Religious fools pray for lower gas prices

[al8]

Yes, very dissapointingly it has happened all the same. Look (http://www.kvikmynd.is/video.asp?land=&offset=0&id=6679) and stand to be amazed yet again by another cup of mindnumming religious bullshit. Here we have a pristene example of the religious mind at work.

Can anyone honestly say after this brief example that religion deserves respect?

[534634634265]

Can anyone honestly say after this brief example that religion deserves respect?
i respect "religion" as much as i respect you. very little.:closedeyes:(THIS IS MY DISSAPROVING FACE)
"religion" has nothing to do with having faith. if gas prices fall, those people will be happy thinking they helped that. why is that offensive to so many here?what does it matter if they pray for lower gas prices? how does that effect you in any way? Are you physically hurt by their belief in a higher power? Being an atheist doesn't make it alright to be an elitist as well. People think that once they've come to not believing in god that they are somehow superior to those that do believe in god.:closedeyes:
its all a matter of what you believe in, friend.

[Dean]

Can anyone honestly say after this brief example that religion deserves respect?

Yes, considering the fact that most religious activity has nothing to do with this childishness. This is nothing more than a narrow minded, elitist attack against people for having a few superstitious beliefs.

[al8]

Dean, I laugh at your sillyness. This is no more significantly different then other religious endevor. It's all superstitious bullshit one way or the other.

And I would like to make the follwing absolutely clear;

I am better because I'm not stupid like they are.

If that makes me elitist then fine, then being elitist when you are right is good. What they do is fucking loathsome and they should be ashamed of themselves.

[pusher robot]

I am better because I'm not stupid like they are.


You're right, you're stupid in unique and completely different ways.

[Pogue]

Dean, I laugh at your sillyness. This is no more significantly different then other religious endevor. It's all superstitious bullshit one way or the other.

And I would like to make the follwing absolutely clear;

I am better because I'm not stupid like they are.

If that makes me elitist then fine, then being elitist when you are right is good. What they do is fucking loathsome and they should be ashamed of themselves.

In a few years, you will be nothing but a pathetic, selfish, angry, arogant loser living on his own raging at everything in the world to try and revive that self-esteem which was lost to you when you realised you were unloved and talentless. Back to your hole, cretin!

[Demogorgon]

I am better because I'm not stupid like they are.

What kind of stupid are you then?

I would happily bet just about anything that you would not have a leg to stand on were you to enter into debate with an intelligent and well informed religious person.

[Bud Struggle]

Hey, listen to this one if you think praying is stupid: I hang out with a bunch of people on the internet--get this--that think there is going to be a Communist Revolution and that the entire world is going to become Marxist. :lol::lol::lol: Really. :laugh:

So OK, are we through with making fun of other people's belief systems. We are all a little absurd.

[al8]

I must acknowledge your witty play on language Pusher robot. But my unique stupitiy, like my bad math* skills are minor compared to the utter stupidity of the religious. That makes me better.

I know its a controversial thing to say, but I say it because it is the truth. Is it not better to be smart then stupid? Of course it is!

*(EDIT; or maybe my occational non-fluency in english)

[al8]

This a very simple formula. It is never quite said aloud. But I am going to so now.

1.Being stupid is bad. Being smart is good.

2.Religious folk are stupid because they are religious.

3.Irreligous folk are automaticially less stupid because they are not religious.

Therefore the act of being religious must be eraticated.

[Bud Struggle]

I must acknowledge your witty play on language Pusher robot. But my unique stupitiy, like my bad math skills are minor compared to the utter stupidity of the religious. That makes me better.

I know its a controversial thing to say, but I say it because it is the truth. Is it not better to be smart then stupid? Of course it is!

Smooth.:rolleyes:

[al8]

I am obviously brakeing taboos here. Is it self flattery? Is it even wrong when it is true?

[Red_or_Dead]

I am better because I'm not stupid like they are.

While I do believe that being religious is not exactly smart, youre still generalising. Because a couple of people did one stupid thing doesnt mean that they are overall stupid.

[Pogue]

You're not stupid if you're religous. I know intelligent religous people.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

This a very simple formula. It is never quite said aloud. But I am going to so now.

1.Being stupid is bad. Being smart is good.

2.Religious folk are stupid because they are religious.

3.Irreligous folk are automaticially less stupid because they are not religious.

Therefore the act of being religious must be eraticated.
1.Being stupid is bad. Being smart is good.

2.People who are bad at math are stupid because they are bad at math.

3.People who are good at math are automaticially less stupid because they are not bad at math.

Therefore the act of being bad at math must be eradicated.

Also, I am in fact quite good at math, therefore I am better than you, and I should have the power to force you to learn math so that you won't be stupid any more. So, you can force me to become an atheist if I can force you to learn advanced calculus.

:rolleyes:

[Pogue]

1.being Stupid Is Bad. Being Smart Is Good.

2.people Who Are Bad At Math Are Stupid Because They Are Bad At Math.

3.people Who Are Good At Math Are Automaticially Less Stupid Because They Are Not Bad At Math.

Therefore The Act Of Being Bad At Math Must Be Eradicated.

Also, I Am In Fact Quite Good At Math, Therefore I Am Better Than You, And I Should Have The Power To Force You To Learn Math So That You Won't Be Stupid Any More. So, You Can Force Me To Become An Atheist If I Can Force You To Learn Advanced Calculus.

:rolleyes:

One Nil!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If one needed evidence that prayer is simply a form of wishful thinking, this is it.

Instead of praying, how about these cretins cycle to work and/or use public transport?

[Bud Struggle]

If one needed evidence that prayer is simply a form of wishful thinking, this is it.

Much the way RevLeft is wishful thinking of another sort. It's pretty obvious that with or without God--people need religion.

There isn't an iota of difference between the "Second Coming" and the "Revolution".

[Red_or_Dead]

Much the way RevLeft is wishful thinking of another sort. It's pretty obvious that with or without God--people need religion.

There isn't an iota of difference between the "Second Coming" and the "Revolution".

There is. The second coming is fiction. A revolution is something that may or may not happen, depending on what do we do.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Much the way RevLeft is wishful thinking of another sort. It's pretty obvious that with or without God--people need religion.

There isn't an iota of difference between the "Second Coming" and the "Revolution".
As a person who happens to believe in both, I can tell you that, in fact, there is a world of difference. The revolution is a social and political event, of a kind that has happened many times before in world history - there have been plenty of revolutions. The revolution will change and improve human society, politics and economics - but it will not fundamentally alter the universe, or change human biology, or even change our ways of thinking (those can only change slowly, over generations). The revolution will usher in a new and better society, but not utopia. People will still get sick, have accidents, grow old and die, lose loved ones and so on. After the revolution, there will no longer be any poverty, but there will still be sadness and personal tragedy. The revolution will only fix social and economic problems - not all problems - and life and history will go on.

The Second Coming, on the other hand, is an unprecedented supernatural event that marks the end not only of human society and civilization as we know it, but also of human life as we know it. Where the revolution changes things, the Second Coming ends them. Where the revolution only affects social and economic relationships, the Second Coming affects everything. So, no, it's not the same thing at all.

[al8]

1.Being stupid is bad. Being smart is good.

2.People who are bad at math are stupid because they are bad at math.

3.People who are good at math are automaticially less stupid because they are not bad at math.

Therefore the act of being bad at math must be eradicated.

Also, I am in fact quite good at math, therefore I am better than you, and I should have the power to force you to learn math so that you won't be stupid any more. So, you can force me to become an atheist if I can force you to learn advanced calculus.

:rolleyes:

Deal! :)

[Random Precision]

al8, you are doing nothing to help the cause of abolishing religion, and doing your best to make it clear what a juvenile prick you are. I suggest you stop before further embarrassing yourself.

I also find it amusing that this is in your signature:


Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

While you say this:


the act of being religious must be eraticated

Anyway, ride on. :rolleyes:

[Bud Struggle]

There is. The second coming is fiction. A revolution is something that may or may not happen, depending on what do we do.

Read my last paragraph in the context of my first paragraph:


Much the way RevLeft is wishful thinking of another sort. It's pretty obvious that with or without God--people need religion.

There isn't an iota of difference between the "Second Coming" and the "Revolution".

Regardless of the existance of God--people need a "religion" repleat with messianic deus ex machina at the end...both Marxism and Christianity serve the same psychological purpose for people--the ending with a "happy ever after."

They both bring hope--and that's what religion gives.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

TomK, of course it's true that people cannot live without hope... but it's a bit of a stretch to define "religion" as "any source of hope for a better future."

[534634634265]

As a person who happens to believe in both, I can tell you that, in fact, there is a world of difference. The revolution is a social and political event, of a kind that has happened many times before in world history - there have been plenty of revolutions. The revolution will change and improve human society, politics and economics - but it will not fundamentally alter the universe, or change human biology, or even change our ways of thinking (those can only change slowly, over generations). The revolution will usher in a new and better society, but not utopia. People will still get sick, have accidents, grow old and die, lose loved ones and so on. After the revolution, there will no longer be any poverty, but there will still be sadness and personal tragedy. The revolution will only fix social and economic problems - not all problems - and life and history will go on.

