Religious one in a socialist society

[yns_mr]

Imagine that there is a country governed under socialism and there are a lot of religious people. So these people need to perform their rituals. Do the government provide theese people with church, mosque etc.?


And

Must these religious people in a socialist society be forced to be atheist or should the government just let them go in their own way, providing them with nothing...

[Janus]

Must these religious people in a socialist society be forced to be atheist or should the government just let them go in their own way, providing them with nothing
The latter, religion will die out on its own; there's no reason to make any martyrs in the process.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Imagine that there is a country governed under socialism and there are a lot of religious people. So these people need to perform their rituals. Do the government provide theese people with church, mosque etc.?


No, the government wouldn't normally provide places of worship directly.

Socialist governments generally allow people to worship freely, whether individually or communally. They do, however, keep an eye on what is being preached, to ensure that there is no religious chauvinism or anti-communist propaganda in the religious sermons and literature.

The governments of socialist states often reach special agreements with religious leaders to allow the construction of additional churches, mosques, etc, and the repair of old ones.


And

Must these religious people in a socialist society be forced to be atheist or should the government just let them go in their own way, providing them with nothing...

NO, there is no need to "force" anyone to be atheists, since that would be counter-productive.

Forcing people to believe or disbelieve something creates unnecessary hatred.

Instead, socialist governments try to provide a scientific education to their citizens. Those who reach the conclusion that atheism is correct on scientific grounds can be atheists, and those who wish to retain their religious beliefs and practices may do so at their will.

We communists are of the opinion that as more and more people are provided scientific education and the chains of imperialist exploitation and capitalist relations of production are broken, people will themselves begin to abandon religious superstition, and adopt the scientific method of understanding and improving the world.

[Janus]

But what if doesn't i think we will always have mentally ill people like freakazoid who will buy into anything.
Possibly but they wouldn't gain much approval from the community. I think that in such a society, religion would be most likely reduced to a subject which people study as a hobby.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I believe the original question was directed more at state socialists, and it may be rephrased as follows:

Churches, mosques and other places of worship need maintenance. Who would provide this maintenance in a socialist society with a planned economy? Would the state do it, or would it be left up to private organizations? If we leave it up to private organizations, wouldn't that mean introducing a bit of capitalism into the system?

My answer is simple: A socialist state should allocate resources towards the maintenance of religious buildings out of its budget for cultural activities. The administration of religious buildings and assets should be done by committees of religious believers.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

A socialist state should allocate resources towards the maintenance of religious buildings out of its budget for cultural activities. The administration of religious buildings and assets should be done by committees of religious believers.

Agreed, although a certain measure of democratic control would also be needed within religious bodies, such as election of priests by members of their congregation and several other aspects such as gender equality would require also require modification to adhere to socialist principles .....

religion should be tolerated as a cultural practice but not in its present largely patriarchial and dictatorial form .....

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Hmm, I think the responses here sum up the issue pretty well.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 03, 2007 01:55 am

My answer is simple: A socialist state should allocate resources towards the maintenance of religious buildings out of its budget for cultural activities. The administration of religious buildings and assets should be done by committees of religious believers.
Er, fuck that idea!

No remotely progressive organisation should do anything to perpetuate religious delusions.

You can worship in the privacy of your own home, and that is it as far as I am concerned.

Public preaching should be regarded as an anti-social crime. Attempting to indoctrinate kids with religious ideas should be counted as child abuse and met with the heaviest penalties. Building places of worship should be treated as embezzlement of public resources.

No concessions to god-botherers!

[Friedrich Nietzsche]

Originally posted by NoXion+June 04, 2007 02:25 am--> (NoXion @ June 04, 2007 02:25 am)
Edric [email protected] 03, 2007 01:55 am

My answer is simple: A socialist state should allocate resources towards the maintenance of religious buildings out of its budget for cultural activities. The administration of religious buildings and assets should be done by committees of religious believers.
Er, fuck that idea!

No remotely progressive organisation should do anything to perpetuate religious delusions.

You can worship in the privacy of your own home, and that is it as far as I am concerned.

Public preaching should be regarded as an anti-social crime. Attempting to indoctrinate kids with religious ideas should be counted as child abuse and met with the heaviest penalties. Building places of worship should be treated as embezzlement of public resources.

No concessions to god-botherers! [/b]
Ah, so you want to use Totaletarianism to fight Totalitarianism? Fire with fire eh? The problem is, when you fight fire with fire...everything is burnt.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

No remotely progressive organisation should do anything to perpetuate religious delusions.

You can worship in the privacy of your own home, and that is it as far as I am concerned.

Public preaching should be regarded as an anti-social crime. Attempting to indoctrinate kids with religious ideas should be counted as child abuse and met with the heaviest penalties. Building places of worship should be treated as embezzlement of public resources.

No concessions to god-botherers!

whoa .... chill out ....

like it or not most of the people on earth believe in a higher power, i don't happen to be one of them, but its not inheriently wrong to be involved in a religious association.

I was raised Catholic, i still go to church on easter and christmas with my family but thats about as far as it goes, believe it or not but for me and my family it is more about spending time togeather and seeing people from the neighborhood then it is to worship.

as far as declaring religious activity a crime .... thats just nonsense and i guarantee it wouldn't get very far, like Neitzche said in the previous post, it would be totalitarianism and it would likely create even greater resistance ....

i mean .... when a guy that calls himself Neitzche (god is dead) says your being too extreme to the religious you definatly have to take a breather, step back, and reconsider ....

.... i would say that many of the negative things that you associate with religions are not in the scriptures but their leaders interpretations of those writings (with a few notable exceptions) ....

the problem with religion is not what it fundamentally is but how it is administered .... to exist under under socialism it would be administered via socialist principles ....

[pusher robot]

Public preaching should be regarded as an anti-social crime. Attempting to indoctrinate kids with religious ideas should be counted as child abuse and met with the heaviest penalties. Building places of worship should be treated as embezzlement of public resources.

No concessions to god-botherers!

Is this representative of the opinions of radical leftists? Is this your vision of freedom?

[Oedipus Complex]

pusher robot


Is this representative of the opinions of radical leftists? Is this your vision of freedom?

Would you consider it one's freedom to teach kids in a public high school that the Holocaust never happened? If not then, why would public preaching be any different? Religious teachings are nothing more than attempts to enact repressive acts which counter human emancipation. They can be psychologically damaging to children and embody so many ideas which are diametrically opposed to much of which we believe. If we allow public preaching, we are allowing kids to be subjected to be indoctrinated into an illness.

I have no problem allowing religion to be studied in public as a hobby but when you allow such ghastly ideas to be permeated into public then, I have a problem. When such ideas become tolerated publicly in society they can begin to manifest themselves into social structures, and political structures.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Ah, so you want to use Totaletarianism to fight Totalitarianism? Fire with fire eh? The problem is, when you fight fire with fire...everything is burnt.

Who said anything about totalitarianism? Indoctrinating children with patently false ideas thought up by Bronze Age nomadic savages is not a right.


like it or not most of the people on earth believe in a higher power, i don't happen to be one of them, but its not inheriently wrong to be involved in a religious association.

This paragraph has two implicit assumptions. Just because a large amount of people share a delusion does not make it true, or right to hold said delusion. And the trouble with being involved in any kind of association with religion is that it gives it greatly undeserved legitimacy.


I was raised Catholic, i still go to church on easter and christmas with my family but thats about as far as it goes, believe it or not but for me and my family it is more about spending time togeather and seeing people from the neighborhood then it is to worship.

You don't need religion in order to socialise.


as far as declaring religious activity a crime .... thats just nonsense and i guarantee it wouldn't get very far, like Neitzche said in the previous post, it would be totalitarianism and it would likely create even greater resistance ....

So now it is tyranny to destroy the tyrant called God? What a completely laughable position.

There are ways and means of destroying religion. The Christians destroyed the Greek and Roman religions that came before them - nobody worships Zeus or Venus now, do they? So it can be done.

Here's how it should be done: Flatten all overtly religious buildings, remove all religious symbols in public view, ban all public displays of faith, and cease printing holy books (Except perhaps heavily annotated ones pointing out the inherent cruelty, absurdity and falsehoods).

What you don't do is persecute the common believer simply for being a believer. It is at once cruel, counter-productive and unnecessary. We don't want to create martyrs, we want them gone forever!


i mean .... when a guy that calls himself Neitzche (god is dead) says your being too extreme to the religious you definatly have to take a breather, step back, and reconsider ....

Golden Mean Fallacy.


.... i would say that many of the negative things that you associate with religions are not in the scriptures but their leaders interpretations of those writings (with a few notable exceptions) ....

It is obvious that you are not even remotely familiar with religious scriptures. Read Leviticus and then get back to me.


the problem with religion is not what it fundamentally is but how it is administered .... to exist under under socialism it would be administered via socialist principles ....

Are you stupid enough not to realise the consequences of a false world view? And trying to use secular institutions to "administer" religion in the way you seem to be suggesting is like trying to herd cats.

I also find it more disturbingly totalitarian that you're willing to use religion in such a manner as opposed to abolishing it altogether.


Is this representative of the opinions of radical leftists? Is this your vision of freedom?

Yes. Freedom from the ultimate tyranny - religious belief.

[Friedrich Nietzsche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 05:02 am
i mean .... when a guy that calls himself Neitzche (god is dead) says your being too extreme to the religious you definatly have to take a breather, step back, and reconsider ....
Not to derail the topic, but I can't stand for factual misconceptions to go on for any longer than I can prevent them:

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

Educate thyself and now back on-topic...

Now, NoXion...

Bloody hell man, normally it's me making the "Tyrant God" argument...but I've never gone as far as saying I want to take away someone's RIGHT to belief in a god, no matter how absurd I believe it to be. If they want to worship in groups...let them. If *they* want to spend *their* money on a building for it, let them. Whatever happened to personal rights? Some of you here worse than some of the frikken' evangelical southern-baptists I know(from a different angle, granted).

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Bloody hell man, normally it's me making the "Tyrant God" argument...but I've never gone as far as saying I want to take away someone's RIGHT to belief in a god, no matter how absurd I believe it to be. If they want to worship in groups...let them.

I don't think they should be stopped from worshipping in groups... as long as they do it in one of the members' homes. Learn to read.


If *they* want to spend *their* money on a building for it, let them.

Money? In a classless society? Surely you jest. In a classless society, resources and manpower wasted on building monuments to superstition could be much better spent.

And even in the event of money, the last thing we as a society need is another bloody church.


Whatever happened to personal rights? Some of you here worse than some of the frikken' evangelical southern-baptists I know(from a different angle, granted).

Actually, no. You can believe whatever the hell you want, as long as you don't involve children, use public resources or do it in public.

[Friedrich Nietzsche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 01:20 pm

Bloody hell man, normally it's me making the "Tyrant God" argument...but I've never gone as far as saying I want to take away someone's RIGHT to belief in a god, no matter how absurd I believe it to be. If they want to worship in groups...let them.

I don't think they should be stopped from worshipping in groups... as long as they do it in one of the members' homes. Learn to read.


If *they* want to spend *their* money on a building for it, let them.

Money? In a classless society? Surely you jest. In a classless society, resources and manpower wasted on building monuments to superstition could be much better spent.

And even in the event of money, the last thing we as a society need is another bloody church.


Whatever happened to personal rights? Some of you here worse than some of the frikken' evangelical southern-baptists I know(from a different angle, granted).

Actually, no. You can believe whatever the hell you want, as long as you don't involve children, use public resources or do it in public.
Ah, so you can't be proud of what you believe/don't believe in? I'm going to assume the 'natonal' religion of a communist society would be...atheism? Ah atheism. Just as ignorant as christianity. Assuming you know something you *can't* know.

Bleh, I'm done here. This is such a blatant breach of personal freedoms it's pissing me off just thinking about it. I don't even *like* christians, and I think this is wrong.

[pusher robot]

I have no problem allowing religion to be studied in public as a hobby but when you allow such ghastly ideas to be permeated into public then, I have a problem.

The very fact that you believe you can disallow the permeation of an idea shows how ludicrously out-of-touch your ideology is.

They are not relevant, the justifications you muster to support your suppression of the mind. It is not the ends, but the means that defines a totalitarian.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Ah, so you can't be proud of what you believe/don't believe in?

You can be proud of your beliefs... you just shouldn't shove them into people's faces, whether that is in the form of public ceremonies or religious buildings.


I'm going to assume the 'natonal' religion of a communist society would be...atheism?

Atheism is not a religion, fucktard. A communist society would have no proscribed religion.


Ah atheism. Just as ignorant as christianity. Assuming you know something you *can't* know.

And what makes you think the non/existance of the supernatural can't be determined?

But please, if you have some proof of God's existance, then please cough it up and show up how "ignorant" I am. Wait, you can't? Well then, I guess I'm not so ignorant.


Bleh, I'm done here.

Concession accepted!

[la-troy]

You can be proud of your beliefs... you just shouldn't shove them into people's faces, whether that is in the form of public ceremonies or religious buildings.

hmm


Here's how it should be done: Flatten all overtly religious buildings, remove all religious symbols in public view, ban all public displays of faith, and cease printing holy books (Except perhaps heavily annotated ones pointing out the inherent cruelty, absurdity and falsehoods).


And what makes you think the non/existance of the supernatural can't be determined?



But please, if you have some proof of God's existance, then please cough it up and show up how "ignorant" I am. Wait, you can't? Well then, I guess I'm not so ignorant.

Can you prove that Super natural beings do not exist?


Atheism is not a religion, fucktard. A communist society would have no proscribed religion.

But yet you want to ban all religions.

As you can see i leave it up to your own post to show how stupid you are.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by la-[email protected] 04, 2007 05:41 pm

Atheism is not a religion, fucktard. A communist society would have no proscribed religion.

But yet you want to ban all religions.

As you can see i leave it up to your own post to show how stupid you are.
It's not about "banning religion" it's about preventing public resources being spent on indoctrinating and harming people with falsehoods like this. In the same way that teaching a flat earth in schools is outlawed, teaching religion in public or to children is similarly immoral.

[Oedipus Complex]

The very fact that you believe you can disallow the permeation of an idea shows how ludicrously out-of-touch your ideology is.

They are not relevant, the justifications you muster to support your suppression of the mind. It is not the ends, but the means that defines a totalitarian.

Supression of them mind :lol:, as if religion somehow release the mind from being enslaved. Anyway, one can privately worship whom ever he wishes (as long as they aren't indoctrinating their kids with it) But as I have already stated public preaching is indoctrination and supports dangerously reactionary ideas to become manifested into law. However I see you didn't answer my question on the Holocaust, so why don't you reply to that.

[la-troy]

so who decides what we teach to children. absolutely nothing if you go by what you guy's are saying. because nothing is absolutely right. In the words of Bokon "all the truths i am about to tell you are shameless lies" You can not teach them the evolution theory as some promote it as it is false.Right? You can't teach morals cause it's false. right?

Only firmly establish facts can be taught.right?

OK i see that

Did you read what that guy said He is promoting the destruction of all religious buildings, he even hints at killing religious individuals.

Aren't you guy's restricting people of the right to gather and share their views and allow it to be open to the public.


Ok that first part was messes up so here I go again.

I ask you this show or prove that any religion is false. Show how they are harmfull more than any other thing.

How can you say that religion should only be practiced in private, in the homes but say the children should not be exposed to it.

You guy's are smart so act smart you are effectively banning religion. you are just as authoritarian as the people you are trying to bring down.

Oh yea how is teaching children religion immoral. hmm look how religion for the most part is taught today. I don't see any truly religious person teaching their child that all nonbelievers must die. that little Cindy is subject and subservant to Peter. That Transvestites must be stoned to death on spot.

[Friedrich Nietzsche]

Originally posted by Oedipus [email protected] 04, 2007 06:05 pm

The very fact that you believe you can disallow the permeation of an idea shows how ludicrously out-of-touch your ideology is.

They are not relevant, the justifications you muster to support your suppression of the mind. It is not the ends, but the means that defines a totalitarian.

Supression of them mind :lol:, as if religion somehow release the mind from being enslaved. Anyway, one can privately worship whom ever he wishes (as long as they aren't indoctrinating their kids with it) But as I have already stated public preaching is indoctrination and supports dangerously reactionary ideas to become manifested into law. However I see you didn't answer my question on the Holocaust, so why don't you reply to that.
Do you have *ANY* knowledge of any religion outside of the Abrahamic ones? There's the wonders of Hinduism, or Buddhism, easily some of the greatest forms of thought to ever grace the planet. How can you call teaching those "Immoral"?

I, personally am partially a Kabbalahist. It's a form of Judaism...but really, really small. I mean, we're smaller than some forms of Wicca. It's an interesting religion, as it basically says "We kicked god's ass out of eden". Awesome, no?

There's no reason to promote or supress any form of religion. Supressing it just pisses people off, promiting it pisses people off. Leave it alone, let them worship in their cute little temples, and preach as they please.

[Comrade J]

Originally posted by la-[email protected] 04, 2007 06:13 pm
Oh yea how is teaching children religion immoral. hmm look how religion for the most part is taught today. I don't see any truly religious person teaching their child that all nonbelievers must die. that little Cindy is subject and subservant to Peter. That Transvestites must be stoned to death on spot.
It's a survival instinct brought about by the process of Darwinian natural selection that means in most cases, children will believe everything they are taught by their parents.
Young children who don't believe what their parents tell them to be fact are often the ones who do not survive, for a number of reasons, which I should imagine are fairly obvious.

As Dawkins argues in The God Delusion, religion is an unfortunate by-product of what is actually a very useful survival tool. It is wrong for people to teach their children that something unproven is absolutely true, without letting them make their own mind up. Which is precisely where there can be no such thing as a "Muslim child" or a "Christian child".

Telling little Timmy that in the sky, there is a supremely powerful being watching him constantly is cruel as you don't know that this is true, as is telling him that if he disobeys a command in a 2000+ year old anthology of texts, he will be tortured and burnt forever by a fallen angel in a pit of fire...

You must be really fucking stupid not to realise that.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by la-[email protected] 04, 2007 06:13 pm
so who decides what we teach to children. absolutely nothing if you go by what you guy's are saying. because nothing is absolutely right. In the words of Bokon "all the truths i am about to tell you are shameless lies" You can not teach them the evolution theory as some promote it as it is false.Right? You can't teach morals cause it's false. right?
WRONG. Try to keep up - there is no evidence for religion therefore it belongs in the same place as the tooth fairy.

