Why is Theism Fundamentally Bad?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I am under the impression that theism is something we should discourage regardless of what political system we are in. However, I don't have a lot of solid arguments for why this is the case.

If you agree or disagree with this, I would appreciate your perspectives on the matter (anyone).

[534634634265]

i don't see a problem with theistic beliefs, nor do i understand the paradoxical viewpoint that repression of those personal beliefs is acceptable since its for "their own good". If you truly believe that all people must be free of oppression or repression, then why is it okay to repress a spiritual belief? too many people would try and stop religious thought simply because they have a different view of it. they see religion as a negative, without looking at the positive that it has done on an individual basis. if you take religion as a political/economic force then yes the harm-to-good ratio is less, but the same could be said for the horribly oppressive regimes of so called communists or socialists. i would support the banning of proselytizing, but not the banning of the beliefs themselves. what i believe is entirely my own business. people will never stop thinking in spiritual or religious ways, because its part of what we are to look for a higher cause or calling.

[Demogorgon]

I have no problem with theism or religion. Obviously I dislike the religious right, but it is not as if I like the secular right any more. To me, the existence of God is an intellectual curiosity. I happen to be an atheist, but I think apatheist perhaps describes my broader views.

I believe that an improving society will lead to decreased religious belief, but I don't really mind. People should be able to openly proclaim any faith they please.

[al8]

It certainly should be discouraged in a principled manner, even fought outright. The religious and the asslickers thereof tend to put much time and effort into obscureing both means and the justness of these aims, for obvious "self"-interest reasons. I think the post above justifies as one. All the more reason to stay resolute and not take their shit.

Religion is repressive, stupifying anti-scientific bullshit and festers where its given slack. That's why it's best to oppose it everytime every place. Not neglecting circumstance. Such as country, recources, viability of group innititive, talents etc.

The religious and their running dogs want us to respect "cherished personal beliefs". But they are not personal, they are public, as soon as we know about them. Personal (religious) beliefs are not readilyhunt-able because they are secret by defenition. They can only be fought indirectly through proper education in the sciences and humanites.

Yeah, so again, they call for respect of something that is loathsome and call on us to tread lightly in the precence of a tender souls (read;sensitive religious maniacs). But I say we should be doing the exact opposite of what they want us to do to further their aims. Because we have other aims; the emancipation of humans from superstitious drivel.

[534634634265]

It certainly should be discouraged in a principled manner, even fought outright. The religious and the asslickers thereof tend to put much time and effort into obscureing both means and the justness of these aims, for obvious "self"-interest reasons. I think the post above justifies as one. All the more reason to stay resolute and not take their shit.

what do i stand to gain from freedom of personal beliefs,that is also denied to you by it? your a close-minded simpleton.



Religion is repressive, stupifying anti-scientific bullshit and festers where its given slack. That's why it's best to oppose it everytime every place. Not neglecting circumstance. Such as country, recources, viability of group innititive, talents etc.

how is anyone's personal belief a repression of others? note i believe proselytizing is a bad idea, as then you force your beliefs on others. much like you try to force your ignorance on us here. maybe focus more on your education, and less on the "evil" of religious thought.



The religious and their running dogs want us to respect "cherished personal beliefs". But they are not personal, they are public, as soon as we know about them. Personal (religious) beliefs are not readilyhunt-able because they are secret by defenition. They can only be fought indirectly through proper education in the sciences and humanites.

so your public beliefs on politics, should we repress those as extremist or differing from the mainstream?:bored:
lets pick another issue, i think purple is a reactionary color, so we should hunt down and oppress people who like purple. DEATH TO THE PURPLE-LOVERS!:rolleyes::blink::rolleyes:



Yeah, so again, they call for respect of something that is loathsome and call on us to tread lightly in the precence of a tender souls (read;sensitive religious maniacs). But I say we should be doing the exact opposite of what they want us to do to further their aims. Because we have other aims; the emancipation of humans from superstitious drivel.

the only drivel i've found so far is your flawed arguments coupled with your lack of spelling ability. you claim its alright to oppress the freedom of thought based on the fact that you oppose religious organizations. however, the right of the individual is the right to believe as they choose. maybe i need to bring the Pastafarians here to explain this better.:lol::lol::lol:
you focus on religion as an organization, but that isn't what the OP asked about. he asked if we should encourage/discourage theism. that is a personal belief in a higher power or powers.

