Anarchism and Literal Bible Interpretation

[Comrade J]

This is a split from Were you brought up religious? (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65101) in which freakazoid said the following:


Both of my parents are religious and we went to Church just about every Sunday, although I never really cared for it. Infact most of my life I never really cared for going to Church. I have always believed in a God and I labeled myself as a Christian but I never did anything past that. It wasn't until college that I became an anarchist and then I eventually realized that to be a Christian actually meant to also be an anarchist/communist. And then I really started caring more about my faith. I started visiting the website www.jesusradicals.com , I started actually reading my Bible, I started reading other books on the Bible and also anarchy such as C.S. Lewis and Leo Tolstoy, and I also took some classes at college. :D

Freakazoid claims to take the Bible literally (yet remains unrestricted - how odd - perhaps the admins haven't read the Bible) yet also claims to be an anarchist. I can understand how one could argue they are compatible if you don't take the Bible literally and accept it was written by men etc. but how one can possibly be both a fundamental christian and an anarchist is beyond me.

Here's what the Bible says -

Then saith he [Jesus] unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's
- Matthew 22:21

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.
- Romans 13: 1-3

Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue
- Romans 13: 5-8

Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;

Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men
-1 Peter 2:11-15

Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work
- Titus 3:1

Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar's judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest.
- Acts 25:10-12

Yeah... totally see how leads one to anarchism... :blink:

Now if you're going to quote parts from the Bible that show you can be an anarchist (and I have no doubt they do probably exist, what with the most contradictory book in existence) then how can you say the Bible is not self-contradicting, as you have done previously? To take the Bible literally means you must believe everything St Paul said about the authorities, and to do so means you cannot possibly be an anarchist, simple as.

Also, I am not the slightest bit interested in CS Lewis or any other book you wish me to read, this is a discussion board, I'm sure we'd all love to simply use "Read *book*!" as an argument from time to time but it simply wouldn't work, you actually have to explain things yourself on occasion.

If anyone wants to respond to this in agreement or disagreement, go ahead, I'd love to see how the hell anyone can defend this position.

[BobKKKindle$]

I agree with you. I personally am not an Anarchist (or a theist or that matter) but I cannot actually comprehend how one can draw any links and supportive relationships between Anarchism and any religious text, no matter whether the interpretation is liberal or literal.

Anarchists by definition believe that peaceful and cooperative social and economic relations can exist in the absence of a state simply through free-association - but Religion is often justified on the basis that it provides a moral system to which we are to hold ourselves - and an incentive to do so through a process of moral coercion - the idea that one will be subject to eternal damnation if one does not obey a certain pattern of behaviour. The implicit suggestion that a coercive force is required to retain social stability and moral behaviour is in direct opposition to the Anarchist concept of a free and autonomous being.

[ichneumon]

Freakazoid claims to take the Bible literally (yet remains unrestricted - how odd - perhaps the admins haven't read the Bible)

you are a fascist, pure and simple. ideology to justify hate and exclusion.

this is the ugly side of socialism, the reason why the global mind rejects marxism. purges, re-education camps, gulags, backstabbing ,Darkness at Noon. aka the Marxasaurus.

the purpose of socialism is social justice. marx's antireligious attitude is the #1 reason why the world isn't a unified under socialism. it's stupid, pointless and counterproductive.

it is perfectly obvious that this guy, Freakazoid, has found a personal center that gives him the strength to fight for social justice. i don't give a shit if it's from jesus or the joy of cooking. if he lives by his beliefs, and works for the betterment of humanity, he's my comrade - period.

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by Ephesians 5:22-24+--> (Ephesians 5:22-24)Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.[/b]
So not only is Christ supposed to be an authority figure for everybody, but every husband is supposed to be an authority figure for his wife too. How can any self-respecting anarchist believe that?

Originally posted by Matthew 5:17-18+--> (Matthew 5:17-18)Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.[/b]
Here Jesus gives his tacit approval for all the atrocious laws of the prophets in the Old Testament, and claims that "one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law" from now until the end times. Now this Jesus character is no idiot regarding Jewish scripture. He knows what's in there, as he makes countless allusions to its contents, and he does not say that Christians are allowed to ignore it. Quite the contrary; I assume that's why modern Christians still admire the Ten Commandments.

If Jesus were really an anarchist or communist, he would have denounced Mosaic law instead of supporting it, seeing how viciously authoritarian it is.

Jesus is saying it's okay to sell your daughter into slavery:

Originally posted by Exodus 21:7 (this is right after the Ten Commandments chapter)
And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
According to Jesus, unruly children should be stoned to death:

Originally posted by Leviticus 20:9
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

Originally posted by Deuteronomy 21:18-21
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
Jesus says you should be stoned to death if you're a man who has had gay sex:

Originally posted by Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Jesus says a woman should be stoned if she gets married and her husband does not find a hymen:

Deuteronomy 22:13-[email protected]
If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,

And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:

Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:

And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;

And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.

And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;

And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.

But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
Jesus says that if a woman is raped in the city and she doesn't scream loud enough, she should be stoned to death:

Deuteronomy 22:23-25
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
Look, you cannot be both an anarchist and be a Bible-believing Christian. Either you have to ignore a lot of anarchist theory in order to embrace the authoritarianism of the Bible, or you have to ignore the authoritarian bits of the Bible that contradict everything anarchism is about. If you claim to be an anarchist and believe in the Bible literally, you are a liar, plain and simple.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by ichneumon+April 09, 2007 12:04 am--> (ichneumon @ April 09, 2007 12:04 am)
Freakazoid claims to take the Bible literally (yet remains unrestricted - how odd - perhaps the admins haven't read the Bible)

you are a fascist, pure and simple. ideology to justify hate and exclusion.

this is the ugly side of socialism, the reason why the global mind rejects marxism. purges, re-education camps, gulags, backstabbing ,Darkness at Noon. aka the Marxasaurus.
[/b]
Well I have to say one simple fact that the USSR afte 1930's had nothing to do with both Marxism and Leninism.

The bolsheviks did respect the religious people especially those of the Minorites

Islam in Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_Soviet_Union)

WIKI

Unlike the Russian Orthodox Christian church, the Muslims of the Soviet Union originally encountered a larger degree of religious freedom under the new Bolshevik rule. Vladimir Lenin oversaw the return of religious artifacts, such as the Uthman Quran,[2] the foundations of court systems using principles of Islamic law which ran alongside the Communist legal system,[2] Jadids and other "Islamic socialists" were given positions of power,[2] an affirmative action system called "korenizatsiya" (nativisation) was implemented which helped the local Muslim populace,[2] while Friday, the day of Muslim religious celebration, was declared the legal day of rest throughout Central Asia.[2] Under the Tzars, Muslims were brutally repressed and the Eastern Orthodox Church was the official religion. On 24 November 1917 Lenin declared;

Muslims of Russia…all you whose mosques and prayer houses have been destroyed, whose beliefs and customs have been trampled upon by the tsars and oppressors of Russia: your beliefs and practices, your national and cultural institutions are forever free and inviolate. Know that your rights, like those of all the peoples of Russia, are under the mighty protection of the revolution.[2]

The Russian orthodox church had no body to defend it at the revolution and after the revolution. It was seen just as a wrost oppressor.


the purpose of socialism is social justice. marx's antireligious attitude is the #1 reason why the world isn't a unified under socialism. it's stupid, pointless and counterproductive.


Well Marx had nothing to do with the attitude of the Communists here. We had a brief discussion about it

Thread. (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=62031&hl=)

[Raúl Duke]

Jesus is saying

I don't want to sound like I'm a crazed fundamentalist freak...but, Jesus did not say most of those things himself -since it was written in the old testament-


If Jesus were really an anarchist or communist, he would have denounced Mosaic law instead of supporting it, seeing how viciously authoritarian it is.

However, I see your point that jesus did not denounce these laws...making him not an anarchist in any sense. However...I don't think there are many parts showing him actually supporting such things either.

Also...the gospels were written by men (and don't give me none of that holy ghost crap; some of these men had some interests for putting these laws) so we will never know if it actually has what jesus said of a manipulation (thats why there are contradictions and omissions).

However....maybe one day someone might find some missing gospel or something and than "prove" that jesus is anarchistic.

In the end, whether such a finding happens or not, it would make little difference to me since I'm an atheist.

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 06:45 pm

Jesus is saying

I don't want to sound like I'm a crazed fundamentalist freak...but, Jesus did not say most of those things himself -since it was written in the old testament-
Well, yeah, Jesus didn't say these things directly, but he said that Mosaic law still applies, which includes all those things. Plus, according to the traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity, Jesus is Jehovah, and I don't really see how one part of God could disagree with another.


However, I see your point that jesus did not denounce these laws...making him not an anarchist in any sense. However...I don't think there are many parts showing him actually supporting such things either.

Also...the gospels were written by men (and don't give me none of that holy ghost crap; some of these men had some interests for putting these laws) so we will never know if it actually has what jesus said of a manipulation (thats why there are contradictions and omissions).

However....maybe one day someone might find some missing gospel or something and than "prove" that jesus is anarchistic.

In the end, whether such a finding happens or not, it would make little difference to me since I'm an atheist.
I personally don't find any good evidence that Jesus existed in the first place. The Jesus character seems to be a mishmash of Jewish messianic prophesy and the pagan mystery religions that were popular at the time. Maybe the story was based on a real person, but it has so much in common with the stories of Horus, Mithras, Dionysus, and other mythological savior figures of the period that I have a hard time believing he was any more real than they were.

[Jazzratt]

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

Freakazoid claims to take the Bible literally (yet remains unrestricted - how odd - perhaps the admins haven't read the Bible)

you are a fascist,
Incorrect. Fascism is a very specific ideology, not wanting a supporter of reactionary tripe to post on a leftist message board does not come into this. Unless youhave some evidence that comrae_j is a nationalist and a corporatist I suggest you fuck off.


this is the ugly side of socialism, the reason why the global mind rejects marxism. purges, re-education camps, gulags, backstabbing ,Darkness at Noon. aka the Marxasaurus.
This is nothing to do with any of the above, This is an attack on the christian model and a demonstration as to how it is incongruous with anarchism. Most of us recognise that we will have to co-operate with those unfortunate to be afflicted with religion but on this enclave of leftists we should be able to discuss and condemn religion openly.


the purpose of socialism is social justice. marx's antireligious attitude is the #1 reason why the world isn't a unified under socialism. it's stupid, pointless and counterproductive.
Marx wasn't that anti-religious, he recognised the religion of the proletariat as being another method of escape from the crushing reality of their oppression - the opiate taken to forget their position.


it is perfectly obvious that this guy, Freakazoid, has found a personal center that gives him the strength to fight for social justice.
Lol, "personal centre" what a load of hippy bullshit.


i don't give a shit if it's from jesus or the joy of cooking. if he lives by his beliefs, and works for the betterment of humanity, he's my comrade - period.
So simply because he has similar aims to us he must become somehow immune from criticism? Despite the fact he has happily admitted to having a literal interpretation of the bible, a book of both contradiction and deeply seated reactionary thought?

[ichneumon]

(yet remains unrestricted - how odd - perhaps the admins haven't read the Bible)

calling for someone to be restricted or censored for their personal religious beliefs, which said person has not expounded at all, qualifies for the vernacular definition of fascist


3. a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views.

i'm reacting to the call for him to be purged based on a simple and honest response to a poll.


Lol, "personal centre" what a load of hippy bullshit.

luck with the dark side, Darth Jazzratt

the idea of interrogating and persecuting someone based on their political ideology or belief system is completely unacceptable (to me, of course). thoughtcrime is 100% orwellian, and, in a word, fascist. personally, if you hard core believe everything Communist™ yet sit on your ass and watch TV, you're a parasite and a disgrace. i care about how you act - not what you believe. but i try to be nice. it's hard sometimes.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

woo! witch hunt!

Sorry Freakazoid but i would remain silent or they will pick apart whatever you write and seek your restriction.

everyone remember dont express your self around anarchists!! they might ...restrict you ...oh my gosh

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 07:14 pm

(yet remains unrestricted - how odd - perhaps the admins haven't read the Bible)

calling for someone to be restricted or censored for their personal religious beliefs, which said person has not expounded at all, qualifies for the vernacular definition of fascist
Well, the vernacular definition of fascist isn't the definition most people use on these boards, where we frequently have to discuss actual fascist ideology.

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Fascist


Formerly a follower of the doctrine of Fascism, NOW - New and Improved - a vicious political philosophy of a militarist totalitarianism, or more commonly known as Republican. Nowadays, the word Fascist refer's to anyone who annoys you, even slightly. Also, anyone who calls themselves Stalinist, Trotskyist, Capitalist, Socialist or Leninist. Or your parents trying to make you go cold turkey, sweating out your heroin addiction, or even tidy your room. The fascists.

Why exactly the Fascists stopped strutting around in black shirts publicly assaulting their enemies and started correcting the spelling of your e-mail's instead and telling you off for not washing your coffee cup is unknown, but believed to be because of the dehairing of society, lessening of facial and chest-hair's, directly paralelling the decline of assaults and increase of grammar-nazing.

[ichneumon]

"A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." [Robert O. Paxton, "The Anatomy of Fascism," 2004]

from dictionary.com. i'll give him, he's not a nationalist, but still, he qualifies.

[Comrade J]

(yet remains unrestricted - how odd - perhaps the admins haven't read the Bible)

calling for someone to be restricted or censored for their personal religious beliefs, which said person has not expounded at all, qualifies for the vernacular definition of fascist

I've talked to freakazoid before, he admits he takes the Bible literally. Now I don't claim to be a Biblical scholar by any means, but you don't need to be the Archbishop of fucking Cantebury to work out taking the Bible literally means believing homosexuals, adulterers etc should be stoned to death and so on. If you don't believe that then fine, but don't then claim you're taking the Bible literally.
The fact you referred to me as a "fascist" shows how little you know about politics - in fact I'm questioning why I'm even bothering to respond to someone with your level of intelligence when I could be doing something far more productive, such as watching my plant grow.



3. a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views.

i'm reacting to the call for him to be purged based on a simple and honest response to a poll.
What? This has nothing to do with a poll, it comes from various conversations I've had with freakazoid in the past about religion, so I'm wondering how he would argue one can take the Bible literally whilst being an anarchist.
Nor am I requesting his restriction - my point is, he obviously doesn't take the Bible literally, otherwise he wouldn't be here. Everyone but you and Mr SWP himself have got this so far without need of explanation...

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 03:52 pm
I cannot actually comprehend how one can draw any links and supportive relationships between Anarchism and any religious text, no matter whether the interpretation is liberal or literal.
Because people want to justify their own irrational, subjective personal beliefs.

Belief is not about what one 'feel's', it's about what is rational. Of course the truth is too much for many people.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 07:14 pm

(yet remains unrestricted - how odd - perhaps the admins haven't read the Bible)

calling for someone to be restricted or censored for their personal religious beliefs, which said person has not expounded at all, qualifies for the vernacular definition of fascist
As Eleutherios pointed out, we're not used to people using the vernacular, mainly because it's silly and because it makes real fascism seem less serious.

We have rules against religious proselytising and we also do not take kindly to people with reactionary belief sets (and you cannot claim to be an avid supporter of the Bible and its teachings).


i'm reacting to the call for him to be purged based on a simple and honest response to a poll.
That's not why J is calling for his restriction, prick, it's long been known that freakazoid is a supporter of Christianity.


luck with the dark side, Darth Jazzratt
The dark side? What are you wittering about?


the idea of interrogating and persecuting someone based on their political ideology or belief system is completely unacceptable (to me, of course).
Good thing we're neither interrogating nor persecuting him. Also by your logic do you think it is perfectly fine for us to let cappies and the fash run amok on this forum - after all to restrict or ban them would be "persecuting" them on the grounds of their political ideology?

thoughtcrime is 100% orwellian, and, in a word, fascist.
This is a message board for people who share common ideas to debate, it is not a reflection of how we would run a society and it's therfore quite acceptable to put people who do not share these beliefs in a seperate part of the forum.

personally, if you hard core believe everything Communist™ yet sit on your ass and watch TV, you're a parasite and a disgrace. i care about how you act - not what you believe. but i try to be nice. it's hard sometimes.
I take it then that you, saint ichneumon, do not ever watch TV or sit down? There really isn't much a sensible person can hope to achieve right now through the kind of lifestylism you are advocating.

[freakazoid]

8O Easy people. :(

When I am at the computer with all of my things on it I will actually respond to the main parts of this post, which are all very good and valid questions. But since I am not and I have to actually leave here soon so I will only touch on a few things.

First of all, yes I am an anarchist and yes I do take the Bible literally.


Sorry Freakazoid but i would remain silent or they will pick apart whatever you write and seek your restriction.

I'm ready for a good fight. Bring em on. I bet that CDL sure would like to restrict me, already have an 80% warning level for a certain sig insident, he even gave me a 2 for one grrrrr. :(

Also, what does vernacular mean?

Not sure how long until I can fully respond. If it is not before Thrusday then it will be after Monday sometime, I am leaving for Kentucky on Thursday for the Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot :D. I hope, just smashed up my car :(

[Political_Chucky]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 08, 2007 06:02 am
This is a split from Were you brought up religious? (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65101) in which freakazoid said the following:


Both of my parents are religious and we went to Church just about every Sunday, although I never really cared for it. Infact most of my life I never really cared for going to Church. I have always believed in a God and I labeled myself as a Christian but I never did anything past that. It wasn't until college that I became an anarchist and then I eventually realized that to be a Christian actually meant to also be an anarchist/communist. And then I really started caring more about my faith. I started visiting the website www.jesusradicals.com , I started actually reading my Bible, I started reading other books on the Bible and also anarchy such as C.S. Lewis and Leo Tolstoy, and I also took some classes at college. :D

Freakazoid claims to take the Bible literally (yet remains unrestricted - how odd - perhaps the admins haven't read the Bible) yet also claims to be an anarchist. I can understand how one could argue they are compatible if you don't take the Bible literally and accept it was written by men etc. but how one can possibly be both a fundamental christian and an anarchist is beyond me.

Here's what the Bible says -

Then saith he [Jesus] unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's
- Matthew 22:21

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.
- Romans 13: 1-3

Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue
- Romans 13: 5-8

Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;

Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men
-1 Peter 2:11-15

Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work
- Titus 3:1

Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar's judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest.
- Acts 25:10-12

Yeah... totally see how leads one to anarchism... :blink:

Now if you're going to quote parts from the Bible that show you can be an anarchist (and I have no doubt they do probably exist, what with the most contradictory book in existence) then how can you say the Bible is not self-contradicting, as you have done previously? To take the Bible literally means you must believe everything St Paul said about the authorities, and to do so means you cannot possibly be an anarchist, simple as.

Also, I am not the slightest bit interested in CS Lewis or any other book you wish me to read, this is a discussion board, I'm sure we'd all love to simply use "Read *book*!" as an argument from time to time but it simply wouldn't work, you actually have to explain things yourself on occasion.