The Second Coming, on the other hand, is an unprecedented supernatural event that marks the end not only of human society and civilization as we know it, but also of human life as we know it. Where the revolution changes things, the Second Coming ends them. Where the revolution only affects social and economic relationships, the Second Coming affects everything. So, no, it's not the same thing at all.

i felt a little tickle in my heart as both the capitalist and the communist came together to denounce the idiocy of al8. what a fuckin retard.:laugh::laugh::laugh:
people with closed minds should also come with closed mouths, it keeps their ignorance bottled up and prevents a universal dumbing down. if we "force" people to give up religion, we are just like the chinese. there's still christians in china, they just meet in secret to avoid the state police.:closedeyes: saying people who are religious or are faithful are somehow dumber because of that belief only shows how incredibly dumb YOU are. let them believe what they want.
i personally believe in the power of the FSM. i fervently pray His Noodley Appendage comes down from the beer and stripper filled heavens and smites you with a pastaic wrath. maybe if you understood the power of the spaghedeity you might have a more clear understanding of how these people feel. RAmen.:D

[al8]

Many of you are obviously hurt by plain and simple truth. Of course a multi-faceted attack on religion is called for. Only those who like religion see the abolition of it as a horror in adition to wishfully thinking it an impossible task.

[al8]

al8, you are doing nothing to help the cause of abolishing religion, and doing your best to make it clear what a juvenile prick you are. I suggest you stop before further embarrassing yourself.

I also find it amusing that this is in your signature:



While you say this:



Anyway, ride on. :rolleyes:

The one does not need to exclude the other.

[Bud Struggle]

TomK, of course it's true that people cannot live without hope... but it's a bit of a stretch to define "religion" as "any source of hope for a better future."

But both aren't the average day to day hopes of everyday life--both are millennial hopes for things alltogether different and better brought about by an apocalyptic earth shattering event.

It seem to me one of the big reasons that Marx wanted to destroy religion was because he wanted to replace it with something similar, though materialistic.

One of the reasons I have little use for Marxian economic philosophy is that it is only the means to an end for Marx's vision of world wide utopia.

Unfortunally, (or rather fortunately for my side) Marx doesn't deliver quite enough hope. You see that in the trend in China not only away from Marxian economics but also away from Marxian utopianism to Christianity and Feng Shui.

[Killfacer]

i dont know whats worse, al8's claim that all religious people are stupid, or everyones criticism of him. Some of you have criticised his criticism for being stupid. But you're criticisms of his critcism (i know i overused the word criticism) have also been baseless and consisted of moronic statements such as "ride on". If you're gonna have a go at him, why not to it sensibly? Some pretty intelligent people here have made idiots of themselves.

[Demogorgon]

Much the way RevLeft is wishful thinking of another sort. It's pretty obvious that with or without God--people need religion.

There isn't an iota of difference between the "Second Coming" and the "Revolution".

No, because Revolutions are periodic occurrences in human history. They have happened for as long as there has been organised society and we all know they will keep on happening. The Second Coming as it is supposed to happen is a completely one of a kind event. That is the difference.

[Demogorgon]

i dont know whats worse, al8's claim that all religious people are stupid, or everyones criticism of him. Some of you have criticised his criticism for being stupid. But you're criticisms of his critcism (i know i overused the word criticism) have also been baseless and consisted of moronic statements such as "ride on". If you're gonna have a go at him, why not to it sensibly? Some pretty intelligent people here have made idiots of themselves.

To criticise some properly, they need to have a point that you can criticise. All he has done is make some enormously stupid comments. There is nothing of substance to actually discuss.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

there's still christians in china, they just meet in secret to avoid the state police.:closedeyes:
Actually, they meet in the open, in churches. No country except Hoxha's Albania ever made religion illegal.

[Kronos]

But both aren't the average day to day hopes of everyday life--both are millennial hopes for things alltogether different and better brought about by an apocalyptic earth shattering event.

It seem to me one of the big reasons that Marx wanted to destroy religion was because he wanted to replace it with something similar, though materialistic.

You still don't get it man. There could not be a more perfect diametrically opposed "philosophy" to "religion" than Marxism.

When capitalist apologists say "Marxism is just another dogma, yada, yada", they are talking out of their ass.

Listen closely. There is a world of difference between "believing" that a God exists, or that there is a "spirit", and "believing" that a society could exist where property is owned by a state composed of one working class.

The former has absolutely no possibility of being experienced, of being observed, of being practiced or verified or proven. The latter concerns very definite material relations, circumstances, processes, conditions.

Marxism is a science. Religion is metaphysics. Do you know the difference?

Marx did not want to "replace" religion with anything. He wanted to abolish it because it is counter-revolutionary. Religion is a giant mind-fuck that serves no other purpose than pacifying the working classes. All of it is lies. All of it. In the absence of religious culture human beings will develop a better more efficient culture that has no need for "hoping" that there is life after death, or that God exists, or any such nonsense. People will be perfectly satisfied to have lived a mortal life, and will need nothing else to feel fortunate for just that.

The communist is happy to know that life will go on after he is dead, and he will spend his life working to enhance the quality of life for that future.

He doesn't need an afterlife in heaven. He doesn't need to fly around the universe in spirit form. He doesn't need to be reincarnated as a cow. He is happy to know that everyday children are born, and that they will be raised to live and work harmoniously with other people. He is satisfied with accepting that this is all there is, and that life is nothing more.

[Bud Struggle]

He doesn't need an afterlife in heaven. He doesn't need to fly around the universe in spirit form. He doesn't need to be reincarnated as a cow. He is happy to know that everyday children are born, and that they will be raised to live and work harmoniously with other people. He is satisfied with accepting that this is all there is, and that life is nothing more.

With all due respects Kronos--you miss my point. And my point is Fritz's point too. Either there is something in the universe that makes sense--or there is only chaos, chance and death. Fritz sees chaos. So did the Greeks, the pre Socratics, that's why he keeps goiong back to them. What those two good Jewish boys Jesus and Marx both did is to find a way to help man face the horror of the abyss or meaninglessness in an uncaring universe.

Jesus was a caring God that we could trust and hope in to save us from the chaos. Marx was a "scientific investigator" that found some sense in the chaos of the world and promised a "Revolution" to bring order to the world.

See, that's what religion is--it isn't about God at all, it's about humanity and our realtionship to chaos and meaninglessness. Both those good Jewish boys gave us hope in something--if you can't or won't believe in God to bring us fairness, than you can believe in a "universal fairness' of some "scientific" plan of economics. In that respect Jesus and Marx are the same. Different means, but the same end--a fair and ordered outcome to the world.

Neitzsche had the balls to look into the nothingness of the abyss. Something that me with my Jesus and you with your Marx are afraid to do.

We have hope.

[Dean]

Dean, I laugh at your sillyness. This is no more significantly different then other religious endevor. It's all superstitious bullshit one way or the other.
You can't categorize things as equally asinine because they share certain concepts of supernaturalism. Sooner or later you will have to respect their ideas more, because you will find that theologians are usually well-versed in psychology and philosophy.


And I would like to make the follwing absolutely clear;

I am better because I'm not stupid like they are.

If that makes me elitist then fine, then being elitist when you are right is good. What they do is fucking loathsome and they should be ashamed of themselves.
Good god, I am so happy you aren't leading any revolutions. No movement needs such a wantonly antagonistic message to represent it; never mind that such an elitist statement basically contradicts the spirit of communism.

[Dean]

TomK is really on to something here. Marx indeed talks about a messianic society, revolutionary socialism, which will bring us to our "heaven on earth" - communism. And recognizing this did 2 things for me a few years ago: first off, it made me respect religion more. It becomes pretty clear on reading Matthew, for instance, that "heaven" is a philosophical concept based on reorganizing society around human interests. Jesus is the messiah here, because he has been ordained to "show us the way." Secondly, it made it pretty clear that marxism is another reworking of an age-old human need to be free, which is altogether reflected in history and mythology because it is a human psychological need. Communism isn't just an ideal we have come up with: it is directly taken from basic human rationality and social character.

[Kronos]

that's what religion is--it isn't about God at all, it's about humanity and our realtionship to chaos and meaninglessness. Both those good Jewish boys gave us hope in something--if you can't or won't believe in God to bring us fairness, than you can believe in a "universal fairness' of some "scientific" plan of economics. In that respect Jesus and Marx are the same. Different means, but the same end--a fair and ordered outcome to the world.Sure, but you must ask yourself this- have you decided to have "hope" in "Jesus" because it is a rational decision, or because it is a convenient, agreeable decision.

Do you believe because "one might as well believe" in Jesus because the only alternative is meaningless chaos, or do you believe because it is a rational belief despite the alternative?

A question of conscience and honesty before oneself.

Here, you belief is not belief for the sake of belief. It is instead belief in case of bad consequences if one doesn't believe.