[Demogorgon]

al8's totalitarian bullshit gets more ridiculous by the day. With his desire for banning free speech, thought control, obsession with scapegoating and so on, one has to wonder what he is doing on a leftist website.

[Kami]

Theism is fundementally bad because it's people believing something that simply isn't true. sure, they have a right to believe it, but that doesn't make it a good thing, does it? It's damaging to society on top of that - people will go to extraordinary lengths if they believe what they do is for their god, and can "in the name of god" be persuaded that the most abhorrent things are correct.
There's some argument as to religion having a positive humanitarian impact - I don't but it. The difference is it's easy to measure religious humanitarians because they do it in the name of their religion. Those doing it for other reasons don't fall under the banner of "atheist charities" and the like, however.
As for where opposition to religion should be taken - the only opposition we can really give is a good education system. Anything beyond that and we border on authoritarianism. Of course, we have to defend ourselves when the religious attack rights, freedoms, and human advancement, but I don't think those nuts are the ones we are discussing right now.

The books of "the four horsemen" are a must-read on the subject - Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens.

[Cult of Reason]

I think that atheism, but more importantly the reasons for atheism like evolution and improbability, should be taught in schools, perhaps even anti-theism.

In addition, I have recently come to the (tentative) conclusion that it would be best for society, and for children especially, if the children of fundamentalist or deeply religious parents were taken into care, for reasons see Dawkins re: child abuse. Children are not the property of their parents.

I would be interested in valid reasons not to do the above however, such as potential trauma for the child (but obviously this would not be a problem for children taken away at birth).

[al8]

what do i stand to gain from freedom of personal beliefs,that is also denied to you by it? your a close-minded simpleton.

I don't want to copy you and be so open-minded that my brains fall out.

It's always the same with you and your ilk. You have a profound dislike of truth and the act of correcting others. You can only see it as bad thing. An attempt at offence or as the stemming from the worst of motives. Maybe straight from the Devil himself! *gasp* Who knows with you religious people!?


how is anyone's personal belief a repression of others? note i believe proselytizing is a bad idea, as then you force your beliefs on others. much like you try to force your ignorance on us here. maybe focus more on your education, and less on the "evil" of religious thought.

Or what? Gonna pray for me? :laugh:

I'm perfectly happy with seeing religion eraticated the same way as it was brought on. By whatever means, brunt or subtle, matters not.
Beliving in lies and untruth is bad. If people have faulty premises they will churn out wrong conclutions. People beliving in wrong things by definition (faith), is not a happy affair.



so your public beliefs on politics, should we repress those as extremist or differing from the mainstream?

Being an extremist means that you are something when you are something, and not some moderate fake. Many of my opinions are being repressed at the moment (oh noes). Like the bourgeois newspapers, they don't fucking advocate revolution, workers self-management or a non-monitary based economy. :crying::eek::eek:



the only drivel i've found so far is your flawed arguments coupled with your lack of spelling ability.

Thank you for pointing that out. I'm open to corrections.


you claim its alright to oppress the freedom of thought based on the fact that you oppose religious organizations. however, the right of the individual is the right to believe as they choose.


So you claim, but freedom is first of all relative. Some freedoms I want to eradicate Hannibal Lector-style others I would like to promote. Like in respect to the feudal right of the first night, or the right to own slaves, to name a few, I'm a freedom hating authoritarian monster and I hope you are to. With different times comes different freedoms. And the only reason your pushing for freedom this and freedom that for religious bullshit is because religious organizations have political clout... at the moment.


you focus on religion as an organization, but that isn't what the OP asked about. he asked if we should encourage/discourage theism. that is a personal belief in a higher power or powers.