If anyone wants to respond to this in agreement or disagreement, go ahead, I'd love to see how the hell anyone can defend this position.
In this case, I do agree with Comrade_J because honestly, I really wouldn't in the case of religion bashing. But Comrade_J brings up very good and valid points. I am not an anarchist myself, but it seems unreasonable to claim to take the bible 100% literally and yet still claim to be an anarchist. Saying so confirms the beliefs of a religious nut who thinks homosexuals are an abomination and that women should knell down to a male authority.

When I think of a normal religious person, I don't really think of someone who really reads the bible, because honestly I don't know one person who has. So that is my mistake on my own misconceptions. But if someone claims to be a minion of god and takes the bible literally, then I am sorry, but they are no comrade of mine. Otherwise, believing in the few parts of the bible that actually make sense(which I still don't, but it does have somewhat of a good message) then I guess its alright.

Freakaziod, I suggest you clear this up and denounce your position on taking the bible "literally" because by saying so, you are claiming you are also a homophobe, sexist, and unethical.

[BobKKKindle$]

I think everyone would appreciate it, freakazoid, if you would actually read the quotes taken from the Bible posted at the start of this thread and explain your position on several of them that call for actions and attitudes that are in direct violation of the basic values of revolutionary socialism and the rules of this message board. In particular, those relating to the oppression of women and homosexuals. Given that you accept the bible literally, one assumes there cannot be much room for alternative interpretation of the text.

Incidentally, how is taking some parts of the bible as truth and rejecting other sections that one does not find morally and ethically suitable consistent with the principles of religious faith? Surely selectively rejecting the teaching of the supreme deity and all his/her various manifestations and calling oneself a theist is a form of hypocrisy, which could potentially entail eternal sufferring and damnation? A perspective from some of our liberal theists would be nice on this issue. Any religious position - whether liberal or fundie-fuck (ie Freakazoid) - is logically flawed.

[Raúl Duke]

hmm, I bet he's going to say something about "I take the bible literaly...yet I also do so in a specific manner from a C.S. Lewis book; making me different from all the fundies: etc etc"

However...his replies are sure to be interesting either way.

[Political_Chucky]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 06:06 pm
Incidentally, how is taking some parts of the bible as truth and rejecting other sections that one does not find morally and ethically suitable consistent with the principles of religious faith?
Well I personally only say so because my friend who was once thinking of becoming a pastor renounced the religion, but still feels as if there is a god. I personally disagree with him, but he likes to recite some verses out of the bible that do make some sense and that don't contradict his own communistic beliefs. He doesn't believe in that god persay(the whole damnation and shit), but one of his own mind I guess. Personally I have no problem with him calling himself a communist and holding on to his beliefs as long as they don't hinder the movement so thats what I meant by ethical. Its kind of like taking a quote out of context to make it say what you want it to say.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Although I am not an anarchist (and thus I have no problem with Bible verses supporting the existence of a state), I am a communist and I will take up the task of explaining the Christian revolutionary interpretation of the Bible.

First, let's get one misconception out of the way: There is no such thing as a "literal" reading of the Bible. There are places in the Bible where the text itself says "this was a metaphor, stupid" (Jesus' parables come to mind). The only way in which you can be "literal" is by believing that every historical event mentioned in the Bible actually happened the exact way it is narrated. But you can't be "literal" about the meaning of the ethical commands of the Bible. They all require interpretation. Even a simple command like "don't kill" demands interpretation - after all, what counts as killing? Can you kill animals? Can you kill humans under special circumstances, such as self-defense? Is it "don't kill" or "don't murder"? And so on and so forth.

I would say that the reason why the Bible is so enormously long is precisely because many of its commands are vague and need lots of clarification.

So, without further ado, let's get straight to the point(s):


Then saith he [Jesus] unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's
- Matthew 22:21
...which essentially means, "Give Caesar that which rightfully belongs to Caesar."

An anarchist would say that nothing rightfully belongs to Caesar, so you should give him nothing. Or, an anarchist might look at the broader context, such as the second half of that verse:

Then He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."

This could be easily interpreted to mean that you should separate the concerns of the Earth (Caesar's things) from the concerns of the spirit (God's things). The emphasis may not be on the giving part, but on the Caesar vs. God part.


Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.
- Romans 13: 1-3
Ah, yes, the biggest Biblical problem for anarchists. Good thing I'm not an anarchist.

First, notice that these verses appear to endorse that status quo no matter what that status quo happens to be. All rulers are ordained by God; so right now the government has God's support, but if there is a revolution tomorrow and a new "ruling authority" is installed, that new ruling authority also has God's support. The current social order always has God's support, and if the social order changes, the new one gets God's support. The Soviet Union could (and probably did) use these verses to show Christians that the Soviet government was acting in accordance with the will of God.

At this point you might ask, what the fuck? That doesn't seem to make any sense whatsoever as a political theory. And you're right, it doesn't. Because it's not meant as a political statement. Christians have two ways to interpret the above passage:

1. "All authority is from God because all things in general are from God. Everything that happens, happens with God's knowledge. This passage is meant to remind us that no one, not even kings, can go against God."
2. "The passage basically says, 'don't get in trouble with the police' or 'stay out of jail'. This was very important to the early Christians because the Roman authorities were looking for any excuse to arrest them."


Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;

Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men
-1 Peter 2:11-15
Huh? I don't see the problem here; it just looks like a generic recommendation for good behaviour and not getting into trouble with anyone. To the extent that it advises people to submit to the ruling authorities, see interpretation #2 above.


Originally posted by Eleutherios+--> (Eleutherios)
Originally posted by Matthew 5:17-18+--> (Matthew 5:17-18)Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.[/b]
Here Jesus gives his tacit approval for all the atrocious laws of the prophets in the Old Testament, and claims that "one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law" from now until the end times. Now this Jesus character is no idiot regarding Jewish scripture. He knows what's in there, as he makes countless allusions to its contents, and he does not say that Christians are allowed to ignore it. Quite the contrary; I assume that's why modern Christians still admire the Ten Commandments.[/b]
Excuse me, but it looks like you haven't actually read the verses you are quoting. First of all, most obviously, Jesus says "whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." He shall be called the least, yes, but least in the kingdom of heaven. Jesus is clearly saying that the person who breaks one of these commandments will still make it to heaven nonetheless - he just won't be as honoured as others (and Paul later makes the point that no one can really keep all the commandments faithfully his entire life anyway).

Notice also that Jesus says he came to fulfill the law, and in the next sentence claims that the law will not change until all is fulfilled. Hmmm... sounds to me like he's saying nothing will change until his work on Earth is done, not until the end of the world. And, indeed, that is precisely what Paul thinks - that Jesus came to fulfill Mosaic Law and that the law was made obsolete after the Resurrection:


Originally posted by Romans 7:1-6
Do you not know, brothers and sisters -- for I am speaking to those who know the law -- that the law is binding on a person only during that person's lifetime? Thus a married woman is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her husband dies, she is discharged from the law concerning the husband. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man, she is not an adulteress. In the same way, my friends, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God. While we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we are slaves not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit.
And again:


Originally posted by Romans 10:4
For Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
Paul obviously does not like Mosaic Law very much. For that matter, his entire Epistle to the Galatians (too long for me to quote here) is one long rant against those who wanted to adhere too strictly to the old commandments (especially circumcision).

Moving on...

Originally posted by Ephesians 5:22-24
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Sounds bad, right? Try looking at the larger context:


Ephesians 5:21-[email protected]
Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior. Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word, so as to present the church to himself in splendor, without a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind -- yes, so that she may be holy and without blemish.

In the same way, husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
For no one ever hates his own body, but he nourishes and tenderly cares for it, just as Christ does for the church, because we are members of his body.
"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."

This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the church. Each of you, however, should love his wife as himself, and a wife should respect her husband.
Considering the period this was written in, the idea that husbands had a duty to love their wives "just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" was pretty damn progressive.

And by the way:

Galatians 3:28
There is no longer Jew or Gentile, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.
If that doesn't say "to hell with social hierarchies", I don't know what does.

[Political_Chucky]

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Yet you forgot to address this issue.... or this one


If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.

I don't find it troubling for the ordinary person to believe in god because most people are ignorant to what believing in god really means. When I believed in "god," the most me and my friends knew what we had to abide by were the ten commandments. But reading adds more depth and if a person believes it, there is a problem.

There is a literal sense to The Bible, which does not mean to believe in a metaphor in the literal sense, but to believe in The Bible without taking it out of context. If gays are an abomination according to The Bible, that poses a problem for both Anarchists and Communists alike.

My ideas may sound contradicting, but I have heard religious christians, when posed with the question of gays or sexism, state that those parts of The Bible are not to be taken seriously because of the age of the text. Now when I hear someone say they take The Bible in a literal sense, then I begin to question a comrade's motives.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

The passages you quoted are part of the Mosaic Law, whose purpose was fulfilled and whose authority was ended through Jesus' life and resurrection. I've already pointed out how Paul states that "now we are discharged from the law" and "Christ is the end of the law" in my previous post. Paul's broader argument is that the Mosaic Law was intentionally designed by God so as to be impossible for humans to uphold, in order to demonstrate that humans are sinful.

Basically, according to Paul's theology, God said to man: "You want to follow my commands? Fine, here are some commands. You say you can't follow them? Yeah, that's the point, stupid, you can't become righteous or holy by following a set of strict rules."

Christians who point out that homosexuality is condemned in the Old Testament forget about all the many other things that are equally condemned, and they ignore everything Paul ever said in the New Testament.

Taking the words of the Bible out of context is precisely what people do when they quote a Biblical command and ignore any parts of the Bible that say that command is obsolete or not to be taken at face value.

An important aspect of Marxism is the realization that different sets of ideological beliefs, moral outlooks and norms of public behaviour are compatible with different relations of production. In other words, as human society changes, so do social rules. If Marxism is correct in that respect, and if there is in fact a God who wants to guide humanity towards bettering itself, would it not make sense for that God to issue different commands that are appropriate at different stages in history? Is God not allowed to be a Marxist? :P

[Tommy-K]

The trouble with the bible is that it is so vague and contradicts itself so frequently that it can be used to justify anything.

This is why groups such as the Jesus Radicals abd the KKK both use the Bible to justify their beliefs, despite these beliefs being polar opposites of one another.

A good example is this:

"Turn the other cheek."

So if someone hurts you, turn away and forgive.

Yet in another chapter it states:

"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."

So if someone hurts you, do exactly the same to them.

Which one do you believe? Different people will choose to believe different parts of the Bible. I once knew a Christian guy who said "I believe every word of the bible, if I didn't, I wouldn't have my faith." and I thought, how can you? It's so full of contradictions, what do you choose to believe? He also said that (like many Christians actually) he has not read the whole of the Bible. Could this explain it? People only read the bits they want to read and apply those to their own lives, resulting in the heavy diversity within Christianity (and indeed other faiths) that we see today.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by Tommy-K+April 09, 2007 10:21 am--> (Tommy-K @ April 09, 2007 10:21 am) The trouble with the bible is that it is so vague and contradicts itself so frequently that it can be used to justify anything. [/b]
The Bible certainly has been used to justify almost anything, historically speaking (whether some or all of those justifications were flawed or incorrect is another question). But surely, in that case, there is no problem with the Bible from the atheist point of view. If it can be used to justify anything, then it is neither good nor bad. It may be useless, but not good or bad.

I have no problem with atheists who think the Bible is useless. They don't bother me, I don't bother them.


This is why groups such as the Jesus Radicals abd the KKK both use the Bible to justify their beliefs, despite these beliefs being polar opposites of one another.

A good example is this:

"Turn the other cheek."

So if someone hurts you, turn away and forgive.

Yet in another chapter it states:

"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."

So if someone hurts you, do exactly the same to them.

Which one do you believe?
Actually, in this case, it is quite clear that one supercedes the other:


Matthew 5:38-39
You have heard that it was said, 'an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth'. But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
For the record, I generally dislike quoting the Bible so often (because I strongly believe that you cannot learn much from random quotes, no matter which book you're reading), but I simply had to clear up some misunderstandings.

[Ihavenoidea]

Its like with any religious text, the cotradictions, violation of human rights, and request for blind following is rediculous and extreme.

Same shit, differant asshole.

You got the koran, bible, torah, talmud, hadith, blah blah blah, you look closely and it is alll the same shit. How the beleivers choose to run with it is a compleatly differant story.

I agree that religion (if there exists any under a communist state) should be a PRIVATE affair. It holds no place in pollitics or public.


No fucking korans ruling a country, no conservatives bible pushing the people. It is annoying me now.

[ichneumon]

quote Jazzratt



The dark side? What are you wittering about?

dude, you have some, like, blockage in your heart charka that is preventing you from coming forth in the new age of aquarian love and harmony. frankly, man, your negativity is impacting my aura, like, negatively.

[jasmine]

The bible has contradictions. Marx has contradictions. Lenin has contradictions. Jazzratt has contradictions.

The point is, in the end we are all worm food. We all die. Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, Jazzrat, our stay is temporary. Nobody gets to live forever.

You can write whatever you want about the great god-fairy in the sky etc. but in the end we all have to face that same moment when the life oozes out of our bodies.

Maybe the lights go out, mavbe we experience external bliss, maybe we burn in hell, we just don't know.

The one thing we don't like is uncertainty - so we create our own certainty, revolution, heaven, hell etc. Richard Dawkins or Jesus Christ, we all want something to believe in, even or particularly, Jazzzrat with his/her foul-mouthed certainties.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 08:24 pm
The bible has contradictions. Marx has contradictions. Lenin has contradictions. Jazzratt has contradictions.
Yes, but no one believes in literal readings of Marx or Lenin. They certainly don't have literal readings of me.

Oh yes and this thread is about the incongruity of anarchism and Christian fundamentalism.


The point is, in the end we are all worm food. We all die. Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, Jazzrat, our stay is temporary. Nobody gets to live forever.

You can write whatever you want about the great god-fairy in the sky etc. but in the end we all have to face that same moment when the life oozes out of our bodies.

Maybe the lights go out, mavbe we experience external bliss, maybe we burn in hell, we just don't know.

The one thing we don't like is uncertainty - so we create our own certainty, revolution, heaven, hell etc. Richard Dawkins or Jesus Christ, we all want something to believe in, even or particularly, Jazzzrat with his/her foul-mouthed certainties. What is the relevance of this? Flattered though I am by the fact you're clearly obsessed with me I fail to see what any of this has to do with a discussion of how it is impossible to be an anarchist and a fundamentalist Christian.

[Comrade J]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 08:24 pm
The bible has contradictions. Marx has contradictions. Lenin has contradictions. Jazzratt has contradictions.

The point is, in the end we are all worm food. We all die. Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, Jazzrat, our stay is temporary. Nobody gets to live forever.

You can write whatever you want about the great god-fairy in the sky etc. but in the end we all have to face that same moment when the life oozes out of our bodies.

Maybe the lights go out, mavbe we experience external bliss, maybe we burn in hell, we just don't know.

The one thing we don't like is uncertainty - so we create our own certainty, revolution, heaven, hell etc. Richard Dawkins or Jesus Christ, we all want something to believe in, even or particularly, Jazzzrat with his/her foul-mouthed certainties.
Whoa-oh, Code Red! Hippie in the building! Beware the drum circles...

This has nothing to do with the point of the thread. The purpose of this thread was to discuss how one can take the Bible literally (and therefore obey what St Paul etc said) whilst being an anarchist. The fact is, you obviously can't, therefore freakazoid does not take the entire Bible literally, otherwise he would not be an anarchist, simple as.
It's just picking and choosing, typical of all religions.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I find it very interesting how some people appear to be flat out ignoring my lengthy explanations on the previous page (which show, at the very least, that some interpretations of the Bible are in fact compatible with anarchism).

[freakazoid]

I have a short time so I am only touching on a few things.

Romans 13, here is what some one had said over at www.jesusradicals.com


To get back to the original question for a second, a couple of brief thoughts.

The passage in Romans 13 can be tricky, yes, but it generally is so only when viewed in a superficial way that is largely uncritical of certain cultural assumptions modern USAmericans bring to the text. The last few verses in chapter 12 should give a sense that something other than just a simple submission to authority is going on here.

Quote:
Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"says the Lord. On the contrary:
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Romans 12:17-22, NIV


This particular expansion on what it means to offer one's self as a living sacrifice, what it means to live out love, colors what follows. In addition, this passage and Paul's expansion on the Love Commandment in 13:8-10 frames the directive to submit. Then verse 11 tells the believers to understand the present time, for "our salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed." This statement has been considered by some interpreters to be a coded message that there is something else going on here, a message for the Christians to stay faithful and NOT submit during times of trials that were surely coming soon given the developing hostile climate to Christianity in Rome.

Paul wrote several things in his letters that could rightfully be considered subversive political literature, writings that could well be used to outline a Biblical theology of resistance (Andy, this is what I was talking about on my conference evaluation, about my desire to see a session on said theology of resistance, not that I've posted here for some time so not that you would have known who I am). One of the most prominent, if not the most, is the setup and Christ-hymn in Colossians 1:13-20:

Quote:
He has brought us out from under the authority (or from the dominion) of darkness, and has transferred (or translated) us into the kingdom of his beloved son, in whom we are bonded to liberation, released from bondage to sin.

He is the image
of the invisible God,
the firstborn of all creation
for in him were created all things
in heaven and earth
things visible and invisible
whether seats of power or provinces
whether rulers or authorities
all things have been created through him and for him.

And he is before all things
and in him all things hold together
And he is the head of the body, the church.

He is the beginning
the firstborn from the dead
so that he might come to have first place in everything
for in him all the fullness of God
was pleased to dwell
and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself
all things
whether on earth or in heaven
by making peace through the blood of his cross.

Colossians 1:13-20, translation mine


What's important to note about this passage is that, having started with the bit about being brought out from the dominion of darkness and into the kingdom of the beloved son, then goes on to list a number of statements Roman literature and propaganda had made about Caesar and the Roman people, applying them to Jesus and the church. The implicit statement is clear: Jesus is what Caesar isn't, the ultimate authority, the Son of God, even very truly God. The church, therefore, is a people who are not under the authority of Caesar but under Christ, and constitute a countercultural people subversive to the ideals of the Empire. In fact is has been suggested that the whole of Colossians essentially comprises a subversive tract, revolutionary literature if you will. But it is the revolution of peace through subverted violence, the cross (punishment for rebellion, insurrection) defeated by the resurrection. The Christians rallied around and even bore the name of one who was crucified as a rebel against the state. This is hardly the mark of a people who submit to the authority of Caesar in such a way that they ally themselves with him in the business of spreading the empire and maintaining its order (generally the business of the military). I have written a complementary poem to the passage taking images from Roman writings and inscriptions found that are generally contemporaneous to Paul, reverse-engineering it to parallel the Colossians text because we are more familiar with it, trying to recapture in a sense the way the early Christians would have seen Paul's writings. Remember, they were surrounded by these images of Caesar as lord, of the empire as the people chosen by fate to rule, and the implications of Paul's writing in this way would have been clear. In fact, if you're an ancient Christian hearing this read aloud for the first time, I'd say it's a safe bet you start looking around, hoping no one with you is an imperial informant.