I side with Spinoza when I say that I cannot understand Scripture, and that an adequate understanding of existence and reality reveals a universe that is a single immanent substance, that is causally determined, and that is infinite. The substance dualism which Christianity is founded on and the implications of that metaphysical system in matters of politics, sociology, and psychology has negative affects...precisely because they are false ideas, incompatible with real material conditions, and they are aversive to scientific progress.

A rational understanding of the universe involves understanding that there cannot be such an anthropomorphic "God", transcendent from the universe, who experiences emotions like "love", "anger", "spite", etc., and has an interest in the affairs of man.

Where these ideas are not abandoned, an unsubstantial belief in God results, and confusion ensues. For to attribute to God our own nature is to attribute to God the confusion that follows our attempts to interpret a God as such. Since we are intellectually inclined from our emotions, when in the state of considering moral and ethical ideas, we are subject to forming erroneous conclusions, since the intellectual expression that is emotionally "produced" is inadequate and involves incomplete ideas- this is the basis of the passions- they are always short of a full understanding of their causes, and are therefore in bondage.

If the ethical and moral idea is a conclusion that is based on our sensual experiences and is not, rather, something we arrive at through pure rational contemplation, then it will in turn be subject to relative degrees of truth, since sensual experiences are subject to relative degrees of individual pleasures and pains, preferences and dislikes, opinions and biases, etc.

If we take this into consideration we would understand that an understanding of the essential thing that must exist, the "God", nature, the absolutely necessary substance, must be something that is not subject to ethical evaluation and analysis, since these are always contingent and incomplete, but instead only an epistemological evaluation, that is, an understanding that follows the logical conclusions that are not subject to ethical relativity.

In short, intellectual understanding of God is pantheistic and not anthropocentric/morphic.

To further elaborate on the point I was making about the inadequacy of the passions and emotions in forming true ideas, I want to post a part from Spinoza's Ethics:


Whatsoever is, is in God ( Prop. xv.). But God cannot be called a thing contingent. For (by Prop. xi.) he exists necessarily, and not contingently. Further, the modes of the divine nature follow therefrom necessarily, and not contingently (Prop. xvi.); and they thus follow, whether we consider the divine nature absolutely or whether we consider it as in any way conditioned to act (Prop. xxvii.). Further, God is not only the cause of these modes, in so far as they simply exist (by Prop. xxiv., Coroll.), but also in so far as they are considered as conditioned for operating in a particular manner (Prop. xxvi.). If they be not conditioned by God (Prop. xxvi.), it is impossible, and not contingent, that they should condition themselves; contrariwise, if they be conditioned by God, it is impossible, and not contingent that they should render themselves unconditioned. Wherefore all things are conditioned by the necessity of the divine nature, not only to exist, but also to exist and operate in a particular manner, and there is nothing that is contingent.You see that since God is the cause of all things, and God cannot by mistake be an accidental cause of all things, since that would imply that God was not the immanent cause of all things (which is absurd), or that some things cannot be caused by other things, which implies that there should be two essential substances, which would be impossible (and absurd), nothing that can happen can be considered contingent but only absolutely necessary and in perfect order. This is to say- that it could be no other way.

This rational truth should have a bearing on our emotions and passions, and by extending our understanding of the necessity of nature and the divine order of things onto our own personal experiences of sensual pleasures and pains, emotional grief, passionate excitation, we would accept that what experiences are contrary to our desires are not bad, nor could they be any other way.

By eliminating this inadequate "approach" to the nature of God and the philosophical understanding of reality and existence, we discover that religions that wish to portray God as a personable thing who has interests in supplementing causes for only "things we find agreeable" is not only ridiculous but again riddled with relative degrees of truth, which would be impossible, since God is not "relatively" true nor does he act relative to anything else; there is no event or act that is a lesser or greater expression of God's immanent will.

If I have rambled too much here, let me just repeat my point concerning your belief in Jesus, and more so why you believe as you do.

If you have a predisposed disposition to react emotionally to the prospect of their being no personal God and no ultimate teleology or purpose to existence, you will also be predisposed to wanting to adhere to religions which portray God in an impossible way.

A proper comprehension of God clears those problems in advance, and the result is not a negative reaction to the prospect of meaninglessness, and therefore no search for convenient religions which satisfy us and provide answers for our "inadequate grievances".

Finally you should know that Marx had little concern for creating some kind of spiritual self-help summer camp for treating nihilism and existentialism. For him, it was obvious that God (in the Christian sense) cannot exist, so he was not occupied with moping around that and wallowing in it. He was engaged in real problems and kept his head out of the clouds, like the good Taurus that he was.

Hoping for a life in Heaven and hoping for a better standard of living for the majority of sentient creatures (humans in our case) are two completely different kinds of hope, dude.

[Bud Struggle]

Sure, but you must ask yourself this- have you decided to have "hope" in "Jesus" because it is a rational decision, or because it is a convenient, agreeable decision.

Do you believe because "one might as well believe" in Jesus because the only alternative is meaningless chaos, or do you believe because it is a rational belief despite the alternative?

A question of conscience and honesty before oneself.

Here, you belief is not belief for the sake of belief. It is instead belief in case of bad consequences if one doesn't believe.

Of course. But so do you. As Hume said in his Treatise (book II, part III, #3) "Reason is...the slave of the passions." The understanding can rationalize any kind of concept. That's why I can believe in Jesus and you can believe in Marx. Both are ways of getting us out of facing the dread of chaos. Both are just as fanciful.

Do you honestly think that there is some sort of "order" to the universe? Who put it there? Why is it there? Do you really think that some guy named Marx was any better at figuring it out than Jesus or Buddah or Mohammed? Or was he just the same?

Religion has no bearing on the existance of a God. There are I don't know 100,000 religions in the world today (wild guess)--and even if there was a God, 99,999 are wrong--but does that make the 99,999 any less "religion" than the rest.

Religion isn't about the existance of God--it's about the inability or the lack of desire to confron the fact that there is NO ORDER TO THE UNIVERSE. Science is a meaningless set of facts WITH NO LINK WHATSOEVER to any sort of system of morality or fairness or plan for the future.

All there is is our lives for the moment and we die. Nothing else. No fairness--without a God or an order there can be no fairness, no evil, no right, no wrong. In the REAL universe Hitler wasn't evil, only naughty.



I side with Spinoza when I say that I cannot understand Scripture, and that an adequate understanding of existence and reality reveals a universe that is a single immanent substance, that is causally determined, and that is infinite. The substance dualism which Christianity is founded on and the implications of that metaphysical system in matters of politics, sociology, and psychology has negative affects...precisely because they are false ideas, incompatible with real material conditions, and they are aversive to scientific progress.

Agreed, but the exact critique can apply to Marx. There is no "science" to the future, because it wasn't designed in by anyone. Marx's theories was just him reading an old crystal ball. And a pretty dirty and beat up one at that.



A rational understanding of the universe involves understanding that there cannot be such an anthropomorphic "God", transcendent from the universe, who experiences emotions like "love", "anger", "spite", etc., and has an interest in the affairs of man.

As I quoted Hume above: there is no understanding of the universe that isn't anthromorphic--Jesus or Marx--both tried to shape the universe in the image of man.


If the ethical and moral idea is a conclusion that is based on our sensual experiences and is not, rather, something we arrive at through pure rational contemplation, then it will in turn be subject to relative degrees of truth, since sensual experiences are subject to relative degrees of individual pleasures and pains, preferences and dislikes, opinions and biases, etc.

All right fine--but that doesn't lead to Marx. It leads to Capitalism. I have no idea what other's suffer--but I know what I suffer. It's best I make my life as confortable as possible.


If we take this into consideration we would understand that an understanding of the essential thing that must exist, the "God", nature, the absolutely necessary substance, must be something that is not subject to ethical evaluation and analysis, since these are always contingent and incomplete, but instead only an epistemological evaluation, that is, an understanding that follows the logical conclusions that are not subject to ethical relativity.

Again you are making a case for self interest above all.


In short, intellectual understanding of God is pantheistic and not anthropocentric/morphic.

To further elaborate on the point I was making about the inadequacy of the passions and emotions in forming true ideas, I want to post a part from Spinoza's Ethics:

You see that since God is the cause of all things, and God cannot by mistake be an accidental cause of all things, since that would imply that God was not the immanent cause of all things (which is absurd), or that some things cannot be caused by other things, which implies that there should be two essential substances, which would be impossible (and absurd), nothing that can happen can be considered contingent but only absolutely necessary and in perfect order. This is to say- that it could be no other way.

This rational truth should have a bearing on our emotions and passions, and by extending our understanding of the necessity of nature and the divine order of things onto our own personal experiences of sensual pleasures and pains, emotional grief, passionate excitation, we would accept that what experiences are contrary to our desires are not bad, nor could they be any other way.