Evolution has supporting evidence and is currently how we explain the development of species. Unless you have something better to teach, shut the fuck up.

Morality is a more tricky area, but at least one set of morality is required to keep a society running, religion is not.


Did you read what that guy said He is promoting the destruction of all religious buildings, he even hints at killing religious individuals.

What guy? NoXion? I think you're deliberately misconstruing his position.


Aren't you guy's restricting people of the right to gather and share their views and allow it to be open to the public.

Nope, as long as they don't waste public resources on their cult.


I ask you this show or prove that any religion is false. Show how they are harmfull more than any other thing.

Firstly, burden of proof. I don't need to prove shit. On the "harmful" claim - they construct an illogical view of reality and teach obedience to higher powers.


How can you say that religion should only be practiced in private, in the homes but say the children should not be exposed to it.

In the same way that I think any kind of sex should be practised in private but children should not be involved in or exposed to it.


You guy's are smart so act smart you are effectively banning religion. you are just as authoritarian as the people you are trying to bring down.

Every society needs laws. Here we are creating them to protect against anti-social crime, embezzlement of public resources & child abuse.


Oh yea how is teaching children religion immoral. hmm look how religion for the most part is taught today. I don't see any truly religious person teaching their child that all nonbelievers must die. that little Cindy is subject and subservant to Peter. That Transvestites must be stoned to death on spot.

You don&#39;t see any truly religious people teach that do you? Well I don&#39;t see any true Scotsmen putting sugar on their porridge. <_<

[Ol' Dirty]

People should have freedom of association, expression, conscience and religion. As long as no laws are broken, then let them fuck around as much as they like.

[Friedrich Nietzsche]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+June 04, 2007 06:31 pm--> (Jazzratt @ June 04, 2007 06:31 pm)
la&#045;[email protected] 04, 2007 06:13 pm
so who decides what we teach to children. absolutely nothing if you go by what you guy&#39;s are saying. because nothing is absolutely right. In the words of Bokon "all the truths i am about to tell you are shameless lies" You can not teach them the evolution theory as some promote it as it is false.Right? You can&#39;t teach morals cause it&#39;s false. right?
WRONG. Try to keep up - there is no evidence for religion therefore it belongs in the same place as the tooth fairy.

Evolution has supporting evidence and is currently how we explain the development of species. Unless you have something better to teach, shut the fuck up.

Morality is a more tricky area, but at least one set of morality is required to keep a society running, religion is not.


Did you read what that guy said He is promoting the destruction of all religious buildings, he even hints at killing religious individuals.

What guy? NoXion? I think you&#39;re deliberately misconstruing his position.


Aren&#39;t you guy&#39;s restricting people of the right to gather and share their views and allow it to be open to the public.

Nope, as long as they don&#39;t waste public resources on their cult.


I ask you this show or prove that any religion is false. Show how they are harmfull more than any other thing.

Firstly, burden of proof. I don&#39;t need to prove shit. On the "harmful" claim - they construct an illogical view of reality and teach obedience to higher powers.


How can you say that religion should only be practiced in private, in the homes but say the children should not be exposed to it.

In the same way that I think any kind of sex should be practised in private but children should not be involved in or exposed to it.


You guy&#39;s are smart so act smart you are effectively banning religion. you are just as authoritarian as the people you are trying to bring down.

Every society needs laws. Here we are creating them to protect against anti-social crime, embezzlement of public resources & child abuse.


Oh yea how is teaching children religion immoral. hmm look how religion for the most part is taught today. I don&#39;t see any truly religious person teaching their child that all nonbelievers must die. that little Cindy is subject and subservant to Peter. That Transvestites must be stoned to death on spot.

You don&#39;t see any truly religious people teach that do you? Well I don&#39;t see any true Scotsmen putting sugar on their porridge. <_< [/b]
Until you prove to the entire world, without any shadow of doubt(so much so that it is less-contested than Gravity), Atheism is a THEORY. Like Christianity. Like Islam. Like Scientology(can we shoot all of these guys though?). Like Wicca. Ect. Ect.

You can&#39;t PROVE it. You cannot PROVE there is no god, or gods. It&#39;s impossible. One would have to die, and return to prove it. Have any of you ever died? No. Have I? nope.

[Oedipus Complex]

Friedrich Nietzsche


Do you have *ANY* knowledge of any religion outside of the Abrahamic ones? There&#39;s the wonders of Hinduism, or Buddhism, easily some of the greatest forms of thought to ever grace the planet. How can you call teaching those "Immoral"?

I can&#39;t believe how anyone would call ideas such as nirvana, reincarnation, and karma great forms of thought. And yes, I do realize the mathematical advancements of Hinduism but it doesn&#39;t excuse the ridiculously silly mysticism.


There&#39;s no reason to promote or supress any form of religion.

Again, if done privately without coercing children I have no problem with it, otherwise I do.


Leave it alone, let them worship in their cute little temples, and preach as they please.

And indoctrinate others in the process while squandering public resources, nonsense.

[pusher robot]

You must be really fucking stupid not to realise that.

And you think the solution is to persecute those who disagree with you? The Romans felt exactly the same way about the Christians and employed exactly the same tactics. What makes you believe you would be any more successful?

I don&#39;t necessarily question your ends. It is the means I take issue with. A prohibition on what thoughts people can express in public, or even to their own children? Even disregarding the gorss immorality of such authoritarianism, it is technically infeasible and wildly ineffective.

Serious leftists would should be ashamed at this naked will to power.

[la-troy]

Evolution has supporting evidence and is currently how we explain the development of species. Unless you have something better to teach, shut the fuck up

But is it "all" is the theory perfect, no it is not perfect so you can&#39;t teach it (according to your logic)


Firstly, burden of proof. I don&#39;t need to prove shit. On the "harmful" claim - they construct an illogical view of reality and teach obedience to higher powers.

Aren&#39;t you generalizing religions. I religion basically sumerises your relationship to the supernatural. Saying that it is illogical because you belief it is wrong is bigot in the biggest sense.


Telling little Timmy that in the sky, there is a supremely powerful being watching him constantly is cruel as you don&#39;t know that this is true, as is telling him that if he disobeys a command in a 2000+ year old anthology of texts, he will be tortured and burnt forever by a fallen angel in a pit of fire...

How about telling Timmy that what he does affects people and that he should be good because there are reprocutions for his actions.

But I see clearly where you guys are going so let me say this. Religion is not perfect . I will never say it is. I do not promote telling a individual he will burn in hell if he does not obey some supreme being. In my experience religion reinforces countless morals and ways of behaviour that do no harm. Many of the things I learnt at church have stayed with me untill now.

There was always a extra incentive to do good knowing that someone wanted me to do good. The Idea of heaven helped me to get over the death of my mother and I am sured it helped countless other individuals. This is why I say banning religion is stupid and pointless. and again that is exactly what you guy&#39;s are doing you give the person no choice as to whether or not they want to believe in religion. You say ohh we are just stopping them from indoctrinating the children. But is that not what you are doing when you teach children that everything started from two exploding gases?
What is different in that than saying everything started whit a great spirit or a God saying create and everything gets created.


You don&#39;t see any truly religious people teach that do you? Well I don&#39;t see any true Scotsmen putting sugar on their porridge. dry.gif

I do not understand that.

Back to religion and socialism remember when Marx said If he Knows one thing for sure it is that he is not Marxist. You remember why he said it? It was because Marxist in his time believed only in materialism. You guys are the same you refuse to recognize that there are other forces at work(this may sound crappy but hear me out) Sure slavery was abolished due a large part to industrialization but there was kind Men and women That felt that it was wrong, they felt that it went against their religion and found it wrong. This is what most religions promote and that is why i belive they should be left alone. they provide many persons with a conscience a reason to be good.




What guy? NoXion? I think you&#39;re deliberately misconstruing his position.

How am i doing this read his post he say we should eliminate religion by destroying all religious buildings books. He hints at destroying religious people when he says we don&#39;t want martyrs does this not mean that he would have killed them if doing so did not harm his process of having them"gone forever"


Nope, as long as they don&#39;t waste public resources on their cult.

How are they wasting public resources if a building was built to house worshipers of a religion and they use it for that purpose how is ti wasteful. In my country and i am aware it happens in other countries these buildings are used for a number of purposes. Destroying them is more of a waste of public resources than using them for there purpose.


In the same way that I think any kind of sex should be practised in private but children should not be involved in or exposed to it.

Nice point I don&#39;t have much to say But sex can be performed at night when the kids are asleep when they are out along whit a number of other times when the kids aren&#39;t around. But do you wait until the kids are gone to say "Thank you Father" "shalom alikum (sp)" To chant, to sing ?

Deeming a thing such as religion as Anti-social is stupid you need it to offend a majority in order for it to be deemed a anti-social behaviour. If it offends a majority then sure stop it. But performing it in a closed area where it is not intruding on anyone cannot be deemed anti-social.

Please excuse the incorrect grammar.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Friedrich [email protected] 04, 2007 06:36 pm
Until you prove to the entire world, without any shadow of doubt(so much so that it is less-contested than Gravity), Atheism is a THEORY. Like Christianity. Like Islam. Like Scientology(can we shoot all of these guys though?). Like Wicca. Ect. Ect.

You can&#39;t PROVE it. You cannot PROVE there is no god, or gods. It&#39;s impossible. One would have to die, and return to prove it. Have any of you ever died? No. Have I? nope.
We&#39;ve been over this, burden of proof.

Also etc. is short for etcetera, fuck knows what ect means.


But is it "all" is the theory perfect, no it is not perfect so you can&#39;t teach it (according to your logic)

Please don&#39;t strawman it&#39;s far too prevalent on this board, especially this section of the board. It&#39;s not that a theory has to be perfect but that it has supporting evidence and obeys logic. Religion has neither supporting evidence nor a strong adherence to logic.


Aren&#39;t you generalizing religions. I religion basically sumerises your relationship to the supernatural. Saying that it is illogical because you belief it is wrong is bigot in the biggest sense.

I&#39;m afraid the Supernatural is illogical on two counts, firstly it ignores the burden of proof whilst making claims about reality with no supporting evidence and secondly it posits a greater number of entities - Occam&#39;s Razor strikes again.


How about telling Timmy that what he does affects people and that he should be good because there are reprocutions for his actions.

What kind of repercussions? Actual ones or spiritual ones?


But I see clearly where you guys are going so let me say this. Religion is not perfect . I will never say it is. I do not promote telling a individual he will burn in hell if he does not obey some supreme being. In my experience religion reinforces countless morals and ways of behaviour that do no harm. Many of the things I learnt at church have stayed with me untill now.

Great, but why do your personal experiences with an oppressive structure make it more or less oppressive or false? Moral lessons can exist without gods or the supernatural - morality is not exclusively the domain of the religious.


There was always a extra incentive to do good knowing that someone wanted me to do good. The Idea of heaven helped me to get over the death of my mother and I am sured it helped countless other individuals. This is why I say banning religion is stupid and pointless.

1) People who need gods to tell them to be good are morally weak, the best incentive to do good for others is that others appreciate it.

2) Heaven isn&#39;t, as far as it is possible to know, real, lying to people about this - no matter how well intentioned - is immoral.

3) Whatever religion helps does not absolve it from being utterly heinous.


and again that is exactly what you guy&#39;s are doing you give the person no choice as to whether or not they want to believe in religion. You say ohh we are just stopping them from indoctrinating the children. But is that not what you are doing when you teach children that everything started from two exploding gases?
What is different in that than saying everything started whit a great spirit or a God saying create and everything gets created.

1) Later in life, when a person has a full grasp of logic, they can decide for themselves whether or not the supernatural is real. Until then attempting to convince them of it is tantamount to lying and therefore child abuse.

2) The difference, dumbfuck, between us teaching the big bang (which is more than "two exploding gases" whether you recognise this or not) and saying "Goddidit" is that the first has evidence for it and allows us to understand more about how the universe currently works, whereas the other is Bronze Age superstitious nonsense with lots of big holes in it. (Where did this supreme being come from?)


I do not understand that.

No true scotsman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No+true+scotsman)


Back to religion and socialism remember when Marx said If he Knows one thing for sure it is that he is not Marxist. You remember why he said it? It was because Marxist in his time believed only in materialism. You guys are the same you refuse to recognize that there are other forces at work(this may sound crappy but hear me out) Sure slavery was abolished due a large part to industrialization but there was kind Men and women That felt that it was wrong, they felt that it went against their religion and found it wrong. This is what most religions promote and that is why i belive they should be left alone. they provide many persons with a conscience a reason to be good.

I&#39;m fairly sure he didn&#39;t say it because he was upset with many of the groups that were contemporary to him using the label "Marxist" whilst not advancing any actual Marxian socialism.



How am i doing this read his post he say we should eliminate religion by destroying all religious buildings books. He hints at destroying religious people when he says we don&#39;t want martyrs does this not mean that he would have killed them if doing so did not harm his process of having them"gone forever"

Take it up with him, as it happens I know full well that he does not support, practically at least, the killing of religious people.


How are they wasting public resources if a building was built to house worshipers of a religion and they use it for that purpose how is ti wasteful. In my country and i am aware it happens in other countries these buildings are used for a number of purposes. Destroying them is more of a waste of public resources than using them for there purpose.

It takes publicly owned and controlled resources to build a temple for the cultists to worship at. Using for their original purpose is harmful, whereas destroying them allows something useful to be put in their place. If we do keep them around, it will be without any of the cult&#39;s paraphernalia (crosses, stained glass windows, statues of Buddha, etc.) unless it is of particular artistic interest.


Nice point I don&#39;t have much to say But sex can be performed at night when the kids are asleep when they are out along whit a number of other times when the kids aren&#39;t around. But do you wait until the kids are gone to say "Thank you Father" "shalom alikum (sp)" To chant, to sing ?

As long as you think you can worship in front of your children without indoctrinating them into your view of the universe while they are too young to think through your hypothesis logically (and lets face it claims of the supernatural are hypothesises) then go for it, but to be on the safe side it&#39;d be best done out of earshot.


Deeming a thing such as religion as Anti-social is stupid you need it to offend a majority in order for it to be deemed a anti-social behaviour. If it offends a majority then sure stop it. But performing it in a closed area where it is not intruding on anyone cannot be deemed anti-social.

It would be unsociable if it offended the majority, anti-social behaviour is something that actually goes against acceptable norms of a society - in a communist society this would include things like logic & reason.


Please excuse the incorrect grammar.

Don&#39;t worry about it.

[la-troy]

Please don&#39;t strawman it&#39;s far too prevalent on this board, especially this section of the board. It&#39;s not that a theory has to be perfect but that it has supporting evidence and obeys logic. Religion has neither supporting evidence nor a strong adherence to logic.
My bad, I apologize.

[People&#39;s Councillor]

Either irreligion existed before religion, that is, there was a time before religion existed and it is up to religion to prove the existence of god(s); or religion existed before irreligion. That is, religious (ideological) feelings are inborn within human beings, and therefore must have some expression.

No recorded history shows an absense of religion. In all cases, there is some religion mentioned, venerated, or, in some cases, demonized. Therefore, it is impossible to prove that irreligion existed before religion. However, if humans need some ideological expression, and that expression in early times took the form of religion, wouldn&#39;t it logically follow that any ideology can take the place of religion?

To become instituted, socialism must have majority support. If it has majority support, then it, and all its tenets, have been accepted by the majority of the people. If that is true, then a majority has cast off "religion," or theistic ideology, in favor of non-theistic ideology.

Therefore, I don&#39;t see what the problem is. If we&#39;re going to be logical, then this debate has no relevance.

Carry on, though. It&#39;s fun to watch.

[la-troy]

It&#39;s not that a theory has to be perfect but that it has supporting evidence and obeys logic. Religion has neither supporting evidence nor a strong adherence to logic.

Yes religion does, so Google it or something OK. When i was religious i enjoyed this argument but it takes too long.


I&#39;m afraid the Supernatural is illogical on two counts, firstly it ignores the burden of proof whilst making claims about reality with no supporting evidence and secondly it posits a greater number of entities - Occam&#39;s Razor strikes again.

My friend the mere definition of supernatural is that it defies logic. for instance talking to flowers does not make sense but it works so supernatural. Studies showing that the knowledge of prayer tends to help patients not explainable but it happens supernatural.
(personally i associate with the mind) explain the last part please.


What kind of repercussions? Actual ones or spiritual ones?

both. meaning punishment and the gradual depletion of his moral self.


Great, but why do your personal experiences with an oppressive structure make it more or less oppressive or false? Moral lessons can exist without gods or the supernatural - morality is not exclusively the domain of the religious.

My experiences do not make them more more or less false i was not arguing that. Nope, rather I was arguing that it serves a purpose and helps individuals. A service that is not easily substituted. system oppressive? yes it can be But I am not defending a oppressive system rather I am defending the good qualities of religion and the freedom of individuals to gather and practice their religion.


1) People who need gods to tell them to be good are morally weak, the best incentive to do good for others is that others appreciate it.

A lot of people are morally week. sure the best incentive is for others to appreciate it but what did i say (repeat after me) a added incentive. ok? Back to morally week people heres a example My Grandmother participates in a service called the prison ministry service. This group has spoken to a number of criminals from petty robbers to murderers. these individuals have manage to turn their lives around by listening to these religious fanatics. those who have gotten released manage to live productive lives meaning not offending anyone. So how is this wrong should we leave them alone because religion is illogical?


2) Heaven isn&#39;t, as far as it is possible to know, real, lying to people about this - no matter how well intentioned - is immoral.
So we should tell people the truth no matter what? I disagree so we should not tell our children stories cause their lies right. Before you go all straw man on me read what you said. If it can not be real we should not tell them. right?


ahh shit I am tired I will continue this tomorrow if i don&#39;t go to school.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by la&#045;[email protected] 04, 2007 10:01 pm
Yes religion does, so Google it or something OK. When i was religious i enjoyed this argument but it takes too long.
:rolleyes: Supporting evidence has to conform to a standard. The "evidence" for the supernatural is analogous to me claiming that the shape of my knobend is indicitive that I am your true leader.