The idea would not be there were it not for the organized spread of them through orgs. They are inspearable.

[Captain Morgan]

al8; are you saying that people are free to express their opinion as long as their opinion is considered right and logical? You are denying individual's right to be wrong, delusional and stupid, in other words, to disagree with the allmighty omnipotent vanguard party? :<

Wow, flashbacks from the 19th century.

"Women, socialists, liberals and atheists, please leave the parliament room as it is the place for actually serious discussion.."

[Kami]

al8; are you saying that people are free to express their opinion as long as their opinion is considered right and logical? You are denying individual's right to be wrong, delusional and stupid, in other words, to disagree with the allmighty omnipotent vanguard party? :<
Haha, I'm not sure about al8, but I'd say quite the opposite - People are free to be wrong, delusional and stupid, just so long as they don't want us to consider them as anything else :P

[Captain Morgan]

Haha, I'm not sure about al8, but I'd say quite the opposite - People are free to be wrong, delusional and stupid, just so long as they don't want us to consider them as anything else :P

Maybe it's just me but after reading rather large amount of that Al guy's posts all around this subforum, it seems he would like to push the anti-religious activities little further than just that. You know, all the schit about banning religions and religion being enemy of revolution and in conflict with communist rational ideals.

I'm not a communist myself but it seems that instead of religion, it's the Al dude who is in conflict with communist ideals with his desire to crush one's right to choose, believe and assemble just because they are wrong by definition: just like socialists - even the "counter-revolutionary" and "revisionist" ones -used to be in most European countries during the 19th century. That's not how a democratic system is run, if you ask me.

[534634634265]

I don't want to copy you and be so open-minded that my brains fall out.

those with close minds should also come with closed mouths.



It's always the same with you and your ilk. You have a profound dislike of truth and the act of correcting others. You can only see it as bad thing. An attempt at offence or as the stemming from the worst of motives. Maybe straight from the Devil himself! *gasp* Who knows with you religious people!?

i love the truth. the truth is you are a blindingly ignorant ass, who can't see beyond his own prejudice. if you were any more dense light would bend around you.



I'm perfectly happy with seeing religion eraticated the same way as it was brought on.

religion came from individuals who believed in a higher power or calling. so let it be "eradicated" through the elimination of proselytizing, and keep your toady little beliefs out of mine.



Beliving in lies and untruth is bad. If people have faulty premises they will churn out wrong conclutions. People beliving in wrong things by definition (faith), is not a happy affair.
your are incredibly full of yourself. you believe that socialism or communism are the future of mankind. many think that is an untruth and is wrong. should we banish you from society? no, we welcome your differing opinion.



Being an extremist means that you are something when you are something, and not some moderate fake.

:confused::blink::bored: being an extremist means you blindly believe one thing without the ability to see whether it is "right" or "wrong". like hitler, or stalin, or reagan. those are extremists. better to be what you consider a moderate fake then.



Many of my opinions are being repressed at the moment (oh noes). Like the bourgeois newspapers, they don't fucking advocate revolution, workers self-management or a non-monitary based economy.

oh wait, so they don't advocate the beliefs they consider to be wacko extremism? strange that you can simultaneously experience such repression and then advocate it in another situation.



Thank you for pointing that out. I'm open to corrections.

i'm not your grade school english teacher. maybe if you had payed more attention in grades K-8 you would have a better grasp, but you probably blame your horrible authoritarian teachers who forced homework on your innocent proletarian brain.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:



So you claim, but freedom is first of all relative. Some freedoms I want to eradicate Hannibal Lector-style others I would like to promote. Like in respect to the feudal right of the first night, or the right to own slaves, to name a few, I'm a freedom hating authoritarian monster and I hope you are to. With different times comes different freedoms. And the only reason your pushing for freedom this and freedom that for religious bullshit is because religious organizations have political clout... at the moment.

you can't seriously equate such horribly oppressive practices with religious freedom? all of those "rights" trample all over the freedom of other innocent individuals. how do my spiritual beliefs trample on any of your rights, freedoms, etc?



