The Fascism Delusion

[al8]

Someone has thought of a good way to examine the common criticism Richard Dawkins gets on his book The God Delution. Here's an exerpt;


More on Dawkins
Posted by Adam Roberts on 09/09/07 at 06:42 AM

The controversy stirred up by Dawkins’s latest book The Fascism Delusion really seem to be heating up. Here is one recent review, from many, that takes him to task:

Only Dawkins, or perhaps his psychiatrist, can say why this subject seems to make him so angry; but he should be advised that the intemperate hostility he exhibits towards his subject is counterproductive. I’ll eat my shiny peaked cap if this book persuades even the most hesitant half-Fascist to renounce his beliefs.

… [Dawkins’s] sense of ‘Fascism’ is lamentably error-strewn. Dawkins has only a superficial knowledge of Mein Kamf, or the poetry of Marinetti; and he seems entirely ignorant of the much more subtle and intellectually stimulating work of Fascist philosophers such as Hermann Graf Keyserling, Alfred Baeumler, Martin Heidegger, Giovanni Gentile, Rafael Sánchez Mazas, Alain de Benoist and many others. Only somebody who has mastered the complete works of all these thinkers could even conceivably be in a position to advance an anti-Fascist argument. The lack of that necessary body of knowledge fatally undermines Dawkins’s right to attack Fascism in the first place.

Right from the get-go he makes the mistake of talking about ‘Fascism’ as if it were some unified quality. Of course the truth is that there are a great many varieties and flavours of Fascism. Do his generalisations refer to Italian Fascism? Hitlerian fascism? Islamofascism? Falangism? Crypto-Fascism? Brazilian Integralism? It is meaningless to extract an idealised, monolithic ‘fascism’ from this myriad patchwork of human practices, even for polemical purposes. Nor is it right to call Fascism ‘right-wing’ (what about the career of Otto Johann Maximilian Strasser?) or ‘militaristic’ (many Fascists are wholly peaceable).

Dawkins repeatedly compares the best of non-Fascism to the worst of Fascism. He (again repeatedly) accuses Fascism of being...
For full article press # (http://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/article/more_on_dawkins/#When:10:42:00Z).


One of the things that I like about this article is that it makes more clear is how blatently obfuscation is used by the religious. And also how easy it normally is to give this crap a vaccant stare and a passing custumary 'respect'. However put in context like this, their charlatans-smiles become as transparent the emperors new cloths, so to say.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

An attempt to make a defence of religion sound ridiculous by replacing "religion" with "fascism"? Heh. You can make a defence of anything sound ridiculous by replacing X with "fascism".

But frankly, I'm a little tired of this boring old practice of using fascism as the universal standard of evil. Honestly, can't people be a little more creative? Use the slave trade for once, or maybe Genghis Khan, or the Congo Free State or something.

[Bilan]

What...the fuck?

[Vargha Poralli]

An attempt to make a defence of religion sound ridiculous by replacing "religion" with "fascism"? Heh. You can make a defence of anything sound ridiculous by replacing X with "fascism".


Black Book comes to mind.

Fascism arises from specific material circumstances and it main aim is to crush the backbone of worker's movement.

Religion has completely different reasons for its existence.

Comapring religion with fascism is just a Bourgeoisie attempt to minimise the danger of Fascism.


maybe Genghis Khan

What is wrong with him ? Just curious.

[Matty_UK]

I think it's a good thing that fascism is regarding as the benchmark for evil, because it's a more relevant threat to the working class than Genghis Khan.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 02:01 pm
I think it's a good thing that fascism is regarding as the benchmark for evil, because it's a more relevant threat to the working class than Genghis Khan.
Yes, but less relevant today than neoliberalism. (no, neoliberals are not worse than fascists, but today they have a whole lot more power than fascists)

But as for the Khan reference, I came up with that one mostly at random. Genghis Khan killed lots of people, and the main reason why fascists are considered the benchmark of all evil is also because they killed lots of people.

