkins said in the God Delusion that there is no such thing as a complete Atheist, or if there is than whoever is a complete Atheism must have faith in Atheism which is bunk, so all Atheists are just really really really strong Agnostics, technically speaking.
That's a fucking technicality, don't be so fucking petty.


Agnosticism is for the most part a weak idealogy which dodges the question of what they believe. It is probably the most correct, being as nobody can be certain of anything (Can you really be fully certain that I exist?) but at the same time, it is just not a good standpoint socially. FOr the most part I am certain of anything for which there is evidence. If you can bring forward concrete evidence that you don't exist I will be more than happy to say you don't, but if you start resorting to existentialism or solipsism or any of that shit I'll recommend you hang yourself and save the world the trouble.





Pantheism is just Atheism with an extreme love for all things in existance, as they are all intransically complex and derrive from the same origins (Big Bang for lack of a better word). Its not a religious belief and is certainly not something people peddle around to potential converts, its an inner understanding for teh beauty of all things that sometimes uses passe words like "God" even though the context with which that word is used differs vastly from the traditional connentations. There is really no such thing as a Pantheist, Pantheistic beliefs can be found in pretty well anyone, its a state of mind, not a faith.
What a load of pretentious twaddle. I'm glad I'm not a pantheist.

Then dont be one, and dont counter pretentiousness with arrogance and assholery. I enjoy arrogance.




It is a personal belief, we all have them, and you seem quite intolerant of outlooks on the world that arent yours,
Yes, yes I am. They contradict mine for a start and I have no reason to be tolerant of them.

Tolerance is just really common courtisy, we live in an extremely diverse world and I can tell you that your specific views do not reflect the views of the vast majority. That my views do not reflect those of this majority does not bother me in the slightest, if I am right and someone has a view which opposes mine they are logically wrong and therfore not deserving of any pretence of respect in that paticular area.
Without tolerance of other outlooks, you'll find yourself very alone. Oh noes. So far I've managed to avoid pining for the company of imbeciles, but if I am I'll be sure to get in contact with you and apologise for any previous arrogance.

And if you dont have tolerance of people, they wont have tolerance of you, and come to the conclusion that your a pissed off jackass, they'll likely keep their distance. I don't think I could give a shit even if I'd just eaten a massive care vindaloo.




but then I remember that you are a bit of an ass.
I guess by 'ass' you mean 'person who can't be bothered with all this "tolerance" shit that seems to be in fashion at the moment' then yes, yes I am.

yes, yes you are. Tolerance is not a virtue.




Nihilism doesnt matter.
That doesn't make it any less philosophically weak now does it?

Its called a joke you dense christfucker! I'm afraid your miniscule wit appears to have failed, feel free to try again.

[ichneumon]

I enjoy arrogance.

anecdotally, i once tried to go in to see a therapist. after an hour, he looked at me and said "i can't help you, you are too arrogant for therapy".

why do i hear wedding bells?

:wub:

[LittleMao]

Hindu
A religion made to keep the lower class in order.
How can Christianity be worse than that?
It holds the lower class back, telling them if they serve the upper class, that they will get it better in the next life...
Blah

[RevMARKSman]

Whoever voted Atheism (besides Jazzratt), please fucking justify your votes.

[ichneumon]

atheism offers no moral code, no set of ethics and is 100% non-constructive. there is no cosmology, no epistemology, no teleology. it attacks, but offers nothing in its place. philosophically, it is worse than useless.

"there is no god, there is no life after death" - bluck, this is not a philosophy, it's the ravings of nihilistic drunk in a fit of pathos.

atheism is NOT the same thing as secular humanism, which along with engaged buddhism, are the best belief systems (imho, of course)

now, whoever voted buddhism, other than tragic clown, please justify your answers....

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 10:59 am




atheism offers no moral code, no set of ethics and is 100% non-constructive. there is no cosmology, no epistemology, no teleology. it attacks, but offers nothing in its place. philosophically, it is worse than useless.

Ever heard of science?


now, whoever voted buddhism, other than tragic clown, please justify your answers....

It's no doubt one of the most reactionary nihilistic superstition in the orient.

Buddhists say this life is a "illusion" and thus quite inconsequencial. Every kind of injustice can be justified or sugar-coated with this reactionary, escapist ideology. It has always been perceived by the ruling class as a handy tool against the angry masses, as it preaches escapism, obedience to authority and plain cowardice.

The oriental despots and ruling class throughout history hailed Buddhism as the "pacifying", "educating" and "just" faith for this precise reason---Though, interestingly enough, few of them were Buddhists. Those who were often suffered humiliating demise.

Buddhism has been and will always remain a vicious enemy of the proletariat. :angry:

[RevMARKSman]

atheism offers no moral code, no set of ethics

AAAH! MATERIAL INTEREST! NOOOOOOOO SAVE ME!!!!!


and is 100% non-constructive.

By stating that there is no supernatural, you have stated that everything can be understood, humans have the ability to change our world, and that we can change our world however we like without any "moral" reprehension. Sounds pretty constructive to me.


there is no cosmology, no epistemology, no teleology. it attacks, but offers nothing in its place.

Maybe because there is nothing.


philosophically, it is worse than useless.
So now "usefulness" can have negative values?


"there is no god, there is no life after death" - bluck, this is not a philosophy,

You're right. It's a fact.


it's the ravings of nihilistic drunk in a fit of pathos.

Very poetic.

atheism is NOT the same thing as secular humanism, which along with engaged buddhism, are the best belief systems (imho, of course)

Please explain to all of us why Buddhism is true.

[ichneumon]

AAAH! MATERIAL INTEREST! NOOOOOOOO SAVE ME!!!!!

materialism is not a part of atheism. for example, theravada buddhists are atheists and anti-materialists.


By stating that there is no supernatural, you have stated that everything can be understood, humans have the ability to change our world, and that we can change our world however we like without any "moral" reprehension. Sounds pretty constructive to me.

no, you don't. nihilists are atheists. scientific positivism is an entirely separate philosophy, and it is not necessarily atheistic - it merely assumes that god could be understood by science.

atheism has no cosmology - it doesn't say what the stars in the heavens are, it doesn't tell you what the structure of the universe is. there's nothing there. it doesn't tell you the meaning of anything NOR does it state that there is no meaning. MUCH WORSE is the lack of epistemology, the nature of knowledge. the is no guideline on the nature of truth and how it is determined. raw atheism is the BELIEF that there is no god or afterlife.


You're right. It's a fact.

no, it's not. that is your belief. whether you like it or not THERE IS NO EXPERIMENTAL PROOF OF THE NONEXISTENCE OF GOD OR THE AFTERLIFE. primarily because that's utterly impossible. thus, science has no opinion. and, btw, "burden of proof" is an excuse for lack of evidence, not proof. if science knew that there was no god, it would be Nature with the headline "GOD IS DEAD", not Time magazine.


Very poetic.

i rather liked that line myself.


Please explain to all of us why Buddhism is true.

the first 2 precepts of engaged buddhism:


1 Do not be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. Buddhist systems of thought are guiding means; they are not absolute truth.

2Do not think the knowledge you presently possess is changeless, absolute truth. Avoid being narrow minded and bound to present views. Learn and practice nonattachment from views in order to be open to receive others' viewpoints. Truth is found in life and not merely in conceptual knowledge. Be ready to learn throughout your entire life and to observe reality in yourself and in the world at all times.

buddhism is not True. there is no True. buddhism is better because we buddhists know that. :P

if you can't see why the above seriously aids engaged buddhism's useful on a philosophical level, well, i suspect this conversation will go absolutely no where.

[manic expression]

It seems people have a complete misunderstanding of Hinduism and its relation to the caste system.

Hinduism existed for a LONG time BEFORE the caste system, and exists today WITHOUT the caste system.

The caste system is simply a feudal institution that has only symbolic ties to Hinduism. If you go and try to find a justification for the caste system in Hindu scripture, you will not find anything, because no such justification exists.

More importantly, the caste system itself has changed a great deal over time. Hereditary position was introduced relatively recently, when before that point people could change castes during their lives.

Lastly, the caste system is a result of ECONOMIC conditions and not religious conditions, and it is disappointing to see people completely neglecting this fact. As capitalism developed in India, what happened to the caste system? That's right, it basically disappeared in the "modernised" areas, while being somewhat maintained where capitalism was not established.

Anyone who claims that the caste system is an inherent part of Hinduism, or that the two are closely connected is beyond incorrect.

[manic expression]

By the way, speaking from a purely philosophical perspective, the monotheistic religions are BY FAR the most illogical and irrational. The three Judeo-Christian religions reject truth and logic as a matter of principle and grasp onto completely blind faith.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 09:29 pm

AAAH! MATERIAL INTEREST! NOOOOOOOO SAVE ME!!!!!

materialism is not a part of atheism. for example, theravada buddhists are atheists and anti-materialists.
It's quite hard to describe something as 'part' of atheism. Atheism is used to describe anything that does not posit a deity and is therefore not theistic. It's simply ridiculous for you to spew all this bile at atheism when you don't quite understand what it is.


no, you don't. nihilists are atheists. That's as may be. Not all atheists are nihilists however, and you would do well to remember that.

scientific positivism is an entirely separate philosophy, and it is not necessarily atheistic - it merely assumes that god could be understood by science. Scientific positivism is not incompatible with atheism though, is it. In fact most atheists I know are also scientific positivists.


atheism has no cosmology - it doesn't say what the stars in the heavens are, Most atheists will tell you they're huge "balls" off incandescent gas.
it doesn't tell you what the structure of the universe is. Of course it doesn't. Would you be so sure as to tell me with absolute certainty how the universe is structured?
there's nothing there. it doesn't tell you the meaning of anything NOR does it state that there is no meaning. MUCH WORSE is the lack of epistemology, the nature of knowledge. the is no guideline on the nature of truth and how it is determined. raw atheism is the BELIEF that there is no god or afterlife. Right. You've finally got it. Atheism is not on its own a philosophical position as it only pertains to God and an afterlife. Most atheists however are able to develop philosophies and learn more about the nature of their universe and they can do so without infantile religious myths clouding their judgement.


no, it's not. that is your belief. whether you like it or not THERE IS NO EXPERIMENTAL PROOF OF THE NONEXISTENCE OF GOD OR THE AFTERLIFE. primarily because that's utterly impossible. thus, science has no opinion. and, btw, "burden of proof" is an excuse for lack of evidence, I'm afraid the burden of proof is actually a very solid reason. Unless you want to start talking about how perfectly rational it is for me to believe that there is, for example, a perfectly toasted, buttered crumpet floating just inches from your face but you cannot see, taste, smell, touch or otherwise perceive it.
not proof. if science knew that there was no god, it would be Nature with the headline "GOD IS DEAD", not Time magazine. It's such a basic truth that it need not be a headline in either.


the first 2 precepts of engaged buddhism:


1 Do not be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. Buddhist systems of thought are guiding means; they are not absolute truth.

2Do not think the knowledge you presently possess is changeless, absolute truth. Avoid being narrow minded and bound to present views. Learn and practice nonattachment from views in order to be open to receive others' viewpoints. Truth is found in life and not merely in conceptual knowledge. Be ready to learn throughout your entire life and to observe reality in yourself and in the world at all times.

buddhism is not True. there is no True. buddhism is better because we buddhists know that. :P :lol: And you have the utter gall to call atheism a bad philosophical position?


if you can't see why the above seriously aids engaged buddhism's useful on a philosophical level, well, i suspect this conversation will go absolutely no where. Sorry most people on here tend to deal with objective truth not some wishy-washy nonsense like Buddhism.

[Idola Mentis]

Null vote. When not allowed to be used for exploitation, they're all equally harmless. Turned loose, they're all equally nasty. Even atheism, though the atheist offense at the religious reich has my sympathy. Let the religious have their security blanket, as long as they don't try to cover the world with it.

Isn't it animism which is used to stir up all these witchcraft scares in sub-saharan africa these days? Take it from one who grew up nodding at stones in fear of wights - if you're going to assign baddie points to philosophies, don't underestimate the potential of animism and paganism.

[ichneumon]

the statement about buddhism was just a facetious rejoinder. naturally, i don't care what people think about my belief system.

jazzratt is right - atheism is the worst of these because it's not a complete system. it's like comparing a steering wheel to a car. any kind of car is going to be better than a steering wheel.


It's such a basic truth that it need not be a headline in either .

that's not true. science is about repeatable experiments. paleontology, for instance, is knowledge but not science. the scientific evidence for evolution comes from lab experiments, not the fossil record. logical proof and evidence aren't good enough to make scientific fact. it might be true, but it's not science. i admit that this is splitting hairs in many cases.


buddhism is not True. there is no True. buddhism is better because we buddhists know that.

this was meant to be funny. "there is no Truth" is a koan, a self-negating statement.



And you have the utter gall to call atheism a bad philosophical position?


Sorry most people on here tend to deal with objective truth not some wishy-washy nonsense like Buddhism.

in traditional western logic, propositions start out as ? and are then rendered T or F. if ? =/= T, then it must be F. buddhism resolves posits to T or F or X=unknowable. for us, "there is a god" => X. therefore, don't worry about it.

science these days if finding a fair amount of X in the nature of the universe. this is fine with me. that's one of the reasons why positivism is on the out and wishy-washy is in.

[RevMARKSman]

jazzratt is right - atheism is the worst of these because it's not a complete system. it's like comparing a steering wheel to a car. any kind of car is going to be better than a steering wheel.

Even a car that explodes, with you in it, as you press the gas pedal?

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Idola [email protected] 24, 2007 05:05 pm
Isn't it animism which is used to stir up all these witchcraft scares in sub-saharan africa these days? Take it from one who grew up nodding at stones in fear of wights - if you're going to assign baddie points to philosophies, don't underestimate the potential of animism and paganism.
From what I've heard, witch-doctors can get involved in some dark stuff sometimes, but that isn't really animism as much as the traditional medicine of the region.

For example, a businessman might go to a witch-doctor for a ritual that will make him successful. The witch-doctor will then tell him that he needs to sacrifice a kid or something (not nearly always, but it can happen; this is a worst case scenario). That's basically the danger there. HOWEVER, that is just one side of it, the regular traditional doctors use herbs to cure people (which supposedly works pretty well). Remember, this isn't animism persay, it's just the traditional medicine, which is very different.

If you want a look at a type of animism and what it entails, read "Things Fall Apart" by Chinua Achebe, it illustrates what life was like in Nigeria (the Ibo tribes) before the Europeans and what happened as the Europeans started to colonize.

Furthermore, "paganism" refers more to ancient European religions and the new movements that try to emulate them. It's not a really strict definition, because these religions (non-monotheistic) aren't really "Religions" in that they don't have any dogmas or anything like that.

[ichneumon]

Isn't it animism which is used to stir up all these witchcraft scares in sub-saharan africa these days? Take it from one who grew up nodding at stones in fear of wights - if you're going to assign baddie points to philosophies, don't underestimate the potential of animism and paganism.

what's wrong with nodding at stones? i indulge in techoanimism all the time - usually when my computer gets possessed or get a gremlin.