My friend the mere definition of supernatural is that it defies logic. for instance talking to flowers does not make sense but it works so supernatural. Studies showing that the knowledge of prayer tends to help patients not explainable but it happens supernatural.

What studies, cite them *****.


(personally i associate with the mind) explain the last part please.

Most of the "studies" I&#39;ve seen of this rely on the idea that correlation is causation. I&#39;d really be happy if the study you cite for me shows not just correlation but causation too.


both. meaning punishment and the gradual depletion of his moral self.

What moral self?


My experiences do not make them more more or less false i was not arguing that. Nope, rather I was arguing that it serves a purpose and helps individuals. A service that is not easily substituted.

We&#39;ve been over the supposed "benefits" of religion, in many threads including this one (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65229).


system oppressive? yes it can be But I am not defending a oppressive system rather I am defending the good qualities of religion and the freedom of individuals to gather and practice their religion.

If-by-religion, right? I&#39;m afraid you can&#39;t construe it as entirely positive and must recognise that the net effect of religious delusion is far from beneficial.


A lot of people are morally week. sure the best incentive is for others to appreciate it but what did i say (repeat after me) a added incentive. ok?

But is helping someone to do good by doing bad (lying) a necessarily good thing? Undermining logic in the manner that religion does helps no one but the religious.


Back to morally week people heres a example My Grandmother participates in a service called the prison ministry service. This group has spoken to a number of criminals from petty robbers to murderers. these individuals have manage to turn their lives around by listening to these religious fanatics. those who have gotten released manage to live productive lives meaning not offending anyone. So how is this wrong should we leave them alone because religion is illogical?

No, we should rehabilitate criminals without recourse to religious indoctrination. I&#39;m fairly sure brain deprogramming would "help" a criminal stop acting badly, this doesn&#39;t mean I find it morally acceptable.


So we should tell people the truth no matter what? I disagree so we should not tell our children stories cause their lies right. Before you go all straw man on me read what you said. If it can not be real we should not tell them. right?

A story is the truth because it comes from a basic, and understood, premise: Most, if not all the events and characters in the story will be fictional, religion does not have that - it does not work from the assumption that the victim understands it&#39;s a lie.


ahh shit I am tired I will continue this tomorrow if i don&#39;t go to school.

I recommend you go to school, if not just so you can stop apologising for poor grammar but also that you may learn more.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Lots of Stupid™ in this thread.


Originally posted by pusher robot+--> (pusher robot)And you think the solution is to persecute those who disagree with you? The Romans felt exactly the same way about the Christians and employed exactly the same tactics. What makes you believe you would be any more successful?[/b]

You are fucking stupid. Had you even read my posts, you would realise that one thing I wish to avoid is creating martyrs, which is what throwing religious people to the lions tends to do.


Originally posted by pusher robot+--> (pusher robot)I don&#39;t necessarily question your ends. It is the means I take issue with. A prohibition on what thoughts people can express in public, or even to their own children?[/b]

Public behaviour can be easily regulated. And it is a fact that a religious upbringing is more likely to result in fucked-up adults.

A society with those members carrying the most responsibility being mentally fucked up is not a healthy society.


Originally posted by pusher robot
Serious leftists would should be ashamed at this naked will to power.

Bullshit. Destroying religion is about diffusing power, not concentrating it.


Friedrich [email protected]
Until you prove to the entire world, without any shadow of doubt(so much so that it is less-contested than Gravity), Atheism is a THEORY. Like Christianity. Like Islam. Like Scientology(can we shoot all of these guys though?). Like Wicca. Ect. Ect.


Wrong, atheism is the lack of a belief in deities.


Friedrich Nietzsche
You can&#39;t PROVE it. You cannot PROVE there is no god, or gods. It&#39;s impossible. One would have to die, and return to prove it. Have any of you ever died? No. Have I? nope.

No, I can&#39;t prove there is no god/s, but then since I am not positing their existence the burden of proof is not on me, it is on the superstitious.

In the absence of evidence, skepticism is the only rational position.

[Friedrich Nietzsche]

"Evidence"? Evidence is an extemely loose term. Although, you know...what about communism than? Where is the EVIDENCE that it will work 100%, no questions asked?

Tis&#39; a cold day in hell when I am defending christians...

Lucifer is wearing a Parka...


(no one mention "The Divine Comedy", please. You know what I&#39;m getting at)

[NorthStarRepublicML]

You are fucking stupid. Had you even read my posts, you would realise that one thing I wish to avoid is creating martyrs, which is what throwing religious people to the lions tends to do.

oh .... you don&#39;t want to persecute religious persons ... you just want to destroy their temples, prohibit their teachings, arrest them for teaching their children their beliefs, and force them underground ....

no ... nothing like the Romans, nothing like that ..... we don&#39;t want to create martys

you are fascists, plain and simple ..... what the fuck do you think would happen if you made religion illegal? ... its would be exactly like the christians of the Roman world, they would go underground, form secret churches away from your prying eyes, fostering a hatred for the system and be speaking against you from the pulpit .....

how would you even enforce legislation that prohibits parents from teaching their children religious beliefs? especially if there are no churches it would all be taking place in the home ....

you&#39;ll need a very large and invasive police state to acomplish that


it is a fact that a religious upbringing is more likely to result in fucked-up adults.


oh is it? excuse me if i don&#39;t just take your word for it .... cite some sources or don&#39;t spew your misconceptions


Public behaviour can be easily regulated.

who are you? honestly i&#39;ve never heard so many shameless displays of authoritarianism on this topic, but this is right out of 1984. look, all these repressive steps will simply not work, see my post earlier in the thread where i said:



a certain measure of democratic control would also be needed within religious bodies, such as election of priests by members of their congregation and several other aspects such as gender equality would require also require modification to adhere to socialist principles .....

religion should be tolerated as a cultural practice but not in its present largely patriarchial and dictatorial form .....

i stand by this. belief in something beyond yourself is not inheriently "evil"or even wrong, it might not be as advanced in terms of reason, and it is not something that can be turned off like a switch. Religion will be gradually be withered away and will likely always remain in some form or another even if only a small minority of the population adheres to it ....

acting to supress it like a vapid dictator is unnecessary and stupid, if people are properly educated socialists they will keep it in check themselves especially if it remains a part of public life, but not if you force them underground into cells and secret cults.

no matter what justicifactions you crazy church burners come up with .... your still acting to supress a majorty of your populations and wither you see it that way or not they certainly will and no amount of "its for your own good" rhetoric is going to convince them otherwise ....

bottom line: it will 100% NOT WORK

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Friedrich Nietzsche+--> (Friedrich Nietzsche) "Evidence"? Evidence is an extemely loose term. Although, you know...what about communism than? Where is the EVIDENCE that it will work 100%, no questions asked? [/b]

Don&#39;t change the subject. Do you have any evidence for the existance of god/s or not?


Tis&#39; a cold day in hell when I am defending christians...

From what, exactly? I suggest a plan of action as to going about ridding superstition from human consciousness, and you act like I want every christians&#39; head on a spike (which I don&#39;t, by the way).


NorthStarRepublicML
oh .... you don&#39;t want to persecute religious persons ... you just want to destroy their temples, prohibit their teachings, arrest them for teaching their children their beliefs, and force them underground ....

All of which harm ideas, not people. Destruction of religion is my aim, not the destruction of people.


you are fascists, plain and simple ..... what the fuck do you think would happen if you made religion illegal? ... its would be exactly like the christians of the Roman world, they would go underground, form secret churches away from your prying eyes, fostering a hatred for the system and be speaking against you from the pulpit .....

Or, more likely, they would wither away along with their pernicious influence. With no killings or torture creating martyrs upon which these secret churches could hang their righteous wrath on, how on earth do you think these religious wackos will gain popular support?

The Romans acted like monsters to Christian individuals, and that was to prove their undoing. Short of actually engaging in counter-revolutionary terrorism, there is nothing the godsuckers can do to make sensible communists bend a single hair on their holy heads out of shape.


how would you even enforce legislation that prohibits parents from teaching their children religious beliefs? especially if there are no churches it would all be taking place in the home ....

Compulsory collective education and child-rearing would be a good way of nipping child abuse in the bud - especially if there are plenty of approachable adults around so no child is afraid to spread the dirt in the event of abuse of any kind, including religious indoctrination.


you&#39;ll need a very large and invasive police state to acomplish that

Absolutely not. I expect this to be enforced by conscious proletarians.


oh is it? excuse me if i don&#39;t just take your word for it .... cite some sources or don&#39;t spew your misconceptions

It&#39;s a self-evident fact&#33; Nonetheless, I will indulge you...

Check out Fundies Say The Darndest Things (http://fstdt.com/lastcomments.asp), compare the amount of religious quotes to atheist ones, then get back to me.

Of course that is just one example - according to a Gallup poll taken on February 19-21, 2001, 45% of American citizens believe "God created human beings pretty much in their current form at one time within the last 10,000 years".

The fact that so many people living in a supposedly advanced industrialised nation believe such cack, is surely fucked up.


who are you? honestly i&#39;ve never heard so many shameless displays of authoritarianism on this topic, but this is right out of 1984.

The fact that you think the only thing that can regulate public behaviour is state power betrays a staggering lack of imagination on your part. Peer pressure, social disapproval, a common moral framework and bottom-up enforcement of societal norms are some of the non-state examples I can think of, off the top of my head.

Private behaviour is harder to regulate but not impossible - murder and child abuse, whether done publicly or not, are punishable crimes. Why not the same for religious indoctrination?


look, all these repressive steps will simply not work, see my post earlier in the thread where i said:

And your plan will work when pigs learn to fly. Masters on earth is a natural consequence of believing in a master in heaven. Have the phrases "divine right of kings" and "appointed by God" never passed through your ears? The priesthood will never willingly give up their power - it must be forcibly dashed from their hands.


i stand by this. belief in something beyond yourself is not inheriently "evil"or even wrong, it might not be as advanced in terms of reason, and it is not something that can be turned off like a switch.

Having a worldview that, at it&#39;s core, is fundamentally wrong has been historically proven to be harmful. Therefore steps must be taken to drastically reduce the influence of such worldviews, with a view to eradicating them entirely.
I&#39;m not however, saying it&#39;s going to be quick or easy. Shedding 3000+ years of superstitious belief is never going to be easy.


Religion will be gradually be withered away and will likely always remain in some form or another even if only a small minority of the population adheres to it ....

Nonsense. If everyone can be atheist about some gods, then everyone can be atheist about all gods.


acting to supress it like a vapid dictator is unnecessary and stupid, if people are properly educated socialists they will keep it in check themselves especially if it remains a part of public life, but not if you force them underground into cells and secret cults.

The only problem with your sweet if naive view is that during the transition to a stateless classless society, a lot of the old ideological and superstitious baggage will be hanging around, and for some people that will be too much of a millstone around their neck for them to reason properly*. It is up to the more ideologically advanced revolutionaries to, as a class, show the way so to speak.

Then and only then, once all the old shit has long gone will we have our better (but not perfect - nothing is perfect) society.

(* It is also a potential hook that can be used by counter-revolutionaries to trip up nascent revolutionaries - witness the degeneration of the SWP into a bunch of lobbyists/apologists for rich Muslim clerics)


no matter what justicifactions you crazy church burners come up with .... your still acting to supress a majorty of your populations and wither you see it that way or not they certainly will and no amount of "its for your own good" rhetoric is going to convince them otherwise ....

bottom line: it will 100% NOT WORK

If too few people take onboard the reality of religion as an oppressive set of beliefs and then go on to act against superstition, then we are doomed to a new Dark Ages.

I like to think we&#39;re a bit smarter than that.

[pusher robot]

All of which harm ideas, not people. Destruction of religion is my aim, not the destruction of people.

You&#39;re talking about people&#39;s most deeply-held beliefs, not traffic laws. They won&#39;t just obey you because it would be convenient. People will resist. They will defy your prohibitions. What will you do then? If you allow them to openly rebel, the rules are meaningless. But if you punish them, then suddenly you are destroying people.

You seem to be operating under some fantasy where declaring religious practice illegal will simply cause people to give it up. Understand that plenty of people will defy your prohibitions to the death. They will rebel. They will commit terrorist acts. You will be FORCED to either capitulate or fight them. Don&#39;t you see that?

[la-troy]

Most of your last post was , in your terms, nothing but straw man.


No, we should rehabilitate criminals without recourse to religious indoctrination. I&#39;m fairly sure brain deprogramming would "help" a criminal stop acting badly, this doesn&#39;t mean I find it morally acceptable.

How doe&#39;s what I say constitute to indoctrination and deprogramming ? These men have a choice to whether or not they want to listen. sorry, I should not have been surprised. For is this not what you have been saying we should take away a persons choice of whether or not he wants to participate in acts of worship. It is obvious that you take people on a whole to be ignorant dickwads who have no control over themselves.

You continue to perpetuate oter rubbish and give it labellings of logic. You continue to limit your thinking to world in which theories go through as plan. You refuse to take into consideration human beings and their feelings and their likely actions. You cannot continue to dwell their you need to enter the real world.

Let us look at what you are proposing. You say children should not be exposed to any religious practices or anything related to religion, right? You plan to implement this by banning all public display of religion. I also take your stance to include suggestion by your friend to destroy all religious buildings and also you want the eventual eradication of religion from society as a whole, am I right in assuming so?
You also seem to support the idea of teaching evolution in schools correct. Your friend suggest the teaching children of only the ills of religion, but i do not think you support this. Your general view on religion seems to indicate that you believe it to do more damage than good.

lets begin. Your first claim makes sense, if you take it to mean that children should not be indoctrinated and forced into any set ideology, that is. But let me ask you this
,again, what is the difference between indoctrinating them with religion than indoctrinating them with the evolution theory? It is a incomplete theory that cannot explain all its suggestions. ( you refuse to address or even recognize these flaws while you base your entire argument on proving religion). But lets say the child is taught at school evolution and is also taught that religion is a illogical concept practised and believed by ancient societies that was continued throughout modern civilization by fools. now say this childs parents are religious and lets say they manage to conform to your rule that they should not display religion in front of their children. Children are not fools despite any measures they will know of their parents religious orientations. what then? do these parents hold any standing in the eyes of their children ? is it not safe to say that the core unit for society has failed ? and have we not seen what failure of the family can lead to? I don not know about tou but i see it every day on the streets I see it when i look at my classmates and i see it in the
crime rate. Your friend as stated that religious upbringing results in "messed up adults" this may be the case where he lives but i am sure it is not so for a number of countries.
Now let me confront you on the issue of displaying religion in front of children. You claim this action results in the indoctrination of children and supports illogical and unhealthy views of reality. I tell you this doing anything in front of a child is paramount to indoctrination if you take it to mean this. In this case mini skirts should not be worn, fairy tales should not be told, sesame street should be banned along with a number of other practises and shows. Allow me elaborate. you stated that stories are meant to be fictitious and has such are different from religions that are meant to be taken as fact. True, but put yourself into the position of a child even if you know that the story is fake it still creates and image and an idea in your head. The illusion of good conquering evil, the misconceptions of ferocious wild animals being gentle and kind, the superficial image of beauty ...etc. This image this, this view this "indoctrination" is just as bad if not even worse than religion. hence it is wrong and should not be shown, correct? ( and do not come with your fuckery about straw men). Some of the misconceptions of religion and fairy tails stay with a individual unfortunately, but a prober education to evaluate ideas should be able to offset this. Also telling a person how to raise their children is paramount to telling them whether or not they should have children not promoting the theories of religion in schools is something society can do but interfering in the passing down of cultural tradition and morals is no place for the commune. Otherwise from this probability of a misguided view of society you have not presented any point that would show religion to be such a ghastly institution as you promote it to be.

Now lets look at you and your friends measures of limiting and eradicating religions .
he calls for the destruction of religious buildings and the destruction of religious books ( unless they show the negatives of religion). The society you are envisioning my friend is totalitarian in the strictest sense comrade, a disappointment it truly is to hear any Marxist suggest this which I assume you are for no Anarchist would ever dream of this. How does people attending religious services I their place of worship affect anybody ? how is it a waste if it is designed and build for that purpose? ( I repeat my point that you conveniently ignored)
You guys are simply imposing your believes on others and shoving it down their throats and, like i stated above, labeling it as logic. remember we are in the real world right? so lets say you do do this what then what do you expect to happen ? do you expect like NoXion that they are just going to die out?
Your rantings remind me of the dogmatic imperialist and colonizers of the past . You refuse to consider that these people believe that they are right and a such will continue.you do not oppress a people and expect them to accept it. you see the results of these such efforts everyday and we will see it when you try this.

As for whether or not religion does more good than harm I can not debate that. That will be left up to you and your own understanding and experience to religion. However what ever your experience their are countless examples of the good of pure religion and the bad mainly stems from fanatic interpretations.







I recommend you go to school, if not just so you can stop apologising for poor grammar but also that you may learn more.

again and again comrade you fill me whit nothing but disgust and disdain for your the way in which you argue. You make good points so why do you resort to retorts and expletives. Are you that much of a imbecile. can you not argue unless you quote Marx or Engels or some other socialist or anarchist. I suggest to you comrade that you that you leave my education to me. I apologize because it is proper to do so if you think you have made mistakes. And ohh yes I will learn more, I continue to learn
I continue to evolve in my thought but it seems to me you have reach the end of the road. It is a shame when a man resorts to " I&#39;m big your small, I&#39;m right your wrong "to win a argument

[Question everything]

Originally posted by STJ+June 01, 2007 03:48 pm--> (STJ @ June 01, 2007 03:48 pm)
[email protected] 31, 2007 03:41 pm

Must these religious people in a socialist society be forced to be atheist or should the government just let them go in their own way, providing them with nothing
The latter, religion will die out on its own; there&#39;s no reason to make any martyrs in the process.
But what if doesn&#39;t i think we will always have mentally ill people like freakazoid who will buy into anything. [/b]
Fread simply buys into the mainstream... he is not obcessed with Zeus now is he? Hopefully one Day Jesus will go the way of Thor.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by la&#045;[email protected] 05, 2007 08:09 pm
Most of your last post was , in your terms, nothing but straw man.
And yours was nothing but cack. Let&#39;s begin a reply:


How doe&#39;s what I say constitute to indoctrination and deprogramming ?

Conversion and indoctrination are the same thing, bringing someone "to Jesus" no matter how well intentioned is indoctrinating them.