[al8]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 10, 2007 07:30 am
But frankly, I'm a little tired of this boring old practice of using fascism as the universal standard of evil. Honestly, can't people be a little more creative?
Well, I will be happy to oblige. There so happens to be another article by Sam Harris that goes along similair lines. There, however, witchcraft is "put instead of x". Here is a small exerpt;


"Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on [witchcraft]. Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins, who is the nearest thing to a professional [skeptic] we have had since Bertrand Russell, are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don't believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding. This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of [conjuring and divination] that would make a first-year [sorcerer's apprentice] wince...Dawkins rejects the surely reasonable case that science and [witchcraft] are not in competition on the grounds that this insulates [witchcraft] from rational inquiry. But this is a mistake... while [belief in magic], rather like love, must involve factual knowledge, it is not reducible to it... Because the universe is [the Devil's], it shares in his life, which is the life of freedom. This is why it works all by itself, and why science and Richard Dawkins are therefore both possible. The same is true of human beings: [the Devil] is not an obstacle to our autonomy and enjoyment but, as [Aleister Crowley] argues, the power that allows us to be ourselves. Like the unconscious, he is closer to us than we are to ourselves. He is the source of our self-determination, not the erasure of it. To be dependent on him, as to be dependent on our friends, is a matter of freedom and fulfillment. Indeed, friendship is the word [Crowley] uses to characterise the relation between [the Devil] and humanity...The mainstream [witchcraft] I have just outlined may well not be true; but anyone who holds it is in my view to be respected, whereas Dawkins considers that no [sorcery], anytime or anywhere, is worthy of any respect whatsoever. This, one might note, is the opinion of a man deeply averse to dogmatism. Even moderate [occult] views, he insists, are to be ferociously contested, since they can always lead to fanaticism...Such is Dawkins's unruffled scientific impartiality that in a book of almost four hundred pages, he can scarcely bring himself to concede that a single human benefit has flowed from [the belief in magic], a view which is as a priori improbable as it is empirically false."
--Terry Eagleton, London Review of Books Full article # (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/in-defense-of-witchcraft_b_53865.html).

Was that creative enough? :engles: I think that the main objective of this kind of literary criticism is to use a discredited paradigm that people know of and compare it with an equally flawed paradigm. Then of course one takes a near example. I don't know, Gengis Khan or The Congo free State, just seem a bit distant.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It's obvious that whoever wrote that article either didn't read is book or didn't understand it.

Dawkins attacks the "God Hypothesis", and his attacks are applicable to all theistic religions.

[Demogorgon]

It doesn't work because you can not compare religion to fascism. It is a different kind of beast.

Anyway Richard Dawkins; I must confess I am getting more than a little tired of hearing about him. He can be amusing, particularly when you put him next to a fundamentalist. But his attacks on religion are not much use. All they do is alienate religious people.

Some people here seem to think opposing religion is more crutial than opposing capitalism-and that is just ridiculous to me.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 04:31 pm
It doesn't work because you can not compare religion to fascism. It is a different kind of beast.

Anyway Richard Dawkins; I must confess I am getting more than a little tired of hearing about him. He can be amusing, particularly when you put him next to a fundamentalist. But his attacks on religion are not much use. All they do is alienate religious people.
I can't say I'm very excited about what he has done; besides his religion bashing, he is also quite the technocrat when it comes to human emotions, ideas, etc..


Some people here seem to think opposing religion is more crutial than opposing capitalism-and that is just ridiculous to me.
Exactly; I would like to see more constructive critiques of religious practices rather than the constant "this or that is wrong and religion is used as its justification, so religion is the Great Satan." It reeks too much of religious dogma to me.

[al8]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 04:31 pm
Some people here seem to think opposing religion is more crutial than opposing capitalism-and that is just ridiculous to me.
Well is that a mature view? You know that to make a revolution takes a lot of struggle. To solve this project you need to muster a lot of "forces" each emphesizing on a particular aspect of this multi-faceted task.

Shouldn't you be happy that there are other who people take up an emphasis that you won't divulge in for some reason? You do consider religion opposition-worthy, don't you?

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by al8+September 11, 2007 07:43 pm--> (al8 @ September 11, 2007 07:43 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2007 04:31 pm
Some people here seem to think opposing religion is more crutial than opposing capitalism-and that is just ridiculous to me.
Well is that a mature view? You know that to make a revolution takes a lot of struggle. To solve this project you need to muster a lot of "forces" each emphesizing on a particular aspect of this multi-faceted task.

Shouldn't you be happy that there are other who people take up an emphasis that you won't divulge in for some reason? You do consider religion opposition-worthy, don't you? [/b]
If I lived in the middle east or even the United States I might find religion opposition worthy. Here, I see no need at all. It just isn't relevant. The only thing to be achieved by insulting religious people is to alienate them. You don't imagine people like Dawkins convince religious people to abandon their views, do you?