The idea would not be there were it not for the organized spread of them through orgs. They are inspearable.
you obviously know nothing about hinduism, buddhism, jainism, sikhs, etc. these people do not spread their religious beliefs(proselytizing). they came to them on their own, and if you come to them then they will share them with you on an individual basis. no huge organization of conspiracy for you to shake your e-peen at. religion and spiritual/religious beliefs are different things. an individuals spiritual beliefs are solely for THAT INDIVIDUAL.

[BobKKKindle$]

I am under the impression that theism is something we should discourage regardless of what political system we are in. However, I don't have a lot of solid arguments for why this is the case.

Theism should be discouraged because religion has the potential to destroy the basis of human existence. Conflict between religions (and even between competing sects of a single religion) has been a common feature of human interaction ever since religion came to exist as an important part of our civilization and moral outlook, because the followers of each religion believe that they alone possess the truth and all other religions are simply aberrations which lead people away from the truth. Although this is has always been regrettable (and irrational, given that all religions are based on a total lack of empirical evidence to support the existence of any supreme being) it is only recently that this dynamic of conflict has become a serious threat - it is now possible for religions militants to gain access to nuclear material (and other powerful weapons) which can be used to create destruction on a massive scale, in the name of religion, and with the expectation that the militant who commits these crimes will be able to enjoy eternal happiness when he is accepted into his paradise of choice. In the interests of all humanity, theism needs to be destroyed, to prevent such horrific atrocities from occuring.

[al8]

al8; are you saying that people are free to express their opinion as long as their opinion is considered right and logical? You are denying individual's right to be wrong, delusional and stupid, in other words, to disagree with the allmighty omnipotent vanguard party? :<

It is somewhat difficult to understand you. But I'll try to aswer you anyway. My set up has yet be set up as the recognized framwork. Rights are human constructs agreed upon not some platoninc ideal one discovers. So one cannot talk about are these and these such, only will or do you want this to be such and such.

In all societies there are do's and dont's both in word and behavoir. No right or ideal is absolute but relative to material reality. I loath religion and rebuke it's politically gained rights and encourage brakeing that hegemony. Making religious expression unacceptable in society at large, essensially remove it from public space. Making it go underground to wither away. That is my basic conception.



Wow, flashbacks from the 19th century.

"Women, socialists, liberals and atheists, please leave the parliament room as it is the place for actually serious discussion.."

If my either or both my class possition or alligience where elsewhere this could be could well be my opinion.

[al8]

those with close minds should also come with closed mouths.

You've missed a few lumps. Maybe a little bit af brain has leaked between keys on you keyboard, hmm? I suggest you look there.

But on a more serious note my mind is certainly closed to a large degree. But that is because I have standards. It is both open and closed depending on what it is given.


i love the truth. the truth is you are a blindingly ignorant ass, who can't see beyond his own prejudice. if you were any more dense light would bend around you.

Everything suggests otherwise.


religion came from individuals who believed in a higher power or calling. so let it be "eradicated" through the elimination of proselytizing, and keep your toady little beliefs out of mine.

No prozelytizing, i.e. the spreading of ideas, should only be banned for wrong ideas.


your are incredibly full of yourself. you believe that socialism or communism are the future of mankind. many think that is an untruth and is wrong. should we banish you from society? no, we welcome your differing opinion.

If I where you I would. And of cource your ilk has no reservation doing so when my kind gets strong and noticable. So drop your pretentions.


:confused::blink::bored: being an extremist means you blindly believe one thing without the ability to see whether it is "right" or "wrong". like hitler, or stalin, or reagan. those are extremists. better to be what you consider a moderate fake then.

