Could religion be positive?

[colorlessman]

What do you think?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No.

[Oedipus Complex]

If by religion you mean a hierarchical organization which is founded on archaic dogma which attempts to eradicate any social or humanistic change, or denies/refutes empirical or observational scientific evidence in order to sustain their little fantasy world, which perpetually contols people and enslaves them into an ideology based on fear, then no. Hold on a minute.... that is religion.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by Oedipus [email protected] 23, 2007 05:42 am
If by religion you mean a hierarchical organization which is founded on archaic dogma which attempts to eradicate any social or humanistic change, or denies/refutes empirical or observational scientific evidence in order to sustain their little fantasy world, which perpetually contols people and enslaves them into an ideology based on fear, then no. Hold on a minute.... that is religion.
That is quite probably the longest and most restrictive definition of religion I have ever seen, and the beliefs of many religious people do not fall within it.

I prefer a much shorter definition: Religion is any and all belief in the existence of supernatural phenomena that have some kind of relevance to human life. The end. In order to be religious, you must (a) believe in the existence of phenomena that lie beyond the scope of empirical observation, and (b) believe that these phenomena are somehow important in your life.

Thus defined, "religion" is a very broad category - it need not imply belief in a god or an afterlife, even.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Short answer - Very unlikely.

Long answer:

In it's current manifestations, no. Religions as they stand do some positive work, E.G. Charity, Helping Alcoholics, Comforting, etc.

Unfortunately, the cost of them doing this is high. Religions as they stand:

A. Simply con people, unwittingly or not, into a belief system that is painfully, obviously false. People throw away their lives for this. From the point of view of history, or any objective observer, they will look stupid.

B. Encourage social prejudice. Yes, the moderates and liberals aren't as much to blame, and sometimes even counter-act this, but they are in the minority when compared to religion as a whole, and particularly monotheism. This mainly comes from those who actually believe what their holy book preaches. If Leviticus says it's an abomination for man to lie with man, Jerry Falwell will publicly condemn homosexuality, condemn society that tolerates homosexuality, blame 9/11 on homosexuals, and so on and so forth. This naturally trickles down to average joe, who suddenly decides that homosexuality "Isn't natural" and is probably a bad idea. If the Qu'ran says of non-muslims, "slay them wherever ye find them", then that is exactly what Abu Hamza, Osama Bin Laden, hell, any muslims who actually believe what they say they believe, are going to do.

C. Instill grotesque, ancient morality. This ties in a lot with social prejudice as we saw above, the Qu'ran if it was actually payed attention to en masse, would result in a lot of death. We also see that Allah merrily turns jews into apes, punishes unbelievers with eternal fire, etc. Yahweh kills everything because the human imagination, which he created, is supposedly evil. I could go on. The point is that if God is given this insane ethical blank check, if God can do whatever the fuck he wants, what is to stop his disciples emulating him? Nothing. In fact, it would be outright encouraged to emulate one's God as best you could.

D. Teach absurdities in science and history. I suppose this is similar to point A, but it concerns specific, demonstrably false claims, as opposed to blanket theism. Examples, Noah gets his family and representatives of every single species onto his 450 foot ark in one day, with an 18 square inch window for ventilation. This is taught to be infallible truth. It simply isn't possible. The flood supposeldy covered the mountains, yet there is no geological evidence for the flood whatsoever, which renders it false. The Qu'ran says the earth is fixed, and does not move. The stars are "missiles for the devils". So on and so forth. When a book is held to be inerrant, these kinds of absurdities logically should, and frequently are, accepted wholeheartedly and without question.

E. Indoctrinate children. Frequently you'll hear a reference to a "muslim child", or a christian child, or a jewish child, or a hindu child, etc. I don't think it's too sweeping a statement to say that an overwhelming majority of these children are almost wholly ignorant of what their 'belief' entails, have no idea that there are alternatives, have no option but to believe, and end up as basically mental slaves to a religion. And this is not discouraged, even by moderates. For some reason, it is socially acceptable to define a child by your personal world view, and religion is the main culprit of this.

That said, there are many benign spiritualities and supernatural beliefs out there, that are harmless. Jainism seems an obvious example, so the small amount of good that Jainists do makes them positive.

Therefore, religion can be positive, i.e. it isn't inevitably bad, but in practice, it usually isn't.

-Alex

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 02:46 am
What do you think?
I think that, 1) this thread would have been better if you had have provide either or both of a) a definition of religion, b) your own personal opinion. 2) That religion can be a positive force, but rarely, and it isn't the religion so much as the values (morals, ethics) that come along with it.

Irrationality and superstition is always harmful, and unfortunately, all religions are both irrational and posit the existence of something supernatural. Of course, this isn't restricted solely to religions.

People who believe in "UFO"s (and by this I mean aliens of course, I personally believe in unidentified 'flying' objects, but the problem is people thinking that they are identified, and that they are aliens) are similarly irrational, and potentially superstitious.


