Religion - Good or Bad?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I, and probably most of you share atheistic or agnostic opinions. But for those who find hope in omnipotent figures, is it good or bad. Is it unhealthy to claim your soul for something that isn't there, or is it okay to attain your personal moral code from religious laws. Marx opposed religion, but why.
Can anyone tell me why Marx opposed religion, and if you do oppose religion, why?
Was Nietzche right when he said that religion is only good for the lower class who had no other hope? Your thoughts?

[redstar2000]

"But for those who find hope in omnipotent figures, is it good or bad?"

Bad. False hope is ALWAYS bad.

"Is it unhealthy to claim your soul for something that isn't there?"

Delusions are ALWAYS unhealthy.

"Is it ok to obtain your personal moral code from religious laws?"

ONLY if you are CONSISTENT. Those who burn witches and stone adulterers take their religion seriously; the rest are just windbags and conmen.

"Marx opposed religion, but why?" Because he opposed ALL illusions. As he said, "To attack illusions is to attack a world that REQUIRES illusions."

All ruling classes have used religion to distract "the lower classes" from reality. Now religion has been partly absorbed into the entertainment industry (think of that new $200,000,000 cathedral in Los Angeles as a blockbuster movie).

It's hard to improve on the great 18th Century English historian Edward Gibbon: "All religions have always been seen as equally false by philosophers, equally true by the lower classes, and equally USEFUL by the rulers."
(Not exact quote but that's what he meant.)

The church hierarchies STILL hate Gibbon...he was one of the first to "blow the whistle" publicly against their pretensions. Of course, they hate Tom Paine even more, and they grow positively livid with rage at the name of Marx.

One GOOD way to measure a person's worth: who are their enemies?

:cool:


(Edited by redstar2000 at 6:05 pm on Dec. 12, 2002)

[Umoja]

Religion is only bad when it's manipulated to control people. Like here in Jersey their is a radio station that gives "scientific" proof of creationism. I'm not to big of a fan of the subject, and would consider anyone who would take revelations litterally a fool... but who knows... Thing that sucks about science is it's based on the fact that we know more then we do, not that I'm bashing science.....

Okay, before I become incoherant. All people have a spirtual side(Maybe it's tied in with an emotional side?), that numerous things can speak to. I think it'd leave many people empty to not have one, I mean a common opposition to religions is probubly, as I'm speaking to my own agnostic thoughts, a spiritually rewarding thing as well.

[timbaly]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 5:47 pm on Dec. 12, 2002
"But for those who find hope in omnipotent figures, is it good or bad?"

Bad. False hope is ALWAYS bad.

"Is it unhealthy to claim your soul for something that isn't there?"

Delusions are ALWAYS unhealthy.

"Is it ok to obtain your personal moral code from religious laws?"

ONLY if you are CONSISTENT. Those who burn witches and stone adulterers take their religion seriously; the rest are just windbags and conmen.

"Marx opposed religion, but why?" Because he opposed ALL illusions. As he said, "To attach illusions is to attack a world that REQUIRES illusions."

All ruling classes have used religion to distract "the lower classes" from reality. Now religion has been partly absorbed into the entertainment industry (think of that new $200,000,000 cathedral in Los Angeles as a blockbuster movie).

It's hard to improve on the great 18th Century English historian Edward Gibbon: "All religions have always been seen as equally false by philosophers, equally true by the lower classes, and equally USEFUL by the rulers."
(Not exact quote but that's what he meant.)

The church hierarchies STILL hate Gibbon...he was one of the first to "blow the whistle" publicly against their pretensions. Of course, they hate Tom Paine even more, and they grow positively livid with rage at the name of Marx.

One GOOD way to measure a person's worth: who are their enemies?

:cool:


This is one of the most well put anti-religous posts I've seen. I agree with everyone of your points 100%

[apathy maybe]

Edit.

[redstar2000]

A/M, no one but a fool would try to argue that Marx or any other human being was "always right." But if you look at his track record, it's pretty damn good!

Your remarks, on the other hand, seem to me to be muddled and incoherent--I have no idea what you MEAN by wild and unsupported assertions like: "if matter is regarded as inanimate...there is no place in the system for consciousness" or "if the universe has no purpose or meaning then the human life has no purpose or meaning" or "does something as complex as the human mind just cease to exist after we die."

If I didn't know better, A/M, I would guess you've been hanging out with some really BAD romanticist German philosophers lately...they were a great bunch for piling up words atop words in search of "profundity".

What I am saying is that your "if...then..." propositions make NO SENSE. Sorry.

:cool:

[oconner]

Does religion have to be bad? It can be used for power I agree but religion can give people hope which can't be so bad...if religion is something which brings unity as opposed to division then surely religion is not purely negative?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I think I understand what Apathy Maybe was trying to say. Its a bit difficult to explain and thats why he did a rather poor job of doing so.
I dissagree with what he said though. There IS room for conciousness, our minds are very very complex and you are making a mockery of the complicated neurology of how our minds function. There is no omnipotent power behind it.