Why is right and wrong in scare quotations? Extremism is only the negative word for being genuine. Ruling class hacks have a genaral conception that ideas are okey as long as they are not followed, and thus mean nothing - if you so please them you gain the dubious honorary title Moderate. It's a polite form of name-calling. Thats all.


oh wait, so they don't advocate the beliefs they consider to be wacko extremism? strange that you can simultaneously experience such repression and then advocate it in another situation.

I'm afraid your sarcasm detection device is turned off.


i'm not your grade school english teacher. maybe if you had payed more attention in grades K-8 you would have a better grasp, but you probably blame your horrible authoritarian teachers who forced homework on your innocent proletarian brain.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Why do you give out corrections as if it is meant as an offence you hater of knowledge!



you can't seriously equate such horribly oppressive practices with religious freedom? all of those "rights" trample all over the freedom of other innocent individuals. how do my spiritual beliefs trample on any of your rights, freedoms, etc?

Because they affect others. And you don't keep it to your self. Religion is stupitity enforced. I know the history of it's proselytism in area of residence and others. It's been my every method, by that sword or child indoctrination. It's been introduced by political means and it shall wanish by political means.




you obviously know nothing about hinduism, buddhism, jainism, sikhs, etc. these people do not spread their religious beliefs(proselytizing). they came to them on their own, and if you come to them then they will share them with you on an individual basis. no huge organization of conspiracy for you to shake your e-peen at. religion and spiritual/religious beliefs are different things. an individuals spiritual beliefs are solely for THAT INDIVIDUAL.

I hope comrades in the respective areas where those religions are dominant eradicate them in an apporiate fashion. I know if enough to dislike them and know you are wrong. I know of mystical tradition that claim to spread individually and only through the receiver to ask first. That makes them a lesser priority because they are harder to detect.

And spirituality is a fake word since there exist no spirits. The only thing left is a system of delusion, self induced hallucination, out-dated ethical codes etc. None of them will get my respect.

[Demogorgon]

Why is right and wrong in scare quotations? Extremism is only the negative word for being genuine. Ruling class hacks have a genaral conception that ideas are okey as long as they are not followed, and thus mean nothing - if you so please them you gain the dubious honorary title Moderate. It's a polite form of name-calling. Thats all.

Only those who are simply looking for attention call themselves extremists. Your posts here are nothing more than a childish attempt to across as edgy. Making proclamations of some totalitarian order where the thought police wills top people believing as they will without fear or the need to hide doesn't make you seem edgy. It just makes you look like an idiot.

[al8]

It makes me look like an idiot to the right people. I've been called an extremist before and am content to take it to heart. And there is no such thing as thought police, though if there where a delete button for religion in the head of the religious I would press it.

[al8]

To ad to Bobkidles post. Religion devides people, and has already devided people into false camps. And thus limiting the realization the true and important devide between oppressors and oppressed. What I find best is that people shed all religion and regain themselves. Some say this will devide people even further, but the prolitariat is already devided and this is the only solution. If there is no religion there will be no sort of religious devition. As simple as.

Some suggest that tortuously and disengenuously current religions can be reformed to suit revolutionary needs. But I don't think that is viable. It's like trying to make shit smell good by applying perfume. It's dishonest and a half-mesure.

[534634634265]

who said the revolution needed to be religious?:confused:
religion doesn't divide people into ANY camps, people like you divide us. your poorly thought out arguments coupled with your obvious lack of understanding on the subject make any further argument a moot point. i can only hope a mod buries this thread, so that your detestable ignorance doesn't taint any still-forming opinions of what leftist politics is about.:closedeyes:

[mikelepore]

I am under the impression that theism is something we should discourage regardless of what political system we are in. However, I don't have a lot of solid arguments for why this is the case.