[Idola Mentis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 01:49 am
what's wrong with nodding at stones? i indulge in techoanimism all the time - usually when my computer gets possessed or get a gremlin.
Heh. Nothing, really. A more serious believer than me once described it as a "voluntary, induced obsessive-compulsive disorder" :) Lots of little things which most people don't even know why they do anymore, but all built on the same set of weird beliefs about hidden spirits everywhere. Just like real OCD, it's no problem, even a useful thing at times - until it starts to negatively affect your life, and you end up seeing witches at every corner.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 08:06 pm
jazzratt is right - atheism is the worst of these because it's not a complete system. it's like comparing a steering wheel to a car. any kind of car is going to be better than a steering wheel.
Except this isn't the point I'm making.Religions are a crutch atheism is a lack of a crutch, that is why it is hard to persuade certain religious people to let go of their beliefs they do the mental equivalent of falling and being unable to get up. Then they start thrashing about on the floor, as we shall observe:



It's such a basic truth that it need not be a headline in either .

that's not true. science is about repeatable experiments. paleontology, for instance, is knowledge but not science. the scientific evidence for evolution comes from lab experiments, not the fossil record. logical proof and evidence aren't good enough to make scientific fact. it might be true, but it's not science. i admit that this is splitting hairs in many cases. I didn't say it was a scientific fact, I said it was true. Until you can prove that statement false I have no reason to believe you - see the teapot argument (some bloke, name began with R came up with it).



buddhism is not True. there is no True. buddhism is better because we buddhists know that.

this was meant to be funny. "there is no Truth" is a koan, a self-negating statement. So koan is a poncy word for "meaningless statement" - gotcha.


in traditional western logic, propositions start out as ? and are then rendered T or F. if ? =/= T, then it must be F. buddhism resolves posits to T or F or X=unknowable. for us, "there is a god" => X. therefore, don't worry about it. I'm not 'worried' about it honey-buns I just recognising that "the state of X exists" = F. Something that is neither T or F remains ? until proved either unless their is no logical backing for believing it is T in which case it is F unless proven otherwise.


science these days if finding a fair amount of X in the nature of the universe. this is fine with me. that's one of the reasons why positivism is on the out and wishy-washy is in. Which is a shame because it means people are turning away from understanding in favour of mumbo-jumbo mysticism.

[ichneumon]

Which is a shame because it means people are turning away from understanding in favour of mumbo-jumbo mysticism.

how so? re: electron, if factA=/=?, factB=X. when you define something as "unknowable" - meaning god or that invisible creampie, it is X.


Except this isn't the point I'm making.Religions are a crutch atheism is a lack of a crutch, that is why it is hard to persuade certain religious people to let go of their beliefs they do the mental equivalent of falling and being unable to get up. Then they start thrashing about on the floor, as we shall observe:

in your analogy, most xtians would say that all men are born crippled and NEED that crutch.

[wtfm8lol]

in your analogy, most xtians would say that all men are born crippled and NEED that crutch.

who cares what they say if theyre obviously wrong about it?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 09:33 pm

Which is a shame because it means people are turning away from understanding in favour of mumbo-jumbo mysticism.

how so? re: electron, if factA=/=?, factB=X. when you define something as "unknowable" - meaning god or that invisible creampie, it is X.
Except God or the creampie for all logical intents and purposes are False until proven otherwise because of their extreme improbability.



Except this isn't the point I'm making.Religions are a crutch atheism is a lack of a crutch, that is why it is hard to persuade certain religious people to let go of their beliefs they do the mental equivalent of falling and being unable to get up. Then they start thrashing about on the floor, as we shall observe:

in your analogy, most xtians would say that all men are born crippled and NEED that crutch. As wtfm8lol (*hawk spit*) said, they're wrong. However I realise that is a weakness with my analogy, give me a bit of time and I'll come back with a more sound one. Maybe your car analogy is quite useful here as one could easily view religion as a car but one that only has a reverse gear. To advance we must leave the car, possibly board the scientific humanism train.

[EwokUtopia]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 23, 2007 09:48 pm
By the way, speaking from a purely philosophical perspective, the monotheistic religions are BY FAR the most illogical and irrational. The three Judeo-Christian religions reject truth and logic as a matter of principle and grasp onto completely blind faith.
Yeah, but I dont think that these three are equal in their broken logic.
For instance, worshipping an abstract concept of a superbeing which can not be percieved by human senses is one thing, worshiping a strangely aryan Palestinian as the Son og God and God at the same time, while drinking his alcoholic blood and eating his ice cream cone flesh is completely different.

At least Judaism and Islam do not worship pictures of some character as God, and think that the only way not to burn in fire is to have an intimate relationship with a guy who died 2000 years ago.

And the trinity....Christian theologians have done a good job with playing around with words to disguise the fact that the 3 in 1, 1 in 3 idea of God makes no sense to anyone, themselves included.

I mean, they drink the blood of their God! Vampire worship is far inferior to worshiping God as you know it from the Qur'an (which, all things aside, is in fact a work of beautiful prose in its original Arabic form).

The only thing the Christians have on their side is 2000 years of beautiful works of art and music, which I think could be better appreciated if you look at it as a silly mythology of the past, like you look at the Homeric epics or paintings of the Gods.

[ichneumon]

actually, sir jazzratt, in your T/F universe, you admit the possibility of omniscience, and thus the possibility of a god, or at least an Ultimate Intelligence which would functionally be a god. since you are not omniscient, you cannot know whether or not such a being exists, only that it could, and thus cannot be atheistic. also, in a purely deterministic universe, free will cannot exists, and the future would be 100% predetermined by the present.

fortunately, omniscience is a silly concept (buddhism has several proofs of this), there is no Ultimate Intelligence, there are lots of unknowable things and positivism is a dead duck. there are even logical theories showing how omniscience is impossible and thus that the unknowable must exist in standard western logic, not to mention experimental proof.

that must be comforting! ;)

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I voted atheism, and the atheists here have already explained why. Here is a representative quote:


Originally posted by RevMARKSman
By stating that there is no supernatural, you have stated that everything can be understood, humans have the ability to change our world, and that we can change our world however we like without any "moral" reprehension. Sounds pretty constructive to me.
"We can change the world however we like" - precisely the problem with atheism. As an atheist, how can you possibly decide between the multitude of different ways in which the world could be changed? On what grounds can you say that communism is better than capitalism if all ethics is a human invention?

Atheism is the worst belief because it is the only belief which allows you to say "there is no evil". And if there is no evil, there is no need to fight against evil.

[RevMARKSman]

As an atheist, how can you possibly decide between the multitude of different ways in which the world could be changed?

Well, first, material conditions narrow our options significantly. Such as, we can't go back to despotism or feudalism because our technology is too far advanced, and no one will like living under a despot when they know they can do the same things he does.

So, communism is the next step in the mode of production on this planet. Why do I want communism, you say? Because it's in my material interests, of course. I don't have to work 50 hours a week at McDonald's for a couple years in communism. I can do what seems really interesting to me, such as biology or computer science, without some asshole coming over and saying, "You can't try that, it won't be profitable even if it succeeds " or "You can't try that, it's wrong. Don't play God." Plus there's the added bonus of more efficient labor (because everyone's doing something that interests them -> more enthusiam -> more gets done), which means we get more stuff, faster. Also, science will advance much farther than it will have done under capitalism, because scientists no longer have to worry about whether their studies will be profitable, or whether the government will give them another grant because their results don't agree with the government's official policy on something.

Overall, communism is much more in my material interest than capitalism. That's why I want communism. Also, it's inevitable. That's why I don't become a prominent member of the bourgeoisie, even though I probably could--I don't want my back up against the wall come revolution.


And if there is no evil, there is no need to fight against evil.

OH NOES!!!!~~!!11~21`111one~1!!!!e^(pi)(i)+2!!~!111

Tell me again which genuine leftists think they're "fighting against evil." I could use a good laugh.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 01, 2007 03:42 am
"We can change the world however we like" - precisely the problem with atheism. As an atheist, how can you possibly decide between the multitude of different ways in which the world could be changed?
Well, there is taking the reasoned approach and looking at what best serves your material interests or simply finding the most meritorious way in which the world can be changed.


On what grounds can you say that communism is better than capitalism if all ethics is a human invention?
Communism is more efficient. Communism is in the material interests of most people and communism will certainly speed up our approach to a transhuman future.


Atheism is the worst belief because it is the only belief which allows you to say "there is no evil". And if there is no evil, there is no need to fight against evil.
Right. What is the problem with not opposing evil since there is no evil.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 04:01 am
actually, sir jazzratt, in your T/F universe, you admit the possibility of omniscience, and thus the possibility of a god, or at least an Ultimate Intelligence which would functionally be a god. since you are not omniscient, you cannot know whether or not such a being exists, only that it could, and thus cannot be atheistic.
I must admit this one had me quite stumped for a little while.

I would say that while I recognise that since everything can be known it is therefore hypothetically possible that everything can be learned or known by a single being (therefore omniscience) however it is a large leap from omniscient to God. The God hypothesis also requires that the being is omnipotent and, in most cases, omnipresent. Also the God hypothesis posits this entity as the creator and "ruler" of the universe something for which there is not even a hypothetical basis.


also, in a purely deterministic universe, free will cannot exists, and the future would be 100% predetermined by the present.
I know this. I have not posited a deterministic universe.


fortunately, omniscience is a silly concept (buddhism has several proofs of this), there is no Ultimate Intelligence, there are lots of unknowable things
Unknown does not equate to unknowable.
and positivism is a dead duck. there are even logical theories showing how omniscience is impossible and thus that the unknowable must exist in standard western logic, not to mention experimental proof.
I would argue that simply because it is impossible for any currently existing entity to know something is not proof that such a thing is unknowable. The entire unknowable concept is incredibly defeatist and can easily lead down the path of nihilism - after all what is the point in striving for knowledge if you cannot know anything?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Good luck convincing workers that their material interests are better served by fighting to liberate their class than by struggling to get out of their class and into the bourgeoisie. Particularly at the present time, when revolution seems a very far-off prospect. Most workers will still believe that their chances of getting into the bourgeoisie, however small, are still better than their chances of achieving socialism.

People only start joining the class struggle out of material interest when the revolution seems imminent.

[ichneumon]

I know this. I have not posited a deterministic universe.

if everything in the universe can be known, then the future must be 100% predictable from the present. if ever vector, position, etc of every particle is a knowable quantity, then some kind of UI could predict the future absolutely.


I would argue that simply because it is impossible for any currently existing entity to know something is not proof that such a thing is unknowable. The entire unknowable concept is incredibly defeatist and can easily lead down the path of nihilism - after all what is the point in striving for knowledge if you cannot know anything?

this is my point with the whole "supernatural=outside the laws of physics". what laws? was nuclear power supernatural 1000yrs ago? so, how do you know what is explained or isn't, if you don't know the rules?

the idea that there are limits to knowledge just limits hubris, not the desire to know more. i find positivism depressing because it destroys mystery and wonder - i like the universe being more complex than i can imagine, it entails endless surprises.

still, it's philosophy, and philosophy doesn't feed people. i don't care what anyone believes, so long as they work for social justice.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 01, 2007 09:06 pm
Good luck convincing workers that their material interests are better served by fighting to liberate their class than by struggling to get out of their class and into the bourgeoisie.
Good luck convincing them that their lives are better spent fighting for socialism in the name of an invisible wizard in the sky.


Particularly at the present time, when revolution seems a very far-off prospect. Most workers will still believe that their chances of getting into the bourgeoisie, however small, are still better than their chances of achieving socialism.
Then it for us to convince them otherwise, which we do by being vociferous proponents of our cause and through discussion & propaganda. We do not need "god" for any of this.


People only start joining the class struggle out of material interest when the revolution seems imminent. This doesn't make theism any stronger.

ichneumon


if everything in the universe can be known, then the future must be 100% predictable from the present. if ever vector, position, etc of every particle is a knowable quantity, then some kind of UI could predict the future absolutely.
Well yes, but the illusion of free will and its existence are functionally the same unless you happen to be a UI. This whole thing is moot anyway, as there is no UI.


this is my point with the whole "supernatural=outside the laws of physics". what laws? was nuclear power supernatural 1000yrs ago?
No. Nuclear power wasn't supernatural. No doubt whatever discoveries we make in the future that we have not thought of today will not be 'supernatural'.
so, how do you know what is explained or isn't, if you don't know the rules?
What rules?



the idea that there are limits to knowledge just limits hubris, not the desire to know more. i find positivism depressing because it destroys mystery and wonder - i like the universe being more complex than i can imagine, it entails endless surprises.
Endless surprise is a nightmare vision. Limitless knowledge, reduction of the world to simple data and so on; that is something to strive for.


still, it's philosophy, and philosophy doesn't feed people. i don't care what anyone believes, so long as they work for social justice.
Agreed, absolutely.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 12:58 am
Good luck convincing them that their lives are better spent fighting for socialism in the name of an invisible wizard in the sky.
At the risk of sounding cynical, history shows that people are remarkably eager to fight and die in the name of "an invisible wizard in the sky".


Then it for us to convince them otherwise, which we do by being vociferous proponents of our cause and through discussion & propaganda. We do not need "god" for any of this.
I cannot convince other people of something that I do not myself believe in. I do not expect the revolution in my lifetime - I expect it in about 100 years or so. Given that I believe none of us will be alive to see the revolution, I cannot tell you that the revolution will improve your material condition.


This doesn't make theism any stronger.
I'm not arguing for theism in particular, I am arguing for [a bit of] idealism in general. My argument is that some amount of idealistic belief is absolutely necessary in order to motivate people to participate in the class struggle under present conditions.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Edric O+April 01, 2007 11:10 pm--> (Edric O @ April 01, 2007 11:10 pm)
[email protected] 02, 2007 12:58 am
Good luck convincing them that their lives are better spent fighting for socialism in the name of an invisible wizard in the sky.
At the risk of sounding cynical, history shows that people are remarkably eager to fight and die in the name of "an invisible wizard in the sky". [/b]
Were.



Then it for us to convince them otherwise, which we do by being vociferous proponents of our cause and through discussion & propaganda. We do not need "god" for any of this.
I cannot convince other people of something that I do not myself believe in. I do not expect the revolution in my lifetime - I expect it in about 100 years or so. Given that I believe none of us will be alive to see the revolution, I cannot tell you that the revolution will improve your material condition.
So you believe that the revolution will come some years after capitalism fully collapses?



This doesn't make theism any stronger.
I'm not arguing for theism in particular, I am arguing for [a bit of] idealism in general. My argument is that some amount of idealistic belief is absolutely necessary in order to motivate people to participate in the class struggle under present conditions. Your argument that atheism is the least philosophically sound "religion". You are wrong and are employing a red herring that I cannot be bothered with.

[Idola Mentis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 11:32 pm
if everything in the universe can be known, then the future must be 100% predictable from the present. if ever vector, position, etc of every particle is a knowable quantity, then some kind of UI could predict the future absolutely.

Not necessarily. Theoretical maximum computing power might not be up to the task of running a simulation of the entire universe, or even a part of it. Perhaps such a computer would have to be the size of or bigger than the universe, and/or be placed outside it.

It is not impossible that randomness is built into the universe at quantum level, meaning that a correct sim of an event run several times with the exact same conditions need not produce the same result twice. With a number of events since the beginning of the universe - atoms bouncing around, decaying, forming, particles, waves - so vast I'm not even going to try to estimate it, our hypothetical perfect sim would break down shortly after the big bang. Even if we could somehow accurately measure the state of every discrete piece of matter and energy in the entire universe (in which case we've already broken a law or two), and then start the sim from today, the sim would become inaccurate pretty fast, or produce an infinite or near-infinite number of alternate results for every random quantum event.

[Tommy-K]

Christianity, because the Bible is ridiculously vague, full of flaws, and contradicts itself frequently, meaning it can't be trusted. Unfortunately though, people do trust it and use the aforementioned attributes to justify just about anything, meaning there is diversity within the religion. For example, you have the Jesus Radicals (commie christians) and the KKK, and they both use the Bible to justify themselves. Bizarre really, how one book can give accross two totally different messages.