The "positive" aspects, as I said above, are the potential ethics or morals that "come from" religion. Of course, these exist independently of religion anyway, and don't need the religion to survive. (The "Golden Rule" for example, can be in a number of world religions (http://www.teachingvalues.com/goldenrule.html), but anyone who says that it needs a religion is crazy.)


And I think that Alex covered the subject well, as well.

[Tower of Bebel]

Religion cannot be positivie rigth now because we have enough knowledges to live without it. I believe religion became part of humanity because we can think rationally. Before the use of science we had no idea how to explain the ways of nature. That's where religion comes.
There is NO reason why there should be any religion, and that since the age of Enlightment.

[An archist]

It could be.
The problem is that most religions rely on ancient dogmas, and while they may have been appropriate for the times they were written, they will ultimately be outdated at some point.
But religion can be positiven for example when it drives people to help others or be critical, or try to change the world, ...

[Publius]

Well, it could be good if it were true. But therein lies the rub.

[seraphim]

I think there is a difference bettween religion and faith. Religion in any terms is never good having genuine faith however can be a very powerfull thing. This can be both posistive and negative but when faith is manipulated you then again have religion which is never ever good!

[Sir Aunty Christ]

It hasn't been for the last 3000+ years and it's not gonna start now.

[Janus]

Depending on what one means by "positive", I suppose religion does have the potential in an abstract way. But religious practice never manifests itself in a positive way especially if its figures are acting like this

Polish monks build business empire (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070523/ts_afp/lifestylepolandreligionfood;_ylt=AkV125aaBgV7Unpli zftlzFvaA8F)

[RevMARKSman]

I'm betting you guys 1000 internet-currency that ichneumon will post in this thread.

My answer: no. Not in practice.

[Oedipus Complex]

In my first post I was talking about consequences of religion mainly since the question dealt with the possible positives of religion, and I merely pointed out why it couldn't be positive.


That is quite probably the longest and most restrictive definition of religion I have ever seen, and the beliefs of many religious people do not fall within it.

The religious people then who don't fall under it are most likely hypocrites.


I prefer a much shorter definition: Religion is any and all belief in the existence of supernatural phenomena that have some kind of relevance to human life.

This takes the focus off truly human interests in order to somehow be "in touch" with a higher power; it teaches people not to help end human suffering because heaven will be the end of suffering. Human life needs dependence upon things which can be tested empirically not religion


In order to be religious, you must (a) believe in the existence of phenomena that lie beyond the scope of empirical observation, and (b) believe that these phenomena are somehow important in your life.

This once agaian takes the focus off of humans and is absolutely absurd way of thinking. It seems logically impossible to believe in something which you cannot empirically or scientifically improve, which is why in my first post said religion was founded and depended upon archaic dogma. There is nothing positive about making absurd claims which can't be proven. And to believe that such phenomenon is important in one's life implies that you must succumb to it and therefore give up your own personal autonomy of thoughts in order to be coerced by silly stories.


Thus defined, "religion" is a very broad category - it need not imply belief in a god or an afterlife, even.

Even if one's religion doesn't believe in a god, or an afterlife I will not abstain from criticizing spirituality in the slightest.

[freakazoid]

People who believe in "UFO"s (and by this I mean aliens of course, I personally believe in unidentified 'flying' objects, but the problem is people thinking that they are identified, and that they are aliens) are similarly irrational, and potentially superstitious.

So you think that evolution is only possible on this planet?


The religious people then who don't fall under it are most likely hypocrites.

lol, you don't even understand what it teaches.


This takes the focus off truly human interests in order to somehow be "in touch" with a higher power; it teaches people not to help end human suffering because heaven will be the end of suffering.

It does? And this entire time I thought that it was my duty as a Christian to help people. Thanks for showing me the light, <_<

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by freakazoid
So you think that evolution is only possible on this planet?Fuck no. I just think it is incredibly unlikely that any of these other evolved organisms have evolved to the point that they can fly the light years required to come to Earth, and then just &#39;buzz us&#39;. Don&#39;t you think that one, if they were really aliens they would either show us, or if they didn&#39;t want us to see them, that we just wouldn&#39;t?


The idea that aliens are going to visited Earth in the first place is so stupid as to not be worth talking about (and anyone with even a little bit of relevant knowledge could tell you that).

[BurnTheOliveTree]

having genuine faith however can be a very powerfull thing.

GARGHH&#33; *Attacks*

Faith is the root cause of religion, and faith itself is the problem. The ability to just wave away the evidence and believe a pure assertion is... I can&#39;t even find a derogatory enough adjective for it. By just using this magic word, you can validate the belief that Vanguard1917 is secretly environmentalist, that Elvis is still alive, that I&#39;m communicating to you from beyond the dead, and so on and so forth&#33;

It is the absolute bane of reason, it is the enemy, it is not to be respected.