How can you press us Atheists with the absurd question of "What is the purpose of life?" We never claimed that life has no purpose. Can your religion prove what is the purpose of life? I would think not! Atheism simply implies that the purpose of life is not a hidden mystery locked behind some godly figure who created us all.
You need to stop quoting incoherent phrases that confuses us all and makes a shallow argument of the question being adressed.

[Umoja]

Yeah, I guess regardless of everything their is an underlying Creation force, which is the same thing as [a] God. Does this prove any religion as correct? No, it doesn't, it just proves that their is an abstract force/entity that is God.

[redstar2000]

oconner, yes, religion can give people hope and that is a very BAD thing...because the hope is FALSE.

Religion can "unify" people, but unity around that which has no real existence is a DISASTER!

Umoja, you are PERSONIFYING that which is NOT a person. An "abstract creative force" (another term from German philosophy) whatever that might be is certainly NOT a conscious entity and to "worship" it is as nonsensical as to worship the next hurricane (which some German philosopher probably called an "abstract destructive force").

GET REAL! :cool:

[Umoja]

Yeah but how do we know the force isn't sentient? This is the force that not only created life, but also created the hurricane. So, it's perfectly logical to worship the creation force, because it just is, maybe it made life because it wanted to or else it just needed to become more complex.... Which opens up a whole new avenue of philosophy. Because you'd have to wonder if the force is sentient or not.

[Palmares]

Religion is not good nor bad, just stupid. Do I want to waste my life praying to... to what exactly? Nothing is worthy of worship, doing such a thing is degrading to everything else in existence. The superior force is our minds, nothing else, unless some people have fetishes for statues or similar.
Believe what you want, but just think what it all adds up to... tired eyes in a church is pretty much it. I am sorry if I seem a bit harsh, but I hate people being brainwashed like this, I know people who have suffered from being forced to believe. Fuck pandora stupid box, it was probably empty.
By the way, RedStar was on point all the way, my regards comrade.

[apathy maybe]

Edit.

[redstar2000]

"Where do you get your moral code?"

You MAKE IT UP as you go along; what do you think all the "holy men" did? They made it all up to serve their own interests.

Any reason why we can't do the same? :cool:

[Umoja]

Because if you do the same, you have the same chance of becoming an opressor. A strong love of anything can be manipulated, is it then worthless to acknowledge because humans corrupt it?

[redstar2000]

To become an "oppressor", Umoja, I need a MOTIVE. What do I GAIN from being an oppressor except UNIVERSAL HATRED of my fellow humans?

"Holy Men" had a motive--personal power, prestige, and wealth. Those things are of no interest to a real communist...not because we are "saints", but because we have DIFFERENT motives: to see the chains struck from the human species being the most important.

COULD communists become corrupted? Of course, they could...which means simply that the first duty of a communist is to BE a communist and the second duty of a communist is to CRITICIZE other communists when necessary.

Unless you subscribe to the doctrine of "original sin"--that all humans are evil at heart--you have no logical basis to say that we will become as bad as religious groups & leaders. And if you DO subscribe to that patent absurdity, well...

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I believe that this discussion will be more productive if we discuss the problems of religion in Communism. There are far too many problems with religion in capitalism as well as with everything else in capitalism. Capitalism is all-around faulty and I believe that there is no argument regarding weather or not it is so.

On another note: That is not true though, what Umoja said, if you believe strongly in a moral code of law, you will not be driven to oppress others, there will be no motive to do so, no money involved, no power, status to seek, no reason.

[Umoja]

Yes, infact for Church tonight, I'm writting an essay about how Capitalism has corrupted Christianity.

[redstar2000]

How about an essay on how christianity has corrupted capitalism? :cool:

[Umoja]

Because I don't believe that.

Your saying Capitalism would be better if Religion wasn't involved?

It would seem to many commies lose support from the so called "Bible Belt" because they spend half their time fighting the religious peoples who would otherwise be their allies, if they just conceded freedom of religion. Assata Shakur said this was the reason why numerous Puerto Rican revolutionaries were hesitant on Communism as a solution.

[redstar2000]

Has christianity corrupted capitalism?

Sure. Can you imagine a "pure, laboratory capitalism" that would have a "war on drugs" or a "war on prostitutes"?

As to the idea that we communists could win a lot of easy popularity by hiding our opposition to religion or even accepting religion as just one of those things that people "need"...well, it's an idea. Stalin tried it during World War II.

But I think it would be wrong AND stupid. Wrong, because we communists MUST be honest with people...MUST be the ONLY honest political alternative. Stupid, because dishonesty always loses in the end no matter what temporary successes it may achieve.

Let people support us BECAUSE we are atheists...THAT will be support worth having!

:cool:

[Umoja]

Which is why your revolution won't come to fruition anytime soon. Your zeal is just as bad as a religious zealot, because you seek to disprove theist and spend to much of your effort which could go towards far more important things.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Umoja, helping people to stop claiming their very SOULS for something is not there at all is very important.

[apathy maybe]

Edit.

[Umoja]

Thank you Apathy and people don't give up their Souls to God. You never owned your soul, because you didn't make yourself. So from a secular view point your parents own your souls. If Souls exist, which I believe do.

[redstar2000]

"dangerous drugs are for stupid people"--so then, in your christian morality, it's ok to PERSECUTE them? To hunt them down like dogs, throw them into hideous prisons, or perhaps even kill them? And feel "Godly" while you're doing it?

Since no one KNOWS what Yeshua ben-Yosif REALLY said, the idea of restoring his religion to its original purity seems a rather difficult proposition. Naturally, I won't try and stop you from the attempt; I just don't think much will come of it.

Umoja, I'd rather have "my" revolution LATE and also REAL, than "early" and FAKE. As to "more important things", opinions differ. Personally, I think it's very important in the present (reactionary) period to ATTACK bad ideas like religion, the idealization of the traditional biological family, the vanguard party, and some of the more naive conceptions of capitalist "democracy". If my attacks are sufficiently convincing, then there will be a few MORE real revolutionaries in the next generation.

It's not usually given to one person to do all that much, but if I can say that in my life I dug one spadeful of dirt for the grave of capitalism and all of its reactionary aspects...I'm happy with that. :cool:

[Umoja]

Yeah, well your the type of Communist I could never be. I want to preserve some of the basest aspects of human society, like the family. But hey, I guess we can agree to disagree on somethings while mutally hating Capitalism.

[apathy maybe]

Edit.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I don't believe that each person has a 'soul', as in a spirit that has an afterlife. What I meant was that you Christians claim your so-called 'souls' for 'god'. But apparently I was wrong, sorry.

[Umoja]

Interesting note. I was reading Jonh Henrik Clarke's "African World Revolution" last night. He talked about how Christendom ruined Africa, and the differences between Christendom and Christinanity. Christiandom has been used to justify nearly every attrocity in human history, and has been used solely as an instrument of control. It was rather interesting how he put it, I could quote the paragraph if anyone wanted to know the exact wording of it.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I'd like to read it. Though I haven't read it, it sounds like something that a christian made up when he couldn't find any more excuses for the crap that happened under the name of Christ.

[Marcos79804]

some may say "well I don't believe in God". You may believe that when we die that's the end of it and that we just become "dust" or whatever. But what if that's not the case? What if there trully is a "God" and what if there trully is a Heaven and a Hell? What if when you die you awake as if from a dream and realize you were wrong? What then? If you look at the pro's and con's you see that the pro's for God out weigh the con's. Because if you die and there is no God, you won't even remeber your existence, however, if their is a God your going to have to do some explaining to do.

[Umoja]

Victor, he has similar views of Islam actually. He doesn't actually say he supports any religion over another, which includes tribal religions. He just says that Africans are spiritual people, and that religion plays strongly into Africans lives.

Besides that, I agree with Marcos.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Marcos, thats a very foolish outlook.
You cant blindly walk into life doing things just becaus if you don't the consequences could be bad.

Why not practice all religions then?

[Marcos79804]

The reason I don't practice all religons is because christianity is the religon with the greatest "historical" backing, besides to "ME" it makes more sense. The bottom lines is that it doesn't really matter what religon you choose is best for you, what matters is that you BELIEVE in God and that you try to be a better person. Anyway, that's how I see it.

[redstar2000]

Marcos, if after my death I discover that there IS a "God", then HE is going to have some explaining to do!

:cool:

[Umoja]

Well you'd have forever to ask.... ick... forever... creepy.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Christianity? Historical backing? What?

Ya ever hear o' the Spanish inquisition? Good times, eh?

A man, the pope, can make laws for millions of people to follow. Like banning the use of condoms. How wonderful!

Protestant? Yeah, that so much better. Founded by a king who wanted a divorce, or no that was a different sort of protestant, Lutheran was the first sort, or no? Maybe it was Methodist? Was it? Maybe it was Jehova's Witnesses? Or was it Baptists?
Well, at least their consistent.

[Umoja]

I could say the same thing about Communism.

In which case you'd say that wasn't real communism, so I assume you know my answer.

[apathy maybe]

Edit.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Killing for something that has never been seen or proven except some sucker from the old days, that's mental illnes.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

You could not say the same thing about Communism because Communism has never been oppressive since it has never been enstated, you can ask nearly any Communist, though the ideology has been missused.
Christianity, on the other hand, has been enstated and has been oppressive and Christians will stand by what happened. If they don't, I suspect them of not being very faithful.

(Edited by Victorcommie at 1:49 am on Dec. 22, 2002)

[Umoja]

That's my entire point, you were going to say it wasn't real communism, and I would say the same with Christinaity.