Quote:
He is equal to the beginning of all things
he is the beginning of life and vitality.
He is the savior who has put an end to war
who has set all things
in this world to order
returned peace to the land

Therefore he is to be held as god-manifest
his image is that of the divine
the firstborn son of Rome
and of her gods

And he is the head of the body
our people
the empire.

He is the son of Apollo
who is the herald of the new order
The son of Jupiter
the bringer of the peace of old
author and protector of our way of life
who has said unto us:

"On these people I place neither boundaries nor periods of empire; I have granted them dominion without end."

This is the gospel of the salvation of our people
of the Roman way of life
blessed by the gods
fulfilled by our Lord Caesar


Another important example of a subversive Pauline text comes from 1 Corinthians 7. Various interpretations have been put forth regarding Paul's instructions on marriage in this chapter, most of them involving either some kind of eschatological reconstruction of Paul (aka Paul believed the return of Christ was so immanent that he didn't think marriage was worth the trouble) or misguided piety (marriage would take away from one's ability to be wholly devoted to Christ). These interpretations are probably not wholly misguided, but they do not take into consideration the fact that there was, in Paul's day, a Roman law that required marriage. Moreover, the law specifically mentioned widows and divorcees, both of whom Paul advises not to marry. This law was a major part of Octavian's campaign to instill a sense of traditional Roman values during the development of his role as the first emperor, and so even though it was followed only with varying degrees of faithfulness by Romans it was still an important symbol. In other words, to put it simply, Paul is explicitly and deliberately encouraging civil disobedience.

There are other passages, but this is getting long so I'll stick with the two. The point is that, unless you think Paul contradicts himself with the Romans 13 passage, you have to consider the possibility that there's something else going on here, particularly because of the 1 Corinthians passage. There are other clues that something else is going on here as well.

First, the statement that the authority "does not bear the sword in vain" (13:4, as it is normally translated, though it can also quite legitimately be translated "idly" instead of "in vain." In Seneca's De Clementia, as well as in other writings, Nero is lauded as a ruler in whose hand the sword is idle. The statement was well-known, and could very well have been intended by Paul to be a jab at Nero, since Nero did use violence even during his sane years and became incredibly cruel to a point not previously seen among Roman emperors during the later years of his reign. Second, the commentary on Jesus' statement to give to God what is God's and to Caesar what is Caesar's in verse 7 does not exactly constitute a ringing endorsement of the Christian's responsibility to Caesar (especially when you consider that at the heart of the question posed to Jesus was a taxation controversy where the Romans wanted the Temple to pay taxes out of the Temple coin, which were separate from the Roman and Greek provincial money systems and the Jews refused. Had Jesus sided with the Romans he would have been a traitor to his people, and with the Jews liable to an accusation of treason against Rome. Thus his answer is pure genius in a way that removes himself from danger and also, I think, constitutes a critique of both Rome and Temple). Paul no doubt was familiar with the situation in Palestine at the time, and with the taxation controversy, and with the Christian critique of both Rome and the Temple. So both statements could well be seen as jabs at the authority of the state.

Even more important is the fact that, from the outset, Paul subordinates the authority of the earthly authorities (which would primarily be Caesar) to God, a demotion of status that could have been considered treasonous at the time since the Caesars at that time claimed for themselves absolute authority derived from nothing except the fate of Rome to rule the world. Roman emperors were deified upon their death, and even began later being declared living gods (in fact, in some parts of the empire they were considered living gods beginning with Octavian/Augustus).

All this is to say that we very probably would be more true to Paul's intent if we read the submission to authority passage in Romans 13 as irony, and not as a concrete directive. At best, submission to authority is a way of "heaping burning coals upon his head," at worst it is deliberate irony couched in just enough authority-friendly language to hopefully not get anyone found with a copy of the letter executed. It could also be said that, in the context of loving neighbor, submission in this way keeps your brothers and sisters from getting killed, and others have suggested a correlation between Romans 13 and passages from the Petrine letters that urge conduct as good citizens for the sake of witnessing to Christ. But none of these ideas warrant submitting to authority in a way that would justify going against the patristic teachings against participating in the military.

I think this commentary on Romans 13 answers questions specific to the passage, to your other questions I do not speak at this time because I need to get some sleep. I work midnights, so I've been up a long time.

I will say that my words to you are intended in a spirit of gentleness and respect, and that I hope we can all come to understand better the ways of our Lord. I'm not trying to invalidate your spirituality when I say that I doubt strongly that the Lord would specifically lead you to a place where your work actively supports those whose mission is to train to and actively commit acts of violence. However, only you can decide where you believe the Lord is taking you, and I do believe that if you follow a path that later turns out to be wrong that God will have mercy on you just as God has had mercy on my so many times. I pray that we all will experience God's mercy, and not God's wrath.

I also said something on the subject,


I have posted in another topic about Romans 13, here is what I said:

I don't think that Romans 13 is saying what most people think. After all 1 Samuel 8.7 says "and the LORD said to Samuel, 'Listen to the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you but have rejected me from being king over them.'" Which is God saying God is King, he is who they should be following not a human King.

Another example, Zephaniah 1.1-6 says, " The word of the LORD that came to Zephaniah son of Cushi son of Gelaliah son of Amariah son of Hezekiah, in the days of King Josiah son of Aman of Judah. I will utterly sweep away everything from the face of the earth, says the LORD. I will seewp away humans and animals; I will sweep away the birds of the air and teh fish of the sea. I will make the wicked stumble. I will cut off humanity from the face of the earth, says the LORD. I will stretch out my hand against Judah, and against all the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and I will cut of from this place every remnant of Baal and the name of the idolatrous priests; those who bow down on the roofs to the host of the heavens; those who bow down and swear to the LORD, but also swear by Milcomc; thoswe who have turned back from following the LORD who have not sought the LORD or inquired of him." c GK Mss Syr Vg: Heb Malcam ( or, their king) Implying that you can serve one but not both.

Another example, Acts 5.27-30 says, "When they had brought them, they had them stand before the council. The high priest questioned them, saying, 'We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and you are detemined to bring this man's blood on us.' But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than any human authority.'" Peter and the apostles were directly defying the authorities and said that they do not obey human authority.

Another exaple, 1 Corinthians 15.24-25 says, "Then comes the end, when he hands over teh kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet." Paul is saying the every ruler and every authority and power is Gods enemy.

Another example, Matthew 6.24 says, "No one can serve two masters, for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth." Jesus is saying the you cannot serve God and wealth which could also probably mean the you cannot serve God and authority.

Another example, Matthew 4.8-10 says, "Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all of the kingdoms of the world and their splendor; and he said to him, 'All these I will give to you if you will fall down and worship me.
Jesus said to him, 'Away with you, Satan! for it is written, 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve only him.' ' " The devil says that he can give the kingdoms to whoever he pleases if Jesus worships him but Jesus says that God is Lord and we are to serve only him.

I also believe that somewhere it says that Satan was aloud pretty much rule over the earth and that in the end times God will take that away from him. Now if all that is not refuting what is commonly enterprited from Romans 13 then I have nothing else.

I think I have found an explanation of Romans 13.

In 1 Peter 3.18-21 it says, "Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all difference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you indure pain while suffering unjustly. If you endure while being beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God's approval. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving an example, so that you should follow in his steps."
And also at 5.13-19 it says, "Now who will harm you if you are eager to do what is good? But even if you do suffer for doing what is right, you are blessed. Do not fear what they fear, and do not be intimidated, but in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord. Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and reverence. keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those who abuse you for your good conduct in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if suffering should be God's will, than to suffer for doing evil. For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God. He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit, in which also he went and made a proclomation to the spirits in prison,"
All of the book of 1 Peter seems to follow this idea with different examples. These seem to be saying that we are to be subjects of authority not because they are the authority but to suffer.

This is the link. http://forums.jesusradicals.com/viewtopic....romans&start=30 (http://forums.jesusradicals.com/viewtopic.php?t=1205&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=romans&start=30)

Also to make one point on the topic of anarchism, Read 1 Samuals 8


1 When Samuel grew old, he appointed his sons as judges for Israel. 2 The name of his firstborn was Joel and the name of his second was Abijah, and they served at Beersheba. 3 But his sons did not walk in his ways. They turned aside after dishonest gain and accepted bribes and perverted justice.
4 So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. 5 They said to him, "You are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways; now appoint a king to lead [a] us, such as all the other nations have."

6 But when they said, "Give us a king to lead us," this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. 7 And the LORD told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do."

10 Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle [b] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day."

19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. "No!" they said. "We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles."

21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD. 22 The LORD answered, "Listen to them and give them a king."
Then Samuel said to the men of Israel, "Everyone go back to his town."

When I have more time, and I am on the other computer I will post much much more, :D

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 01:54 am
The bible has contradictions. Marx has contradictions. Lenin has contradictions. Jazzratt has contradictions.
For one Marx and Lenin are never read and taken literally for every word they have written.

Marx and Lenin's works were never intended to be used as a law book or rule book or a dogma.

Their writings are based on facts. And scientific understanding of society had worked what are the problems in the current society and how to get rid of them.

Even in Soviet union their words have not taken literally but in the opposite.Only their names and figures are used to justify the acts of the bureaucracy.

Better learn something from them or of them before making this stupid assertions.

[The Feral Underclass]

Anarchism is essentially a materialist and rationalist ideology and where there may, perhaps, be political similarities to certain aspects of the bible it is not proof or a justifiaction to link Anarchism with Christianity.

God does not exist. This is a fact. Anarchism recognises that fact and on that basis opposes organised religion. This is not just a theoretical fact it is an historical one.

[ichneumon]

God does not exist. This is a fact. Anarchism recognises that fact and on that basis opposes organised religion. This is not just a theoretical fact it is an historical one.

show me the scientific data. logical argument is not proof. anarchism opposes organized religion because it's organized, duh.


The Doukhobors

The origin of the Doukhobors dates back to 16th and 17th century Russia. The Doukhobors ("Spirit Wrestlers") are a radical Christian sect that maintains a belief in pacifism and a communal lifestyle, while rejecting secular government. In 1899, the Doukhobors fled repression in Tsarist Russia and migrated to Canada, mostly in the provinces of Saskatchewan and British Columbia. The funds for the trip were paid for by the Quakers and Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy. Canada was suggested to Leo Tolstoy as a safe-haven for the Doukhobors by anarchist Peter Kropotkin who, while on a speaking tour across the country, observed the religious tolerance experienced by the Mennonites.

you clearly do not speak for all anarchists.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 08:01 pm
show me the scientific data.
How do you falsify the existence of god? How can you even begin to falsify something that's founded on faith? There's no basis in which to test a hypothesis, only what individuals believe. It's like trying to falsify Father Christmas or the tooth fairy. You cannot falsify something that doesn't exist.

In any case, by scientific standards it is you that should provide us with the proof as it is you who claims that god exists. All I know is that I exist, that I am alive and that I will die. That's all you know, admittedly so; you have to have faith that god exists - Not actually know for a fact that he does. The basis of any religion (conveniently).

If you accept that there is something other than those three facts, then you should provide proof for his existence.


logical argument is not proof.

No you're right it's not proof, but it's a damn sight more believable than: "He just does".

If you are to reject rationalism on that basis then you must concede that it is conceivable for pink elephants to live in your intestines and direct the worlds wind patterns. Or indeed that your computer is not real, I am not real and that existence is, in fact, not real.


anarchism opposes organized religion because it's organized, duh.

Are you trying to claim that anarchism opposes organisation?



The Doukhobors

The origin of the Doukhobors dates back to 16th and 17th century Russia. The Doukhobors ("Spirit Wrestlers") are a radical Christian sect that maintains a belief in pacifism and a communal lifestyle, while rejecting secular government. In 1899, the Doukhobors fled repression in Tsarist Russia and migrated to Canada, mostly in the provinces of Saskatchewan and British Columbia. The funds for the trip were paid for by the Quakers and Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy. Canada was suggested to Leo Tolstoy as a safe-haven for the Doukhobors by anarchist Peter Kropotkin who, while on a speaking tour across the country, observed the religious tolerance experienced by the Mennonites.

you clearly do not speak for all anarchists.

No I don't speak for all anarchists but those people weren't anarchists. I can say that much is true.

[freakazoid]

How do you falsify the existence of god?

Then how come you are an athiest and not agnostic? Because if you canm not actually prove that God does not exist then how can you be certain that God does not exist?


In any case, by scientific standards it is you that should provide us with the proof as it is you who claims that god exists.

All you have to do is prove that Jesus is who he claimed he was.

And still no response to Edric O or my post? Which is on the actual topic of this thread.

[apathy maybe]

freakazoid: I would respond to your posts, but rather I'm going to take a leaf out of your own book. I bought and have almost finished The God Delusion by one Richard Dawkins. He is apparently an anti-theist (as am I). But, while this is the case, he presents arguments explaining why he is anti-god. He presents a number of arguments from a scientific (evolutionary) perspective to account for most of the reasons people bring up for the existence of God.

Anyway, seek it out (available at your local bookshop or university library I'm sure) and spend at least a few days reading the first few chapters.

[Ol' Dirty]

How do you falsify the existence of god?


Then how come you are an athiest and not agnostic? Because if you canm not actually prove that God does not exist then how can you be certain that God does not exist?

I'm going to quote Isaac Asimov (yeah, the robot guy):


Have I told you that I prefer "rationalism to "atheism"? The word "atheist," meaning "no God" is negative and defeatist. It says what you don't believe and puts you in an eternal position of defense. "Rationalism" on the other hand states what you DO believe; that is , that which can be understood in the light of reason. The question of God and other mystical objects-of-faith are outside reason and therefore play no part in rationalism and you don't have to waste your time in attacking or defending that which you rule out of your [']philosophy['] altogether."

Assuming you believe in logic, you will acceed that an omniscient, infalible God has no has left no distinguishable traces upon human life? Being a rational, analytical human being, you will accept that science has not proven the existence of a God, and, therefore, are outside the "terms of reason" as suggested by Asimov? If this is so, then you apparently have no standing, proveable argument. Thusly, you believe in God, but you have no proof of your belief? If you have no proof to the existence of this fine chap called "God", then I need no proof to the contrary. I'm not about to attempt to disprove something that does not exist, or has not appeared to me (or anyone, for that matter.)

As long as you admit to that, I have no problem with you being mystical.

Edit: Oops!

[freakazoid]

I would respond to your posts, but rather I'm going to take a leaf out of your own book.

LOL, XD :P Does it have any responses to the posts above?


I bought and have almost finished The God Delusion by one Richard Dawkins.

Been wanting to pick that up but I currently have many books in my to be read pile.



I'm going to quote Isaac Asimov (yeah, the robot guy)

Isaac Asimov rocks!!


Thusly, you believe in God, but you have no proof of your belief?

Sure there is.

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 07:01 pm

God does not exist. This is a fact. Anarchism recognises that fact and on that basis opposes organised religion. This is not just a theoretical fact it is an historical one.

show me the scientific data. logical argument is not proof.
You can't use that as an argument.

For us to say "You can't prove God exists" and then for you to say "Well you can't prove he doesn't exist" is a fallacious argument. You can't use it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 08:38 pm

How do you falsify the existence of god?

Then how come you are an athiest and not agnostic?
I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that god isn't real. In any event, I'm an antitheist.


Because if you canm not actually prove that God does not exist then how can you be certain that God does not exist?

That's such a ridiculous argument! You can't prove that Father Christmas or the easter bunny or the tooth fairy do not exist? In which case I suppose we should all accept that it is possible for them to? By any standard that's insane.



In any case, by scientific standards it is you that should provide us with the proof as it is you who claims that god exists.

All you have to do is prove that Jesus is who he claimed he was.

I don't have to do anything. They're your crackpot ideas. You prove them.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 12, 2007 12:12 pm

Because if you canm not actually prove that God does not exist then how can you be certain that God does not exist?

That's such a ridiculous argument! You can't prove that Father Christmas or the easter bunny or the tooth fairy do not exist? In which case I suppose we should all accept that it is possible for them to? By any standard that's insane.
Actually, you can. Both Father Christmas and the easter bunny are supposed to bring presents to children at certain times during the year. All you have to do to prove their non-existence is select a reasonably large random sample of children, observe them on Christmas and Easter, and notice that they do not receive any presents by magical means. Case closed.

Now, if you want to re-define "Father Christmas" and "the easter bunny" so as to make them invisible, intangible entities that do not give presents to children and in fact do not interact with the material universe at all, then you cannot prove their non-existence. But in such a case we wouldn't really be talking about the traditional Father Christmas and easter bunny - we would be talking about some kind of incorporeal, formless entities.

I see no problem in accepting the possibility that there may exist numerous invisible, intangible entities that do not interact with the material universe at all. Of course, if they don't interact with the universe, their existence or non-existence is utterly irrelevant.

[Goatse]

their existence or non-existence is utterly irrelevant.

What are you trying to say? Since your magical sky wizard thing is one of those "invisible, intangible entities that do not interact with the material universe at all" then isn't it also completely and utterly irrelevant?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Edric O+April 12, 2007 03:34 pm--> (Edric O @ April 12, 2007 03:34 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 12, 2007 12:12 pm

Because if you canm not actually prove that God does not exist then how can you be certain that God does not exist?

That's such a ridiculous argument! You can't prove that Father Christmas or the easter bunny or the tooth fairy do not exist? In which case I suppose we should all accept that it is possible for them to? By any standard that's insane.
Actually, you can. Both Father Christmas and the easter bunny are supposed to bring presents to children at certain times during the year. All you have to do to prove their non-existence is select a reasonably large random sample of children, observe them on Christmas and Easter, and notice that they do not receive any presents by magical means. Case closed. [/b]
Well refuted, but the point remains: God doesn't exist and as with anything that doesn't exist you cannot falsify its non-existence.


I see no problem in accepting the possibility that there may exist numerous invisible, intangible entities that do not interact with the material universe at all.

Clearly, but I think it's a massive problem - One that distracts the vast majority of the world with an illusion.


Of course, if they don't interact with the universe, their existence or non-existence is utterly irrelevant.

Then why do you put so much faith into the existence of god? For a seemingly intelligent man I find it staggeringly bizarre that you can justify quite calmly such an unusual idea.

I mean, one could argue that there are invisible, intangible pink trolls who control the earths wind patterns through their eyes and can deliver you into the land of 'Booboo Socket' if you don't eat sprouts on a Wednesday; along with equally as ridiculous rituals.

Arguably that idea doesn't have the support of humanities inability to conceptualise its own demise, millennium's of history and a powerful organisation protecting its existence and justification. The point is the same however.

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 03:37 am


I'm going to quote Isaac Asimov (yeah, the robot guy)

Isaac Asimov rocks!!
Indeed he does. He was a wise man indeed.

“I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time.” —Isaac Asimov

“Although the time of death is approaching me, I am not afraid of dying and going to Hell or (what would be considerably worse) going to the popularized version of Heaven. I expect death to be nothingness and, for removing me from all possible fears of death, I am thankful to atheism.” —Isaac Asimov

“Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.” —Isaac Asimov

“To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today.” —Isaac Asimov

“Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition.” —Isaac Asimov

[ichneumon]

You can't use that as an argument.