-Alex

P.S. Publius - What would you say to Chris Hitchens argument that it would be "ghastly" for any of the popular monotheistic gods to exist?

[Led Zeppelin]

There have been religious communists in the past, and they were better comrades than some of you are here, so to say that just because a person is religious means they can&#39;t be "positive" or communist, is pretty l8me.

[seraphim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 02:37 pm

having genuine faith however can be a very powerfull thing.

GARGHH&#33; *Attacks*

Faith is the root cause of religion, and faith itself is the problem. The ability to just wave away the evidence and believe a pure assertion is... I can&#39;t even find a derogatory enough adjective for it. By just using this magic word, you can validate the belief that Vanguard1917 is secretly environmentalist, that Elvis is still alive, that I&#39;m communicating to you from beyond the dead, and so on and so forth&#33;

It is the absolute bane of reason, it is the enemy, it is not to be respected.

-Alex

P.S. Publius - What would you say to Chris Hitchens argument that it would be "ghastly" for any of the popular monotheistic gods to exist?
you mean to tell me that you don&#39;t have faith in yourself or your politics? Or the belief system that marks you out as politically left wing? Did I say faith in god or a higher being..............um.............NO&#33;

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 02:37 pm





P.S. Publius - What would you say to Chris Hitchens argument that it would be "ghastly" for any of the popular monotheistic gods to exist?


It would be ghastly in a sense, but I must say that I do not, or can not, oppose the idea of God existing entirely, on this principal, that is to say I can conceive of some God that would not be &#39;ghastly&#39;.

But I think the problem neatly solves itself because those Gods clearly do not exist and really could not, as they are self-contradictory to a large degree and non-nonsensical to an even larger degree.

But see, one could imagine a &#39;positive religion&#39;, or at least I can. A religion that were based on a real God, that didn&#39;t condone violence, that clearly proscribed humane acts and denied inhumane ones, etc. So the question I was answering was more "Could religion, in some form, be positive." And I think the answer to that is yes. There is nothing logically contradictory in &#39;positive religion&#39;, it&#39;s just that all current religions are superstitious, and thus false, and from that they generally act as a negative influence.

And more to the point, the idea of a God watching a judging your every action is, to me, not a pleasant thought, but again, I think this idea is so obviously absurd that it doesn&#39;t need to granted serious consideration. God (The Christian one at least) has no need to &#39;watch&#39; my moves, because he already knows what I&#39;m going to do in any instance -- he is the root cause of me and all my actions; he must be and it cannot be otherwise. So the entire concept is broken from the start, I think. I guess it has a certain jejune appeal to those lacking in wherewithal, but I can&#39;t see it as a coherent bit of philosophy or theology or as a desirable trait.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

you mean to tell me that you don&#39;t have faith in yourself or your politics? Or the belief system that marks you out as politically left wing? Did I say faith in god or a higher being..............um.............NO&#33;

Hell no&#33; I arrived at them rationally. If leftism is a faith, strike me as a fucking leftist. If I stumble on powerful evidence to the contrary, or powerful logic to the contrary, I&#39;ll change my position without hesitation.

I didn&#39;t say anything about a higher power at all. I don&#39;t have any faith in anything, unless it&#39;s trivial and for fun, like supporting Liverpool in the football. Even then I don&#39;t sincerely think they&#39;ll win every game.

-Alex

[Oedipus Complex]

lol, you don&#39;t even understand what it teaches.

How so?



It does? And this entire time I thought that it was my duty as a Christian to help people. Thanks for showing me the light,

Help people you say? Let&#39;s ask some questions to see if you really are someone who helps people:

Do you support stem cell research? Do you accept/support homosexuality? Do you support polyamory? Do you support abortion on demand?
If you responded with no to any of these questions I severely question the fact that you actually want to help people, but if you said yes then you can&#39;t possibly be a Christian, but a hypocritical one.

And please tell me while you&#39;re at it how worshipping an all powerful deity (with absolutely no evidence but which you have created in your mind) can in anyway relate to human affairs except to instill your archaic ideologies unto others.

[freakazoid]

Do you support stem cell research?

Yes.


Do you accept/support homosexuality?

The government should have NO say about marriage&#33;.


Do you support polyamory?

What?


Do you support abortion on demand?

I view the fetus as a human being, which would make an abortion murder.

And how is this about helping people?


but if you said yes then you can&#39;t possibly be a Christian, but a hypocritical one.

Again, you have no idea what it means to be one&#33; It is my duty as a Christian to help those in need, whether it be the poor or those under the an oppressive government.


And please tell me while you&#39;re at it how worshipping an all powerful deity (with absolutely no evidence but which you have created in your mind) can in anyway relate to human affairs except to instill your archaic ideologies unto others.