By eliminating this inadequate "approach" to the nature of God and the philosophical understanding of reality and existence, we discover that religions that wish to portray God as a personable thing who has interests in supplementing causes for only "things we find agreeable" is not only ridiculous but again riddled with relative degrees of truth, which would be impossible, since God is not "relatively" true nor does he act relative to anything else; there is no event or act that is a lesser or greater expression of God's immanent will.

Again, I agree but that exact same problem applies to Marx or Mohammed or anyone else that ries to make sense of the eternal chaos of the universe.


Finally you should know that Marx had little concern for creating some kind of spiritual self-help summer camp for treating nihilism and existentialism. For him, it was obvious that God (in the Christian sense) cannot exist, so he was not occupied with moping around that and wallowing in it. He was engaged in real problems and kept his head out of the clouds, like the good Taurus that he was.

I disagree there. He posited a material universe and then he chose to rationalize it in his own image. He posited his 19 century idea of fairness, his 19 century idea of utopia, his 19 century idea of struggle. And then he couched it all in a quaint and antiquated (even for his day) idea of "science" and said this is the way it's going to be. (And THEN he hedged his bet by saying--oh, an you have to do it by armed Revolution!" :D)


Hoping for a life in Heaven and hoping for a better standard of living for the majority of sentient creatures (humans in our case) are two completely different kinds of hope, dude.

Nope the same--both looking for order in the nothingness of chaos. Each as fanciful--as you lecture me about the unrealism of Christianity you presuppose that there is some sort of long term logic to economic systems built into the universe, you presuppose that people will act in each other's best interest, you presuppose that there is a logic to history, you presuppose that people have an interest in relinquishing their private property, you presuppose that every time the Communist have taken power in the past that a flaw or two in the design, not human nature ruined the plan, you presuppose that people will willingly give up their religion, you presuppose that someday that robots will clean our toilets, you presuppose....well, your presuppositions about Marx's understanding and ordering of the chaos of the universe make Catholicism seem quite the logical alternative. ;)

[Chapter 24]

This is from the Book of Acts according to Luke:

"And God said to the people of the village, 'Let he who goes without gasoline call and pray to Me, and in return ... I shall set a fair price in my Almighty Power.'"

Amen

[Dean]

All right fine--but that doesn't lead to Marx. It leads to Capitalism. I have no idea what other's suffer--but I know what I suffer. It's best I make my life as confortable as possible.

Again you are making a case for self interest above all.

What makes you think that self-interest is opposed to communism? It has always been my understanding that shared pain helps alleviate the problems for both. By that line of reasoning, it is both rational and self-interested to try to help each other out, regardless of any distinct benefit for the individual, particularly material. Much in the same way that countries mutually deciding to not bomb each other mutually benefit.

[Bud Struggle]

What makes you think that self-interest is opposed to communism? It has always been my understanding that shared pain helps alleviate the problems for both. By that line of reasoning, it is both rational and self-interested to try to help each other out, regardless of any distinct benefit for the individual, particularly material. Much in the same way that countries mutually deciding to not bomb each other mutually benefit.

Good point. Though you can't count on anyone to act in a rational fashion because there is, in the end, no rational behavior. All rationality is by reason of unseen motivation--irrational.

What Kronos is doing, just like that nice old lady in the Philosophy Forum that goes on and on about the dialectic as well as everybody that bring up Hegel and Spinoza and Locke is relegating the base of the discussion in Revleft to constant dithering about philosophical points that haven't been relevant in a hundred years.

The philosophical bent of RevLeft is the post-Enlightenment. What I would like to do is bring the relevance of Communism and Marx into a TRULY Materialist setting. Marx while espousing materialism, his historical concept has been consistantly idealistic. There's no reason for Communism to follow Capitalism. There aren't any laws is there aren't any Gods.

There is only the chaos of the universe and the will.

[Kronos]

I gotcha Tom. You took the bait. I could see through you from the first day we met, but I needed to draw the truth out so you could see yourself.

Your position is this:

You profess that there is no order or purpose to the universe, but you choose to "believe in Jesus".

The final excuse you use to justify your capitalism is the fact that you think the universe and meaningless and that there is no god, so, accordingly, it cannot be "bad" to be a capitalist.

What you fail to realize is two things- first, if god does exist, he cannot possibly endorse capitalism if he is benevolent. Second, you cannot simultaneously believe that god exists and the universe is meaningless.

Ultimately you have a crooked, scatological conception of everything. You are not a liar, though, because you lack the capacity to think clearly to begin with.

Now I want you to come clean and admit that you don't believe god exists. I want you to throw your Catholicism out the window and pick up some Calvinism....which is more suited to your wretched disposition.

[Bud Struggle]

I gotcha Tom. You took the bait. I could see through you from the first day we met, but I needed to draw the truth out so you could see yourself.

Your position is this:

You profess that there is no order or purpose to the universe, but you choose to "believe in Jesus".

The final excuse you use to justify your capitalism is the fact that you think the universe and meaningless and that there is no god, so, accordingly, it cannot be "bad" to be a capitalist.

What you fail to realize is two things- first, if god does exist, he cannot possibly endorse capitalism if he is benevolent. Second, you cannot simultaneously believe that god exists and the universe is meaningless.

Ultimately you have a crooked, scatological conception of everything. You are not a liar, though, because you lack the capacity to think clearly to begin with.

Now I want you to come clean and admit that you don't believe god exists. I want you to throw your Catholicism out the window and pick up some Calvinism....which is more suited to your wretched disposition.

None of that that: I have faith IN SPITE of all that. Kierkegaard and especially Gabrael Marcel both not only got around the problem of existance but absolutly revel in the concept of Christ's saving us through out all of the nothinglessness.

I'd go into it more--but, I pretty had enough of being insulted every time I discuss anything with you. You turn every discussion into a persona pissing contest.

Good luck on you journey through life.

Tom

If anyone else is interested in discussing how our two good Jewish boys (Christ and Marx) get themselves out of the "abyss" I'd be happy to discuss it with them. :)

[Kronos]

Kierkegaard and especially Gabrael Marcel both not only got around the problem of existance but absolutly revel in the concept of Christ's saving us through out all of the nothinglessness.


Both failed to understand intellectually what they felt emotionally. Both were weak, missing entirely the very simple origins of metaphysics, and they became lost in its nexus.

I appreciate all Christian existentialists as a means to an end. I categorize existentialism as a reaction to new sociological conflicts that were emerging in post-industrialized Europe. Kierkegaard's prowess was in showing how Christianity was becoming a fetish to the public, a direct result of the commodification of religion by the capitalist superstructure.

Note- none of Christianity is real. The point, exemplified so well by Kierkegaard and especially Nietzsche, is that "the typical Christian cuts a miserable figure, and really cannot count to three."


I'd go into it more

Well I wish you would. I must say I was a bit impressed by some of your more recent posts. So you do know a little philosophy and have done some reading!

And by the way, Hume does not give you excuse to plunge into nihilism, nor does Nietzsche or any of the other empiricists. Just because God is dead does not mean that humanity is too. We don't need a justification and purpose for our existence, Tom.

I want you to read some Epicurus and report back to me.

[eyedrop]

I quite liked this discussion and would like you to continue it. I got a few follow up questions for you (plural, lousy language without a proper plural form) though. I'll just compile them and edit the post.



And by the way, Hume does not give you excuse to plunge into nihilism, nor does Nietzsche or any of the other empiricists. Just because God is dead does not mean that humanity is too. We don't need a justification and purpose for our existence, Tom.


Could you elaborate somewhat more here? I can agree with you here, but only on shallow grounds as in; Why not? Beats non-existance.

I don't think it would be a tragedy if the whole of humanity perished tomorrow, except maybe all the joy and the discoveries that wouldn't be experienced and made. I also have a maybe foolish "hope" that humanity will eventually understand the laws of nature, maybe even beat them.




Religion isn't about the existance of God--it's about the inability or the lack of desire to confron the fact that there is NO ORDER TO THE UNIVERSE. Science is a meaningless set of facts WITH NO LINK WHATSOEVER to any sort of system of morality or fairness or plan for the future.

All there is is our lives for the moment and we die. Nothing else. No fairness--without a God or an order there can be no fairness, no evil, no right, no wrong. In the REAL universe Hitler wasn't evil, only naughty.
Exactly, isn't that a liberating thought? How can one be pessimistic in front of nothingness. My "natural" state of mind is just utter joy at existing, the only thing that gets me down is getting in situations I don't like. I grew up without having any meaning to anything and I can't really understand why most people feel the need to find a meaning to it, or despair at the thought of meaninglessness. Everytime I think of the meaninglessness I bubble up with pure joy.



Agreed, but the exact critique can apply to Marx. There is no "science" to the future, because it wasn't designed in by anyone. Marx's theories was just him reading an old crystal ball. And a pretty dirty and beat up one at that.
I'm not saying that Marx was right (I'm very sceptical of social sciences at all) but can you agree that human societies are bound to develop in certain patterns? Even though our understanding of it abysmally small at the present time. One could theoretically make predictions, as we do in the hard sciences, if we had properly understood it. (That would also mean taking into account all the small and seemingly random elements) Or do you believe that as humans, as a part of a deterministic universe, are deterministic and therefore their social constructs, consisting of deterministic creatures are deterministic. (Lousy sentence btw)



Good point. Though you can't count on anyone to act in a rational fashion because there is, in the end, no rational behavior. All rationality is by reason of unseen motivation--irrational.