At least Islam has a strict set of rules that everyone adheres to, no matter how oppressive it is :P

And by the way, can atheism really be described as a religion? I pride myself on being atheist because I don't have a religion.

[MarxSchmarx]

Hindu
A religion made to keep the lower class in order.
How can Christianity be worse than that?
It holds the lower class back, telling them if they serve the upper class, that they will get it better in the next life...
Blah

Amen. What doctrine could be further from the classless society?

[RHIZOMES]

I voted Islam, but as I read responses I realized Hinduism was way worse. :P


I choose Judaism cuz honest to Marx----I can't tell Islam apart from Christianity and can't tell Christianity apart from Judaism.

They are the exact, same bullshit when it comes to theology.

When it comes to practice, they are very different. Islam is much more backwards and has a gajillion mundane and stupid rules you have to follow. I know from experience.


hinduism

most elitist, caste system etc

Islam isnt that bad, in and of itself it is countless times more progressive than either christianity and judaism (if you look at holy scriptures)

Yes in certain ways. The whole "to my religion mine and to you yours" and the "no compulsion" bits. However, in PRACTICE...


Islam. 2 years ago I converted to it (from Catholicicsm), and only half a year ago I was a sick Muslim fanatic. Seriously, the "conversion, tax, or death" kind. The pro-911 kind. The can't eat pork or I'll go to Hell, must not use my left hand near food kind who performs about a dozen stupid rituals a day. I look back upon those days with disgust. Thank Marx that a random link to Revleft saved me from that. :D

Me too! Although I wasn't that extreme... I kept trying to keep my rationality and my religion, which just doesn't work, especially with a religion as fucked as Islam.

[EwokUtopia]

Me too! Although I wasn't that extreme... I kept trying to keep my rationality and my religion, which just doesn't work, especially with a religion as fucked as Islam.

I think that where this one gets fucked up is through improper exegesis. When people read it, even as the literal truth, but bear in mind that it was written for 7th century Arabs who were killing eachother left right and centre, they tend to not be the fanatics that we see all over CNN. When they take it as the literal truth that applies literally to today, thats when it gets really munged up.

For instance, lets take the "kill apostates" bit. originally this was meant to prevent people from converting to Islam one day, and joining up with the Meccans the next, so it was more of a "death to traitors" bit. It cant really apply to people who were born Muslim because at the time of its composition, there was no such thing as a born Muslim.

The same goes for all religions, but especially Islam. Ancient texts can get really fucked up if you take it as the literal truth which was meant for this generation. The person who reads it bearing in mind that it was meant for people 1400 years ago will not tend to be as big a dick as the person who does not.

[RedFlagComrade]

Hinduism-they believe that the world is a flat disk carried on the back of four gigantuan elephants on the back of a giant turtle-like Diskworld-its hilarious really
-I love the way lots of people chose Christianity cos its the only religion they relly know anything about
-Scientology shud be there too, and if it was a multi-choice paganism would have got a tick too

[pusher robot]

What are the poll results?

[Colonello Buendia]

they all suck but the two that suck most are christianity and Scientology. purely because of how ridiculous they both are

[Jazzratt]

What are the poll results?

Animism 1 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=1485) 1.32% Atheism 6 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=1485) 7.89% Baha'i Faith 1 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=1485) 1.32% Buddhism 5 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=1485) 6.58% Christianity 26 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=1485) 34.21% Hinduism 14 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=1485) 18.42% Islam 14 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=1485) 18.42% Judaism 6 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=1485) 7.89% Paganism 1 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=1485) 1.32% Sikhism 2 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=1485) 2.63%
Made a thread in the tech forums about this.

I voted Hinduism (if it isn't immediately obvious) because I'm jumping on the bandwagon.

[RedAnarchist]

Probably Hinduism, because its juist stupid. Have you heard of that baby in India who was recently born who has two faces? Poor kid is being treated like a tourist attraction and the parents won't allow doctors to see if she's physically ok. poor kid will probably be dead soon becaue of their naivety.

If Scientology was on there, I'ld vote for that too.

[mykittyhasaboner]

christianity of course!

[Dean]

I voted hinduism because it was the first one for which I saw someone give a theological reason why its bad. That said, I don't agree with it - while I am sure that many have interpretted the religion that way, it is NOT about the caste system. It had a markedly different approach to karma before it became a social institution, at which time it was transformed by the ruling elite to meet their needs.

[Bright Banana Beard]

I voted Hinduism, it theological is totally more fucktard than Christianity and their caste system.

[al8]

I wish there was an everything but atheism choice.

Seconded.

[Die Neue Zeit]

In practice, perhaps Egyptian mythology has been the most oppressive. Almost ten thousand years of autocratic rule and slavery.

That's why I voted paganism. Look, as bad as semi-pagan Xianity (de facto henotheism plus the incorporation of pagan myths and celebrations), Islam (with pagan remnants from Arabia's pre-Islamic past), etc. are, why would you vote for religions that have played a key role in the abolition of child sacrifices and exploitative pagan sex rites (among other pagan crap)?

As for "Hinduism" and its caste BS, I also include it amongst the pagan religions.

[Dystisis]

Well, from a purely philosophical standpoint, many of these are exactly the same.

That everything (the universe) is originated from one source.

In my opinion this is as, if not more, logical than atheism.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Islam.

-Alex

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

Fundamentalism.

Of any sort.

[AGITprop]

What ever happened to all of the above.

But agree that fundamentalists of any religion are far worse than other more moderate religious practitioners.

I had a friend who was Pentecostal once. She tried to convert me every other week. Kept inviting me to her church services. It was quite bad. They take everything in the bible literally.

[Random Precision]

That's why I voted paganism. Look, as bad as semi-pagan Xianity (de facto henotheism plus the incorporation of pagan myths and celebrations), Islam (with pagan remnants from Arabia's pre-Islamic past), etc. are, why would you vote for religions that have played a key role in the abolition of child sacrifices and exploitative pagan sex rites (among other pagan crap)?

Well, that's only considering ancient "paganism", of which I doubt there are any true adherents today, or that there could be, given the huge gaps in the historical record of their rituals, beliefs, hierarchies etc. Our modern "pagans" tend to be much more liberal overall than adherents of the major religions.

Plus, "paganism" as a term isn't very well defined, since it was coined it's been mainly a slander used by fundamentalist Christians against another religion. I've heard it used to describe religions as diverse as Buddhism, Hinduism, Baha'i, and Islam.


As for "Hinduism" and its caste BS, I also include it amongst the pagan religions.

As Hinduism is essentially monistic, I don't see any real reason for doing so. Could you elaborate on the qualifications for a "pagan" religion? For example, what in particular would distinguish paganism from animism?

Obviously, I think this poll, both its question and options, is seriously flawed.

[Zurdito]

I was quite interested to see the results, but I can't until I voted, which is a real forum flaw. So I voted for paganism due to it historically not having played a progressive role, however, I of course don't think you can apply that to modern paganism, as modern paganism is in fact a product of capitalist society and not a block the once progressive expansion of certain empires etc.

[jesper]

Voted christianity. It is flawed self contradicting and makes people believe in it by threatening them with eternal torture if they do not follow it.

[Dyslexia! Well I Never!]

My ideal vote would personally go to the abrahamic pre-judaic mass which by dint of it's definition is thankfully extinct but these are the retards who brought us the shit slinging cretinism of Islam, Judaism and Chistianity.

The concept of a group who could hear the same argument and come to two conclusions so shockingly similar and still kill each other over them in a sustained effort of attrition lasting for over two thousand years.

There can be no more profound idiocy than that of the people who birthed the three most bloodthristy modern world religions.

[Random Precision]

I've trashed BeautifulAnarchy's spam.

[Bud Struggle]

I've trashed BeautifulAnarchy's spam.

A little harsh with the Stalinist agenda, don't you think? After all, it's Opposing Ideologies. :(

[Baconator]

Clearly Atheism is the only rational belief on that list. The rest are all equally irrational. Its like asking which people are more delusional, those that believe in pink unicorns or purple unicorns?

[Random Precision]

A little harsh with the Stalinist agenda, don't you think? After all, it's Opposing Ideologies. :(

Indeed. But it's also a forum on the board Revolutionary Left, on which sectarian flame-baiting of other leftist tendencies has no place.

[Comrade B]

All religions that have a God are terrible for humanity. We should not celebrate autocracy.

[Bud Struggle]

All religions that have a God are terrible for humanity. We should not celebrate autocracy.

Even better: All religions with a God or a Vanguard are terrible for humanity. We should not celebrate autocracy. :reda::che::blackA:

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Even better: All religions with a God or a Vanguard are terrible for humanity. We should not celebrate autocracy. :reda::che::blackA:

Yup role on the anarchism :thumbup1:

[Led Zeppelin]

Libertarianism.

[Dyslexia! Well I Never!]

All religion is dangerously irrational all aspects of a priori morality should be cast out any concept of a supreme being should be disregarded. People are stupid dangerous animals give them a stupid irrational reasoning system to cling to and you might as well just hand them a weapon and free license to hate everyone in their way. Now not all religions are violent and some see these as "better" but how is it better to allow yourself to be exploited or killed because you simply refuse to defend yourself?

Humans are a species that defines itself by it's resolution of conflicts and summounting of obstacles to corrupt reasoning or predefine an response is a weakness.

I admire the strength of conviction religion can inspire but at the same time I bemoan that we as people have pissed that very conviction away on something useless like religion rather than some tangible improvement.

[Ultra-Violence]

I Voted Judaism for a couple of reasons 1. the old Testament Is some really fucked up crazy ass shit i mean really all i have to say is read Livitcus( Wtf is that?)2. Because it was kinda of like a rough draft of the new testament and set the ground work for christianity and the Islamic faith and all three of them all equally ridiculous!

I dont know why people are getting up all on the hindus religions sack?
i mean is it really worse than christianity?Islam? i like some of the teachings of hindusim and budhism and i kinda like the idea of reincarnation.

and on a personal level consider myself a panathiestic-rastalove-mesoamericanspirtuality-marijuanism kinda of person:thumbup1:

[Sir Comradical]

Wow...i misread the poll, take mine off athiesm and put it on christianity.

[Pawn Power]

What a silly pole...

[ipollux]

I'd go with Christianity as the worst.

[RedAnarchist]

What a silly pole...

You're lucky he doesn't speak English or he'd be very upset with you.

[Sir Comradical]

From a philosophical standpoint, Christianity predisposes followers into accepting power to readilly without questioning it. The concept of God in these faiths is that of a ruler whose laws cannot be broken. God's existence in Christianity is that of a king ruling over his subjects, hence the term "kingdom of heaven", so i asked a christian friend once..."why can't it be a democracy up in heaven?". It seemed like an idea that never occurred to him, because god was all knowing and all wise and the population needs to be ruled, judged, chastised and punished (sounds like fascism). Then again it comes down to interpretation, most Christians conveniently forget that Jesus said that the kingdom of heaven was within all human beings...it had nothing to do with the afterlife. Unfortunately, it's the reactionaries in Rome that hijacked Jesus' message and associated capitalism with christianity. Pope John Paul II once said “US foreign policy should begin to confront liberation theology. Unfortunately Marxist-Leninist forces have used the church as a political weapon against private ownership and the capitalism system of production, infiltrating the religious community with ideas that are more communist than Christian”.

[Kami]

I dont know why people are getting up all on the hindus religions sack?
i mean is it really worse than christianity?Islam? i like some of the teachings of hindusim and budhism and i kinda like the idea of reincarnation.Read some of the laws of hinduism, particularly how it places it's laws in order of severity, and what comes where. Add in the caste system, which is particuary repulsive, and you've got one fucked up religion.

Edit - not that the others are any better, just that I studied this one in R.S :P

[Sir Comradical]

Read some of the laws of hinduism, particularly how it places it's laws in order of severity, and what comes where. Add in the caste system, which is particuary repulsive, and you've got one fucked up religion.

Edit - not that the others are any better, just that I studied this one in R.S :P

It's difficult to refer to hinduism as a religion because there's so many different texts that exist. Essentially, "hinduism" is like a library of information thousands years old and a believer doesn't have to believe in everything to be a "hindu".

The caste system for example and the laws regarding it were written in the Manusmruti, but there's no obligation for a hindu to revere the teachings of manu. One can choose to accept or reject these teachings. Many hindus would actually consider Manu (the guy who wrote the Manusmruti) to be a misogynistic elitist who's teachings contradict the teachings of Krishna.

[Tungsten]

It's not on there, but easily Scientology - made up by a science fiction writer in the 20th century (!) - long after science killed theism; its just completely absurd.

The origins of man according to scientology are no more absurd than Christianity's.

[Chapter 24]

The origins of man according to scientology are no more absurd than Christianity's.

I agree, what makes Christianity or any other established religion with a large following any more credible than Scientology. It's kind of like comparing the definition of cult to religion and finding little difference. An evil alien lord is no less credible than "an invisible man in the sky."

[Trystan]

Islam. Imperialistic and reactionary in nature, and bloody stupid philosophically.

[TheGonz]

Wow, regurgitate exactly what fake, faux-compassionate, ignorant, white, conservative, radically religious, senseless, borgeoise pigs have said a million times much? Not only is that an incredibly dense thing to say, it's also insulting and ignorant. The idea that religion needs to be instated in order to ensure morality, or that religion and morality are even synonymous, is perposterous. Christ, I feel like I'm in high school in the fifties, "Atheism can give you AIDS!!" Tell me, does this "justification for pure selfishness and immorality" also breed excessive masturbation? Pregnancy by the seed of the devil, eventually leading to the gruesome birth of THE PRINCE OF DARKNESS? Does it cause anuerisms and bulimia? Isn't it true that most divorces, murders, abortions, plagues, famines, earthquakes, tornadoes, volcanoes, and republican elections are beset upon us poor mortals because god is wrathful that some few dare to think for themselves?! Wake up.

[Socialist18]

Judaism because the Talmud is one of the most vile and racist pieces of literature in existence, it promotes race hatred and racial superiority.

[Lector Malibu]

Judaism because the Talmud is one of the most vile and racist pieces of literature in existence, it promotes race hatred and racial superiority.

Really? Not that I support any religion but I think you should read this:

Contemporary accusations

Criticism of the Talmud is widespread, in great part through the Internet.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud#cite_note-13)
The Anti-Defamation League (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Defamation_League)'s report on this topic states:

By selectively citing various passages from the Talmud and Midrash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash), polemicists have sought to demonstrate that Judaism espouses hatred for non-Jews (and specifically for Christians), and promotes obscenity, sexual perversion, and other immoral behavior. To make these passages serve their purposes, these polemicists frequently mistranslate them or cite them out of context (wholesale fabrication of passages is not unknown)...
In distorting the normative meanings of rabbinic texts, anti-Talmud writers frequently remove passages from their textual and historical contexts. Even when they present their citations accurately, they judge the passages based on contemporary moral standards, ignoring the fact that the majority of these passages were composed close to two thousand years ago by people living in cultures radically different from our own. They are thus able to ignore Judaism's long history of social progress and paint it instead as a primitive and parochial religion.
Those who attack the Talmud frequently cite ancient rabbinic sources without noting subsequent developments in Jewish thought, and without making a good-faith effort to consult with contemporary Jewish authorities who can explain the role of these sources in normative Jewish thought and practice.

—Anti-Defamation League (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Defamation_League), The Talmud in Anti-Semitic Polemics (http://www.adl.org/presrele/asus_12/the_talmud.pdf)
Rabbi Gil Student (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gil_Student), a prolific Internet author, writes:

Anti-Talmud accusations have a long history dating back to the 13th century when the associates of the Inquisition attempted to defame Jews and their religion [see Yitzchak Baer, A History of Jews in Christian Spain, vol. I pp. 150-185]. The early material compiled by hateful preachers like Raymond Martini and Nicholas Donin remain the basis of all subsequent accusations against the Talmud. Some are true, most are false and based on quotations taken out of context, and some are total fabrications [see Baer, ch. 4 f. 54, 82 that it has been proven that Raymond Martini forged quotations]. On the Internet today we can find many of these old accusations being rehashed...



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

[Socialist18]

The ADL is a hateful racist organization too, you should read what they say about us Socialists/Communists. I've read a fair bit of the Talmud online and there is a lot of racism and twisted shit in it, I couldn't care less what the dumb fuck ADL says about it, what else do you expect them to say about it? they are racist Zionists so of course they are going to support it. Look at the way the Zionists treat the poor Palestinians in Israel/Palestine, pure race hatred!

Second to the Talmud is the Torah/ Holy Bible - Old Testament, it says its fine to kill non Jews for just about any reason you can think of but killing Jews is punishable by death, if thats not racist then nothing is.

The New testament is a lot more toned down from the OT and Jesus preaches a "turn the other cheek" method which is contrary to the OT "an eye for an eye" method. I've read the whole New Testament and its not racist, I couldn't find one racial remark in it.

Fact is, its all religion and all irrational bullshit anyways.

[Comrade B]

Who said Atheism? What negative effects could they wish to think rationally rather than by blind faith bear on a society? I have no problem with people hopelessly pleading to their idols, so long as they stay out of the way of the advancement of society.

[forward]

Atheism prides itself on immorality as no guidelines exist, murder is not wrong, etc . What do atheists live for? There is no philosphological basis for atheism. it simply is the absense of religion. Immorality is thus accepted. also, to atheists, who justify their "religion" by science, can you explain to me how a law of science can be defied, namely the law that something cannot come from nothing?

[TheGonz]

Atheism prides itself on immorality as no guidelines exist, murder is not wrong, etc . What do atheists live for? There is no philosphological basis for atheism. it simply is the absense of religion. Immorality is thus accepted. also, to atheists, who justify their "religion" by science, can you explain to me how a law of science can be defied, namely the law that something cannot come from nothing?

Wow, what a load of ignorant bullshit. It's pretty offensive to think that human beings can't have morality without somebody to lay down guidelines for them. Atheism isn't an absence of ethical standards, much less morals, but instead the freedom to choose for oneself what is right and wrong, in stead of having rules dictating the choices one makes, and thus limiting, if not eliminating, one's free will.

Not to mention the fact that religion--and especially Christianity if we look at all the dispicable things many iconic Christian establishments have done in the past two-thousand years, from the Catholic Church to the Religious Right, and more than anyone else those Evangelical Fundamentalist morons groping blindly through life--leads to all kinds of plagues, wars, and the slow-but-steady elimination of freedom.

It is ludicrous to say that just because there are no tangible rules for a people to be governed by, this would immediately allow murder, perversion, whatever. Atheists live for what we can see, what we can know, and the real goal of life is to know and understand as much as possible, without the overwhelming veil of religion. Religion is fear. It is being too afraid to accept that there may not be anything after this; mythology enacted so that petty, selfish people can truly believe that all the pain and suffering we have to endure in this life amounts to something. It is archaic, and--my poorly-informed friend--it is dying.

Humanity is slowly outgrowing its need for this crutch to stumble into the future, and science has proven more reliable, more believable than this long list of fairy tales that comprise the mind of most god-seekers. Perhaps you should consult a few atheists, get to know what not believing in God is really about, understand that it's not some big machine that sanctions diabolical acts and paves the way for immorality, before you get on the internet and start bashing something you clearly don't understand. This is what Christians say to avoid the subject of their being wrong: they place their hands on their ears like a fucking four-year-old and start wailing about how their system--or any religious system--is the only one that allows for true morality. Grow up.

[Socialist18]

Atheism prides itself on immorality as no guidelines exist, murder is not wrong, etc . What do atheists live for? There is no philosphological basis for atheism. it simply is the absense of religion. Immorality is thus accepted. also, to atheists, who justify their "religion" by science, can you explain to me how a law of science can be defied, namely the law that something cannot come from nothing?

I feel that most people have a good sense of right and wrong, atheist or not.
Society doesn't need religion to get its morals from, morality is inborn in people and we know its wrong to go around murdering people or bashing people etc We don't need some book written by primitive goat herders to tell us whats good and bad.

[TheGonz]

We don't need some book written by primitive goat herders to tell us whats good and bad.

Amen to that.

[Comrade B]

Atheism prides itself on immorality as no guidelines exist, murder is not wrong, etc . What do atheists live for? There is no philosphological basis for atheism. it simply is the absense of religion. Immorality is thus accepted. also, to atheists, who justify their "religion" by science, can you explain to me how a law of science can be defied, namely the law that something cannot come from nothing?
Wow, I have not been this offended for a while. You are saying, because I dont believe in god, I am an animal, pretty much.
You seem to think that Atheism is the contradiction of religion, it does not exist to counterbalance religion, it just doesn't like your religion, which believes in stoning gays and cutting the hands off of people who hit their parents.

[Jazzratt]

Atheism prides itself on immorality

No it doesn't.


as no guidelines exist,

Yes they do.


murder is not wrong, etc .

Yes it is.


What do atheists live for?

Depends on their other philosophies.


There is no philosphological basis for atheism.

http://www.dailyawesome.com/images/atheists1.jpg

Yes, yes it does.


it simply is the absense of religion.

Yes. Rejecting an idea is still a philosophical position.


Immorality is thus accepted.

No it isn't. Morality is simply dictated by reason rather than blind adherence to fairy tales.


also, to atheists, who justify their "religion" by science, can you explain to me how a law of science can be defied, namely the law that something cannot come from nothing?

My guess is that, as has been illustrated by the unexpected behaviour of things on a quantum level, the "laws" of science that we have recorded are, in fact, a fairly accurate approximation of the actual laws. Your turn now, if you fervently stick to the idea that all the laws made are infallible (as they must be, because goddidit) then how do you get such an enormous something (God) from nothing?

[TheGonz]

Atheism prides itself on immorality as no guidelines exist, murder is not wrong, etc . What do atheists live for? There is no philosphological basis for atheism. it simply is the absense of religion. Immorality is thus accepted. also, to atheists, who justify their "religion" by science, can you explain to me how a law of science can be defied, namely the law that something cannot come from nothing?

Let me start my rant by explaining that I have nothing really against religious people. I have enormous ideological differences with most organized religions, in that I feel that they are oppressive, and demonstrative of qualities that are not only inhumane, but also vile, cruel, and extraordinarily greedy. This said, I have nothing really against the followers of these religions, unless, of course, they strive to make points as base and outrageous as these. First I'll rephrase what I and several others have already stated: what you've said here, these claims of the philosophical chaos and moral apathy of atheism, these ludicrous, inarticulate words that you’ve felt compelled to project outward with your small-minded voice; these are not only offensive and EXTREMELY ignorant, but also indicative of a person who is so absolutely selfish and afraid of nuance, that he (I'm guessing you've got a set of balls, although these statements make me think they're probably covered by a chastity belt or something) has no desire, maybe no ability, to even peek out from the tiny box of absurd and uninformed thought and jaded philosophy that encompasses his existence. You, sir, are the reason we are failing as a species. Not you alone, of course, but the fucking millions of people just like you: those so enveloped in the placenta of fear that religion has blanketed society within for far too long.

First off, atheism has a philosophical foundation based on one thought: there is no God. This does not, in any way, justify immorality any more than it justifies morality. It justifies nothing, it is simply an observation and an unconventional way of thinking. It is different, and therefore--in the mind of the witless and uninformed masses of those who would seek superiority over the few who actually do have reasonable explanation for their philosophy, be it theistic or secular--something to be feared, despised, and disposed of. Congratulations, you have just compared yourself to Bush 1:
"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
Do you understand how his son, the true face of evil in any way you want to look at it, the enemy of the proletariate, the people, and the very fiber that comprises the American public, has been able to get away with the horrifying and deceitful things he has done to my country? He can do anything he wants because God said that he should be president. The only reason he is able to commit the acts of violence, injustice, and unadulterated monetary piracy, is because he has this huge base of fanatics behind him that vote Republican because that party uses--villainously, I might add--a religious stance to ensure their success. Organized religion is the enemy of equality, the biggest opponent of free-will, and because you think that atheism is justification for murder, and that we humans are so weak minded that we absolutely need a set of rules laid down by a higher power in order to do good, you are wrong, and you are a main component of the problem. Fuck your ignorance, and fuck your loud and ridiculous statement. Become informed before you decide to speak out against those who already are.

[Comrade B]

I wonder who the other 15 fools are.

[Trystan]

What do atheists live for?

Um . . . sex, knowledge, fun times, laughter, family, love etc. etc. Odd as it may sound, these things do not lose value upon concluding that God is non-existent.


can you explain to me how a law of science can be defied, namely the law that something cannot come from nothing?

Perhaps you would be so good as to do the same thing for your God?

[Trystan]

Wow . . . more people say that Hinduism and Christianity are worse than Islam. Why? Sure they both suck and they're both bullcrud, but Islam is and always has been an imperialistic religion. Pick up a copy of the Koran, on almost every page there is some threat of the punishment that we will all receive for not following the deluded beliefs of crazy old warmonger Mohammed.

[Ultra-Violence]

Read some of the laws of hinduism, particularly how it places it's laws in order of severity, and what comes where. Add in the caste system, which is particuary repulsive, and you've got one fucked up religion.

Edit - not that the others are any better, just that I studied this one in R.S :P


yeah im aware of the caste system and all that nonsense but come on look at the track record of the 3 most evil dispicable peices of shit to ever come out of fucking i dunno were, judaism/christianity/islam how much blood has been shed over that crap? waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than Hindusim
christians even tried to legitmaize slavery with that nonsense

[Comrade B]

I voted for Christianity, but I know this is false. I just dislike the essence of modern Christianity. In theory, it is a highly liberal religion. Hinduism is a caste system based religion. Naturally, I dislike that.

Islam was originated for the purpose of uniting the people of the region. Unfortunately, once it united large numbers of people, their leaders began manipulating it to be negative. Its theory is not a terrible one. I really do like the fact that you are NOT allowed to refuse someone help.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Hinduism is quite despicable, especially in it's ancient caste-abiding form. I'm sure there are other Eastern religions I don't know of that are more restrictive.

As far as the West goes, despite being an atheist, I'll say that Atheism is by far the most unnecessary, obtuse, and quite simply deragatory 'spiritual' belief we have.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all provide a social support structure to millions of people. Believe it or not (I really don't care), most people don't go to Church because they believe they have some duty to God. They do it primarily because they want to feel part of the community, have a place were there kids can participate in activities and be raised in a moral environment, and a place were they can voice their mistakes and hopes in a neutral environment to someone who is willing to listen.

Also, many Churches provide financial and moral help to people who have fallen on hard times or can't do it themselves. The government isn't going to cook your family dinner when you/your spouse is pregnant. The government isn't going to send an agent by when you/your spouse lose their job. The government isn't going to help when your losing your house. The Church my parents went to did all of these things, along with helping my Dad find a job when he lost his and paying the mortgage so we wouldn't get kicked out of our house.

Atheism would replace this structure that has existed for thousands of years with....nothing.

[forward]

atheism has no guidelines nor a set of values. many atheists are immoral because they live without guidelines andthus think many immoral things are acceptable to them. i do not say say all atheists are immoral, but the "religion" itself has no moral basis, i do agree that some religions are indeed oppressive, namely islam as a religion, but christians believe in many principles of goodness and such, like compassion, helping others, etc that i hardly can think of a reason why one would say this religion is "oppressive". but whatever, disregard this, disregard morality, pride yourself on science but be unable to explain how the universe began........it truly is wonderful how atoms came from nowhere and from there created such complex structures. WHY would life begin? as an atheist explain that. and then explain YOUR morals (or lack thereof)

[TheGonz]

atheism has no guidelines nor a set of values. many atheists are immoral because they live without guidelines andthus think many immoral things are acceptable to them. i do not say say all atheists are immoral, but the "religion" itself has no moral basis, i do agree that some religions are indeed oppressive, namely islam as a religion, but christians believe in many principles of goodness and such, like compassion, helping others, etc that i hardly can think of a reason why one would say this religion is "oppressive". but whatever, disregard this, disregard morality, pride yourself on science but be unable to explain how the universe began........it truly is wonderful how atoms came from nowhere and from there created such complex structures. WHY would life begin? as an atheist explain that. and then explain YOUR morals (or lack thereof)

You know what, I think you're right. I think I'll go murder a few priests while jerking off on a cross and eating some babies. And you know what, I'll be damned proud of it.

You closed-minded moron. Why do you feel so insistent on constnatly revealing to RevLeft how petty and uninformed your misguided opinions are. Have you ever heard of free will? Of societal standards? Of the natural decency that is present in about 99.5% of all people? Atheism doesn't need a set of codes or laws to lay out what is right and wrong, but instead relies on each individual to decide his or her own morals. This doesn't mean that because we have no religion, our morals will be shot, and we'll revert back to some savage, murderous stage and start tearing apart everything and everyone around us. It is obvious that murder is wrong, and I don't need a bible or a chance for repentance to make me feel guilt if I do something wrong. The difference between theism and atheism is this:

Atheism is a way of thinking that is defined by the singular fact that there is no God. Not no morals, not no standards, not a justification for the most vile and depraved acts that human beings are capable of, just no fucking GOD!
Theism is a way of not thinking, that implies that there is some omnipotent being watching over all of us, telling us what we should and should not do, becuase thine is the kingdom and the glory, forever and...[sorry, i'm having a bit of trouble keeping that baby down].

I'm sorry that I don't need someone else to tell me what is right and what is wrong. I'm sorry that I can figure that out for myself, or perhaps that you can't. I'm sorry I can think for myself, can express my free will without being afraid that I'll just go psychotic.

You want to talk about justification for death and destruction? You think religions don't allow for much more murder than does atheism? It's fucking cliche as shit, but look at Jihad, look at the Crusades, look at what religious persecution has done time and again, all these wars done in the name of an idea. I'm pretty sure there's never been a war over atheism, but there have been countless occurrences of the religious murdering the non religious over just the difference in belief systems. And please, spare me the whole "Oh, well, hitler was an atheist, Mao was too," bullshit, because I'm sure you know as well as I do that those wars and murders were not over atheism, but over power, control, and economics.

As I previously stated, look at what Bush is doing in the name of God right now. I'm an American, and personally I'm sick of his shit getting justified for the sole reason that he has enough people behind him that share his "values" in a religious sense, so that he can get away with some of the heinous acts that he has. It is wrong, and it is--in no small way--much becuase of religion. My morals are my own, and my guess is that they differ very little from most god-fearing christians: I just don't need some invisible hand *****-slapping me every time I do wrong.

Good christ, pull your head out of your ass and think of something original to say if you're going to insult an entire demographic.

[PigmerikanMao]

Bahai Faith. I'm sorry but any religion that says the king of Ethiopia is god has to lack any philosophical base. Period. :rolleyes:

[Random Precision]

Bahai Faith. I'm sorry but any religion that says the king of Ethiopia is god has to lack any philosophical base. Period. :rolleyes:

I'm pretty sure you're talking about Rastafarian movement. They believe that Emperor Halie Selassie I (Ras Tafari) of Ethiopia is God incarnate. And as for a philosophical base, it has the same as any other religion: oppression and alienation, in this particular case of black Jamaicans who, not in control of their own country, identified with the independence movement in Africa as represented by Ethiopia, which for most of the early 20th century was the only self-ruled African nation.

[PigmerikanMao]

Oh, yes, that's right. Then I choose Bahai Faith because I don't know what the fuck it is then (ignorance is bliss). :laugh:

[Revolution 9]

I voted "Hinduism" due to the caste system of that religion. At least Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Bahai, Buddhism, and most forms of Paganism are at least somewhat compatible with leftist ideals. Animism is a close second for me because it completely eschews science and reasoning in favor of irrational belief. I don't know much about Sikhism.

[Faction2008]

They are all equally crap, apart from atheism.

[Dystisis]

I voted atheism because it is boring, and doesn't really qualify as a belief because it says there is no god but then doesn't provide how/why the universe came to be before the big bang. It relies on theories that seek not to answer anything, only to describe. The others can at least amuse me for a while.

[Ratatosk]

Voted Islam. Hinduism might also have been a good choice, except I'm not sure to what an extent the caste system is a matter of religion rather than just social code (insofar as the two are separable, which they of course needn't be).

[Bud Struggle]

You really have to add Communism and Marxism to that list or it isn't really valid is it? :)

[maverick]

To be honest Hinduism. That sect's beliefs are really out there and harmful to the participants (aka the caste system), in my opinion. It's perhaps the purest form of pure unadultrated mysticism out of all the other choices. Most people would probably either pick Islam (due to all the extrmists running around fighting in a holy war) or Christianity (being its the religion people have most likely faced the most upfront, and thus favor targeting it more). Still taking this from the pure philsophical stand point it is clear to me that the definite choice is Hinduism, being the other two religions are simply more intellgent and have a certain ammount of substance in certain areas. However one could argue that the Abrahamic religions are more violent and absolutist in nature and thus should be selected.

[synthesis]

I voted for paganism. The Abrahamic religions, especially Islam, originally flourished largely because of their repudiations of atrocious pagan customs.

If I had to pick a "best" belief, it would probably be Jainism. If everyone converted to Jainism, there would be no war.

[synthesis]

I was quite interested to see the results, but I can't until I voted, which is a real forum flaw. So I voted for paganism due to it historically not having played a progressive role, however, I of course don't think you can apply that to modern paganism, as modern paganism is in fact a product of capitalist society and not a block the once progressive expansion of certain empires etc.

Yeah, they're all right now, because most modern pagans consciously choose their religion as a way of rejecting mainstream lines of thought. Back in the day, when they had real power, they were assholes, like you described. As a matter of fact, I'd say that tendency applies to most belief systems, not just religions.

[Comrade B]

I voted atheism because it is boring, and doesn't really qualify as a belief because it says there is no god but then doesn't provide how/why the universe came to be before the big bang. It relies on theories that seek not to answer anything, only to describe. The others can at least amuse me for a while.
There is no why. It just exists.
Boring isn't bad. There are no set morals in atheism, it is up to the human to decide what is right and wrong.
Other religions have ridiculous rules, my big problem with Islam is the obvious belief in male dominance. With Christianity they believe in killing those who oppose them. Hinduism has a class system. Atheism just is. It does nothing wrong, because it does nothing, which honestly isn't a bad thing.

[pusher robot]

With Christianity they believe in killing those who oppose them.

Well...to be fair, communists believe the same thing.

[Comrade B]

Well...to be fair, communists believe the same thing.
Um... what?
No. Can't really say much more than that.

Communists believe in killing those that attempt to kill our system or oppress the workers. Just because you don't like communism doesn't mean we are going to try to kill you.

[Jazzratt]

You really have to add Communism and Marxism to that list or it isn't really valid is it? :)

It's a list of religions (and atheism), spackoid. To legitimately include Marxism the list would have to be expanded to the thousands of political & philosophical beliefs - some of which aren't even mutually exclusive. This poll would become an exercise in comparing apples to car exhausts.

[Bud Struggle]

It's a list of religions (and atheism), spackoid. To legitimately include Marxism the list would have to be expanded to the thousands of political & philosophical beliefs - some of which aren't even mutually exclusive. This poll would become an exercise in comparing apples to car exhausts.

You should been taken a trip to Lenin's tomb in Red Square while the old SU was still in existance--you would have gotten a different picture there.

Seriously, I would include Marxism for it's apocalyptic visionaryism. It's much more than an economic system--it's a belief system. You guys don't just believe Communism is a good idea--(a lot at least) of Communists see Marxism as some inevitable wave of history all full of logic and world brotherhood and a happy ever after ending.

You have your Holy Book and your Prophet, you have your people proclaiming the "good news"--you are just lacking God, but all the rest is there to make it a first class religion.

[pusher robot]

Um... what?
No. Can't really say much more than that.

Communists believe in killing those that attempt to kill our system or oppress the workers. Just because you don't like communism doesn't mean we are going to try to kill you.

What? back at you. You said, "No." to my statement that communists believe in killing those who oppose them, then went on to clarify that they actually only believe in killing those who oppose them.

Feel free to explain how "killing those that attempt to kill our system or oppress the workers" is different than "killing those who oppose us."

[Comrade B]

You should been taken a trip to Lenin's tomb in Red Square while the old SU was still in existance--you would have gotten a different picture there.
Care to check out the shrines in DC?


Feel free to explain how "killing those that attempt to kill our system or oppress the workers" is different than "killing those who oppose us."
It is the difference between murder and self defense.
Communists don't hunt people to kill, we kill those who try to stop the progress of humanity.

[pusher robot]

It is the difference between murder and self defense.
Communists don't hunt people to kill, we kill those who try to stop the progress of humanity.

No, actually, it isn't. Killing a person in self-defense generally requires that the other person is actually trying to kill you. You're using the same shit argument - that they hurt your cause, thus deserve death - that Hitler used to justify gassing the Jews. Congratulations.

[Comrade B]

No, actually, it isn't. Killing a person in self-defense generally requires that the other person is actually trying to kill you. You're using the same shit argument - that they hurt your cause, thus deserve death - that Hitler used to justify gassing the Jews. Congratulations.
Don't you use the Hitler bull shit on me you offensive little prick. My relatives died because of that mother fucker and I won't tolerate that shit. Hitler used Jews as a scapegoat for problems, he blamed them for owning the wealth that Germany had lost.

I said that those that fight the struggle. That is people that FIGHT US, not people that disagree with us, will die. Like how the US kills those that oppose it, just that the US does that in other countries.

[Drace]

From my strange agnostic viewpoint, there all equal, including atheism in the terms of how believable it is.

[pusher robot]

Don't you use the Hitler bull shit on me you offensive little prick. My relatives died because of that mother fucker and I won't tolerate that shit.
My condolences.

Hitler used Jews as a scapegoat for problems, he blamed them for owning the wealth that Germany had lost.Yes, well substitute "business owners" for "Jews" and you have revolutionary leftism in a nutshell. Except it's not "scapegoating" because you believe it's true really, really hard - right?

I said that those that fight the struggle. That is people that FIGHT US, not people that disagree with us, will die. Like how the US kills those that oppose it, just that the US does that in other countries.What does "fighting" mean in your statement? Is it speaking out against you? Publishing propaganda against you? Running for office against you? Then you're making a distinction without a difference. If you only actually mean the taking up of arms against you, then I give you credit for adopting a non-aggression stance. But if you are the slightest bit honest, you must admit that many of your colleagues do not share that position. Since neither you nor any other members of your movement seem willing to do anything about that, we can only presume that those other elements will get their way.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Yes, well substitute "business owners" for "Jews" and you have revolutionary leftism in a nutshell. Except it's not "scapegoating" because you believe it's true really, really hard - right?
Are you seriously saying that blaming anyone for anything is akin to Hitler blaming the Jews for Germany's problems?


What does "fighting" mean in your statement? Is it speaking out against you? Publishing propaganda against you? Running for office against you?
I can't speak for Comrade B, but I get the distinct impression that "fighting" is exactly what it sounds like - fighting. As in picking up a gun and trying to shoot the other guy. If the capitalists try to shoot us, we'll shoot back. It's that simple.

[Comrade B]

Some people do not stand with me completely, that is there problem, not mine. However, I also want you to recognize that some things that you listed exist in the US anyway.


Is it speaking out against you?What do you think would happen to a news station where someone openly said that the president needs to be killed?


Publishing propaganda against you?What do you think would happen if the US found a news letter being sent out by Al Quida into the US?


Running for office against you?In the US they have done a nice job of removing the threat of this by creating a close to 1 party system. If a communist were to gain massive support in an independent position, I am sure the congress would have them impeached quickly.

The only situation in which we would kill these people, is if they actually were fighting us physically.
We may arrest people, but that doesn't mean we are going to kill them.

Edit: forgot this part


Yes, well substitute "business owners" for "Jews" and you have revolutionary leftism in a nutshell. Except it's not "scapegoating" because you believe it's true really, really hard - right?
Just business owners are not our problem. One can own a business and treat their workers ethically, but most likely, they will not get rich off this.
Our enemies are those who horde the wealth. They are rich, and they will make sure that no one else gets their hands in their money.

Might I add, we don't burn rich people alive or kill them with poisonous gas.
If you think taking someones money is comparable to this, I suggest you see a therapist. You need to get your life priorities in order.

[Jazzratt]

You should been taken a trip to Lenin's tomb in Red Square while the old SU was still in existance--you would have gotten a different picture there.

Macarbe displays in the name of a creepy kind of patriotism/nostalgia are certainly weird but not every creepy or weird thing people do in devotion to an idea is religious.


Seriously, I would include Marxism for it's apocalyptic visionaryism.

Apocolyptic? Hardly.


It's much more than an economic system--it's a belief system.

Philosophical and religious beliefs are not the same thing.


You guys don't just believe Communism is a good idea--(a lot at least) of Communists see Marxism as some inevitable wave of history all full of logic and world brotherhood and a happy ever after ending.


While a lot of people consider it the logical conclusion to the struggles of history only the most naieve and childish would imagine that post-revolutionary society would be without problems. Nothing will eradicate all problems, but we can eradicate the problems of capitalism.


You have your Holy Book and your Prophet,


No, we don't. Even our more dogmatic types do not treat the books as infallible. You're simply being disengenous.


you have your people proclaiming the "good news"--you are just lacking God, but all the rest is there to make it a first class religion.

I don't know whether you're saying all this stupid shit to get a rise out of us or what, but I think you've really misunderstood communism. Like any movement, at any time, we need support so "proclaiming the good news" as you call it will always be essential - when the colonists in America broke away from Europe they also needed propaganda and support. Perhaps, then, American Republicanism is a religion?

Agreeing with philosophical, economic and political texts written by scholars, revolutionaries and leaders is not a religion. Perhaps unquestioning belief is, but aside from USSR-nostaligics and the more hare-brained trots "true believers" are thin on the ground.

[Octobox]

Christians have done a lot of good -- regardless the hate. The problem with Christians (and I know this will seem round-a-bout) is Lobby-Eared Politicians. The Church needs gov't because gov't in the early 1900's took over welfare, feeding the poor, and rehabilitating the convicts. Once they did this and started increases taxes and formulating the Central Bank (nameless Private Banking Cartel) to print money in Fiat and destroy the currency -- once they did this it began to destroy the wealth of those who donated to church.

Without the fundemental "purpose" of Christianity the Church had to find new ways to survive thus it became one of 1000 other lobbies petitioning the State for welfare.

Thus the need to keep Church separate from State

[Bud Struggle]

Macarbe displays in the name of a creepy kind of patriotism/nostalgia are certainly weird but not every creepy or weird thing people do in devotion to an idea is religious. {/quote] I did mention I wasn't quite serius about that point.

[quote]Apocolyptic? Hardly. Haven't you seem all the "when the revolution comes" threads around here? We'll be living in a land of milk and honey. Seems pretty apocolyptic to me.


Philosophical and religious beliefs are not the same thing. I'm going by the title of the thread. "What belief" And Communism/Marxism is a belief. And "a philosophic point of view" and of course Communism is a philosophic point of view.


While a lot of people consider it the logical conclusion to the struggles of history only the most naieve and childish would imagine that post-revolutionary society would be without problems. Nothing will eradicate all problems, but we can eradicate the problems of capitalism.I'm sure Communism can eradicate the problems of Capitalism--but the problems that it has caused in the trial runs of the past (Socialism) seem to be worse than those of Capitalism. That's why socialist societies tend to fall apart after a half century or so.


No, we don't. Even our more dogmatic types do not treat the books as infallible. You're simply being disengenous. Maybe slightly disengenous, but the similarities between Marxism and Christianity are quite startling--both even started by disaffected Jewish soothsayers looking to change the world.


I don't know whether you're saying all this stupid shit to get a rise out of us or what, but I think you've really misunderstood communism. Like any movement, at any time, we need support so "proclaiming the good news" as you call it will always be essential - when the colonists in America broke away from Europe they also needed propaganda and support. Perhaps, then, American Republicanism is a religion? The difference here is that American Republicanism is talking about the here and now--there's no looking forward to "a better day." Communism isn't about the "now" it's about that happy day in the future. Like Christians, Communists live in this world, but their home is in another. You are citizens of your countries, but you long for a world created in another fashion. All very "Christian" in hopes and asperations.


Agreeing with philosophical, economic and political texts written by scholars, revolutionaries and leaders is not a religion. Perhaps unquestioning belief is, but aside from USSR-nostaligics and the more hare-brained trots "true believers" are thin on the ground. It's not the agreement about the workings of the past that I find interesting--it's Marxists belief in the future that I find slightly unnerving.

Anyway, here a part of an Early Christian text talking about Christians realtion to the world--with a slight change or two you could be talking about Communists/Marxists.

For the Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe. For they neither inhabit cities of their own, nor employ a peculiar form of speech, nor lead a life which is marked out by any singularity. The course of conduct which they follow has not been devised by any speculation or deliberation of inquisitive men; nor do they, like some, proclaim themselves the advocates of any merely human doctrines. But, inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities, according as the lot of each of them has determined, and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct, they display to us their wonderful and confessedly striking method of life. They dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As citizens, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers. They marry, as do all [others]; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring. They have a common table, but not a common bed. They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh. They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives. They love all men, and are persecuted by all. They are unknown and condemned; they are put to death, and restored to life. They are poor, yet make many rich; they are in lack of all things, and yet abound in all; they are dishonoured, and yet in their very dishonour are glorified. They are evil spoken of, and yet are justified; they are reviled, and bless; they are insulted, and repay the insult with honour; they do good, yet are punished as evil-doers. When punished, they rejoice as if quickened into life; they are assailed by the Jews as foreigners, and are persecuted by the Greeks; yet those who hate them are unable to assign any reason for their hatred.

It's from Ad Diogenetus

http://www.saintwiki.com/index.php?title=Epistle_of_Mathetes_to_Diognetus

[Killfacer]

both even started by disaffected Jewish soothsayers looking to change the world.


Ouch.

[pusher robot]

Are you seriously saying that blaming anyone for anything is akin to Hitler blaming the Jews for Germany's problems?
It's a strong parallel when (a) the justification is completely theoretical, (b) the assignment of blame is classification-based rather than individualized and (c) the proposed remedy is death or deprivation.

I can't speak for Comrade B, but I get the distinct impression that "fighting" is exactly what it sounds like - fighting. As in picking up a gun and trying to shoot the other guy. If the capitalists try to shoot us, we'll shoot back. It's that simple.
Well earlier upthread the word was "opposing" which is rather more inclusive. And my point still stands, that as far as this board is concern, that view is not an inherent element of revolutionary leftism.

[pusher robot]

Some people do not stand with me completely, that is there problem, not mine.It is your problem when you allow those people to be a part of your movement.



What do you think would happen to a news station where someone openly said that the president needs to be killed?


There would be an investigation to make sure that whoever said that was not planning to actually carry it out.



What do you think would happen if the US found a news letter being sent out by Al Quida into the US?


It would be examined for intelligence value and probably disseminated to various news outlets.



In the US they have done a nice job of removing the threat of this by creating a close to 1 party system. If a communist were to gain massive support in an independent position, I am sure the congress would have them impeached quickly.


Then they would not be re-elected, and replaced with candidates that are more supportive. I don't think you've thought this through very well.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

It's a strong parallel when (a) the justification is completely theoretical, (b) the assignment of blame is classification-based rather than individualized and (c) the proposed remedy is death or deprivation.
(a) This is a meaningless claim. What do you mean by "theoretical" justification? As opposed to "practical"? What makes a justification "theoretical" or "practical"?

(b) So you're saying that blaming any group for anything is akin to Hitler blaming the Jews for Germany's problems? Not much improvement in the level of absurdity in your claims.

(c) False. The proposed communist remedy to the problems of capitalism is the nationalization of the means of production, the creation of a planned economy, etc. No communist ever argued that if we only got rid of the currently existing capitalists somehow, all our problems would be solved. Fighting capitalists may be necessary in the course of the revolution, but such fighting is not a solution or remedy to anything.

The problems of capitalism are inherent in the system; they are not caused by any particular group of evil people. There is no capitalist conspiracy. There are no evil people whose deaths would magically improve the world. Killing every single bourgeois in the world, by itself, would solve absolutely nothing.


Well earlier upthread the word was "opposing" which is rather more inclusive. And my point still stands, that as far as this board is concern, that view is not an inherent element of revolutionary leftism.
Which view?

[pusher robot]

Which view?


That killing or harming people not for their acts but their ideology is morally defensible or even praiseworthy.



Fighting capitalists may be necessary in the course of the revolution, but such fighting is not a solution or remedy to anything.



That's the logical view. But I've read enough violent fantasies on this site to know that not all your comrades are so...judicious.

[Comrade B]

It is your problem when you allow those people to be a part of your movement.
They aren't a part of our movement. Some of us may feel that particular capitalists must die, but none of us, as far as I know, think all capitalists must be killed.


That killing or harming people not for their acts but their ideology is morally defensible or even praiseworthy.
I do not know where you got this.
We are only talking about those who act on their ideology, not just people that support a particular ideology.


There would be an investigation to make sure that whoever said that was not planning to actually carry it out.
You honestly believe that, lets say Keith Obermann, said "George Bush deserves death", The Bush administration would not have his show canceled, or perhaps even have him arrested?


It would be examined for intelligence value and probably disseminated to various news outlets.
It would be examined by intelligence, mentioned to the media, and destroyed. The person giving out the information would be arrested and, most likely, tortured for information.


Then they would not be re-elected, and replaced with candidates that are more supportive. I don't think you've thought this through very well.
Actually, in the US, the Vice President would take over, who would also be impeached, eventually, the leadership would go with out election to the leader of the people who impeached him.

[pusher robot]

They aren't a part of our movement. Some of us may feel that particular capitalists must die, but none of us, as far as I know, think all capitalists must be killed.\

Like I've already said, I've read enough sick violent fantasies from members of this board that I cannot honestly believe you.


I do not know where you got this.
We are only talking about those who act on their ideology, not just people that support a particular ideology.
I got that from reading other peoples' posts in other threads. Now, I understand it's not really fair to hold you accountable for other peoples' views. But it's fair for me to criticize a movement that tolerates these individuals. What kind of implication do you think it creates, when members are instantly restricted for the slightest anti-abortion view, but members who relish killing and fantasize about violence are permitted to remain, even sometimes in the CC? What is a reasonable person supposed to conclude from that?

You honestly believe that, lets say Keith Obermann, said "George Bush deserves death", The Bush administration would not have his show canceled, or perhaps even have him arrested?
Yes, I've been to law school and studied constitutional law and I know for a fact that the government has no such power. There would certainly be hell to pay from a public relations perspective, and it wouldn't surprise me if is show was cancelled due to the outrage of the people, but Olbermann would have broken no law. It's not illegal to say that someone - even the President - should be killed. Unless, of course, you know, as in the case of a mafia don talking to his underlings, that the statement is very likely to actually cause that person to be killed.


It would be examined by intelligence, mentioned to the media, and destroyed. The person giving out the information would be arrested and, most likely, tortured for information.This isn't even a hypothetical. The Bin Laden tapes were handled in exactly the method I described.


Actually, in the US, the Vice President would take over, who would also be impeached, eventually, the leadership would go with out election to the leader of the people who impeached him.And if those actions weren't supported by the vast majority of the population, that person too would not win the next election. Assuming, of course, more direct action was not taken. Remember that the American population is surprisingly well-armed and you're talking about what can only be described as a Congressional coup against the Executive Branch.

[Plagueround]

\
Now, I understand it's not really fair to hold you accountable for other peoples' views. But it's fair for me to criticize a movement that tolerates these individuals. What kind of implication do you think it creates, when members are instantly restricted for the slightest anti-abortion view, but members who relish killing and fantasize about violence are permitted to remain, even sometimes in the CC? What is a reasonable person supposed to conclude from that?


That each person here does not automatically agree with or become accountable for every registered member that they likely have no connection with outside of an online forum, and that revleft is not 100% representative of an entire movement and is likely not even a significant fraction of it? That this forum is for dozens of different ideologies that not everyone automatically supports simply because they aren't restricted? That the decisions of the CC and discussions on outrageous things members said are not shared with a restricted member and doesn't automatically mean nothing was done or no questions were raised?

[Comrade B]

Like I've already said, I've read enough sick violent fantasies from members of this board that I cannot honestly believe you.And you think I agree with these people....


Yes, I've been to law school and studied constitutional law and I know for a fact that the government has no such power. There would certainly be hell to pay from a public relations perspective, and it wouldn't surprise me if is show was cancelled due to the outrage of the people, but Olbermann would have broken no law. It's not illegal to say that someone - even the President - should be killed. Unless, of course, you know, as in the case of a mafia don talking to his underlings, that the statement is very likely to actually cause that person to be killed.\
So you agree that even though the law claims that people can do these things, you really don't have full freedom of speech then do you?


This isn't even a hypothetical. The Bin Laden tapes were handled in exactly the method I described.The Bin Laden tapes were directed towards the US, they were meant to get picked up. I mean recruiting information etc.


And if those actions weren't supported by the vast majority of the population, that person too would not win the next election.
And one of their supporters would, or another person with a barely differing political plan.


Assuming, of course, more direct action was not taken. Remember that the American population is surprisingly well-armed and you're talking about what can only be described as a Congressional coup against the Executive Branch.
The US military is controlled by the right wing, and I assure you, these would be the first people to be acting to remove a communist from leadership. The now generals were the soldiers of Vietnam.

Also, those in the US that typically are highly well armed are right wing libertarians (KKKish fellows). They hate communists. A lot.

[Algernon]

This is something I've always wondered about the radical left. You have so many divisions among you, sometimes very minor differences (differing interpretations of some footnote in Das Kapital) but other times very drastic ones over how a post-revolutionary society ought to look and how to deal with capitalists, violence etc.

While questions may be raised and discussions held, the fact remains that these obscenely violent types remain tolerated within the leftist community. It's not even a question of agreement/disagreement with them or whether forum members are connected to teach other in real life because as far as I understand, in the event of a revolution the entire proletariat works together, regardless of whether your an anarchist, Hohxaist, Maosit or some hyphenated "ist". Revolutions are not an orderly thing. They are brutal and unpredictable. The people who you think don't matter now because you disagree with them will have a voice and they will play a role in shaping the course of events. Having lurked on these forums for quite some time I can honestly say that like pusher robot, I'm not comfortable with that.

[Killfacer]

I think you may be reading to much into what people say. Most people who claime that they will blow off peoples head and other such things would not actually do it.

[Bud Struggle]

I think you may be reading to much into what people say. Most people who claime that they will blow off peoples head and other such things would not actually do it.

Well, I agree with Algernon and Pusher--it is rather disconcerting to be told that someone that they want to kill you. Kidding or not, those people should be outside the pale of any civilized discourse. they lower the standard of discussion to the most base terms, they bastardize the cause of Communism by making it seem corse and belligerant and most of all they make Communism look trite, spightful and mean. They frighten good decent people AWAY from Communism.

That sort of behavior shouldn't be tolerated.

[Killfacer]

Well, I agree with Algernon and Pusher--it is rather disconcerting to be told that someone that they want to kill you. Kidding or not, those people should be outside the pale of any civilized discourse. they lower the standard of discussion to the most base terms, they bastardize the cause of Communism by making it seem corse and belligerant and most of all they make Communism look trite, spightful and mean. They frighten good decent people AWAY from Communism.

That sort of behavior shouldn't be tolerated.

Thats ridiculous. Firstly, this is not a representation of communism as a whole. I mean who actually sees what is written of this forum? People who are already communist and a motley collection of misfits. Who are they making it seem spiteful too?

Secondly, like i said its clearly not true and anyway, how many times have the lowered the standard of conversation to the most "base terms". In the grand scheme of things, not very often.

[Bud Struggle]

Thats ridiculous. Firstly, this is not a representation of communism as a whole. I mean who actually sees what is written of this forum? People who are already communist and a motley collection of misfits. Who are they making it seem spiteful too? Personally, I don't think there anyy other "Communism" outside of RevLeft and a couple of places like it. A least not in America. There's the CPUSA--but that isn't Communism by a long shot. And I've been looking into SWP--not so much either. (Better, though, I think.) This is all there is.


Secondly, like i said its clearly not true and anyway, how many times have the lowered the standard of conversation to the most "base terms". In the grand scheme of things, not very often. agreed, not very often--but just enough.

[Algernon]

The may not be representative of the communist movement as a whole but they are a part of it. That's the problem.

[Bud Struggle]

The may not be representative of the communist movement as a whole but they are a part of it. That's the problem.

Wise words.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

The communist movement has always supported the option of violent revolution. Naturally, we would greatly prefer it if the capitalists handed over the means of production without a fight, but we think such a scenario is extremely unlikely. We are opposed to the use of violence against innocent people, but we are not opposed to the use of violence in general. And we realize that sometimes, when violence is used, innocent people get hurt.

The reason we tolerate violent people in our movement is because we expect that we're going to need them to defend us (and themselves) when fighting inevitably breaks out with the capitalists. If you expect a fight, you're not going to tell violent people that they're not welcome on your side.

[Dimentio]

Hinduism is completely insane.

[Plagueround]

Personally, I don't think there anyy other "Communism" outside of RevLeft and a couple of places like it. A least not in America. There's the CPUSA--but that isn't Communism by a long shot. And I've been looking into SWP--not so much either. (Better, though, I think.) This is all there is.


If you think this is all there is, it's only because its marginalized and under reported in the media. It's not relevant to you because it isn't relevant to your daily life beyond this forum.


The may not be representative of the communist movement as a whole but they are a part of it. That's the problem.

Why are we the only movement that must be held accountable for anyone and everyone who distorts and misinterprets what we believe? The ideology includes the possibility of violence, but those that think it's the only option are wrong. I can say personally I hold these ultra-violent, thoughtless, misanthropes posing as communists in nothing but utter contempt. Should TomK be held accountable for the Spanish Inquisition simply for being a Catholic?

As for the violence that will likely occur in the hypothetical "revolution", why is the violence and oppression of the ruling class a tolerable and permissible action carried out daily, but the violence that would occur against it an unfathomable atrocity?

Besides, I rather like some of the OIers. I'd probably just shoot you guys in the kneecaps.

[pusher robot]

Why are we the only movement that must be held accountable for anyone and everyone who distorts and misinterprets what we believe?

You're not. Don't you think that neo-nazis have a bad reputation, even if some of them believe in non-violent white supremacy? Don't you think Islam has a bad reputation because they seem to produce a disproportionate number the world's suicide bombers, even though the vast majority of adherents are peaceful?

The problem is, who gets to decide what is the movement and what is the misinterpretation? If the distorters are allowed to remain your friends and allies, then in what way aren't they part of your movement?

[Algernon]

Kwisatz

The communist movement has always supported the option of violent revolution. Naturally, we would greatly prefer it if the capitalists handed over the means of production without a fight, but we think such a scenario is extremely unlikely. We are opposed to the use of violence against innocent people, but we are not opposed to the use of violence in general. And we realize that sometimes, when violence is used, innocent people get hurt.

Yes I understand this. It's part and parcel of any revolution. I actually have many questions about the mechanics of a hypothetical revolution but maybe I will start a separate thread about it. Sometimes I get the feeling though that Communists don't realize how brutal and hard a revolution is, especially on the large scale being proposed.


The reason we tolerate violent people in our movement is because we expect that we're going to need them to defend us (and themselves) when fighting inevitably breaks out with the capitalists. If you expect a fight, you're not going to tell violent people that they're not welcome on your side.

That's a risky game to play. Something similar happened in Afghanistan when the more radical islamic movements joined in the fighting against the Soviets with what later became known as the "Northern Alliance". More and more of these elements were invited in and... well the rest is history. It's easy to say "we need these peopple so we will have them on our side and after they will become irrelevant" but the problem As I see it is that once you involve these people on your side it may be hard to get them to leave. Especially when they have guns and you're in the midst of a chatoic revolution.

[Algernon]

Why are we the only movement that must be held accountable for anyone and everyone who distorts and misinterprets what we believe? The ideology includes the possibility of violence, but those that think it's the only option are wrong. I can say personally I hold these ultra-violent, thoughtless, misanthropes posing as communists in nothing but utter contempt. Should TomK be held accountable for the Spanish Inquisition simply for being a Catholic?

As for the violence that will likely occur in the hypothetical "revolution", why is the violence and oppression of the ruling class a tolerable and permissible action carried out daily, but the violence that would occur against it an unfathomable atrocity?

Well I was holding you to account in this thread since this is a communist board. I would do the same to any movement that includes stormfont scum or any other despicable group. Pusher covered this in his post well I think.

I'm not condemning violence outright, it would be hard to imagine a revolution with out it. My problem is that this revolution includes the groups you hold in contempt. They are fighting on the side of the proletariat, so they will have a voice and a stake in how the revolution unfolds and in the changes that follow. I don't think they can just be ignored.

It goes beyond violence though.. the left has many incarnations and sects. How are vanguardists going to work with anarchists? Or the many other hyphenated "ists" out there? There are fundamental differences between these groups... I'm not entirely convinced that they can be overcome.

[Bud Struggle]

It goes beyond violence though.. the left has many incarnations and sects. How are vanguardists going to work with anarchists? Or the many other hyphenated "ists" out there? There are fundamental differences between these groups... I'm not entirely convinced that they can be overcome.

They haven't semed to overcome it on RevLeft. You can be Marxist to the hilt and then express a bit of doubt about late term Abortion and be outcast.

Or uber-serious Trotskyists meshing with the free for all Anarchists. I don't think the post-Revolution is going to be that easy of a time.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Don't you think that neo-nazis have a bad reputation, even if some of them believe in non-violent white supremacy?
The bad reputation of the neo-nazis is due at least as much to their goals as to their methods (if not more so). In other words, the biggest problem with them is not they they're violent, but that they're white supremacists.

[Plagueround]

Well I was holding you to account in this thread since this is a communist board. I would do the same to any movement that includes stormfont scum or any other despicable group. Pusher covered this in his post well I think.


Very well. From this point forth I will assume all OIers are part of the same movement and treat you as such. This means you automatically advocate homophobia, racism, the starvation in Africa being their own fault, shooting and euthanizing the poor, etc.
If you would hold me accountable for allowing people with dissimilar views to post discussions on a discussion board (as if I alone hold power over these people's posts) and cannot understand the difference between conversing with those who have similar ideas and wholly endorsing what they say, I don't know what else to say to any of you.

[pusher robot]

Very well. From this point forth I will assume all OIers are part of the same movement and treat you as such.

That's an intellectually bankrupt assumption. We have no power to control who posts on this board as a restricted member. This is unlike the CC, who do have the power to control who posts as an unrestricted member - and use that power liberally! In fact, the explicit policy is that those with viewpoints antithetical to communism are restricted. Therefore, it ought to be a safe assumption that the views of those who are not restricted are not incompatible with communism. But by the same logic, the only safe assumption about restricted members is that their views are incompatible with communism.


If you would hold me accountable for allowing people with dissimilar views to post discussions on a discussion board (as if I alone hold power over these people's posts) and cannot understand the difference between conversing with those who have similar ideas and wholly endorsing what they say, I don't know what else to say to any of you.Nobody is holding you personally accountable for anything, I explicitly stated as such. What we are doing is holding the movement accountable for the viewpoints of those it voluntarily chooses to accept as members. Okay?

[Plagueround]

That's an intellectually bankrupt assumption.

As is yours and any justification you can try and find for it. That was my point. As you don't have access to the CC, you have little idea of what we object to.


Nobody is holding you personally accountable for anything, I explicitly stated as such. What we are doing is holding the movement accountable for the viewpoints of those it voluntarily chooses to accept as members. Okay?It is not ok to accept anyone who posts on revleft and claims to be a communist as part of the movement, as if it were some kind of qualifier for the real life aspiration of the communist movement. While I have often defended many of the posters on here as being more than just "e-revolutionaries", I also recognize that this, like most internet forums, is a hyper reality and not indicative of the way people really act (I can only hope that is the case for you). Yet you, like most OIers, use it as an opportunity to emphasize the parts you don't like and minimalize others.

[pusher robot]

As is yours and any justification you can try and find for it. That was my point. As you don't have access to the CC, you have little idea of what we object to. Ah, yes, how uncharitable of me not to consider information that you have kept secret. Look, I'm trying to help you in a fashion. I'm trying to tell you why I, as a working shlub, and why my friends, as working slubs, fear revolutionary leftism. You waving your hand and assuring me that everything is under control in the smoke-filled back rooms is not very persuasive. You may believe I am wrong if you wish, that is your prerogative - it will only keep you from achiving anything. I'm fine with that.


It is not ok to accept anyone who posts on revleft and claims to be a communist as part of the movement, as if it were some kind of qualifier for the real life aspiration of the communist movement. Who then are the gatekeepers? What does qualify? And who decides that? I'm not being rhetorical here, I genuinely have absolutely no idea. This seems as good a metric as any other I can think of. You have an organized group of people who believe they are part of a movement. They take on the role of gatekeepers. What more is required?

While I have often defended many of the posters on here as being more than just "e-revolutionaries", I also recognize that this, like most internet forums, is a hyper reality and not indicative of the way people really act (I can only hope that is the case for you). Yet you, like most OIers, use it as an opportunity to emphasize the parts you don't like and minimalize others.That is my role as a member of the loyal opposition. I'm willing to give a fair hearing, but I am very, very skeptical. I'm progressive. I want to believe that there's better ways. I want to be convinced.

It hasn't happened yet.

My point is that I think most people are similar to me. They want improvement. They want things to get ever better, faster, cheaper. But radical change is demanding a great amount of trust, a great amount of faith. If it is going to happen you have to have both ideas and men worthy of that trust. As has been previously observed: "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

[Plagueround]

Ah, yes, how uncharitable of me not to consider information that you have kept secret.

Again missing the point. You've already considered the information, despite the fact that you don't know what that information is. It feels as if you assume it's sinister because we're not kicking out every person that you don't agree with.


Look, I'm trying to help you in a fashion. I'm trying to tell you why I, as a working shlub, and why my friends, as working slubs, fear revolutionary leftism.Have you or your friends had any contact with the ideas outside of this website? One of the biggest failings I can see with people on this website is a disconnect from actual, working class people. As someone who is working class, I talk with people about this kind of stuff daily. Almost all of them agree with it, and yes many of them are scared of the idea. It's understandable. It's a challenge to the status quo, it's looking in the face of everything we've been raised to think...and I'll agree, stupid shits saying things like wanting to kill any and all religious people or telling TomK they'll kill him and take over his factory don't help. But are these people any different from the Americans with "anti-muslim Obama" sentiment all over their lawns? Should these people be attributed to you and I simply because we're Americans too (I believe you've said you are, correct)? For that matter, should anything that happens under Barack Obama or John McCain's presidency be attributed to everyone who votes for them? I don't think that's fair (although in the case of the votes I'm slightly inclined to agree) and in the case of revleft, I think it's again giving too much credit to this website. For all it's potential, it's still only a website.


You waving your hand and assuring me that everything is under control in the smoke-filled back rooms is not very persuasive. You may believe I am wrong if you wish, that is your prerogative - it will only keep you from achiving anything. I'm fine with that.You definitely have a flair for the dramatic. I'm simply responding to the assertion that since I haven't made some sort of public attempt on this website to restrict or ban everyone who doesn't fit in with me ideologically or acts like a jackass, that I agree and haven't ever raised the question. Tell you what though, if revleft ever decides in the CC they have your personal information and are sending assassins, I'll be sure to send you a PM.


Who then are the gatekeepers? What does qualify? And who decides that? I'm not being rhetorical here, I genuinely have absolutely no idea. This seems as good a metric as any other I can think of. You have an organized group of people who believe they are part of a movement. They take on the role of gatekeepers. What more is required?Perhaps this is a difference in opinion, but to me, the internet is only as much of an actual networking tool as people allow it to be. I'm willing to bet many people on this website hold views and opinions they wouldn't normally discuss for fear of being denied access to the greater discussion or because it's not relevant to the "theme" of discussion (that's a problem inherent with all forums in my opinion, likely made greater by the extreme political nature of revleft).

As I said, the internet essentially operates on a hyper reality and not many people are actually revealing their true selves. You only know me through the words I type here. Other than that, I could be a completely made up person, I could be a bot, I could be an elaborate sockpuppet for Barack Obama checking up on the minions of his communist empire he's secretly plotting. ;)

In a similar manner (and getting to the point), because of this, I don't think revleft or many other websites can truly represent the true character or ideals of a movement. It's a great resource and a chance to debate and share ideas, but the chance that everyone is being 100% honest and serious is not likely. The exception of course being the number of people on this site that have met and interacted in real life.

My advice, if you're serious about learning anything about the communist movement, talk to someone in real life and seee what they're about. It's a rather diverse ideology and if your only exposure to it is a website, you're not getting the whole picture no matter how much you participate on this site. That being said I rather like this website, most of the people (as they represent themselves anyway) and the level of discussion that takes place on it.



That is my role as a member of the loyal opposition. I'm willing to give a fair hearing, but I am very, very skeptical. I'm progressive. I want to believe that there's better ways. I want to be convinced.

It hasn't happened yet.My feelings on the matter is that the communist movement has some rather concrete ideas on how humans interact (or, at least interacted in the past) and intends to refocus humanity toward mutual aid and cooperation. While I have my ideas on what the future will look like, I tend to try answering those questions by addressing what conditions cause people to behave in a particular manner and what we can remove or improve to alleviate those problems. Whether or not you see eye to eye with everyone here, is there not a benefit in striving for a society that intends to account for all its members? I would think all but the most selfish people could see that.


My point is that I think most people are similar to me. They want improvement. They want things to get ever better, faster, cheaper. But radical change is demanding a great amount of trust, a great amount of faith. If it is going to happen you have to have both ideas and men worthy of that trust.And that's why I'm not advocating buying a gun, setting your watch for a month from now, and then running out into the streets. You have to have the support of the people and that's what I intend to do. I may not see it in my lifetime, but I will not concede the ideas simply because they aren't popular at the time.


As has been previously observed: "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."An interesting statment coming from people who overthrew the government oppressing them.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Who then are the gatekeepers? What does qualify? And who decides that? I'm not being rhetorical here, I genuinely have absolutely no idea. This seems as good a metric as any other I can think of. You have an organized group of people who believe they are part of a movement. They take on the role of gatekeepers. What more is required?
The CC does not contain the representatives of a single movement, but rather the representatives of several separate movements. As a result, CC policy doesn't really reflect the views of any real-life movement - it reflects a weird, complicated combination of the views of its several constituent movements, weighted by the number of representatives each movement has in the CC (which is itself a function of how many people from that movement register on Revleft).

And there are large dissenting minorities for many CC decisions.

[Decolonize The Left]

Look, I'm trying to help you in a fashion. I'm trying to tell you why I, as a working shlub, and why my friends, as working slubs, fear revolutionary leftism.

Why do you and your friends fear revolutionary leftism?

- August

[pusher robot]

Why do you and your friends fear revolutionary leftism?

- August

Because it's got a lot of nutballs who seem hell-bent on killing and destroying.

[Plagueround]

Because it's got a lot of nutballs who seem hell-bent on killing and destroying.

I can kind of understand that. I feel the same way about cops, the military, the Republican and Democrat parties, and World of Warcraft players.

[Algernon]

I can kind of understand that. I feel the same way about cops, the military, the Republican and Democrat parties, and World of Warcraft players.

But they are not all part of the same movement advocating a radical revolution. Well,m except for maybe the World of Warcraft Players.

[Decolonize The Left]

Because it's got a lot of nutballs who seem hell-bent on killing and destroying.

Hmm... Are you referring to the history of revolutionary leftism and the actions of the so-called 'great leaders' and their followers?

- August

[Plagueround]

But they are not all part of the same movement advocating a radical revolution. Well,m except for maybe the World of Warcraft Players.

That's because they get to do plenty of killing in the name of their causes without making any changes. The World of Warcraft players seem to curb it a bit by killing dragons though.

[Decolonize The Left]

That's because they get to do plenty of killing in the name of their causes without making any changes. The World of Warcraft players seem to curb it a bit by killing dragons though.

And boars... lots of boars...

- August

[Comrade B]

Because it's got a lot of nutballs who seem hell-bent on killing and destroying.


But they are not all part of the same movement advocating a radical revolution

The police defend the ruling class, the ruling class are composed of democrats and republicans, they go on to kill people for money

Saying that we are all part of the same movement is like saying the Nazis and republicans are part of the same movement because they are both politically right wing.

[pusher robot]

The police defend the ruling class, the ruling class are composed of democrats and republicans, they go on to kill people for money

Saying that we are all part of the same movement is like saying the Nazis and republicans are part of the same movement because they are both politically right wing.

Is that supposed to be an absurdity? Because I hear that all the time.

[Comrade B]

Because I hear that all the time.
I hear that gravity pulls things down a lot. That doesn't make it false.

[LOLseph Stalin]

This was probably the most difficult poll I have done in awhile, but I finally decided on Hinduism due to the caste system it has.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Is that supposed to be an absurdity? Because I hear that all the time.
Yes, it is an absurdity, and people who make that "argument" are consciously or unconsciously spewing fallacies.

However, those fallacies may be effective means of persuasion at times; and since I am a utilitarian, I will never oppose an argument that benefits my cause, even if I know it to be false.

[pusher robot]

Yes, it is an absurdity, and people who make that "argument" are consciously or unconsciously spewing fallacies.

However, those fallacies may be effective means of persuasion at times; and since I am a utilitarian, I will never oppose an argument that benefits my cause, even if I know it to be false.

Don't you think that's a false utility, because even if it helps you be persusasive now, it trades on future credibility?

[Mike Rotchtickles]

The African philosophy of Ubuntu(i am because you are,you are because we are..... something like that) is the best for me. It has been almost totally corrupted and destroyed eurocentrism and colonisation. It is a philosophy with a foundation in the community. It is about understanding each individuals importance and contribution to society and societies or the communities importance and contribution to the individual. It hardly has any meaning to Africans anymore. you'll probably find it in the most remote of rural communities.

[ibn Bruce]

I voted Atheism in its 'rationalist' incarnation. Simply because rationalism has long ago been written off as not holding itself to its own critiques. It claims the objectivity to declare others beliefs as invalid, and yet has no proof of said objectivity. Taking a rational, sceptical stance will lead someone to conclude that 'I think therefore I am' and nothing more. So the conclusions of scepticism/rationalism lead naturally to subjectivity, and yet Atheists try to argue against belief in God based upon their own subjective scientific experience of reality. This is done while all the while using value laden terms like 'rational thought', 'empiricism' and 'scientific logic'.

Similarly as previously stated, it is not a philosophy in and of itself, it has no guidelines for 'moral' action or an ethical code. Thus it cannot engage with religion in debates about ethics, as it has nothing as a substitute.


I will not say that all Atheists are in this position, as I believe that representing complex religious and philosophical beliefs as monolithic is extremely problematic. I have more problem with a Salafist Muslim on an intellectual level than I would with a 5%er or an Orthodox Jew.

Within Islamic thought there are a huge variety of opinions, many of which I believe alot of people would agree with in practice while not on basis. Similarly others would be viewed as totalitarian and ignorant in both basis and practice. I think that debating these views as though they are one giant ball of agreement is folly.

[Comrade Anarchist]

To quote Thomas Jefferson "Christianity is the most perverted system ever shone on man." but in my opinion any belief with gods or devils or anything with that envolves anything other than science is perverted.

[Glorious Union]

I like having a religion, but I like to keep it to myself. Besides, the only true beleivers know that god is a Communist. :D Hinduism is the most anti-socialist religion due to its caste system. Quite possibly one of the main reasons why a leftist organisation would have a hard time in India.

[Hit The North]

According to the "mythologist", Joseph Campbell, all religious images are symbolic representations of humanity's inner relations with each other and outer relations with nature. Every religious narrative is a psycho-drama of the same.

The most fucked up religions are those who mistake this symbolic representation for actual phenomena existing in the world - or 'behind' the world.


A historical feature of religious belief is that it has become more abstract in its use of these symbolic representations which, in themselves, have become more complex. Early animistic and nature religions employ simple and direct symbols which correspond to more simple and direct relations with nature and other humans. But as human society becomes more complex, the religions become correspondingly more complex and abstract.

A feature of Christianity is that it is at once, the most abstract religion and one in which the believers mistake the symbolic for the real. It relies on a lot of magical or supernatural acts to carry its narrative: virgin birth/ God transposed into man/ miracles as acts of proof/ resurrecting the dead/ and a crazy route to redemption based on God suffering in human form for us, so that we may be forgiven our sins (which are only really sins because the same God, who piles suffering on himself, says they are!). I mean, what kind of cause and effect relationship is this? What kind of God thinks up such a contradictory plan? Was 'he' having some kind of nervous breakdown?

[ibn Bruce]

According to the "mythologist", Joseph Campbell, all religious images are symbolic representations of humanity's inner relations with each other and outer relations with nature. Every religious narrative is a psycho-drama of the same.

The most fucked up religions are those who mistake this symbolic representation for actual phenomena existing in the world - or 'behind' the world.


A historical feature of religious belief is that it has become more abstract in its use of these symbolic representations which, in themselves, have become more complex. Early animistic and nature religions employ simple and direct symbols which correspond to more simple and direct relations with nature and other humans. But as human society becomes more complex, the religions become correspondingly more complex and abstract.

A feature of Christianity is that it is at once, the most abstract religion and one in which the believers mistake the symbolic for the real. It relies on a lot of magical or supernatural acts to carry its narrative: virgin birth/ God transposed into man/ miracles as acts of proof/ resurrecting the dead/ and a crazy route to redemption based on God suffering in human form for us, so that we may be forgiven our sins (which are only really sins because the same God, who piles suffering on himself, says they are!). I mean, what kind of cause and effect relationship is this? What kind of God thinks up such a contradictory plan? Was 'he' having some kind of nervous breakdown?

I think that the most natural state of belief is in a single, indivisible, all-powerful God that exists outside of and completely unlike creation. People believed in such a thing, saying 'All praise due to God for the rain', then this became 'all praise due to God of the rain', until eventually Monotheism became polytheism (usually with the remnants of an overarching God that would be called upon in the most dire of situations).

The perversions and absurdities that exist within many faiths come from such associations with things other than God. Idols etc are all exemplarary of this. When the Christians came to the Nuatl, it is no coincidence that the Nuatl simply put Christ and the Saints amongst their pantheon of dieties.

[synthesis]

People believed in such a thing, saying 'All praise due to God for the rain', then this became 'all praise due to God of the rain', until eventually Monotheism became polytheism (usually with the remnants of an overarching God that would be called upon in the most dire of situations).Are you positive about this? The impression I get from reading history is that people tend to be polytheist or practice "nature religions", and then as societies develop they tend towards monotheism, or the idea that only one God exists, as a means of social cohesion in a diverse yet interconnected society.

Even the Old Testament does not seem to deny the existence of other Gods besides Abraham's, although positing his as the best, and to my understanding, at one point this was true of the Qu'ran as well.

I mean, Mohammad essentially provided for Arabs an indigenous monotheist religion to compete with Christianity and Zoroastrianism and to replace their pagan polytheism which, in turn, is intrinsically divisive in a social sense and useless as a common moral coda. But the new can never fully replace the old, which is probably why the Ghanariq made it into the Qu'ran at first and then retracted - a lot like how many Christian "saints" are actually pagan deities.

Also, I've never heard of monotheism developing into polytheism as a broader social trend. Again, historically, monotheism tends to be a sign of societal development - for example, to my understanding, Hinduism has sometimes assumed the appearance of monotheism, as well.

But it sounds like you know something I don't.

[Hit The North]

Kun Fana, I believe your historical sketch is correct. Polytheism is definitely older than monotheism. Zoroastrianism is the oldest, recorded monotheism, originating in ancient Persia around 600 BCE.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Why isn't dialectical materialism on the list?

This could almost be a description of it:


According to the "mythologist", Joseph Campbell, all religious images are symbolic representations of humanity's inner relations with each other and outer relations with nature. Every religious narrative is a psycho-drama of the same.

The most fucked up religions are those who mistake this symbolic representation for actual phenomena existing in the world - or 'behind' the world.

[ibn Bruce]

Are you positive about this? The impression I get from reading history is that people tend to be polytheist or practice "nature religions", and then as societies develop they tend towards monotheism, or the idea that only one God exists, as a means of social cohesion in a diverse yet interconnected society.

The societies of China, Egypt, the Nuatl, the Maya, the Japanese etc. etc. say otherwise.


Even the Old Testament does not seem to deny the existence of other Gods besides Abraham's, although positing his as the best, and to my understanding, at one point this was true of the Qu'ran as well.

Any Jewish scholar would say otherwise. At one point? The Qu'ran is absolutely unchanged and has the same words (bar tashkeel) as when it was transmitted. The first thing I said as a Muslim was: 'There are No Gods but God'.


I mean, Mohammad essentially provided for Arabs an indigenous monotheist religion to compete with Christianity and Zoroastrianism and to replace their pagan polytheism which, in turn, is intrinsically divisive in a social sense and useless as a common moral coda. But the new can never fully replace the old, which is probably why the Ghanariq made it into the Qu'ran at first and then retracted - a lot like how many Christian "saints" are actually pagan deities.

Nothing has 'made it into the Qu'ran and then been retracted' unless you take the word of the most bizarre of orientalists.



Also, I've never heard of monotheism developing into polytheism as a broader social trend. Again, historically, monotheism tends to be a sign of societal development - for example, to my understanding, Hinduism has sometimes assumed the appearance of monotheism, as well.

Hinduism is (according to educated Hindu scholars) monotheistic, the different 'Gods' represent different aspects of the single God-head. There is a stark contrast between intellectual Hinduism and 'popular' Hinduism.

In terms of history, we have no reliable evidence to either way, having no documentary evidence of the earliest forms of religious belief (defined differently from practice). For a long time people assumed that the clay figures of women were small idols, but there are many theories now to the contrary.


I would say that Egyptian conceptions of Aten were Monotheistic, also the Hyksos king (earlier) had a similar style of Monotheism based around Set. The Jews were around before the Zoroastrians.


But it sounds like you know something I don't.
No, my theories are simply that and freely refutable lol.

[Hit The North]

The Jews were around before the Zoroastrians.



Yes, but weren't monotheistic until after Moses. Yaweh was originally a tribal god, responsible only for the Jewish people.

[Kronos]

I think the worst forms of superstition are those that endorse what Nietzsche called the "soul-superstition", which is quite different than superstition in general.

What distinguishes the items in the list above is that some of them are beliefs which posit a transcendental aspect to life- that this life is not the only life.

Other superstitions, like animism, are immanent belief systems. Such a superstition does not devalue this life in spite of another life 'beyond' this world.

Some would argue that a little superstition provides a stimulus to life, invigorating the spirit and generating a symbolic, ritualistic dimension to life. Recall the primitive tribes that believed the earth was alive and that the power of animal spirits could be harnessed.

The point is not that all this was nonsense, but that it was a useful fiction, one which helped the people flourish.

However, the moment superstition evolves into such things as polytheism/monotheism, it creates conflict. It is because the anthropomorphic conception of a god or gods eventually generates a kind of inferior paranoia in the human being.

The anthropomorphic conception of god has its psychological beginnings in childhood. The 'father figure' symbol becomes projected out onto the cosmos....as if the universe had a parent. The religious life following this is laden with grief, frustration, confusion, anxiety and despair....no different than the scenario of a child trying to simultaneously appease and impress the parent, while avoiding reprimanding treatment through cunning, manipulation, feigning ignorance, what have you.

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

Hinduism easily.It's the only religion that actually advocates imperialism and classism.Christianity doesn't.

[graffic]

Hinduism is the worst because of the classism they propose

As for Christianity and Islam the original theology of the religions are a world apart from how they are expressed by men on planet earth.

I don't know much about paganism or anamism. Scientology also deserves a mention for being a completely absurd faith!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

As for Christianity and Islam the original theology of the religions are a world apart from how they are expressed by men on planet earth.

That's what's important. Who cares about the original theology of any religion if nobody gives it the time of day?


I don't know much about paganism or anamism. Scientology also deserves a mention for being a completely absurd faith!

Quite unlike the belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

Wait, what?

[synthesis]

The societies of China, Egypt, the Nuatl, the Maya, the Japanese etc. etc. say otherwise.

Can you elaborate? I'd be completely satisfied with a couple detailed examples. Your assertion contradicts pretty much everything I know about the evolution of religion, so I'm a little skeptical.


Any Jewish scholar would say otherwise.

They would have to be completely full of shit.

Exodus 15:11 "Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods? Who is like you, majestic in holiness, awesome in glorious deeds, doing wonders?"

Exodus 18:11 "Now I know that the LORD is greater than all the gods; indeed, it was proven when they dealt proudly against the people."

Exodus 20:3 "You shall have no other gods before me."

Joshua 24:15 "But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD."

That's just a few. (http://www.ucalgary.ca/%7Eeslinger/genrels/issues/polytheism.html)


Nothing has 'made it into the Qu'ran and then been retracted' unless you take the word of the most bizarre of orientalists.

Is Ali Dashti one of these bizarre orientalists? He concluded that "the evidence given in well-attested reports and in the interpretations of certain commentators makes it likely that the incident occurred." An honest interpretation of 22:52 seems to support such a possibility.


Hinduism is (according to educated Hindu scholars) monotheistic, the different 'Gods' represent different aspects of the single God-head. There is a stark contrast between intellectual Hinduism and 'popular' Hinduism.

Again, this was not always the case. This seems to support my conclusion that monotheism is a symptom of development.

[Glorious Union]

Quite unlike the belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

Wait, what?

Exactly.
:laugh:
I'm putting that in my signature.

[Random Precision]

Hinduism easily.It's the only religion that actually advocates imperialism and classism.Christianity doesn't.


Hinduism is the worst because of the classism they propose

The caste system is really nothing but the ancient European class system. Christianity tacitly endorses that, and Judaism and Islam have all kinds of equally offensive traditions. The ancient Greeks' social order was very similar. It also adapted to the time it was in. Most Hindus these days treat it as an outdated custom.

Plus it was nowhere near as static as outsiders to India commonly think of it. In the first place, different castes were dominant dependent on the time period, and also there's an incredible amount of variation within each caste. A lot of Brahmins, for instance, were really impoverished cooks (since Brahmins can only eat food prepared by other Brahmins) rather than powerful clergy.

[Vargha Poralli]

Most Hindus these days treat it as an outdated custom.

Exactly.

But the Indian Ruling Class does not wish caste to disappear.

Castes have become merely a vote banks now. And many Backward Communities are classified as such because they might have real power to decide who rules the state or center. For example in my state many castes of the Kshatriya order are classified as backward community as they are numerically more and make a good vote bank regardless of their history.

And to add more Hinduism is not 1 religion but a name given to the atleast 5 religions which are followed by Indians by Persians and later adopted by all outsiders including Muslims and Europeans. Hindu it self means people who live beyond Sindu river(Indus in modern Day Pakistan).

[ibn Bruce]

Can you elaborate? I'd be completely satisfied with a couple detailed examples. Your assertion contradicts pretty much everything I know about the evolution of religion, so I'm a little skeptical.
The cultures I mentioned were all 'developed' in that they were urban, cultured and technologically advanced, yet they did not 'develop' Monotheism. The Messenger of God, the Prophet Mohammed (peace and blessings upon him) came to a society that was far from 'developed' in that sense (tribal, brutal, nomadic) and yet Islamic Monotheism is the most pure of any of the Monotheistic faiths. The idea that Monotheism is a 'progress' of religion from 'primitive' polytheism is a European rhetorical device used to justify the exploitation of polytheistic cultures who, despite being 'civilised', were not monotheistic.


They would have to be completely full of shit.

I never take anything from translations of religious texts. If I was going to assume something about Jewish belief, I would take it from a Talmudic scholar who knows Hebrew, rather than an English translation of the OT. All the Rabbis or Jewish 'theologians' that I have spoken to say that Judaism is monotheistic in absolute.


Is Ali Dashti one of these bizarre orientalists? He concluded that "the evidence given in well-attested reports and in the interpretations of certain commentators makes it likely that the incident occurred." An honest interpretation of 22:52 seems to support such a possibility.
One does not need to be European to be an Orientalist. Considering that that Ayaat in Al-Hajj is thus (bold is Qu'ran, un-bolded is Mohammed Assad's commentary):


Yet whenever We sent forth any apostle or prophet before thee, and he was hoping [Lit., “We never sent any apostle or prophet before thee without that, when he was hoping (tamanna)…”, etc. According to most of the commentators, the designation “apostle” (rasul) is applied to bearers of divine revelations which comprise a new doctrinal system or dispensation; a “prophet” (nabi), on the other hand, is said to be one whom God has entrusted with the enunciation of ethical principles on the basis of an already-existing dispensation, or of principles common to all divine dispensations. Hence, every apostle is a prophet as well, but not every prophet is an apostle.] [that his warnings would be heeded], Satan would cast an asper*sion on his innermost aims: [I.e., insinuating that the innermost aim (umniyyah, lit., “longing” or “hope’’) of the message-bearer in question was not the spiritual improvement of his community but, rather, the attainment of personal power and influence: cf. 6: 112 – “against every prophet We have set up as enemies the evil forces (shayatin) from among humans as well as from among invisible beings (al-jinn)”.] but God renders null and void whatever aspersion Satan may cast; and God makes His messages clear in and by themselves [Lit., “and God makes His messages clear in and by themselves’’, This is the meaning of the phrase yuhkimu ayatahu (cf. the expression uhkimat ayatuhu in 11 : 1): i.e., God causes His messages to speak for themselves, so that any insinuation as to the prophets “hidden motives” is automatically disproved. The conjunction thumma at the beginning of this clause does not connote a sequence in time but a coordination of activities, and is best rendered by the simple conjunction “and”.] - for God is all-knowing, wise.

It seems a strange claim to make indeed! Dashdi is not a scholar of Hadith, and what he knew of them would be through Shia transmissions, not Sunni. To be blunt, he has no credibility in such a matter.

[synthesis]

The cultures I mentioned were all 'developed' in that they were urban, cultured and technologically advanced, yet they did not 'develop' Monotheism.

Not the point.


I never take anything from translations of religious texts.

Shame...


All the Rabbis or Jewish 'theologians' that I have spoken to say that Judaism is monotheistic in absolute.

I'm sure they would.



Dashdi is not a scholar of Hadith, and what he knew of them would be through Shia transmissions, not Sunni. To be blunt, he has no credibility in such a matter.

Uh... so Shia aren't "real Muslims"?

[ibn Bruce]

Not the point.I believe it was if you read my original statement.


Shame...Why? Translations are always going to be flawed. 'Yay thou I walk through the valley of the shadow of death' in literal is 'though I walk through a dark valley' lol. Apply the shadiness of translation to ancient languages with complex word inferences and grammar and you have a recipe for misunderstanding. I don't know Hebrew or Aramaic, but I know a little of Arabic and I will give you an example: the basis of Arabic words comes in 3 consonant groups. Each 3 consonants implies a broad concept, the placing of vowels elaborates on that concept. So the consonant group that invokes renewal/freshness will be in the word for freshly baked bread, for learning, for making friends etc. These things cannot be translated into a new language like English (which places more emphasis on adjectives to give nuance), which is why the poetry of the Qu'ran never comes through in translation.


Uh... so Shia aren't "real Muslims"? I don't believe I said that. Shia are about 8% of the Muslim population and they reject the main transmissions used by the majority of scholars for the Sha'riah. They also have a completely different religious structure (hierarchy within their Ulema) and differing beliefs on theology. To take a Shia Sheikh as mainstream is silly, to take someone like Dashdi as a legitimate source on Islamic history is even more so.

My religious position on the Shiat'Ali is that they are Muslim, but they have many problems within their practice. It is not blameworthy for those Shia who have known nothing else, though their Ulema should know better. They are a sect, plain and simple. Anyone who believes that 8% is not a sect is kidding themselves. That said, they say La Ilaha Ill-Allah which makes their faith above my critique.

[9]

I think it depends entirely on the interpretation of the tenets of the particular "faith" or religion, so I refrained from voting.