To quote Franklin, "Resistance to Tyranny Is Obedience to God" Which many had proposed be put on the "Great Seal"

Also,
Acts 4


32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles&#39; feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.

1 Samuels 8


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."

Mark 4


17As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
18"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. 19You know the commandments: &#39;Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.&#39;[d]"

20"Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy."

21Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

22At this the man&#39;s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.

23Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God&#33;"

24The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is[e] to enter the kingdom of God&#33; 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

1 Timothy 6


9People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. 10For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

Matthew 6


1"Be careful not to do your &#39;acts of righteousness&#39; before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
2"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.



19"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.



24"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.

Levitivus 25


14 " &#39;If you sell land to one of your countrymen or buy any from him, do not take advantage of each other. 15 You are to buy from your countryman on the basis of the number of years since the Jubilee. And he is to sell to you on the basis of the number of years left for harvesting crops. 16 When the years are many, you are to increase the price, and when the years are few, you are to decrease the price, because what he is really selling you is the number of crops. 17 Do not take advantage of each other, but fear your God. I am the LORD your God.



35 " &#39;If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you. 36 Do not take interest of any kind [a] from him, but fear your God, so that your countryman may continue to live among you. 37 You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit. 38 I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God.

39 " &#39;If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. 40 He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.

I have no intention of "instill my archaic ideologies unto others." That is not what we are to do. These are the reasone that you have no idea what Jesus taught. You seem to think that things like the Crusades or Cathlocism or that the Phelps clan represents all of Christianity, which is just as idiotic as saying that Stalinism represents all of communism. This conversation is just like the one I had over at a site with a bunch of capitalists, except replace religion with communism. Most seemed to equate communism with Stalinism, just like what you are doing.

[apathy maybe]

freakazoid: Can you see how you can have those opinions (well, the "moralistic" ones anyway) without having the mysticism and superstition that comes with Christianity?

[Oedipus Complex]

The government should have NO say about marriage&#33;.

Nice job avoiding the question. My question wasn&#39;t about governmental interference within marriage but your personal opinion of homosexuality. Remember what your bible says about it before making a decision though.


What?

Polyamory is the idea that people can have multiple relationships at once. In other words it actually pays attention to human hormones which means they understand that once you get married your feelings for sexual drives with others will not go cease. So, polyamory allows for honest relationships, rather than hiding your other relationships which cause stress, anxiety, separation etc.


I view the fetus as a human being, which would make an abortion murder.

And how is this about helping people?

How will the serf benefit from being freed from his land? By gaining autonomy and control of their body which is what abortion is. If you deny someone sovereignty over their own body you certainly are not helping them. And by the way a fetus is not a human being.


Again, you have no idea what it means to be one&#33; It is my duty as a Christian to help those in need, whether it be the poor or those under the an oppressive government.

It is a good thing that you help the poor, but religion is not needed in order to do this. Your own intrinsical happiness arises because you help people but the religion just blurs you from other ways of helping people, ie Not allowing women the soverign right of their own body.


To quote Franklin, "Resistance to Tyranny Is Obedience to God" Which many had proposed be put on the "Great Seal"

"Resistance to Tyranny is Obedience towards God", or in other words submit your own autonomy to something written in a book long ago which does not condemn some of the worst acts of human history, like slavery, complete subservience of women and murder. Those quotes although nice are only part of the story, I could find even more quotes of God&#39;s disgusting wrath, but of course I bet those would be "out of context".

Listen, the bible has a few nice things within it, but in order to accept this you must accept other things within the bible which are not so nice, and the ridiculous stories which complement the even more grotesque measures of morality. Why not rather dismiss the bible and simply help people for the sake of helping them without the bible or religion?

[IcarusAngel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 02:56 pm
There have been religious communists in the past, and they were better comrades than some of you are here, so to say that just because a person is religious means they can&#39;t be "positive" or communist, is pretty l8me.
Yes. The problem only arises when they want to construct the society based solely on their religious references, which is ridiculous, be they arguing for socialism or capitalism. It&#39;s better to base it on sociology, philosophy, etc. than theology. I&#39;m interested in some metaphysics but I don&#39;t use that as a basis for any of my political beliefs.

[Coggeh]

Religion is very compatible and also positive for any socialist , i don&#39;t think socialism and religion collide in any way , organised religion yes but otherwise no . Personnally i&#39;d love to be chirstian but i just don&#39;t believe theirs a god up there . Also i believe (according to the bible) jesus to be a socialist so ya that helps .

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by IcarusAngel+May 27, 2007 02:30 am--> (IcarusAngel @ May 27, 2007 02:30 am)
[email protected] 24, 2007 02:56 pm
There have been religious communists in the past, and they were better comrades than some of you are here, so to say that just because a person is religious means they can&#39;t be "positive" or communist, is pretty l8me.
Yes. The problem only arises when they want to construct the society based solely on their religious references, which is ridiculous, be they arguing for socialism or capitalism. It&#39;s better to base it on sociology, philosophy, etc. than theology. I&#39;m interested in some metaphysics but I don&#39;t use that as a basis for any of my political beliefs. [/b]
No, there is no problem that arises, who cares why they want to build it? The point is that they do.