What Kronos is doing, just like that nice old lady in the Philosophy Forum that goes on and on about the dialectic as well as everybody that bring up Hegel and Spinoza and Locke is relegating the base of the discussion in Revleft to constant dithering about philosophical points that haven't been relevant in a hundred years. Agree, i quess Rosa has spent too much time of her life in trotskyist (read amongst dialecticans) circles. I can't say I've seen many people in real life with dialectical opinions.


The philosophical bent of RevLeft is the post-Enlightenment. What I would like to do is bring the relevance of Communism and Marx into a TRULY Materialist setting. Marx while espousing materialism, his historical concept has been consistantly idealistic. There's no reason for Communism to follow Capitalism. There aren't any laws is there aren't any Gods.

There is only the chaos of the universe and the will. I wouldn't neccesarely say that it is idealistic, but rather oversimplified. So much simplified that it may end up with wrong conclusions. I don't agree with you that there aren't any laws, the nature laws seems to hold quite consistently and everything else follows from them. Even though we don't understand it yet and may not ever. I always kinda liked the quasi-atheistic religions of the old days (such as versions of the ancient greek religions), when the gods were creatures, much like us, who were also subject to the laws of nature.



PS! TomK your thoughts on this reminds me very much of my dad, (he is an atheist which is okay with the "christian" culture) which I still admire, even though I have unfairly distanced myself abit too much from him. I've only talked to him a couple of times the last year, but i'm in the prosess of bridging that gap again. Funny how long it takes to remove the parent-son relationship and I now realize that he has moved away from it for a couple of years ago, I've just been too stubborn to realize it.

[Bud Struggle]

Exactly, isn't that a liberating thought? How can one be pessimistic in front of nothingness. My "natural" state of mind is just utter joy at existing, the only thing that gets me down is getting in situations I don't like. I grew up without having any meaning to anything and I can't really understand why most people feel the need to find a meaning to it, or despair at the thought of meaninglessness. Everytime I think of the meaninglessness I bubble up with pure joy.

I understand--but you also have to accept the brutality of it all. There is no moral order to the universe. Starving children are the same as billionaires. Gas chambers are the same as McDonalds. There is no morality to any action. What the hell are "worker's rights?" No one has rights beyond those of power. Jesus and Marx tried to instill something different in mankind's beliefs.



I'm not saying that Marx was right (I'm very sceptical of social sciences at all) but can you agree that human societies are bound to develop in certain patterns?

NO! There is no pattern and no reason for the universe. If yu see a pattern--it's just self delusion.



Even though our understanding of it abysmally small at the present time. One could theoretically make predictions, as we do in the hard sciences, if we had properly understood it. (That would also mean taking into account all the small and seemingly random elements) Or do you believe that as humans, as a part of a deterministic universe, are deterministic and therefore their social constructs, consisting of deterministic creatures are deterministic. (Lousy sentence btw) (A hell of a lot better than I'd do in Norwegian! :lol:) Here's the crux of the problem--science is science, a bunch of facts and figures--there is no morality of reason to science--it's just facts and figures. When we extrapolate from these figures some sort or MEANING we fall on problematic ground. In the end science tells us nothing of value.

There's no determinism--just random collisions of particles that produce other random collisions of particles.



Agree, i quess Rosa has spent too much time of her life in trotskyist (read amongst dialecticans) circles. I can't say I've seen many people in real life with dialectical opinions.

There isn't a post on Philosophy over there that shouldn't begin with: "Meanwhile back in the 18th Century..."


I wouldn't neccesarely say that it is idealistic, but rather oversimplified. So much simplified that it may end up with wrong conclusions. I don't agree with you that there aren't any laws, the nature laws seems to hold quite consistently and everything else follows from them. Even though we don't understand it yet and may not ever.

Oh, there are all sorts of laws in nature--but they have no moral bearing--they only speak of when trees bloom and how tigers kill their prey. Don't confuse them with moral laws--natural laws speak on nothing with it come to enslaving Blacks or gassing Jews. Trees blooming are imperative laws in the natural universe. On the massacre of millions of humans--the universe is indifferent.


I always kinda liked the quasi-atheistic religions of the old days (such as versions of the ancient greek religions), when the gods were creatures, much like us, who were also subject to the laws of nature. Eyedrop--you sometimes are a freakin' brilliant guy. You are right--the Greek, Norse gods were "us." Bigger better smarter, but "us." They were humanity incarnate--in the flesh and in the earth. They were the elements--earth, air, fire, and water--with those gods humanity was one with the universe. Each tribe had their own god and if one god was stronger than the other--the stronger god's tribe won. All was a peace in the world.

Then the Jews came up with a once in a humanity idea--there was ONE God. He as God of EVERYBODY. The good and the bad, the rich and the poor--he may have sided with the Jews--but he was God of the world. And that changed everything--and by that I mean EVERYTHING.


PS! TomK your thoughts on this reminds me very much of my dad, (he is an atheist which is okay with the "christian" culture) which I still admire, even though I have unfairly distanced myself abit too much from him. I've only talked to him a couple of times the last year, but i'm in the prosess of bridging that gap again. Funny how long it takes to remove the parent-son relationship and I now realize that he has moved away from it for a couple of years ago, I've just been too stubborn to realize it.

Give the old bastard a hug--he rasied a pretty smart and decent kid and you should be thankful to him for it. :)

[Kronos]

Comrades, you'll have to forgive Tom K for the moment. I'll take the blame for this: I led him to Nietzsche and Spinoza, and neither are for the faint of heart. I've made Tom a monster and now I have to undo what I have done.

Tom I want you to focus on Kant for a while. I want you to learn how ethical propositions are analytical and not synthetic, and that there is no fact/value distinction, and that "good" morals are objective and deontologically warranted, and that we cannot know if god does not exist.

[Dr Mindbender]

they might be stupid, but its good for the lulz. You gotta give em that. :lol:

[Bud Struggle]

Comrades, you'll have to forgive Tom K for the moment. I'll take the blame for this: I led him to Nietzsche and Spinoza, and neither are for the faint of heart. I've made Tom a monster and now I have to undo what I have done.

Tom I want you to focus on Kant for a while. I want you to learn how ethical propositions are analytical and not synthetic, and that there is no fact/value distinction, and that "good" morals are objective and deontologically warranted, and that we cannot know if god does not exist.

Kronos-maybe we can discuss Albertus Maguns or John Duns Scotus after that? I'm not that interested in discussing the history of Philosophy.

Maybe you can strike up a chat with Rosa!

Nope, you need to answer my question--in the face of total inderrerent materialism--how can you even pretend there is anything like fairness--without lapsing into idealism.

You know, I was on to you when you quoted that passage of Fritz's over on the other thread--and didn't have a CLUE what it was about.

Forget about 18th century nicities--and discuss philosophy with the big boys.

Give me a reason why you aren't my slave. I have money, you're poor--whay can't I treat you any way I want?

[eyedrop]

I understand--but you also have to accept the brutality of it all. There is no moral order to the universe. Starving children are the same as billionaires. Gas chambers are the same as McDonalds. There is no morality to any action. What the hell are "worker's rights?" No one has rights beyond those of power. Jesus and Marx tried to instill something different in mankind's beliefs. I do accept the brutality of it all, or atleast I think I do. I don't really have any moral judgment for people with power acting as they do, if there is anything history has to teach us it's that if people have the possibility to torture, burn, kill and rape someone is going do it. To believe anything else would be naive. Power is right! That's exactly why we need to try to prevent people from having it, or atleast share it out over as many people as possible so people out of self interest won't do it.

I like to think of the universe as a big puzzle we have to solve, just for the hell of it.

If your interested there is an excellent book named History of Bestiality, by one of our recent cultural treasures here in Norway. I strongly recommend it. Link (http://home.att.net/%7Eemurer/works/moment.htm)




NO! There is no pattern and no reason for the universe. If yu see a pattern--it's just self delusion. There is pattern in that it operates according to a few principles (the laws of nature), but I agree that there is no reason except what one subjectively choose almost at random.



(A hell of a lot better than I'd do in Norwegian! :lol:) Here's the crux of the problem--science is science, a bunch of facts and figures--there is no morality of reason to science--it's just facts and figures. When we extrapolate from these figures some sort or MEANING we fall on problematic ground. In the end science tells us nothing of value. I think I'm better at expressing myself in English than in Norwegian. English just has so many more precise words. I have no problem accepting that there is no reason, I really think I prefer it that way.


There's no determinism--just random collisions of particles that produce other random collisions of particles. It's not really random, if you backtracked and played it again it would play out the same way. The jury is still out on the randomness of quantum mechanics, there is still a chance that there really is a system behind it. At least at my level of understanding.