These men have a choice to whether or not they want to listen. sorry, I should not have been surprised. For is this not what you have been saying we should take away a persons choice of whether or not he wants to participate in acts of worship. It is obvious that you take people on a whole to be ignorant dickwads who have no control over themselves.

No actually, this is a rather hurtful and twisted parody of my argument and resembles it only on the loosest of grounds. I want to encourage critical thinking, and the only way to do that is make sure that whilst children are being raised they do not have deranged superstition taught to them as fact. When they are capable of critical thinking then they can make their choice, of course this means the number of religious people will dwindle; their primary victims are children and the otherwise emotionally/mentally vulnerable.


You continue to perpetuate oter rubbish and give it labellings of logic. You continue to limit your thinking to world in which theories go through as plan. You refuse to take into consideration human beings and their feelings and their likely actions. You cannot continue to dwell their you need to enter the real world.

What other rubbish is this? Could you translate "[You] limit your thinking to a world in which theories go through as plan." into readable English, please? I&#39;ll try to defend against what I think you&#39;re saying. I&#39;m not saying it absolutely would happen and neither is NoXion, we are putting forward a proposal for combating religion in a post revolutionary world.


Let us look at what you are proposing. You say children should not be exposed to any religious practices or anything related to religion, right? You plan to implement this by banning all public display of religion. I also take your stance to include suggestion by your friend to destroy all religious buildings and also you want the eventual eradication of religion from society as a whole, am I right in assuming so?

Correct.


You also seem to support the idea of teaching evolution in schools correct. Your friend suggest the teaching children of only the ills of religion, but i do not think you support this.

Teaching evolution: Correct, but irrelevant.

Teaching only the ills of religion: Well, this is just a by-product of teaching religion without glossing over details or bringing up irrelevancies such as charity.


Your general view on religion seems to indicate that you believe it to do more damage than good.

And?


lets begin. Your first claim makes sense, if you take it to mean that children should not be indoctrinated and forced into any set ideology, that is. But let me ask you this
,again, what is the difference between indoctrinating them with religion than indoctrinating them with the evolution theory?

To call teaching the theory of evolution "indoctrination" you would have to stretch the term until it becomes meaningless, it would cover any kind of education, for a start. Is teaching people, say, theories of atomic structure "indoctrination" in your eyes? Evolution does not impose any kind of view of the universe as a whole and simply points out the way in which animals develop. Religion however is a worldview and teaches abandonment of critical thinking in favour of dogmatism.


It is a incomplete theory that cannot explain all its suggestions. ( you refuse to address or even recognize these flaws while you base your entire argument on proving religion).

What are these "flaws" that have thus far eluded the scientific community but seem so abundant amongst indignant fundamentalists and people of your ilk?


But lets say the child is taught at school evolution and is also taught that religion is a illogical concept practised and believed by ancient societies that was continued throughout modern civilization by fools. now say this childs parents are religious and lets say they manage to conform to your rule that they should not display religion in front of their children. Children are not fools despite any measures they will know of their parents religious orientations. what then? do these parents hold any standing in the eyes of their children ?

Well the parents won&#39;t hold any standing anyway, or at least not much, as the traditional family model will also be done away with in favour of the communal model that NoXion has mentioned.


is it not safe to say that the core unit for society has failed ? and have we not seen what failure of the family can lead to? I don not know about tou but i see it every day on the streets I see it when i look at my classmates and i see it in the
crime rate.

Fucking hell, I expect this "evolutionist indoctrination" and "break down of the family" shit from conservative christian nuts, not from other leftists. The family structure is outdated and generally shit anyway. The "problems" of a "broken" family come more from the expectations society puts on a family, and therefore the need to conform to the idea of a "stable" family than from anything inherently wrong with a nonstandard family.


Your friend as stated that religious upbringing results in "messed up adults" this may be the case where he lives but i am sure it is not so for a number of countries.

Um...what? Where does a religious upbringing do good? Iran? Wherever religion is taught we get people like Phelps, Bin Laden or Hedgewar.


Now let me confront you on the issue of displaying religion in front of children. You claim this action results in the indoctrination of children and supports illogical and unhealthy views of reality. I tell you this doing anything in front of a child is paramount to indoctrination if you take it to mean this. In this case mini skirts should not be worn, fairy tales should not be told, sesame street should be banned along with a number of other practises and shows.

This is a weird claim, let&#39;s see how you defend it...


Allow me elaborate. you stated that stories are meant to be fictitious and has such are different from religions that are meant to be taken as fact. True, but put yourself into the position of a child even if you know that the story is fake it still creates and image and an idea in your head. The illusion of good conquering evil, the misconceptions of ferocious wild animals being gentle and kind, the superficial image of beauty ...etc. This image this, this view this "indoctrination" is just as bad if not even worse than religion. hence it is wrong and should not be shown, correct? ( and do not come with your fuckery about straw men)

...badly seems to be the most fitting method of your defence. Without pointing out the elephant in the room, as you have requested I do not, I will go on to say that, once more, you have a strange concept of indoctrination. Whilst most children, as they develop, will abandon any ideas instilled by fairy tales or the like but the ideas of religion are harder to remove because they are taught, as had been mentioned, as pure fact - they become ingrained in the child&#39;s way of thinking. When a younger person is told that Santa does not exist they find it easier to accept than the concept that God does not exist. I won&#39;t even dignify your "wearing a mini-skirt teaches a superficial image of beauty" crap with an answer, it&#39;s pretty much self evidently bollocks.


Some of the misconceptions of religion and fairy tails stay with a individual unfortunately, but a prober education to evaluate ideas should be able to offset this.

Yes, this is true, but as I pointed out it is much harder to do with a religious upbringing.


Also telling a person how to raise their children is paramount to telling them whether or not they should have children not promoting the theories of religion in schools is something society can do but interfering in the passing down of cultural tradition and morals is no place for the commune.

The word is tantamount deary, not paramount. Either way you&#39;re wrong.

1) The only reason children are afforded this protection from religion is that they need it, their critical faculties are not built up against the cultish brainwashing that religion operates on.

2) If a cultural tradition or moral is antithetical to the commune then the commune is well within its rights to prevent the teaching of the tradition or moral.


Otherwise from this probability of a misguided view of society you have not presented any point that would show religion to be such a ghastly institution as you promote it to be.

This is another sentence I have difficulty comprehending. What is a "probability of a misguided society" and what does it have to do with my claims on religion?


Now lets look at you and your friends measures of limiting and eradicating religions .
he calls for the destruction of religious buildings and the destruction of religious books ( unless they show the negatives of religion).

He doesn&#39;t call for the destruction of the books, merely the cessation of their printing.


The society you are envisioning my friend is totalitarian in the strictest sense comrade, a disappointment it truly is to hear any Marxist suggest this which I assume you are for no Anarchist would ever dream of this.

Both me and NoXion, whilst Marxian in bent are anarchists. I do not see an incongruity between anarchy and the destruction of religion.


How does people attending religious services I their place of worship affect anybody ? how is it a waste if it is designed and build for that purpose? ( I repeat my point that you conveniently ignored)

The service affects those attending, it teaches them an incorrect and unreasonable worldview. The building is a waste because it was designed for religious purposes, it provides nothing but indoctrination to society.


You guys are simply imposing your believes on others and shoving it down their throats and, like i stated above, labeling it as logic. remember we are in the real world right? so lets say you do do this what then what do you expect to happen ? do you expect like NoXion that they are just going to die out?

We&#39;re not shoving anything down anyone&#39;s throats, we are proposing teaching critical thinking for fuck&#39;s sake. We are defending those throats, so to speak, from the religious who are all too eager to begin ramming.


Your rantings remind me of the dogmatic imperialist and colonizers of the past . You refuse to consider that these people believe that they are right and a such will continue.you do not oppress a people and expect them to accept it. you see the results of these such efforts everyday and we will see it when you try this.

People can believe what they want, as has been said, but trying to spread their ideas, especially to children, is not their "right". If they targeted only those fully developed in critical thinking then I would have no problem as it is, though, they prey on the week and as such they need to be fought at every turn.


As for whether or not religion does more good than harm I can not debate that. That will be left up to you and your own understanding and experience to religion. However what ever your experience their are countless examples of the good of pure religion and the bad mainly stems from fanatic interpretations.

You seem to be standing perilously close to the No True Scotsman again...


again and again comrade you fill me whit nothing but disgust and disdain for your the way in which you argue.

Well don&#39;t call me "comrade" if you&#39;re so fucking disgusted.


You make good points so why do you resort to retorts and expletives. Are you that much of a imbecile.

I use retorts because they amuse me and expletives because I&#39;m infuriated,shocked or bored by your assertions.


can you not argue unless you quote Marx or Engels or some other socialist or anarchist.

Where have I quoted anyone, aside from yourself, in this argument?


I suggest to you comrade that you that you leave my education to me. I apologize because it is proper to do so if you think you have made mistakes.

I was actually trying to be helpful fuckwit. If you stop making mistakes you will stop having to apologies and you&#39;ll probably feel better for it. Don&#39;t be a **** about it.


And ohh yes I will learn more, I continue to learn
I continue to evolve in my thought but it seems to me you have reach the end of the road. It is a shame when a man resorts to " I&#39;m big your small, I&#39;m right your wrong "to win a argument

What the fuck makes you think I&#39;m not challenging and evolving my thoughts or that I am no longer learning? Learning is a life long process and I am certainly not set in my ways - were your arguments sufficient to beat any defence I could muster then I would certainly change my view.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by pusher robot+--> (pusher robot)You&#39;re talking about people&#39;s most deeply-held beliefs, not traffic laws. They won&#39;t just obey you because it would be convenient. People will resist. They will defy your prohibitions. What will you do then? If you allow them to openly rebel, the rules are meaningless. But if you punish them, then suddenly you are destroying people.[/b]

Punishment is not necessarily destructive. It can also be reformative, instructive or preventative.


You seem to be operating under some fantasy where declaring religious practice illegal will simply cause people to give it up.

Nonsense. My proposition is intended to pro-actively destroy religion as a meaningful social force, not declare it illegal and leave it at that. That is an incredibly lazy (and ineffectual) way of doing it.


Understand that plenty of people will defy your prohibitions to the death. They will rebel. They will commit terrorist acts. You will be FORCED to either capitulate or fight them. Don&#39;t you see that?

I hope you are not under the impression that I somehow think my proposition would be remotely feasible in this day and age. It would be impossible - too many people lack the consciousness required.

No, my intentions would only have a chance of working in a more enlightened era. But even then, if some god-botherers are willing to go to violent lengths to protect their "right" to shove their religion into everyone else&#39;s faces, waste resources on superstitious garbage and mentally abuse children, then far from invalidating my position, it only serves to vindicate it.


la&#045;troy
what is the difference between indoctrinating them with religion than indoctrinating them with the evolution theory? It is a incomplete theory that cannot explain all its suggestions.

The difference being that evolutionary theory is science, which has a proven track record of accurately describing the universe, whereas religion is an inflexible orthodoxy with patently false descriptions of the universe.

Not that I would bother "indoctrinating" children with evolutionary theory - I would much rather have them develop their logic and reasoning skills to the full.


But lets say the child is taught at school evolution and is also taught that religion is a illogical concept practised and believed by ancient societies that was continued throughout modern civilization by fools.

No, not "taught" to children in a horribly overbearing, arrogant and didactic fashion that you seem to imagine these hypothetical teachers doing so - I would be more in favour of simply not mentioning religion at all and replacing "religious education" with critical thinking skills.


now say this childs parents are religious and lets say they manage to conform to your rule that they should not display religion in front of their children. Children are not fools despite any measures they will know of their parents religious orientations. what then?

Irrelevant. The traditional family would in all likelyhood not exist by the time our hypothetical school with a hypothetical non-religious curriculum comes about.


he calls for the destruction of religious buildings and the destruction of religious books ( unless they show the negatives of religion).

False, actually. I called for the cessation of all printing of non-critical religious literature, not it&#39;s destruction. The difference is important.

Why burn books when entropy can do so much of a better job of making religion look, outdated, antiquated and ultimately as necessary as sacrifices to Zeus?


How does people attending religious services I their place of worship affect anybody ? how is it a waste if it is designed and build for that purpose? ( I repeat my point that you conveniently ignored)

It affects people by being held in a building that via it&#39;s prominent location and overtly religious architecture, broadcasts the message, loud and clear - "Look at this ugly great monument to bigoted superstition and the celebration of wilful ignorance&#33;"

We would doubtless tear down statues & monuments dedicated to capitalist scumbags, so why not the same for religious scumbags?

It is also a waste of space that could often be turned to something more socially useful, such as housing, or a green space much more attractive than the original church/mosque/temple/whatever.


You guys are simply imposing your believes on others and shoving it down their throats and, like i stated above, labeling it as logic. remember we are in the real world right? so lets say you do do this what then what do you expect to happen ? do you expect like NoXion that they are just going to die out?

Well, modern-day religions aren&#39;t going to be around forever - and I would rather nothing take their place when they finally die a well deserved death.

[pusher robot]

I hope you are not under the impression that I somehow think my proposition would be remotely feasible in this day and age. It would be impossible - too many people lack the consciousness required.

Actually, I was under that impression, given that this is a forum for revolutionary advocates, so that makes things considerably clearer. I still stand by my position that such coercion would be immoral in theory, but my pragmatic argument obviously doesn&#39;t apply.

I suspect, however, your assessment would be somewhat controversial among your comrades here.

[yns_mr]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 02:25 am
Public preaching should be regarded as an anti-social crime. Attempting to indoctrinate kids with religious ideas should be counted as child abuse and met with the heaviest penalties.
Wouldn&#39;t this be a censorship? Where is the freedom then?

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by yns_mr+June 06, 2007 02:00 pm--> (yns_mr @ June 06, 2007 02:00 pm)
[email protected] 04, 2007 02:25 am
Public preaching should be regarded as an anti-social crime. Attempting to indoctrinate kids with religious ideas should be counted as child abuse and met with the heaviest penalties.
Wouldn&#39;t this be a censorship? Where is the freedom then? [/b]
Freedom is slavery, apparently.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by yns_mr+June 06, 2007 02:00 pm--> (yns_mr @ June 06, 2007 02:00 pm)
[email protected] 04, 2007 02:25 am
Public preaching should be regarded as an anti-social crime. Attempting to indoctrinate kids with religious ideas should be counted as child abuse and met with the heaviest penalties.
Wouldn&#39;t this be a censorship? Where is the freedom then? [/b]
Exactly how does granting open channels to reactionaries constitute free speech?

It&#39;s an obnoxious distraction we could all do without.

[Friedrich Nietzsche]

Originally posted by NoXion+June 07, 2007 02:36 am--> (NoXion @ June 07, 2007 02:36 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 02:00 pm

[email protected] 04, 2007 02:25 am
Public preaching should be regarded as an anti-social crime. Attempting to indoctrinate kids with religious ideas should be counted as child abuse and met with the heaviest penalties.
Wouldn&#39;t this be a censorship? Where is the freedom then?
Exactly how does granting open channels to reactionaries constitute free speech?

It&#39;s an obnoxious distraction we could all do without. [/b]
That does not change the fact it that it is oppression. Honestly, why supress them? That would just increase their strength(humanity as a whole tends to favor the "Underdog" on most occasions).

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 04, 2007 07:19 am

Public preaching should be regarded as an anti-social crime. Attempting to indoctrinate kids with religious ideas should be counted as child abuse and met with the heaviest penalties. Building places of worship should be treated as embezzlement of public resources.

No concessions to god-botherers&#33;

Is this representative of the opinions of radical leftists? Is this your vision of freedom?
Allow me to answer with an emphatic "Hell no&#33;" to both questions.

And since a number of comrades have expressed their views on what should or should not be taught, printed or tolerated in a communist society, there is a question that begs to be asked: What if X, Y or Z community disagrees with you? What if, by democratic vote, the members of a communist society decide to allocate resources towards the printing of religious literature? Do you advocate authoritarian controls to stop this from happening?

Any true revolutionary commitment to democracy must be accompanied by the acceptance of the fact that votes may not necessarily go your way. We want to empower the working class - what they do with that power is up to them.

[pusher robot]

Exactly how does granting open channels to reactionaries constitute free speech?

It&#39;s an obnoxious distraction we could all do without.

Would it be terribly clichéd of me to point out that the exact same thing could be (and has been) said of your speech, by people with actual political power? Why would you adopt a principle, which, if universally adopted, would opress you? Spite?

Is HUAC such a distant memory now?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Friedrich Nietzsche+--> (Friedrich Nietzsche) That does not change the fact it that it is oppression. Honestly, why supress them? That would just increase their strength(humanity as a whole tends to favor the "Underdog" on most occasions).[/b]

Overthrowing the ruling class is an act of repression against the ruling class. The ruling class includes the priesthood. Therefore, to disarm the influence of the priesthood one has to destroy the main arament of the priesthood: religion&#39;s pervading influence in class society.

Not all acts of repression are unjust. It is repressive to stop a murderer from murdering, but not unjust. Just as it is to protect human minds from religious brain-rot.


Edric O
What if X, Y or Z community disagrees with you? What if, by democratic vote, the members of a communist society decide to allocate resources towards the printing of religious literature?

Then I would complain loudly and bitterly, at great lengths stating my case - for I believe that a communist society that wilfully prints religious literature is, in the long run, shooting itself in the foot.


Any true revolutionary commitment to democracy must be accompanied by the acceptance of the fact that votes may not necessarily go your way. We want to empower the working class - what they do with that power is up to them.

And if the working class votes to reinstate the capitalist system, we have obviously failed in our task of enlightening the working class - no properly educated ex-slave decides to put his chains back on again - and the same applies to religion.

Why do you guys defend delusion to such a degree? If someone decides that the giant psychic spider in the centre of Mars has chosen them to bring the gospel of Psychic-Spiderism to the people of Earth, you would quite rightly consider them an utter loony. Why is it any different if these delusions happen to be thousands of years old? Delusions are pathological and must be avoided.


Why would you adopt a principle, which, if universally adopted, would opress you? Spite?