I think one of the main criticisms should be: religion is a packaging together of numerous fallacies. "The proposition must be true because my teachers said that it's true." (Argument by authority.) "The proposition must be true because those who say it isn't true will be punished." (Argument by force.) "The proposition must be true because I find it comforting to say that it's true." (Argument by consequences.) "The proposition must be true because you can't prove that it isn't true." (Argument from ignorance.) Think of just about any kind of logical fallacy, and you will find that religion is associated with it, and, in many cases, strongly based on it. With that, is it still necessary to ask why it should be discouraged? That's like asking: Does it matter whether or not the population possesses the ability to think clearly?

[534634634265]

Does it matter whether or not the population possesses the ability to think clearly?:confused:
seriously,
who are you to determine what thought is clear, or muddled? i agree religion is the packaging together of numerous fallacies, but what about a personal sense of spirituality? is it your role to determine what is and is not acceptable for me to believe?
i feel so many confuse religion and personal beliefs. religion is an organization, spirituality is an individual sense of spirit. how can you say that because harm was done in the name of religion we should oppress individual belief be it delusional or logical?
great harm was done in the name of communism, yet many here would argue that the name was improperly used and so should be looked at separately from those misuses. i argue that same concept. let me think what want to think, even if you think its stupid or foolish or wrong.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Theism is fundamentally bad primarily because it is an embarrassingly obvious falsehood, which most of humanity accepts as an infallible truth. Even if it had wonderful social consequences, we should never settle for lies and ignorance, ever.

Aside from that:

1. Even raw, non-specific theism establishes a kind of cosmic hierarchy. If there's a personal god, that's vastly more powerful than humans, it begins to make logical sense to submit to this thing, and serve it, and put aside human concerns in favour of the concerns of this god. In my opinion, it runs counter to the spirit of the socialist world-view in that humans should be our primary concern. We need to stop looking at the sky and look at eachother.

2. Theism is very rarely as tame as to be non-specific. It is usually practiced in the context of organised religion. Organised religions are fundamentally reactionary as social institutions; they aren't evil, there are progressive elements to speak of, such as liberation theology, but the only good in religions is secular - community, hope, sharing, charity, compassion and solidarity, etc. All of the bad is the fault of theism, such as social prejudice, religious sectarianism and violence, subjugation of women, aspirations to hegemony such as Jihad, and so on and so forth. All of this is easily traced back to theism itself, usually through scripture and leaders like the pope.

-Alex

[jasmine]

BurnTheOliveTree;1212149 Theism is fundamentally bad primarily because it is an embarrassingly obvious falsehood, which most of humanity accepts as an infallible truth. Even if it had wonderful social consequences, we should never settle for lies and ignorance, ever.

So what is the truth? Marxism? Darwinian evolution (of which you have no understanding)? But really, that's all you offer, another version of "the truth" for which we should all be grateful. What really separates you from the Theists?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

So what is the truth? Marxism? Darwinian evolution (of which you have no understanding)? But really, that's all you offer, another version of "the truth" for which we should all be grateful. What really separates you from the Theists?


Argument and evidence is what separates me.

Also, try not to sulk that I corrected your misunderstanding of evolution by pretending that it's me who is mistaken on the subject. Evolution is not random. Sorry, it's just a fact that I'm right and you're wrong here.

-Alex

[jasmine]

Argument and evidence is what separates me.


And the argument is what? The evidence is what?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

And the argument is what? The evidence is what?


Well, which of my positions would you like me to defend? The point is that they are rationally defensible, though, not my specific rationale. Religions and theism have nothing that can't be refuted by a bright twelve year old.

-Alex

[jasmine]

Well, which of my positions would you like me to defend? The point is that they are rationally defensible, though, not my specific rationale.
-Alex

What does your second sentence mean? Anything? Marxism is no more "rationally defensible" than catholicism.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

It means that Marxism and darwinian evolution are rationally defensible positions, whereas theism, even more so catholicism, is not.