There isn't a post on Philosophy over there that shouldn't begin with: "Meanwhile back in the 18th Century..."


Oh, there are all sorts of laws in nature--but they have no moral bearing--they only speak of when trees bloom and how tigers kill their prey. Don't confuse them with moral laws--natural laws speak on nothing with it come to enslaving Blacks or gassing Jews. Trees blooming are imperative laws in the natural universe. On the massacre of millions of humans--the universe is indifferent. I agree.


Eyedrop--you sometimes are a freakin' brilliant guy. You are right--the Greek, Norse gods were "us." Bigger better smarter, but "us." They were humanity incarnate--in the flesh and in the earth. They were the elements--earth, air, fire, and water--with those gods humanity was one with the universe. Each tribe had their own god and if one god was stronger than the other--the stronger god's tribe won. All was a peace in the world.

Then the Jews came up with a once in a humanity idea--there was ONE God. He as God of EVERYBODY. The good and the bad, the rich and the poor--he may have sided with the Jews--but he was God of the world. And that changed everything--and by that I mean EVERYTHING. I can't take full credit :( It was a quite good book that showed me the idea. I was sceptical through most of the book, but it just made too much sense.




Give the old bastard a hug--he rasied a pretty smart and decent kid and you should be thankful to him for it. :) You have to remember that we are stiff norwegians.:laugh: http://youtube.com/watch?v=k1qjhJYVIoQ
I am thankful though, except for some minor details, they raised me perfectly. They gave me the opportunity to become who I am. I am going with him to a family reunion, in Scotland, in a week and a half.You would have liked him, he had some balls when he was young, as an example; When he didn't get into university he just said, screw it! And went to all the lectures anyway until they let him in.

[Kronos]

Maybe you can strike up a chat with Rosa!

No fuckin way. Rosa is waaaaaaay over my head. I refuse to embarrass myself.


Kronos-maybe we can discuss Albertus Maguns or John Duns Scotus after that?

Reading neo-platonists is as exciting as watching grass grow. No thank you.


you need to answer my question--in the face of total inderrerent materialism--how can you even pretend there is anything like fairness--without lapsing into idealism.

Two words, Tommy: pain sucks. I don't need materialism or idealism to prove to me that pain sucks. Since you are a lot like me, I assume you can feel pain too. I bet you think pain sucks. Hey, we have something in common! Now, let that be a first principle. So if I give you the world and put you in charge of humanity, and you know that pain sucks, wouldn't the first order of business be- arranging the world so the least amount of pain is experienced by the most amount of people? Certainly.

Now, you don't have to concern yourself with other peoples experiences, but something tells me you would if it didn't cost you anything. Guess what. It doesn't have to cost you anything.

Utilitarians do it better, Tom.


when you quoted that passage of Fritz's over on the other thread--and didn't have a CLUE what it was about.

Nonsense. I know more about Fritz than Fritz does.


Forget about 18th century nicities--and discuss philosophy with the big boys.

Fine. Let's do it. You pick the century. I must warn you though, most post-modernism/structuralism is mental masturbation, but if you insist, name your man. Foucault? Derrida? Deleuze? Who?

I'm tellin you dude, Wittgenstein and Marx ended philosophy. Out of the many philosophers that existed before them, only a small handful are relevant. Out of the many philosophers that exist after them, none are relevant.


Give me a reason why you aren't my slave. I have money, you're poor--whay can't I treat you any way I want?

Because I would beat you over the head with a hardback copy of The Will To Power, that's why not.

[Bud Struggle]

Because I would beat you over the head with a hardback copy of The Will To Power, that's why not.

No you wouldn't. For the same reason you don't beat your temp guy over the head or the guy that gave you the job running that machine.

See that situation where you got fucked? I get on my knees and pray to God each night for those kinds of situations. That's where you make your move--that's where you make a deal with the employer to work off the books whenever he need you--you cut the employment agencies fee in half and add that to your pay. Make more money and you're the boss.

I'm not saying that would work here, I don't have enough info--but do that 10 times in similar situations and you'll strike paydirt--and that's the beginning of Kronos Construction Worldwide, Inc.

Remember: no one ever screws you over--they only teach you.

[Kronos]

http://161.58.20.24/signs/books/dummies/default.aspx?pic=pointing&tag=&text=Catholic+Nihilism%21&text2=I+went+from+Jesus+to+Nietzsche+over+night%21&text3=Learn+how+to+contradict+yourself+in+two+simp le+steps%21&move=&move2=&mover=11&mover2=&font=adventure&color=white&book=NEWBIES&timer=1817&allow=486&title=Fun+With+Tom+K

[Bud Struggle]

http://161.58.20.24/signs/books/dummies/default.aspx?pic=pointing&tag=&text=Catholic+Nihilism%21&text2=I+went+from+Jesus+to+Nietzsche+over+night%21&text3=Learn+how+to+contradict+yourself+in+two+simp le+steps%21&move=&move2=&mover=11&mover2=&font=adventure&color=white&book=NEWBIES&timer=1817&allow=486&title=Fun+With+Tom+K

The Catholic Church has got your number Kronos.

And you wonder why you never win. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Kronos]

Oh for God's sake. You mean I gotta download the picture, then upload it again?

I wonder why that is. Must be because SOME FUCKING CAPITALIST OWNS THE BANDWIDTH?

Alright, gimme a second.....

[Kronos]

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/1507/defaultaspxop9.png

[Bud Struggle]

You gotta admit Kronos--God has a sense of humor.:lol::lol::lol:

(And He's laughing at you.)

OK, maybe not. God is good and He loves you...but you gotta a cool down a bit. You are smart, but not that smart. Talk down to me--and I'll woop your ass every time. Really, deeply, truly. :)

Always.

Want to be friends? I'm up for it.

[Kronos]

Man is only a reed, the weakest in nature; but he is a thinking reed. There is no need for God to take up arms to crush him: a vapor, a drop of water is enough to kill him. But even if God were to crush him, man would still be nobler than his slayer, because he knows that he is dying and the advantage that God has over him. God knows nothing of this.

(originally Pascal's quote.....but I added "God" where he did not. It seemed appropriate.)

[Kronos]

Talk down to me--and I'll woop your ass every time. Really, deeply, truly.

No sweetheart. I have forgotten more than you will ever learn, and if you had a billion dollars you would still be a putz.

[Bud Struggle]

Nevermind--enough. I'm taking advantage of you, and that's not fair.

All the best to you, Kronos.

[al8]

Good god, I am so happy you aren't leading any revolutions. No movement needs such a wantonly antagonistic message to represent it; never mind that such an elitist statement basically contradicts the spirit of communism.

No, there needs to be a clear line demarcating friend from foe. I want certain atagonisms. That's why I'm happy to offend the religous and the ass-lickers thereof. So there, in your face.

[RedAnarchist]

No, there needs to be a clear line demarcating friend from foe. I want certain atagonisms. That's why I'm happy to offend the religous and the ass-lickers thereof. So there, in your face.

In other words,"You're either with us or against us!":rolleyes:

[al8]

Why, of course! But your rolleyes seem to suggest something else. If your against us you are with us, perhaps? :laugh:

[RedAnarchist]

Why, of course! But your rolleyes seem to suggest something else. If your against us you are with us, perhaps? :laugh:

With us or against us is a very black and white view of the world, usually advocated by reactionaries.

[al8]

Making things cut and clear is a good thing. The problem with reactionaries is that they are on the wrong side. The problem is not that there are sides in general.

[Kronos]

Could you elaborate somewhat more here? I can agree with you here, but only on shallow grounds as in; Why not? Beats non-existance.

When I say "we don't need any justification or purpose for our existence" I mean that we do not need assurance that there is something more than mortal life to be satisfied with mortal life.

This is really what the statement translates into because literally, as it was said, it is a nonsensical statement- "justification" and "purpose" are terms that cannot be applied to "existence", or "life", for that matter.

To "justify" something...one affords a reason for it. There is no "reason" for existence or life. A "purpose" is what something is "for", and existence and life is not "for" anything.

There are a million and one poetic, philosophical expressions that people think in terms of everyday....but behind this nonsense is really one concern, and one concern only: is there something that happens after I die that is determined by what I do while I am alive.

Now to the point. Religious people are those who believe that what they do in their life has any lasting consequences. Atheistic religions, Buddhism for example, or others which theorize a "spiritual" existence of some sort or another, are concerned with principled living of a kind that will establish positive consequences for their "after life". Theistic religions are those which proceed a step further- they suppose that not only is principled living necessary...but that the principles are dictated by a conscious, intelligent God.

Often, having such beliefs can jeopardize what we are SURE of- physical life in very certain material circumstances. In other words, when a belief interferes with the process of accomplishing better physical, material circumstances, it is bad.

For example, take Tom, a religious capitalist. Tom's religious beliefs help him feel as if his actions and his influences are excused and permitted. Whatever he does in life, so long as he follows the laws of society and believes wholeheartedly in his religion, he cannot feel as if he is doing something bad.