I wouldn&#39;t adopt it universally, that&#39;s the point. I am unashamedly partisan in such matters - truth (or at least honest attempts to attain the truth) should automatically be given priority over lies, misconceptions and falsehoods.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 07:53 pm
It&#39;s not about "banning religion" it&#39;s about preventing public resources being spent on indoctrinating and harming people with falsehoods like this. In the same way that teaching a flat earth in schools is outlawed, teaching religion in public or to children is similarly immoral.
Actually, you bring up an interesting point. Let us assume, for the sake of the argument, that religion is false. But then surely religion is only one of a wide range of ideas that are false. Would you prohibit the public expression of all false ideas? Would you prohibit, for example, someone standing up in public with a large sign saying "The Earth is Flat"? If yes, then who is going to have the power to enforce this prohibition? Will there be some kind of organization charged to ensure that no one spreads false ideas in public? I don&#39;t think I need to remind you what that sounds like...

And furthermore, who is going to have the power to determine which ideas are false and therefore to be excluded from public discussion?

Freedom of speech necessarily involves the freedom to lie. Creating a society where everyone is required to always speak the truth in public is orwellian and impossible.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

We would doubtless tear down statues & monuments dedicated to capitalist scumbags, so why not the same for religious scumbags?

would this include Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.?

you conviently forget to mention the positive roles which the church has played, both in the emancipation and civil rights movements .....

[cubist]

you seem to forget the role the church is currently playing an dhas played in the detah of millions of muslims,

you forget the roles islam is playing in the jihad against the west where again innocents are dying,

you forget the role england and its generally christian government plays in providing arms to muslim murdering countries i dont see the church speak up against the arms trade.

you forget the crusades

you forget the church is only interested in its own survival as a political influence.

its quite simple whilst it would be ok to personally believe in a rleigion it would not be ok to witness your religion in public, that would be like allowing the BNP to self premote in a socialist country.

Yes free speech is impeeded but do racist scum deserve free speech.

No.

so the rule would have to apply to any reactionary system

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Edric O
Actually, you bring up an interesting point. Let us assume, for the sake of the argument, that religion is false. But then surely religion is only one of a wide range of ideas that are false. Would you prohibit the public expression of all false ideas? Would you prohibit, for example, someone standing up in public with a large sign saying "The Earth is Flat"? If yes, then who is going to have the power to enforce this prohibition? Will there be some kind of organization charged to ensure that no one spreads false ideas in public? I don&#39;t think I need to remind you what that sounds like...

The difference is, and the difference is an important one at that, is that very few Flat Earthers are actively seeking to incorporate their paradigm into that of general society.

Would they be doing so, of course we would actively discourage the teaching of Flat Earthism - as a patently false paradigm it is clearly harmful both to human understanding of the universe and to further human development.


And furthermore, who is going to have the power to determine which ideas are false and therefore to be excluded from public discussion?

Society of course. It would be hoped that at this time most proletarians would be consciousness enough to realise religion for the cack that it is. If not, then we have failed in our task as revolutionaries.


Freedom of speech necessarily involves the freedom to lie. Creating a society where everyone is required to always speak the truth in public is orwellian and impossible.

Because you say so am i rite? Don&#39;t be fucking ridiculous. I&#39;m not proposing banning all false speech, merely false speech that has the intention of winning over others into a false paradigm.

[Friedrich Nietzsche]

Originally posted by NoXion+June 07, 2007 10:19 am--> (NoXion @ June 07, 2007 10:19 am)
Edric O
Actually, you bring up an interesting point. Let us assume, for the sake of the argument, that religion is false. But then surely religion is only one of a wide range of ideas that are false. Would you prohibit the public expression of all false ideas? Would you prohibit, for example, someone standing up in public with a large sign saying "The Earth is Flat"? If yes, then who is going to have the power to enforce this prohibition? Will there be some kind of organization charged to ensure that no one spreads false ideas in public? I don&#39;t think I need to remind you what that sounds like...

The difference is, and the difference is an important one at that, is that very few Flat Earthers are actively seeking to incorporate their paradigm into that of general society.

Would they be doing so, of course we would actively discourage the teaching of Flat Earthism - as a patently false paradigm it is clearly harmful both to human understanding of the universe and to further human development.


And furthermore, who is going to have the power to determine which ideas are false and therefore to be excluded from public discussion?

Society of course. It would be hoped that at this time most proletarians would be consciousness enough to realise religion for the cack that it is. If not, then we have failed in our task as revolutionaries.


Freedom of speech necessarily involves the freedom to lie. Creating a society where everyone is required to always speak the truth in public is orwellian and impossible.

Because you say so am i rite? Don&#39;t be fucking ridiculous. I&#39;m not proposing banning all false speech, merely false speech that has the intention of winning over others into a false paradigm. [/b]
Is it only false because you say it is? Until you can PROVE to me there is no god, I refuse to totally dis-believe. Granted, I don&#39;t believe...I don&#39;t dis-believe either. Going for either one is total fucking ignorance.

But hey, ignorant little fucks(you too) all around the world have a right to believe or disbelieve as they chose.

So why are you aloud to spout your hatred about christians, jews, muslims, Buddhists, and Wiccans, but they aren&#39;t aloud to hate you back? Sometimes, in a war, the most horrid attrocities come when both sides call themselves "Freedom Fighters". In all reality, they just can&#39;t own up to what they really are: No better, possibly worse, than the last set of oppressors and assholes that was just in power.

[Comrade J]

Originally posted by Friedrich Nietzsche+June 07, 2007 11:14 am--> (Friedrich Nietzsche &#064; June 07, 2007 11:14 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 10:19 am

Edric O
Actually, you bring up an interesting point. Let us assume, for the sake of the argument, that religion is false. But then surely religion is only one of a wide range of ideas that are false. Would you prohibit the public expression of all false ideas? Would you prohibit, for example, someone standing up in public with a large sign saying "The Earth is Flat"? If yes, then who is going to have the power to enforce this prohibition? Will there be some kind of organization charged to ensure that no one spreads false ideas in public? I don&#39;t think I need to remind you what that sounds like...

The difference is, and the difference is an important one at that, is that very few Flat Earthers are actively seeking to incorporate their paradigm into that of general society.

Would they be doing so, of course we would actively discourage the teaching of Flat Earthism - as a patently false paradigm it is clearly harmful both to human understanding of the universe and to further human development.


And furthermore, who is going to have the power to determine which ideas are false and therefore to be excluded from public discussion?

Society of course. It would be hoped that at this time most proletarians would be consciousness enough to realise religion for the cack that it is. If not, then we have failed in our task as revolutionaries.


Freedom of speech necessarily involves the freedom to lie. Creating a society where everyone is required to always speak the truth in public is orwellian and impossible.

Because you say so am i rite? Don&#39;t be fucking ridiculous. I&#39;m not proposing banning all false speech, merely false speech that has the intention of winning over others into a false paradigm.
Is it only false because you say it is? Until you can PROVE to me there is no god, I refuse to totally dis-believe. Granted, I don&#39;t believe...I don&#39;t dis-believe either. Going for either one is total fucking ignorance.

[/b]
Just out of interest, do you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (peace be upon his noodly apendage)? Or if you don&#39;t actually believe in him, do you at least not disbelieve in him? Because you can&#39;t know for certain he exists, or that he doesn&#39;t exist, so it&#39;d be "totally fucking ignorant" right?

Or, am I to assume that despite being the utter **** you quite clearly are, you don&#39;t believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, because the whole concept is quite simply fucking stupid, and you have seen no evidence whatsoever that points to his existence?

I&#39;d guess the latter. And that is the exact position atheists take regarding God. We don&#39;t know he doesn&#39;t exist, but looking at the evidence and alternative possibilities, we deem it highly unlikely, and think it&#39;s an absolutely absurd concept. It&#39;s not total fucking ignorance, it&#39;s actually a rational belief based on analysis on the (lack of) evidence...


But hey, ignorant little fucks(you too) all around the world have a right to believe or disbelieve as they chose.

Indeed, you can&#39;t stop anyone &#39;believing&#39; something, but you can certainly try to change their minds if you wish. Also, when their unfounded, irrational beliefs are turned into actions, and begin to infringe on the rights of others, that is when religion becomes oppressive, such as opposition to homosexuality and rights for homosexuals.

Also, there are numerous texts in the Bible that encourage allegiance and loyalty to the state, as only God chooses rulers. Try reading Romans 13 for example. Again, this highlights the inherently oppressive nature of religion - how can we expect people suffering from the cancer of Catholicism in South America or elsewhere to instigate and participate in revolution? Instead, religion acts as an opiate, as a tool to help the masses &#39;cope&#39; with their situation, which shouldn&#39;t be the case.

Sure, it seems nice to the casual observer that religion helps people cope with their dull, oppressive existence, but when you look closely and see that religion and faith in an afterlife are what keep them in that situation in the first place, it changes one&#39;s perception of religion, or at least ought to.


So why are you aloud to spout your hatred about christians, jews, muslims, Buddhists, and Wiccans, but they aren&#39;t aloud to hate you back? Sometimes, in a war, the most horrid attrocities come when both sides call themselves "Freedom Fighters".
Again, you&#39;re incorrect - we don&#39;t hate Christians, Jews, Muslims etc. - otherwise why the fuck would our very political and economic outlook be based on emancipation of the working class, most of whom are religious? Why would you wish to help anyone you &#39;hate&#39;? We simply don&#39;t tolerate reactionary views that are intrinsic to religion, and as I pointed out, we want to release people from the ancient dogma that keeps in place and serves the current mode of production.


In all reality, they just can&#39;t own up to what they really are: No better, possibly worse, than the last set of oppressors and assholes that was just in power.
Indeed, this is quite often the case, though I fail to see how this has anything to do with a Communist revolution, in which the working class seize the means of production. When you took about oppressors, you talk about people who oppress the mass of the population? Well when the mass of the population are the ones in control, who exactly are they going to oppress?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by NoXion+June 07, 2007 12:19 pm--> (NoXion @ June 07, 2007 12:19 pm)
Edric O
Actually, you bring up an interesting point. Let us assume, for the sake of the argument, that religion is false. But then surely religion is only one of a wide range of ideas that are false. Would you prohibit the public expression of all false ideas? Would you prohibit, for example, someone standing up in public with a large sign saying "The Earth is Flat"? If yes, then who is going to have the power to enforce this prohibition? Will there be some kind of organization charged to ensure that no one spreads false ideas in public? I don&#39;t think I need to remind you what that sounds like...

The difference is, and the difference is an important one at that, is that very few Flat Earthers are actively seeking to incorporate their paradigm into that of general society.

Would they be doing so, of course we would actively discourage the teaching of Flat Earthism - as a patently false paradigm it is clearly harmful both to human understanding of the universe and to further human development. [/b]
You are being far too vague. What does it mean to try to "incorporate one&#39;s paradigm into that of general society"? Does it include the mere act of informing other people about your beliefs? Or does it mean trying to persuade others to share your beliefs, or does it mean forcing others to convert?

In other words, please state clearly which of the following kinds of speech you would like to forbid. Note the differences:

1. "I believe in God" (informing others about your beliefs)
2. "I believe in God, and you should too" (attempted persuasion)
3. "I believe in God, and you should be shot if you don&#39;t" (attempted forced conversion)

I would agree that #3 should not be tolerated, but the other two fall under freedom of speech.


Society of course. It would be hoped that at this time most proletarians would be consciousness enough to realise religion for the cack that it is. If not, then we have failed in our task as revolutionaries.
Excellent. So our vision of a post-revolutionary society is in fact very similar. We both respect proletarian democracy, we just make different predictions of the way most people will vote.

Religion is far, far older than capitalism. Some form of religion has existed in every mode of production recorded thus far. Thus, I believe it is wishful thinking to believe the demise of capitalism will necessarily signal the demise of religion.


Don&#39;t be fucking ridiculous. I&#39;m not proposing banning all false speech, merely false speech that has the intention of winning over others into a false paradigm.
You are still faced with the same problem - who gets to decide which paradigms are false? If you say "society", I agree that sounds like a good idea in principle, but in practice it may well result in people being forbidden to spread unpopular ideas.

[pusher robot]

I wouldn&#39;t adopt it universally, that&#39;s the point. I am unashamedly partisan in such matters - truth (or at least honest attempts to attain the truth) should automatically be given priority over lies, misconceptions and falsehoods.

You don&#39;t seem to be acknowledging that "truth" - or at very least the perception of it it - is itself a partisan issue. I&#39;m sure your ideological opponents could make the exact same statment you just did, and believe it just as much.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

you seem to forget the role the church is currently playing an dhas played in the detah of millions of muslims,

you forget the roles islam is playing in the jihad against the west where again innocents are dying,

you forget the role england and its generally christian government plays in providing arms to muslim murdering countries i dont see the church speak up against the arms trade.

you forget the crusades

you forget the church is only interested in its own survival as a political influence.

look, you have to look at it objectively .... i believe another member stated that religion has been a part of every mode of production from the earliest times of civilization, through feudalism and up to our present day capitalism .....

i&#39;m not forgetting the crusades or jihad or whatever (people like you won&#39;t let anyone forget it for a seond) but i am saying that it has also acomplished good .... like another other tool it is not inheriently bad or inheriently good, it&#39;s nature is malleable and is determined by the individuals that utilize for a number of diffrent ends ....

i agree (as you may have read in previous posts) that undue influence over politics should not be afforded, religion and that many religious practices are patriarchial and dictatorial, and this should and will change in a socialist society ....

i do, however, object to the belief that religions are inheriently wrong and the only solution to the "problem" of religion is to ban it, level buildings, prohibit texts, and arrest worshippers ....



Any true revolutionary commitment to democracy must be accompanied by the acceptance of the fact that votes may not necessarily go your way. We want to empower the working class - what they do with that power is up to them.

100% yes&#33; I believe you will find that the majority of the working class is far less radical towards religious beliefs

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 07:30 pm
look, you have to look at it objectively .... i believe another member stated that religion has been a part of every mode of production from the earliest times of civilization, through feudalism and up to our present day capitalism .....
We are looking at religion objectively - as outside observers we have judged the whole thing to be not only a mug&#39;s game but violent and harmful as well. Mentioning the age of religion in the way you are is an appeal to tradition fallacy, I suggest you stop it - it&#39;s embarrassing.


i&#39;m not forgetting the crusades or jihad or whatever (people like you won&#39;t let anyone forget it for a seond)

People like us make sure you don&#39;t forget because people like you are inclined to. Anything that doesn&#39;t sit well with your view of religion must be discarded, it seems.


but i am saying that it has also acomplished good

What good has it been necessary in accomplishing and what good can it do today that it is necessary for?


.... like another other tool it is not inheriently bad or inheriently good, it&#39;s nature is malleable and is determined by the individuals that utilize for a number of diffrent ends ....

Religion is not a tool though, it is a mode of thinking in which people become trapped that causes people to eschew logic and excuses any horrendous act they can dream up - a few charities will never hold up against the bad. Every cultist - Jew, Hindu, Christian, Muslim or whatever - is only a few degrees away from the Kool Aid kind.


i agree (as you may have read in previous posts) that undue influence over politics should not be afforded, religion and that many religious practices are patriarchial and dictatorial, and this should and will change in a socialist society ....

Define "undue" influence. Any influence religion has is undue.


i do, however, object to the belief that religions are inheriently wrong and the only solution to the "problem" of religion is to ban it, level buildings, prohibit texts, and arrest worshippers ....

We&#39;re advocating not banning religion, only indoctrination. If you still want to read the holey babble or whatever shitrag you believe in we&#39;re not going to stop you, but you can&#39;t print it using the people&#39;s resources. We don&#39;t arrest worshippers, maybe disperse any large scale cult gathering and possibly arrest the preachers for attempting to indoctrinate the defenceless (that is if there are children in the audience.).

[pusher robot]

If you still want to read the holey babble or whatever shitrag you believe in we&#39;re not going to stop you, but you can&#39;t print it using the people&#39;s resources.

Right, but you&#39;ve done away with private printing presses, haven&#39;t you? Meaning that your seemingly reasonable rule actually prohibits all printing of certain ideas and is in fact totalitarian oppression.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+June 08, 2007 01:23 pm--> (Jazzratt @ June 08, 2007 01:23 pm)
[email protected] 07, 2007 07:30 pm
look, you have to look at it objectively .... i believe another member stated that religion has been a part of every mode of production from the earliest times of civilization, through feudalism and up to our present day capitalism .....
We are looking at religion objectively - as outside observers we have judged the whole thing to be not only a mug&#39;s game but violent and harmful as well. Mentioning the age of religion in the way you are is an appeal to tradition fallacy, I suggest you stop it - it&#39;s embarrassing. [/b]
I believe the point was that religion is far more deeply ingrained in our society than capitalism, therefore religion will be much more difficult to abolish than capitalism, therefore you should expect high levels of religious belief to persist for a long time after capitalism has been overthrown.


Religion is not a tool though, it is a mode of thinking in which people become trapped that causes people to eschew logic and excuses any horrendous act they can dream up - a few charities will never hold up against the bad. Every cultist - Jew, Hindu, Christian, Muslim or whatever - is only a few degrees away from the Kool Aid kind.
Nonsense. The vast majority of people - including the vast majority of workers - hold some kind of religious belief. In fact, if I am not mistaken, around 86% of the global human population is religious. Are you suggesting that all those people are religious fanatics who completely eschew logic and are prepared to commit any horrendous act?

If it were true that all religious people had the same mindset as the crusaders or the inquisition, the world would have gone up in flames a long time ago.


We&#39;re advocating not banning religion, only indoctrination. If you still want to read the holey babble or whatever shitrag you believe in we&#39;re not going to stop you, but you can&#39;t print it using the people&#39;s resources. We don&#39;t arrest worshippers, maybe disperse any large scale cult gathering and possibly arrest the preachers for attempting to indoctrinate the defenceless (that is if there are children in the audience.).
Who is to decide which books will be printed using the people&#39;s resources, by the way? I thought it would be, you know, the people. And in that case, if the people want to print a certain number of Bibles, they can do so. Under socialism, one individual cannot ban the printing of any book.

And why disperse large gatherings? Are workers not allowed to gather for whatever purpose they see fit?

[Yardstick]

Try reading Romans 13 for example

I&#39;m sorry but I need to point out your misconception of Romans 13. Pauls is discussing spirtual authority and the Kingdom of God, not civil authorities. To do so would make no sense considering Pauls constant conflict with civil authorities. If you desire to contest to this point we could discuss it seperatly, or I could point you to some relativly short literature on Romans 13.


Now you may feel religion is illogical. Thats ok. I feel the flying spagetti monster is illogical. I totally understand you feel the same way about a christian God. The difference between you and me is I feel that people can worship a spagetti monster all they want. Not only can they worship this spagetti monster, but they can let it be known publically. And if they like, they may approach me and inform me that such a monster exists and is asking for my worship.

I offer these people this freedom because ultimatly I believe in freedom. I believe in the freedom of people to worship spagetti monsters, to worship God, or to call religious people morons. All of those things are ok.

What isn&#39;t ok is for me to decide that noone gets to call religious people morons, and it is equally not ok for people to say I can&#39;t publically worship God, or to publically look like a moron.

As far as religions role in a closed economy state? I would think the just thing to do is have the actual people decide. And if the people in this post revolutionary world hold the same beliefs as you(which you state you assume they will) then there will be no need to create outside laws that decree the distruction of religous buldings because your enlightened workers will do away with it as they see fit.

[People&#39;s Councillor]

Well, the problem with that theory is that it treats all opinions as valid simply because of their existance. A far better position to take is that your ideology (read religion or lack thereof) is correct, and that by free debate you will eventually be able to bring everybody else around to your views.

Unfortunately, under capitalism, free debate is impossible because the capitalists can&#39;t risk people coming to dangerous conclusions. The successful revolutionary proletariat, however, does not face this risk, and can allow free debate on this issue. In a free debate, atheism is ultimately proved to be superior.

Just my two cents. Carry on. You&#39;re fun to watch.

[Question everything]

Originally posted by People&#39;s [email protected] 12, 2007 01:24 am
Well, the problem with that theory is that it treats all opinions as valid simply because of their existance. A far better position to take is that your ideology (read religion or lack thereof) is correct, and that by free debate you will eventually be able to bring everybody else around to your views.

Unfortunately, under capitalism, free debate is impossible because the capitalists can&#39;t risk people coming to dangerous conclusions. The successful revolutionary proletariat, however, does not face this risk, and can allow free debate on this issue. In a free debate, atheism is ultimately proved to be superior.

Just my two cents. Carry on. You&#39;re fun to watch.
I&#39;m Not a theist, this is more arguing your logic on debating ideologies. A debate will not convince people to change to your point of view as much as it shows the people your point of veiw which leads to tolerance more than conversion. There really is no one right ideology, so by your system we would spent our whole lives debate while trading converts, while I have no problem with debates and political conscieniousness, be realistic, one debate rarely changes a persons view.

I agree that in logical debate that atheism is more logical but God gives a degree security, even if it is delusional, let people cling to it if they want to we have no right to stop them. I have no problem with christian believeing in a God or a "Flying Spagetti Monster", If I&#39;m asked to convert (to either christianity or Flying Spagetti Monsterism) I&#39;ll probably laugh in both their faces, but I don&#39;t see why their rituals, as long as they do not harm people, should not be observed by the christians.


BTW- they are fun to watch :D

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Edric O+June 08, 2007 06:51 pm--> (Edric O @ June 08, 2007 06:51 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 01:23 pm

[email protected] 07, 2007 07:30 pm
look, you have to look at it objectively .... i believe another member stated that religion has been a part of every mode of production from the earliest times of civilization, through feudalism and up to our present day capitalism .....
We are looking at religion objectively - as outside observers we have judged the whole thing to be not only a mug&#39;s game but violent and harmful as well. Mentioning the age of religion in the way you are is an appeal to tradition fallacy, I suggest you stop it - it&#39;s embarrassing.
I believe the point was that religion is far more deeply ingrained in our society than capitalism, therefore religion will be much more difficult to abolish than capitalism, therefore you should expect high levels of religious belief to persist for a long time after capitalism has been overthrown. [/b]
So, we have a long time in which to overthrow it, and as with every other piece of oppressive shite it will be overthrown.


Nonsense. The vast majority of people - including the vast majority of workers - hold some kind of religious belief. In fact, if I am not mistaken, around 86% of the global human population is religious.

Irrelevant.


Are you suggesting that all those people are religious fanatics who completely eschew logic and are prepared to commit any horrendous act?

Read my fucking post, shitwit. I said they are a few steps away, because they are - they&#39;ve already abandoned claims to being logical all that&#39;s stopping them is their pretence of sanity.


If it were true that all religious people had the same mindset as the crusaders or the inquisition, the world would have gone up in flames a long time ago.

They don&#39;t, but it&#39;s a close run thing.


Who is to decide which books will be printed using the people&#39;s resources, by the way? I thought it would be, you know, the people. And in that case, if the people want to print a certain number of Bibles, they can do so. Under socialism, one individual cannot ban the printing of any book.

Ah so if these "people" (who seem always to side with you, despite having gone through an entirely secular revolution and being taught logic from a young age, but whatever) wanted to reintroduce capitalims, you would be fine with that? No? So why so happy to let them reintroduce religion?


And why disperse large gatherings? Are workers not allowed to gather for whatever purpose they see fit?

They can gather, but as soon as it turns into a cult indoctrinating the defenceless then the people&#39;s militia has every right to step in.

[pusher robot]

Ah so if these "people" (who seem always to side with you, despite having gone through an entirely secular revolution and being taught logic from a young age, but whatever) wanted to reintroduce capitalims, you would be fine with that? No?

Well, what would you do in that scenario? Establish yourself as a benevolent dictator?

[Yardstick]

Ah so if these "people" (who seem always to side with you, despite having gone through an entirely secular revolution and being taught logic from a young age, but whatever) wanted to reintroduce capitalims, you would be fine with that? No? So why so happy to let them reintroduce religion?

Actually they should be allowed to. However since a post revolutionary society will be more beneficial to the majority of workers these &#39;capitalists&#39; would not be able to undermine the revolution. The only reason to fear such a gathering is if the worker is still opressed and feels something else would be more benefical for him.

only an oppressive government would fear the free assembly of its people.

[Question everything]

Ah so if these "people" (who seem always to side with you, despite having gone through an entirely secular revolution and being taught logic from a young age, but whatever) wanted to reintroduce capitalims, you would be fine with that? No? So why so happy to let them reintroduce religion?

I was trying not to get caught up in this petty little fight but here.


(who seem always to side with you, despite having gone through an entirely secular revolution and being taught logic from a young age, but whatever)

1. He said if, as in if the people voted for the communist party then the communist party would be in office. that is not to say that the people will vote communist it is simply a potential reality.


Ah so if these "people" wanted to reintroduce capitalims

2. if the majority of the people wanted capitalism, only a stalinist gouvernment would stop them.


So why so happy to let them reintroduce religion?

3. They have a right to act as stupid as they want.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Well, the issue has really been addressed already, but I still feel the need to contribute a bit...


Originally posted by Jazzratt+--> (Jazzratt)
Originally posted by Edric O+--> (Edric O)I believe the point was that religion is far more deeply ingrained in our society than capitalism, therefore religion will be much more difficult to abolish than capitalism, therefore you should expect high levels of religious belief to persist for a long time after capitalism has been overthrown. [/b]
So, we have a long time in which to overthrow it, and as with every other piece of oppressive shite it will be overthrown. [/b]
You can try... As long as you don&#39;t let your anti-religious crusade get in the way of the more important - and more immediate - task of overthrowing capitalism and building socialism, I have no objections.


Originally posted by Jazzratt
Ah so if these "people" (who seem always to side with you, despite having gone through an entirely secular revolution and being taught logic from a young age, but whatever) wanted to reintroduce capitalims, you would be fine with that?
Would I be fine with that? No. Would I be able to stop them? Again, no. I could - and would - do everything in my power to persuade them that reintroducing capitalism with be a colossal mistake, but the final decision is not up to me. It must be taken democratically by the people themselves, and there must be no authority capable of using force to override the people&#39;s will.

Incidentally, I also believe that a free and liberating education that instills curiosity and an appreciation for reason and science will ultimately bolster religious faith rather than weaken it. I firmly claim to have reason on my side, you see, and you are welcome to be as revolted by that claim as you wish.


Originally posted by Jazzratt
So why so happy to let them reintroduce religion?
"Let them"? I was not aware that it was up to me (or you, for that matter) to give the people permission to do anything. What kind of power would you personally have in your ideal society, Comrade Anarchist? If you are serious about your ideology, then you would not have the power to dictate anything to anyone. If the people wish to be religious, there is not a bloody thing you can do about it except try to persuade them otherwise.

I am not saying that the people would necessarily be religious. I am only saying that IF the people are religious, any socialist, communist or anarchist society would give them the right to express those religious feelings in public, to hold gatherings for the purpose of worship, and yes, even to expend public resources for religious purposes. After all, if they democratically choose to do any of those things, it would take some kind of dictatorial authority to stop them.

That is the fundamental issue here: In socialism, you are free to do everything in your power to persuade people to be non-religious, and they are free to ignore you.


[email protected]

Edric O
Nonsense. The vast majority of people - including the vast majority of workers - hold some kind of religious belief. In fact, if I am not mistaken, around 86% of the global human population is religious.
Irrelevant.
On the contrary, it is very relevant for someone who claims to fight for the emancipation of the working class. You see, you are faced with the dilemma of wishing to destroy religion on behalf of a class that is probably around 86% religious. Or do you believe that 86% of the working class is composed of mindless, irrational brutes who have "abandoned claims to being logical" and "all that&#39;s stopping them [from commiting any horrendous act] is their pretence of sanity"?

Such a condescending attitude towards the majority of the working class is simply incompatible with anarchism. You do not simply believe that many workers are misguided or sadly uninterested in their own liberation - which would be fine. No, you believe that they are mindless drones, beyond reason, barely sane; indeed, barely even human.

Respect is an essential ingredient of any truly anti-hierarchical and anti-authoritarian mindset. If we truly have no masters, if we are truly of equal worth as human beings, then we must be able to deal with each other respectfully, to recognize each other&#39;s intellect and capacity to reason, to understand that although the other&#39;s views may be misguided or just plain wrong, he or she is no less human because of it.

You, however, are not interested in any of that. You wish only to assert your superiority and domination over others. Your very arguments betray the fact that you barely grasp the concept of not being able to tell other people what to do. You&#39;re not an anarchist, you are a wannabe aristocrat. Or, in your own language, you are an elitist ****.

[Coggeh]

Churches Should be turned into Workers conference halls , a good idea just replace the cross on the top with a red star ... no point trying to knock them all down .

Also people would be aloud to practice their religious beliefs all the same though .

[RHIZOMES]

...wow.

When you do even a little bit of the shit suggested here, you get martyrdom. Martyrdom can be used to rally people against the socialist government. Let religion die out on it&#39;s own. It&#39;ll happen. This violent oppressive shit is not only laughably unrealistic, it makes us as bad as the Nazis.

[Ol' Dirty]

"Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding."
--Martin Luther

-_- In that respect, faith and science are incompatible. Religion and realism are at conflict most of the time.

[Yardstick]

or martin luther was simply wrong?

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 02:02 pm
or martin luther was simply wrong?
That quote was from one of trhe most influential theologans of his time. It can safely be assumed that there are still religious people who believe the same thing today.

[RHIZOMES]

Originally posted by LovelyShadeOfRed+July 25, 2007 12:05 am--> (LovelyShadeOfRed @ July 25, 2007 12:05 am)
[email protected] 24, 2007 02:02 pm
or martin luther was simply wrong?
That quote was from one of trhe most influential theologans of his time. It can safely be assumed that there are still religious people who believe the same thing today. [/b]
...

Martin Luther lived 400 years ago&#33;

[freakazoid]

Not that I would bother "indoctrinating" children with evolutionary theory - I would much rather have them develop their logic and reasoning skills to the full.


It&#39;s a survival instinct brought about by the process of Darwinian natural selection that means in most cases, children will believe everything they are taught by their parents.
Young children who don&#39;t believe what their parents tell them to be fact are often the ones who do not survive, for a number of reasons, which I should imagine are fairly obvious.

Was it not said that all "children", because of evolution, will believe what there parents believe. This is why you claim that children should not even have religion introduced around them, not until they are "adults". But here you are saying that they can develop their logic and reasoning skills. Also who defines what is a "child"? Is it based on age? If so what age? In the US there are actually really isn&#39;t a true age for being an "adult" Is it 16, when you are allowed to get a job. 17, when you are allowed to see an R rated film by yourself. 18, when you are allowed to smoke, join the army and kill people, and purchase a long arm. Or is it 21, when you are allowed to drink and purchase a handgun. Isn&#39;t it in Briton you only have to be 16 to drink? Who exactly determines then when a "child" becomes and "adult"? Also if you compare the statements given here about the handling of "children" to other threads you get some pretty conflicting results. In other threads it seems like "children" have the full ability to reason and to think for themselves, shoot they can even drop out of school if they want, but then in this thread you make "children" out to be like mindless idiots incapable of thinking for themselves. And then we get to the big thing, WHY IN THE WORLD SHOULD PARENTS NOT BE ABLE TO TEACH THERE CHILDREN WHAT THEY WANT, WHAT THEY BELIEVE IN&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Let&#39;s take a look at what indoctrinate means shall we, since that word gets thrown around a lot when it comes to the children. Talking about using emotional arguments, <_< "Won&#39;t somebody please think of the children?"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/indoctrination

1. to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.
2. to teach or inculcate.
3. to imbue with learning.

How exactly is it "abussive" to "indoctrinate", or teach, what you believe to your children?


To call teaching the theory of evolution "indoctrination" you would have to stretch the term until it becomes meaningless, it would cover any kind of education, for a start.

Well no shit it could cover any kind of education, see above.


Exactly how does granting open channels to reactionaries constitute free speech?

Do you actually fail to see it? Please don&#39;t tell me that you are actually that stupid.


What are these "flaws" that have thus far eluded the scientific community but seem so abundant amongst indignant fundamentalists and people of your ilk?

I&#39;ll point them out later.


I won&#39;t even dignify your "wearing a mini-skirt teaches a superficial image of beauty" crap with an answer,

Except it does, you are saying that in order for a woman to get a man that they have to show skin, that they are nothing but objects, prizes to be one and fought over.


The only reason children are afforded this protection from religion is that they need it, their critical faculties are not built up against the cultish brainwashing that religion operates on.

So now you are going to go around telling people what they need? How not authoritarian. <_<


2) If a cultural tradition or moral is antithetical to the commune then the commune is well within its rights to prevent the teaching of the tradition or moral.

How about the other way around? Can a commune allow, or even encourage, the teaching of the tradition or moral?



He doesn&#39;t call for the destruction of the books, merely the cessation of their printing.

So what happens to all of the books already in print? Are they still allowed to be bought and sold? And also since these books will eventually deteriorate what you are in essence doing is destroying them.


I do not see an incongruity between anarchy and the destruction of religion.

Except the whole hierarchy thing.


The building is a waste because it was designed for religious purposes, it provides nothing but indoctrination to society.

An in animate object can do all that? Man it must have some kind of supernatural powers to do that.


We&#39;re not shoving anything down anyone&#39;s throats, we are proposing teaching critical thinking for fuck&#39;s sake.

No your not, you are destroying anything religious, that is hardly not shoving your beliefs down anyones throats.


We are defending those throats, so to speak,

How about you let me defend my own throat, I can think for myself. I don&#39;t need some nanny government telling me what is for my own good you hypocrite.


so to speak, from the religious who are all too eager to begin ramming.

It sounds like you people are the ones all too eager to being ramming.


People can believe what they want, as has been said, but trying to spread their ideas, especially to children, is not their "right".

It isn&#39;t? And who exactly gets to decide what is and what isn&#39;t someones right? You? I believe that it is my right to say whatever I want, just as it is your right to not believe, or to even listen.


I use retorts because they amuse me and expletives because I&#39;m infuriated,shocked or bored by your assertions.

So you insult people because it amuses you&#33;? You sound more and more like a sociopath to me.



Don&#39;t change the subject. Do you have any evidence for the existance of god/s or not?


Why don&#39;t you just answer the question at the same time?


and you act like I want every christians&#39; head on a spike (which I don&#39;t, by the way).

For some reason I just don&#39;t believe you.


how on earth do you think these religious wackos will gain popular support?

Perhaps it is because people will realize that what you are doing is wrong?


Absolutely not. I expect this to be enforced by conscious proletarians.

Oh of course, why have a police state when you can get the people to do the dirty work for you. That way you can make the claim that it isn&#39;t a police state because there are not any hired police.


The fact that so many people living in a supposedly advanced industrialised nation believe such cack, is surely fucked up.

Yeah, people that don&#39;t believe what you believe are really "fucked up". <_<


Private behavior is harder to regulate but not impossible - murder and child abuse, whether done publicly or not, are punishable crimes. Why not the same for religious indoctrination?

And we come to the real reason, it is all about controlling peoples behavior.


Masters on earth is a natural consequence of believing in a master in heaven. Have the phrases "divine right of kings" and "appointed by God" never passed through your ears?

I sure have, and yet I am an anarchist. Well how about that.


The priesthood will never willingly give up their power - it must be forcibly dashed from their hands.

I thought you said that you didn&#39;t want to make martyrs?


If too few people take onboard the reality of religion as an oppressive set of beliefs and then go on to act against superstition, then we are doomed to a new Dark Ages.

Not really. And do you care to show exactly how we are doomed to a new Dark Age?




You are fucking stupid. Had you even read my posts, you would realise that one thing I wish to avoid is creating martyrs, which is what throwing religious people to the lions tends to do.

Then you are a fucking hypocrite, see 2 posts above.


Public behaviour can be easily regulated. And it is a fact that a religious upbringing is more likely to result in fucked-up adults.

You know, you never did prove this supposed fact of yours.


But is helping someone to do good by doing bad (lying) a necessarily good thing? Undermining logic in the manner that religion does helps no one but the religious.

Something is only a lie if the person saying it knows it is a lie.


Also etc. is short for etcetera, fuck knows what ect means.

Then you are either an idiot, or you really do know what he is saying, in which case you are an ass-hole.


Religion has neither supporting evidence nor a strong adherence to logic.

Sure it does.


morality is not exclusively the domain of the religious.

But atheists don&#39;t believe in objective morals. They can just make them up as they go.


1) People who need gods to tell them to be good are morally weak, the best incentive to do good for others is that others appreciate it.

Why should someone care about doing good for others simply because it is appreciated? Why should someone care about anybody at all?


2) Heaven isn&#39;t, as far as it is possible to know, real, lying to people about this - no matter how well intentioned - is immoral.

Again, you are only lying about something if you know that what you are saying is false.


3) Whatever religion helps does not absolve it from being utterly heinous.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/heinous

hateful; odious; abominable; totally reprehensible: a heinous offense.

How exactly is religion heinous if it is helping people? How can you come to that conclusion.



1) Later in life, when a person has a full grasp of logic, they can decide for themselves whether or not the supernatural is real. Until then attempting to convince them of it is tantamount to lying and therefore child abuse.

AGAIN&#33;, someone is only lying if they know that what they are saying is false&#33; And how exactly is lying child abuse anyways?


Take it up with him, as it happens I know full well that he does not support, practically at least, the killing of religious people.

I&#39;d beg to differ.


It takes publicly owned and controlled resources to build a temple for the cultists to worship at.

If it is publicly owned then what is stopping them from doing it?


As long as you think you can worship in front of your children without indoctrinating them into your view of the universe while they are too young to think through your hypothesis logically (and lets face it claims of the supernatural are hypothesises) then go for it,

I can teach my children, if I ever have any, whatever the fuck I want to.


but to be on the safe side it&#39;d be best done out of earshot.

For you to be on the safe side it&#39;d be best if you stayed the fuck out of our family affairs. And do NOT think that I am kidding either.



It would be unsociable if it offended the majority, anti-social behaviour is something that actually goes against acceptable norms of a society - in a communist society this would include things like logic & reason.

Well since you are a sociopath can we stop you from ranting your discrimination against religion?


Don&#39;t worry about it.

Don&#39;t worry about it? Your first response in this post was to tear him apart because he didn&#39;t put a dot after "ect." you hypocrite.


WRONG. Try to keep up - there is no evidence for religion therefore it belongs in the same place as the tooth fairy.

If you keep telling yourself that eventually it becomes true.


Evolution has supporting evidence and is currently how we explain the development of species. Unless you have something better to teach, shut the fuck up.

Again, I&#39;ll post later on this evolution.


Nope, as long as they don&#39;t waste public resources on their cult.

And who exactly gets to define what waste of public resources is? You?


In the same way that I think any kind of sex should be practised in private but children should not be involved in or exposed to it.

&#33;? Are you saying that there is something inherently wrong with sex? So what exactly are you views on nudity?I thought that people should be allowed to have sex in public if they wanted? So what&#39;s next? Your going to say that homosexual sex is wrong to?




Every society needs laws.

Some people say that every society needs a government.


Telling little Timmy that in the sky, there is a supremely powerful being watching him constantly is cruel as you don&#39;t know that this is true,

But you also do not know that there isn&#39;t a God. So is telling them that also "cruel"?


as is telling him that if he disobeys a command in a 2000+ year old anthology of texts, he will be tortured and burnt forever by a fallen angel in a pit of fire...

Funny, that&#39;s not what I believe at all.


But as I have already stated public preaching is indoctrination and supports dangerously reactionary ideas to become manifested into law.

How exactly is public preaching indoctrinating people? Are people to stupid to think for themselves and therefore they need some all knowing person such as yourself to take care of them? Also if it becomes manifested into law then that would mean that the people want it as a law, and who are you to stop what the people want.


You can be proud of your beliefs... you just shouldn&#39;t shove them into people&#39;s faces, whether that is in the form of public ceremonies or religious buildings.

How exactly is public preaching and inanimate buildings shoving my beliefs into peoples faces? Have people all of a sudden lost the ability to think for themselves?


Atheism is not a religion, fucktard. A communist society would have no proscribed religion.

Atheism is to a religion, "fucktard".
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

1. 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.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one&#39;s vow.
—Idiom
9. get religion, Informal.
a. to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.
b. to resolve to mend one&#39;s errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.


But please, if you have some proof of God&#39;s existance, then please cough it up and show up how "ignorant" I am. Wait, you can&#39;t? Well then, I guess I&#39;m not so ignorant.

How exactly did non living matter become living matter to start the whole evolution process?


You can believe whatever the hell you want, as long as you don&#39;t involve children, use public resources or do it in public.

Not only can I believe in whatever the hell I want but I can also profess my beliefs publicly, involve my children, and use these so called public resources.


This paragraph has two implicit assumptions. Just because a large amount of people share a delusion does not make it true,

Yes that is true. Just because a large amount of atheists believe in evolution does not make it true.


or right to hold said delusion.

Correct in only one way. I do not have a right to old said delusion because a large amount believe in it. I have a right to hold said delusion because I have a fucking right to believe in whatever I want to believe and "fucktards" like yourself can not stop me.


So now it is tyranny to destroy the tyrant called God?

But I thought you didn&#39;t believe in God.


We don&#39;t want to create martyrs, we want them gone forever&#33;

Two contradictory statements.


It is obvious that you are not even remotely familiar with religious scriptures. Read Leviticus and then get back to me.

I have and yet I still fail to see these bad things that you would like to be in there. Have you read Leviticus? Why don&#39;t you read 1 Samuels 8 and then get back to me.


I also find it more disturbingly totalitarian that you&#39;re willing to use religion in such a manner as opposed to abolishing it altogether.

No, I also find it more disturbingly totalitarian that you&#39;re willing to use religion in such a manner as in abolishing it altogether.


Yes. Freedom from the ultimate tyranny - religious belief.

No, Freedom from the ultimate tyranny - people like you who would deny people freedom of speech.


Would you consider it one&#39;s freedom to teach kids in a public high school that the Holocaust never happened?

Yes, I would consider it one&#39;s freedom to teach kids in a public high school that the Holocaust never happened? People can teach whatever they want, it is called freedom of speech. And since it would be being taught in high school then that would mean that the people voted that in.


Religious teachings are nothing more than attempts to enact repressive acts which counter human emancipation.

Yeah, anarchy, how repressive. <_<


They can be psychologically damaging to children and embody so many ideas which are diametrically opposed to much of which we believe.

Care to provide your sources? Also since when is anarchy diametrically opposed to what we believe?


If we allow public preaching, we are allowing kids to be subjected to be indoctrinated into an illness.

Again with the children. You people really know how to pull on that emotion string don&#39;t you?


You can worship in the privacy of your own home, and that is it as far as I am concerned.

I can worship wherever the fuck I want, and that is as far as I am concerned.


But what if doesn&#39;t i think we will always have mentally ill people like freakazoid who will buy into anything.

Yeah, like anarchy. Man those are such mentally ill ideas. And who the fuck are you to call me mentally ill&#33;? Under what evidence&#33;?

[Tommy-K]

People may practice their own religion providing they are not inciting oppression, hatred or conflict through it and as long as religion and government are kept totally seperate.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 01:55 pm
"Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding."
--Martin Luther

-_- In that respect, faith and science are incompatible. Religion and realism are at conflict most of the time.
MArtin Luther was foolish... plenty of rational, untreligious people have faith. Faith is understanding how an idea can help you and what you already know of it and accepting it for those reasons... every thought you have requires faith.

Superstition is different, but it&#39;s not necessarily antagonistic to all "reason, sense and understaning." It&#39;s only necessarily antagonistic to one specific bit of reason and sense - that is, the antithesis that is the truth.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 11:52 am
Was it not said that all "children", because of evolution, will believe what there parents believe.
It was said that most children will blindly believe what adults tell them, which is why one must be especially careful about teaching younger generations, lest they become weak thinkers that believe falsehoods.


This is why you claim that children should not even have religion introduced around them, not until they are "adults". But here you are saying that they can develop their logic and reasoning skills.

What point are you trying to make, really?


Also who defines what is a "child"? Is it based on age?

Yes, of course it&#39;s based on fucking age what else would it be based on, arse candle?


If so what age? In the US there are actually really isn&#39;t a true age for being an "adult" Is it 16, when you are allowed to get a job. 17, when you are allowed to see an R rated film by yourself. 18, when you are allowed to smoke, join the army and kill people, and purchase a long arm. Or is it 21, when you are allowed to drink and purchase a handgun. Isn&#39;t it in Briton you only have to be 16 to drink?

Generally my guess as to when one has intellectually developed enough to be considered adult would be around 14 years. This is by no means an entirely expert analysis but, for the purposes of my argument, I am using this age to be "adult".


Who exactly determines then when a "child" becomes and "adult"?

Development of critical faculties and reaching physical maturity.


Also if you compare the statements given here about the handling of "children" to other threads you get some pretty conflicting results. In other threads it seems like "children" have the full ability to reason and to think for themselves, shoot they can even drop out of school if they want, but then in this thread you make "children" out to be like mindless idiots incapable of thinking for themselves.

Apologies for the confusion - for every instance of "child" or "children" in this thread substitute "infant" or "infants" - as they are the most at risk from this pernicious threat.


And then we get to the big thing, WHY IN THE WORLD SHOULD PARENTS NOT BE ABLE TO TEACH THERE CHILDREN WHAT THEY WANT, WHAT THEY BELIEVE IN&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

For the most part because a traditional family structure won&#39;t exist and parents, generally, won&#39;t be doing any teaching - it is the adult world at large that is to be prevented from brainwashing children. Even assuming a traditional family structure I still do not think that anyone has the right to teach anyone falsehoods - it makes a mockery of the concept of learning and leads to problems in later life.


Let&#39;s take a look at what indoctrinate means shall we, since that word gets thrown around a lot when it comes to the children.

To be fair it is clear from the context that most people are using &#39;indoctrinate&#39; in the sense of "to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view." rather than in the sense of "to imbue with learning."


How exactly is it "abussive" to "indoctrinate", or teach, what you believe to your children?

It&#39;s abusive to indoctrinate children as they are unable to see that you are teaching them a flawed and false world-view because they are unfamiliar with logic and the like.


Well no shit it could cover any kind of education, see above.

Again, you are the only one operating using the 3rd definition, the 1st is by far the more commonly accepted meaning.


I&#39;ll point them out later.

You&#39;re full of shit.


Except it does, you are saying that in order for a woman to get a man that they have to show skin, that they are nothing but objects, prizes to be one and fought over.

No. By wearing a miniskirt you are, in effect, wearing a fucking mini-skirt - there is no need to mystify it with your christian morality.


So now you are going to go around telling people what they need? How not authoritarian. <_<

If someone needs protection then it is the duty of the community to provide that, this is nothing to do with "authority".


How about the other way around? Can a commune allow, or even encourage, the teaching of the tradition or moral?

Assuming the tradition or moral is antithetical to the existance of the commune (for example it posits a higher authority) then it would be counter-productive for the commune to do so.


So what happens to all of the books already in print?

Nothing, people can do as they will with them.


Are they still allowed to be bought and sold?

No. There will be no "buying and selling".


And also since these books will eventually deteriorate what you are in essence doing is destroying them.

Presumably someone will scan them and make an electronic version.


Except the whole hierarchy thing.

Destroying religion is not hierarchical but most religions are.


An in animate object can do all that? Man it must have some kind of supernatural powers to do that.

The building can&#39;t do anything, but presumably you&#39;re familiar with informal english where my statements simply means that the only use to which the building will be put is of no use to the community and, in most cases, is actually detrimental to it.



No your not, you are destroying anything religious, that is hardly not shoving your beliefs down anyones throats.

We&#39;re not actively destroying religion, if it happens to be destroyed because the public has greater logical reasoning skill then that is unfortunate (yeah, right) but indicative of the weakness of religion as an idea.


How about you let me defend my own throat, I can think for myself. I don&#39;t need some nanny government telling me what is for my own good you hypocrite.

You and I can defend ourselves, as can the adult population but the infant population is at great risk from being forcibly indoctrinated into religion.


It sounds like you people are the ones all too eager to being ramming.

So the ones that propose teaching logical thought, critical thinking and open questioning of ideas are actually the ones ramming ideas down people throats, whereas those who back slavish obedience to lessons found in a piece of bronze age literature are those that support free speech? Please tell me your next post will be "April fools" or something.


It isn&#39;t? And who exactly gets to decide what is and what isn&#39;t someones right? You?

The community as a whole.


I believe that it is my right to say whatever I want, just as it is your right to not believe, or to even listen.

If what you say is an attempt to attack the minds of those unable to defend themselves (i.e children and the mentally ill) then you have no right to do that.


So you insult people because it amuses you&#33;? You sound more and more like a sociopath to me.

Oh right, having a sense of humour is sociopathic - right, I&#39;ll bear that in mind.


Why don&#39;t you just answer the question at the same time?

All right, I have no evidence for God&#39;s existance, your turn.


For some reason I just don&#39;t believe you.

Probably because you&#39;ve got that persecution complex which seems prevalent in the modern american christian community.


Perhaps it is because people will realize that what you are doing is wrong?

How do you "realise" something that isn&#39;t so?


Oh of course, why have a police state when you can get the people to do the dirty work for you. That way you can make the claim that it isn&#39;t a police state because there are not any hired police.

Wait, what? So absolutely no order should be kept by the people because that makes a community a "police state"? How do you propose order is kept in an anarchist society?


Yeah, people that don&#39;t believe what you believe are really "fucked up". <_<

People that believe ancient myths in the 21st Century are fucked up.



And we come to the real reason, it is all about controlling peoples behavior.

Some behaviour must be controlled; rape, child abuse (e.g religious brainwashing), murder, assault and so on are good examples of this.


But atheists don&#39;t believe in objective morals. They can just make them up as they go.

Yep, we do. So do religious people - only religious people take an old myth as the basis for their morality whereas atheists tend to take more logical positions as the basis of their morality - enlightened self-interest, humanism and so on.


Why should someone care about doing good for others simply because it is appreciated? Why should someone care about anybody at all?

First: Someone could care about having their actions appreciated for a series of reasons - it may mean such behaviour is reciprocated in the future, the feeling of having their actions appreciated makes them feel better, being appreciated in their actions may cause a rise in social status or any number of other reasons.

Second: "Why should someone care about anybody at all?" How long is a piece of string? Really there are so many different answers to this question that it is entirely nonsensical to ask it. Just think for a second and think about the meaning of the following words and phrases: empathy, friendship, love, admiration, infatuation, avoidance of solitude, society, desire for company & social instinct.


How exactly is religion heinous if it is helping people? How can you come to that conclusion.

Religion is heinous despite it "helping" a few people, not because of it you stupid ****.


I&#39;d beg to differ.

Yeah but I know him and you don&#39;t, so fuck off.


If it is publicly owned then what is stopping them from doing it?

The public, after all they own it.


I can teach my children, if I ever have any, whatever the fuck I want to.

What gives you authority over your children?


For you to be on the safe side it&#39;d be best if you stayed the fuck out of our family affairs. And do NOT think that I am kidding either.

Family is another outdated religious concept that should be eradicated.


Well since you are a sociopath can we stop you from ranting your discrimination against religion?

You do know what a sociopath is right? Also my views on religion would be the general norm after a revolution - they&#39;re already fairly popular in a lot of europe.



And who exactly gets to define what waste of public resources is? You?

The public.



&#33;? Are you saying that there is something inherently wrong with sex? So what exactly are you views on nudity?I thought that people should be allowed to have sex in public if they wanted? So what&#39;s next? Your going to say that homosexual sex is wrong to?


Sex is fine. Perfoming it whilst involving infants or unwilling and/or unwitting members of the public is not. Same with religion.




Some people say that every society needs a government.

And they are wrong. So what?


How exactly did non living matter become living matter to start the whole evolution process?

You have to understand that there isn&#39;t actually a distinct point that one could pick out of the timeline of evolution and say "unlife became life" - becomings don&#39;t work like that in the natural world. Also this is not evidence that God exists it is evidence that you should be kept out of discussions where grown-ups are talking science.



But I thought you didn&#39;t believe in God.

The God concept is very much alive, once that is destroyed we have, in essence, destroyed your tyrant god.


Yes, I would consider it one&#39;s freedom to teach kids in a public high school that the Holocaust never happened? People can teach whatever they want, it is called freedom of speech. And since it would be being taught in high school then that would mean that the people voted that in.

So teachers should be popular rather than correct?


Yeah, like anarchy. Man those are such mentally ill ideas. And who the fuck are you to call me mentally ill&#33;? Under what evidence&#33;?

Well you do have a god delusion.

Now will you fuck off?

[RedCommieBear]

Can I rear my head in this discussion for a second?


Originally posted by mcteethinator+--> (mcteethinator)Let religion die out on it&#39;s own. It&#39;ll happen.[/b]

I wouldn&#39;t be so sure. Let&#39;s look at some data from Post-Hoxha Albania. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, pre-Hoxha Albania was composed of 70 percent Muslim, 20 percent Eastern Orthodox, and 10 percent Roman Catholic. Hoxha stamped out all religion in 1967, demolishing all churches and mosques, or turning them into movie theaters (amongst other things). No religious names, and anyone found with copies of scripture would be sent to prison. Children in Albania would grow up in as secular environment as they come. In 2004, just 14 years after Albanian socialism&#39;s collapse, Muslims composed of 39 percent, Nonreligious/Atheist 26 percent, Roman Catholic 17 percent, Orthodox Christian 16 percent, and other religions (including pagan revivalist movements) at 2 percent.

There are some problems with my data I&#39;ll admit. In the 14 years, there were missionary efforts. But, for the most part, you can&#39;t blame those high numbers on missionary efforts. I mean, when a Jehovah&#39;s Witness shows up at your door, do you take them seriously, or just throw their material away? Despite Hoxha&#39;s best efforts, religion continued to live on. Secretly, and individually, religion continued to exist.

Indeed, for religion to be completely stamped out, there would have to be a constant state of anti-religious upheaval, forever.

Here&#39;s an statement of seen in other threads on religion.


Hopefully Christianity goes the way of Thor. No one believes in Thor and Odin now, no one will believe in Christianity in the future.

Actually, people do continue to believe in Thor. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neopaganism) And it&#39;s the fastest growing religion in North America and Europe. Are neopagans a major religion? No. But they continue to exist, and are growing, and like it or not, we&#39;re going to have to deal with it.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-42625/Albania
http://www.albanian.com/community/vbl/showthread.php?t=1143


Freakazoid
If so what age? In the US there are actually really isn&#39;t a true age for being an "adult" Is it 16, when you are allowed to get a job. 17, when you are allowed to see an R rated film by yourself. 18, when you are allowed to smoke, join the army and kill people, and purchase a long arm. Or is it 21, when you are allowed to drink and purchase a handgun. Isn&#39;t it in Briton you only have to be 16 to drink?