-Alex

[jasmine]

It means that Marxism and darwinian evolution are rationally defensible positions, whereas theism, even more so catholicism, is not.
-Alex

Which is your statement of "the truth". Marxism has been discredited by the last 100 years of history in the eyes of most rational thinkers (this doesn't include you but it could be you are not as rational as you think). A Darwinian evolutionist like Dawkins would not for a moment entertain Marxism so your attempt to unite the two is futile. Also you have no understanding of evolutionary theory because you want to connect it to a Marxist view of social progress which the theory does not support.

[Devrim]

A Darwinian evolutionist like Dawkins would not for a moment entertain Marxism so your attempt to unite the two is futile. Also you have no understanding of evolutionary theory because you want to connect it to a Marxist view of social progress which the theory does not support.

Actually the famous Darwinist John Maynard-Smith was a member of the CPGB for nearly 40 years. J. B. S. Haldane was another famous Darwinist who was a Marxist.

Devrim

[Demogorgon]

Theism is fundamentally bad primarily because it is an embarrassingly obvious falsehood, which most of humanity accepts as an infallible truth. Even if it had wonderful social consequences, we should never settle for lies and ignorance, ever.

Given that you acknowledge that most of humanity rejects your thesis, how can you claim it to be obvious? Obvious things are things that any reasonable observer would grasp without difficulty.

I think some people here really don't appreciate just how difficult and extraordinarily complex the subject is. It took me four or five years to hit upon a good argument for atheism (going beyond simple "we can't know either way" arguments) and along the way I encountered many good arguments for God's existence.

It is a damn site easier to argue for the existence of God than it is to argue against it. I know that from experience. I have become convinced after several years study that there is no God, but it was anything but "obvious".

[jasmine]

Actually the famous Darwinist John Maynard-Smith was a member of the CPGB for nearly 40 years. J. B. S. Haldane was another famous Darwinist who was a Marxist.
Devrim

So Marxism and Darwinism are harmonious theories? Part of the same world view?

[Devrim]

So Marxism and Darwinism are harmonious theories? Part of the same world view?

No, I am not at all claiming that. I am just saying that the assertion 'A Darwinian evolutionist like Dawkins would not for a moment entertain Marxism' was wrong. JMS who was very close to Dawkins, in fact one could even say that his work formed the base of Dawkins views, did entertain those ideas for more than a moment.

Edit: Actually I think they are harmonious, but not neccesarily part of the same world view. It is obviously possible to be a Darwinist without being a Marxist. I don't think that the opposite is true.

Devrim

[jasmine]

I think some people here really don't appreciate just how difficult and extraordinarily complex the subject is.


This is the beginning of wisdom here.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Which is your statement of "the truth". Marxism has been discredited by the last 100 years of history in the eyes of most rational thinkers


What "most rational thinkers" suppose to be the case is not of consequence, it is the substance of their argument and evidence that is the point. For example, most rational thinkers were opposed to heliocentrism before it became accepted.



A Darwinian evolutionist like Dawkins would not for a moment entertain Marxism so your attempt to unite the two is futile


What gives you the authority to say that Dawkins would never entertain marxism? Also, what makes you think that I want to "unite the two"?


Also you have no understanding of evolutionary theory because you want to connect it to a Marxist view of social progress which the theory does not support.

You cannot just assert this and expect me to take it on your word, jasmine. I think there are demonstrable connections. For example, the evolutionary phenomenon of co-operation is prevalent in most species, as a way of survivng and reproducing efficiently. The logical outcome of this line of behaviour is socialism, surely?

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Given that you acknowledge that most of humanity rejects your thesis, how can you claim it to be obvious? Obvious things are things that any reasonable observer would grasp without difficulty.

Well, I think there are a variety of reasons for the continuing prevalence of this delusion - we've discussed this before. Theism is implicitly forced on each successive generation because it is the dominant belief of most people on the origin of the universe. The reasons for this are a whole other discussion - I would tend towards the idea that it acts as a consolation and bandage to alienation.