[al8]

Well, yes. And he has. (http://richarddawkins.net/convertsCorner)

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 11:13 pm
Well, yes. And he has. (http://richarddawkins.net/convertsCorner)
And how many more has he alienated? There will always be a few exceptions.

Please tell me what concrete gains are made by what is effectively name calling?

[al8]

It is I more than 'just' name calling, by the way. But in anwering your question; It does more. It gives non-faithists a voice - empowers them as a social group - and incurages them to come out of the closet, in not an identical but similar way as the gays did.

I off cource I don't know how many where alianated versus those who were not. How does one measure such things anyway? Reliably, that is to say?

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 07:52 pm
The only thing to be achieved by insulting religious people is to alienate them.
Exactly. While there is nothing wrong with criticizing religion in a civil manner, religion-bashing might alienate a religious person more quickly than anything else.

[al8]

Again, it might. But just as well not. How can one know to any realiable degree either way?

I can imagine also quite the opposite to it alianating people. That it would maybe more perhaps brake the spell, so to say. Showing people that automatic respect to stupid ideas, just because they are someones faith or religion, is not a given matter. And sacrilege can be quite freeing, I tell you.

[Publius]

Again, it might. But just as well not. How can one know to any realiable degree either way?

Well, you could try it and see how spectacularly you fail.

Go ahead, walk into a church service, stand up in middle aisle, and start spouting off about how God is a lie.

See how far you get in convincing anyone that you're anything other than an asshole.



I can imagine also quite the opposite to it alianating people.

As fine a proof against the argument from conceivability as any.



That it would maybe more perhaps brake the spell, so to say.

Except the religious people think YOU'RE the delusional one and that they can "break the spell of Satan" by telling you their life story.

Now we both know that won't work on you, so then why do you suppose it would work on them?



Showing people that automatic respect to stupid ideas, just because they are someones faith or religion, is not a given matter.

For many religious people, maybe most, God is not an a la carte option. They don't think like we do.

They think atheists "hate God", they think (genuinely!) that everyone on earth believes in God, it's just that some people "hate God" and deny him to spite him.

Attempting to reason with this kind of idiocy, this solipsism, this masochism, is stupid and fruitless. These people stand a better chance of converting YOU than you do of converting THEM. And that's no exaggeration. Think about that. Some religious people, generally the ones who need to be fought against, are more certain of their convictions than you could ever hope to be, because you, as a rational individual, have doubt. They don't. That fact alone means you can't beat them in a test of beliefs. They believe harder than you do, in all probability.

It's a sad realization that I've came to, that religion ruins minds. It doesn't just pervert them, it completely destroys them in many instances.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by al8+September 10, 2007 06:53 pm--> (al8 @ September 10, 2007 06:53 pm)
Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 10, 2007 07:30 am
But frankly, I'm a little tired of this boring old practice of using fascism as the universal standard of evil. Honestly, can't people be a little more creative?
Well, I will be happy to oblige. There so happens to be another article by Sam Harris that goes along similair lines. There, however, witchcraft is "put instead of x". [/b]
Much better, thank you. Not that the comparison is any more valid, mind you - but it is more creative.


al8
I think that the main objective of this kind of literary criticism is to use a discredited paradigm that people know of and compare it with an equally flawed paradigm.
And that's exactly why this kind of "criticism" is really just one big fallacy: You take something that is already discredited and you put it in place of something that is still under contention. In effect, you are saying "I declare that I am right".

Suppose we knew that a certain god does not exist or that a certain religion was false. From that, it does not logically follow that all gods do not exist or that all religions are false. It would be a fallacy to suggest that if one religion is false, all of them are. Yet that was precisely the argument Sam Harris put forward in his little satire.

Now, as for Dawkins, he seems to be quite proud of having made the remarkable discovery that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of the supernatural. Well, duh. We've known this for centuries. Next he'll be telling us that fire is hot. Dawkins does not make any argument that hasn't been made before; he's just more of an asshole than other people, which is why he stands out.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 12:56 am
It is I more than 'just' name calling, by the way. But in anwering your question; It does more. It gives non-faithists a voice - empowers them as a social group - and incurages them to come out of the closet, in not an identical but similar way as the gays did.