The irony is here: once everything is said and done with Tom's life, the real results of his life are anything but good. What is happening at base, what are the real, material consequences of his life, what are the effects of what he does because of what he believes are negative, digressive and extraneous- Tom is an organism that exists off of the life force of other organisms. This is the actual and essential description of the capitalist.

You can look at it like this: because Tom lived, X amount of people worked more than they needed to. Tom's life, therefore, caused suffering and struggle for other people. Anything else is a trivial irrelevancy.

This is the danger of religion. It causes people to be less apt at accepting that there are physical, material relations that are negative. Capitalism, to Tom the religious person, is something permitted by God, so it cannot be bad. Furthermore, Tom will believe that all the struggle that the people he exploits experiences will be compensated for so long as those people are honest believers of God.

Again, remember, once everything is said and done, the only real assessment that can be made is this: person X lived off of the life force of person's Y, Z, etc., etc. Whatever else person X did in life- eat spaghetti, hug his son, sing a Beatles song, walk through the grass, call his grandmother, whatever- is irrelevant when it becomes understood that person X only consumed and used material conditions created by other people.

The marxist atheist understands that person X must absolutely be eliminated at any costs, because the marxist atheist is aware of the physical, material consequences of allowing person X to live. Nobody lives at the expense of someone else. Period.

Religious belief gives people a reason to remain incompetent and ignore what IS REALLY HAPPENING, as well as helping to ease whatever sense of guilt might be experienced if it dawns on the person that they are, indeed, using people as a parasite does.

The marxist atheist pays no attention to the "law", or to "religion" or to anything else that hasn't, as its very first principle, the concern for eliminating the capitalist. This is the first order of business. All else follows.

I also want to add that sympathy and pity can be a terrible vice for the revolutionary. Because of degree of suffering and struggle that affects the working classes, for the sake of the capitalist who does nothing but consume, the revolutionary must not reconsider violent action. Violence is completely warranted. We should always remember that new life is in the making, that the human species will continue on, and that the sooner the capitalist is exterminated, the better. To quote Stalin- "dead people don't matter".

Granted, we should not be opposed to "peaceful" transition and revolution, but we should be careful and watch the clock- there can come a point when the destruction reaped by capitalism becomes irreversible.

With this in mind....why even try a diplomatic transition? If I could assemble every revolutionary on the earth and ask him this question...I'm confident that I would convince them and get the revolution underway.

[Bud Struggle]

When I say "we don't need any justification or purpose for our existence" I mean that we do not need assurance that there is something more than mortal life to be satisfied with mortal life.

All right for the sake of argument--let's take that as a given.


This is really what the statement translates into because literally, as it was said, it is a nonsensical statement- "justification" and "purpose" are terms that cannot be applied to "existence", or "life", for that matter. We OK ther, too--we don't know we exist by thinking of intellectualization--we know we exist by being.


To "justify" something...one affords a reason for it. There is no "reason" for existence or life. A "purpose" is what something is "for", and existence and life is not "for" anything. OK again fine we have no reson or purpose.


There are a million and one poetic, philosophical expressions that people think in terms of everyday....but behind this nonsense is really one concern, and one concern only: is there something that happens after I die that is determined by what I do while I am alive.

No--this is where you mistake sentimentalism about religion from belief in God. What happens after I die is quite incidental to the whole business of living.


Often, having such beliefs can jeopardize what we are SURE of- physical life in very certain material circumstances. In other words, when a belief interferes with the process of accomplishing better physical, material circumstances, it is bad. Maybe. But as a Christian I'm SURE of how to live a comfortable life. I am SURE of the best way to provide the very best for me and my family. I'm SURE of how to buy boats and horses and cars and houses. Empirically--I'm SURE of lots of stuff. I'm SURE of being good at being a father and husband. I'm not sure of God--I have faith.


For example, take Tom, a religious capitalist. Tom's religious beliefs help him feel as if his actions and his influences are excused and permitted. Whatever he does in life, so long as he follows the laws of society and believes wholeheartedly in his religion, he cannot feel as if he is doing something bad. Nope--I'm sure that this is the REAL universe. I'm sure that for me now, I can make my way with the best of them. I'm sure I know that money is a nice thing to have and I'm sure that I have a talent to make it.


The irony is here: once everything is said and done with Tom's life, the real results of his life are anything but good. What is happening at base, what are the real, material consequences of his life, what are the effects of what he does because of what he believes are negative, digressive and extraneous- Tom is an organism that exists off of the life force of other organisms. This is the actual and essential description of the capitalist. Except--I have a pretty nice life by anyone's standards. Nice houses, nice cars, nice kids, nice boats, nice wife. Sow what if I am deluding myself about God--it WORKS. Xan you say the same?


You can look at it like this: because Tom lived, X amount of people worked more than they needed to. Tom's life, therefore, caused suffering and struggle for other people. Anything else is a trivial irrelevancy. No. If there is no God--other people's lives are the trival irrevantcy. You seem to postulate there is something called "fairness." Without a supreme arbitrater of what is good and bad--everything is quite fair. Who is to say different?


This is the danger of religion. It causes people to be less apt at accepting that there are physical, material relations that are negative. Capitalism, to Tom the religious person, is something permitted by God, so it cannot be bad. Furthermore, Tom will believe that all the struggle that the people he exploits experiences will be compensated for so long as those people are honest believers of God. No--you are making value judgments where none are permitted. If there is no God--everything that "is" is quite the way it should be. On what basis can you make value judgmemts? Who the heck are you to say--"THIS IS FAIR" and "THIS IS NOT FAIR." You are making youself into God--and for this excersize we postulated he doesn't exist--make up your mind.


Again, remember, once everything is said and done, the only real assessment that can be made is this: person X lived off of the life force of person's Y, Z, etc., etc. Life Force?!?!? Is this philosophy or Star Trek?


Whatever else person X did in life- eat spaghetti, hug his son, sing a Beatles song, walk through the grass, call his grandmother, whatever- is irrelevant when it becomes understood that person X only consumed and used material conditions created by other people. Now you are making stuff up.


The marxist atheist understands that person X must absolutely be eliminated at any costs, because the marxist atheist is aware of the physical, material consequences of allowing person X to live. Nobody lives at the expense of someone else. Period. Who says? Are you proposing some arbitrary RULES that you want to live by? Well fine--but they are no different than my Jesus or Buddah or the Great Bird of the Universe. Just made up rules that have no foundation in the materialistic universe.


Religious belief gives people a reason to remain incompetent and ignore what IS REALLY HAPPENING, Incompetent? I'm not living in the back seat of a car. :)


as well as helping to ease whatever sense of guilt might be experienced if it dawns on the person that they are, indeed, using people as a parasite does. No--I'm living in the universe EXACTLY AS IT SHOULD BE. Anything else would be WRONG.


The marxist atheist pays no attention to the "law", or to "religion" or to anything else that hasn't, as its very first principle, the concern for eliminating the capitalist. This is the first order of business. All else follows. And that's exactly why Marxism is wrong--it introduces a "should be" fantasy world when the real world is the one that "is".


I also want to add that sympathy and pity can be a terrible vice for the revolutionary. Because of degree of suffering and struggle that affects the working classes, for the sake of the capitalist who does nothing but consume, the revolutionary must not reconsider violent action. Violence is completely warranted. We should always remember that new life is in the making, that the human species will continue on, and that the sooner the capitalist is exterminated, the better.
Fantasy again--who says and why--I live in the real world, you live in the world of robots wiping you ass. Fine if you wnat to believe it--but I don't see it.



Granted, we should not be opposed to "peaceful" transition and revolution, but we should be careful and watch the clock- there can come a point when the destruction reaped by capitalism becomes irreversible. You really have driven off of ther road here and are floating in space. There is no solid reason anything should EVER be different than the way it is--and if by chance things do change--Communism is no certainty--just look at the USSR, China, etc.


With this in mind....why even try a diplomatic transition? If I could assemble every revolutionary on the earth and ask him this question...I'm confident that I would convince them and get the revolution underway.

Sorry to inform you--the revolution came and went. Now wake up to the real world.

All the best!

[Killfacer]

okay people, chillout. Was an okay dicussion until that. Back to the point of the thread:

I feel that the idiocy of people praying for cheaper gas prices is ridiculous. But in another way, why would'nt people pray for things which have a big effect on their life? What do people expect others to pray for? World Peace? People are greedier than that and they are perfectly right to be. It's simply a case of people looking out for themselves: Something im sure Tom would love (sorry for using you as an example, please dont call me a failure :))

[Random Precision]

I've trashed that piece of intelligent, scholarly debate. Kronos, chill the fuck out.

[ipollux]

al8, I agree with most of what you've said here. Last week, when I saw that prayer at the pump shit, I almost threw up a little in my mouth.

[Jazzratt]

Just trashed some off topic stuff by Kronos. Please try desperately to stay on topic.