For us to say "You can't prove God exists" and then for you to say "Well you can't prove he doesn't exist" is a fallacious argument. You can't use it.

yes, i can. i want to prove unprovability. i don't believe in god. but i don't KNOW he doesn't exist. and neither do you :P

actually, since everyone here is so eurocentric as to be incapacitated, and ALL of you associate god with the Abrahamic god, i've lost interest in this - it's like defending a nazi's right to free speech.

still, it seem to me that many of you don't believe in god not for any logical reason, but because He didn't live up to your expectation of a happy, meaningful world. not believing in Him is some kind of personal insult or something silly like that.

i don't believe in an omnipotent God because my religion has some very clear logical proofs that such things are impossible, and even more telling me why worshiping anything is bad idea. yes, my religion is antitheistic. stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

[Political_Chucky]

Originally posted by Eleutherios+April 12, 2007 01:15 pm--> (Eleutherios @ April 12, 2007 01:15 pm)
[email protected] 12, 2007 03:37 am


I'm going to quote Isaac Asimov (yeah, the robot guy)

Isaac Asimov rocks!!
Indeed he does. He was a wise man indeed.

“Although the time of death is approaching me, I am not afraid of dying and going to Hell or (what would be considerably worse) going to the popularized version of Heaven. I expect death to be nothingness and, for removing me from all possible fears of death, I am thankful to atheism.” —Isaac Asimov [/b]
Damn, to me that quote is pretty powerful. Kinda of makes me thankful that after I die, there is nothing....That it will finally cease an end to all my worries and feelings.

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 06:37 pm

You can't use that as an argument.

For us to say "You can't prove God exists" and then for you to say "Well you can't prove he doesn't exist" is a fallacious argument. You can't use it.

yes, i can. i want to prove unprovability. i don't believe in god. but i don't KNOW he doesn't exist. and neither do you :P
THAT'S NOT AN ARGUMENT! It is a complete fallacy for you to answer the statement "You can't prove the existence of God" with the statement "You can't disprove it."

Fallacies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy)
Here is the wikipedia definition of a fallacy, which will demonstrate my point that your argument is fallacious.

A List of Fallacious Arguments (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html)
Here is a big list of fallacious arguments, to back up my point with copious amounts of evidence.




still, it seem to me that many of you don't believe in god not for any logical reason, but because He didn't live up to your expectation of a happy, meaningful world. not believing in Him is some kind of personal insult or something silly like that.

Actually I think you'll find that most people don't believe because it is logically impossible and the concept of religion has been proved wrong on numerous occasions by scientific discoveries.

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by Political_Chucky+April 13, 2007 10:47 pm--> (Political_Chucky @ April 13, 2007 10:47 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 01:15 pm

[email protected] 12, 2007 03:37 am


I'm going to quote Isaac Asimov (yeah, the robot guy)

Isaac Asimov rocks!!
Indeed he does. He was a wise man indeed.

“Although the time of death is approaching me, I am not afraid of dying and going to Hell or (what would be considerably worse) going to the popularized version of Heaven. I expect death to be nothingness and, for removing me from all possible fears of death, I am thankful to atheism.” —Isaac Asimov
Damn, to me that quote is pretty powerful. Kinda of makes me thankful that after I die, there is nothing....That it will finally cease an end to all my worries and feelings. [/b]
Well that's what's gonna happen.

We only have feelings and emotions because we've evolved so far that we developed them over millions of years. They are nothing more than a product of evolutionary intelligence. They do not continue to exist after death, as they are all to do with the brain, and once the brain has ceased to be, so do feelings and emotions. There is no divine intervention that will protect your soul so your feelings and emotions can live on forever. You die, and your feelings and emotions die with you body.

Like you say, I find that comforting :D

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 07:37 pm

You can't use that as an argument.

For us to say "You can't prove God exists" and then for you to say "Well you can't prove he doesn't exist" is a fallacious argument. You can't use it.

yes, i can. i want to prove unprovability. i don't believe in god. but i don't KNOW he doesn't exist. and neither do you :P
Why? For what reason would you believe that there exists this intangible, immaterial being who created the universe and lives in a place called Heaven...Why?

There is absolutely no reason to accept that there is a god, none at all.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 11:20 am
a communist state
There's no such thing as a communist state; communist state is an oxymoron.

[ichneumon]

Why? For what reason would you believe that there exists this intangible, immaterial being who created the universe and lives in a place called Heaven...Why?

There is absolutely no reason to accept that there is a god, none at all.

you're not even remotely paying attention. one: you are eurocentric, i am not. two: i don't worship the Abrahamic god - Dharmic and Taoic religions have a completely different point of view on god(s). personally, i'm sort of an anti-deist agnostic as it concerns the god of Abraham - i can't prove he doesn't exist, but i wouldn't worship him anyway.

[Ol' Dirty]

Thusly, you believe in God, but you have no proof of your belief?


Sure there is.

:o

Really? Sweet! Show me!


Why? For what reason would you believe that there exists this intangible, immaterial being who created the universe and lives in a place called Heaven...Why?

There is absolutely no reason to accept that there is a god, none at all.


you're not even remotely paying attention. one: you are eurocentric, i am not.

Eurocentrism has nothing to do with the fact that your arguments are fallacious.


two: i don't worship the Abrahamic god - Dharmic and Taoic religions have a completely different point of view on god(s).

Their belonging to a deifferent culture-set does not make them inherently better or intrinsically true. A false dogma is what it is, irrespective of the sociogeographic location.

[chimx]

but how one can possibly be both a fundamental christian and an anarchist is beyond me.

Luke 4:8ish (i can't remember exactly) says that satan is in control of all governments. Jesus says you should not obey the sovereignty of governments.

The book of revelation is full of anti-state junk. Especially chapters 9-13.

Jacques Ellul makes the argument in his work that the "give to caesar what is caesar" is a reference to the fact that caesar's face was on the money that that it is essentially saying, give up using money.

I strongly suggest you read Ellul's book. He covers most of it. The books called "anarchy and christianity" and you can buy it on Amazon.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 04:46 pm
i can't prove he doesn't exist
That's because he doesn't

[RebelDog]

Can I ask any communist/anarchists who also regard themselves as Christian, the following: Would you work with any communist/anarchist comrade who declared themselves to be a satanist?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 17, 2007 12:37 pm
Can I ask any communist/anarchists who also regard themselves as Christian, the following: Would you work with any communist/anarchist comrade who declared themselves to be a satanist?
Yes, as long as we never talk about religion and they don't expect me to help them with anything other than strictly political work.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Edric O+April 17, 2007 07:58 pm--> (Edric O @ April 17, 2007 07:58 pm)
The [email protected] 17, 2007 12:37 pm
Can I ask any communist/anarchists who also regard themselves as Christian, the following: Would you work with any communist/anarchist comrade who declared themselves to be a satanist?
Yes, as long as we never talk about religion and they don't expect me to help them with anything other than strictly political work. [/b]
You're a freak and your religous beliefs are pointless, irrelevant and insane.

Come the revolution you should all be lined against a wall and shot!

[wtfm8lol]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+April 17, 2007 04:26 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ April 17, 2007 04:26 pm)
Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 17, 2007 07:58 pm

The [email protected] 17, 2007 12:37 pm
Can I ask any communist/anarchists who also regard themselves as Christian, the following: Would you work with any communist/anarchist comrade who declared themselves to be a satanist?
Yes, as long as we never talk about religion and they don't expect me to help them with anything other than strictly political work.
You're a freak and your religous beliefs are pointless, irrelevant and insane.

Come the revolution you should all be lined against a wall and shot! [/b]
considering that you're going to be vastly overpowered by the rational people whose system you seek to destroy, why do you intend to kill off people who are willing to help you?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 17, 2007 11:26 pm
You're a freak and your religous beliefs are pointless, irrelevant and insane.

Come the revolution you should all be lined against a wall and shot!
*yawn*

The good news is that, with an attitude like that, you're clearly never going to be in a position to tell anyone what to do.

The bad news is that your (apparently murderous) factionalism is likely to make the revolution all the more difficult.

Do us all a favour and join the capitalist side, will you? Then you can go ahead and kill your allies to your heart's content.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 15, 2007 06:06 pm
Why? For what reason would you believe that there exists this intangible, immaterial being who created the universe and lives in a place called Heaven...Why?

There is absolutely no reason to accept that there is a god, none at all.
Of course there is. Without a god, the only logical philosophical position one can hold is nihilism. Despite the desperate attempts of various atheist philosophers to solve the ought-is problem, there is no solution. There is no inherent good or evil or system of values or purpose of life that we can discern in the material universe. If the material universe is the only thing to go by, any purpose you choose for your life is arbitrary. If the material universe is the only thing to go by, there is simply no good reason to live.

In order for your existence to have a non-arbitrary purpose, you must accept the existence of a god or some other supernatural phenomenon that gives purpose to the material universe.

Simply put, you must accept the existence of a god if you want to believe that your life (and human life in general) is anything other than random and worthless.

Oh, and then there's also Pascal's Wager if you're interested.

[freakazoid]

ohmy.gif

Really? Sweet! Show me!

This isn't the thread for that discussion. But for proof of God I could prove a few things, YEC, that Jesus is who he claimed to be, or the whole morals thing.


In any event, I'm an antitheist.

What is the difference between an atheist and an antitheist?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 07:17 am

In any event, I'm an antitheist.

What is the difference between an atheist and an antitheist?
Atheists don't believe that god exists. Antitheists don't believe that god exists and oppose the idea that god exists. It's a militant atheist.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 18, 2007 06:52 am
Without a god, the only logical philosophical position one can hold is nihilism.
Now you're getting it.


of values or purpose of life that we can discern in the material universe. If the material universe is the only thing to go by, any purpose you choose for your life is arbitrary. If the material universe is the only thing to go by, there is simply no good reason to live.

Bingo!


In order for your existence to have a non-arbitrary purpose, you must accept the existence of a god or some other supernatural phenomenon that gives purpose to the material universe.

And here in lies the ultimate understanding of religious insanity. The problem here is that you, as a meaningless, inconsequential animal refuse to accept that fact and cannot begin to consider the possibility that you have no purpose.

You simply cannot accept that you are just a speck in the great expanse of an unfathomable universe. It is arrogance of a supreme kind to suggest that you have more importance than you actually have. I mean, you're so unable to accept your condition you have to create this intangible being that created you and loves you etc etc. It's pathetic!

You're nothing! You're irrelevant! Your life is pointless, it has no meaning and any search for meaning will ultimately render you confused and dejected and at the end of it all you will cease to exist forever and ever and ever.

The way people like me deal with it is by simply accepting that this is my condition as a human being and enjoying my life in a way that makes me and the people around me happy. You on the other hand, so totally afraid of that reality - so panic stricken at the idea that you have no purpose, so utterly and incomprehensibly terrified of death, create some intangible, immaterial, improvable being that, as you have just admitted here, gives your life meaning, love and all that bollocks.

There is no god, there is only your life and your death and that is something that you are just going to have to accept.


Simply put, you must accept the existence of a god if you want to believe that your life (and human life in general) is anything other than random and worthless.

But it isn't anything other than random and worthless. Existence is pointless. It's absurd. It's our condition and there's nothing you can do about it (accept believe in a lie of course).


Oh, and then there's also Pascal's Wager if you're interested.

No, I'm not interested.

I've accepted my existential condition. You're the one who needs help.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Edric O+April 18, 2007 06:41 am--> (Edric O @ April 18, 2007 06:41 am)
The Anarchist [email protected] 17, 2007 11:26 pm
You're a freak and your religous beliefs are pointless, irrelevant and insane.

Come the revolution you should all be lined against a wall and shot!
*yawn*

The good news is that, with an attitude like that, you're clearly never going to be in a position to tell anyone what to do.

The bad news is that your (apparently murderous) factionalism is likely to make the revolution all the more difficult.

Do us all a favour and join the capitalist side, will you? Then you can go ahead and kill your allies to your heart's content. [/b]
History is against you, I'm afraid.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 06:17 am

ohmy.gif

Really? Sweet! Show me!

This isn't the thread for that discussion. But for proof of God I could prove a few things, YEC, that Jesus is who he claimed to be, or the whole morals thing.
:lol: YEC Holy shit. I still get the giggles every time you admit to following that unscientific dogma.

[freakazoid]

Boy i am really glad your back. sad.gif

Yup, I'm back. Got back from Kentucky from the Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot at 12:15 AM Monday, :D


so utterly and incomprehensibly terrified of death,

Again, how is it that we are afraid of death?

If there really is no purpose to life and after we die then there is nothing, then what does it matter that we fight for communism/anarchy? Why should we fight against capitalism? Why should we resist the Nazis? Because in the end, so what. It all means nothing, life means nothing, pain means nothing. There is no point to life so there is no point to death. To die isn't evil, it is just a part of life and since we are all destined to die after having lived a pointless life then so what if people slaughter entire people? So what if the capitalists exploit the workers? So what if people are dying from hunger? Your life is pointless, there life is pointless, everybody's life is pointless.

edit -
Atheists don't believe that god exists. Antitheists don't believe that god exists and oppose the idea that god exists. It's a militant atheist.

Oh I see. I guess that explains the reason for my thread being trashed eh? So why do you feel this obligation to be one? It has appeared to me that the militant atheists, or antitheists, are so because they are actually afraid of what it would mean to find out that there really is a God.

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 03:42 pm
Again, how is it that we are afraid of death?

If there really is no purpose to life and after we die then there is nothing, then what does it matter that we fight for communism/anarchy? Why should we fight against capitalism? Why should we resist the Nazis?
We do these things because we care about (gasp) other people! We're not selfish bastards only looking out for ourselves. We have empathy for other human beings and for future generations of human beings, and we want to maximize the amount of happiness in the world. Just because I won't personally be around to watch how much happiness my actions cause in the long run, that doesn't mean that my actions were completely meaningless.

Because in the end, so what. It all means nothing, life means nothing, pain means nothing. There is no point to life so there is no point to death. To die isn't evil, it is just a part of life and since we are all destined to die after having lived a pointless life then so what if people slaughter entire people? So what if the capitalists exploit the workers? So what if people are dying from hunger? Your life is pointless, there life is pointless, everybody's life is pointless.
My life is pointless because it isn't infinitely long? That's like saying my life is pointless because I'm not infinitely happy, or my life is pointless because I don't have an infinite number of friends. I don't need a superpower like immortality to make my life meaningful.

If anything, my realization that my existence is temporary has given me an intense appreciation for the time that I do have. My life is meaningful because it is the only one I will ever have. I have to make the best of it while I can. It's not just a place to wipe my feet before I spend a whole fucking eternity in some other supernatural dimension.

The universe is not partial to your desires; it is completely indifferent. It does not care that you think your life will be pointless if your life is finite. Your life is finite, and that's the way it is. You just have to accept that. You can't ***** at the universe for making your life as short as it is. Just suck it up and try to have fun while you're still here.

[freakazoid]

My life is pointless because it isn't infinitely long? That's like saying my life is pointless because I'm not infinitely happy, or my life is pointless because I don't have an infinite number of friends.

What TAT said;


But it isn't anything other than random and worthless. Existence is pointless. It's absurd. It's our condition and there's nothing you can do about it (accept believe in a lie of course).

It would appear that he would disagree with you.


We do these things because we care about (gasp) other people! We're not selfish bastards only looking out for ourselves. We have empathy for other human beings and for future generations of human beings, and we want to maximize the amount of happiness in the world. Just because I won't personally be around to watch how much happiness my actions cause in the long run, that doesn't mean that my actions were completely meaningless.

But in the end it doesn't mean shit, because in the end life is pointless. So caring about people is pointless and happiness is pointless. Happiness is just a meaningless emotion.

[Eleutherios]

I would agree with him, in the sense that life is intrinsically meaningless. There is no predefined purpose for life bestowed upon you before you were even born.

Purpose is a human concept. If your life is going to have a purpose, it has to be a purpose that you define for yourself. The purpose of my life is to be happy and to make happy the people who care about me, and to make the world a better place in general.

The purpose of your life, it seems, is to submit to the will of your imaginary friend who you think rules the whole universe. How sad.

I don't need a justification for pursuing happiness. Being happy makes me happy, and I have been genetically programmed to pursue happiness. I like being happy, so that's what I'm going to try to be. Why do I need to believe in your imaginary friend for happiness to be something worth pursuing?

[freakazoid]

I don't need a justification for pursuing happiness.


Being happy makes me happy, and I have been genetically programmed to pursue happiness. I like being happy, so that's what I'm going to try to be.

That is your justification right there.

Happiness doesn't mean anything though. Because like TAT said, "Existence is pointless. It's absurd.". There is no reason to care about other people. There is no reason to care about yourself, because in the end it is all pointless.


Why do I need to believe in your imaginary friend for happiness to be something worth pursuing?

That is not what I was getting at.

[KC]

Happiness doesn't mean anything though.

How can't happiness mean anything? Obviously, when we're happy, we get a chemican response in our brain that makes us feel good. What do you think it means "to mean" something, then? Because obviously happiness is a word to describe this process. Whe word has a meaning. The concept has a meaning.

I bet what you mean is purpose. You're saying that happiness doesn't have a purpose because nothing has a purpose because there's no god so there's no purpose. The problem with this assertion is that the purpose of happiness is to make oneself feel good. Obviously this can be objectively determined by the measure of brain activity and the chemical reactions that take place when one is happy.

Your problem is that by saying that life has no intrinsic purpose that means to you that nothing has any purpose and that there's no point in doing anything, as you say later:


Because like TAT said, "Existence is pointless. It's absurd.". There is no reason to care about other people. There is no reason to care about yourself, because in the end it is all pointless.

Well, I care about other people because I like them. I care about myself because I like myself. My life has no intrinsic purpose but that's the beauty of life; you're able to give yourself purpose. That is what TAT is saying. And it is that fear of self-determination that is what scares the shit out of you; if god doesn't exist then you don't have an intrinsic purpose and your whole perception of your life hits you like a ton of bricks because you're unhappy with yourself, and that's what you want to hide from behind religion.


Why do I need to believe in your imaginary friend for happiness to be something worth pursuing?

God is a grown up's invisible best friend! :lol:

[freakazoid]

I bet what you mean is purpose.

Hmm... maybe.


The problem with this assertion is that the purpose of happiness is to make oneself feel good.

Yes, but what is the point of making yourself feel good. In the end it doesn't matter how good you or someone else felt.


Well, I care about other people because I like them. I care about myself because I like myself. My life has no intrinsic purpose but that's the beauty of life; you're able to give yourself purpose.

But it is all pointless. Because in the end it doesn't mean anything. In the end you die, and that person that you helped, they die to.


And it is that fear of self-determination that is what scares the shit out of you; if god doesn't exist then you don't have an intrinsic purpose and your whole perception of your life hits you like a ton of bricks because you're unhappy with yourself, and that's what you want to hide from behind religion.

Why would I fear self-determination? My purpose as a believer in Christianity is to help people. I'm not really unhappy with myself as I am unhappy with my current situation, but it has nothing to do with hiding behind religion. And what is it that I am hiding from? I am not really sure what you mean. Are you saying that I am hiding from having no purpose?

[RevMARKSman]

Yes, but what is the point of making yourself feel good.