I off cource I don't know how many where alianated versus those who were not. How does one measure such things anyway? Reliably, that is to say?
Eh? Atheists and other non belieivers are hardly an oppressed social group that need to hide themselves. Maybe somewhere like Iran. In many European coutries they make up a larger population group than any religious community.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 12:56 am
It is I more than 'just' name calling, by the way. But in anwering your question; It does more. It gives non-faithists a voice - empowers them as a social group - and incurages them to come out of the closet, in not an identical but similar way as the gays did.

I off cource I don't know how many where alianated versus those who were not. How does one measure such things anyway? Reliably, that is to say?
Just like the Chuch institutions give the "faithists" a voice.

We don't need to fight someone's God. We need to fight competition, technocracy, and centralization.

[al8]

Originally posted by Edric O+September 12, 2007 05:20 am--> (Edric O @ September 12, 2007 05:20 am)
[quote]al8
It would be a fallacy to suggest that if one religion is false, all of them are.


Well to proclaiming that "if one religion is false, then all are" is called inproper statstics in my books.

So let's give it a thought experiment. Say that we are aliens finding that there are a 100 religious ideas known to exist. They can posses all sorts of qualities that are unknown to us aliens. They can possably be divided into true or false. To determine if a religious idea is true or false, one needs to have a closer look.

So, in the begining, when we have not examined any religion... we have no data, we can say nothing. Then we randomly select 10 religious ideas. We examine the first one. It turned out to be false. What does that mean? What conclusions can one draw therefrom?
Can one then say that all religious ideas are false? No! One can only say 2 things. (1) That religious ideas can be false, because it has happened before, and (2) There is a 10% chance that you find the next religious idea to be false, built on current data. (1/10 = 0,1 x 100 = 10%)

But then if we digress further. Say if we find another false religious idea. Then we have 2 religious ideas that are false. This tells us that 20% of religious ideas can be expected to be false. (2/10 = 0,2 x 100 = 20%)

So if we find that all of the 10 randomly selected religious ideas turn out to be false, we can say that is 100% likely that religious ideas are false (according to current data). (10/10 = 1 x 100 = 100%)

This method also works with bigger yields. Let's have a try;



Say that we are aliens finding that there are a 100.000.000 religious ideas known to exist. They can posses all sorts of qualities that are unknown to us aliens. They can possably be divided into true or false. To determine if a religious idea is true or false, an alien needs to have a closer look.

So, in the beginning, when we have not examined any religion... we have no data, we can say nothing. Then we randomly select 10.000.000 religious ideas. We examine the first one. It turned out to be false. What does that mean? What conclusions can one draw therefrom?
Can one then say that all religious ideas are false? No! One can only say 2 things. (1) That religious ideas can be false, because it has happened before, and (2) There is a 0,00001% chance that you find the next religious idea to be false, built on current data. (1/1.000.000 = 0,0000001 x 100 = 0,00001%)

But then if we digress further. Say if we find 1.999.999 additional false religious ideas. Then we have 2.000.000 religious ideas that are false. This tells us that 20% of religious ideas can be expected to be false. (2.000.000/10.000.000 = 0,2 x 100 = 20%)

So if we find that all of the 100.000.000 randomly selected religious ideas turn out to be false, we can say that is 100% likely that religious ideas are false (according to current data). (10.000.000/100.000.000 = 1 x 100 = 100%)


That is the numerical side of it. In real life there are more aspects.

When one examines religions one comes to know their similarities. They all meld into one same supernatural generic invisible gobeldygook. Some of the most common features turn out to be this;

1.Religions are faith-based.

2.Religions claim there is another world than the real one.

3.Religions claim expertise in these other-worldly matters. And give 'advice' accordingly.

4.Religions claim that there life for individuals that cease to live.

So if there are fundamental aspects of one relgion that makes it wrong - and one stumbles upon another religion with the same aspects - then that new found religion must be false.

But this post is getting way to long. I'm starting to remind myself of that french female resistance fighter in 'Allo 'Allo; (-whispering-) "Listen carefully, for I will say this only once" "Come again" "Listen carefully, for I will say this only once !"

[synthesis]

I haven't read this thread all the way through but if you think you're going to "break the spell" of religion by heaping abuse on it you are a moron. The vast majority of religious people were brought up on the same doctrine their entire life, take it completely for granted, and see no reason to change it.