-Alex

[jasmine]

What gives you the authority to say that Dawkins would never entertain marxism? Also, what makes you think that I want to "unite the two"?


I have no authority but as far as I can tell Dawkins associates marxism with stalininsm. Scientists have ideologies too! I can't reply to everything now but will do so tomorrow.

[black magick hustla]

Anyone who thinks you cant be a darwinist and a marxist needs to fucking crack open a biology text book. As a student of science, i hate people who try to make it ideological.

[MarxSchmarx]

It is obviously possible to be a Darwinist without being a Marxist. I don't think that the opposite is true.Of course. I hasten to add that the difference is moral, not logical. A "Darwinist" (presumably someone who believes in evolution through natural selection?) is of necessity a materialist, and as burn the olive tree points out:


I think there are demonstrable connections. For example, the evolutionary phenomenon of co-operation is prevalent in most species, as a way of survivng and reproducing efficiently. The logical outcome of this line of behaviour is socialism, surely?
I'm willing to bet communism is probably a superior ideology from a "Darwinian" standpoint.
I do, however, think that the moral commitments entailed by Marxism (e.g. "socialism is good") and the ethical superiority of communism are independent of its Darwin advantages.

Thus, all Marxists are Darwinians because of the intellectual commitment to materialism they make. However, not all Darwinians are Marxists (or other communists), because such Darwinians are morally depraved.

[Chapter 24]

Theism is not fundamentally bad in my opinion, just fundamentally flawed. Few things are "fundamentally bad", like fascism.

[jasmine]

What gives you the authority to say that Dawkins would never entertain marxism? Also, what makes you think that I want to "unite the two"?



If you really want me to try and find the interview or whatever I can do but Dawkins is a political liberal. He views Hitler/Stalin/Religion as non-evidence based philosophies in conflict with science. No way is he a marxist or anything close.

It may be that some evolutionists were also marxists (if you think that a member of the CPGB was a marxist) but there is no connection between the two theories. Marxism was a 19th century attempt to render socialism scientific. Marx was an admirer of Darwin but his (Marx's) theories have nothing to do with any scientifically verifiable world view.

There is no scientific evidence for Marxism, or in particular the idea that human historical development is governed by precise economic laws that are driving society towards a final confict that will result in communism or, to quote the first page of the communist manifesto, the common ruin of the contending classes.

I'm sure Mr. Dawkins would agree with me on this.

[MarxSchmarx]

There is no scientific evidence for ... the idea that human historical development is governed by precise economic laws

This is something of a strawman. Of course, there is no predetermined crystal ball (well, at least not yet). But the underlying fact that most major historical developments (domestication of crops, the invention of writing,the rise of science, colonialism, the industrial revolution, etc..) have been economically driven is hard to deny. Of course "A man does not have himself killed for a half a pence a day", but, in its broad strokes, the idea that human history is largely economically driven strikes me as a quite robust idea.

[jasmine]

This is something of a strawman.

It would be were this not revleft. It's what Marx thought. It's what Das Kapital is about. Human history is driven by precise, scientific economic laws.

Take a look at Engels, "Socialism, Utopian and Scientific" or Marx's "Preface to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy" if you don't believe me.

Sorry TomK if that's too polemical.

[MarxSchmarx]

It would be were this not revleft. It's what Marx thought. It's what Das Kapital is about. Human history is driven by precise, scientific economic laws.

Take a look at Engels, "Socialism, Utopian and Scientific" or Marx's "Preface to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy" if you don't believe me.

I concede your point but can only hope you don't seriously believe all leftists or even Marxists/Marxians hold such dogmatic views. I think I speak for most leftists in saying that we do believe Marx was human and has been wrong on more than one occasion.

As for Mr. Engels, well, I quote two modern scientists:


To Friedrich Engels: Who was often wrong, but got it right when it mattered.

[jasmine]

Okay, appreciate your honesty greatly. This is the most important thing. We need to communicate openly and with sincerity. Then maybe we can find a solutiuon.