[Lenin II]

ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOT. No, no, a thousand times no.

There is way, no how, no why or where religion can ever be positive in any way.

Religion possesses no inherant positive force of any kind, since the idealism and independence without which there is no true higher development of the human mind, is not present in it and never was. It is not about creation, but destruction and static. Religious beliefs will never have a constructive effect, but will be destructive, and in very rare cases will at most create good against its will.

If you dissect religion, its every niche is purely and totally based upon fear.

ANY positive effects it may have on human actions or psyche is purely accidental. No positive effect of any kind has directly resulted from religion, but rather in spite of it.

[capitalistwhore]

I wish this discussion would transform into one about secularism in the movement for freedom from exploitation, and not feel like a such a religious debate. Who cares what Jesus said or about the strength of the "faith" dynamic&#33; Fuck it. Honestly. I mean, we are part of a movement even if we do not agree on the direction of the movement. Of course religion "collides" with socialism.

My question is: how are you going to keep the movement secular? What I wonder daily is how to motivate religious individuals when they only give a shit about the abortion issue, which seems to have WAYYYY too much discussion time at this forum, or other theological issues. Why are Christian individuals imposing their spiritual views on me via politics? It is because religion determines supreme law that usurps man-made law. Look at Shari-a.

Now there&#39;s a jump off point. On one hand we have the worker, on the other the worker&#39;s spiritual ideas that supercede the worker himself. The Protestant Ethic anyone? I mean, if your GOD tells you to work hard, not question things, and die working then you probably don&#39;t care that you are being exploited. If your country is created in light of the this very same philosophy, it doesn&#39;t even matter if you believe in God. You can believe or disbelieve - but what the hell are you going to do? Relocate? You&#39;re still surrounded by everyone else, right? The majority determines your existence, right?

The majority has to put man-made laws in the priority&#33; The focus must be on life, and not life after death.


Agree or disagree, but for fucks sake please do not quote me and then quote scripture. In my world, the movement SUPERCEDES God. The worker is paramount.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Ah, it is a good thing that this topic was brought back up - it seems there are a lot of posts for me to respond to.

But first, I would like to point out that revolutionary socialism is a universalist ideology - we fight for the destruction of capitalism and the building of socialism everywhere, we wish to liberate all the workers, throughout the entire world. I find it hard to imagine how one could logically justify any universalist ideology without some kind of objective ethical code (because you usually need to believe in absolute good and evil in order to say that something is definitely good for everyone, everywhere). And I find it even harder to imagine how you could have an objective ethical code without some kind of religious belief.

I have not yet seen any of my atheist comrades provide a logical, secular ethical justification from socialism. At most, I have seen them waive the issue away by saying good and evil don&#39;t exist. But if good and evil don&#39;t exist, in what way can socialism be said to be better than capitalism?

And now to answer some other posts:


Originally posted by BurnTheOliveTree+--> (BurnTheOliveTree)B. Encourage social prejudice. Yes, the moderates and liberals aren&#39;t as much to blame, and sometimes even counter-act this, but they are in the minority when compared to religion as a whole, and particularly monotheism. This mainly comes from those who actually believe what their holy book preaches. If Leviticus says it&#39;s an abomination for man to lie with man, Jerry Falwell will publicly condemn homosexuality, condemn society that tolerates homosexuality, blame 9/11 on homosexuals, and so on and so forth. This naturally trickles down to average joe, who suddenly decides that homosexuality "Isn&#39;t natural" and is probably a bad idea. If the Qu&#39;ran says of non-muslims, "slay them wherever ye find them", then that is exactly what Abu Hamza, Osama Bin Laden, hell, any muslims who actually believe what they say they believe, are going to do.[/b]
First of all, I would say that the "moderates" and "liberals" are the overwhelming majority, in terms of numbers. The fundamentalists are simply a lot more vocal.

Secondly, there are competing interpretations of any holy book. That is a fact. Some of them are simplistic, some of them are reactionary, some of them are both simplistic and reactionary. Now please tell me, why does it seem like atheists purposefully go out to find the most simplistic and reactionary interpretations of any holy book, and then decide those interpretations are the only correct ones, so they can say that any religious person must be either a fascist or a hypocrite? Take Leviticus for example - or the entire Jewish Law, for that matter. Christian theologians have been saying for two thousand years that the Law has been superceded by the sacrifice of Christ and that Christians do not need to obey it. This interpretation goes all the way back to Paul for God&#39;s sake&#33;

Are Jerry Falwell&#39;s followers circumcised, I wonder? Circumcision, as the symbol of Israel&#39;s covenant with God, is an enormously important part of the Law - much more so than that one-line condemnation of homosexuality. Yet Christians (even fundamentalist ones) don&#39;t get circumcised. Why? Because Paul, in his Epistles, postulated that the Law was, essentially, a test. He was trying to resolve the following dilemma: Jewish Law gives some very strict standards for behaviour. But why? If human beings could reach salvation by following the Law, why was the sacrifice of Jesus necessary? Paul&#39;s conclusion was that, in fact, the Law is so strict that no one could possibly follow it, and God gave us the Law precisely to show us the futility of trying to attain salvation on our own. Thus, there is no need for Christians to follow Old Testament Law, because it wasn&#39;t meant as something you could actually follow in the first place.

...but, of course, that requires some basic knowledge of Christian theology, which Jerry Falwell and other idiots like him obviously did not have.


Originally posted by BurnTheOliveTree+--> (BurnTheOliveTree)The point is that if God is given this insane ethical blank check, if God can do whatever the fuck he wants, what is to stop his disciples emulating him? Nothing. In fact, it would be outright encouraged to emulate one&#39;s God as best you could.[/b]
On the contrary&#33; "Playing God" is condemned by all monotheistic religions. God is supposed to be the ultimate judge of all human beings and we are NOT supposed to take matters into our own hands and pass judgement as if we were God.


Originally posted by BurnTheOliveTree
D. Teach absurdities in science and history. I suppose this is similar to point A, but it concerns specific, demonstrably false claims, as opposed to blanket theism. Examples, Noah gets his family and representatives of every single species onto his 450 foot ark in one day, with an 18 square inch window for ventilation. This is taught to be infallible truth. It simply isn&#39;t possible. The flood supposeldy covered the mountains, yet there is no geological evidence for the flood whatsoever, which renders it false. The Qu&#39;ran says the earth is fixed, and does not move. The stars are "missiles for the devils". So on and so forth. When a book is held to be inerrant, these kinds of absurdities logically should, and frequently are, accepted wholeheartedly and without question.
And here we come to the issue of "literal interpretation" again. Please read the Book of Revelation and tell me how you could possibly interpret that thing literally. The text even says it&#39;s an allegory, for the slow-witted reader. Now, if one part of the Bible is not meant to be taken literally (and we know that for an absolute fact), that pretty much buries the view that the Bible is entirely composed of literal historical truth.


Originally posted by BurnTheOliveTree
E. Indoctrinate children. Frequently you&#39;ll hear a reference to a "muslim child", or a christian child, or a jewish child, or a hindu child, etc. I don&#39;t think it&#39;s too sweeping a statement to say that an overwhelming majority of these children are almost wholly ignorant of what their &#39;belief&#39; entails, have no idea that there are alternatives, have no option but to believe, and end up as basically mental slaves to a religion. And this is not discouraged, even by moderates. For some reason, it is socially acceptable to define a child by your personal world view, and religion is the main culprit of this.
Well, perhaps I can&#39;t sympathize, since I only became a Christian as a teenager, but how could it be possible to keep a child&#39;s mind free from any "world view"? Children are curious, and they will ask questions about the world, about good and evil, and so on. There are no "neutral" answers that you could give them which would not push them towards either atheism or some religion. The only way to avoid teaching children a specific world view is to avoid teaching them about the world, period.

As a convert, I also don&#39;t put much stock into the claim that children can be made "mental slaves" to anything. It really is possible to change one&#39;s childhood views, you know...


Originally posted by Oedipus Complex

That is quite probably the longest and most restrictive definition of religion I have ever seen, and the beliefs of many religious people do not fall within it.
The religious people then who don&#39;t fall under it are most likely hypocrites.
Again, I find it interesting how atheists seem to believe they - and they alone - have the right to decide which are the "true" beliefs of any given religion, and how they go on to say that any religious people who do not share the atheist view of religion are hypocrites.

Now, going back to your original definition, you said that religion was "a hierarchical organization which is founded on archaic dogma which attempts to eradicate any social or humanistic change, or denies/refutes empirical or observational scientific evidence in order to sustain their little fantasy world, which perpetually contols people and enslaves them into an ideology based on fear". So, if a religious person does not support a hierarchical organization, she is a hypocrite? If she believes in more recent dogma (rather than archaic - meaning "old" - dogma), she is a hypocrite? If she does not attempt to eradicate all social or humanistic change, she is a hypocrite? If she does not deny empirical evidence, she is a hypocrite? If she is not afraid, she is a hypocrite?

Well, nearly all religious people on the planet are guilty of at least one of those things, so I suppose we&#39;re all hypocrites. Rejoice&#33; Religion, as you defined it, is very, very rare.


Originally posted by Oedipus Complex
This takes the focus off truly human interests in order to somehow be "in touch" with a higher power; it teaches people not to help end human suffering because heaven will be the end of suffering. Human life needs dependence upon things which can be tested empirically not religion.
What I said was that "religion is any and all belief in the existence of supernatural phenomena that have some kind of relevance to human life.". I do not see any reference to heaven or human suffering in that definition. Not all religious people are Christian.

Furthermore, the whole point of religion is that supernatural phenomena are in some way relevant to human interests, and it would therefore be foolish (and contrary to human interests) to ignore them. Also, empirical evidence may give you information about the universe, but it cannot be used to make any prescriptive statements. Science can show us what is. It cannot be used to determine what should be. In order to make any statement containing the word "should" - such as, "we should abolish capitalism" - you must go beyond empiricism into the world of ethics.


Oedipus [email protected]
Do you support stem cell research? Do you accept/support homosexuality? Do you support polyamory? Do you support abortion on demand?
1. Yes. 2. Yes. 3. I&#39;m very happy in my monogamous relationship, but to each his own. 4. Yes.

Next&#33;

Oh, and by the way - you do understand that not all religious people are crazy inquisitors who want to force you to convert, right? And if we don&#39;t want to force you to convert, why would we want to force you to emulate our way of life? We may - and will - attempt to persuade you, but that&#39;s it.


Oedipus Complex
Why not rather dismiss the bible and simply help people for the sake of helping them without the bible or religion?
Since I never seem to be able to get a straight ethical statement out of atheists, let me ask you: Why do you believe it is good to help people?

[RevMARKSman]

At most, I have seen them waive the issue away by saying good and evil don&#39;t exist. But if good and evil don&#39;t exist, in what way can socialism be said to be better than capitalism?


It can&#39;t. Socialism is more in my and others&#39; material interest than capitalism. And that&#39;s why we atheists want it.


we are NOT supposed to take matters into our own hands and pass judgement as if we were God.

K, so we don&#39;t control our fate and shouldn&#39;t try. Umm...great. Do you even know what revolution is? It&#39;s taking matters into our own hands, and passing judgment on (overthrowing) the bourgeoisie.


Science can show us what is. It cannot be used to determine what should be. In order to make any statement containing the word "should" - such as, "we should abolish capitalism" - you must go beyond empiricism into the world of ethics.

Hey, you got something right&#33;

But you also got something wrong. We aren&#39;t using "should." We&#39;re using "will." The workers will abolish capitalism because it&#39;s in their material interest. We will abolish capitalism because it&#39;s in our material interest. We will create communism because it&#39;s in our material interest. or We want to abolish capitalism because... etc.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

First of all, I would say that the "moderates" and "liberals" are the overwhelming majority, in terms of numbers. The fundamentalists are simply a lot more vocal.

Depends what you define as moderate or liberal, really. I&#39;ve visited a few local anglican churches, that were very mild, full of nice old people and a reassuringly tubby pastor. Yet suddenly, during the sermon, I hear "And the point is, God does not hate homosexuals&#33; *Tolerant chuckles from congregation* He hates the sin, and not the sinner."

This is a very, very frequently expressed sentiment. I debate a lot with Christians at a website called Intensity, and that line gets parroted a lot, along with "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, right?" at which point they all burst into hysterical laughter.

55 percent of the american public think the earth is less than 10000 years old. The only way to hold this position is to believe that Genesis is literal and inerrant. That isn&#39;t moderate, and that is a clear majority.

50 million americans are actively encouraging the apocalpsye and the second coming. That&#39;s a quarter of the electorate, if memory serves, and this is hardcore fundamentalism.


God gave us the Law precisely to show us the futility of trying to attain salvation on our own.

So in an ideal world, that impossible strict law would be followed to the letter, because that leads to salvation. Jesus makes it unnecessary for you to try and follow that law, but it still outlines what God thinks is right and wrong. Paul concludes, really, that God gave us that law to show us how difficult it is to be a perfect christian. So Leviticus, then, would seem to embody the ideals of christianity as a whole, even if they aren&#39;t attainable.

In any case, the New Testament says it too. Romans:

1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.



Jerry Falwell and other idiots

Well the "other idiots" are counted in the millions. The Moral Majority alone had millions of members, all of whom wanted abortions of any kind outlawed, and refused to even recognise homosexuality.


On the contrary&#33; "Playing God" is condemned by all monotheistic religions. God is supposed to be the ultimate judge of all human beings and we are NOT supposed to take matters into our own hands and pass judgement as if we were God.

Perhaps. But clearly, you don&#39;t condemn God for wiping out almost everything living in a fit of rage, do you? You kind of go, &#39;Well, that&#39;s okay, God can do what he likes". In fact, would you dare fail to approve? Belief in this perfect deity would surely require that you approve all of his actions - they cannot be wrong, after all. In which case, you implicitly approve of the worst possible genocide, turning jews into apes and all the rest of it.


And here we come to the issue of "literal interpretation" again.

If Noah is all just a myth to make a point, why be so incredibly specific about it? Look, examples:

6:15 And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.

A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.

I hardly think the length in cubits of the ventilation window is intrinsic to the message of the story. It is crying out to be read literally.


Now, if one part of the Bible is not meant to be taken literally (and we know that for an absolute fact), that pretty much buries the view that the Bible is entirely composed of literal historical truth.

Agreed, but I wasn&#39;t saying everything in it was literal.



how could it be possible to keep a child&#39;s mind free from any "world view"?

Well, it&#39;s difficult to get it perfect. Obviously you&#39;re going to slip up now and again, and that&#39;s okay, children aren&#39;t just mindless drones who soak up everything the parent says. What you can do, however, is not take your child to the mosque or the church unless it personally expresses a wish too. And it should be made aware that there are many alternatives. I know when I was a child that theism was just the done thing, and I was shocked as hell to hear my father laugh when I told him that God had created everything in the room.

Basically, religious parents are perfectly okay about just making religion a default part of life, and it is subtle indoctrination, like it or not. You have to be as neutral as possible, and even the mildest religious parents are guilty of imposing religion on their children, whether they realise it or not. Many openly brow-beat them into submission. You never hear of little timmy the marxist-leninist, or little timmy the liberal, despite the deepest political feeling of the parents. Little Timmy catholic is very common, and worse, acceptable.

-Alex

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Sometimes religions can be compatible with Anarchist, Communist, etc ideologies. Hell, there&#39;s a Christian Anarchist Book called "The Kingdom of God is Within You". Nobody hears about it very often. It all depends on your rendition of a religion, for an idea is the most powerful thing in the world.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 04:01 am
ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOT. No, no, a thousand times no.

There is way, no how, no why or where religion can ever be positive in any way.

Religion possesses no inherant positive force of any kind, since the idealism and independence without which there is no true higher development of the human mind, is not present in it and never was. It is not about creation, but destruction and static. Religious beliefs will never have a constructive effect, but will be destructive, and in very rare cases will at most create good against its will.

If you dissect religion, its every niche is purely and totally based upon fear.

ANY positive effects it may have on human actions or psyche is purely accidental. No positive effect of any kind has directly resulted from religion, but rather in spite of it.
So are you anti-religious? :lol: =3

[colorlessman]

What I think:

I have made mistakes on the subject of religion but I have learned from such mistakes.

Religion is a necessary illusion in the lives of many people, it defines who they are. Religion is way of living and doing for them. It gives people a sense of purpose, meaning, point to their life, a sense of community and familiarity. It keeps people from doing wrong, abusing drugs, having unsafe sex, and other ills without thinking why such things are bad for them. All just because fear of god/hell. It is necessary for some people, and leads them in the right direction. It is easy tell people not do drugs because you will go to hell than to tell them why. For many not doing things because god does not prove of it, is good enough of a reason for them.

Many but not all youth need religion more than the old as compass to begin life, because they lack information and knowledge. People should free themselves from religion than others trying to free them. When others try to free them it leads to great bad than good. Many youth will do harmful things to themselves and others when you remove the fear of god, and hell as a punishment before they develop as sense of who they are and build a solid foundation of knowledge to guide themselves.

Religion itself is not evil or negative, it is the people who understand religion and use it as tool to control others that are evil.

Do I need that illusion? NO
Do others need that illusion? Many do.

[Pawn Power]

Though it isn&#39;t necessarily a testiment to religion in and of itself- religious leaders have often been the instigators of slave revolts.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

since religion itself can have nearly infinite diffrent interpretations some could be positive and some can be negative .... the concept itself is neutral ......

many religious institutions (churches) have somewhat specific interpretations of religion (although by no means uniform among individual members), sometimes these are negative (such as being anti-birth control) and others are positive (such as community outreach programs or homeless shelters and food shelves)

thus there is no definate answer, since religion is entirely subjective .....

also see my post here: http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=66589&st=25

[bootleg42]

I&#39;ll make this simple:

IMO, religion = BAD BAD BAD BAD EVIL EVIL EVIL STUPIDITY STUPIDITY STUPIDITY

BUT, if people want to have it, it is their right. As long as religion or "god" does not inturrupt the advancement of socialism into communism, then let people have it if THEY WISH. Evenutally with a more advanced society, people will then see religion for what it really is and THEY THEMSELVES will make the decision to either accept religion or reject it (like I did :D ).

[Mariam]

Here&#39;s something a lot wont like.

I&#39;ve read the article a couple of times but failed to see the connection Bey draws between religion and revolution (is it the alletration?)

Hakim Bey (http://www.hermetic.com/bey/millennium/religion.html)

[Faux Real]

"Positivity" is in almost any idea concievable.

Of course aspects of religion/faith is positive, all you have to do is find &#39;positive&#39; if you believe there are any, and draw aspects and teachings from it.