[Dean]

Making things cut and clear is a good thing. The problem with reactionaries is that they are on the wrong side. The problem is not that there are sides in general.

Communism is specifically about removing the more hollow forms of antagonism in society to focus specifically on the ones that matter, i.e., class. When it comes to the religious versus the non-religious, there is no clear class line, the poorest of the poor advocate supernaturalism. As such, as communists, it is implausible to define as enemy the religious in our society.

[Kronos]

Because of the many religions in the world, there can be no international proletarian class- do the working classes in Iraq have the same interests as the working classes in America? No. They feel anything but united with common interests with the "American devils".

If the world wants to ponder the "supernatural" (whatever that is), wait until AFTER a revolution. Any of that shit before the revolution will only stall it or prevent it entirely.

[Dean]

Because of the many religions in the world, there can be no international proletarian class- do the working classes in Iraq have the same interests as the working classes in America? No. They feel anything but united with common interests with the "American devils".

If the world wants to ponder the "supernatural" (whatever that is), wait until AFTER a revolution. Any of that shit before the revolution will only stall it or prevent it entirely.

Wait, you think that the primary division between western and middle-eastern proletarain classes is religion?

Nevermind that most middle-eastern workers tend to have positive or neutral views on the American people in general.

[Kronos]

Wait, you think that the primary division between western and middle-eastern proletarain classes is religion?

There is no "primary" reason for division. There is a host of cultural and ethical "memes" which distance the working classes from each other the world over.

But even if only one percent was distracted or discouraged from being involved in revolutionary activity because of religious beliefs....that is enough to make a difference.

Religion must be abolished COMPLETELY.

[Bud Struggle]

Religion must be abolished COMPLETELY.

If i were a betting man (which, by chance, I am,) I'd wager there is a greater chance of Communism being abolished from the world than religion.

A LOT greater chance. :lol:

[ipollux]

I often fantasize about religion being abolished, but it will never happen because religion a crutch for the weak-minded. And there is an insane amount of weak-minded people out there.

[Kronos]

I often fantasize about religion being abolished, but it will never happen because religion a crutch for the weak-minded.You must remember that religious belief is generated through the misuse of language...it is not an "a prior" or "inherent" characteristic of human reason (ignore the modern neuro-philosophy and its "religion is hardwired into the brain!" bullshit, or its "religion served an evolutionary purpose!"). Religion exists today only because of centuries of ruling class subterfuge and pseudoscience. How much metaphysical language would not exist if, say, Plato didn't exist, or any of the other mystics who have plagued the histories of civilization?

Children are not born with any conception of the term "God", or "spirit". They are taught these terms, and they are conditioned to associate these nonsensical terms with habits of custom, culture, and creed.

To give the benefit of the doubt, let's assume that people are tricked more so than they are weak or afraid of a godless universe. Of course, to some it can be depressing to think that we are mortal...to others, this is not a problem.

[al8]

I often fantasize about religion being abolished, but it will never happen because religion a crutch for the weak-minded. And there is an insane amount of weak-minded people out there.

All the more reason to stay resolute. And encoragement to fight religion from every angle unmitigatedly. I've seen people change, so it is possible. Even though victory isn't certain one can only know the outcome by entering the ring to fight the fight to conclution.

[534634634265]

If i were a betting man (which, by chance, I am,) I'd wager there is a greater chance of Communism being abolished from the world than religion.

A LOT greater chance. :lol:
i lol'd

Children are not born with any conception of the term "God", or "spirit". They are taught these terms, and they are conditioned to associate these nonsensical terms with habits of custom, culture, and creed.


i don't buy that Kronos. i had atheist parents and i've come to my spiritual beliefs on my own. i don't see why its any of your concern what i believe, so why do you feel it necessary to force your beliefs over mine? isn't that a violation of the freedom we as revolutionaries should be protecting?

[RedAnarchist]

If i were a betting man (which, by chance, I am,) I'd wager there is a greater chance of Communism being abolished from the world than religion.

A LOT greater chance. :lol:

I wonder if they said that about Science a few hundred years ago?

[Bud Struggle]

I wonder if they said that about Science a few hundred years ago?

If you think of the words "grass root revolutionaries of the 21st century" What comes to mind, Communism or Islam?

[RedAnarchist]

If you think of the words "grass root revolutionaries of the 21st century" What comes to mind, Communism or Islam?

I see Islamic fundamentalists as reactionaries rather than revolutionaries.

[Bud Struggle]

I see Islamic fundamentalists as reactionaries rather than revolutionaries.

True in the strict sense of the word--they aren't revolutionaries. But who's getting poised to take over the world? I don't have the Marxists easy take on history that everything will evolve like a science. I think we could go back to the Middle Ages pretty easily if we don't pay attention.

[RedAnarchist]

True in the strict sense of the word--they aren't revolutionaries. But who's getting poised to take over the world? I don't have the Marxists easy take on history that everything will evolve like a science. I think we could go back to the Middle Ages pretty easily if we don't pay attention.

They won't take over the world, unless half the population of the West was suddenly to disappear and the influence of Western languages and culture were to disappear. The paranoid "z0mg the Muslims are coming to take over the world!" view is very simplistic and unrealistic.

I don't have the Marxist scientific take on history either, although I do believe that as the influences of the past fade, the revoluionary left grows.

First, whose "Middle Age"? Second, why would we?

[Bud Struggle]

They won't take over the world, unless half the population of the West was suddenly to disappear and the influence of Western languages and culture were to disappear. The paranoid "z0mg the Muslims are coming to take over the world!" view is very simplistic and unrealistic.

I don't have the Marxist scientific take on history either, although I do believe that as the influences of the past fade, the revoluionary left grows.

First, whose "Middle Age"? Second, why would we?

I don't think that the Radical Muslems could actually take over the world--but they could do their part to impede human progress. What I do see over thepast 20 years is Islamic Fundamentalism growing and Marxism declining.

My point is that Islam is a much greater force in the world today than Communism currently is. And I see Islam waxing as Communism wains.

I see religion as a much more seminal force in human society than you do, I guess.

[RedAnarchist]

I don't think that the Radical Muslems could actually take over the world--but they could do their part to impede human progress. What I do see over thepast 20 years is Islamic Fundamentalism growing and Marxism declining.

My point is that Islam is a much greater force in the world today than Communism currently is. And I see Islam waxing as Communism wains.

I see religion as a much more seminal force in human society than you do, I guess.

Both Anarchism and Marxism are growing, just at different speeds. And if certain governments hadn't invaded places such as Afghanistan and Iraq, Islamic fundamentalism would not be as big as it is today.

Its not in Nepal, or South America. Islam is still just a tiny minority in most Western and African countries, and many countries with a Muslim majority are secular.

I'm from the UK, religion is not as strong here as it is in other countries. Most people are just religious by name rather than by practice, and we don't tend to allow the religious to force reactionary policies on the secular majority.

[Bud Struggle]

I'm from the UK, religion is not as strong here as it is in other countries. Most people are just religious by name rather than by practice, and we don't tend to allow the religious to force reactionary policies on the secular majority.


Bet. $100.

In ten years Britain will be more religious than it is now.

You on?

[RedAnarchist]

Bet. $100.

In ten years Britain will be more religious than it is now.

You on?

How will it be more religious, unless even more Polish (mostly Catholic) and Asian (Muslim/Hindu/Sikh/Christian) people are born/migrate here?

[Bud Struggle]

How will it be more religious, unless even more Polish (mostly Catholic) and Asian (Muslim/Hindu/Sikh/Christian) people are born/migrate here?

Exactly.

[RedAnarchist]

Exactly.

You do realise that such migrations have fallen over the past couple of years? Polish people are returning back to Poland rather than staying here.

[Bud Struggle]

You do realise that such migrations have fallen over the past couple of years? Polish people are returning back to Poland rather than staying here.

I know. It's the lousy food in England that's driving them back. :lol:

But there will be other people. As long as the UK/the US/Europe has a higher standard of living--the people will come.

Here in the US--Spanish Americans are swelling the ranks of the Catholic Church.

[RedAnarchist]

I think a lot of religious people will be put off from coming here due to the culture being quite secular and slightly anti-religious.

[ipollux]

I think a lot of religious people will be put off from coming here due to the culture being quite secular and slightly anti-religious.

I find those to be attractive characteristics, but, alas, you're right--the superstitious may not think so.

[Black Sheep]

Yes, very dissapointingly it has happened all the same. Look (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.kvikmynd.is/video.asp?land=&offset=0&id=6679) and stand to be amazed yet again by another cup of mindnumming religious bullshit. Here we have a pristene example of the religious mind at work.

Can anyone honestly say after this brief example that religion deserves respect?It doesn't.

It doesnt deserve any more respect than my claim that in the lower layers of jupiter,there lives a tribe of gay jellyfish,which hover by farting and communicate by whispering Malta's national anthem.

IF we stopped being pussies and were a little disrespectful to ideas that are stupid enough to deserve it, these ideas wouldnt dominate the world today.