Nothing. It just feels good. Brain automatically wants more, seeks more good feelings.


In the end it doesn't matter how good you or someone else felt.
Matters to me. My brain works and many of these things are automatic. Good feeling-seeking, empathy etc.


But it is all pointless. Because in the end it doesn't mean anything. In the end you die, and that person that you helped, they die to.

No shit. So what?


Why would I fear self-determination? My purpose as a believer in Christianity is to help people.

Hey, two can play at this game. What's the purpose of helping people?
What's the purpose of making people happy?
What's the purpose of serving "God"?
What's the purpose of doing "good"?
What's the purpose of going to "heaven"?
What's the purpose of being with "God"?
etc, etc, etc...


And what is it that I am hiding from? I am not really sure what you mean. Are you saying that I am hiding from having no purpose?

Yeah. You're hiding from the truth. You really want to believe that you're so important, the most powerful thing in the universe (or the universe itself) cares what you do.

[freakazoid]

You really want to believe that you're so important, the most powerful thing in the universe (or the universe itself) cares what you do.

I do? I don't remember thinking that I am very important. I guess it is a good thing that you are here to tell me what I think, pff



No shit. So what?

Have you not been paying attention to what this discussion is about or what I was getting at?

[ichneumon]

Yes, but what is the point of making yourself feel good.

Nothing. It just feels good. Brain automatically wants more, seeks more good feelings.

what happens when the good feeling ends? is there emptiness? a need for more? how do you get this good feeling? do you get it by helping people, or by snorting coke? is there a difference?

dialectical spiritualism, how rare.


Hey, two can play at this game. What's the purpose of helping people?
What's the purpose of making people happy?
What's the purpose of serving "God"?
What's the purpose of doing "good"?
What's the purpose of going to "heaven"?
What's the purpose of being with "God"?
etc, etc, etc...

i help people to make my world better and to make myself a better person, more capable of joy. i don't need or want god(s) for this, nor need the motivation of heaven. however, if this works for other people, i can't complain - it's still a better world we are making.


My purpose as a believer in Christianity is to help people.

well, good. however, to quote gandhi: i like your Christ, but i do not like your Christians - they are so unlike your Christ. i wish more christians were like you.

[KC]

Yes, but what is the point of making yourself feel good. In the end it doesn't matter how good you or someone else felt.

Of course it doesn't matter in the end. Nothing matters in the end. What matters now is what's important.


Why would I fear self-determination? My purpose as a believer in Christianity is to help people. I'm not really unhappy with myself as I am unhappy with my current situation, but it has nothing to do with hiding behind religion. And what is it that I am hiding from? I am not really sure what you mean. Are you saying that I am hiding from having no purpose?

Yes! You're hiding from the fact that life is what you make of it, not some imaginary god in the sky.


what happens when the good feeling ends? is there emptiness? a need for more? how do you get this good feeling? do you get it by helping people, or by snorting coke? is there a difference?

Of course there is; in one instance you're helping people, and the other you're doing coke...

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 18, 2007 10:42 am
The problem here is that you, as a meaningless, inconsequential animal refuse to accept that fact and cannot begin to consider the possibility that you have no purpose.
I have considered it, and rejected it.

You see, if human life has no value and no purpose, we run into much more serious trouble than feeling a little sad. If your life truly has no purpose, how do you decide which action to take when faced with several possibilities? How do you choose between, say, posting on revleft.com, eating pie, running naked down the street or shooting yourself in the head? To a nihilist, neither of those actions is any better or worse than the others. Anything you choose in the end is completely arbitrary. Your life isn't just meaningless, it is arbitrary and irrational.

I do not believe in God because I am afraid of death. Atheism is much more comforting in that respect than religion. After all, if your life is devoid of any value or purpose, what logical reason do you have to avoid death or be afraid of it? The consistent atheist should not think that death is any better or worse than walking outside in the rain.


You're nothing! You're irrelevant! Your life is pointless, it has no meaning and any search for meaning will ultimately render you confused and dejected and at the end of it all you will cease to exist forever and ever and ever.
Obvious question: If life is pointless, why live?


The way people like me deal with it is by simply accepting that this is my condition as a human being and enjoying my life in a way that makes me and the people around me happy.
Careful, you're slipping into hedonism. In order to be a hedonist you must believe that your own happiness is actually good in some moral way. But if life is worthless, then happiness is worthless too. Why be happy?


You on the other hand, so totally afraid of that reality - so panic stricken at the idea that you have no purpose...
Actually, the idea of having no purpose offends my rationality, not my emotions. Without purpose there can be no reason, no logical course of action. To believe that we have no purpose is to believe that we are irrational beings.

Thus, ironically, atheism undermines the very same rationalism that gave it birth.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

By the way, if your answer to the question "Why live?" is "Because it makes me feel good", then you have surrendered your claim to rationality - you have admitted that, in fact, your life is ultimately driven by your emotions and not by reason.

I find that unacceptable.

[KC]

If your life truly has no purpose, how do you decide which action to take when faced with several possibilities? How do you choose between, say, posting on revleft.com, eating pie, running naked down the street or shooting yourself in the head?

You use your brain...


I do not believe in God because I am afraid of death. Atheism is much more comforting in that respect than religion. After all, if your life is devoid of any value or purpose, what logical reason do you have to avoid death or be afraid of it? The consistent atheist should not think that death is any better or worse than walking outside in the rain.

Of course they should. I am a living organism, and as a living organism I have an instinctual desire to live.


Obvious question: If life is pointless, why live?

Because I want to.


Careful, you're slipping into hedonism. In order to be a hedonist you must believe that your own happiness is actually good in some moral way. But if life is worthless, then happiness is worthless too. Why be happy?

Because it makes me feel good. Because I like being happy.


Without purpose there can be no reason, no logical course of action. To believe that we have no purpose is to believe that we are irrational beings.

Thus, ironically, atheism undermines the very same rationalism that gave it birth.

No it doesn't.

It seems that if one isn't a theist then you are making the assertion that one is a nihilist. That's basically just a straw man. Your entire argument against it is fallacious.

[freakazoid]

well, good. however, to quote gandhi: i like your Christ, but i do not like your Christians - they are so unlike your Christ. i wish more christians were like you.

That is a really good, and sad, quote. :(

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Edric O+April 19, 2007 07:48 am--> (Edric O @ April 19, 2007 07:48 am)
The Anarchist [email protected] 18, 2007 10:42 am
The problem here is that you, as a meaningless, inconsequential animal refuse to accept that fact and cannot begin to consider the possibility that you have no purpose.
I have considered it, and rejected it. [/b]
Clearly.


If your life truly has no purpose, how do you decide which action to take when faced with several possibilities?

That's a pointedly ridiculous and banal question.

The answer is abundantly clear: People just do. People make decisions about their lives daily, regardless of the fact that it is intrinsically meaningless.


How do you choose between, say, posting on revleft.com, eating pie, running naked down the street or shooting yourself in the head? To a nihilist, neither of those actions is any better or worse than the others.

You really are clutching at straws here and in fact are demonstrating the inability of your argument to withstand the truth.

What really is the point of these questions? How does one choose between eating a pie and posting on the Internet? Hunger...boredom?

What's your point?


Anything you choose in the end is completely arbitrary. Your life isn't just meaningless, it is arbitrary and irrational.

I don't really see your point. You're repeating my position, sure, but what is it you're trying to say?

Life is arbitrary and meaningless, that's a fact. What does that mean for humanity? Well, at the moment clearly nothing. Nietchze always said that once humanity realised this fact civilisation would collapse beyond a return to anything.

Perhaps that's true, but is it desirable? I don't particularly think so. Camus asked the question: "Once we realise our condition, what then are we to do"? Logically I suppose the answer is to commit suicide, but Camus argued that we should exist in spite of it.

We're here, so we might as well stay. If you were to make the decision to exist or not exist, what would your answer be? Mine would always be to exist! The possibilities, the wonderment, the excitement, the emotion, the struggle are what make existence, existence and I would rather experience those things than never experience them.

This is the heroic nature of the absurd. To live and be faced with your own demise, unable to do anything about it, yet to live anyway: "Beauty is unbearable, drives us to despair, offering us for a minute the glimpse of an eternity that we should like to stretch out over the whole of time."

Camus uses beauty as a metaphor for life.

As for the argument regarding empiricism Vs rationalism. I would regard myself as a rationalist, but that does not, as a tool for understanding knowledge, negate the fact that we experience life.


I do not believe in God because I am afraid of death.

I don't believe you.


Atheism is much more comforting in that respect than religion. After all, if your life is devoid of any value or purpose, what logical reason do you have to avoid death or be afraid of it?

Well, I have friends, family, a career, a boyfriend, lovers; Tree's, smells, sex, art, music, film, progression, truth and on and on. All of those things will eventually cease to exist for me. I have a lifetime of existence that I want to avoid death for.

Surely that's obvious...?


The consistent atheist should not think that death is any better or worse than walking outside in the rain.

Clearly this is your position but I don't understand your justification for it?



You're nothing! You're irrelevant! Your life is pointless, it has no meaning and any search for meaning will ultimately render you confused and dejected and at the end of it all you will cease to exist forever and ever and ever.
Obvious question: If life is pointless, why live?

Because being alive is amazing.



The way people like me deal with it is by simply accepting that this is my condition as a human being and enjoying my life in a way that makes me and the people around me happy.
Careful, you're slipping into hedonism. In order to be a hedonist you must believe that your own happiness is actually good in some moral way. But if life is worthless, then happiness is worthless too. Why be happy?

It's a far more rational way to exist than not being happy. That's an objective fact.



You on the other hand, so totally afraid of that reality - so panic stricken at the idea that you have no purpose...
Actually, the idea of having no purpose offends my rationality, not my emotions. Without purpose there can be no reason, no logical course of action. To believe that we have no purpose is to believe that we are irrational beings.

You’re an animal. A conscious animal, but an animal nevertheless. There is no other knowledge to be reasoned for.

You have no purpose other than to procreate but, just as with all humans, you make a purpose.


Thus, ironically, atheism undermines the very same rationalism that gave it birth.

Your argument is a false premise. You assume that there is more knowledge to be reasoned than there actually is. You cannot derive reason when there is no reason to be derived.

You're an animal. That's the conclusion.

[freakazoid]

Well, I have friends, family, a career, a boyfriend, lovers; Tree's, smells, sex, art, music, film, progression, truth and on and on. All of those things will eventually cease to exist for me. I have a lifetime of existence that I want to avoid death for.

But what is the point? When you die, everything that you did was for nothing.



Perhaps that's true, but is it desirable? I don't particularly think so. Camus asked the question: "Once we realise our condition, what then are we to do"? Logically I suppose the answer is to commit suicide, but Camus argued that we should exist in spite of it.

It sounds like you are the one that is afraid of death.

[ichneumon]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 19, 2007 06:55 am
By the way, if your answer to the question "Why live?" is "Because it makes me feel good", then you have surrendered your claim to rationality - you have admitted that, in fact, your life is ultimately driven by your emotions and not by reason.

I find that unacceptable.

to a degree, i agree with this. my purpose is to better the world, which makes me happy, because of karma. there are multiple fully rational reasons to work to improve the human condition, but, nevertheless, it will make me a better person and more joyful. christians, i think, attribute this to God.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 19, 2007 01:55 am
By the way, if your answer to the question "Why live?" is "Because it makes me feel good", then you have surrendered your claim to rationality - you have admitted that, in fact, your life is ultimately driven by your emotions and not by reason.

I find that unacceptable.
well, reason cannot give commands. Simple reason can show us that. Therefore the only motive to do anything would be sensations or feelings. The whole "rationality" thing is us trying to tell you that emotions have no bearing on whether given scientific statements are true or false. Believing something will not make it true. But the reasons we modify things, the reasons we do what we do, are mostly automatic and emotionally driven.


there are multiple fully rational reasons to work to improve the human condition,

No. Why do you want to improve the human condition? Cause it's in your material interest? That's why I want to but that's not entirely rational. Once you get to the root of material interest, it's the desire to avoid pain and maximise pleasure. Whether something out of our control has property X is something for which the answer can be entirely rational. Other things such as "why go on the computer today" must include people's interests, emotions, and needs.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 04:12 pm


Well, I have friends, family, a career, a boyfriend, lovers; Tree's, smells, sex, art, music, film, progression, truth and on and on. All of those things will eventually cease to exist for me. I have a lifetime of existence that I want to avoid death for.

But what is the point?
I don't understand what you mean when you ask "what is the point?" Why on earth do you think it's the point?

Why do you keep asking that question? What really is your point?


When you die, everything that you did was for nothing.

Yes, that is true but I would rather have done it than not done it.




Perhaps that's true, but is it desirable? I don't particularly think so. Camus asked the question: "Once we realise our condition, what then are we to do"? Logically I suppose the answer is to commit suicide, but Camus argued that we should exist in spite of it.

It sounds like you are the one that is afraid of death.

A little, yes; but I don't think it's necessarily a question of fear in regards to what I'm saying. More a sadness that it will life will end.

You're going to die no matter what and once you're dead, you're dead so there really is not point worrying about it.

[ichneumon]

No. Why do you want to improve the human condition? Cause it's in your material interest? That's why I want to but that's not entirely rational. Once you get to the root of material interest, it's the desire to avoid pain and maximise pleasure. Whether something out of our control has property X is something for which the answer can be entirely rational. Other things such as "why go on the computer today" must include people's interests, emotions, and needs.

are you completely unaware of evolutionary logic? besides, self-interest and material-interest are not the same. the simple fact is that improving the world both makes it a better place for me to live in the future, and makes me happy at the moment. that trait, that feedback, exists for a reason.

[freakazoid]

Why do you keep asking that question? What really is your point?

lol, :P My point is that if in the end it means nothing then why do it? That in the end everything you had done was all for nothing.



You're going to die no matter what and once you're dead, you're dead so there really is not point worrying about it.

Yeah, so why should we stop someone from going on a killing spree?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 07:05 pm

Why do you keep asking that question? What really is your point?

lol, :P My point is that if in the end it means nothing then why do it? That in the end everything you had done was all for nothing.
Why do you think?




You're going to die no matter what and once you're dead, you're dead so there really is not point worrying about it.

Yeah, so why should we stop someone from going on a killing spree?

Well, I think really you know the answer to this question. What you're having difficulty doing is differentiating between the human condition and the human experience.

The human condition is a fact that we can do nothing about, but our human experience is a subjective matter. Our condition may be pointless and meaningless but is our experience pointless and meaningless? That's a matter of subject, isn't it?

You have to differentiate the two.

[Question everything]

Anarchy and the Bible are incompatable, Christian (Buddist, Islamic and Any other sect) Anarchists are no more anarchists than "Anarcho-capitalists", If we should serve God, doesn't that defeat the point of anarchy?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Not if you don't force people to serve God.

Of course a theocracy (= a society whose laws are determined by religious texts and/or religious authorities) is incompatible with anarchy. But not every religious person supports a theocracy.

[RebelDog]

I have always thought that the great irony of religious belief is that the concept of religion dies with the person who had the beliefs. In other words, when a person expires, their concept/belief of Christianity also expires.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 20, 2007 02:51 am
Not if you don't force people to serve God.
Accepting that authority is justified negates anarchy.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 20, 2007 12:22 pm
Accepting that authority is justified negates anarchy.
For human authority, that may be true (though said authority would have to be accepted by a majority of the population before it can negate anarchy).

But if we are talking about God - a being that does not exist, according to you - how exactly does the acceptance of God's authority prevent someone from taking an anarchist view of social relations between human beings? Just because you accept God's authority doesn't mean you must also accept the authority of anyone else (for the record, I do agree that Catholics would have a serious problem trying to be anarchists).

Besides, if you are correct and God does not exist, then the "justified authority" that a Christian believes in does not exist. And the best thing about non-existent authority figures is that they can't give you any actual orders.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 19, 2007 05:51 pm
Not if you don't force people to serve God.
Anarchism is living without hierarchy. God would be the biggest hierarchical being in the world if it was real. Saying you live without masters and then saying god is the almighty is incompatible. You can't personally be an anarchist if you hate authority but you bow down to the biggest authority.

[Question everything]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 20, 2007 01:51 am
Not if you don't force people to serve God.

Of course a theocracy (= a society whose laws are determined by religious texts and/or religious authorities) is incompatible with anarchy. But not every religious person supports a theocracy.
I know that still (I was a theist before I joined this site and even then I held on to my beliefs for about a month), If you are a Christian Anarchist you are still serving somebody, on top of that, that person is a magical sky fairy!!!

Wiki=

Some Christian anarchists hold a higher critical view of the Bible and therefore do not feel obliged to follow the complete text as law. They base their beliefs on what they think are the simple principles and historic messages of Jesus, such as the Sermon on the Mount, rather than obediently following every passage in the Judeo-Christian Bible. Leo Tolstoy and Ammon Hennacy subscribed to this philosophy.

[chimx]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+April 20, 2007 10:22 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ April 20, 2007 10:22 am)
Edric [email protected] 20, 2007 02:51 am
Not if you don't force people to serve God.
Accepting that authority is justified negates anarchy. [/b]
Why? Anarchism is a political ideology (i.e.: ideology of the polis), not a spiritual one. It was birthed as a reaction to capitalist exploitation, economic inequality, etc. I don't see how a personal adherence to an immaterial spiritual being is at all coercive to the polis in and of itself. For it to be shown that anarchism is antithetical to immaterial faith (someone mentioned Buddhists. Buddhists are atheists), you have to show how immaterial faith is contradictory to equitable socio-political relations in all situations (as opposed to just talking about how Catholics do some fucked up thing and using that as a blanket example for all spiritual beliefs).

[chimx]

Anarchism is living without hierarchy. God would be the biggest hierarchical being in the world if it was real. Saying you live without masters and then saying god is the almighty is incompatible. You can't personally be an anarchist if you hate authority but you bow down to the biggest authority.

Anarchists that believe this line are helplessly naive when it comes to the ways of the world. If you are immature enough to believe that social and cultural hierarchy are not an inevitability than you have some life experiences yet to live. Coercion that hinders self-determination is the problem. Hierarchical power institutions are just one way such hindrances often manifest themselves, but you have yet to shown how hierarchy is inherently wrong in and of itself.

[The Feral Underclass]

Some of you "anarchists" need to go back and relive the classics.

Try 'God and the State'

[chimx]

Oh, I understand the history of anarchism's antitheist values. No gods, no masters, right? However, just like bible literalists and creationists ignore the historical context of their book, so do many anarchists ignore the historical context of anarchism's distaste for God. I would say that the 18th and 19th centuries had a much stronger connection between state and God, so much so that religion as an institution was inherently coercive given its class standings.

Today I think things are different. Religion has proven itself to not be inherently coercive or oppressive, but rather dependent on the particular church's class alliances.

[Question everything]

I don't see what the problem is though, Christian Anarchist won't force us to convert, We won't force theists to convert... and argueing over whether or not there is a magical sky fairy isn't solving anything...