Nitpicking numbers is not a valid arguement. For the sake of arguement, an adult is an adult when they are capable of making decisions on their own. I&#39;d put this between the ages of 10-14, depending on the child in question. Perhaps leaving them in a vaccum and then introducing it all at once is a bad idea. Telling kids "some people believe this and some people believe that" isn&#39;t indoctrination, as long as it&#39;s explained in a neutral way. Then, when they reach the appropriate level of maturity, they&#39;ll make the decision themselves.

Religious indoctrination, of course, is simply wrong. Proof: The film Jesus Camp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Camp). If you have not seen the movie, read some of the quotes Iquotes (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jesus_Camp), and you&#39;ll see what I mean.

Edit: Made slight expansion on neopagans

[freakazoid]

Yes, of course it&#39;s based on fucking age what else would it be based on, arse candle?


Development of critical faculties and reaching physical maturity.

That is not reliant on age. At certain ages you can generally expert certain levels of maturity, but age is no the determining factor.


Apologies for the confusion - for every instance of "child" or "children" in this thread substitute "infant" or "infants" - as they are the most at risk from this pernicious threat.

Oh, I see. Ok.


Even assuming a traditional family structure I still do not think that anyone has the right to teach anyone falsehoods - it makes a mockery of the concept of learning and leads to problems in later life.

I do, I don&#39;t think it is right to knowingly teach false hoods, but I do think that it should be allowed. But I think that this is mostly based on my belief in the family structure, which I know that you do not believe in, and that is something that I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.


To be fair it is clear from the context that most people are using &#39;indoctrinate&#39; in the sense of "to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view." rather than in the sense of "to imbue with learning."

Hmm... True.


You&#39;re full of shit.

Well actually last night I already took a dump, :P



No. By wearing a miniskirt you are, in effect, wearing a fucking mini-skirt - there is no need to mystify it with your christian morality.

That is true, that you are still wearing just a mini-skirt, but from my experience people were mini-skirts because of what I had described. I remember a long time ago this was talked about, but it wasn&#39;t about mini-skirts but high heeled shoes. I&#39;m not saying that people shouldn&#39;t be allowed to wear them, I&#39;m just saying what I have noticed about them. Also you may notice that just because I disagree with something that that doesn&#39;t mean that I believe it should be banned.


Assuming the tradition or moral is antithetical to the existance of the commune (for example it posits a higher authority) then it would be counter-productive for the commune to do so.

Lots of things may be counter-productive to the commune, but does that mean that it shouldn&#39;t be allowed to do something, as long as it is the people who agree with it and not being forced upon?



No. There will be no "buying and selling".

Do you mean buying and selling in the traditional sense, or do you mean nothing will be allowed to be bought and sold, or do you mean that only Bibles, and other religious things will not be allowed to be bought and sold?


if it happens to be destroyed because the public has greater logical reasoning skill then that is unfortunate (yeah, right)

:P


You and I can defend ourselves, as can the adult population but the infant population is at great risk from being forcibly indoctrinated into religion.

But you see, I do not believe that what I believe is wrong, and therefore it would not be "indoctrination"


So the ones that propose teaching logical thought, critical thinking and open questioning of ideas are actually the ones ramming ideas down people throats,

Not the ones proposing teaching logical thought, but the ones forcing it.


If what you say is an attempt to attack the minds of those unable to defend themselves (i.e children and the mentally ill) then you have no right to do that.

I believe in the family structure, and therefore I can teach my children whatever I believe in. Also I do not believe that preaching on a street corner is attacking the minds.


Oh right, having a sense of humour is sociopathic - right, I&#39;ll bear that in mind.

It isn&#39;t about having a sense of humor, it is that calling people names is what you find amusing. Do you think that it is alright for someone to go around abusing animals because it amuses them?


Probably because you&#39;ve got that persecution complex which seems prevalent in the modern american christian community.

Probably because I am being persecuted because of my Christian beliefs. It&#39;s no secret that I am not well liked because of my Christian beliefs, let alone my YEC beliefs.



How do you "realise" something that isn&#39;t so?

But it is so.


Wait, what? So absolutely no order should be kept by the people because that makes a community a "police state"? How do you propose order is kept in an anarchist society?

That&#39;s not what I was getting at. Hmm... I don&#39;t know of a better way to put it.


First: Someone could care about having their actions appreciated for a series of reasons

Sure someone "could" for a variety of reasons, but there is no reason why someone "should" care about others.


Second: "Why should someone care about anybody at all?" How long is a piece of string?

Eh?


Yeah but I know him and you don&#39;t

It is true that I don&#39;t know him, or anybody here for that matter. But, do you not think that that could lead to a little biasness?


The public, after all they own it.

But what if it is the public itself that supports it?


What gives you authority over your children?


It&#39;s abusive to indoctrinate children as they are unable to see that you are teaching them a flawed and false world-view because they are unfamiliar with logic and the like.

That ^^, and also because I believe in the family structure.


You do know what a sociopath is right?

I actually looked it up before I used the word, just to make sure that I was using the right term. Want to make sure that I am calling you the right word, :P


Also my views on religion would be the general norm after a revolution - they&#39;re already fairly popular in a lot of europe.

Sadly, I believe that is true, :(.


Sex is fine. Perfoming it whilst involving infants or unwilling and/or unwitting members of the public is not.

This is something that I was not expecting, I was under the assumption that it was the general belief that sex in public would also not be wrong.



And they are wrong. So what?

You didn&#39;t get what I was getting at? Come on, I&#39;m pretty sure you did.


You have to understand that there isn&#39;t actually a distinct point that one could pick out of the timeline of evolution and say "unlife became life" - becomings don&#39;t work like that in the natural world.

I&#39;m pretty sure that there would be a VERY specific time that unlife became life. There is nothing in-between life and unlife.


So teachers should be popular rather than correct?

No, they should teach what they, and the community, believe in.


Well you do have a god delusion.

:P Interesting thing, just last night I was listening to NPR, National Public Radio, and someone was doing an interview with Richard Dawkins about his first book, The Selfish Gene, I think that is it. Interesting stuff, not that I completely agree with him. Also his voice is easy to listen to.


Now will you fuck off?

I would of thought that you would of figured out by now that I do not do premarital sex, :P

You know, for the most part I like and respect you. But what really bothers me is your attitude towards me because of my religious beliefs, that you can&#39;t see past that. :(

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

THIS (http://fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?id=27994) is a particularly sick example of child indoctrination.

[freakazoid]

Yeah, praying is so sick child indoctrination, <_<

Although I do not agree with his conclusion about the bridge.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 10:23 pm

Yes, of course it&#39;s based on fucking age what else would it be based on, arse candle?


Development of critical faculties and reaching physical maturity.

That is not reliant on age. At certain ages you can generally expert certain levels of maturity, but age is no the determining factor.
Well it&#39;s very difficult to base anything on subjectivity so the best way to do it is to find an age at which an average of the population have developed the critical faculties necessary to recognise illogical and malignant beliefs.



I do, I don&#39;t think it is right to knowingly teach false hoods, but I do think that it should be allowed. But I think that this is mostly based on my belief in the family structure, which I know that you do not believe in, and that is something that I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.

Well it&#39;s quite hard to construct either of our arguments without first having a common ground in our views on the family structure so for the sake of argument I am going to play "devils advocate" and make my argument from a traditional family structure. If you think of the parental unit as educators then you see my problem with indoctrinating (remember still using the meaning with negative connotations) children with arguable or false "facts" - it is the duty of an educator to teach, to the best of their abilities obviously, accurately and factually.



That is true, that you are still wearing just a mini-skirt, but from my experience people were mini-skirts because of what I had described. I remember a long time ago this was talked about, but it wasn&#39;t about mini-skirts but high heeled shoes. I&#39;m not saying that people shouldn&#39;t be allowed to wear them, I&#39;m just saying what I have noticed about them. Also you may notice that just because I disagree with something that that doesn&#39;t mean that I believe it should be banned.

You&#39;re missing the wider point - there is nothing harmful in the wearing of any given article of clothing unless one is an unsuitable area (a mini skirt at the top of a high mountain, a parka in the desert during the day).


Lots of things may be counter-productive to the commune, but does that mean that it shouldn&#39;t be allowed to do something, as long as it is the people who agree with it and not being forced upon?

So you would allow the commune to be destroyed or weakened in the name of some ill-defined "freedom"?


Do you mean buying and selling in the traditional sense, or do you mean nothing will be allowed to be bought and sold, or do you mean that only Bibles, and other religious things will not be allowed to be bought and sold?

I mean nothing will be bought or sold.


But you see, I do not believe that what I believe is wrong, and therefore it would not be "indoctrination"

Irrelevant.


Not the ones proposing teaching logical thought, but the ones forcing it.

Meaningless.


I believe in the family structure, and therefore I can teach my children whatever I believe in. Also I do not believe that preaching on a street corner is attacking the minds.

Well you&#39;re wrong. Even if you use the traditional family structure I would still argue it is an abuse of a position of trust to teach falsehoods to infants.


It isn&#39;t about having a sense of humor, it is that calling people names is what you find amusing. Do you think that it is alright for someone to go around abusing animals because it amuses them?

Well a lot of humour can be found in mockery and it is in fact a staple of humour. As for the animals thing I&#39;m fine with it, but I&#39;d draw the line at physically abusing people.


Probably because I am being persecuted because of my Christian beliefs. It&#39;s no secret that I am not well liked because of my Christian beliefs, let alone my YEC beliefs.

http://www2.dsu.nodak.edu/users/dmeier/Holocaust/auschwitz1.jpg

You know fuck all about persecution.


That&#39;s not what I was getting at. Hmm... I don&#39;t know of a better way to put it.

You have no idea what you&#39;re talking about, do you?


Sure someone "could" for a variety of reasons, but there is no reason why someone "should" care about others.

What are you getting at?



Second: "Why should someone care about anybody at all?" How long is a piece of string?

Eh?

There are so many answers to the question you asked as to render it meaningless, hence "how long is a piece of string".


It is true that I don&#39;t know him, or anybody here for that matter. But, do you not think that that could lead to a little biasness?

Baisness is not a word. I think what it leads to is me better understanding what he&#39;s talking about.


But what if it is the public itself that supports it?

What if they support a return to capitalism? The answer is the same in both cases, the revolution failed.


What gives you authority over your children?


It&#39;s abusive to indoctrinate children as they are unable to see that you are teaching them a flawed and false world-view because they are unfamiliar with logic and the like.


That ^^, and also because I believe in the family structure.

So you support an absolute authoritarian patriarchal family structure and yet do don&#39;t see any incongruity with your anarchistic beliefs.


This is something that I was not expecting, I was under the assumption that it was the general belief that sex in public would also not be wrong.

That depends on whether it is involving willing members of the public or not, some people (asexuals for example) would rather not have to watch people have sex.


You didn&#39;t get what I was getting at? Come on, I&#39;m pretty sure you did.

I got what you were saying but I disagreed with it and thus was flippant. Try to keep up.


I&#39;m pretty sure that there would be a VERY specific time that unlife became life. There is nothing in-between life and unlife.

What is that point then? When non-sentience becomes pre-sentience? When pre-sentience becomes sentience? When unliving things begin to replicate? When is this arbitrary point?


No, they should teach what they, and the community, believe in.

WRONG. They should teach what is correct as that is the duty of an educator.


You know, for the most part I like and respect you. But what really bothers me is your attitude towards me because of my religious beliefs, that you can&#39;t see past that. :(

http://www.fstdt.com/funnyimages/uploads/365.JPG (http://www.fstdt.com/)

[RHIZOMES]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 01:55 pm
"Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding."
--Martin Luther

-_- In that respect, faith and science are incompatible. Religion and realism are at conflict most of the time.
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo

[freakazoid]

If you think of the parental unit as educators then you see my problem with indoctrinating (remember still using the meaning with negative connotations) children with arguable or false "facts" - it is the duty of an educator to teach, to the best of their abilities obviously, accurately and factually.

And I believe the parents to be the educators.


You&#39;re missing the wider point - there is nothing harmful in the wearing of any given article of clothing unless one is an unsuitable area (a mini skirt at the top of a high mountain, a parka in the desert during the day).

I know that there is nothing inherently harmful in the mini-skirt itself, it is just an inanimate object. But it is the reasons behind the wearing of it.


So you would allow the commune to be destroyed or weakened in the name of some ill-defined "freedom"?

I would allow them to destroy themselves, yes. Do you think that someone should be allowed to commit suicide?


I mean nothing will be bought or sold.

Ok.


Irrelevant.

Please explain.


Meaningless.

How so?



Well you&#39;re wrong. Even if you use the traditional family structure I would still argue it is an abuse of a position of trust to teach falsehoods to infants.

Not if the educator believes it to be true.



Well a lot of humour can be found in mockery and it is in fact a staple of humour.

True, but there is a point to where it is no longer something humorous and becomes quite abusive.


As for the animals thing I&#39;m fine with it, but I&#39;d draw the line at physically abusing people.

It seems that most, if not all not sure, serial killers start of with animals.



You know fuck all about persecution.

I&#39;m assuming that that is some kind of concentration camp, but Idon;t get what you are getting at.


You have no idea what you&#39;re talking about, do you?

I do, I&#39;m just not very good at explaining my views. I fail at English class, :(



What are you getting at?

That there is no actual reason to care about others, there is no reason to think of anybody but yourself. And communism/anarchy is based off of caring for others.



Baisness is not a word. I think what it leads to is me better understanding what he&#39;s talking about.

It might not be a real "word" but you did understand what I was meaning right? Also, what about the AMMP thread? At first you completely agreed with him, and now you are saying that it does have useful info.


What if they support a return to capitalism? The answer is the same in both cases, the revolution failed.

If they wanted to return to a form of capitalism then they should be able to, but it wouldn&#39;t last very long. The revolution would of have only failed if every single commune wanted to return to a form of capitalism.


So you support an absolute authoritarian patriarchal family structure and yet do don&#39;t see any incongruity with your anarchistic beliefs.

You said it yourself that the children haven&#39;t "Development of critical faculties and reaching physical maturity." And it isn&#39;t patriarchal, if I am understanding the word correctly. It means that the male is the head of the household right? If so then that goes against my beliefs.


What is that point then? When non-sentience becomes pre-sentience? When pre-sentience becomes sentience? When unliving things begin to replicate? When is this arbitrary point?

There is a very set thing on what things need in order to be living.


WRONG. They should teach what is correct as that is the duty of an educator.

Yes, and if they believe it to be true then they believe it to be correct. If they didn&#39;t believe it to be correct then they wouldn&#39;t believe it to begin with.

And I don&#39;t get what that picture means.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 05:03 pm
And I believe the parents to be the educators.
Yet you would allow them to teach controversial and false ideas as fact, despite this being against the duties of an educator?


I know that there is nothing inherently harmful in the mini-skirt itself, it is just an inanimate object. But it is the reasons behind the wearing of it.

What&#39;s terrible about the reasons for wearing a miniskirt?


I would allow them to destroy themselves, yes. Do you think that someone should be allowed to commit suicide?

Suicide and destroying the society in which you live are morally different, it is pointless to compare the two.



Please explain.

What you believe is irrelevant when deciding what is and is not indoctrination, shitwit.


Not if the educator believes it to be true.

WRONG. The educator should attempt, as much as possible, to prevent personal biases and beliefs entering lessons on objective fact.


True, but there is a point to where it is no longer something humorous and becomes quite abusive.

...and?


It seems that most, if not all not sure, serial killers start of with animals.

So? This doesn&#39;t mean we should prevent people killing animals.


I&#39;m assuming that that is some kind of concentration camp, but Idon;t get what you are getting at.

Ye, it is "some kind of concentration camp", it&#39;s the fucking gates of Auschwitz an image that to this day brings powerful emotions to most people as they remember the crimes of Nazi germany against jews, homosexuals, gypsies, communists and so on - people who were and are actually persecuted. That you and all the other straight, white, christian americans have the fucking ovaries to claim persecution is a fucking insult.


I do, I&#39;m just not very good at explaining my views.

Convenient.


I fail

That&#39;s all you needed to say


That there is no actual reason to care about others, there is no reason to think of anybody but yourself. And communism/anarchy is based off of caring for others.

There&#39;s plenty of good reasons to care for others, a lot of it is based on the fact that such care will be reciprocated.


It might not be a real "word" but you did understand what I was meaning right? Also, what about the AMMP thread? At first you completely agreed with him, and now you are saying that it does have useful info.

He and I have discussed that.


If they wanted to return to a form of capitalism then they should be able to, but it wouldn&#39;t last very long. The revolution would of have only failed if every single commune wanted to return to a form of capitalism

Same with religion.


You said it yourself that the children haven&#39;t "Development of critical faculties and reaching physical maturity."

This doesn&#39;t mean that you have to use some farcical and outdated institution to bring them up.


And it isn&#39;t patriarchal, if I am understanding the word correctly. It means that the male is the head of the household right? If so then that goes against my beliefs.

All right, it&#39;s just when you said "traditional family structure" that is what I envisaged.

Tell me, what do you think of a family involving multiple adults in sexual relationships or involving homsexuals (either as a couple or in a more open relationship)?


There is a very set thing on what things need in order to be living.

Yes, but things didn&#39;t instantaneously jump from "non living" to living.


Yes, and if they believe it to be true then they believe it to be correct. If they didn&#39;t believe it to be correct then they wouldn&#39;t believe it to begin with.

Which is why educators, unless they are teaching those with developed defences against nonsense, should avoid teaching personal belief - it is likely they will be acting against their duties.


And I don&#39;t get what that picture means.

And you never will :lol:

[Dr Mindbender]

as long as a partition between church and state (or mosque or synagogue for that matter) is mantained then i see no reason why places of worship cant exist under socialism/communism. As long as they dont get politically active then they wont be a threat. I think the way the chinese CP is integrating the church into the state is one of the few things that theyre getting right. That said, it isnt completely perfect either. I envision &#39;forum houses&#39; where atheists and theists can come to address their grievances with each other without fear of recourse.