Your approach is a sign of disrespect of the intelligence of religious people and though you may not care, you should expect them to show your ideas the same amount of respect you're showing theirs. Going at it like you're better than them is just going to make them think of the ways they're better than you. It's basic psychology.

[al8]

It just sounds to me that you would want me to feign incorrectness, when I have reason to know I'm correct.

And besides I don't want them to show my ideas respect if they are wrong, only that they respect my person.

[Demogorgon]

If someone were to heep abuse on Communism and its adherants, would that stop you being a Communist?

And if not, what makes it different to the religion issue? Because you know your right? Religious people and anti-Communists "know" they are right as well

[al8]

I depends, It would have to be very good "abuse". Who knows, I might be surprised. But I think it unlikely.

But the thing is - I want people how think they are right to correct some wrong in me that I cannot see. How else are right ideas to spread?

[Vargha Poralli]

How else are right ideas to spread?

So according to you Atheism is the right Idea and it must be spread somehow ?

Have you ever analysed how Christianity,Islam and Buddhism spread ? Try the same with Atheism too. If other religions can spread some how then sue this religion too can. You see the problem here ? Atheism become the religion here.

Seriously take a study of the past. What is the result of Jacobins abolition of religion ? Is Religion has faded away in France ? What is the result of Stalin's and Mao's acts against religion ? Christianity was replaced by their own personality cults.

Communism is a movement which aims at the liberation of exploited and oppressed people.

Religion will fade away when the need for it dies out - in materialist analysis the Alienation of Man from the world he lives in and interacts with.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Abuse? Name-calling? It's obvious that none of you that think Dawkins is abusive have actually listened to what he has to say, or read any of his books. Just the fact that he tells it like it is causes you to think he's some kind of potty-mouthed hater, when compared to some clergy he is positively mild-mannered.

Whinge about respect all you want, religious apologists, but you'll never escape the fact that Dawkins has never said that people who do not share his beliefs are doomed to an eternity of anguish and torment.

Now who's being hateful?

[synthesis]

Who cares what they say happens to you when you die? You laughing it off is a much better "illusion-breaker" than getting all worked up about it.

I think whoever noted how religion spread is making a great point. Religions spread through the dominant culture of an empire; people usually convert to avoid persecution or gain benefits, and start teaching it to their kids, and it proceeds from there.

Personally, my mom never once mentioned the word God when I was growing up, so the idea is ludicrous to me. But it's not hard for me to see the appeal.

You grow up your entire life believing that you have a special relationship with the guy who created everything and runs shit, and that he loves you when no one else does no matter how badly you fuck up - and then some arrogant atheist comes along and tells you that you're an idiot for believing and that your whole worldview is a fairy-tale.

I'd probably tell you to fuck off, too.

[al8]

I think it common here that people neglect to realize that anti-religious agitprop is very nuanced and has a wide scope. And "throwing heaps of abuse" is but one note in the orchestra. Laughing, as DeyerMaker mentions, is also a good method in my books.

[Vargha Poralli]

I think it common here that people neglect to realize that anti-religious agitprop is very nuanced and has a wide scope.

What wide hope does it have ? And what had it achieved all these years ?


And "throwing heaps of abuse" is but one note in the orchestra.

A useless tactic too. I too had it when I fashioned myself as an atheist and alienated myself from many workers themselves for whom I thought I was fighting for.

Just analyse and understand what you want and you will understand this religious atheism will be a very low priority to you.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Vargha [email protected] 15, 2007 06:25 pm
Just analyse and understand what you want and you will understand this religious atheism will be a very low priority to you.
:rolleyes: Please refrain from saying stupid things in future.

You'll be telling us not to drink dry water or that square circles should be low on our list of priorities.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+September 16, 2007 12:39 am--> (Jazzratt @ September 16, 2007 12:39 am)
Vargha [email protected] 15, 2007 06:25 pm
Just analyse and understand what you want and you will understand this religious atheism will be a very low priority to you.
:rolleyes: Please refrain from saying stupid things in future.

You'll be telling us not to drink dry water or that square circles should be low on our list of priorities. [/b]
It is hard to defeat religion thorugh political means.That was my point. And yest Atheism becomes a religion when it is enforced on people.

not some dry waters and square circles.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Vargha [email protected] 15, 2007 07:15 pm
It is hard to defeat religion thorugh political means.
Lots of things are difficult, it's not a reason not to do them.