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by Question [email protected] 22, 2007 12:01 am
I don't see what the problem is though, Christian Anarchist won't force us to convert, We won't force theists to convert... and argueing over whether or not there is a magical sky fairy isn't solving anything...
Clearly the words 'Christian anarchist' are an oxymoron. But as you say it probably is not that great a problem as they are committed to revolution. Marx said that in a post-revolutionary society that the, 'muck of ages', as he put it, will fade away, and eventually everyone will shake off superstitious and reactionary ideas and have a materialist outlook. Religion, will one day, no longer exist. As Dawkins puts it, we are atheistic about every religion in human history, its just that some people go one god too far.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Question [email protected] 22, 2007 01:01 am
I don't see what the problem is though, Christian Anarchist won't force us to convert, We won't force theists to convert... and argueing over whether or not there is a magical sky fairy isn't solving anything...
Well, the problem is, who will they side with when it is necessary for us to execute their priests?

[Question everything]

Dammit, Now I'm stuck argueing for the theists...


Clearly the words 'Christian anarchist' are an oxymoron.But as you say it probably is not that great a problem as they are committed to revolution.

That is the Basic summary of what I have written on this thread.


Marx said that in a post-revolutionary society that the, 'muck of ages', as he put it, will fade away, and eventually everyone will shake off superstitious and reactionary ideas and have a materialist outlook.

I understand that.


As Dawkins puts it, we are atheistic about every religion in human history, its just that some people go one god too far.

Sorry I don't understand that quote...


Well, the problem is, who will they side with when it is necessary for us to execute their priests?

Just tell them that the Priests are going to heaven :P

But seriously most Christian Anarchist don't believe that there is a need for priests, as most believe that they can talk directly with the Sky Fairy. :lol:

Besides they are strickly non-Violent, what are they going to do? give us really dirty looks or turn the other cheek? :P

[chimx]

My dad's a priest. :angry:

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 09:05 pm
My dad's a priest. :angry:
That figures.

[chimx]

Figures that I am relatively confident in theology discussions? Yeah, probably. He has a PhD in theology and a library of books that I paged through when I was younger. I'm still an atheist. When I told him that, his response was that he was proud of me. What a coercive asshole, right?

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 09:07 pm

Anarchism is living without hierarchy. God would be the biggest hierarchical being in the world if it was real. Saying you live without masters and then saying god is the almighty is incompatible. You can't personally be an anarchist if you hate authority but you bow down to the biggest authority.

Anarchists that believe this line are helplessly naive when it comes to the ways of the world. If you are immature enough to believe that social and cultural hierarchy are not an inevitability than you have some life experiences yet to live. Coercion that hinders self-determination is the problem. Hierarchical power institutions are just one way such hindrances often manifest themselves, but you have yet to shown how hierarchy is inherently wrong in and of itself.
I was not talking about social or cultural hierarchy. I was talking about hierarchy in their mind and how you would have to have some kind of double think to be an anarchist and a Christian.

I have a question for the theists. What is your stance on violence and the revolution? If you personally won't participate in it do you object to others that do?

[chimx]

In Nicaragua, liberation theologists were armed.

Again, you have yet to say how "hierarchy in their mind" is in itself oppressive, considering it doesn't hinder free association or self-determination.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 01:59 pm
In Nicaragua, liberation theologists were armed.

Again, you have yet to say how "hierarchy in their mind" is in itself oppressive, considering it doesn't hinder free association or self-determination.
Well first of all, Christianity places certain laws or commandments that one should live by to be a good or true Christian. These laws are all but impossible to follow for many and once they are broken you might feel depressed about being a sinner. It might really affect your every day life that you now think of yourself as a heathen. It might hold down your ability to do something you want to do but won't do because it might be against the bible. This activity might have given you great pleasure if you had not been religious but with the stigmas attached it would bring happiness followed by guilt and sadness.

Other than that I really don't give a shit what others think. That is up to them to decide. As long as a theist is down for participating in the revolution than that's all good. If they don't want to be violent that is ok, they can be an organizer or something.

[Question everything]

Originally posted by Chicano Shamrock+April 22, 2007 11:35 pm--> (Chicano Shamrock @ April 22, 2007 11:35 pm)
[email protected] 22, 2007 01:59 pm
In Nicaragua, liberation theologists were armed.

Again, you have yet to say how "hierarchy in their mind" is in itself oppressive, considering it doesn't hinder free association or self-determination.
Well first of all, Christianity places certain laws or commandments that one should live by to be a good or true Christian. These laws are all but impossible to follow for many and once they are broken you might feel depressed about being a sinner. It might really affect your every day life that you now think of yourself as a heathen. It might hold down your ability to do something you want to do but won't do because it might be against the bible. This activity might have given you great pleasure if you had not been religious but with the stigmas attached it would bring happiness followed by guilt and sadness.

Other than that I really don't give a shit what others think. That is up to them to decide. As long as a theist is down for participating in the revolution than that's all good. If they don't want to be violent that is ok, they can be an organizer or something. [/b]
Let me argue for the theists for a second here. Most people don't follow every old testament laws, or even some of the New testament laws. They simply learn the Fundamentals and then do what they believe is best. at least the is the case with christian Anarchists (not with Staunch Dublin Catholics, or Biblebashers in The States)

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by Question everything+April 22, 2007 04:12 pm--> (Question everything @ April 22, 2007 04:12 pm)
Originally posted by Chicano [email protected] 22, 2007 11:35 pm

[email protected] 22, 2007 01:59 pm
In Nicaragua, liberation theologists were armed.

Again, you have yet to say how "hierarchy in their mind" is in itself oppressive, considering it doesn't hinder free association or self-determination.
Well first of all, Christianity places certain laws or commandments that one should live by to be a good or true Christian. These laws are all but impossible to follow for many and once they are broken you might feel depressed about being a sinner. It might really affect your every day life that you now think of yourself as a heathen. It might hold down your ability to do something you want to do but won't do because it might be against the bible. This activity might have given you great pleasure if you had not been religious but with the stigmas attached it would bring happiness followed by guilt and sadness.

Other than that I really don't give a shit what others think. That is up to them to decide. As long as a theist is down for participating in the revolution than that's all good. If they don't want to be violent that is ok, they can be an organizer or something.
Let me argue for the theists for a second here. Most people don't follow every old testament laws, or even some of the New testament laws. They simply learn the Fundamentals and then do what they believe is best. at least the is the case with christian Anarchists (not with Staunch Dublin Catholics, or Biblebashers in The States) [/b]
I am sure that most people don't follow it word for word but a lot still think according to the bibles boundaries. Like you said they learn the fundamentals and then do what they believe is right but what they believe is "right" is shaped by the bible or their church. They might go against the grain at times but the underlying beliefs are still laid by the bible. At least that is how I see it.

[RedCommieBear]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+April 22, 2007 12:07 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ April 22, 2007 12:07 pm)
Question [email protected] 22, 2007 01:01 am
I don't see what the problem is though, Christian Anarchist won't force us to convert, We won't force theists to convert... and argueing over whether or not there is a magical sky fairy isn't solving anything...
Well, the problem is, who will they side with when it is necessary for us to execute their priests?[/b]
Maybe if you hadn't executed the priests, Franco may not have gotten in power. The execution of priests alienated so many religious that many ended up supporting Franco after the executions.

Reactionaries should be fought; no doubt about it. But singling out and alienating 1/3 of the world's Christians and 5/6 of the world's religious is not helping the fight against capitalism, imperialism, or any other form of oppression.

Edit: Restructured sentance.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 22, 2007 04:47 pm
Maybe if you hadn't executed the priests, Franco may not have gotten in power. The execution of priests alienated so many religious that many ended up supporting Franco after the executions.

Reactionaries should be fought; no doubt about it. But singling out and alienating 1/3 of the world's Christians and 5/6 of the world's religious is not helping the fight against capitalism, imperialism, or any other form of oppression.

Edit: Restructured sentance.
But if the priests are working with the capitalists or fascists is it not necessary to get them out of the picture? Either that means prison or death but as Fidel Castro and others have shown not killing your enemy when you have the chance could lead to them getting out and fucking you up later.

[RedCommieBear]

Originally posted by Chicano Shamrock+April 23, 2007 12:59 am--> (Chicano Shamrock @ April 23, 2007 12:59 am)
Originally posted by Red [email protected] 22, 2007 04:47 pm
Maybe if you hadn't executed the priests, Franco may not have gotten in power. The execution of priests alienated so many religious that many ended up supporting Franco after the executions.

Reactionaries should be fought; no doubt about it. But singling out and alienating 1/3 of the world's Christians and 5/6 of the world's religious is not helping the fight against capitalism, imperialism, or any other form of oppression.

Edit: Restructured sentance.
But if the priests are working with the capitalists or fascists is it not necessary to get them out of the picture? Either that means prison or death but as Fidel Castro and others have shown not killing your enemy when you have the chance could lead to them getting out and fucking you up later. [/b]
The reactionary priests should have been dealt with (I would hope imprisonment). However, I do not think that the burning down of churches was necessary nor is the exclusion of the religous from communist, anarchist, or leftist politics.


Fidel Castro
In our culture, as part of the so-called western world, there are undoubtedly components of Christian values. I think that among those values there are ethical and humane principles that are applicable to any epoch.

[freakazoid]

Anarchism is living without hierarchy. God would be the biggest hierarchical being in the world if it was real. Saying you live without masters and then saying god is the almighty is incompatible. You can't personally be an anarchist if you hate authority but you bow down to the biggest authority.

Hince the term Christian Anarchist, not just anarchist.



I have a question for the theists. What is your stance on violence and the revolution? If you personally won't participate in it do you object to others that do?

I won't? Well shoot, I guess I better be getting rid of all of my supplies. And that militia idea, I should just forget about that. pff. C.S. Lewis talks about something like this and when I can find the exact part I will post it. :D But I am not on my computer so I do not have the bookmark with me, :(

[RebelDog]

QUOTE
As Dawkins puts it, we are atheistic about every religion in human history, its just that some people go one god too far
.

Sorry I don't understand that quote...

Here is the actual quote in full:

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

Richard Dawkins

What he means is that if humanity has a history of having belief in say, for arguments sake, 100 gods, then a Christian is atheistic about 99 of those gods. They are only non-atheistic about the last one (Christianity) because its contemporary to them. Nobody cares about Odin anymore or believes he was real. The same fate awaits Christianity or any religion.

I love Dawkins quotes, here is another couple:

"...when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong."

"...it is a telling fact that, the world over, the vast majority of children follow the religion of their parents rather than any of the other available religions."

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Red Tendency+April 23, 2007 01:47 am--> (Red Tendency @ April 23, 2007 01:47 am)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 22, 2007 12:07 pm

Question [email protected] 22, 2007 01:01 am
I don't see what the problem is though, Christian Anarchist won't force us to convert, We won't force theists to convert... and argueing over whether or not there is a magical sky fairy isn't solving anything...
Well, the problem is, who will they side with when it is necessary for us to execute their priests?
Maybe if you hadn't executed the priests, Franco may not have gotten in power. [/b]
That had absolutely nothing to do with it. At all.


The execution of priests alienated so many religious that many ended up supporting Franco after the executions.

That maybe true but it certainly is not true in any significant way or in any way that had anything to do with the outcome of the revolution.


Reactionaries should be fought; no doubt about it. But singling out and alienating 1/3 of the world's Christians and 5/6 of the world's religious is not helping the fight against capitalism, imperialism, or any other form of oppression.

At the point of a revolution the majority of people are not going to care about some loose religious beliefs that they didn't really pay much attention to in the first.

People certainly are not going to care about dealing with reactionaries who actively try and subvert our attempts at liberation from capitalism and the state; which Priets will undoubedly be apart of.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 10:01 pm
Figures that I am relatively confident in theology discussions?
No, I was thinking more about your continued apology and justification for religious authority.


When I told him that, his response was that he was proud of me. What a coercive asshole, right?

I don't give a shit about your father/son relationship nor do I see as a justification for accepting his ability to proslytise a lie or the authority of the vatican. If he is a priest he is an enemy of working class liberation, whether he beat you with a bible or not.

In future, try and construct an argument that does not rely on emotionalism or sentimentality. I know you're American, but at least try.

[Question everything]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 23, 2007 07:16 am

QUOTE
As Dawkins puts it, we are atheistic about every religion in human history, its just that some people go one god too far
.

Sorry I don't understand that quote...

Here is the actual quote in full:

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

Richard Dawkins

What he means is that if humanity has a history of having belief in say, for arguments sake, 100 gods, then a Christian is atheistic about 99 of those gods. They are only non-atheistic about the last one (Christianity) because its contemporary to them. Nobody cares about Odin anymore or believes he was real. The same fate awaits Christianity or any religion.

I understand the whole quote better :)


"...when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong."


"...it is a telling fact that, the world over, the vast majority of children follow the religion of their parents rather than any of the other available religions."

Awsome Quotes and both of them are so true.

[jasmine]

"...it is a telling fact that, the world over, the vast majority of children follow the religion of their parents rather than any of the other available religions."

Wow, how observant.

It is a telling fact that the vast majority of children speak the language of their parents. It is a telling fact that the vast majority of children have the "scientific" or "common sense" or "political views" of their parents.

It is a telling fact that parents influence their children.

My goodness, this is news or at least a scientific breakthrough!

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further"

Another profound quote.

"We are all believers in the Big bang" since there is no empirical proof and some reputable mathematicans believe there are 11 dimensions and that the so-called, unverifiable, big bang was caused by two parallel universes colliding.

You believe whatever you want to believe.

You don't need a sky fairy, you are tiny creatures that live in a giant rock. Why on earth (!) should your society evolve into socialism?

[Question everything]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 07:52 pm
You don't need a sky fairy, you are tiny creatures that live in a giant rock. Why on earth (!) should your society evolve into socialism?
Why on earth do you have nothing better to do other than troll?

[jasmine]

Why on earth do you have nothing better to do other than troll?

Are really so blinded by your own ideology that you see no points to answer?

[Zero]

Originally posted by "jasmine"+--> ("jasmine")It is a telling fact that the vast majority of children speak the language of their parents. It is a telling fact that the vast majority of children have the "scientific" or "common sense" or "political views" of their parents.

It is a telling fact that parents influence their children.[/b]Most people separate the "truth" in political/social beliefs and the "truth" in the supernatural. Material belief structures (usually) have evidence backing the claims and propositions people have about the evidence to explain the results. If religions are true (any would do), than it would have evidence to prop up the belief structure on (at least), much less evidence and explanation for the complete lack of evidence outside of personal experience. Look at the Ghost/supernatural topic, you find the same arguments for and against there. Until a belief structure has rational evidence to prop itself up on, then the statement "most people are religious because their parents are religious" is the most logical explanation for the continuation of religious belief into the 21st century.


Originally posted by "jasmine"@
You believe whatever you want to believe.Agreed. Though it would be a start to believe in things that you have a reason to believe in. Oxygen particles, gravity, and such.


"jasmine"
You don't need a sky fairy, you are tiny creatures that live in a giant rock. Why on earth (!) should your society evolve into socialism?The most logical path is usually the road most taken.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Question everything+April 23, 2007 08:08 pm--> (Question everything @ April 23, 2007 08:08 pm)
[email protected] 23, 2007 07:52 pm
You don't need a sky fairy, you are tiny creatures that live in a giant rock. Why on earth (!) should your society evolve into socialism?
Why on earth do you have nothing better to do other than troll? [/b]
I've encountered jasemine before, although sometimes she's trollish (as in the above post) she can occasionally comment with a remarkable sagacity.

[jasmine]

Most people separate the "truth" in political/social beliefs and the "truth" in the supernatural.

Who are these people? Most people. in my experience, adhere to the beliefs of their chosen peer group.


If religions are true (any would do), than it would have evidence to prop up the belief structure on (at least), much less evidence and explanation for the complete lack of evidence outside of personal experience.

What exactly is the evidence for the big bang?

[Question everything]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 08:12 pm

Why on earth do you have nothing better to do other than troll?

Are really so blinded by your own ideology that you see no points to answer?

"...it is a telling fact that, the world over, the vast majority of children follow the religion of their parents rather than any of the other available religions."

Wow, how observant.

It is a telling fact that the vast majority of children speak the language of their parents. It is a telling fact that the vast majority of children have the "scientific" or "common sense" or "political views" of their parents.


The point if this statement is that most people follow God simply because there parents told them to.


"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further"

Another profound quote.

... Thank you?


What exactly is the evidence for the big bang?


In physical cosmology, the Big Bang is the scientific theory that the universe emerged from a tremendously dense and hot state about 13.7 billion years ago. The theory is based on the observations indicating the expansion of space in accord with the Robertson-Walker model of general relativity, as indicated by the Hubble redshift of distant galaxies taken together with the cosmological principle.

Extrapolated into the past, these observations show that the universe has expanded from a state in which all the matter and energy in the universe was at an immense temperature and density. Physicists do not widely agree on what happened before this, although general relativity predicts a gravitational singularity.

The term Big Bang is used both in a narrow sense to refer to a point in time when the observed expansion of the universe (Hubble's law) began — calculated to be 13.7 billion (1.37 × 1010) years ago (± 2%) — and in a more general sense to refer to the prevailing cosmological paradigm explaining the origin and expansion of the universe, as well as the composition of primordial matter through nucleosynthesis as predicted by the Alpher-Bethe-Gamow theory.[1]

From this model, George Gamow was able to predict in 1948 the existence of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB).[2] The CMB was discovered in 1964[3] and corroborated the Big Bang theory, giving it more credence over its chief rival, the steady state theory.[4]


A crap load more then there is for the young creationists who think the world was created After Beer and the Agricultural Revolution.

[jasmine]

The point if this statement is that most people follow God simply because there parents told them to.

No, the point is that most anything a young person believes (jesus, the big bang etc.) comes from his/her parents.

Even dawkins knows this.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 08:28 pm

The point if this statement is that most people follow God simply because there parents told them to.

No, the point is that most anything a young person believes (jesus, the big bang etc.) comes from his/her parents.

Even dawkins knows this.
Yes, this is memetics.

It doesn't then follow that the big bang and creationism are just as likely.

[jasmine]

In physical cosmology, the Big Bang is the scientific theory that the universe emerged from a tremendously dense and hot state about 13.7 billion years ago. The theory is based on the observations indicating the expansion of space in accord with the Robertson-Walker model of general relativity, as indicated by the Hubble redshift of distant galaxies taken together with the cosmological principle.

Extrapolated into the past, these observations show that the universe has expanded from a state in which all the matter and energy in the universe was at an immense temperature and density. Physicists do not widely agree on what happened before this, although general relativity predicts a gravitational singularity.

The term Big Bang is used both in a narrow sense to refer to a point in time when the observed expansion of the universe (Hubble's law) began — calculated to be 13.7 billion (1.37 × 1010) years ago (± 2%) — and in a more general sense to refer to the prevailing cosmological paradigm explaining the origin and expansion of the universe, as well as the composition of primordial matter through nucleosynthesis as predicted by the Alpher-Bethe-Gamow theory.[1]

From this model, George Gamow was able to predict in 1948 the existence of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB).[2] The CMB was discovered in 1964[3] and corroborated the Big Bang theory, giving it more credence over its chief rival, the steady state theory.[4]

This is all great stuff but why do you choose to believe it? It´s all disputed and not by any means proven.

[Zero]

Originally posted by "jasmine"+--> ("jasmine")Who are these people? Most people. in my experience, adhere to the beliefs of their chosen peer group.[/b]Yes, people do adhere to the beliefs that they were raised on, however I'm saying that people separate material beliefs (belief in Gravity, belief in Communism, belief in Solidarity, or other beliefs that are based on evidence gathered in the physical reality) and metaphysical beliefs (belief in god, belief in the supernatural, etc) because the two cannot be classified together based on evidence. Unlike the 17th century, people don't (usually) pray before they go outside to make sure something bad doesn't happen. They don't sustain their trust in god as far as they do for such material things as... say... gravity.


"jasmine"
What exactly is the evidence for the big bang?There is no evidence for the Big Bang besides (from what I understand) particle evidence, and theoretical mathematics. This is why it is one theory amongst others, however heady the mathematical reasoning gets, it is still based on evidence observed in reality. This is why it is one theory amongst others. Nobody is telling you that the Big Bang happened exactly the way it is thought to have happened (in the scientific world, anyway) nor would it be logical based on the evidence gathered. However it is a workable theory, and explains the data well.

Before you ask the difference between the Big Bang explaining the theory well, and Creationism explaining things well, please compare the supporting evidence, as well, what the systems are both based on. Personal experience and faith does not equate as an equal platform for scientific debate.

[jasmine]

It doesn't then follow that the big bang and creationism are just as likely.

They are just as likely or unlikely. Does the big bang really make sense?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 08:36 pm

It doesn't then follow that the big bang and creationism are just as likely.

They are just as likely or unlikely. Does the big bang really make sense?
It depends what you compare it to. Although against creationism it does have a large advantage in that it is in line with Occam's Razor ( it posits fewer entities.).

[jasmine]

Yes, people do adhere to the beliefs that they were raised on, however I'm saying that people separate material beliefs (belief in Gravity, belief in Communism, belief in Solidarity, or other beliefs that are based on evidence gathered in the physical reality) and metaphysical beliefs (belief in god, belief in the supernatural, etc) because the two cannot be classified together based on evidence. Unlike the 17th century, people don't (usually) pray before they go outside to make sure something bad doesn't happen. They don't sustain their trust in god as far as they do for such material things as... say... gravity.

Most people have no idea what the law of gravity is, nor do they care. They accept they will not float in the air because that has been their experience so far.

Belief is based on the intepretation of experience.

Physics at the present moment has no coherent explanation of our existence. Their are multiple accounts of different dimensions but nothing unifying.

At least as far as science is concerned there is no single explanation of physical existance.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 08:47 pm
At least as far as science is concerned there is no single explanation of physical existance.
Again it is not logical to posit a further entity (God) in a debate of existence.

Unless of course you fancy affirming the fucking disjunct:

Physical explanation X or God
Not physical explanation X
therefore God.

Where there is physical explanation Y or Z.

[Question everything]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+April 23, 2007 08:50 pm--> (Jazzratt @ April 23, 2007 08:50 pm)
[email protected] 23, 2007 08:47 pm
At least as far as science is concerned there is no single explanation of physical existance.
Again it is not logical to posit a further entity (God) in a debate of existence.

Unless of course you fancy affirming the fucking disjunct:

Physical explanation X or God
Not physical explanation X
therefore God.

Where there is physical explanation Y or Z. [/b]
Even simpler

God=**** (no offence to feminists)

[jasmine]

Again it is not logical to posit a further entity (God) in a debate of existence.

Logic is beside the point. We are strange tiny creatures who live on a small rock orbiting around an exploding fireball. How is this logical?

Perhaps Mr. Dawkins can explain.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 08:59 pm

Again it is not logical to posit a further entity (God) in a debate of existence.

Logic is beside the point.
Aside from logic what do you suggest we debate in?


We are strange tiny creatures who live on a small rock orbiting around an exploding fireball. How is this logical?
Because the fireball is exploding at a slow enough to allow life to develop on the rock. It is remarkable, yes but not illogical.


Perhaps Mr. Dawkins can explain.
I doubt it Dr. Dawkins' area of expertise in in bilology and memetics, not physics. Although I am comfortable assuming he has at least a basic understanding of formal logic.

[Zero]

Originally posted by "jasmine"
Most people have no idea what the law of gravity is, nor do they care. They accept they will not float in the air because that has been their experience so far.

Belief is based on the intepretation of experience.I'd say that is a bit unfair, even here in America most people realize that it's not just what they can see happening, but there are other forces acting on their body that keep them from floating away. Of course they think that Newton thought this up because an apple fell on his head, but that doesn't mean much I suppose.

Belief in general can be based on both the interpretation of experience, or trust in other individuals. Both however don't prove existence without evidence. I could tell you that there is a teapot in space, but without providing evidence for this belief there isn't any reason to believe me. Just as I could tell you that I have experienced sightings, and encounters with ghosts, but without providing evidence for this belief there isn't any reason to believe me. This operates on the macro scale as well. For the most part, so called "ghost hunters" can't provide any evidence that cannot be explained by scientific reasoning. Now the fact that it happens to occur in odd places lends creditability to the believer, but, still, without evidence I, or any other believer in ghosts cannot prove rationally that they exist. Therefore, it is an irrational belief.

[jasmine]

Belief in general can be based on both the interpretation of experience, or trust in other individuals. Both however don't prove existence without evidence. I could tell you that there is a teapot in space, but without providing evidence for this belief there isn't any reason to believe me. Just as I could tell you that I have experienced sightings, and encounters with ghosts, but without providing evidence for this belief there isn't any reason to believe me. This operates on the macro scale as well. For the most part, so called "ghost hunters" can't provide any evidence that cannot be explained by scientific reasoning. Now the fact that it happens to occur in odd places lends creditability to the believer, but, still, without evidence I, or any other believer in ghosts cannot prove rationally that they exist. Therefore, it is an irrational belief.


And your proof of the big bang is what exactly? You believe what fits your experience or needs in the same way as anyone else. There are certain scientific theories that cannot be proven. We can believe them or not as we choose. Like it or not there is no objective truth - there is only what you choose to accept.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 09:15 pm
And your proof of the big bang is what exactly? You believe what fits your experience or needs in the same way as anyone else. There are certain scientific theories that cannot be proven. We can believe them or not as we choose. Like it or not there is no objective truth - there is only what you choose to accept.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I would call you a strawmanning ****toss, no one is claiming the big bang as an objective truth or even the most viable theory (look into the "big bounce") we are simply stating that it is more logically coherent than creationism.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Question [email protected] 23, 2007 08:21 pm
A crap load more then there is for the young creationists who think the world was created After Beer and the Agricultural Revolution.
Pssshhh, most young creationists are lightweights. You think they're gullible after beer, wait until you see them after whiskey.

[Zero]

Originally posted by "jasmine"+--> ("jasmine")And your proof of the big bang is what exactly?[/b]Quite a bit more than a Creationist has.

I believe the Big Bang is a possibility, among others. Theories are called theories for a reason; because it is an estimation of the data that is available to us. Not all the data is in (maybe it won't ever be in) but from what information we do have, believing in the genuine possibility of the Big Bang theory is more than blind belief. For instance, it has been observed with certain types of telescopes that the Universe is expanding at an exponential rate in all directions. This is evidence for the Universe once being at rest in a single space.


Originally posted by "jasmine"@
There are certain scientific theories that cannot be proven.Like?

Because something cannot be proven with today's level of technology doesn't make a theory any less provable. Nor does it lend any creditability to the skeptic. Many early scientists balked at the idea of analyzing the chemical compounds of stars, and called it "completely beyond the reaches of science." But a few years later they and their fellow observers were designing rudimentary systems of measuring chemicals by light, color, shape, and speed.


"jasmine"
We can believe them or not as we choose. Like it or not there is no objective truth - there is only what you choose to accept.Like it or not there is no relativist truth either. What you "choose to accept" has no effect on reality.

By the way, what proof do you have to say that there is no objective truth to the Universe? Or did you happen to look at summary's of data provided and come to the conclusion that because scientists can't agree, they can't ever agree?

[freakazoid]

Actually ComradeRed said in another thread that the Big Bang was more of a Big Bounce.

[Question everything]

Originally posted by pusher robot+April 23, 2007 09:22 pm--> (pusher robot @ April 23, 2007 09:22 pm)
Question [email protected] 23, 2007 08:21 pm
A crap load more then there is for the young creationists who think the world was created After Beer and the Agricultural Revolution.
Pssshhh, most young creationists are lightweights. You think they're gullible after beer, wait until you see them after whiskey. [/b]
Do they even need Beer, you should slap one in the back of the head say God did it and they'd be praying for mercy...

... I meant they think God created the earth after beer was invented...

[chimx]

In future, try and construct an argument that does not rely on emotionalism or sentimentality. I know you're American, but at least try

Lolz. Do you even have an argument that is more substantial than, "religion is like, oppressive man" ??

Here, I elaborated on my argument a great deal in an earlier thread and I'm sad you never got in on the action:

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=62031

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 02:22 am

In future, try and construct an argument that does not rely on emotionalism or sentimentality. I know you're American, but at least try

Lolz. Do you even have an argument that is more substantial than, "religion is like, oppressive man" ??

Here, I elaborated on my argument a great deal in an earlier thread and I'm sad you never got in on the action:

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=62031
Your point is irrelevant as are those very few priests who do more than spread lies. I'm not interested in whether Father Dick fights for economic inequality, heck, some Nazi's even do that.

The fact of the matter is that god does not exist and religious authority, no matter how many priests advocate social justice, is a force in society that is inherently oppressive, both by it's destruction of reality and it's political power.

There may be a lone priest some where in the remote parts of the world, but the power goes up into the centre to extremely powerful, reactionary men who dictate lies and morality.

In any case, who cares about any of that? Religion is a myth and should be destroyed with the same ferocity as capitalism and fascism should be.

Stop extrapolating and confusing points with your verboseness. Your defence of religion and religious authority is pointedly wrong and you should change your opinion!

[ichneumon]

The fact of the matter is that god does not exist and religious authority, no matter how many priests advocate social justice, is a force in society that is inherently oppressive, both by it's destruction of reality and it's political power.

Wiki on engaged buddhism:


Engaged Buddhism is a term originally coined by Vietnamese Zen Buddhist teacher Thich Nhat Hanh. During the Vietnam War, he and his sangha (spiritual community) made efforts to respond to the suffering they saw around them. They saw this work as part of their meditation and mindfulness practice, not apart from it. Since then, the term continues to apply to Buddhists who are seeking ways to apply the insights from meditation practice and dharma teachings to situations of social, political, and economic suffering and injustice.

on Zen buddhism:

Zen training emphasizes daily life practice, along with intensive periods of meditation. Practicing with others is an integral part of Zen practice. In explaining Zen Buddhism, Japanese Zen teachers have made the point that Zen is a "way of life"[citation needed]. D.T. Suzuki wrote that aspects of this life are: a life of humility; a life of labor; a life of service; a life of prayer and gratitude; and a life of meditation[citation needed]. The Chinese Chan master Baizhang (720–814 CE) left behind a famous saying which had been the guiding principle of his life, "A day without work is a day without food."[2]

Within Zen, and thus from an emic perspective, the origins of Zen Buddhism are ascribed to what is called the Flower Sermon, in which Śākyamuni Buddha is supposed to have passed on special insight to the disciple Mahākāśyapa. The sermon itself was a wordless one in which Śākyamuni merely held up a flower before the assembled disciples, among whom there was no reaction apart from Mahākāśyapa, who smiled. The smile is said to have signified Mahākāśyapa's understanding...


Zen does in fact focus on destruction of reality - you presume to have some monopoly of understanding of what is real. Engaged Buddhism, born from Viet Zen tradition, prohibits use of political power:


10
Do not use the Buddhist community for personal gain or profit, or transform your community into a political party. A religious community, however, should take a clear stand against oppression and injustice and should strive to change the situation without engaging in partisan conflicts.

from 14 Precepts of Engaged Buddhism (http://buddhism.kalachakranet.org/resources/14_precepts.html)

now, prove that this is "inherently opressive" or shut the hell up. and, while you're at it, be aware that every revolutinary leftist government ever established has subsequently murdered thousands if not millions of it's own citizens.

[chimx]

The fact of the matter is that god does not exist and religious authority, no matter how many priests advocate social justice, is a force in society that is inherently oppressive, both by it's destruction of reality and it's political power.

Okay, you have two counter points in here. Very good, we are getting somewhere.

1) God does not exist, so its destruction of reality constitutes an authority that is inherently oppressive.

Retort: You have to be able to prove God does not exist. Unfortunately it is as impossible as proving he does exist.

I assume that when you say, "the destruction of reality," you mean the undermining of scientific thought. I would also add you have yet to show how the belief in God hinders scientific work in other, material realms. I.e.: there are countless religious scientists. So long as their science follows the Scientific Method, what's the problem?

2) Political power

I specifically address this in the other thread, that religion as being part of the Marxist superstructure, is determined by production relationships, not the other way around. The point is to destroy capitalism, not religion, as the latter will deteriorate without the former.

[ichneumon]

I assume that when you say, "the destruction of reality," you mean the undermining of scientific thought. I would also add you have yet to show how the belief in God hinders scientific work in other, material realms. I.e.: there are countless religious scientists. So long as their science follows the Scientific Method, what's the problem?

i would argue this differently. any belief system that claims to know the one and only Truth is oppressive, including AT's variety of atheism. his assumption that there is an objective Truth to be destroyed, and that furthermore he has some kind of pipeline to it, is delusional.

in his world, he has the Truth and there are some people who (he thinks) agree with him. everyone else is insane or stupid. those purportedly insane people think the exact same way about him. then there's this small third groups that keeps running away when he gets near them - wtf?

in my world, there are the people who think they own the Truth, all of which disagree with each other at some level, and they are very happy to murder each other. first, in groups by WMD's then as individuals by sticks and rocks. the other group of people don't claim to own the truth, just a workable personal version of it, and lah! they live in peace with each other (provided they escape the first group).

[Zero]

Originally posted by "ichneumon"+--> ("ichneumon")now, prove that this is "inherently opressive" or shut the hell up. and, while you're at it, be aware that every revolutinary leftist government ever established has subsequently murdered thousands if not millions of it's own citizens.[/b]You have got to be kidding me?! What's next? "Communism is good in theory, but it would never work in real life."

It sounds as if you're citing Western variations of Zen, you should be aware that Buddhism (especially Tibetan) isn't so clean. You should read this (http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html) article written by Michael Parenti.

=====


Originally posted by "ichneumon"@
including AT's variety of atheism.I'd love it if you could explain what the hell you mean by this. Usually, when you don't believe in something there isn't a middle ground. There isn't variety Athiesm, there aren't brands of Athiesm, there is no middle ground, and you can't catchum all.


"ichneumon"
[...]his assumption that there is an objective Truth to be destroyed, and that furthermore he has some kind of pipeline to it, is delusional.How the?!

AT was decrying the augmented reality priests and other holy child wankers give in to, and actively promote, not saying how he absolutely loves the knowlege he has gained from learning the objective truth of the universe. How you seemed to confuse the two is beyond me.

But beyond that, why do you discount the idea of objective truth?

[ichneumon]

zero:



("ichneumon")
now, prove that this is "inherently opressive" or shut the hell up. and, while you're at it, be aware that every revolutinary leftist government ever established has subsequently murdered thousands if not millions of it's own citizens.
You have got to be kidding me?! What's next? "Communism is good in theory, but it would never work in real life."

inherently means by definition. is neopaganism oppressive? taosism? can i not design a religion that's not oppressive? why not? L. Ron Hubbard designed an oppressive religion that millions believe in, why can't someone design a non-oppressive one? personally, i think Scientific Humanism is a non-oppressive religion.


I'd love it if you could explain what the hell you mean by this. Usually, when you don't believe in something there isn't a middle ground. There isn't variety Athiesm, there aren't brands of Athiesm, there is no middle ground, and you can't catchum all.

europeans did not invent atheism. it has nothing to do with science. there were hindu athiests when moses was a boy, and the buddha was an atheist 500yrs before jesus was born. Scientific Atheism is utterly different from Zen Atheism or Hindu Atheism, or, for that matter, Nihilistic Atheism.


But beyond that, why do you discount the idea of objective truth?

uh, because it can't be logically proven to exist and is generally very detrimental to certain mindsets. that said, i'm NOT a subjectivist, which is an equally nonsensical position.

[RevMARKSman]

inherently means by definition. is neopaganism oppressive? taosism? can i not design a religion that's not oppressive? why not? L. Ron Hubbard designed an oppressive religion that millions believe in, why can't someone design a non-oppressive one? personally, i think Scientific Humanism is a non-oppressive religion.

Religion: An organized belief in the existence of the supernatural.

By this definition, the Democratic Party is a fracking religion. Don't be stupid.

[ichneumon]

Religion: An organized belief in the existence of the supernatural.

By this definition, the Democratic Party is a fracking religion. Don't be stupid.

i have no idea what you're talking about. what has religion to do with the supernatural? scientologists believe in aliens and galactic empires - is that supernatural? or just goofy? the supernatural has zap-zero to do with my religion. religion is NOT defined as "belief in false things". in essence, a religion answers a series of question in a way that presents a comprehensive world-view. HOW it answers those questions is irrelevant. the democratic party doesn't have a cosmology, theology, epistemology, eschatology, teleology or semiology, and it has the ethical sophistication of a predatory squid. it is clearly not a religion.


Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

the bit about the superhuman agency - the thing is, answering "NO" to that is just the same as answering God or Allah or Ra. it's just an answer. some hindus and buddhists have been answering "NO" to that for millenia.

[RevMARKSman]

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
Oh, that's nice too.

Non-Buddhist/Hindu/whatever the fuck else you want to claim atheism: The universe was not created by a superhuman agency.

No devotional or ritual observances.
No moral code.
One final thing: This atheism can be proven. So, it's not really a belief, it's a fact.

[Question everything]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 04:11 am

Religion: An organized belief in the existence of the supernatural.

By this definition, the Democratic Party is a fracking religion. Don't be stupid.

i have no idea what you're talking about. what has religion to do with the supernatural? scientologists believe in aliens and galactic empires - is that supernatural? or just goofy? the supernatural has zap-zero to do with my religion. religion is NOT defined as "belief in false things". in essence, a religion answers a series of question in a way that presents a comprehensive world-view. HOW it answers those questions is irrelevant. the democratic party doesn't have a cosmology, theology, epistemology, eschatology, teleology or semiology, and it has the ethical sophistication of a predatory squid. it is clearly not a religion.


Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

the bit about the superhuman agency - the thing is, answering "NO" to that is just the same as answering God or Allah or Ra. it's just an answer. some hindus and buddhists have been answering "NO" to that for millenia.
Religion is the belief in the supernatural, something that dictates views on the world and how to live is a philosophy.

[Fightin Da Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 10:36 am

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
Oh, that's nice too.

Non-Buddhist/Hindu/whatever the fuck else you want to claim atheism: The universe was not created by a superhuman agency.

No devotional or ritual observances.
No moral code.
One final thing: This atheism can be proven. So, it's not really a belief, it's a fact.
No it can't. Prove to me that there is no god/divine being/higher power/etc whatsoever. You can't do it.

I'm agnostic by the way.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by Fightin Da Man+May 08, 2007 11:07 am--> (Fightin Da Man @ May 08, 2007 11:07 am)
[email protected] 08, 2007 10:36 am

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
Oh, that's nice too.

Non-Buddhist/Hindu/whatever the fuck else you want to claim atheism: The universe was not created by a superhuman agency.

No devotional or ritual observances.
No moral code.
One final thing: This atheism can be proven. So, it's not really a belief, it's a fact.
No it can't. Prove to me that there is no god/divine being/higher power/etc whatsoever. You can't do it.

I'm agnostic by the way. [/b]
Posting #342109190832 of these arguments

The following was taken from infidelguy.com

ON GOD'S JUSTICE AND MERCY
1.) If God is "all just" then he always dispenses justice with the exact amount of severity deserved by the crime.
2.) If God is "all merciful" then he always dispenses justice with less severity than is deserved by the crime.

3.) You cannot dispense justice with less severity and exact severity at the same time. - Dan Barker

ON GOD BEING ATEMPORAL
1.) God, an atemporal being, created the Universe.
2.) Creation is a temporal processes because X cannot cause Y to come into being unless X existed temporally prior to Y.
3.) If God existed prior to the creation of the Universe he is a temporal being.
4.) Since God is atemporal, God cannot be the creator the Universe.

ON GOD`S JEALOUSY
1.) "God is love." 1 John 4:8.
2.) "Love is not jealous." 1 Cor 13:4
3.) "I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God." Exodus 20:5.
4.) The Christian god cannot logically exist.

(Basically love is NOT jealous, yet god is jealous, then God can`t be love. But if god IS love he cannot be jealous. Be he is. Yahweh cannot possibly exist if he has both the attributes of love and jealousy.)

ON FREEWILL
1.) God has an unchangeable plan for everything past, present & future.
2.) Everything that occurs past, present and future will be part of God's unchanging plan.
3.) Thoughts and actions occur and are part of God's unchanging plan.
4.) Thoughts and actions cannot be anything other than what God has planned.
5.) Free-will doesn't exist.

FREEWILL ARGUMENT FOR THE NONEXISTENCE OF GOD
1.) The Christian God is a personal being and is omniscient.
2.) Personal beings have free will.(according to most Christians)
3.) To have freewill, a personal being must be able to make a choice.
4.) A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty". It knows its choices in advance.
5.) God has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore has no free will.
6.) Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist.
7.) Therefore, the Christian God does not exist

ON PRAYER
1.) Humans can’t change God’s mind for he has a divine plan and is unchangeable.
2.) Prayer doesn’t change things.

ON GOD`S LIMITATIONS
1.) God knows infallibly what will occur in the Universe before it occurs.
2.) God can’t change the future because he knows everything absolutely.

ON HELL
1.) God is all-knowing.
2.) Before I was born God knew I wouldn’t believe in him.
3.) I was born to go to Hell.
3.) God has no Free-will.

ON THE GARDEN OF EDEN
1.) God is omniscient (all knowing)
2.) God knew that before he created man that they would eat of the tree of knowledge.
3.) God placed the tree of knowledge in the Garden anyway.
4.) God wanted sin to enter the world.

EVIL IS GOOD?
1.) God is good all of the time.
2.) Everything that God creates is good. Amen?
3.) God created evil according to Isaiah 45:7. (look it up)
4.) Evil is good.

ON SPIRITS
1.) Spirits are not physical entities.
2.) Brains are physical entities.
3.) Past experiences are stored in our physical brains, we call that, Memory..
4.) Injury can damage portions of the physical brain that store memory and can alter or erase memories completely.
5.) If human spirits exist... after death, spirits can have no memory.

[ichneumon]

revMARKSman=eurocentric

who said we were talking about the god of abraham?

question everything:

Religion is the belief in the supernatural, something that dictates views on the world and how to live is a philosophy.

no one believes in things they know don't exist!!!!

that is NOT a viable definition of religion, it only makes sense (and then, limited) from your point of view. and, futhermore, there are historical religions that do not accept the supernatural. rationality was not invented in europe, it is not unique to the enlightenment.

[Question everything]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 05:15 pm
revMARKSman=eurocentric

who said we were talking about the god of abraham?

question everything:

Religion is the belief in the supernatural, something that dictates views on the world and how to live is a philosophy.

no one believes in things they know don't exist!!!!

that is NOT a viable definition of religion, it only makes sense (and then, limited) from your point of view. and, futhermore, there are historical religions that do not accept the supernatural. rationality was not invented in europe, it is not unique to the enlightenment.
By supernaturel I meant what can not be proven- supersition is a better word.

[RevMARKSman]

revMARKSman=eurocentric

who said we were talking about the god of abraham?
OH NOES I USED ARGUMENTS DIRECTED AT CHRISTIANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!111one

I MUST BE "EUROCENTRIC"! CALL THE MULTICULTURAL POLICE!

Seriously, don't be stupid.

http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheo...from_existence/ (http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/argument_from_existence/)
http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheo...st_apologetics/ (http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/materialist_apologetics/)
http://www.strongatheism.net/library/again...emic_standards/ (http://www.strongatheism.net/library/against/refuting_theistic_epistemic_standards/)
http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheo...rom_mind_brain/ (http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/argument_from_mind_brain/)
http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheo...uantum_physics/ (http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/argument_from_quantum_physics/)
http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheo...ary_naturalism/ (http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/argument_from_necessary_naturalism/)
http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheo...hyphro_dilemma/ (http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/euthyphro_dilemma/)

[ichneumon]

what are you going on about? have you READ those links? over and over again they refer to the god of Abraham and the bible, and they assume that life on earth is the only possible kind of life, which is nonsense. who says god is immaterial? there were several occasions when mortals attacked and wounded greek gods.

eurocentric = socially and philosophically retarded


1. Either:
a. The Good is willed by God because it is the Good.
b. The Good is the Good because it is willed by God.

1. If (1a) is true, then the Good is independent of God’s will.
2. If (2) is true, then God did not create the Good, and is not Creator.
3. If (1b) is true, then the Good is contingent and subjective (to God’s will).
4. If (4) is true, then there is no objective standard of morality, and the absolute of value-selection is false.
5. God does not exist. (from 1, 3 and 5)

the above is unintelligible - 2, what 2? the same statement? what?

what the hell does good and evil have to do with god(s) anyway?


If materialism is true, then we have two options…
1. Are things good because we say they are good, or
2. Do we say things are good because they are good ?

And we end up with the same horns : either morality is subjective, or it is intrinsic and humans have nothing to do with it. In both cases it can be argued that materialism is ultimately defeated, if you are willing to push the point hard enough.

dualistic stupidity

if you can get Rosa Lichtenstein to look at these and validate the logic, then fine. to me, it's utter crap. *i* can argue atheism better than that, probably because i AM an atheist.

[RevMARKSman]

who says god is immaterial? there were several occasions when mortals attacked and wounded greek gods. The, you know, conventional definition of a god.



what are you going on about? have you READ those links? No, I'm just that stupid.

over and over again they refer to the god of Abraham and the bible
OMG they mentioned the god of abraham, that must mean it applies to only that god even though other gods are described with the same attributes!!!!!111


eurocentric = socially and philosophically retarded
Oh, you mean non-"spiritual"? right.


the above is unintelligible - 2, what 2? the same statement? what?


Ignore the fucking numbers, don't be pedantic.


If materialism is true, then we have two options…
1. Are things good because we say they are good, or
2. Do we say things are good because they are good ?

And we end up with the same horns : either morality is subjective,

It is. #1 is partially true. We say things are "good", but so many definitions of good exist that we cannot objectively determine whether something is good without defining it first. Good and evil are defined differently by different people. Until definitions of "good" and "evil" are agreed upon, morality (or at least that which is based on "good" and "evil") will be entirely subjective and meaningless. Tell me again how that defeats materialism?

[ichneumon]

The, you know, conventional definition of a god.

ie, your God. if you want to disprove the existence of god, you must first define god, in a way that takes into account EVERY SINGLE version from EVERY SINGLE historical religion. i'll give you a break on postmodern religions. all the definitions of "deity" i can find are pretty circular or directly refer to God. i'd appreciate it if you DON'T go off on the supernatural doesn't exist bit - you can't define deities as non-existent in your proof that they don't exist.


OMG they mentioned the god of abraham, that must mean it applies to only that god even though other gods are described with the same attributes!!!!!111

they quote bible verses. hindu, greek, shinto gods do not have the same attributes. Imhotep was a god - did he not exist? did heracles exist? it baffles me why they assume that a god cannot be material. it also baffles me that people can believe in ET's and not in gods. go figure. scientology is all about aliens and space ships - it is more real than hinduism?


Oh, you mean non-"spiritual"? right.

no, i mean limited and unaware of the global human culture.



It is. #1 is true. Good and evil are defined differently by different people. Until definitions of "good" and "evil" are agreed upon, morality (or at least that which is based on "good" and "evil") will be entirely subjective and meaningless. Tell me again how that defeats materialism?

it has nothing to do with materialism. it has nothing to do with anything. what has god(s) to do with good and evil? or morality? if your atheism were anything other than a reaction to christianity, you would understand why this is drivel. fundamentally, you are a christian, in that your worldview derives almost entirely from the negation of christian religious theory, just the same as satanists are christian. i am not. the existence of god(s) is untestable and thus uninteresting, and the worship of them is morally unsupportable. period. there is no need for me to attack the God of Abraham - i don't care. why do you?

[Fightin Da Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 04:21 pm

revMARKSman=eurocentric

who said we were talking about the god of abraham?
OH NOES I USED ARGUMENTS DIRECTED AT CHRISTIANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!111one

I MUST BE "EUROCENTRIC"! CALL THE MULTICULTURAL POLICE!

Seriously, don't be stupid.

http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheo...from_existence/ (http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/argument_from_existence/)
http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheo...st_apologetics/ (http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/materialist_apologetics/)
http://www.strongatheism.net/library/again...emic_standards/ (http://www.strongatheism.net/library/against/refuting_theistic_epistemic_standards/)
http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheo...rom_mind_brain/ (http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/argument_from_mind_brain/)
http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheo...uantum_physics/ (http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/argument_from_quantum_physics/)
http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheo...ary_naturalism/ (http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/argument_from_necessary_naturalism/)
http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheo...hyphro_dilemma/ (http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/euthyphro_dilemma/)
Those are nice, but constructing a thought experiment is not the same as proving something.

[RevMARKSman]

ie, your God. if you want to disprove the existence of god, you must first define god, in a way that takes into account EVERY SINGLE version from EVERY SINGLE historical religion. i'll give you a break on postmodern religions. all the definitions of "deity" i can find are pretty circular or directly refer to God. i'd appreciate it if you DON'T go off on the supernatural doesn't exist bit - you can't define deities as non-existent in your proof that they don't exist.


Or, you know, any omnipotent or omniscient immaterial consciousness.


Imhotep was a god

Yeah, prove it. Did he know everything? did he even perform miracles? Pfft, some god.


no, i mean limited and unaware of the global human culture.

And I fit this criterion how...?
I'm aware some people define "god" differently, including some religions. But I'm using a commonly used definition of "god".


it has nothing to do with materialism. it has nothing to do with anything.
Yeah. Some of those links have some information that's irrelevant to what we're talking about. OMG OMG YOUR ARGUMENT IS COMPLETELY UNFOUNDED!!!11


Those are nice, but constructing a thought experiment is not the same as proving something.

Ever taken a calculus course? ...or even geometry? Logic works.

[ichneumon]

Or, you know, any omnipotent or omniscient immaterial consciousness

why do you define god that way? you just defined "god" in three ways that are provable impossible, and now you prove that those are impossible and want what? a sucker? what?


And I fit this criterion how...?
I'm aware some people define "god" differently, including some religions. But I'm using a commonly used definition of "god".

apparently, common=abrahamic. you are culturally illiterate. i'm not sure i can even talk with you.


Ever taken a calculus course? ...or even geometry? Logic works.

logic creates logic. i just finished a course that involved reading "mathematical biology" and "the theoretical biologist's toolkit". either one would likely fry your brain.

it seems to me that most atheists in america follow a similar pattern. they were raised by nice parents, taken to church, and taught that all was just and fair in life. when the got older and found that it was all lies, that pissed them off. so they become punks to show their parents, anarchists to show their government and atheists to stick it to God. God they hate most of all - he promised heaven and angels and everything and LIED so WHYAAAA, so now they take Science! and show HIM a thing or two, NYHAAA. excuse me if i find this puerile.


why can't you just say "god(s) are untestable and uninteresting. by reading religious literature, most seem psychotic and dangerous. i doubt they exist, and even if they did, i wouldn't worship them. humanity has to be responsible for it's own actions, collectively and individually." it's SO much easier and more rational than your pages of silly proofs, AND it's not directed at God of Abraham. science does not deal with the untestable, and logic is only a word game. it bugs me that you want to create these huge fairy castles of proofs and untheories that are UTTERLY useless and often even provable untrue. it doesn't help.

[Fightin Da Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 08:55 pm
Ever taken a calculus course? ...or even geometry? Logic works.
Yup. A in Geometry, A in AP Calc thanks. Ever taken a science course? You can't use logic to prove what goes on in the real world, you need to use experiments.

[IcarusAngel]

Science is really a combination of both logic and experiments. Theories in science are established by deductive reasoning, or they are established inductively by looking at the facts and coming to a conclusion, and which point it is usually "proven" by deductive reasoning.

A theory is merely a collection of scientific facts, and furthermore, you don't have to "demonstrate" something in the lab to prove that that is how it occurs (i.e. the earth revolves around the sun).

The fact that the earth is billions of years old, that it's round, that evolution occurs, and much of modern biology were proven by methods such as these without heavy reliance on experimentation or demonstration. Scientists have shown that the earth is billions of years old, for example, by Carbon-14 dating that measures the rate of which atoms decay; measured dates of independent geological levels, even when they're taken from the opposite side of the earth; fission track dating of uranium atoms, which occurs at rates not affected by pressure, chemicals, temperature, and so on, that leaves a distinctive track in specimen and by counting the number of tracks you can get very reliable dates, etc.

Besides all the fossil evidence for evolution (which is a lot), really the age of the earth shows that there would have had to have been some evolution unless you invoke supernatural causation, a no-no in science.

So while only something like Geometry contains the "perfect system of logic," science nonetheless uses experimentation and/or logical reasoning by looking at the facts and coming to a conclusion -- that's why scientific theories are not 100% absolute, they're not perfect.

Come on guys, you know this.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 01:37 pm
yes, my religion is
LOL :lol:

Thats ironical!

:lol:

[midnight marauder]

why can't you just say "god(s) are untestable and uninteresting. by reading religious literature, most seem psychotic and dangerous. i doubt they exist, and even if they did, i wouldn't worship them. humanity has to be responsible for it's own actions, collectively and individually." it's SO much easier and more rational than your pages of silly proofs, AND it's not directed at God of Abraham. science does not deal with the untestable, and logic is only a word game. it bugs me that you want to create these huge fairy castles of proofs and untheories that are UTTERLY useless and often even provable untrue. it doesn't help.

But don't we?

Or is it that the only time this isn't the case is in the stereotyping of nontheists by apologists?

I think this post is telling of the major reason one people describe themselves as leftists and at the same time buy into liberal interpretations of the Bible.

The reason, in my humble opininon, seems to be that human beings often have an impeccable affinity toward cognitive dissonance. In this case, even though we know that the quoted position is the arguement against theism, when we get defensive about our beliefs being challenged we fit them into a position which satisfies our worldview. In the case of literal Christianity, even though the Bible makes clear contradictions with Anarchism's goals of eqaulity and justice (see homosexuality in the bible (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm), women in the bible (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html), intolerance in the bible, (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html) & injustice in the bible (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/inj/long.html)), people still believe in Christ and act in accordance with equality.

For whatever reason.

[RevMARKSman]

you just defined "god" in three ways that are provable impossible, and now you prove that those are impossible and want what? a sucker? what?


Well, if you define "god" as a type of flower growing in the Sierra Nevadas, I can't prove it doesn't exist, because several kinds of flowers grow in the Sierra Nevada range. I'm using a definition that a lot of theists would accept.

By the way I happen to have studied Imhotep. None of the "god" shit started until after he was dead. People tend to worship untestable entities.

And about the "immaterial" thing, if gods were material, why can't we find them? The theists ran away from this problem by saying gods are immaterial. They backed themselves into this corner.



apparently, common=abrahamic. you are culturally illiterate.

Over two billion people believe in the Abrahamic god, I use a definition that anyone on the street would give you, and the conclusion is...I'm culturally illiterate?


it seems to me that most atheists in america follow a similar pattern. they were raised by nice parents, taken to church, and taught that all was just and fair in life.

Whoops-a-daisy. Things are not always as they seem.

when the got older and found that it was all lies, that pissed them off.

Generally, being lied to about fundamental attributes of the universe pisses people off when they find out.


so they become punks to show their parents

You know, maybe if you say it enough it'll come true. I'm not a punk. I barely even appreciate punk music.


anarchists to show their government

Show their government what?

That people don't like being lied to?

That people have power?


and atheists to stick it to God.

'Scuse me for a second while I clear something up. Atheists don't believe in God. How exactly does one "stick it to" an entity that doesn't even exist?


he promised heaven and angels and everything and LIED so WHYAAAA, so now they take Science! and show HIM a thing or two, NYHAAA. excuse me if i find this puerile.

I found it more like this: Gods (using a definition that most people can agree on) don't exist. This means no supernatural, immaterial forces (gods) interfere with our world. Therefore, laws of the universe remain consistent throughout time and space. Therefore, the statements can be determined to be "always true". Thus, inductive reasoning and science.

Remind me, in which part am I supposed to shout "NYHAAA"?


why can't you just say "god(s) are untestable and uninteresting. by reading religious literature, most seem psychotic and dangerous. i doubt they exist

That's not evidence. You can say potted plants are uninteresting, and can be dangerous, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

In fact, you don't even have to pretend that theists could be right if you PROVE once and for all that gods don't exist.


humanity has to be responsible for it's own actions, collectively and individually."

Assertion, with nothing to back it up. That's why we prove gods don't exist first.


's SO much easier and more rational than your pages of silly proofs

Uh-huh.

Let me process this for a second.

Vague assertions are more rational than proofs.

That's what you said?

...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


and logic is only a word game

Assertion. Again. ...I spelled "cryptozoology" on a triple word score box!


it bugs me that you want to create these huge fairy castles of proofs and untheories that are UTTERLY useless and often even provable untrue.

Prove 'em untrue, then. Stop just saying you can.

[quote]it doesn't help.[/quote

Doesn't help you, maybe...

[ichneumon]

if you'd kindly distill out the "god is not just, god is not love, the bible contradicts, etc" i will attempt to address them. in the mean time, i'm still trying to fully grasp this "materialism" thing, and i'm going to start a thread about my first objection. perhaps you will find it amusing.