That was my point. And yest Atheism becomes a religion when it is enforced on people.

No. It may become repressive but it's not a religion.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+September 16, 2007 01:15 am--> (Jazzratt @ September 16, 2007 01:15 am)
Vargha [email protected] 15, 2007 07:15 pm
It is hard to defeat religion thorugh political means.
Lots of things are difficult, it's not a reason not to do them. [/b]
Of course.

But you are missing out the main point in my argument. Is it productive and worth our cost ? History says otherwise.

Religion will remain as a force as long as people need that dope. To destroy religion we have to get rid off the class society - which alienate the human beings from the world they live in. We have to destroy the foundations of religion else in some way or another it will regain popularity. Just look at the Russian Orthodox church.

In my point of view religion will die off when people have no use for it.




That was my point. And yest Atheism becomes a religion when it is enforced on people.

No. It may become repressive but it's not a religion.


Come on.

Do you think state religion is not repressive ?

[Demogorgon]

"Religious" is the perfect word to describe some of the bourgoisie atheism we are seeing here. THat is not to say atheism is a religion, it obviously isn't, but some people are pursuing it with a religious fervor which is problematic.

Religion is a construction of society that will go away if and when the material conditions supporting it go away. Not because of some shrill mockery of it. As for God, well no evidence I know of points towards its existence and I am an atheist as a result, but it is pretty irelevent. THere is no God in class struggle and that is all that matters. To be honest I couldn't give a damn whether someone believes in God or not.

When I was about fourteen I decided I did not believe in God and I went into obnoxious atheist mode where I decried religion for all sorts of evil and claimed religious people believed all sorts of terrible things because "it was in the bible". Of course after a while I learned they believed no such thing. There are plenty of other people who need to learn that too.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Vargha [email protected] 15, 2007 08:03 pm

That was my point. And yest Atheism becomes a religion when it is enforced on people.

No. It may become repressive but it's not a religion.


Come on.

Do you think state religion is not repressive ? [/quote]
Yes, but what does that have to do with you using ridiculous oxymorons?

Demomoron


"Religious" is the perfect word to describe some of the bourgoisie atheism we are seeing here.

It's too innacurate to be the perfect adjective by any stretch.


THat is not to say atheism is a religion, it obviously isn't, but some people are pursuing it with a religious fervor which is problematic.

I think the fact people follow religions with religious fervour is more problematic.


Religion is a construction of society that will go away if and when the material conditions supporting it go away. Not because of some shrill mockery of it.

Religion takes hold of the victim's mind and it must be beaten loose. As we saw in the USSR simply siting on our arses hoping it will go away doesn't work.


As for God, well no evidence I know of points towards its existence and I am an atheist as a result, but it is pretty irelevent. THere is no God in class struggle and that is all that matters. To be honest I couldn't give a damn whether someone believes in God or not.

I don't mind whether or not you care about those with memetic disorders but I'd rather you didn't moralise so fucking much about it.


When I was about fourteen I decided I did not believe in God and I went into obnoxious atheist mode where I decried religion for all sorts of evil and claimed religious people believed all sorts of terrible things because "it was in the bible". Of course after a while I learned they believed no such thing. There are plenty of other people who need to learn that too.

Oh joy, another apologist ****.

[Demogorgon]

Irrational vitriol won't make much of a substitue for sensible ideas.

You seem to believe religious belief is the cause of any given problem rather than simply an expression or symptom of it. Which is a shame because I hadn't had you down as an idealist.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 10:17 pm
Religion takes hold of the victim's mind and it must be beaten loose. As we saw in the USSR simply siting on our arses hoping it will go away doesn't work.
Yes, because the USSR was such a perfect, shining example of socialism that all social and cultural trends we saw in the USSR are bound to be repeated in any future socialist society.

Also, religion has this magical power to transcend material conditions and shape the world in its own image. And that is not an idealist thing to say at all.

:rolleyes:

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Jazzratt
Religion takes hold of the victim's mind and it must be beaten loose. As we saw in the USSR simply siting on our arses hoping it will go away doesn't work.

What ? The Soviet bureaucracy sat in their asses concerning religion ? :o

No they didn't. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_the_Godless)They repressed Religion( an Idea) without destroying the material base for that idea.

The rest IMO is history. Czar Nicky and his family are saints now a days :lol: